Is Common Ground Between Atheists and Belief Possible?

trubble76 · #1 by **trubble76** » Nov 26, 2011 2:14 pm

"I'm sorry Julian, you seem to be working hard to establish a middle ground that nobody wants to occupy." I'm finding it hard to disagree with this comment by DiscoveredJoys on last week's post about what reasonable religious belief could look like today. But since the main purpose of posting my articles of 21st-century faith was to find out just how many could support them, the project is not worthless if we find out the answer is hardly anyone at all.

To recap, there's a lot of complaint that "new atheist" criticisms of the supernatural aspects of religion miss the point. If that's true, then it should be possible both to set the atheists straight and establish the credibility of religion by clearly stating what faith without silly, primitive beliefs looks like. This I call "reasonable faith", and although several commentators here have protested that I'm arrogantly laying down the law on what is or is not reasonable in these matters, all I can say is that I can only call it as it I see it, and I do not think that anything counts as reasonable just as long as some people believe it is.

The articles aim to set out what is required for reasonable faith in the most general, minimal terms possible. Then, by seeing how many people can agree with them, we can ascertain whether or not there is real and widespread support for a form of religion that avoids the new atheism's harshest charges. Preliminary feedback is not encouraging. Before posting the articles I approached a few commentators for their opinions

Continues here

And here is my contribution if anyone would like to criticise.

z8000783 · #2 by **z8000783** » Nov 26, 2011 2:34 pm

Good stuff. I think it's important we bang away at that point whenever we see it. I always try to.

John

Moonwatcher · #3 by **Moonwatcher** » Nov 27, 2011 12:56 am

Nice post but reading the posts after yours makes me realize how useless it is. All I saw after your post was several people invoking the ever-popular "But more people think what we think, nyah nyah" response. No, they "believe" something. They have no "reasons" for believing it.

But it is probably true that a majority have zero interest in a middle ground if they belong to a deistic religion because its not being literally true makes it useless to them. It no longer would give them what they want.

I just personally can't see the point. I am familiar with Karen Armstrong but that sort of amounts to, "The mythology isn't true but the monotheistic god behind three different and inconsistent mythologies (that didn't happen) kinda sorta really exists but he's only selectively like in the myths (that didn't happen). He only did the good parts that we like and, oh yeah, he's really a he, a she and an it setting totally aside that the entire basis for my New Age hoopla version is a totally patriarchal deity."

Byron · #4 by **Byron** » Nov 27, 2011 5:34 am

I've been enjoying this series no end: I crave new ground beyond the atheist/theist bombardment.

The "moderate" religious responses to Baggini's reasonable and modest list is discouraging, and highlights why new atheism needed to happen. Nick "Theos" Spencer's defensive cry that, "I don't see what's left of the Abrahamics if you do take [the divine] out of the equation in this way," shows just how shallow even modest supernaturalism can be. For Spencer, the rich human story and meaning found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam seems to be worthless without a divine backup singer.

I hope Baggini keeps at this. It's not going to be welcomed, but if religious moderates want to get anywhere, they're at least going to have to engage. (All this has been done in the middle-20th century by the theological modernists, but everyone seems to've forgotten that now, so it's overdue a revival.)

Ironclad · #5 by **Ironclad** » Nov 27, 2011 8:33 am

No, least not for this atheist. I am happy to live & let live so long as the belief system avoids mis-educating children and does not dip into the tax coffers to maintain its flamboyancy, but these expectations are unlikely to be fulfilled - they need my money and my children's brainz.
I have no time for faith, and am bored with the faithful and their pitiful pseudologia fantastica. Let bad ideas continue to be met with reason.

nunnington · #6 by **nunnington** » Nov 27, 2011 10:35 am

It's all very interesting, and will probably arouse much antagonism on all sides, but maybe also some agreement between some people.

My own position is that while I have no experience of an intervening supreme being, I do experience what I call the 'infinite transcendent I'. Now, it may be possible eventually to come up with a naturalistic view of the transcendent, in the sense that experience itself transcends any description of it. Thus, for some mystics, eating an apple is the high point of transcendence, not sitting in the Himalayas, chanting.

But presumably, naturalism centrally occupies itself with description and explanation, therefore, to say that the description of experience does not capture it, so that it remains 'inscrutable', to use the Buddha's term, has already breached the boundaries of naturalism irrevocably. I don't know really.

chairman bill · #7 by **chairman bill** » Nov 27, 2011 12:07 pm

Common ground twixt the two is simple; a secular state. No state support for religious institutions (including no tax relief), no religious involvement in any state affairs, like education etc, but the state doesn't interfere in individual belief, nor in how believers organise themselves for religious stuff. Religion becomes a private affair, and as with (most) other private affairs, the state has no say & no role to play. The religious are free to practice their religion. The non-religious are quite simply free of religion. I think it sounds like a plan.

byofrcs · #8 by **byofrcs** » Nov 27, 2011 12:49 pm

Our modern secular society has finally removed the punishments that religious authorities could inflict on us atheists.

They can't fine us, imprison us, burn us at the stake, torture or hang us for blasphemy. They can't deny us the ability to make an oath or get married.

Now they want to talk.

F..ff..ff..fff..fuck you.

Byron · #9 by **Byron** » Nov 27, 2011 3:08 pm

nunnington wrote:It's all very interesting, and will probably arouse much antagonism on all sides, but maybe also some agreement between some people.

My own position is that while I have no experience of an intervening supreme being, I do experience what I call the 'infinite transcendent I'. Now, it may be possible eventually to come up with a naturalistic view of the transcendent, in the sense that experience itself transcends any description of it. Thus, for some mystics, eating an apple is the high point of transcendence, not sitting in the Himalayas, chanting.

But presumably, naturalism centrally occupies itself with description and explanation, therefore, to say that the description of experience does not capture it, so that it remains 'inscrutable', to use the Buddha's term, has already breached the boundaries of naturalism irrevocably. I don't know really.

Naturalism needn't entail explanation, though. It's just the rejection of a hyper-natural realm. There's much about nature we don't know -- that old, and true, canard about the wacky world of sub-atomic particles besting the imagination of William Blake as his most zonked -- and there the magic lies. Let there be mystery!

I'm even coming around to the notion that being-itself is a meaningful category and a mystery never to be solved. Is it God? No, but God is a personification of it. So not so far away.

And then someone asks me if I want to join the fellowship of Jehovah, or demands I justify my rejection of Allah and his true prophet Mohamed, and such delicate musings fizzle out in a snap of materialist indignation. The moment is lost, and I have to work hard to get it back, and I ask is it worth bothering if that's where it leads.

Then I remember that the map isn't the terrain, and maybe, dare-not-to-hope maybe, being-itself is more than a synonym for existence. And the infinite, transcendent I is such a wonderful paradox it'd be rude not to tread there.

Byron · **#10** by **Byron** » Nov 27, 2011 3:13 pm

byofrcs wrote:Our modern secular society has finally removed the punishments that religious authorities could inflict on us atheists.

They can't fine us, imprison us, burn us at the stake, torture or hang us for blasphemy. They can't deny us the ability to make an oath or get married.

Now they want to talk.

F..ff..ff..fff..fuck you.

They persecuted each other as much as they persecuted non-believers. It's something humans do, sadly.

I see no inherent link between religion and dogma, and those who persecute in its name. If someone finds persecution anathema, they don't belong in a group with those who get sticky sheets at the thought of McCarthy come again.

Ironclad · **#11** by **Ironclad** » Nov 27, 2011 3:29 pm

Byron wrote:Naturalism needn't entail explanation, though. It's just the rejection of a hyper-natural realm. There's much about nature we don't know -- that old, and true, canard about the wacky world of sub-atomic particles besting the imagination of William Blake as his most zonked -- and there the magic lies. Let there be mystery!

I'm even coming around to the notion that being-itself is a meaningful category and a mystery never to be solved. Is it God? No, but God is a personification of it. So not so far away.

And then someone asks me if I want to join the fellowship of Jehovah, or demands I justify my rejection of Allah and his true prophet Mohamed, and such delicate musings fizzle out in a snap of materialist indignation. The moment is lost, and I have to work hard to get it back, and I ask is it worth bothering if that's where it leads.

Then I remember that the map isn't the terrain, and maybe, dare-not-to-hope maybe, being-itself is more than a synonym for existence. And the infinite, transcendent I is such a wonderful paradox it'd be rude not to tread there.

Most transcendental, yet lucid, post I've ever read from you, Byron. I swears I almost levitated as I read that. Good work! :levi:

nunnington · **#12** by **nunnington** » Nov 27, 2011 3:39 pm

Byron wrote:
nunnington wrote:It's all very interesting, and will probably arouse much antagonism on all sides, but maybe also some agreement between some people.

My own position is that while I have no experience of an intervening supreme being, I do experience what I call the 'infinite transcendent I'. Now, it may be possible eventually to come up with a naturalistic view of the transcendent, in the sense that experience itself transcends any description of it. Thus, for some mystics, eating an apple is the high point of transcendence, not sitting in the Himalayas, chanting.

But presumably, naturalism centrally occupies itself with description and explanation, therefore, to say that the description of experience does not capture it, so that it remains 'inscrutable', to use the Buddha's term, has already breached the boundaries of naturalism irrevocably. I don't know really.

Naturalism needn't entail explanation, though. It's just the rejection of a hyper-natural realm. There's much about nature we don't know -- that old, and true, canard about the wacky world of sub-atomic particles besting the imagination of William Blake as his most zonked -- and there the magic lies. Let there be mystery!

I'm even coming around to the notion that being-itself is a meaningful category and a mystery never to be solved. Is it God? No, but God is a personification of it. So not so far away.

And then someone asks me if I want to join the fellowship of Jehovah, or demands I justify my rejection of Allah and his true prophet Mohamed, and such delicate musings fizzle out in a snap of materialist indignation. The moment is lost, and I have to work hard to get it back, and I ask is it worth bothering if that's where it leads.

Then I remember that the map isn't the terrain, and maybe, dare-not-to-hope maybe, being-itself is more than a synonym for existence. And the infinite, transcendent I is such a wonderful paradox it'd be rude not to tread there.

Yes, a lovely post, Byron, and almost single-handedly you show that there is common ground. It just requires some humility, quite a lot of knowledge, an ability to break through common caricatures, and I suppose, some kind of 'spiritual' sense, however you define that.

Yes, your mention of Blake is quite timely, and I think of Simone Weil, Thomas Traherne, Zizek, and others, and then there is hope of at least a conversation, if not agreement.

Lizard_King · **#13** by **Lizard_King** » Nov 27, 2011 3:54 pm

trubble76 wrote:

*snip*

Continues here

And here is my contribution if anyone would like to criticise.

Just read your comment and a few other ones after yours. Some of those people are either complete idiots or being deliberately obtuse.
:nono:

I like how you're responding to them, though. I certainly wouldn't have the patience for that.

chairman bill · **#14** by **chairman bill** » Nov 27, 2011 5:24 pm

Byron wrote:... Then I remember that the map isn't the terrain ...

When fundies get involved, the map isn't even the bloody map

Calilasseia · **#15** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 27, 2011 7:18 pm

Just found this. And decided to post a comment.

chairman bill · **#16** by **chairman bill** » Nov 27, 2011 7:24 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Just found this. And decided to post a comment.

Meh. Heard it all before

Nebogipfel · **#17** by **Nebogipfel** » Nov 27, 2011 8:58 pm

Moonwatcher wrote:
I just personally can't see the point. I am familiar with Karen Armstrong but that sort of amounts to, "The mythology isn't true but the monotheistic god behind three different and inconsistent mythologies (that didn't happen) kinda sorta really exists but he's only selectively like in the myths (that didn't happen). He only did the good parts that we like and, oh yeah, he's really a he, a she and an it setting totally aside that the entire basis for my New Age hoopla version is a totally patriarchal deity."

I don't think Karen Armstrong's God would ever do anything so dull or vulgar as actually exist. That would just be... effing the ineffable... :mrgreen:

byofrcs · **#18** by **byofrcs** » Nov 27, 2011 9:52 pm

nunnington wrote:
Byron wrote:
nunnington wrote:It's all very interesting, and will probably arouse much antagonism on all sides, but maybe also some agreement between some people.

My own position is that while I have no experience of an intervening supreme being, I do experience what I call the 'infinite transcendent I'. Now, it may be possible eventually to come up with a naturalistic view of the transcendent, in the sense that experience itself transcends any description of it. Thus, for some mystics, eating an apple is the high point of transcendence, not sitting in the Himalayas, chanting.

But presumably, naturalism centrally occupies itself with description and explanation, therefore, to say that the description of experience does not capture it, so that it remains 'inscrutable', to use the Buddha's term, has already breached the boundaries of naturalism irrevocably. I don't know really.

Naturalism needn't entail explanation, though. It's just the rejection of a hyper-natural realm. There's much about nature we don't know -- that old, and true, canard about the wacky world of sub-atomic particles besting the imagination of William Blake as his most zonked -- and there the magic lies. Let there be mystery!

I'm even coming around to the notion that being-itself is a meaningful category and a mystery never to be solved. Is it God? No, but God is a personification of it. So not so far away.

And then someone asks me if I want to join the fellowship of Jehovah, or demands I justify my rejection of Allah and his true prophet Mohamed, and such delicate musings fizzle out in a snap of materialist indignation. The moment is lost, and I have to work hard to get it back, and I ask is it worth bothering if that's where it leads.

Then I remember that the map isn't the terrain, and maybe, dare-not-to-hope maybe, being-itself is more than a synonym for existence. And the infinite, transcendent I is such a wonderful paradox it'd be rude not to tread there.

Yes, a lovely post, Byron, and almost single-handedly you show that there is common ground. It just requires some humility, quite a lot of knowledge, an ability to break through common caricatures, and I suppose, some kind of 'spiritual' sense, however you define that.

Yes, your mention of Blake is quite timely, and I think of Simone Weil, Thomas Traherne, Zizek, and others, and then there is hope of at least a conversation, if not agreement.

Yes, but they have to earn the right to the common ground and until they are clean, without weapon, without poison, without fangs, stings or barbs, then they not to be trusted.

Trust is the foundation of all human interactions. There is no common ground with someone you cannot trust. The supernaturalists inherently deny naturalism and the theists deny humanism.

Where does that leave methodical naturalists and secular humanists (after all our atheism is not a belief per se) ? Our common ground is natural and human. When they are human and have throw away their tissues of lies that covers their nature then we can see if there are common grounds to trust.

Until that time they must be considered to be anti-humanity and anti-nature and no matter how fantastic the words they use or how elaborate their discourse, or the finery of their illusions, they remain untrustworthy.

Blackadder · **#19** by **Blackadder** » Nov 27, 2011 9:56 pm

What is the common ground between observed reality and complete fabrication? Fuck me that's a tricky one.

Calilasseia · **#20** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 27, 2011 11:39 pm

Blackadder wrote:What is the common ground between observed reality and complete fabrication? Fuck me that's a tricky one.

Trying to put that to them over there is eliciting the predictable responses. Including one individual who claims that I'm irrational for not accepting uncritically the assertion that his pet magic entities exist. Not that I expected anything else really.