Can an atheistic worldview support the concept of the holy or sacred?
by Professor Randal Rauser
MY REFLECTION on that short article:
Baptist professor Randal Rauser gave this quote by Dworkin: “religion is deeper than God. Religion is a deep, distinct, and comprehensive worldview: it holds that inherent, objective
value permeates everything, that the universe and its creatures are awe-inspiring,
that human life has purpose and the universe order.”
Huh?! This conundrum seems to show that a HUGE amount of discussion of theism versus atheism is semantic and based on differing definitions.
For Dworkin's definition would appear to be the very definition, not of religion, but of God!
Rauser wrote, "For this discussion, I will define “God” as a personal being who is the ultimate explanation for everything else that exists."
The first general definition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary is somewhat different:
God "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:"
Those definitions don't necessarily disagree, but the M-W C. D. one would seem to make Drwokin a theist, not an atheist.
For Drwokin wrote, "...inherent, objective value permeates everything, that the universe and its creatures are awe-inspiring, that human life has purpose and the universe order."
Such a statement is so incredibly different from what most famous atheists claim.
The latter atheists emphasize that existence-cosmos has no value,
that everything is "meaningless," "purposeless," and "pointless,"
that human primates are without worth,
that humans have no choice,
that everything is fully determined from the Big Bang,
that ethics are "subjective," "relative," and only personal "preferences," "likes or dislikes,"
and that liberty, equality, and human rights are all "myths."
That atheists can so completely disagree about the very nature of the reality astounds me.
Though I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. Heck, theists do this as well. John Wesley once wrote he would rather be an atheist than believe one version of Christianity.
A few central reasons why I am a theist is that I think that ethics are real, that creativity is possible for humans, and that the cosmos and life are amazing, that the ultimate nature of reality is full of meaning. (I do speculate about whether or not panentheism or some form of Enlightenment description might be true, BUT I know that is only educated guessing.)
So I am curious, would you characterize me as an atheist or a theist?
In the Light of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful,
Daniel Wilcox
4 comments:
The latter atheists emphasize that existence-cosmos has no value,
that everything is "meaningless," "purposeless," and "pointless,"
that human primates are without worth,
that humans have no choice,
that everything is fully determined from the Big Bang,
that ethics are "subjective," "relative," and only personal "preferences," "likes or dislikes,"
and that liberty, equality, and human rights are all "myths."
There are a few atheists who claim to believe in determinism (that is, that everything is predestined and that choice is an illusion), though their actual behavior is consistent with a belief in free will, just like everyone else. There are a very few who believe that morality is just opinion (probably fewer than ever nowadays, since science is providing hard data that that view is wrong), but most atheists exasperatedly regard people like that as giving the rest of us a bad name. With those exceptions, I've never met or heard of any atheist who believes any of these things, with the exception of rare psychopaths like Stalin (and some theists like Hitler were equally psychopathic).
Most atheists have probably never even given most of those questions any serious thought, just as most people generally haven't.
Note too that activist atheists are generally motivated by outrage at all the evil and harm religion causes to people, which could not be the case if they didn't believe in morality, didn't believe that humans have worth, believed that everything is "pointless", etc. My own loathing for religion is firmly rooted in the fact that I very much do believe in morality and human worth. Otherwise it would make no sense to be angry at how religion trashes those things.
Recall too the data brought by AronRa in the video you commented on, that generally the least religious social groups show the highest levels of moral behavior and the lowest levels of violence. Again, not consistent with atheists generally rejecting morality, regardless of what may have been written by a few oddballs you've run across.
That atheists can so completely disagree about the very nature of the reality astounds me.
It really shouldn't. "Atheist" is defined by a negative -- it just means a person who doesn't believe in the existence of a god. Why should you expect all people who don't believe in a god to have anything much in common? No one expects that all people who don't believe in unicorns would have anything much in common.
So I am curious, would you characterize me as an atheist or a theist?
A theist means a person who does believe in the existence of a god. Based on most of what you write, the answer seems obvious. It isn't a complicated question.
Can an atheistic worldview support the concept of the holy or sacred?
I would say no, because "holy" and "sacred" are terms which are only meaningful in a religious context -- with the caveat that their definitions seem so foggy that it's often hard to be sure what people mean by them. When similar feelings occur in a non-religious context, we use other terms like awe or reverence.
I can affirm that I personally don't hold anything to be holy or sacred. The only thing I feel any reverence for is human achievement. That's not a feeling most people would consider religious.
Thanks for the long reply.
Just a couple of questions:-)
1. You wrote, "A theist means a person who does believe in the existence of a god. Based on most of what you write, the answer seems obvious. It isn't a complicated question."
Hmm...but according to the atheist Dworkin’s 2011 Einstein Lectures which were published in 2013 as the book Religion without God, he thinks "that inherent, objective value permeates everything, that the universe and its creatures are awe-inspiring, that human life has purpose and the universe order.”
I do, too. So it would seem that according to Dworkin, I am actually an atheist!
Why do you disagree?
Also, I wouldn't characterize my theism as "believe in the existence of a god." I don't know what the nature of reality is completely like. However, I don't think it is anything like religions claim it to be.
I do think that the reality of math, reason, ethics, life, consciousness, the natural regularities of the cosmos, etc. do give us humans hints as to what reality may be like.
But that has nothing to do with belief as in belief in the Trinity or Allah or Jehovah and so forth via claimed revelation.
I guess one can characterize Enlightenment views of God as "belief" but generally, I think they tended more toward skepticism and educated guessing.
I do speculate with what I've learned over the years that the nature of reality may be panentheistic, so it only a retired literature teacher's guess, not a "belief."
What writing of mine led you to think I "believe in a god"?
2. This may be a case of semantics, but you wrote last, "I can affirm that I personally don't hold anything to be holy or sacred.
HOWEVER, earlier
you wrote, "I very much do believe in morality and human worth."
If nothing has value, how can there be human worth?
In my own mind, Dworkin shouldn't the word "holy" because is too loaded with organized religions' meaning. BUT it seems that what Dworkin has in mind
is that reality and humans have VALUE.
I don't know why he muddles the discussion by giving different definitions to "holy," "religion," and "God."
I guess I will have to add his book to my reading list:-).
3. It appears that you strongly disagree with both Dwrokin and the large number of atheists we studied at the U. of Nebraska (Go Big Red:-), and at Long Beach State and Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, etc.
4. Lastly, I wouldn't classify my views--or Dworkin's in the same category working against "all people who don't believe in unicorns."
This atheist phrase, I admit, is catchy:-)
But belief in "unicorns" doesn't describe the views of many scientists and thinkers who think that Dworkin's sort of thinking is more or less true--that reality has objective meaning.
Such views aren't comparable to mythology.
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your different perspective on reality.
I don't know what point Dworkin was trying to make, but a belief "that inherent, objective value permeates everything, that the universe and its creatures are awe-inspiring, that human life has purpose and the universe order" has nothing to do with being an atheist. It's perfectly possible for both theists and atheists to hold such a belief, and millions do.
What writing of mine led you to think I "believe in a god"?
Based just on what you say here, you'd actually appear to be an agnostic -- that is, a person who does not claim to be certain whether a god exists or not. Most of your writing sounds like it comes from a religious viewpoint, though. I've never previously encountered anyone who had such bizarre ideas about how atheists in general think.
you wrote last, "I can affirm that I personally don't hold anything to be holy or sacred.
HOWEVER, earlier
you wrote, "I very much do believe in morality and human worth."
If nothing has value, how can there be human worth?
I think I was clear enough. I believe many things have value. I don't hold anything to be holy or sacred. There's no conflict between those statements.
My unicorn analogy merely made the point that just because a large number of people share a lack of belief in a particular thing, there's no reason to imagine they think similarly in any other way. That's true whether it's a disbelief in gods, unicorns, or whatever.
Remember, I'm not interested in abstract airy-fairy philosophizing disconnected from the real world. (That kind of thing is what leads these occasional cranks to conclusions like "morality isn't real".) I don't care how somebody's abstract argument says a group of people logically should believe or behave. I only care about how actual observation of the real world shows those people actually do believe or behave. For example, again, the data on things like violence and crime by more-religious vs less-religious social groups as cited in AronRa's video. I don't care if somebody sitting in his armchair proves to his own satisfaction that people with no sense of "the sacred" can't believe in value or morality. The fact remains that hundreds of millions of people who don't hold anything sacred do, in fact, believe in value and morality.
I don't even know who this Dworkin guy is, and I very much doubt anything he says would interest me. It sounds like he's just playing word-games, frankly (especially based on a title like "Religion without God"). None of this gobbledygook has anything to do with how the typical average atheist walking down the street in Stockholm or Tokyo thinks or behaves.
Thanks for your quick response. I would hate to wait until next year to get answers;-)
Then you wrote, "that is, a person who does not claim to be certain whether a god exists or not."
By that definition, then it means that even when I was a liberal Christian for 55 years, I was also an "agnostic"
because I was always in doubt, often in severe skepticism, never "certain" about philosophical claims. I certainly wasn't certain about God.
Heck, I was an existentialist (in Albert Camus' sense) quite a bit of the time.
Most of my abstract views all of my life centrally came out of my concern for very real ethics--concern for equality, justice, and opposing poverty, racism, etc.
Besides, I didn't believe in the Creeds of Christianity. When I first read them when I was about 18, I was shocked, baffled, and mystified how anyone could believe in such weird impossibilites such as that the creedal Jesus is both God of the whole cosmos and one human in a minor corner of the Roman Empire, and that within his human nature he has two distinct separate contrary natures, etc.
I need to meet more of "the typical average atheist walking down the street in" California, etc."=)
IN case you missed it, here's where my current views of reality are:
Note: If you don't want to take time to read the long list, my end point is that I lean toward some view of #3 and #6, though I am open to #1 as a real possibility:
What Is the Essential Nature of Reality? Many Leaders Claim to “Know.”
#1 All reality came about by cosmic chance. Seemingly the view of the French biologist Jacques Monod in Chance and Necessity, a powerful book I read a few years back, and the view of the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. The human species came about by cosmic “luck.”
My take on this as an average person: I think this view is possible. I guess given cosmic time even the "laws" of nature, math, reason, life, ethics, consciousness could all blip into existence eventually in deep time.
#3 All reality came about somehow by a temporary, finite, imperfect, even distorted, expression of the perfect eternal Ideal Forms of Platonism.
But why did this happen? Where did all the evil of billions of rapes, abuses, slaughters come from?
#6 All reality is coming about by the everlasting but limited cosmic reality that is becoming. This is the view of thinkers including philosopher and famous mathematician Alfred Lord Whitehead, philosopher Charles Hartshorne, etc.
This cosmic but limited God who is far beyond human understanding works toward changing matter and energy and conscious life such as homo sapiens into increasing patterns and forms of beauty, meaning, and purpose. This is also the view of some Reform Jews.
But where is the evidence for this?
Process thinkers explain that consciousness, reason, ethics, mathematics, natural law, creativity, aesthetics, life itself, etc. are evidence, the hints that this isn’t a “meaningless” cosmos.
This view is appealing, but most of the technical philosophical explanations are BEYOND me. I'm a relatively average literature teacher (who got born with a "why" in his throat;-)
Most of what you term my "religious viewpoint" is my expressing Enlightenment views such as the worth of every human, and so forth.
Again, semantics do seems to interfere with communication. I sometimes wonder if I ought to go back and eliminate all "religious" language from my posts in past years. I already seldom use "holy" or "sacred" because such language carries extensive negative connotative baggage which I actually don't think is true.
Thanks for the dialog:-)
Post a Comment