Is modern Atheism: denial of a "God" which is no longer adequate to the problem of our time?

[Flabbergasted]

Read this objectively not as a theist or an atheist but as a historian and a sociologist

Excerpt from "A History of God"
Karen Armstrong

Indeed, the statement "I believe in god" has no objective meaning, as such, but like any other statement only means something in context, when proclaimed by a particular community. Consequently there is no one unchanging idea contained in the word "God". Instead the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. Had the notion of God not had this flexibility, it would not have survived to become one of the great ideas. When one conception of God, has ceased to have meaning or relevance, it has been quietly discarded and replaced by a new theology. A fundamentalist would deny this because fundamentalism is anti-historical: it believes that Abraham, Moses and the later prophets all experienced their god in exactly the same way as people do today. Yet if we look at our three religions, it becomes clear that their is no Objective view of God: each generation has to create the image of God that works for it.

The same is true of atheism. " The statement I do not believe in God", has meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed atheists over the years have always denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the god who is rejected by atheists today, the god of the patriarchs, the god of the prophets, the god of the philosophers, the god of the mystics or the god of the eighteenth century deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians, and Muslims at various points in history. We shall see that they are very different from one another. Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians, and Muslims were called atheists by their Pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern Atheism a similar denial of a "God" which is no longer adequate to the problem of our time.

Despite it's other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We shall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God To work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed--sometimes for something radically different. This did not disturb most monotheists before our own day, because they were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional.They were entirely man made--they could be nothing else--and quite different from the indescribable Reality they symbolized.

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. I don't reject god any more than I reject unicorns.

They are both mythical. I know gods are mythical constructs. Belief and/or denial don't enter into it for me.

[Flabbergasted]

2. that was not the point. nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. I know what the damned point was.

I was taking issue with the semantics.

[cbayer]

26. You KNOW. How do you KNOW?

Or do you just believe?

[A HERETIC I AM]

35. I know because I am not an intellectually primitive person.

Let us suppose for one second that there is indeed a being or entity or whatever that can transcend time and space, speak universes and creatures into existence and is omniscient and omnipresent.

If that is indeed the case, then it deserves study as if it were a new species, NOT worship because I am afraid of it or some other reason.

The idea that I have to argue this point yet again is not only tiresome, but tedious as well.

There is no god because gods are myths.

ALL of them.

THAT'S how I know. I know for the same reason I know there are no Leprechauns or Faeries or Pixies or Mermaids or any other mythical creature or entity.

Holding the conviction that the god of Abraham and Isaac is a real thing is intellectually primitive thinking.

Full Stop.

[cbayer]

37. So people who KNOW there is a god are also not intellectually primitive people,

or is it just the people that KNOW what you know?

Do you also KNOW that there are no beings in the universe that are more evolved than humans?

The reason you have to argue the case again is simple - you don't know. No one knows. Some people just think they do.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. People who are CONVINCED.....

Not "people who know" - people who have been CONVINCED that they know there is a god.

There is a huge difference. As you said, no one knows, and I will admit that there is a possibility that there is a being like I described above. But I wouldn't call it a "god".

I might call it "Otis" instead. Only fearful and intellectually unevolved humans still buy the bullshit that they have to fear and worship some entity that has never, and I mean NEVER shown itself. Unfortunately, that includes the majority of the human race.

Anyone that has been convinced the god of Abraham and Isaac is real is guilty of primitive thinking, for the exact same reason that no one believes Zeus and Thor and Apollo are real any longer. They are also guilty of being gullible as hell. I admit that for much of my younger life, I was such a person.

Your second question is completely irrelevant.

The reason you have to argue the case again is simple - you don't know. No one knows. Some people just think they do.

Ahhhh, but you know, don't you? Isn't that what you are doing in here every single day? Showing that you know?

[cbayer]

40. What is it that you think I know (my money is on you being wrong, btw).

But then again, you seem to KNOW things that others don't, perhaps even about themselves.

Fearful, unevolved, bullshit believing, gullible, primitive people are the majority of the human race? Wow, how's the atmosphere up there? Need any oxygen?

[A HERETIC I AM]

43. ......

Add to that "Fearful, unevolved, bullshit believing, gullible (and) primitive".

The air is fine.

[cbayer]

45. What does this have to do with what I believe?

I do love this line though - "Imagine what you will KNOW tomorrow".

Even you.

[A HERETIC I AM]

46. LOL

What's really funny is that you don't even know this exchange is over.

[cbayer]

49. Which exchange? The one between me and you. I mean, did you score

a point?!?

Don't forget to record it. There is a big prize waiting for you at the end.

[cleanhippie]

61. !

You are my hero!

[cleanhippie]

60. "Only fearful and intellectually unevolved humans still buy the bullshit..."

Dude, you are on a ROLL!

[cleanhippie]

59. Holding the conviction that the god of Abraham and Isaac is a real thing is intellectually primitive

[Speck Tater]

3. Yup. That's it alright.

In our times we need a God who will step in a work a miracle to prevent innocent children from being gunned down. Or who will hold back the storm so innocent people don't drown in the next hurricane and flood. Or who will vacuum up all the excess CO2 out of the air so the planet doesn't end up turning into a living hell.

Show me a God that gives a damn, and has the power to do something about it, AND carries through, putting His omniscient money where is mouth is. We've had enough of Gods that sit isolated in their distant heaven shitting on us, and then demanding, like some sociopath, that they be worshiped and adored. You want love and adoration? Earn it sucker.

Until that happens I'd rather believe in no God at all than to have to believe in a fictitious God who simply doesn't give a damn, and gets off on watching suffering. Believing in no God at all is much more comforting to me that believing in one that is either malicious or indifferent, yet demands unearned respect. It's no wonder the true believers talk about "fearing God" as if it's a good thing. I'd be scared too living in the same universe with a God like that!

At least if there was a God that cared, yet was utterly powerless to do anything about suffering, I could understand that. So if there were a God that could only offer to comfort you when you were suffering but was unable to actually help, that wouldn't be so bad. It would be something at least. We'd just have to get over calling Him "all powerful". He be more like the maternal Sky-Mom who listened to your troubles. Of course, how would you ever know Sky-Mom was even listening?

[Flabbergasted]

4. Exactly the point. I know you are being facetious but yes that is the point. nt

[tama]

7. What your post first brought to my mind

was the "Idle No More" campaign and slogan.

Also, at least experiences of infinite compassion and love are possible, they do happen and are very healing. Some give those experiences theological interpretations and attach various ideas and qualities and conditions to that "God", and much fuss arises. Yet by many testimonies and teachings letting go of control and having trust and confidence have something to do with such experiences.

[okasha]

38. What you're describing isn't a god. It's an indulgent parent

who will buy you a fast car, then bail you out and pay for repairs when you run it into a utility pole.

Wars in which innocent people are gunned down, stronger and more destructive storms attributable to climate change and excess CO2 are all human-created problems. Humans made them, and it's humans' responsibility to clean them up.

[Speck Tater]

41. "It's human's repsonsibility to clean them up."

Absolutely.
Because there is no God who cares enough to help out.

If I had god-like power I'd help out wherever I could. I guess that makes me a better person than this so-called "god" who supposedly has the power to help but doesn't really give a shit. Or can't be bothered. And who, by the way, supposedly created the whole flawed system in the first place.

"Hmmmm," He said one morning. " I can create any kind of world I want. I guess I'll create one where people suffer and die in pain and misery. Yup. That's sounds about right. Should be fun to watch them squirm! I just can't get enough of watching those little pot-bellied African children die of starvation. That's some funny stuff. Some of my best work, for sure."

That's your god, not mine. You want him? You can have him.

[cbayer]

42. No, that would make you an interventional god

similar to a helicopter parent, I guess.

Not better, and in some ways, worse.

We give our children the best world we can, but once grown hand it over to them to do the best they can.

If there were a god and s/he were relatively non-interventional, why would make them bad?

You mean to say that if things don't go well for my kids and I can't really do anything about it (or shouldn't or choose not to because I think it's in their best interest), I am having fun watching them suffer?

Your view of what may be god is so narrow. No wonder you don't want him. Who would?

[Speck Tater]

44. Then why do people pray for intervention?

Apparently a lot of (most?) religious people believe that God can and will intervene for them if they can make a good enough case to convince God to give them a hand.

So what you're saying is that if your toddler picks up a box of rat poison and starts opening it up, you'd be a bad parent if you intervened and took it away from him?

I think you'd intervene. I think anyone who gave a damn about somebody would intervene, or attempt to intervene if they saw that person heading straight for certain disaster. Every decent person, that is, except for God.

And wait, doesn't God with his omniscience, KNOW that you're going to be headed toward certain disaster? Didn't he know about it before you were even born? Didn't he know about it a hundred thousand years ago? Couldn't he have set things up to prevent the disaster long before you were even born?

And since God knows that this disaster is headed your way, and has know it since the beginning of time, and knew that he'd set things up to guarantee this certain disaster would head your way, you imagine that you have free will?!?!? Really? You believe that? Wow!

This God who knew a billion years ago whether you would end up in heaven or hell put you on this earth to act out a script that's already been written, and which includes the illusion of free will. Either that or God doesn't know what's going to happen. Or God doesn't care what's going to happen. Or God doesn't have the power to prevent what's going to happen. There's just no way God can be everything the Christians claim he is. He's either powerless or amoral. He can't be both powerful AND moral. It's a logical impossibility.

[cbayer]

48. There are a lot of people who believe in an interventional god.

Of course I would take rat poison away from my child. But I am unlikely to be there if my adult son decides to drink and drive. Or if he gets cancer. Or if he decides to marry an idiot.

You have this concept of a parental god with humans as children. Others see it quite differently.
You also see god a able but unwilling to control everything. Others do not.

Again, your view of what might be a god is so narrow that it fits only a very fundamentalist POV. The problem is that you extrapolate it to what all people think or believe, and for just about every believer, there is a different concept.

Anyway, I don't spend much time thinking about what a potential god can or can not or will or will not do. Not nearly as much as you do, apparently.

Because I don't know and will never know, and, in the long run, I don't think it makes any difference.

[Speck Tater]

55. You say you're unlikely to be there if your adult son decides to drink and drive...

But if you could be there to save his life, would you be?

Well this so-called God supposedly could be there, but can't be bothered.

So my view is too narrow? It sounds like your view is awfully narrow too. Why bother believing in a God who can't do anything for you? You're believing in a god who might just as well not exist, and if your god might as well not exist then what's the difference between you believing in him and me not believing in him. Pragmatically, you and I are in the same boat. It doesn't matter whether we believe or not. He's not going to give either one of us a hand.

I have an invisible elf in my closet. He doesn't talk, and he can't move objects around. He can't touch you, and for that matter, he can't see or hear you. So even if my invisible elf really does exist, so what? And even if your god does exist, so what? How does that effect my day-to-day life at all?

[cleanhippie]

62. It seems you are fighting the age-old battle: The ever changing definition of "god".

The very second one shows how this "god" is not compatible with human decency, the definition suddenly changes. Rinse and repeat.

It's tiresome and disingenuous, especially when it comes from those that allegedly do not even believe in these gods.

[cbayer]

63. You have no idea what i do or don't believe, so I would advise you

not to make assumptions.

I agree, it doesn't matter what either of us believes or not. However, some people feel the need to state very loudly where they stand and mock those who see it differently. It's almost as if they feel threatened by other peoples POV.

[Speck Tater]

64. In other words...

You don't want to talk about the actual issues anymore.

Like does God care or not?
Can God intervene or not?
Can a God who could save a life but doesn't qualify as caring?

What you and I believe, and what I think you believe and what you think I believe are side issues. The main issue here is does God give a damn or not?
It shouldn't be about my ego or yours, or if you feel threatened or I feel threatened. It should be about does God love us enough to do something about our suffering? And the answer is "no".

Instead of attacking me, personally, suggest an alternative interpretation of the facts in evidence. For example:

1. God doesn't actually have the power to intervene. OR
2. There is some positive long-term benefit that accrues to those who have suffered and God doesn't want to deny you that long-term benefit. OR
3. We deserve suffering because of some evil committed in a past life. OR
4. This is all a virtual world and what we think of as suffering isn't really suffering to our "higher self", but just good clean fun. OR
5. We chose this suffering for ourselves before we were even born, just like some people deliberately choose to go to horror movies to get the crap scared out of them. (See Richard Bach's "Illusions&quot OR
6. Quote to me from "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" (by Rabbi Harold Kushner) OR
7... (your answer here)

So instead of putting my down for asking a serious question, why not propose a serious answer?

You say your answer is that God is not an interventional God. And I ask why? Why is God not an interventional God? You can't simply say "just because" and expect me to buy that. And you can't just answer with "God's ways are mysterious." That's a cop-out too. And you can't change the subject by telling my threatened. I'm not threatened, I'm asking a question that you can't answer.

[cbayer]

65. Of course I can't answer it and neither can you.

The arguments are all circular. There are those who feel they can win the debate, both believers and non-believers, and they are wrong. No one can win the debate because no one knows the answers.

The difference is that I don't even pretend to.

It's not a team sport and I'm not on a team.

However, I reject and challenge bigotry and intolerance. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs or lack of beliefs. As long as don't don't impinge on the rights of others and people don't attack those that see things differently, I don't have any problem.

But I couldn't be less interested in expounding on or defending whatever I believe or don't.

Not really attacking you personally, just challenging your need to be right about this.

[Speck Tater]

66. We both need to expound and defend our beliefs.

If we didn't, we wouldn't both be posting here!

As for being right, I don't know the answer to those questions I asked, so I don't know if I'm right or wrong because I don't know what I believe. That's why I'm still asking questions instead of proposing answers. I have no answers. I have only questions. Am I right or wrong to ask questions? I believe I'm right to ask questions. So I guess in that sense I do believe I'm right.

[cbayer]

67. No we don't. There are many reasons to be here.

I take the position of defending those I think are on our team, and by *our team*, I mean progressive/liberal democrats. I have a strong conviction that both believers and non-believers have much to offer in terms of advocacy and action for causes I embrace.

The divisiveness between believers and non-believers often seen on this site and in other places damages the causes I believe in.

My aim is to decrease that and encourage tolerance and inclusiveness. I have absolutely no interest in proving that one is right and one is wrong. There are those here that do, some of whom have made it their mission and treat it like a team sport where one side wins and the other loses. Some of them will not budge from that position and resort to taunting and bullying. They aren't ever going to move from that position, imo.

But then there are the vast majority, who feel they are right but don't feel that means that everyone else is wrong.

I think you are one of those people and I have enjoyed being engaged with you in this discussion. We should all keep asking questions, but i will easily admit that I do not have the answers and have nothing to defend here.

[Speck Tater]

68. I've always respected your opinions and the current thread is no exception.

But I still disagree with you.

[cbayer]

69. I feel the same. And I really like your OP.

[okasha]

47. Wrong.

These problems persist because humans allow them ro do so, and for no other reason whatsoever.

[Speck Tater]

54. The devil made me do it. nt

[longship]

5. Just maybe God doesn't give a shit!

Joe bless you all!

[Moonwalk]

6. Um, it seems to me from this that the changing definition of Atheism....

...was not made by Atheists but by Theists--as the author admits when in pointing out that Jews, etc. were called "Atheists." I doubt the Jews, etc. defined themselves as such. So why should we let any "Theist" define atheism now? Or say that it's in a "transitional" state?

Atheism hasn't changed definition if you look at true atheists. It's only changed definition for those who believe in god and and want to define atheists according to that changing belief. I can assure you that if I look at atheists as far back as ancient Greece they're saying the exact same thing atheists say now. "It ain't real."

This is just another theist who wants to see atheists as being the same as those who are religious. Sorry, we're not, and you, as a theist, don't get to define us as such in order to make your point. That god will change to suit the times is a "duh!" argument. Myth has always changed to suit the times, environment, culture. What else is new? That those who don't believe that myth change their disbelief of it to suit the times....isn't true and has never been true. The two are not equal.

[Flabbergasted]

8. That's not the point. The point is: The knowledge base of today is the superstition of tomorrow. Nt

[defacto7]

11. ^^ This ^^ Thank you

It's tiresome and rather boring to hear simple lack of belief being defined by a theist who can't accept their own doubt.

and no... The knowledge base of today is has no connection to tomorrow's superstitions. The superstitions of today are the superstitions of today and will hopefully dissolve into an oblivion of reason.

[tama]

14. So a myth

is a cultural level of evolutionary adaptation. Isn't that a good thing? If you believe in evolution and goodness of adapting?

Atheism is not scientism or materialism or any other metaphysical belief, but "It ain't real" sounds like a definition of real, a metaphysical statement and belief common to some cultures or segments of.

Such definition of real together with technological control of that "real" certainly deserves to be seen as cultural level means of evolutionary adaptation. As a myth in the sense mentioned above, and is that myth anymore functioning for adaptation or leading to evolutionary dead end. If the latter is true, rational thing would be to stop believing in that myth and to develop new myths that are more adaptive.

[Phillip McCleod]

18. 'scientism'?

[tama]

21. Per wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[uriel1972]

57. There is no 'good thing' about evolution and adaption

It just simply is there is no moral element or intention. Adaption can be a positive or negative for a species as adapting too far to a niche can cause extinction when the environment changes.

The only evolutionary 'dead end' is extinction and that can be just blind chance due to the environment (ie. the only colony sits on an active volcano, or the ever popular asteroid encounter.)

I wouldn't go as far as to say god/s, fairies and unicorns aren't real, I would say there is no evidence for them so it is highly unlikely they exist until there is adequate evidence of their existence.

[tama]

58. There is

what value we give. Ethical values and intentions cannot be logically derived from theory of evolution, but we can as social species agree on ethical axioms and use ability of logical deduction to make value based estimates and decisions and in relation to evolution and adaptation.

Should we agree on the intention to keep on adapting, on both biological and cultural levels, we can also give new meaning to theory of evolutionary adaptation as "critical theory" in the sense of prediction that seeks to fulfill itself. On the other hand, should the culture that invented theory of evolution become extinct because of it's own actions (destruction of carrying capacity), that would show that possessing theory of evolution did not give that culture much benefit for adaptive behavior and change, and in absence of culture to keep on studying and testing theory of evolution, it would kind of falsify itself.

I find it useful to regard "real" not as bivalent either-or condition, but continuum of various levels and aspects of real. Unicorns exist at least on the experiental level of dreams and imagination and art, theories such as evolution exist in intellectual and linguistic levels, etc.

[Warpy]

9. No, it's disbelief in any god or gods

on exactly the same level as disbelief in the Tooth Fairy or Superman.

Hell, if any of these characters ever presents itself in a convincing manner, we'll greet them. However, we think the chances are equivalent for all of them.

No matter how you dress a god up, some of us just aren't going to buy any of it.

[Flabbergasted]

10. I really like the passage because it signifies a larger truth...

[defacto7]

12. Larger truths tend to be

fractured beliefs watered down with convoluted ideas to fill in the empty gaps.

[Flabbergasted]

50. Could you exemplify? nt

[Warpy]

15. Only that believers are fickle sorts

who adjust their beliefs to fit their times and might discard old gods in favor of new ones when under heavy stress.

I'm afraid it would take more than new laws, new images and new funny clothing on the officials to convince an atheist. We always see the men behind the curtains.

[skepticscott]

16. Not only fickle sorts

but people who want desperately to have their religious beliefs seem reasonable and rational, which leaves them in the awkward position of having to tout their "faith" at the same time they're latching on to whatever seems to them like objective evidence validating the existence of their "god".

[Jim__]

17. A larger truth?

From wikipedia's entry on Herbert Spencer:

Starting either from religious belief or from science, Spencer argued, we are ultimately driven to accept certain indispensable but literally inconceivable notions. Whether we are concerned with a Creator or the substratum which underlies our experience of phenomena, we can frame no conception of it. Therefore, Spencer concluded, religion and science agree in the supreme truth that the human understanding is only capable of 'relative' knowledge. This is the case since, owing to the inherent limitations of the human mind, it is only possible to obtain knowledge of phenomena, not of the reality ('the absolute') underlying phenomena. Hence both science and religion must come to recognize as the 'most certain of all facts that the Power which the Universe manifests to us is utterly inscrutable.' He called this awareness of 'the Unknowable' and he presented worship of the Unknowable as capable of being a positive faith which could substitute for conventional religion. Indeed, he thought that the Unknowable represented the ultimate stage in the evolution of religion, the final elimination of its last anthropomorphic vestiges.

[Phillip McCleod]

19. good one.

Hume too addressed the problem of limitations on what an individual can know. rather than finding something worth worshiping in the unknowable Hume argued that when reason and knowledge were insufficient to establish the factual basis of an assertion say of a miracle that we should default to our own direct experience over the testimony of witnesses. even when a 100 or a 1000 or 100,000 say they saw a miracle, without evidence other than their testimony Hume says we ought to rely on our own mundane experience and dismiss the miracle.

he goes even farther and says if we are one of the 100,000 who see the miracle we ought to doubt our own perceptions and memories as they are not always reliable. we hallucinate, we're susceptible to peer pressure, we see what we want to see, and frankly, he said, we lie a lot.

[Jim__]

23. Hume is talking about something different.

He is talking about making a judgement about reported human experience or even personal perception. Spencer is talking about an existent that is forever beyond experience.

[cbayer]

27. I swear, atheists talk about "we" and "us" more than most theists I know.

What do you make of that?

[trotsky]

28. Maybe because that's what the OP does first?

I dunno, what do YOU make of that, cbayer? What are you insinuating?

[Warpy]

30. It's because we completely share just one thing

and that's disbelief in any god or gods.

Other than that, we have very little in common.

Believers, on the other hand, will rip each other's heads off at any discussion of dogmatic minutiae.

Nice try, though.

[cbayer]

31. Why is that any difference than theists sharing just one thing - a belief in a god or gods?

And there's plenty of head ripping going on in both camps.

[Warpy]

32. Actually, there is no comparison

Atheists have never burned each other at the stake, for instance.

We don't believe, that's just it. We can argue about other things, but not really about that. It's a given.

And the only churlishness I've seen in our group was over blatant sexism by some males in one atheist group that some of the younger males didn't take very seriously.

But again, nice try.

[cbayer]

33. I guess you have missed all the internecine feuding going on within the non-believer

organizations.

Also all the arguments about agnostic as a stand alone or modifier. Or the range of atheists that hold some kind of spiritual beliefs but don't believe in a god.

Or the recent criticism of Dawkins by Higgs.

I don't have to try. I just read the articles in this group and elsewhere.

Groups formed by their belief or disbelief in something are all vulnerable to the same internal struggles, as one person's theism or atheism can be quite unlike another's.

Saying everyone under a certain broad definition is the same is, well, a one way approach often seen with fundamentalists.

[trotsky]

34. You plead for a changing of tone in one thread,

and engage in nasty passive-aggressive attacks in another.

[Warpy]

52. And the target yawns and walks away

Best policy.

[uriel1972]

56. This

I do not 'reject' god/s as I do not think there is anything to reject. I simply don't believe there is any evidence to show their existence. It's not that the ideas of god/s are inadequate for my needs, it's just that there is no evidence therefore not only no reason to believe, but an imperative not to believe.

[LeftishBrit]

13. No, it's just not believing that a God exists.

No doubt theists' ideas of God or gods are influenced by their ideas of human relationships and human government - but they do not choose a god on the basis of what they or the world need. Nor do atheists reject God because he isn't seen as capable of solving current problems. We don't regard God in the way that the voters regarded Mitt Romney; we just don't see evidence for a God's existence.

I don't think that monotheists in the past thought that 'ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional'. On the contrary, many have thought that their ideas were so sacrosanct that they justified going to war, or executing heretics and unbelievers. It is true that many monotheists, especially non-Christian ones (both Jews and Muslims), consider that God cannot be adequately portrayed or described by humans, and that it is blasphemous even to attempt to do so -but that is not because they think that their concept is only 'provisional'.

[Phillip McCleod]

20. excellent point.

in fact Kant wrote his 'critique' as an apology for the categorical not contingent authority of god's will as architect of nature's laws.

[mr blur]

22. ^^ This ^^

[Flabbergasted]

53. ...

No doubt theists' ideas of God or gods are influenced by their ideas of human relationships and human government - but they do not choose a god on the basis of what they or the world need. Nor do atheists reject God because he isn't seen as capable of solving current problems. We don't regard God in the way that the voters regarded Mitt Romney; we just don't see evidence for a God's existence.

Actually yes they do. The function of god integrates into the society in order to best serve it's people. You can see this another way. When foreign powers infiltrate society with their own god it can't be assumed that this is "good for the residents", but it is part of a larger pattern of empire building throughout society. To illustrate this you would look first at pagans whose many gods functioned as individual arbiters to natural forces, and to offer an explanation for these forces. As Cities became more and more important the yoke of multiple gods gave way to a single god unifying the people and offering a more solid and intellectually complex religion.

Further, atheists do not reside in a vacuum. There will be religion as long as there are people. As the article indicates, atheism is a product of it's time and influences religion in it's own way and the larger context of the passage is that atheism as a social force molds or is a marker of a new and changing theology.


I don't think that monotheists in the past thought that 'ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional'. On the contrary, many have thought that their ideas were so sacrosanct that they justified going to war, or executing heretics and unbelievers. It is true that many monotheists, especially non-Christian ones (both Jews and Muslims), consider that God cannot be adequately portrayed or described by humans, and that it is blasphemous even to attempt to do so -but that is not because they think that their concept is only 'provisional'.

There were certainly true believers; they call them fundamentalist. The author briefly discusses this in the passage. But largely when you discuss war (and the infiltration of foreign society for the purpose of acquisition), and the nuts and bolts mechanics of power over a population, religion is a tool not a truth. Executing heretics and unbelievers was not due to the beliefs themselves but a function of the powerful over members of their own or foreign societies. An example of this is actually Al Qaeda, although individual members are true believers it is only a function of the people that pull the strings. They are a proxy.

The author is not talking about your typical devotee or priest but about the larger context of religion as spiritual symbolism and experience and especially within the debates of the religious intellectuals. Some of the core tenants may be rather similar from society to society but large parts of religions can change in face of new cultural conditions. It did not change the religions core but there are certainly major theological differences between 15th century Catholicism and the Catholicism of today. Or just read the Old Testament and you see a society that changes from polytheism to monotheism over the period of 700 years due to societal and cultural pressure. There were, of course, the foolish who believed that their cultural version was an absolute but they were the losers in these debates. The idea that "God cannot be adequately portrayed or described", is an inherent part of the concept of God and as such is not the provisional part the author is describing, as she indicates in the very next line.

Thanks for replying.

[gcomeau]

24. No

Modern atheism is, if anything remotely along the lines of this topic, the recognition that made up untestable unfalsifiable explanations that just "appear to work" for the time being are worthless.

Why does the moon have that orbit? Orbital mechanics fairies. Well... sure... that appears to work. Not a shred of evidence in favor of it. Can't use it to accomplish a damn thing... but yeah, orbital mechanics fairies moving the moon around. Why not?


Because the way it "works" is bloody useless and pointless. That's why not.



Same goes for God.

[cbayer]

25. Really interesting take.

To reject a belief in god would need to be seen in context, as the nature of the god described by the surrounding religionists could change what that means.

At least I think that's what she is saying.

[trotsky]

29. Just another version of the Courtier's Reply.

*yawn*

[Deep13]

51. No, it is a denial that god exists or every has.

God was never adequate even if people were/are convinced otherwise.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. To answer the title question: No.

Atheism is a rejection of all the gods that the atheist has heard of, not just 'God', at the very least; it's normally also the rejection of the whole concept of powerful supernatural beings that have created or intervened in our lives. Armstrong knows this, of course; but she's got a book to sell, so she has to make her theist readers think that atheists are just not trying hard enough to come up with their own version of a god. It's a bit like the Republicans' recent negotiating tactic - it's a claim that it's up to atheists to define a new God to believe in, just as Republicans claimed it was up to the Democrats to define how to cut government spending. Neither group would have any intention of actually going along with a suggestion; they just want it so that atheists/Democrats lose their consistent footing, and they can respond with "see - you can't trust these people - stick with us".

Armstrong is also knowledgeable enough about religious history for that last paragraph to be called a lie; she is perfectly aware that monotheists have been massacring people for not sharing their idea of 'God' for at least 1700 years (when Christians started killing each other over the Arian controversy (indeed, that was Trinitarians killing Arians for being a bit too monotheistic), and the Israelites boasted in their sacred books that their ancestors massacred many non-believers at the command of God, supposedly over 3000 years ago. Whether or not that actually happened historically, we don't know - but it does show the intent of ancient Judaism - "we'd kill you for being unbelievers if we could". Abrahamic Monotheists have also been quite consistent in believing that their ideas about God were fixed - that's the point of the holy books, a creed 1700 years old, the sayings of Mohammed being a vital guide to how Muslims should live their life, and so on. And that's why, when there is a suggestion of change (eg the start of Christianity), it's an upheaval in the religion.

Really, Armstrong does talk such bollocks. The more I read of her, the less I think she's worth reading at all.

[trotsky]

71. Brilliantly put. n/t

[Bradical79]

72. Excellent reply -nt