Is common ground between atheism and belief possible?

[rug]

Julian Baggini
guardian.co.uk
Friday 25 November 2011 12.21 EST

"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.

Top of the list was Karen Armstrong, since she has been the most prominent advocate of seeing religion as mythos not logos: roughly speaking, as about values and practices, not beliefs about what exists or has happened on earth or beyond. So not surprisingly she agreed with the first article, which asserts that creeds or factual assertions are at most secondary and often irrelevant to religion. She also agreed, with some reservations about the wording, with the second, that religious belief does not, and should not, require the belief that any supernatural events have occurred here on Earth, and the third, that religions are not crypto- or proto-sciences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/25/atheism-belief-articles-faith?newsfeed=true

[Kurmudgeon]

1. Yeah, you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. No silly names or harsh words either.

[cleanhippie]

19. Deal, just keep your beliefs to yourself and out of OUR laws.

But we both know that ain't gonna happen.

[Deep13]

26. And here we have the fundamental basis of disagreement.

You think the important thing is that words are respectful. I think the important thing is that words are accurate.

[Quartermass]

2. I don't believe there is any common ground myself.

But that doesn't mean people can't treat each other with respect and stop the bs whining and insulting each other because people believe in something different.

It really shouldn't matter what we believe anyway. We should be adults about it and not really concern ourselves by what people believe and let each other live their own life as they see fit.

If there truly is a kind and loving god and the end of life, then he or she will judge us on our own merits. And those we treat with respect and kindness will remember us fondly.

But what do I know.

[pinto]

3. I guess live and let live would be a good starting point.

:hi:

[customerserviceguy]

4. Here's the common ground I'd like to see

I'd like believers to extend me the same courtesies that they extend to those who believe, but of a different faith. That includes recognition of how their blue laws impact my freedoms.

[skepticscott]

5. Is common ground

between skeptical, rational inquiry (of which atheism is only one facet, and which bases the strength of its convictions on the strength of the evidence supporting them), and "faith" (which involves belief without regard to the strength or even existence of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence) possible? No. Pretty much by definition.

Is common ground between anti-theism and religion possible? Of course, and every prominent anti-theist (this writer, like so many others, can't even grasp the elementary distinction between atheism and anti-theism) freely acknowledges this. Certain flavors of religion refuse to permit this, however, but insist on their faith being everyone's faith.

[safeinOhio]

6. About half of the members of my church are Atheist.

How do we do that?


  We have no set creed or dogma. However, we have certain principles we covenant to affirm and promote. These are...
• The inherent worth and dignity of every person
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to growth in our congregations
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

[JDPriestly]

14. A fellow Unitarian? And I do believe in God, although some of

my friends who are atheists claim that I don't.

Actually, I do, but I don't define God as fundamentalists do.

I believe in a creative force that I call God, and I believe that my senses and perception and mind do not begin to comprehend that God, or for that matter, life or the universe.

I believe that I am only capable of a very imperfect comprehension of the reality of the universe.

I also believe that our scientific methods do not yet and perhaps will never permit us to understand the vastness of the universe, all aspects of life on this earth and beyond. At the same time, I believe that science is so far the most objective measure of "truth" about our material universe that we have.

Still, although I trust science as a tool with which to understand the mysteries of the material world, I believe there are mysteries beyond our understanding that are, so far, beyond understanding through science.

Since I am a Unitarian and believe in the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning," I don't just respect each person's responsibility and right to search for their own understanding of the truth, I strongly support each person's search.

In my view, each person is entitled to search for their own personal belief, faith or truth as long as they don't force their ideas on others.

[Nihil]

30. Excellent points.

In fact, I think that the only thing that I would change
before saying "Exactly the same here!" would be the
statement "I am a Unitarian" (because I'm not).


> In my view, each person is entitled to search for their own personal belief,
> faith or truth as long as they don't force their ideas on others.

Nice implementation of the Golden Rule.

:toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Quakers and UUs, just to mention two, have been doing this for years...

but go on and keep talking about it as if it's all hypothetical, if you must.

[Major Nikon]

21. That doesn't really address his point

He's not so much saying that those who believe in the mythical need to change the way they look at things. He's saying that atheists need to change their way of thinking and accept that the belief in the mythical is "reasonable."

[Deep13]

28. Yeah, with each other.

It's a little hard to believe that two kinds of Xtians, however off-beat, can agree that those who are dismissive of religious belief have a good point.

[madrchsod]

8. why would`t there be?

[EC]

9. yeah, just mind your own business...

if I'm not breaking the law, what I believe or not believe is no one's business.

[Rowdyboy]

10. Common ground: I don't give a shit what you believe. You don't give a shit what I believe...

We both back national health care, progressive taxation, and gay marriage.

If you agree on important issues the religious bullshit can fade away, IF the believers and non-believers will let it.

What we share is so much more important than what divides us that we are idiots if we can't overcome.

Absolute idiots.

[Angry Dragon]

11. Yes, if religion is kept within church property and their homes

[rrneck]

12. It depends on what you believe.

And what your beliefs drive you to do.

[NMMNG]

13. You go Yahweh and I'll go mine

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. I think you have just completed the conversation

Perfect. :)

[Nihil]

31. *cough*

:spank:








(but well played!)

[MarkCharles]

16. I would have to say that the most common ground could be ethics and moralilty

but then we so often see Christian believers lying about the past, making stuff up, and bribing and cajoling and threatening both their own members and all non-believers with thoughts about eternal life or eternal damnation in some sort of hell. Some of the Christians want to control what the bodies of women can and cannot do, and some actually amplify any mental anguish among GLBT teens and adults, all in the name of their god and Jesus Christ.


So I'm not impressed with the ethical standards of Christians who engage in that sort of unethical behavior and don't see a common ethical ground when some Christians do these sorts of things, while other Christians stand by and just let them get away with that behavior.

[Major Nikon]

17. Possible? Yes. Likely? Absolutely not.

Take for instance the author of this article. The author seems to be suggesting that if atheists could simply understand that not all believers subscribe to the more extremely nutty aspects of religion, they might somehow be able to find "common ground" because they would see that there is such a thing as "reasonable faith."

Obviously the author has little idea about what it means to be an atheist, and why atheists feel the way they do in the first place. There is a distinct difference between an atheist and an agnostic, yet the author appears to completely confuse the two. If I thought there was such a thing as "reasonable faith", I wouldn't be an atheist. It's that simple.

Furthermore the superstitious, hocus pocus aspect of religion is simply low hanging fruit for atheists. If a believer doesn't believe in those aspects of religion, the obvious question becomes why do they believe in any of it? But even if you ignore that question and imagine a believer that doesn't believe in those aspects of religion, but still subscribes to the idea of a supreme being or beings that rule over the universe, I still have many reasons to be anti-religion and critical of them for their faith.

[Jim__]

18. Julian Baggini is an atheist.

He also holds a doctorate in philosophy and has written a book on atheism.

I'm not sure what process you used to arrive at your conclusion:

Obviously the author has little idea about what it means to be an atheist, and why atheists feel the way they do in the first place.

But, you might want to re-think that process.

[Major Nikon]

20. Good for him

I derived from the first paragraph that he's someone who frequently writes about athiesm. That doesn't make his idea any less misguided.

[rrneck]

22. Sure. Don't start nutn' won't be nutn'. nt

[Silent3]

23. This article seems less about reconciling atheism and belief...

...than, to be more precise, reconciling the skepticism typical of atheism with some largely hypothetical, very intellectualized and abstracted form of religion.

Actually reconciling atheism and belief (in God or gods) per se, if reconciliation is taken as meaning something more than "agreeing to disagree" or maintaining some semblance of civility, seems contradictory on its face.

The second type of reconciliation is more doable, but as the article points out, and as I've already said many times before in this forum, when you try to cast religion in a form that leaves skeptics with nothing to object to you end up with religion that most believers barely recognized as religion, religion that few believers are willing to adopt.

"Mythos not logos", indeed.

[lwo]

24. Reconciling belief and nonbelief

I suppose it depends upon what is meant by "belief" and "reconciliation." There are non-theistic branches of Buddhism, protestantism (unitarian universalism), Judaism (some reformed Jews). I think the common ground is mutual respect and open-mindedness. Other common ground would be ethics, e.g., the social gospel. While the majority of practicing Christians may not be comfortable w/ a "liberal" interpretation of God, my impression is that there is a significant minority who are. Like most older Americans I was raised as a Christian. I no longer regard myself as such, and see myself as secular. Nonetheless, I feel considerable kinship w/ progressive Christianity and Judaism as well as forms of Buddhism. Rconciling w/ fundamentalists of any stripe is well nigh impossible, however. ProgressivePartisan

[Deep13]

25. Not on the matter of belief.

For the most part, atheists don't just disbelieve in god, but but have a completely different concept of faith and belief than theists. Belief is based on having a reasonable, evidentiary basis for the belief. I believe my wife will come home tonight because she always has and because she tells me she likes my company. I have faith in her because she has always been reliable in the past. That kind of belief just does not apply to religious matters because their is no factual basis for those beliefs. Of course, both groups may take the same positions on many issues of concern to humanity.

[deacon_sephiroth]

27. of course

As John Stewart pointed out, we DO work together, all the time, every day, or else nothing would get done anywhere. We are not the characters we see from Washington blown out of proportion by sensationalist media, and we are not the rabid cut-throat defenders / offenders of atheism/belief that the RT forums makes us appear to be.

Outside of this very very narrow topic scope, we're all on DU which is IN ITSELF a common ground and in most circumstances, we'd likely get along great together, but there is one item we feel NEEDS to be discussed and finding a "common ground" would solve nothing. The discussion should not die, it deserves to be had, it is worth having and people like me will always have it when and where they can. Live and let live, will solve nothing, it might make it a bit quieter, and some might like that, but I agree with RATM, on that. Something about silence makes me sick, because silence could be violence kinda like a slit wrist.

Finally in the words of Richard Dawkins, we all disbelieve hundreds, if not thousands of improbable, illogical, mythical, or fantastical things, but I disbelieve one more than you. So we're about 99.99% common ground already, we're just here to talk about that .01% and I frankly wouldn't want to see a "common ground" be reached.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Oh yes. I would say that a very large number of British people are in a sort of fuzzy area between

atheism and belief.

I don't even mean explicit agnosticism; but that many people would say that they're Christians but would say No if asked whether they believe in God; or would say that they believe in God, but rarely or never go to church or pray, etc. This is why it's almost impossible to get an estimate of how many Brits are Christian versus atheist, and surveys give such widely varying answers. For many British people, the distinction is simply irrelevant.

The ambiguity is possibly even greater for many Jews, as being Jewish is for many people more cultural than religious.

But common ground between strong faith and strong atheism? Certainly in the sense of people sharing social, moral and political beliefs; but not I think in terms of spiritual and related philosophical beliefs.