I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth
generation in question but am also, myself, more a "None" than an
"Athiest".
It is not (in my case) that I have too many other things going on
(though I do have plenty), it is rather, that I'm not a joiner. Perhaps
I "would not be a member of any club that would have me", but more to
the point, I have always found even the most *inclusive* clubs to be
*exclusive* at the end of the day. I took a short run at attending the
Los Alamos "Universal Unitarians" only to find that the binding feature
was "more tolerant than though" and I frankly could not tolerate that
kind of intolerance! Ultimately clubs are not defined by what you
believe in but defined by what you don't. Or in the case of
MonoTheistic religions, it may seem that belief in their "one true GOD"
is the defining factor, it is really the complement... that you are
excluded by lack of belief in their God/Prophet/GravenImage/etc.
In the case of Athiesm... I was drawn to it the first time I heard of
it.. *I* wanted to belong to a club whose definition was the *lack* of
belief in "One True God" but it didn't take long for me to discover that
the existing "card carrying Athiests" also defined their "club" in the
exclusive... to wit, you had to firmly (and vehemenently) *disbelieve*
in any and all Gods to keep your good standing. Card carrying Athiests,
when confronted with the likes of me had to force-fit me into the club
of "Agnostics" because if I wasn't as anti-God as they were then I must
be a wishy washy fence-sitter (e.g. Agnostic).
These distinctions may seem subtle, but they are very real for me.
I share what I understand to be Doug's position regarding Religion only
not so strongly... and occasionally (only when Doug writes or speaks on
the topic) suspect him of being a proselyte from the Reformed Church of
Cynicism. As with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Sikhs, Musims
and Adi Dharmists, I am much more inclined to let card-carrying Cynics
through my door to try to complete my conversion (as I do have and
express sympathies with all the above Religions from time to time) if
they are also carrying a nice bottle of Whiskey, Bourbon, Gin or Tequila
to lubricate the conversation.
Oddly, only a very few proselytes of any religion seem to allow or the
ingestion of strong spirits (poisoning the body, mind, soul?). This is
what draws me most perhaps to "the modern Cynics" (as opposed to the
classical version with which I think I have even more affinity in their
pursuit of "Virtue in alignment with Nature"). If I were a true child
of the sixties, I would perhaps require them to be carrying some
yet-more-toxic and mystical-experience-inducing substances... but I'm not.
It all started perhaps when I refused a draft card, now it is tamer as I
refuse the AARP card I suppose, but the principle holds. I only wish
I'd had the temerity to refuse the Social Security card.
- Steve
Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My
religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise
I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God
(or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant
whether a car (or religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot
air.
My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330
million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute
reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go
underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion
of our adherents became "godless" Communists. Today we don't have a
conception of a God as a father / creator figure. Instead we conceive
God as "the" principle which regulates existence/ the uinivers/
multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind
the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is whether atheists
also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or set of laws)
which govern "their" universe.
I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in
philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories.
There are too many other things going on in their lives.
On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
Sarbajit,
Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for your
reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, are we
atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term?
In what ways?
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith
Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own faith
even
though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own models of
reality,
apparently the trick is to ensure that these models are robust enough
accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, zombies, or maulvis and
still
continue to function.
I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this
list.
My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular
country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the
world
which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by
foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider
themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim
countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of
communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown
by the butchers of each community).
India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty).
America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop a
sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily
influenced by Islamic models.
OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in
the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban
and Al Qaeda.
Sarbajit
On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
Reading
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen>
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen
ds-religion/
was
a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the
Salafists, the zombies, and whatever.
The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book,
written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though
he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so
he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and
his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand
slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how
the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga
believes in, wasn't helping us
along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything
about
the truth?
As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for
secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of
view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist-an
outlook with which many of them will not be familiar."
-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
