Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty  Obviously, for a pure “rational” atheist whom believes in science, the idea that there is some kind of thing out there called “God,” that no one can't see, hear, touch, or feel, is absurd. |
Its a failed hypothesis, but not all incarnations of it are absurd. Most deistic versions are plausible, many propositions regarding personal gods I regard as absurd. But I judge each claim on its own merits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I believe that when atheists do this, they are making a mistake. I don’t believe that religion’s language is the same as the language of the scientist. To do so is to misunderstand religion. The language of religion is the language of poetry, of metaphor and allegory. The language of science is that of literal explanation. Religion and science both get at different aspects of the real world, and they do it in two completely different ways. Religion can’t, and shouldn’t, provide explanations for how the world works. Similarly, science can’t provide explanations for artistic experiences or a process for our growth as people.
Religion, or spirituality, when it is practiced as I believe it should be, and has been by millions of people, isn’t used in place of science or in place of reason. It’s used for something else, namely, self-improvement, and community.
Our brains seem wired for allegory and parables. A “deeper,” non-literal meaning resides in these things. We get “turned on” by myths, metaphor, allusions, and symbols. This is the language of religion. |
You may take scripture as allegorical but many do not, many are fundamentalists regarding their scriptures and the "New Atheists" have arguments against their claims.
In having arguments against a fundamentalist interpretation, does not in any way mean that a person is himself interpreting the scripture literally. One must deal with each variation of dogma on a case by case basis.
The "New Atheists" have not misunderstood religion in this case;
by your standard the literalist believers have. Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Often, throughout history, religion has been used to provide scientific answers or explanations. It’s my opinion that when this has been done, to do so was to go against the very purpose of religion. And, I’m not alone in this.
Religion has also been used (or abused) throughout history as a means to deceive, manipulate or utilize other people. This is incredibly unfortunate, and I also believe that it isn’t the essence of religion. Science is not blamed for those whom practice it poorly, and so should religion not be, either, regardless of whether or not it is commonplace. |
The problem here is you're trying to tell the whole body of theology, including the largest religion (Islam) that they don't understand religion and you do.
Religion is a useless term in this debate because it, like the term sport, is ambiguous and can be used to reference a the whole spectrum of personal dogmas and philosophies.
I thought this debate was about misunderstanding spirituality, and not religion? So far, it seems you're making the case that the "New Atheists" are wrong because they're attacking people who misuse religion, when you've ignored the arguments they've made against more moderate and nuanced allegorical interpretations of scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty All of the major religions in existence today, in essence, are trying to get at the same thing. The point is to lose learned behaviors that are counter to our pure nature as human beings. Religious texts describe transcendent things. Anyone that has never had a transcendent experience, or that especially doesn’t prefer to look for it in a religious text, will never get, or ever have a use for, religion. |
It seems to me you've had little to no experience with the works of Sam Harris, he is regarded by Dawkins and Hitchens as the most spiritual among them.
In fact he is obsessed with his spiritual experiences, wants to understand them at the neurological level, and goes on silent meditation or isolation retreats for months at a time in order to induce them, and a sense of oneness with the universe.
The problem with your argument here is, when religionists have transcendental experiences they tend to explain them with their pre-concieved notions; those being the propositions of the dogma of their arbitrary births.
I have myself had several such experiences, that have humbled me, erased my sense that we are alone and insignificant in this universe and taught me just how precious life can be. I do not need spiritual allegory to express this, or explain it; Logic and reason suffice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty What do I mean by “transcendent?” When we were young children, we hadn’t yet learned about prejudices and negative behaviors. Some negative behaviors are on a societal level and some are on a personal level. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. Some tribal behavior is necessary and beneficial, but other behaviors are negative and lead to everything undesirable, including war. Negative, personal, learned behaviors will cause us to lie in order to protect our egos, deceive others in order to get ahead, or to greedily keep things for ourselves when we don’t need everything we have. Transcendence in a spiritual sense, is to move beyond these learned or assumed behaviors. |
That to me sounds like a moral sense, rather than a spiritual one, and one does not need spirituality in order to overcome our primitive inclinations. There is a morality of reason, that is logical and based on reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Unfortunately, religion often gets used to reinforce, not lose, negative tribal behavior. Religion itself can become a false idol, warned about in scripture.
I’m not alone in this belief, either. Here’s an excellent book on the subject. |
It seems so far you're arguments for religion are the utility arguments (community, morality, etc...) which in no way are truth arguments, and do not reflect that majority of what religionists believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Richard Dawkins has said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” But Darwin didn’t provide any ammunition against religion or God. Not in my opinion. |
What he meant was his theory, so elegant and all encompassing, gave us an understanding of the cosmos that did not require a creator. You could now be an atheist, and have an explanation for life and the complexity around you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Darwin only did away with natural theology, and I say good riddance. Natural theology is pointless, counter productive, and IMO, has little to do with personal spiritual growth, letting go of our egos, our learned behaviors and prejudices, or enhancing our sense of community.
Dawkins is an incredibly gifted writer … about science. He’s a poor philosopher if he thinks (in this day and age) that William Paley is cutting edge. I haven’t seen many living theologists that overly preoccupied with digging up and refuting the work of an old fossil like David Hume lately, have you? |
Actually there are Universities (Liberty University for example), powerful groups like the Discovery Institute, and even movies (Expelled) dedicated to that purpose. They have millions of supporters and like-minded religionists.
It seems you're pretending that these people do not exist. As for Dawkins' alleged estimation of William Paley, I'm going to need a quote on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty So, to get at the heart of the matter, what is God? I believe that God is something that essentially transcends words. But I think it’s basically the thing that holds everything together. The similar feelings we all have as people, regardless of nationality. The thing that makes you shiver when you hear good music. It’s all of these things. It’s something I can’t explain. Only metaphors and allegory can get at it.
I do believe that there is some overlap, because after all, we live in the world, and religion and science are two valid, but very different, ways of looking at the world. I think that God is actually the processes that are in natural selection. The reason that stuff in nature “spirals.” The way that veins, river systems, and lightning all kinda look alike. But don’t mistake what I’ve just said for natural theology. I won’t attempt to offer an explanation for these things using the language of religion. Religion is about allegory. Allegories that are also real. The language of science will offer explanations for those phenomena, which are meaningful and enlightening. It is a mistake to give explanations for these phenomena with the language of religion. At the same time, I think that science can get at our mental processes, but that it would be a mistake to use the language of science to describe “the feeling you get when you look to the west,” “déjà vu,” or the way an innocent question by a child makes you smile.
I have a friend, a generally non-religious person, whom has a habit of saying that whatever tickles his fancy “is god.” “Dude, Stevie Ray is god.” “This beer is god.” I know exactly what he means. It’s a silly example, but he’s saying that something about the stuff he enjoys is transcendent. The really good stuff is void of personal hang-ups, ego, flaws, or what-have-you. It is “god.” It is perfect. It is something that we strive for. |
If you're going to define god as anything, "god is love" etc... then thats perfectly fine; as long as you don't expect me to also buy into any creationist or dogmatic propositions about his acts or will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty And this is what prayer is about. Prayer is not “wish making.” It’s a state that we place ourselves in, where we make ourselves humble to the thing that is common in all of us, and that was there before we were born and will linger after we are dead.
Here is an example from scripture, which I think illustrates the point of religion pretty well:
Christ’s example can inform our daily lives. The Gospels are rich with symbolism. The stories are “true” in this sense. |
Useful /= true, pertaining to the human condition does not have anything to do with historical or metaphysical truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty If the word is understood in a metaphorical sense, then the passage is filled with symbolism and meaning. The words are metaphorical, but they hint at things that are real. They instruct our lives and can be very thought-provoking and a springboard for ruminations or meditation. |
It seems to me this thread should be called "Most religionists do not understand spirituality." I have not heard any valid criticism of the "New Atheists" here.
Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have arguments against literalist religion AS WELL AS allegorical moderate religion. It seems you've skipped their chapters on those arguments, my worthy opponent.
If we are to address the topic as you explained it to me, I'm going to need you to quote an argument of theirs that either:
- I cannot find an example of a religionist that it pertains to
- Is demonstrably false
- Shows a lack of understanding of religion, rather than being an attack on someone who misuses religion by your standards
If you feel or find that they have not made valid arguments against your particular brand of theology, then I shall provide them for you. In either quoted text or YouTube video; whichever you prefer.