Flann 5 wrote:Hi ant, Yes there are lots of ideas in Robert's posts, one which seem to come to, get rid of the supernatural and keep the mythical. Or to paraphrase a bit unkindly. Get rid of the jumbo and keep the mumbo! Just kidding Robert.I need to look more closely at what you are saying.

Or as someone somewhere said, get rid of the weeds and keep the wheat. Mumbo and jumbo have grown together indistinguishably like wheat and rye grass. Only at harvest is it possible to separate them. Primitive humanity assumed a supernatural magical framework for God. Modern science has proved that this early interventionist theory is largely obsolete, but has also tossed out the baby with the bathwater by ignoring the mythical meaning.

For example, the myth of Jesus Christ is of a philosopher king who will connect our changing temporal circumstances with an unchanging eternal reality. We do not need to posit that the unchanging eternal reality has the form of a personal intentional God for this sense of divine connection to retain a mythical or symbolic meaning.

The rational connection between time and eternity in Christ is seen in the idea of logos, word made flesh, portrayed especially in the story of the cross, that when a true eternal vision was presented in the world the political response was violent obliteration, but the suppression failed because truth springs eternal.

I like exploring these symbolic psychological ideas against an atheist heuristic, in order to have a rigorous scientific materialist framework that exercises suspicion regarding any obsolete magical claims, and as a way to analyse the real unconscious meaning hidden within the religious forms. So for example it would be wrong to maintain that atheism can simply reject the discipline of Christology as meaningless, because it should be possible to resurrect or dig out true meaning from beneath the supernatural rubble.

The model of Jesus Christ as king of the world remains endlessly fascinating and relevant, as a theory of time and history and human identity and potential. Christ is better than Stalin or Hitler in his core ideas in the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Judgment. I particularly like the claim by Christ in Matthew 25 that the division of good from evil is determined by works of mercy, focused on the needs of the hungry, thirsty, sick, naked, prisoners and strangers. It is a high political wisdom grounded in love.

Hi Robert, I understand where you are coming from. The mumbo jumbo comment was more in jest than anything else. Your beliefs I think are based in a naturalistic materialistic worldview.What you believe science proves and disproves and therefore how you view biblical scripture and maybe other religious texts. You clearly don't regard them as worthless and approach them as having symbolical and ethical value.

Those who believe in a supernatural God, don't divorce the supernatural from the text.The charge of literalism is an oversimplification.The text contains many forms,metaphors and symbols for sure,also poetry,proverbs and narrative history and biography.
Arising out of these there are the new testament letters to churches giving an interpretive understanding of the old testament,priesthood,sacrifice,history and so forth.Thus the temple and sacrificial system are typological foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ.So they have a symbolical significance.I'm sure you know all this.This is different to pagan religious sacrificial notions of animal sacrifice atoning for sin and placating the gods.The Christian view is animal sacrifices can do no such thing and are typological.
Furthermore it is relational. Language like praying to your Father in heaven,ask and you will receive,seek and you will find and so on. Language like "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden,and I will give you rest"or "He that believes in me,out of his innermost being will flow rivers of living water." The allegory of the shepherd and sheep. "He knows them and they know him" "He calls them by name" They recognise his voice" Relational and experiential.
People who take it at face value find it to be true. It may seem delusional from a materialistic worldview,but for a Theist the miraculous accounts are not problematic. At the same time I recognise that from an Atheistic standpoint they are impossible.Also that from that standpoint value is found in the way you do, as articulated in your post.I don't minimise the fact that you don't regard it as unadulterated chaff but see value there, though I vent mischievous humour occasionally..I profoundly disagree though, in my understanding of it.

Say I am an atheist that of course believes naturalism to be true:

What is the void that A-theism fills in respect to evolutionary survivability?

isnt it very clear that theism has filled a socio psychological gap for the benefit of survival?
Yes. That goes totally without saying. Its not to say God exists, but that beliefs closer to truth are likely to survive for the benefit of man whereas those that are not, dont. (Or are never serious rivals)

How does A-theism's superior state of rationality reconcile the fact that the "irrational" beliefs of theism have been much much more vital to survivability than "rational" A-theism?

The atheist must either say false beliefs are of greater advantage to survival or that beliefs closer to truth are more important for survivability.

(A-THEISM - the BELIEF that god does not exist)

ant wrote: What is the void that A-theism fills in respect to evolutionary survivability?

Theism was an adaptive meme in pre-modern times when myths about Gods served to define community identity and ethics. The current survivability problem for homo sapien is the evolutionary shift from regional isolation to global connectedness. We are now a major influence on planetary ecology, and face the risk of global threats such as plague, war, famine, death and climate change. Each of these ‘survivability’ horsemen can be addressed through scientific planning, leading to adaptation and risk mitigation. Atheism is essential for the current situation because it enables planning on the basis of scientific knowledge rather than religious belief, replacing the older theistic view that we can rely on miraculous intervention by God to save us.

ant wrote: isnt it very clear that theism has filled a socio psychological gap for the benefit of survival?

Yes, but theism was only adaptive for tribal survival, not global flourishing. The theistic values of authority, belief and tradition served the tribal goods of belonging, trust, obedience and loyalty. But now these local values are inadequate to the global need for response and innovation based on scientific knowledge. It is dangerous to ignore facts at planetary scale.

ant wrote: Its not to say God exists, but that beliefs closer to truth are likely to survive for the benefit of man whereas those that are not, dont.

It is entirely possible that a meme can be adaptive in one context but not in another. Beliefs held by primitive tribes have proved inadequate for their communities to flourish in the new context of imperial invasion. When the context changes, as it has with the emergence of global connectedness, the content of adaptive beliefs should also evolve.

ant wrote: How does A-theism's superior state of rationality reconcile the fact that the "irrational" beliefs of theism have been much much more vital to survivability than "rational" A-theism?

An example of an irrational theistic belief is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. While obviously literally untrue, it served the social functions of providing a warning about the dangers of sex and sin, the value of patriarchal control and priestly power, and the sense that a deep and incomprehensible mystery enfolded human existence. As society has evolved towards more enlightened, rational and equal values, this ancient miraculous belief has gradually lost its relevance and potency. Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary was the purported object of the construction of massive cathedrals, but these shells have largely lost their raison d’etre. The world has changed, and religion also has to change to remain relevant. That means engaging in respectful dialogue with scientific knowledge.

ant wrote: The atheist must either say false beliefs are of greater advantage to survival or that beliefs closer to truth are more important for survivability.

The false literal belief in the Rainbow Snake was valuable for survival for Australian Aborigines in the days before the British invasion. The false literal belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God was valuable for the flourishing of Christendom until the modern enlightenment. We are now in a transition phase, formulating new beliefs that will enable adaptation to a planetary connected context.

ant wrote: (A-THEISM - the BELIEF that god does not exist)

Atheism is compatible with the claim that belief in God can be a useful metaphor. I remain very interested in the work of the German atheist philosopher Martin Heidegger, especially his argument that concepts such as nature, reality, truth and language do not have a simple given empirical referent, but are part of our cultural construction of a worldview, a process that is inherently metaphysical. It is entirely possible to recognise the validity of a natural mysticism, seeing truth and reality as infinite metaphysical ideas that extend beyond our mind-dependent scientific knowledge.

The internet has enabled an unprecedented rapid sharing of opinions and information. Atheism as a philosophical movement is sometimes a cover for superficial anti-religious emotion, largely from people who have been trained in the sciences and have little appreciation for theology. So the mostly courteous dialogue here at Booktalk is something of an oasis.

This is a comprehensive response. One that I can appreciate, but find myself differing with on a couple of points.

I have a tight schedule today and won't be able to follow up on this as soon as I would like.

Thanks, Robert.

RT:
The current survivability problem for homo sapien is the evolutionary shift from regional isolation to global connectedness. We are now a major influence on planetary ecology, and face the risk of global threats such as plague, war, famine, death and climate change. ...

Atheism is essential for the current situation because it enables planning on the basis of scientific knowledge rather than religious belief, replacing the older theistic view that we can rely on miraculous intervention by God to save us.

Agreed. I want to add that evolution hasn't been building toward a species that will one day rule the planet. We weren't being groomed to be good shepherds of all the other species, or communities on the other side of the planet. It just happens that our current capabilities put us in a place where we were able to turn the pin-ball machine over and change the rules to make it really easy for us to win. Human domination is essentially an example of evolutionary law of un-intended consequences. We didn't evolve intelligence so that we could build a rocket that can destroy our enemies on the other side of the planet... but that's where it ended up.

Having the ability to dominate the planet does not necessarily go hand in hand with the ability to survive in the new world we are creating.

Ant:
How does A-theism's superior state of rationality reconcile the fact that the "irrational" beliefs of theism have been much much more vital to survivability than "rational" A-theism?

In my view, it has never been the atheism that is important. As you know, i hold that atheism is not a plan of action at all. Atheism is the result of good critical thinking applied to religion. What's important to me is the use of good critical thinking, and it is definitely THAT that has proven so successful in keeping our species alive and successful. Good critical thinking, wherever it is applied, has lead to fantastic success. In medicine, farming, transportation, communication and education.

the application of critical thinking to our religious views will result in atheism, but it isn't the removal of gods which i am concerned with. I want people to put their brains to work fixing our problems. And the less superstitious and irrational thinking we use, the better off we will be. That has always been the case.

So the next time there is a catastrophe in texas, i don't want Gov. Rick Perry to try convincing everyone to get into a stadium and pray for god's help. I want him to try motivating people to get out there and fix the problems they are dealing with!

The atheist must either say false beliefs are of greater advantage to survival or that beliefs closer to truth are more important for survivability.

Beliefs closer to the truth are certainly more important to survivability. The further removed false beliefs are from the point of action, the less immediate harm they can cause. For instance, there are no rituals in christianity where Christ's body inhabits rat poison which everyone should line up and consume on sunday.

The religions that push their false beliefs to the fore front often suffer when reality ignores their heart-felt wishes. Like the heaven's gate cult. Yes, beliefs closer to the truth are better than those that are false.

RT:
Atheism is compatible with the claim that belief in God can be a useful metaphor.

Belief in god AS a useful metaphor?

People's belief in god can be very useful. Unfortunately, it's a lever that can lift heavy loads, or start a rock slide onto our heads. It is certainly a fast shortcut to believe on the basis of supernatural, mysterious authority. But when somebody who has selfish interests gets hold of that lever, what happens then? I would much prefer that every individual have the information on hand to make reasonable decisions about things themselves and could not be motivated to do things solely on the basis that the person in charge says so.

It is entirely possible to recognise the validity of a natural mysticism, seeing truth and reality as infinite metaphysical ideas that extend beyond our mind-dependent scientific knowledge.

I can't quite place your stance on a few issues, though I also agree with much of what you say. In the above, do you mean there are "potentially" infinite metaphysical ideas? Or do you mean they actually exist in a real sense before they are thought of?

Interbane wrote:

It is entirely possible to recognise the validity of a natural mysticism, seeing truth and reality as infinite metaphysical ideas that extend beyond our mind-dependent scientific knowledge.

I can't quite place your stance on a few issues, though I also agree with much of what you say. In the above, do you mean there are "potentially" infinite metaphysical ideas? Or do you mean they actually exist in a real sense before they are thought of?

The meaning of truth and reality are core questions in epistemology, the study of what we can know. My view is that it is useful to consider truth and reality as actually existing beyond what we know and think about.

We know that many real things are not yet known by humans, and may never be known. In a sense reality appears to be infinite, in that there is always more that can be known about any specific object and its relations to other objects, and the number of existing objects is so vast as to be effectively infinite.

We routinely observe that truths are hidden, that people believe things that are untrue, and that scientific investigation can uncover what is actually the case. As such, truth extends well beyond our correct descriptions. Truth is the set of everything that has ever happened, together with the causal processes now in train to determine what will happen in the future. The unknown content of truth is a mystery, but should not be just ignored as of no relevance.

My view is that it is useful to consider truth and reality as actually existing beyond what we know and think about.

That holds for reality, but truth is a measure of how accurately an abstraction relates to its objective referent or to the relationship between two or more abstractions. As far as the truth existing beyond anything contained in our collective information pool, I don’t see how that makes sense. There is the potential for truth in future information, but until that information exists, the truth is only potential, not yet in existence.

Truth is the set of everything that has ever happened, together with the causal processes now in train to determine what will happen in the future.

I can’t get on board with that definition. Truth is not everything that has ever happened, but rather a measure of descriptions of everything that has ever happened. Everything that has ever happened is more like an objective history of reality. How accurately our abstractions represent that history is measured by truth.