How the atheists fell for fundamentalism

[Whiskey_Lord]

I think you underestimate the power that such neurosis has over people. All of culture (including religion), is likely constructed for the purpose of said heroism: the desire to feel important in the grand scheme of things combined with the denial of nothingness, the terror and anxiety that come from being a lonely primate species in the vastness and indifference of nature. I don't see how this contradicts the complexity of religion and all that is has brought us at all. It's only evidence that people will do anything to deny the truth of their existence.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Traitorfish
If I would want to know "Why religion?", I would wonder: "What has religion to offer nothing else does?" and there we pretty much end up with "metaphysical comfort". The different uses and forms of religion over the time don't hurt this argument, because the claim is not that religion is limited to metaphysical comfort, but that this is its defining characteristic when compared to other institutions. Which as far as I can see is the case. So it to me seems logical to assumes that this is also the source of religion in the first place.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Yes, exactly. It's true that religion can be used for more than metaphysical comfort, but the point is that is the origin of religion. It is a coping mechanism that seems to evolve alongside and because of our own evolving intellect.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think you underestimate the power that such neurosis has over people. All of culture (including religion), is likely constructed for the purpose of said heroism: the desire to feel important in the grand scheme of things combined with the denial of nothingness, the terror and anxiety that come from being a lonely primate species in the vastness and indifference of nature. I don't see how this contradicts the complexity of religion and all that is has brought us at all. It's only evidence that people will do anything to deny the truth of their existence.

That doesn't resolve any of my criticisms, it just reiterates your previous claim. You still have no reason to believe that this constitutes the transhistorical essence of religious adherence, just that it intersects with it to some degree. At the very least, you could attempt to dig up some historical or anthropological information that supports your claim- a survey on the religious practice of surviving palaeolithic peoples, for example- to demonstrate that this is indeed a transhistorical phenomenon, and not just what stands out to you about contemporary pew-squatters.

@Traitorfish
If I would want to know "Why religion?", I would wonder: "What has religion to offer nothing else does?" and there we pretty much end up with "metaphysical comfort". The different uses and forms of religion over the time don't hurt this argument, because the claim is not that religion is limited to metaphysical comfort, but that this is its defining characters when compared to other institutions. Which as far as I can see is the case. So it to me seems logical to assumes that this is also the source of religion in the first place.

That presupposes a very specific definition of religion- its identification with certain metaphysical claims- so to a certain extent that's what I'm questioning. Without a more comprehensive analysis of religious practice across historical and contemporary societies- and that involves actually determining what we regard as "religion" and what we simply regard as "culture"- then you're really just begging the question.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I always thought faith in metaphysical aspects is what defines religion. Well and a certain degree of organization and development I guess, as opposed to a single guy just being very superstitious.
On what grounds do you disagree with that?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Aren't we talking about contemporary pew-squatters? They are the ones screaming at gay people in the streets and proposing that atheists be put on public registries like sex offenders, after all. I'm trying to address the problem of religion now, rather than what Chunga Wunga's reasons were for telling stories around a campfire to the rest of the troupe circa 20,000 BC.

 

[dirtyparrot]

I don't buy the premise either. Lovett has already stated a lot of what I was thinking. I don't think that the author has done much to support his argument that atheist don't comprehend the complexity of religion and his definition of complexity is never clearly stated.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I think myself, the author, and Traitorfish have highly discrepant standards for what constitutes "complexity" as well.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Most interesting about this theory is that if this is the essence of religious phenomenon, it must be the essence of religious interaction.
Hard to imagine the reformation, neo-confucianism, the many iterations of Buddhism, Americanism in the Catholic Church, the religious pacifism of Tolstoy etc. all arouse out of "neurosis" that didn't require any religious change whatsoever.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So the complaint, as I see it, is that atheists will only argue against the fundamentalist brand of religion, and not the made-up-as-you-go-along more liberal one. I don't see the problem.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Most interesting about this theory is that if this is the essence of religious phenomenon, it must be the essence of religious interaction.

If you want to argue that, the term "essence" becomes inapplicable on any social construct. Because naturally, other motives not a direct result of such an essence won't suddenly stop to govern people.
So I suggest that this isn't a sensible argumentation.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I think I'll pour myself a glass and let Sober SiLL take it from here.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I already had my share of drinks today

 

[ParkCungHee]

If you want to argue that, the term "essence" becomes inapplicable on any social construct.

Yes that seems quite reasonable.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

For someone who enjoys the booze as much as I do, my tolerance is terribly low. But it puts me in a happy place where I forget about the fact that I'm an eating, drinking, sneezing, coughing, sweating, crapping bag of meat and bones destined to be annihilated and forgotten. I guess that means booze is my religion.

 

[Traitorfish]

I always thought faith in metaphysical aspects is what defines religion. Well and a certain degree of organization and development I guess, as opposed to a single guy just being very superstitious.
On what grounds do you disagree with that?

There's certainly a metaphysical element, yes, but what Whiskey Lord is suggesting is that it can be understood in terms of a relatively specific set of metaphysical claims about the relationship of humanity to external universe. That may hold for the Abrahamic religions, but I'm sceptical that it can also be said of the Dharmic religions, let alone the various indigenous paganisms of pre-Abrahamic Eurasia, Africa and the Americas. Even if we accept the abstraction of the metaphysical aspect from the broader belief-systems, their practice and their organisation- none of which I am content with- we're still left with the demand for a more comprehensive analysis of historical and contemporary religion than the essentially anecdotal one that we're getting at the moment.

Aren't we talking about contemporary pew-squatters? They are the ones screaming at gay people in the streets and proposing that atheists be put on public registries like sex offenders, after all. I'm trying to address the problem of religion now, rather than what Chunga Wunga's reasons were for telling stories around a campfire to the rest of the troupe circa 20,000 BC.

You claimed that people "invented" religion for reasons X, Y and Z. That puts us in the neolithic, at the very least.

If you want to argue that, the term "essence" becomes inapplicable on any social construct. Because naturally, other motives not a direct result of such an essence won't suddenly stop to govern people.
So I suggest that this isn't a sensible argumentation.

Why not that the hunt for "essences" is a dead-end? Yet again, you beg the question.

 

[Ayatollah So]

It seems to me that, if he has any validity in his argument (and I share Lovett's reservations on that count), it's as a comment on the extent to which fundamental Protestantism has set the terms of debate in the United States, rather than on any apparently monolithic bloc of "atheists".

This. I think the guy personally knows maybe 3 atheists, and due to his bad luck 2 of them are pushy fire-breathing types. Or maybe he just reads the occasional atheist writing, the easy-to-find ones mostly, and somehow he didn't notice that controversy sells. Either way, he's working from a biased sample.

Now even an atheist who knows that not all believers are fundies, is more likely to complain about the fundies. Duh: those are the people stepping on his toes. And if he's a quiet type for the most part, pretty much the only time he gets vocal about theism is when someone's stepping on his toes. Which proves exactly nothing.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Internet atheists are also a bad sample because there's that little problem of anonymity. Now I could go dig up this or that to answer comrade Fishy's concerns, but my anonymity means I have nothing at stake, which means I'm too lazy to go all srs bzns on this subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this author simply went to reddit and found himself disgusted with all the whiny, angsty atheists there. Not that we don't have a reason to be whiny and angsty for reason's I've already mentioned in this thread.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why not that the hunt for "essences" is a dead-end? Yet again, you beg the question.

That depends on how we define essence. But it surely will always be a generalization. No doubt about that. But such is the nature of social phenomenas. You can never fully comprehend them, so you generalize to get at least as close as possible.

As said, in this context I understand essence as what defines a specific social institution. And by defines I mean what is its fundamental difference to other social institutions.

In case of religion, it is that its foundation is of a metaphysical nature by definition. You can't have religion without that. Then it is an ideology or whatever.

And then one may ask what does this metaphysical nature offer others can't - so again what defines it? I would say that there are no direct constraints by the observable world to its message.

And to what purpose is that used? Naturally, to serve the emotional needs of people. But again we may ask, in what way can those metaphysics serve emotional needs other things can not? I would answer that with an absolute and universal source of meaning (and hence in a certain way security, orientation), not constrained by the limitations of the observable world.

And that's where I arrive at the conclusion:
The essence of religion is the emotional need of people for an absolute sense of meaning.

I personally don't care how that is achieved. But it is my impression that every religion does that. Of course, I can be wrong and would be very interested if you knew a religion which doesn't.

However, how such an essence actually determines religion is another question and leaves much to be argued, I can agree on that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

In case of religion, it is that its foundation is of a metaphysical nature by definition. You can't have religion without that.

So we're tossing out pretty much every East Asian religion from the list of religions, and putting most western philosophy into the religion category?