Sunday Vid – Nontheistic Gods

May 6th, 2012   by   Andrew

Part of the series God: From Magic to Motivation

Evid3nc3 has documented a deeply personal spiritual journey on youtube. He also has a blog site where the conversation can get pretty intense.

If you haven’t yet take the time, I would urge you to explore his videos.  He has put so much effort and time into his series hoping to connect in particular with Christians. Although he is no longer religious, he wanted to demonstrate his sincerity through the videos, and express just how deep his beliefs once were. His journey could be useful for others, too.

Since my main interest is in nontheistic gods, I thought I would use the chapter from Evid3nce’s story entitled Nontheistic Gods. 

Some Points:

On reading the story Jonathan Livingston Seagull (I particularly like some of his wording in his narration):

“… My mind mapped my own experiences and the entities in my own life to the stories’ symbols…”

“… The church [at the time] was still the only organization through which I felt I could dependably further my philosophical identity and the philosophical identities of other people, despite being an atheist…”

After examining Pantheism, Panentheism, Panpsychism and Deism:

“… I’d learned my lesson with Theism, and I did not cling to any of these hypotheses too strongly…”

 

(This particular video doesn’t directly address my personal interest in nontheistic gods – the psychological process of embodying personal (or social) motivations, then granting them authority or agency, and then wrestling with them. But, that’s the story I’m working on, and it isn’t Evid3nc3′s story.)

 

Inspired by the three quotes above, I have three questions for you readers. You don’t have to answer all three, but please play with them.

1. Have you ever read a story that you felt ‘mapped out’ your own personal experiences or situations symbolically in the way that Evid3nc3 describes? What was the story? Do you still feel the same way?

2. At the time, Evid3nc3 felt his personal identity was wrapped up in the group he was a part of. In a sense, they defined who he was, and he didn’t have any alternatives to go to. Is this still the case for de-converting members? Are there other places to go, groups to be a part of?

3. Evid3nc3 was able to explore ideas without adopting them as his truth. It sounds like he wants to sing, “Won’t Get Fooled Again.” Once the spell of a defining story is broken, do you think such a level of trust could ever be adopted again? And could the act of breaking the spell ever be a part of the stories we live by? (yes, I’m trying to link ideas to a past post)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in art, Belief, Beyond Belief, god, psychology, purpose, Religion, story | 6 Comments »


The World’s First Post-Magic Religion

January 28th, 2012   by   Andrew

Part of the series God: from Magic to Motivation

At the beginning of this series I used this quote as a description for religion:

Religion is mostly an emotional-aesthetic commitment and one that is shared with other people; it becomes a collective commitment. It is not about belief, but about trust. It is not a desire to be fooled by randomness by seeing false patterns. (N.N.T.)

There is a group that shares an emotional-aesthetic commitment to rationality. That’s a strange sentence. Doesn’t it sound paradoxical enough to be the basis of a new religion?

In another post,  I played with the question:

Are we on the verge of defining the world’s first post-magic religion?

I think we are. The general tenets of this post-magic religion seem to be:

No magic (in the strict sense. On the fringes there is still plenty of room for some playful analogies and ‘magic’ )

Rationality, and in fact strict, costly adherence to rationality (think nerds and geeks are the new hot)

Multi-voiced narratives (think plurality, competition, peer review and light perspectivism, all functioning to reinforce reflection or introspection)

Measurability and Verifiability and Falsifiability and Rigour (think empiricism?)

Exclusivity (it’s tough to get into the higher echelons)

These are all just rough notes at the moment. I might go into these points a little more.

Religions, when simplified*, offer people:

1. a cosmos – how things are, and

2. an ethos  - how things should be

I think this post-magic religion certainly has a working cosmos (evolution)

I don’t know what makes up the morality yet, but I can see something emerging from the tenets listed above. And, there might be a lot of adoption, borrowing from past traditions. Ironically, the main virtue in this might be doubt.

Hmm.

What do you think?

I must be nuts. ~ Kurt Vonnegut

- – -

* I’m borrowing this idea from Goodenough (this post and this other post) and combining it with an idea from Peterson

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Belief, Beyond Belief, ethics, irony, myth, psychology, Religion, Science, story | 3 Comments »


Atheists are Copy-Cats!

November 5th, 2011   by   Andrew

Chapter 18 of the series Myths and Dragons

What’s up with atheists mimicking the religious groups they usually love to criticize?

A. C. Grayling has published “The Good Book: A Humanist Bible“. It’s an impressive tome of over 600 two-columned pages. Separate books with names like Genesis, Parables, Acts and The Epistles each have chapters and numbered verses.  Grayling has borrowed from many sources from around the world, some older and some younger than those found in Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

The author makes no claim that his work is authoritative in any way. In one interview, Grayling suggests the book is a “gentle teasing” rather than a defiant strike against religion. And some of that gentle teasing seems to be pointed at himself as much as anyone else that might take their beliefs too seriously:

“How can you be a militant atheist? It’s like sleeping furiously.”


.

James Dunbar has put together Bang! The Universe Book, and It’s Alive! These  graphic novels convey the origins of the universe and life through accessible stories and illustrations.

It’s quite the challenge to combine scientific explanations with rhyming couplets, but Dunbar has made something really fun and remarkable. And his characters look oddly familiar. Who would you say they look like?

.

In an earlier post, I looked at P.Z. Meyers’ creed for atheists. I don’t seriously think many non-believers would religiously adopt and recite Meyers’ creed. However, if someone were to live by it, I think I’d have a pretty good idea about what they were like and how they would behave.

Mimicry seems to play a big part in in the make-up of human nature. What’s really intriguing though is why we copy so much around us. Psychologists have put together some interesting studies in order to understand things like social rejection and acceptance. Some studies suggest the more someone feels rejected, the more they might actually copy (unconsciously) other people.  (Follow this link for a summary, or this link for the original research article from Lakin, Chartrand and Arkin, or this link about the Chameleon Effect as Social Glue.)

There is also some evidence to suggest that (unconsciously) copying someone else with behaviour, posture and language style tends to make that someone else feel closer and more empathetic towards others. When we are accepted (or at least copied) and when we feel we belong, we might even be more willing to help and listen to others.

Mimicry might not be the only motivation for Grayling’s good book or Dunbar’s creation stories or even Meyers’ creed, but it makes me a little more hopeful for the future, actually. By rejecting or excluding certain groups, religious people have by their very nature brought this upon themselves.

Maybe these stories and artistic efforts and bold declarations aren’t made with intentions to separate non-believers from believers, but instead to bring people closer together. In a sense, these writers are using the body language of story. By copying the frame of sacred books or creation stories or holy creeds,  Grayling, Dunbar and Meyers are building bridges to help us face what we don’t know and who we don’t understand. And those bridges might lead us to where we should be, together.

It’s remarkable what a good story can bring together.

What do you think?

Are atheists just copy-cats?

Would you read Grayling’s Bible, or Dunbar’s creation stories?

Would you live by Meyers’ creed?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in art, Beyond Belief, book review, education, god, humour, irony, myth, poetry, psychology, purpose, Religion, Science, story | Comments Off


“How do you mean?”

December 7th, 2010   by   Andrew

“How do you do?”
“Fine thanks. And yourself?”
“Good, thank you. So…”

I have never been comfortable with the usual rituals of greeting. It’s my own anti-social quirk. Somewhere in the history of my ancestors a grunt sufficed to let another person know they were recognized and welcomed. I wonder sometimes if that’s about as far as my social adaptation has come. Other people might go through the script without concern or care, but it has never reached the automatic parts of my brain. I tend to stop somewhere around “Fine.” Maybe “Fine thanks.”

It isn’t meant to be an insult if I don’t ask “And yourself?” However, people do put on a disappointed expression. Yer supposed to ask me back so I can say “Fine” too! Come on. Some people are surprised at having to come out of their automatic brain and into an aware and unsettled brain.

But in all honesty, I don’t want to hear that you are fine. I already know that without asking you. If I want to know something about you, I’ll ask, and I’ll be looking for something with meaning.

To compensate I’ve tried creativity. “Fine” is as good as any word, but there is more sound to it than meaning. I do believe “fine” has become an almost empty container. So I rotate through a few lines, some fresh and new and in search of meaning. And sometimes I just look for a good place to start a conversation.

“How are you?”

“Just tickity-boo.”
“Well, I’m still breathing…”
“Better than the average bore.”

Reactions mix from eye-rolls to apathy to head-tilts to snorts. Occasionally there might be a tug on the line.  “What do you mean?” Ok, let’s see where this goes…

Change isn’t everyone’s game. But sometimes, just sometimes, you find someone that wants to play along and escape the emptiness of automatic rituals. Words are stretchy, like our minds.

Shane, A blogger friend of mine, has taken on the project of developing a compatibility layer in Christianity for Atheists. He calls it the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist (he is in my blogroll—>). He seems to think that the term Christian could apply to pretty much anyone that has taken to heart some moral lesson from Jesus –  regardless of belief, religious orientation or textual commitment. The word Christian already has many meanings attached to it, after all.

I’m doing a similar thing. I think the word god can be redefined without any appeal to supernatural forces or sacred texts.

In the future, I believe everyone will tire of the automatic greetings. “Fine” might be fine for now, but people want more meaning in their lives than that. If we keep putting layer upon layer of meanings into our words, at some point we will need to become very very careful with words. Even in our everyday conversations.

The greetings of tomorrow will not be “fine.” It can’t mean enough. In order to communicate with each other we will need to first figure out what layer we are on, what parts of the brain we are using.

We can’t go back to the gruntings of our forebears, even if I sometimes wish we could.

“Are you conscious?” sounds a little cruel and might sway into sarcasm.

“What level are you on?” sounds too much like a video game or something. It needs more context.

I propose, “How do you mean?”

It’s very close to “How do you do?”  but can’t really be answered with “I’m fine.” It’s patiently looking for an explanation or a story. I worry that the obvious automatic reaction might become the norm — “I mean well, thank you.”

I wonder what the world would be like if everyone meant well, thank you, rather than was fine, thank you.

What is giving you meaning in your life? What are you thinking about?


Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Beyond Belief, humour, psychology | Comments Off


How Do Atheists Work on Their Humility?

September 7th, 2010   by   Andrew




How do atheists work on their humility?


I am more convinced than ever that values and virtues are skills that need practice, that need development. You may be born with an exceptional talent but what comes of that talent if you do not put in the time and explore that talent?

If you are born a good person, live a somewhat conscious and conscientious life, then you may very well have some humility in you. Go ahead and be proud of that if it makes you feel all right.


But how do you work on that skill?

Most of the world religions have worked on humility, in some form or ritual or practice. Unfortunately, too often the virtue of humility is over-saturated with things like shame or servitude. Shame is a strange thing. It’s not the best tool in shaping healthy humans, but it can be an effective motivator. And servitude has a way of stifling of individual growth, despite our historical reliance upon it.

Is there a cleaner, more transparent form of humility for the world?

Phil Plait has an interesting talk about questioning your goals and keeping your goals in mind when expressing your ideas. His talk sparked a lot of conversation regarding just how careful we must be with vague language, condescending accusations or overly-general statements. Carefully taking the time to be sure your claims can be properly supported is a practice in humility itself. It may make the difference between sharing an understanding with someone and polarizing any viewpoints so that no common ground can be shared.

Scott Young has a great post on how being deliberately wrong can keep your own biases in check. It’s a bit like role-playing, and it is effective. How can you know what it is like to be wrong unless you practice it? And how can you be gracious when you are right if you are not gracious when you are wrong?

Daniel Fincke does a beautiful job of channeling, or maybe just transposing, Aristotle into the modern day with his article on the harmony between pride and humility. He describes humility as the recognition of one’s limitations and dependencies. By admitting to the limits and the contexts of our beliefs, and then in turn listening to information offered from the world, we can better understand the obligations and debts we carry.


All three of these suggestions on how to work on your humility are certainly not exclusive to any particular worldview. Maybe that is what could make this so important, and potentially so powerful.

For me, the most intriguing idea in this list is Scott Young’s challenge — practice being wrong once in a while. But that’s just me. I’m working on all three approaches, just to be on the safe side.

How about you?

How do you work on your humility?


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Beyond Belief, ethics, Random | Comments Off


Resources for Parents: A Prayer to Self

August 30th, 2010   by   Andrew


One of the things that bothers me most about atheists, agnostics, skeptics and general-non-believers is their lack of (serious) community ritual. De-baptism by blow-dryer may have a role in promoting awareness, but it doesn’t seem spiritually uplifting…

I mean, they may very well have a workable and very plausible worldview, (I wore the agnostic badge for quite a while until recently converting to anti-label-ism) but what practices are in place to bind communities together and assist individuals in become morally better people? And let’s be fair — blogging doesn’t necessarily count!

Do these same skeptics trust a government-run public education system to guide their children into being well-socialized, ethically aware members of the community? Is the community social club or the kids’ little league enough?

P.Z. Meyers put together an atheist creed a few years ago which is beautiful in its thoughtfulness, humility and simplicity. I especially appreciate that it is AN atheist creed, and not the atheist creed. However, the irony produced from atheists dipping into the creed-business while churches are questioning, editing, abandoning and repenting over their own does need to be examined.

I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality.
We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.

My only real criticism of this statement is about the arrangement of word-choice  — it starts with “I” and ends with  “me”. “Community” appears only once.  We all go through stages of being self-obsessed and even self-possessed, but how about we try to grow a little beyond this if we are to come to some better ends? If there is change to be made, let it only begin with “me”.

Some non-believers are offended by prayer. They liken it to talking to imaginary friends or to using exclusive language that perpetuates the ingroup/outgroup barriers.

But ritual is important. If you don’t consciously choose your rituals, and the language of your rituals, they get chosen for you. The morning coffee is a clear example. Television and advertising is a way-too dominant example.

Prayer is as much talking to yourself, giving yourself guidance, as it is any sort of  call out to the unknown. Sometimes your own voice, your own thoughts, can help you be conscious of the moment and conscious of the choices you have when it comes to behaviour.

A common mantra on faithless blogs is the idea of being “good without gods”. I want to help with part of this. I don’t really care if you use a god or not, if you need a god or not. This is about being good, and getting better.

Here is an offering, something I believe could be universal. Months ago I wrote a review of a book by Gretta Vosper, “With or Without God.” This is a prayer from the book,  cleared of all supernatural elements but still designed to inspire change within the individual.

As I live every day,
I want to be a channel for peace.
May I bring love where there is hatred
and healing where there is hurt;
joy where there is sadness
and hope where there is fear.
I pray that I may always try
to understand and comfort other people
as well as seeking comfort and understanding
from them.
Wherever possible, may I choose to be
a light in the darkness,
a help in times of need,
and a caring, honest friend.
and may justice, kindness, and peace
flow from my heart forever,
Amen.

If a child said this each day and understood what the words meant, what would be the effect? Is there anything in this prayer that would offend a non-believer? Is there anything in this prayer that would offend a believer? Can this still be called a prayer?

Maybe that last word,  “Amen” is still too strong. We can edit that out. In fact, we can edit lots of things. That’s one of the rewards of challenging your own beliefs (I think Meyers might even agree with that).

What rituals do you have that help you move from being good to being better?


Take care. I won’t say my prayers are with you, but my thoughts are of you. All ways.


Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Beyond Belief, ethics | 3 Comments »


« Older Entries