Speaking for myself, I start and then stop at 'what we say about g/G', that is, 'what religious scriptures attribute to (the) deity', and assess them as claims which are either true, false or incoherent. I don't bother with addressing g/G itself. As far as I can discern it, theism – its sine qua non claims about g/G – consists of both false and incoherent claims; and an idea (e.g. theism) of a deity ascribed false or incoherent properties is a nonsensical idea, no? So theism is not true, to my mind, whether or not '(the) deity is real'. — 180 Proof

Thanks for laying this out, because it's giving me a "shard" of thought to start from.

I have an anthropological bent when it comes to understanding God. That people are brought together across cultures in similar-ish looking organizations is what sticks out. And I know that the evaluation of claims aren't the sorts of things that bring people together -- so it's not the particular claims that seem to matter at all. Especially given the diversity of those claims in comparison to how common the general frame seems to be. Claims seem to be secondary, as the sorry state of apologetics will attest to.

So coherency is a lot harder to pin down, with such a notion. Also why I'm bringing up the civic religion as a contrast point -- voting and praying being fairly close to one another. (at this level of abstraction, at least)

It's not a belief. Anything I can't make sense of is nonsense to me. — Dawnstorm

Cool. I understand.

Once I try to understand a concept I sometimes make progress. With God it's a random number of steps in a random direction (I can't even tell where forward is). Since I need a worldview I made mine with placing God into the category of things that other people say but make no sense. I fear I'm old enough now that there's a crust of dust around it. I can't scale back my own worldview far enough to make sense of God and still have enough concepts left to think with. But maybe not. There's always the chance that someone says something, or something happens, that makes me suddenly experience a... shift? Maybe a change in the hardware'll do it? A stroke, maybe?

God makes sense to me from an anthropological perspective, as I said above -- while the specific claims of the various religions, some of which don't even quite have a God in the Abrahamic sense, are all over the map, there seems to be a general structure or pattern to communities of faith, and from my atheist perspective I really only see humans organizing as such -- and noticeably, from a scientific picture of the world, we didn't start with a scientific worldview (it had to be developed), yet we still survived.

That's the part that always sticks with me. I figure you have to understand truth at some level to survive -- I am a realist of some kind, though I get confused in the discussions there -- but the specific meanings and claims of various religions, while wildly different in that particular sense, seem to have some kind of general coherence that got our species this far (just assuming the scientific picture true)

Cool. I understand. — Moliere

I've been looking for a word to use that fits better than "belief". The best I could come up with was "impression". The concept could be incoherent in itself (whatever that means - I'm a relativist, so I don't think that's the case). Or I could be missing something. Or it's incompatible with the way I think. Or... something I can't think of.

I figure you have to understand truth at some level to survive -- I am a realist of some kind, though I get confused in the discussions there -- but the specific meanings and claims of various religions, while wildly different in that particular sense, seem to have some kind of general coherence that got our species this far (just assuming the scientific picture true) — Moliere

I see turth a tool of some sort. Something we make to get a grip on reality. As I said, I'm a relativist.

So, if you stand in the middle of the road, you're likely to get run over by cars. Now, let's say you have some cognitive impairment that doesn't let you conciously perceive cars, and you don't like admitting something's wrong with you. So you develop a worldview without cars. There's a divine taboo to stand in the middle of the road, and you still instinctively detect movement on the road (you're brain just doesn't make them into cars). So you're convinced that cars don't exist, but you still won't stand in the middle of the road, because some sort of divine taboo, and you don't cross a street when cars are about, but you edit out the actual vehicles, and in its place you have some sort of intuition which you interpret as divine guidance. (And this is where this analogy becomes to silly to continue, because how you avoid getting rides is sort of harder to explain; but luckily the point is about not dying in the road here, so it doesn't need to be plausible or coherent, just sort of illustrative - which I hope it is):

Anyway: as long as you don't get run over, it doesn't matter whether it's because of "the truth". "Truth", unlike reality, needs some system of... axioms and transformation rules? Not sure. Something. Truth conditions. And for such a "truth" to be useful, it needs to compatible with reality. How much compatibility you need? Well, reality's the judge of that. So not just anything goes (and that's why the no-car example above is ultimately silly, but to me it feels more like extreme hyperbole than a category mistake).

Of course, "truth" is always social, too, which complicates matters.

I just think some things are so high up the abstraction ladder that the meaning of this is most closely related to the one making the abstraction. And an abstraction can be so habitual, that it's just felt backgound and not accessible to introspection without difficulty. A lot of it can just be random variation that cancels out statistically: some theists survive, some atheists survive - none of it matters from a survival point of view. Is that true? Who knows?

I'm skeptical about anything that sounds like evolutionary psychology. It feels a little too much of a mix between hermeneutics and empirical pea counting to be useful. But then I have sociology degree and that discipline isn't all that different in some of its incarnations.

While I'm rambling about playfully, I might as well share my hermeneutical indeterminacy principle: of a proposition you can either know whether it's true, or what it means, but never both at the same time. There you go. That's the sort of atheist I am.

So, if you stand in the middle of the road, you're likely to get run over by cars. Now, let's say you have some cognitive impairment that doesn't let you conciously perceive cars, and you don't like admitting something's wrong with you. So you develop a worldview without cars. There's a divine taboo to stand in the middle of the road, and you still instinctively detect movement on the road (you're brain just doesn't make them into cars). So you're convinced that cars don't exist, but you still won't stand in the middle of the road, because some sort of divine taboo, and you don't cross a street when cars are about, but you edit out the actual vehicles, and in its place you have some sort of intuition which you interpret as divine guidance. (And this is where this analogy becomes to silly to continue, because how you avoid getting rides is sort of harder to explain; but luckily the point is about not dying in the road here, so it doesn't need to be plausible or coherent, just sort of illustrative - which I hope it is):

Anyway: as long as you don't get run over, it doesn't matter whether it's because of "the truth". "Truth", unlike reality, needs some system of... axioms and transformation rules? Not sure. Something. Truth conditions. And for such a "truth" to be useful, it needs to compatible with reality. How much compatibility you need? Well, reality's the judge of that. So not just anything goes (and that's why the no-car example above is ultimately silly, but to me it feels more like extreme hyperbole than a category mistake).

Of course, "truth" is always social, too, which complicates matters. — Dawnstorm

I like the example. Makes perfect sense to me.

So one way to parse the example would be to say there are two worlds, which can be represented by the set of objects within that world, and that there is a relationships between the worlds such that it's irrelevant which set we are thinking of when we make choices.

The important thing here is that there is a relation between the objects of each world (given our psychological description above, we could call these "mental worlds" or something along the lines designating how a person is experiencing). It doesn't matter that we have the truth (whatever that is), it only matters that we can relate to the world around us such that we do not die. In fact, I'm inclined to agree that it's irrelevant whether we call it a road or The Devils Deathbed: functionally, the words work the same. (and, yes, we could come up with more plausible versions, but I'm understanding I think so no need)

And so what's interesting to me, up reflection, when we suppose that our current scientific picture is not just true in the same way that The Devils Deathbed is true, but rather is the truth to which we can compare all other sentences to check for a relation to reality (rather than just using the sentence for our ends), then one must conclude that for the majority of our species' time on earth we believed in false things, or maybe relatively true things depending upon how we want to skew this relationship.

Now, you say you are a relativist, so I'd wager you'd not make this commitment. I, for one, am not a scientific realist, so the scenario is there more for explication than to state my belief: hopefully it highlights rather than confuses.

I just think some things are so high up the abstraction ladder that the meaning of this is most closely related to the one making the abstraction. And an abstraction can be so habitual, that it's just felt backgound and not accessible to introspection without difficulty. A lot of it can just be random variation that cancels out statistically: some theists survive, some atheists survive - none of it matters from a survival point of view. Is that true? Who knows?

I'm skeptical about anything that sounds like evolutionary psychology. It feels a little too much of a mix between hermeneutics and empirical pea counting to be useful. But then I have sociology degree and that discipline isn't all that different in some of its incarnations. — Dawnstorm

I'm thinking less on an individual basis here and more on a cultural basis and its relationship to our biological reality -- they aren't one and the same, and I'm equally suspicious of evolutionary psychology. (evo-psych is also annoying because it makes it more difficult to attempt teasing out the relationship between biology and human social structures)

So true in the above sense, such that there is a relationship between the sets of worlds and reality that the previous cultures from us could navigate their environment. Not the truth. (also, note how I'm looking at truth and knowledge on this social level rather than an individual level. Individual a/theists and their beliefs aren't as important as the success of general social structures)

While I'm rambling about playfully, I might as well share my hermeneutical indeterminacy principle: of a proposition you can either know whether it's true, or what it means, but never both at the same time. There you go. That's the sort of atheist I am.

Hrm! I'd say truth is part of language, and that meaning and truth have a relationship to one another such that we could -- but I suspect this is just a way of using words, and I could adopt your way.

But I couldn't say I understand it up front :)

Individual a/theists and their beliefs aren't as important as the success of general social structures — Moliere

If you view it like this... I think it's in the nature of atheism to be "less successful" (interpreted as evolutionary success) than theism. I mean, if the theism goes away, so does atheism. What's the point? But theism can go on indefinitely, with or without atheists.

I mean there's stuff like naturalism or nihilism; atheist stuff. And that can go on without theism, too. But none of that would be atheistically tinged, without theism reaching enough social power to disadvantage those worldviews. Atheism depends on theism. It's reactive. It's never going to be more successful than theism. (Though it can be more successful in certain contexts, say Academia.)

But then, also, secular humanists (atheists) have more in common with many theists than with nihilists (also atheists). Atheism has no content without theists; and in the absence of socially powerful theists, the potentially atheistically interpreted world views are likely to quibble amongst each other, drawing different borders in the process. (And it's not like theists all agree, when among themselves.)

I think with the dedicated atheists they were sort of evangelists for atheism. So the point would have been a kind of self-elimination, except there was always more to it than that in practice: it had political goals and ends (which is why I didn't pursue further).

More generally, the liberal capitalist state is an atheist organization, at least intentionally speaking. The library, too, is an atheist organization, in the sense that it's not organized around theism.

I think if we took the New Atheists seriously, they'd have liked the liberal capitalist state to be rid of all influence from God or religion in any way for . . . various reasons. "rationality" figured prominently.

So a reflection of what you've set out could be -- that theism would be nothing without atheism, and what the dedicated atheists want is a return to something before their perversions ;)

More generally, the liberal capitalist state is an atheist organization, at least intentionally speaking. — Moliere

That's... muddying the water even further. I feel obliged to bring up the word "secular" here. And the secular isn't... exactly antithetical to the religious. It's a space where various faiths can meet. The separation of church and state isn't a dividing line between monotheistic religion and atheism, or not only. A secular state can allow various incompatible faiths to live in close proximity without too many problems. I'm no expert, but I think that most of the Christian denominations who see themselves as part of the oecomene would also favour a secular state? (I think a popular goes "Give Caseser what belongs to Caesar..." I wonder who said that?)

This is the problem I have with the use of "atheist" in the sentence I quoted. Theists can be fine with a secular state; not with an atheist one. There's a faultline here somewhere, but it's hard to detect. You never quite know when you've crossed the border.

I know people like to say that "atheism" is just a lack of belief in God (or gods), and for most contexts that's a pretty good line to follow. But we end up with absurdity when we count rocks and shoes as atheists. So is it people who don't believe in God? Poeple who don't believe in God, even though they'd have had the opportonutiy to do so? Again, where do we draw the line?

I mean I think "God" is nonsense; something that doesn't make sense. That's what makes me dismiss theism as of no value to my world view. And that's why I'm an atheist. It's not just non-belief. But it's also definitely not a believe in the negative.

New Atheist may scapegoat religions, but it's any cause really. Gather enough people under a shared cause and you get a small share of radicals, a larger share of well-intentioned people Who Know Best, an a really small share of people who actually do manage to draw strength from their cause and do good. The rest, which I think is the vast majority, just muddle through somehow (kind of like I do without a cause). For what it's worth, I'd consider the New Atheists "Well-intentioned people Who Know Best", for the most part. They're not really radicals from what I hear from them (though there is the occasional tendency maybe). As a muddler-through, they don't really represent me.

Fair. And I think New Atheism's decline is pretty well explained by your expression here:

As a muddler-through, they don't really represent me. — Dawnstorm

For the most part the people in leadership positions who were prominent didn't really represent the group that's there. Where most atheists don't feel the need to evangelize, I think it's fair to say that a goal of New Atheism was to make the, in your terms, the secular state into a strictly atheist state -- so not the sort of state which allows many faiths, as you put it, but rather doesn't allow faith into the state at all.

Which, given the rationalist roots, largely consisted of a sort of a dreamy mental picture of what the Enlightenment was (as defined by the words).

But, as you say, most atheists aren't really like that, so while that anger can sell books, it didn't build anything. Anger can start an organization, but it can't feed it. And the organizations that still survive this day didn't pursue that line of thinking, but rather were more interested in building ethical communities for atheist people -- basically fulfilling the social function of a church without the classical works of faith. (though, IMO, obviously still faith based in a wider sense)

I think it's fair to say that a goal of New Atheism was to make the, in your terms, the secular state into a strictly atheist state — Moliere

No, not at all. The have two goals: (A) in America, to advocate the deliberate transition of the US into a much more secular state and civil society more like Western Europe (esp. Scandanavia), and other developed nations in East Asia, Australia & New Zealand and (B) to keep ringing the alarm bells about the clear and present danger of theofascistic JCI & Hindu fundamentalisms so that complacency and lack vigilance doesn't return to either developed or developing countries. The faults of "New Atheism" are conspicuous enough that you don't have to caricature it, Moliere.

I'll attempt to defend my expressions as not-caricature.

"Atheist evangelism", as a goal, was a phrase I heard in public speeches at least. Not shared by the people gathered, necessarily, but certainly advocated for.

Long run, with my pining and wishing, I'd prefer to pursue the (A) and (B) -- from where I sit, though, the ethical secular communities that arose out of all that which fulfill the social functions of church seem to be the most lasting thing?

Or, maybe, I've gone too far astray and haven't realized what's come about.

all that which fulfill the social functions of church seem to be the most lasting thing? — Moliere

"Lasting things" like sanctifying marital rape? holy wars? homophobia? patriarchy? witch hunts/trials? pogroms?censorship? blasphemy laws? :brow:

No, just like -- an organization. Something which came out of it all. Networks of people who weren't in communication before now are. Something more substantive than an internet blip.