But naturally we want to lump people into categories that allow for a good ol' scrap. — Baden

Good posts. If people would just follow your advice, I would shut up. Or maybe not.

I think religious feeling ultimately comes from personal experience of God. — T Clark

It could only be a religious feeling if whatever is experienced is inline with a religion, otherwise it’s just an experience, perhaps a spiritual experience.

Theism minus historical dogma = ?
Atheism minus response to historical dogma = ?

It could only be a religious feeling if whatever is experienced is inline with a religion, otherwise it’s just an experience, perhaps a spiritual experience. — praxis

Call it what you will, but it is part of what it means to be a theist.

Call it what you will, but it is part of what it means to be a theist. — T Clark

It’s part of a particular tribe of theism if it is “religious”.

It’s part of a particular tribe of theism if it is “religious”. — praxis

Different people interpret it in different ways, which is not unusual.

At least where I’m from, if you subtract the nod to ritual, you’d never be able to tell an atheist from a theist. It’s all about the “inner life”, apparently. But what potency therein? Seems like this inner life is mostly either folks congratulating themselves on their piety or on their lack thereof, and entrenching their effective uniformity. — Baden

You paint a rosy picture. I'll mull over that.

I am more concerned about the bit where theists influence what we can read or do with our bodies or how the Supreme Court should look, or whether women should drive and how many gays should be executed, or if climate change is real, or whether contraception should be permitted. It doesn't always look like harmless nonsense from where i sit. If it were just funny costumes and charades, I wouldn't give a shit.

And yeah, people may also make stupid and base choices for a whole range of culture and political reasons, but throw in god's will and the problem reaches a new level.

America is more the exception than the rule in advanced democracies on that score. But yeah, I'm saying the categories themselves are destructively ideological and should be rejected. Sacred theists/atheists (sacreists) ought to join forces against profane theists/atheists (profeists) and dance naked around burning television sets while @T Clark watches and nods approvingly.

I can get behind that.

Hallelujah :cheer:

Amen. By the way - do you see any potential ways forward in dissolving these problematic categories?

Good stuff. I'm particularly intrigued with where you end -- but I'm having a hard time digging in.

I think I'm attracted to apatheism because it has this "third way" quality -- and around here, where having a blessed day is just a way to say goodbye to an absolute stranger, it strikes people as not quite as aggressive (but, when you think about it, it's almost more aggressive -- because the relevancy of the belief decreases)


I generally think that family life is the economic component of religious life. It's the economy of the home, or perhaps, a community which puts the economy of the home and its continuation as central to its purposes. (But note this is very much a reflection of my background, too -- family life is usually what's emphasized in Morman culture, but there's enough similarity between faith communities I tend to see this same pattern, even though I'm sure there are actual differences)

Family structures and how they work together as a communal unit is where my first guess would take me. (which would also explain why sexuality is so often central to religious communities -- since the family is produced sexually, sexual mores would have to be dealt with in any way of life constructed around the perpetuation of a community of families)

But, even more so, I think this is why I like philosophy so much, at least in part. It allows our minds to breathe more than the cultural categories tend to. Maybe a/theism without historical baggage just is philosophy of a certain (non-academic) kind.

I'm not overly optimistic on that score. It's not so much about things to do but ways to think. We tend to like ideas that are under threat from some other idea because it gives our idea more emotional salience. And I think that works for all sorts of categories.

Different people interpret it in different ways, which is not unusual. — T Clark

Not unusual at all. A Buddhist might experience “emptiness” (no God), for example, and someone else might experience something more akin to a sky-father. If the experience doesn’t align with or isn’t affiliated with any religion then it’s not a religious experience, though it could be the birth of a new religion, if the experiencer possessed sufficient charisma.

I think I'm attracted to apatheism because it has this "third way" quality -- and around here, where having a blessed day is just a way to say goodbye to an absolute stranger, it strikes people as not quite as aggressive (but, when you think about it, it's almost more aggressive -- because the relevancy of the belief decreases) — Moliere

Yes, I think because the idea is that your behaviour does not change regardless. If you can say "I behave thus because it has value in itself", rather than "I behave thus because a god exists/doesn't exist", it's quite powerful. It's not my idea and I can't remember who said it originally but if you deem yourself an atheist who relies on that non-belief to direct your behaviour (you would behave differently if God exists) then you need God in some sense--the concept is relevant to you and tied to who you are (as defined by your actions). And so having a term that dissolves that issue while keeping a different kind of meaning alive is useful.

Of course, I'm still hoping my sacreist/profeist dichotomy will catch on and someone will make me Pope of the sacreists. :halo:

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest.

If my opinion is correct, then the rise of sustainable environmentalism throughout the world will be correlated with a rejection of today's widespread atheistic beliefs for metaphysical belief systems that give moral incentive for individuals to live sustainably. — sime

:100:

T Clark watches and nods approvingly. — Baden

The idea that theists must convert others, save souls, trust blindly in certain items of literature, reject reason over doctrine, or hold firm to the faith to escape any sort of punishment is something held by a particular religion, but not theism per se. — Hanover

I think you're partly right but it's more than a 'particular religion', right? Islam and Christianity and various proselyting Hindu/Eastern spirituality schools and 'cults', and the fact that there are dozens and dozens of Christian based schisms alone, which are like separate religions and disagree on doctrine and how we can be 'saved'. There must be thousands of 'one truth" type operations active in the world today. It's not like it is just those weirdo Baptists on the corner of Bedlam and Squalor...

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest. — sime

"You only live once" isn't a metaphysical belief, it's a slogan embraced regardless of religious / metaphysical belief; in fact, probably because of its wide appeal. It far predates Baby Boomers and currently in YOLO form means the equivalent of Carpe Diem, which was employed by writers and poets from the Roman, Horace, to Robert Herrick--who was a clergyman (was he secretly yearning for a pair of uninvented sneakers?). Absolutely no connection to atheism whatsoever. And I'd gladly take your "atheist" Baby Boomers and raise you the prosperity Bible crowd (they do love their sneakers!) if it helps demonstrate that the issue you're raising relates to superficiality of engagement with culture and is a cross-cultural problem of the sort I've alluded to above.

Also, it's progressives (more likely to be atheist) not conservatives (more likely to be religious) that tend to take up arms for sustainability and against consumer capitalism. Anyhow, that's one of the wilder theses I've seen on here and underlines imo the silliness of the partisanship that the dichotomy encourages.

Being team disappointment, I suppose I could take on the profeist role.

Nice, you can be Archbishop!

...part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . — sime

What utter twaddle.

Your fallacy is....

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest.

If my opinion is correct, then the rise of sustainable environmentalism throughout the world will be correlated with a rejection of today's widespread atheistic beliefs for metaphysical belief systems that give moral incentive for individuals to live sustainably. — sime

:lol: That's not how it works, actually. When you abandon reason things can get rather counterintuitive.

Better known for their high-dollar political spending, the billionaire Koch brothers have also poured millions into Catholic University’s business school to promote a free-market orthodoxy sharply at odds with the teachings [earthly stewardship] of Pope Francis. — https://prospect.org/culture/koch-brothers-latest-target-pope-francis/

What utter twaddle. — Banno

:up:

Also, it's progressives (more likely to be atheist) not conservatives (more likely to be religious) that tend to take up arms for sustainability and against consumer capitalism — Baden

That's for sure. When my partner worked for the Greens movement a few years ago the folk involved were almost entirely atheist and anti-consumerist.

In the 'aesthetic' critique of atheism I often hear in these debates, there seems to be a notion that atheism robs the world of mystery and a type of beauty (Weber's disenchantment/ the outcome of enlightenment rationalism) and is therefore crass, acquisitive and unsophisticated.

...they believed there could be no morals without theism, — Ciceronianus

I suspect that rather, they held it of the utmost import that other folk be made to behave as they themselves thought appropriate. Advocates for conformity.

In The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism, Weber believed that the Protestant ethic was the driving force behind the mass action that led to the development of capitalism. Importantly, even after religion became less important in society, these norms of hard work and frugality remained, and continued to encourage individuals to pursue material wealth.

:up: And maybe the final nail in the coffin of @sime's bizarre thesis is the empirical reality that the US is at once one of the least atheist and the most consumerist of the advanced nations.

Hrmm.. I'm not so sure about this. Unless I get a raise I guess. That seems like the sort of thing the profeist pope would say: "I did it for the money!"