Types of Atheists

Usually when someone thinks of an atheist they conceive of only one facet of the position. An atheist doesn’t believe in God/gods. Full stop. But that position is limiting. It doesn’t say anything about living, about what is valuable, etc. And not all atheists are atheists for the same reasons. There are many ways to be an atheist, or to hold non-theistic beliefs. I’ll touch on three broad categories I attribute to one of my philosophy TAs from college. The categories are metaphysically atheistic, morally atheistic, and existentially atheistic.

The category that most atheists seem to fall into (or are perceived to fall into) is metaphysical atheism that is they will unequivocally say that God/gods do not exist. There is no reality above the physical reality under the domain of the sciences (there may be qualifications, but this is the broad gloss). This kind of atheism is a denial of the supernatural reality of theistic views. Think of this as a sort of first step, basic atheism.

Being morally atheistic may seem ambiguous, but here is how I think of it. Another common argument is that without God there is no morality. It is an argument commonly misattributed to Dostoyevsky. If there is no God, then everything is permitted (this is actually Ivan Karamozov, a character in The Brothers Karamozov). To be morally atheistic is to believe that God is not required for morality. One can be moral and ethical without a theistic worldview. There are many philosophers who have written on this subject, starting with Aristotle and continuing through Singer, and still more. Naturalistic ethics is harder to ground, but many atheists have deeply moral worldviews that have nothing to do with a supernatural reality. Sometimes this is the reason they leave their churches in the first place.

The last category I will outline is existential atheism. As I understand this, to be existentially atheistic is to find no value in the existence of God. Even if God does exist, it wouldn’t change how I construe value and meaning in life. Value in life can come from a variety of places on this view. For many it stems from interaction with friends and family, experiences in the world, their work, etc.

In this way it is not so simple to just be an atheist. For example, I am a metaphysical agnostic. I am perfectly willing to accept that God might exist. Based on the evidence, inferences can go one-way or the other. Morally I am an atheist. I believe that one can lead a perfectly moral life without being a Christian. Existentially, I am an atheist as well. Regardless of the existence of God I don’t believe that God, if it exists, is worthy of worship.

As I have said before, atheism in the classical sense is limited. I’ve mentioned secular humanism many times, but I find it to be an answer to the moral and value questions that follow from leaving a religious organization. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they all have answers to what we should find valuable and what our moral worldview should be. Non-theists should have answers to those questions as well, because it is with regards to those questions that many of us left the churches, mosques, and synagogues in the first place.

More Pictures

More pictures today. I hope to be back to something slightly more substantive tomorrow.

The above is a picture from Donnattor Castle near Stone Haven, Scotland. Below is a picture of the inside of Cafe Royale, a coffeeshop near where I work that I enjoy reading at. The bottom picture is of bright orange flowers from the University of Dundee Botanical Garden.

Photos of the Area

I'm not quite sure what I want this blog to be about. The name implies reflections and retooling thoughts in everyday things. However, I cannot do that everyday. So I'll intersperse some of that reflection with some photos.

The photo above is a doctored photo of wind turbines behind a farm in Benton County. I wanted to create an antiquated photo of a farm juxtaposed with modern tech.
This photo I took one night in January at Purdue. I like the orange light in winter, one surprising benefit of sodium lamps. The last photo is of a park bench near the top of Slayter Hill.

Secular Humanism: A Religion for Atheists?

http://business.in.com/article/ideas-to-change-the-world/alain-de-botton-a-religion-for-atheists/13532/1

I came across this article and was intrigued by the idea of a religion for atheists, written by Alain de Botton. He says a secular religion will do three things. One, it will put a person in context by making him/her feel small against the world. This would happen through art, architecture, landscaping, and so on. Second, the purpose of art would return to a kind of propaganda for virtues instead of shock and surprise. Art would elevate what we should aspire to be. And thirdly, it would remind us to be pessimistic and have feast days (analogous to Catholic feast days) to despair and disappointment.

I'm not sure if I agree with his picture of what a secular religion would look like, especially the third premise, or even if one could call it a religion. While interesting, I don't see why de Botton claims secular religion should be pessimistic. If anything, why not create motivation to improve one's self and the world? That, at least, is a facet of classical religion I wouldn't mind seeing kept.

I recommend looking into, as I have said before, secular humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/). I feel this gives us a framework for a secular religion that incorporates some of what de Botton recommends, but also is more hopeful and uplifting.

A New Culture of Learning

I'm taking an information architectures class this semester. The book we are currently reading (one of ten), is "A New Culture of Learning" by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. I'm struck by the fluidity of the 21st century learning process. Appeals to authority are down played in favor of collective learning. It reminds me of being a physics undergraduate. We used to teach ourselves the material when classes were large, 150 students, and the professor didn't have time to spend on individual questions.

What the internet has allowed us to do is create a constantly changing data base of knowledge. Much of it is, well, junk (the internet is largely adult themed space). But projects like Wikipedia, Kiva, etc, are civic goods that grow out of this space.

In terms of information architecture, I am reminded of Alain de Botton's book "The Architecture of Happiness". He has a passage in which he says "as we write, so we build; to keep a record of what matters to us". While information architecture is not physical architecture, we are creating a heirarchy of information. We are playing with the design of websites just as architects play with buildings. In what way, if any way, does information design reflect what is important to us?

Just some thoughts for now. I'll expand on them later.

London at Night

I keep going through my pictures from this summer. Here is another from London, I believe this is Cromer street at night

Secular Moral Motivation

How can we argue about the answer to a problem when we do not even agree on the basic elements?

Watching a fundamentalist preacher on a college campus is like watching a burning car wreck. I gain nothing useful from the experience, but I cannot look away. Engaging is often an empty and hollow gesture because even the most level discussions dissolve into shouting matches.

I have seen many of these instances. I’ve also been involved in a couple. Invariably one person will ask the preacher this question: “Who would get into Heaven? A good atheist (and by good atheist we mean a person who lived a moral, decent life) or a bad Christian (and by bad we mean a person who professes to believe in God but leads a life of ‘sin’)?” And always, many times without hesitation, the answer is the Christian goes to Heaven, the atheist to Hell.

Of course, the atheists in the crowd are generally pissed because, well, that does not seem fair.

One way the preachers justify their answer is that the atheist has committed the worst sin, and that is by denying God. By refusing to acknowledge God nothing else they do matches up, or ever could. The answer can be summed up as; it isn’t enough to be good, you have to believe. Our (atheist’s) reactions are often shouts, anger, consternation, or laughter because we knew this answer was coming.

But why? What about the belief itself is so important? Well, the Bible tells us so. Why is that important? Because the Bible is given to us by God and it contains His laws. How do you know? It was revealed by revelation. We still don’t see why this is important. Then you don’t get it and are not open to God’s love. Once this point has been reached, both sides are talking past each other. Most of the time, nontheistic people are ok with that answer.

At the heart of this discussion and argument is a belief in what is valuable. While this may seem obvious, it is a nuanced distinction that requires some reflection. Arbitrariness aside (and honestly, both atheists and theists have moments of dogmatism, it is not just on the theistic side) there is a serious disagreement over the rules of the game, or what matters anyway.

Action versus faith is an old argument in the Christian tradition. One way to consider this issue is the Catholic v Protestant stance. Protestant denominations typically emphasize a personal relationship with God. Faith and belief are the most important aspects. Historically, the Catholic Church placed an emphasis on good works in addition to faith. In the nontheistic view, the action (or work) is valued for what it was.

My personal take on this is as a virtue ethicist. There is a certain mix of action and intention, as well as impact that helps to define moral behavior. Positive and moral behavior is a practice to be fostered. People who engage in these behaviors are behaving morally (loosely speaking, if you want my nuanced view please don’t hesitate to ask). There is no single school of thought in the nontheistic community, but we do feel we have obligations and duties to each other often in virtue of just being human (Here is the Secular Humanism Manifesto http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I ).

Theistic belief is an arbitrary second layer. To say that since atheists do not believe in God they are deficient regardless of behavior returns to the action versus faith debate, only this time with different players. If religious actions result in good works (ex. Catholic Charities, church run soup kitchens, all of these are good things) then we can say it was a good or ethical action. The same can be said of nontheistic people.

But without God, how do we assure that someone will behave without fear of punishment? If there is no Heaven or Hell why doesn’t everyone just do what they want? This is a slippery slope fallacy. The assumption is that people do terrible things without the threat of something afterlife. This can be addressed in two ways:

1) If belief in God is somehow supposed to solidify or assure moral action, then it often fails to do so. People will be good or bad regardless of religious affiliation (not to take cheap shots, but leaders of religious groups, those supposed to be the models for the members of the organization, have been seen committing transgressions they preach against). I, personally, fail to see how the giving of one’s self over to Christ or God in anyway helps in that regard.

2) Simply dismiss the claim. Obviously, there are individuals who do not believe that God exists. Many of these individuals are like Christians in behavior, look, demeanor, in their dedication to their families and loyalty to friends. Something other than God is responsible for moral and ethical action.

So God is not enough for moral action itself. Responsibility for the action lies on the individual. Sure, in some cases God may be a motivating factor. But for atheists that motivation has to, and does, come from somewhere else. I recommend reading “Free Inquiry”, the publication of secular humanism. It contains concerns and views that many atheists and agnostics share as well as articles from scientists, philosophers, and others. There is a many thousand-year-old literature on moral actions that have nothing to do with religious motivation. Even Kant, a Christian who was a philosopher, had ethics that could be construed as secular in principle, and did not require a supernatural being.

If we agree on what moral action is, and in a western country such as ours while we have differing views we tend to agree in the larger areas moral and ethical life, then why claim that one group is immoral when they act in accordance with the same moral code, just without the belief? And if the answer is still “because you have to believe full stop” then it is arbitrary in a way that doesn’t deserve endorsement.