- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
jamison — agreed. I think that the term atheist has become pejorative, and ‘fightin’ words’ don’t help discourse. I think being a-theist, in the form of “not theist” is a fairly important consideration. “Theists” in today’s world, believe in a distinctly illogical construct they call god, with the idea that god intervenes as a puppetmaster in human affairs. Well, not al, but there some basic ideas there that I find inconsistent. To be ‘not that’ is not a bad thing.
Christians were the original ‘atheists’, because the did not accept the gods of the greeks. Those who believed in the greek gods were ‘theists’, and the christians were ‘not that’.
Jefferson and others, being not of the inclination that there was a supernatural god-being as defined in the bible, but were ‘deist’ in terms of recognizing a first cause, were considered ‘atheists’, because they didn’t accept the biblical definition of god.
If first christians, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others are atheists, then I willingly accept the label.
InquiringMind wrote:Cadence wrote:The more I read and listen to the atheist point of view the more I realize
they have the intellectual high ground in their argument. They do not require mind bending approaches to make their world work.I find myself coming to the same conclusion. For me,
the intellectual honesty of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins gives us a view of the world that is simple, clear, requires few assumptions, and leaves very few questions unanswered. By contrast, theist apologists create a complex and mysterious world where many assumptions must be made and many questions remain unanswered. It seems to me that Occam’s Razor is on the side of atheism.I spend a lot of time these days staring into the abyss, pondering the possibility of my consciousness ending at the death of my brain. I hate this scenario, but there is no evidencethat either heaven or hell exists. I don’t know about that; personally I can’t imagine a simpler and more adaptable answer than “Goddidit” by itself. It is mostly when people try to defend all the details of Mormon doctrine and history at the same time or ideas like the Bible being completely inerrant and inspired from beginning to end that Mormon/Christian apologetics becomes complicated and difficult to buy into. As far as being a Mormon atheist there is no reason why you couldn’t identify yourself that way but personally I wouldn’t openly admit something like this to other active Church members because I doubt most of them would be very understanding about it.
wayfarer wrote:Jefferson and others, being not of the inclination that there was a supernatural god-being as defined in the bible, but were ‘deist’ in terms of recognizing a first cause, were considered ‘atheists’, because they didn’t accept the biblical definition of god.
i have been reading a lot about the founding fathers the last few months. fantastically-flawed men. very… mortal. and not to say they were not intelligent or talented by any means, they did amazing and unique and unprecedented things, and i believe they were inspired, but… still. very mortal. perhaps i need to be more forgiving of the brethren and JS and fit them in this mold? because i have no issue with the founding fathers as inspired men who were not near perfect, yet dynamic and great men all the same.
but the deist thing. i have read about that too. the idea of accepting god or a higher power, but NOT the daily intervening. instead, the clock that god built is wound and set and started and god lets it unfold.
were it not for angels and revelations in our faith, i tell you, this notion is by far the simplest, easiest and most attractive to me. it retains the “i will continue after this existence” aspects that bring hope and yet does not blind, or bind us to spiritualism and sign-seeking etc….
rather, each of us, doing the best we can in the moment. in the present. and being aware of something more, but not spending so much effort and time and resource on pre-mortal, after-life, et al….
yes. i find deism very appealing on many levels. but then we still have that whole, “angels, visitations, revelations and divine intervention” thing that makes that problematic.
jamison wrote:The biggest fallacy out in the world is because someone is atheist that make them immoral.
Yet, the atheists that I have met are the nicest people and truly humanitarian. People can have morality and ethics even if they don’t believe in God.
This is so true. The Atheists I have met have been wonderful people. They are very friendly to the environment and strongly support alternative fuels to reduce the amount of pollution on the Earth.
An Atheist does not believe that a Divine being will save them from a damaged polluted dying planet. They try to better the situation now for this reason.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I don’t know about that; personally I can’t imagine a simpler and more adaptable answer than “Goddidit” by itself. It is mostly when people try to defend all the details of Mormon doctrine and history at the same time or ideas like the Bible being completely inerrant and inspired from beginning to end that Mormon/Christian apologetics becomes complicated and difficult to buy into.
For me, the reason that I find Occam’s Razor to be on the side of atheism is that supernatural explanations are always more complicated than naturalistic explanations because supernatural explanations require the use of both physics and metaphysics, while naturalistic explanations require only physics. Newton asserted that planets required both gravity and God to keep them in orbit; Laplace showed that only gravity was necessary, and that God was not needed to explain planetary orbits. Since “gravity + God” is a more complicated explanation that just “gravity,” it makes sense to accept the gravity-only explanation. Also, in my experience (and much to my frustration) I find myself asking, “If God did THIS, why didn’t he do THAT? If God answers one person’s prayer, why didn’t he answer this other person’s prayer who asked for the same thing?” When I try to come up with an explanation for why God does what he does and doesn’t do what he doesn’t do, the explanation becomes so wildly complicated that it’s simpler to say God didn’t do anything and that the world ran its natural course without divine intervention.
In reference to Wayfarer’s comments about early Christians being atheists, it’s interesting to think that we are all atheists about certain gods. We are all atheistic about Zeus. We are all atheists about about Aphrodite, Ra, Wotan, Thor, the gods or Celtic mythology, etc. I’ve heard an atheist put it this way in speaking to a theist: “We’re both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do.” I’ve become atheistic about the in-vogue Mormon Heavenly Father, the God who is deeply concerned about the little details of my life, whose job it is to make sure that the chips always fall my way, and who showers me daily with dozens of acts of tender mercy. I don’t have any good reason to believe in that God. That God is a fairy tale. And if I get to make up whatever I want about God, then it seems to me that the God that I imagine would be just that: imaginary. Thus we have Mormon Atheism.
InquiringMind wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:I don’t know about that; personally I can’t imagine a simpler and more adaptable answer than “Goddidit” by itself. It is mostly when people try to defend all the details of Mormon doctrine and history at the same time or ideas like the Bible being completely inerrant and inspired from beginning to end that Mormon/Christian apologetics becomes complicated and difficult to buy into.
For me, the reason that I find Occam’s Razor to be on the side of atheism is that
supernatural explanations are always more complicated than naturalistic explanations because supernatural explanations require the use of both physics and metaphysics, while naturalistic explanations require only physics.Newton asserted that planets required both gravity and God to keep them in orbit; Laplace showed that only gravity was necessary, and that God was not needed to explain planetary orbits.Since “gravity + God” is a more complicated explanation that just “gravity,” it makes sense to accept the gravity-only explanation. Also, in my experience (and much to my frustration) I find myself asking, “If God did THIS, why didn’t he do THAT? If God answers one person’s prayer, why didn’t he answer this other person’s prayer who asked for the same thing?” When I try to come up with an explanation for why God does what he does and doesn’t do what he doesn’t do, the explanation becomes so wildly complicated that it’s simpler to say God didn’t do anything and that the world ran its natural course without divine intervention.
I agree that atheism is one possible way of simplifying things and reducing what exactly people have to worry about by automatically rejecting supernatural assumptions out of hand. However, I don’t think the idea of God is generally all that complicated or hard for the average person to believe in especially if they don’t spend that much time thinking about the way they expect God to be and what exactly they expect God to do in different cases.
Also, I’m not sure that there is anything magical about Occam’s Razor as if it is always more likely to lead to the truth than other approaches. For example, if there is no way to know for sure what the real answer to a specific question is or the answer is actually fairly complicated with a large amount of inconsistent or conflicting information to consider then selecting an explanation mostly because it sounds simple and easy to understand compared to other alternatives could easily lead to blatantly false conclusions instead of a very close approximation of the truth.
Look at some of the favorite questions the Church likes to ask (and answer):
What is the meaning and purpose of life?What happens when we die?
Personally I don’t believe atheism has any definitive answers to these questions that are necessarily any better than those provided by religion and more importantly many people will not be satisfied with atheist answers to these questions. That’s because these are not really scientific questions to begin with. The meaning and purpose of life is basically a matter of opinion that not everyone is going to agree on and claims about life after death generally cannot be directly proven or disproven so it’s mostly a matter of how comfortable you are believing in hearsay or not unless you have your own experiences directly related to this. If atheism is what you honestly believe then I’m not saying you shouldn’t believe what you do; my main point is that I wouldn’t expect very many people to change their minds about all this if they are already satisfied with their current beliefs.
I like this thread, very good thoughts on the subject that are good to discuss and think about here. I think it was mentioned before, but if you use the label “atheism”, I think it is separating you from others in the church who would hear that term and not be able to accept it.
It might work for you as you think about your faith, but I don’t think it could be said out loud or a “group” designated as such and be welcome in the fold. Avoiding the label, the behaviors and thoughts would not necessarily be problematic within mormonism. It could work. And I don’t see a need to have to say it out loud.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Look at some of the favorite questions the Church likes to ask (and answer):
What is the meaning and purpose of life?What happens when we die?
Personally I don’t believe atheism has any definitive answers to these questions that are necessarily any better than those provided by religion and more importantly many people will not be satisfied with atheist answers to these questions. That’s because these are not really scientific questions to begin with. The meaning and purpose of life is basically a matter of opinion that not everyone is going to agree on and claims about life after death generally cannot be directly proven or disproven so it’s mostly a matter of how comfortable you are believing in hearsay or not unless you have your own experiences directly related to this. If atheism is what you honestly believe then I’m not saying you shouldn’t believe what you do; my main point is that I wouldn’t expect very many people to change their minds about all this if they are already satisfied with their current beliefs.
As you mentioned, DA, there are some important questions that are not answered scientifically – like the “why” questions.
Einsteine wrote, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
Science seeks to study what happened… spirituality (including imagination) seeks to explore the new (ideally gospel = good news).
I guess because I don’t believe theology literally, including orthodox views of God, but still affiliate with the LDS church, I may be considered a Mormon Atheist. However, I don’t consider myself Atheist, Agnostic nor purely Theist. I find labels to be too dishonestly limiting and generalizing.
I have come to define God in various ways, depending on my need. I’ve come to realize that everything I think is illusionally subjective & very limited compared to all there is to know, so I’m realizing the need to take responsibility of my thoughts – to think of God in ways that work best for me. I pray to Heavenly Father and Mother because that is how I got used to praying & I resonate well that way, even though in the back of my mind, I know that God is much more than that.
Paul Tillich (philosopher) explained that God is that which one worships – one’s “ultimate concern” & to argue whether one’s ultimate concern is truly ultimate or not is pointless. He explained that it’s most important to discover and pursue the best representation of one’s genuine ultimate concern without idolatrous (untrue) elements. What a never-ending challenge this is! Hind sight is 20-20 – but often I’m clueless about what I really want – what my true ultimate concern is, or fall for short-sighted desires over what I truly want in the long run. To me, considering God this way can be more honest and helpful because it isn’t about what I “should” be doing to please somebody else’s idea of God – but rather, it’s honestly looking at my every-day habits, to see what my expressed priority (god) is in relation to what my true ultimate concern is (God).
To me, God is undeniable (but not always obvious) creative energy (undeniable because you can see real influence).
God is the creative force that motivates every action – it’s an attempt to strive for what is best through trial & error/active faith.
In times when I feel my vulnerability and weakness, I especially need to believe in something beyond myself – that gives me meaningful motivation.
Each moment is unique and thus the most genuine ultimate expression of energy varies & cannot remain the same too long and still be creative.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” may be a constant principle but the infinite ways it can be expressed is not “written in stone.”
Mormon agnosticism, yes, Mormon atheism, not really, unless we’re talking purely cultural terms. The trouble with both of these, and I have been round about them, is that it’s too easy to steer into hypocrisy. (Mind you, that’s true of zealotry too) We end up having to lie… Quick note about the oft-misunderstood Occam’s Razor… It doesn’t take sides. It doesn’t presume that “the simplest answer is probably the correct one”. Rather, it’s all about prioritizing approaches to prove something… start with the simplest viable theory and go out from there. If the simplest theory doesn’t work, go to the next, more complicated one. It’s based on the idea that it’s harder to prove theories the more complicated they become… it doesn’t mean that the simplest theory is the correct one. There are many complex systems that are substantially superior to simpler systems: Windows vs DOS, animal biology vs plant biology, airplanes versus horse-drawn carts, civil society vs anarchy, Quantum Mechanics vs Newtonian Physics.
IMO, Occam’s Razor doesn’t have much of a place in religion, because religion is unprovable.
Joining this thread late… but I am an atheist… and I’m a Mormon. As has been said, I’m largely a cultural Mormon… I stay because of family and friends along with a general like of the atmosphere of community. However, there are some areas where I find “spiritual” strength. Even though I believe there is no God, no afterlife, no Holy Ghost, and no divine revelation, I do find meaning in things that are not strictly cultural:
– Jesus, the Messiah – The concept of Jesus being sent to the Earth to establish a Kingdom of God, and to bring people to it by his own sacrifice and death are very compelling. It resonates with me. There is so much beautiful irony, symmetry, power in this message that it is hard to ignore. Jesus as a sympathetic figure, loving, forgiving, welcoming. Portrayed by Paul, Jesus’ sacrifice was offered to the “ungodly” to allow them to walk in a new life, which is very palpable. It’s pretty cool… and I can’t quite divorce myself from the meaning of it all, even though I don’t believe any of it literally.
– Mormon Pioneer History – I find a lot of strength in the unbreakable Mormon heritage of the Pioneers.
– Prayer – I don’t pray often, but I still do when facing particularly hard things. I believe there is no one listening… I’m just doing it out of long-standing habit. Yet, I find that it provides a certain amount of clarity in my mind, and aids me in properly weighing the influences on me. Sometimes things aren’t as bad as they seem, and prayer helps me find peace.
– Law of Chastity – I’m monogamous. I consider it is a great blessing, and probably the single greatest legacy in my life for having been a church member. I don’t condemn anyone that isn’t monogamous… but I love what it has meant for my wife and me.
– WoW – I won’t go to the (non-existant) Hell if I have a drink of Coffee. However, I believe there is “spiritual” or emotional strength that can come to a person for choosing to live a code of conduct, whatever it is. There was a time when I didn’t drink, smoke, consume coffee or tea because I felt compelled. Now, it is entirely my own choice. For me, it works as a discipline. I feel stronger because I continue to live by it. If you drink, smoke, consume coffee or tea, good for you… I’m not going to prepare special home teaching lessons to get you to see the light. But everybody has some things that they deprive themselves of for a greater purpose.
I’m not sure it’s possible to be a Mormon atheist outside certain regions of North America. Not around here anyway. I have no pioneer heritage. i suggest a position of “post theism”, where the idea of a single, personal, omni-whatever being is viewed as a necessary metaphor or symbol of something much closer to home. Having defined the “being of god” as the non-conscious mind in the state of being one with the Way, and the Way as the “power of god” and the ground of being, I can say with confidence that I know that god exists. “Being one with the Way” is necessarily nondual: to distinguish “a god” as distinct with “another god” introduces dualism, and both cease to be god.
In speaking of god, the concept that I might say “I am God”, or “He is God”, creates a confusion because it creates a duality. The self-serving ego (greek for “the I”/”das ich”) is not god and can never be as long as one verbalizes the distinction. Hence, we properly use symbolic language: Heavenly Father, God (with initial capital), Lord, etc… to represent, in a word, the Word that cannot be expressed. the “being of god”, the “I AM”, YHWH, the “Word” immediately ceases to be meaningful the moment it is expressed as “a word”. I can only be still and know that I am god. That is the great secret, that god is man, but not the dual man, not “a man”, but rather: the exalted “Man (gender neutral) of Holiness”: the nondual self unified in the moment with all that is, was, and ever shall be.
This isn’t mystical mumbo-jumbo, although the mystical/spiritual experience often leads to a realization of the unity and interdependence of all that is. When our conscious minds are in harmony with our hearts (our emotional reflection of the collective non-conscious), and when our minds and hearts are in harmony with the Way, then our actions will also be in harmony with the way: life giving, caring, and strengthening our relationships in love with one another.
Hear, Oh Ysreal (the people of god), YHWH is god, YHWH is One(ness)! And thou (the dual self) shall love (be one with) YHWH with all thy heart (the non-conscious and emotions), mind (the conscious self), and strength (actions); and thou shalt love (be one with) thy neighbor (jesus’ definition) as thyself.
Wayfarer, I’m trying to find the meaning of your post… I know there is one, but I have a pea-sized brain, so please bare with me.
Are you saying that your belief is that there is no supernatural overseer and no afterlife, but rather, that because of our self-awareness and consciousness, we are able to harmonize ourselves with a perceived “way”, which might be unique to each individual, yet has certain commonalities, such as love toward one-another, and that as each of us approaches the “way” as we see it, we are approaching the concept of Godliness? That Godliness is just us reaching for something higher within us, and somewhat against the “natural man”, allowing us to walk in “new life”? That the “way” is a fusion of all the things that we perceive to be good, whether they originate in Mormonism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Socialism, Humanism, or Atheism?
OK, even if that’s not what you are saying… I like it.
I believe in gods, and my absolute favorite aspect of Mormonism is the idea that “I (and every other person) am a child of God” that can be / become godly / a god. I believe in God, because I want to believe in God. I believe in Heavenly Parents, because I want to believe in Heavenly Parents.
Do I KNOW intellectually that they exist and that what I believe is accurate? No. Do I feel deeply that there is great power in the concept and principle and that I have experienced something outside my rational comprehension that I choose to call “God”? Yes. Thus, do I feel comfortable in a group of members using the accepted vernacular and saying that, based on my own experiences, I know God lives and loves us? Yes.
I use enough qualifiers when I testify that I am comfortable saying it in that setting, even though I explain it differently (more comprehensively) here. I’m fine using shorthand when shorthand is appropriate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.