"My point is that proving atheists can be irrational and mystical is the kind of clutching at strawmen ruse that faeriefaithists might use in support of the scientific fact that their untestable belief about what goes on at the bottom of the garden is true magic."

Not sure I understand this.

Who is doing this clutching?

@skado

The clutchers are those who seek to support religious belief in super beings.

Elsewhere the author compares the religiously unaffiliated to political apathy so I'm wondering if she is impartial.

Author
Lois Lee
Research Fellow, Department of Religious Studies, University of Kent

Disclosure statement
Lois Lee receives funding from the John Templeton Foundation.

Atheists foment the clashes
With the witches at black masses

@waitingforgodo
She describes herself as a second-generation, non-religious, liberal democrat.

@waitingforgodo
[theosthinktank.co.uk]

Agree , magnify a spec
& you have =UNPROVED ACERTATION:::

Depends on what one thinks the point is. The point here has nothing to do with whether literal god-persons exist. It is about whether people who identify as atheists arrive at their position by way of superior reasoning skills (as they so often claim) or are drawn there by the same motivations that draw theists to their chosen identities. A stopped clock, after all, is aligned with literal truth twice a day.

There are always individual outliers, but the overwhelming majority seem to be as resistant to reasoning as any theist when their identity tribe is challenged. It’s more an issue of worldview security than an issue of factual objectivity.

This is in no way a condemnation of one clan or praise of another (they are barely distinguishable) but just a clarifying peek behind the popular folklore curtain.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that I regularly post articles that are not perfectly aligned with my personal views because I think they may catalyze productive discussion, what “main philosophical view” do you assume I hold that is in contradiction with the quoted statement?

@skado The one that myth/religion are needed for human wellbeing because they meet basic needs like "meaning and comfort" not obtainable from objective thinking. Of course.

@Fernapple

Of course! Those are your words - not mine, and they are not an accurate representation of my view.

So let’s look at three things. First, the difference between your words and Lee’s. Secondly, the difference between your words and my view. And finally, the difference between my view and Lee’s.

So is your interpretation of my view even contradictory to Lee’s statement? No. Dr. Lee's statement is about "some atheists" which is a subset of "atheists", which is a subset of "humans". Your statement is about "human" wellbeing. So even if your words were an accurate reflection of my view (which they are not) they are not "directly contradicted" by Dr. Lee's statement. A sub-subset of humans finding comfort in the science of the biological world is no indication that the human population at large does today, or will ever be able to do the same. A statement claiming that a majority of humans will never find meaningful comfort in a study of biology, even if that were to be my view, is not contradicted by a claim that a sub-subset of humans are able to. So at the outset, there is no contradiction, direct or otherwise.

So how does your understanding of my view differ from my actual view? Probably in several ways. We have acknowledged in the past that we define the word "religion" differently. No crime there - there is no scholarly consensus on the definition. My understanding of your view of religion (correct me) is that it is primarily about an outdated propositional cosmology, which, though never factually accurate to begin with, was perhaps useful to pre-science generations until they could do better, but is now inhabited mostly by the criminal-minded and their dupes, and has outlived any legitimate usefulness it might have had in the past, if it ever really had any. And that anything religion can purportedly do for us today can be done better by currently existing secular means. Am I close?

So when I read your interpretation of my view, I read it with my understanding of your definition of religion in mind, such that it says in effect, that I believe that criminal deceit, or at minimum, propositional untruths are needed for the wellbeing of any and every individual human because it is impossible to achieve that wellbeing from objective thinking. This is of course not my view.

As you know, but others might not, I am the originator and host of the Religious Naturalism Group here on AgDotCom. I would be hard pressed to find a statement that better represents the Religious Naturalist orientation than "The science of the biological world, for example, is much more than a topic of intellectual curiosity – for some atheists, it provides meaning and comfort in much the same way that belief in God can for theists." It sounds very much like something the president of the Religious Naturalist Association would say, and did say in her lovely book, "The Sacred Depths of Nature" (now in its second edition). So why do you suppose a group of mostly atheist, mostly environmentalist, mostly academics would choose to identify as "religious"? Because they are criminally delusional? Probably not. Maybe because they understand, as Loyal Rue named his book, "Religion Is Not About God". Religion, from a 21st century scientific perspective, is more about social cohesion and personal wholeness. And whatever serves those two ends rightly deserves to be considered as sacred rather than secular because our survival as a species depends on them.

Religion, in my view, has a deep original and ongoing function as a cultural counterbalance to the evolutionary mismatch caused originally, as I think you pointed out, by the development of our oversized brains, and subsequently by our invention of agriculture and all of its civilizing consequences. This function has been, and apparently will be in the foreseeable future, necessary for the maintenance of stable societies, whether every individual participates or not. And I personally feel that the best, most direct way of participating in the biologically relevant function of religion is by way of objective thinking. But I harbor no delusions that a majority of my fellow humans are currently, or will in the near future use that method. Meanwhile, whatever method they use is better than succumbing to extinction. So it is this biological view of religion that is central to my "main philosophical view" rather than any popular understanding that equates religiosity with god belief.

Which brings us to my differences with Dr. Lois Lee. Dr. Lee self-identifies as "non-religious". This, and other comments of hers, tells me that she is still using the popular understanding of "religious" which equates religion with literal belief in entities and states of being that are not supported by current scientific evidence. But while I also do not believe in anything supernatural, I identify as religious, because I consciously and deliberately practice a discipline, the purpose of which is to bring about by scientifically valid means, the same result all major world religions produce, namely social cohesion and personal psychological wellbeing.

I'm not aware of a single atheist who articulates, let alone practices any complex, coherent discipline toward that specific evolutionary goal - not to say there aren't any - I just haven't met them. But that's OK, because the non-scientific method is still being practiced by a growing 84% of our species, and while it is in need of radical reform due to globalization, it still apparently works better than nothing. And I will argue that it still works better than just trying to be a nice person and a good citizen, which is pretty much the extent of any non-religious program I am aware of. There is not, to my knowledge, any well-articulated, organized, effective, secular solution to the problem of rapidly escalating evolutionary mismatch. I wish there were.

OOOPPPSSY

Seems to be "chasing one's TAIL"
Respectfully

@skado No you entirely misrepresent my position on religion, and especially religious naturalism. Firstly you seem to forget that I come from the UK, where the metaphorical, non literal, view of religion, which I believe you espouse, is the main and dominant form, at least among the semi-educated. And it is the form in which I was educated in within a C. of E. institution, I am therefore well familiar with that interpretation of religion, and was a great enthusiast for it for many years during my youth. I am also a long time follower of the religious naturalism movement, have belonged to its groups and still enjoy religious naturalism as a big part of my life.

However.

Firstly. That does not stop me from addressing the harms caused by mainstream literalist religion.

Secondly. Nor am I so simple minded as to think that all of religions harmful effects come from simple literal belief in a personal god. And that merely taking that out of the religious equation, is enough to change what is often a very harmful and dangerous culture, into a benign one. Indeed as someone who has lived all his life under institutions, governed by the metaphorical non literal religious interpretation, perhaps far more so than any American can imagine, I can assure you, that it is a religious form which leads to just as much hypocrisy, financial greed, privilege, arrogance, and indifference to the sufferings of others, as many literalist churches.

Thirdly. I am not so simple minded as to suppose that I can indulge in non literal religion, and not help support, foster and promote institutions, in which literalism and its many evils will find a home and a rich area for growth. And that I can do so without being guilty of promoting that growth.

Fourthly. You can not claim that the biological comforts, spoken of by Dr Lee are not part of religious naturalism, indeed they are for many the core of it.

Five. You can not dismiss Dr Lee's claims on the ground that they are a minority view, and yet dismiss, mainstream literalist religion as a suitable definition of religion, because you have a minority alternative, that is just not consistent.

@Fernapple

1. That does not stop me from addressing those harms either.
2. I don’t think that all of religion’s harmful effects come from simple literal belief in a personal god either.
3. When scientific evidence happens to find some overlap with folklore and tradition, it does not seem wise to me to deny the evidence for fear of being seen as endorsing the non-overlapped portion, when the erroneous aspects can be called out for what they are, as I regularly do.
4. I have made no such claim.
5. I have not dismissed Dr. Lee’s claims on the ground that they are a minority view or on any other grounds. I don’t doubt her claim. What I have dismissed is your claim that her statement contradicts my view. The fact that some atheists derive a religion-like comfort from science, in no way contradicts the fact that most humans don’t. And the fact that most humans don’t, in no way lends factual legitimacy to their beliefs, but neither does it render their behavior categorically maladaptive from an evolutionary perspective.

I don’t, and have never recommended leaving religious literalism and going religion-shopping in the world of metaphor for a substitute that suits one’s attitude du jour.

As I believe you have pointed out in the past, once one leaves literalism (or possibly even before) opening the door to metaphorical interpretation invites an unlimited profusion of anything-goes interpretations, most of which might easily be twisted to any selfish or destructive aim.

But if instead of starting from religious literalism and moving toward any metaphorical interpretation one finds agreeable, the more one starts from a broad grasp of the relevant sciences, and studies human behavior as a scientist might, for example, study the mating behavior of Sandhill Cranes (objectively) the more alignment one can see between various religious texts and certain (not all) metaphorical interpretations.

I’m not aware of any
“the metaphorical, non literal, view of religion” unless you’re speaking of the Augustinian view, which embraces some metaphorical leeway within the subplots of otherwise literalist stories. If there is some other “main and dominant form” which regards, for example, God as nothing more or less than a metaphor for the natural world, please tell me where I can read about this main and dominant form.

And if you “enjoy religious naturalism as a big part of my life,” how do you relate to the “religious” aspect of it? Thanks.

@skado 1. Never said that it did, stop you addressing those aspects. Only that you are very fast to criticize others for doing so.

3. You say. "When scientific evidence happens to find some overlap with folklore and tradition, it does not seem wise to me to deny the evidence for fear of being seen as endorsing the non-overlapped portion, " That is quite simply the most stupid statement I ever heard anyone make, so I hardly going to bother addressing it. Why on earth would anyone deny the evidence ?

4. I did not say that you made such a claim, the statement was rhetorical, about my position.

5. The fact that Dr Lee's claim is non majority, does not mean that it is not capable of becoming majority, nor does it make it maladaptive. Not to mention that does by default make a dismissal of DR. Lee's statement.

As to your rest. Yes of course I am talking about the Augustinian view. And the way that I enjoy religious naturalism, without the religious aspects of it, is by firstly by yes not taking it literally or seriously, but more importantly, not accepting the elements of it that come from traditional theist religions, only those which come from science, and by fighting to keep it clear of those religious aspects for the benefit of others.

@Fernapple
I would love to understand your perspective. Please tell me, what elements of religious naturalism do you feel come from traditional religions? Wouldn’t religious naturalism without the religious aspects just be naturalism? What do you like about religious naturalism that can’t be found in ordinary naturalism?

@Fernapple
FTR, I have never criticized any person for addressing the actual harms done in the name of religion. What I have spoken against is the idea that those harms constitute the entirety of religion, or that they are even inherently “religious”. I have said consistently that they are a corruption of religion. I criticize the idea that since religion is corruptible (what isn’t?) it should be abandoned.

@skado Religious naturalism without the religious aspects would just be naturalism, yes. But what would and does make it religious, is treating naturalism with religious awe and reverance, which is what I find in writers like U. Goodenough. And works wonderfully I find, because naturalism pure, is all the more lovely, and all the more a sourse of humility to set against the narcissism which is religion.

@skado And I have never said that religion is entirely harmful either, indeed if it was, it would hardly survive, all things retained by human culture bring some benefit to some. Even Communism and Fascism brought some benefits, though often false and deluded ones. And I find the strawmaning of myself and many others who are critical of it, as if they are people who are blind to its benefits, both false and annoying. Believing there are bad apples in the barrel, is not the same as believing that there are no good ones.

But I do however think that some of the harms done by religion are inherently part of its essential nature, and can not be separated from it. The main one only coming it is true, mainly from my personal definition of religion, which although personal, is I think a useful one which could be more widely used to everyone's benefit. And that is. “Religion is a synonym for the proof from authority fallacy.”
Which means that I define a large part of human culture, (Not just literal belief in a theist god.) as essentially religion. Including such things as faith in tradition, nationalism, and alternate truths such as artistic truth.

And the problem with the false authority fallacy is that, although it may sometimes support truth and goodness, it makes no distinction, nor does it have any mechanism to make distinction, between those things and the false and harmful. Which makes the natural link between religion, in both the common and my sense of the word plain. Because if you wish to make true and good statements, then you can easily find good evidence, logic, reason and even good authority on your side. The only people therefore who truly NEED religion in all its forms, apart from natural religious awe, are those wish to promote falsehoods, or if you like the criminally intended.

And that also makes plain the link to human progress, since as we do to some degree, often haltingly, and only sometimes, progress forward into the realms of, reason, evidence and logic. The need for good people to look to religion for support, fades all the time, while the need for the ill intended and most of all, those who oppose all progress, to use religion as their weapon grows. Religion may therefore be bad in parts now, and good in parts. But if the human species does continue to progress, especially morally and scientifically, then should you come back in a hundred years, then I am sure you will find something truly horrible.

You seem pleased to state that religion is growing in numbers, and hurry to refute those who argue the opposite. I do not much care either way, since I think that that is just an argument about the Ad Populum fallacy, and I care little for childish number scoring one way or the other. But though happy to accept the facts, I would be saddened if it were growing, to some degree. Because I would suspect that the growth is probably fuelled by the growth of criminality, and the darkest of anti progressive forces.

I particularly have a strong distaste for the Augustinian metaphorical cult, since not only do I see that as opening religion to the widest of interpretations, the second most important thing which the criminally intended most wants in religion, but it also does little to reduce the fake authority of religion/tradition which the main thing the ill intended wants.

While that cult is especially good at fuelling the second failing for which the word religion is a synonym, that of narcissism. Since the main attraction of religion, its biggest selling point is its fuelling of narcissism, in all its forms. From the: your race is the chosen one, you are special to a special being, you are granted special enlightenment not given to others, you are set above the other creatures, all the way to the, this is where you find meaning and higher purpose. All of which are the very opposite of the humility that is urgently needed in difficult times, and when faced with the consequences of ever more powerful technology. And the metaphorical cult does that of course by feeding the idea of archaic cryptic knowledge, which can only be accessed by interpretation. Which is beloved of the narcissists, because it make them feel special and clever, with knowledge not granted to others. Even though all of the so called special knowledge I have ever seen, pedalled by its paid exponents, who sit in a privileged place in our parliament on the grounds of it, must seem both trite and banal to any genuine philosopher. And in setting up a culture which values that idea it thereby becomes the parent culture of every, anti science, anti progressive, alternative truth, conspiracy theory cult which exists.

@Fernapple
You and I are like identical twins, separated at birth and raised in different cultures. We have identical values but argue over the meaning of words.

@Fernapple
You say:
“And the way that I enjoy religious naturalism, without the religious aspects of it, is by firstly by yes not taking it literally or seriously, but more importantly, not accepting the elements of it that come from traditional theist religions, only those which come from science, and by fighting to keep it clear of those religious aspects for the benefit of others.”

Which elements of religious naturalism come from traditional theist religions?

@skado Perhaps yes. Though I do not see any value in reverencing tradition, quite the opposite.

@skado Not many fortunately. I tend only to back away when I meet, statements, pictures and prayers supporting or taken from Christian ethics and values. But also especially the horrible relativism of the , "All religions amount to the same things" philosophy.

As a good nihilist, you have to be a relativist, especially with regards to 'progress'. In the absence of supreme values, how could progress be measured?

By human wellbeing, and the personal learning curve. I did say in the other line that although I am a nihilist to large meaning, and purpose, that only opens the door to smaller personal objectives. There are few absolutes.

And relativism ( at least as I would frame it ) is concerned with knowledge rather than meaning, there are few absolutes, and therefore we can never have final truth, but that you can never perfectly reach a goal, does not mean that you can not get nearer to it. I pragmatically accept, that to ever believe that you have final perfect truth, is arrogant and dangerous and that wisdom comes, as with the scientific method, in always being able to change a belief, when presented with better evidence. But at the same time to believe that there is no truth and all ideas are equally valid, leaves you dead in the water. Indeed if you were a true relativist, then you could not be a nihilist, since all beliefs are equally good, and therefore even the rejection of belief is just a belief like any other.