Can atheists find spirituality without God?

[rug]

Pondering why people continue to be religious in the 21st century, lifelong atheist Gary Bryson heads to a Sunday assembly and speaks to a secular pilgrim in an attempt to find an atheism that goes beyond the bald assertion that there is no God.



Image: Many atheists point to an appreciation of the wonders of nature as a form of spirituality without religion. (Joshua Earle/unsplash.com)

Wednesday 14 October 2015 3:47PM
Gary Bryson

It's surprising the number of things that look like religion but are really just ways of thinking about the world and our place in it; things that are transcendent and have nothing to do with God.

I've been an atheist since I was 14 years old, and probably long before that. I became an atheist by default. An accidental atheist, if you like, because being an atheist takes conscious effort, and at 14 there were too many other things to be conscious of.

But I've often wondered if I'm missing something. Maybe I lack the spiritual gene? Maybe I don't have what it takes to experience the love of God or whatever it is that so many people around the world—in so many different ways—seem to experience with such little trouble?

I envy religious people, I really do. For the comfort and the certainty that's theirs: the big fluffy pillow of faith. What is it, this unseen, unprovable thing that enthrals so many, and can you be spiritual without it?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/the-accidental-atheist/6850798

1:26 audio at link.

[Fumesucker]

1. Oh please, even Mother Teresa had doubts that plagued her often

Theists aren't any more comfortable or certain than atheists.

Being an atheist does not require "conscious effort" other than to throw off the programming installed by the theists any more than being a theist requires conscious effort.

[rug]

2. I dont know. I've met a lot of atheists wrapped in certainty, particularly antitheist atheists.

[Fumesucker]

4. In other words you agree with me..

Theists aren't any more comfortable or certain than atheists.

[rug]

8. And you agree with me.

[Yorktown]

6. That's funny coming from you

Tell me: are you wrapped in the certainty there really was a Moses or not?

Paradise? Adam/Eve? Abraham? Noah?

Are you uncertain about these stories?

[rug]

9. Coming from me?

You poor thing, compelled to make every thought personal.

Aside from the non sequitur of your questions, no, I am not at all certain.

How about you? How much certainty do you have of the bullshit you post here?

[Yorktown]

14. tsk, tsk, rug, as usual, you evade questions.

Besides your unwarranted insulting terms (poor thing, bullshit), care to answer for a change?

Are you certain about:

1- creation, 6 days
2- adam/eve
3- Abraham
4- Noah
5- Moses

That's 5 tenets of the Roman Catholic Church creed.

0/5 being 0%, 5/5 being 100%, what percentage of these 5 creeds do you subscribe to?

Simple question.

I'm not holding my breath to get an answer.

Which is a shame, really, when you mentioned religion and certainty in the same breath.

[rug]

19. I notice you once again made personal snark without answering the question.

Your posts are tedious.

But keep on with it.

[Yorktown]

22. Keep evading, it's funny

Never answer, always come back with an ad hominem,

your modus operandum forever, I'm afraid..

[msongs]

3. the guy in the heavily doctored pic above seems to be ok with nature as it not is lol nt

[rug]

5. I'll have to cross post it in the Photography Group now.

[DetlefK]

7. As an atheist agnostic, I prefer the freedom of doubt to the cushy pillow of faith.

The concept of man being able to tap into the secrets of nature and harness them for his own ends stems from the teachings of the hermetic movement, which became very influential during the Renaissance. (This was a change from the medieval mindset, where only God was able to understand and influence creation. Hermeticism postulated that man had a "divine spark" that allowed him to do what God did... if man ever found out exactly how to do that.)

Another influential concept is Lullism, from the late Middle-Ages. Ramon Llull, a mystician and thought by later generations to be an alchemist, invented the concept of the "world-formula", an explanation of everything.

As a scientist, I have come to the conclusion that it's simply impossible for us humans to find an all-encompassing "world-formula", for statistical/mathematical reasons (that I won't lay out here).

The desire to find the grand mystery that binds all of us together is based on an old and, might I say, noble tradition. (The philosophy behind Lullism was one of the influences that lead to the development of the scientific method.) Alas, I have reason to believe that the endevaour is futile and I rejoice at the thought of the neverending adventure that is the quest for knowledge.

[rug]

10. I've never heard of Ramon Llull. Thanks.

I take it you are of the opinion that the search for the "Theory of Everything" in physics is unlikely to get there.

[DetlefK]

13. Yes.

Because we can never know whether the theory we derived from guess-work will work for data that we don't know yet. And I severely doubt that we will ever be able to know all of the data. Accordingly, there will always be a chance, as tiny as it may be, that our explanation is incorrect.

[Cartoonist]

11. Going bald?

Fear the rug.

I take exception to this: "the bald assertion that there is no God."

A bald assertion is making a statement without facts or evidence to back it up. I contend that the lack of evidence supporting the existence of God makes the assertion folically abundant.

A bald assertion is saying, there is a God.

[rug]

12. If you read further, he's describing a subset of atheists.

And your pun is horrible.

[edhopper]

15. The subset seems to include writers

who have volumes explaining exactly why they think there is no God.
These are hardly "bald assertions".
You can disagree with their position, but to call it ones lacking evidence and support is simply wrong.
Another article taking shots at the "New Atheist" without merit.

[Yorktown]

16. 'New' atheists?

Another article taking shots at the "New Atheist" without merit.

Actually, calling people 'new' atheists is a scam. Like the word 'islamophobe'.

Atheism is hardly new. Probably as old as theism. Why not new 'theism'?

After all, religion changed its shape and form more than atheism.

But 'new' makes it sound as if it was just a recurring fad.

Clever propagandists, these new theists.

[rug]

18. Actually, the current phenomenon has all the hallmarks of a fad.

You are foolish if you think those described as the New Atheists is representative of atheists.

[Yorktown]

21. Again, an unsubstantiated claim ex cathedra

And, tu recycle your own words, you are foolish if you think those described as the leaders/spokespersons of any given group are fully representative of all members of their group.

Another rugian red herring.

[rug]

17. That wasn't my phrase.

You seem rather apologetic about the "New Atheists".

[edhopper]

20. I know

it was the author's.

I was countering his contention that this "subset", as you call them, was making "bald assertions".

The writers pictured make assertions that are anything but "bald".

I don't know why they would need to be apologized for? I am correcting a false statement by the author, that is all.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. I'm really puzzldled by this "envy" that some atheists have of religious people...

Its only an illusion that they are so certain, the more thoughtful of theists have doubts and the ones who don't lack the cognitive tools for self examination and critical thinking. Rather than envy them I pity them.