Positive Atheism

[toddaa]

Every so often, some noble atheist tries to make the theists realize that not all of us are crotchety old Madalyn O'Hare types. Sadly, most fail because, well, most theists are offended by our very existence. However, I've found a group of "unbelievers" who believe they have found the key to spinning a more positive image of what it means to not believe in gods or the supernatural. Scientific pantheism. The term scientific pantheism originated with Paul Harrison, founder of the World Pantheism Movement, of which I'm a member (yes, I'm proselytizing).

What attracted me to WPM was my life long fascination with science and natural philosophy. When I look at the mesas in the American Southwest, or pictures from the Hubble telescope, I feel a deep spiritual connection with the universe. The natural universe. The universe, as explained by Dawkins and Bohr and Fermat.

So what's the point? To deny I'm an atheist? Far from it. I don't believe in God. Why destroy the complex beauty and mystery of the universe with a simplistic ugly answer? But calling myself an atheist only describes what I don't believe in. Calling myself a scientific pantheist hints at what I do believe in.

Anyway, the reason I post this is because I'm often told that I'm an atheist because I hate God. I respond that I'm an atheist because I love nature. Sometimes it pays to be nice. Recent skirmishes between ourselves and the theistic DUers isn't helpful. I hate the animosity being shown towards people like Michael Newdow, but I'm also cognizent of how fractionalized the Democratic Party has become and how the Republicans have capitalized on that. Maybe if we stop acting like Madalyn O'Hare and started acting like Carl Sagan, we'd get more sympathy from the clearer thinkers in the theist camp who would begin understand why the Pledge is so upsetting to some of us.

Check out Paul Harrison's site at http://www.pantheism.net , if your curious. And be sure to read his very good explanation of what exactly scientific pantheism is (and what it is not) at http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm. Aside from his rather poor understanding of Daoist teachings, his history of pantheism is interesting. He also has a very nice essay on atheism and pantheism here http://members.aol.com/pantheism0/atheists.htm .

[salvorhardin]

1. Maybe instead of catering to the superstitious and the credulous

we should, in Carl Sagan's style, bridge the gap with like-minded Libertarians and Republicans and reserve our Madalyn Murray O'Hare-like scorn for the regressives whom are the real problem? I see no need to dress up my disbelief. Atheism adequately describes my position in relation to religion and there are perfectly adequate words to describe my other beliefs.

I'm glad you've found something that works for you, but as for myself, I have been playing the gentle teacher for years. I don't think it's a game that can be won.

[toddaa]

6. Cynical Curmudgeonry

By all means, heap massive amounts of scorn, abuse, and derision on the regressives. I tend to save most of my abuse for New Agers, la la pagans, and self help nutcases, but that's just me. Cynicism gets a bad rap sometimes, but in the proud tradition of Diogenes, I think a health dose of scorn towards idiots, mountebanks, and frauds is quite useful.

[CarbonDate]

27. I think Christians need it the most.

Pagans et al are already getting plenty of scorn from the Christians, so I see no need to pile on.

[BiggJawn]

2. Oh, it's still a Religion...

But instead of worshipping invisible sky Daddies or Flying Spageddi Monsters, you worship "nature". Isn't that also called "Animism" or "Gaia-ism"?

"When you look at the night sky or at the images of the Hubble Space Telescope, are you filled with feelings of awe and wonder at the overwhelming beauty and power of the universe?"

Yes, but I don't get all "spiritual" or "get a sense of the Sacred" about it.

"...Yet do you feel an emotional need for a recognition of something greater than your own self or than the human race?"

No. I do NOT.

That's how this whole mess began, don't you know? Early superstitious peoples felt "an emotional need" to recognize "something greater than themselves" and thus God, the old bearded white haired dude with the incredible 'tood problem was born.

As for gaining acceptance by the myth-believers with your "gentle" approach, read what the "Childcare Action Project" had to say about an animated movie called "Final Fantasy: The spirits Within"...

"... While this film was a trend-setting piece of astounding computer art and a technological marvel, it was a spiritual nightmare. *Final Fantasy* embraced the worship of Gaia, an earth-based religion and a false goddess which, by the movie, is manifest as some sort of property of or presence in all things thus being the "lifeforce" of the earth that sustains it and gives it life.

Gaiaism, a concept created by James Lovelock, scientist and atmospheric chemist with NASA of the 70s apparently has many versions. But Gaiaism seems to now be closely associated with paganism, wicca and witchcraft. From : "The Covenant of Gaia is a Wiccan church located in Alberta, Canada. We also provide fellowship and community for those of other Pagan paths." A distillation of all the myriad of things found about Gaiaism reveals the Gaia beliefs seem place all living things in equality and that a collective consciousness of all living things controls the physics of the biosphere: that Mother Earth is a goddess to be revered . This is in stark contrast to Genesis in which God tells us that He has given the planet and all living things on it to us to serve us and to have dominion over them, never to be equal with us or above us . Gaiaism is therefore yet another rejection of God Himself, giving stewardship of the planet and animals to a bio-goddess and taking it away from man."

They still will hate you.

[toddaa]

4. Couple of points

<b>That's how this whole mess began, don't you know? Early superstitious peoples felt "an emotional need" to recognize "something greater than themselves" and thus God, the old bearded white haired dude with the incredible 'tood problem was born.</b>

Why is it that the Christian God has become the defacto standard of what all religions lead to. This may be difficult for someone in the West to believe, but there are entire cosmological systems of thought that have no concept of a Big Sky Daddy, they've existed for thousands of years, and they don't seem to be threatening to move to such a tortured belief system any time soon.

As far as the Gaia Hypothesis goes, it is a scientific conjecture and not some New Age mystical mumbo jumbo designed to sell more self help crap. If we reject it because pagans and new agers have latched onto it, then we need to also abandon quantum physics, chaos theory, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorum as well. You probably described Gaiaism fairly accurately, but I wouldn't know because I have never run across a Gaiaist before. Nothing you describe, however, has anything to do with Lovelock and Margulis' original hypothesis, which has been found useful by ecologists. In fact, like all scientific hypotheses, it has been tinkered with, tweaked, and modified to the point where it is now recognized as an accepted scientific theory. To dismiss it because science abusers have distorted it for their own gibberish beliefs strikes me as irrational.

[Az]

3. I have bumped into this group before

I like some things about it. But I agree with the post above that we need to find individuals that can spark the passion in people to unravel the rainbow (a term applied to Newton when he discovered the properties of the rainbow).

There are going to be people that want the kind of spiritual sense that comes with groups such as SP. This was reflected in another thread in GD where someone was complaining about how they had to leave their church because it was too conservative. One of her comments was that churchs like Unitarian Universalists were not grand enough.

I don't think we will find a single roof to fit everyone's social/spiritual needs under. But I would like to think that groups that have structural differences or even process differences can find ways to encourage a progressive social approach together with common goals.

[toddaa]

5. A single roof doesn't exist

That's not the point. The key is to stop acting like we are all a bunch of rugged individualists and start behaving like members of a diverse community. If that means we have to work with people we disagree with, then maybe it's time for all of us to grow up.

I've been on DU for about a year now. I've grown to hate a lot of what I read here, because I see a lot of shit that isn't much different from the rightwing hate fests on other boards. I don't chalk that up to the politics of the DU, but to the fact that humans have this peculiar notion that they are absolutely certain that what they believe is right and everyone else is mistaken. I'm as guilty as anyone in this respect, but I always try to remember that objective reality and my perception of objective reality are two very different things.

In the grand tradition of the great perspectivist philosophers Zhuangzi and Neitzsche, there are no facts only interpretations.

[trotsky]

7. "I am right, you are wrong."

When it comes to running a government that makes laws that apply to EVERYONE, there is necessarily a point at which we do have to declare one position right and others wrong.

While I certainly appreciate the thinking that says we can never know if we're absolutely right, I shudder at how that thinking is abused to try and make all viewpoints equal. It's the crack in the door by which pseudo-science, creationism/"ID", astrology, and all that garbage get a semi-legitimate foothold in society.

[onager]

9. I'll keep "atheist" and stand with this guy...

"The secular ideologue might be largely content with brooking no dissent, through the dictum I am right, you are wrong. But the ultimate ambition of the fanatic within the theocratic order is I am right, you are dead."

That's from Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian poet who has been under an Islamic fatwa for many years.

Some other good comments from Soyinka:

"It's my duty to fight those who have chosen to belong to the party of death, those who say they receive their orders from God somewhere and believe they have a duty to set the world on fire to achieve their own salvation, whether they are in the warrens of Iraq, or in the White House. I prefer to be a card-carrying member of the party of life."

"Pol Pot is dead, gone the way of those other architects of the necropolis - Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and other mixed company of both Left and Right.

Today, the main source of fanatic mind is religion, and its temper, one that, ironically, is grounded in the doctrine of submission, has grown increasingly arrogant, doctrinaire and violent, almost in an unconscious vengeful recompense for its apprenticeship within the spiritual principle of Submission.

The theocratic order derives its mandate from the unknown. Only a chosen few are privileged to have penetrated the workings of the mind of the Unknown, whose constitution - known as the Scriptures - they and they alone can interpret. The fanatic that is born of this dogmatic structure of the ineffable religion is the most dangerous being on earth.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Where did you read those, O?

I think I would like to hear much more of what Mr. Soyinka has to say.

[onager]

17. Argh! Sorry I didn't post the links, BMUS.

I'm getting old or something.

Yeah, Mr. Soyinka is definitely worth reading. I linked to his "Climate Of Fear" BBC lectures below. They take some time to get thru, but reward your patience.

Anyway, here's a short NY TIMES editorial celebrating his 70th birthday:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/NigeriaCriticismStartsatHome5august2004.htm

And here's a link to his 2004 Reith Lectures on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2004/lecture5.shtml

[beam me up scottie]

25. Thanks.

I remember reading one of those quotes you posted.
Very powerful.
We need to remember to look outside of this country for wisdom as well.
The struggle for equality didn't start and won't end here.

[Az]

10. This is something I have been working on for some time

I agree that as rugged individuals we are limited compared to other social groups. The thing is we come with several self limiting qualities.

Groups that try to suggest a grandeur such and Scientific Pantheism will give most atheist hives just thinking about it. Simply put anything that suggests worshipping is not going to be high on their list of things they want to do.

Unfortunately when groups of atheists form up solely due to their atheism the reactionary nature of pure atheism takes hold. That is atheism on its own is simply a rejection of theism. Therefor there is a tendency for only negative qualities and oppositional attitudes to dominate the group. While this may seem cathartic to the individuals in the group it scares away far more individuals than they realize. There are far more atheists out there that don't want to tear down the the believers than most realize.

The thing is we need an organization that is atheistic in nature but not exclusively based on atheism. It should carry with it positive reinforcement but not a suggestion of bowing one's head in submission to something grander.

The various Secular Humanist groups seem to fullfill these qualities but they seem to be comprised of octagenarians. And like its members they seem to have ossified. We need something that is active, present in the public, supportive, and demonstrative of our humanity.

This is what I have been working on and seeking. And you think herding cats is tough.

[Kolesar]

8. There is an awesome power in Nature that threatens organized religions

...especially "the big three" religions that dictate Man's dominion over the beasts and all that is Nature. I recall powerful feelings when contemplating sights like the Grand Canyon or a family of Bighorn Sheep, or the Hubble shots you cite. When people contemplate such, their minds wander away from the orthodox imagery of the Big Guy with the White Beard and the folklore of a tribe in Judea. There's the threat. Nature won't get folks in the pews or fill the collection plate. Opening one's mind to contemplate the wonder of wildlife will lead to logical and relativistic thinking, not toward the dank dogma of orthodoxy.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. Madlyn Murray O'Hair is a hero of mine

To each their own, of course, but having grown up an atheist in a public school setting, I owe much to Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She accomplished a great deal, including building the first viable national organization for atheists. Certainly Carl Sagan is a great role-model, but I for one whish that we had MORE people acting like Madlyn Murry O'Hair as well as more Carl Sagans.

As far as Scientific Pantheism goes, well, it seems to me a way to blend in a little bit with the theists. They seem to feel much more comfortable if a person believes SOMETHING, even if it's something they don't understand. Not my cup of tea, but I can certainly understand the appeal.

[Az]

13. So how do we coordinate the two factions

Carl Sagan and Madlyn Murray O'Hair. Both camps are going to continue to exist. They have every right to. But being smart means we can coordinate them together. Any ideas?

[Modem Butterfly]

14. It's a false dichotomy and a strained analogy

Carl Sagan and Madlyn Murray O'Hair were both outspoken atheists who did much to advance the notion of free thought. Carl was moderately more media-friendly than Madlyn, but that also has much to do with the fact that Carl had a good 17 years of not having been kidnapped, murdered and buried in a drum by a loving Xian to make time with the PR-types.

[Az]

15. Both are gone now

Both tactics are going to continue to exist. Now we can add to all our problems by tearing at each other while the theists continue to dominate. Or we use our brains and examine the situation and see what we can rationally make of it. This doesn't mean that one or the other has to submit to the other. But surely we can come to an understanding at the very least amongst ourselves.

[Modem Butterfly]

16. That's just it though

They didn't have different tactics, just different arenas. Madlyn Murray O'Hair was involved in a landmark court decision and used her fame to organize atheists and publicize that organization. Carl Sagan was a scientist who was very vocal about being an atheist.

I think a better place to take our cues from is the gay rights movement. Gays and lesbians have a very diverse population with a wide range of competing goals, interests, and tactics, encompassing everyone from The Log Cabin Republicans to the Lesbian Avengers, the common factor being their shared identity. If you've ever been to a gay pride parade, you know that you'll see clean-cut lawyers marching as a group to the most dragged out Sisters of Iniquity riding a giant penis float. Gay politics seem to be as contentious as they are diverse, but they have had incredible and wide-ranging success, a success which has benefitted other groups even. In 50 years, gays and lesbians have gone from being hunted and despised to being accepted and openly embraced in much of society (MUCH, not all; we're seeing the backlash to that success right now). When my mother was growing up in the 50's, the idea of two men being attracted to each other was utterly foreign. A month ago, she attended a gay wedding. Now THAT'S progress we should seek to emulate.

IMNNSHO, what we need is a shared identity, along the same lines as the one that gays and lesbians have forged for themselves. We may be different genders, different colors, have different political goals and different family plans, but in the end, we are all atheists. Different groups will pursue different goals in different manners, but that is not something to get hung up about. We need to show people that we exist and we are here, we need to encourage people to come out as atheists. We need to reach critical mass.

[onager]

18. Y'know, I rather LIKE this image of us...

[Modem Butterfly]

19. Banding together to bring down wounded woo-woos

Raiding theist coops late at night, circling in a ring to howl at the full moon....

Sounds kind of nice, actually.

[beam me up scottie]

20. YES!!! YOU NAILED IT!!!

They NEVER whine, they NEVER apologize and they NEVER shut up because they're not going away.

And neither are we.

I am NOT waiting 50 years for bigots to decide they are "ready" to tolerate my presence.

FUCK THEM.

If they don't like it, THEY can leave.

What do they say, "We're here, we're queer..." and I can't remember the rest, but we need a saying like that.


BMUS
The original Uppity Atheist

[Modem Butterfly]

23. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it"

But that's just one group, namely Act UP!, who also coined the slogan Silence = Death. It should be noted that many people in the gay and lesbian community are uncomfortable with them. But they are still accepted as gay or gay-positive nonetheless.

[Az]

21. Critical mass

I agree. We need to band together. As I mentioned in another thread this is something I have been struggling with for some time now. And in this pursuit I have found a wide range of attitudes. Including one's that think we should tell the believers what a bunch of deluded fools they are and even more that wish there was some group that could represent nonbelief in a positive light.

The godless march showed me that the groups can come together. And when such a diverse group tries to act cohesively wisdom suggests we should coordinate the efforts. Keeping in mind the needs and tactics of the various groups. There is room for both those that try to grow the group through diplomacy and passion along side those that wish to show the world the foolishness of delusional beliefs.

We are supposedly the champions of reason. It is the one thing we seem to rally around. Use it. Let us figure out how to make this diverse group function cohesively. In this way we can achieve a critical mass and have a true say in our society instead of hoping a large enough group of theists takes pity on our situation.

[Modem Butterfly]

24. You know though, on a micro-level, the A&A group is already quite cohesive

In fact, we've gotten a lot of complaints about our cohesiveness lately (see Onager's joke about the wolfpack jab).

[Az]

26. I happen to think this group is great

But the thing is this model doesn't transfer to the wild. We are concentrated here. We can easily find each other. All sorts of types show up here. I love it. But I can't figure out how to get it to transfer to the real world.

Even so we could do better here. There are atheists in DU that do not seem to want to come in out of the cold. The idea of banding together seems to scare them or something. This leads me to want to try harder to make this an even more welcoming place.

[geniph]

22. I AM a crotchety old MMO type

and damned proud of it, too!