h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

About singing what you can't say: I don't allow the words any virtue, but I give them gusto.

When you speak it is as yourself; when you sing you take on a persona, like an actor. As a non-actor it is hard to say something objectionable. That's all.

Many non-religious songs consinst of egregious attempts at seduction. We don't have to be seen as lending our moral weight to what we sing.

I found that Sam Harris video link on Taliesin's blog, Recumbentman. It is *very* good and worth posting around a bit.

az

The great Chicago radio presenter, Studs Terkel, was a friend of the gospel singer, Mahalia Jackson. After her performences, she's always ask him: 'Did I get you this time, Studs? Did I lead you to the Lord?'. He'd answer, 'Not quite, Mahalia...but don't ever stop trying!'

Edward, remind about what Studs Terkel book I read twenty years or more ago might have been - something about 'working' people, as I vaguely recall.

Meanwhile, listening to Mahalia Jackson sing does always fill me with the feeling of her lord and god ... even though it's not mine.

az

I *think* he did one called, simply, 'Work'. I've ben dipping into his 'Race: The American Obsession'

>>Meanwhile, listening to Mahalia Jackson sing does always fill me with the feeling of her lord and god ... even though it's not mine.

Spot on! The feelings - hers, our own - are undeniable. The point of difference is where she and I would say they originate from.

I suppose that Bach and Wagner felt righteous and joyful in their anti-semitism. It was what their Lord wanted, after all. But music's not a precise medium. It can convey the rapture, but it's difficult to display anti-semitism efficiently.

I listened to Act I of The Valkyrie on the radio last week, and it finally struck me why opera plots are so wierd. The librettist's task is to set up pretexts for people to sing with extreme emotion. The plot is shaped to that requirement. Suspension of disbelief? Pah! Who needs that? Open the floodgates, that's more like it!

In the Hitchens/Fry podcast I linked to aways back (here it is again: http://www.hayfestival.com/archive/2006/05/blasphemy-debate.aspx) they both single out for praise the poetry of the King James Bible. Fry still likes to go to church to revel in the liturgical bits. Hitchens says that the modern CofE '...threw out the only good thing they had.'

Sure, I understand that it is widely understood to be have a certain euphony. But is that enough? I always find that poetry works best when it has both euphony *and* meaning. I can't see how Hitchens and Fry can ignore the silly or dreadful things the KJV is saying.


Meanhile:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Militant_atheist_decides_her_car_keys_never_existed

It wouldn't be so poetic if it weren't also dreadful.

Good point! Maybe it's the Jacobean equivalent of 'American Psycho'.

Bang on

At risk of being provocative I'd like to entertain a polite reflection of the following points please;

Some Defintions
***************
A/ The proposition that Atheism and Theism are mainly defined by their positions on the Belief-In-God proposition ('BIG') is simplistic but mostly fair (you can find Theists/Atheists that nearly agree on everything other than the BIG question is true I think), and,
B/ Religions are faith-based man-made bodies of people clubbing their traditions (I take 'Faith' to be as per the academic peer reviewed definition of Prof James Fowler - see Footnote 1).
C/ Misology defined : n. Hatred of argument or reason. [from Greek misologia, miso (hatred, hating) + logos (the word, or that by which the inward thought is expressed)]

Some Leading Questions for Reflection
*************************************

Question 1: Does Atheism in its formulation need a degree of faith to assert BIG=false? (Consider the Bayesian statistic where evidence for a propositions falsehood is 0 if false and 1 if true - if Theists say BIG=1, Agnostics BIG=0.5, on what non faith-based argument can an Atheist say BIG=0?.)

Question 2: Given 1 - is it the case that Atheists club together formally and informally to reinforce, discuss and challenge their views with each other - can you find websites, blogs and other support mechanisms for this purpose? Is this not therefore in fact a body/clubbing activity?

Question 3: Given 1 and 2 - Is it not the case that Atheism is not only a Faith-Based tradition (at least in part) but also for some a Religion by the definitions in A and B?

Question 4: Given 3 - If one fundamentally believes in principles of Atheistic faith, that are not falsifiable, is this not in actuality a working defintion of 'Atheistic Fundamentalism'?

Question 5: Given 4 - Is it possible that the Religion of Atheistic Fundamentalism is equally likely (and arguably more likely given a certain likelihood of relativism of values regarding the dignity of man and its rejection of other BIG faith-based tradition of having any value for dialog with) to tacitly support inter-faith violence?

Question 6: Given 5 - Is not the real evil in this world is Fudamentalist Misology? Irrespective of the BIG question. Would it not be better if we affirmed each other on the basis of a) reason and b) tolerance of the BIG question. And rather tried to persuade those who are fundamentalist misologists that they are part of the problem and not the solution?

I ask you please to consider and reflect on my questions. Maybe I am wrong and you can help me better understand the contradiction I feel are inherent in certain kind of Atheists.

FOOTNOTE: 'Faith may be characterized as an integral, centering process underlying the formation of beliefs, values and meanings that (1) gives coherence and direction to persons' lives, (2) links them in shared trusts and loyalties with others, (3) grounds their personal stances and communal loyalties in the sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference, and (4) enables them to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying upon that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.'

Ooh, my debut post.. and I'm not even going to give a full answer.


Question 1: Does Atheism in its formulation need a degree of faith to assert BIG=false? (Consider the Bayesian statistic where evidence for a propositions falsehood is 0 if false and 1 if true - if Theists say BIG=1, Agnostics BIG=0.5, on what non faith-based argument can an Atheist say BIG=0?.)

Not quite. For me, looking at all the evidence, the BIG is >0, but not much bigger. I can't see any evidence for it all, which is of course not saying that there is *no* evidence at all. If I was 100% confident there wasn't, then BIG=0 would be correct for me. Really, atheism (no capital) is my best guess.


Question 2: Given 1 - is it the case that Atheists club together formally and informally to reinforce, discuss and challenge their views with each other - can you find websites, blogs and other support mechanisms for this purpose? Is this not therefore in fact a body/clubbing activity?

I'm sure some atheists do, but so what? I don't think this is particularly relevant, because all people like to be in agreement sometimes. I am part of no club, however informal.

I'm not going to answer the rest, but then again I'm not a fundamentalist. Militant, possibly, but not a fundamentalist.

Nice posting, pilgrim! Certainly some food for thought here.

"Does Atheism in its formulation need a degree of faith to assert BIG=false? (Consider the Bayesian statistic where evidence for a propositions falsehood is 0 if false and 1 if true - if Theists say BIG=1, Agnostics BIG=0.5, on what non faith-based argument can an Atheist say BIG=0?.) "

I see the process of atheism in the same way as a scientist might - if there is no objective evidence for it, then why believe it to be true? It's not to say that it doesn't exist, but until evidence turns up, then atheists have more things to do with their lives. So where is the "faith" in that statement specifically?

I think that the Fowler definition of faith misses an important point. Faith is trusting or believing in something that lacks objective evidence or support. You make a leap of faith when you decide to commit yourself to a particular direction without sufficient grounds to know if it will turn out as you would like it to.

I hope you get my point though Pedro. If you are saying that you have no evidence to prove God Exists and no evidence that that God does not exist, then for you BIG=0.5. And I think unless it is an act of faith you are taking (one way of the other) then your position formally would be as an Agnostic.

What I am getting at here is the issue of misology and fundamentalism, and how people use these thoughts to justify themselves. You can find these patterns in the language of Atheists and Theists alike.

<>

Not quite. There is no evidence *anywhere*, imo, for the existence of a god. BIG, for me, is, say <0.01. It's still a possibility, but pretty remote. All the explanations that Moses would have used to explain natural phenomena would have derived from God, not from natural processes. Now it seems to me any responsible theist could only have God coming in at the moment of creation, and lighting the touchpaper then buggering off to see what happens.

If there was evidence that man was created by god, then my reasoning would be different, but absence of evidence *everywhere* we look is taken by me as evidence of absence*.


*Please remember though, this is just an educated guess, essentially.

Woodpigeon,

Thanks for your response.

You say... 'I see the process of atheism in the same way as a scientist might" And proceed to offer up a point of view that is mostly called Verificationist (see A J Ayer). But this point of view cannot be proven as empirically or analytically valid in of itself. Have a look at the historicist view of rationality of Thomas Kuhn looking at how Scientific Method is NOT purely objective, (in that it incorporates the bias and wordlview of the practitioner) See A1049915


You say Fowler's definition of faith is wrong becuase 'Faith is trusting or believing in something that lacks objective evidence or support.' But the issue of subject-object is a major philosophical debate issue not constrained to Theists/Atheists. For example many of us make assumptions (sometimes unreflected) that the nature of reality is material, that bivalency of logic is adequete, that we have cognitive ability sufficient to understand truth, etc., etc. Saying Atheism is objective becuase it is based on a naturalism pespective, that is objective based, is circular reasoning. It won't work that easily. Faith (by Fowlers defintion) is bound up in your humanity and all your perspective on life the universe and everything .

My point - it's not as cut and dried as we sometimes think. We need open minds. And be careful in our leaps of faith (one way or the other). We should always try to keep tolerant of other's views and base it on reason always. Atheistic Fundamentalism is something to be as cautious over as Theistic Fundamantalism. Misology and Intolerance is what we need to push back on.

Pedro,

Maybe for you the BIG value is so low. But for others it is not (lets not have debate here on that).

I'm with the fact we have different perspective. What I am trying to get across here though is the need for us to understand the Atheist and Theists should tolerate each other on the basis of reason and the understanding that faith is bound up with all of us - it cannot be seperated from our being. The fact that we believe in reasoning faculty of our minds is an article of faith.

We need to be less fundamental and more tolerant in handling issues of faith and reason.

<>

But this is a different kind of faith, and you can't equate it with faith in a deity. We only need to look around us to see *why* we should have faith in our reasoning faculty (eg this internet conversation).

Although, logically and ultimately this is (probably, I'm not that knowledgable about philosophy) everything is based on assumptions, equating faith in what we see with faith in what we can't seems decidedly unfair.

Not necessarily dealing with the questions methodically...RL intrudes...but let's try a couple:

Does Atheism require Faith?:
I repeat once again Bertrand Russell's famous example: "If I were to have you suppose that there isa giant teapot orbiting Mars, by what process would you decide that I was probably mistaken?"
You don't need faith not to believe in the teapot, do you? You simply need the lack of faith that leads you to require evidence. Actually, though, for Atheists it's a bit of a non question. It wouild be irrational to suppose that a teapot *isn't* circling Mars - Prof Russell might have seen the latest Hubble photos - but it's certainly very unlikely. It would go against anything we know, and we'd require a smidgen of evidence to change our understanding of planetary science to accommodate teapots. Same with God.

Bunching together:
Well, yes, in a way we are. Everyone here (invitees mostly, but you're very welcome having stumbled across us) is here because we're interested in discussing various matters from the starting point of Atheism. Probably our individual motivations differ...and it might be worth discussing them some time). In RL, atheists *don't* tend to flock on the basis of shared atheism except in the instances of organisations set up to counter religious intrusion (The Secular Society; The Humanist Association). But we do flock as much as anyone for reasons unrelated to atheism - Political parties, Oxfam, the golf club, pubs). Except...not quite. One thing that religions are particularly good at is social structures and atheists don't have anything quite like them. Maybe the Unitarian Universalists have got it right. The joke is that Humanists call them "Humanists who haven't got out of the church habit." They call Humanists "unchurched Unitarians"

As it happens, I've just started 'Couples' by John Updike. I think it's going to be about social structures in a post-religious age.

<>

I also see that as a non-question for atheists (not a 'bit of' one - it just is). Why would anyone need faith for looking at and accepting the world for what it is? What they can see and feel and touch and prove exists. The idea that god(s) might exist is something that has been added to our world by humans who think this is possible. Even the fact that many people happily going about their lives without any gods are called 'atheists' strikes me as odd. They are only atheists in terms of what theists believe.

az