Even if you could know (per impossibile) that religion is false, and yet you were nonetheless able (per impossibile) to believe that it is true, and to do so would greatly enhance your joy of living, would it then be wrong somehow to believe? — John

No doubt that the religious are capable to have either far more meaningful or far more successful lives than atheists generally, so in that sense it would be good to believe. Many great poets were "God-intoxicated" - many musicians, philosophers, etc. There were also many leaders, commanders and conquerors who viewed themselves as doing God's will.

But at the same time there's the question of integrity - if you knew something was false, you'd at least lack integrity if you chose to believe it was true.

But at the same time there's the question of integrity - if you knew something was false, you'd at least lack integrity if you chose to believe it was true. — Agustino

OK, but what exactly, in the absence of God (absolute truth) is integrity anyway? Does it consist merely in honoring the good opinion of us held by our peers, or what?

Does it consist merely in honoring the good opinion of us held by our peers, or what? — John

Truthfulness towards one's own self?

Isn't everything we do true to ourselves in one way or another, though?

Well would you say I'm true to myself if I know X is false, but yet I choose to believe X is true? How so?

That could be true I suppose, but then popular music is not always the best music.

but then popular music is not always the best music. — John

What do you mean here lol?

Let's say you know X is true but you really want to believe Y. If you believe Y you will not be acting true to the part of you that believes X. On the other hand, if you believe X you will not be acting true to the part of you that wants to believe Y.

You say that 180 Proof is well known; I'm just saying that that fact does not guarantee that his thoughts were truly unique or of high value. To be honest I found his thoughts somewhat quirky and interesting, but pretty one-sided, especially when it came to religion. But I also acknowledge that he 'knew his shit', such as it was.

Let's say you know X is true but you really want to believe Y. If you believe Y you will not be acting true to the part of you that believes X. On the other hand, if you believe X you will not be acting true to the part of you that wants to believe Y. — John

Yes but would you lack integrity? You'd be truthful in your actions. You'll admit you want to believe Y, but can't because you know Y is false, and X is true.

To be honest I found his thoughts somewhat quirky and interesting, but pretty one-sided, especially when it came to religion. But I also acknowledge that he 'knew his shit', such as it was. — John

Well you don't have to agree with someone to find their thinking valuable. I found 180's thinking very valuable, but I rarely agreed with him. He actually agreed with me about one thing related to religion - that God treats human beings like straw dogs :P lol

Yes but would you lack integrity? You'd be truthful in your actions. You'll admit you want to believe Y, but can't because you know Y is false, and X is true. — Agustino

It probably would have been better if I had said "you suspect X is true but you really want to believe Y", since I don't believe we ever know when it comes to religious matters. You might be suspicious of Y just on account of the fact that you find yourself wanting to believe it. But then this suspicion might be an intersubjectively introjected trope. I tend to think of 'integrity' in terms of 'integrality', so on this view we can never have integrity unless we commit wholeheartedly, and without any wavering remainder, to our beliefs. But is that even possible if we are highly inquiring kinds of persons given to the love of free speculation? On the other hand perhaps integrity consists in holding everything absolutely open, and "waiting for the miracle to come".

He actually agreed with me about one thing related to religion - that God treats human beings like straw dogs :P lol — Agustino

So, he did secretly believe in God (and not merely Spinoza's God) after all?

But is that even possible if we are highly inquiring kinds of persons given to the love of free speculation? On the other hand perhaps integrity consists in holding everything absolutely open. — John

Well being inquiring is one thing, but being indecisive is another. I think indecisiveness is a problem - it means not being able to commit despite having (as much information) as possible / reasonable.

So, he did secretly believe in God (and not merely Spinoza's God) after all? — John

No but he appreciated the Old Testament view of God much more than the New Testament one so to say. A God not interested and largely indifferent to human whims and affairs - just like the God encountered by Job.

http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-disintegration-kierkegaard-doubt-50aeb447-b83?p=29f22fe6b4f6c575b8ed4c38718e200f

https://livereal.com/psychology_arena/whats_the_problem/indecisiveness_osho.htm

These were both interesting thoughts, disregarding the lack of factual statements with regards to K.

Well being inquiring is one thing, but being indecisive is another. I think indecisiveness is a problem - it means not being able to commit despite having (as much information) as possible / reasonable. — Agustino

To be decisive is not necessarily, or perhaps even often, to be wholly committed in the sense I was meaning, though. Decisiveness is often driven merely by practical considerations.

No but he appreciated the Old Testament view of God much more than the New Testament one so to say. A God not interested and largely indifferent to human whims and affairs - just like the God encountered by Job. — Agustino

I guess, as always, it is a matter of hermeneutics, but I would say the God of the Old Testament is a jealous God; deeply, perhaps pathologically, interested in human affairs.

I guess, as always, it is a matter of hermeneutics, but I would say the God of the Old Testament is a jealous God; deeply, perhaps pathologically, interested in human affairs. — John

The God of the New Testament is too. Hell is mentioned more often in the New Testament than in the Old. Many Jewish people don't even have much of an idea of hell. It's a popular idea that the OT is harsh and the NT is loving and kind, but it's not so black and white. The Revelation is likely a lot more brutal for example than anything in the OT.

To be decisive is not necessarily, or perhaps even often, to be wholly committed in the sense I was meaning, though. Decisiveness is often driven merely by practical considerations. — John

Check the two osho links above on decisiveness.

Perhaps K was not prepared to be decisive for merely practical reasons; and was waiting until he could commit himself absolutely. Of course this waiting must have been cruel to R, so out of love for her he had to let her go in the end.

Perhaps K was not prepared to be decisive for merely practical reasons; and was waiting until he could commit himself absolutely. Of course this waiting must have been cruel to R, so out of love for her he had to let her go in the end. — John

Well I think there's a bit of fabrication on the part of Osho there. K. decided to leave R. and not the other way around, but they were engaged at that time. So there was some commitment. There is a lot of speculation as to why K. broke off the engagement (an engagement which HE started).

Regrettably I have to tootle off now Agustino, so, until later...

Absurdist Atheism
Have a read of this essay. — Agustino

I have heard about Zappfe on forums previously. Also am quite familiar with Camus. I think the underlying driver for both is very much 'in the shadow of the death of God'. They're both acutely aware of the meaning of the 'death of God' - much more so than the puerile atheism that doesn't understand the meaning at all. But I still feel they're stuck at a level of intellectual rationalisation, they're not really engaging at the level of felt understanding.

One thing I picked up from Owen Barfield was the sense of 'primal intimacy' that humans had, prior to the advent of industrial society and the 'disenchantment of the world'. The belief in God or gods or ancestors and spirits was not at all intellectual in today's sense - it was a felt relationship, a network of obligations and ties. The world did not appear to such minds, as it does to us, because there was not the same sense of 'otherness' and alienation from it, which marked the advent of modernity and the realisation of the 'appalling vastnesses of space'. The world was still an enchanted garden or mystery play in which we had our parts, even if our situation appeared miserable from today's perspective.

I was interested to learn Camus did postgraduate work on some form of philosophical theology - I think it might have been Neoplatonism. Also there is said to have been a relationship between him and an American pastor in Paris, by the name of Howard Mumma, to whom he expressed some interest in conversion, prior to his death - there's some details here, although I don't know how authentic the story is.

As for me, I have never believed in the kind of God which I think the existentialists rejected - perhaps because I grew up in a post-Christian and generally non-religious household, the shadow of religion never hung over me. I wrote an undergrad essay on the topic that 'God is not God', by which I meant the image, idea, aggregated collections of thoughts, and the rest, is what people usually mean when they use the word. In other words, they're generally referring to a kind of social construct. But then, I was never atheist - I remember distinctly first understanding that there were 'atheists', aged about 6. Even though I had no idea what God really was, I still thought it was shocking that there would be people who didn't believe in something that seemed so self-evidently great to me.

Nowadays, I rarely use the word 'God', I think I'm actually aware that it does carry a certain weight. I think in terms of 'the Not' - which is the non-manifest, the uncreated, unborn - which is the apophatic way (ugly word for a very simple understanding.) But, like Karen Armstrong says, the point about any real religious life is that it is enacted, you learn to internalise it through the liturgy, symbolic actions and learning by doing. At that point you don't need to believe it, you become it.

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong

Although, 'the absurd' is definitely an important part of religious consciousness. That is why the figures of holy madmen, enlightened rascals and vagabonds are important. Otherwise it's all starchy authoritarianism. There's a lot more of that in folk religious traditions and in the East than there are in the great pontificating power structures that the west thinks of as 'religion'.

Anyway I'm raving, need to sign off, early start, big day.

What about 'scientific atheism' or 'logical atheism'? Science leads us to which there is no God.

Ah, but you forgot my favourite 'type' of atheism - serene atheism, in which the problem of God simply... isn't one; in which the only proper orientation to God is sheer indifference, where God's 'existence' or 'non-existence' are not even problems, beneath consideration, a triviality: "A tranquil atheism is a philosophy for which God is not a problem. The non-existence or even the death of God are not problems but rather the conditions one must have already acquired in order to make the true problems surge forth" (Deleuze, Dialogues). Put otherwise: the very idea of a God is a grammatical mistake - it doesn't qualify as a coherent object of serious reflection - either positive or negative. — StreetlightX

That's about as close as I've come to agreeing with Deleuze.

I'm an atheist simply because (1) I was never socialized into religion, and (2) by the time I learned about religious views in any depth, they struck me as completely absurd, and they've never stopped seeming so to me. — Terrapin Station

I'm sure you've heard of people who have had a sudden change of heart/personality - for example going from completely non-religious (of the militant kind) to religious. Or going from outright thug, gangster and mafia don, to upstanding member of the community. Or going from super-shy, agarophobic house-bound type to super-outgoing, friendly and social. Or from depressive, suicidal, don't wanna live another second, to completely in love with life and full of joy? What do you think accounts for such sudden changes if not a transcendental experience (or what participants would identify as a transcendental experience)?

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers. I like the idea of a God creating the world such that living a virtuous life would lead to flourishing as a human, and everything else is pure speculation. What happens after we die? I don't know, no one does... there are several different stories. Which one appeals to you? I kinda like the idea that maybe we will live our lives over and over again, like the Stoics suggested. But, maybe instead of it being exactly the same every time, maybe all of creation gets a little better on each iteration.

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers. — anonymous66

Atheisms, even serene atheisms, are always phrased as "I don't agree with that". They reject a given linguistic expression. In practice, this is often a semantic problem -- the atheist is interpreting a given linguistic expression in one way, and the believer is interpreting it in another way.

It is ironic to observe that the shortcomings of language as a medium for expressing divine truths are acknowledged by basically all of the major religious traditions. Many atheists suppose that rejecting the expression X is enough to convince someone that the-truth-pointed-at-by-X is nonexistent, but this is a clear error.

It is also ironic to note that well-established traditions usually give preference to apophatic expressions, i.e., basically agreeing with atheists regarding the shortcomings of language.

The whole issue can be softened, and often dismissed, if both sides give up trying to rule on how people should use their words, and focus on what is being said underneath the words.

I'm sure you've heard of people who have had a sudden change of heart/personality - for example going from completely non-religious (of the militant kind) to religious. Or going from outright thug, gangster and mafia don, to upstanding member of the community. Or going from super-shy, agarophobic house-bound type to super-outgoing, friendly and social. Or from depressive, suicidal, don't wanna live another second, to completely in love with life and full of joy? What do you think accounts for such sudden changes if not a transcendental experience (or what participants would identify as a transcendental experience)? — Agustino

"Transcendental experience" is rather vague to me--you're not saying that any person who has a major change like that in a short period of time has had a religious experience, are you? (Because many people who experienced those changes would say they didn't have religious experiences. Of course, many would say they did, too . . .)

Anyway, as a physicalist/materialist, an identity theorist on the mind/brain issue, I believe that we're talking about changes in persons' brains (and events in persons' brains that count as "transcendental experiences"). Why some persons' brains change so radically in a short period of time so that we're talking about a completely different personality is a good question, but of course, we don't yet (if we'd ever) have a very good map of how brains from a third-person perspective amount to any particular first-person subjective experience.

This brings up a good study project--although one that's unfortunately not likely to be feasible any time soon because of political/ethical issues: if we were to regularly map everyone's brains in detail, say once every 2-3 years or whatever, and correlate that mapping with behavioral, personality, etc. changes they've experienced, it would help us better map third person observables to first person subjective experience.

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers.

— anonymous66

Atheisms, even serene atheisms, are always phrased as "I don't agree with that". They reject a given linguistic expression.

- Mariner
I find it encouraging that even New Atheists as strident as Richard Dawkins have gone on record as saying they don't have an issue with certain conceptions of God... Dawkins admits he is just fine with what he calls a deistic God or the God of the physicist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgrEvEM_j1o

I find it encouraging that even New Atheists as strident as Richard Dawkins have gone on record as saying they don't have an issue with certain concepts of God... Dawkins admits he is just fine with what he calls a deistic God or the God of the physicist. — anonymous66

If he had a few more lifetimes, or more interest in studying what the major traditions say about God, we could even imagine him saying that he has no problem with the Christian or the Hindu or the Muslim or the Cheyenne (etc. etc.) concept of God.

I think the Catholic church should be congratulated for admitting it made mistakes. That is a step in the right direction.

People see problems with religion. It's difficult to see how a good God would be okay with the evil done in His name.

The idea of a God who is not associated with religions has it's own appeal.

If he had a few more lifetimes, or more interest in studying what the major traditions say about God, we could even imagine him saying that he has no problem with the Christian or the Hindu or the Muslim or the Cheyenne (etc. etc.) concept of God. — Mariner

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that Dawkins could change his views or that Dawkins' comment about deism is irrelevant to his overall stance?

It is also ironic to note that well-established traditions usually give preference to apophatic expressions, i.e., basically agreeing with atheists regarding the shortcomings of language. — Mariner

I think the difficulty here is that there are many different paths advocated to getting mystical experiences, so many people don't know what to believe as true. For example, Buddhism advocates meditation, while Christianity advocates prayer and devotion. So the way of accessing mystical insight isn't clear - and for those who have never had any such experiences, they don't even know what mystical insight could refer to.