.

Dear Squeers & AJ Philips,

.

« Where atheism/rationalism does border on religion is in the faith it places in human reason--and indeed in the human senses … I am an agnostic … »

AJ’s comments on that appear to me to be pertinent. Also, I acquiesce, Squeers, that your agnosticism does (as you seem to suggest) at least, partly, explain your vision of atheism/rationalism as a “religion”.

Had you managed to clarify the situation, one way or the other – as it seems AJ and I have done - perhaps the distinction between atheism/rationalism/religion may become more evident. Though I must admit that a number of people on this forum who declare themselves to be firm believers in God appear, like you, to qualify as religion, our confidence (faith) in confronting life’s difficulties and improving the human condition without feeling the need to have recourse to some hypothetical supernatural entity for assistance.

I maintain, however, as I indicated in my post to Peter Sellick (on page 3 of this thread) regarding “trust” : having faith or confidence in something or somebody is not restricted to religious belief. It has a much broader application.

Also, what AJ refers to as “unjustified belief” is what I call “blind faith”, i.e., “belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness” [“faith”, itself, being defined as : “belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)”].

I interpret the fact that you indicate that you place your faith in “human foibles” as an aid to the comprehension of your character – which I appreciate. I, personally, tend to look on the brighter side of life and see, not only the "foibles", but the “human qualities” as well. Where there's a "yin", there's a "yang".

.

AJ Philips,
I’d say our first problem is expecting language to be definitive or objective. Inference and interpretation are mediated by the vagaries of language, restrictions of jargon, limitations of knowledge, impositions of prejudice, and other conditioned/subjective corruptions. ‘Reason’ must cope with all this in analysing and presenting its subject matter. But wait, neither is the subject matter truly empirical, but comprised for the intellect of the very same linguistic chaos, which precedes and conditions analysis.
You are imposing restrictions on the word ‘faith’ which do not obtain. ‘Faith’ can also imply calculated belief, ‘such as this plane shouldn’t crash’, or ‘evolution is almost certainly correct’. In fact, it’s as slippery as any of the other words we put our faith in. In this instance I deliberately gave it a rhetorical edge. I took exception to Beaucoupbob’s arrogant and simplistic denunciation, itself entirely rhetorical and as we were meant to. These New Atheist types tend to police their ‘reason’ and slap down anything they think offends it, without even deigning to debate it, and as if their ‘reason’ possessed a fidelity that justified their faith in.
So my argument is that rationalism is not reasonable. It does fine work on the face of it, given our presumably limited perception and the cultural baggage it carries, but its trial and error accomplishments (btw why should reason and objectivity proceed by trial error if they are what they claim to be?) often have negative consequences because the feigned objectivity has no higher directive (which is not to invoke God), only an economic or political one, generally cynical.
“…rationalists are sceptical of other proposed ways of knowing”
Yes indeed, not merely sceptical, but hostile. Yet other modes of perception and ‘knowing’ (not a word I’d use) remain compelling, even inexplicable, and not just for simpletons. I for one refuse to be silenced. I am convinced, in spite of myself, of a much deeper reality than that arrived at by elimination and propounded by dogmatists.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote:

« ‘Faith’ can also imply calculated belief, ‘such as this plane shouldn’t crash’, or ‘evolution is almost certainly correct’. »
.

Yes, what you call “calculated belief” is what I call “circumstantial evidence”: crash statistics for a particular airline operator, type of plane etc. and scientific evidence as regards evolution.

.

You also wrote :

« I am convinced, in spite of myself, of a much deeper reality than that arrived at by elimination … »
.

I have witnessed some very eerie, inexplicable phenomena in my life, so exceptional that my mind is open to all sorts of weird and wonderful revelations. However, my anticipation - judging by previous scientific discoveries (circumstantial evidence) - is that they are due to aspects of nature which we have not yet identified, let alone fathomed and understood.

Until we do, unlike primeval man, I do not feel the need to invent some supernatural entity as a provisional explanation.

.

AJ Philips,
on your second paragraph I again have to differ:
"Atheism and theism have nothing to say about reason, they simply address the question the belief in a god or gods".

To strip these words of their contexts and treat them merely as signifiers is again to miss the point that words and their meanings are cultural constructs, and not direct or reliable signifiers. Theism of course comprises a vast antiquity and collection/conceptual framework of deities, and for much of human thought is decidedly associated with reason. Indeed reason was grounded in it, or in some other metaphysical construct which served as foundation. It's only in the modern era that reason has devoted itself to empiricism, but with still unresolved difficulties.
If I say I'm an agnostic, or you say you're an atheist, we are not making simple observations; we each choose a position which carries myriad implications, which are accorded kudos or condemnation according to the cultural sensibilities we're immured in.
We don't simply take a stand. As if we could! As if could arbitrate independently! As if our minds (which are what?) were truly at a remove from the action: objective.
Rather, we invest intellectually in a "conceptual spectrum", however conceited we may be about being 'purists'. There are no purists. All is vanity (once again, and from the individualist perspective).
My own position in agnosticism is a corruption of the original meaning, perfectly acceptable today; almost synonymous with scepticism (which was once a sin), I am agnostic in all things. Atheism is as much a world view as its opposite. It's a boast of intellectual purity, a mode of condescension, a withering denunciation, a barely repressed intolerance, an uncritical worship of scientific magic tricks, a faith in the capacity of science to keep us safe and comfortable, and ergo default support for the economic system which facilitates it.
Dawkins is as much a high priest as the Pope is; both ride on a tide of populism.

Banjo Paterson,
hopefully my last answers yours too. I don't feel the need to invent deities either, but I object to this wholesale dismissal of those countless "primeval" generations you imply merely "invented" deities. Among these were countless wo/men of learning in all likelihood far more intelligent and perceptive than us. I'm afraid I lack both the breathtaking presumption to dismiss them en masse, and the faith in my own culture's necessarily narrow constructions on the phenomenal universe.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thank you for clarifying that. It seems our positions are fairly similar. Almost the same content but with a different label.

George tells me that I am a Christian because I was baptised as a baby, even though I never believed in the existence of a god and eventually acquired the certainty that there is none when I made the effort of delving into the history of it and discovered how the myth arose.

Despite my previous scepticism, it came to me as a revelation. Quite an exhilarating experience. Nevertheless it seems I have been branded for life as a Christian in the eyes of society.

The only label I am willing to accept is that of “a very ordinary person”. I see no reason to qualify myself by reference to those who believe in something which does not exist. That makes no sense to me. It seems ridiculous.

I understand your definition of agnosticism and your reasons for adopting it as a label but, like atheism, it too evokes the notion of deity, the supernatural and religion as a point of reference which, again, makes no sense to me.

None of the 7.3 billion people on earth were born as theists or Gnostics but as “very ordinary people”. Theism and Gnosticism are human concepts which are usually spoon-fed to the offspring of successive generations by society. They derive from nurture, not nature.

If we were to reverse the labelling process and take “very ordinary people” as the point of reference, then those who espouse deity, the supernatural, Gnosticism and religion could be labelled theists, supernaturalists, Gnostics or religious people.

As regards your comment : « I object to this wholesale dismissal of those countless "primeval" generations you imply merely "invented" deities » - logically, only one generation did that, as an explanation of natural phenomena (animist religion).

Successive generations simply adapted and updated the concept. That’s the way the myth was invented and perpetuated to this day. There is ample evidence of that.

I do not dismiss anybody.

.