Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the insights about the relation Brahman-Atman-Krishna.

I apparently did not express clearly what I, and any Westerner, understand by the statement “God exists”. I should not have used the phrase “objective existence” since you relate it to objects and, of course, God is not an object, which is apparently the same as when I say that God cannot (and never will) be investigated by science. So forget about that unfortunate phrase and let me repeat that “God exists” means that he is not just a figment of human imagination.

If you agree that God is more than just a product of human thought then you are not an atheist.

In my definition - and I am sorry I did not make it explicitly clear - anybody who is a theist is also an atheist (like every group is also a semigroup). This comes from my four steps into being a Catholic (see my http://www.gvirsik.de/What%20We%20Believe.pdf): I am a Catholic, hence a Christian, hence a theist hence a pre-theist. Examples of pre-theists who are not theists are of those who believe in God in some sense (i.e. do not think that He is purely the product of human imagination) but do not believe humans can communicate with Him through prayer: e. g. deists, pantheists, Spinoza, Einstein.

Prayer is communication of an individual with God, Revelation (within a given religion) is communication of God with humanity as such (in the language of that religion).

Dear George,

Thank you!

Sometimes I describe myself over these pages as "technically an atheist", so it was good to read your alternate definition according to which I am not.

I read your letter to your daughter with interest. I appreciate its orderliness and agree with many of its assertions. Yet one assertion stands out that I disagree with: that we are humans, thus the conclusion that God is "above us".

Certainly we ought to pray, "communicating" with God AS IF we were separate, but the paradox is that we are not truly praying to anyone but our true self. I similarly believe in [multiple] Revelations, Christ's included, AS IF God and humanity were separate.

I wonder what you have to say about Swami Vivekananda's definitions of "atheist":
http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/we-are-all-atheists.html
http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/who-is-atheist.html

Dear Yuyutsu,

>> Sometimes I describe myself over these pages as "technically an atheist”,<<

Note that in the article I wrote: “My default position here is that of what is called methodological atheism: there is no need for God to explain the working of the physical world.”

>>that we are humans, thus the conclusion that God is "above us”.<<

What I meant was simply a reference to consciousness and intelligence which are seen as positive qualities, hence (our idea of) God must also possess them. Like an adult is above a child as far as intelligence and other qualities are. God is infinite in the sense that (countable) infinity is greater than any number no matter how large.

I know that Brahman-Atman are supposed to be “two sides of the same coin”. In Christianity God is transcendent (Brahman?) but also immanent (Atman?). The “presence of God in ourselves” is referred to as Grace of God (Catholic children are told that communion means that Jesus enters their hearts). The panentheist theology sees God as “greater than the universe which it includes and interpenetrates”.

Well, I am not a theologian. This was just an attempt to see some analogues between the Brahman/Atman and Christian approaches to God. Where we apparently differ is that for a Christian, God is not reducible to humanity. [What if there is intelligent life out there, i.e. many humanities? Or in the Krishna quote I gave above, is humanity incarnate talking to itself?]

ctd

ctd

Thank you for the links that I perused only superficially. Part of what is written there might be related to what is referred to as methodological atheism. As you know, early Christians in Rome were referred to as atheists because they did not want to worship what they called pagan gods. I grew up in a Stalinist country, where atheism was preached as the only “scientific world-view” and those who did not subscribe to it were discriminated or even persecuted. To appease some friendly atheists on this OLO I prefer to call such militant atheism anti-theism.

The sentence “Mere intellectual assent does not make us religious.” from your link reminds me of John Henry Newman. Maybe you would be interested in my http://www.gvirsik.de/Faith%20versus%20belief.pdf? that Graham did not find suitable for publication here.

«Dear George,

«methodological atheism: there is no need for God to explain the working of the physical world.”»

Isn't this position arbitrary? One could similarly, for example, believe that "there is no need for God to tie my shoe-laces". Why would explaining the working of the physical world be so important? Perhaps because atheists consider the physical world as their God...

«I know that Brahman-Atman are supposed to be “two sides of the same coin”.»

Even more accurately, "seeing the same from two different angles".

«In Christianity God is transcendent (Brahman?) but also immanent (Atman?)"

'Brahman' could be etymologically be described as "the great", "infinite" or "all", while 'Atman' means "myself" in the sense of who I really am. Both words are like pointers indicating a direction, but cannot actually express what they refer to. The teaching of the Upanishads is that these "two" which seem to be different: myself-subject and all-object, are in fact one and the same - there is no duality. One cannot understand it, only experience this directly.

«Where we apparently differ is that for a Christian, God is not reducible to humanity.»

Why, I think we can agree on this.

Thank you for your unpublished article. As you mentioned, Hebrew has no word for "belief", only for "faith": it seems that the ancients had no need for the concept of intellectual-only belief while modern Hebrew uses 'Emunah' for both (which might be confusing unless the context is clear) and its derivative 'Emun' for "trust [in a person]".

I wish you a safe and happy Christmas.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I introduced this, rewarding for me, discussion with the words “I have to admit that my definitions of pre-theist and theist have a Western, i.e. Abrahamic, bias, as much as I tried to make it general, with philosophy of science (which, albeit is also rooted in Western tradition) as the “home ground”.

I should have added that also my understanding of atheism has a Western bias. As a Christian I believe that God exists independent of humanity (as does material reality) but cannot be reached by science (in distinction to material reality).

This distinction between the Creator and creation (including the human self), led centuries ago to the study of the working of material reality (seen as God’s creation) until natural science arose which could explain HOW material reality works without having to refer to God as the Creator. This is what methodological atheism means: “doing” natural science without reference to God in whose existence a scientist might or might not believe. From this position the “explanation of the working of the physical world” (e.g. the study of quantum physics or cosmology) is incomparable (also in its importance for the understanding of the world in and out of one’s self) with the “tying of your shoe-laces”.

I did not understand what you meant by “Why, I think we can agree on this” in reaction to my “Where we apparently differ is that for a Christian, God is not reducible to humanity”. Did you mean to say that you agree that we differ?

Maybe you are an example that my distinction atheist vs pre-theist and pre-theist vs theist is not applicable to a non-Western approach to spirituality and God.

I wish you also Happy Christmas and all the best for 2019.