Any primal non-christians here? page 6

[drssgchic]

So, Scott, tell me, how would our bantering about this subject help the OP of this thread or further the idea that Atheism is an accepted and respected viewpoint according to mainstream religions?

Proof that relationships between the religious and the non-religious are just going to be contentious

Scott- I happen to disagree that there are no absolute morals, but the universal ones are much broader and simpler than most people would prefer to accept.

[Scott F]

"So, Scott, tell me, how would our bantering about this subject help the OP of this thread or further the idea that Atheism is an accepted and respected viewpoint according to mainstream religions?"

The very fact that we can and are bantering about this subject should be evidence to the OP that problem within a marriage can arise. She's Christian and he isn't. Is she a fundamentalist or someone like myself with regards to science? Personally, I have no issues with science or evolution. I might have an issue when a scientist like Dawkins drags science into some metaphysical philosophy about the nature of reality.

On Galileo, since he is a PhD in history from Columbia I'll let Woods argue the point since it is his reputation that's on the line:

[Scott F]

Proof that relationships between the religious and the non-religious are just going to be contentious

exactly

Scott- I happen to disagree that there are no absolute morals, but the universal ones are much broader and simpler than most people would prefer to accept.

[Scott F]

To address your Galileo point... Copernicus came up with mathematical models describing the behavior of the universe more accurately than was previously possible. Specifically, they described the Heliocentric motion of major astronomical objects. Those models were used, and accepted and valid within their context, immediately. Why? Because they worked far more accurately than anything before. The fact that they worked STRONGLY indicated that they were more correct than the preceeding geocentric views. The fact that it took some hold-outs 200 years, or that there are still hold-outs that haven't accepted current knowledge, really has no bearing on anything. All it tells us is something we already know: There are stubborn people around.

As for proof... it took over 100 years to prove Darwin's theories, yet many sensible people accepted them as a more accurate understanding of how the world works than what came before them. Why? Because they were usefully predictive of observed conditions. It took decades to prove many of Einstein's most basic theories, yet they were widely accepted. Why? Again, they are useful/accurate ways of understanding how the universe works. How long it takes to prove an idea has little or no bearing on whether that idea should be adopted if it provides a meaningful insight into the real world.

Oh wanted to address these two. Your proof doesn't follow not because you are talking about a span of time and history but a span of human knowledge progress over that period of time. Why would you expect people of Galileo's time to have the same Occam Razor conclusion as scientists of Darwin's time? The only proof is a progression in scientific thought between those two time periods.

[Scott F]

That's enough of this. OP, you getting this? If she is determine to stick to her religious beliefs and you are not how would the two of you raise your kids? This doesn't simply apply to believers and nonbelievers either. Catholic and protestant marriages have to deal with the same type of long term relationship questions. Personally (leaving out children), because of my view on science and evolution, I could more easily be married to atheist than a fundamentalist christian.

[Him]

On Galileo, since he is a PhD in history from Columbia I'll let Woods argue the point since it is his reputation that's on the line:

LOL... did you actually watch that video before posting it? "The church's attitude was, 'If you can't prove to us this is absolutely true, then the best we can do is use it as a theory...'"

Yeah, and when someone says the same to the average religious believer, how does that go over? If you can't prove to us that your god idea is absolutely true, the best we can do is use it as a theory.

Anyway, it's a silly point in that the Catholic Church is not the entirety of religion. The funny part is that I have argued exactly what you are arguing...that the Catholic Church has done a lot of good for science. I could call it playing Devil's Advocate but it isn't even wrong. It's just too tightly focused. The Catholic Church, The Unitarian Universalist Church, etc... these may be fine organizations for the most part, but unless they step back and say, "yes, we should be held to the same standards we apply to others," they are always going to be in the wrong.

Edited to add:

Oh wanted to address these two. Your proof doesn't follow not because you are talking about a span of time and history but a span of human knowledge progress over that period of time. Why would you expect people of Galileo's time to have the same Occam Razor conclusion as scientists of Darwin's time? The only proof is a progression in scientific thought between those two time periods

No, the issue isn't how long it takes to prove something. The issue is how it is received. Galileo got the receiption, "it's just a theory". Darwin is STILL getting that reception today. Not from the Catholic church, but from religious people very closely affiliated with the Catholic Church (believe in the same god).

[zoebird]

I have to agree with Him about the social aspect of churches as being part of the appeal.

Both DH and I were raised entrenched in churches. TOday, DH and I are basically non-religious. We both discovered zen meditation and basically assert ourselves as non-theist -- which is simply being unconcerned with the question and/or believes in something that is not a god, but is transcendental, which is to say the enlightened state of being which is right in line with buddhism.

We also have strong jungian, mytho-poetic influences -- we love myths and how they interact with human experience and psyche , how they inform us.

We are also minimalists with time as our love language rather than objects -- which means we step outside of consumerist ideologies, and holidays are spent resting, traveling, spending time together. Perhaps special foods, but only things that are simple to make and not time consuming.

As such, our actual practices are quite strange. And finding a community for DS that is coherent, internally consistent with these values is actually difficult.

Modern, western buddhism is focused around adult education processes -- so there's very little opportunities for families. Mytho-poetic work is largely the same, though the Steiner schools do a good job of meeting us here -- so that's the closest community that we have (which is more focused on DS and I'm not exactly PTA material).

But, we do ok. Our main thing is communicating to DS that families are different, and that's ok.

[Scott F]

LOL... did you actually watch that video before posting it? "The church's attitude was, 'If you can't prove to us this is absolutely true, then the best we can do is use it as a theory...'"

Yeah, and when someone says the same to the average religious believer, how does that go over? If you can't prove to us that your god idea is absolutely true, the best we can do is use it as a theory.

He also address that question ontological proofs in these lectures. Your bias keeps coming out. You are conflating theology with naturalism.

Anyway, it's a silly point in that the Catholic Church is not the entirety of religion.

Who said it was? Not me. Catholicism is simply my background.

The funny part is that I have argued exactly what you are arguing...that the Catholic Church has done a lot of good for science. I could call it playing Devil's Advocate but it isn't even wrong. It's just too tightly focused. The Catholic Church, The Unitarian Universalist Church, etc... these may be fine organizations for the most part, but unless they step back and say, "yes, we should be held to the same standards we apply to others," they are always going to be in the wrong.

edited

Standards relative to whom? You want to hold a human religious institution of 1500s-1600s, whose scientific thought was in it's infancy relative to today or to Darwin's time? It begs a question about what you believe of today's age: In what way do you not see religious institutions (such as credited Universities like Notre Dame) being held to the same scientific standards as any other university science department?

Edited to add:



No, the issue isn't how long it takes to prove something. The issue is how it is received. Galileo got the receiption, "it's just a theory". Darwin is STILL getting that reception today. Not from the Catholic church, but from religious people very closely affiliated with the Catholic Church (believe in the same god).

In Galileo's day it was just a theory. It no longer is. In Darwin's day, likewise, it was just a theory. Darwin's is no longer just a theory. So the Catholic Church is guilty by association with other Christian churches because those churches are fundamentalist creationists?

OP, Him and I could go back and forth on this all day long. Hell, we might even enjoy it, but one of us might kill the other if we had to live together.

[Paleobird]

I think this is relevant to the no faith/UU discussion:

Can an Atheist Be a Unitarian Universalist? (Part 1) | Daylight Atheism | Big Think

That is a blog post that someone wrote analyzing a book that someone else wrote about the UUA. The ideas in that book are NOT and never have been the position of the UUA. The whole point of the UUA is that you are free to believe, or not, as you choose.

Him, that was interesting reading. I'm surprised that a self proclaimed atheist (the author of the link) goes to a house of worship. I'm surprised that he is then surprised that any religion demonizes atheists.

Once again, for the record. I sang in the UU choir for years and I am an atheist. The UU in no way, shape, or form "demonizes" atheism. In fact most UUs I know are atheists or secular humanists of some sort. That is one book, and one blog post, not church policy.

[Paleobird]

I see two sides to it... I think a lot of atheists, especially those raised in church-going families, end up missing the social and perhaps ceremonial aspects of church. They want a place to go and talk and in general be among like-minded folk, they just don't want it dripping with god/christ references. My parents, especially my mother, were probably like that. Both raised in families that went to church because they had to (if you are a school administrator, school teacher, etc., in some parts of the US, you WILL go to church...or at least that was true in the 1940s thru '60s) and when my parents found themselves far removed from family and friends (they moved from the midwest to Washington DC, 1000+ miles from their social groups, just before getting married), UU was an easy social fit. So they hung out at a UU church, got married by a UU minister in that church, and in general thought positively about the UU church even though they had no religion to speak of.

I grew up as completely outside the church experience as is possible in the US. The first time I visited a church was when my school did a field trip to an old Spanish Mission in SoCal, which happens to include an active church. After that it was only passing contact. In the last 20 years I have been inside a church once, attending a wedding. Heathen borne and raised...but my mother has suggested I find a UU church and participate (probably mostly because I'm 37 and single). I bet there is a fair amount of that floating around...UU is a place that will let an atheist participate openly, vs. a lot of religions where you'd damned well better keep those sorts of views to yourself.

Nowadays there are a growing number of secular churches trying to address just that need. Around here there is the North Texas Church of Freethought, for example, which is styled as a church but is specifically by and for atheists. It is there because people feel a gap I guess, and the only name they have for that gap is, "church."

On the flip side, well, you said it and I agree 100%.

For myself... I can't stomach most of the fantasy aspects of religion. I looked at Buddhism, for example, but most forms are pretty aggressively "you must believe" about some pretty absurd notions. So I'm just not anything, and I'm OK with that.

This is exactly why a lot of people with no particular religious beliefs go to a UU church, for the community and social aspect of it.

UU churches do not just "let" atheists participate as in tolerate them, they are welcomed wholeheartedly.

UUs believe that wisdom comes from many sources and that no one book or tradition holds the copyright on The Truth. In any one service, a UU minister might quote from the bible, the koran, the bagavad gita, the tao, Frost, Thoreau, Emerson, or Doonsbury.

My best friend considers herself to be culturally but not religiously Jewish. So she refers to herself as a Jewnitarian. She and her star of David are welcome in the choir too.