Atheology

[Zeus]

Because there's basically but one question that bothers us: if we all die, what do we live for?

To not exist for billions and billions of years -- and to appear on this earth for a few decades -- and then return to non-existence -- this is absurd and scary. There will be no "you" to have memories of this life...which is sad. We all find ourselves in this situation and the appeal of religion for many is the assurance it gives people that this isn't in fact the tragic reality.

These concerns are social constructs, possibly primarily Western.  You don't find aboriginal people in the jungles of Borneo or Brazil spending a whole lot of time worrying so.  I suspect that most people wouldn't give it too much thought, unless they have been conditioned to worry about death.

[JBS]

This is pretty typical quasi-Christian apologetic thinking.

Re: the Universe must have been created by God

Plenty of attack vectors – here's one. 

I define the universe as everything that existed, exists, or will exist; including all features, properties, behaviors, perspectives, and whatnot.  So if a god did exist, he/she would exist within the universe.  It therefore would be hard for him/her to create the set of all things of which she is a member.  Put simply, god can't create himself.

You seem to want to bifurcate the universe into two components, a creator and everything else, with the assertion that the creator-part created the everything-else part.  Fine.  Whatever.  But that seems silly to me.

Remember how I said modern Western atheism is simply a response to popular Christianity? What you wrote there is a good illustration...because the link is subtle and consists solely in your adoption of the idea which is popular Christianity's central flaw: that God is just a Thing. A Thing totally different from all other things, but still in the end, just another thing.

But if you move away from popular Christianity into other religions, or even into at least some forms of Christian theology,  you find that God is not considered to be A Thing. God is so utterly different that God can not be compared with any "thing", much less identified with it. God is not good, nor The Good. God is not true nor the Truth. God is the source of those things, but God is the source of all things, including that which is not good and not true. Humans can say that that their experience of That Which is God accords with goodness and truth and love, but that does not mean God is any of those things.

Which means, in relation to your post, God is the Source of the Universe, but not part of it.

[Zeus]

Remember how I said modern Western atheism is simply a response to popular Christianity? What you wrote there is a good illustration...because

In a dominant Christian culture, atheism may appear to be a reaction to Christianity; in another cultural context, it would express itself differently.

Just because it's not Christian doesn't mean it's anti-Christian, though I can understand how it would appear that way in our culture.  Certainly many atheists were former Christians who chose to break free from their earlier conditioning / belief systems.

But if you move away from popular Christianity into other religions, or even into at least some forms of Christian theology,  you find that God is not considered to be A Thing. God is so utterly different that God can not be compared with any "thing", much less identified with it. God is not good, nor The Good. God is not true nor the Truth. God is the source of those things, but God is the source of all things, including that which is not good and not true. Humans can say that that their experience of That Which is God accords with goodness and truth and love, but that does not mean God is any of those things.

Which means, in relation to your post, God is the Source of the Universe, but not part of it.

You are of course free to believe this.

[JBS]

A psychologically healthy person can't arbitrarily pick his own definition of morality because he is also subject to an evolved set of revulsions and rewards.  He can make a few choices at the margins – for example, for or against abortion, or for or against polygamy, etc – but he can't watch someone getting murdered without throwing up.

I don't know what you mean by utilitarian, but I suppose a utilitarian choice is a choice intended to maximize "utility".  Since we have no control over the genetic component of our morality, I don't see (that component of) morality as a utilitarian choice because there is no choice.

I'm not sure I completely understand your overall post, but that's my first reaction.

––

Re Buddhism – tread carefully. That religion evolved quite a bit.  The Buddhism you find in Sri Lanka (small vehicle?) is quite different from what emerged in northern India (big vehicle?), which is different again from what emerged in China and Korea, which differs yet again from the Japanese incarnation (Zen).  I would be hesitant to make any claim about any specific belief of Buddhism without specifying which flavor of Buddhism I meant.

Think of it this way: our genes are choosing for us, our genes are deciding what is useful.
As for

but he can't watch someone getting murdered without throwing up.

History has shown that either a whole bunch of humans are not psychologically healthy or that what you think is the normal human response is not in fact the normal human response.

What you say about Buddhism is true. The passage I had in mind is from the Pali Canon, but I know of nothing in other Buddhist traditions which might present a different response.

[JBS]

Transfer from the Trump thread

Your fundamental idea above is nonsense. What makes you imagine the universe is random? There are physical laws that can be objectively established and various kinds of order emerge because of them. Given these laws and the nature of matter and energy, it is possible that life forms both simple and complex are all but inevitable. And once they exist evolutionary processes finely tune them in ways that are non-random. Given how bizarre your claim is, I wonder how you are defining the word random.

You don't seem to understand my point.
I am not saying that if the Universe is not created, it has no internal order.
I am saying that if there is no Creator, the EXISTENCE of the Universe is a random, arbitrary, meaningless fact, and that the orderliness of the Universe is a superficial pattern. The Universe could have easily existed with a totally different set of rules, or no rules at all, and our own human existence is just an arbitrary happenstance.

[zamyrabyrd]

I shouldn't think there's anything Christian about imputing to atheists a condonement of Nazism, let alone Nazi atrocities.

The fallacy here is assuming that "a-theism" has a moral code and those that belong to that alleged group have the same beliefs. Being "anti" doesn't qualify as a bonafide philosophy with well defined principles as most of the world's religions do.

[zamyrabyrd]

I was worried that 71dB might miss the response to his post if I answered it here, so will copy from the other thread, as I see some references here to Buddhism:

"I get some of what you are saying but let me expand on it a bit. In the ancient world, no one would have believed that parallel lines would never meet. Consider this:

One story claims that a young student by the name of Hippasus was idly toying with the number √2, attempting to find the equivalent fraction. Eventually he came to realize that no such fraction existed, i.e. that √2 is an irrational number. Hippasus must have been overjoyed by his discovery, but his master was not. Pythagoras had defined the universe in terms of rational numbers, and the existence of irrational numbers brought his ideal into question. The consequence of Hippasus' insight should have been a period of discussion and contemplation during which Pythagoras ought to have come to terms with this new source of numbers. However, Pythagoras was unwilling to accept that he was wrong, but at the same time he was unable to destroy Hippasus' argument by the power of logic. To his eternal shame he sentenced Hippasus to death by drowning.

Logic in terms of rational numbers cannot account for many mathematical anomalies, yet they are useful. Without them, we would not be sitting here communicating via computers. I mean, how can anyone accept that two negative numbers multiplied by one another can render a positive number? It is not a quantity, but only symbolic.

Buddhism doesn't admit of a all-encompassing deity but in practice, transcendence. Otherwise, why should Prince Sakyamuni give up his position and wealth to become a begging monk? Going beyond the boundaries of the mere observable in science, sounds more and more "irrational" but only if one is stuck in a rational numbers stage.

As for "space" between the molecules, Eckart Tolle speaks of that in his lectures, that it is good, even freeing, to be aware of emptiness."

[Jo498]

Religion serves multiple purposes -- social cohesion, setting norms, etc, but undoubtedly one of its main appeals is to rescue us from the tormenting fact that existence is absurd in light of death. To not exist for billions and billions of years -- and to appear on this earth for a few decades -- and then return to non-existence -- this is absurd and scary. There will be no "you" to have memories of this life...which is sad. We all find ourselves in this situation and the appeal of religion for many is the assurance it gives people that this isn't in fact the tragic reality.

Interestingly, this seems a rather "modern" way of thought. The Homerian Greeks were not much concerned with the afterlife. As depicted in the Odyssey, afterlife sucks and it doesn't matter a lot if you were virtuous or vile in earthly life. The shade of the greatest warrior, Achilles, says that he would prefer to be the poorest beggar on Earth to being King of the Netherworld.

Even the old Hebrews had only a very shady idea of fate after death and JBS should correct me but it still does not play a major role in modern Judaism.

And for the Epicureans the dissolution of the soul in death was supposed to be a relief! Apparently by then the fear of retribution in the afterlife was at least for some more pressing than the hope for continued existence after death.
Socrates hints at such things as trial and punishment in the Hades and both Pythagoras and Plato also believed in reincarnation, so by classical antiquity the fate of the non-virtuous soul had became a concern.

[amw]

Even the old Hebrews had only a very shady idea of fate after death and JBS should correct me but it still does not play a major role in modern Judaism.

Judaism has no afterlife & the stories about various figures going to the Kingdom of Heaven and such that occasionally appear in Talmudic literature are canonically allegorical/didactic rather than meant to be taken literally. Apart from a few rather trippy passages in Daniel the Torah is generally unequivocal on this, most of that came into the Bible in the New Testament (specifically Lazarus & then Jesus's promise of eternal life in the gospels & then expanded on in Revelations).

[Christo]

Judaism has no afterlife & the stories about various figures going to the Kingdom of Heaven and such that occasionally appear in Talmudic literature are canonically allegorical/didactic rather than meant to be taken literally. Apart from a few rather trippy passages in Daniel the Torah is generally unequivocal on this, most of that came into the Bible in the New Testament (specifically Lazarus & then Jesus's promise of eternal life in the gospels & then expanded on in Revelations).

Something not completely dissimilar applies to (much of) Christianity: life & resurrection are central themes, an afterlife is not. I cannot recall having met or heard any Christian ever referring to it.

[amw]

To be fair we don't have resurrection either, but yeah. The idea that you live forever in heaven after you die seems to be uniquely American Evangelical Protestant of a specifically premillennial dispensationalist variety (e.g. Southern Baptists, etc)

[Christo]

To be fair we don't have resurrection either, but yeah. The idea that you live forever in heaven after you die seems to be uniquely American Evangelical Protestant of a specifically premillennial dispensationalist variety (e.g. Southern Baptists, etc)

Exactly, the gnostic 'Sonderweg' of American Religion since the Second Great Awakening.

[Biffo]

Something not completely dissimilar applies to (much of) Christianity: life & resurrection are central themes, an afterlife is not. I cannot recall having met or heard any Christian ever referring to it.

I am not sure what kind of Christians you have met. I had a solid Roman Catholic upbringing and the afterlife played a large part in what we taught. Some aspects (eg. Purgatory) have been modified in recent years but I can't believe the afterlife has been ditched.

[Gurn Blanston]

The fallacy here is assuming that "a-theism" has a moral code and those that belong to that alleged group have the same beliefs. Being "anti" doesn't qualify as a bonafide philosophy with well defined principles as most of the world's religions do.

Thank you. I was beginning to think no one got it, including many who call themselves atheists. It isn't a religion in itself, it isn't even a philosophy. All this stuff that people seem to be concerned about (afterlife etc) I never even think about, since they are all related to the core belief of your particular religion, whichever it might be, and I have no religion and thus no 'thing' around which it revolves. I don't even have a thing for baiting Christians. How sad is that?

[Jo498]

There clearly was an idea of an afterlife among Jesus' Jewish contemporaries. Otherwise several episodes from the Gospels would not make sense. E.g. the story of the rich man and the poor. Or when the Pharisees try to trick Jesus with the problem of a woman who remarried several times after their husband died and the tricky question with whom she would be together in the afterlife.
So at least some powerful sects of 1st century Judaism believed in resurrection of the dead and afterlife. It is not a transmigration of souls, true.
And it seems hard to clearly distinguish between the kingdom of God (or of the heavens) thought of as a transformation and redemption of earthly life, the fate after death and the judgement and subsequent kingdom of God at the end of all things in early Christianity. They all belong together and when the end of times did not occur as quickly als apparently Jesus and the early church expected, some things had to be adjusted or read differently.

[Karl Henning]

context, it would express itself differently.

Just because it's not Christian doesn't mean it's anti-Christian


True

[Karl Henning]

. I don't even have a thing for baiting Christians. How sad is that?

Nobody's perfect

[Christo]

There clearly was an idea of an afterlife among Jesus' Jewish contemporaries. Otherwise several episodes from the Gospels would not make sense. E.g. the story of the rich man and the poor. Or when the Pharisees try to trick Jesus with the problem of a woman who remarried several times after their husband died and the tricky question with whom she would be together in the afterlife.
So at least some powerful sects of 1st century Judaism believed in resurrection of the dead and afterlife. It is not a transmigration of souls, true.
And it seems hard to clearly distinguish between the kingdom of God (or of the heavens) thought of as a transformation and redemption of earthly life, the fate after death and the judgement and subsequent kingdom of God at the end of all things in early Christianity. They all belong together and when the end of times did not occur as quickly als apparently Jesus and the early church expected, some things had to be adjusted or read differently.

Factually correct, good overview. #thanks

[amw]

There clearly was an idea of an afterlife among Jesus' Jewish contemporaries. Otherwise several episodes from the Gospels would not make sense. E.g. the story of the rich man and the poor. Or when the Pharisees try to trick Jesus with the problem of a woman who remarried several times after their husband died and the tricky question with whom she would be together in the afterlife.
So at least some powerful sects of 1st century Judaism believed in resurrection of the dead and afterlife. It is not a transmigration of souls, true.

Yes that's probably fair—more accurate to say that belief in an afterlife has not been canonical in Judaism at any point during my lifetime 

And it seems hard to clearly distinguish between the kingdom of God (or of the heavens) thought of as a transformation and redemption of earthly life, the fate after death and the judgement and subsequent kingdom of God at the end of all things in early Christianity. They all belong together and when the end of times did not occur as quickly als apparently Jesus and the early church expected, some things had to be adjusted or read differently.

I think also hard to discount influences from other religious traditions, on both Judaism and Christianity at the time; early Judaism was not monotheistic for example as it acknowledged the existence of other gods but proclaimed YHWH (or whatever his name was at the time) superior to them and more worth worshipping. (Plenty of Torah passages attributing a military victory to the God of the Hebrews executing judgment against the Gods of the Egyptians/Amalekites/etc.) Early Christianity I suspect was in a similar position with regard to the more dominant Hellenic-Roman religions of the time.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

There clearly was an idea of an afterlife among Jesus' Jewish contemporaries. Otherwise several episodes from the Gospels would not make sense. E.g. the story of the rich man and the poor. Or when the Pharisees try to trick Jesus with the problem of a woman who remarried several times after their husband died and the tricky question with whom she would be together in the afterlife.
So at least some powerful sects of 1st century Judaism believed in resurrection of the dead and afterlife. It is not a transmigration of souls, true.
And it seems hard to clearly distinguish between the kingdom of God (or of the heavens) thought of as a transformation and redemption of earthly life, the fate after death and the judgement and subsequent kingdom of God at the end of all things in early Christianity. They all belong together and when the end of times did not occur as quickly als apparently Jesus and the early church expected, some things had to be adjusted or read differently.

I read an interesting book (or at least the first part, until I had to relocate and it ended up in storage) based on new archeology and analysis. There was a god worshiped in Egypt about 5000 years ago who became a man, was born of a virgin birth, was visited by three kings, turned water into wine, healed the sick, raised the dead, fed the multitude, who was executed but rose from the dead, allowing those who had faith in him to attain eternal life. Sound familiar? This was Pagan Mysticism, which was widely practiced in the ancient world. In the Pagan/Classical era gods from one culture tended to be appropriated by other cultures and the same god came to be worshiped in Greek and Roman culture. It was associated with Orisis, Bachus and Dionysis.

Then there was a crisis in Judaism, with a rebellion brutally suppressed by the Romans, the temple destroyed, the Jews dispersed. Some Jews, faced with this existential threat to their civilization, transposed Pagan Mysticism to their world, creating Jesus. This set of beliefs spread widely among Jews and others.

Then, about 300 years after Christianity sprung up among Jews Constantine decided to reconstitute the Roman empire based on Christianity. He convened several conferences to define the official Catholic doctrine of Christianity. All other forms of Christianity were suppressed with brutal efficiency. Astonishingly, they managed to suppress the beliefs and writings of all other sects of Christianity and its Mystic Pagan precursors. The Gnostic Christians, who were probably closely related to the original strain of Christianity, were suppressed to the point where the only things known of them come from the renunciations that the Catholic church produced. There is no trace left of what was being renouncing. There were many versions of the Gospels being considered by the councils convened by Constantine, astonishingly there is no trace left of any of them except what was officially adopted. The Pagan Mystics regarded the god/man as an allegorical, rather than historic figure and the Gnostic Christians or their precursors probably also regarded Jesus as an allegorical figure.

So, no, there was not afterlife in Judaism. The afterlife is Pagan mysticism transposed to Jerusalem.