Atheism as Faith

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Back in the day, a guy named Plutarch wrote an essay comparing atheism with superstition. In his estimation, superstition is worse than atheism because it puts divinity in a negative light. Of course, the school of thought to which Plutarch belonged did not view jealousy as a divine attribute. The jealous gods were not part of the higher pantheon. This perception of divinity is shared with Buddhism which depicts the jealous gods at a level below the higher gods.

One of my favorite ways to challenge the ignorant is to ask them where they got the idea that there is only one deity. They often point to a biblical passage that fails to support their assertion. That passage does not assert the non-existence of other gods, but instead affirms their existence. The jealous deity seeks to enslave people into his cult at the expense of a higher order understanding.

Which individual has greater faith: the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods? From where Plutarch sits, the atheist seems the more judicious of the two and hence the one closer to a sublime life path. Those who fail to become seduced into the luxury of ignorance are more likely to follow the path less traveled. The atheist is freer to bond with the eternal than is the religious bigot who has become immersed in a quagmire of primitive precepts.

What does this have to do with public policy? It promotes secularism as a spiritual enabler rather than as a negation of faith. It contradicts the crippling dogma of those who seek to put superstitious supplications back into public schools.

Comments

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

popcorn.gif

A joke:

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Q: What's more irrelevant that fringe atheists arguing with fringe fundies over a cultural main that ignores both to begin with?
A: Fringe gnostics arguing with absent fringe fundies over a cultural main that ignores both to begin with.

Ok, so it isn't that funny.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I am interested by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Do you want...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... it delivered to your home, your work, or your PO box?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Did you ever date that Timecube guy?

What a crackpot!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I agree that the single greatest problem in our schools today is that kids spend too much time reading the Christian Bible.

Not to worry...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... they say that Obama is working on legislation to make it mandatory to read the Koran in school.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

What's the "unchristian" Bible, I wonder.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I heard you are a great expert about Caesar. So what would Caesar do in this situation? ;)

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

He's have the salad of course.

He'd throw Plutarch...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... to the lions for impiety.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

That's right. Go on, encourage her.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I for one enjoy the occasional rendering unto Caesar.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

A truly secular society would be socialist and would give a rat's ass about bonding with the eternal.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Because capitalists worship money?

Is this the scripture you speak of?

[russj.livejournal.com]

"...we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge..."
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 8:4 - 7)

Re: Is this the scripture you speak of?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think she was specifically referencing the Ten Commandment's statement that you shall have "no other gods before me." Not, in the traditional formulation, a command for monotheism, just a command for Jehovah to be the leader of the pack.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"What does this have to do with public policy? It promotes secularism as a spiritual enabler rather than as a negation of faith."

No, it doesn't do anything like this. You're falsely identifying two entirely different things: modern, western secularism is not the same thing as atheism as it was understood in the classical period. People like the Platonic Socrates and the Christians were "atheists" in the latter sense.

My remarks...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... do not equate secularism with atheism, although secularism is friendlier towards atheists than is theocracy. Secularism is an attempt to include all faiths and exclude none.

OooOO

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Can I have a nice chocolate raspberry coffee, full strength. With cinnamon sprinkles and whipped cream?

The Roman Senate house

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You know the Roman Senate house survives?





It looks puny and small when you see how it's recreated in lavish movie productions. But still, compared to the Baths of Caracalla, it's a big disappointment:

Re: The Roman Senate house

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Darn those mangy Christians for preserving ancient buildings!!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Everyone should read Deuteronomy, man. That shit is HILARIOUS.

It's funny until...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... someone takes it seriously and bases a social order upon it.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Which individual has greater faith: the one who is suckered into a cult of jealousy or the one who refuses to pledge allegiance to any of the gods? From where Plutarch sits, the atheist seems the more judicious of the two and hence the one closer to a sublime life path. Those who fail to become seduced into the luxury of ignorance are more likely to follow the path less traveled. The atheist is freer to bond with the eternal than is the religious bigot who has become immersed in a quagmire of primitive precepts.

Whichever one believes more strongly in the thing they have no evidence for. Do you see faith as a good thing?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Whichever one believes more strongly in the thing they have no evidence for [is the one who has greater faith]."

That's a strange way to use the word. Is there some good reason we should prefer your strange redefinition of the term to the way it is properly used?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

MODERATORS!

WHY U NO TAG POST?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Give us time :)

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post.

Also an interesting use of the word "atheist". I thought that term referred to one who doesn't believe in any sort of deity. You use it to refer to one who might believe in a deity or deities but consciously chooses not to follow it/him/her/them.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

It's an archaic use. Nowadays we'd call that areligious or the like. "Atheist" gets into other issues ("hard" vs. "soft" atheism, gnostic v. agnostic atheism/theism, etc.).

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Of course, the school of thought to which Plutarch belonged did not view jealousy as a divine attribute. The jealous gods were not part of the higher pantheon. This perception of divinity is shared with Buddhism which depicts the jealous gods at a level below the higher gods."

As a monotheist, Plutarch would have objected to the notion of jealous gods, rather than merely distinguishing them from non-jealous ones. Buddhism seems like an unusual stretch here. The obvious comparison would be with Christianity.

"One of my favorite ways to challenge the ignorant is to ask them where they got the idea that there is only one deity."

If only they'd studied some more Platonism, they'd have some excellent answers for this!

"It promotes secularism as a spiritual enabler rather than as a negation of faith."

Yes, I definitely agree that this idea of secularism, which develops out of Eleatic and Platonic sources and reaches its high point in Christianity, ought to be distinguished clearly from the historically less accurate notion of secularism as atheism, and that this distinction raises some important questions for the relationship between religion and society--now just as in the times of Plutarch and his antecedents.

"It contradicts the crippling dogma of those who seek to put superstitious supplications back into public schools."

This is a strange tangent though. Surely the sorts of religious encroachments on public schools you'd be inclined to refer to would be Christian rather than of some superstitious form. Though a variety of folk religious practices in Christian cultures are certainly superstitious, surely formal institutions as e.g. a school prayer would not have an overt form of superstition. Or is that wrong?

I suppose one could argue...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... that since Plutarch was initiated into the order of Apollo, that makes him a monotheist. By that definition, most of the Pagans were monotheists.

As for your Platonism comment, ignorant people go out of their way to avoid studying anything other than orthodoxy.

The superstition in school prayer comes in the fear that bad things happen when you do not begin the session with a prayer. This is one of the arguments made by David Barton who sees social problems as the result of too little prayer in school.