Terry Pratchet finds religion

[KalamityKel]

*sighs* even if you claim to believe in "nothing" you believe in something ;-)

[Brendan]

I'm not really arguing a side. Just discussing the argument.

[SeanMacGabhann]

very few people claim to believe in "nothing" - but not believing in "a god" is not the same as nothing

The principles as outlined in, say, the Christian bible are really just iterations of how mankind had been living anyway for a loooong time.

[mockney piers]

reading this at the moment

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Transformation-Socrates-Confucius-Jeremiah/dp/1843545071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214395863&sr=1-1

Very interesting if horribly naive in places, but the strands of development in comparative religion is fascinating reading, especially when the myths and histories are teased apart (something she's better able to do in some places than others)

I've promised it to McGabhann, but further borrowage if people would like.

ooh, I you a book anyway don't I brendan.

[PeckhamRose]

Doesn't that hold some sort of proof that religion is a mind-virus / mental illness?

Not saying I think that, of course, though I am a paid up member of British Humanist Association.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Terry Pratchet was, until recently, a confirmed

> atheist. He is now diagnosed with early onset

> Alzeimhers. He announced last week that he has

> since had a spiritual experience and now believes

> there is a "higher being".

>

> Has he swapped one religion for another or has he

> given up on rationalism for superstition?

[KalamityKel]

Further to that "Has he swapped one religion for another or has he

given up on rationalism for superstition?" Care to explain?

[david_carnell]

I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that some people see atheism almost as a religion in itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people would view atheism as an entirely rational thought process compared to the jingoistic, superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion.

I'll let you decide for yourself, Kel.

[KalamityKel]

lol I already have my own views and opinions of the subject of "religion" but always take an interest in others thoughts so I was just wondering what angle MM was on :)

[PeckhamRose]

Haven't brain surgeons been able to recreate that final visitation and white light effect some people claim to see on their deathbed, by poking around* in the relevant bit of a conscious person's brain? It's all chemicals and synapses. I think Mr Pratchett is merely very ill, and it is a very sad thing.

*very delicately with a tiny stick, of course.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Anthony Grayling answers the question - Can an Atheist be a Fundamentalist with the following:

"Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory or, at worst, an ideology. If it is either of the first two, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out or burnings conducted at the stake over rival theories in biology or astrophysics."

to which Chris Hitchens adds:

"Clear? It's not a matter of "room" for doubt. The whole analytical method of humanist materialism is based on scepticism. We take nothing on faith. Imagine what a fortune could be made by a palaeontologist who unearthed human bones and dinosaur bones in the same layer of sediment. I will bet my house that this discovery will not be made, but my bet is not entirely, or at all, an article of belief. It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.

As to the manner in which I express myself, it rather depends on the antagonist. I'm normally renowned for my patience and good humour, but I admit to being easily bored and, when I come up against, say, a self-righteous rabbi, can be tempted to succumb to sarcasm. I think that may be where your confusion arises. Oh, and I do not "profess" to despise religious extremists. I really do despise them."

[david_carnell]

And many people who claim to have seen God also happen to suffer from epilepsy.

Not that there is any conclusion to be drawn from that.

No.

None at all.

[Brendan]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think what Mamora Man was getting at was that

> some people see atheism almost as a religion in

> itself due to the almost "fundamentalist" nature

> of some of its supporters (Richard Dawkins,

> Christopher Hitchins etc) whilst other people

> would view atheism as an entirely rational thought

> process compared to the jingoistic,

> superstitiousness nonsense of organised religion.

Or that the following of a certain thought process which denotes a certain way of approaching things and is championed by prominent figures bears a similarity to religion and often elicits a fanatical reaction in its followers which is akin to fundamentalism.

Anyway stop dragging me into this 2 dimensional, inelegant aspect of it all. Next thing I?ll be discussing soccer.

[Marmora Man]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> lol I already have my own views and opinions of

> the subject of "religion" but always take an

> interest in others thoughts so I was just

> wondering what angle MM was on :)

I have just checked this thread and pleased to see the question has elicited a series of considered and balanced responses, mostly in favour of atheism. I posited the qestion equating atheism to a religion deliberately to provoke a response or two. David Carnell sums up my position rather well.

I am an atheist and, I like to think, a humanist. I believe the concept of a greater being to be fanciful and illogical, especially in the face of ever growing scientific knowledge that came about through testing hypotheses rather than wishful thinking.

I am not a militant / fundamental atheist - by which I mean I don't proselytise but do consider atheism to be a rational respone to the world about us. This, logically, means I do not consider religion in any form to be sensible and therefore class it with superstition.

I am thus disappointed that an individual has moved from a state of rational thought and thinking to a less logical position. However, I note the quote by Terry Pratchet and a glad to see that firstly the reports of him giving up atheism seem to be exagerated and secondly that he has not lost his sense of humour.

[Brendan]

?It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.?

When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different.

Anyway it all has to do with semantics. By defining ?atheism? as an entity which people can adhere to you just prove my point that it is a tangible view point from which to consider the world and therefore, for many people who can?t see the wood for the trees, fulfils the same human need as religion does in others.

[mockney piers]

I only found about about "practical atheism" because I sat next to an Opus Dei chap for many years and that's what he said the church would label me.*

I don't consider myself an atheist, merely one who considers these matters and has come to no conclusion.

I am not atheist in the sense I deny God(s) or even in that I have no place for spirituality im my life, just that nothing on offer makes much sense, so I'm happy enough to pootle along without the need for 'answers', leave alone a tick list of things to do or avoid.

I don't know if there's a political equivalent. I've seen what the parties have to offer, and they are institutional and limited. I've looked a the various political tenets and much makes sense, and a lot of it doesn't.

It's not that I deny politics, I'm just not going to draw my mark in the sand and say I'm Socialist or I am Libertarian though I certainly have leanings politically, just as I do morally.

Whether this is a cultural thing, my upbringing, my nature, my divine nature or predestination, it's not for me to say.

Good luck to everyone in whatever you do I say, but if you disagree with me I might you are clearly a heretic and I'm off to get some sticks and a match ;)

*Thoroughly nice chap as it happens. I've no idea whether or not he wore a cilice, but I certainly never saw him assassinate anyone.

[david_carnell]

I don't consider myself an atheist, merely one who considers these matters and has come to no conclusion.

Agnostic then?

[Brendan]

Personally I find adherence to anything a limiting factor to the human experience.

Oh and yeah, MP can I still borrow that book?

[mockney piers]

Yeah D_C,why not, is God unknowable, probably, but then if we can look in and out and see wonder and music and perhaps echoes of the divine, then spirituality itself isn't completely unknowable. Perhaps ignostic is better in htat the parameters of the debate are a bit pointless because without any idea of what the nature of 'god' is then the starting point of the whole debate is rendered somewhat moot.

Of course those with strongly defined faith would claim that that is the case. I'd argue that the great religious personalities would probably have argued strongly against that.

[PeckhamRose]

Andy Partridge of XTC covered this subject well in the song Dear God.

He writes to God telling him he doesn't believe in him.

To my probably mentally unbalanced mind, we made Gods up. The existence of rainbows and thunderstorms coincided with human's needs to make stories, to fill in the gaps, so we made up Gods to explain those natural phenomena, and in turn those stories of Gods help control other humans. And it works beautifully. It's brilliant.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Brendan: "When man first came up with the idea of there being a god of the sea or of a mountain or in the clouds it was also a conviction based on the study of evidence. The intellectual tools being used were just different. "

Really? Really really? Or was mankind barely out of diapers and prone to making stuff up. Say what you will about science/intellectual argument.. it acknowledges every single day it's limits, learns new things, adapts and moves the argument on

My issue with religion (as opposed to "does God exist") is that it hasn't changed one iota. Ever. Sure, concessions are made (albeit againstnumbing opposition) re: women priests, vatican 2 etc, but the text books, the teachings, the things you are given AS A CHILD are as flawed as they were when first published.

[Brendan]

Sean. You are missing my point completely. Everythnig in your last post is valid but has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

[SeanMacGabhann]

well, I'll go and read it again then!!!

[KoolBananas]

My my what an interesting read!

May you all burn in hell for such debates! lol

[bon3yard]

I find that proximity to death tends to bring out the superstitious side in a lot of people, I dont think a belief in a higher power necessarily translates to a newfound faith in organised religion though.

[beef]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/