A fondness for ritual, a certain cultural stubbornness, and a wide streak of asceticism.
« | Main | Your morning Vegan update »
Why would an agnotheist observe lent?
03 Jan 2008 09:32 am
Comments (21)
> Why would an agnotheist observe lent?
Why would a Christian observe New Year's Day? Perhaps people are free to draw meaning from whatever ritual fancies them, regardless of whether the roots are secular or religious.
I'm more of an apatheist myself. I suppose it's the carnival atmosphere of Lent that sucks you in. Actually, does your streak of ascetism mean you celebrate Lent, but not Mardi Gras?
Asceticism, or "suffering is good for the soul" masochism?
I gave up religion for Lent over 20 years ago and never went back. The universe simply is; if a God created it he/she/it doesn't need me to declare my subservience and inferiority, and he/she/it certainly could give a tinker's damn about me ritually depriving myself to prove my love. Religion is a creation of Man, not God. I happen to think that was part of Jesus' message :)
I relatively recently came to the realization that I know no (as in zero) Catholics who actually believe in the tenets of the religion. Those who go to church do it out of a fondness of tradition similar to what you express, and the rest are just folks who grew up in the Church and have long abandonded it for a secular life punctuated by occasional reversions for the sake of Christmas and Easter.
I guess this is why Protestant denominations are growing so fast, especially in traditional Catholic strongholds like Latin America.
Personally, as a girl who grew up in a Methodist church where Lent is merely a talking point, I find myself incapable of observing it even if I want to. I always forget about it and go back to what I normally do. Kind of like my short-lived stint as a vegetarian.
There is a historical connection between Catholicism and atheism.
What's the name of the American philosopher who was both devoutly Catholic and atheist? I think from Spain.
It is much more easy for Catholicism and atheism to coexist than most Protestant denominations and atheism.
I think to put it simply, Catholicism is less about believing and more about submitting oneself to tradition and ritual.
Re: Religion is a creation of Man, not God.
So is the computer I am using, but I am not about to junk it as long as it works.
Re: It is much more easy for Catholicism and atheism to coexist than most Protestant denominations and atheism.
Except Episcopalianism. Ever read Florence King? She once proudly declared herself a "High Church Episcopalian Atheist", and while her usual sharp wit shows through, I rather think she really meant it too.
Lent is one of the many times I year I give thanks for not being broke by buying cool stuff.
This religion and self denial thing never really got to me.
JonF, there is a deep connection between Episcopalianism and Catholicism.
Anyways, I guess my overall point is that there should be more acceptance by religious organizations of atheists. I believe that most Catholics /Episcopalians/Anglican Church members come the closest to an acceptance that atheist should be accepted into a church.
"What's the name of the American philosopher who was both devoutly Catholic and atheist? I think from Spain."
Could this be Santayana? I think he was agnostic though.
It really shouldn't be possible to be simultaneously non-theist and devoutly Catholic, but I have heard of that. The most common variant I've seen is people who deem being Catholic to be something like a cultural thing. Like how some see being Jewish. They are devoted to Catholics as a community and may even accept some of the beliefs as socially beneficial, but don't accept any of the supernatural or other beliefs. In France they had weird cases where the person supported Catholicism as a way to achieve social control without accepting it for themselves. (For example Charles Maurras of the quasi-fascist Action Francaise) Possibly there's Eastern Orthodox variants of that too, but the closest I can think of is Pavlov and I'm not sure he really disbelieved. He got permission from the Communists to continue attending Russian Orthodox Mass, which implies that it mattered to him. Although he also said something that could imply that it was just a habit he enjoyed and that he just didn't want the Communists changing his routine. So I'm not sure.
As for accepting atheists I'm starting to find that a bit harder of late. As a Catholic born in 1977 I think most or all religions have some element of truth. In principle atheists could also be moral and fine people within the bounds of what reason can accomplish in ethics or morality.
However for its part atheism, to me, seems to be pretty strong in the idea that all religions are lies. By definition they're not going to be "largely right, but off-kilter on a couple things" in an atheist POV. They are all going to be at base a lie or a delusion. (Even Buddhism, which has strong supernaturalist components) In the older eras you had people like Asimov who seemed open to the idea of "religion is delusional, but as long as you're not hurting anyone or anything it's your business." However that doesn't seem to be the attitude among atheists now and accepting people who are proudly intolerant is becoming a challenge.
Thomas R
I second your thoughts!
Not only can those atheists not be moral and ethical - they actually claim that the supernatural is somehow not real?
I agree that atheists are intolerant as can be seen when they burn down our churches and take over our politics by trying to separate it from religion.
Those atheists march against the death penalty that Jesus has advocated and are for the right of women to chose what happens to their bodies.
This is more than mere intolerance - it is WAR! The War on Supernatural Fantasies. But we will fight back with our own War on Evolution! Our WAR ON ETHICS WITHOUT FANTASY! We are winning in Florida and among most politicians!
I recently read an infidel write something along these lines...:
As for accepting adult believers in the supernatural I'm starting to find that a bit harder of late. As somebody who believes in this world rather than an imagined one, born in the 70s, I think most or all natural, scientific theories that are based on observation and evidence have some element of truth. Eg the theory of evolution deserves to be thought in school.In principle people who believe more in fantasy than their senses could also be moral and fine people within the bounds of what fantasy can accomplish in ethics or morality.
However for its part the fantastic, magical, supernatural, to me, seems to be pretty strong in the idea that natural theories rather than supernatural theories are all lies.
By definition they're not going to be "largely right, but off-kilter on a couple things" in a supernatural POV. Natural theories like evolution are all going to be at base a lie or a delusion compared to the idea of reading cards, miracles, indefinite life, omnipotent beings, etc.
In the older eras you had people like the Pope who seemed open to the idea of "atheism is immoral by itself, but as long as you're not hurting anyone or anything it's your business." However that doesn't seem to be the attitude among the cosmic supernaturals now and accepting people who are proudly intolerant is becoming a challenge.
My summary:
Theists: Non-theists cannot be moral and ethical but they are intolerant of theists. Ie atheists know how to be bad but do not how to be truly god.. eh.. good.
Non-theists: It makes more sense to believe in the natural than the supernatural. If you cannot believe in the natural - why would you want to believe in fantasy outside this time and universe?
On lent and asceticism - both are religious concepts or at least terms. Atheists like Epicurus called asceticism simple hedonism... what?
Epicurians only fast for pleasure but they would never think of it as fasting.
Abstaining from gluttony is considered masochistic these days but a lot of things are mixed up.. these days. There is nothing masochistic about being able to see your own genitals for example rather than.. never mind.
Here an old and infamous letter that explains hedonism (or the art to be content).. Why bread and water taste better than the most luxurious meal such as fish.. when you are hungry.
> As for accepting atheists I'm starting to find that a bit harder of late.
As Hugo alluded, the irony is dripping. It's easy to feel like you're a tolerant person if the majority of the population agrees with you on basic metaphysical premises. Intolerance is most readily recognized by the recipients of it. I imagine if an atheist posted on here something to the tune of "as for accepting theists, I'm starting to find that a bit harder of late", the net recognition of intolerance among the reader base would be much higher.
Your responses are predictable and not very interesting.
Fact of the matter is I do get along fine with people of many religions and no religion. However I find that any criticism or disagreements and atheists shriek hysterically as you two managed to show. You don't simply disagree with certain religions you feel the childish urge to pout and moan at us.
In the real world as I know it atheists are common in most modern nations and among the elites in the US. In the world I live my lifetime saw atheist-states like Albania imprisoning people for religion, but no Christian-states imprisoning atheists. In the real world I live in the Bahai face a great deal more persecution from Islamic regimes than atheists. Christians hurt your feelings and made you feel like outsiders? Poor baby.
It's not a matter of which aging brand of desert monotheism one chooses to subscribe to but more the fact that the de facto religion of secular self-actualization is such a navel-gazing dead end. And what's on offer in the "Spirituality" section of Barnes & Noble is so much more intellectually embarrassing than whatever Good Book our great-grandparents had to make do with. The lure of asceticism is the discovery of Something beyond the material claims of everyday living. That the great religions made such practices a periodic communal event seems a no-brainer. And as inheritors of these great traditions, what are we left with in 2008? Some co-worker prattling on about his dumb-ass grapefruit diet.
All hail progress.
BT
Thomas R
Your responses are predictable and not very interesting. You don't simply disagree with certain religions you feel the childish urge to pout and moan at us.
Oh - I was mainly quoting a certain Thomas R and exchanging a few words here and there. Go complain to him!
In the real world...
In the real world...? In the real world certain theists claim that atheist could only "also be moral people within the bounds of what reason can accomplish in ethics or morality."
That sounds as if there are moral boundaries and restrictions that apply to people who believe in the natural and not supernatural? How so? Why would believers in the supernatural rather than the natural be somehow morally free of those bounds of reason that you mention?
You go on to mention an authoritarian regime, Communism, that has controlled what people where allowed to own, what they were allowed to say and write, where they lived, what they studied and what they practiced. Pavlov for example and as you stated was allowed to attend Christian mass? Stalin did not believe in Darwin and at least 6 million people starved due to his supernatural agricultural experiment in only one year?
Oh there was theology in Eastern Europe - the theology of the state or to be more precise of the superhuman czar or dictator. It is very well to clean up the rubbish that you have stated by desperately trying to find an example of supposedly atheists doing wrong. It shows the logic that theists apply and have applied in the real world.
My parents have risked our family's lives to flee your "atheistic" neck of the woods, hoods, oh brother. But this was not due to religious oppression. They would never dream of using this as an argument for not criticizing the outrageous claims by theists that non-theists have moral and ethical boundaries.
If anything, natural believers would claim that the supernatural is an escape and a back door for ignoring moral or real-life boundaries.
Only days ago a Christian has tried to justify religious support of the death penalty in the US based on Jesus having experienced a death sentence too. Indeed - there is no end to what the supernatural can do?
But thank you for openly stating how difficult and hard it is for you lately to accept intolerant atheists. In the real world you live in Bahai and face a great deal more persecution from theistic regimes than from atheists. Atheists hurt your feelings and made you feel like outsiders? Poor baby.
BT
what's on offer in the "Spirituality" section of Barnes & Noble is so much more intellectually embarrassing than whatever Good Book our great-grandparents had to make do with.
Now we come to the core of the matter. You are looking for a good self-help book at B&N. I would listen to your co-workers rambling on about his dumb-ass grapefruit diet more and feel the power of the juice... it is all there.
I feel like writing some books myself - what do you think of the following titles: "Faith without God", "Life before Death", "Happiness after Superman". As always - publishers please feel free to contact me.
the fact that the de facto religion of secular self-actualization is such a navel-gazing dead end.
The fact? What fact? That the asupernatural has a natural dead end I agree with. All life comes to and end. What de facto supernatural of the natural? It sounds as if spirituality without magic outside the real world is somehow emotionally limited compared to spirituality with the supernatural. Please elaborate - it sounds very interesting.
> However I find that any criticism or disagreements and atheists shriek hysterically as you two managed to show.
While I am tempted to continue with more hysterical shrieking, I'll seek to emulate your respectful tolerance and hold my tongue.
"Oh - I was mainly quoting a certain Thomas R and exchanging a few words here and there. Go complain to him!"
You're right I was too haughty. I should've said "pout and moan at me,"
It wasn't my best response to someone. Not my worst either, but anyway carry on with whatever you're doing.
Well I should add something though I guess.
When I said Albania I meant Albania. Also when I say atheist-regimes I mean atheist-regimes rather than Darwinist or whatever else. Albania did declare themselves an atheist state, not merely a Communist one, and persecute specifically on that end. If you want non-Communist there were several non-Communist secularist dictatorships in Europe and Latin America within the last 70-80 years. Many of the Enlightenment rationalists were working on the premise of "philosopher kings" and elitist authoritarianism. Only a few believed in democracy as we'd understand it. Although even in secular democracies, like France, the government will make reports declaring say the Quakers to be a foreign cult.
Granted most of this is that when a theology or philosophy gains state power it often becomes oppressive. Atheist philosophies might be no worse on that then theist philosophies. Still I would think atheist philosophies that emphasize the "wrongness" of theism would be as proned to intolerance as the theistic philosophies that emphasize the "wrongness" of other religions or no religions. As Catholicism often did in the Medieval period to 1900. The unfortunate difference is the "wrongness" of theists is often going to be even more central to atheist philosophies as the term "atheism" itself essentially implies that. This is not so true of modern Christianity, Bahai, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and a few others. In the modern age few Christians would still describe as "non-Judaizers" or "anti-Judaizers" as they did in Medieval times. Likewise one can certainly find secularist regimes that persecute say Mennonites, but one would be very hard pressed to find a Mennonite regime persecuting atheists. The idea of it is nearly absurd.
Still I may have been unfair. It may not be anything inherent in atheism, just something acquired as a reaction. A part of me is skeptical of that, but I can see it was unkind to even hint at it being inherent. Still inherent or not that intolerant element of atheists exists, is vocal, and if it fails to actually persecute people it's merely because its politically powerless at present.
| 
I still think it's a sign of an underlying dissatisfaction with atheism (or "agnotheism").
Posted by rwe | January 3, 2008 10:18 AM