What if words are just human inventions that help us survive? I believe that might be possible, but let's have a think about the implications for "atheists".
What might 'theism' mean? That a person believes in a form of divine consciousness independent of humankind? What would define that consciousness as divine? Eternal? Maybe, let's go with that. Now what if a person considers such a being or beings to exist, but feels that they are not relational gods. This "theist" feels and practices no allegiance to the gods. This would be a distinctly narrow view of theism that bypasses the social dynamics that seem to have turbo-powered the development and evolution of our human brains. True theism is always attached to a larger social religious landscape informed by the religions of today.
In parallel, you might have a person who feels belonging and relationship within the context of a faith community. The second person is governed to an equal degree by the communal values as all other members, their only difference being that this person has a sneaky feeling that actual existence of a god may not be necessary beyond the collective symbolism clearly at work binding the community in its values and goals. The values and goals are of maximal importance and the person feels strong allegiance to both the community and the values. They even can experience powerful cathartic sensations as they worship and pray with other believers. They consider life and relationships a privilege to be treasured and would never want to suggest that a person should stop their religious convictions if they were clearly the means by which a person understands, improves and fits into the world.
This last part: about treasuring life and not opposing those with literal religious convictions is key to understanding why the term generates misunderstanding. "The atheist" is commonly understood to mean opposing religious conviction: "you should not believe it, it's nothing but a bunch of lies and contradictions"!
Here, there are commonly a couple of dynamics at play. Firstly, a person may commonly have experienced, as mild as it might appear, a form of power abuse at the hands of those in charge in a religious institution and be reacting against that. Secondly, in light of plausible explanatory alternatives for the existence of all things, there is no reason given as to why the first form of theism as defined above could not be granted (an uninvolved deity). In light of these problems I want to ask:
1. What does it even mean to assert that a religion is "true" or even "real", when the adopted stories are indisputably held authentically and prove powerful to unite a community to positive action?
2. Why even bother to assert that you are an atheist? Why even enter the conversation?
In my next post, I want to address the possibility of "lies and contradictions" in the Christian faith.
What might 'theism' mean? That a person believes in a form of divine consciousness independent of humankind? What would define that consciousness as divine? Eternal? Maybe, let's go with that. Now what if a person considers such a being or beings to exist, but feels that they are not relational gods. This "theist" feels and practices no allegiance to the gods. This would be a distinctly narrow view of theism that bypasses the social dynamics that seem to have turbo-powered the development and evolution of our human brains. True theism is always attached to a larger social religious landscape informed by the religions of today.
In parallel, you might have a person who feels belonging and relationship within the context of a faith community. The second person is governed to an equal degree by the communal values as all other members, their only difference being that this person has a sneaky feeling that actual existence of a god may not be necessary beyond the collective symbolism clearly at work binding the community in its values and goals. The values and goals are of maximal importance and the person feels strong allegiance to both the community and the values. They even can experience powerful cathartic sensations as they worship and pray with other believers. They consider life and relationships a privilege to be treasured and would never want to suggest that a person should stop their religious convictions if they were clearly the means by which a person understands, improves and fits into the world.
This last part: about treasuring life and not opposing those with literal religious convictions is key to understanding why the term generates misunderstanding. "The atheist" is commonly understood to mean opposing religious conviction: "you should not believe it, it's nothing but a bunch of lies and contradictions"!
Here, there are commonly a couple of dynamics at play. Firstly, a person may commonly have experienced, as mild as it might appear, a form of power abuse at the hands of those in charge in a religious institution and be reacting against that. Secondly, in light of plausible explanatory alternatives for the existence of all things, there is no reason given as to why the first form of theism as defined above could not be granted (an uninvolved deity). In light of these problems I want to ask:
1. What does it even mean to assert that a religion is "true" or even "real", when the adopted stories are indisputably held authentically and prove powerful to unite a community to positive action?
2. Why even bother to assert that you are an atheist? Why even enter the conversation?
In my next post, I want to address the possibility of "lies and contradictions" in the Christian faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks very much for your feedback, really appreciate the interaction.