Atheist opinion polls in America
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Perhaps I'm at fault for question begging in asking you that question, but thinking back it does seem rhetorical. Personally, I don't think that you can defend your prior statement philosophically as it's vague, and I think that closer inspection would reveal that you're generalising and perhaps discriminating, but the fact that you're trying to means that you genuinely believe that atheism (a lack of belief in God) is “shallow and superficial.” If this is what you truly believe then I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I do disagree.
I think that people become religious for many reasons, the fear of death being one of them. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that claim. I think that a person can become religious due to the fear of death, but the possibility is that the God they turn to may not exist. However, religion may provide a person relief from existential anxiety – which at the point of death may be a useful coping mechanism.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
It does not refer to the Tao itself, but to you yourself. To how you should be if you understand the Tao. It refers to what we think and how we act. To our attitude toward others and to life:With regard to the Daodejing In am attracted to the notion of “extreme tenuousness”. It eschews all forms of absolutism.
I hope no one is buying this nonsense, as the Tao itself is changelessness in the presence of change.
Chapter Sixteen
Attain extreme tenuousness;
Preserve quiet integrity.
The myriad creatures are all in motion!
I watch as they turn back.
The teeming multitude of things, each returns home to its root;
And returning to one’s root is called stillness.
This is known as returning to one’s destiny;
And returning to one’s destiny is known as constancy.
To know constancy is called “enlightenment.”
Those who do not know constancy wantonly produce misfortune.
To know constancy is to be accommodating.
To be accommodating is to work for the good of all.
To work for the good of all is to be a true king.
To be a true king is to be Heavenly.
To be Heavenly is to embody the Way.
To embody the Way is to be long lived,
And one will avoid danger to the end of one’s days.
Chapter Seventy-Six
When alive human beings are supple and weak;
When dead they are stiff and strong.
When alive the myriad creatures, plants and trees are supple and weak;
When dead they are withered and dry.
And so the stiff and the strong are the disciples of death;
The supple and weak are the disciples of life.
This is why,
A weapon that is too strong will not prove victorious;
A tree that is too strong will break.
The strong and the mighty reside down below;
The soft and the supple reside on top.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
16. RETURNING TO THE ROOT
It is only by means of being that non-being may be found.
When society changes from its natural state of flux, to that which seems like chaos, the inner world of the superior man remains uncluttered and at peace.
By remaining still, his self detatched, he aids society in its return to the way of nature and of peace.
The value of his insight may be clearly seen when chaos ceases.
Being one with the Tao is to be at peace, and to be in conflict with it, leads to chaos and dysfunction.
When the consistency of the Tao is known, the mind is receptive to its states of change.
It is by being at one with the Tao, that the sage holds no prejudice against his fellow man.
If accepted as a leader of men, he is held in high esteem.
Throughout his life, both being and non-being, the Tao protects him.
-- Updated June 7th, 2017, 11:37 am to add the following --
Ah. The ol'e double standard. It's okay for atheists to generalize but not for theists.Fanman wrote:DM,
Perhaps I'm at fault for question begging in asking you that question, but thinking back it does seem rhetorical. Personally, I don't think that you can defend your prior statement philosophically as it's vague, and I think that closer inspection would reveal that you're generalising and perhaps discriminating, but the fact that you're trying to means that you genuinely believe that atheism (a lack of belief in God) is “shallow and superficial.” If this is what you truly believe then I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I do disagree.
I think that people become religious for many reasons, the fear of death being one of them. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that claim. I think that a person can become religious due to the fear of death, but the possibility is that the God they turn to may not exist. However, religion may provide a person relief from existential anxiety – which at the point of death may be a useful coping mechanism.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Reliance on translation is always problematic, but you cannot blame translation for your claim that what I said is nonsense and that no one should buy it. It is not the fault of translation that when I said:I don't recall seeing that translation. No surprise, though. There are over 125.
you were unable to see that this is about us. That much is clear in your translation as well. There is value in being able to look beyond oneself, but not when this means looking past yourself.It [extreme tenuousness] eschews all forms of absolutism. It is a form of skepticism - an acknowledgement of our ignorance …
It is not the fault of translation if one fails to see that the book, which means literally, the classic of Dao and De, is not simply about Dao but is about De, that is, virtue. There are many chapters that deal with the human virtue of tenuousness even if the term is not used in a translation. Attaining extreme tenuousness is a matter of practice not of theory or conceptual understanding. It is not a matter of imagining a cosmic whole we do not know. It is not a matter of defending a rigid theology or religious belief. It is about what we do and say. It is about our attitude toward others. It should be kept in mind that Daoism emerged, at least in part, as a response to a prolonged period of war (Warring States Period).
A siege mentality that sees everything that the atheist enemy says as an attack that requires being offensive as the best defense is contrary to both the spirit of Daoism and philosophical dialogue.
A note on Li (principle):
The term as it is used in Daoism does not mean a rule of thought or philosophical principle. It is not a higher order concept that unified observer and observed (cf. post #196). It means something like the dynamic order or patterns in according with which things are as they are and do what they do. There is no principle that unifies observer and observed. Such a principle is a philosophical construct that only appears to be necessary as the result of conceptual constructs that make a principled distinction (in the philosophical sense) between subject and object.
How the “myriad things” of Daoism are in unity is an interesting question and one without a single agreed upon answer. The answer that I find most plausible is that they are united when each is as it is according to its virtue. And here we see the problem of the unnaturalness of man which includes the imposition of conceptual constructs on the world. Unity is reestablished when man returns to his virtue. When man is like “unhewn wood”. When man is simple and does not divide things according to the way he sees things mediated by language and concepts and his desire that things be in accord with what he desires.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Except the Tao. (Hence, the yin/yang circle.)There is no principle that unifies observer and observed.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
I didn't say that and I don't think that. People are individual and diverse, which makes generalisations quite problematic. However, as theists believe in and adhere to a religious doctrine, I think that they are more prone to generic generalisations associated with their beliefs and practices. I think we all generalise to a degree, which comes naturally to us as an aspect of our world views - which can be both protective and a stumbling block, but I think that negative generalisations taken to an extreme can be a sign of ignorance. I don't think that you're ignorant, but saying that all atheists (atheism) are a, b or c in a negative context, just seems contrary to intelligence, and un-philosophical.Ah. The ol'e double standard. It's okay for atheists to generalize but not for theists.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
The division between observer and observed is a conceptual construct and therefore does not require a principle (in either sense of the term) to unify what is only conceptually separate. The observer is not the natural opposite or the natural other of the observed. The ability to see things as they are is not due to some kind of principle of unification but is rather the result of the removal of mediating impediments. The notion of a dichotomy serves as an example of such an impediment.There is no principle that unifies observer and observed.
Except the Tao. (Hence, the yin/yang circle.)
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Not sure what you are saying exactly, are people who believe in a religion more prone to unreasonable belief in general? The UK will have an election tomorrow, from what I have seen of people's Facebook comments there are a huge number of totally unreasonable beliefs from presumably a great deal of non theists. People pick sides. Seem to think they know the first thing they are talking about. Then provide evidence which is so unreasonable it's a joke. I think all people suffer from this in equal measure, I guess you could make an argument that the top 1% or so of non theists maybe have more reason in a general sense (hence not falling for religion) but I'm not sure. I see so much unreasonable side taking it's frankly scary.However, as theists believe in and adhere to a religious doctrine, I think that they are more prone to generic generalisations associated with their beliefs and practices.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
If you're peaking as a mystic, you're absolutely right.Fooloso4 wrote:DM:
The division between observer and observed is a conceptual construct and therefore does not require a principle (in either sense of the term) to unify what is only conceptually separate. The observer is not the natural opposite or the natural other of the observed. The ability to see things as they are is not due to some kind of principle of unification but is rather the result of the removal of mediating impediments. The notion of a dichotomy serves as an example of such an impediment.(Nested quote removed.)
Except the Tao. (Hence, the yin/yang circle.)
-- Updated June 7th, 2017, 7:49 pm to add the following --
We enter into the dichotomy of moment we say "I."
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
And if I am not speaking as a mystic I am not absolutely right? I am not a mystic. I cannot speak as a mystic since I have never practiced mysticism and have never had a mystical experience. Therefore, as far as I can see, I have absolutely no basis from which to speak as a mystic.If you're peaking as a mystic, you're absolutely right.
I am speaking as a skeptic who can find neither empirical nor logical evidence of a unifying principle. My most recent comments are with regard to what I find in the Daodejing. One need not be a mystic to be aware that we conceptualize the world and such conceptualizations mediate what we see. One need not be a mystic to know the history of the philosophical discussion of the problem of subjectivity in both Western and Eastern traditions.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
I find this exceptionally odd because you're talking as though there is one -- and unequivocally so.Fooloso4 wrote: I am speaking as a skeptic who can find neither empirical nor logical evidence of a unifying principle.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
My own view is that they are not unified. The Daodejing holds that they are but not because of a principle of unification. One need not accept that something is true in order to attempt to understand it.I find this exceptionally odd because you're talking as though there is one -- and unequivocally so.
-- Updated June 7th, 2017, 8:54 pm to add the following --
From the Zhuangzi:
There is nothing that cannot be looked at that way.
There is nothing that cannot be looked at this way.
But that is not the way I see things;
Only as I know things myself do I know them.
But exhausting the spirit trying to illuminate the unity of things without
knowing that they are all the same is called “three in the morning.”
What do I mean by “three in the morning”? When the monkey trainer was
passing out nuts he said, “You get three in the morning and four at night.”
The monkeys were all angry. “All right,” he said, “you get four in the morning
and three at night.” The monkeys were all pleased. With no loss in
name or substance, he made use of their joy and anger because he went
along with them. So the sage harmonizes people with right and wrong and
rests them on Heaven’s wheel. This is called walking two roads.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 3:20 am to add the following --
I do not understand your rationale. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated. To attempt to understand something presumes it can be understood, but in order to be understood, logic requires that between the observer and the observed there be a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both -- whether it's Mind, the physical laws of nature, or something else. Your intransigence on the matter, which I see as irrational, puts me in mind of what is now a rather (in)famous remark written by Richard Lewton in a review of Carl Sagan's last book, Billions and Billions.Fooloso4 wrote:
My own view is that they are not unified. The Daodejing holds that they are but not because of a principle of unification. One need not accept that something is true in order to attempt to understand it.
-- Updated June 7th, 2017, 8:54 pm to add the following --
From the Zhuangzi:
There is nothing that cannot be looked at that way.
There is nothing that cannot be looked at this way.
But that is not the way I see things;
Only as I know things myself do I know them.
But exhausting the spirit trying to illuminate the unity of things without
knowing that they are all the same is called “three in the morning.”
What do I mean by “three in the morning”? When the monkey trainer was
passing out nuts he said, “You get three in the morning and four at night.”
The monkeys were all angry. “All right,” he said, “you get four in the morning
and three at night.” The monkeys were all pleased. With no loss in
name or substance, he made use of their joy and anger because he went
along with them. So the sage harmonizes people with right and wrong and
rests them on Heaven’s wheel. This is called walking two roads.
If people can cling to beliefs that are irrational, they can also cling to irrational disbelief. Now, on the absolute level of existence, belief and disbelief are irrelevant. But guess what? Human beings do not and cannot function level.Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
No, sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not making any comments about theistic beliefs, what I'm saying is that theist's beliefs and practices make them prone to being generalised, because although theists belong to different religions, most (or all) religions require that its adherents engage in certain ritualistic behaviours, like praying. So one could generalise saying that all theist's pray or that all theist's thank a deity for the good things they have in life. There are also negative generalisations like prominent evangelists continually being after people's money to fuel their lavish lifestyles (true or not). Or in the secular sense, that politicians make promises to get elected, that they don't keep once elected (again true or not). Hence, I think that there are both reasonable and unreasonable generalisations, some grounded and some not. The generalisation which DM made about atheism I think is unreasonable, not because I'm biased towards atheism it just seems vague from a neutral's perspective, I don't see a ground for it.Not sure what you are saying exactly, are people who believe in a religion more prone to unreasonable belief in general?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023