Subject: Re: Atheism as religion (was Wake Up...) In article <943NETOPRWA@NCSUVM> NETOPRWA

From: perryc@wheelie.Sun.COM (Perry Cross)
Subject: Re: Atheism as religion (was Wake Up...)
Message-ID: <124811@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>

In article <943NETOPRWA@NCSUVM> NETOPRWA@NCSUVM.BITNET (Wayne Aiken) writes:
>
>The more I hear from other atheists, the more I think that there are at
>least as many brands of atheism as there are atheists.  One of the best
>definitions of atheism that I've heard yet is that it describes all of
>the lifestyles and philosophies which, though they may be very different
>from each other, do not contain certain aspects; namely belief in the
>supernatural or religion.
>
>Wayne Aiken                netoprwa@ncsuvm.bitnet      "You can BE what

I'm glad you brought this up.  I tried to explain my position earlier
but think that Bertrand Russell says it better:

        Are agnostics atheists?

        No.  An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or
        not there is a God.  The Christian holds that we can know there is a
        God; the atheist, that we can know there is not.  The agnostic sus-
        pends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either
        for affirmation or for denial.  At the same time, an agnostic may
        hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very im-
        probable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth
        considering in practice.  In that case, he is not far removed from
        atheism.  His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would
        have toward the gods of ancient Greece.  If I were asked to prove
        that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do
        not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.  An
        agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olymp-
        ians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the
        atheists.

Since I've got a few minutes and am a touch typist (90 wpm) . . .


        Since you deny "God's law," what authority do you accept as a
        guide to conduct?

        An agnostic does not accept any "authority" in the sense in which
        religious people do.  He holds that a man should think out questions
        of conduct for himself.  Of course, he will seek to profit by the
        wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people
        he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as
        unquestionable.  He will observe that what passes as "God's law"
        varies from time to time.  The Bible says both that a woman must not
        marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circum-
        stances, she must do so.  If you have the misfortune to be a childless
        widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible
        for you to avoid disobeying "God's law".


        How do you know what is good and what is evil?
        What does an agnostic consider a sin?

        The agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to
        what is good and what is evil.  He does not hold, as most Christians
        in the past held, that people who disagree with the government on
        abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death.  He is
        against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation.
                As for "sin", he thinks it not a useful notion.  He admits, of
        course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable,
        but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be
        commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is
        inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that
        the wicked should suffer.  It was this belief in vindictive punishment
        that made men accept hell.  This is part of the harm done by the
        notion of "sin".


        How does an agnostic regard the Bible?

        An agnostic regards the Bible exactly as enlightened clerics regard
        it.  He does not think that it is divinely inspired; he thinks its
        early history legendary, and no more exactly true than in Homer; he
        thinks it moral teaching sometimes good, but sometimes very bad.
        For example:  Samuel ordered Saul, in a war, to kill not only every
        man, woman, and child of the enemy, but also all the sheep and cattle.
        Saul, however, let the sheep and cattle live, and for this we are told
        to condemn him.  I have never been able to admire Elisha for cursing
        the children who laughed at him, or to believe (what the Bible
        asserts) that a benevolent Deity would send two she-bears to kill the
        children.


        How does an agnostic regard Jesus,
        the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity?

        Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he cannot think that
        Jesus was God.  Most agnostics admire the life and moral teachings
        of Jesus as told in the Gospels, but not necessarily more than those
        of certain other men.  Some would place him on a level with Buddha,
        some with Socrates and some with Abraham Lincoln.  Nor do they
        think that what He said is not open to question, since they do not
        accept any authority as absolute.
                They regard the Virgin Birth as a doctrine taken over from
        pagan mythology, where such births were not uncommon.  (Zoroaster
        was said to have been born of a virgin; Ishtar, the Babylonian
        goddess, is called the Holy Virgin.)  They cannot give credence to it,
        or to the doctrine of the Trinity, since neither is possible without
        belief in God.


I agree with Bertrand except where he distinguishes agnosticism from religion;
like I've said, I view religion with a broader definition that includes
agnostic belief.

Perry