Atheism, A Grim Position?

[Mister Agenda]

Ah well, easy come, easy go.

[robvalue]

I notice many theists make morality much more complicated than it needs to be.

I don't quite get the desire to be firmly under some giant thumb, either.

[IATIA]

---

My approach to theology is minimalistic. I think way to much is speculated on in theology and religious philosophy. The "omini" issue is not that interesting to me and, I don't think, that important for an actionable theology. I'll leave that to the scholars who like those sorts of metaphysical gymnastics.

Here's a snip from the summary on my website that partially addresses your question:

At least in my view, one of the things that distinguishes theism from other religious forms is that it represents the ultimate as intentional and possibly personal. If the ultimate is personal then a relationship may be possible. But how can this ultimate intentionality, personhood, and relatedness be described? This is where ontology comes in.

To me ontology is a dicey concept. Since it deals with the concept of being itself, it opens up difficult definitions and issues to navigate. However, ontology is extremely important for a systematic theology. Historically there have been numerous ontologies offered in theology and religious philosophy. Often they are labeled with terms like monism (non-dual), dualism, or pluralism. In the East, monism (non-dual) seems to be more prevalent (i.e. Buddhism, Hindu philosophies) although there are examples of dualism and pluralism. In the West, strains of both monism and dualism can be found in Abrahamic religions.

One way to approach the issue of ontology for a systematic theology could be to somehow characterize distinctions between God and “the world”. Is there a strong distinction between God and the world or not? This is obviously a huge topic but let me try to distill it down within my understanding of it.

In dualism there are strong distinctions between God and the world. These could be metaphorized as some sort of divide between the divine and the mundane where delineation of being or engagement/detachment of God with the world is an important issue. Often there seems to be a need to shield God from the “evil” found in the world. So God is “perfect” and the world is “imperfect”. Or there is an essential nature and an existential nature.

In a monism (non-dual) there is only the One where if there are distinctions they are about aspects or qualities of the One. There is no stark divide within the One. An example in the East of an ontology with distinctions is Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Its ontology is a qualified monism. In the West there are strains of pantheism and panentheism.

From a theological perspective, the terms themselves (dualism, monism, pantheism, etc.) are not as important as how they are reflected in the religious sentiment that emerges from a chosen ontology. For a systematic theology, ontology is the stepping off point for much of what follows. So, this is one of those decision points that must be made.

Now an intuition concerning the ontology of reality could go lots of ways. This is where informing intuitions may be helpful. While our investigations into the structure of reality relate to our reality, they may offer hints as well into the structure of reality, ultimately. This may be a stretch but I think this is what metaphysics often does, draw from our experience of this reality and extrapolate to the meta level.

So how can we characterize ontological distinctions within our reality? At first blush, it’s tempting to see sharp distinctions of being as we look around at “beings”. But this can be misleading. If we just look at ourselves, we are a conglomerate of many beings, i.e. cells, each having its own being. Also biology has shown that we are also a host for many other beings like viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Some are even essential to our health.

Some other examples to ponder:

Psychologically somehow a self emerges from the myriad of beings and processes within the body and mind.

Economics emerges from the actions of billions of individuals around the world.

Sociologically, somehow groups, organizations, and countries emerge from the actions and interactions of many.

In physics there is this strange phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles no matter how far apart spatially they are somehow show the same measurement at the same time. So even the entire universe appears holistic.

Also in physics and biology there are emergent properties that arise from the collective that can’t seem to be explained through reductionism.

Then there are controversial psi experiments that may indicate some sort of consciousness interconnectivity.

All this taken together seems to support the intuition that there is a relational whole (one thing) and that all things are aspects of it. Aspects affect themselves, other aspects, and the whole. If this is the case then it may be reasonable to expect all of reality to be “one thing” i.e. the One. I call this ontology an aspect monism. This is the first crossroad decision for the system.

So, with this decision made, a theology can begin to be fleshed out as follows. An aspect monism says that God is the One and that all things are aspects of the One. This has several consequences. First it means that God has a Life. Our lives and that of all things are aspects of God’s Life. It also says there is a communion of all things within the One.

A metaphor I use to describe this is Author/Story. As an author creates a narrative in her mind, she creates environments, characters, and situations. These are within the author’s mind (aspects) but they also seem to have a life unto themselves. As authors will tell you, sometimes as the narrative unfolds the characters will surprise the author with what they do and how they develop. They seem to have a level of freedom to emerge. Freewill?

---

Are we one with the universe? IMHO, yes
Might the universe be aware of itself? IMHO, possibly
Is the universe in control (assuming awareness)? IMHO, no more so than any other entity, i.e., it has no more control over a planet say, than we would have over our individual cells.
Is the universe god? No.
Did the universe create itself? No.
Is there a god? No.

[Esquilax]

I notice many theists make morality much more complicated than it needs to be.

I don't quite get the desire to be firmly under some giant thumb, either.

It starts from a premise they never seem prepared to justify "X requires special justification," where special justification can be dressed up in any number of inapplicable terms, like objective, or ultimate, or what have you. That premise lets them pretend that morality is some baffling, pseudo-mystical thing that exists beyond conscious experience as some objective quantity in and of itself. It never seems to occur that, outside of their own presupposed perspective this premise isn't as obviously true as they seem to think it is, but it also has some interesting unspoken corollaries that the theist making the argument seems unwilling to stray from their initial premise to entertain.

For example, morality apparently has no benefits or even effects on the real world to the theist, such that one would want to utilize it; you can see that in Steve's arguments, where every rational consequence of adopting a moral system is dismissed as ungrounded because there is no ultimate grounding, as though those effects cease to exist if it doesn't stem from magic. The fact that Steve seems to think of morality as a quantity removed from human experience, that exerts no pull on people beyond that it is funneled to us via god is a position that's interesting in itself, with plenty of implications worth exploring, but he seems uninterested in even acknowledging that it exists.

After all, this starts with an unjustified premise; it isn't about interrogating morality itself, but picking holes in a brand of morality that the theist himself doesn't adhere to.

[Jackalope]

[JuliaL]

So, with this decision made, a theology can begin to be fleshed out as follows. An aspect monism says that God is the One and that all things are aspects of the One. This has several consequences. First it means that God has a Life. Our lives and that of all things are aspects of God’s Life. It also says there is a communion of all things within the One.

I think you skipped a step.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why use what is normative as a defense? Why not just what I want?

Because it's likely to see you into a hole in the ground pretty quickly.

You see, morality was evolved by social animals in order to lubricate their social interactions. If you act in a way that the majority judge immoral, you will lose status, freedom, or even life to the group, as they assess their collective judgement.

The fact that morality is relative and subjective doesn't mean it is fallacious, which seems to be your unqiestioned assumption.

[Cyberman]

I'll say goodbye.

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

I did.

[Whateverist]

Makes no difference to me.

Never responded to my posts anyway and came off as a total pompous ass. I thought people were mostly pretty fair and tolerant given his total inflexibility in wanting to have everything on his terms. I'm glad he found the exit.

[abaris]

Is it rude to say, I don't give a shit one way or the other?