…and this is a 
I've met him a few times, and that's the impression I get in person and in his writings, and I certainly can't object to that. I haven't yet read his new book, Good Without God, but I'm pretty sure I'll come away from it as I would from a heaping plate of marzipan and sugar cookies and chocolate truffles — a little nibble is plenty, and it's all sweet and lovely, but I sure wouldn't want to make a habit of it. And it can get cloying fast. But someone will like it.
There's a very nice article about Epstein and his book in the Boston Phoenix (See? Again, every time, "nice" is the word that comes to the tongue). I think his message is fine for the people who want the tensions and edges blurred out, and I trust that many will be receptive to his book. But, you know, the journalist asked for my opinion, and I summarized it fairly well, I think.
"I think it is very, very nice of Greg Epstein to want to ape religion, and maybe there will even be some people who find his ideas appealing," Myers tells the Phoenix via e-mail. "However, I'd remind him that just as we can be good without god, we can also be good without rituals, good without sacraments, [and] good without priests and chaplains. … I can appreciate that he's offering a small step away from the old superstitions, but we can go so much further."
Epstein can offer an itty-bitty votive candle wrapped in the form of familiar rituals, and I can appreciate that he is trying to bring a little light into the world. I prefer the lightning, and the carbon arc lamp, and the laser, myself…and the kind of illumination that sends the cockroaches of old dogma scuttling off to hide.
Comments
Posted by: daveau
|
November 25, 2009 3:58 PM
Oh, MK. We don't do that.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 25, 2009 4:05 PM
See?
Posted by: mule | November 25, 2009 4:08 PM
I'm 50 pages into the Karen Armstrong book, and I'm already sick of this idea that religion ever was what existentialist like Kierkegaard wanted it to be. This lie needs to be squashed. We don't have to build our understanding on the rubbish of the past. Let's just be done with it, and move on.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 4:08 PM
Oh, he's the one responsible for the phrase, "atheist fundamentalists?" Talk about poisoning the well. The Phoenix review said enough to turn me off to the book on its first page, but I'll read the rest since I've already learned something new from it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 25, 2009 4:10 PM
This country wouldn't exist without the belief that we don't need religion to make us be good.
While people generally had some sort of belief in the deity, and often enough in religion as well, the point was to make a rational order in which enlightened self-interest, deontology, and/or utilitarianism would supply the morality that the US gov't was not going to get from religion.
The trouble with aping religion is that religious ritual and practice usually ends up becoming stale and basically meaningless. No reason to think that wouldn't happen with godless rituals, etc.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Anonymous | November 25, 2009 4:12 PM
I think rituals are important to humans and don't have to be superstitious. In the wild, many animals engage in rituals (e.g. mating), and it would be denying our very nature to say that rituals are a useless. That being said, if you don't like rituals, that's your choice, but if you examine your life, you'll probably find that you actually engage in quite a few daily rituals, not to mention others.
Posted by: shonny
|
November 25, 2009 4:17 PM
"Atheist Superstar" and "gospel of nonbelief"?
What a fuckwit that Adam Reilly!
All with you, PZ!
Laser and taser and ridicule is what is needed to counter the spread of superstition in an age where anyone can see the real light. Not a lot of made made up shit created by Middle Eastern morons and that paedophile club called 'the Vatican'.
Posted by: smackshack
|
November 25, 2009 4:20 PM
I finished Epstein's book a few days ago, and PZ's suspicions of marzipanitty are well-founded. I have mixed feelings about the book.
On the one hand, I think Epstein tries too hard to separate himself from the "New Atheists." I feel like I saw him taking quotations and situations out of context to make Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris seem more extreme than they are. I don't think he used the "F" word, but he definitely tries to draw a contrast between their alleged heartlessness and his own warm-n-fuzzy approach.
He could just as easily have have reminded his readers of the essential humanity and goodness of the New Atheists themselves, humanized them so that readers could have a picture of the person and not just the polemic. But he didn't choose that route.
On the other hand, the basic idea that atheists should form communities with real estate and traditions of celebration and service -- because religion isn't going to disappear any time soon -- seems to me to be fairly wise. The idea that the arc-lamp of truth is sufficient to send "the cockroaches of old dogma scuttling off to hide" is arguably insufficient. Even the arc-lamp of truth needs infrastructure, maintenance, and a steady source of power and spare parts. Atheist/Humanist communities designed to meet our basic primate needs might help with that.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 4:21 PM
Uggh page 5 kills me. Epstein is arguing a ritual-shaped hole? Religious ritual is an act of initiation/indoctrination. They evolved for tribal identity. If people take this book seriously, there will be a thousand Epsteinite cults. I need a shower. Oh and anonymous, psychological/behavioral ritual is not the same as religious ritual.
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 25, 2009 4:26 PM
"mild-mannered", my ass.
Posted by: Cain | November 25, 2009 4:30 PM
Reading you last paragraph I'm reminded of what an exceptional writer you are PZ. I'm really looking forward to your upcoming book. You have one presell here, hopefully you will have at least a million more.
Posted by: gettingfree | November 25, 2009 4:33 PM
While I prefer and enjoy the "New Atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris) much better personally, I think Greg Epstein can have an appeal for some who might otherwise cling to religion.
And I would rather deal with some people being "Atheist-Lite" than them being Xian-Lite, Xian-Fundamental, or Xian-any-other-type. Anyone who can get people to abandon the myth of god is good for the growth of atheism.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 25, 2009 4:34 PM
Other than the occasional wedding and funeral (unfortunately, the funerals are getting more and more common as my friends and family age) I haven't attended a religious or pseudo-religious ritual in forty years. I don't feel the lack.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 4:34 PM
"On the other hand, the basic idea that atheists should form communities with real estate and traditions of celebration and service -- because religion isn't going to disappear any time soon -- seems to me to be fairly wise."
That, on the other hand, is a very good point. Religions are very good at snapping up at-risk individuals and keeping them (and their offspring) in the dark. And once they've got 'em, they use 'em to do more of the same. (That last link, it turns out, was actually an agnostic who was tortured by her own lack of faith)
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 25, 2009 4:35 PM
I'd never heard of Karen Armstrong till I came here, but I happened across a book on Jerusalem by an author by that name when I visited a (to me) new second hand bookshop (sorta like Zeno's house, but without the shelves).
I did not feel inspired to pick it up. Bought a two-volume historical fiction thing on Salisbury instead.
This, by the way, is the first time I've seen the argument that you used the Koran and God Delusion to further insult the cracker. They do get more and more ridiculous as the time passes.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 4:36 PM
LOL That last link, it turns out, is broken. It's Mother Theresa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa
Posted by: gr8hands | November 25, 2009 4:39 PM
Anonymous, I think that religious rituals are useless. Hopefully that clarifies what the writer was thinking.
Posted by: Diane G. | November 25, 2009 4:41 PM
Epstein is just another male trying to found a movement. Enough already. They infest nearly every humanist group I've been a part of. Those who crave ritual either want to lead same (and pontificate--mostly males) or star in same--look at weddings (mostly the brides). Get over yourselves, people. Celebrate ideas, not your puny little existence.
Posted by: Tulse | November 25, 2009 4:47 PM
Why should atheists do this? Why not D&D players, or soccer supporters, or Jane Austen fans, or Democrats, or WoW players, or Macintosh junkies, or Desperate Housewives viewers...in other words, why not do these things with already existing communities? Atheists really only share one thing, namely a disbelief in gods. That's not much basis for a community, and any community built on that one shared feature is going to be hugely artificial. If religion goes away, communities will arise naturally to replace it -- we don't need to social-engineer an ersatz version.
Suggestions for atheist communities are on par to me with Esperanto -- they both seem like a good idea on paper, but in practice both languages and communities develop naturally, and can't be successfully imposed or artificially created.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
November 25, 2009 4:50 PM
I saw him speak this last Sunday (actually it was a small group, so we sat in a circle and he gave an informal presentation and answered questions). He is indeed nice. I appreciate what he's trying to do and I think that we need voices like his. Of course, what he's offering is not for me.
And while he does try to separate himself from the New Atheists, during our session, he spent much more time defending them from the unfounded attacks from religious folk that he'd heard than he did criticizing them.
Posted by: Jason Febery | November 25, 2009 5:02 PM
I've read part of Greg Epstein's book -- about the first half. And while it isn't a particularly difficult read, I find myself increasingly frustrated at some of the positions he takes. Especially the sort of positions you alluded to in your quote, PZ. That rituals and traditions can be a means to morality.
I suppose these may help some people, especially those that don't want to go "cold turkey," so to say. But I think in the larger scheme of things, Epstein's reliance upon them misses the whole point of morality, whose foundation is the Golden Rule. We don't need to understand that we should only do to others the sort of thing we would want others to do to us.
--
http://www.jasonfebery.wordpress.com
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 5:03 PM
Sorry.
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 5:06 PM
The more I think about it, the more I definitely understand the need to keep goofy little things like "First!" down to a minimum so as to allow folks like David Mathews to hi-jack several threads with repetitive rank stupidity! I am duly chastened.
Posted by: Jessie | November 25, 2009 5:09 PM
It's much easier to persuade people to your way of thinking if you do it in small steps rather than expecting them to make one giant leap into the unknown, away from what feels comforting and familiar. If some people aren't the self-assured types who want to stand out as individuals but prefer the support of others like them, what's the problem?
We don't only share a non-belief in deities but also a belief in reason.
Posted by: Mr T | November 25, 2009 5:12 PM
PZ, you're so nice to mention how nice Epstein is (or was it damning with faint praise?). We atheists have such nice schisms and rifts.
There are a lot of strange and annoying parts in the article:
If "faith without faith" is supposed to have any meaning, then my answer is no I will not.The assumption seems to be that 1) "Epstein's bigger point" is somehow a new idea, 2) this project is achievable within a generation or two, and 3) no "new atheists" are attempting it (where "it" refers to a coherent expression of the idea, rather than the confused dribble quoted from the article). If anyone seriously believes any of those are true, then they need to be corrected.
I find this an interesting juxtaposition: Epstein thinks that what "new atheists" are doing isn't enough, and PZ claims that "we can go so much further" than Epstein's approach. Epstein's claim seems to be based on the false premises that "new atheists" aren't doing those things. PZ's claim seems to be a valid criticism against trying to coddle the religious out of their religiosity with more religiosity.
Again from the article:
So much here is both wrong and insulting. I define myself (and let myself be defined) by more than one word -- yes, even the words "human" and "humanist" leave something to be desired. I embrace other sources of meaning, besides whatever is supposed to stem from my lack of belief in a sky daddy. The implication seems to be that atheists (as opposed to "Humanists") are not concerned about striving for "dignity". Or, as the author implies shortly thereafter, atheists do not "crave a thoughtful, demanding framework for existence". That's simply ridiculous.Perhaps the author/editor is just very careless, but there wasn't much sign of objective reporting, just a heavy pro-Humanist/anti-New Atheist bias. The title "Greg Epstein, Atheist Superstar" probably should've clued me in, I guess.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 25, 2009 5:13 PM
I'm not sure about the rest, but I'll defend ritual. Ritual is very important to humans. And yes, we do establish group identity with it, and it does not have to be religious in any way. Nor is it just weddings and funerals, by any means.
As an example, I belong to one organisation that has annual formal dinners, with a traditional pattern of toasts and particular songs that go with each toast. That's a ritual. So too is its tradition of joke telling - a small group creates a rhyme calling someone out, chants it, and then the victim must tell a joke on pain of social opprobrium. Ritual. Some enjoy sporting traditions, dressing in fan colours, playing games, prize giving dinners, competitions for an award, all sorts of things. Melbourne cup day. Buying poppies for remembrance day. Birthday parties. Mothers' day. Graduation ceremonies.
I haven't yet discovered any atheist rituals. So far all mine belong to other kinds of non-religious social groups.
Posted by: FastLane | November 25, 2009 5:17 PM
smackshack: "He could just as easily have have reminded his readers of the essential humanity and goodness of the New Atheists themselves, humanized them so that readers could have a picture of the person and not just the polemic. But he didn't choose that route."
Ironically, because even Epstein probably realizes that it wouldn't sell as well. ;-)
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 25, 2009 5:36 PM
Hey guys, over here in the region formerly know as Yurp we don't have no steenking atheist communities. We just have communities, where being an unbeliever is no big thing. Now some would say we are this way due to State Relgion, but what about France? Instead I rather think that it is more to do with everyone having centralised, state education with centrally agreed curricula, set by acknowledge experts.
I'm not saying you don't have some good schools, but that there are too few of them. There is much to be admired of the low reach of American Democracy, but allowing those who only just or even didn't graduate High School to set education priorities and have a veto on what their child can be taught is just madness and hubris of the highest order.
Posted by: Mr T | November 25, 2009 5:36 PM
Cath the Canberra Cook:
It depends on how you define what a "ritual" is. It doesn't really matter, because you can be an atheist and still perform and benefit from many kinds of rituals, including ones specifically tied to atheism. For example, I belong to a local atheist group, which holds regular meetings and occasionally other social events. Those could easily be considered a "ritual", and it wouldn't mean any of us are "humanists" rather than "new atheists".Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 5:43 PM
Thirtieth!
Posted by: daveau
|
November 25, 2009 5:49 PM
OK, mk. I don't think PZ has a pet peeve about that one. You're redeemed.
Posted by: Souljacker | November 25, 2009 6:02 PM
The main problem is that people read the anti religion books of people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and they assume that these guys spend all day sitting around talking about how there's no God.
It's like reading a DVD player instruction manual and then attacking the author for believing life is nothing but a series of DVD player instructions.
It's almost like a scene from Life of Brian or something.
'It's all very well these new atheists tell us that we shouldn't blindly follow orders but they don't even bother to tell us what orders we SHOULD blindly follow.'
Posted by: SWH | November 25, 2009 6:04 PM
Re: Atheist Rituals
Like Mr. T I'm sure that there are many rituals performed by atheists - but I'm not sure that too many of them are "atheist rituals" as such. I, for one, am not very big on this kind of thing and am unlikely to join any organization whose formal rituals progress much beyond drinking games. As previously noted organizing atheists and free thinkers is likely to resemble cat herding (probably similar to trying to organize scientists). As an expat Brit living in the American bible belt I can say that I never had to run from ritual - it was never imposed, unlike the experience of many of the poor folks I know here - but I certainly wouldn't run towards it.
I thought the last paragraph of the article was cute - and possibly true. Perhaps Epstein can bring the meek and mild together at the center (he does sound a bit like the archbishop of Canterbury - probably not a big theological divide there) and allow the rest of us more free rein to snipe at the crazies.
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 6:17 PM
There does seem to be a human need for rituals, whether religious or not. Is blogging a kind of ritual? Commenting on blogs?
Posted by: Happy Tentacles | November 25, 2009 6:23 PM
My pet cockroaches are really upset about that disparaging, speciesist comment! Cockroaches are perfectly honourable, useful invertebrates that dispose of natural waste with neatness and efficiency. They just happen to feel uncomfortable under strong lights, due to their eyes being adapted for low light levels. They get very upset when used as metaphors for human stupidity. Cockroaches deserve better!
Posted by: dbtng_thomas | November 25, 2009 6:24 PM
So, about ritual ... it can be very useful. It's a tool, and it has a valid purpose.
Some years ago, I got a case of the hiccups that lasted for 3 days. Yeah, I know, that sounds funny. It doesn't sound like a real problem until you think about what it would be like to have a spasm every minute or so, and have that series of spasms keep you awake, go on in your sleep, greet you when you awoke again, interfere with eating and working, etc. It sucked. After waiting in vain for it to go away and finally getting scared that it might not, I decided to fix it.
During the third day, I thought about what I was going to do and constructed a ritual designed to take me into a deep meditation. When I got home, I gathered several candles, incense, and a few ceremonial-looking objects to concentrate on. My little ritual took me through three stages of increasingly deep meditation. When I 'arrived' at my deepest point, I relaxed all the muscles involved in the hiccuping and set an injunction against them doing that any more. After that, I gradually brought myself back to full awareness, carefully leaving the injunction in place.
It worked. No more hiccups. Call it what you want: self-hypnosis, placebo effect, self-deception, or just plain foolishness. The fact is, I created and used a ritual to fix an illness that was causing me great physical discomfort. There are many reasons for ritual. Mr. Epstein may have some odd ideas about how atheist communities work, but I'm in agreement with him that ritual has value.
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 6:28 PM
Many thanks to 'Daveau', the dutiful little hall monitor, for clearing my good name again... I am ever so grateful! I realize my offense was levels above people like David Mathews and shit... so really thanks!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 25, 2009 6:32 PM
On the third day of every workweek, upon experiencing that awkward moment of silence with strangers in an elevator--clearly a liminal state if I ever saw one--I lead my small cohort by exclaiming with authority, "Humpday." The congregation, as it were, is free to respond in any of a few ways. Some will merely grunt agreement, a brief few syllables of acknowledgment of our shared experiences. Others will offer a few therapeutic thoughts on the nature of work, or our locality's current meteorological conditions (especially common here in Canada). The moment ends when one or more participants reach their floor of destination and exit; the spell broken, the experience ended.
An atheist ritual? No, yet not religious either, but something that transcends both, and I challenge this culture to claim it could make the transition from Tuesdayness to Thursdayhood without it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
November 25, 2009 6:44 PM
Wait, it's not? Damn! That probably explains why I shouldn't have tried to back up my college career by ripping myself to DivX.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 6:51 PM
Cath the Canberra Cook:
It sounds like you've just named a bunch of atheist rituals. The point is that we don't need to invent faux religious ones.
Oh, and MK, thicker skin, please. Don't start trolling just because you got chided.
Posted by: Mr T | November 25, 2009 7:06 PM
Is there ever any actual humping involved? If not, well then, that's not my culture and heritage! (WARNING! This link for rhetorical and satirical purposes only)I'm all for rituals and traditions and stuff, but obviously they're not good in and of themselves (I'm not implying you're making this claim, Brownian).
Posted by: Haley
|
November 25, 2009 7:13 PM
Well there is certainly a human need for community and rituals- but the fact that so many atheists and other non-churchgoers/non-superstitious folk seems to prove that there isn't a need for a religious community and set of rituals at least. I think religions are born from the human need to be comforted, and rituals are a great way to do that. Funerals help us mourn our dead, confession (to friends, family, not priests) helps alleviate guilt, and baptism can be seen as just a baby welcoming celebration (but don't dunk the baby in water or sprinkle it, that's just silly). No religion needed, and it doesn't even require an atheist church. Just some friends and family. I think Epstein takes it too far.
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 7:19 PM
David Estlund... Fuck you, I don't troll.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 25, 2009 7:24 PM
Sorry. Touchy.
Posted by: Mr T | November 25, 2009 7:33 PM
mk:
You don't troll, but do you comment on things that are remotely interesting or relevant to the thread?
Posted by: Diane G. | November 25, 2009 7:35 PM
What does Epstein think Paul Kurtz has spent most of his lifetime trying to do?
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 7:38 PM
@ MrT...
You may not think so, but yes, I try.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
November 25, 2009 7:44 PM
PZ, for once I disagree with you saying:
I say, bring on the thermonuclear weapons!
(tongue-in-cheek of course)
Posted by: Mr T | November 25, 2009 7:44 PM
oh, sure, you must have been trying really hard those "first" and "thirtieth" comments.
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 7:51 PM
No, in those cases I was goofing off. I meant no harm or rudeness to PZ or any other commenters. I did not come in here and try to hijack a thread with something completely off topic, like a true troll.
It was the hall monitors heavy handedness that bugged me.
And now taking the time to explaining all this just prolongs the dumbness of it all. Ugh.
Very sorry, PZ.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 25, 2009 7:59 PM
mk,
You can get away with being silly if you're simultaneously witty. So far we've seen the silly but only the half-witty.
Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | November 25, 2009 8:00 PM
Now, MK, MrT, and Daveau - do I have to pull this car over? Can't we have a nice Thanksgiving for once, without you boys ruining it?
One more outburst and I'm going to contact Patricia and ask her to fire up the spanking couch. If that's the sort of thing you like, I'll ask her to put it away.
/stern parental lecture
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 25, 2009 8:03 PM
The familiar rituals that I mentioned are not religious, but they are also not explicitly atheist. Theists and atheists alike can sing happy birthday out of tune, wear a shiny cardboard hat, and blow out candles on a cake. Or celebrate Humpday. They are *secular*, not atheist.
IMO, we don't actually need to get together and create atheist rituals to support that human need. Existing secular ones do just fine.
Also, I'd note that ritual is not in itself necessarily good. See Nuremburg rallies, hazing. Group cohesion is nice, but not when it goes along with demonising outgroups.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 25, 2009 8:08 PM
I'm sorry, but I disagree with 'Tis in this instance.
This is a serious science blog. It is no place for either the silly or the witty. In my God-authorized opinion, Professor Myers should ban all those who assume a silly name and try to hijack threads with puerile commentary.
Smoggy M. Batzrubble
Posted by: MadScientist | November 25, 2009 8:11 PM
Ah, so we don't need god but we want the creepy rituals? Does the cracker turn into bits of our most loathed enemies?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 25, 2009 8:19 PM
Oh no! Smoggy is being diagreeable with me.
Posted by: hyoid | November 25, 2009 8:22 PM
The fact that you felt the need to do that, etc, etc, etc...
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 25, 2009 8:22 PM
Batzrubble is right
Comments should be serious
Like Smoggy's or mine
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 25, 2009 8:26 PM
Dear Brother 'Tis,
Forgive me for singling your comment out for diagreement. It is only because as the lone Christian voice in this foetid parlor of evil Jesus has commanded me to stand up and speak for sane and sober standards of behavior.
Yours in Christian etiquette
Smoggy M. Batzrubble
Posted by: mk | November 25, 2009 8:34 PM
@ 'tis himself...
Well, if you can't accept that that was a genuine apology then at least you can go fuck yourself, right?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 25, 2009 8:39 PM
Dear Brother/sister mk,
Thank you for heeding my call to raise the standards of discourse on this evil blog. Your efforts are an example to us all.
I am not sure whether 'Tis can go fuck himself...I have tried fucking myself and it is not easy. But my friend Floyd Rubber is an adept at helping people fuck themselves, and as he is a great fan of 'Tis's commentary he has offered to pop around and assist for a small fee.
Yours in support of an elevated blogosphere
Smoggy M. Batzrubble
Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | November 25, 2009 8:52 PM
Mmmm, mmm! I feel a spankin' coming on.
Posted by: wheelbrain | November 25, 2009 8:58 PM
I have to admit, I don't really understand this sort of thing. I think that atheists who crave some form of spirituality, faith, ritual, community, etc. simply haven't detached themselves enough from religion. This seems obvious in the case of someone like Mr. Epstein who has spent a great deal of his life "searching for meaning" - perhaps to fill the old 'God-shaped hole'? When I first lost my faith in God I too worried about matters of faith and meaning and existence. It wasn't until I just shrugged off thinking about God altogether that I actually found happiness. Now the only time God enters my thoughts at all is when PZ lets off some steam or a new atheist bestseller hits the shelves. It's like worrying where the presents will come from when you find out Santa isn't real; the presents will still be there, you'll just know where they actually came from. You don't need "faith without faith" or "goodness without God" or any other empty aphorism. Just stop cluttering up your brain with useless garbage and get on with your life. What a delightful day it will be when atheism is a completely meaningless idea.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 25, 2009 9:01 PM
SONG FOR JOSH
You've got that spankin' feeling,
Whoa, that spankin' feeling,
You've got that spankin' feeling,
And it's strong...strong...strong...wooooooh.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | November 25, 2009 9:42 PM
Marzipan? Yuck! It's the anti-bacon!
Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | November 25, 2009 10:18 PM
A song? Por moi? From Smoggy? I'm honored!
Forgive me if I'm too wrapped up in pies to contribute to the next verse. Suffice it to say, it would be named "Chained Melody."
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 25, 2009 10:23 PM
Cuttlefish, a Haiku! Nice.
Posted by: steve | November 25, 2009 10:30 PM
What humanist chaplains like Epstein do is ensure that a community of secularists exist in an organized and close setting. In leaving religion, there is an absence of community for the nonbeliever. Chaplaincies set up just this community, but without the god. Other secular groups have the tendency to sit around and practice mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with that), but in my experience, organizations backed by humanist chaplains consistently contribute to the community and remain active longer.
I disagree with Epstein's claims that the "new atheists" are too abrasive (I think Steven Pinker contested his claims in an article a few years back), but I do not think that this means that we should look down our noses at him. He's doing great work, and I appreciate having him in my community.
Posted by: antaresrichard | November 25, 2009 11:36 PM
I'll take my atheism straight!
-glug-
Sm-mm-o-o-o-th...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 26, 2009 12:41 AM
'Tis Himself, OM @ 13:
39 years for me, and I don't feel any lack either. I know several people though, who are enamored with the idea of atheist community centers, a sort of atheist "church". The whole idea leaves a bad taste in my brain however. There are already enough people who think atheism is a religion, and I don't like the idea of giving that misguided notion any foundation.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 26, 2009 1:01 AM
Caine,
Absolutely. Simulating any kind of religious rites is absurd on the face of it. I think we should direct our energies toward organizing community service initiatives like the Secular Center, and building community through positive action. Community service is a pretty darn useful ritual, and it serves the same purpose for us in bringing us together and giving us a common task.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
November 26, 2009 2:14 AM
One of these days I am going to say something three-quarters witty.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
November 26, 2009 2:18 AM
No, it was around for ages before him. He's just an asshole for picking it up and running with it.
A fatwa upon him.
Posted by: Nihil | November 26, 2009 2:20 AM
Just a caveat about the "cockroaches of old dogma". Cockroachesare most dangerous when unseen and hiding. They'll multiply exponentially, filling the walls to bursting and devouring everything in their path. Some things are better left in the light where they can be watched.
Posted by: Nihil | November 26, 2009 3:24 AM
Dear Wheelbrain, regarding your comment (#63), I believe most humans would find it difficult to live without some sense of meaning or purpose to their lives. Since humanity acquired consciousness, we have looked for something larger than ourselves to explain, or give meaning, to our existence. From this need arose the creation of deities, religion, etc. These things protect people from contemplating the obvious (at least to me) alternative -- that all existence is inherently without meaning. If this is true on a cosmic scale, how much less must humans amount to? If reliance on divinities, religions and their associated rules of conduct were suddenly eliminated, civilization might devolve into amorality and anarchy. And even if it means nothing to the Great Multiverse, our tiny existence will have been made better for the few cosmic nanoseconds allotted to us, and that's something worth living for.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
November 26, 2009 3:35 AM
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg
Posted by: Nihil | November 26, 2009 3:42 AM
Lost a section of my last comment. Here it is:"...anarchy. Instead, we need to focus on a human scale, since it's all most folks can deal with. People need to be weaned off of their gods and offered an equal or better alternative, such as service to mankind. If we raise our children to believe that serving humanity is the highest calling to which anyone can aspire, we'll have taken a step away from fear and superstition and moved down the long road toward human enlightenment and freedom. And even if...".
(It's waaay past my naptimzzzzzz...
Posted by: Walton | November 26, 2009 4:06 AM
Or ultra-nationalism. Or Marxism-Leninism. Or any other irrational ideology.
(Don't get me wrong: I'm not defending religion in any way, shape or form. But it is not the only form of ideology capable of inspiring otherwise well-meaning people to work evil. Humans have a tribalist desire to divide the world into "us" and "them"; and in its worst manifestations, this leads to "them" being seen as less than human.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 26, 2009 5:52 AM
Walton has it right. Organizations like the Nazi SS, the Chinese Communists under Mao, and even most militaries have (or had) certain rituals used for bonding and acknowledging something "higher" than the individual SS-Mann or Party member.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 26, 2009 5:54 AM
He does.
It's a worry...:-)
Posted by: Mack the Spife | November 26, 2009 6:02 AM
I think Greg Epstein just comes off as vaguely patronizing. Like he's patting us on the head, saying, well, you don't believe in god, that's nice, light some candles, you'll feel better about the universe's indifference to your existence, and the encroachment of religion into every aspect of your life, much as you try to avoid it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 6:47 AM
I agree with comments 19, 28, 53 and 63. Also, the boring mass of ever-same rituals was the first reason why I stopped going to church.
Community? Pharyngula is a community!
mk, a few months ago we had an infestation of people who left "First!" comments. Often the first ten comments of a thread would be "First!". PZ got understandably angry and announced a shoot-on-sight policy, which he has kept.
David Mathews was banned after 12 hours and 255 comments. PZ isn't available 24/7, you see...
~:-|
Do you mean you're uncomfortable with not talking to random strangers in an elevator? Or what have I misunderstood?
I still don't understand this.
I just don't get it.
Life is interesting. That's what makes it
interestingworth living. It's beautiful, I like it, that settles it. What do I care that that's not a law of physics? Why the fuck should I care?!?"Purpose"???
No, that's a category error.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 26, 2009 7:16 AM
When people state that "humans have a need for x", I'm frequently left wondering whether I'm not fully human in their eyes. This is one of those occasions.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 26, 2009 8:00 AM
We have created a monster. May god have mercy on our piranahs.
I have never seen a need for some "great" purpose. Especially strange since it is supposed to be the little, simple things that make life worth living.
Posted by: Mystic Olly | November 26, 2009 8:01 AM
I agree with Moggy @84 and especially with the first comment after the news story at The Phoenix.
Epstein seems to be convinced that faith is morality. He would do well to spend some of his privileged research opportunities to investigate moral psychology - check out the Situationist blog and generally not be confuse his specific personality with general human nature (or what statistical observations we might make about such a concept).
As has been commented countless times on this blog - what most of us object to in faith is it's dishonesty, lack of curiosity, and fundamental immorality. It also has a tendency to dissolve when examined. I don't need to share a meal, a chant, a 'sacred' space or real estate with another mind to be disgusted with the lack of proportionality in the Christian conception of Heaven and Hell - and that doesn't stop me being contemptuous of the philosophical underpinnings of such tripe.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 26, 2009 8:45 AM
Can we please give Walton some kind of award for Most Improved Commenter?
His transformation from a predictable, very nearly one-trick-pony into a thoughtful advocate of reasoned and original posts may be the only case in the entire of Internet history.
Walton, keep up the good work! (And I don't mean any of this to be patronising - it is refreshing to see somebody change and improve themselves!)
Posted by: KI | November 26, 2009 8:52 AM
Being a "been there, done that" sort of person, I find rituals just tedious and boring. Same old, same old. I can't even play a song the same way twice, and the idea of being locked up in some building with a bunch of the same people doing the same thing over and over...can I reference "hell"?
As for the "life must have meaning" crowd-these people need to "Sartre Up" (I'm riffing off the "cowboy up" admonition I got in Montana when I whined about the heat and dirt).
Posted by: bcoppola | November 26, 2009 9:28 AM
@88 "...people need to "Sartre Up..."
That SO needs to be a bumper sticker/window decal. I can just see it on a big honkin' Ford F-350.
As for "communities" and "rituals" for nonbelievers who need them: don't Unitarianism, secular Judaism, and Festivus fill the bill at least in part? :) And for my fellow USAnians, Thanksgiving as well. Have a happy one, whichever rituals/traditions you observe or not.
(BTW, if you're reading this, it's in spite of TypePad being temperamental today)
Posted by: shaunotd
|
November 26, 2009 9:46 AM
@ Moggie #84
I know the feeling - except with me it's wondering whether I've accidentally tuned into the Home Shopping Channel
Posted by: Peter | November 26, 2009 10:20 AM
Meanwhile, in the real world of religion...
Irish Church accused of abuse cover-up.
Posted by: AdamK
|
November 26, 2009 10:21 AM
Exactly.
Furthermore, it occurs to me that when we organize the Unchurch we should write all our liturgy in Esperanto, and intone it solemnly while wearing impractical hats.
Posted by: MarkL | November 26, 2009 10:31 AM
Hmmm,
How about some evidence-based arguments? Do you really know that humans can be good without ritual, for example, or that religion has no ability to convey morals?
I think it's clear that one of the functions of
religious institutions is to teach morality.
Are churches necessary for some people?
I think the answer could be yes; responding that God doesn't exist isn't really to the point.
It certainly seems that people may be wired to be receptive to religious beliefs. This is completely separate from the question of whether any diety exists.
I'm skeptical that you can simply teach such inclinations away.
Why can't we all just be Unitarians??
Posted by: Intelligence Squared | November 26, 2009 10:34 AM
After the launch of our new website, Intelligence Squared are excited to announce that we will be live-streaming a debate, "Atheism is the new fundamentalism", on Sunday 29th November at 6.45pm GMT at www.intelligencesquared.com/live.
In partnership with livestation.com, you will be able to watch online for free as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and philosopher A C Grayling take on Richard Harries, the former bishop of Oxford, and Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, at this sold-out Wellington Squared event held at Wellington College, Berkshire. It will be chaired by the Headmaster of Wellington, political historian Anthony Seldon.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 26, 2009 10:38 AM
Second the motion.
A while ago I was extremely rude to Walton. Someone nominated him for a Molly and I said I'd resign mine if he got it. I humbly apologize to Walton for that bit of harsh abuse. His comments in the past couple of months show his good writing, intelligence and (dare I say it?) wisdom (yes, I dare).
Keep up the good work, Walton. You're rapidly getting to the point where you're worthy of a Molly.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 26, 2009 10:47 AM
I too was very harsh to Walton a while ago, telling him I held him in contempt.
I no longer do so.
Posted by: bevo/devo | November 26, 2009 11:00 AM
Sweden has one of the lowest rates of church attendance, highest rates of atheism, and highest morals and standards of education in the world. Sure, some enlightened forms of religion has the ability to convey morals, but I don't think it's necessary thay they be the institutions to do so.
Churches are probably necessary for some people's morality, but only if that person truly believes that religion/final judgment is the only thing keeping them from murdering their neighbor. I wouldn't say they're actually moral, but if being afraid of God is what keeps them from going nuts on society, I guess we'll have to live with it.
No. They're creepy and cultish.
Posted by: wheelbrain
|
November 26, 2009 11:16 AM
Nihil, #76/78
It's true that humanity has long searched for the underpinnings of the universe, and commonly attributed the mysteries of life to supernatural causes. However, that doesn't mean there is an innate need for faith in the supernatural, but rather suggests that the same desire to comprehend the universe that gave rise to superstitions millennia ago is also responsible for modern scientific inquiry. To my mind, the obvious alternative to believing in a spiritual purpose to life is not a belief in the futility of life, but an admission of ignorance. We don't know what life is for, if it is for anything at all. That doesn't mean the rational response is to descend into nihilism. Yes, the universe can be a frightening place. Any place with more galaxies than people is sure to inspire a sickening sense of scale. When you consider how little we know, though, it seems silly to put our trust in the ancient ideas of scared, lonely people in terrible awe of the stars in the night sky.
Moreover, I find it hard to believe that these mouldy notions are what hold the social order in place. Societies with little public or personal interest in religion, like much of Western Europe, function perfectly well in a moral capacity. And when I imagine what the Middle East would be like without Islam or what Africa would be like without Catholicism or what the American Bible Belt would be like without Bibles, I have difficulty imagining a more amoral and anarchic place. You see, when I say the alternative to spirituality is an admission of ignorance, I mean ignorance of spirituality. The ideas of spirituality seem much like the ancient idea of the four elements, or of the aether. I'm sure they seemed like perfectly useful ideas at the time. To us, with our understanding of the elements, of what space is, they are not even wrong. Sure, we give credit for recognizing a gap in our understanding, but you can't simply fill that gap with whatever notion comes to mind. Perhaps humanity does need a sense of higher purpose. What that purpose is, though, should not be invented or imagined. It should be discovered. How shall we discover it? By forgetting old superstition, and looking at the universe, and trying to understand it. That's not my religion. It's just life.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 26, 2009 11:21 AM
A very good case can be made that they function better than many more religious countries.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 26, 2009 11:38 AM
Well, yes, a little. Or, no, not really. I am the guy who likes to screw with the normative rules of social disengagement and interact with people in situations where interaction is discouraged, so to me elevator rides are fodder for dumb jokes and weird behaviour and the reactions they elicit.
In my comment however, I was riffing on the anthropological view of rituals as rites of passage (and of course, not all rituals are rites of passage) in which the participants have one status or identity before the ritual, a non-status and non-identity during the ritual itself, and then are re-integrated into the larger culture with their new status or identity afterwards. In my mythologised elevator trip, the passengers in the car are arguably share a state of liminality in that social class, ethnicity, and other social categories are de-emphasised and we're all just people stuck in a box, staring at our shoes.
The larger point (sometimes even I'm surprised that I have one) is that we're ritual-generating machines (as well as language-generating, culture-generating, taboo-generating), and thus there's rarely a need to prescriptively create rituals (or language, or culture, or taboos) because we do it automatically. It's a human thing.
Take mk and the 'firsts'. (Two things: I'm not picking on you mk, and wouldn't "mk & the firsts" be a kick-ass band name?) 'Firsting' is clearly a custom on many blogs, but it's taboo here. mk unwittingly broke this taboo, and was chastised for it, an obvious process by which members of a culture transmit cultural knowledge to other members. As David Marjanović noted, Pharyngula is a community, and more than that: it's a community with its own culture, including taboos ('first'ing, concern trolling, outright bigotry) for which transgressors are punished, language (generally Standard English or as close to it as members can approximate; leet, for example, is not acceptable, though profanity is), rituals or traditions (the monthly Molly awards, Friday Cephalopods, Mary's Monday Metazoans, I Get Email), and symbols (Gumby and the Comic Sans --another great band name--PYGMIES + DWARFS ??, and the 'P' gang sign we flash when we're about to rumble with those putos from Panda's Thumb). Do we really need "impractical hats" too?
People who think we 'need' rituals tend to be unaware of what a ritual is and how often they participate in them without realising it.
In case there is a Church of Jane Austen casting about for overt rituals to emulate, I humbly suggest the Jane Austen Drinking Game.
What's wrong with nominating him and voting for a Molly? He's been nominated a few times, and I fully expect he'll win one soon.
Depending on who else is on the ticket (some of the more senior commenters are still lacking) I'd be happy to vote for him.
Posted by: AdamK
|
November 26, 2009 11:43 AM
@Cuttlefish, #58:
Hi, Cu!
Posted by: teammarty | November 26, 2009 12:06 PM
I thought that's what the Unitarians were for, those who didn't have the guts to say publicly that they don't believe in god(s).
Posted by: Brian | November 26, 2009 12:45 PM
Greg Epstein is ambitious and political. He is determined to promote the "Greg Epstein" brand above all else.
On the one hand, this is good. When he is so foolish as to try to get publicity for himself by attacking "atheist fundamentalists," one can get him to cease that particular style of attack with a counter-attack -- just wound him with public embarrassment, and his survival mechanism will kick in. He dropped that term quickly once slapped hard enough.
On the other hand, while his behavior is as malleable as that of a dog being trained, he apparently has no principles beyond "do that which is good for the public image of Greg Epstein." Thus, he represents a liability to any principled person who aligns with him. When push comes to shove, he will always be looking out for Greg Epstein, and tomorrow could easily abandon a position he claims to hold strongly today.
With charm, media savvy and a relentless drive for fame, Greg Epstein isn't going away anytime soon. But given his demonstrated character, it would be foolish to align with him even if at the moment he is saying a few pretty things.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2009 1:15 PM
TypePad? What TypePad? You're not logged in.
Not in Klingon? It's the Fastest-Growing Language In The Galaxy™ after all… and it's way, way cooler to boot.
Well, either at least some people can, or I'm an asshole. :-)
<headshake>
Priceless.
Everyone, and the Inanimate Carbon Rod, is always on the ticket.
ROTFL!