Which Is Parasitic, Atheism Or Theism?

[Yozavan]

Metaphorically, which is parasitic, atheism or theism? Which side hosts an alien intruder, that eats away its hapless victim? What does the parasite gain? What does its host lose?


I suppose the sophisticated theologian would opine, that any view which lacks at its center: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the salvific obedience thereof, would be parasitic; with Satan as the parasite and the host his digestive prey, as an affront to the Divine image.


I suppose the sophisticated atheist would opine, that any view which lacks at its center: the independence from supernatural mechanisms, and the liberty thereof, to be parasitic, with humanity's propensity for imaginative thinking to be the parasite, with no digestive purpose.. ( Unless nature's defense be argued , which would presuppose de facto that nature is cognitive as a whole, which would be a pantheistic argument. )

Addendum: This is in the spirit of Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer.

Michael Shermer mentions in his book: Why People Believe Weird Things, that " evolution gives us two types of thinking. Causal thinking and critical thinking. Casual thinking tends to lead to magical thinking, while critical thinking tends to lead to pattern seeking and problem solving. Humanity can never divorce itself from magical thinking."

Daniel Dennett frequently calls religious tendencies a parasite in his book, Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon.

[The Tanager]

What reality is/isn't doesn't depend on whether it was created or not, though. Do you really have to answer whether there is a God-creator before you answer whether or not you have a corn kernel on your plate, just because theism asserts that God is logically prior to the corn kernel?

You are talking about epistemological priority, but I'm talking about ontological priority.

[Purple Knight]

What reality is/isn't doesn't depend on whether it was created or not, though. Do you really have to answer whether there is a God-creator before you answer whether or not you have a corn kernel on your plate, just because theism asserts that God is logically prior to the corn kernel?

You are talking about epistemological priority, but I'm talking about ontological priority.

You're going to have to explain that one.

[The Tanager]

What reality is/isn't doesn't depend on whether it was created or not, though. Do you really have to answer whether there is a God-creator before you answer whether or not you have a corn kernel on your plate, just because theism asserts that God is logically prior to the corn kernel?

You are talking about epistemological priority, but I'm talking about ontological priority.

You're going to have to explain that one.

Ontological priority is about the order of existence; epistemological priority is about the order of knowing. You don’t have to answer whether there is a God-creator or not before you answer whether or not you have a corn kernel on your plate. But I wasn’t talking about the order of knowing.

We know how to breathe prior to learning all of the science and history that goes into getting to the point where we actually take a breath, but all those things are logically (ontologically) prior to us actually taking a breath, right? That’s what I’m talking about with reason. How is our understanding and use of reason even a thing in reality? Theism has a framework that can rationally explain that. I don’t think atheistic worldviews do.

[Purple Knight]

We know how to breathe prior to learning all of the science and history that goes into getting to the point where we actually take a breath, but all those things are logically (ontologically) prior to us actually taking a breath, right? That’s what I’m talking about with reason. How is our understanding and use of reason even a thing in reality? Theism has a framework that can rationally explain that. I don’t think atheistic worldviews do.

Just as we actually do breathe, why is it not likewise with Reason? We're wired for it, we do it. If we question it, we just come up with the idea that if Reason is wrong, we can't know what's right anyway, or even that if Reason is wrong it can still be right because that might be, if logical rules don't apply. But if it's right, then it helps. So we pick Reason anyway.

[The Tanager]

Just as we actually do breathe, why is it not likewise with Reason? We're wired for it, we do it. If we question it, we just come up with the idea that if Reason is wrong, we can't know what's right anyway, or even that if Reason is wrong it can still be right because that might be, if logical rules don't apply. But if it's right, then it helps. So we pick Reason anyway.

It is likewise with reason. We know that reason is an integral part of reality. That's the problem for atheism. On atheism, there is no reason that reason should be integral to reality. We would just be following what matter long before us determined us to do or the happenstance evolutionary process that got us to this point. Reason plays an illusory role. The things you believe aren't because of reason, but because of ancient molecules setting you on a certain path no matter what you happen to believe.

[Purple Knight]

It is likewise with reason. We know that reason is an integral part of reality. That's the problem for atheism. On atheism, there is no reason that reason should be integral to reality.

Why does there need to be a reason, for Reason, to be a part of reality? I don't see a need. In any case, Reason because God, is the same thing with an extra step. You don't say, God needs to be grounded. You just accept that God exists. Why can't someone just accept that Reason exists? It's the same in both cases in that we say, if we are rational, that sure, we might actually be wrong.

[The Tanager]

Why does there need to be a reason, for Reason, to be a part of reality? I don't see a need.

Remember that we were talking about people who value being rational. What you are proposing here is that Reason just exists with no explanation for why. That’s blind faith, not rationality. That’s my point. Atheists that own blind faith can believe in Reason with no contradiction, but I wasn’t talking about those kind of atheists.

In any case, Reason because God, is the same thing with an extra step. You don't say, God needs to be grounded. You just accept that God exists. Why can't someone just accept that Reason exists? It's the same in both cases in that we say, if we are rational, that sure, we might actually be wrong.

Logically, to avoid an infinite regress, at least one thing won’t be grounded, absolutely. But that doesn’t mean we should be fine with everything being ungrounded. If reason leads to 10 steps instead of 9, I say we should go with 10 steps. I don’t just accept that God exists, I see reason leading me to believe that God exists. Could I be wrong? Sure.

[Purple Knight]

Why does there need to be a reason, for Reason, to be a part of reality? I don't see a need.

Remember that we were talking about people who value being rational. What you are proposing here is that Reason just exists with no explanation for why. That’s blind faith, not rationality. That’s my point. Atheists that own blind faith can believe in Reason with no contradiction, but I wasn’t talking about those kind of atheists.

Reason exists without an explanation? Well, sort of. If there is an explanation, it would be something we cannot understand. It might be a creator. That is one possibility. But whatever it is, we cannot fully understand it because the only tool we have to understand, is Reason. And if Reason is an illusion then everything is pointless because it's all chaos anyway.

Logically, to avoid an infinite regress, at least one thing won’t be grounded, absolutely. But that doesn’t mean we should be fine with everything being ungrounded. If reason leads to 10 steps instead of 9, I say we should go with 10 steps. I don’t just accept that God exists, I see reason leading me to believe that God exists. Could I be wrong? Sure.

And I see reason to believe Reason exists. Call it pre-reason, or preason for short. We all do it. If things hurt us or kill us we don't do those things. We use this preason to figure out what hurts us or kills us. It's not quite as formal as reasoning. It's simpler. More primal. Do Y, get pain, do X, get something pleasant, so we do X and not Y. Could all of this be an illusion? Sure, but there's not much point in pursuing that possibility.

[The Tanager]

Reason exists without an explanation? Well, sort of. If there is an explanation, it would be something we cannot understand. It might be a creator. That is one possibility. But whatever it is, we cannot fully understand it because the only tool we have to understand, is Reason. And if Reason is an illusion then everything is pointless because it's all chaos anyway.

I don’t see why you say “sort of”. Either an atheistic worldview has an explanation for how reason came to be a part of reality or it doesn’t. If we cannot understand it, then the atheistic worldview does not have the explanation. Believing “yeah, but I’m sure there is one that we just don’t understand” is a textbook example of blind faith.

And I see reason to believe Reason exists. Call it pre-reason, or preason for short. We all do it. If things hurt us or kill us we don't do those things. We use this preason to figure out what hurts us or kills us. It's not quite as formal as reasoning. It's simpler. More primal. Do Y, get pain, do X, get something pleasant, so we do X and not Y. Could all of this be an illusion? Sure, but there's not much point in pursuing that possibility.

I am not talking about whether we see reasons to believe reason is a part of reality. I think theists and atheists do see reasons to believe reason is a part of reality. The task now is to try to fit that into one’s worldview and give a reason why reason is a part of reality at all. All I see the atheist able to point to is blind faith.

[Purple Knight]

Reason exists without an explanation? Well, sort of. If there is an explanation, it would be something we cannot understand. It might be a creator. That is one possibility. But whatever it is, we cannot fully understand it because the only tool we have to understand, is Reason. And if Reason is an illusion then everything is pointless because it's all chaos anyway.

I don’t see why you say “sort of”. Either an atheistic worldview has an explanation for how reason came to be a part of reality or it doesn’t. If we cannot understand it, then the atheistic worldview does not have the explanation. Believing “yeah, but I’m sure there is one that we just don’t understand” is a textbook example of blind faith.

I don't think we can say whether there is a reason that Reason is a part of our reality. The reason for Reason being necessarily outside our understanding if it exists, is not saying it exists. It's just like how you can't say why or how God exists. You don't even know he does. You can't prove it. And I admit, likewise with Reason. It could very well all be chaos and Reason an illusion. My worldview ends with Reason, in that I admit I can't grasp anything that precedes it, or is outside of it, or both. So fitting a reason for Reason into my worldview is impossible.