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]

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.

I agree that it seems impossible to fit it into your worldview. I don’t see how that is a good thing, though. I can’t prove God exists with 100% certainty, no. But a case can be built with reasons to believe God exists beyond a blind faith statement. You don’t have that with reason; you only are showing blind faith. That’s the difference that makes our two positions disanalogous.

[Purple Knight]

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.

I agree that it seems impossible to fit it into your worldview. I don’t see how that is a good thing, though. I can’t prove God exists with 100% certainty, no. But a case can be built with reasons to believe God exists beyond a blind faith statement. You don’t have that with reason; you only are showing blind faith. That’s the difference that makes our two positions disanalogous.

It's entirely analogous because you likewise use Reason or pre-reason to say the reasons you think God exists. By the time you are building a case, you are assuming Reason, just as I am. You think God provides a reason for Reason, but you don't know anymore than I do, because outside of Reason (which God would have to be if he created it) we simply can't say what could, should, would, does, or even might happen.

[William]

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.

I agree that it seems impossible to fit it into your worldview. I don’t see how that is a good thing, though. I can’t prove God exists with 100% certainty, no. But a case can be built with reasons to believe God exists beyond a blind faith statement. You don’t have that with reason; you only are showing blind faith. That’s the difference that makes our two positions disanalogous.

"A case being built" requires reasoning.

It's entirely analogous because you likewise use Reason or pre-reason to say the reasons you think God exists. By the time you are building a case, you are assuming Reason, just as I am. You think God provides a reason for Reason, but you don't know anymore than I do, because outside of Reason (which God would have to be if he created it) we simply can't say what could, should, would, does, or even might happen.

What changes is when faith is replaced with knowledge.
Knowledge (through reasoning) brings one to knowing, rather than believing.

A human does not have to know "God" entirely (100%) to know that God exists.
For example, one can reason through observation that the universe is a created thing, and thus know (at least) that mindfulness was involved in the process of creating the universe.

One could reasonably deduce from that knowing, that there will be purpose to the created thing, not because it is created a thing (we call "the universe") but because we who are able to reason (humans) are inside of it experiencing it, so deducing becomes an integral aspect to our existing within the thing created.

Essentially, it is reasonable to think that because we have the ability to reason, any creator (group of creators) of this universe must also have the ability to reason.
This also applies to morality, regardless of whether it is seen to be objective or subjective.

So, one has reasonable right (duty) to understand/know that if we have the ability to understand, this will reasonably lead us to knowing, and in that knowing - continue to learn and accept reasonable morals.

The grounding therein has to do with mindfulness and the creativity which derives from mindfulness.

The argument from the theist is that the grounding happens in the acknowledgment and service to the mind behind creation.

The atheist reasons that one can be moral without adding the incentive of service to a belief which cannot be reasoned to be (100%) true.

But what does the atheist know which makes honoring a mindless system (the universe) by being mindful of it's ability to provide 100% truth of its existence, even that we do not know 100% of its mysteries - the prediction being (through reasoning) that we will continually be able to learn because we can probe into that physical object and be delighted with the results enough to want to make an effort to preserve our place within it.

The atheist reasons that this should be enough incentive for us to "do the right thing" without being assisted by the knowledge of being within a mindfully created thing.
Atheists do it through their own incentive, not because some overall mind prompting them to make the effort.

Theists reply that if they do not understand the purpose of the thing created and our place within that created thing, the reasonable atheist presumption may be off, and thus the result of a purely atheist outlook might have devastating consequences.

Atheists point out (through reasoning) that historically theism is connected to atrocity and this reflects badly on any idea of God, so the better path forward is not to involve any idea of God.

Theists go in many directions in their reasoning to counter the atheist position on this observation that questions the morality of any God who would have created the universe and placed mindfulness within it.

[Purple Knight]

The atheist reasons that one can be moral without adding the incentive of service to a belief which cannot be reasoned to be (100%) true.

I don't reason that. But if you're just going on to get the carrot I don't see how that's morality. So maybe we can't be moral without the carrot, but then we just can't be moral. Because that's chasing a carrot, not morality.

I have often thought that maybe if we admit it's carrots all the way down we can start being rational about it. People nowadays are outright hostile and always sniffing for the person who "doesn't really believe in it" and is "just doing it to gain acceptance." Well.... if they're doing the right thing, why shouldn't they be accepted? I mean, the person denying acceptance clearly doesn't care about the cause either, because for the sake of their own inflated sense of morality they will discard people who could help, but want a pat on the head in return. If you care about the cause then give the head pat, even if it's not deserved.

The atheist has the advantage here because if we do this admission of carrots thing, we get to make our own carrots and give them out to who we like, namely, people who don't hurt us. It's all very transactional but that's the beauty of it. There's no implication that you should let yourself be beaten and smile at your attacker because it's what God wants. Everyone just pursues the carrots everyone gets from not beating people. Simple, easy way to have everyone behave.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #34]

The atheist reasons that one can be moral without adding the incentive of service to a belief which cannot be reasoned to be (100%) true.

I don't reason that.

Are you an atheist?

I have often thought that maybe if we admit it's carrots all the way down we can start being rational about it. People nowadays are outright hostile and always sniffing for the person who "doesn't really believe in it" and is "just doing it to gain acceptance." Well.... if they're doing the right thing, why shouldn't they be accepted? I mean, the person denying acceptance clearly doesn't care about the cause either, because for the sake of their own inflated sense of morality they will discard people who could help, but want a pat on the head in return. If you care about the cause then give the head pat, even if it's not deserved.

Is this reasonable advice to atheists re their interactions with theists?

The atheist has the advantage here because if we do this admission of carrots thing, we get to make our own carrots and give them out to who we like, namely, people who don't hurt us. It's all very transactional but that's the beauty of it.

How is it an advantage to the theist who also has the same team dynamics making their own carrots and giving them out to who they like, namely, people who don't hurt them?

There's no implication that you should let yourself be beaten and smile at your attacker because it's what God wants.

The moral of such reasoning has to do with attempting to build bridges through reasoned cooperation so occasionally one will "take one for the team" as it were, even that in doing so one might cry out to the void "GOD where are you while I am being forsaken?!" and reasoning that GOD is right there with you even that at the particular moment one's despair clouds that clarity... one knows it will be a passing moment and the team effort is accomplished through said reasoning.

Everyone just pursues the carrots everyone gets from not beating people. Simple, easy way to have everyone behave.

Are you aware that there are many ways one can 'beat" someone - even if that is to be an atheist and try to convert theists to atheism through tactics designed to try and beat theists?

"Everyone" includes atheists yes? So your ideal here also depends on atheists towing that line.

There are no Gold Medals for NOT beating others...so lots would have to change in order for folk to follow your reasoning enough to accept it.

[The Tanager]

It's entirely analogous because you likewise use Reason or pre-reason to say the reasons you think God exists. By the time you are building a case, you are assuming Reason, just as I am. You think God provides a reason for Reason, but you don't know anymore than I do, because outside of Reason (which God would have to be if he created it) we simply can't say what could, should, would, does, or even might happen.

Oh, I see what you are saying now. Of course one must simply assume reason when trying to make a reasonable case for something. It's logical nonsense to reason to Reason without using reason. The alternative is to reject reason and just use blind faith. But you (and every human) intuitively sees the value and reality in reason, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to use reason at all and just be fine with everything going on blind faith.

So, we assume reason exists. The next question is to rationally explore if it makes sense that reason exists on our worldview. I can provide reasons that God makes sense of the existence of reason, while an atheist seemingly can only use blind faith to get there.

[Purple Knight]

Are you an atheist?

Yes but it has more to do with who I think has legitimate moral lordship over everyone else (nobody) than whether any particular being called a god exists or not. The god of the Bible can exist for all I care. It's not God and I'm still an atheist. For me to change this belief somebody would have to show me the circumstances in which I could be moral lord over somebody else, and just impose my ideas about morality without giving them a say. Then, I'd say alright, somebody else could have moral lordship over me - God is at least possible.

I have often thought that maybe if we admit it's carrots all the way down we can start being rational about it. People nowadays are outright hostile and always sniffing for the person who "doesn't really believe in it" and is "just doing it to gain acceptance." Well.... if they're doing the right thing, why shouldn't they be accepted? I mean, the person denying acceptance clearly doesn't care about the cause either, because for the sake of their own inflated sense of morality they will discard people who could help, but want a pat on the head in return. If you care about the cause then give the head pat, even if it's not deserved.

Is this reasonable advice to atheists re their interactions with theists?

Well, saying it's actually okay to go for the carrot would make atheists a little more tolerant of theists, since one of the main - and probably most valid - objections of atheists to theists, is that they're just in it for the carrot and that's not true morality.

The atheist has the advantage here because if we do this admission of carrots thing, we get to make our own carrots and give them out to who we like, namely, people who don't hurt us. It's all very transactional but that's the beauty of it.

How is it an advantage to the theist who also has the same team dynamics making their own carrots and giving them out to who they like, namely, people who don't hurt them?

I said theists can't do that, since it's God giving the carrots.

There's no implication that you should let yourself be beaten and smile at your attacker because it's what God wants.

The moral of such reasoning has to do with attempting to build bridges through reasoned cooperation so occasionally one will "take one for the team" as it were, even that in doing so one might cry out to the void "GOD where are you while I am being forsaken?!" and reasoning that GOD is right there with you even that at the particular moment one's despair clouds that clarity... one knows it will be a passing moment and the team effort is accomplished through said reasoning.

Yet if this is accepted, the same people have to keep taking one for the team, when it's a team they're not really on, because they don't accrue any benefit. It's better for everyone if we at very least have a stopping point, and people should not have to take infinite abuse for the team.

Everyone just pursues the carrots everyone gets from not beating people. Simple, easy way to have everyone behave.

Are you aware that there are many ways one can 'beat" someone - even if that is to be an atheist and try to convert theists to atheism through tactics designed to try and beat theists?

I don't want anyone to be atheists if they don't want to be. If people want to hold beloved stories in their hearts and take moral lessons from them, and that helps them, I certainly don't want to take that away. If they think those stories are true, that doesn't bother me either. I'm not all-knowing that I'm lord of all that is true and not true. They could be right (though I argue it doesn't matter). However if they don't extend the same tolerance and want someone institutionalised because they think Star Wars is true, well then I hope the world turns so atheist that they get institutionalised for being delusional, too.

I do, however, think Abrahamic monotheism is a particularly nasty and destructive group of religions. There are better options.

"Everyone" includes atheists yes? So your ideal here also depends on atheists towing that line.

There are no Gold Medals for NOT beating others...so lots would have to change in order for folk to follow your reasoning enough to accept it.

There should be. I think it was you that pointed out that even though everyone fantasises about killing Hitler, nobody fantasises about raising him to be a better person.

[William]

Are you an atheist?

Yes but...

There is no "but". You lack belief in GODs. Why you lack belief in GODs or even what you think a GOD should be in order to be a GOD, is besides the point of being an atheist.

Your "but" simply tells me that you and atheist with "side dishes" - you are a "type" of atheist.

it has more to do with who I think has legitimate moral lordship over everyone else (nobody) than whether any particular being called a god exists or not.

That is more in line with agnosticism (being agnostic) because you admit your ignorance and also have measures in place...

The god of the Bible can exist for all I care. It's not God and I'm still an atheist.

...regarding what type of entity GOD you require in order to refer to it as GOD.

For me to change this belief somebody would have to show me the circumstances in which I could be moral lord over somebody else, and just impose my ideas about morality without giving them a say.

This is inaccurate as the god of the bible may impose his ideas about morality into our knowledge-base but we do have a say (by how we react to the knowledge) - otherwise we would simply act out the knowledge (like robots) without pause for thinking.

Then, I'd say alright, somebody else could have moral lordship over me -

You can think about it, and say that (have a say) you accept the morals, or say that (have a say) you reject the morals.

God is at least possible.

Whatever.
One should at least honor the accuracy as presented (re any god-idea) rather than claim (re the bible god) that you have no say.

Well, saying it's actually okay to go for the carrot would make atheists a little more tolerant of theists, since one of the main - and probably most valid - objections of atheists to theists, is that they're just in it for the carrot and that's not true morality.

Atheism is only a of lack belief in GODs. "True morality" cannot be ascertained through atheism, any more than true Scotsmen can.

The moral of such reasoning has to do with attempting to build bridges through reasoned cooperation so occasionally one will "take one for the team" as it were, even that in doing so one might cry out to the void "GOD where are you while I am being forsaken?!" and reasoning that GOD is right there with you even that at the particular moment one's despair clouds that clarity... one knows it will be a passing moment and the team effort is accomplished through said reasoning.

Yet if this is accepted, the same people have to keep taking one for the team, when it's a team they're not really on, because they don't accrue any benefit. It's better for everyone if we at very least have a stopping point, and people should not have to take infinite abuse for the team.

The moral does not say that one is required to take up the position of being abused forever. The moral has to do with how one is best enabled to deal with the dramas of human experience.
The moral teaches that one can become better if one changes behavioural response.

For example, let's say a person is incarcerated for some crime he did not commit.
He follows the moral under discussion and is tested by other inmates soon after being imprisoned.
He takes a beating and does nothing to defend himself. He is then regarded as an easy target by those who follow a different moral.
After a while he tires of taking a beating and defends himself, even proving that he could have done so all the time, by beating those who he had let beat him to begin with.
Now he has "earned the respect" of the other inmates, by effectively become "one of them".
He may even be required to beat up on the next new inmate, to show that he truly is one of them.

The moral is simply saying "do not become one of them" even if that means you will die at their hand as a result.

I don't want anyone to be atheists if they don't want to be.

You don't want people to have lack of belief in GODs if they don't want to lack belief in GODs?

If people want to hold beloved stories in their hearts and take moral lessons from them, and that helps them, I certainly don't want to take that away.

What would convince you that you could, even if you did want to?

If they think those stories are true, that doesn't bother me either. I'm not all-knowing that I'm lord of all that is true and not true.

What did you mean then when you wrote "that's not true morality"? Perhaps the truth is that you are lord of you own belief in what "true morality" actually is?

However if they don't extend the same tolerance and want someone institutionalised because they think Star Wars is true, well then I hope the world turns so atheist that they get institutionalised for being delusional, too.

Tit for tat. That is precisely what the moral under discussion is advising the individual to avoid. This because, one becomes "one of them".

Hoping the world "turns atheist" is simply saying that one hopes everyone lacks belief in GODs, implying that the source of moral problems is GOD.
Yet, the same moral judgment is (hoped to be) enforced by you - the "atheist" who is obviously happy to see the same institutionalized incarceration acted out. It's a double standard and of no more value in giving us any more clarity on your supposed "True Morality" than those theists (theism in general) that you are currently criticizing.

I do, however, think Abrahamic monotheism is a particularly nasty and destructive group of religions. There are better options.

The option to lack belief in GODs has not shown to being a better option. From what you have been arguing, replacing either with the other makes no substantial difference whatsoever.

"Everyone" includes atheists yes? So your ideal here also depends on atheists towing that line.

There are no Gold Medals for NOT beating others...so lots would have to change in order for folk to follow your reasoning enough to accept it.

There should be.

Why? And how would you institute this into the way things are done?

I think it was you that pointed out that even though everyone fantasises about killing Hitler, nobody fantasises about raising him to be a better person.

I don't know that everyone does, but the moral under discussion would have it that one does not fantasise killing anyone at all, but makes effort to example how one can become a better person (rather than simple be at one with/just another one of the inmates.)

[georgejohn12]

In the metaphorical context of parasitism, both atheism and theism can be framed as hosting or being plagued by different kinds of "parasites" depending on one's perspective. Theologically, theism might be seen as parasitic if it is perceived as an imposition on individual freedom and rationality, with belief systems viewed as intrusive and damaging to autonomous thought. Conversely, atheism might be considered parasitic if it challenges and undermines religious beliefs, seen as eroding traditional values and spiritual frameworks. From a psychological or evolutionary standpoint, Michael Shermer suggests that magical thinking, which can be linked to religious belief, is a natural byproduct of human cognition, while critical thinking fosters skepticism. Daniel Dennett similarly views religious tendencies as parasitic in that they exploit cognitive biases and societal structures. Thus, whether atheism or theism is considered parasitic largely depends on the lens through which one views their impact on human thought and society.