Final Report: Can an Atheist and Christain be friends?

 


Can an Atheist and Christain be friends?

By: Debria Tyler



       I grew Christian to be specific, I grew up  Church of Christ, and they often get a bad rap of being the strictest and boringest churches, since they don't have instruments. I often heard my preachers say Church of christ Christians are the only ones going to heaven because we didn't use instruments. However that was very wrong and couldn't be even further from the truth.

     I was in 7th grade when I met my then best friend Capri who grew up in a totally different household than me. She wasn't very spiritual and was a bit wild, but then again what 12 year old is deeply devoted in their faith. In high school she became an atheist. You would have thought our friendship was over but we actually became closer and we had made a rap group called Paradox. She was an atheist and I was a Christian rapper hence the paradox. We performed once and then the rap group disbanded not because of our different beliefs but because I realized I was a poet not a rapper.

    She actually helped me grow my faith and ask certain questions of my faith which lead me to more answers and opened my mind to a different worldview. Our friendship actually inspired me to sign up for this class. I was nervous at first because I thought Atheism and Satanism were cousins, but my ignorance was lifted when I realized that if they don't believe in God that means Satan doesn't exist either. Whew... I say all that to say yes an Atheist and Christain can be friends if there is respect on both sides and some open mind, this could lead to some very interesting and though provoking conversations. Could you be friends with a Christain? Here is an article about a couple one is a Christian and the other an Athestist. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/atheism-date-christian-love-religion-relationships-god-a8934071.html

FINAL REPORT: What Do Atheists Believe In?

"We know what we don't believe. But not what we do. 

And so we become a blank slate, 

a convenient place for religious people of all kinds 

to project their fears about immorality 

and degeneration."

-Greg M. Epstein

I decided to write my final report on what (some) atheists DO believe, based on what I got out of our in-class and online discussions. To supplement my report, I will share with you an interesting book I recently read, called, "Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe," by Greg M. Epstein. I will be writing from my own perspective and understanding of secular humanist principles. Also, I would love to read what all of you agree or disagree with in the comments below, to further the discussion.

Admittedly, I didn't know much about humanism before this class. Since learning and reading more about it in Epstein's book, I feel more connected to other "nones" out there. As an atheist, I always felt a bit alone in formulating my beliefs about the world, until I realized I was basically a humanist this whole time without even knowing it! Recently, I've been thinking a lot about the value of being a part of a secular community with shared values and beliefs. I think it is one thing a lot of "nones" are kind of missing out on.

Although I am still learning a lot, here is what I, and many other secular humanists do believe:

People are capable of being good without God. While humans are clearly very capable of doing horrible things to each other, it doesn't take long to find people doing selfless, loving, and courageous acts for others. There are a lot of reasons both religious and nonreligious people choose to be good, absent the fear of eternal punishment or motivation of heavenly rewards. One of these reasons can possibly be explained by evolution, as Epstein points out: "People need community... We need community because we succeed best in life when we can count on reliable help from a wide range of individuals." Goodness is ingrained in us biologically and socially, because we need each other. Goodness in many ways is just another part of our human condition, which is a wonderful thing.

Morality comes from us. While that means enforceable moral guidelines, such as laws, are sometimes subject to corruption, like any human convention, it also means that we have the power to think critically about what is right/wrong and make changes when necessary. Knowing our true role in morality forces us to take responsibility for the good and the bad in the world, as well as in our personal lives, and work extra hard to right the wrongs. With regard to the subject, Epstein says:

"We Humanists can take pride in our passionate belief in a morality based on unfettered inquiry, on compassionate questioning...We are proud to welcome a future of permanent debate and discussion about moral issues, a world in which we will never stop refining our views, never stop exploring how we can promote human dignity more effectively, never stop trying to better understand and more effectively eliminate human suffering."

Purpose is personal. When it comes to purpose, or the meaning of life, I didn't have a solid answer for a long time. It is funny how we can have such busy schedules and yet stumble for an answer when asked what it all means in the end. Exploring humanism has helped me figure out the kind of life I want to live... what makes life worth living. I find meaning and purpose in the fact that this is the only life I get to have, so I am going to honor it by being the best person that I can be while I am here. Epstein's idea of life's purpose, which he calls "dignity," is something I am embracing as well: 

"We have the potential for strength, wisdom, and love inside ourselves. But by ourselves we are not enough. We need to reach out beyond ourselves--to the world that surrounds us and sustains us, and most especially to other people. This is dignity." 

In closing, the most beautiful thing about the overall sentiment of humanism is that it is accessible to everyone. We don't have to believe in the "right" God(s), or any for that matter, to be good. Instead, our ability to be good is within ourselves. We don’t need an outside force to be kind to one another, to be fair, to be just, we simply need to be human. We are all capable of interpreting and answering moral questions. All of us are entitled to figure out what life means for ourselves. Humanism highlights the goodness within all of us, without the need for exclusion. We can all stand together as humans, whether Christian, Muslim, Spiritual, Agnostic, Atheist, etc, sharing peace, love, and kindness. This is what I learned from our class, and I thank all of you for your unique and insightful perspectives throughout the semester. 


Now, your turn... What do YOU believe in?

Final Report

Freedom & Free Will

            Last time, I talked about Richard Norman’s “On Humanism”; specifically, I focused on his discussions on freedom, free will and human consciousness. I have elected to expand upon that topic for this final report. Here, I will tie in the ideas and concepts of others to shed further light. I will also lay out my own personal beliefs regarding the matter.

---

In this video, the host discusses “event causation” and “agent causation” as principles of libertarian free will. The former: “No physical event can occur without having been caused by a previous physical event.” The latter: “An agent – a being propelled by a mind – can start a whole chain of causality that wasn’t caused by anything else.” What this means is that, for example, if a person trips and falls, it was caused by the physical act of walking or running or simply standing. However, if a person does something, it is because they chose to do it. A hard determinist might argue that our choices are determined by our biological brain states, or mental states. That is to say that a choice we make is determined by, for example, a desire or belief or what-have-you; to that I would suggest that it is by our own choice that we desire or believe what we do. Thus, it is, from my perspective, that our mental states might influence our choices but was it not our choices that influenced those mental states? If, as 16^th century philosopher Baron d’Holbach claims, we are just “cogs in a machine”, why then is this machine so damn faulty? Why is it that humanity is the species that has evolved and changed so much? I would suggest that is because of the development of our consciousness, of our ability to express and exercise our freedom from the whims of the natural order.

In “On Humanism”, Norman states,

“We like to think that we can make our own free choices about what to do, and that though we cannot entirely control what happens to us, we can at any rate normally control our own actions and to that extent be the authors of our own lives.” (p. 59)

I think this statement sums up free will perfectly: we can’t control everything that happens to us, nor determine how we enter this world, but we can control our own actions and make our own choices, supposing that one is of sound mind (i.e., not mentally disadvantaged to the point of no control over oneself) to make those choices and perform those actions. We are at the mercy of our brains, sure; we cannot determine everything that happens in our heads. But our brains are at the mercy of our consciousness. By consciousness I mean that thing which makes us distinctively human: “In its more limited sense it just means ‘awareness’.” (Norman, p. 58) Our brains may drive us, but our consciousness is what allows us to determine what choices we make and then reflect on those choices.

To be perfectly honest, I, personally, do not require any proof or persuasion that humans possess free will. From my point of view, free will is simply that: the ability to freely will yourself to do things, to make choices, to think about those things and those choices, and so on. It is not about morals or morality; it is about choice. We, as humans, possess the freedom to choose and do as we please despite the consequences that those actions and choices may present. Caruso and Flanagan’s “Neuroexistentialism”, suggests that free will “refers to the control in action required for a core sense of moral responsibility.” (Caruso & Flanagan, pp. 235-236). I suppose that morality is only relevant to free will in the sense that one’s morals may conflict with their own choices or those of others; that does not (in my mind) mean that the two are interdependent on one another. Further, I believe that Norman’s perspective accommodates for the obvious uncontrollable aspects such as how we were raised and the beliefs and values instilled in us because, despite these things, we still have the ability to choose whether or not to live by those things.

Perhaps the choices we make are influenced by our mental state; but, so what? The fact is that you are making the choice.

Post-Spring Break Tally

4-5-2020: Disc post “Response to an Atheist Funeral” /base

4-5-2020: Posted midterm report /20 runs

4-6-2020: Response, “The Sound of Silence” /base

4-8-2020: Response, “Was Plato a Communist?” /base

4-9-2020: Response, “Giving the Devil His Due: Reflections of a Scientific Humanist” /base

4-9-2020: Response, “Last call for comments on ‘This Life’” /base

4-9-2020: Response, “What’s the point? To move forward…” /base

4-10-2020: Response, “Congressional Freethought Caucus” /base

4-16-2020: Response, “Visitor from a Distant Place” /base

4-17-2020: Response, “Quizzes April 21, 23” /base

5-4-2020: Posted final report /20 runs

Current total post-break: 22 runs

Including final report: 42 runs

Biblical View of Climate Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h644Y_xbDYE


I have been taking the Climate Change Lecture series with the honors college this semester. In this particular lecture, Dean Vile presents a biblical view on climate change. We have talked quite a bit about climate change on this discussion board and obviously, we have talked about religion. I just thought I would share this and ask you all your thoughts on his lecture.

Will the virus change our attitudes towards death? Or towards anything?

Yuval Noah Harari:

The modern world has been shaped by the belief that humans can outsmart and defeat death. That was a revolutionary new attitude. For most of history, humans meekly submitted to death. Up to the late modern age, most religions and ideologies saw death not only as our inevitable fate, but as the main source of meaning in life. The most important events of human existence happened after you exhaled your last breath. Only then did you come to learn the true secrets of life. Only then did you gain eternal salvation, or suffer everlasting damnation. In a world without death – and therefore without heaven, hell or reincarnation – religions such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism would have made no sense. For most of history the best human minds were busy giving meaning to death, not trying to defeat it....

For centuries, people used religion as a defence mechanism, believing that they would exist for ever in the afterlife. Now people sometimes switch to using science as an alternative defence mechanism, believing that doctors will always save them, and that they will live for ever in their apartment. We need a balanced approach here. We should trust science to deal with epidemics, but we should still shoulder the burden of dealing with our individual mortality and transience.

The present crisis might indeed make many individuals more aware of the impermanent nature of human life and human achievements. Nevertheless, our modern civilisation as a whole will most probably go in the opposite direction. Reminded of its fragility, it will react by building stronger defences. When the present crisis is over, I don’t expect we will see a significant increase in the budgets of philosophy departments. But I bet we will see a massive increase in the budgets of medical schools and healthcare systems.

And maybe that is the best we can humanly expect. Governments anyhow aren’t very good at philosophy. It isn’t their domain. Governments really should focus on building better healthcare systems. It is up to individuals to do better philosophy. Doctors cannot solve the riddle of existence for us. But they can buy us some more time to grapple with it. What we do with that time is up to us. Guardian

==

Adam Gopnik:

...In times past, societies accepted mortality from infectious disease as part of existence—death as part of life—without stopping work or study or love or dinner. (When Beth March dies after contracting scarlet fever, in “Little Women,” it is heartbreaking, but not surprising.) It is a part of the moral acquisition of our time that we don’t feel this way, and part of our material improvement that we don’t have to feel this way. We could, until recently, rely on science to relieve us of a good deal of our suffering. That we have so little to rely on for the moment may be the real lesson that the plague is teaching—a lesson, really, in the fragility of progress and the suddenness of its possible reversion. Such ambivalence, at least, contains more truth, if of a tragic kind, than the simplicities of ideological self-soothing. New Yorker

Happy May Day

Today is May Day. Even though spring officially begins in March, today is the day that celebrates the height of spring, a day of spring festivities and celebrations. It is also a day to honor laborers.

Like many of our modern holidays, May Day has its roots in ancient, pagan celebrations.

Beginning in the third century B.C. in Rome, the festival Floralia, for the goddess Flora, was held in the days around May Day, April 28th to May 3rd. Flora was a goddess of flowers and fertility, and the festival was held to please her so that she protected flowers and other blossoming plants. There was a circus and theater performances, there were prostitutes and naked dancers, and a sacrifice to the goddess. Deer and goats were let loose to symbolize fertility, and beans and lupines were scattered for the same reason. Romans usually wore white tunics, but during Floralia, they got to wear bright colors.

In the Celtic British Isles, May Day was celebrated as the festival of Beltane, or Bealtaine or Bealtuinn — Bel was the Celtic god of light, and taine or tuinne meant fire. It was the summer half of the year — a time when the sun set later, when the earth and animals were fertile. Beltane lasted from sundown the night before to sundown on the first of May. On the eve of Beltane, people lit bonfires to Bel to call back the sun. People jumped over the fires to purify themselves, and they blessed their animals by taking them between bonfires before leading them to their summer pastures the next day. It was a day to walk around the property lines and assess your land for the summer season, to mend fences. Women washed their faces with the spring dew so that they would stay beautiful, and there was dancing, tournaments, parades, feasting, and general revelry. There were lots of flowers — men walked around the fires with rowan branches to keep evil spirits at bay, and May trees, or Maypoles, were set up covered in rowan or hawthorn flowers as a blessing. People danced around the Maypole, seen to be a phallic symbol to promote fertility, and villages would compete with each other to see who could produce the tallest maypole. Young couples went off into the forest to spend the night together and came back the next day with flowers to spread through the village. A young woman was crowned May Queen, and she would ride naked on horseback through the village.

Many of these celebrations continued as late as the 17th century — the Puritans were not too pleased, especially since so many young women went off into the woods and came back pregnant. Maypoles were made illegal in 1644.

Since the Puritans discouraged May Day, it was never a major holiday in America. In the late 19^th century, May Day was chosen as the date for International Workers’ Day by the Socialists and Communists of the Second International to commemorate those who were hanged after the Haymarket Square riot, which occurred in Chicago in early May of 1886. WA

Friendly reminder: this is a blog

Please include bloggish content in your blog posts: hyperlinks in lieu of footnotes, relevant graphics, video embeds (copy & paste the embed code under "Share"), etc. That's half the fun of blogging, deciding how best to complement and amplify the words.

If you mention book titles, link to them on Google Books or embed them (copy and paste either the URL "share" or "embed" code). Link to relevant articles, don't just list the URLs.

How to insert hyperlinks. Just highlight the text you want to link to, and paste the URL over it. For instance, if you mention James's essay "Will to Believe" you can link to the Gutenberg edition online by pasting https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm over that portion of your text.

If you don't know how to do any of these simple procedures, ask someone who knows. Even me. Same for proper names etc.

Let me know if you need instruction in how to do any of this. Have fun!