Latest on MJJC

Atheist thread

zinniabooklover said:
@Maxym

It did just cross my mind to wonder what Michael would make of a conversation about his work on an atheist thread. 🤔
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder what Michael would think of an atheist thread in "his" forum.

But "fans" discussing his actual beliefs is nothing new (he even left his initial religion, so this opens the door to all kinds of guesses), and "fans" discussing lyrics is nothing new.

And I expect he was aware enough of the fact that there are all kinds of beliefs/non-beliefs in the world not be surprised by this or take it too badly. There may be a reasons why he managed to make his music so "universal". Yet I could point at the fact that he usually said that "it's the music that comes first, not the lyrics", so some degree of approximation should be expect in his lyrics.

The reasons why I came up with the question in the first place is because I'm quite attentive to lyrics and because there's this thread here.

And also because, I'm kind of fascinated that so many people, including geniuses, believe in stories that I think are epistemologically flawed, and yet have kept their places as some of the most powerful influences on the world for millennia (and played sometimes-positive social/political roles in History). My first thought would be that irrational beliefs wouldn't work well in a rational world, but yet they do, at least to some extent, I'm not yet convinced if the world would be better or worse without these... So, my question was part of that kind of thoughts
 
Last edited:
Hot_Street said:
Don't know much biology? Here you go:
en.wikipedia.org

The Blind Watchmaker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Can you explain it bit? For those who don't have to read everything (or don't find the precise info).

So far what I understand is:
- The initial Watchmaker analogy (1802) claims that complexity required a makes. (But it is flawed, referring to various fallacies.)
- Detractors claim that complexity does not require a maker as it can emerge naturally, usually at a very slow. (Yet, this doesn't not prove that there is no maker. But yet the burden of proof is for those who claims that something exists, so there's no to prove that there is no make.)
 
Maxym said:
Can you explain it bit? For those who don't have to read everything (or don't find the precise info).

So far what I understand is:
- The initial Watchmaker analogy (1802) claims that complexity required a makes. (But it is flawed, referring to various fallacies.)
- Detractors claim that complexity does not require a maker as it can emerge naturally, usually at a very slow. (Yet, this doesn't not prove that there is no maker. But yet the burden of proof is for those who claims that something exists, so there's no to prove that there is no make.)
Click to expand...
have you never heard about Darwin?
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Maxym said:
Yeah, I know he came not too long after the Watchmaker analogy and opposed to it, but if you just communicate with links, I'm not sure what you're pointing at.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the Blind Watchmaker, but it's all the same. Every creature on earth is a product of trial and error.
 
Maxym said:
Can you explain it bit? For those who don't have to read everything (or don't find the precise info).

So far what I understand is:
- The initial Watchmaker analogy (1802) claims that complexity required a makes. (But it is flawed, referring to various fallacies.)
- Detractors claim that complexity does not require a maker as it can emerge naturally, usually at a very slow. (Yet, this doesn't not prove that there is no maker. But yet the burden of proof is for those who claims that something exists, so there's no to prove that there is no make.)
Click to expand...
I haven't read The Blind Watchmaker since it came out (mid-80's) and I don't think I finished it but, basically, it's Dawkins' reply to creationists. Obviously he doesn't agree with them, lol. As far as I can remember it has (had?) a fairly good reputation for explaining the basics of evolutionary biology although it does have its critics, of course. One of the main criticisms of all of Richard Dawkins work - and it's one I share - is that he's just not very good at critiquing religion in the broader sense. He's a scientist so he just doesn't get it, imo. I don't think he gets his head around the fact that religion is kind of abstract. My own interest in religion leans more towards philosophical questions (although I'm crap at philosophy, lol) bc it's good at exploring ideas and good at thinking about 'thinking'. The scientists don't do so well on that, imo.

So I think he does a decent enough job of taking on creationism. But the wider aspects of religion, he's not great at that. I hugely disagree with Dawkins about faith being, basically, a mental illness. I think that's a highly inaccurate and irresponsible thing to say. Tbf, I think Dawkins is specifically talking about the negative consequences of religious belief but I still think he should choose his vocabulary more carefully.

I don't know if Dawkins has ever had a public debate with a scientist that does believe in religion.
 
zinniabooklover said:
One of the main criticisms of all of Richard Dawkins work - and it's one I share - is that he's just not very good at critiquing religion in the broader sense.
Click to expand...
religion is a just a mechanism to cope with transience. just a white lie that makes life a little better. Religion has its material origin in the brain, which in turn is a product of evolution.
 
Hot_Street said:
religion is a just a mechanism to cope with transience. just a white lie that makes life a little better.
Click to expand...
Possibly, although I think there is more to it than that.

Hot_Street said:
Religion has its material origin in the brain, which in turn is a product of evolution.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Maybe you missed the bit where I said I'm not a believer. Although, that said, I'm not an atheist, either.
 
zinniabooklover said:
(...) So I think he does a decent enough job of taking on creationism. But the wider aspects of religion, he's not great at that. I hugely disagree with Dawkins about faith being, basically, a mental illness. I think that's a highly inaccurate and irresponsible thing to say. Tbf, I think Dawkins is specifically talking about the negative consequences of religious belief but I still think he should choose his vocabulary more carefully.

I don't know if Dawkins has ever had a public debate with a scientist that does believe in religion.
Click to expand...

I don't know that much about Dawkins. What I think I understand from your post is that "maybe" he's invalidating religion based on logical thinking, leaving the "burden of proof" to those who claim religion has the truth. (Though, I'm not sure it that is what he says.)
Which is more or less my general thought (as above in my post containing the word "epistemologically").

I am not quite sure how it would be a mental illness... If the whole world tells a sane person they should believe, and they never see another points of view (edit: or if these others points views around them are not convincing enough), naturally, they will believe... I guess what he says is more complex than my quick guess.

Regarding a debate with a believer-scientist, the result of an Internet search got me "Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox (Christian)", which is almost 2 hours long and I haven't listened "yet". But so, the answer is yes.

Hot_Street said:
religion is a just a mechanism to cope with transience. just a white lie that makes life a little better. Religion has its material origin in the brain, which in turn is a product of evolution.
Click to expand...

So, not "believing" in evolution theory, in some situations, may make you fitter to survive (according to evolution)

zinniabooklover said:
Maybe you missed the bit where I said I'm not a believer. Although, that said, I'm not an atheist, either.
Click to expand...

I thought at some point you said you're not a monotheist nor an atheist. So I assumed you may be polytheist like Buddhist... or agnostic?
Or yet, I just checked and some versions of Buddhism are actually non-theistic... Based on that last sentence I would be on agnostic... Not quite sure.
 
Last edited:
Maxym said:
I thought at some point you said you're not a monotheist nor an atheist.
Click to expand...
I did say that. I'm basically a heathen. I'm fascinated by faith and prayer and I come at it from a philosophy / anthropology / psychology angle rather than pure science or maths.

Maxym said:
So I assumed you may be polytheist like Buddhist... or agnostic?
Click to expand...
Agnostic always seems such a weak term. I'm not keen on labels at the best of times. I don't think of myself as anything, really, although 'heathen' probably comes closest. Not the dictionary definition of 'heathen'. Just my own vague, floofy understanding, lol.

Maxym said:
Or yet, I just checked and some versions of Buddhism are actually non-theistic..
Click to expand...
They are and they are fascinating. Non-theistic Buddhism interests me way more than the versions that do get into the whole 'deity' thing. They are usually plainer and have less ritual, as well, compared to the deity-centric versions.

What is even more fascinating, for me, are the Catholic Jesuit writers who explored 'Eastern' religions, looking for the points where the faith traditions might overlap.

Maxym said:
Based on that last sentence I would be on agnostic...
Click to expand...
I think either one of us could have a good conversation about this with Michael - if we had the chance and didn't have 50 million other things we wanted to talk to him about, lol. But it seems clear that his thinking progressed to embrace some of the Eastern religious ideas - or at least to be interested in them. I don't think he gave up his belief in Jesus but I think he found ideas in other traditions that were appealing to him. I could be wrong, of course. It's not like the journalists ever asked him really interesting questions.

Maxym said:
Not quite sure.
Click to expand...
And that's kind of the point for me. It's all very fluid and ever-changing, like the tide going in and out. For me, it's not about having fixed ideas about any of it. 'Not quite sure' sums it up admirably. It's just about exploring and thinking.
 
Maxym said:
So, not "believing" in evolution theory, in some situations, may make you fitter to survive (according to evolution)
Click to expand...
Faith has evolutionary advantages, otherwise it would no longer exist. But faith is not limited to the religious. You can also believe in the good or in a better future.
 
I am not posting in this thread, with any intent to argue with anyone who has a different view than me. If you want to discuss this further, please send me a private message.

OK, with that disclaimer aside, I'll only say that atheism or anti-theism is something I don't fully understand. It seems very irrational to me, to reject all possibility of the supernatural just because you can't physically see or touch it. There's other things in life, such as love for example, that you recognize without any necessity for a tactile experience...so why is something like the existence of God so separate, or even threatening?

I've heard many non-believers cite the fact that there's so many faiths in the world, and saying any one of them is better than the rest seems unfair or "intolerant". And to a point, I actually agree with them. But from a logical standpoint, its very obvious that if any concept (religious, moral, or otherwise) is absolutely true, then anything opposed to it, by definition, has to be false. Some atheists can accept this on a very small level, while others react like you've pressed a red-hot branding iron into their skin. But as controversial as it may be to say, an unavoidable fact is that if any form of absolute truth exists, then it has to apply to everyone, regardless of one's belief or opinion.
 
The origin of all religions is fear. Fear of existence, fear of the future, fear of death. There is religion to curb this fear, just for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top