is Joss an atheist?

[goldenboy]

That is a classic, isn't it? I can imagine Joss with something similar inscribed.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

Perhaps ultimately, one's state of being is a combination of will and involuntary reaction. Your personal investigation is the act of will. The conclusion reached is involuntary, or perceived as inescapable logic.

Yes, I think I agree with that. I was a fervant believer until I started to think about it. Once the ball started rolling, the conclusion was inevitable. For me, at least.

I'm inclined to agree with the idea of an Agnostic continuum to an extent, but I still think that there are also true Athiests. Speaking for myself, nothing short of God swinging by for a cup of tea is going to convince me, and I would indeed question my sanity. I've been known to shriek at Scully for not being skeptical enough.

But part of what left me so totally convinced in that absence is the utter lack of alternative evidence. When I was sixteen I briefly lead my own religion, Gemism, which was utter nonsense but had an initial following of 20. The point I was trying to make was that if those 20 people raised their kids Gemist, in a few generations time there would be no discernable difference between the factual basis of belief in the ludicrous Gemist system ("Sponge cake is the ultimate source of evil, ultimately responsible for all acts of ill intent. Gemists are forbidden from all Sponge cake related activities") and the religion I'd been raised in. And besides, I'd get tax exemptions and stuff, from being my own Deity. Alas, I let Gemism decline when I realised that if I came into contact with Communism, I would cease to exist.

I guess I say that I'm skeptical of "pure" belief (atheism or theism) because the "god formula" seems more complex, more fluid than 2+2=5 or 2+2=4. Scientific knowledge keeps evolving.

The problem is, that while scientific knowledge continues to evolve, there are those that would passionately argue that no, all scientific knowledge was created in seven days. Science keeps evolving but most religions refuse to do the same, unable to divorce the faith from the politics of the religion's past.

It strikes me as being the first "real" death in the Buffyverse. Or, the first presentation of a death from the atheistic perspective, Joss's perspective. Once you're dead, that's it. Everything, mind, body, soul, psyche (maybe?): all gone.

Funnily enough, I've used almost exactly those words to describe The Body. That's why Joyce's death is so terrible. Because she dies from a Real World Problem, her death has Real World Consequences. The episode (whatever about the subsequent ones) suggests no hope that she'll be ressurrected, or that she'll be watching her girls from heaven, or that Buffy and Co. will be better heroes after her death. Nobody gains. All that remains of Joyce Summers is a body. It looks like her. It was her once, it's just not anymore. But yeah, the athiestic prespective is a lot more overt in Hole in the World.

That's how I perceive Joss's "angry atheism". Yelling at a god that would let this happen, an indifferent god. Or just screaming at the void.

Yelling at an indifferent God would be a very one sided conversation for an Athiest. One of the unpleasant side effects of Athiesm is that it offers no big targets. No leering scapegoat or superheros. Xander can rage about how it was Glory, or the Doctors, or the shoddy dry wallers, but he's just casting out for somebody to aim all his anger at. Christians at their lowest moment can ask "Why did God let this happen?" but at least they have the possible comfort that there was a reason, however much they hate the reason they may be offered. They can believe that God "let" it happen rather than it just happened for no reason at all, and that there just might be some sort of positive outcome. Athiesm leaves only intangibles.

There's something obscene about death from the atheistic point of view. Like a sick joke. Which seems more horrifying, burning in hellfire or ceasing to exist?

Depends on who you ask. 😀 My friend would argue that she's rather burn in the ol' Hellfire forever than cease to be. I would maintain that the brevity of life makes everything more important, more worthwhile.

Not sure if this applies, or not, but as I read this I can't help remembering this story I heard one time about WC Fields.

Fields was in his death bed. He was a vocal lifelong atheist.

His girlfriend at the time, Carlotta Monti, walked in on him laying in bed, reading the bible.

"Aha" said Carlotta (a devout catholic). No atheists in the foxholes, she was thinking.

Fields replied, "Just looking for loopholes."

I love the inscription on WC's headstone, "All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia".

Lmao...

 

[goldenboy]

I'm alway fascinated by folks like CS Lewis. Begins as an atheist, then slowly, investigatively almost "wills" himself into being a christian. Or is he just some how logically convinced?

I confess, I probably haven't investigated things, "rationalized", "intuited", pondered enough to have a clear position. And I'm also thinking one's personality, temperment, genetics even"”might affect one's state of belief.

 

[Frenchy Faith]

Alright, I've just started to read this thread so I'm late but...

Something Else. When Buffy, Faith switched bodies. Towards the end of the episode. At the church. Faith (or Buffy?) asked Riley what he was doing there. And he said he was just going to church! That was actually stunning to me! A buffyverse character actually acknowledging organized religion. First time I could recall it in these shows.

I reacted exactly the same, it was really startling to see him going to church. I forgot quickly about it but now that you're talking about it I remember how startled I was.

My friend would argue that she's rather burn in the ol' Hellfire forever than cease to be. I would maintain that the brevity of life makes everything more important, more worthwhile.

I so agree with you!

Anyway, it's really great to read your posts guys, make me think & learn things, thank you!

 

[goldenboy]

I think I'll try to add to this thread again after pondering, pondering....

I do agree that life's brevity is part of what makes it so precious, urgent. I used to have discussions with a Hindu friend about getting reincarnated again and again vs. having a one shot deal at "getting it right".

 

[goldenboy]

Alright. Ponder pondered some more. More ramblings....


I think one thing that endlessly fascinates me about the "why" question"”if there ever could be an answer to it"”is how people almost accidentally go about exploring it. Some scientists convince themselves of the existence of a "creator""”or at least the appearance of intent or design"”through their science. Einstein, for example. "God doesn't play dice with the universe".

Newton developed an entirely logical system to explain forces and the motion of planets. Utterly logical, rational insofar as it went. Then Einstein comes along and completely redefines our perception of the physical universe. In effect, invalidates Newton's simple, logical system.

Yet even Einstein himself couldn't explain everything satisfactorily either. Could never reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics for example. I couldn't even begin to explain either, myself.

Which brings me to another question. Maybe humans aren't even designed to "apprehend" a creator, or "figure it out". Our brains are basically "designed" for getting around on the African savannah, finding food, avoiding predators and finding a mate. Collective human knowledge, comprehension of much else seems like icing on the cake. They took a look at Einstein's brain and noticed it was a bit different than the average. He was a lucky break for the human race and physics.

Maybe part of the reason I can't "commit" to a belief is that I can't even conceive of the options presented. What does "burning in hellfire forever" mean exactly? Can't imagine. How is that justice? How would spending my time in eternal bliss be exactly? Sounds terribly boring. I guess time would have no meaning. But I can't conceive of what that means.

And also, "nothingness". Can't imagine. Took me quite awhile just to conceive of what a negative number was. I find that if I can't figure something out through analogy, metaphor, I'm often lost. Or if I can't see a pattern, relationship, lost. Or if it involves something like linear logic, I'm helpless. I barely passed high school algebra, couldn't handle the logical linearity of it for some reason. Yet geometry, no problem. Could "see" multiple paths to the same destination: proofs.

So, I guess I'm saying genetics limits our ability to comprehend, reason, and even limits our free will to a certain extent. So maybe our state of belief is truly involuntary.

And I'd say religion and belief in "intent" aren't always the same thing. The atheist does have a giant, amorphous target to shoot at. But so might someone who suspects intent, design in the universe. Who knows what the nature of a "designer" might be?

And Biblical literalists look at science backwards, it seems to me. Look for evidence in "science" to confirm their presuppositions about God and the literal truth contained in the Bible. Rather than looking to science for facts, wherever they might lead.

And things that seem like magic, the will of God have been slowly dismantled or put in a different context by science. For example, what is this phenomenon that seems to suggest that prayer has a quantifiable effect? Studies are showing that prayer has an impact, even on those who have no idea they're being prayed for. Is it perhaps not God, but some kind of quantum mechanical effect?

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm


Maybe doubt will always exist and science will always fall short because of the limits of the human brain.

 

[Frenchy Faith]

Maybe doubt will always exist and science will always fall short because of the limits of the human brain.

Just I think the "maybe" is not needed in this sentence... ya know, like, it took so many centuries to just start understanding 1 or 2 percent of our world & its mystery so...

anyway, nice thoughts, I feel like I'm in my philosophy lesson... we are talking about this kind of thing even at the moment... not that I have much to add that would be interesting... I'm not good at debating so
but it's interesting to read your opinion!

 

[goldenboy]

"Just I think the "maybe" is not needed in this sentence... ya know, like, it took so many centuries to just start understanding 1 or 2 percent of our world & its mystery so..."



....that is a little redundant, huh. Wish I'd taken some philosophy in school. Wouldn't really want to go back though.

 

[goldenboy]

Here's a link about CS Lewis and Freud if curious. Joss strikes me as being Freud-like in his somewhat obsessive, conflicted atheism.


http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/nicholi.html

 

[goldenboy]

OK, now this is interesting...




Twins Study Finds Adult Religiosity Heritable

University of Minnesota at Minneapolis psychology graduate student Laura Koenig and other U Minn researchers have found in a twins study that religiousness becomes more genetically determined as we age. (same article here)


Environmental factors, like attending religious ceremonies with family, affect our religiousness as children, but genes most likely keep us attending and believing as we become adults.

A study published in the current issue of Journal of Personality studied adult male monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins to find that difference in religiousness are influenced by both genes and environment. But during the transition from adolescence to adulthood, genetic factors increase in importance while shared environmental factors decrease. Environmental factors (i.e. parenting and family life) influence a child's religiousness, but their effects decline with the transition into adulthood. An analysis of self-reported religiousness showed that MZ twins maintained their religious similarity over time, while the DZ twins became more dissimilar. "These correlations suggest low genetic and high environmental influences when the twins were young but a larger genetic influence as the twins age" the authors state.

Participants for this study were 169 MZ and 104 DZ male twin pairs from Minnesota. Religiousness was tested using self-report of nine items that measured the centrality of religion in their lives. The twins graded the frequency in which they partook in religious activities such as reading scripture or other religious material and the importance of religious faith in daily life.

If any of the Minnesota researchers see this then what would be extremely interesting would be to collect fertility data on these men. Are the more religious men reproducing at higher rates than the less religious? Are genes for religiosity being selected for? I'm guessing the answer is Yes!

The questioning was conducted on male twins in their early 30s.


The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings. This was compared with when they were growing up and living with their families. Then, each participant answered the same questions regarding their mother, father, and their twin.

One of the biggest unanswered questions about the human race's future is what choices will people make once they can control the genetically controlled attributes of their offspring. Will people choose to make their children be more or less spiritual than they are? My guess is that the mild to moderately religious may choose to make their kids even more religious while those who are not religious at all will choose genetic variants that ensure their children will not be religious. Therefore the mildly religious and the people who are lukewarm to religious belief will become a smaller fraction of society while the emphatically religious and the emphatically not religious both increase in number.



http://www.futurepundit.com/

 

[goldenboy]

More fun stuff...


"Do You Believe in Magic?
     Is it credible that some part of us (our free will) permits us to act free of our determinants in at least some instances?  If so, how and why doesn't everything in the universe -- atoms, cells, dogs, cars -- possess this unnatural quality?  For free will is unnatural, or perhaps more accurately supernatural or magical as its existence would violate the law of causation.  

     Another interesting question is when does free will develop?  We all accept that babies don't have it.  Does a one year old beginning to talk have it?  A two year old who can say "no"?  And if we don't have it as a baby, then where does it come from?  Does it just appear in different people at different times, and perhaps never appear in others such as the severely retarded?  What if it misses and lands on a comatose person, but not on a Ph.D. candidate?  
If we are left with free will as magic, then we are on a slippery slope.  How do we ever know the truth about something magical?  It could be that when I feel as if I am doing something I want to do out of my free will, in reality maybe it is my karma, my fate, the planetary alignment or my parent's sin that requires me to decide to act in a certain way.  Or maybe that which we call one's free will is in reality someone else's will -- how many people explain behavior as reflecting "God's will?"  Maybe he, or maybe the neighborhood witch is the puppeteer pulling our strings?  Of course, the bottom line is that any magical explanation of human behavior and feelings is equally defensible or believable, depending on your bias.  Free will is no more intrinsically credible than what we had for breakfast as a basis for explaining human actions.  If any of these theories are true, how can science work with respect to humans (for example, medicine) or anywhere else if there is magic afoot?  The only rational and non-magical explanation of human behavior is determinism.  In other words, there is no extra-physical part of us that governs our physical (including the feelings and thoughts in our brains) activities. "

"Conclusion
     So the answer to the question of where is free will appears to be that it is in the imagination of almost all of us, born out of what we have been taught and reinforced by our experience of the world.  We feel many things are true, but this does not make them so.  We need to look outside our feelings for evidence that they are based on reality.  In the case of free will, there is no such evidence to place on the scale.  On the other hand and with apologies to those who believe this is all a dream, the fact that we are physical creatures in a physical world is pretty well established.  This fact subjects us to well established natural laws, including those of cause and effect.  This evidence tips the scales in favor of the conclusion that all human behavior is determined and that there is in fact no such thing as free will. "

http://www.determinism.com/05042002.shtml





"We know that mental states are in no sense physical (i.e. part of the physical, material world) because they possess four features not owned by physical states.

First, there is a raw qualitative feel "” a "what it is like to have it" "” to a mental state. For example, pain hurts. A physical state may cause pain, but the physical state itself can be completely described in the vocabulary of physics and chemistry, or in the commonsense vocabulary of the physical world. Being hurtful, however, is not describable in the vocabulary of any of these.

Second, many mental states have intentionality "” "ofness" or "aboutness" "” which is directed towards an object. A thought, for instance, is about the moon. But no physical state is about anything. The brain is a physical object, but a brain state cannot be about the moon any more than a rock or a cloud can be about the moon. Only a state of mind can be about the moon.

Third, mental states are internal, private and immediately accessible to the subject having them. A scientist can know more about my brain than I do. But I have direct knowledge of my mind which is not available to anyone else.

Fourth, mental states fail to have crucial features that characterize physical states. Unlike physical states, they have no spatial extension (it doesn't make sense to ask how tall or wide someone's thoughts are) and they have no location either (which is why it doesn't make sense to ask where someone's thoughts are). In general, mental states cannot be described using physical language.

The inability of evolutionary theory to explain the existence of mind
Given that mental states (states of mind) are immaterial and not physical, there are at least two reasons why evolutionary theory cannot explain their existence.

Something from nothing: According to evolutionary theory, before consciousness appeared, the universe contained nothing but matter and energy. The naturalistic story of the cosmos' evolution involves the rearrangement of the atomic parts of this matter into increasingly more complex structures according to natural law. Matter is brute mechanical, physical stuff. Consciousness, however, is immaterial and nonphysical. Physical reactions do not seem capable of generating consciousness. Some say the physical reactions that occur in the brain are capable of producing consciousness, yet brains seem too similar to other parts of the body (both brains and bodies are collections of cells totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? Though evolutionary theory can handle the appearance of the physical brain, the appearance of the nonphysical mind is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. Thus the emergence of minds and consciousness seems to be a case of getting something from nothing.

The inadequacy of evolutionary explanations: Naturalists claim that evolutionary explanations can be offered for the appearance of all organisms and their parts. In principle, an evolutionary account could be given for increasingly complex physical structures that constitute different organisms. One of the driving forces behind Charles Darwin's exposition of evolution was the belief that all mental phenomena could be explained as features of physical objects. However, if minds and consciousness exist, they would be beyond the explanatory scope of evolutionary theory, and this would threaten the theory's plausibility.

Of course, theists think that minds and consciousness do, in fact, exist. But because naturalistic forms of evolution have proven incapable of explaining minds and consciousness, their existence has been rejected by naturalists. "

http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000901.html



Maybe I am, by the implications of these links, a theist and not an agnostic. I believe that I have free will, I believe that I have a mind, consciousness, and not just a brain. If I believe in these things, what physical process could account for them? Is it possible to be an atheist and also believe in free will, consciousness?

 

[PrincessZombie]

Well, I'm actually surprised that Joss Whedon is an atheist. Very surprised. I always thought he was religious. Why else would holy water and crosses hurt vampires. And there seems to be religious undertones in a lot of episodes. Well, I guess I'm still in shock, I'll just go get over that now. 😕

 

[goldenboy]

Yeah, for whatever reason, the power of crosses and holywater in the 'verse doesn't seem to depend on faith in God"”either on the part of the Slayer or the slayee.

I think Joss understands the psychological power Christianity has, its huge influence on Western culture. And he sees how it's all wrapped up in our art, values, ideals, hopes...even if he can't bring himself to accept the literal message.