Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Sherol Chen — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:59:46 -0000

Is it just me, or does "meta-atheism" not actually mean anything?

It sounds more like atheism as defined by meta-beliefs.

In any case, the prefix "meta" should probably not be used with words that it isn't typically used with, unless there's some major unpacking that follows.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

MWDiers — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:23:33 -0000

Will,

You have unwittingly stumbled upon something that many Christians do not like to admit: that we do exactly what we don't want to do. We do what we hate doing. This is something that we recognize in ourselves, that no matter how long we are here in this life, we still do evil, no matter how much we wish not to.

This is what we call "simul iustus et peccator": simultaneously a sinner and saint. Two forces working in one man simultaneously. Saint Paul described the phenomenon: "The good that I wish to do, I do not do. The evil I wish not to do, that I do."

There IS a resolution to this tension. I do not wish to lapse into theology here, but suffice it to say, your understanding of the matter is very shallow at best. You may as well be describing what it is like to be black when you are white, or a women, when you are a man. You THINK you know, but you really cannot know, because you are not one.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Justin Kramp — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:47:52 -0000

You're misunderstanding a pretty basic thought, which sort of debunks your entire statement here. I'm not talking deep theology, I'm taking basic cause/effect.

The mourning a believer does for a loved one who dies isn't because of a lack of belief that they're "in a better place." It is because we are separated from them and will miss them between now and heaven/the new earth.

It isn't because we don't believe they're with God, or doubt that their pain is resolved. It is that we miss them. We're sad they're not with us. That a relationship has been (temporarily) lost.

Death is not a natural state. God didn't intend for us to die. So it is a wierd, uncomfortable, painful thing to go through. The comfort is in the belief that we'll live again in the ideal state, with Him, in the new earth.

I'm happy you've put a lot of thought into this, but your argument that we're sad because we "don't really believe our beliefs" starts from a false premise.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Christian Church Pastor — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:48:40 -0000

"Believe" is a word that means you accept the word of someone. You believe the doctor, the bank, the teacher, the police and sometimes even the government. These people have a lot of influence on the outcome of our health or future so we take faith in them seriously.

When we believe God about our future it doesn't have to be a magical experience, but it should be real. Do you believe that by dying on the cross, Jesus made a payment for the penalty of sins? Does that make you a believer?

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Carlos — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:52:02 -0000

Strange article, and stranger answers. It doesn't deal with the obvious answer, that is, ¿what do you mean by "believe"?. We believe a lot of things, some of them absolutely, some of them much less so. My belief in the existence of this computer, for example, is of a totally different quality that my beliefs in the nature of the universe, or my political beliefs, and still, you don't say that I don't really believe in them. Most christians probably don't believe in God in the absolute way that Will seems to assume. Their beliefs are mixed with doubt, hope, etc. and it's completely logical, after all.¿Wouldn't you have at least some small doubt about the existence of an invisible all-powerful entity?. But there are historical examples of people who believed absolutely in God; early Christians, for example, displayed that kind of belief, and martyrdom became so popular that the Pope decreed that only those who weren't seeking their own death were martyrs.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

David Scott — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:04:28 -0000

I really don't understand this at all, frankly. Most mainstream Christians _do not_ believe that they will go to Hell for adultery.

I mean, I can't put it any plainer. Saying a Christian can go to Hell for any particular sin's not the best theology, and it's absolute anethema to the generic Born Again.

Regardless of the mildly bizzare assertion that people can't act against their best interest, the central thesis here seems, to me, to be 100% wrong.

I sin daily (at least) and though I've been dissappointed in myself, I've never once imagined God was warming up the coals.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:58:25 -0000

"Party in the city where the heat is on
All night on the beach till the break of dawn
Welcome to Miami
'Buenvenidos a Miami'
Bouncin in the club where the heat is on
All night on the beach till the break of dawn
I’m goin to Miami
'Welcome to Miami'"

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Nathan Zook — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:55:08 -0000

First, you are using an incredibly broad term, "theist", for a fairly specific presumed set of beliefs which you then attempt to force upon the entire original set. From reading your later posts, it appears that you are talking about some pseudo-Christian beliefs involving eternal, infinite, unavoidable punishment for sin X, but otherwise a very high probability (or even certainty) of eternal bliss.

I am not afraid of death or any part of the world to come. But I do place an extremely high value on life--and not only my own. Because my god instructs me, "choose life." Since he's so cool, I place a high value on his pleasure. I understand that he derives pleasure from my obedience. So I choose life.

I have chosen not to skydive (although that would be SUPER cool) because my value of the loss suffered by my family should something go wrong so high. Am I afraid? Am I irrational? Am I deceiving myself?

I am likewise not cavilier about this incredible gift of life.

===============================

As for the question of autocide, opinions vary almost at the individual level. (I have read disagreements within Jewish and Christian denominations--my limited area of knowlege.) Almost all consider madness-induced suicide to be tragic but not of moral consequence. Otherwise, all agree it is a great sin, but most tend to agree that it is not unpardonable.

If you are familiar with the predestination/free will issue, then you can understand that some believe that autocide reveals that you were never "saved" or "elect" in the first place.

Jesus was quite plain about there being degrees of reward and punishment. All Christians who receive this agree that autocide is a bad thing, and there will be reprocussions, barring the above.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:36:20 -0000

Depends on the theist.
I don't, others do.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Reinhold — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:02:17 -0000

Do theists hold that suicide disqualifies one from paradise?

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Alan Sullivan — Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:24:01 -0000

Re your car accident hypothesis: I would expect a disparity. Religious people are more cautious, at least in the US. Perhaps they fear being accountable to a deity!

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Will Wilkinson — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 04:17:23 -0000

MB, AirBornAgain! Perfect!

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

monkyboy — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:46:23 -0000

Check these guys out

A better place to start than Will's traffic accidents :)

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

matthew — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:30:29 -0000

fatalism is probably a greater factor in terms of motivating/ psychological causal factors when it comes to religion and human behaviour. when you believe god has a plan you just don't try so hard to survive/think your way out of potentially fatal accidents ie. your car rolling over etc. as it must be happening for a PURPOSE. this would translate in to higher rates of accidental deaths among believers (most likely calvinists and possibly muslims). there has been some research on this and it seems to bear out the hypothesis.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Amanda — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:23:15 -0000

I think the question isn't so much whether the belief in God (or even afterlife) is real, but whether the belief in the inescapability of the punishment is. And in the Christian theology I'm familiar with, committing adultery (for example) isn't an instant one-way ticket to hell; it's something you can repent of.

People fail to act in accordance with their belief in an afterlife in the exact same way as they fail to act in accordance with their belief that, say, reckless driving may result in death - we're not very good at evaluating less-than-immediate risks.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

McClain — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:16:13 -0000

Hell isn't Christian, necessarily.
The name "Hel" belonged to the Norse goddess of the underworld. Like Yule logs, mistletoe, and bunny eggs, it's now part of the larger, mainstream, Christian cultural tradition.
The afterlife was not, originally, a central point of concern for Christians.
(What is and always was?
Love.
With a capital "L.")
Nor is there, to this day, any ecumenical consensus on what happens to a Christian after death.
Jehovah's Witnesses, and some others who pride themselves on their biblical literalism, believe we all die, full stop. Just stone dead, like an atheist would think.
At some future time, the Lord will return, Heaven and Earth will pass away, and the righteous dead will be raised into new life.
The unrighteous will just stay dead forever.
The Catholics have their "Purgatory," which mitigates their fear of 'damnation.'
The Calvinists think it's all 'predestined' anyhow. And so on....

The passages where Jesus speaks of the Lake of Fire, Sheol, or Gehenna are, like the rest of His parables and aphorisms, not normally regarded as flat statements of plain and simple fact.

For what it's worth: I, as a Christian, have faith that God created me, God will kill me whenever He pleases, and I'm happy for God to save whatever aspects of me are worth saving, destroy the rest, and send whatever subsequently constitutes "me" wherever He sees fit, seeing as how He has a better handle on what's best than I do.
So I just don't worry my pretty little head about the afterworld.

At the risk of belittling some of my more fervently pious co-religionists, I'd agree that people who claim to believe in eternal damnation, yet don't act like it, are either lying to you, lying to themselves, or just fucking bat-shit crazy.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Fred — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:36:27 -0000

Matt:

The point is that the fate of eternal (eternal!) suffering is so horrible that your faith must be very "incomplete" indeed, incomplete to the point of triviality, if it does not prevent you from behaving in ways that, according to the faith, lead to that fate.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

monkyboy — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:13:58 -0000

I don't think this type of thinking is limited to religion. By any objective measure, Bush's first term was a pretty bad presidency, yet he got re-upped. I doubt few people who voted for him really believe his second term will end with a booming economy and democracy in Iraq.

I would suggest another process of belief: fanboyism.

By coincidence, Star Trek:Enterprise was cancelled this morning. I have a modest interest in ST:E, I watch the show and frequent several fansites. I was always amazed that after watching an hour of some of the worst Sci-Fi ever put on TV, polls on the ST:E fansites that rated the crapfest I just watched would tend to rate every single episode in the A-A+ range.

Like Prof. Rey, I had to believe that, in their heart of hearts, the fanboys rating Enterprise episodes that were just badly acted ripoffs of previous ST shows, were truly bad...but no, they seemed to truly think each episode made Blade Runner and 2001 look like bad cartoons.

The term fanboy comes from fan, which in turn came from the word fanatic...

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Jeff Licquia — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:47:15 -0000

The mind boggles at the implications of having some other person be more of an expert at your own thought life than you are. So Winston really did love Big Brother the whole time, after all?

(As an aside, it's particularly delicious to see a discussion framed around the idea that some method exists to prove one's beliefs and thoughts wrong, and recruit Orwell to support such a thesis.)

As for the rest, I suppose I disagree with the premises:

- I have been to funerals--several, actually--where joyful songs were played, often at the request of the family or the deceased.

- I have also seen people weep and mourn at the airport when their loved ones leave on long trips. Is this, too, irrational, seeing as the probable result will be only a short separation? If not, then why is it irrational to mourn separations that may last years or decades, but not to mourn separations that only last days or weeks?

(One wonders whether statisticians, upon mourning the departure of their spouses on long trips, could be said to have committed treason against their own profession!)

- There is belief in an abstract God, and the resulting foolish behavior that may imply, and there is faith in a rather concrete idea of God, which might include moral strictures against foolish behavior, senses of purpose on this earth, faith that God is the best judge of whether one should continue to live, etc. I fail to see any way that the latter faith is somehow invalid.

- On sin, I suppose someone who has never violated his or her own moral code in a moment of weakness might see such a rationale as plausible. But I think the rest of us, who know just how capable we are of acting irrationally whatever our creed, might be a little more skeptical. Count me among the latter group.

- Finally, I think this essay proves fairly well that economics is no more a universal theory of knowledge than any of the other candidates frequently nominated for the job.

Of course, all of this should be taken with a grain of salt, as I have not independently confirmed my own beliefs.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Matt — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:10:22 -0000

Will -
Why do you have to assume that every believer is 100% certain of the afterlife? As I said above - we agree on the kind of behavior that one could predict from someone like that.

If the concept of religious doubt is really all this new to you, those Mormons you grew up with must have really kept their eyes on the prize better than I do.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:56:01 -0000

But if you are %100 confident you will be heinously tortured for a year starting tomorrow and you don't believe there is any way to escape it?

I of all people understand lack of discipline and lapses of prudence. But discipline and prudence tend to improve when the cost of not improving is very very high. If you genuinely believe the cost is infinitely high (and not simply believe that you believe), I simply cannot buy the idea that, because of lack of discipline, foresight, and prudence, this belief might turn out to have only a marginal effect on one's behavior. I think the hypothesis that these people don't really have this belief is a much more persuasive, and much more charitable, explanation than that they are are completely and utterly irrational. If you think incentives matter at all, and that you can understand something about human behavior by understanding incentives, you ought to be eager to avoid the idea that we might systematically fail to heed even massive incentives because of irrationality.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

ziel — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:52:11 -0000

This sounds like another variation on the "No intelligent person could disagree with me, so if you're intelligent and you say you disagree with me you must be lying" theme. Perhaps "meta-atheism" is supposed to be academese for what people of faith have for centuries quaintly referred to as "doubt."

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Tim — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:43:20 -0000

Will,

If Salma Hayek was performing a strip tease right next to the red button, I bet a substantial portion of men actually would push it. Because, well, Salma Hayek is really hot, and it takes a lot of willpower to turn her down.

There are all sorts of lesser examples of this sort of behavior-- alcoholics who try to quit and relapse, despite knowing exactly what awaits them if they start drinking again. People who have unprotected sex with strangers despite the knowledge that pregnancy and STD's could result. People who eat too much Thanksgiving dinner despite the knowledge that they'll feel sick afterwards. Girls who keep buying clothes they don't need with credit cards they can't afford to pay off, despite the knowledge that they're destroying their credit and risking bankruptcy.

People simply don't posess the capacity to behave in a way that reflects perfectly consistent intertemporal preferences. Many of the people I cite above know perfectly well the bad fates that await them for their poor choices. It's just that at the time, Salma Hayek's heaving bosom seems more urgent than whatever might happen the following day.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Matt — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:34:25 -0000

In your red button example, can I feel and smell the hot coals over which I'll have to walk while listening to "We Built This City?" In other words, is the threat of punishment as credible as the apparent short-term reward?

By your definition, I don't truly believe in eternal reward or punishment. In spite of myself and my religious inclinations, my own belief in the hereafter isn't concrete enough to really influence my behavior in the here and now.

Your vision of the frustrated believer demands that I concoct layers of meta-belief in order to come to terms with my incomplete faith in the hereafter. Instead, I admit that it's not strong enough to dictate my actions.

I think we both draw the same conclusions about the behavior we could predict out of someone who truly and completely believes in eternal reward. After all, plenty of such people provide an example as they blow themselves up in Iraq every week.

The rest of us make do with what we admit to be an incomplete faith in the hereafter. That's not so complicated, but not as simplistic as the red button.

Re: Meta-atheism, Death by Accident, and the Mysteries of Religious Experience

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:13:34 -0000

Matt, I think you're really making it harder than it should be. Suppose you truly believe that if you push the big red button in front of you two things will happen: (1) You can have your way with Salma Hayek immediately thereafter and; (2) You will be subjected to excruciating torture every minute for the next year, starting tomorrow, and at the end of the year you will be killed. DO YOU PUSH THE BUTTON? I guess it's a question of discernment, prudence, and will, but Salma Hayek's not that great, right?