Spring semester begins in less than a month, so its time to start working on new material. The class is Moral and Ethical Theory, but we begin by looking at the relationship between religion and morality, because it is common for people to believe the link is especially strong or important. It has been my experience that lower division undergraduates (ages 18-21) are woefully lacking in certain basic concepts, so the handout posted below is intended to introduce and explain four important concepts: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and anti-theism. I would be interested in feedback from anyone interested in reading the handout posted below. I am under no illusions about its completeness, but I am trying to be fair, and would like to know if my treatment seems even-handed. *** Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism and Anti-Theism THEISM: Any form of religion or religious worship in which one or more identifiable gods (or deities) are worshipped. The worship of a theistic deity can take several different forms. One form exclusive to Christianity, Islam and Bhakti Yoga (Hinduism) is known as “ortho-doxy” or “correct belief.” In religions of this type, faith is often seen as a manner of holding a correct set of beliefs, although there may be disagreement (sometimes even bloody disagreement) over exactly what the “correct” beliefs are. Religions that reduce “faith” to a matter of belief are called “doxic” religions, from the Greek “doxa” (belief). Doxic forms of theism generally require an individual to profess or confess the officially sanctioned beliefs in order to become or remain a member of the religion. People who hold beliefs which differ from those which are officially sanctioned may be regarded as “heretics,” and may be persecuted because they hold unapproved beliefs. Other theistic religions do not regard faith as a matter of correct or incorrect belief, but rather as a matter of ritual and practice. Theistic religions which fall into this category include Judaism, most forms of Hinduism, and Mahayana Buddhism. In these religions, “practice” not only includes formal, religious ritual and compassionate, moral treatment of other people (as well as animals), “practice” also includes study, purely as an end in itself, and certain disciplines of the mind (for example, meditation, fasting, spinning in circles or consuming hallucinogenic substances). These mental disciplines – which include martial arts like Tai Chi – often have secular or therapeutic aims, such as relieving conditions like anxiety and depression. But mental discipline can also have the religious aim of inducing altered states of consciousness and, perhaps, religious or mystical experiences. Religions that regard “faith” as a matter of ritual and practice are called “ortho-praxic” from the Greek “praxsis” (practice). Pantheism (god-in-all-things) and polytheism (many-gods) are, of course, forms of theism. Religions which do not involve any concept of any god (for example, Taoism, Confucianism, and Theravada Buddhism) are referred to as “Non-theistic” because the term “atheism” is reserved for other purposes – see below. ATHEISM: The overt denial of the existence of any deity of any kind. Note that the “mere absence of belief” is not sufficient to qualify any subject as an atheist; otherwise rocks and trees and crickets and foxes and silverware and all things incapable of holding any beliefs whatsoever would be “atheists,” which seems somewhat odd. If an individual is an atheist, then that individual is: 1) cognitively capable of holding beliefs, 2) consciously aware of the existence of religious belief, and 3) has without coercion decided to reject all such forms of belief. Until the 18th Century, atheism was an extremely dangerous position to advocate in any doxic theistic society. AGNOSTICISM: This term is widely misunderstood as meaning “the absence of the knowledge of god,” or something similar. Such an interpretation cannot be correct because, if it were, it would apply to everyone regardless of his/her theological position. No one “knows” whether or not god exists, because knowledge presumes the ability to provide evidence, and no evidence for the existence of god (aside from old books which may be fictional), can be publicly presented by anyone. If an “agnostic” is one who does not know, then we’re all agnostics. This erroneous interpretation of “agnostic” arises from the common misconception that the Greek term “gnossos” means “knowledge”; hence, an ag-nostic would be a non-knower. But in truth, the Greek word for knowledge is “episteme”; at least, the kind of knowledge we have in mind when we speak of science or scholarship or academic achievement. “Gnossos,” conversely, is the kind of “knowledge” we have when we know a secret. For example, I know that my neighbor is cheating on his taxes, but I’m not going to tell anyone – or maybe I’m only going to tell a select few “initiates,” perhaps his wife, who seems to have a vested interest. The agnostic could, therefore, be seen as disclaiming any “secret” knowledge, but such a disclaimer is not important today, because very few religions claim to depend on “secret knowledge.” Rather, “agnosticism,” as used in these lectures, refers to the absence of decision or commitment. The agnostic differs from the theist and the atheist not because he lacks some knowledge they (claim to) possess, but because the theist and the atheist are both willing to take a position on the issue, they are willing to make a stand and defend it – but the agnostic is not. Whether the atheist knows or believes anything about any deity, the atheist has assumed a stance, made a decision, and committed him or herself to it. The same, of course, can be said of the theist. The agnostic, on the other hand, has decided not to decide; s/he refuses to make any commitment one way or the other. The agnostic’s reasons for refusing to make a commitment can be widely diverse; one such reason might indeed be attributed to lack of knowledge or belief of some kind, but other reasons for agnosticism could include problems with certain moral positions or political agendas, the internal logical consistency of religious thinking, or even a person’s own disposition – as a sort of general skepticism toward everyday life. ANTI-THEISM (a.k.a. “New Atheism”): Anti-theists are typically but not necessarily atheists. Their view is that religion is bad, dangerous, harmful or wrong, and that civil society must be on its guard against encroachment by religious authority. Anti-theistic arguments are most effective when they are socio-politically, economically, or morally motivated, or when they are aimed at exposing certain kinds of psychological or cognitive harm which might be secondary to certain kinds of religious training. However, when anti-theistic arguments are couched in theological terms, they are almost immediately enmeshed in fallacies like ad ignorantiam or petitio principi. Anti-theism, therefore, is less a “theistic” position than a political, social, or economic deconstruction of an institution of a certain kind. Issues of anti-theism can be, and often are, raised in theistic contexts when, for example, an individual devoutly believes in God, but also believes that all organized forms of religion are corrupt.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:49:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015