Disbelief versus Belief: a natural dualism?
My high school calculus teacher relied heavily on the scientific method and oriented his life as an atheist. He was one of the most moral people I have ever met even among those who orient themselves to a specific religion that preach high moral standards. As a matter of fact, in my personal experience, libertinism is much more common among people who orient their lives around a religion probably due to the belief in another life to follow the physical one...
Historically the trends of atheism or the claim of 'unbelief' (which is absurd since every person believes in something, whether that belief is not to believe in anything) generally rise and fall with the internal problems that arise in believing communities. The French Revolution is a good example. So is unbelief then a response to internal problems or a natural inclination to dualism or perhaps because of recent study a response that represents rebellion, which is solely determined by a gene?...
Individually we want to be different in the West, we need to be different to get the attention we need and have needed since our breast-feeding days. Atheists who speak of progress in America, based upon its growth of technological sophistication perhaps do not believe in a noumenal deity, but they do believe in a survival of the fittest mentality and that the West is actually progressing. Do they not think of the sacrifice of people around the globe for our technological way of living? While millions of people are dying each day from starvation, we view our country and culture as progress -- but shouldn't progress involve the value of people?
I once knew a computer programmer who held this view of technological progress. He didn't stop to think that his faith in technology and Western progress was as strong as a Christian's faith in God...
Human beings are not naturally dualistic. Good/Evil, God/Satan, Dos/Don'ts, Us/The Other are absurd because they fit the schema of western culture and make great stories to tell. For Christians -- the Devil, the evil one, Satan -- all of these represent the embodiment of evil or that which is contrary to the good. The names do not necessarily refer to a personified entity that is pure evil. And I am sure that someone will argue with me, that Satan is an entity and then cite scriptural examples that state such claims. But holding on to an interpretation of a living book that is metaphorical and hyperbolic in nature is dangerous...
Traditionally, tribal cultures are much more holistic in orientation. My question concerning epistemology in this case, is whether or not learning about categories and the content within as expressed in Western culture is a true method of learning at all, or whether it contributes to dualistic thinking rather than holistic thinking...
Returning to atheism for a moment, the atheist can reflect much about a culture and its religion in the way he lives his life. My calculus teacher did not like the dualism that culture and modern Christendom adapted, nor the libertinist tendency among religions believing in an afterlife. He revealed to me that living in this life ethically, morally, and for people as if this was the only life is as important if not more so than faith in a specific religion. Though I take his faith to be misplaced in the scientific method and in technological progress, I value his stance in valuing people. Though logically, because the scientific method seeks to objectify everything, I find his strong morality to be in contradiction to his faith.
Historically the trends of atheism or the claim of 'unbelief' (which is absurd since every person believes in something, whether that belief is not to believe in anything) generally rise and fall with the internal problems that arise in believing communities. The French Revolution is a good example. So is unbelief then a response to internal problems or a natural inclination to dualism or perhaps because of recent study a response that represents rebellion, which is solely determined by a gene?...
Individually we want to be different in the West, we need to be different to get the attention we need and have needed since our breast-feeding days. Atheists who speak of progress in America, based upon its growth of technological sophistication perhaps do not believe in a noumenal deity, but they do believe in a survival of the fittest mentality and that the West is actually progressing. Do they not think of the sacrifice of people around the globe for our technological way of living? While millions of people are dying each day from starvation, we view our country and culture as progress -- but shouldn't progress involve the value of people?
I once knew a computer programmer who held this view of technological progress. He didn't stop to think that his faith in technology and Western progress was as strong as a Christian's faith in God...
Human beings are not naturally dualistic. Good/Evil, God/Satan, Dos/Don'ts, Us/The Other are absurd because they fit the schema of western culture and make great stories to tell. For Christians -- the Devil, the evil one, Satan -- all of these represent the embodiment of evil or that which is contrary to the good. The names do not necessarily refer to a personified entity that is pure evil. And I am sure that someone will argue with me, that Satan is an entity and then cite scriptural examples that state such claims. But holding on to an interpretation of a living book that is metaphorical and hyperbolic in nature is dangerous...
Traditionally, tribal cultures are much more holistic in orientation. My question concerning epistemology in this case, is whether or not learning about categories and the content within as expressed in Western culture is a true method of learning at all, or whether it contributes to dualistic thinking rather than holistic thinking...
Returning to atheism for a moment, the atheist can reflect much about a culture and its religion in the way he lives his life. My calculus teacher did not like the dualism that culture and modern Christendom adapted, nor the libertinist tendency among religions believing in an afterlife. He revealed to me that living in this life ethically, morally, and for people as if this was the only life is as important if not more so than faith in a specific religion. Though I take his faith to be misplaced in the scientific method and in technological progress, I value his stance in valuing people. Though logically, because the scientific method seeks to objectify everything, I find his strong morality to be in contradiction to his faith.
posted by Timcom at 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home