(no subject)

[jack]

One of the thoughts about different aspects of atheist belief is that the natural one is not believing "God exists", but some people do believe something like "If He does exist, He's a bastard."

But it occurred to me, that's basically the point of the Northern Lights trilogy. The central message is "God doesn't exist because he's a bastard". If that sounds confusing, well, exactly, that's why the message the books send seems to be confusing :)

It's not a wrong way to go about it. Narnia could be described as partly carrying the message "God *does* exist because he's nice," and does it very well indeed. Using God's metaphorical absence as a metaphor for his literal absence is a good metaphor -- I can see if the books had clicked for me more, it might be quite exciting, if instead of having no unifying message, atheism was a crusade against an uncaring God and a malicious power-hungry arch-angel. Yay!

For that matter, in some sense, it's a real argument: if you say "If God were running the world, I don't like it," you might get from there to "then He isn't," via "if he's not doing it right, he's not God or not there".

But Pullman's presentation didn't really work for me, and so all the flaws in the presentation continued to bother me.

Contrariwise, sometimes people do over-seize on the second aspect of atheism, especially if they're used to their religion being the default and assume an atheist *is* not someone factually thinking God doesn't exist, but someone morally choosing not to follow Him.

Comments

[atreic.livejournal.com]

"God exists, but is evil" is not an atheist belief (I'm sorry if this is stating the obvious, but your post came across as confused over this) although it is a belief that some people have (including me, at times)

I don't think you're right about the message being "God doesn't exist because he's a bastard", or that the message is confusing. I see Northern Lights as a story about "There was a universe with a bad god, the bad god was defeated, then they had to work out how to live in a universe with no god"*. This is a perfectly coherant story, (f'rexample, it makes sense if you replace "god" with "king"). And as a story, it works - it makes people think about "just because there's a god, is he good and should we follow him" and also "if there is no god, how should we choose to live"

Err, I'm not sure if this comment says much beyond "I don't understand what you think the flaw is".

*Well, it's not quite true, because "god" in the books is just useless and forgotten, it is the structure around god that is bad.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

No, very well put. But I think the trilogy is supposed to, and is often read as, the story about the God in *that* universe is supposed to suggest we shouldn't believe in a God in *this* universe. So we're agreed that doesn't work, but I was also saying (a) I liked that metaphor in theory but (b) that fact that I think it's supposed to and fails makes the story internal to the books annoying/confusing.

[atreic.livejournal.com]

So we're agreed that doesn't work,

Have we? I always end up feeling a bit more atheist, and very anti-church at the end of Northern Lights, so it clearly does work.

I think it's supposed to suggest that we shouldn't go along with religious authority, and should think about whether "sinful" things are bad. Most Christians I know see it as suggesting that "we shouldn't believe in a god like that" and deal with it easily by knowing their god is not like that.

But I haven't read it for ages, so I'm not arguing from a very good memory here.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's interesting. Sorry for assuming! (When you described how you experienced the story of Northern Lights, I jumped to the conclusion that it didn't make you feel atheist).

I think it's supposed to suggest that we shouldn't go along with religious authority, and should think about whether "sinful" things are bad. Most Christians I know see it as suggesting that "we shouldn't believe in a god like that" and deal with it easily by knowing their god is not like that.

Again, that sounds well put. But it's interesting to hear you say you did feel more atheist (as it were) afterwards, because I felt I'd have liked to have done, but didn't (and so assumed I would have if anyone did).

[robhu.livejournal.com]

I'm half replying to you [Bad username or site: atreic' / @ livejournal.com], and half just not sure where to hang my reply as I've come so late to this discussion.

I always end up feeling a bit more atheist, and very anti-church at the end of Northern Lights, so it clearly does work.
Yes, I didn't read HDM in the same way [Bad username or site: cartesiandaemon' / @ livejournal.com] did. I don't think it is anti-God at all. It's anti-catholic.

I believe Pullman is very unhappy with the catholic church, so the Magesterium are a kind of hyper catholicism which I suspect wouldn't be recognised by many Catholics (including you I guess). I recognised almost nothing of the god I once thought I knew in the books (and as [Bad username or site: ilanin' / @ livejournal.com] has already said the god of Pullman's world remains as hidden as ours does*, the angel that claimed to be god was lying about it).

Pullman has, however, found support from some other Christians, most notably from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (head of the Anglican church), who argues that Pullman's attacks focus on the constraints and dangers of dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself. Pullman himself has said in interviews and appearances that his argument can extend to all religions. Williams has also said that the His Dark Materials series of books should be included and discussed in Religious Education classes, and that "To see large school-parties in the audience of the Pullman plays at the National Theatre is vastly encouraging." (source: Wikipedia (which should be fair game to quote as I wrote that paragraph)



* well... you know what I mean

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

No, thank you for being clear. I was working it out as I went along, and phrasing in an amusing way. It's not a core or necessary atheist belief, but I think it's *an* aspect that applies to some people in some ways, namely:

* Some atheists say, "Even if God does exist as described [either monotheistic or polytheistic Gods], I don't agree with that, I don't think that makes him good or gives him moral authority, I'm not following". (FWIW, I wouldn't go that far, but many aspects of God and gods as described do give me problems, it's not as simple as, I don't think God doesn't exist, if he did, it would all be ok.)

* Some atheists say much the same thing, but rather than arguing about theoretical moral absolutes say "People are starving, my grandparents died, if there's any sort of God at all, he sucks." (That's not a whole argument, there's lots of reason there *can* be God, but still suffering.)

* Almost no-one says "There *is* a God, but I don't like him," though that's what Lord Asrael says. Which isn't atheist, literally, although many religious people get the ideas confused.

[atreic.livejournal.com]

Almost no-one says "There *is* a God, but I don't like him"

Me and a lot of my friends (both who have ended up atheist and have ended up Christian) seem to wibble through that stage. I think it's an uncomfortable position to be in, which is maybe why it doesn't get talked about a lot, but I would have thought it was a very common one.

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I wonder if this is a case where the lack of a name for something makes it less visible.

I fall into a related viewpoint (I don't see any evidence that there is a god, but if there is I don't think he deserves worship), and I can't figure out the appropriate terminology. Agnostic-satanist? Pullmanist?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think atheist should do fine :) I think that is a subset of atheist, and most of the time you probably don't need to specify the distinction :)

I like your suggested terms though, we're fast expanding on Dawkins-atheist to many other potentially troubling classifications :)

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

maybe, although I still get in a mighty tangle just figuring out whether to call myself atheist or agnostic

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I've got a long explanation of my views on that somewhere, but if you can accurately describe what you think, I've got bored of the question of where the words do and should apply.

I don't see any evidence that there is a god

I'd describe that as atheist, but might say agnostic if you though it plausible that some might turn up, but if you merely think it's theoretically possible that evidence would turn up, that's not enough to make you agnostic.

However, other people think of the terms differently (and sometimes think there's some great truth in the way they do). Some people would say you're only atheist if you think it's *certain* or *proved* that there's no God. Or that you're only agnostic if you think God is at least as likely and that possibility influences your life.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

You can be both depending on what you mean by the words.

I identify as a weak atheist (in general, verging to strong about the Christian god in particular) and a weak agnostic.

There are endless debates about what the words mean (often by people trying to score points in internet arguments), but I find those two terms helpful in explaining the position that I hold, so I'm happy to use them.

[atreic.livejournal.com]

It's almost about shifting the emphasis of the question though
- atheist / deist are definitions around the question of Does God exist?" whereas people who believe "if God exists, he's evil" don't care* whether God exists, because their behaviour is going to be pretty much the same whether they are in a universe with no god, or a universe with a bad god, and they've made their primary decision that they don't live in a universe with a god they have to follow.

So instead of "Does God Exist" being the dividing question, the question is "Should I follow God?" maybe...

*Well, maybe they care a little bit, but it's not The Point

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes. I think I was struggling towards something like:

* What you say, there, and explain well, that there's two separate questions, is the obvious and mostly correct explanation
* But there's something more going on, the questions are linked in some way, both in real life, and in Pullman.

Maybe :)

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

For some values of satanist, it clearly is a satanist viewpoint. It depends to what extent one believes that Lucifer's rebellion was about free will as opposed to the various other motives ascribed to him.

Liberal-satanist sounds like an ideology somebody has made up for the purposes of jokes, though.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think some people would class any anti-God position as Satanist, and to the extent that Lucifer was saying what oedipamaas49 said, I suppose it's applicable, but I'd avoid it :) It sounds (a) too confusing, playing into misconceptions of some Christians that being against God = being pro evil and (b) the misconceptions of people who do believe that, who seem to mostly be at the level of "REBELLION ROCKS! GO SATAN! ROOOOOOOCK AND ROLLLLLL!" :)

[lizzip.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

(Actually, in my case it's more of an ongoing "if God is what all-these-people-over-here say it is, then I don't like it, and I don't want to be associated with them".)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Ah! Again, very well put. I could see the idea had an emotional resonance somewhere, but not if anyone would actually describe themselves as subscribing to it.

Without getting too personal, I think I get the idea, it would be probably hard to describe if it's not a specific pigeon-hole, and perhaps even not stable. Um, *thinks*. The example in my mind is someone who starts as Christian/theist, and then loses a love for God and thinks His world sucks, and then, after a while, decides they don't believe in God at all any more.

But that's a complete guess, can you suggest corrections/additions to that?

Um, I think it may be very related to the sort of thing I was trying to reach for in my post -- the blurring between *wanting* to believe something and *believing* something, which I mention to woodpijn below...

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Some atheists say, "Even if God does exist as described [either monotheistic or polytheistic Gods], I don't agree with that, I don't think that makes him good or gives him moral authority, I'm not following"
Yeah. A lot of atheists (like me) say "If God does exist then we know he is not good and so therefore should be opposed (or at least not followed)".

I've never heard of anyone saying "God if he exists would be evil therefore he doesn't exist" unless they're playing philosophical games with the term 'god'.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a logical argument (except via the problem of evil) but rather that not *wanting* to believe in god seems related to *not* believing in god.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

You've really enountered atheists who don't believe in God because they don't *want* to believe in God? Wow.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The internet is full of stupid people of all colours and stripes.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, I haven't described it in the best way, but yes, and as a normal, common phenomenon, not a weird philosophical conception.

Think of someone who had an emotional shock -- a relative killed in a car accident which destroys your previous faith in God, or becoming religious after a religion helped you cope after. I think neither of those has a real place in a logical argument[1] but certainly influence people to convert in several directions.

[1] The nearest would be not thinking things like that happened to people like you, and it happening making you realise it does. That's possible but not really what's going on imho.

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

"God exists, but is evil" is not an atheist belief

Well, you can take it as inherent in the definition of God that God is good - and then denying the existence of a good God means denying the existence of God at all.

Yes, this is a very silly argument. But isn't it just an inversion of the various ontological arguments for existence of God? [I can conceive of a perfect being, therefore there is a God --> there can't be a perfect being running this imperfect worlds, therefore there is no God]

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

It's not very silly. It's silly to use it to disprove the existence of God in general, but if you're considering disproving a particular sort of God who is described as good, that would be a legitimate objection. That's where I was going in saying that it *sometimes* had *something* to do with it, without being an athiest belief itself.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's it exactly.

You can argue that there is no God because of the problem of evil, but when you do that you're silently assuming that 'God' has certain attributes which the class of gods does not require all gods to have.

You can try to make a philosophical argument that perfection requires God to be good or something to try to rule out any possible God, but I think that's silly philosophical waffling that is of dubious value.