I believe you are correct that — SFAIK — a distinct number of prominent Greek thinkers and skeptics never explicitly state that no god or gods exist, not even Leukippos or Democritus, the materialist trailblazers for the Atomist school, if I’m not mistaken. They simply do not mention Zeus or any other traditional God concept, but that is clearly different from explicitly maintaining that any notion of such a thing as divinity is purely delusional.

OTOH, two ancient Greek thinkers do explicitly state that no god or gods exist, Diagoras and Critias. In the case of Diagoras, we only have second-hand accounts. But for Critias, we do have his own words, preserved for us in Sextus Empiricus’s On The Physicists.

Cordially,

Stone

As Dr. Wilson stated, Dawkins doesn’t seem to be wrong about everything, but major premises of his book are questionable–questionable to the point in fact where one wonders if it isn’t perhaps intentionally misleading. Are you saying it is wrong to point out these errors simply because the book has sold a lot and made Dawkins famous?

The God Delusion is not at all an attempt to discuss god or religion in evolutionary terms. It deals with the gravest philosophical problems about religion which we all, and especially scientists, should be aware of. Science owes a lot to philosophy and vice-versa, surely you don`t believe scientists should abstain from philosophical writings.
Is it possible that someone is just trying to make a mark in the market by including titles with the name Dawkins in it.

The main difficulty is this:

Ideology as Animal is far too abstract for many to grasp, especially for the adherents of a given ideology. Even scientists tend to think of this as a metaphor or an analogy, however it is best understood as fact.

Instead of a microscope, we need a macro-scope.

Upon reading Joseph Campbell’s “Myths To Live By” in 1998, I realized the following:

1. Religions have promoted the ecological advancement of our species. They’re not ‘tools’, rather they are alive.

2. Meme-systems are the ideological analogs of biological genes.

3. Evolution is very present in groups, e.g. group-selection.

4. Much like technological development advances across processing mediums, biology – along with its evolution – has done the same by advancing from the biological to the ideological medium. Ideology, (religion included) is a type of organism that has established itself in the ideological medium that exists because of mankind’s highly evolved brain and our ability to communicate ideas.

5. This development is a natural – and obvious – progression of the evolutionary process.

6. Ideology, (religion included) is to mankind as mankind is to symbiotic microbes etc. Therefore their ecological niche is codependent.

I propose that the gulf between individual vs. group selection can by bridged by understanding that the meme-set that constitutes the ideology (group) IS the individual selector. Therefore the two approaches are not incompatible.

What is the force that drives this?

In a lay effort to express what drives this connection, I have developed the Power Equation:

P = C/E

Where: P stands for Power, C represents Control and E is Energy.

It may be observed that the behavior of all living things represents the expression of this equation.

I think if this as the Force of Nature.

The Memetic Superorganism:

In an effort to survive, all living things seek to maximize control over the resources (energy) within their environment. Ideologies are built upon biology and therefore exhibit the identical behavior in the form of what I term the Memetic Superorganism.

Memetic Superorganisms are alive. They consume energy, grow, reproduce and produce waste. We need to study their evolution in the same manner as all other biological organisms.

Meme-sets are the equivalent of genes. Ideology is a living extension of biology. It is the ultimate adaptation because of its evolutionary advantage – speed of mutation.

The new species:

Memetic Superorganisms are alive and in their many forms, we are their cells. Make the connection!

More lay observations at http://www.superorganismproject.com

Regards,

L.E. Nielson

Well, for most of human history, we’ve been hunters and gatherers who’ve lived in packs much like wolves. We as humans have developed a higher sense of awareness. When the primitive hunter saw a mountain range, he knew that there was land beyond. There were things in the world that he could not see but was aware were there. These mysteries included where the sun went at night, what happened to the dead, and if his pack was controlled by an alpha leader, maybe the world was too.

So, religion may not the result of a malignant meme, but rather, the result of a social species evolving curiosity.

It isn’t necessary to return to group selection just to try and explain difficult phenomenon like religion — that would be like trying to resurrect Lamarckism in order to explain the growth of muscles.

It looks like Dawkins’s description of religion is not really scientific. What should we call it? Biased? Dogmatic? Theorizing without solid evidence?

“I fail to see how concepts, like religion, can be an effective part of evolution.”

and

“I fail to see how delusional thinking have to do with evolution.”

and

“Deluded people are not very adaptable to change, so one could say that in an evolutionary sense, religion is a natural way of mass-suicide.”

I think maybe he would benefit from re-reading David Sloan Wilson’s article above. For starters, assuming that a religion is equal to its dogmatic conceptual content is just that: AN ASSUMPTION.

The same goes for equating religion with delusional thinking. It is an assumption.

And similarly for claiming that deluded people are not very adaptable to change. I mean, that sounds plausible, but where is the evidence for that? Where is the leg-work, to use Mr. Wilson’s phrase?

To study something, you must first know WHAT IT IS, and this is not done by simple fiat definition. In a scientific method, it must be done via careful observation and research. William James, when he wanted to study religion, actually did this, and even pointed out the importance of the inner state, the subjective part, of religion and religious experience.

Anyone can have a “pet theory” of religion–as Dawkins does–but a pet theory is not a scientific theory. It is armchair theorizing.

If you define “religion” to be conceptual, deluded, dogmatic belief in a supernatural agent or agents, then you will most certainly come to a different view of religion than someone who includes in the term “religion” the many other elements that it actually DOES contain.

To name just one single counter example, many forms of Buddhism fall totally outside Dawkins’ definition of “religion”. Yet, no matter, just sweep that under the rug. Religion = superstition. End of story. Now just damn all religion wholesale! It’s easy.

But it is NOT scientific. I was astounded at the wild speculation after wild speculation all piled together to form Dawkins’ explanation for the origin of religion. THIS is from a “scientist” I wondered?

Thankfully there are people such as David Sloan Wilson who actually care about evidence and demonstration and scientific method. Dawkins seems to be immune to criticism from his atheistic peers. The fact that so many people have said to him “I’m an atheist, but . . .” doesn’t give him any pause, but only creates even more enemies he can disagree with. He talks about how people need to be able to critique religion without stigma–we need to be able to talk about it critically. I agree. But he can’t seem to accept criticism even from his colleagues like Michael Ruse or Steven J. Gould. Any who veer from the true atheistic faith are cast out. Or can’t mean what they say–not really. Dawkins has only one truth in regard to religion: it is a virus and a delusion. And this truth informs and organizes everything else.

But this is the very reverse of scientific method, and is already being shown up for what it is by truly scientific research into the evolutionary study of religion.

The easiest way for me to address all this is to be autobiographical. As an atheist for most of my adult life, an intense amount of reading up on the history of social reformers generally persuaded me in my ’40s and ’50s that something very similar to deity was more probable than not after all. I still do not now view the reality of deity as certain, though, which is why I stick with “probable” instead. Also, history’s paper trail does not suggest to me that this deity phenomenon has all the attributes commonly ascribed to it in many, though not all, religions. For instance, although I tend to the assumption that deity may possibly be omniscient, I still don’t believe it’s omnipotent. That is, it may know all that goes on, but I do not credit the notion that it either micromanages or can micromanage a single thing. Also, I doubt that there is any kind of afterlife; and I have definitely not arrived at my general conclusions as to the likelihood, if not certainty, of deity through anything like faith. I’m not aware of ever having had such a “sensation” at all, in fact, and am generally uninterested in nebulous impressions of that kind. Reading and sifting many and varied accounts throughout history is more my speed.

What I’ll supply here is long, no question, and if Mr. Wilson and the other readers here have neither the patience nor the time to slog through this, I’ll quite understand. What I’m enclosing here are two different snapshots of two ways of thinking about what I’ve read, with certain portions of various reflections that unquestionably overlap. But they illustrate reasonably clearly (I hope) what changed this atheist into a believer — of sorts. I sometimes doubt that many a traditional orthodox believer in any known religion of today would even view me as a real believer at all. But I can say that I now feel that there is some kind of ever-present entity that, at the very least, inspires some people in a tangible way and abides with them from the cradle to the grave in some dimension outside of the three dimensions plus time that we all know as concrete.

Even more importantly, though, whatever the reality, or lack of same, behind many a religion, its social utility, and therefore its evolutionary utility re the strengthening of human community, assumes overriding importance in these reflections, as they do in Mr. Wilson’s.

Here’s “Snapshot no. 1″, written from the perspective of my erstwhile atheism –

SNAPSHOT NO. 1

This post involves, among 101 other things, an implicit query related to pioneers across the eons: Which pioneers have functioned as both “socially evolutionary” and as “Original”s? I’ll explain what I mean by these terms in more detail as we proceed. But I’ve decided to provide here two different lists first, showing a contrast that has bothered me considerably through the years. I may have already referred to this contrast in very general terms in other posts, but it’s time now to put some flesh and bones on that contrast, so others can judge its significance for themselves.

So here we go:

The first of the two lists shows many path-breaking and entirely original spins on social/cultural ethics that have emerged from founding pioneers who have, in the process, founded new and countercultural (for their time) theistic creeds as well, along with their _contextually evolutionary_ moral values –

(values that, as we’ll see, have little to do with so-called “sin”, really [ultimately, a red herring anyway, and fostered more by followers obsessed with exceptionalism than by the initial pioneers]) –

those initial pioneering moral values from the initial founders consisting primarily of salutary puncturing of socially thoughtless attitudes denying the humanity of all social misfits. These thoughtless attitudes are replaced by these pioneers with a constructive sense of responsibility for all without exception instead (“I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine”). All well and good, but why must the most far-reaching and original spinners on such social responsibility always drag in some brand new (and countercultural and initially nonconformist) theistic creed along with their independent social conscience?

Whatever each pioneer’s individual faults — and a few of them certainly have their individual personal flaws, no question — each one has shown clear originality for their time and place and culture in that they introduce, without prior precedent

1. the centrality of peace as the spine to all social values (Lugal-Shag-Egur of 3rd-century-B.C.E. Sumeria — but he also introduces the worship of a deity, Ningirsu, who’s conceived as a powerful god who safeguards all peace treaties)

2. the establishment of protections for the treatment of the socially downscale and the introduction of the concept “freedom” (Urukagina, the Sumerian reformer — but he also reconceives Ningirsu as the safeguard of the widow and the orphan [the first known use of this turn of phrase], thus instituting a new form of worship)

3. the notion that those who are afflicted and oppressed deserve the most respect and consideration of all (the writers of Exodus — but they also introduce the worship of a new god, Yahweh, who has “surely seen the affliction of my people .. and have heard their cry .. And I am come down to deliver them” — in contrast to all other gods of that period who safeguarded the mighty instead)

4. the fundamental concept of Yin and Yang (the writer of the I Ching [thought by some to be a certain Wen Wang] — but this text also introduces something called “Tian” [loose translation: "Heaven"] as a metaphysical bulwark of all that is)

5. the first conscientiously designed Constitution in the Western tradition, instituted as the Constitution of Orchomenus (Hesiod, nicknamed “hearth-founder” for his groundbreaking constitution — but he also introduces into literature the classic picture of the cosmos as conceived in ancient Greek tradition, with its pantheon of gods like Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, and so on)

6. the establishment of conventional wisdom as automatically suspect and the powerful’s use of the jackboot (so to speak) as intrinsically antithetical to all nature (the writer of the Tao-te-king, sometimes called Lao-Tzu — but this text also introduces a new form of worship, Taoism, which worships the Dao as [paraphrase] “the mystical source and ideal of all existence: it is unseen, but not transcendent, immensely powerful yet supremely humble, being the root of all things”)

7. the utter repudiation of any and all violence whatsoever and a rejection of a caste system and of any system that imposes any types of discriminatory levels on the human family at all (the originator of the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya, usually taken to be Buddha — but these sermons also reconceive a new Brahma, a deity now free of anger, pure of mind, free of malice, without wealth and free of worldly cares, capable of union with and inspiration of a sequence of “messengers” who “regard all with mind set free, and deep-felt pity, … sympathy, … equanimity”)

8. the primacy of reining in the arrogance and violence of those in power, advocating a new-minted reciprocal and considerate reform in political life instead, thus shaping the extraordinarily peaceful and stable culture of the Han dynasty (Confucius — but he also introduced the concept that all moral strength comes ultimately from “Tian”, a new wrinkle on the “Tian” of the I Ching)

9. ethics itself as the most important element in humanity’s existence together with a claimed capacity for anyone, from freeman to slave, to grasp it and master it better through continually sharpening self-knowledge (Socrates — but he also introduced his conviction that he could sometimes hear God’s own voice, when being dissuaded from a course of action that would not be right)

10. service to all and living purely for others, even loving one’s enemies, in expectation of the last being first and the first last (the writers of the various Gospels, Scriptural and non-Scriptural, in describing Jesus of Nazareth — but these texts also introduce a new Yahweh, who is merciful and loving, yes, but worship of whom is still yet another form of theistic creed)

11. the primacy of negotiating peace with one’s enemies on their own turf, going in unarmed at great personal risk, just in order to construct a peaceful existence for all peoples in the region, and the instituting of an automatic gift to the poor from all citizens (Mohammed, a reformed raider — but he also introduces a new god, Allah, who must be worshiped five times a day) and

12. a nuts-and-bolts path to total world peace in our modern world, and the first conception, within a combined political/theological context, of our globe as a single village long before other politicians ever took up this idea (Bahá’u’lláh — but he also re-introduces the modern world to a then-new conception of deity as the inspirer of a sequence of “messengers”, and therefore worthy of a new form of worship, Bahai).

That’s one list. Here’s the other:

This list starts off with certain genuinely upright and courageous nonbelievers throughout history that historians rarely talk about –

A) Mathias Knutzen, who described himself as the first “Conscientist” in a series of path-breaking pamphlets published in Central Europe in the 1670s:

‘We declare that God does not exist, we deeply despise the authorities and also reject the churches with all their priests. For us Conscientists the knowledge of a single person is insufficient, only that of the majority is sufficient, as in Luke, 24,39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (because a single person cannot see everything) and the conscience in combination with the knowledge. And this, the conscience, which the generous Mother Nature has given to all humans, replaces for us the bible — compare Romans, 2, 14-15: (14)”For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:” (15)”Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” — and the authorities; it is the true judge, as Gregory of Nazianzus testifies (“On his Father’s Silence, Because of the Plague of Hail,” paragraph 5: “Under what circumstances again is the righteous, when unfortunate, possibly being put to the test, or, when prosperous, being observed, to see if he be poor in mind or not very far superior to visible things, as indeed conscience, our interior and unerring tribunal, tells us”), and is valid for us instead of the priests, because this teacher teaches us to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his. When we fail to do this, I maintain, as this life is for us the only one we have, our entire life will seem like a host of plagues, even as a hell. If, however, we behave in a just manner, it will be like heaven. This, i.e. the conscience, comes into existence with our birth, and it also dies when we pass into death. These are the principles that are innate in us, and whoever rejects them, rejects himself.’

When we research these ethical principles of his — and their nub is, and actually presented in italics in the original German, “to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his” — we find that Knutzen, in setting this off in italics, is adopting another’s code that he sincerely admires rather than conceptualizing an original groundbreaking one of his own. He is borrowing here from the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian, a polytheist whose writings formed the backbone of the Justinian code.

B) Going back to the ancient Greeks, we have Democritus who urged that everyone be engaged in public service. Admirable sentiment, of course. The “asterisk” here is that this time it is his nonbelief that is not original with him, since he was an avid student of and proselytizer for Leukippos, the ingenious elder pioneer of the ancient Greek Atomist school, the first school to recognize that all life is composed of atoms. At the same time, it is clear from what little we have of Leukippos’s own voice that he himself was solely engaged in the close study of what many term purely as physics, with social justice and philosophy never an abiding interest. In fact, Epicurus appears to have remarked that Leukippos was no philosopher.

C) A century or so later, there is Theodorus, who is, unlike Democritus, an “autonomous” atheist, with no mentor or peer group behind him, and hence a true “Original” in that respect, and also a reasonable socially responsible philosopher. His brand of philosophical hedonism, though, partakes partly of Epicurus’s more thoughtful spin on hedonism and more directly of Aristippus’s mild hedonism, the latter having pioneered the Cyrenaic school. Again, then, we have someone who is not entirely an “Original”, this time adopting, albeit sincerely, others’ ethical tenets.

D) Then there is Stratton, another upright original atheist, seemingly uninfluenced by forebears like Theodorus and/or Democritus and/or Leukippos. His (sincere) ethics, though, constitute a wholehearted adoption of the Socratic model.

E) In the C.E., there is even a genuine martyr of freethought, Vanini. His tongue was amputated and he was strangled and burned at the stake. On his way to this ghastly ordeal, he stated he wished to die “en philosophe” — with equanimity. He was an avid student of Aristotle, whose concept of the Good Life had deeply impressed this brave nonbeliever. At the same time, where Aristotle states that the Good Life resides ultimately in contemplation, Vanini had enthusiastically adopted the then-new variation on that construct, promulgated by a thinker of his own time whom he adopted as his more immediate model, Pomponazzi. Pomponazzi may be the first to advance the notion that all religions contain a kernel of the truth, but Vanini, a nonbeliever, probably had little interest in that. What he did adopt enthusiastically from Pomponazzi — and lived and died by — was Pomponazzi’s variation on Aristotle: Instead of the Good Life residing ultimately in contemplation, Pomponazzi stated that the Good Life resides ultimately in moral action. Vanini was courageous but not an “Original” in holding fast to this formulation at his very last hour.

Will there be, at some point in future history, a figure like one of these, who is just as much a moral model as one of these, but also at the same time an answer in autonomous “original”ity to the 12 cases of pioneering countercultural theisms cited further up. None of these nonbelievers cited here have that double “original”ity, both of creed and of ethics, that the 12 theist groundbreakers (above) have. They’re either “original” in one respect or the other but never both, unlike the first list.

So far — and I’ve beaten my head against a wall on this, researching this to a fare-thee-well, so I feel fairly confident in saying this — no one of this nonbeliever description has been an “Original” in both respects. The question is, Will such a transforming nonbeliever figure who can “evolve” our species come along before humanity extinguishes itself in some ghastly conflagration brought on by religious strife? So far, only total “Original”s have brought cultures back from the sociopathic brink in the past (and all of them counterculturalists in their respective theisms rather than their atheisms), with those dedicated nonbeliever advocates who dot the landscape with some already-mooted ideas being merely consigned to “big yawn” status (like the ethically impeccable but ineffective Vanini).

Of course, it is not a case of there being all that few nonbelievers in every age. There are a number, if you know where to look and what to read (encyclopedias are generally a waste of time). The thing is, they have not seized everyone’s imagination in the same decisive way — yet. And I think that can be traced to the fact that we have not had a total “Original” among those who are indeed morally perceptive — yet.

F) The very earliest (known) pioneering nonbeliever was a signal failure in terms of any new culture arising out of his example, even though he certainly had both an entirely original creed and entirely original “ethics”, unlike those unbelievers cited above. But when one studies what he said, it’s not hard to see why his example failed to gain a significant shelf life, although he did have a few adherents for about a century or so (a mere blip in human history). He was the ancient Indian thinker Brhaspati (not to be confused with other figures named Brhaspati in ancient Indian culture), the pioneer of the ancient Indian Lokayata school of philosophy. Here’s some bits of what he said:

“There is neither god nor liberation” [i.e., an afterlife]. “Moreover, earth, water, fire and air are the four forms of matter. The only valid form of knowledge is the one produced by the senses.” “There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid impostors of other schools of thought.”

“There is no heaven, no final liberation,
nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes,
orders, or priesthoods produce any real effect.”

And his “ethics”?

“Merit and demerit also do not exist.” “The pleasure that is produced in a person due to the obtainment of the desired and the avoidance of the undesired is useless.” “gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
“The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others” [OUCH! So much for social responsibility].

“While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee [an extremely expensive and fattening butter] though he runs in debt”.

It’s always struck me that here, and not in Brhaspati’s avowal of total unbelief, we have the reason why he failed to capture a whole culture’s imagination (despite his number of adherents for a century or so). Most people just like to think of themselves as caring and compassionate, whether or not they really are, and when a philosophy fails to address the needs of others in ways that presuppose that everyone hearing them is naturally as upright as the day is long (;-), such philosophies eventually get tuned out, as happened to Brhaspati. His example (as the earliest known atheist) may even have done incalculable damage to the cause of atheism for centuries, if not millennia. The “ethics” may simply have turned too many people off.

All this does not gainsay the fact that sociopathic philosophies can still exert a hold of sorts if advanced with enough charisma and cunning. But they don’t tend to transform whole cultures for more than a couple of centuries, at most. Those “ethics” that have longer influence than that are, sooner or later, the more stable ones that effectively include greater numbers within the “social compact”. Inclusiveness just yields greater long-term stability. Yes, there can be appalling suffering so long as a sociopathic philosophy prevails. And it can last for as long as two or three lifetimes. But it is ultimately self-destructive and unstable through its very cruelty.

Brhaspati’s (relatively) poor reception may be an object lesson for today. If anyone wants to be respected as proselytizing atheists, they may have to advance a clearly responsible and universally caring ethical/social/cultural code (a la the 12 theist paradigms cited at the top here), or the underlying idea — in this case, atheism — may have a hard journey indeed. It could even be that latter-day nonbelieving “self-centered-ists” like Rand and Nietzsche (and Hobbes, to an extent) have done just as much long-term damage to atheists as Brhaspati may have, due precisely to the same lack of a caring ethic.

That concludes the second list.

Someone once asked me ironically –

“So, the “good” influence of religion lies in its tendency to make people follow leaders, and if the leaders happen to be good, then religion has had a good influence?” –

with the ironic subtext that religion is the best way to make people follow some perfectly awful pioneers as well.

I would respond that while “Original” plus sociopathic can make a devastating cultural impact, that which is both “original” and altruistic tends to have a longer and stronger influence. Unfortunately, that which is originally altruistic has to apparently be presented in an entirely new and original package as well in order to establish any foothold inside any culture. That’s what history seems to teach us anyway. So far, any such successful original packages have been exclusively theistic, although counterculturally so. That shows that religion, provided it’s a new counter-cultural religion, has been the only effective carrier of such good — and original — ethical ideas — thus far. Unfortunately, it has been an effective carrier of some pretty noxious ideas as well ……………

Now, is religion — a new countercultural religion, that is — the only package in which good — and “original” — ethical ideas can take strong root in a culture on the brink of sociopathic collapse? That’s the million-dollar question. Fact is, we don’t know the answer for sure. It would obviously be important if an atheist as thoroughly original (for his immediate culture) as Brhaspati could fire the imaginations of enough people to jump-start more environmentally and socially responsible habits on a global scale today. But that would need a much more socially responsible social ethic than the apparently disreputable Brhaspati could muster up in himself almost three thousand years ago.

Is there a possibility that our brains are actually wired in such a way so that we (the majority of us, that is) only respond as a culture or a whole species to ideas that are both good/original when, and only when, they are also “clothed” in new counter-cultural theisms? Is religion then somehow a neccessary evolutionary building block of some sort for human community? It is these thoughts that are teasing me now, and I wonder if any up-to-date evolutionary specialists may eventually address this question. [FROM TODAY: I am delighted to see Mr. Wilson doing precisely this in the above article!]

One can’t help wondering, What would have happened to ancient India had Brhaspati coupled his pioneering nonbelief with an ethical code a century ahead of Buddha’s (he came approx. a century ahead of Buddha) in its all-embracing sense of social responsibility and caring? Would Brhaspati’s ideas have still ended up in the same obscure circular file they’re in today, or would his ideas have then transformed much of Asia into a region eventually free of religion altogether? The only region of the world like that? If we knew the answer to that question, we would know if the majority of our brains invariably require some form of ever-new religion (that is, necessarily counter-cultural) in order to also “take in” good/”original” ethics that periodically save us from the full horrors of sociopathic apathy, or if they can also “take in” such good/”original” ethics in some other creedal package instead, including nonbelief, provided that that package is just as soundly “original” and autonomous from its immediate culture as would be the “original”/good ethics confronting such a doomed culture in the first place under this scenario.

That concludes “Snapshot no. 1″. Now here’s “Snapshot no. 2″ written from the standpoint of having concluded that some kind of deity is more likely than not –

SNAPSHOT NO. 2

As an atheist for most of my life, I never had any difficulty accepting that evolution has been shown as scientifically verifiable and that Genesis remains strictly a myth. Today, I would have no quarrel with any part of that conclusion at all. Consequently, for me, the dynamics of speciation within evolution and of individual fitness development for individual species are central to any understanding of what makes humanity tick.

In my 30s and 40s, I became fascinated with, and a compulsive reader of, any and all written treatments of and on the various ways in which individual species manage to thrive and grow stronger and more fit in a variety of ways. And I began to be intrigued by the various steps through which humanity had managed to thrive and adapt in its behavior sufficiently to develop the kind of close cohesion within certain communities that we see today.

To begin with, I’d guess that moral/ethical codes are an inevitable development for any species dependent on socialization of any kind, the way humanity clearly is. That guess alone got me interested in turn in all countercultural manifestations throughout the ages of socially frowned on expressions of solidarity with the helpless and the left out.

At the same time, it’s basically a chicken/egg problem to me, I guess: When I studied history as an adult non-believer, I approached it pretty much as a natural phenomenon akin to something described in any modern primer on evolution. Since I’ve never bought into the presumed dichotomy of nature versus civilization — primarily since our civilizations seem to me an expression of our nature anyway — I’ve always viewed all of our ethical values as contingent responses at discrete levels of our natural development. This became a chicken/egg problem to me because when reading up on history as a non-believer it struck me forcefully that the natural processes by which the earliest ethical codes expressing solidarity with the vulnerable have come about inevitably seem to entail some particular individual’s expressed awareness — hallucinatory or not — of some new and deeply personal and visceral sense of deity as well, usually a countercultural and risky “spin” on deity at that, personally dangerous to the given individual in her/his particular culture at the time.

So it’s a chicken/egg problem because often it’s impossible to tell if the “hallucination” of a deity inspires the new ethical code or the new ethical code inspires some newly minted “spin”/”hallucination” of a deity. Certainly, at the least, there often seems to be an oddly symbiotic relationship between the two.

Yet before jumping to any conclusions on this, I got keenly interested in the history of the opposite side of the coin: the pioneering self-centered philosophies instead. Recent evolutionary studies like those from Edward O. Wilson and others seem to show that when certain species whose daily existence depends heavily on socialization subsequently develop a support system that regularly looks out for the more helpless among them, that species tends to thrive better than those that stall at a discrete point due primarily to individually selfish behavioral patterns that are ultimately a species’ undoing (in many cases). If modern evolutionary studies from Ed Wilson et al reveal self-centered behavioral patterns as being ultimately self-destructive to their species — as indeed they do — then what exactly make similar self-centered philosophies in humanity’s own history tick? Why do they arise? How do they arise?

Most importantly, what is the earliest (extant) example of an unequivocal self-centered philosophy overtly deaf to any claim on society by the more helpless among us? That question can be answered. It is the ancient Lokayata philosophy in ancient India, ca. the 7th century B.C.E. No earlier such philosophy can be traced. There may have been some earlier such philosophies, but this is the earliest for which we have any info. This philosophy claims, first of all, that resting places and watering holes for travelers are a waste of time and designed only for people who, being indigent, are therefore of no value. It also decries the notion of general dining invitations to people in the neighborhood, decrying these precisely because they are ultimately of benefit to the indigent only while inconveniencing those of greater substance and therefore of greater worth. Instead, it should be the interests of oneself only that guides individual behavior. Here is the earliest direct quote of the founder of Lokayata, Brhaspati:

“Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
“The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others.
“The Agnihotra ritual, the three Vedas, the triple staff, the ash-smearing, are the ways of gaining a livelihood for those who are lacking in intellect and energy.”

Now, an odd coincidence here: Lokayata is not only the earliest overtly self-centered philosophy extant. It is also the earliest extant overtly atheist philosophy as well. Ascertaining the latter gave me, as an atheist, a bit of a shock, I can tell you. At the same time, I still think it very likely that certain primitive theistic assumptions (addressing the how and/or the why of the intricate ways of this universe) should still be viewed with some wariness today. And I have to say that I also view warily certain primitive concepts of deity itself that still prevail today as well. But the behavioral tendencies of those countercultural figures throughout time who feel a visceral sense of deity around them (such as Buddha et al) and link this with a pioneering “spin” on altruism, versus those tendencies of those who counterculturally articulate both self-centeredness and nonbelief as a linked philosophy, certainly make one wonder which philosophies are more conducive to a thriving and evolving human community, as described by Ed Wilson et al.

This accorded with a general pattern for all the pioneers in non-belief down the centuries. Lokayata is not alone in advocating a self-centered way of life instead of a caring one. The earliest extant overt articulation of atheism in ancient Greek literature comes from Critias, who was the ruthless leader of the Thirty Tyrants at the end of the Pelopenesian(sp.?) War, at the end of the 5th century B.C.E. The earliest overt expression of atheism in Enlightenment France comes from the early 1700s, from Jean Meslier, who linked his posthumously issued atheism with a call to brain everyone who disagreed with him, and a wish that every noblemen might be strangled with the ripped-out guts of every remaining priest (evidently a believer in collective punishment……..)

I was thus disappointed to find that, although there have been plenty of atheist social reformers of great altruism — one thinks of humanitarians like Bertrand Russell, or Mr. Ingersoll, or Baron Holbach — there does not seem to be a single such altruist who actually introduced both her/his new atheism and her/his own pioneering ethical code at the same time — symbiotically — and whose twin introduction of same resulted in a “fast-tracked” cultural impact on everyone around her/him. This contrasts with the picture for countercultural theist altruists.

Now, within the four corners of this phenomenon, the strict historical approach would be to ascertain which factor is the variable that causes such a pattern to obtain for one group (countercultural theists) and not the other (countercultural atheists)? If this evolving process for ethical codes comes from nature itself, and I would guess that it does for precisely the reasons provided by Ed Wilson et al, then how can the “hallucination” process of deity from specific — (?)highly attuned(?) — counterculturalists not come from the same thing, nature? — particularly since it so frequently has this symbiotic relationship with ethical evolution? Of course, ascribing the “hallucination” of deity to the general nature of our species still doesn’t automatically make deity real. It just makes the “hallucination” natural and inevitable, which says nothing about its reality. But since the practical value of evolving ethical codes seem all too real and urgent to me, not an illusion at all but an urgent reality without which our species would eventually sink into anarchy, I have to ask why an individual direct deity “hallucination” isn’t also reality-based after all, given the (apparent) symbiotic relationship between the two — “hallucination” of deity and insightful countercultural ethics — throughout history.

If someone could uncover a peer-bucking atheist who introduced her/his atheism out of whole cloth to her/his own culture and did so in tandem with a profound social reform of that culture of some kind, the apparent monopoly that countercultural theist “spinners” have on jump-starting this seemingly natural process of evolving ethical codes throughout history would be broken. There would then be no reason at all for explaining this “hallucinatory”(?) deity phenomenon among the most altruistic and impactful pioneers. I could simply drop this notion of deity as something real altogether. But right now, given the historic patterns I’ve observed, it would seem intellectually dishonest for me to ignore the possibility of deity entirely. Even the introducer of the first thoroughly atheistic philosophy in Western Europe of the second millennium C.E., Matthias Knutzen in the late 1670s, while his ethics happen to be quite other-centered, shapes the ethics of his philosophy around the injunctions of another, the Roman jurist, Ulpian, instead of arriving at a new “spin” on altruism of his own.

I should add, BTW, that I don’t think I have any great emotional attachment to my newest conclusions that deity is (probably) real after all. If this described monopoly pattern were to be broken, I would then calmly conclude that I was originally correct to be an atheist. But right now, since it seems intellectually dishonest for me to stick with my erstwhile atheism, I won’t do that. At the same time, the most extensively documented figures who articulate new and deeply personal “spins” on deity and new “spins” on altruism symbiotically — Buddha, Socrates, Christ — are not agreed on an afterlife. So I still feel the jury is out on an afterlife, even though I now view deity itself as a probability and no longer a possibility.

Clearly, atheists are just as likely to feel the call of the helpless on our conscience as are any believers. The question is not Are all atheists all-good or all-bad? In fact, they show the same mix of good and bad common to the rest of the human family. Instead, the question is, Where do humanitarians like Russell get their inspiration?

The key point here is that the startups of pioneering countercultural expressions of atheism within many historic communities and cultures always seem linked with countercultural calls to unalloyed self-centeredness, and vice versa, while the startups of pioneering countercultural conceptions of deity within many historic communities and cultures always seem linked with countercultural calls to unalloyed altruism, and vice versa. These curious symbiotic relationships at the startups of creeds on either side of the divide appear to hold firm throughout history. It’s only later in the history of these creeds that positions sometimes get reversed: Hateful figures like Torquemada sometimes emerge who warp a theistic philosophy of caring into a savage orgy of blood, even as peaceful and humane figures like Holbach and Ingersoll similarly tend to emerge who then transform an initially callous atheistic philosophy bent only on self-satisfaction into a gentle warning that the people at large should eat something more than just cake……… (BTW, contrary to some assumptions, Robespierre, one of the most brutal of the French Revolution’s leaders, actually singled out atheists for the guillotine[!] along with the royalty and the nobility, being a devout believer himself — oh yes! — so it’s a canard that atheism was always at the back of the most brutal tendencies of the Fr. Rev. — unless one blames everything on Meslier, of course.)

Since I view humanity today as staring down the barrel of “perfect storm” conditions for its imminent extinction within one or two generations at most, either through ecological collapse or WMDs run amok or something else even more horrific, it is imperative that all our available brain power be used in ascertaining as accurately as possible each and every comma of whatever was said or done by figures like Buddha, or Jesus — or Tolstoy, or Gandhi, or Mandela, etc. We must gain a proper understanding of how these ethical insights were arrived at in the first place. Knowing exactly what was said and understanding precisely the mainsprings behind what was said is more important than anything. Knowledge is power. And it took the writings of the sometimes skeptical Jesus Seminar researchers to make me see this, and it was my own historical research that made me see as well that deity might quite likely be behind such insights. For the first time in my life, I took Scripture seriously: at the least, it is one of humanity’s preserved written laboratories of altruism versus self-centeredness in a fearsome agon.

So, when we have a closer knowledge of whatever facilitated a Buddha’s or a Christ’s transformative impact on a selfish culture, we’ll have a better knowledge of how we can trigger the better angels of our nature today without the jackboot (which is already a sell-out right there) and thus stave off the imminent extinction that not only seems highly likely today but — IMO — totally inevitable under current circumstances within many of our current lifetimes. Wherever the Seminar works of Borg or Crossan or others lead us, that can only be to the good. Wherever biological or chemical or general scientific research leads us, that can only be to the good –

http://www.slate.com/id/2165026/

– . If such research leads us to the conclusion that something other than deity is at the back of these altruistic cultural reformers, then that’s fine. If it confirms my working conclusion that deity is the common denominator behind these altruistic cultural reformers, then that’s fine too. This question is worth pursuing today because we have no other choice. The selfishness and the smallness and the violence and the stubbornness of most world leaders today have left us with no choice. We have to pursue this kind of study, whether it be of Jesus or of Urukagina (the earliest known cultural reformer of all [in ancient Sumeria]), without fear or favor. Otherwise, we can kiss our grandchildren’s adulthood goodbye.

Finally, putting all that aside, I would have to say that, while I’m no longer an atheist, and while I now accept a concept of deity, I don’t necessarily believe in deity as conceptualized in any one creed. If forced to choose, I feel more comfortable choosing particular individuals as models of ethical fitness rather than institutional creeds. And if forced to choose certain individuals, then I’d say that the most closely vetted individuals via modern secular scholarship who appear to have genuine interaction with deity of some kind, and whose ethics also seem to stand up to the strictest scrutiny, appear to be Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Socrates and Jesus of Nazareth (Christ). We probably come closer to the essence of deity by restricting ourselves to the earlest textual strata on these three figures specifically, courtesy of modern secular scholarship, than we do by adherence to any one creed.

That concludes “Snapshot no. 2″. Again, I realize this is quite a mouthful, but I simply have not had time to adjust these two different sets of reflections written at different stages of my thinking — no time to adjust them into a single account that removes overlaps. Regrets for that.

Thanks for slogging through all this!

Cheers,

Stone

Peter Holmgren, Cognitive Psychologist