More Americans are nonreligious. Who are they and what do they believe?
More Americans are nonreligious. Who are they and what do they believe?
A new report by the Pew Research Center finds that the number of Americans with no religious affiliation — known as the “nones“ — is now nearly 30 percent.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm not religious. I believe the universe is an accident, and we are a consequence of its randomness. We exist not for a higher purpose, we just exist because stuff happened and we came out of it, like the rest of the universe. Life is random. Nothing is written, none of it is happening for a reason. It's all chaos and we're part of it.
We were cells in the ocean, which, the ocean by itself was already a miracle so big it's basically a mathematical impossibility. And from these cells, we eventually became these weird, mostly hairless apes that are so smart that they can think about the fact that they're on a giant ball lost in space, moving at ludicrous speed through the vastness of space, kept alive by a giant ball of fire that will give them cancer if they bask in it's glory for too long or make them blind if they look at it too long.
It's absolute chaos. And I find all of this to be oddly comforting. I even find it to be beautiful in it's own way. Life is amazing because it's all an accident, it's all random and it's astonoshing to see the results. But I also get how absolutely terrifying what I just said could be to a lot of people.
So the saying goes, "relax, nothing is under control."
I came out of and abandoned the evangelical Christianity that I was raised in. However, I did NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater. I went on to critically examine the Judaic-Christian tradition further. 20 years I spent studying academic biblical scholarship and founded Ask Bible Scholars and AskBibleScholars.com.
In the middle of this adventure, I discovered the Jewish philosopher Abraham Joshua Heschel. One of his best books, in my opinion, is entitled God in Search of Man : A Philosophy of Judaism.
Here are some quotes from said work:
Theology starts with dogmas. Philosophy sees the problem first; theology has the answer in advance. Philosophy is a kind of thinking that has a beginning but no end; the problems outlive all solutions.
We teach children how to measure and weigh, but fail to teach them how to revere, how to sense wonder and awe. Modern man fell into the trap of believing all enigmas can be solved and wonder is a form of ignorance. Mankind will not perish for want of information, but for want of appreciation.
What is, is more than what you see; we are unable to attain insight into the ultimate meaning and purpose of things. We live on the fringe of reality and hardly know how to reach the core. Inaccessible to us are the insights into the nature of ultimate reality. Even what is revealed is incomplete and in disguise.
Awe is an act of insight into a meaning greater than ourselves. Knowledge is fostered by curiosity; wisdom is fostered by awe. Awe is the awareness of transcendent meaning; loss of awe is a great blockage to insight.
"The ineffable" is a synonym for hidden meaning rather than for absence of meaning, a dimension so real and sublime that it stuns our ability to adore it. All creative thinking comes out of an encounter with the unknown. It is a fact of profound significance that we can sense more than we can say.
The world as scrutinized and depicted by science is but a thin surface of the profoundly unknown.
Accidents happen and, at the same time, I will embrace the ineffable.
Would, uh, that be God's ineffable plan? (with apologies to Pratchett and Gaiman)
No, it's taken from the Heschel quote in my OP...here it is again:
“The ineffable” is a synonym for hidden meaning rather than for absence of meaning, a dimension so real and sublime that it stuns our ability to adore it.
I think that was a Good Omens reference
A couple of these quotes come off as pretty condescending. I'm not sure if that is because of lack of context, or just a general failing of the author to see outside their worldview.
This seems to the worst offender.
We teach children how to measure and weigh, but fail to teach them how to revere, how to sense wonder and awe. Modern man fell into the trap of believing all enigmas can be solved and wonder is a form of ignorance. Mankind will not perish for want of information, but for want of appreciation.
So many people around me have an appreciation for life and pass on wonder to their children. I think it is even more prevalent in my non-religious friends.
The rest of them are not as bad, but still don't sit right with me.
What is, is more than what you see; we are unable to attain insight into the ultimate meaning and purpose of things. We live on the fringe of reality and hardly know how to reach the core. Inaccessible to us are the insights into the nature of ultimate reality.
The author may not realize it, but this is a situation they supposed the answer in advance as they criticized in the first quote. They pre-supposed the existence of an ultimate meaning or that there is an ultimate reality beyond our current understanding.
Even what is revealed is incomplete and in disguise.
I am not sure what they mean by this. Are they claiming there is a supernatural element to everything?
Awe is an act of insight into a meaning greater than ourselves. Knowledge is fostered by curiosity; wisdom is fostered by awe. Awe is the awareness of transcendent meaning; loss of awe is a great blockage to insight.
“The ineffable” is a synonym for hidden meaning rather than for absence of meaning, a dimension so real and sublime that it stuns our ability to adore it. All creative thinking comes out of an encounter with the unknown.
These are both just kind of word salad that is trying to be deep. I could see if it was meant to be poetry, but if it is meant to be philosophy it kind of fails.
It is a fact of profound significance that we can sense more than we can say.
This is a very bold claim. What exactly is it that we can sense but not vocalize?
The world as scrutinized and depicted by science is but a thin surface of the profoundly unknown.
This is the entire basis of science. Science wants to find out the unknown. It is based in curiosity.
I am not trying to criticize belief. As long as your beliefs don't infringe on other people's lives, I am a-ok with them. What I am criticizing is the author's view on non-spiritually minded folks. The quotes presented here make it seem like those of us that aren't spiritual lack an awe for the world around us, lack curiosity, and lack creativity. That is condescending as hell.
Like I said, I may be missing context, but the quotes as presented rub me the wrong way.