philosophy, logic, supernaturalConsider the following examples: astrology, talismans for luck, belief in ghosts, and fortune telling. I’ll call them “smaller mysticisms.” They share similar traits:
belief in something “extra” to the physical world
operation of a force not explained by science
fervent advocacy of the truth behind the example by respective believer
frequent claims of a singular “experience” that prompted belief in the example
evidence/argument not befitting the rules of science/logic to substantiate the example
However- they do not necessarily presuppose a deity or deities. We can reject them on logical/scientific grounds. But must they be rejected on atheistic grounds?
I am interested in both the yes and no answers because both pose interesting follow-up queries:
Wouldn’t an answer of “no” open room in atheism for supernatural beliefs as long as they do not contain expressions of belief in a deity?
Does an answer of “yes” indicate atheism is more than just a lack of belief in any deity. Further, wouldn’t this make it a rejection of all things not upheld by logic/science?
Or, finally, is atheism varied enough to allow for both answers?
If you are asking a semantic question–can one be an atheist and believe in astrology, for instance–then the answer is “yes, one can”. As long as it’s not theism (and none of the things that you listed are), then an atheist is semantically entitled to believe in it if they wish.
However, if one is an atheist because one rejects belief without some sort of decent experimental or experiential validation, then one should logically reject all such beliefs, not just theistic ones. This ought to include all the smaller mysticisms you listed. Furthermore, atheists of this sort who react strongly and negatively to theistic beliefs ought, to be consistent, to have equally strong negative reactions to other mystic beliefs.
Aren’t religions just collections of such smaller mysticisms? When I look at catholicism, where I have a little insight, they central myth stops at the death of their central figure, and it’s rising. And ascension. And Whitsun. But there it stops. Nearly. Paulus wrote his letters, Johannes made some assumptions about 4 hourses and such.
And then there is a second ringbone of holy figures, mainly from the first centuries.
And then you have the fetishes all over the place, particles of the cross, holy clothes, the Shroud of Turin, holy sandals and myths all over, where people do pilgrims to. In the US you have wonders in TV-shows, don’t you?
All this is pullulating around a kernel of something, which was a usuriousness itself.
There is no sharp border, where the one thing stops, and the other begins. You will find priests which don’t believe in any holyness beside god, and others which see holy signs on a daily basis.
I reject most of this on atheistic grounds, but I must not - I don’t have the time to reject anything - most things I just ignore. :)
If no [god] exists as the explanation of the phenomena, there is no atheist need to reject something.
Although supernaturalism is not necessarily rejected by atheists by virtue of rejecting god claims or religion, there is certainly a correlation between atheism and the rejection of non-natural explanations about the world.
Varied as it is, an atheism for each atheist, it seems contradictory to uphold supernatural explanations without proof (tarot), while dismissing others ([god]). This is not to say atheism is something more than the lack of belief in [god]. In both cases we are looking at a default position; one not of rejection, but lack of upholding. Despite the atheist position being frequently framed as a rejection, it is just a non-observance of the status quo. Non-observance of tarot on the other hand is an observance of the status quo. In both cases it is by coincidence.
Phrased differently, atheism is a symptom of not upholding supernatural explanations without proof.
I think the answer to your question is related at least partially to the question of falsifiability – to inject some of the philosophy of science into things. There are things out there (like the cosmos as a whole) which are greater than us as either individuals, our species as a collective, or even the whole world. It’s when people start assigning an unproven or unprovable intelligence to those “things” that make them run afoul with credibility. Astrology is a good example of this: we know that the gravitational pull of one celestial object can have an influence on other objects. (That explains the tides…). Is it possible, then, that Venus could have some minute influence on something here on earth? Sure. But it wouldn’t be as black and white as your astrologer would have you believe and it most certainly wouldn’t have a different influence on me than it would on you because we were born at different times. Whatever could hypothetically be demonstrated from the relative positions of the stars and planets, your horoscope isn’t it.
The same holds true for other smaller mysticisms. If they’re trying to demonstrate something that science could at some point also demonstrate, I’d ask them to demonstrate it. Until then, though, they are at best a pseudoscience.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.