to all the atheist on sciforums

[baumgarten]

I wouldn't call it a need, more of a default setting for the human mind. Life gives us an incomplete data set, spirituality, religion, etc. helps fill in the holes and interpret it. Something happens we don't understand, so we make up stories.

I wonder, are people more likely to be born with a scientific outlook, or a religious one? Or, as thinking machines, religion is a product of logic?

Humans are naturally inquisitive and logical, so one could say that they are born with a scientific outlook. However, humans are also naturally emotional and socially sensitive, so one could say that they are born with a religious mindset. I don't believe that the tendencies are mutually exclusive, though it seems that different personalities tend to favor one or the other.

As for deities and spirituality, different theologies can vary greatly, so some may appear to be more logical than others. I view them as both real and subjective: if it works for you, it's as valid as solid ground, but only for you. I am not a subscriber to the belief that there is one true religion or god, so I find the subjectivity of religion evident in the great diversity of its various incarnations around the world and throughout history.

To me, they are all different ways of approaching the same issue regarding the nature of our own existence. A society can use this issue as the cornerstone for its entire culture, and when this happens, it becomes a religion. My short answer, then, is that while spirituality is in some way a basic individual need for every human, religion is a social invention. This notion rings true even among staunch atheists, who often, in a sense, use the teachings of the scientific community as their religion and empiricism (more often in its popular connotation than the formal one) as their spirituality.

 

[john smith]

atheist:yes there is an inbuilt need

is the one i voted for.

I believe, that many people would like to believe that something/someone, in a spiritual sense, is there to guide us.

:m:

 

[mis-t-highs]

john are you sure you should have choosen (atheist:yes) and not (theist:yes) or agnostic.

you dont sound like an atheist to me, atheist have no belief in god/gods, so dont believe in anything to guide us.

as you've put your vote in the wrong place you made the whole poll void.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I would question the logic, of any atheist, who could possibly believe we have a need for gods, this was the theist position, in another thread, that drew geeser to post this, however geeser have you worded it correctly.

diogene's dog stated this "we may be born having a very direct experience of God."and this "And as for our persistent inbuilt craving for God" and then this knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty . You seemed to think this idea was "rubbish" and a "supposition" when I proposed it."then he said "need for the spiritual" his meaning for this was and is purely religious, however some of the atheist on here who choose yes, I dont believe they meant "religious need".
if they did then how can they call themselves atheist.

"Spiritual needs" may not be religious. In the debate wiith geeser I quoted Einstein's desire for...

"knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty"

...and also Dennett's (who is an atheist) curiosity as the biological drivers that gave rise to his own urge to "make the leap of faith" (which he resists).

These I evidenced as "spiritual needs" which are compatible with Maslow's "transcendence needs" at the top of his hierarchy. You can be an atheist and feel such a need, but put it down (as Dennett (and Phlogiston) do) purely to our biology, or as Freudian analysts (Kleinians, Object-Relationists etc.) do - to unmet childhood needs.

Personally, I regard such a need as a healthy "call to growth". But then as a theist, I would wouldn't I!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

This thread isn't about a need for 'God'. It's about a need for spirituality.

 

[john smith]

john are you sure you should have choosen (atheist:yes) and not (theist:yes) or agnostic.

you dont sound like an atheist to me, atheist have no belief in god/gods, so dont believe in anything to guide us.

Yes but i don't actually believe there is a god/gods to guide us, i said i thought people would like to believe that something such as this exists.

People seem to need a reason to exist, and the most common 'reason' they find is that of a god.

as you've put your vote in the wrong place you made the whole poll void.

I don't think i have, and if i have i'm sorry.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

This thread isn't about a need for 'God'. It's about a need for spirituality.

Succinctly put C-Cat. I'd say that belief in "God" is only one way of answering the "need for spirituality". You could also fulfil it through Buddhism or Yoga or Theoretical Physics (Einstein?) or something else and remain an atheist.

I think JS's post above is very honest, and not at all contradictory.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

to crunchy, john smith and all the other atheists, if it were about a need for god would you have voted the same.

 

[mis-t-highs]

"Spiritual needs" may not be religious. In the debate wiith geeser I quoted Einstein's desire for

yes you did, but not until after you refered to it, as this we may be born having a very direct experience of God.and then this a God shaped hole, dennett.. You were quite clearly refering to a god hole not the need for the spiritual.
which is what I gathered, from the debate.

 

[john smith]

to crunchy, john smith and all the other atheists, if it were about a need for god would you have voted the same.

No, spirituality and religion (God) are two very very different things.

I believe myself to be spiritual, but i have no belief what-so-ever in a God, or any form of religion.

Two different things.

:m:

 

[Crunchy Cat]

to crunchy, john smith and all the other atheists, if it were about a need for god would you have voted the same.

Nope.