I enjoyed your examination of the ways that belief in secular values can be similar to religious belief, but am totally unpersuaded by your call for the non-religious to use the word "God". Taking two of the reasons you give,
1.
> It lets us speak to religious people on their own terms, and understand them better
I don't see how a believer and a non-believer, both using the word "God" (but, by definition, meaning different things) could do anything but frustrate understanding. If, by "religious people", you don't actually mean people who _truly_ believe a particular religion (maybe you shunt all those people to the "fundamentalist" category), than both sides would be engaging in dishonesty by referring to God.
Additionally, this reason comes off as extremely patronizing. "I don't really believe in the supernatural stuff, but I'll use your 'God' word so you dumb dumbs can understand me."
2.
> I want to reclaim the term “God” from the only people who seem fully comfortable using it today: religious fundamentalists... By ceding it to fundamentalists, I fear we have given them control of our shared future.
I truly do not understand what you are referring to, here. Who are the religious fundamentalists that you fear we are in danger of giving control of the future to?
If anyone has unjustly "claimed" the word "God", surely it is not the "fundamentalist" who actually mean it literally. I don't see how you feel you have the moral high ground to "reclaim" it.
---
Again, I enjoyed your engagement with these ideas, and appreciate you putting your thoughts out there.
Thanks for the constructive criticism, this cuts to the heart of the matter.
My main goal was to give non-religious people handles to understand what religious people mean when they use the word "God", instead of dismissing them outright. When a religious person is speaking to an atheist about God, the atheist is often imagining some cartoon like an old bearded man in the sky sitting on a cloud, which makes serious communication impossible. In contrast, an atheist that interprets God as speaking about the collective subconscious and self-fulfilling prophecies will understand religious claims much better (never perfectly! but this is a matter of degree not kind, no two religious people really mean the same thing when they say "God" either).
I agree that communication in reverse is harder. Most "true believers" I share these ideas with bounce off them, which makes sense - religion is often sacred (c.f. https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/explain-the-sacredhtml) and sacredness involves refusing to apply certain methods of analysis, such as the scientific method, to the sacred object. I also don't think you can become a true believer via analysis - I agree with Carlyle here.
I'm still very confused about this, but one thing that gives me hope is that there have been true believers, from Boyle to Emerson, who saw no contradiction between direct perception, received tradition, and the scientific method. They saw all three as crucial ways to understand the truth of the universe and the nature of God. Blinding yourself to any one of them is what makes one a "fundamentalist". But perhaps this belief that God is One, and that all methods of truth-seeking point to the same underlying object, makes me a fundamentalist in my own way.
I think you're on the right track, in your attempt to help non-religious people understand the religious; I just think telling them to go around talking about a big-G God they don't believe in is bad advice.
Thanks for taking my feedback in the spirit (no, not that kind of spirit!) it was intended. I followed you because of your terrific "Marginal User" post, and am interested to see your other interests.
I like that ... "under the cover of irony, it allows us to communicate more sincerely and more vulnerably. This language feels right. It unlocks forms of communication and togetherness I hadn’t experienced before." ... not sure it would work for me, but I find this interesting ... thanks for sharing.
I enjoyed your examination of the ways that belief in secular values can be similar to religious belief, but am totally unpersuaded by your call for the non-religious to use the word "God". Taking two of the reasons you give,
1.
> It lets us speak to religious people on their own terms, and understand them better
I don't see how a believer and a non-believer, both using the word "God" (but, by definition, meaning different things) could do anything but frustrate understanding. If, by "religious people", you don't actually mean people who _truly_ believe a particular religion (maybe you shunt all those people to the "fundamentalist" category), than both sides would be engaging in dishonesty by referring to God.
Additionally, this reason comes off as extremely patronizing. "I don't really believe in the supernatural stuff, but I'll use your 'God' word so you dumb dumbs can understand me."
2.
> I want to reclaim the term “God” from the only people who seem fully comfortable using it today: religious fundamentalists... By ceding it to fundamentalists, I fear we have given them control of our shared future.
I truly do not understand what you are referring to, here. Who are the religious fundamentalists that you fear we are in danger of giving control of the future to?
If anyone has unjustly "claimed" the word "God", surely it is not the "fundamentalist" who actually mean it literally. I don't see how you feel you have the moral high ground to "reclaim" it.
---
Again, I enjoyed your engagement with these ideas, and appreciate you putting your thoughts out there.
Thanks for the constructive criticism, this cuts to the heart of the matter.
My main goal was to give non-religious people handles to understand what religious people mean when they use the word "God", instead of dismissing them outright. When a religious person is speaking to an atheist about God, the atheist is often imagining some cartoon like an old bearded man in the sky sitting on a cloud, which makes serious communication impossible. In contrast, an atheist that interprets God as speaking about the collective subconscious and self-fulfilling prophecies will understand religious claims much better (never perfectly! but this is a matter of degree not kind, no two religious people really mean the same thing when they say "God" either).
I agree that communication in reverse is harder. Most "true believers" I share these ideas with bounce off them, which makes sense - religion is often sacred (c.f. https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/explain-the-sacredhtml) and sacredness involves refusing to apply certain methods of analysis, such as the scientific method, to the sacred object. I also don't think you can become a true believer via analysis - I agree with Carlyle here.
I'm still very confused about this, but one thing that gives me hope is that there have been true believers, from Boyle to Emerson, who saw no contradiction between direct perception, received tradition, and the scientific method. They saw all three as crucial ways to understand the truth of the universe and the nature of God. Blinding yourself to any one of them is what makes one a "fundamentalist". But perhaps this belief that God is One, and that all methods of truth-seeking point to the same underlying object, makes me a fundamentalist in my own way.
I think you're on the right track, in your attempt to help non-religious people understand the religious; I just think telling them to go around talking about a big-G God they don't believe in is bad advice.
Thanks for taking my feedback in the spirit (no, not that kind of spirit!) it was intended. I followed you because of your terrific "Marginal User" post, and am interested to see your other interests.
I like that ... "under the cover of irony, it allows us to communicate more sincerely and more vulnerably. This language feels right. It unlocks forms of communication and togetherness I hadn’t experienced before." ... not sure it would work for me, but I find this interesting ... thanks for sharing.