I think you have to ask why people write letters and is it for the reasons that everyone supposes? I should preface this with “I am an atheist” and I used to be a councillor. My Grandmother died eight years ago this year, I still write to her, not because I have any faith of belief that my grandmother will read them or is capable in any way of understanding what I am saying or even still exists in any form. I do not write the letters for her, I write them for me. You could accuse me of playing a game of “Lets pretend” and in many ways I guess that I am. But in my head I am having a one sided conversation with someone that I related to in a particular way because I don’t feel that talking to anyone else will allow me to say the words I want to say. Words that I need to get out of myself for myself. I think that this is the same basic mistake that people make when dealing with grief, people assume that you are grieving for the person who has passed on, but this is not so, you are grieving for yourself, it is you who will miss that person’s company. If you are religious then presumably you believe that your fiend has gone to a better place, if you are an atheist then you know that your friend is no longer capable of comprehending any grief or sadness, you may also grieve that they will never again experience joy but as they no longer know what that is this is futile. And so I do not see that writing a eulogy to a dead friend is any more strange or inconsistent with my beliefs than going to see “The Ten Commandments” and enjoying it, for a moment I am suspending my disbelief isn’t that what I’m suppose to do when looking at magic or art? This is the problem I have with the argument that Dawkins secretly likes the creation story because he likes Bach, why can Dawkins not suspend his disbelief for the purposes of entertainment? I have to try to do this every time my girlfriend makes me watch “Big Brother”, I have to pretend that I don’t hate reality television. I do have problems with “The God delusion” but the ones outlined in Andrew Rilstone’s article are not they.
no subject
I should preface this with “I am an atheist” and I used to be a councillor.
My Grandmother died eight years ago this year, I still write to her, not because I have any faith of belief that my grandmother will read them or is capable in any way of understanding what I am saying or even still exists in any form. I do not write the letters for her, I write them for me.
You could accuse me of playing a game of “Lets pretend” and in many ways I guess that I am. But in my head I am having a one sided conversation with someone that I related to in a particular way because I don’t feel that talking to anyone else will allow me to say the words I want to say. Words that I need to get out of myself for myself.
I think that this is the same basic mistake that people make when dealing with grief, people assume that you are grieving for the person who has passed on, but this is not so, you are grieving for yourself, it is you who will miss that person’s company.
If you are religious then presumably you believe that your fiend has gone to a better place, if you are an atheist then you know that your friend is no longer capable of comprehending any grief or sadness, you may also grieve that they will never again experience joy but as they no longer know what that is this is futile.
And so I do not see that writing a eulogy to a dead friend is any more strange or inconsistent with my beliefs than going to see “The Ten Commandments” and enjoying it, for a moment I am suspending my disbelief isn’t that what I’m suppose to do when looking at magic or art?
This is the problem I have with the argument that Dawkins secretly likes the creation story because he likes Bach, why can Dawkins not suspend his disbelief for the purposes of entertainment? I have to try to do this every time my girlfriend makes me watch “Big Brother”, I have to pretend that I don’t hate reality television.
I do have problems with “The God delusion” but the ones outlined in Andrew Rilstone’s article are not they.