I actually disagree. Ghosts are wildly implausible. You are your brain. Without the physical process of your brain, there’s no you, even without invoking the magic of being a sort of energyless being that somehow exists and haunts the world despite having no mechanism for metabolism or mechanism to exert force on the world.
On the other hand, God is incredibly versatile as a concept, anything from the first mover almost completely hands off God all the way to super specific God(s) that are subject to highly detailed theology. It’s not so wild to think that something God-like on the deistic end exists.
But… either way, it doesn’t matter. As you said, these ideas are completely separable. You can believe in God and not ghosts and vice versa.
They’re philosophical positions and emotions – they’re orthogonal to your idea of what’s real or not. We can recognize them as being generated by some combination of the brain’s psychology, social dynamics, necessities of civilizations, rooted in evolution, whatever. There’s no conflict between materialism and ideas.
A ghost, that just drifts around, maybe rattles some pipes, maybe talks to you through a medium, isn’t a god. But a ghost that can concretely influence events that matter is a small god, IMHO.
Other than the Terry Pratchett book, I never really heard of a “small god”. I don’t really have any opinion about whether believing in a bunch of small gods or spirits conflicts with the definition of atheist.
I don’t think it’s that relevant to this thread, which is about whether atheists can believe in any non-material things. Clearly, the answer there is yes – belief in ghosts, visiting aliens, ESP, crystal power, remote healing all have nothing to do with whether one lacks belief in God or gods, large or small.
I’ve only heard the term “small gods” used by Terry Pratchett, but i first ran into the idea in high school, when i learned about the lares and penares.
What about a ghost that drifts around and rattles some dice to come up the way you humbly beseech? If you add that to gaining knowledge that you couldn’t have otherwise learned — when it “talks to you through a medium” — does it hit ‘small god’ status, IYO?
I would not go so far as to say “nothing to do with”.
You’re surely right they are separate phenomenon. But they all rely on a credulous flavor of mind that is willing to believe nonsense in the complete absence of any actual evidence for that nonsense being true.
As such I’d expect a strong correlation between “Thinks religion is bunk” and “Thinks ghosts are bunk” and “Thinks astrology is bunk”. Yes, even highly rational humans are able to perform impressive feats of cognitive dissonance. But the less rational the mind, the greater the tendency to both faith-based nonsense and to feats of cognitive dissonance.
Which brings up something; people are conflating “materialist/physical” and “has evidence for”. The fact is that philosophically, there’s nothing incompatible with materialism & ghosts, telepathy, and all sorts of other mythical things. The issue is they aren’t real, so people trying to justify their existence altered their definitions into something “not material” that conveniently can’t be detected by scientific devices.
But one can rationally postulate a world where ghosts, telepathy and so on are physically real things, scientifically verified with a fully materialist explanation. Which does lead to another issue:
Is a material Creator, some extremely powerful being that created our universe but is a physical being that obeys physical laws a “god” or not? Does a “god” have to be magic?
Some people’s religion tells them that ghosts and astrology are bunk.
I would say so. Again, a lot’s going to depend on the definition of “God.”
Every time I use a modem public bathroom and stand there waving my hands at the sink trying to find the exact hand position that will make the water turn on for this particular model, I feel like a bad magician who can’t get the gestures right for the spell.
Indeed; the magic might be exactly the same. One of my hobbies is inventing plausible-sounding religions; I may have mentioned this before. One of these is a religion I call Subsequentialism, or Postevalism; in this belief system, the creator of the universe and/or the process by which it was created is unknown; nevertherless a number of extremely powerful god-like entities have emerged since the dawn of time, and these entities can be regarded as true gods depending on exactly how powerful, capable and knowledgeable they are. Subsequentialism has many different variations, including one where the power and competence of these gods is limited by the laws of physics as we know them and the speed of light; another creed is much more radical, and believes that these posteval gods have developed god-like technologies such as telepathy, time-travel and FTL, so can basically do anything they want.
So basically, yes, you are correct, it is all the same magic at its core.
For social and cultural reasons, sure. That does not imply acceptance or rejection of materialism, which is a belief. Religious practices are often associated with religious beliefs that athiests necessarily reject, to wit: that circumcision is a sign of God’s covenant, that baptism conveys divine grace (from God), and that ancestor spirits commune with gods. There are downstream non-materialist beliefs that an athiest from that culture likely rejects as well, such as belief that ancestor spirits exist or can influence the material world, since traditionally the mechanism and/or justification for such non-material practices depends on God or gods. Hence, “If someone rejects the gods of Chinese folk religion, it is also reasonable to infer that they reject related beliefs such as ancestor spirits and gods receiving offerings, ghosts interacting with the living, spirit-medium communication, and rituals that influence supernatural beings.”
This is a weaker claim than answering the topic question in the affirmative.
Plenty of religions have posteval gods, of course; Zeus and Odin were not creator gods, despite being the current supreme god of that religion. Odin was the son of Bor, who was the son of Buri; Zeus was the son of Cronos, who was the son of Ouranos, who was the son of Gaea and/or Chaos (it gets a bit fuzzy that far back).
The idea that gods are not primordial has a long pedigree. So an atheist has to be pretty specific about what they don’t believe in.
Yes, an atheist would reject that, but lots of atheist Jews still have a bris for their sons, because that’s just what you do if you have a son, according to their family traditions.
Why can’t atheists believe in ghosts? I don’t get it.
I would not claim that athiests can’t believe in ghosts. Belief in ghosts, broadly, is not downstream of religious (theist) beliefs; even if it were, my claim is that it is reasonable to assume an athiest rejects such downstream beliefs.
Why? All it means is that you don’t believe in God or gods. And, let’s be a little more clear here – in the US, so dominated by Christianity, it really means you don’t believe in the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Most people here don’t have the faintest clue about animists, Hindu gods, etc.
Since lots of Christian religions specifically reject things like ghosts, mediums, witchcraft, etc., it’s possible that an American atheist is more likely to believe in ghosts than a very religious Christian in America. That’s the whole “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual” thing.
I’m confused. I think we disagree. But where do you think we disagree?
ETA:
If I am an athiest, is it reasonable to assume I don’t believe in claptrap? Does the reasonableness of that assumption vary with the adjacency of that claptrap to dominant theist beliefs?
No. It’s like asking, if you don’t collect stamps, can you collect coffee mugs? Of course you can.
I was brought up without religion, and so were my parents. So, I just didn’t have a belief in God, but that doesn’t make me some kind of super science guy who demands evidence for everything. There’s no reason I couldn’t have gone down the path of crystal power, or going to psychics, or thinking aliens abducted me, or whatever.
So if you believed that the sun was the wheel of Apollo’s chariot, that wouldn’t be religion, it would just be alternate science?
But an atheist isn’t someone who doesn’t collect stamps - they’re someone who doesn’t collect anything. They oppose the concept of collecting as a matter of principle.
I think the original metaphor by @RitterSport was poor, and this variation isn’t any better.
If you are insisting that an atheist has to be rational about all those things, I think that is a misguided stretch of the word. If you are insisting that atheism itself has to be reason-based, I think that also is a misguided stretch of the word.