Is atheism convenient?

[inocente]

I often wonder if perhaps many atheists or irreligious people are so not for any deep reasons (unlike say Marx or Sartres) but they just feel they enjoy their lives as they are and it would be difficult to impossible to justify them if they had any religious framework whatsoever.

Any ideas?

I’ve seen similar complaints aimed at so-called cafeteria Catholics. And at me. Thing is, having just read the thread, we don’t share the apparent need of some to absolutely verify that we know good from bad. It seems closer to the spirit of the gospel to admit we have a little thing we like to call a conscience, and every human being has inherent dignity. Dignitatis humanae you might say, and so must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

Are there no positive reasons to be a Catholic? I mean when people speak of religious frameworks, it brings to mind Jesus saying “my yoke is easy and my burden is light” as opposed to the Pharisees, who he said “tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders”.

What have you got by way of an easy yoke to attract us to yon religious framework?

 

[Vonsalza]

I want to give this position say your right and there is a god and this god cares about us worshipping him then he should clearly make his existance known, his desires known, do so to every generation and do something for our worship

And why should god, if it exists, be subject to your rationale?

Morality to me isn’t hard we should do as individuals and as a species do whatever we can to better the species in small to large ways

I think that’s something everyone agrees with. The million dollar questions are “how do we do that?” and “how do we know that’s what to do?”

I’ll provide the secular ambiguity from your examples:

So murder is bad since killing an innocent human harms this

So killing Hitler, Stalin or Mao in 1930 would have been bad? And on the question of innocence, where/what is this standard?

and theft is bad since it reduces the means of a member of the species which harms the species.

But doesn’t it also increase the means of another member of the species? Is this not, in some secular way, “good”?

On the other side I find genetic modification of the human species perfectly moral once we can assure the technology is safe to use, since we can end genetic illnesses and make each human by design better and evolve ourselves.

And how would you balance this against the scarcity of resources on our planet? As population would explode even more than it currently does, do we implement child-licenses/forced sterilization? Euthanasia? Would it, then, be “good” to level the entire amazon rainforest and extinguish all the unique species that live there so it may be converted into cropland to provide for these people?

My point is this, the answers to the “Big Questions” aren’t nearly as simple as we may think.

 

[Vonsalza]

What have you got by way of an easy yoke to attract us to yon religious framework?

Well, as Catholics are not Baptists, they’re not followers of an originally English, but overwhelmingly and dominantly American religious movement founded in the late 16th century that claims to somehow be the best representative of a religion founded in 1st century Roman Judea.

Catholics can actually trace their continual existence all the way back to Pentecost without the requisite of Jesus’ Church “failing” in some odd and subjective way. There’s only a few others that can attempt to do that. None of them are protestant.

In other words, Catholics have the “truth” of Christianity.

Then again, the question doesn’t really relate to the OP. So in deference to that, atheism is certainly a lot easier.

 

[dshix]

So he can reach what he discerns to be the correct moral answer without relying on the church. But maybe he just means that he considers it correct because it aligns with what the church teaches. In which case, if that is his criteria, then there’s no need to do any research.

I might ask dshix what he would do if his research convinced him that the church was wrong. But to be honest, I can’t see him saying that that has, or is ever likely to happen. In which case we would be back to a circular argument: The church teaches something and we know it’s true because…it’s what the church teaches.

It seems you are ignoring what I have said. You are not currently expressing a logical chain of premises to come to the conclusion that “we know [something is] true because…it’s what the church teaches”, leading to what you perceive to be a circular argument.

You keep coming back to the conclusion, but have repeatedly failed to actually express a syllogism or chain of ideas that logically support it.

I have made the distinction that one can have faith without throwing away reason, but you refuse to accept this fact.

Many of the Church’s doctrines were, themselves developed through the use of reason, NOT Divine Revelation. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, clearly defined many moral principles, often thoroughly enough to be proven using reason alone. One who studies the works of a saint such as St. Thomas can often easily see the truth of these doctrines.

So to answer your question: what would I do if my reason convinced me that the Church was wrong on something?

First, I would ask the opinion of individuals around much as my pastor regarding the issue.
Second, I would consult the writings of the saints, and see what rational arguments they would have to offer on the matter.
After this point, I can honestly say “I don’t know” what I would do. I’ll come to that if it comes, which, obviously, I don’t expect it will. I have seen enough of the truth to be convinced of its veracity, such that I don’t have cause for fear.

The more interesting conversation, in my opinion, is to ask the atheist how he can account for the existence of anything, if he does not believe it was created by a non-material, powerful being.

 

[HelenRose]

So how do you find out if what the church says is true?

I will be honest with you. I believe that the Church is true through my own human experience with life and with people. I will be honest with you when I say, “I chose to believe the Bible is true.” It makes sense to me. I have faith that it is true. I love the Bible. I love the stories - they depict life as it really is. The Bible does not white wash the behavior of the people whose stories it tells. The Bible has proven to be a reliable source for archeology so it isn’t just made up fairy story. I personally believe that the old Testament is part history. It is partly made up of the literature of the people. It is partly poetry of the most exquisite beauty and partly dissertations of ideas and the thinking of the prophets.

Can I prove to you that the Bible is truly the word of God? No, I can not and I won’t even try.

The Church, like the Bible, is like a mansion with many thousands of rooms filled with ideas, art, beauty, history, people. The Church, like the Bible, does not white wash the behavior of the people who often woefully represents Her. I believe the Church is true for the same reasons that I believe the Bible to be true.

Can I prove to you the beauty and magnificence of the Church? No, I can not and I won’t even try. You will have to discover the beauty of faith for yourself. God speed.

 

[dshix]

I will be honest with you. I believe that the Church is true through my own human experience with life and with people. I will be honest with you when I say, “I chose to believe the Bible is true.” It makes sense to me. I have faith that it is true. I love the Bible. I love the stories - they depict life as it really is. The Bible does not white wash the behavior of the people whose stories it tells. The Bible has proven to be a reliable source for archeology so it isn’t just made up fairy story. I personally believe that the old Testament is part history. It is partly made up of the literature of the people. It is partly poetry of the most exquisite beauty and partly dissertations of ideas and the thinking of the prophets.

Can I prove to you that the Bible is truly the word of God? No, I can not and I won’t even try.

The Church, like the Bible, is like a mansion with many thousands of rooms filled with ideas, art, beauty, history, people. The Church, like the Bible, does not white wash the behavior of the people who often woefully represents Her. I believe the Church is true for the same reasons that I believe the Bible to be true.

Can I prove to you the beauty and magnificence of the Church? No, I can not and I won’t even try. You will have to discover the beauty of faith for yourself. God speed.

 

[Bradski]

I will be honest with you. I believe that the Church is true through my own human experience with life and with people. I will be honest with you when I say, “I chose to believe the Bible is true.” It makes sense to me. I have faith that it is true.

The bible is not a document from which I would recommend you develop a sound moral outlook, unless you want to cherry pick the living daylights out of it (which I presume that you must do). Take out all the historical padding, the begotten and begats, the Sunday School stories of talking donkeys and prophet swallowing whales, the massacres and plainly nonsensical commandments about capital punishment for stick collecting and you’d have not much more than a thin pamphlet suggesting that the Golden Rule appears to be a good idea.

So to answer your question: what would I do if my reason convinced me that the Church was wrong on something?

First, I would ask the opinion of individuals around much as my pastor regarding the issue.
Second, I would consult the writings of the saints, and see what rational arguments they would have to offer on the matter.

There is plenty that the church teaches that makes a reasonable amount of sense in most situations, but the situation with almost all questions of morality is that there are simply no black and white answers.

I’m sure that you’d be able to find something that might give you a heads-up on whether torture is acceptable or not. But then we have a problem as to the definition of torture and the degree to which is might be carried out. And the circumstances in which it may, or may not, be done. So what conclusion are you going to draw from Catholicism in this matter?

There is no correct answer that covers all contingencies. Yes, we can all reach agreement on what would be too much (maybe tormenting someone for all of eternity perhaps). And I’m sure that we could all agree on what is so benign as to not be considered torture (maybe no ketchup on their fries) but that doesn’t mean that there is an objective answer to the question. It entirely depends on what we personally consider to be too much or too little. So there’s not going to be much help forthcoming from your pastor, anything the saints might have written, scripture, theologians, the catechism or any other source. Your pastor might give you HIS personal opinion but that’s as far as it goes.

So what do you personally do? Well, you do exactly the same as I do. You take all the available evidence and listen to arguments from both sides and then make a personal decision. Yeah, sure, you can ask God directly if you like but it’s kinda strange when He gives you a different answer to someone else who is also asking for guidance.

So (horror of horrors), I make up my own mind about a lot of matters. Exactly as you do. Except that there may be one subtle difference: I go to all available sources, not just the ones that might back up my own preconceptions. It’s the reason I don’t post on atheist forums but on Christian ones. It’s the reason I buy books by Trent Horn (the last just two days ago) as well as ones by Sam Harris. What on earth is the point of discussing and reading about important matters of morality with people who are likely to agree with anything you say? You need an opposing view. You need your preconceptions (and we all have them) put to the test. You need a Devil’s Advocate.

I keep getting asked, time and time again, how as an atheist I can possibly come up with the correct answers to moral questions when I have no ultimate authority to whom I can defer. Well, you have what you consider to be the ultimate divine authority which gives your moral decisions some type of superiority over any decisions that I might make… So with that in mind, how about you give us your definition of torture and what you consider to be acceptable.

And then you can tell me how you reached this quite personal decision. Because as sure as your God made little green apples, you won’t get the answer from your local priest, church teachings, Aquinas, the catechism or reading the entrails of goats.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

And why should god, if it exists, be subject to your rationale?

I think that’s something everyone agrees with. The million dollar questions are “how do we do that?” and “how do we know that’s what to do?”

I’ll provide the secular ambiguity from your examples:

So killing Hitler, Stalin or Mao in 1930 would have been bad? And on the question of innocence, where/what is this standard?

But doesn’t it also increase the means of another member of the species? Is this not, in some secular way, “good”?

And how would you balance this against the scarcity of resources on our planet? As population would explode even more than it currently does, do we implement child-licenses/forced sterilization? Euthanasia? Would it, then, be “good” to level the entire amazon rainforest and extinguish all the unique species that live there so it may be converted into cropland to provide for these people?

My point is this, the answers to the “Big Questions” aren’t nearly as simple as we may think.

Well taking these on a case by case basis.

Okay the baby Hitler question using one of the no he was not good, in fact being arguably a Christian since he never denied the existance of your god or even the divinity of Jesus just saying he was a Aryan, crazy as that is, he would be Theists problem. And he was in fact raised Catholic to some degree if I recall so what the heck did you do wrong? (Seriously he was no Atheist but was a poor Theist of the traditions he was exposed to.) But lets say a few babies will be very bad to a good upbringing and heading off these people along scientific principles called Psychiatry should be the main focus and give sound treatment. My brother is a sociopath but he learned to behave in society even if he has issues from extensive counseling.

On the big issue of how to help everyone I would argue a world government would be ideal with some of the vast wealth shared intelligently with the poor with education, access to credit, medical care and broad rights for children and women. But I know this is the sign of this anti-Christ of yours and the species must unite or fall from my view this includes the disruption of religion from humane policies.

Now for population control well we could and should of acted earlier with global and cheap access (free better) to birth control, with women’s rights supported by society to use them to control the number of children. And policies to get girls educated, in work and to be productive in at least small home industry and small businesses so girls are seen as economically valued. And yes voluntary sterilization and I would pay them to do so after they had the children they choose to have. I hate abortion to by the way so the best way to avoid abortions is birth control so they don’t get pregnant. But you can guess this I lay at the feet of many religions for preventing a simple measure your not the only one.

As for food production we can feed 11 billion now from some numbers so we need to increase this with help with countries in agricultural practices, new technology, genetically modified crops and try to get this up. In time the population should stabilize then go down slowly then the pressures for this would go down if we act on this.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14539778:

What have you got by way of an easy yoke to attract us to yon religious framework?

Well, as Catholics are not Baptists, they’re not followers of an originally English, but overwhelmingly and dominantly American religious movement founded in the late 16th century that claims to somehow be the best representative of a religion founded in 1st century Roman Judea.

Catholics can actually trace their continual existence all the way back to Pentecost without the requisite of Jesus’ Church “failing” in some odd and subjective way. There’s only a few others that can attempt to do that. None of them are protestant.

In other words, Catholics have the “truth” of Christianity.

Then again, the question doesn’t really relate to the OP. So in deference to that, atheism is certainly a lot easier.

Usually, air quotes signify irony or mocking. so I’m wondering why you put Catholic truth in air quotes.

If atheism is, in your words, a lot easier than the religious framework, then that answers the OP. You’ve not specified what kind of load the religious framework puts on people’s shoulders, but it’s not for “all you who are weary and burdened”, as we won’t “find rest for your souls”.

Fair enough. I think you’re not talking of Catholicism though, as the hill farmers around me don’t have any truck with religious frameworks. They just have a faded photo of JPII in the kitchen (well, one has Francis), and they get weary and burdened, and they seem to find rest for their souls, no problem.

 

[rinnie]

It seems an obvious course of action. Dshix says he does it.

So he can reach what he discerns to be the correct moral answer without relying on the church. But maybe he just means that he considers it correct because it aligns with what the church teaches. In which case, if that is his criteria, then there’s no need to do any research.

I might ask dshix what he would do if his research convinced him that the church was wrong. But to be honest, I can’t see him saying that that has, or is ever likely to happen. In which case we would be back to a circular argument: The church teaches something and we know it’s true because…it’s what the church teaches.

Not at all what dshix and others have been trying to tell you is this. We have all had moments they we disagree or did not have the wisdom to understand the teachings of the Church, then did it our way, and ended up going through hell and usually putting others through hell also along the way.

God knows what is best for us. We have all learned through age, I am 55 and if I followed my faith better when I was younger, I would have had a better and happier life. But God knows this also, and knows some have to learn the hard way, so will Listen. If you Listen to him your life will be alot easier.

THere is no difference between your earthly Father trying to tell you something, and then years later say I should have listened to Dad, then listening to our heavenly Father in the Church. The one big difference is sometimes our earthly Father CAN be wrong where the Church our (heavenly Father never is).

 

[Vonsalza]

Well taking these on a case by case basis.

What’s the standard used to evaluate these cases? Individual, relativist conjecture is generally what I see.

And he was in fact raised Catholic to some degree if I recall so what the heck did you do wrong? (Seriously he was no Atheist but was a poor Theist of the traditions he was exposed to.)

Just read “Ordinary Men” awhile back. Any out-of-line Catholics were, apparently, gleefully shot as well.

But lets say a few babies will be very bad to a good upbringing and heading off these people along scientific principles called Psychiatry should be the main focus and give sound treatment. My brother is a sociopath but he learned to behave in society even if he has issues from extensive counseling.

So the answer is statism where the state has enough info to know and evaluate everyone’s psychological being and make the needed corrections based on the standards set by the state (which is assumed to be based on the best research available).

On the big issue of how to help everyone I would argue a world government would be ideal… But I know this is the sign of this anti-Christ of yours and the species must unite or fall from my view this includes the disruption of religion from humane policies.

Ah, so it IS some secular, authoritarian statism. It’s been tried. In a few decades 100 million were murdered. Executions are the answer to state-preservation when you lack the assumption of a divine cop.

Now for population control well we could and should of acted earlier with global and cheap access (free better) to birth control, with women’s rights supported by society to use them to control the number of children…

And yes voluntary sterilization and I would pay them to do so after they had the children they choose to have.

Here, I will nod to the fact that a lot of Catholic reproductive policy was written in a time where population density and the cost of children were centuries away from being the issues they are now.
The devout would argue that you should just de-eroticize sex and you have your solution. Plato was certainly “cool” with that. Your ultra-authoritarian state would have the means to do it.

But I do want to point out that in progressive countries where stay-at-home parents get paid to do so (a good idea imo), overwhelmingly the ladies elect to do it. They are very often more than happy to let their husbands put in the 50-60 hour weeks outside the home that the modern career generally demands. They get, dare I say it, down-right traditional.

As for food production we can feed 11 billion now from some numbers so we need to increase this with help with countries in agricultural practices, new technology…

It’s a nice hope. But gains in genetically modified ag. has slowed down. It’s sort of like racehorses. The ones today are really no faster than the ones 40 years ago. There is a limit to how much they can improve. Check out the Aral/Ural sea in the last 40 years. That got drained just to make the cotton that’s probably on your back right now. And as ag. is incredibly petrol dependent, I’m concerned about whether it will even maintain current outputs in another 50 years.

---

Respectfully, I see a lot of fantasy in your hopes. I don’t blame you.

 

[minkymurph]

I often wonder if perhaps many atheists or irreligious people are so not for any deep reasons (unlike say Marx or Sartres) but they just feel they enjoy their lives as they are and it would be difficult to impossible to justify them if they had any religious framework whatsoever.

Any ideas?

I would say there are many reasons why someone would be an atheist or irreligious. We can’t pin it on any one thing. Here are some reasons.

1. Bad life experiences and subsequent loss of faith.
2. The ‘dark’ side of religion - for example abuses, unjust dealings.
3. Trends - it’s not ‘hip’ to believe in God and follow a religion. Subsequent fear of rejection by peers, being thought stupid or a fanatic. The current ‘trendy’ argument is ‘there is no evidence God exists.’ Personally I think the ‘there is no evidence God exists’ argument will sooner or later become ‘old hat’ - probably later as it hasn’t run it’s course yet - and will be replaced with something else. In my teenage years the ‘there is evidence God was a spaceman’ was the ‘hip’ intellectual argument.
4. Rejection of convention and/or desire not to become involved in or debate contentious issues.
5. Hatred of religion and religious institutions - hatred of something can provide a point of focus for anger, resentment and embitterment.

I have encountered many atheists who have never done a days work in their lives and go through life in a haze of alcohol and cannabis fumes and have no desire to change. Acknowledgment there is God would obviously compel them to change so they can’t believe in one. Ironically such atheists have often told me if I believe in God I can’t possibly be intelligent, don’t think for myself, they do and desire the same for me, and they know they are not only good people who contribute to society but are better people because they are atheists. Oh - and they only believe things on the basis of facts and evidence. Does anyone else think these arguments are unpersuasive?

** I would like to stress I am not placing every atheist in the above mentioned category. **

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would say there are many reasons why someone would be an atheist or irreligious. We can’t pin it on any one thing. Here are some reasons.

1. Bad life experiences and subsequent loss of faith…]

It’s also possible a person is not convinced any in the absence of the things listed above.

I have encountered many atheists who have never done a days work in their lives and go through life in a haze of alcohol and cannabis fumes and have no desire to change. Acknowledgment there is God would obviously compel them to change so they can’t believe in one.

Actually, you can find people that assert there is a God and still enjoy their vices. I’ve even heard the justification that God put various plants with mind altering qualities on this planet for us to enjoy! (Note: I am not making this assertion but mentioning it as an example). You can find people that have their religion and their drugs. An acknowledgement of God doesn’t necessarily stop that. Not being convinced of a God doesn’t mean someone is without some sense of obligation to avoid such things.

Ironically such atheists have often told me if I believe in God I can’t possibly be intelligent, don’t think for myself, they do and desire the same for me, and they know they are not only good people who contribute to society but are better people because they are atheists.

There are intelligent people that believe there is a god. There are intelligent people that are not convinced there is a God. I think many regard Isaac Newton as intelligent. From his writings it seems he held the belief of a God. That being said an intelligent person can also be mistaken as Newton was about alchemy.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s also possible a person is not convinced any in the absence of the things listed above.

There are I’m sure many reasons other than those I listed.

It may be the case someone is simply ‘not into’ God and/or religion/spiritual matters.

Actually, you can find people that assert there is a God and still enjoy their vices. I’ve even heard the justification that God put various plants with mind altering qualities on this planet for us to enjoy! (Note: I am not making this assertion but mentioning it as an example). You can find people that have their religion and their drugs. An acknowledgement of God doesn’t necessarily stop that. Not being convinced of a God doesn’t mean someone is without some sense of obligation to avoid such things.

What you say is of course true. The OP on this thread merely asked about atheists. There are many things that could said regarding people who claim to believe in God and affiliate with a religion yet enthusiastically engage in many vices among other things. Personally I think many of these people don’t believe in God, and are into a religion for their own selfish reasons. Being more charitable there are also those who good at heart but flawed. My we humans are soooooooooo complicated.

I like your user name by the way.

There are intelligent people that believe there is a god. There are intelligent people that are not convinced there is a God. I think many regard Isaac Newton as intelligent. From his writings it seems he held the belief of a God. That being said an intelligent person can also be mistaken as Newton was about alchemy.

An acquaintance and I recently discussed the link between high intelligence and arrogance and lack of empathy. I have a theory those who are ‘intellectually challenged’ do society a service in keeping intellectual feet on the ground as they infinitely less complicated and more empathetic. Of course I am generalizing.

I was served in Sainbury’s today by a check out operator who I believe had some form of learning difficulty. It was obviously difficult for her to articulate ‘small talk’ but she chatted away even though she had to struggle with basic pronunciation of some words, was so helpful and when I was leaving I really felt like hugging her and telling her I was so pleased and proud for her, and found her company so refreshing.

Don’t ANYONE on this forum EVER tell anyone I have a heart. :tsktsk:

It will spoil my image as a bolshy, ruthless argumentative legal advocate.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Personally I think many of these people don’t believe in God, and are into a religion for their own selfish reasons. Being more charitable there are also those who good at heart but flawed. My we humans are soooooooooo complicated.

Being a member of a religion is in many cases also being a member of a community. Concern of the social death from leaving or being exiled from that community might motivate some to stay in the religion, or at least do enough to stay within the community as the two may be inextricably coupled to each other. If a person could become an apostate without loosing their standing in their community I speculate that we would observe a higher number of open apostates (those those apostates are not necessarily atheist). There are those that are apostates but keep it hidden. But there are also those that don’t believe some of the propositions of a religion or interpret them differently.

I like your user name by the way.

Thnx!

An acquaintance and I recently discussed the link between high intelligence and arrogance and lack of empathy. I have a theory those who are ‘intellectually challenged’ do society a service in keeping intellectual feet on the ground as they infinitely less complicated and more empathetic. Of course I am generalizing.

I myself don’t know of a link between intelligence and empathy. Not quite related (came to mine when you mentioned arrogance), but there is also the Dunning–Kruger effect in which someone that may have a low ability in an area also have high confidence because of lack of knowledge needed to recognize their ineptitude. Meanwhile some that have higher knowledge and more awareness of their ignorance within a some subject matter may attenuate their confidence.

But more to the subject of what you said I did a search and found an article from someone that probably agrees with you.

The Difference Between Confidence and Arrogance is Empathy
medium.com/@CodyBrown/the-difference-between-confidence-and-arrogance-is-empathy-91aaf9cb949b

Don’t ANYONE on this forum EVER tell anyone I have a heart. :tsktsk:

Not a word from me!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I often wonder if perhaps many atheists or irreligious people are so not for any deep reasons (unlike say Marx or Sartres) but they just feel they enjoy their lives as they are and it would be difficult to impossible to justify them if they had any religious framework whatsoever.

Any ideas?

Atheism is not convenient.

It explains nothing and is an excuse for anything.

 

[Russell_SA]

I often wonder if perhaps many atheists or irreligious people are so not for any deep reasons (unlike say Marx or Sartres) but they just feel they enjoy their lives as they are and it would be difficult to impossible to justify them if they had any religious framework whatsoever.

Any ideas?

How convenient is your a-fairy-ism life style? Does it make your life easier to not follow the tenants of the wood-land sprite king? This presented question is that absurd to atheists. There are many atheists by-the-way that are still culturally catholic, jewish, etc. They just choose that life style for their own reasons but not due to a deity’s wishes. Perhaps they found reasonable justifications for those traditions in and of themselves without the the need to appease the supernatural. Truth for truth sake regardless of who said it and it’s authority and power.

 

[Russell_SA]

I often wonder if perhaps many atheists or irreligious people are so not for any deep reasons (unlike say Marx or Sartres) but they just feel they enjoy their lives as they are and it would be difficult to impossible to justify them if they had any religious framework whatsoever.

Any ideas?

Someone’s atheism is the result of their logical thought process that they apply to their understanding of reality. It’s the conclusion from someone else’s bad argument that A + B = supernatural. It’s not a choice they made to “not believe”, it’s that they are not convinced that someone else’s presentation for reasons to conclude the supernatural exists is not a valid or convincing argument. Since it is not something they believe in, they do not implement theistic reasons for living into their reasons for living a good life. Just as theists don’t implement the rules and framework of living the good life according to the Woodland Sprite King. It’s just not something they add to their equation for how to live the good life. No body adds considerations about what they don’t believe into their decisions about how to live a good life, they only add in considerations about what they do believe.

But your question sounds like you are parsing the difference between belief in the supernatural and the rules and tenants of organized religion. So basically a secular jew in current society. Where they are not spiritual, but enjoy the religious practice. Anyone would implement a better process to living a life well, but if they are already continent with their standards of living and do not find a need to implement a new practice, then they won’t do that. No need to fix what isn’t broken.