Schism Among Atheists

N.Beltov wrote:

Those are non sequiters Spector. I doubt there is a person alive who, at some level and in some way, doesn't practice some sort of magical thinking, or believes in things without evidence, etc.. 

Ayn Rand and the art of positive thinking is said to have flourished in US business schools and circles of banking and finance since the 1990's or so. But did the rightwing black magic work though? For some I think it did. Hugely successful as in laughing all the way to the bank.

How committed are you to your belief that there is no Santa Claus? Do you maintain a skeptical open-mindedness?

Agnosticism is an absolute system of belief also. It has greek roots A (not, no) GNOSIS (knowledge) and is an assertion that, given the nature of questions about "god", one CANNOT have knowledge as to the existence or non-existence of such a non-material configuration. It bugs me no end when people confuse being an agnostic with being a sceptic. If you are unsure, if you are doubting, if you think you could be convinced otherwise.... then you are sceptical. If you are an agnostic you are clearly stating that there is no way of resolving the question and therefore you say the question itself is essentially meaningless.

Thus speaketh the bagkitty... member of the provisional wing of the Alliance Against All Thing Holy (AAATH - provo)

And I am surprised no one has quoted Isaac Asimov yet.... so let me be the first:

Quote:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Even keel wrote:

These articles don't convince me.

Sorry, what is it they don't convince you of?

Even keel wrote:

Why must you be so committed to your belief that there is no God?

Well, to be honest I find the idea of God preposterous. You may as well ask me why I must be so committed to my belief that there are no magical fairies. I can't prove to you there are no fairies, but it is highly improbable that they exist. So improbable the possibility isn't worth entertaining and it's the same for God. People used to believe in fairies (some still do). I understand why the idea of God originated, but today we have better explanations from science. Our current knowledge doesn't leave much room for God. He's hiding behind the big bang or quantum mechanics I suppose.

Even keel wrote:

I think the world would be better off if everyone backed off a bit on truth-claims. That's why I find agnosticism so much more appealing - it isn't a "belief" in so much as atheism is a belief that something doesn't exist; it's more a skeptical open-mindedness.

Being an atheist means you don't believe in God. It doesn't mean you are not open-minded or not willing to consider evidence that might prove the existence of God (though I can't imagine what such evidence could be). By the way, I don't swear by the term atheist. I use it, but I also consider myself a freethinker, Humanist, and sometimes I don't label myself.

I've kinda mellowed from my fundamentalist atheism to about where Oldgoat is in his thinking.  We seem to have arrived at a place from oposite ends.

I think what people miss about both Dawkins and Hitchens and others who are more strident is that this is a response to in your face religious zeolots trying, with some success, to take over not just the public discourse, but also our legislatures and our education systems. 

So, call me a fundementalist atheist on those issues if you like.  I've seen what happens to the timid and the accomodating in the face of religious totalitarianism. 

It leads to a condition called death.

So, it's a little galling to have atheists feet put to the fire when it comes to civil decorum in the public forum, but religious loonies get a podium when ever they like, few questions asked. It's like you go to a party, and all the religious people are crapping on the floor, and in walk Dawkins and Hitchens, who fart, and every one calls them pigs and asks them to leave.

So, instead of talking about improving public education, we have to entertain infantile arguments about creationism instead.  Or, we have to bar people of the same sex from solemnizing their vows, and enjoying the legal rights of marriage all because it offends the sensibilities of someone's self serving interpretation of some obscure passages in an old book.

Oh, but's it's the new atheists who are offensive.

Anyway.  Other than that kind of stuff, I don't really care what magic people choose to believe, as long as they don't try to kill me with it.

Like I said, I've mellowed.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Anyway.  Other than that kind of stuff, I don't really care what magic people choose to believe, as long as they don't try to kill me with it.

But the thing is - some of them will.

Hey Michael, would you mind just posting maybe the opening paragraph and linking to the rest?  Cutting and pasting huge long posts like that really disrupts the flow of conversation in threads.

Thanks!

Done!

And here's a good piece on the "New Atheism" by Chris Hedges:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/

"These New Atheists, like all religious fundamentalists, fail to grasp the dark reality of human nature, our own capacity for evil and the morally neutral universe we inhabit. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression, economic exploitation and to accelerate environmental degradation as well as to nurture and sustain life. There is a good and a bad side to human progress. We are not moving towards a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere.

"The New Atheists misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology as egregiously as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible. Darwinism, which pays homage to the final and complete mastery of our animal natures, never posits that human beings can transcend their natures and create a human paradise. It argues the opposite. The illusion of human progress, in the name of evolutionary biology, is actually anti-Darwinian. And in this the New Atheists are neither honest about science or Darwin. Science is used by them to supplant religion to provide meaning and hope. It is used to assuage these innate religious yearnings. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative, albeit morally neutral, it gives the illusion that human history and human progress is also cumulative. And in many ways science has simply replaced the faith our pre-modern ancestors had in God.

"But more ominously, the New Atheists ignore the wisdom of Original Sin, as well as studies in cognitive behavior, that illustrate that human nature is often irrational and flawed. We are all governed, even in our moments of greatest lucidity, by unconscious forces. This understanding, whether achieved through Augustine or Freud, has been our most potent check on schemes of human perfectibility and utopian visions. But the New Atheists, like all believers in myth, refuse to listen. They peddle the alluring and enticing fantasy of inevitable moral and material progress. This vision is not based on science, history or reason. It is an act of faith. It is a form of the occult. It is no more scientific legitimacy than alchemy."

The snippet is just that: a snippet of a larger argument, which itself was fleshed out in Hedges' book, I Don't Believe In Atheists. He provides enough evidence and well-constructed arguments in those works to demonstrate that he's attacking the guts of the New Atheists' positions, rather than jabbing at mere straw men. 

hsfreethinkers wrote:

snert wrote:

To be fair, some atheists really do seem to promote the belief that there simply is not, and could never be, a God. I really don't mind seeing them wear the label of "fundamentalist", or some similar, to differentiate them from what I believe are most atheists, those who don't believe in God the same way they don't believe in five legged elephants (specifically, there's no compelling reason to).

I still think "fundamentalist" is a poor descriptor to associate with atheists, when really people who use it really mean "obnoxious". The difference amongst atheists is how confident they are in their belief. Some don't believe, but aren't confident in their belief or don't spend much time worrying about it. Others are very confident, even positive - as positive as they are about anything. We could all be hooked up to a machine like in The Matrix. The paragraph of yours brings to mind Stephen Law again. I wouldn't call him a fundamentalist, yet he wrote "The God of Eth":

"Can You Prove God Doesn't Exist?": http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/can-your-prove-god-doesnt-exist.html

Right, and people who believe in God are confident in their belief. So we have two groups of people who are confident in their beliefs which contradict each other -- this I think is where a lot of the friction is being felt between the two camps and an impasse occurs. I think it would be better for atheists to take a more agnostic approach and say that, sure, there might be a God, but according to the evidence (or lack thereof), you choose not to believe in said God until evidence presents itself. I think that kind of example could do a lot for both atheists and even theists, especially when it comes to moral doctrines/dogmas.

Quote:

has been a fan of Margaret Thatcher, then a NuLabour supporter

I can only imagine he was also both white and a caucasian.

The absurdity of the post above the above post is worthy of a hall of fame. Imagine, if you will, arguing that because one can't disprove the Great Spaghetti Monster, one ought to accept that the Great Spaghetti Monster may exist. And why should atheists be forced to go halfway alone? Where are the faith holders? In the absence of proof, should they not also declare themselves agnostics until such time as the evidenice of their deity's existence is made available? Then we'd all be agnostics and finally we could all get along.

My faher was a good Anglican and attended church every day of his life until he collapsed on the front steps of the parish hall after one last christmas turkey stuffing. "He always did enjoy his turkey," Mrs. Chamberlain, the church matron, said to me the day of the funeral. The old chap was a life long atheist but said one must do one's duty to community which in his case meant supporting the local church. I never really understood until much later in life when it occured to me that belonging to the church was also of social importance in a middle-class environment.

While I consider myself an atheist, I wouldn't care to "preach" to others. Atheism is something people must come to of their own volition.

Might I ask which God you believe in, Caissa?

While it may be difficult to disprove the existence of some possible 'higher power', i believe it is rather easy to illustrate that any given 'god' of any major faith cannot exist as presented.

I'm an Anglican, LTJ, but I am certainly not going to  discuss faith issues on Babble. It is no safer for these discussions than it at times appears to be for a myriad of other topics.

I appreciate your perspective as well Unionist.

I'd rather not answer this other than by saying the creation of the sex workers rights forum might provide you with a loosely analogous situation.

When we speak of god, why do we refer to only the Judaism, Islam and Christianity beliefs?

There are many more religious organizations that have more interesting concepts of life and death.

Pundit wrote:

Imagine, if you will, arguing that because one can't disprove the Great Spaghetti Monster, one ought to accept that the Great Spaghetti Monster may exist.

Blasphemer! It's [b]Flying[/b] Spaghetti Monster (pbuh)!

I'm an atheist who believes in things for which we have no sustainable evidence. Things like democracy, social justice and love. If I were scientist, I'd figure I would give up on such concepts as overwhelmingly improbable. And yet, la lutte continue. There are less tangible concpets I'd argue everyone needs to believe in. Kant called one of them immanence. I'd call it who we are in relation to the world.

I've been reading a lot about the vivisection debates of the late 1800s, when most of the scientific community, including Darwin, supported experimentation on live animals. Anti-vivisection activists caricatured such scientists as godless immorals, bent only on the advancement of science for its own purpose, slave to progress, unmoored from any shred of universal humanism. I don't see this position much different from Chris Hedges' "occult enlightenment," really. Not much has changed in the debate between what is human and what is science.

But I do think, as I alluded to in my McCarthy excerpt above, that there is a sinister undercurrent to the sentiment expressed by M. Spector above, namely, "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." This is the danger of enlightenment philosophers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer pointed to, who saw the worst of enlightenment theory in the fascist regimes of Europe from which they escaped. Their argument, that the enlightenment's goal of eliminating fear of the unknown and men replacing religion as master of the world, is rooted in myth, which itself was a way for humankind to explain and thus control nature. This narrative of domination, they argue, has become radicalized under modernity and has by no accident led to Nazism. Please don't read this paragraph as an argument comparing Dawkins to Hitler, or whatecer; I am saying, however, that there is something about this kind of scientific trajectory that is very unsettling, and hardly wholly in the interests of humanity. I am starting to suspect, however, that this new atheism is closely tied to neo-liberalism--the work that this strand of thought does is not really scientific, it's political: it's doing far more to justify wars in the Middle East than it is keeping creationism out of our schools.

I also think that some new atheists have made an idol of religion, abstracting it from the social experience with which it was created. In a Grayling article above, he defines the religious narrative thusly: "Do good, go to heaven. Don't to good, don't go to heaven." Talk about crude simplifications and caricatures. There is a thread in the anti-racism forum that critiques the anti-racism movement for this same abstraction: why not, the article argues, target specific social changes rather than create a mythical racism understood only by its apostles? So, I would ask, why not target the foolish and ignorant attempts to put religion in our classrooms and in our legislatures rather than target a metaphysical immanence you cannot possibly contract and atomize?

Personally, I don't really get upset when I see Hitchens, Dawkins et al. do their talking outside of their fields (Like Terry Eagleton has said, how does Dawkins like it when metaphysical philosophers start talking about evolution without a proper scientific background?), because my thinking outlined above is not certain in my mind, and I hate the fact that there is a separate school board in Ontario, and that homophobia (and, effectively, pedophilia) gets a pass if it comes from the mouth of a priest. I don't really like it when people bring out the FSM as if they're clever, or start harping about how silly the big bearded man in white is, but lately I just let it go. I will always support taking the Christmas tree out of Parliament, just as I support taking O Canada out of our schools. I'm as suspicious of religion as I am of patriotism--and the most fanatical kinds of both are odious--but when someone's patriotism consists of a belief in tolerance, social justice, democracy and hockey...well, I don't see the point in having it out with them. But maybe I'm just too meek. I've heard that's good though...

Only two things bother me about religion:

1. That it sometimes provides "explanations" for natural phenomena as a substitute for (or as postiive opposition to) continuing empirical inquiry.

2. Far worse than #1: that it sustains a culture of people sticking to "their own" and being xenophobic towards others.

The personal faith part of it doesn't both me in the slightest, unless and to the extent that it leads to #1 or #2.

That's why I have trouble with Dawkins and the rest. They pay attention to #1 (and sometimes, it is true, in simplistic ways), but rarely deal with #2 in a satisfactory way. Or when they do broach it, they tend (like Sam Harris) to do so in a biased fashion, thereby revealing their own xenophobia.

This is the danger of enlightenment philosophers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer pointed to, who saw the worst of enlightenment theory in the fascist regimes of Europe from which they escaped. Their argument, that the enlightenment's goal of eliminating fear of the unknown and men replacing religion as master of the world, is rooted in myth, which itself was a way for humankind to explain and thus control nature. This narrative of domination, they argue, has become radicalized under modernity and has by no accident led to Nazism. Please don't read this paragraph as an argument comparing Dawkins to Hitler, or whatecer; I am saying, however, that there is something about this kind of scientific trajectory that is very unsettling, and hardly wholly in the interests of humanity. I am starting to suspect, however, that this new atheism is closely tied to neo-liberalism--the work that this strand of thought does is not really scientific, it's political: it's doing far more to justify wars in the Middle East than it is keeping creationism out of our schools.

And, Micheal Nenonen has differentiated between this "occult" enlightenment, where knowledge is kept hidden, from "open" enlightenment where knowledge is shared.  Post Modernism is the rejection of all enlightenment in reaction to the occult, or hidden enlightenment. 

However, the danger in that is what we are experiencing today, where anything can be "true".  Where Newton's laws are a construct of white male european privelege, as if a person of Chinese ancestory might have a different outcome than mine if we didn't wear a seatbelt in a car accident.

And, the post modernist rejection of science, or the open enlightenment figures very much in neo liberal economics,  and it lends distructive creedence to all manner of dangerous claims.

I am not a bible thumper, don't go to church and never initiate conversations about religion. What would be the point? But I've sometimes wondered at the wisdom of the Bible that so many people agree is full of contradictions and filled with stories of human rights abuse. I agree, the bible is filled with stories of murder, infidelity, misogyny, slavery etc. But I have to agree with certain parts of the Bible as US economist Michael Hudson has described about it on the internet. The debt crisis of the western world today and collapse of the monetarist monetary system could have been avoided if they'd accepted biblical advice(as well as Persian and other historical experiences with debt) to wipe the slate clean every so often in order to avoid the scenario where debts grow in excess of the economy's ability to repay them. And there is more good advice in the bible, like letting fields lay fallow for so many years before replanting etc. It is an old book that is out of date wrt most things today, for sure for sure.

This is timely, "The secularist case against "Atheism 3.0" " by Austin Dacey (his book The Secular Conscience is excellent by the way): http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/10/the_secul...

Not my point, Unionist. I was referring  to your phrase "sticking to their own and being xenophobic..." I'd rather not begin enumerating other groups that fall under this rubric. I was disputing your argument as much as saying it's not exclusive to religions. Hey, maybe I'll go out on a limb and suggest some religious people and maybe even religions are left-wing.

I think religions in general tend to foment a sense of "us" in terms of a collective humanity, whereas the religion of free market capitalism can only try to pretend to share the same goals and objectives as the rest of humanity. 

Even keel wrote:

Uh, yeah, it happens all the time. Gay villages, immigrant neighbourhoods, minority language communities (Westmount hello?). In fact these organizations, or groups, prescribe much more to an "us" and "them" mentality when they feel others are hostile towards them. So maybe if we were ALL be a little bit more accommodating we could break down some of that us and them stuff.

Thanks for your reply. But you know what - I was talking about [b]organizations[/b] which promote social exclusion of "others". Do you know of any outside the various churches?