Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 09:22 PM Oct 2014

Can Wanting to Believe Make Us Believers?

By Gary Gutting
This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Daniel Garber, a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in philosophy and science in the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a wrap-up column on the series.

October 5, 2014 7:30 pm

Gary Gutting: In the 17th century most philosophers were religious believers, whereas today most seem to be atheists. What explains this reversal?

I’m already convinced that I should want to believe. But there is a step from there to actual belief, and that’s a step I cannot personally negotiate.

Daniel Garber: I think that it is fair to say that in the 17th century most people, not just philosophers, were believers and that it was simply taken for granted that people of ordinary intelligence would believe in God, in just the way that people today take it for granted that people of ordinary intelligence have faith in the authority of science. Many important scientists and mathematicians in the period were also believers, including Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, Pascal and Newton. Not that there weren’t atheists in the period, but atheism was something that in many circles needed a special explanation in a way in which belief didn’t.

In many circumstances, atheism was considered so obviously contrary to evident reason that there had to be a special explanation for why atheists denied what was so obvious to most of their contemporaries, in much the way that today we might wonder about those who deny science. What changed? I hesitate even to speculate. There was the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, political revolutions, Darwinism, the wars of the 20th century, a lot. As a result science and religious faith have, in a way, exchanged places, and a general and widespread faith in science has replaced the earlier general and widespread faith in God. But even so, God is not dead among the philosophers. There is still a very significant community of believers among philosophers. I’m personally not one of them, I should say, and I would doubt that they constitute a majority. But even so, I think they cannot be ignored.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
3. If so, you wouldn't still have idiots like S.E. Cupp blathering about 'aspiring to faith' all the
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 11:37 PM
Oct 2014

fucking time.

Then again, some of us see her as a right wing religious fundy anyway, so... hmm. Maybe?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
5. Interesting take and a good argument for why atheism, for some, is
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 07:30 AM
Oct 2014

not a passive position. It is the position of having actively entertained the idea of god and then actively rejected it.

This is why the "not a stamp collector" analogy so often fails, imo.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
6. Why?
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 11:18 AM
Oct 2014

I actively think stamp collecting is uninteresting. Relatives have, when I was a kid, suggested I take it up. I actively rejected it. I would do so again today, if someone again suggested it.

It's a useful parallel, up to the point where stamp collectors exert no political influence in furthering stamp collecting...

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
7. That's your story, but most people never even consider stamp collecting,
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:42 PM
Oct 2014

let alone reject it.

Although I think atheism can be a passive position, often it is not.

There may be a case made for a stamp collection group on DU, but it would be hard to make a case for a non-stamp collecting group.

For some it is a useful parallel, I agree. But for others their atheism is active, it is a part of their identity that they actively choose.

Perhaps there should be different words to distinguish these two states.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
8. When atheism is a part of someone's identity
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 04:42 PM
Oct 2014

it's often a result of damage done to them by religion, particularly in their families. People want to stop the damage done by religion and its irrational, often ignorant preachings to prevent harm to other people. I applaud people taking a stand like that, although I never went through it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
9. That is quite a broad assumption and I think there are many
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 09:22 AM
Oct 2014

atheists around here who feel it is a part of their identity and deny any harm done to them by religion.

I think there are as many stories as there are atheists and making generalizations beyond a shared lack of believe in god is generally wrong.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can Wanting to Believe Ma...