Religion
Related: About this forumAtheist Religiphobia #1: Fear of Believing Anything At All About Gods
September 4, 2013
By Daniel Fincke
Some atheists who are excessively afraid of being like religious people are afraid of saying they believe there are no gods because thats what religious people do. Supposedly the mistake theists make is having any belief or knowledge claims that are not scientific or that are not certain. So a lot of atheists claim not to believe or, even, know anything that is not scientifically proven or certain.
In an act of massively disproportionate overcorrection these atheists equate all scientifically unproven beliefs with faith beliefs and claim that they refuse any such beliefs. With an incredibly crude (and, frankly silly) theory of knowledge, at the extremes atheists like this talk as though there are only two categories: scientifically proven knowledge and faith. And all mere beliefs are faith beliefs. So, on the question of gods, the excessively scrupulous atheist trying to avoid resembling religious people at all costs, by supposedly not having any beliefs at all, declares that he does not believe there are no gods. He simply refrains from all belief and defaults to non-belief by merely lacking belief in gods.
We should call people like this agnostic atheists. They are atheists because, they lack all belief in gods and dont live as though there are gods, and so are without gods or atheist. The adjective agnostic here designates that they think the issue of gods is, either in principle or at least for the time being, not a matter for knowledge.
Agnostic atheists tend to assert one of a couple things. Either at present there is no scientific evidence for the existence of gods but it theoretically could come about in the future, so for the time the only rational and properly skeptical thing to do is withhold from believing in gods. As a gesture of their scientific open mindedness, many of them assert that since there could, in principle, be evidence for gods in the future, they do not want to preemptively rule out that possibility by believing there are no gods. They are just holding off on affirming one way or another and for the time being just being atheists i.e., those who lack beliefs in gods and live and think as though there arent any.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2013/09/atheist-religiphobia-1-believing-anything-at-all-about-gods/
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Or, Jesus H. Christ on a Cracker!
I don't think of my "atheism" as Finke describes in that wee bon mot you've posted. I think our species continues to evince a childlike need to "explain" our universe, particularly since our bicameral minds gave us our sense of "self," and of "mortality." As Joseph Campbell wrote so eloquently, we need our myths.
I don't mind if others choose to cling to god myths, as long as they don't cram their mythology down my throat.
rug
(82,333 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)makes you think I don't "understand" Finke's premise? Like most world "religions," his work is rather simplistic at its core.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do you disagree with this statement?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Do you think there is a better source than science for objective knowledge?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This person does not understand 'rigorous scientific methodology'.
Sounds like Ray Comfort yammering on about bananas.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell" (St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37).
***********
A very shaky translation, but still amusing.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The author is attempting to confuse and muddy the waters about knowledge using philosophical concepts.
Let's start with "perfectly good" which does not mean what it says, it actually means "good enough to work with on a day to day basis". Next comes "knowledge beliefs", two words that should not be used together because you either know because something has been demonstrated to you or you believe; if it cannot be demonstrated, your knowledge is a belief.
I can demonstrate that a solution of salt in water will evolve 2 gases when electrolysed. Those 2 gases will have the characteristics of hydrogen and chlorine; I can also show that the remaining liquid will have become more alkaline and that alkali has the properties associated with sodium hydroxide. I can demonstrate that falling bodies are accelerated at 9.8 m/s and that sweet peas follow Mendelian laws. It is possible for me to demonstrate that the tides follow a pattern associated with the orbit of the moon and that a heliocentric solar system is simpler to predict than a geocentric one.
On the other hand I have only had it demonstrated to me that relativity and quantum mechanics are effective theories, I cannot demonstrate it to you. If you choose my unsupported word about those theories then they become a belief with the caveat that it is entirely possible for you to seek out demonstrations of those effects.
Then there is the contention
Beliefs cannot be tested or demonstrated - that is why they are beliefs. You might believe that there is a deity but you cannot demonstrate it. People have asserted to me that there is a deity and I have made quite a search for verification over the years and never have I found one iota of such verification.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)A bunch of Gods just playing with us for their own amusement.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Because the dreary prospect of straw men being set up so they can be knocked over bores me to tears.
Since the article seems entirely unserious a rather lazy tautology wherein the writer creates a new character of being (the 'agnostic atheist') out of swamp gas, intellectual phlegm, and bellybutton lint and then spends endless paragraphs criticizing his creation's shortcomings, I have to ask: is there any reason whatsoever to subject oneself to such pseudomystical onanism?
This is why I limit my exposure to theological, antitheological, mystical and antimystical arguments. I simply lack the patience.
Anybody with me?
edhopper
(33,575 posts)The strawmen flew fast and loud.
It's like he is writing for people who never met an atheist.
rug
(82,333 posts)but I was commenting just on this essay. It was meant as a criticism, as in "It is so bad that it reads like..."
rug
(82,333 posts)edhopper
(33,575 posts)If I had said Brooks or Douthat write like they haven't meet any current GOP politician. WoulD you take that to actually mean i don't think they have met any, or that their writing doesn't seem to bear any resemblance of talking about real GOP politicians?
Does that make it clearer for you?
xfundy
(5,105 posts)He's a very bad writer, a wanna-be intellectual with a chip on his shoulder and delusions of grandeur.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of rehashed ideas. No cites of any atheist groups espousing any of those positions, or even any individual atheists that he can quote.
And the "fear" that he rather lamely tried to smear atheists with is simply rational skepticism in action..letting the strength of one's convictions be proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting them. There's no "fear" there...just a dislike of having one's intellectual position mischaracterized. That's something the author gives no hint that he comprehends. If he does, he's deliberately avoided discussing it, because it would gut most of the arguments he tries to make. Or, to be more accurate, most of the arguments that he's dredged up..there really isn't an original thought or any interest in the entire piece.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)editorials by Brooks or Douthat. Long, measured pieces trying to defend intellectually vacant ideas.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the idea that if you post enough articles by other people about "atheists behaving badly", it will somehow invalidate atheism and make "god" much more likely.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)Aye, there's the "rug".
rug
(82,333 posts)Hop on it.
Response to skepticscott (Reply #10)
Post removed
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Feel free to engage on facts and come up with thoughts of your own...or to be your old self and post passive aggressive snark at every opportunity, to the delight of your minions.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's a bit stale though.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if you can.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's a fact.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the idea that if you post enough articles by other people about "atheists behaving badly", it will somehow invalidate atheism and make "god" much more likely, is vacant.
If you think otherwise, if you think that idea has merit, feel free to show everyone why. Or continue to pretend and evade.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Wins in the pool.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It just got really bogged down really fast.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)All the way - and extra appreciation for "pseudomystical onanism". That one made my morning.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)A position coming directly from some of the high priests.
All this semantic BS is just that - BS.
Everyone believes in something.
Some of the customs and rituals of religious organizations are valuable and could be positively adopted by atheist organizations.
Some of the nomenclature makes sense as well, and until we develop a new one, it makes sense to use some of these same words.
At any rate, the article is long, hard to read and his conclusions unclear. But it's still an interesting topic.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)but I refuse to accept the canard that atheists' nonacceptance of any god is just another belief.
It is the very absence of belief that makes them an atheist.
That is why I always say I do not accept the existence of God, rather than I don't believe there is a God.
You can "believe" whatever you wish, but for me belief ain't got nothing to do with it.
As for the author, saying atheist who would rather not have anything to do with religion a phobia is insulting, uniformed and intellectually dishonest.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Like I said, it's just BS over semantics.
It's only those that have the condition he describes that really care whether it's a belief or not.
He doesn't say that atheists who would rather not have anything to do with religion are phobic. Most atheists want nothing to do with religion. It's the de facto position, imo.
He's talking about the ones who get so concerned and worked up when any comparison is made between religion and atheism. Those that foam at the mouth and become apoplectic when someone starts an atheist church or includes atheists in interfaith organizations or a court finds that their leader do in fact have the same tax rights as other "faith leaders". Those are the religophobic. And they clearly exist,
edhopper
(33,575 posts)have a right to be pissed off at those who continue to state that "atheism is just another religion.' It's bullshit, always was, always will be.
The legal standings of groups is just that, a legal judgement and has nothing to do with the theological basis for the group.
"Faith leader" might have some standing in the law, but it doesn't speak to the religious debate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Again, it's not the rejection of the notion that atheism is just another religion. It clearly is not.
It's those that go all hysterical anytime a comparison is made. And there are valid comparisons to be made from time to time.
I think it was rug who brought up the term "issues of conscience" or something like that. I would love to see a relatively neutral nomenclature develop that would allow us to talk about the similarities without solely using religious wording. I can see how that would be offensive to non-believers.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)but perhaps it was someone posting an article where the author was claiming such.
At some point our forum should have a discussion on religion and the belief in God.
They are obviously not the same and sometimes we are talking about one when referring to the other.
Case in point, one could compare an organized atheist group to a religious organization without saying atheism is a religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And I think many of the objections are very valid.
I do think we discuss the distinction between theism and deism quite a bit. Terminology can get tricky, particularly when people are making very general statements that apply to some, but not all, people in a particular category.
Agree entirely with you last statement. I've argued for new words, but have not been successful at coming up with ones that really describe what we are talking about.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)I know we have discussed both. But i think sometimes one seep into threads were the other is being discussed.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Show us some atheists doing precisely those things. Links and direct quotes, please, along with evidence of "apoplexy" and "foaming at the mouth".
If they "clearly exist" and you're not just making things up like you do with Dawkins, that should be a simple request. Go to it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)for you to actually back up your claims and smears with evidence. Perhaps you just "know" all this by one of those "other ways of knowing"? And who could dare to question that?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Why the need to make false equivalencies?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Please elaborate on what you mean by 'believes'. Is your usage broad enough to include 'I believe the earth's rotation will bring the sun into view tomorrow morning' or something more ephemeral?
Because in the supernatural sense, not all of us believe in something. I don't even believe in luck, beyond a human expression for measuring past fortune, as perceived by a human.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He makes a distinction between belief with a little b and belief with a capital b, which I think is fair, though perhaps not always that clear.
Do you believe in love, AtheistCrusader?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Atheists need all tenderness they can find, or all the alcohol their health will allow."
Emphatically disagree. The author of that article states he or she was not brought up with faith, but seems to be thinking from a viewpoint that assumes it as a starting place.
Not once in my life, not for one second, have I questioned or doubted my own self-worth, or self-purpose. Not for a nanosecond. I do not require the direct assistance of others to find, for instance, tender moments or happiness. I choose to give, and receive, but it is not required. I make my own luck, moments, experiences, and I am quite happy to share, or not, as my companions at any given moment are willing to give or receive.
As for love, I do not 'believe' in it. It is a combination of many human emotions; trust, fondness, compatriotism, sometimes desire, etc. I cannot neatly package into a box a single unitary emotion called 'love', it's just an expression. Emotional shorthand. Love is something you DO, not something you believe in, from my perspective.
Love can be betrayed, but really what is betrayed, under the hood, behind the curtain, is trust.
Stargleamer
(1,989 posts)that's not anything at all.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)I'm sure his next attempt at making sense will go there.
longship
(40,416 posts)Erect a huge Straw Man and burn it down while everybody cheers.
Sorry. This one won't work with me.
(I couldn't resist. )
everybody.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)But just can't make it.
The only thing that has given me this much trouble reading it was Moby Dick.
From what I did read I strongly disagree with his premise, dispute his definition of knowledge and what is and what is not scientific.
Anyway thanks for the article Rug. You have a way of finding interesting reads and I am sorry I could not make it through on this one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I even tried to figure out what his eventual point was, and all I got was a headache.
I had the same problem with Ulysses, lol.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)But I did get stuck with a tale of two cities.
Dickens
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't know why, but the dark under belly of Britain fascinated me.
But James Joyce? I just couldn't do it. I tried.
okasha
(11,573 posts)you might want to try Anne Perry's two Victorian mystery series.
I haven't read much fiction in the last few years, but could use some diversion.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)never break the seal.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)to see someone associated with the new atheism who at least understands the framework of philosophy and logic that discussions of this type are based on. It is a much more thoughtful article than usual and, unlike most, advances the discussion.
I also tend to agree with Mr. Fincke's central point on the importance of emphasizing that knowledge is never 100%, and that the knowledge/belief dichotomy is a contnuum. On the other hand, he does not appear to be enough of a philosopher to realize how much this weakens his own ability to make a convincing case.
edhopper
(33,575 posts)was only Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Buffalo and would have found this article to be so much mindless drivel.
Yeah, about time someone writing about atheism understood philosophy.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)... convincing case.
My take on his article is that it makes the case that all (or almost all) human knowledge is less than 100% certain, but that there are gradations of certainty in various types of knowledge. Because all human knowledge is less than 100% certain, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, involves a certain amount of belief. He then goes on to differentiate belief and faith. His claim is that faith is accepting, with a high degree of certainty, something that lacks a substantial amount of evidence .
I certainly don't accept everything that he claims in the article. But, I do find his argument that all human knowledge contains some uncertainty and there is an degree of belief in all of our knowledge to be convincing. IMHO, he would agree that his argument is not 100% certain. I don't see that as weakening his case.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)because it emphasizes its fallibility when there is no real need to do so. However, I see your point in that Daniel Fincke's goal is rhetorical rather than logical -- he is trying to illuminate the difference between everyday knowledge and faith. And that is instructive in itself.
I guess it stuck out to me because it highlights some weak areas in the new atheist argument. For example, Fincke seems to think that the scientific knowledge is uncertain only to the extent that data samples are unrepresentative (hence his belief in a tiny, tiny chance of error). An infinitely larger source is the human element in applying and interpreting the scientific method. This is easy to see from taking any of the many quaint or wrongheaded scientific consensuses a century ago. However we might correct the reasoning from 1913 today, the point is that at the time the proponents believed they were arriving at a scientifically valid conclusion. New atheism does not appear to recognize the possibility of human error or misapplicaton, although it is highly likely that in a hundred years our beliefs will seem equally quaint.
Another way of approaching this would be to say that valid scientific thought depends on there being a rational agent to apply, interpret, and evaluate it. It is difficult to see how rationality arises from the observable world the new atheists limit themselves to. It is a way of disqualifying yourself from making your own argument, so to speak.
Then there are the issues inherent in logical positivism, which seems to be the closest school of thought to any of the new atheists I have personally read. From the Wikipedia article:
Early critics of logical positivism said that its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated consistently. The verifiability criterion of meaning did not seem verifiable; but neither was it simply a logical tautology, since it had implications for the practice of science and the empirical truth of other statements. This presented severe problems for the logical consistency of the theory.
Another problem was that universal claims (e.g. " all) philosophers are mortal" are problematic in terms of verification. The verifiability criterion was seen as being too strong. In its initial formulation, it made universal statements meaningless, and this was seen as a problem for science. This led to the weakening of the criterion.
And since Finke seems to feel that the consensus of scientists is relevant (out of over 230,000 participants, roughly 63% of the survey participants have chosen atheist as their primary identifier), there is this:
Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[28] By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own main proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in an interview: "I suppose the most important (defect)...was that nearly all of it was false."
The new atheists seem to maintain a very 19th century sensibility an unshakeable belief in logic and their ability to create a coherent, perfectible intellectual world. By contrast, 20th century thought was troubled and uncertain precisely because the limitations of those things became obvious. The most astonishing thing to me is that they have waded directly into these waters in a very public way without an apparent awareness of any of these issues. It is as if the whole 20th century never happened.
Now, new atheists may claim that their concern is not philosophy, but the public debate between atheists and evangelicals. That may be true, but by restricting their audience the only prize they might be said to win is Congratulations youre smarter than an unlettered fundamentalist.