Investigating Atheism

[tama]

Sorry, no provocation, just a good source: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/index.html

"Since the publication of Sam Harris' The End of Faith in 2005, the English speaking world has seen a spate of books on atheism, most notoriously perhaps Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (2006). The publication of Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great (2007), and Michel Onfray’s ‘Atheist Manfesto’ (2007), among others, have added to and expanded on the debate. However, despite the popular success of these publications, the 'new atheists' have had a mixed reception, not only among the religious (as is to be expected) but also among fellow atheists and agnostics, who have often accused them of oversimplifying the issues.

The purpose of this site is to set these contemporary 'God Wars' in their historical context, and to offer a range of perspectives (from all sides) on the chief issues raised by the 'new atheists'. We hope this will encourage more informed opinion about the issues, discourage oversimplification of the debate, and deepen the interest in the subject.

The current polarised nature of the 'new atheism' debate often discourages serious discussion of the very issues that the 'new atheists' have brought so forcibly to the attention of the public. Behind some of their more vociferous assertions, there are complex debates going on, and here we will seek to understand how and why these debates have arisen, and what is at stake.

The site contains a definition and historical contextualisation of contemporary atheism, an account of atheist organisations and demographics, an overview of the current controversies, and includes orientation to discussion on issues felt to be central to the current controversies."

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/index.html

[MineralMan]

1. I'm an atheist. I simply cannot believe in the existence of

any supernatural entities. That would include deities. That is the only thing anyone can say about my atheism. Beyond that, my atheism is of no interest. Nonbelief is simply that. It is nothing more than that. It is the only thing atheists have in common with each other. Attempts to tie atheism to any particular political philosophy or behavior is silly. There are atheists in every political group, and in every academic discipline. All have just one thing in common. They do not believe that supernatural entities exist, or the more firm corollary that says that supernatural entities do not exist.

Someone at Cambridge has wasted a great deal of time.

[tama]

5. "New atheism"

Why would critical and contextualized investigation of the phenomenon of polemical 'new atheism' represented by Dawkins et alii - that is by no means anti-atheistic - be waste of time?

Especially if such investigation leads to better understanding of all the complexities involved in the current debate?

[MineralMan]

6. The "New Atheists" no more represent atheism than

Jerry Falwell represents Christianity. Indeed, no individual nor organization represents atheism, which has no doctrine, no central organization, and no common beliefs.

That is why this is a waste of time. Now, one can dispute with Dawkins or other individual atheists, or with some organization made up of some atheists, but that has nothing to do with atheism, which is nothing but disbelief in deities and other such supernatural entities.

To imply, from the writings of Dawkins, that one understands atheism in general is a logical error of the worst kind. As an academic pursuit, that essential logic flaw destroys the thesis.

Aside from that, the title of your original post did not specify "New Atheism" or any other particular sort of atheism. It was simply about atheism in general, which is a flawed discussion on its face. There is no general "atheism." Atheism is simply a statement, no more.

[tama]

8. You are correct

And the site is not about atheism in general, but the cultural phenomenon of 'new atheism' that do not represent atheism, but mixture of strong anti-religious attitudes and materialistic worldwiews.

[skepticscott]

99. "New Atheism" is simply a made-up term

to make people think that the person using it has something original to say. Atheism is still the same atheism that it has always been. The only thing different about the atheistic and anti-theistic views that people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are expressing is that they are expounding them more vociferously and unashamedly than has ever been done before, and that they are appealing to a wider audience than ever before (which, in the end, is what has their opponents all twisted up in knots, not so much anything to do with the factual basis of their views).

And ask yourself why you choose to use the term "materialistic" rather than "naturalistic". Could it be that the former carries a (false in this case) connotation of greed and makes a good, but subtle smear, while the latter is too associated with rationality for your taste?

[darkstar3]

107. +1

[humblebum]

128. All terms are made up by someone, but yes "New" Atheism has

the same philosophical orientation as organized atheist movements of the past. Little difference from the Atheist Alliance International, the AAAA (American Association for The Advancement of Atheism) of the 1920's, or The "Scientific Atheism" of the Soviet Union.

[ironbark]

31. Trucking on down the line

“The "New Atheists" no more represent atheism than Jerry Falwell represents Christianity”

And-
“Terrorism is unto Islam is as the KKK is unto Christianity”

(I just knew I’d get that West Wing line in sooner or later ;-)

All are miniscule minority inconsistencies in comparison to the greater body or pov.

[ironbark]

12. Do you see atheism as exclusively materialist.?

By that I mean does it preclude the possibility of any consciousness separate from the body and/or the possibility of life continuing after death?

[MineralMan]

36. I can't comment on what any atheist other than myself thinks.

I think there is no separate consciousness or any sort of existence after death. You can ask the question of other atheists and, perhaps, get different answers. Atheists have nothing necessarily in common other than a disbelief in deities.

[ironbark]

81. No, that’s ok, I was seeking your personal pov

and will dare assume it is reflective of many atheists views-

“I think there is no separate consciousness or any sort of existence after death.”

Ok, then please correct by base level comprehension of science as I go along.

I live in a universe in which matter can move from mineral to vegetable to animal kingdoms and can endlessly transform. Matter can also be transformed (revealed?) as energy….but the ‘stuff’ of the universe, the matter and/or energy cannot be lost/destroyed. …….?...

All the matter and energy that make up the material world I live in has some form of transforming eternal existence. The atoms comprising the things I care the very least about will move from dog poo, to soil, to tree, to toilet paper and so on into…eternity?

At the same time the things I value the most have no material substance or supporting (enduring) energy-
Life, love, laughter, friendship, consciousness, intelligence, courage, courtesy, creativity….all the things that make humans valuable/precious are…more ephemeral and less enduring than the wind?

As an analogy…This is a universe which produces ‘bodies’ like GMH produces cars…built to last and everything is recyclable for the next range of vehicles. But the driver/consciousness
only gets to sit in the vehicle in the Show Room for a nano second of cosmic time and imagine what it might be like to be on the open eternal road that unconscious matter gets to travel. Whatever the driver/consciousness thinks, feels, imagines, loves, does or becomes in the Show Room is lost/destroyed entirely or faintly recalled as dimming memory of others…no more significant or enduring than the scent of the last person that sat in a car.

I don’t have to believe that there is a conscious GMH- God Most High to recognize that this would be beyond a universe simply indifferent to the preservation of consciousness…but a universe that perversely teases with infinite possibility then shuts the door on all.

[PassingFair]

50. No, they don't "preclude the possibility"...

They don't "include the belief" of any consciousness separate from the body and/or the possibility of life continuing after death.

[omega minimo]

19. what about natural "entities"?

what about consciousness?

[MineralMan]

37. Well, I am a natural "entity." I have a consciousness.

I use the term "supernatural" frequently when referring to things not physical.

[omega minimo]

54. Is consciousness "physical"?

[MineralMan]

59. Yup. Just as are all other brain functions.

It's all an exchange of chemicals and the resulting electrical signals. Consciousness begins in a rudimentary way the first time you open your eyes and breathe the air. As a human grows, it gains more and more input, cataloging it in memory. All of that input informs the consciousness, and forms the personal identity. When you die, the activity stops in your brain. It is the end of your individual consciousness.

All of that is pretty well understood, and can be measured. We have consciousness in common with all other creatures that have brains. Ours is a little more complex, perhaps, but the eyes of a cat or a mouse, a bird, a fish, a frog, or even an insect, can look at you and be aware of your presence in relation to its own presence. That is consciousness.

Nothing extraordinary about it, really.

Note to add: This is, of course, my own interpretation of consciousness, and is based on the scientific research of others. Other people have a different interpretation, and are welcome to it. I welcome their demonstrable and testable evidence that anything else is involved in their interpretation. So far, I have seen none.

[omega minimo]

60. Eventually you will see the bigger picture

or not.

[MineralMan]

62. Yes, yes...

You have a different understanding of this than I do. That's obvious. You're welcome to your understanding.

But, telling me what I will or will not experience is a bit presumptuous, I think. I've only told you what I understand about consciousness, and only because you asked me. I would not tell you anything like that. I have no interest in changing your or anyone else's beliefs. They're not really of that much interest to me.

If you ask me a question about what I think, I will answer it. I have no questions to ask you, though.

[omega minimo]

67. It's not presumptuous. You will or you won't. It will be from experience

or not.

[MineralMan]

69. Then what was your point, assuming that you had one?

[omega minimo]

71. There is a bigger picture.

Consciousness is not merely individual brain farts. If one believes it is localized in your brain and your body, only a significant personal experience would alter that view.

[MineralMan]

72. You're right. Consciousness is not any individual firing of a synapse.

It is the thing that makes me understand what you are trying to do by distorting what I have said. So, I've told you what I understand consciousness to be. Your turn. Explain yourself, and offer whatever evidence you have to support your explanation.

My explanation is supported by years of research into how the brain works, conducted by thousands of people who make it their business to study that.

What's your explanation of consciousness and the underpinnings of that explanation? I'll be interested to read that.

[omega minimo]

75. Done

I've distorted nothing. I have already stated my view and clearly am not attempting to change yours.

"If one believes it is localized in your brain and your body, only a significant personal experience would alter that view."

[MineralMan]

77. I guess, then, that we will not be reading your explanation

of what you think consciousness is. How utterly predictable that outcome is. I guess this discussion is over, then. Too bad. I would have been interested in your interpretation of consciousness. But, I suppose it is enough for you to attempt to say something negative about mine without offering one of your own.

Hmph!

[omega minimo]

78. Yes please end the pompous posturing

You have enough info to understand. I'm not interested in your challenge or a discussion of consciousness that is hostile.

Show anything that I have said about your "interpretation of consciousness" that is "negative."

Or remove your false statement.

[tama]

79. Not only

if you mean by "significant personal experience" what is often called "religious experience" or some variety of.

It is also quite possible to abandon the materialistic hypothesis on purely scientific basis - logic and empiricism.

[omega minimo]

85. yes please

"It is also quite possible to abandon the materialistic hypothesis on purely scientific basis - logic and empiricism."



"if you mean by "significant personal experience" what is often called "religious experience" or some variety of."

not necessarily religious, any that forces the consciousness outside the "normal" state, including illness, OBE, near death, coma, dreams, altered states, etc.

[arKansasJHawk]

86. Personal experience ...

"Personal experience," significant or otherwise, is merely a code-phrase for "anecdotal evidence."

Paranoid schizophrenics have a wide variety of "personal experiences" that no one would ever suggest relate to any sort of real phenomena. This is not to say that anyone who believes in the survival of consciousness after death is a paranoid schizophrenic, it is merely meant to illustrate the fact that the human brain is capable of producing all sorts of "experiences" that aren't "real" in any sort of subjective sense. The brain is especially prone to producing these "experiences" in times of high stress; in other words, in times of illness, near-death, coma and etc.

Even under normal conditions, the brain can provide all sorts of illusory experiences. In dreams, for example. Nearly everyone has had dreams of flying. Not just floating consciousness above the world flying, but real, physical, Superman-style flying. And does anyone actually believe such flight is possible in the non-dreaming, physical world? Some may, I suppose, but they tend to end up as grease-spots on the sidewalk when they test their hypothesis.

[omega minimo]

87. Your thesis for discrediting personal experience is exaggerated and unconvincing.

not at all rational in terms of the actual experience of human beings.

[arKansasJHawk]

89. My thesis

My "thesis," as you call it, is that "personal experience" is an unreliable source for making an objective determination regarding the existence of consciousness as something separate from the physical body.

The evidence I provided in support of said "thesis" is certainly NOT exaggerated. I gave two well-known and very common examples of the brain producing "personal experiences" that don't comport with objective reality. Whether you find these examples "unconvincing" or "rational," of course, is up to you.

And it's not really MY "thesis" anyway. It is, rather, a well-known and, with few exceptions, well-understood phenomenon with implications beyond discussions of the metaphysical. Eyewitness testimony, for example, is widely recognized in the legal community as being consistently unreliable. In "Problems and Materials in Trial Advocacy," authors Warren D. Wolfson and Thomas A. Mauet point out that

“Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.”

And these are simple questions regarding real-time events in the everyday world. So, then, how much less accurate and more unreliable must "personal experiences" regarding matters of consciousness experienced under extreme conditions?

Now, you may certainly choose to disregard such well-established concepts for whatever reason, but doing so is certainly not "rational" under any definition of that word I'm familiar with.

[darkstar3]

90. Oh, but you have forgotten

that there is no such thing as "objective reality", and those who believe there is are just caught up in the materialist paradigm!

[tama]

93. Objective reality

is subjective notion. Again, objective and subjective are codependent categories that cannot be defined independently from each other. "Objective is non-subjective" and "subjective is non-objective".

Philosophy 101.

Also, phenomenal reality happening is not dependent from nor limited to subject-object category.

In practice objectivist claims are hermeneutical interpretations with air of Authority and subjective group thinking: "Objective reality is the worldview of me and those who agree with me". Calling a relativistic world view 'objective universal truth' that all beings should be subjected to is dogma, not scientific or any other form of skepticism.

[omega minimo]

102. Well there it is

[darkstar3]

105. And Poe's Law makes another appearance.n/t

[tama]

110. Poe's Law Limit

"Different participants in the discussion reached their own personal Poe's Law limits at different times, giving rise to speculation that it might be a quantum (IE, observer-dependent) phenomenon."
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

In quantum age which has no time line, the only truly objective linguistic formulations are superpositions of both parody and seriousness that the observer dependent Poe's Law Limits cannot interprete as either but get the feeling of being sucked into a vortex.

[darkstar3]

121. .

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

91. So the conscious cannot explore consciousness because personal experience is too personal

that's fuckin nuts. :hi:

[arKansasJHawk]

92. No ...

Personal experience is too unreliable and subjective, not "too personal."

Of course we explore consciousness. Scientists the world over are engaged in that pursuit every day. And it is entirely valid to use personal experiences as a jumping off point for determining what consciousness is and how it functions. But personal experience is NOT to be taken as the final word in evidence of the existence of certain "modes" of consciousness.

[tama]

94. Can you define

and show non-personal experience and evidence, from which all subjectivity is excluded?

Or a theory that is free from all and any presuppositions?

[arKansasJHawk]

95. The goal

Of any honest search for concrete, reliable answers is NOT to eliminate or "exclude" all subjectivity. The goal, or part of it, at least, is to design and execute a test or series of tests that offers results which can be reproduced by others. At a certain point, the results will have been reproduced and verified often enough that the only rational response is to accept as true the theory in question. If the results cannot be reproduced and verified, the theory is modified or rejected and a new hypothesis is formulated, and the process begins again.

It is, in short, the scientific method, which has, over the past century or so, completely transformed everyday life on this planet. Anyone who doubts the efficacy and absolute usefulness of this method should stop for a moment and consider:

Automobiles, airplanes, submarines, missiles, rockets, space shuttles, communication satellites, radio, television, digital theaters, cell phones, GPS, computers, DVDs, WiFi, iPods, iPhones, iPads, MP3s, JPGs ...

In fact, pretty much everything in your house that isn't a simple piece of furniture or an item of clothing owes its existence and function to the scientific method. Electric lights, microwaves, refrigerators, freezers, blow dryers, air conditioners, coffee makers, televisions and computers and DVD players and game consoles ...

The fruits of the scientific method are all around us. It just works. The examples I've listed barely scratch the surface. They are merely the concrete, physical products given to the world by the scientific method. I could also mention the germ theory of disease, antibiotics, the polio vaccine, and thousands of other medical procedures and ideas that have greatly extended the life-span of humans since 1900.

And so I have to ask ... what, exactly, has "personal experience" ever actually given to the world? As near as I can figure it, the list includes an uncountable number of religious beliefs, most of which have long since disappeared, and a lot of stories about witches and demons and alien abductions, spoon bendings and water dowsings, John Edwards and Sylvia Browne and James Van Praagh, pyramid power and EST and biorhythms ... a whole bunch of totally useless junk, in other words.

For me, the question of which method is more useful isn't really all that difficult to answer.

[tama]

96. Goal of Reproduction

Goal of reproduction, as you state, is of course by no means objective, but subjective, intentional and ideological criterion. Subjective and intrasubjective cultural evaluation of "fruits of scientific method", technological matrix and consumerism, is of course just that: subjective and intrasubjective cultural evaluation. The goal of reproduction as highest ethical axiom is of course not universally shared - or democratically decided, and in face of ecological crisis, undermining the carrying capacity of Earth and adaptation to evolution, it is of highly questionable value and in contradiction to the goal of reproduction.

Materialistic ethics of measurability and quantifiability - "more is better" - are not objective. Ethical consideration about quality of life cannot be "objectively" reduced to quantifiable and measurable data.

Goal of reproduction as the basic ethical axiom can be also defined in various ways, e.g.:
1) Short term individualistic reproduction of quantifiable consumerist pleasures
2) Long term sustainable reproduction that gives also future generations decent chances to live good lives

"Usefullnes" is concept relative to the chosen ethical axioms, not an end in itself.

[westerebus]

68. Consciousness is the exchange of information requiring the presence of one sentient being. n/t

[MineralMan]

74. Ah, so you would say that my cat does not have consciousness?

Truly? Define sentient being, then. Further, how does information get exchanged with only one sentient being being present?

This is very interesting.

[westerebus]

82. Ask your cat.

He or She is a sentient being. What happens when they look into a mirror? That's an information exchange.

My cat decides when he wants play. Or not. The dog of course thinks the cat is there for her amusement. The cat not so much.

Read a book. Information exchange.

Day dream. Information exchange.

The cat purrs when the food dish comes out. Information exchange.

You have mail. Information exchange.

April 15th. Information exchange.

Misplaced car keys. Information exchange.

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. Information exchange.

[omega minimo]

84. Cat's aren't sentient?

You're the one who thinks consciousness exists inside your brain/body only; certainly there's an internal information exchange.

[humblebum]

129. If that is the case then are love, sadness, anger nothing more than

chemical reactions in the brain? And if this is true then do those emotions really exist or have any significance whatsoever?

[dmallind]

132. Why are these mutually exclusive?

Chemical reactions in the brain produce responses that we call love, sadness and anger. Why does being caused by neurology negate existence? Do they exist outside our brains? No single shred of evidence to support that, and you get into rather silly Platonic ideal form territory anyway if you start down that path. But all our interaction with the world comes from the brain, so it's not like it is demeaning or negating these experiences to say they are derived from brain chemistry.

[Warpy]

2. I find the so-called "new" atheist authors have overcomplicated things

The only thing that defines me as an atheist is that I do not believe in any god or gods.

Anything else is just filler.

[MineralMan]

3. I will add that I find some religious doctrines to be culturally

toxic. That said, I have no automatic brief with adherents of any religion. It is not a person's beliefs regarding deities and the like that are the criteria for my assessment of that person. It is, rather, their behavior in society.

A nice person is a nice person. An asshole is an asshole. Their religious bent is irrelevant.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[tama]

9. Me too

and I also find some materialistic doctrines culturally toxic.

[MineralMan]

39. As do I. Religion has no lock on toxic behavior.

I don't believe I ever said that. I have a deep respect for some religious communities.

[omega minimo]

20. Jefferson owned and bedded and fathered slaves

[MineralMan]

38. He did. I was not commenting on anything other than a single

quotation of his.

[omega minimo]

57. his quote to make your point about the importance of

a person's "behavior in society."

[MineralMan]

66. Actually, Jefferson was not making a general statement there.

It had nothing to do with "behavior in society." It was specifically discussing a person's belief in relationship to how it affected Jefferson himself. Society was not mentioned. What someone believed did not pick his pocket or break his leg, according to the actual quote. Society was not mentioned.

Was Jefferson a completely admirable person? No, not really. But I'm not actually concerned with his life and behaviors. He said what I quoted him to say. I didn't quote him any further, nor did I comment on his life.

Please read what I write as carefully as I wrote it. Do not read words into my writing that I did not type. When you do that, you alter my words, as you did in your reply. You also altered Jefferson's words, which I class as a much more serious breach of intellectual honesty.

If you wish to discuss Jefferson in some other way, you'll have to find someone else to do it with. I'm not a Jefferson scholar.

[omega minimo]

70. Please read what I write as carefully as I wrote it. Do not read words into my writing that I didn't

Please read what I write as carefully as I wrote it. Do not read words into my writing that I did not type. When you do that, you alter my words, as you did in your reply.

So it's spelled out below.

"You also altered Jefferson's words, which I class as a much more serious breach of intellectual honesty."

No I didn't.



"use of his quote to make YOUR point.............."

IYHO "their behavior in society" trumps "Their religious bent is irrelevant."

Your choice of a quote to support your point is from someone whose own "behavior in society" is questionable.


I spelled it out for you. Let's leave it there.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Since there's not a lot to be said about nonbelief, most of what...

the "new atheists" are talking about is religion. Some seem obsessed with it, and determined to prove it all false, possibly even destroy it--as if that's possible.

A place where atheists feel welcome is useful, I suppose, but is nonbelief one of those vacuums that nature abhors so it must be discussed to death as much as belief is?

[tama]

7. Seemingly so

As Buddhism can be well defined as religious belief in the possibility of non-belief, there is certainly lot of discussion about the Buddhist vacuum of non-belief.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. But that would be discussion of religion, not atheism...

There is some discussion amongst Unitarian Universalists and modern Quakers concerning defining God, or whether or not God, under any definition, even exists. As with Buddhists, this tends not to be a public discussion, but deeply personal.

All three, and others such as Ethical Culturists, can and do exist without strict, or any, belief in God or gods, but to those who don't believe in deities, there is no further discussion about deities-- just discussion of the practices and rituals of the group.

[tama]

11. What is the definition of religion?

As Buddhism is atheistic belief in possibility of nonbelief in any illusions ("enlightment" that gnostic christians refer as "gnosis"), is it religion, philosophy, both, neither, something else?

[Odin2005]

13. Depends on what form of Buddhism.

Mahayana Buddhism is a religion. Theravada Buddhism is a kind of Secular Humanism.

[tama]

14. Evolutionary buddhism

my favourite is Vajrayana. Shamanistic Buddhism. Interesting and meaningfull also for us non-indoeuropeans.

I see Secular Humanism as too centered on individual escapism ("arhat"), to which religius Boddhisatva ideal is the counter reaction together with Nagarjuna's logical criticism. Vajrayana paths are the least escapistic and most political (in the best sense of the word), about creatig/remembering paradise on Earth.

But they are all same Dharma, anyway.

[omega minimo]

22. god is in us. we are in god.

[ironbark]

15. I have heard it argued that Buddha neither confirmed nor denied a deity

but responded to the question of the existence of god along the lines-

“You are like a person carrying two buckets of water…you cannot carry a third”.

The proposition was that this was not surprising given the context of the times-
A Hindu culture in which god was ‘in the pocket’ and obliged to respond to prayers
conducted in the correct manner.

Your thoughts?

[tama]

25. God's in Buddhism

are just as (un)real and impermanent as all other sentient beings and not free from cycle of birth and death. Buddha teaches Dharma also to gods.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I normally define religion as philosphy with the added notion of a deity, but...

that definition has its limits.

Going back to when I was a Lutheran, there was much talk of faith being "the evidence of that unseen" and I often tend to think of religion in terms of faith. Buddhism, of course, has its moments of faith, as no one has objectively observed yin, yang, or reincarnation.

Even highly secular fields experience what could be called faith, if only because no other term is so neatly appropriate. Just read the posts about HCR wherein so many are absolutely, positively certain that such and such a thing will, or will not happen, and the future will be all dark or all bright. Few mention probabilities. Only faith could bring such convincement without observable evidence.

Some of the more vocal atheists insist there is no God. That, of course, is far from simply not believing in a God, it demands that others agree, and it is not objective but an article of faith.

So, I'll largely stick with my first definition, but if some group wants to self-define itself as a religion, and has elements of faith within it, I don't find it objectionable.

[ironbark]

17. Yes, yes, yes indeed!

“Even highly secular fields experience what could be called faith, if only because no other term is so neatly appropriate.”

In large organizations and individual expectations…so much is ‘taken on faith’.

“Few mention probabilities. Only faith could bring such convincement without observable evidence.”

Precisely. ‘Probabilities’ are calculated on a daily spontaneous unconscious basis and protracted conscious consideration and applied to the most mundane and vital decisions.
“Is the boss being honest?, will this old lift serve or fail?, is my spouse faithful?, can I trust climate change science? Is there meaning and purpose in the universe beyond my own projections?”
At every turn we calculate probability and lay our life bets accordingly.
The unwavering certainty of the ‘god in my pocket’ theist is as unwarranted and disturbing as the ‘on faith’ conviction of those “atheists insist there is no God”.

Unfortunately these polar oppositional certainties prohibit the open investigation of the >probability< of the god proposition devoid of any expectation that the case be proven.

[omega minimo]

23. I mentions probabilities

and precedents.

Those who observe and experience interconnection may be predisposed to predictions that inevitably come true.

The plant is in the seed.

[tama]

26. And self-refuting predictions

>>>The plant is in the seed.<<<

And in the soil and sun and all the interconnected growth factors. In the symbiosis with fungi and human gardeners.

[omega minimo]

55. "Self-refuting"?

Time for a new metaphor?

[tama]

73. My bad English

Self-cancelling?

[omega minimo]

76. The type of plant is encoded in the seed

:hi:

[omega minimo]

21. Non belief is not a vacuum if it must proclaim itself

is it?

[MineralMan]

63. I don't believe I have ever "proclaimed" my non-belief.

When someone says something about atheism that is incorrect or distorted, I often respond with a discussion of the definition of the word and the statement that I am an atheist. Usually that is when someone has used "atheist" as a general term and made some assumptions about what that means about something not even related to believe or non-belief in deities.

Aside from those situations, or a situation when someone asks me directly about my religious beliefs, I don't really ever mention my atheism. It's not an evangelical thing with me, although I understand that some atheists seem bent on converting believers. That seems pointless to me.

Say something stupid about "atheists" in general, and I'll be right there to explain why it does not apply to atheists as a group. Other than that, the beliefs of others are of little interest to me.

[skepticscott]

100. Non-belief need not proclaim itself.

But throughout history, and little less so even today, it has had to defend itself from society that finds it unacceptable, even detestable and would see it erased.

Do you get the difference?

[omega minimo]

104. is that your personal experience?

[trotsky]

32. I have no idea why anyone would have anything negative to say about religion...

or want to limit its power or influence over the rest of us.

[ironbark]

34. Yup, every minute of every day, day in day out, billions of religionists

committing the same acts of bigotry, stupidity and violence you depict.

You would think someone would have had the sense to nip it in the bud.

[struggle4progress]

18. I find the "debate" uninteresting. It is completely unclear to me what

what practical significance any "resolution" of the various questions could actually have

"Religion" is a vague term, covering a variety of phenomena, some of which should be strenuously opposed, some of which should be embraced with enthusiasm, and some of which best warrant a glassy eyed Huh? And from a psychological perspective, there may be significant differences in individual cases between the "religion" people profess (and perhaps ceremonially practice) and the "religion" appear to hold, as judged by their actual behavior. In this regard, I (though calling myself "Christian") might in individual cases find that a particular person -- who had no interest whatsoever in "Christian theology" and self-identified as Islamic or Buddhist or atheist or whatever -- appeared to hold practical views, that I considered "religious" and regarded as much closer to my own than another particular person who professed "Christianity" in words similar to my own. Thus, for example, someone can self-identify as "Christian" and yet their "real religion" might be something like "sex and Florida beachfront property," while another person might self-identify as an "atheist" and yet their "real religion" might be "whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do to me." I find it useful to describe this view as everyone has a religion -- though I have been repeatedly informed here that this view is "offensive," usually by people who use the word "religion" only as a put-down

The claim of the atheist, Ernst Bloch, Only an atheist can be a good Christian, is (I think) an insightful comment on Love-Your-Neighbor ethics, already present in some form in the epistle of James -- it is completely inadequate morality to resign the fate of one's neighbors to a remote and invisible hope. But Bloch also liked the retort, Only a Christian can be a good atheist, enough to append it to his original quote -- a retort that, like the original, can and should be read as metaphor. Bloch was a Marxist, and like Marx he did not want paper flowers torn from the chains of oppression only that humanity might wear its chains bare and unadorned. When mindlessly smashing idols, in the name of "liberation," one can too easily smash much more, including some matters of real value: it is, of course, easier to observe this in others than in ourselves, so we see clearly the horror of the Taliban destroying the Banyam Buddhas but less clearly the effects of our own mindless smashing. The bottom line, and the point of the retort to Bloch, is that simply banishing all "religious" notions from one's consciousness (or conscience) does not necessarily and automatically advance any other positive values

The "debate" is sterile. What is required instead is -- understanding human hopes and needs, especially the hopes of the most hopeless and needs of the most needful: arguing about the language in which those hopes and needs are expressed is a cop out

[tama]

24. Exactly

And regardless of some contrary evidence, I believe there's much more also to 'atheism' than fervent belief in the power of definitions. :)

[ironbark]

28. There are arcs of lightening flaring from my Webster’s at your blasphemy

;-)

[tama]

30. LOL

Do not provoke the righteous anger of the only true Dictionary, the Etymological database of Proto-Indoeuropean stems (Ed Pies) with your heathen false god, or your face will get Edited with a Pie!!! :mad:

[ironbark]

27. "real religion" might be something like "sex and Florida beachfront property,"

Yes…yes indeed…and touches on my reluctance/refusal when pressed for a binary yes/no response to “Do you believe in god”. Certainly there are times I do and others I certainly do not. Beyond these satori of certainty is inconsistency. I have joked in the past about waking up as a Satanist, reaching mid day as an agnostic and going to bed a true believer. And this I believe to be true of many people because many of us are simply not true to our word or professed belief.

“I find it useful to describe this view as everyone has a religion -- though I have been repeatedly informed here that this view is "offensive," usually by people who use the word "religion" only as a put-down”


There is no reason such a general observation should be considered a “offensive”…unless and until you relentlessly pursue some poor atheist/agnostic across the board demanding that they personally accept the proposition.
Having experienced the inverse- “Every non theist or agnostic is an atheist” I can accept the general definitional propisition…it is the attempt to oblige a personal identification that is offensive.


“Only an atheist can be a good Christian, is (I think) an insightful comment on Love-Your-Neighbor ethics, already present in some form in the epistle of James -- it is completely inadequate morality to resign the fate of one's neighbors to a remote and invisible hope.”

My reading/understanding here is that it is impossible for me to love my neighbour if I know little or nothing about him. Love (A preparedness to ‘do’ for others) is dependent upon my knowing my neighbour, knowing his beliefs and needs and potentially (temporarily) abandoning my beliefs and needs to achieve this end of understanding. I hold this to be true of nations as well as individuals and groups. It is, basically, no more than- Walking a mile in their shoes.

“it is, of course, easier to observe this in others than in ourselves, so we see clearly the horror of the Taliban destroying the Banyam Buddhas but less clearly the effects of our own mindless smashing.”

Yes Struggle…”Why do they hate us” requires looking at us as well as them. On two or three occasions on this board I have tried to convey conversations I have had with young Indonesians and Timorese regarding the underlying causes of the Bali bombings. Certainly they recognise and concede fundamentalist religious nutters…they also slowly, shyly and shamefully reveal that for years the area was the target of organised pedophile rings from Europe, American and Australia. They spoke shyly because they are unused to speaking of such matters and shamefully because they felt their community had failed to protect the innocent. Their local authorities were not up to the task and ours almost completely indifferent.


“What is required instead is -- understanding human hopes and needs, especially the hopes of the most hopeless and needs of the most needful: arguing about the language in which those hopes and needs are expressed is a cop out”

I agree wholeheartedly. My understanding of meeting those needs begins with the principles and practice of Community Building (see #12, Mind over Mater).

True Community requires an environment of vulnerability that will permit a narrative of brokenness to be heard.

The wound is the aperture through which the light of god shines.

All the best.

[skepticscott]

101. If you think that

the debate on the destructive effects of organized religion on society is "sterile" then you must be one of the lucky few people in the world who have never experienced the practical consequences of it.

[WVRICK13]

29. As An Atheist I Am Not Against

those who believe. I just don't want their religion making our laws. I am not anti-god, to be opposed to something I think is a fantasy is ridiculous and a waste of time and energy.

[trotsky]

33. Sorry but I can't help but be reminded of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Tsk, tsk, these silly "new atheists" (who aren't in any way "new," but instead just VOCAL in the most secular age of the world - thank GOD) just can't appreciate the complexity and quality of our fine cloth and tailorin.... I mean religion and theology.

[Jim__]

35. I agree that these books are gross over-simplifications.

To study the history of violence and/or war throughout human history is no simple undertaking. The number of variables, and the length of the history, make it a more difficult undertaking than the study of, say, economics which is not yet well understood even by experts.

The brief bit of history that the "new atheists" look at, and the purely anecdotal nature of their claims can only establish that religion has caused violence. But, they haven't even made the case that religion has, on net, caused violence. Their methodology, or rather, lack of methodology, make their investigations extremely susceptible to confirmation bias.

[darkstar3]

40. I'm curious about what you mean by the qualification "on net". n/t

[Jim__]

41. I mean balanced against violence it has prevented. - n/t

[darkstar3]

44. And this somehow refutes the claim that religion caused/causes violence?

More importantly, does the good (net or otherwise) that religion has done for individuals excuse the violence caused by it?

One good deed does not undo one bad deed.

The few books I have read by so-called "new atheists" merely detail some of the violence caused by religion. They make no argument about the net good or bad of religion over history, and for good reason. Let me give you a real world example as to why the "net good" of religion over history doesn't matter.

A few years ago, a nursing home near my old stomping grounds made the news. It seems that some of the patients in the nursing home, specifically the ones suffering from different forms of dementia and Alzheimer's, had not been properly cared for. The nursing home was understaffed, and the prevailing wisdom seemed to be that the patients with severe mental issues wouldn't notice a difference in their care. Now, on the whole, the nursing home had certainly performed a "net good" over its history, and was even continuing to perform a "net good" at the time because of the level of care being given to the patients who were actually being paid attention to. This, however, did not matter to the public, to the administrators of the facility in their shiny corporate office, or most importantly to the state medical board. The facility was immediately shut down, and the patients transferred to other local facilities until such time as a full review of staff, policies, procedures, adherence to state mandates, and practice enforcement could be completed.

Examples like this happen frequently in the US. Organizations that have performed a "net good" over their history, and may even continue to perform a "net good" now, are still shut down when it is discovered that something they are currently doing is bad.

What's my point? The concept of "net good" is very often left in the dust when it is discovered that something bad has happened in the secular world. The defense "but look at all the things I did right!" will never stop your boss from firing you if you lose the company a metric ton of money. So why is it that whenever we look at the bad things done in the name of or by religion, we are constantly reminded about the possibility of a "net good"?

[Jim__]

48. No. It refutes claims like "religion poisons everything."

As to your examles, you are making a category error - in effect, comparing apples and oranges . When an individual church abuses people, beats children, molests children, forces people into marriage, and the offenders are caught, they go to prison; the church may be closed down. However, because a church does this does not come anywhere near justifying calls for the elimination of religion. It's sort of like saying cars kill people, therefore we should do away with cars. Cars cause lots of problems; but that has to be weighed against the benefits.

Religion, of course, is a much broader category than cars, and the car example is an understatement of the typeof leap you're trying to make.

[darkstar3]

49. And yet, it isn't JUST an individual church that is responsible.

You are attempting to compartmentalize and localize the blame for violence and general "bad" that occurs under the name of religion. Catholic priests aren't the only priests molesting children. Phelpsian Christians aren't the only Christians hating on and attempting to demonize homosexuals. Christians themselves do not have a stranglehold on "bad" done by or in the name of their faith, as many conflicts around the world in history and in the current day can show.

But now you're changing the subject. I asked WHY, when the concept is rarely if ever brought up elsewhere in debate, we are always reminded of the possibility of a "net good" when religious violence is discussed?

[Jim__]

52. And your example nursing home isn't the only nursing home giving substandard treatment.

And, you can replace the second paragraph in post #35 with:

The brief bit of history that the "new atheists" look at, and the purely anecdotal nature of their claims can only establish that religion has caused violence. Their methodology, or rather, lack of methodology, make their investigations extremely susceptible to confirmation bias.

The point remains unchanged.

[darkstar3]

56. What point do you suppose that is?

You are admitting here that it has been "established that religion has caused violence", which is exactly in line with what the books say, and yet you are attempting to claim oversimplification and somehow say something against their books. What are you trying to say?

By cutting that sentence, your post makes even less sense. You reprimand the "new atheists" for oversimplification, then you agree with them, then you make a claim about confirmation bias that is practically a non-sequitur. Without that middle sentence that I took issue to, your post contradicts itself and has no point.

[Jim__]

58. Oh please. Read the first paragraph of the post.

They have no idea what are the major causes of violence in human history; so, no basis for claiming that religion is a major cause of violence. Marriage is a cause of violence, sex is a cause of violence. We can pick any of an extremely large number of human activities and claim they are causes of violence. That claim, in and of itself, says very little.

[darkstar3]

61. If that's what you believed, then it's what you should have said to begin with.

You didn't.

Starting at #35 you were working on the idea that religion causes violence but we should pay more attention to the "net good" it has done.

Now, with that idea out the window, you try to claim that it doesn't matter if religion causes violence because there are so many other things in life that do the same.

You're changing it up, again. So I'll ask you one more time, what point are you trying to make in this thread?

[Jim__]

64. That's the first paragraph in post #35.

[darkstar3]

65. Which the second paragraph overshadows and changes.

If your point were made thoroughly with the first paragraph, why write the second and start on the whole topic of "net good"?

It sounds an awful lot to me like you're trying very hard to have us excuse or ignore the violence done by religion and are willing to jump to different arguments willy-nilly to do it.

[ironbark]

83. Precisely. You shut down the branch office and recall the faulty vehicles…

sack or charge those responsible.

But you don’t abandon or call for the elimination of aged care, cars or religion.

[iris27]

42. Once again we see the inaccurate conflation of public, vocal atheism with

an assertion of strong/positive atheism.

"...it is certainly clear that atheists involved in these debates tend to be positive atheists."

Even after quoting Dawkins' self-identification as "Very low probability (of a god existing), but short of zero. De facto atheist"...the site goes on to categorize him as a positive atheist.

Dismissing a proposed deity as incredibly unlikely is not the same thing as asserting it could never possibly exist. It is incorrect to call Dawkins a positive atheist.


Edited -- brackets ate my text...must remember to use parentheses...

[Jim__]

43. I don't think that's out of line with the definition they gave in the previous paragraph.

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes. Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.<1> For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

You can disagree with their definition; but they did clearly state what they mean, and based on their definition, the statement seems accurate.

[darkstar3]

45. It is not accurate within their own definition.

How does Dawkins' statement of Very low probability (of a god existing), but short of zero. equate to this ad hoc defintion of positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God?

I don't see how the first statement at all fits under the umbrella of the second.

[Jim__]

46. "...I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" - Dawkins.

Does Dawkins disbelieve that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?

If so, then he falls under their stated definition: It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

And from the article: ... Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'.

The article gave clear definitions of their terminology and of Dawkins public statements. They are not trying to mislead anyone. They are extremely clear. Language is almost never completely unambiguous. But on this point, the article came pretty close.

[darkstar3]

47. Show me where

Dawkins asserted disbelief in God rather than simply relating a lack of theistic belief. Your "fairies in the garden" quote is a lack of belief.

[Jim__]

51. Once again: "Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies ...

... at the bottom of the garden'."

And this discussion is a waste of time. You're making an issue about interpretation; but Dawkins viewpoint was explcitly, and accurately, stated.

[darkstar3]

53. I'm making an issue about the fact that they are inconsistent.

They set down three categories, Dawkins fits into the first (negative atheism) and they go ahead and say he fits in the second (positive atheism) when there is no way to show that he asserts active disbelief. Nowhere in this subthread have your quotes shown Dawkins as a "positive atheist" as the article refers to him.

ETA: Dawkins has always been quite clear about the fact that he lacks theistic belief, and this idea that he or any other atheist asserts disbelief is baseless. As has been the biggest point of contention here lately, there is a difference between the two, it is important, and the assertion of disbelief is wildly uncommon.

[iris27]

80. No, the Dawkins quotes that they cite show he is clearly an agnostic/negative atheist.

If 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden' is "asserted disbelief in God" to you, then what would "lack of theistic belief" look like?

Dawkins still allows for the slim possibility that God may exist. Just because it's the same slim possibility that we give to vampires, fairies, and leprechauns doesn't mean it's not there.

Asserted disbelief in God -- as in, what atheists mean when they speak about positive/strong atheism -- looks like this: "I do not BELIEVE any god(s) can possibly exist."

[omega minimo]

88. isn't that another almost identical term for

"active disbelief" which I used and took so much debunker abuse for?

[tama]

97. Do you have any idea

how silly the these endless debates about analytical definitions sound - especially to a non-Anglo-Saxon observer (ie. from perspective of cultural conditioning not exclusively in analytical philosophy but also in continental philosophy and local non-indoeuropean thinking).

[omega minimo]

103. yes

aye




affirmative




indeed




oh yeah :eyes:

[iris27]

131. That's fine.

However, to me, words matter, and precision matters.

I dislike it when someone is incorrectly characterized as putting forward views that are fundamentally just another unprovable assertion (because that's what strong atheism is), just because they are public and vocal about not buying into someone else's unprovable assertion.

[iris27]

130. Why, yes, it is, and if you'll notice, I'm saying here that it is the SAME thing as "belief

in non-existence"...which is what we were trying to tell you over in the other thread. Or to use your words "that you used and took so much debunker abuse for".

You were trying to assert that it was a separate category - when someone said there was "lack of belief" and "belief in non-existence", you said "no, you're missing one; what about active disbelief?" And everyone said "that's the same thing as 'belief in non-existence'". You refused to accept that and asserted there were many separate names for "active disbelief", which you could not back up after being asked repeatedly.

Here, as there, "active disbelief"="asserted belief in non-existence"="strong atheism"...NONE of which accurately describes the beliefs of Dawkins or the atheists here on R/T. We don't make claims that can't be backed up; we just reject those claims when they come from others.

[skepticscott]

98. Yet another dull-witted writer

who cannot make the elementary distinction between atheism and anti-theism. It's not a difficult concept, but apparently it takes all of the air out of their arguments if they acknowledge it.

[darkstar3]

106. Hitting the nail on the head once again, I see.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

108. The link is to the "dull-witted" University of Cambridge, with lots of info on atheism

Is that a bad thing?

Did you look at the site at all? Anything there helpful or particularly awful?

[skepticscott]

113. So your only argument

is one from authority, and only a general authority at that? (This comes from Cambridge, so it must be correct and the people writing it must be smart). It didn't take much reading to see that their understanding is unsubtle and not at all useful. They mention nothing that shows that they understand the distinction between atheism and anti-theism/anti-religionism, nor is their grasp of what they call strong/positive atheism particularly good, since they miss the fundamental point about that as well. And anyone still using the term "New Atheist" without giving some account of why it's "New" doesn't deserve much intellectual credibility either.

Can't know for sure, but it looks like the work assigned by a prof to a couple of grad students.

[omega minimo]

120. That was not an argument

[skepticscott]

124. It was an attempt to show

that my characterization of the writer as "dull-witted" was unjustified. Sure sounds like an argument to me. A simple and vacuous argument, to be sure, but an argument, nonetheless.

[omega minimo]

125. It was a question

You have just shown proof of your infliction of your projections on others.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Filed under "The Courtier's Reply":

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php">PZ Myers nailed it years ago on Pharyngula:

There's a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins' The God Delusion that I've taken to categorizing with my own private title—it's so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I've decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name.

I call it the Courtier's Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable.

[tama]

111. Dawkin's Dangling Genitalia

By no means suggest that he's a Naked Emperor, as factual matter it is much more preferable to dress him in Imaginary Fabrics. ;)

[ironbark]

112. Sometimes your post headings can be so promising….

Then…..no follow up.

;-)

[omega minimo]

127. .

a quantum kilt?

....:wow:
:bounce::bounce:

[struggle4progress]

115. How confusing! I thought atheists proudly disbelieved fairy tales

[skepticscott]

117. And your point would be

...what? That using the background of a fictional story to illustrate a larger point means that you think the story itself must be true? :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

119. Keep at it, you'll get the point eventually.

I have faith in you.

[RainDog]

114. why do those of you who claim there is no god bother to discuss this with the people on this thread?

I came back upon this forum by accident. it's not in my forum listings... I don't even see this forum, ever. and that's fine with me since I haven't seen much of value here anyway. this is maybe the fourth time I've ever been here (as in...fourth time b/c of a topic.)

anyway, I read these threads and I really wonder why those of you who do not think it's valid to hold to a belief in god bother to engage with those who seek to define people and terms in ways that make it okay for them to hold beliefs that they cannot quantify, cannot defend outside of attacks on others who have valid reason and evidence to not accept their pov, and who engage in constant circle jerks of affirmation.

...just to say - spend your time as you will, but is it really worth the waste of time? ymmv.

for me, there is just about nothing else that is more of a waste of time.

[skepticscott]

116. Are you asking

why we bother to argue in favor of the truth, when the falsehood has caused so much misery and destruction? Is that what you're tagging as a waste of time?

[omega minimo]

123. "THE" truth

"THE" falsehood.

Oversimplification, much?

[beam me up scottie]

118. Because we get sick of being told what we believe or don't.

From ReligiousTolerance.org:

Intolerance: Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected.

Occasionally we trip over a poster who really wants to know what we think, but you won't find them in threads like this.

[omega minimo]

126. false

"Occasionally we trip over a poster who really wants to know what we think, but you won't find them in threads like this."

[omega minimo]

122. .

because threads in another forum instruct them to come here and do so.