Saturday, September 15, 2007
Harebrained Hairpins
Now this is interesting ... in a strange sort of way.I'm not overly sympathetic to the complaints of the "New Atheists" that they are unfairly being told to mute their criticism of religion lest they drive religious people further away from science in particular and rationalism in general. In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism. And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times. And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.
But Mary Jordan, in a report entitled "In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal" for the Washington Post Foreign Service, has gone completely round the bend! She notes that:
On both sides of the Atlantic, membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers ...One reason for this surge in outspokenness, that has, in turn, led to the "New Atheist" label, is suggested by the article:
New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more people are publicly saying they have no religious faith.
Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion.While I have my doubts about the role that 9/11 and the other high profile terrorist attacks cited in the article really have on this trend, Ms. Jordon makes the assertion that:
The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry.Excuse me? ... "also extreme"? Perpetrating minor defacement of currency is the same as killing 3,000 people by hijacking commercial airliners for attacks deliberately aimed mostly at civilians? It is the same as planting bombs on commuter buses or trains?
I have no qualms about criticizing atheists and their tactics ... but get a grip!
.
Comments:
<< Home
Well, technically it is not "atheism" per se, but positions held by some atheists. An example of irrationality perpetrated by some atheists would include the common response to claims of personal experience of god by theists. Quite apart from how credible those claims might be, a frequent response is to say something like "Ax murderer so-and-so thought he was told by god to reduce a dozen people to hamburger patties" as if that demostrates that all such claims are hallucinations/delusions.
In fact, that is the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, as well as an argument from anecdote, which is contrary to the scientific method that most atheists claim to be following.
There are any number of other common arguments of atheists with similar problems.
In fact, that is the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, as well as an argument from anecdote, which is contrary to the scientific method that most atheists claim to be following.
There are any number of other common arguments of atheists with similar problems.
Yes, people can make fallacious arguments irregardless of their religiosity or lack thereof.
I just hope that people reading your article will take the time to understand that your statement "atheism ... is irrational at times" actually means "atheists ... can be irrational at times" because these two statements lead to dramatically different logical conclusions: the former tars all atheists with the same brush while the latter is only specific to certain individuals who exhibit certain recognizable behavior.
I just hope that people reading your article will take the time to understand that your statement "atheism ... is irrational at times" actually means "atheists ... can be irrational at times" because these two statements lead to dramatically different logical conclusions: the former tars all atheists with the same brush while the latter is only specific to certain individuals who exhibit certain recognizable behavior.
"Atheism" is nothing more than the collection of beliefs and arguments of atheists. There is no "atheism" that exists "out there" somewhere that "true" atheists tap into somehow. The last people who should subscribe to that sort of idealism would be atheists, I would have thought.
But you're right that my usage was unnecessarily confusing and I'll try to be clearer in the future.
But you're right that my usage was unnecessarily confusing and I'll try to be clearer in the future.
I would say that strictly speaking atheism entails no belief whatsoever since it is not a belief system but a lack of a theistic belief system. To even speak of atheism is unusual because no one speaks of afairyism, asanta clausism, arepublicanism, or other nonsensical "lack of belief" systems.
But there are a set of rational reasons why one would not take up any religious beliefs and these reasons have come to mean the "beliefs" of atheism. It's all just convenient semantics, and not necessarily wrong.
But there are a set of rational reasons why one would not take up any religious beliefs and these reasons have come to mean the "beliefs" of atheism. It's all just convenient semantics, and not necessarily wrong.
I would say that strictly speaking atheism entails no belief whatsoever since it is not a belief system but a lack of a theistic belief system. To even speak of atheism is unusual because no one speaks of afairyism, asanta clausism, arepublicanism, or other nonsensical "lack of belief" systems.
No, I can't agree with that. What people describe as "atheism" is not the simple lack of belief in theism. That's the reason you hear about atheism and not those other things. "Atheism," as it exists "in the wild" is, and has always been, a bundle of beliefs that probably has, at its core, naturalism and/or materialism and which can also include, depending on the proponent, such things as anti-religionism and scientism.
But there are a set of rational reasons why one would not take up any religious beliefs and these reasons have come to mean the "beliefs" of atheism. It's all just convenient semantics, and not necessarily wrong.
While it is not absolutely impossible that the isolated, logically "pure" atheism you are talking about might, somewhere, sometime, have had someone hold to it, it is, I think, as rare as some isolated, logically pure theism divorced from any religious tenets at all. Even the Deists usually held to some sort of Providence. Such purity is interesting as an intellectual exercise, but not as a study on the ground.
No, I can't agree with that. What people describe as "atheism" is not the simple lack of belief in theism. That's the reason you hear about atheism and not those other things. "Atheism," as it exists "in the wild" is, and has always been, a bundle of beliefs that probably has, at its core, naturalism and/or materialism and which can also include, depending on the proponent, such things as anti-religionism and scientism.
But there are a set of rational reasons why one would not take up any religious beliefs and these reasons have come to mean the "beliefs" of atheism. It's all just convenient semantics, and not necessarily wrong.
While it is not absolutely impossible that the isolated, logically "pure" atheism you are talking about might, somewhere, sometime, have had someone hold to it, it is, I think, as rare as some isolated, logically pure theism divorced from any religious tenets at all. Even the Deists usually held to some sort of Providence. Such purity is interesting as an intellectual exercise, but not as a study on the ground.
"Atheism," as it exists "in the wild" is, and has always been, a bundle of beliefs that probably has, at its core, naturalism and/or materialism and which can also include, depending on the proponent, such things as anti-religionism and scientism.
Conflating naturalism, materialism, and all those other things into "atheism" contributes to the atheist position being so widely misunderstood.
Keeping the nomenclature pure prevents people from projecting other belief systems onto atheists.
When people understand that atheism is not a belief system, they will understand that they will thus need to ask the atheists what they do in fact believe in.
So no, I do not agree with your conflated view of atheism although I do not expect to change your mind of course. I am leaving this comment as a record for anyone reading our conversation to see both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions.
Cheers.
Conflating naturalism, materialism, and all those other things into "atheism" contributes to the atheist position being so widely misunderstood.
Keeping the nomenclature pure prevents people from projecting other belief systems onto atheists.
When people understand that atheism is not a belief system, they will understand that they will thus need to ask the atheists what they do in fact believe in.
So no, I do not agree with your conflated view of atheism although I do not expect to change your mind of course. I am leaving this comment as a record for anyone reading our conversation to see both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions.
Cheers.
When people understand that atheism is not a belief system, they will understand that they will thus need to ask the atheists what they do in fact believe in.
[Shrug] It is a simple enough empiric exercise. Name me, say, ten people who carefully and consistently separate their materialism, naturalism, scientism, etc. from their atheism. Not just lip service, now, but who never use materialistic, naturalistic, scientific arguments in favor of their atheism (as opposed to merely against accepting theism).
I don't believe for a second that anyone truly separates their thinking in that way. The nomenclature may seem "pure" to you but pure is the last thing people are.
[Shrug] It is a simple enough empiric exercise. Name me, say, ten people who carefully and consistently separate their materialism, naturalism, scientism, etc. from their atheism. Not just lip service, now, but who never use materialistic, naturalistic, scientific arguments in favor of their atheism (as opposed to merely against accepting theism).
I don't believe for a second that anyone truly separates their thinking in that way. The nomenclature may seem "pure" to you but pure is the last thing people are.
Oh, and for the record's sake, PZ agrees with me:
And oh, yeah, I'm passionate about atheism, but atheism isn't about nothing: it's about valuing reason over superstition, about conquering unfounded fears, about facing the real world without crutches and lies to hold you up. I'm sure someone is going to sit there and dissect the letters of the word and tell me that atheism means only an absence of belief in gods, but screw that — it's about a whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism. It is an idea with substance.
That's one ...
Post a Comment
And oh, yeah, I'm passionate about atheism, but atheism isn't about nothing: it's about valuing reason over superstition, about conquering unfounded fears, about facing the real world without crutches and lies to hold you up. I'm sure someone is going to sit there and dissect the letters of the word and tell me that atheism means only an absence of belief in gods, but screw that — it's about a whole philosophy of thought that is built on materialism and naturalism. It is an idea with substance.
That's one ...
<< Home
