The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[InfiniteNow]

The folly of pretence | Daniel Dennett | Comment is free | The Guardian

Today one of the most insistent forces arrayed in opposition to us vocal atheists is the "I'm an atheist but" crowd, who publicly deplore our "hostility", our "rudeness" (which is actually just candour), while privately admitting that we're right. They don't themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe in belief in God. It's not always easy to tell who just believes in belief, since the actions motivated by believing in belief (while not actually believing in God) are – with the exception of those rare sotto voce confessions – well-nigh indistinguishable from the actions of genuine believers: say the prayers, sing the hymns, tithe, proclaim one's allegiance, volunteer for church projects, and so on. Sometimes I wonder if even 10% of the people who proclaim their belief in God actually do believe in God. I am particularly unimpressed by those who proclaim the loudest; they demonstrate by their very activism that they fear the effect of any erosion of religion, and they must think that erosion is likely if they don't put their shoulders to the wheel. If they were more confident and secure in their religious convictions, they probably wouldn't waste their time trying to discredit a few atheists. For instance, since they are confident that the moon landings really happened, they don't bother working to discredit the moon-landing sceptics who lurk on the internet, even though those people do pose something of a threat to public confidence in the veracity of the media and the government.

I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong. That is, we no more need to preserve the myth of God in order to preserve a just and stable society than we needed to cling to the Gold Standard to keep our currency sound. It was a useful crutch, but we've outgrown it. Denmark, according to a recent study, is the sanest, healthiest, happiest, most crime-free nation in the world, and by and large the Danes simply ignore the God issue. We should certainly hope that those who believe in belief are wrong, because belief is waning fast, and the props are beginning to buckle.

[enorbet2]

Hey Infinite I think you may have possibly overlooked a third category of atheist - those who neither believe in a Supreme Being (whatever that is) nor beliefs (we either know, don't know or can't know) and are frankly bored with the question. Additionally, if the concept that one's value can be measured by the stature of one's enemies has any validity, we only give believers increased status by engaging them especially in a heated way as if something important were truly at stake. It seems a slow process climbing down from the trees, let alone crawling from the muck, but I think it is best to just let capital "F" Faith die on the vine in it's own natural course. There will possibly always be a few hangers-on and throwbacks but it should be obvious that given Humanity survives long enough essentially on the course seen through History, it is inevitable that Reason rules.

OTOH real dialogue is still possible. I recently watched a 2 hour internet video of a panel debate in Australia regarding the existence of Creator and the value of religion and found both sides remarkably interesting even if my own convictions were essentially unchanged. However I was a bit surprised that here was a good case made for the continued existence of religion for a balanced world. I googled it just now and apparently debate is alive and well in Australia as there are too many results. If you, or anyone else is interested, I will search my browser history and post the link here.

Words do convey emotion and can hurt people. People hurt in an argument, tend not to take the "hurters" point of view. I am reminded of an old cliche regarding honey and vinegar. I salute your convictions and the strength of reason you display, but I question the efficacy of methodology and it's likely results, which may more often than not, be counter-productive. One must, IMHO, not only check one's premises, but also the conclusions and their effects as the premise of the following syllogism.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

No thanks, I already stated that I think this nitpicking discussion is a waste of my time. I have science books/papers to go read this summer.

Fine, then you should have gone to read your books and papers without wasting your time by stepping in, just to imply that folks here are nitpicking and retarded.

Stating that you don't understand someone's point is even less of a justification for implying that they are retarded, you either request clarifications in a constructive manner or consider it over your head and read those things that are worth your time. I did not see fit to clarify, prior to you answering the questions I asked you. No worries.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Anyone who is yet to satisfy themselves on this semantic issue might find some more answers on these pages:

What comes across through those sites is that the matter cannot be agreed by all without convening on a definition of atheist. As I said, the term has been historically used in inconsistent ways, as described by:

atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

No one could deny the importance in this thread of agreeing upon the meaning of the word atheist. If one considers it to have the same meaning as agnostic then clearly they should see no point having both. But it does make sense to have both because the distinction exists, whether or not one's intellectual faculties can discern it. Given this and the fact that agnostic was coined by Huxley and is well defined, there's no point insisting that atheist must mean the same. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has it meaning "one who believes that there is no deity" and hence being a belief. Agnostic means having no belief. Retarded nitpicking?

The reason I stepped in was an attempt to tone things down, which were largely due to that disagreement but also to misconceptions (such as comparing belief in God with belief in the toothfairy).

[InfiniteNow]

Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy? What about Apollo and Thor? Are you agnostic about them? How about Zeus?

You probably are not, despite your inability to prove their non-existence. You likely have a tremendous confidence that they do not actually exist, and for all intents and purposes you are atheistic in your approach to them.

This is (IINM) Galapagos' larger point... That whenever the concept of an Abrahamic god enters the mix, the logic suddenly becomes inconsistent and folks cling to this "you can't possibly know!" response. Like him, I find it somewhat retarded that people are not willing to call themselves "agnostic" regarding the countless deities laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, but practically force the issue when it regards jahweh.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Hey Infinite I think you may have possibly overlooked a third category of atheist - those who neither believe in a Supreme Being (whatever that is) nor beliefs (we either know, don't know or can't know) and are frankly bored with the question.

Hi enorbet,

Thank you for your reply, and I most certainly understand your point about my approach, as you're not the first person to raise the issue. I personally tend to think that moderates provide unearned cover and protection for believers, and that this is part of the problem.

Either way, I want to make sure it's clear that those words in the post above are not mine, but instead originated with Dan Dennett. I apologize that my decision to indent them alone did not make this very clear. That was my fault, but you were at your opening actually responding to something written by Dennett, and not by me.

Thanks again.

[HydrogenBond]

The main difference between the atheists and many religious peoples are the atheists try to be rational in terms of their outlook toward reality. Although physical reality follows these rational principles, human nature is not fully rational. All atheists are not like Mr Spock, where all their emotions and irrational impulses are checked and non-existent. They get emotional too and can become under the influence of the irrational nature of human nature, even as they reason.

For example, many religions push for lifetime marriage. This seems irrational in terms of the scientific observations of animal and primitive nature. To be more consistent with these physical observations, the atheist change this to a freer social orientation of choice. But this social change did not alter the irrational nature of human nature. All that has changed is the irrational social matrix has become more rational, in which human irrationality will being expressed.

Ironically, the rational scientific change actually allows greater freedom for human nature irrationality, because it allows quicker changes in state, based on the irrational whims of mood change and impulse. This allows people to be more irrational, more of the time, moving away from rational.

Religion has an outward social irrationality, which often requires controlling much of the irrational of human nature. Atheism has a more rational outward social structure, which allows more free expression of the irrationality of human nature. The atheist group is more rational in terms of collective thinking, but the individual has more irrational freedom. Religion has the collective being more irrational. However, the individual often has to control their inner irrationality making them less irrational individually.

If the religious person stays married for a lifetime, they lose many of the irrational, emotional and impulsive options the atheist give themselves. The extra inner irrationality of the atheists, defines an inner religion effect that helps to reverse engineer the irrational making it appear rational, even when the math doesn't add up.

Atheists dwell on the god angle, which is irrational. But they never seem to bring up their higher irrational freedom. Let us do the math and see if atheists have opened up more irrational freedom, which will have an impact on base rationality. What clouds this over is parroting the party line like a religion so it stays on the rational surface and away from the math that adds time average irrationality of human nature.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The main difference between the atheists and many religious peoples are the atheists try to be rational in terms of their outlook toward reality.

Which seems to me to be a pretty good thing, all things considered.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Although physical reality follows these rational principles, human nature is not fully rational. All atheists are not like Mr Spock, where all their emotions and irrational impulses are checked and non-existent. They get emotional too and can become under the influence of the irrational nature of human nature, even as they reason.

I wouldn't exactly equate emotions with religion or the lack thereof. Emotions are mostly chemical in nature, whilst religion is a failure of logic, i.e. a misunderstanding of cause and effect.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

For example, many religions push for lifetime marriage. This seems irrational in terms of the scientific observations of animal and primitive nature.

Why would that be? I've known atheist couples who have been married for many years, happily so. Polygamy/Monogamy has nothing to do with religion. There are many cases of charismatic bible-thumpers who've been caught having a bit of sex on the side. Not to mention those catholics with a penchant for young boys. Human nature is human nature, and as long as humans are around there will be sexual abandon amongst individuals with a penchant for it, be they believers or atheists.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Religion has an outward social irrationality, which often requires controlling much of the irrational of human nature. Atheism has a more rational outward social structure, which allows more free expression of the irrationality of human nature. The atheist group is more rational in terms of collective thinking, but the individual has more irrational freedom. Religion has the collective being more irrational. However, the individual often has to control their inner irrationality making them less irrational individually.

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're wrong. There's this ages-old misconception that if everybody turned atheist, the world will go bat-shit. This is due to the belief that the Church is the one and only wellspring of morality. In the scenario you picture above, the individual atheist has no more and no less personal freedom (or irrationality) as what is allowed to him by Law. The State, with the passing of laws and the definition of what is right and wrong, is the issuer of morality, and results in rewards and penalties for following those laws, in this life. Not in some whimsical "hereafter". Religion certainly has a role to play in society, but only in the absence of a strong central State. Which we have. But in the old days, when Moses and Co. were leading the Israelites through the desert, there was no such central authority. And there was no way to enforce laws that streamlined society without police and courts being present. So, the authority was deemed to be some sort of an invisible uber-ghost who sees everything you do, wherever you are. There was no getting away from it, and the punishment was severe. The reward, however, for following those laws, were comparably big and very enticing. To live forever in paradise... now that's a winning ticket.

But all it resulted in was that adherents to the same belief lived in relative peace and harmony and mutual respect, without any organs of State being present. But it should be clear to anyone with more than two braincells that we have passed that point in the History of Humanity, and quite a few years ago, already.

There is no "irrationality" in the individual atheist. There is merely the rational outlook on life with the knowledge that morality is issued by the society via the State, and there are clear limitations to your actions not imposed on you by some invisible uberbully.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Atheists dwell on the god angle, which is irrational.

Now that is clearly wrong. Whereas atheists "dwell" on the god angle, they might do so because the irrationality of it is glaring, and unbelievable, and is the very first premise and the foundation, the bedrock, if you will, of belief that needs the clear irrationality (and blatant madness) of it to be pointed out. Believers simply don't consider the craziness of it, and accept it on face value without question. If anything, the individual believer is the irrational nut, here.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

But they never seem to bring up their higher irrational freedom.

What "irrational freedom"? An individual atheist is only so free as allowed by the Laws laid down by a democratically elected State, which is a consensus of all individuals subject to it.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Let us do the math and see if atheists have opened up more irrational freedom, which will have an impact on base rationality. What clouds this over is parroting the party line like a religion so it stays on the rational surface and away from the math that adds time average irrationality of human nature.

Okay, let's do the math. There is nothing that can come from Religion that is rational, because the premise is irrational. Believers might ponder the atheist objection to the very first element of belief, that there is no evidence to the existence of God, and move on and proceed with much-worded and intense navel-gazing as if the atheist objection is merely a tiny technicality and a small detail that has no real bearing on the discussion. But in the final analysis, you should realize that the atheist objection is not something to be dismissed, it is the pointing out of the foundation of the believer's entire world-system to be fallacious and merely full of hot air. And, like the biggest building you'd care to mention, if the foundation is removed, the entire thing comes down. Everything flowing from a flawed premise, is also flawed. But believers might try and pussyfoot around the objection and carry on saying "you must believe like a child" and everything else makes sense and falls into place. But the foundation is inherently flawed, and therefore the irrationality in this regard lies squarely on the believer's shoulders, individually and as a group.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy? What about Apollo and Thor? Are you agnostic about them? How about Zeus?

I think I have stated my position and shouldn't need to reply to bait such as this. If you really haven't already gathered it, I'll only say that I'm definitely not agnostic about the tooth fairy and not even about many specific religious doctrines. If you can't sort it out, call it off.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I personally tend to think that moderates provide unearned cover and protection for believers, and that this is part of the problem.

Unearned cover and protection? From who and what? There's also the problem due to people thinking they must battle tooth and claw against anybody who believes in anything not observable and proven by scientific method. What skin are they off your nose?

Cool it. Live and let live. Find a more useful way to occupy your time.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I think I have stated my position and shouldn't need to reply to bait such as this. If you really haven't already gathered it, I'll only say that I'm definitely not agnostic about the tooth fairy and not even about many specific religious doctrines.

Why not? How can you possibly know? You're atheist about the tooth fairy? You're atheist about Thor? Goodness me... Was it not you who in post #70 said, "it's more correct to say agnostic than atheist" when coming into this thread to oppose the views I was putting forth regarding the definition of atheism?

Why the inconsistency? What reason have you for holding on to such a double standard only when jahweh is involved?

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Unearned cover and protection? From who and what?

The essence of my statement is that the moderates, and even many non-believers, tend to be offended on behalf of believers themselves when someone such as myself makes a critique or comment which shows no deference for their faith. The moderates, and many non-believers, provide cover, instead attacking my criticism and deflecting the need for the believer to support their position. They tend frequently to focus entirely on the one who has presented the critique, as well as the method they've chosen, and completely derail the critique itself... leaving the believers unrequired to actually address the questions put forth. It's as if believers have managed to co-opt these others who DO NOT share the same beliefs to stand up and be offended on their behalf. My point is simply that this is part of the problem.

I am trying to suggest that the best defense against criticism and reason is logic and rationality... to support ones position openly, and to address any and all criticisms leveled... not to suppress authentic debate and call for censorship (which frequently happens among moderates) due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

[HydrogenBond]

Another difference between atheist and religious orientations has to do with the time scale created in the mind. For a religious person the goal may be heaven, enlightenment, etc., which happens way in the future, relative to their beliefs. For an atheist, the time scale is set by the hard data, which is more in the present and/or past or shorter term. Even evolution is considered a process and not a goal, so there is no future goal to strive for.

For example, the religious dogma of a lifetime marriage implies planning for 40-50 years, since there is no easy way out. With divorce the plan can be 1-50 years, with the lower end using more irrational impulse. When the good impulse is gone you change partners for better good impulse. With religion one is required to look long term and adjust the short term impulse so you can make it all the way. The atheist uses the hard data of the short term impulse and lets it run its duration, whatever that is. There is no hard future data just the present and past.

This cuts to the heart of what turns some aspects of atheism into religion. Not everyone who is recruited as an atheist is rational like a scientist. The question becomes, what would happen if a semi-rational person became an atheist? They might be able to repeat the party line, from memory, like dogma, but may live life in a way that is less than fully rational. Since they may not be able to fully reason all the doctrine, they might follow the procedures with faith. If So and So says it, that is good enough, without really being able to understand all the logic.

Others who are semi-rational or irrational, might also cherry pick from the doctrine and use what they like in terms of supporting their irrational impulses, such as the pleasure principle. Others, through human nature, might see an opportunity in these recruits and start an atheist cult, for the semi-rational followers, who want to be told what to think but in a way that tells then what they want to hear.