|
science saved my soul (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| KiNeTiC ENeRgY |
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Linguists dont count :p They never includes huge explosions which is the prerequisite to be officially declared a scientist. If you've never blown anything up in order to expand your field of study youre not a proper scientist :D |
:stongue:
Does it count if I make my informants' head asplode?
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Interesting couple of paragraphs you wrote, but I don't see how that demonstrates that you have a throbbing diamond hard for atheism. Thinking that there's a brand of atheism that's equivalent to religious fundamentalism isn't really an argument at all. |
True, thinking that atheism can be equivalent to religious fundamentalism isn't really an argument; however, providing arguments in order to back up this claim is not only a better approach but what I seek to do. And, thankfully, this sort of argumentation won't require a full-blown theory of religion, but a careful analysis of our own -- wait for it! -- language :p
To reduce (a)theism to the position that you believe God does(n't) exist is an oversimplification. Sure, it encompasses what everyone in this group thinks about a certain preposition, but theists don't think all alike, nor do atheists (as we can easily see here :D). Therefore, believing that one's off the hook simply because this person does not share a completely unrelated belief with someone else is a completely misguided illusion.
For argument's sake, let me coin the word "Foundamentalist" (mind the "o") to describe the person who considers an idea to be the foundation of all his other beliefs (I'm doing this just to avoid the loaded meaning of the cognate word we've been using thus far). No contradictory idea can be accepted in his web of belief, as it would undermine the whole web. This definition accommodates intelligent design proponents rather nicely because the concept of a godless evolution goes against their most deeply ingrained beliefs - the solution is to make it god-friendly again and they're set.
Now, foundamentalism itself need not be pernicious, as it might be even inescapable: beliefs are not created equal, and I'd be way more reluctant to accept the claim that I'm mistaken about being left-handed than to believe I was actually born in Copenhagen (though I'd need someone to tell me why my parents never mentioned about a trip to Denmark back when I was born). This in itself is not exactly problematic. Though it can be if we become socially foundamentalists and our dearest ideas aren't shared by others. This is what I'm getting at.
No atheist, as far as I'm aware, has ever blown up churches and mosques to prove a point; however, being an atheist is not enough to make the world a better place where people don't kill others because of their different beliefs, as the Soviets painfully showed us coming up with a materialist ideology as deadly as any superstition. What went wrong? They were socially foundamentalists, in the sense that they were so sure their most basic views were "true" (and had to be imposed on everyone else) that they did just that. So much for being godless.
That's the idea that I'm against: It's no surprise to me that Sam Harris is so Fledzly abrasive when it comes to a fallibilist tradition in The End of Faith (look it up, pages 179-80). He's a social foundamentalist in the sense that he'd love to see everyone espousing his atheism. The difference then becomes a matter of degree: I can't recall ever seeing a priest blowing things up either, can you? Apparently, religion doesn't poison everyone.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
In fact, I know that you're a smart person so I'll be fairly justified in my assumption that you are an atheist because you are pretty certain that it corresponds to the relevant, every-day experience that we call reality better than any religion. Why do you assume, then, that an extreme there-is-certainly-no-god-whatsoever brand of atheism that sounds too much like a religion for your comfort would result in the same upetry (:p) as, say, Catholicism? |
Because the problem is not supernaturalism, as I stated, but the view that everyone should conform to a given mindset. The problem of doing this is that it actually hinders progress, no matter how much atheists think it's going to lead to a world of awesomeness. Need one more example other than what happened when socialism fossilised in Soviet Russia?
Here in Brazil Japanese immigrants started killing each other because a small group refused to believe Japan had lost the war. There was no supernatural appeal (not like we're used to), and this is just a political fact: an army beat another, full stop. Dismantling religion would do nothing to prevent what happened, as victorists started to kill off naysayers based on social concepts like honour and love for one's land. You know what would've prevented this? Yeah, coming to terms with the fact that we can be wrong (as both religious and political extremists tend to get violent when they believe their hobby-horses are being threatened, and they love it so much!).
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
After all, you think atheism matches reality much better, and thus it's eventual "dogmatism" (for lack of a better word) about gods would match reality better? |
Actually, my views regarding this are way more complicated :p
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Actually, Einstein didn't replace Newtonian Physics, he just came up with a solution for the fact that it breaks down at the very large (relativity) and very small (quantum mechanics). Newtonian physics still describes phenomena at our scale of the Universe. ;)
P.S. I'm not saying that Einstein came up with quantum mechanics, but I can't be arsed to phrase that last paragraph differently. :p |
Well, Einstein is a heir of the Newtonian tradition and of course his worldviews agreed with Newton's to a large extent so that's why I felt comfortable using that verb. It replaced all that could be fixed, and of course it didn't discard what didn't need to be changed.
I just can't think of a better verb that conveys a better meaning here. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| I'm in agreement with you, Lira. I would further add that where atheists claim the world's ills are caused by religion, they are attacking the wrong source, altogether. Religion, at best as far as the atheistic view in its cause of violence, merely provides a context for its justification. Take away religion and you are still left with the will to fight. You are still left with the root causes of that will to destroy and the goals its violence is meant to achieve. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
That's like saying apples are not fruits. |
no, it's not. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
So explain why apples are vegetables then
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
:stongue:
Does it count if I make my informants' head asplode?
|
Hmmmmmmm possibly. But woudnt it be much easier if you just rounded up a bunch of C4 and exploded something? Also much easier to confirm youre a proper scientists if theres photographic evidence of you giggling like a schoolgirl just before youre about to press a big red button that detonates several tonnes of explosives. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Now, foundamentalism itself need not be pernicious, as it might be even inescapable: beliefs are not created equal, and I'd be way more reluctant to accept the claim that I'm mistaken about being left-handed than to believe I was actually born in Copenhagen (though I'd need someone to tell me why my parents never mentioned about a trip to Denmark back when I was born). This in itself is not exactly problematic. Though it can be if we become socially foundamentalists and our dearest ideas aren't shared by others. This is what I'm getting at.
No atheist, as far as I'm aware, has ever blown up churches and mosques to prove a point; however, being an atheist is not enough to make the world a better place where people don't kill others because of their different beliefs, as the Soviets painfully showed us coming up with a materialist ideology as deadly as any superstition. What went wrong? They were socially foundamentalists, in the sense that they were so sure their most basic views were "true" (and had to be imposed on everyone else) that they did just that. So much for being godless. |
Yes, but I don't think that any atheist is really suggesting that their beliefs should be "imposed" on anyone else, at least not in the sense that imposition implies coercion. Of course no one human (or set of humans) can claim a monopoly on truth, so some degree of doubt or humility is always required, but as you yourself just said, not all truth-claims are of equal merit. I believe in the theory of heliocentrism and also believe that no-one is capable of mustering a good enough excuse to reject the veracity of this theory, but that scarcely makes me a "foundamentalist" on this point does it? Confidence in the non-existence of God and confidence in the existence of God arise under different circumstances, and it's wrong to conflate the two positions by imagining that the reasons or motivations for each belief are in some way comparable.
The big difference (and you might have been trying to get at this in your post) is that the religious claims that people make are invariably shaped by what they want to be true, but only rarely can such accusations be made against the claims of the non-religious. You will never - never - hear someone make a claim like, "Well, yes, I believe that God is all loving, which kinda sucks actually because where's the justice in that?" or "Well yes I believe that God will throw sinners into a lake of fire after they die, which is pretty abhorrent in truth but that's just the way it is unfortunately". In these cases - and almost any other you care to name (Kierkegaard, who was tortured by the ineffable qualities of the Abrahamic God, may be a rare exception) - people believe in exactly the kind of God that they want to believe in. Can we really say the same thing about non-believers?
From my own perspective the non-existence of God is incidental to my world-view, and I will be happily swayed by a convincing proof to the contrary. However, with or without God I think that the eternal problems of human existence (how to be moral, how to live a good life etc.) will persist, hence my indifference to question (as Sartre put it, "If God does not exist, nothing will be changed"). I still think that the most important theological question is not whether God exists but whether God matters, and I think that puts me in a better place to answer the first question objectively when compared to someone who has an emotional investment in its outcome.
This is all rather tangential, so to get back to the main point:
| quote: | | That's the idea that I'm against: It's no surprise to me that Sam Harris is so Fledzly abrasive when it comes to a fallibilist tradition in The End of Faith (look it up, pages 179-80). He's a social foundamentalist in the sense that he'd love to see everyone espousing his atheism. The difference then becomes a matter of degree: I can't recall ever seeing a priest blowing things up either, can you? Apparently, religion doesn't poison everyone. |
The priest may not be blowing anyone up but he is certainly opposing the distribution of condoms in Africa, the continuation of stem-cell research, the right of the terminally ill to die with dignity and suitable reparations for the children who have been raped by his bretheren. None of these positions are even remotely defensible without recourse to religious dogma, which is itself - of course - not sufficient to evade the ultimate responsibility for ones own actions. In a world increasingly reluctant to take these empty, religious moralisms seriously, there would objectively - in these cases at least - be the potential to alleviate human suffering. Now one could argue that by removing religious morality we run the risk of opening the door to something more nefarious, but at present such fears are unfounded. As Sam Harris put it, I am unfamiliar with any society that has ever been destroyed by "reason run amok" and I think that the human benefits of social secularisation over the past few hundred years are plain for all to see.
So you might argue (and I'd agree with you) that no-one has the right to impose their beliefs onto others, but that's certainly not to say that we shouldn't oppose blatantly irrational or (worse) immoral thoughts where they occur. In a democracy, it is to the detriment of the whole if even a relatively small percentage of the people believe stupid and evil things (exhibit A: the Tea Party). If the beliefs of such people were unlikely to ever impact on the well-being of others, then perhaps the kind of philosophical equivocation you're engaging in here would be entirely justified. However, given that the beliefs of such people do impact on the rest of us, the very last thing you should be doing is making excuses for them. |
|
|
| eckmek |
| Thanks, Lira. Great reads (both linked articles and your stuff) :) |
|
|
| Lira |
I'm glad you liked it, Eckmeck, thanks for you kindness :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yes, but I don't think that any atheist is really suggesting that their beliefs should be "imposed" on anyone else, at least not in the sense that imposition implies coercion. |
I'm not saying that those who are preaching atheism solely are trying to coerce others into agreement. However, once mass atheism is achieved, that doesn't mean anything's going to change. Hence why I cited Soviet Russia, Communist China, and so on...
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Of course no one human (or set of humans) can claim a monopoly on truth, so some degree of doubt or humility is always required, but as you yourself just said, not all truth-claims are of equal merit. I believe in the theory of heliocentrism and also believe that no-one is capable of mustering a good enough excuse to reject the veracity of this theory, but that scarcely makes me a "foundamentalist" on this point does it? |
As a matter of fact, it may well do. Granted, it doesn't make you an heliocentric fundamentalist (reason why I took the trouble to coin a new word), but it depends on how relevant this information is to your view of the world. And, whether or not you're a social foundamentalist in this regard, does it bother you that there are Flat Earth proponents to this day? If not, you're off the hook, for example (mind you, you don't need to feel like blowing these people up to become a foundamentalist, though it is probably a prerequisite to become a fundamentalist as most people understand this word).
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Confidence in the non-existence of God and confidence in the existence of God arise under different circumstances, and it's wrong to conflate the two positions by imagining that the reasons or motivations for each belief are in some way comparable. |
I don't think they are. As Sidney Hook put it (in the link I posted earlier), it's quite reasonable for a naturalist to disbelief in God even if he's wrong, and somewhat unreasonable for a theist to believe in God even if he's right.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The big difference (and you might have been trying to get at this in your post) is that the religious claims that people make are invariably shaped by what they want to be true, but only rarely can such accusations be made against the claims of the non-religious. You will never - never - hear someone make a claim like, "Well, yes, I believe that God is all loving, which kinda sucks actually because where's the justice in that?" or "Well yes I believe that God will throw sinners into a lake of fire after they die, which is pretty abhorrent in truth but that's just the way it is unfortunately". In these cases - and almost any other you care to name (Kierkegaard, who was tortured by the ineffable qualities of the Abrahamic God, may be a rare exception) - people believe in exactly the kind of God that they want to believe in. Can we really say the same thing about non-believers? |
No, not at all, and it's long amused me that I've never found a dystheist in my whole life. But, I digress, that's exactly why Kierky is awesome and why I don't think both positions are in any way comparable.
So far, I'd say we're in a substantial agreement.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
From my own perspective the non-existence of God is incidental to my world-view, and I will be happily swayed by a convincing proof to the contrary. However, with or without God I think that the eternal problems of human existence (how to be moral, how to live a good life etc.) will persist, hence my indifference to question (as Sartre put it, "If God does not exist, nothing will be changed"). I still think that the most important theological question is not whether God exists but whether God matters, and I think that puts me in a better place to answer the first question objectively when compared to someone who has an emotional investment in its outcome. |
And, once again, we're on the same wavelength.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The priest may not be blowing anyone up but he is certainly opposing the distribution of condoms in Africa, the continuation of stem-cell research, the right of the terminally ill to die with dignity and suitable reparations for the children who have been raped by his bretheren. None of these positions are even remotely defensible without recourse to religious dogma, which is itself - of course - not sufficient to evade the ultimate responsibility for ones own actions. |
And this is where we start to depart (however, I also find myself at odds with them, which leaves me in a rather bizarre situation here as well).
Sure, there's nothing as irritating as having an argument blocked by a sentence like "This is wrong because God/prophet/lawmaker says so". So what if God supposedly says we shouldn't let people die with dignity? It's not like He's going to die anyway, so His opinion is hardly relevant.
But I wouldn't be so optimistic about the resolution of these problems coming after a hypothetical fall of religion. For example, I can't find a reason to back those claims you mentioned, but I'm against abortion - so I imagine some people who hold those opinions might keep them regardless of their primary reason to back them up behind some theological claim. Though, of course, I'm just speculating.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In a world increasingly reluctant to take these empty, religious moralisms seriously, there would objectively - in these cases at least - be the potential to alleviate human suffering. Now one could argue that by removing religious morality we run the risk of opening the door to something more nefarious, but at present such fears are unfounded. As Sam Harris put it, I am unfamiliar with any society that has ever been destroyed by "reason run amok" and I think that the human benefits of social secularisation over the past few hundred years are plain for all to see. |
I hate to keep coming back to the same examples but, because atheism is still uncommon in the history of humanity, I'm afraid I've got no other choice. Wasn't there an awful lot of reason and intellectual speculation in socialist theory? It didn't really end well and on behalf of the well-argued ideas (then distorted by minds that weren't exactly shining bright), mayhem ensued.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
So you might argue (and I'd agree with you) that no-one has the right to impose their beliefs onto others, but that's certainly not to say that we shouldn't oppose blatantly irrational or (worse) immoral thoughts where they occur. In a democracy, it is to the detriment of the whole if even a relatively small percentage of the people believe stupid and evil things (exhibit A: the Tea Party). If the beliefs of such people were unlikely to ever impact on the well-being of others, then perhaps the kind of philosophical equivocation you're engaging in here would be entirely justified. However, given that the beliefs of such people do impact on the rest of us, the very last thing you should be doing is making excuses for them. |
Perhaps I'm being a bit too lenient in order to get my point across, as I do think religion must be criticised as much as any other social institution. However, I think criticising religion completely is the wrong approach: the really pernicious points, socially speaking, ought to be debated, and whether or not religion is worth maintaining if these beliefs are unfounded is up to religious people to decide. In any case, the atheist utopia that the world would be a much better place if we just let religion die and wait until its influence ebbs completely... well, I'm sceptical.
Sorry if my English is too broken, I'm pulling my 2nd consecutive all nighter and I can barely speak my own language :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I wasn't aware there was a soft/hard version. I thought it was like being pregnant you either are or you aren't. I'm agnostic so it affords me a little more latitude. I'm 99% sure God doesn't exist but leave 1% open for human error. |
agnoticism is for faggots. |
|
|
| Lira |
| By the way, James, check your goodreads profile. I'm bugging you because I want your opinion on that Robert Solomon's book you read :D |
|
|
| Znack |
| I have never understood the emotional significance of Carl Sagan's 'pale blue dot', showing Earth as just a few pixels. All it shows to me is that the Earth isn't infinite: no matter how big anything is, you can always reduce it to a few pixels if you go far enough away. I'm also utterly unmoved by the Hubble Deep Field, showing countless galaxies billions of light years away. Size isn't everything, and neither is number. The most amazing thing we know of in this Universe is complexity, evolved complexity. And the most complex thing we know of in this Universe for now, is us. The wonder of a galaxy is nothing by comparison with the amazing thing that is a human. There are more connections in your head than stars in a thousand galaxies. You have a mind that is a cosmos. You make a galaxy look puny. Unlike a galaxy, you can dream. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
I have never understood the emotional significance of Carl Sagan's 'pale blue dot', showing Earth as just a few pixels. |
When you think the universe was made solely for us, a picture like that should put you back in the right mindset. |
|
|
|
|
