Fundamental (Er..uhm, New) Atheism [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Ruv Draba

07-15-2008, 07:44 AM

Vein, thanks for the link. Here's a link (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1)to Gary Wolf's original November 2006 Wired article (7 pages over-all). I found it entertainingly written, if perhaps heavy on the beat-up and rhetoric. My potted summary of his thesis:As an atheist is it okay (or even mandatory) to confront believers in the supernatural with your criteria for truth? Are you content to leave people to believe whatever they want or do you insist that belief should (where possible) follow some sort of testability? In other words, is atheism to be an individual school of thought or a political movement of social policy-setting?

Or put even simpler:Do you believe that activist atheists are saviours or ratbags?Wolf argues that 'New Atheists' are an emerging school of activism, and then tests that activism against his own critiera for decency.

But I don't think that there's anything new about it. There have always been activist who are atheists, and atheists who are activists. Perhaps the novelty is just Wolf's awareness of them. Or maybe it's just rhetoric to excuse his desire to re-examine the issue.

To address AMC's original question though: is there anything in atheistic evangelism? I think it depends.

Atheism is still fairly countercultural for most societies. I think that deep in their hearts, many people in modern cultures still think that we can't have a humane society without it also owing at least some lip-service to (if not outright submission to) supernatural authorities. But also, a lot of our festivals, community gatherings and celebrations have religious roots... and many atheists also observe these festivals too.

John Lennon and Richard Dawkins notwithstanding, I don't think that there is a solid vision for an atheistic cultural (or even subcultural) identity; and Karl Marx notwithstanding I also don't see a world ready for a wholly atheistic society yet.

It's a personal view only, but while I share Dawkins' view that a lot of theists are systematically deluded, they are also the people I must share my world with -- and their contribution to this world on spiritual matters is vast and invaluable. My preference is to work theists in their own frame on spiritual matters, rather than try to impose mine and cease to co-operate at all.

On the other hand...

Theism is not just an ideology but a political force wherein some elements seek to erode not just the fact-based knowledge that humanity has amassed but also the critical skills by which it has been amassed - all to gain control of social policy. I'll happily oppose that sort of politiciking.

(And in support of Vein's supposition, there's a newatheism.org (http://newatheism.org/) website which looks like a shill to me.)

veinglory

07-15-2008, 09:07 PM

I would only feel the need to be activist if I feel atheism was being repressed and there was a need to make a 'safe place' in some areas I think this is true, but noe that I have lived in so far. that was what old style proactive atheist groups seemed to focus on: civil rights for the unreligious.

If there is a change now it might be that the focus is more on how magical thinking, including religious dogma, can lead to mistakes in social policy, science policy etc. But to me the focus should be in the mistake being made and contradictory data (i.e. virginity pledges do not reduce promiscuity, abstinence only education does not reduce rates of unsafe sex) not lifting the problem to the insolluble level of clashing magisteria.

Higgins

07-16-2008, 06:23 PM

What does everyone think of these New Atheist fellows?

A few questions to consider:

1) Do they make any claims to truth?

2) Do they feel as though they have a superior moral compass? What is it based on?

3) What is their source of spirituality?

4) In what ways can their ideas benefit our society? Stick to positives benefits.

5) What ways do you feel they could potentially harm our society?

Just some research for my book. Mods, I like creative, thoughtful answers. And I love tangents.

AMC

Here's an opinion that according to Austin's article (see link above) Nichols invented for the New Atheists. Actually the idea of the "New XXX" as a method for discrediting things may owe something to the now-forgotten "New Philosophers" of the late 1970s....anyway here is the proported opinion:

However, New Atheism rejects not only the existence of that one God, but also respect for the existence of God.

The crude fact is that this is just plain funny. I mean how can you reject the existence of something and then be faulted for not "respecting" the existence of something? This is exactly the kind of unbelievably inane quibbling that one hoped to leave behind when one decided to abandon religion as a sensible activity and/or decide that religious propositions where not about real objects at all but rather about aesthetic judgements or something. Naturally Wired or the Willowtree People magazine is just the place to rehash pointless quibbles as if they made perfect sense.

What on earth does "respect" mean in the Wired/willowtreepeople vocabulary? If ever there was a case for Orwellian Newsspeak having some reality...Wired's/willowtreepeople
fantastically daft agenda of recycling total inanity would be a prime possiblity for inclusion in that case.

Higgins

07-16-2008, 10:26 PM

Heh, looks like I was basically right. It was a term coined not by a member of the group but by a WIRED reporter. I don't feel the phrase has a great deal of legitimacy. http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/03/20/phil-nichols-using-new-atheism-to-misrepresent-atheists-atheism.htm

It looks to me like the phrase is being used as a rallying cry for more assertive religion. I find the more dogmatic atheist speakers who think the world would be better without religion are simply dull and of marginal interest given the generally liberal and tolerant tone of modern society in most Western cultures. Live and let live etc.

In another article Nichols says:

It takes five seconds for a 24-year old girl to condemn herself to an eternity of punishment.

Which makes me wonder if say it takes 8 seconds for a 32-year-old man to condemn himself to a week of go-cart races.

I guess you get the punishment you like best.

Higgins

07-16-2008, 11:53 PM

In another article Nichols says:

It takes five seconds for a 24-year old girl to condemn herself to an eternity of punishment.

Which makes me wonder if say it takes 8 seconds for a 32-year-old man to condemn himself to a week of go-cart races.

I guess you get the punishment you like best.

This whole grab-bag of reflex-comment prose just gets stranger:

Even in Wired Magazine?

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21

This is very puzzling. Why would Wired magazine be expected to make it hard to harbor some nutty grudge against something that sounded like
rationality?

Apparently the assumption is that somehow "advanced" something or other is represented by Wired, and this "advanced" something or other ought to exclude the apparatuses of religion...but oh...miracles of miracles...it does not. Of course Wired is one of the most absurd collections of poorly rehashed ideological bits and pieces one is likely to find anywhere so of course your average religion does very will there.

Ruv Draba

07-17-2008, 06:37 AM

It takes five seconds for a 24-year old girl to condemn herself to an eternity of punishment.
This claim actually supported some of the most ruthless acts of criminality in the 17th century. The argument was: 'Since I'm already damned, I may as well do as I please.'

Show me a religion that waves the Stick of Damnation around, and I'll show you a religion that alienates the poor, the abused and the desperate.

Ruv Draba

07-17-2008, 06:46 AM

If there is a change now it might be that the focus is more on how magical thinking, including religious dogma, can lead to mistakes in social policy, science policy etc.To be honest, I can't always see the difference between magical thinking and political rhetoric. Neither can I always see the difference between moral advocacy and political lobbying - so I find myself rather torn here.

On the one hand I accept that most people I know want to believe in astrology, the promise of lottery wins, and a benign god. They clearly need it enough to screw their own heads to keep it believable. So be it. Good luck. May it bring them peace. None of my concern.

On the other hand when those same beliefs lead us to insanely stupid social policy - do you deal with the policy or the ignorance that fostered it? Surely you need to do both.

Since our societies will always have their share of ratbags, I'm quietly relieved that some of its ratbags are well-educated atheists. :D

AMCrenshaw

07-17-2008, 11:04 PM

:)

What new miracle is this? Of course, the word "New XXX" is a bit of religious rhetoric, since most religious factions deny the idea of progress-- so new is a bit of a sarcastic, inherently dismissive word. But that aside, we know who the New Atheists are, don't we? There is a movement of well-known atheists who are calling for action-- if not for the End of Faith, then for us to see The God Delusion or that God is Not Great or what have you. Whatever we choose to name this movement, their actions are the same. One of my main wonders is:

Are they forming a religion around Science, Information, and Fact? And this is an open question in my mind to which I have no immediate answer.

I suppose one of my small issues (admittedly I am a bit ill-read on the matter) with the reliance on Science, Information, and Fact is that they answer a whole lot of hows, and not a lot of whys-- nor do these things answer ethical questions. We need to interpet these "facts," and I don't think the interpretations are always so obvious.

A lot of the 'aesthetic' qualities I attribute and have been attributed to our existence often speak more about our existence than science does.

For example, stating, matter-of-factly, that Religion causes Holy Wars supposes that it is religion itself, and not institution, that causes war. Institutions, with enough followers, operate more like political entities than they do religions: any person following Christ's simple commandments (love God, love humans) would obviously not take up a carbine and go to war. I think in this precise way, it is not the belief, devotion, or faith in God, but loyalty to an institution that causes violence. The truth of institutions, as many of you know, is that they are essentially grotesque. They stretch a truth (from sacred texts, and from perceived sacred beings-- remember Jim Jones, Aum Shinrikyo) and make it Objective Truth. Someone said, or wrote, "The truth belongs to God, and the mistakes are ours." While I do not personally believe in God, I believe that an objective reality exists, and so the aesthetic of this comment rings very true to me. To bring my discussion full circle, are the atheists making any claims to objective Truth? If they are, they quickly become a very dangerous group.

AMC

Higgins

07-17-2008, 11:37 PM

:)

I suppose one of my small issues (admittedly I am a bit ill-read on the matter) with the reliance on Science, Information, and Fact is that they answer a whole lot of hows, and not a lot of whys-- nor do these things answer ethical questions. We need to interpet these "facts," and I don't think the interpretations are always so obvious.

Well...like what? Suppose I work in an archaeological way on a sacred site. First of all there are archaeological (scientific informational factual)
ways to define a sacred site and yet there is no religious way to define archaeology. If one mode of thinking (science) can elucidate another (choice of sacred sites and rituals), but the other (religion) has nothing at all to say about the other (scientific) mode...where does that leave me once I know about the scientific mode? Can I really just give up the more broadly elucidative mode when I like or am I stuck with it for better or worse?

AMCrenshaw

07-18-2008, 01:13 AM

"Well...like what? Suppose I work in an archaeological way on a sacred site. First of all there are archaeological (scientific informational factual)
ways to define a sacred site and yet there is no religious way to define archaeology. If one mode of thinking (science) can elucidate another (choice of sacred sites and rituals), but the other (religion) has nothing at all to say about the other (scientific) mode...where does that leave me once I know about the scientific mode? Can I really just give up the more broadly elucidative mode when I like or am I stuck with it for better or worse?"

So you've never encountered Buddhism (which is actually a religion)? It has a lot to say about science, and it's approach to spiritual matters is...well...scientific.

But your question is heavy-handed anyway because it supposes that the two can't speak to each other. And you're right-- religion cannot elucidate archaeology in archaeological terms but that's simply because you have forced the conversation into an archaeological language. True, archaeology discusses religion in terms of what the culture believed to be a sacred site-- defined by archaeologists, mind you-- but they do not necessarily agree that it has any other significance. Which is absolutely no different than religion. For example, when you ask a Buddhist, What is Eternity? How was the universe created? you receive no reply. Their framework for significance is different, and so the language it uses is different-- so vastly different that sometimes communication seems impossible. The other point is that mystic traditions, particularly of the Benedictine/Trappist variety use archaeology very often in their contemplation between past, present, and future. Why must one call it archaeology for it to be archaeology?

But to answer, "Well...like what?"

For example, I'm really ecstatic to know that GRAVITY exists, and that it's called GRAVITY, but what does that say about our existence? How does that information alone better our lives? The answer to that question is not immediately obvious. Other sciences have benefited us, but the information alone does not include and rarely exhorts an ethical implication.

Here is an example. Someone on here pointed me to the "mirror neuron," which could help explain empathy. But it doesn't say why we should be empathetic.

And if we are to look at history, this progress scientifically has led us neither forward nor backward morally, as much as I'd like to believe. Consider the progress problem. The more we progress technologically, the more wants we develop.

A scientist theorized about this. But what ethical conclusion can be derived?

AMC

Higgins

07-18-2008, 01:38 AM

For example, I'm really ecstatic to know that GRAVITY exists, and that it's called GRAVITY, but what does that say about our existence? How does that information alone better our lives? The answer to that question is not immediately obvious. Other sciences have benefited us, but the information alone does not include and rarely exhorts an ethical implication.

Sure...if you take a reductive view of science and reduce it to utterly trivial items like calling gravity by an arbitrary name...you end up without anything being said about existence. But think of the actual restructuring of the imagery of the cosmos that happened when the force that caused heavy things to fall ( what gravity originally meant) was unified with the force that caused the planets to move in their courses (a force that was not well-defined and had rather metaphysical underpinings).

AMCrenshaw

07-18-2008, 05:25 AM

"Sure...if you take a reductive view of science and reduce it to utterly trivial items like calling gravity by an arbitrary name...you end up without anything being said about existence. But think of the actual restructuring of the imagery of the cosmos that happened when the force that caused heavy things to fall ( what gravity originally meant) was unified with the force that caused the planets to move in their courses (a force that was not well-defined and had rather metaphysical underpinings)."

I have not reduced science to arbitrary naming of events; but science is the discovery of the ways and the modeling of the universe. What ethical implications can you derive from "the force that caused the planets to move in their courses" ? Show me some part of science that can directly relate to us some sort of moral obligation.

Now. A guy like me I approaches spirituality in a scientific way. I start scientifically, by observing, and end not-so scientifically. After seeing the way things are I wonder what that might mean for me. What actions might I need to take to bring about my desired end? (and to me, that's still a scientific viewpoint). I don't think they are incompatible in any particular way-- but I don't think either alone will give us what we might need if we are searching for some sort of harmony.

AMC

Ruv Draba

07-18-2008, 07:38 AM

Are they forming a religion around Science, Information, and Fact? And this is an open question in my mind to which I have no immediate answer.There's a degree of alarmism in this post, which seems silly to me since atheists are a small minority of the general community; famous atheist activists don't make even a handful, and they're generally strong humanitarians anyway.

I'm not going to defend atheist activism here, but I'll try and explain what I understand of the thinking. You can find more of the thinking surveyed in the original 7 page Wired article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html). (Whatever we may think of the analysis, the research seems reasonably good.)

I think that there are many different reasons for atheistic activism, but I've known a few atheist activists and read the writings of a few more. My rough classification of the key reasons for actively challenging/debunking mysticism is something like this:

Truth is truth; if someone is deluded, making inflated claims or outright lying then it's the job of skepticism to show that;
I'm not at war with religion. Religion's at war with me, and I'm just protesting;
It's not the superstitions that are dangerous so much as what various institutions do with them;
Superstitious thinking does more harm than good. It's an atavism and needs to go;
When a contrary position is equally valid, my perversity bids me take it; or
I like the attention, and I like feeling smarter than everyone else.Most atheistic activists I've met seem motivated by more than one of the above.

I suppose one of my small issues (admittedly I am a bit ill-read on the matter) with the reliance on Science, Information, and Fact is that they answer a whole lot of hows, and not a lot of whys-- nor do these things answer ethical questions. We need to interpet these "facts," and I don't think the interpretations are always so obvious.I don't believe that 'why' is even a meaningful question physically -- science proceeds very well without wondering why. If it's to be meaningful metaphysically, then I'd suggest that the first (and generally overlooked) step is to explain why there should be an answer, and why one thinks he's entitled to know it or equipped to understand it. :)

Regardless, while the how is verifiable; the why is at best speculative. It's when the why starts to try and control our observation of how that scientists and skeptics begin to twitch, because that's not rationality - it's politics.

A separate issue is the question of So What? We know more about how than we've ever known, but so what? What would we like to do with that knowledge? How can we turn it to common benefit? Mysticists create their own vision of so what and then invent a why to try and make it authoritative. This is a clasically political manipulation - and it's covert. Many atheists (and most of those surveyed by the Wired article) believe that the 'So what' answer is not authoritative, but constantly renegotiated - so it's overtly political instead.
A lot of the 'aesthetic' qualities I attribute and have been attributed to our existence often speak more about our existence than science does.That's true for me too, but how well do your personal insights translate to others?

Sharing aesthetic and values-based insights (or endeavouring to) is a worthy pursuit. It's a key underpinning for the art of every culture. But beauty is not truth, because real truth is verifiable while beauty is subjective. And passion is certainly not truth -- it's just excited personal discovery. Beauty and passion have great value and deep personal meaning but unlike truth they are not always sharable. I am a passionate player of the bottleneck slide guitar but Mrs Draba just winces at my caterwauling and walks away. My mother meanwhile, loves bagpipe playing while many people would rather listen to a dentist's drill.
For example, stating, matter-of-factly, that Religion causes Holy Wars supposes that it is religion itself, and not institution, that causes war.This is off the point a bit, but I don't agree with your argument. A war can't become holy until a religion blesses it. Historically, religions have been more willing to bless wars than to curse them, and in a few cases have even whipped them up.
The truth of institutions, as many of you know, is that they are essentially grotesque.Nicely put, but I'd suggest that the most fundamental human institution (and arguably the most grotesque) is the individual ego. It's an inherently political construct in that it mediates between our conflicting desires to sustain its own power. It also clubs together with other egos to find collective abuses for larger institutions.

So if we're to distrust the pronouncements of superstition-based institutions for their self-interest, then we should surely apply the same discernment to our [I]own self-interested superstition-based pronouncements. In other words: the fact that our ego leaps onto it should not be an endorsement for its veracity; rather an indication of our political self-interest in the matter.

I'll return to my earlier point: asking and answering why is fundamentally a political activity, and it's fraught with self-deception.
To bring my discussion full circle, are the atheists making any claims to objective Truth? If they are, they quickly become a very dangerous group.Some possibly are, but the skeptics I know spend much more of their time pointing out untruth. You don't need to do this by professing absolute knowledge of anything. You need only do so by pointing out that a proposition is ego-driven, self-interested, politically-motivated, unverifiable by any independent means and (frequently) inconsistent with physical evidence. The onus is on the claimant to prove, not the skeptic to disprove.

Ruv Draba

07-18-2008, 07:50 AM

A guy like me I approaches spirituality in a scientific way. I start scientifically, by observing, and end not-so scientifically.The scientific approach to mysticism is to question its hypotheses and keep destroying them until something remains unassailable. Historically, when that occurs, mysticism crumbles very quickly.

But the process of mystification itself is inherently unscientific. It involves generating ill-formed metaphysical assertions faster than hypotheses can be defined and tested for them. Historically, when pressed, that's exactly what mystics do: the half-baked assertions scatter like cockroaches from under a fridge in the hope that a mere few will escape the rolled newspaper of skepticism. It's a mischeivous, infantile game that we learn as toddlers: throw marbles everywhere, watch Mummy pick up the marbles. Laugh in delight if she misses one in the carpet and treads on it later :)

However, if you're interested in nonmystical spirituality then there is (potentially) a scientific approach to building morality and relationships... which is to start with negotiated and shared articles of faith about the human condition based on best current knowledge and then seek to improve upon the physics and relations of the world to bring benefit. It's still a political approach, but at least it's honest.

StephanieFox

07-18-2008, 07:56 AM

Personally, my atheism is not based on substituting science or anything else. I just don't happen to believe in god. I do have a spiritual life helped along by music, art, nature, dogs and sometimes, other people. I do not expect anyone to share my particular atheism or my spirituality. It's not that big of a deal.

AMCrenshaw

07-18-2008, 07:43 PM

The scientific approach to mysticism is to question its hypotheses and keep destroying them until something remains unassailable. Historically, when that occurs, mysticism crumbles very quickly.

But the process of mystification itself is inherently unscientific. It involves generating ill-formed metaphysical assertions faster than hypotheses can be defined and tested for them. Historically, when pressed, that's exactly what mystics do: the half-baked assertions scatter like cockroaches from under a fridge in the hope that a mere few will escape the rolled newspaper of skepticism. It's a mischeivous, infantile game that we learn as toddlers: throw marbles everywhere, watch Mummy pick up the marbles. Laugh in delight if she misses one in the carpet and treads on it later :)

However, if you're interested in nonmystical spirituality then there is (potentially) a scientific approach to building morality and relationships... which is to start with negotiated and shared articles of faith about the human condition based on best current knowledge and then seek to improve upon the physics and relations of the world to bring benefit. It's still a political approach, but at least it's honest.

By scientific, I mean experiential. Personal observation. Analysis of the personal observation. Buddha was very much so a mystic-- his personal experience of the universe (not the divine) led him to his conclusions, which you can read as little hypotheses that build upon themselves. Your second paragraph is very good-- and that's where I start. But I admit that there are things I experience that I cannot describe...

And in reality, morality is only a tool to get where a mystic is going. Sooner or later, the concept of morality is abandoned. It no longer matters because morality essentially doesn't exist. When one perceives the way things really are, when one has an intimate relationship with Reality, morality is a distraction. But from an outsider standpoint, their morality is perfect in that all their actions stem from -- always, and this is the scientific part-- love. Absolute, unconditional love is the most sound ethic. The more who participate the better. The paths are many.

AMC

Ruv Draba

07-19-2008, 08:42 AM

By scientific, I mean experiential. Personal observation. Analysis of the personal observation.
The scientific method requires more than that. You need an hypothesis, a decent experimental design, an experiment, analysis and then a tentative conclusion.

Experience and observation without this rigour can lead us to some deluded beliefs that are very easy to disprove -- like the Aristotelian idea that swamps `automatically' generate frogs.

We know from long testing that if you start with an unchallenged bias and then collect experiences, they will frequently support the bias. Begin by believing that (say) everyone is reincarnated and you can quickly find 'evidence' suggesting that A is the reincarnation of B.

And in reality, morality is only a tool to get where a mystic is going.That sentence is the scariest thing I've read for quite a while. It's scary because it's true; it's scary because we shouldn't let it be true.

When morality becomes just a prop for ideology then it becomes simply a political tool. We quickly arrive at bizarre assertions like 'It's alright to burn him - he's damned otherwise' or 'It's right that we make these men slaves, because our mythology says that they deserve it'.

I see it quite differently. Our morality (visible in what we do and what we aspire to) is the acid test of our ideology. It's not a prop for mysticism and should never be -- it's a constant challenge to everyone to be better humans.

When one perceives the way things really are, when one has an intimate relationship with Reality, morality is a distraction.I think that you may be referring to rules, customs and laws rather than what I'm talking about, which is values and principles. We know that there is a big difference between the morality of a society and the way that it's enshrined in custom and legislation. (For instance, we know that it's bad to kill people through negligence, even at those times when the law doesn't forbid it.)

But from an outsider standpoint, their morality is perfect in that all their actions stem from -- always, and this is the scientific part-- love. Absolute, unconditional love is the most sound ethic. The more who participate the better. The paths are many.Absolute, unconditional love would have us donating both kidneys and all our blood to needy children before our lives were ended. I don't believe that humans practice or aspire to practice that sort of love. Our reality is that love is limited by our resources and competing demands. Our morality is shaped in part by what we decide to sacrifice and what we decide to preserve.

zornhau

07-19-2008, 05:27 PM

Unconditional love for who?

How do I balance my unconditional love for my children - who need me around - with my love for the downtrodden children of the 3rd world, who need me to go and look after them?

AMCrenshaw

07-20-2008, 10:18 PM

The scientific method requires more than that. You need an hypothesis, a decent experimental design, an experiment, analysis and then a tentative conclusion.

In spiritual matters this is an unconscious thing. When I look at the world before me, I form hypotheses. I live and experience and that is the experiement. I analyze the results. And what I am saying is: After all of the tribulation, we know that Love is the one thing that could bring harmony to our civilizations. That's all I am saying.Experience and observation without this rigour can lead us to some deluded beliefs that are very easy to disprove -- like the Aristotelian idea that swamps `automatically' generate frogs.

We know from long testing that if you start with an unchallenged bias and then collect experiences, they will frequently support the bias. Begin by believing that (say) everyone is reincarnated and you can quickly find 'evidence' suggesting that A is the reincarnation of B.

I find it funny when people discuss reincarnation. I suggest researching "conditionality", dependent origination (all things arise together- nothing is independent), and sutras on self/no-self. For the scientific types who want scientists telling them the same thing a religion has been saying for 2600 years, research Kristeva, Freud for the construction of the self -- and quantum physics has been revealing interesting things about our interdependence.

That sentence is the scariest thing I've read for quite a while. It's scary because it's true; it's scary because we shouldn't let it be true.

This is because you have a certain stigma (perhaps well-founded, I admit) against mysticism that is couched in intitutionalized practice. But it's not the only mysticism that exists, fortunately. But take for example the latter portion of the Ten Commandments: Honor Ma and Pa, No murderin, no stealin, no cheating on your spouse, no lying, no coveting squared. Are these sound morals? Yeah. Not really in depth at all. But the idea is that there is a basic truth to our human nature that has been understood long before "science" could address it. And my only assertion is that there is still plenty of room for affective modes of observation-- allowing first empathy, then lovingkindness, then compassion, then unconditional love to be the controlling forces of our actions. This is not suicide of the intellect. For example, Spinoza said that the intellectual awareness of all things was love...

When morality becomes just a prop for ideology then it becomes simply a political tool.

First off, mysticism is about the connection and solidarity among all living things, not about the condemnation thereof.

We quickly arrive at bizarre assertions like 'It's alright to burn him - he's damned otherwise' or 'It's right that we make these men slaves, because our mythology says that they deserve it'. I already addressed this.

I see it quite differently. Our morality (visible in what we do and what we aspire to) is the acid test of our ideology. It's not a prop for mysticism and should never be -- it's a constant challenge to everyone to be better humans. Assuming it's possible to be better. It sounds like you believe we have progressed in some way. Type in "sweaty" to google image and I will show you a nation that has progressed morally.

I think that you may be referring to rules, customs and laws rather than what I'm talking about, which is values and principles. We know that there is a big difference between the morality of a society and the way that it's enshrined in custom and legislation. (For instance, we know that it's bad to kill people through negligence, even at those times when the law doesn't forbid it.)
Absolute, unconditional love would have us donating both kidneys and all our blood to needy children before our lives were ended. I don't believe that humans practice or aspire to practice that sort of love.

I know that some have, some do, and some will. Is it hard? Clearly, it's hard. Our reality is that love is limited by our resources and competing demands. No it's not. Love is the act of only giving without hope for a reward, without attachment to the fruit of our labor. Even if it is only yourself you are giving.

Our morality is shaped in part by what we decide to sacrifice and what we decide to preserve. Good, then, that morality is nothing of my concern. It's a beautiful concept and hasn't yet been discovered as an essence of its own in Reality.

Morality is a tool for whoever uses it. Period.

Now. Unconditional love for whom? All sentient beings. To see my children as closer to me denies someone else. But the truth is, the suffering of my children is best ultimately alleviated by ending the suffering of everyone--- which seems impossible. But, for example, Dorothy Day once said that if one household let in a homeless person, homelessness would disappear. She spoke of something seemingly impossible, but we all know that isn't impossible. People just wouldn't do it. So it is about what you can do-- sometimes you can only take care of those closest to you; but some, for sure, live with unnecessary luxuries while others suffer immensely just to find food. Do they not have some sort of obligation? Well, no, they don't. That's the truth of things. If they loved others as themselves, the obligation would be simply a natural consequence of that love.

While I think my goal is unconditional love, as Ruv pointed out, that's a very difficult/probably impossible thing to do. However, it is entirely possible to come outside of my own wants to bring another person relief from their suffering.

And these actions reveal a consequence, not a conclusion, of what I have seen and then felt, not what I have seen and then thought.

BUT I say, if the ends are the same, why does it matter so much?

AMC

Ruv Draba

07-21-2008, 01:07 AM

Hey AMC...

Some interesting thoughts, but must you quote and respond in-line? I've had to manually copy/paste your commentary just to reply to it. Anyway, my pearls of wisdom [such as they are] below.

In spiritual matters this is an unconscious thing.Yes, and the subconscious is dodgy. It's brilliant but erratic. Our best minds have very active creativity and very crisp, critical analyticity. If you swing too hard into left-brain you get brittle hypercriticality, but swing too hard into right-brain and you get boogabooga superstition.
For the scientific types who want scientists telling them the same thing a religion has been saying for 2600 years, research Kristeva, Freud for the construction of the self -- and quantum physics has been revealing interesting things about our interdependenceWe have to be a bit careful with this, AMC. There are floods and plagues in biblical myth, and there are modern day floods and plagues too... that means that people have been thinking about the same things for a long time. It doesn't make the bible an authority on floods and plagues.

I'm often astounded at just how freakin well-developed is early Indian thought on subjectivity, the superficiality of boundaries etc... these were people who really enjoyed messing with their own mental frames, and I love 'em for it.

But I've also known some Western scientists who have made the leap to decide that the vedas are a source of deep and abiding physical truth... and I can say that that way lies danger, if not barking madness - at least as far as being a productive scientist is concerned. That quantum or string theory have a beautiful vedic sort of aesthetic to them is delightful, but to say that all vedic thought offers deep physical insight is confusing the physical (which is independent of us) with the metaphysical (which is a confabulation of our aesthetics).
This is because you have a certain stigma (perhaps well-founded, I admit) against mysticism that is couched in intitutionalized practice. Not just that. I've played with various mystical practices and formed my own conclusions: we can get very creative and intuitive by messing with the boundaries we form in our own minds. As a writer I think that this is a good practice: go play with some tarot or yarrow or tea-leaves. It helps! :D

But we can't manage without cold, hard questioning, and the more metaphysics we adhere to, the more it blunts our critical faculties. Just as our creative side needs to demolish our apprehensions of physics at times, so our critical side must dynamite the ice-cream castles of our metaphysics.

There's an asymmetry here though: our understanding of physics can be shared experientially, while our apprehension of metaphysics cannot. We can put up our metaphysics in art, but its impact on each person can be very different.
First off, mysticism is about the connection and solidarity among all living things, not about the condemnation thereof.Dude, you'll have to explain that to the folk over in the Christian writing forum (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=40), who are presently sharing some fun and interesting views about Hell (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107774). :) I think you're really talking about your mysticism here. At the risk of looking postmodern, I'll rephrase an earlier point: nobody's metaphysics is universal, but each person's feels like it is. :)
For example, Spinoza said that the intellectual awareness of all things was love...I think that Islam got there before Spinoza did -- Muslims see all scientific investigation of the universe as an act of worship (http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/quran/article02.shtml). I think that they're still way ahead of Western religious thought in this regard. We can thank the Hindus for the number zero, but we have the Arabs to thank for all our other integers. :)
But take for example the latter portion of the Ten Commandments: Honor Ma and Pa, No murderin, no stealin, no cheating on your spouse, no lying, no coveting squared. Are these sound morals? YeahYeah? So, no assisted suicide for terminal patients or lethal force in defence of life? No forceful appropriation of property to feed the poor? No finding your own way out of an abusive relationship in which you're afraid to be honest? No writing of fiction and no ambition? And what if Ma and Pa are dishonourable?

My belief? They're not universal morals, but they're sound advice for ancient folk trying to keep their lives peaceful and uncomplicated. ('Eat your greens' is sound advice too but also not a moral.) Better to have them than have nothing, but they can clearly be abandoned under some circumstances - and frequently are. Back to an earlier post: morality is about how we prioritise our ideals against competing needs and the vicissitudes of circumstance.
Love is the act of only giving without hope for a reward, without attachment to the fruit of our labor.I can agree with the first part of this statement but not the second. This weekend I made some lamb and guiness pies for a friend of Mrs Draba's, who celebrated his birthday. I find cooking tiresome, but I cook some things well, and I spent the afternoon making them. They went down a treat at the party. Was I attached? You betcha. Was it an act of love? I should ruddy-well hope so! Was it a moral act or an immoral one? Perhaps it depends on whether you ask the party-goers or the sheep. ;)

Higgins

07-21-2008, 07:04 PM

"Sure...if you take a reductive view of science and reduce it to utterly trivial items like calling gravity by an arbitrary name...you end up without anything being said about existence. But think of the actual restructuring of the imagery of the cosmos that happened when the force that caused heavy things to fall ( what gravity originally meant) was unified with the force that caused the planets to move in their courses (a force that was not well-defined and had rather metaphysical underpinings)."

I have not reduced science to arbitrary naming of events; but science is the discovery of the ways and the modeling of the universe. What ethical implications can you derive from "the force that caused the planets to move in their courses" ? Show me some part of science that can directly relate to us some sort of moral obligation.

You seem to have an arbitrarily limited view of both science and moral obligation. The world is a very complex place. I work every day with scientists who are trying very hard to help people with basic problems in the health field. Do they feel morally obligated to do that? Yes, and moreover they feel morally obligated to go beyond moral obligation and use science as it was always intended: to help people have better lives. Don't forget that medical science is a part of science. It's not all astronomy.

AMCrenshaw

07-21-2008, 07:25 PM

Higgins: you aren't facing the fact that there is no direct moral obligation. If you research medical science to cure cancer, it is the fight to cure cancer that moves the science. The science reveals the cure for cancer-- not what to do with it. I don't need to repeat myself.

Ruv:

Sorry about the quote. Was in a hurry.

I found myself agreeing with mostly all of what you say. When I talk about mysticism, I talk about the researched mysticism (from not just the Christian kind)-- there are 8 characteristics of the mystic; sometime I will share them with you.

For me: it's half physical, half metaphysical. There's enough mystery in either realm to keep us busy for a lifetime, and neither can give us all the answers to the questions we as humans will ask. I think the aesthetic quality of oneness has a reality to it, and its consequences are known empirically in the physical.

As far as the Ten Commandments go, I could say things in favor of them. But that's useless. For example, "even fiction tells the truth." Assisted suicide might be a way of honoring the parents, etc.

It doesn't matter. I think you got my point there.

About the cooking...There are different kinds of love. I'm sure you know of them. Romantic love, friendship, and charity. Which was yours? I'm guessing friendship. But a person acting out of the unconditional love I'm talking about would not be attached to the fruit of action. It would not worry about the "reaction" of the party in terms of its own self. I don't think that what you did was anything less than love, however. It was an act of coming outside of yourself to give to another.

AMC

Higgins

07-21-2008, 07:44 PM

Eeek

07-22-2008, 01:05 AM

Hi. I'm a wishy-washy agnostic.

I took a quick look at the beginning of the Wired article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1) mentioned earlier. As a wishy-washy agnostic, I can relate to what the author was saying, though I don't feel as strongly about it as he appears to:

... This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities ... we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.

Out of the recent crop of atheist best-sellers, I've only read the one by Christopher Hitchens. I enjoyed it because I thought it was well-written and funny.

Though I haven't (yet?) read Dawkins' book, I've read a few articles by him on this topic, and I did find him strident and annoying in his atheism. Perhaps that's what the author of the Wired article was getting at.

My own reaction, when faced with people spouting religious beliefs that I find incredible, is not usually to argue head-on, but rather to think, "Do you really believe that? Really?" It's as if an adult told me they believed in Santa Claus. I would wonder if they really believed that (and if so, how did they maintain such a belief?), or if they were just putting on an act for the children, or if they were trying to convince themselves.

I'd like to try to tackle the original poster's questions:

What does everyone think of these New Atheist fellows?

A few questions to consider:

1) Do they make any claims to truth?

Sure.

2) Do they feel as though they have a superior moral compass? What is it based on?

I don't know if they believe that they have a superior moral compass. I think they believe that they have a compass which is much better aligned with reality.

[3) What is their source of spirituality?

I have no idea. Do they need one?

4) In what ways can their ideas benefit our society? Stick to positives benefits.

I think what the original poster is calling the "New Atheists" (I think of them as the "strong atheists") contribute is a sharpening of the debate. Wishy-washy agnostics like myself usually avoid challenging religious beliefs head-on, in part because of our own wishy-washiness, and maybe also in part because we are afraid of the confrontation, and/or feel obligated to let things pass in the name of freedom of religion. The New/strong atheists bring the subject into the open, which I think is a benefit to society.

5) What ways do you feel they could potentially harm our society?

They can be stubborn, and tend to square off, in debates, against people who hold opposing views in an equally stubborn fashion. This leads to the tedious kind of argument where people are just talking past each other. We have too much of this already, on cable TV and elsewhere!

benbradley

07-22-2008, 02:00 AM

What does everyone think of these New Atheist fellows?
I presume (as I suppose has already been discussed) you mean Hitchens and Dawkins and such. I've just completed Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and enjoyed much of it, though it seemed the middle of it has a lot of Biblical study that I'm not nearly familiar with as Dawkins apparently is, and I don't have interest in studying the Bible as much as he has. But overall, I really enjoyed about the first and last thirds of the book.

I've got Hitchen's "God Is Not Great" but have only read the beginning, I need to get back to it.

But overall, I pretty much agree with not just their atheist, but also their naturalistic and rationalistic views.
3) What is their source of spirituality?
You've got to define spirituality here to get a good answer, but even if you were to povide "your definition," I don't like the question. Most definitions have something to do with the supernatural (many people believe their spirituality is their connection with God, and this spirituality is distinct from the "man-made institution of religion").

In general, many or most atheists (and especially these rationalistic "new atheists" such as Dawkins) have an exclusively naturalistic worldview, so anything not clearly demonstrated to exist in the physical world, such as spirituality, the soul, angels, demons or ghosts, would not be accepted as being part of existence or reality. So these atheists would not have a source of spirituality, because they (okay, I'll say it since it's what I believe, we) have no spirituality.

I can imagine some atheists speaking of "my spirit" in some sense that doesn't refer to something supernatural (or for that matter, even some atheists believing in ghosts), but I personally wouldn't used the term for something I believed, because I see where it's too easy for it to be interpreted as something supernatural.

Ruv Draba

07-22-2008, 02:07 AM

About the cooking...There are different kinds of love. I'm sure you know of them. Romantic love, friendship, and charity. Which was yours?A bit of friendship, maybe - but really I barely know the guy whose party it was. I think that it's probably not a love you listed at all: I'd describe it as a love of good food.

But wait - isn't that gluttony?

Not at all. I didn't actually eat any of the pies I made for the party. I just wanted people to have something they'd enjoy. Food is a celebration of life. Not terribly Biblical of me (but then why should it be? :tongue)

Attached? Certainly! I didn't select my worst recipe, but one of my better ones. I wanted a particular outcome, and so I crafted a particular product. Try crafting something you don't care about one day and see how good it's not. :)

Is that self-love then? Hardly! Given my druthers I'd rather have been at home writing.

If I had to fit it to some theoretical notion of love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love), I'd might label it as closest to xenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_%28Greek%29)- a formal relationship of friendship between host (Mrs D's friend) and guest (me). But in practice, I'd have made the pies for Mrs D's friend even if I didn't go to the party. Then again, if it had been someone other than Mrs D's friend I mightn't have made the pies at all, so perhaps it's storge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge)- a natural love I have for her friendships born of my commitment to her. (She didn't eat any of the pies either - but she really appreciated how much other people enjoyed them. Perhaps my storge helped her xenia...)

Or maybe it's just thelema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema)... I like what I do to be purposeful and good -- even if I didn't really want to do it. Or maybe it's some combination of these.

All this tells me is that love can be plenty attached, doesn't always classify well by theoretical taxonomies and doesn't always adhere to the ideals of a particular culture or ideology.

AMCrenshaw

07-22-2008, 04:27 AM

Higgins: I agree, of course. Which is why I'm a little more lax on certain religious groups. I think if the consequences are ethical, then why should I bother them about how they got to those conclusions.

I just wanted to point out that your reasoning to be ethical isn't scientific-- it's simply another step in a different process. But the step you use (to feel obliged, for example) isn't based on science. It's based on the choice to act accordingly to what is ethical.

Some people might develop the cure for cancer: will they give it to those who need it, or sell it to them at outrageous costs? There is no scientific way to say what should be done here.

AMC

Ruv Draba

07-22-2008, 04:34 AM

I can imagine some atheists speaking of "my spirit" in some sense that doesn't refer to something supernatural (or for that matter, even some atheists believing in ghosts), but I personally wouldn't used the term for something I believed, because I see where it's too easy for it to be interpreted as something supernatural.I use it to mean spiritus - 'my breath'. I use it to connote what I take in from the world, what I give out to the world, and how I connect. These are largely intangibles, but they're still natural intangibles. We're talking purpose, intention, morality, attitude and relationship - no sense of 'ghost' or 'soul' or the like, and no New Age psychic auras.

I posted something to the Christian writing forum about this here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2560338&postcount=4) in response to III (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=9185)'s excellent question (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2560124&postcount=1) on the subject. I tried to capture why spirit can be meaningful without supernatural connotations. (I also found it interesting and maybe a bit concerning that the responses in that thread were not terribly clear or cohesive - though I'm not sure what that means.)

Ruv Draba

07-22-2008, 04:45 AM

I just wanted to point out that your reasoning to be ethical isn't scientific-- it's simply another step in a different process.This is a tricky one, AMC. If you decide to commit your life to certain principles then sometimes there's no choice in where you head -- the only choice is in how you get there, and that can be a fairly rational choice.

The decision to make that commitment may or may not be rational - it depends on the reasoning behind it.

But adhering to it no matter what is often irrational. (Ever wanted to leave your family? Take a vacation from your principles? It's commonplace) Notwithstanding that, our ability to adhere to principles when they cost us more than we'd choose to pay is often beneficial - to ourselves and those around us.
Some people might develop the cure for cancer: will they give it to those who need it, or sell it to them at outrageous costs? There is no scientific way to say what should be done here.If you agree on the principles then you can often take an evidence-based approach to how best to fulfill them. But principles are largely visionary things, and agreeing to share them (or revise them) is a political process.

AMCrenshaw

07-22-2008, 08:41 AM

I think you've said it better than I have: "principles are largely visionary things, and agreeing to share them (or revise them) is a political process." Not a scientific one. And I think ethics-based choices are often, but not always, political choices.

Also, rational does not equate to scientific. Scientific is a lot more than mere rationality.

zornhau

07-22-2008, 02:17 PM

I do without "morality" and use duty and honour instead. Duty is about obligations entered into voluntarily. Honour, about being the same person over time. Without honour, you are no longer "you".

Ruv Draba

07-22-2008, 06:30 PM

I think ethics-based choices are often, but not always, political choices.I think that this is another tricky one, AMC. You're really trotting them out here! :)

Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)is the study of what we owe one another. There's a social dimension to that, but there's also a moral dimension to it: our individual and collective sense of what's good and what isn't.

Ethics often work best when we consider ourself in service to others - and are often most needed when our service grants us knowledge or power to affect the quality of other folks' lives. But what's interesting about this is that often, the parties whom we serve aren't in a position to say what they need. Parental ethics involve us looking after children who know less than we do; medical ethics require doctors to look after patients who also know less, and scientific ethics require scientists to look after individuals and society who often don't understand the science being undertaken.

For this reason, codes of ethics are often made up by professional societies (for instance, there's a journalist code of ethics (http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm) that I've often wondered about adapting to fiction writers). Because there's a social dimension and a power relationship involved, there are politics in formulating and reviewing ethics of course.

However in adhering to ethics, often we (the practitioner in service to another) are the only ones who know whether we're being ethical at all. If any breach of ethics comes out it's often long after the fact, when all the decisions are made. So while ethical formulation and review are political, ethical adhesion is more often moral and personal.

Also, rational does not equate to scientific. Scientific is a lot more than mere rationality.Yes. Science requires high levels of skepticism and relentless, rigorous testing while rationality does not.

Science is also quite expensive to undertake because of the need to repeat, retest whatever we do and explain whatever we find. So it tends to be used for only our most important knowledge. We may rationally investigate the price of eggs (by calling a shop to ask), but to scientifically investigate the price of eggs we're required to sample, compile tables, adduce reasons for price-ranges and variations.

Whatever principles we may personally adhere to, I think we're more likely to pursue them semi-rationally than scientifically - life's simply too short to test everything rigorously.

On the other hand, when others claim authority to tell us how to live then I think that there's a case to call this 'Important information' (or at least candidate Important information) and start applying science to what we're being told.

Higgins

07-22-2008, 06:34 PM

I just wanted to point out that your reasoning to be ethical isn't scientific-- it's simply another step in a different process. But the step you use (to feel obliged, for example) isn't based on science. It's based on the choice to act accordingly to what is ethical.

Some people might develop the cure for cancer: will they give it to those who need it, or sell it to them at outrageous costs? There is no scientific way to say what should be done here.

AMC

Its true that your average scientific effort has an ethical focus on its own methods: giving full credit to others whose ideas or work has helped you, getting your results out in a clear and timely fashion, stating what your assumptions and limitations are and so on. But if you learn to watch yourself in formulating your opinions and carrying out your actions and cooperating with others across barriers, then chances are you are going to have an ethical interest in how your findings are applied. And we do see this with scientists in many fields, ie they don't limit their concerns and actions to just figuring out what is going on, they also apply themselves to getting benefits out to people in general and reducing the damaging effects of other mechanisms of power (such as pharmaceutical companies and their drive to extract profits).
Anyway...if you put scientific work in its real context, it is always full of ethical concerns.

Ruv Draba

07-22-2008, 06:42 PM

I do without "morality" and use duty and honour instead. Duty is about obligations entered into voluntarily. Honour, about being the same person over time. Without honour, you are no longer "you".Morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)is a fuzzy term used in maybe three ways:

To describe a code of conduct
To describe a universal ideal of behaviour
To mean ethics (or what we owe one another)'Duty' and 'Honour' seem to apply to more than one of these. So you might not want to call it morality, Zornhau, but I think that many other people would - even if you see it as just a personal code and even if they don't agree with it!

I usually distinguish morality from ethics in the following way:

Morality is 'values' based (so duty and honour are values - this was my first clue that you may have a moral code);
Ethics are often principles-based and can be captured in pithy aphorisms (e.g. 'Don't ever do something you'd be embarrassed to see in the paper', or 'Be true to yourself')We normally need morality ('what is good') to build the foundations for our ethics ('what we owe one another').

Hope that's useful.

zornhau

07-23-2008, 03:06 AM

Morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)is a fuzzy term used in maybe three ways:

To describe a code of conduct
To describe a universal ideal of behaviour
To mean ethics (or what we owe one another)'Duty' and 'Honour' seem to apply to more than one of these. So you might not want to call it morality, Zornhau, but I think that many other people would - even if you see it as just a personal code and even if they don't agree with it!

I usually distinguish morality from ethics in the following way:

Morality is 'values' based (so duty and honour are values - this was my first clue that you may have a moral code);
Ethics are often principles-based and can be captured in pithy aphorisms (e.g. 'Don't ever do something you'd be embarrassed to see in the paper', or 'Be true to yourself')We normally need morality ('what is good') to build the foundations for our ethics ('what we owe one another').

Hope that's useful.

Sigh. Yes, I suppose it is a morality. But it's based as little as possible on abstract notions of good and evil. Both honour and duty are existential in nature (I think...).

t0neg0d

07-23-2008, 05:08 AM

Before looking at the questions, I went and read the articles posted by others. I have to say that I found them disturbing in more ways than one.

First, what good can come from preaching and inspiring hate? And for arguments sake, lets say all Atheists in the world were to hear this and say 'That's for me and I am going to dedicate myself to it!', what will be the end result? What is the desired outcome? The only way to extinuish something from existence would be to kill anyone who believes/has something to do with a religion. Is that the goal of New Atheism?

Secondly, Atheism is the belief in no god, not a disbelief in one single belief of god. Why of all the religions in the world do New Atheists single out Christianity? It seems (from these articles) that a few outspoken people are using the name 'Atheist' to promote and rally behind their own personal hate for Christians.

Would love to know our thoughts!

On to the questions...

What does everyone think of these New Atheist fellows?

A few questions to consider:

1) Do they make any claims to truth?

Yes, the truth that is claimed is there is/are no god(s). Though, neither the existence of/or nonexistence of has been proven. So, the 'truth' of Atheism is as speculative as 'truth' of religion(s).

2) Do they feel as though they have a superior moral compass? What is it based on?

I can only speak as an observer of the most outspoken Atheists by quoting them. The question is, are 'self-superiority' and 'moral compass' the same thing?

Dawkins: "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."He considers himself and any who believe as he does to be "highly intelligent". Since the belief or disbelief of a god is speculative, what if he is wrong? O.o

Dawkins: "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying."Just the arrogance alone it takes to make a statement like this is baffling. Some of the most brilliant minds in history believed in a god. Their achievements will far surpass his and their memories will far outlive his own. How can someone make a blanket statement like this? And, to stoop to name calling? /boggle

Dawkins: "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"This, simple put, is disturbing and sound a whole lot like communism. Most parents instill values to their children, and while religion can take a role in this, children grow up, question their upbringing, investigate and then make a decision of their own. And, who is to be the authority on what values "cross the line"? Whether you believe in a god or not, the ten commandments aren't a bad guild-line. Just take the ones that have nothing to do with a god.

Don't murder.
Be kind to people.
Don't steal
Don't lie

Are these values out the window to? Hell, is the constitution out the window? It was influenced by the beliefs of people who believed in a god (specifically the big no-no).

If the above quotes are an example of New Atheism "moral compass", then it promotes hate and contempt and I for one can not agree that is "superior".

3) What is their source of spirituality?

Atheism would negate the concept of spiritualism completely, wouldn't it?

4) In what ways can their ideas benefit our society? Stick to positives benefits.

I don't think I have seen a benefit yet, unfortunately. Hate is not a benefit.

5) What ways do you feel they could potentially harm our society?

I think I stated that above: preaching hate does no one an ounce of good.

Just some research for my book. Mods, I like creative, thoughtful answers. And I love tangents.

AMC

veinglory

07-23-2008, 05:39 AM

New atheism does not exist. Therefore it isn't trying to do anything.

Ruv Draba

07-23-2008, 05:40 PM

First, what good can come from preaching and inspiring hate?None at all. But I don't believe that the atheist activists you mentioned are inspiring hate. I think that they're ridiculing certain beliefs, but ridicule is an accepted form of communication in political matters - and I think that the people you're citing are fundamentally political in nature.
And for arguments sake, lets say all Atheists in the world were to hear this and say 'That's for me and I am going to dedicate myself to it!'Actually, I think that people like Dawkins aren't speaking so much to the atheists or the devout theists, but to a rather a large third group - the uncommitted, the doubting and the uncertain. In terms of numbers, Christianity is on the decline and some atheists will want to capitalise on that - for attention, celebrityhood etc... Christianity has its televangelists... atheists have Dawkins and friends. Of the two, I find Dawkins at least educated and entertaining - and perhaps less likely to embezzle or get embroiled in sex scandals (I doubt that he simonises atheistic miracles and who'd sleep with him?) :D
The only way to extinuish something from existence would be to kill anyone who believes/has something to do with a religion. Is that the goal of New Atheism?In practice, I think that fewer people believe in bad luck from walking under ladders than used to, but as far as I know no skeptics have killed anyone to bring that about. The best tool to overthrow fear, ignorance and superstition is a good education. I don't know of a single atheist who wants to see theists dead - and some atheists like myself are very happy that there are religions in the world.
Secondly, Atheism is the belief in no god, not a disbelief in one single belief of god.ToG, there are many misconceptions about atheism and a common one is in what atheists believe and what that belief means. Happy to discuss further if you wish.
Why of all the religions in the world do New Atheists single out Christianity?Christianity is the dominant religion in most English-speaking countries, has a long history of influence on English-speaking cultures, and the longest history of oppression of and opposition to English-speaking atheists. In consequence, many atheists who write in English about religion, write about the religion that they most know. (And if your ideological ancestors hadn't been burning mine, then perhaps there'd be more atheistic writing about how bad the Aztecs were instead. ;))
It seems (from these articles) that a few outspoken people are using the name 'Atheist' to promote and rally behind their own personal hate for Christians.It can seem that way but I think that it is not that way. Reciprocally, I know many Christians who believe that all atheists will suffer eternal torment and who have no qualms calling this the definition of good. It would be very easy to see that as a sanctioned form of religious hatred, but I try every day not to view it that way. An atheistic belief that just wants people to escape superstition seems much milder to me than threats of damnation and allegations that atheist lives are worthless in the eyes of omniscience. :(

Yes, the truth that is claimed is there is/are no god(s).Again, I think you may need to discover more about what atheism is before asserting what it is. Happy to help if you have questions.
I can only speak as an observer of the most outspoken Atheists by quoting them. The question is, are 'self-superiority' and 'moral compass' the same thing?I think that they're not. Please understand however that Dawkins and others are reacting to the posturing of various flavours of monotheism which assert their own self-superiority. The reaction is rhetorical and I think it's because they're playing politics.

(I should say here that I really don't want to defend Dawkins. I just think that you're making the wrong criticisms.)
He considers himself and any who believe as he does to be "highly intelligent".I think it's now well-established by surveys that most (nearly all) highly intelligent scientific thinkers in the English-speaking world are atheists, and have been for over a century (links if you want 'em). Dawkins may be extending that statistic to all highly intelligent thinkers, but I haven't yet seen the data to support that contention. (Then again, I've seen no data to refute it either.)
Since the belief or disbelief of a god is speculative, what if he is wrong?The answer to that would depend on which god he's wrong about. :)
Just the arrogance alone it takes to make a statement like this is baffling.Most political rhetoric is arrogant, and I think that Dawkins is a politician. I find the statement you quoted a little offensive, but here's one that I wouldn't find offensive: Statistically, atheists and agnostics appear grossly under-represented in the House of Congress. So either only theists are being elected, or some atheists and agnostics feel compelled to lie to gain office. My belief? That Christianity - even feigned Christianity - is populist. That may do neither the religion nor politics itself any good.
This, simple put, is disturbing and sound a whole lot like communism.It's just politics, ToG. The religious right have been playing similar games in the US and my own country of Australia for a decade. I wouldn't take it too seriously and I certainly wouldn't consider it representative of atheist views. I agree with Vein. There is no New Atheism. It's just PR spin from both sides of the thestic divide. Each side gets some media attention from it, so it's a convenient fiction to propagate. The atheists are coming! Booga booga! (Right, all eight percent of us. :tongue)
Whether you believe in a god or not, the ten commandments aren't a bad guild-line.Stripped of divine authority, the ten commandments are an ethical code - quite an old code - and there are many possible changes one could make to try and modernise them (again - happy to discuss if you're interested). Human thought is full of ethical codes. Choosing the right one for a secular society becomes a conscious and eternally negotiated matter. (It's going on today anyway.)

If the above quotes are an example of New Atheism "moral compass", then it promotes hate and contempt and I for one can not agree that is "superior".A final repetition: there isn't a New Atheism - it's a beat-up constructed by attention-seekers and alarmists. Put two atheists into a room and they can't agree on politics, morality, ethics or ideology - so I can promise you that there is no movement. :)

At most, I suspect that the general public is tired of hearing from the religious right, and are happy to give a few entertaining atheist activists their fifteen minutes of fame. All the noise will be over in eighteen months, I predict, and atheists will still have to pretend to be Christian to get elected to office...:tongue

So chill dude. ;)

[Vein, the only way I could justify this response was by telling myself that it was about a famous atheistic writer. If that's not enough and you want to move it to some forum Siberia, I would certainly understand. :D]

Ruv Draba

07-23-2008, 06:19 PM

Sigh. Yes, I suppose it is a morality. But it's based as little as possible on abstract notions of good and evil. Both honour and duty are existential in nature (I think...).I saw a sense of good in your code there, Zorn... and I see it in your blogging too. I don't know that morality needs a sense of evil; it simply needs to discriminate good from not-good. ;)

Higgins

07-23-2008, 07:04 PM

Before looking at the questions, I went and read the articles posted by others. I have to say that I found them disturbing in more ways than one.

It's probably best to separate different causes for the disturbances one experiences. A basic problem is that far too much is read into the idea of
"Atheism"....after all if salvation is by faith alone (as some Christians think)
then anyone may experience a lack of faith (and thus more or less be an atheist) at any time. The state of not having any particular belief is really not all that strange. Indeed, it seems like the normal, basic human orientation toward most things. Agitating for an acceptance of atheism is really no more odd than agitating for an acceptance of normal, human thought processes. What is odd is that accepting the normality of not having any particular belief is seen as deviant or destructive.

veinglory

07-23-2008, 08:10 PM

Tonegod, it seems to me that you are steering this thread in the same direction as the one moved. I would suggest that people look at the new sticky and steer the thread accordingly--or open a discussion about what the forum should be for. ;)

Eeek

07-23-2008, 09:55 PM

I don't know if this is off-topic, but I just wanted to mention in passing that at least in Christopher Hitchens' book (which is the only one of the current batch I've read so far, and so is the only one I can knowledgeably speak about), the religion Hitchens MOST focuses his fire on is Islam (as you could perhaps guess from the book's title, "God is Not Great.") True, Christianity is a close second as a target in the book, but it is definitely not singled out as the ONLY religion that Hitchens mocks. And he also takes some potshots at Judaism and Buddhism. (I disagree with his criticisms of Judaism, by the way, which could be due to my bias seeing as how I am Jewish, but I don't think his argument is hateful -- just that it is wrong in its details.)

Also wanted to say in passing, about another writer in the group of famous writers who write about atheism, that when it comes to Richard Dawkins, perhaps his personality and writing style get in the way of his message. His style is to be as confrontational as possible, and that can rub some people (me, for one) the wrong way. On the other hand, that style does get what he writes a lot of attention, so perhaps it all comes out in the wash.

Why of all the religions in the world do New Atheists single out Christianity?

t0neg0d

07-23-2008, 10:44 PM

ToG, there are many misconceptions about atheism and a common one is in what atheists believe and what that belief means. Happy to discuss further if you wish.

Ruv,

This is the definition of Atheism according to dictionary.com and now I am completely confused. If this is wrong, please send me a PM or post the correction here. I'm not trying to argue... only trying to learn.

a·the·ism

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods. atheism
noun1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism)]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

atheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)]
Denial that there is a God. (Compare agnosticism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism).)

Atheism
A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist).]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. Godlessness.

Tonegod, it seems to me that you are steering this thread in the same direction as the one moved. I would suggest that people look at the new sticky and steer the thread accordingly--or open a discussion about what the forum should be for. ;)

Veinglory,

Why is my answer any different than anyone else? I answered the questions in the same manner that everyone else did--the only difference was my PoV. Please send me a PM and explain while my response was singled out.

benbradley

07-24-2008, 12:39 AM

Ruv,

This is the definition of Atheism according to dictionary.com and now I am completely confused. If this is wrong, please send me a PM or post the correction here. I'm not trying to argue... only trying to learn.

a·the·ism

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods....
These dictionary definitions appear to oversimplify the sitiation, or at least omit a definition or two, as no doubt they also do about religion or a specific religion.
This thread discusses (amont other things) "strong" vs. "weak" atheism and the philosophical differences between them:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50071

AMCrenshaw

07-24-2008, 01:34 AM

So my thoughts about the "New" Atheists-- the atheist activists, or whatever the hell we want to call them--

There is one obvious claim to truth, and then there is one that I think may be implied. In End of Faith, for example, he asserts that there is an ethics based on science. But as I have contended before, that while science and ethics may be interconnected, they are apples and oranges. Just as there is no scripture to say literally that early abortion and/or birth control is a sin, there is no scientific law stating that early abortion and/or birth control is ethical. The difference is that while I hear a lot of religious folk saying the former, I hear few atheists claiming the latter.

In a lot of ways, atheists have turned inward while also observing the external. They seek to see the way things are, to see what aesthetic efforts are actually achieving, to see what can bring peace to a people-- and what cannot. I'm not well-read on their beliefs about the metaphysical, but I can't imagine they exist. If someone would like to educate me, I'd appreciate it.

Their claims about institutionalized religion are well-founded. Who can deny the harm done to us as humans in God's name? But of course, their rhetoric would never include people like Dorothy Day, Gandhi, MLK Jr., etc, because those that inhabit such a population are so absolutely few-- it is very, very difficult to put all others before ourselves, isn't it? And while I think that both hard and soft sciences can point to these truths (through narratives), religious people and texts have pointed very much to these things for thousands of years. And different people are spoken to in different ways, even if it's about the same thing, even if the conclusions about that same thing are wildly different. So I think as more of these "Religious Truths" are being discovered to to exist only metaphorically or literally (through faith), it's up to people to recognize what is still applicable and what is simply absurd.

But how did we originally get swords, flails, armor? How did we develop cruise missiles, nuclear warheads? How did we develop weapons that could destroy and have destroyed entire cities? Did prayer develop these? I dunno.

And what were the reasons for dropping those bombs in Japan? Religion? And why did Stalin kill over 20 million people? Neither for religious nor scientific purposes.

Though not all of these atheists claim to have any sense of spirituality, Sam Harris does. And what I was trying to get at was: is it common for atheists to look to Taoism, Zen, Confucianism, Shinto (kami/spirits/power/gods), Mahayana, existentialists, etc for spirituality? And the answer is no. No one is required to have a source of spirituality. But some do. For example, I think most analytic thinkers here would be greatly benefited by reading Buddhist texts, modern or not. But watch out for that telekinesis!

AMC

p.s. since when has the dictionary given us an accurate description of anything but the meaning of a single word? We all know that atheism entails much more than belief that there is no God, just as much as there is more to theism than the belief in God.

Eeek

07-24-2008, 02:27 AM

Though not all of these atheists claim to have any sense of spirituality, Sam Harris does. And what I was trying to get at was: is it common for atheists to look to Taoism, Zen, Confucianism, Shinto (kami/spirits/power/gods), Mahayana, existentialists, etc for spirituality? And the answer is no. No one is required to have a source of spirituality. But some do. For example, I think most analytic thinkers here would be greatly benefited by reading Buddhist texts, modern or not. But watch out for that telekinesis!

I'd like to recommend a book I read on this topic, which I liked very much: Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor.

(It's probably beyond the scope of this thread to consider the controversy about whether the kind of Buddhism it discusses is really "authentic," and in any case, that's something I'm not qualified to judge.)

It presents a Buddhism stripped of its mystical and irrational aspects. And it's very well-written, using a lot of vivid metaphors that helped to clearly explain some difficult concepts that had previously confused me.

The author used to be a Buddhist monk, and is now an editor at a Buddhist magazine.

Very highly recommended for anyone who is atheist or agnostic (or just skeptical of mystical claims) and curious about, or already interested in, Buddhist thought.

Ruv Draba

07-24-2008, 03:02 AM

This is the definition of Atheism according to dictionary.com and now I am completely confused. If this is wrong, please send me a PM or post the correction here.One big long PM of clarification sent. :D

Why is my answer any different than anyone else? I answered the questions in the same manner that everyone else did--the only difference was my PoV. Please send me a PM and explain while my response was singled out.I reckon that the original questions were dodgy in the first place because they're 'atheism and society' questions instead of 'atheism and writing' or 'atheist writing' questions. We've had two pages of posts that managed (barely) to skirt ideological debate - but which have triggered some interesting side-comments. Your commentary threatens to stir up the original debate again. I was conscious of that in my own reply, but felt that you were genuinely distressed and believed that your questions deserved some sort of answer.

AMCrenshaw

07-24-2008, 03:15 AM

Dodgy? Hey!

veinglory

07-24-2008, 08:06 PM

Tonegod, If you don't see how generalising an attack on Dawkins to an attack on the atheist moral compass is counter to the guidelines I would suggest you might have trouble staying within the lines here--and might choose to go elsewhere. I refer specifically to 'bashing' and asking atheists to jusyify their basical philosophy as things I am not interested in seeing pursued. This is posted here rather than PM to respond to your public question with a public answer.

Eeek

07-24-2008, 11:33 PM

Hey, I have a new answer for one of the original questions

3) What is their source of spirituality?

And the answer is -- Their serotonin receptors! ;)

--------------------
I just read something last night about a study that showed that the presence of a receptor for serotonin correlates with people's ability to have transcendent spiritual experiences.

The short summary I read suggests that it's the serotonin that is causing the spiritual experiences. But since it's a correlation, I guess it could be the other way around -- it could be that it's the experiences that are causing the brain chemistry changes.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting:

Study: The Effects Of Serotonin On Spirituality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/study-the-effects-of-sero_n_114112.html) -- from The American Journal of Psychiatry via Psychology Today via Huffington Post

Sarpedon

07-24-2008, 11:52 PM

I agree about Richard Dawkins' writing style. I so much preferred it when he was simply writing about science. His science books are much better, in every way than his atheism books.

veinglory

07-25-2008, 12:00 AM

Higgins

07-25-2008, 12:09 AM

Hey, I have a new answer for one of the original questions

And the answer is -- Their serotonin receptors! ;)

--------------------
I just read something last night about a study that showed that the presence of a receptor for serotonin correlates with people's ability to have transcendent spiritual experiences.

The short summary I read suggests that it's the serotonin that is causing the spiritual experiences. But since it's a correlation, I guess it could be the other way around -- it could be that it's the experiences that are causing the brain chemistry changes.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting:

Study: The Effects Of Serotonin On Spirituality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/study-the-effects-of-sero_n_114112.html) -- from The American Journal of Psychiatry via Psychology Today via Huffington Post

Easy to test. There are lots of drugs that manipulate serotonin availability. Get a bunch of spiritually naive people (that might be hard)
and make sure half of them have lots of serotonin and half get a placebo...then subject half of each of those groups to some spiritual
events (what would those be? I always experience religious ecstasy while watching beautiful women playing Brahms sextets in the nude, but for others there may be some variation: Schubert quartets, car repair, mud wrestling, hockey, specialist acts and so on) and leave the others in a spiritually deprived environment: an full day of classes in macroeconomics might do...and then see who has more spiritual experiences.

Ruv Draba

07-25-2008, 06:20 AM

I think so too. I pretty much stopped reading Dawkins. I am more in the area of the late Dr Gould on this subject. He had a nice idea about non-overlapping majesterias: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

That's a splendid, humanitarian and erudite article, Vein. Thanks for sharing!

I have only one point of difference with Dr Gould: the majesteria of spirit is not closed to scientists. In other words, using science as the natural and most appropriate tool for understanding the majesteria of the physical world does not disqualify us from commentary on the spiritual world. Neither does ordination or a Doctorate in Divinity make the opinions of a theological scholar more intrinsically valid in the majesteria of spirit than those of ordinary laeity - they may simply be informed by more references.

I claim this because I think that the realm of spirit is the realm of perception more than knowledge; aesthetics more than philosophy; experience more than ideology. To be meaningful at all it must remain consistent with our understanding of the reality of the physical world (and all enlightened religions endorse this), but in terms of morality, relationship, meaning and purpose I feel that there's nobody who for reason of education or its lack, belief or its lack, should be consigned to silence or considered a second-class participant. Indeed, the more authoritarian and authoritative a religion seeks to make the majesterium of spirit, the less relevant I think it will be. So suggestions that (for example) nonbelievers have no spirituality and no say in the majesterium bother the heck out of me. Gould's own writing puts the lie to that supposition.

I strongly advocate people sharing and discussing 'here is how you may live' and 'here is how we agree to live'. But in a pluralist world I strenuously object to spiritual ideology insisting 'here is how you must live', and any dogma that suggests penalties or sanctions for failing to do so. Historically, when such penalties and sanctions are coupled with secular power, we immediately see oppression of the sort that Dr Gould alludes to - and even when they're not, we see intolerance, indifference and contempt.

In this respect I find myself half in agreement with Dawkins and half in disagreement. We know historically (and contemporaneously) how much damage some kinds of religious indoctrination can do to the minds of the young. There's no question that a young mind needs time to grow before it can choose. In the interim, a child's spiritual beliefs are not for parents' or teachers' to shape as they will, but a trust held on behalf of the child. On the other hand, the values of those who love us are critical in seeding our own moral values. Is it possible for enlightened parents to impart values without indoctrinating spiritual beliefs? And more concerningly, if parents withold spiritual beliefs do they also withhold key values?

I don't have an answer to this. Kids need physical truths, an enquiring mind, and good, robust values. I can't help but feel that if you get the good values and enquiring mind right, the truths will follow in time.

Ruv Draba

07-25-2008, 06:25 AM

I always experience religious ecstasy while watching beautiful women playing Brahms sextets in the nudeIs that what religious ecstasy looks like? I'll skip the serotonin then... I can produce that myself. :D

AMCrenshaw

07-25-2008, 06:42 AM

"'here is how you must live'"

Can this statement work within any kind of framework? If that's too broad I will provide an example, in spiritual terms, of what I mean.

"On the other hand, the values of those who love us are critical in seeding our own moral values. Is it possible for enlightened parents to impart values without indoctrinating spiritual beliefs? And more concerningly, if parents withold spiritual beliefs do they also withhold key values?

I don't have an answer to this. Kids need physical truths, an enquiring mind, and good, robust values. I can't help but feel that if you get the good values and enquiring mind right, the truths will follow in time."

Yeah. There is a mystic quote: "There are many paths, but only one way." And I wonder if imparting values upon a child (through showing) would allow that child then to healthily make its own aesthetic and/or rational decisions-- which is somewhat what I feel the actual choice of religion (or no religion) comes down to. I can only say that the aesthetic of Christianity is something that I can relate to, but not so much the rationality of it all. i.e., I cannot reconcile the existence of a God-man. But that doesn't mean I have abandoned Christianity as a whole, if that makes sense. And so, a child developing-- even if he or she has the understanding of "good" values-- can still make a healthy choice about his or her religion.

All in all, I think it is possible to impart values-- these can and sometimes will be abandoned by a child anyway-- without imparting spiritual beliefs. They can see the consequence of the parents' or teachers' spiritual beliefs, but that does not mean they must buy into them. To force a spiritual Truth onto a child, I believe, only stunts that child's ability, in some way, to make his or her own decisions.

"I claim this because I think that the realm of spirit is the realm of perception more than knowledge; aesthetics more than philosophy; experience more than ideology."

By knowledge you mean like...rational, scientific, or whatever...as opposed to relational/intimate? Just a point of semantics that confused me, sorry. But I agree if you mean the former.

"So suggestions that (for example) nonbelievers have no spirituality and no say in the majesterium bother the heck out of me."

And it's interesting that someone might even try to limit something they consider limitless. Especially based on belief. As you alluded, I think the skeptic's (or at least my version of skepticism :)) approach is a bit more deductive even while being experiential. So when I encounter what is true over and over, I don't require belief at all. Which allows me, at least, to be a "nonbeliever" and still have "say" about spiritual inquiry, spiritual matters, etc.

AMC

C.bronco

07-25-2008, 06:48 AM

You believe what you believe. I doubt that it is an actual choice. I don't see how anyone could choose to have faith; you either see God's hand in your life, or you don't.

I believe in God, but for my own reasons.

Ruv Draba

07-25-2008, 07:08 AM

"'here is how you must live'"

Can this statement work within any kind of framework?Yes, it can work within an autocratic monoculture (if by 'work' you mean that everyone conforms). If by 'work' you mean that everyone prospers, thrives and celebrates their membership of the community, then I suspect not.
I can only say that the aesthetic of Christianity is something that I can relate to, but not so much the rationality of it all.I haven't a bad word to say about people who believe in love, tolerance, peace, kindness, enquiry and forgiveness. I'll happily learn how to be a better person from committed Christians and often have. :) But I get such inspiration from the people, not the dogma which makes no good sense to me at all. :)

"I claim this because I think that the realm of spirit is the realm of perception more than knowledge; aesthetics more than philosophy; experience more than ideology."

By knowledge you mean like...rational, scientific, or whatever...as opposed to relational/intimate? Just a point of semantics that confused me, sorry. But I agree if you mean the former.It's easy to get tripped up here. For the purpose of this discussion I'd distinguish verifiable facts from impressions however strong.

Facts can yield knowledge; impressions can yield insights. Knowledge can be evaluated by its verifiable truths. Insights can be evaluated by how useful they are in discovering new knowledge. Facts dwell in the domain (magesterium) of the physical, they're consistent and can be shared intact; impressions dwell in the domain of the spiritual, they can be inconsistent and can be shared imperfectly and experientially.

So when a theist (say) knocks on my door and says 'I've come to share the truth with you', I mentally translate it to 'I'm really excited and want to share my strong impressions and the insights they've created'. If I hear it that way, I can be friendly, light-hearted and interested. But if I hear it as a claim to objective truth then my analytic mind will immediately pull apart the truth-claims and that's not at all a pleasant discussion. :tongue

Ruv Draba

07-25-2008, 07:55 AM

Dodgy? Hey!Er.. I meant good questions, but I felt they were right on the boundary of forum charter. The spin-off comments have been really interesting though.

zornhau

07-25-2008, 04:49 PM

I agree about Richard Dawkins' writing style. I so much preferred it when he was simply writing about science. His science books are much better, in every way than his atheism books.

Taking this back towards writing: I actually like Dawkin's style - he's robust, concise, and unapologetic. His "God Delusion" is a model for any book taking one side in a controversy. It's big, fat, meaty, but still an easy read.

Or is the issue more to do with his attitude?

Sarpedon

07-25-2008, 08:53 PM

Ruv Draba

07-26-2008, 04:37 PM

I wonder, though, if it's harder now to maintain those separate spheres. The creationists have made some unexpected inroads in the ten years since that essay was written.I don't see anything in Intelligent Design but rhetoric and huge leaps from small doubts. It's not a scientific theory and doesn't submit itself to scientific testability; it's an aesthetic theory fortified by aesthetic doubts that ignores the huge weight of evidence for evolution as a current, active process.

When I was a student I lived for a while in a somewhat shabby shared flat, and underneath our refrigerator dwelled a squillion cockroaches. One day I tried to kill them with bug-spray and they scattered everywhere haphazardly.

On a social level, the objections mystics offer to scientific fact work much like those cockroaches. They throw out everything they can regardless of truth, in the hope that one cockroach will survive to breed more. And as with the roaches living under the fridge, one usually does. The roaches of mysticism can breed faster than rigorous thought can swat 'em, so it's a fairly effective survival strategy. :tongue

But meanwhile, the roaches stop living under the fridge.

That's pretty much been the history of science vs. mysticism. Science advances, mysticism retreats to some even more remote and darker place. In the longer view, I see I.D as a weak rearguard action to buy time while the roaches find a more permanent home. :)

veinglory

07-26-2008, 07:26 PM

zornhau

07-26-2008, 09:27 PM

hmm, perhaps its a matter of how informative it is. I guess I've already heard most of his god delusion arguments before, whereas his science books were entirely novel to me.

I guess thats not much of a criticism...beyond saying that there seems to be little thats original in his atheism books.

I don't think he was writing for people who had read all the arguments - rather he gathered the existing arguments and presented them authoritatively, leveraging his public person in order to make a splash.

I find the athiest reaction to him bewildering, like comedy Marxists bemoning that a left wing government is the wrong kind of left wing.

AMCrenshaw

07-27-2008, 01:13 AM

Oh do not be fooled. The God Delusion is smugly written by a smug man. But it's mildly entertaining if you don't know anything at all about common atheist arguments against religious organizations and their mystified foundations.

AMC

Ruv Draba

07-27-2008, 01:20 AM

I think what the creationists are doing differently than they were at the time Gould wrote his essay is that they've become better organized politically.I think that Socrates, Galileo Galilei, Alfred Wallace and Charlie Darwin might disagree, if they were around to do so.

Dommo

07-27-2008, 01:21 AM

This is a pretty interesting discussion.

The only thing I thought might be worth pointing out, is where Agnosticism fits into this. I view the issue as one where the problem really revolves around the lack of falsifiability of the concept of a "god/spirit/etc.".

I'm agnostic, because I see that the logical hole that both Atheism and religions fall into is that they both require stances of faith. Proving truth, outside of mathematics, is pretty much impossible, however it is possible to say if something is false(as Ruv mentioned above, in terms of swatting roaches). What can be said though is how likely something is to be true(evidence supports blah, etc.).

Do I believe in a god? I'm leaning strongly towards no. Is it possible for a god to exist, however remote? Yes. The reason is because neither case will ever likely be able to be falsified, therefore the only stance to take is to say "I don't know/Not enough info.".

Personally, my views run pretty much parallel to those of Atheism, however I'm not willing to take the leap of faith and say that "I know there is no god.", because it's not a logical claim if unless the counter can be falsified.

To sum up.

1. Truth outside of math is relative. You may be able to say something is extremely likely(99.99%), but it's going to be quite a stretch to say something is an absolute fact.
2. If a question can't be falsified, then you can't really make a claim on it's validity. Unfortunately god falls in that category, and until a means of falsifying gods exists, claims of nonexistence hold little merit. What can be said is that it's extremely unlikely a god exists, but it's possible.
3. Think in terms of margin of error. I can create very sophisticated simulations of real life, however I do accept that at best I can only approximate the "truth". At some point you run into the reality that certain things will NEVER be able to be predicted and modeled(think plank distance, where subatomic particles can roam freely), and it needs to be accepted that there will always be a limit to how much information we have access to. We may be able to make more accurate statements, measurements, or models, but in all likelihood we will never be able to state with absolute certainty ANYTHING.

Ruv Draba

07-28-2008, 07:00 AM

I'm agnostic, because I see that the logical hole that both Atheism and religions fall into is that they both require stances of faith.It depends, Dommo.

I'm an atheist with (albeit limited) faith in economies and the efficacy of road rules and the viability of powered flight and perhaps you have faith in those things too or you'd never fly or hurtle at hundreds of kph at another vehicle with only a thin strip of paint separating you, or accept your wages in currency.

I don't have any great faith in origin stories though - for or against. All I have is a skeptical refusal to consider physical propositions where the nouns are not offered as verifiable physical objects.

So for instance, if a friend says 'a ghost moved my car-keys', I'll ask which ghost? Else, all we can agree on is that my friend doesn't remember putting her car-keys where she found them.

It doesn't require any faith in the nonexistence of supernatural to proceed in that way. It just requires you to judge each statement on its practical, material merits and discard it if it doesn't parse as a verifiable statement. It's not a terribly clever or principled or philosophical position to take. It just insists that the semantics of the statements we consider make sense before we investigate them.

But not all atheists work that way. Some draw faith-based conclusions too.

Is it possible for a god to exist, however remote?A skeptical pragmatist like me might say 'First tell me what you mean by a god'. The answers you get back might vary:

A magical creator of life (okay, but what do you mean by magic?)
A being who breaks physical laws (well, are they really laws if they're breakable?)
A smart being who can do what ordinary humans can't (I can't discount that, but I'm not disposed a priori to worshipping it either - although my grandmother's cooking does sway me back toward superstition at times)
A spiritual authority for some group of people (well, these already exist for some faiths - and are embodied as people. Their merit in being spiritual authorities though, is another matter.)
A character in a book. (Well, that's a moot question, because books are not reality)

Higgins

07-28-2008, 07:04 PM

I also don't see the creationists doing anything different from 100 years ago. They are not testing hypotesis because their hypothesis is not falsifiable. I think even very good religion is bad science, just as science is bad religions and--on its own--bad philosophy, social planning or ethics. It needs to interact with these systems, not overlap with them. That is why I like Gould's approach.

This is a pretty interesting discussion.

The only thing I thought might be worth pointing out, is where Agnosticism fits into this. I view the issue as one where the problem really revolves around the lack of falsifiability of the concept of a "god/spirit/etc.".

I'm agnostic, because I see that the logical hole that both Atheism and religions fall into is that they both require stances of faith. Proving truth, outside of mathematics, is pretty much impossible, however it is possible to say if something is false(as Ruv mentioned above, in terms of swatting roaches). What can be said though is how likely something is to be true(evidence supports blah, etc.).

Do I believe in a god? I'm leaning strongly towards no. Is it possible for a god to exist, however remote? Yes. The reason is because neither case will ever likely be able to be falsified, therefore the only stance to take is to say "I don't know/Not enough info.".

Personally, my views run pretty much parallel to those of Atheism, however I'm not willing to take the leap of faith and say that "I know there is no god.", because it's not a logical claim if unless the counter can be falsified.

To sum up.

1. Truth outside of math is relative. You may be able to say something is extremely likely(99.99%), but it's going to be quite a stretch to say something is an absolute fact.
2. If a question can't be falsified, then you can't really make a claim on it's validity. Unfortunately god falls in that category, and until a means of falsifying gods exists, claims of nonexistence hold little merit. What can be said is that it's extremely unlikely a god exists, but it's possible.
3. Think in terms of margin of error. I can create very sophisticated simulations of real life, however I do accept that at best I can only approximate the "truth". At some point you run into the reality that certain things will NEVER be able to be predicted and modeled(think plank distance, where subatomic particles can roam freely), and it needs to be accepted that there will always be a limit to how much information we have access to. We may be able to make more accurate statements, measurements, or models, but in all likelihood we will never be able to state with absolute certainty ANYTHING.

I'm always a little puzzled when the rhetorical flourish of "falsification" is brought out. Nobody believes anything else Karl Popper wrote about science or anything else so why is "falsification" so popular?
Moreover...in the two cases above it is used to show roughly opposite types of plausibility:
1) in one case that a "creator" (or anything else godlike) can't be "falsified" and is therefore implausible
2) in one case that a "creator" (or anything else godlike) can't be "falsified" and so remains plausible

I would like to suggest that "falsification" doesn't mean much one way or the other, partly because it implies some set of rules about how things are show not to be false (and these rules make "falsification" as related to plausibility pretty trivial) and partly because even if something is falsified or not you can still conclude completely opposite things about the degree of plausibility that leaves one way or the other.