I guess it depends upon what you mean by AI. If you mean the ability to create a machine that can apply algorithms to a given set of facts to reach a particular logical conclusion, I see no reason that cannot happen - even in cases where not all variables are given data, and this machine would have to provide a guesstimate (again based upon preprogrammed algorithms) that make it look very much like it is "thinking". There are also some that can "learn" - i.e., take into account past actions/conclusions and apply them to future "decisions" or conclusions. I'll admit this looks a lot like "thinking," and on some level, it probably is.
If you mean something beyond that (which I think you do), then I would agree with you.
I agree with c matt above. I think we'll develop incredibly sophisticated machines and/or robots, which on many levels will seem to be able to "think" through various problems.
We're already on that path, playing chess vs. a computer frequently humbles me, for example.
Creating a "Data" android a-la star trek , which is capable of true independent thought and reasoning, will be incredibly difficult... but I won't say it's not possible. It may be another 100 years away, if not more, but not impossible.
How amusing it would be, if someone were to create a true thinking machine/android/robot, and, after it decides to study theology and philosophy, it concluded that God exists.
Actually, alligators are, generally speaking, much less likely to eat human beings than their more aggressive relatives, saltwater crocodiles.
It's speculative theology, but if a true AI being were to be made, wouldn't it be entirely possible for the Lord to infuse a rational soul into it ? After all, He has not refused souls to other people who have had the misfortune to come about by immoral means.
Sure, He could infuse rational souls into a rock (as He once suggested He could do to raise descendants of Abraham).
Most atheists don't believe that atheism can be "proven" at all. Most atheists simply define their atheism as a lack of belief in a god or gods, not a positive belief that said god or gods don't exist.
And no, atheism is not a faith at all. The atheism you constantly rail at is a strawman creation of your own making. Convenient for you to knock down, but not resembling most real atheists in the least. Big surprise.
They're awfully evangelical for something they don't believe they can prove. It would make more sense for an empiricist to stick to proving things he thinks *can* be proved.
Atheism is a faith and it has its own gods too. Or god: man.
Oh please, not nearly as "evangelical" as Christian and now Muslim apologists are. Four books that have been making big news lately by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris. Woo hoo. Compared to the umpteen-gazillion titles available at any Christian bookstore you visit.
And no, atheists do not venerate man as "god". In fact, I'd say we are probably more aware of human foibles than the more religious parts of the population, precisely because we see how strongly our friends and family taken in by these faith-based and irrational beliefs.
You know, if you want to see a good cross section of what modern atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and other non-religious folks really do believe and how they think, you might try visiting www.infidels.org and www.iidb.org .
And not all of us agree with the Dawkins-Harris approach to religion, either, I should add. Not all atheists think alike, just as not all Christians or other believers in the Divine think alike.
I'd particularly recommend that to Mr. Shea. Then he'd at least know what he's talking about when he writes about atheists, because he clearly doesn't now. Start reading some of the essays in the infidels.org's Modern Library written on moral and ethical systems that don't depend on belief in a god, for a start. Please.
Hey Adrienne, I recently had a conversation with a fairly well-known astrophysicist and graduate of MIT who says that while many atheists are biologists, most of the physical scientists he knows are believers in some religious system or other. They don't care to have it well-known.
BTW, in the English language 'God' is upper cased. Or would you mind if I referred to you as 'adrienne', the fictitious poster on CAEI, who is really an intelligent turtle typing with its beak from a terrarium on a very small computer.
'adrienne'?
Nah, that would be disrespectful to a person, wouldn't it?
For us Christians, God is a Person, ditto Jesus, and Christ, who had His clock cleaned by human beings to save their unworthy souls from annihilation.
AS IF THE INFANT CHRIST…
As if the infant Christ were never born -
Or fragrant as the meadows, smokeless-flamed,
Beeswax tapers golden-sconced had shone
On anti-Christ, and Power was His name
Callous Earth of winter seems as much,
Empty as if Christ had never cried
And waved his arms, transparent fingers clutched
Around his father’s finger – did He die?
Not on Golgotha but in that stall
Where grasses soaked in sesame were lit
And vulgar shadows scraped against the wall –
How many mourning shepherds there would fit?
Yet we hear that seraphim rejoiced
And shepherds shook the moisture from their cloaks
Though royal nightingales were not in voice
And heralds of King Herod never spoke
They say the infant lived, unlikely child,
Who came to love the empty-hearted Earth,
So demon-ridden, foul and defiled
That only God could know what it was worth
Pavel
Refer to me however you like. I don't believe in any deities, so I don't uppercase the word "god".
And as for what people at MIT believe....so what?
Oh please, not nearly as "evangelical" as Christian and now Muslim apologists are. Four books that have been making big news lately by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris. Woo hoo. Compared to the umpteen-gazillion titles available at any Christian bookstore you visit.
I have no problem with Christians being evangelical because it's self-consistent. They think they have received a revelation that tells them to tell the world about it. It's a free country, so let 'em talk.
Likewise, I have no problem, from a free speech perspective with evangelical atheists trying to do what looks for all the world like "proofs" of atheism. What I question is their intellectual self-consistence. Empiricists devoting the bulk of their time to trying to demonstrate something they don't think can be demonstrated is sort of a waste of time.
Also, why are so many atheists, like you, so angry? And please don't kid me that you're not. Your posts exude hostility. It would seem to be rather strange to made at somebody who isn't there.
And no, atheists do not venerate man as "god". In fact, I'd say we are probably more aware of human foibles than the more religious parts of the population, precisely because we see how strongly our friends and family taken in by these faith-based and irrational beliefs.
Given that I just was in another combox in which an atheist was affirming that he was his own God, I think I will neglect to acknowledge your papal authority to speak for all Atheists.
In my experience, atheists are sort of "more extreme Protestants". They have seized on some piece of Catholic revelation that they like (such as the mystical doctrine of free will) and used it to get rid of a bit more of the Catholic tradition than the average Protestant. But they are just as diverse. You most certainly can find atheists who hold some muddled doctrine of self-deification. But most of them don't.
As the bumper sticker says, "It's not God I have a problem with, it's his fan club I can't stand".
In fact, most atheists are not angry, at least not in the sense that believers typically brand us. We're certainly not angry at a god or gods we don't believe in, which is the usual charge. If we're angry at anything, it's at being mischaracterized, as you are so fond of doing on your blog, and at automatically being assumed to be bad people, which is another all-too-common occurrence.
What ticked me off about your blog in particular is that you have persisted in repeating many of the typical platitudes and canards regarding atheism. One gets very tired of reading (and constantly debunking) things like: "atheists can't rationally believe in free will", "atheists can't have a rational basis for morality", "atheism is based on faith", "atheists believe there is no god", "without belief in being punished in the afterlife, everyone should just start raping, killing, and pillaging each other", "atheists are trying to ban Christmas", ad nauseum.
To put it in a perspective you might understand, it's rather like what you might feel upon reading a typical Jack Chick caricature of Catholic beliefs: Catholicism is based on Babylonian mystery religions, the Catholic Church kept the Bible away from the common people for over a millenium to deliberately keep them ignorant of "the truth", American Catholics are dual citizens of the Vatican and the US and so can't be trusted to be loyal to America, the "IHS" stamped on communion wafers stands for "Isis, Horus, and Seb", Catholics worship statues. NOW do you get it?
And as for the "big" issues of morality, free will, etc....it's not as though atheists and other freethinkers haven't thought through these things before. You may not agree with the ethical systems, etc., based on nonbelief, but they do exist. And even worse, theologians and Christian apologists in 19th century America understood this. They had a more sophisticated understanding of the other side than Christian apologists today. Your side has regressed.
That's why I'm asking you -- sincerely, I might add -- to at least educate yourself on the reality of atheism/agnosticism/freethought.
As for the "evangelism" charge, I would say that the books by Dawkins, Harris, etc. are not so much an attempt to prove anything as to debunk something. Really, they are trying to demonstrate the irrationality of holding onto religious belief. And to those of us who have found better, happier lives since leaving religion behind, that is definitely a message of good news. So if you consider debunking to be a form of evangelism, then so be it. It's about time the public heard a side of the story that rarely gets much press.
Given that I just was in another combox in which an atheist was affirming that he was his own God, I think I will neglect to acknowledge your papal authority to speak for all Atheists.
Point taken. I will say that I've never heard another atheist say that before, though, so I'd at least say that's a *rare* belief in the atheist/agnostic/freethought population at large.
In my experience, atheists are sort of "more extreme Protestants". They have seized on some piece of Catholic revelation that they like (such as the mystical doctrine of free will) and used it to get rid of a bit more of the Catholic tradition than the average Protestant. But they are just as diverse. You most certainly can find atheists who hold some muddled doctrine of self-deification. But most of them don't.
Yes, very diverse. As for free will, well, you know that non-Catholic thinkers through the ages have come up with that concept also. Completely independently? Hard to say. But I'm not sure you can claim credit wholesale for the RCC on the belief in free will.
"AI, I confidently declare, is *never* going to happen."
You're just crushing my dreams of eventually meeting Optimus Prime.
"As for free will, well, you know that non-Catholic thinkers through the ages have come up with that concept also. Completely independently?"
Not in quite the same depth as the RCC. Some manage to approximate some concept of free will, but it was never fully philosophically important until the coming of Christianity.
Besides, the fact that you're here making some attempt at atheistic apologetics already speaks to me that it is a belief system of its own, even if its claimed belief is that there is nothing to believe. Man needs his gods. Even atheists.
Every person I have known who has, to use Adrienne's phrase, "a lack of belief in a god or gods, not a positive belief that said god or gods don't exist" has called him/herself an agnostic, not an atheist.
And all the people I have met who called themselves "atheists" were indeed quite outspoken in their certainty that there is no God.
True atheism, much as I disagree with it, is like a faith: it inspires the holders to preach. Agnosticism (which Adrienne calls atheism) does not.
Emerson, Lake and Palmer recorded this "hymn" in 1971 (it has a really nice church organ and sounds like a real hymn):
People are stirred
Moved by the Word
Kneel at the shrine
Deceived by the wine
How was the earth conceived?
Infinite Space: is there such a place?
You must believe in the human race!
Do you believe
God makes you breathe?
Why did he lose
Six million Jews?
Touched by the wings
This angel brings
Sad winter storm
Grey autumn dawn
Who looks on life itself?
Who lights your way?
Only you can say!
How can you just obey?
Don't need the word,
Now that you've heard.
Don't be afraid,
Man is man-made!
And when the hour comes,
Don't turn away.
Face the light of day
And do it your way.
It's the only way!
(Lyrics by Greg Lake; don't blame the other two!)
I think this post is totally lacking in intellectual rigor. On the one hand it totally ignores the distinction between hard and soft atheism. On the other it builds a strawman out of all the hard athesist arguments.
First, hard atheism is the belief that the proposition ``there is no god'' is true. Usually the position is held on the basis of at least one of three reasons. The first is the argument from evil. The second is the argument that the very idea of God is self-contradictory. The third is based on epistemologies that hold that all real things are in principle demonstrable and all thing that are not in pricinciple demonstrable are inherently untrue and the idea of God is not something that is demonstrable.
Only the first of these is a bad argument. The argument from evil is always either an appeal to emotion or an appeal to ignorance. The underlying presupposition is either `I don't know how God can allow this' or `I can't accept a God who could allow this.'
But the second and third arguments deserve to be met on their own merits. I am personally persuaded that the Aquinean argument hinged on the distinction between essence and existence lays these arguments to rest, but his argument is certainly not indisputable. There are certainly argument open to atheists against Aquinas' proof.
And then there are the soft atheists who do no hold to the propisition `there is no God' but hold that there is not sufficient reason to believe the proposition that `there is a God.' Agnostics all fall into this category believing that all things supernatural are fundamentally outside the ability of reason to prove them. But many soft atheists are not agnostic. They may hold that the question of the existence of God is in principle decideable but they don't hold that sufficient evidence has been presented on either side.
Now, I will concede that most popular science writers don't do the question of the existence of God justice. Being untrained in either philosophy or theology they tend to set up strawmen pictographs of God and then burn them down. But to extrapolate from these authors to all atheists is to commit the same sin that you're castigating them for.
Back to the AI question: I'll have to look into John Searle's work. I am but a humble journeyman programmer, but I know how computers work, and I concluded long ago that computers will never think in the sense that we commonly use the term, and that no computer, no matter how complex and powerful, is anymore likely to develop consciousness than is a light bulb.
"most atheists are not angry, at least not in the sense that believers typically brand us. We're certainly not angry at a god or gods we don't believe in, which is the usual charge. If we're angry at anything, it's at being mischaracterized"
I think both sides get in a bit of trouble when using "most", though my experience and what I see very publicly is that the more vocal atheist tends to be angry.
And it is not an anger--in my admittedly personal encounters--at being "mischaracterized" but an anger calling on society to rid itself of those who have a religious faith.
For example, repeatedly referring to religious belief as a mental illness or calling on society to rid itself of all religious belief for it is responsible "for all the evil in the world."
Hardly the words of someone who proclaims him/herself to be "bright", "logical" or a "free thinker".
So if there is a mischaracterization, then I think the more decent and charitable atheist need to look within their own ranks to see why atheists are "mischaracterized" by those with religious belief. A little charity and humility in a debate/discussion can go along way (and of course, that applies to those of us on the other side of the aisle so to speak).
" Refer to me however you like. I don't believe in any deities, so I don't uppercase the word "god"."
It means only that you don't know how to spell, or are juvenile enough to think that argument by orthography is an argument in fact.
It's the orthographical equivalent of showing your contempt for the teacher by drawing a mustache on his photograph.
" And as for what people at MIT believe....so what?"
'So what?' is an unanswerable rejoinder, I'll grant you that. So is stamping and screaming, or sticking your fingers in your ears.
Every person I have known who has, to use Adrienne's phrase, "a lack of belief in a god or gods, not a positive belief that said god or gods don't exist" has called him/herself an agnostic, not an atheist.
And all the people I have met who called themselves "atheists" were indeed quite outspoken in their certainty that there is no God.
Then I'd venture a guess that you haven't met very many atheists, because the overwhelming majority of Western atheists are of the "don't believe there is a god or gods" variety, rather than the "there is no god or gods" variety.
As another commenter pointed out, the adjective "soft" is usually used to denote the former view, the adjective "hard" the latter view. And no, soft atheism is not the same thing as agnosticism.
"If we're angry at anything, it's at being mischaracterized...."
Why? Is there something sacred about atheism? Or about you?
In fact, there is something sacred about you, though not about atheism.
'So what?' is an unanswerable rejoinder, I'll grant you that. So is stamping and screaming, or sticking your fingers in your ears."
That was Pavel.
So if there is a mischaracterization, then I think the more decent and charitable atheist need to look within their own ranks to see why atheists are "mischaracterized" by those with religious belief.
And that debate rages on, I assure you. There is a constant argument over which is the most effective when dealing with a religious public: assertive atheism, or a more soft-pedaled approach.
For example, repeatedly referring to religious belief as a mental illness or calling on society to rid itself of all religious belief for it is responsible "for all the evil in the world."
Agreed that this is ridiculous as well. Insulting rhetoric and sloppy thinking.
PS -- I hope you similarly call people on it when they refer to liberalism as a mental illness, btw. 
Adrienne: if don't believe that many atheists are either evangelical or hard athists, just hit Google for Madeleine Murry O'Hare. I'm especially aghast at your position if your familiar with infidels.org which hosts many evangelical hard atheists. Unless things have radically changed the godexist@infidels.org mailing list is chock full of such.
I think the fact of the matter is that the majority of people, atheist or theist, haven't really thought through what they believe or why they believe it. Consequently, not a few people have pretty bad reasons for believing what they believe. Atheists are no more immune to this than Christians.
Adrienne:
Earlier, you said that atheism, as you define it, is a lack of belief in deity, rather than an outright denial of it. Could you please explain the difference? I ask in the spirit of inquiry. Thank you.
Adrienne stated:
And no, soft atheism is not the same thing as agnosticism.
I think this is just a disagreement about terminology.
Lee Malatesta -- and, I think, Adrienne -- define "agnostic" as someone who believes that the question of whether there is a God is in principle undecidable by human reason. Certainly this is what "agnostic" meant a hundred years ago. But this definition isn't even listed as ONE of the options in today's Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
And in my experience, no one except intellectuals is even aware of this definition. I spent four years in math grad school; there are smart people there, but not (for the most part) schooled in philosophy. When they say "I am agnostic", what they mean is "I don't have a strong opinion about the God question, and don't really care."
Lee defined a "soft atheist" as someone who believes there is not sufficient reason to believe in a God. I submit that, outside of academic circles, 99% of Americans would recognize this as the "agnostic" view.
Definitions often used in academic philosophy, and endorsed above by Lee Malatesta (and, I believe, by Adrienne): [I am quoting from Lee here:]
Hard atheist: A person who believes that the proposition ``there is no god'' is true.
Soft atheist: A person who holds that there is not sufficient reason to believe the proposition that `there is a God.'
Agnostic: A person who holds that all things supernatural are fundamentally outside the ability of reason to prove them.
Definitions per Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
Atheism: 1. A disbelief in the existence of deity. 2. The doctrine that there is no deity.
Agnostic: 1. A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable. 2. Broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
Much of the confusion in this thread has to do with the mismatch of these definitions. (Note that the dictionary mentions "and probably unknowable" whereas Lee takes the certainty of this unknowability as central.) Roughly speaking, the dictionary's "atheism" is Lee's "hard atheism". And the dictionary's "agnosticism" is Lee's "soft atheism", which Adrienne identifies with "the overwhelming majority of Western atheists".
As Lee pointed out, one can be (using his definitions) a soft atheist and not an agnostic. I would even argue that most people who claim "no one can possibly know whether there is a God" are not true philosophical agnostics, since if you discuss this with them they will admit that what they really mean is that human beings cannot know whether there is a God, and they haven't given any thought to whether the question is in principle undecideable even to hypothetical non-human beings.
I don't believe computers are becoming more like us, which is what strong AI would be. The kind of cognitive growth required for strong AI would involve pain, suffering, and loss. Computers cannot and will not be able to develop the kind of attachments--sentimental, spiritual, not to mention pysical--necessary for the kind of experience that is necessary for rational growth. Pain is at the center of life. As the then atheist poet Wallace Stevens said in the early twentieth century(before his deathbed Confession and conversion), "Death is the mother of beauty." As the then not-yet-glorified Christ said in the early first century, "He who loses his life will save it, and he who saves his life will lose it."
It seems to me that we are on the other hand becoming more like computers, unable to feel the pain of our separation from God, of our separation from others via broken or aborted relationships, and even of physical pain because we benumb and benight ourselves with drugs mild and toxic. We are becoming less and less capable of losing our lives in order to save it. Our prosperity is making us less, not more free.
I wonder if this is the deeper point of dystopic (adj. meaning in contrast to utopia) science fiction in which AI comes back to bite us in the pants: These writers sense, like secular prophets, not that computers are becoming smarter and more human; but that humans are becoming more stupid and robotic.
Btw, I don't think pain in itself is good, only that pain is the only way this mortal flesh grows in age, wisdom, and grace. Thus Saint Francis of Assisi used to call his body "Brother Ass," as in a mule. Pain is not God's gift--God's gifts are joy and pleasure. But we have fallen from Paradise, and we only re-enter it through pain: "The Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and only the violent enter into it." I'm trying to point to the virtuous acceptance of pain in imitation of Christ crucified (and even Christ before the Passion), however fumbling my attempt.
"unable to feel the pain of our separation from God, of our separation from others via broken or aborted relationships..."
Speak for yourself, bub.
"In my experience, atheists are sort of 'more extreme Protestants'. ... "
Mark,
While I can appreciate your point of view to a certain extent, such ill-conceived rhetoric is not only grossly hyperbolic, but also guaranteed to alienate those orthodox Protestant Christians of an irenic temperament who happen to follow your blog.
There *are* a few of us here, you know ...
As a sinner, I do know that my life is empty when I fall into grave sin. My life becomes murky, cloudy at best. My relationship with my wife and children becomes all the more selfish. I serve myself, and how empty it is when I do so. I really cannot stand that old self in that situation. It is horrible.
However, when in the state of grace my life has color, song, and lightness. Christ still works miracles. The amount of work He has done in my life is all I need to know He loves me. The amount of work He still does proves to me that He is still by my side. God forbid I lose this life again.
Merry Christmas to all!
Dave Pawlak:
Did your question get sufficiently answered by other comments in the thread, or would you still like me to respond?
Lee Malatesta wrote:
Adrienne: if don't believe that many atheists are either evangelical or hard athists, just hit Google for Madeleine Murry O'Hare.
Who was just one person.
I'm especially aghast at your position if your familiar with infidels.org which hosts many evangelical hard atheists.
I am quite familiar with it, and the majority of the atheists there are of the "soft" variety, with some dissenters.
Unless things have radically changed the godexist@infidels.org mailing list is chock full of such.
OK, my experience is mostly via the libraries there and via the forums at iidb.org, not the mailing lists.
I think the fact of the matter is that the majority of people, atheist or theist, haven't really thought through what they believe or why they believe it. Consequently, not a few people have pretty bad reasons for believing what they believe. Atheists are no more immune to this than Christians.
I don't dispute your personal experience, but again, mine is very different. The overwhelming majority of atheists I have known have taken a long, thoughtful journey to unbelief.
Adrienne:
I'd like your own explanation. More questions will likely follow -- again, in a spirit of inquiry. Thanks again.
"In my experience, atheists are sort of 'more extreme Protestants'. ... "
Actually, I think this is a fair characterization...
In my experience, the "hard" atheists remind me very much of the ardent Bible-thumper types. Actually, their is a commonality in the "hard"/extreme branch of anything. The ACT-UP and Earth First types are other examples of in-your-face extreme behavior.
Lawrence King: I think you missed a subtle point in the dictionary definition you cited. The two main definitions provide the soft/hard (also sometimes known as weak/hard) distinction.
1. A disbelief in the existence of deity.
This is the qualifier for soft atheistm, a lack of belief in the proposition `God exists.' Not having sufficient reason to believe in X is not the same thing as having sufficient reason to believe in not X.
On a fundamental level, this is disctinct from the next definition.
2. The doctrine that there is no deity.
Which is belief in the proposition `God does not exist.'
Adriene: while I don't doubt your personal experience, it is anecdotal. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people cling to whatever faith their parents were. While it is in the realm of possibility that the vast majority of people have deeply considered what they believe and why they believe it and ended up holding to the same beliefs that they were raised with, I think that such a conclusion is suspect given that this statistic holds across religious and non-religious boundaries. The bottom line is that if you look at converts to any religous or non-religious movement, most will have converted for emotional or personal reasons and only after rationalize their decision. This is a normal process and is predicted by the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance.
Lee:
Yes, the majority of people cling to the faith of their parents.
But because most atheists have come from semi-religious to religious families and upbringings, most of them have left that behind, and not easily or casually, in their journey to unbelief. Especially not those who are atheists as adults. No, I haven't done a controlled study, but the fact that I've met and interacted with several hundred people in the American freethought community over the course of over a decade now I think has given me exposure to a good representative sample. I would also point out that your experience with hard atheists is likewise anecdotal.
Dave Pawlak:
My explanation is largely going to echo what has already been posted here, I'm afraid. But here goes.
The "hard" atheist belief of "There is no god or gods", is, to me, an expression of faith as much as saying "There is a god or gods," because it is a statement that cannot be proven. Given that the supernatural by definition transcends the natural, I don't see how one can use natural means to conclusively prove the existence of the supernatural one way or the other.
I am a "soft" atheist in the sense that I grant some sort of supernatural being or beings could possibly exist, but I have not encountered sufficient or compelling evidence that they do. Therefore, I do not believe in the supernatural, including the existence of any deities, because I do not see a reason for believing in any such thing. But lack of belief in any deities (a-theism) is still not the same thing as agnosticism, as others on this comment thread have pointed out. One can be an agnostic without being an atheist.
I hope that explanation helps.
How amusing it would be, if someone were to create a true thinking machine/android/robot, and, after it decides to study theology and philosophy, it concluded that God exists.
In response to Shortround's comment, the story has been written: "The Quest for St. Aquin" by Anthony Boucher. Boucher was the founding editor of the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and a believing Catholic.
Adrienne:
Thanks for the definitions.
So if I follow you correctly, a "soft" atheist believes that deity may be possible, but not likely, or else irrelevant?
Adrienne: my experience with hard atheists is anecdotal, but it is backed with the support of reasoning and sociological studies. If we assume that the children of atheists are more likely than not to also be atheists as appears to be the case for most beliefs, then atheism must be growing far faster than the natural growth rate of atheists in general for the majority of atheists to be converts. It is not clear to me that atheism is growing at such a rate.
Further, I would argue that most people who become atheists do not join freethinker communities. The very act of describing oneself as a freethinker is an act of self-selection that implies far more than mere atheism. Consequently, communities of freethinkers are probably not representative of converts to atheism at large. What you will find in such communities is a particular type of atheist who places importance on the role of reason in thinking.
So if I follow you correctly, a "soft" atheist believes that deity may be possible, but not likely, or else irrelevant?
Yes, I'd say that's true.
If we assume that the children of atheists are more likely than not to also be atheists as appears to be the case for most beliefs...
I wonder if that's really a safe assumption, at least for people in the US, just because being an atheist is such a liability in this country.
If we assume that the children of atheists are more likely than not to also be atheists as appears to be the case for most beliefs, then atheism must be growing far faster than the natural growth rate of atheists in general for the majority of atheists to be converts.
Have you thought to differentiate between people who are really atheists but hiding it vs. those who are open about it? My experience and reading has led me to believe that the the great social disapproval of nonbelief has led to a larger number of in-the-closet atheists than I suspect the religious believers would like to think. The rate of atheism may indeed be growing faster, it just doesn't show up on survey forms.
Further, I would argue that most people who become atheists do not join freethinker communities.
That's probably true.
"unable to feel the pain of our separation from God, of our separation from others via broken or aborted relationships..."
Speak for yourself, bub.
Sydney Carton
Doh! meant to say, Sydney, Don't be so fast to claim to see.
We are all blind in some way. Thank you, bub.
"being an atheist is such a liability in this country"
Not noticeably. I mean, it doesn't even keep someone from becoming an Episcopal bishop.
But it sure does keep someone from a viable career in politics.
Pavel:
BTW, in the English language 'God' is upper cased.
Lower-casing God is a fashionable habit among atheists these days. Some even take it one step further and write things like "christian" and "lutheran". They will usually try to justify it as something more than childish nose-tweaking, of course.
Lower-casing God is a fashionable habit among atheists these days.
Much like writing "G-d" is a fashionable habit among Jews these days.
"[Atheism] sure does keep someone from a viable career in politics."
No moreso than heartfelt, devoutly lived Catholicism, and I dare say a lot less. Disbelief people can deal with. Tell them that you don't contracept because it is God's plan to bless the fertility of your marriage and that openness to life is inseparable from true spousal intimacy, and see how far you get. The only office in this land outside of the Bible Belt that an atheist could not get is President. Practicing Catholics, on the other hand, have to wait for a full eclipse of the sun just to get nominated to the Supreme Court. Any way enough griping; that's just perspective.
I enjoy an anecdote about Hillaire Belloc that I would like to one day verify. Word is that he pulled from his jacket pocket a set of rosary beads while campainging for a seat in the UK Parliament. "These are my rosary beads," he responded to those who had made his Catholicism an issue. "I pray them every day, and I go to Mass....And if you don't elect me because of that, I will thank God that he found me worthy not to serve the likes of you in Parliament."
Also, G_d is a devout convention necessitated by a certain theological conviction.
god is a twittish convention necessitated by a superiority or inferiority complex about one's beliefs.
Don't kid yourself. If there is no God, then writing God will not hurt anyone. Unless of course you think that your own psychology is so fragile that some distant, echoing, lurking belief in Divinity might slip through that one capital letter into your otherwise materialist psyche. But then I've always admired atheists who were more robust in their belief than that.
Btw, I think there's a trendy convention in certain circles to label people "not a theist" rather than "atheist," so as not to define them by their lack of belief. It's kind of a nice courtesy, but I don't see myself adopting it for two reasons: First, I'm too linguistically lazy to resort to that kind of contortion. Second, as a Christian, it goes against the grain of my own conviction that people are, to a great extent, their convictions. (Not necessarily their professed beliefs but their convictions).
Commenting by HaloScan
