Comments on Elizaphanian
- the prevalent form of atheism is irrational (and highly damaging)
Can you clarify this further? I assume you view "humourless" atheism as the prevalent form: what thinkers, whether popular or blog-based, have you read that represent this form of thinking? Are you thinking the pugnacious sort, such as Dawkins or The Barefoot Bum?
For further clarification, what thinkers have you encountered who personify your "reasonable" atheism? Are you thinking the "metaphysically agnostic" here, such as Spinoza?
why, james!! sam means me!! i'm the reasonable one!!
Scott probably is, but as I listed in the first post in the sequence, I think more of people like Martha Nussbaum. As for the humourless variety, my remark about the prevalence is simply a reaction to the frequency with which I meet them on the net. It would be a more-or-less fair generalisation to say that the degree of humourlessness decreases with the level of education in philosophy or related field, but that's not an absolute rule. These things will certainly become clearer over time - what is written here is a summary of the whole project.
Having read the entire sequence, and still being somewhat unclear, I'll have to beg your indulgence. I promise Scott won't nail 99 theses to your church door if you grant it.
The problem is, I think, categorical: you created an entirely arbitrary understanding of what many atheists actually say. This is why I am curious about what specific thinkers you would reference and how you would quantify them. For example, Sam Harris, who is often dismissed in your "humourless" category, would actually meet the criteria for the second. The Barefoot Bum, for example, actually fulfills BOTH category's criteria.
You're falling prey to Derrida's critique of arbitrary binary pairings.
i thought i left a few theses nailed to the door on the comments of reasonable atheist (5)...
Har.
He has past ludicrus speed gentleman- he has gone... plaid.
Er... have I mentioned Sam Harris?
Sorry, I was more referring to the fact that most critics lump Harris in with Hitchens, and tend to be dismissive of both. Not that they understand what Hitchens actually wrote any better.
Sam,
I do believe that Christian theology is the highest and most exalted expression of the Western intellectual genius, and that it is truth which sets us free.
I think I actually find this statement offensive. That is a first for me. I don't believe I have ever found any statement offensive before 
First time for everything!
Sam Harris is a good example of someone who might be both a 'humourless' and a 'sophisticated' Athiest.
He has no time for theology but fully believes in and has personally experienced powerful spiritual experiences. He attribute nothing supernatural to those experiences.
I think I might have mentioned Harris in a reply. That may be where the misunderstanding came form.
I think I have a better understanding of what is meant by a humorless atheist. I offer the following analogy, and I would be grateful if someone could tell me whether I am on the right track.
Some time ago I read Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion", and found it very weak and unpersuasive - especially due to McGrath's complete failure to understand, much less rebut Dawkins' scientific points. (Very surprising, in view of McGrath's scientific background.) For example he quotes Dawkins writing of memes "leaping from brain to brain", which is obviously a metaphor, and takes it literally. He asks: "Yet has anyone actually seen these things, whether leaping from brain to brain or just hanging out?" I actually felt embarrassed for McGrath as he waffled on in blissful ignorance of how far he was off the mark.
I won't define memes here - if Sam can demand a minimum knowledge of philosophy from atheists who want to enter this discussion, it's only fair that theologians show a minimum knowledge of a fundamental scientific concept like evolution. Anyway, McGrath was being a humorless theologian by totally missing the point about memes and asking the wrong questions. Yes, memes do exist, but not as physical entities. They exist as an abstract concept. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the concept, but McGrath's criticisms are meritless because he fundamentally misnderstands the concept.
I think I understand the point that it is wrong to ask "does God exist" in the same sense as "does life exist on Mars", although it seems to me a large number of religious believers are stuck at that level of understanding. Obviously God exists as a meme, a human artifact for trying to understand the universe. No doubt theologians would say God is more than a meme, more than an abstract concept - that in fact, human existence is contingent on God rather than vice versa. I remain to be convinced on that point, but I am following this series because I don't want to be the atheist equivalent of Alister McGrath.
Sam, could you send me your private email address. Thanks
Pauline - my 'private' e-mail address is the same as the public one. If you're worried, you can try rector ]at[ merseacofe.org
I know I've cought some of these posts, however I haven't been following....
Sam, (not sure whether this has value)
what does it mean to be *wrong* about something?
To me, being wrong lies only in language. In other words I may speak incorrectly relative to my communal language game, but that incorrectness doesn't invalidate my experience. What was wrong, was that I wasn't understood due to my mis-use of the rules of language.
Generally when there is a disagreement on something, it tends to rest in a certain definition of a word that both sides took for granted from the star, but no-one ever picks up on this, so the debate draws on....
That said, I don't generally consider people to be wrong, but simply speaking in a way that I don't understand and/or they don't understand. As well I think there are some issues with the compatibility between scientific language and religious language, although I'm unable to flesh out what that is for myself. I tend to think scientific language is on the one hand a symbolism that represents our experience of the world as apposed to representing the world in itself. That is, the world is not 1’s and 0’s, numbers and theory; all these symbols represent is an agreement to talk in a certain way. The eureka of discovery comes not in finding something we didn’t once know, (because it was there all along), but in now having a way to talk about it. In the same way religion does the same thing, however the experience it talks about on the whole is completely different. One difference is, the experience of gravity can be measured, but you cannot measure in the same way the experience of God; it has no scale in world. The words seem to lead to a state of mind where, once there, the necessity of 1’s and 0’s are lost. In other words, the truth of religious language is no more in the words then the truth of gravity is in the numbers, but, what makes religious talk valid? I can’t complete this thought…..
I want to be clear on the use of valid here as well, as truth does not exist on it’s own. Which is to say, nothing is really true void of a proposition; things are not true, it’s only what we say about things that are true. From there, it’s true because we agree in the language game, the symbols work in communicating what want to get across. My use of valid is merely pragmatic, so again, what makes religious language work?
If the purpose of language is a tool to communicate ideas; what does theism communicate? I say it’s something along the lines of what Buddhism communicates, which is, we communicate to come to a realization that there was nothing to communicate. Once we realize this, we can throw our bibles away and go about the task of living. Or in your case, try and find out a way to pass the message on that we’re all speaking nonsense.
Am I wrong?
It comes to mind that what I just layed out there is quite the hack job....
Sorry about that.
Because I screwed up ealier let me restate it vary simply as follows:
is logic consistent with objects, or with our experience of objects?
If it's found to be the latter, then how would religious langauge be wrong if what we say is merely meant to be consistent with experience?
To answer that God (religious language) is not consistent with ones experience seems merely to misunderstand what one means by that.
At this point however, I'm not equiped to speak to what I mean by that. I guess that means I'm a bullshit artist for now....
"is logic consistent with objects, or with our experience of objects?"
Logic applies to little self-contained closed systems: "All gostaks distim doshes, Fnurb is a gostak, therefore Fnurb distims doshes." You can apply logic to the real world: "If gravity exists and I release a stone, it will fall to the groud." However, David Hume would say that all we know is that every time we've released a stone, it has fallen to the ground. We have no way of knowing that it will necessarily happen the next time. After all, the stone could be magnetic and/or a UFO could suddenly pass overhead. So while in practice logic is extremely useful in science, it is not the be all and end all.
"To answer that God (religious language) is not consistent with ones experience seems merely to misunderstand what one means by that."
It's one thing to define god in terms of your personal experience - I have no problem with that. But I get tired of people who claim that their personal experience is universally and objectively true, and totally consonant with their favorite ancient holy scroll, without a shred of evidence.
Mr. nice guy,
fair [fare] enough .
Do you believe logic to be absolute? In other words, are things true void of propositions? Did gravity exist before newton? And if so, what proof do you have of this?
Or better yet, state for me something that is true void of a proposition?
Things that are objective are only so because we agree that the language we're using speaks to what it is we think we're talking about. Logic isn't floating around in space. It's a personal experience.
name me one thing that ISN'T a personal experience. Just because you can share it with someone else, doesn't mean it isn't personal and/or objective; existing as a thing in itself.
Your experience, scientifically, is universally and objectively true only because we all agree and for no other reason. At least that's my argument for now.
Andrew: strictly speaking the only thing we can be sure of is "I am conscious." One has to assume a framework in order to get any further. The naturalistic framework says that the universe objectively exists, was there before we were, can be made sense of via our perceptions of it, etc. Idealistic and even solopsistic frameworks are also possible and equally likely a priori. The advantage of the naturalistic framework is its track record in making sense of the world and increasing our knowledge (within the framework of course). It leaves all the other frameworks in the dust which is why I prefer it even though I can never be 100% sure it is the correct one.
Mr. Nice Guy,
I understand. Are you saying then, that you cannot prove something to be anything other then a "personal" experience?
If so, then are you not saying that the religious experience is true, just as anything else is? Only perhaps you have not experienced it?
Regarding the naturalistic framework:
Is the fact that it suggests the universe objectively exists simply a manner of speaking, or an absolute truth? If you can't say anything is true for sure, then I imagine you'll say a manner of speaking (but correct me if I'm wrong). Personally I'm a bit of a pragmatists after William James with the statement, "True is what works by way of belief."
Finally,
if all you're saying is that your naturalistic framework "works", then who's to say the "religious" framework doesn't work as well? Along with that, who's to say that these two frameworks have anything to do with each other? Naturalism deals with "the world", religion seems more concerned with "you in the world". Naturalism makes life easier and more comfortable, but it hasn't seemed to make people happier and/or more content; "objects" never do though... Lets suggest that religion says: The world is more then the objects of naturalism.
I’m not so sure that the goal of religion is to talk about science and objects – if that was the case we’d celebrate Moses as a philosopher and not a holy man. So why muddy the water by rubbing the two together? You don’t use accounting principle to refute automobile mechanics, right?
Strictly speaking you can't "prove" anything except in mathematics and other closed logical systems. In science it's always a question of the weight of evidence.
We can't know what, if anything, is objectively true - but we can make certain working assumptions and see what follows. The idea the the universe exists objectively is a working assumption of the naturalistic framework. Naturalism "works" in the sense that it is a very open, dynamic framework that continually increases our understanding of the physical universe. The fruits are all around us in the form of technology that makes our lives more comfortable.
A typical religious framework would say that in addition to (or in place of) the universe there is some infinite being with which it is possible to have a personal relationship. It seems to me that this framework "works" less well because it is inconsistent, incoherent and fragmented. That is to say, there are fundamental differences of opinion between rival theistic frameworks and no way to reconcile them, except perhaps by religious war. Most of all, the theistic framework is closed because rather than building on the basis of hisinitial working assumption, the theologian spends all his time rationalizing it and trying to shoehorn known facts into it - he cannot predict new facts.
Nice Guy,
ok, but you really didn't answer my question.
Also, as I've already stated, the religious frameworks are not inconsistent relative to objectivity, they are inconsistent relative to language and culture. You are furthermore sliding down a slippery slope to suggest that the only means of rectification is war.
This is like saying; one cannot rectify Democracy and Communism except by war. But this is not true at all. (this may be a bit of a straw man, but I think it pertains somewhat.)
Your attack, like many atheist attacks, is based on literal dogmatic assumptions of religion. Unfortunately, many religious people look at they're religions this way. If that's your attack, then so be it (I'm with you), but this is not religion. This is a manifestation of mans misunderstanding of religion. (I realize I’m sort of calling on NO TRUE SCOTT HERE) but I think you see my point, yes?
You can prove anything you like about religion by redefining religion arbitrarily and accusing your opponents of misunderstanding it. I'm not interested in such a discussion.
Well,
I suppose I wouldn't be interested in duscussions I couldn't win either. 
(just a jab NMMNG, nothin personal)
I'm not accusing you of missunderstanding anything per se, I'm accusing you of attacking the Bible from certain kind of understanding (a literal dogmatic one).
If you're not interested in any other interpretation, then how can you be interested in an honest debate on the topic of religion. In other words, you can use your tactics any way you like, but how do they necessaraly apply to my beliefs or the beliefs of many other christians (religious folk)?
If all you care about is literal objective dogma, that's not going to get you far in the fight against religion. It will only get you as far as the fundies who are stuck in the ID vs Evo debate.
Also,
for someone who doesn't believe in any of this nonsense anyway, who's to say anyone is "redefining" anything. This suggests you know what it all means out of the gate. But, if you did, wouldn't you be religious then?
You seem to be saying that religion is monolithic, and it just happens to coincide with your definition of it. I say religion is harmful because there are so many incompatible versions of it and no empirical way to decide between them, which is why, historically, religious wars have always been the bloodiest. Communism vs. democracy is not a good analogy because you can always compare how they work in practice in their stated goals of improving society. Religion's stated goals (for the majority of rank and file believers, whatever about the theologians in their ivory towers) are to enter heaven and avoid hell in the life after death - although neither heaven, hell, nor life after death can be empirically verified.
Religion A says if I worship God X I will go to heaven, but if I worship God Y I will go to hell. Religion B says the reverse. Religion C says the same as A, except that if I worship God X the wrong way I will go to hell. How am I supposed to choose between them?
You may say it is unfair to focus on lowest common denominator religion instead of the advanced, ethereal beliefs of the theologians. (This is the fallacy of the Courtier's Reply.) I say it's perfectly fair, because it is the rank and file believers who are blowing up bombs in public places, cutting people's heads off, or invading and destroying other countries and longing for Armageddon.
I'm not interested in debating someone's private redefinition of religion, not because I would "lose", but because people can believe whatever they like and I have no interest in changing their minds. However, when their beliefs result in violence, or are imposed as the basis for public and foreign policy, it's a whole different ball game.
Anyway, my main reason for following this blog is to defend against claims that atheism is irrational and harmful - although I still haven't seen those claims substantiated.
NMMNG,
where is the redefinition of religion? You're assuming I'm redefining religion simply because it doesn't fit you're general thinking on the matter.
Your argument is essentially:
1.) Most people believe religion in an objective/dogmatic way.
2.) Therefore religion is and was intended to be objective and dogmatic.
Does that argument follow?
If most people believe the earth to be flat, does that mean it is?
Your distaste and disbeliefe relates only to a certain type of religious thinking (the rank and file as you say); and you apply that sort of thinking un-necessarily to religious thinking in general.
On the whole though, I agree with you that objective/dogmatic religious thinking needs to go.
Religion is what most people understand it to be. Religion and spirituality are two very different things. As I said before, anyone can believe what they like - there is no point in debating someone else's idea of spirituality because it is necessarily private and subjective.
NMMNG (I hope you don't feel I'm being unreasonably contentious; I’d simply like to understand where you’re coming from):
It sounds like I'm correct that this is you're reasoning (from what you just stated):
1.) Most people believe religion in an objective/dogmatic way.
2.) Therefore religion is and was intended to be objective and dogmatic.
This doesn’t sound like a reasonable argument to me. Nonetheless, you’re saying objective dogmatic religion is necessarily bad. It does exist, and many people do think this way, I agree. But it doesn’t follow that this is the intention of religion and/or was the intention of [for example] Christ. The only disagreement you can have is one against a certain type of thinking, which I think we both agree on.
I think we’re getting to a similar page here anyway. Your problem fundamentally is with dogmatists, right? My problem remains however, that you think that’s what religion is, and you do so because everyone else thinks it’s that. Doesn’t that sound a bit silly?
(sorry about the straw man here, but it helps me think; as well as your ideas)
If Democracy stops letting people vote, then it’s fundamentally not a Democracy anymore, right? But you’re saying (I think), if people think that’s what Democracy is, then that’s what it would be. Now, there is some truth to that I suppose, but in this case we have history to fall back on in such a way that we can understand that that is fundamentally not true relative to the original intention. People would have simply misconstrued what Democracy is, which is what I say dogmatists have done to religion. However, you don’t advocate getting religion back in shape per se’, but to crush it entirely. You further have no intention of understanding religion outside of your preconceived beliefs that you already hold. Those things might be unfair of me to say though, but I throw it out there off the cuff. Nothing personal, I’m enjoying this anyway…
NMMNG - "my main reason for following this blog is to defend against claims that atheism is irrational and harmful - although I still haven't seen those claims substantiated."
You could engage with my arguments about wisdom, listed here as 'What I think atheism misses in its worldview'.
Regarding this post On Wisdom , isn’t wisdom in this context really what a philosopher would call Virtue Ethics? I just want to make sure my reply isn’t completely tangential!
Sam: I read your old posts and I thought that equating atheism with yob culture is a bit superficial to say the least. James F. Elliot and others have written good responses so I won't add anything right now. (Well, one quick question. Is it realistic to talk about returning to traditional British Christianity given the explosive growth of Islam and Asian religions in Britain? Wouldn't it be better to seek a humanistic consensus and avoid sectarianism? And what is "traditional British Christianity" in Northern Ireland? Ok three questions.)
Andrew:
It sounds like I'm correct that this is you're reasoning (from what you just stated):
1.) Most people believe religion in an objective/dogmatic way.
2.) Therefore religion is and was intended to be objective and dogmatic.
No, this is not what I'm saying. There is no "one true" ideal Platonic form of religion, or democracy for that matter. Democracy used to mean only aristocrats could vote, then only white men, then only men, then only over-21's. Similarly, religion evolves over time, and at any given time there is a spectrum of religious varieties. Currently it seems to me that the majority of religious people (in the US at any rate) are stuck at the literalist, dogmatic stage. Some churches are more tolerant than others of independent thought and questioning by their members but you are still expected to stay within a certain framework. (Someone once said, religion doesn't make people better, people make religion better.)
What I call spirituality is when you decide that everything including the framework itself should be questioned. "Spirituality is questions that many never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned." As I see it, spirituality is about asking the big questions, but a supernatural answer does not have to be pre-ordained - an atheist can be spiritually minded.
I think it's interesting how mystics from different religious traditions - Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Christian mysticism (which seems to have died out several centuries ago, alas) and various Hindu sects seem to converge towards the same point - a notion of universal unity and the necessity of detachment from material things. Of course, most people on spiritual quests arrive at a theistic position, or perhaps never left it. That's fine - as I said before, people can believe anything they like as long as they don't violate other people's rights. One's spirituality is of necessity private and subjective so there is no point in debating about it, let alone trying to impose it on others.
The interesting question is, how do people with different religious and/or spiritual beliefs, or none of the above, get along in society. The traditional answer was that one religion had hegemony over everyone. When two religions vied to be top dog, the result was always bloodshed. This state of affairs is increasingly dangerous and unsustainable. That's why I think it is so important to move beyond sectarianism as a basis for laws or public policy.
I meant to right "foreign policy" rather than "public policy".
And I mean to write "write" instead of "right". Aaaargh.... my brain is fried.
NMMNG,
Thanks for those clarifications. I think we both share the same problem regarding religion with respect to its dogmatic/literalist views. However I’d tend to disagree with you on the nature/definition of spirituality.
Vary loosely (in an effort to be brief) I consider religion to be the institutionalization of spirituality and/or enlightenment; which isn’t to say what those two things are at this point. That said, I tend to consider religion (religious language) as a path to those things; and I believe most religions lead more or less to the same place. The issue is when people mistake the path for the destination; this is when dogmatic literalism enters. Once one reaches a state of enlightenment [or spirituality] then one comes to understand the meaninglessness of the words in they’re respective books, yet nonetheless see’s the value of it as it relates to getting others to that same place.
For me at this point though, this is just talk – I am not enlightened, and not sure if I’m the least bit spiritual. But I try.
Snap.
I just blogged on Notes from underground: Atheist irrationality and social blogrolling. It wouldn't be rational to attribute it to anything other than co-incidence, but still...
Commenting by HaloScan
