tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6331373082037175591..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The Undergraduate Atheists’ ThesisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36210843342638374962014-01-20T16:27:51.169-05:002014-01-20T16:27:51.169-05:00Re: "Agreed, but don't you think that pro...Re: "Agreed, but don't you think that providing a justification for war is reason enough to be critical of religion?"<br /><br />Religion is used to justify and motivate a lot of things. Human libido can be blamed for rape. By this logic, we should sterilize people to eliminate rape. Or we should suppress immune system because it is responsible for a number of uncurable autoimmune diseases. This logic was used in China to exterminate sparrows because they ate crops. Fight for democracy and freedom is used to justify wars. We need to be critical of these ideologies as well.<br /><br />Sarcasm aside, it seems to me that there is an <em>aspect</em> of religion causing bad things to happen. This <em>aspect</em> seems to be shared with other ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism. My take is that it's the "us vs. them" part: class struggle, fidels vs. infidels, iOS vs. Android users, etc. This article provides some data to support this opinion. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.pdf<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88893836709658749362014-01-20T16:13:43.018-05:002014-01-20T16:13:43.018-05:00Re: "Agreed, but don't you think that pro...Re: "Agreed, but don't you think that providing a justification for war is reason enough to be critical of religion?"<br /><br />Religion justifies and motivates a lot of things. Definitely, there is an <em>aspect</em> of religion which causes bad things. But this <em>aspect</em> seems to be shared with other ideologies. I think, the focus should be on finding this <em>aspect</em> rather than criticizing the whole ideology. My take is that it's "us vs. them" attitude -- class struggle, fidels vs. infidels, iOS vs Android users, etc. This article http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.pdf provides some data to support this case. By the way, position of NA is a variety of this "us vs. them" attitude and, therefore, seems to me as dangerous as communism or Jihad. <br /><br />One can say that human libido is the cause of rape. Or point out that fire is used by arsenists. Shall we sterilize people or prohibit the use of fire? My answer is that it is unreasonable to criticize religion <em>as a whole</em> because it provides justification for war. Wars are justified by all kinds of things including fight for democracy and freedom. Therefore, it is clear to me that religion is not the root cause of wars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62699746480866462342013-12-28T17:22:37.944-05:002013-12-28T17:22:37.944-05:00@Massimo (cont.) I'd like you to elaborate on ...@Massimo (cont.) I'd like you to elaborate on this. I don't think it's really obvious that religion is better in average. Religion can be a source of confort to many, and a source of guilt and desperation to others. As I said in the first point, it's hard to demand emotional support from atheism, since it only has one statement. Don't you agree that it's more mature to find reasons other than a (most likely) non-existent afterlife, to live happily? <br /><br />I and many others (and I'm guessing, you) can live nice meaningful lives without religion. Thinking that less educated/intelligent/fortunate people (or any other advantage you fancy) can't is rather irrespectful and condescending. You probably didn't mean this, so if you can elaborate it'd be great.buttheadrulesagainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019750986423516925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26193094626652236312013-12-28T17:21:57.725-05:002013-12-28T17:21:57.725-05:00@Massimo
>Agreed, but there is no escaping fro...@Massimo<br /><br />>Agreed, but there is no escaping from the fact that the Stalinist state arose directly from Marxist atheistic ideology. Before it became a dictatorship it was the hope and light of secularism. The point is simply that just getting rid of religion isn’t going to do the trick.<br /><br />It is hard to say an ideology arises from atheism, because atheism doesn't have central tenets/dogmas other than "god most likely doesn't exist". It doesn't have a central institution like, say, catholicism, nor bishops that demand strict obedience and unquestionable authority (maybe some atheists regard Dawkins as archbishop, but that's another story), or a central unquestionable document.<br /><br />I can argue that Stalinism and such arised from bad, unbased reasoning, while christianity has a whole document full of rules and dogma. Within the only statement atheism has (there is no god) there is no "you should have an authoritarian state", but in christianity you have the base document explicitly talking against homosexuals.<br /><br />Both in atheism and christianity you have different ideologies: ethical postures in the former and interpretations of the Bible/ sects with the latter. The advantage with secular ideologies (in principle) is that you can use logic, discussion, and even empirical evidence to reach the best answer possible at the moment. It can go awry of course, but at least people can discuss it and rethink it. That's what you do with godless philosophy, and if you say that isn't better than baseless discussion on a primitive document of dubious origins, then you should quit Philosophy!<br /><br />>Indeed. Now when was the last time you could honestly put the words “moderate” and “Hitchens” (or “Dawkins”) in the same sentence without feeling a bit ridiculous?<br /><br />What is so extreme about them? They don't promote hate against groups of people, they strictly talk against ideologies. Maybe they talk strong and loud, but I'd like to know where do you personally draw the line between the appropiate and what's not appropiate.<br /><br />>I disagree. Compare the current billboard campaign being promoted by CFI (moderate) with the one being promoted by American Atheists (obnoxious, as usual). It can be done.<br /><br />Again, where do you draw the line? I agree the CFI campaign is softer in form, but their core message is as godless as the AA one, and it can be as "hurting/offensive" to many religious people. So, when do they have the right to not be offended?<br /><br />When I talked about obnoxious, I was thinking about active vs. passive promotion. Should we deny the existence of god and its implications (discussion of dogma-based ideas) publicly? Should we try to reach people directly, or wait until they engage us? Should we differentiate between say, political (in which we cuss against politicians with no consequence) and religious matters?<br /><br />Religious promotion is obnoxious times when the religious indoctrinate children, knock directly to your door like vacuum cleaner salesmen, talk people out of rational things like vaccination and blood transfusion, etc.<br /><br />>Probably, but even that isn’t a slam dunk. I’d rather people turn to, say, the Dalai Lama (a religious leader) than to Christopher Hitchens, at least when it comes to international policy.<br /><br />Curiously you chose the most secular of religious leaders. Anyways, you're right in that many religious leaders are better persons than non-religious ones. I was thinking more about religious leaders pushing dogma against topics like abortion in media, or as part of a lobby.<br /><br />>Broadly speaking yes. But you are begging the question if you focus only on problem solving. What about emotional responses? Feelings of meaning, and so forth? There it is *empirically* obvious that religions have done better than secularism, hands down. I think it’s unfortunate, but it’s something we need to honestly admit.buttheadrulesagainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019750986423516925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24195098383327243132013-12-28T12:46:22.781-05:002013-12-28T12:46:22.781-05:00I find the alternative history thought-experiment ...I find the alternative history thought-experiment to be incoherent because of a problem I find in most all such discussions: a naive and simplistic concept of what "belief" means in religious contexts. This leads one to think of the "belief" as a simple object either present or absent in someone's mind. In ordinary contexts ("I believe that the moon orbits the earth") that's fine. But in religious contexts "belief" can connote acceptance of certain values ("I believe in animal rights"), solidarity with an affinity group ("Of course I believe in Jesus, I'm a good Christian"), or a hazy notion of half-mythic, half-historical realities (most Jews believe Moses was real, but talking snakes exist only in parables--or again, Christ is real, Santa Claus isn't). In real life, "religious belief" doesn't pick out a clean class of phenomena. There is a vast continuum of taking religious stories more or less literally.<br /><br />Thus the idea of histories in which "religious beliefs" as a homogeneous category are absent, is incoherent. It must assume that in the course of development of literature (which includes fantasy and myth) and ritual, and especially in the way culture is presented to young children, no one would ever mistake cultural phenomena as being grounded in physical, metaphysical or supernatural realities. That's just not plausible, especially if you think that metaphysics, as many philosophers from Kant to Derrida have told us, is an ineradicable tendency of thought. (Nor is it plausible that superstition-free cultural institutions are immune to the evils of corruption and violence.)<br /><br />Would a more advanced culture, with better educational system, etc., be able to prevent serious literalistic misreadings of its literature/rituals/slogans? I don't see why not. I just think that it won't be accomplished by anything like what NA writers provide.Gabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16013606619560424072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86986385746781526202013-12-27T08:43:22.265-05:002013-12-27T08:43:22.265-05:00Excellent!
It inspired a who post on my blog, than...Excellent!<br />It inspired a who post on my blog, thanx.<br /><a href="http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/is-all-religion-bad-an-ethical-dissection/" rel="nofollow">Confusing Ethics and Language</a>.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52039523497308132692013-12-27T05:24:17.774-05:002013-12-27T05:24:17.774-05:00Interestingly, I wrote a critique of some woo-woo ...Interestingly, I wrote a critique of some woo-woo article written by 3QD staff and was then banned from their website. Shows how much they are open to dialogue. A first for me. Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26193695913587701242013-12-26T16:10:50.747-05:002013-12-26T16:10:50.747-05:00Best is definitely a relative term. (I'm assum...Best is definitely a relative term. (I'm assuming Shardy is talking in terms of technology, healthcare and education - advancement)<br /><br />Assuming this, it's fair to say an enlightened society is less superstitious, less religious - but that doesn't mean that banishing religious thought is going to accelerate the rest of the world into a state of enlightenment. <br /><br />That is to say, the cause of these countries you may speak of being "the best" is not due to the banishment of religious beliefs - I suspect the opposite is true: As knowledge is acquired the need for superstition subsides. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13213067865722844435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86503917560694917302013-12-26T16:01:49.373-05:002013-12-26T16:01:49.373-05:00Yeah I agree, "Best" is definitely a rel...Yeah I agree, "Best" is definitely a relative term in this case. I'm not religious, but I don't see religion as an evil force. <br /><br />Shardy - acknowledging that more developed countries, in terms of health, education, access to new technology (which I assume is what you mean by "best") may be genuinely secular or atheist is one thing. Saying that the lack of religion is the reason for this prosperity is completely another. >> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause<br /><br />Thanks Massimo, for this link and all of your hard work!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13213067865722844435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70546606211725236212013-12-24T15:23:27.579-05:002013-12-24T15:23:27.579-05:00So there is another group you don't like - any...So there is another group you don't like - any group you do like?<br /><br />This seems to be your logic:<br />New atheism is bad.<br />Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris are new atheists.<br />D,D,H & H are bad.<br /><br />No much nuance there, is there?<br /><br />How is this any different than the argument for which you try to condemn them? Just replace new atheist with religion.<br /><br />Or if you think religion itself causes no or little harm - substitute fundamentalism or creationism for religion. I laugh when, new atheists are criticized for criticizing religion, by the very people who call fundamentalists stupid, ignorant, liars and the like. <br /><br />I am not here to defend new atheism or new atheists - I certainly don't agree with everything the four above say - that would be silly. I certainly wouldn't read Dawkins to understand religion or theology, but he does have a knack for explaining parts of biology. Do I agree with him 100% - no. I like Dennett and if the only thing you can fault him for is "brights" - then I can live with that.<br /><br />What many new atheists get wrong is not being able to see the world from a theistic perspective. If one believes in gods, then it changes everything. One sees a world in which intelligent agency is expected. What is logical or reasonable is fundamentally different. Eric MacDonald got me to see that when discussing Thomas Nagel's commentary on Alvin Plantinga. Even though, neither Nagel or Plantinga seem to have much clue when it comes to evolutionary biology - nor would I expect them to have one. <br /><br />Anyone who would go to a theologian to learn about science - probably isn't going to learn much. Anyone who goes to a scientist to learn about theology isn't either. An outsider might have an interesting insight, but the details will probably be wrong. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58537465902908650342013-12-24T13:17:36.630-05:002013-12-24T13:17:36.630-05:00I don't find them "threatening" near...I don't find them "threatening" nearly as much as "laughable." And, "hate"? Funny, I got accused of being a "hater" of a "movement"/"scientific" skeptic, Brian Dunning, recently. Modern "movement" skepticism reminds me of Gnu Atheism in ways -- tribalist and cultish. Anyway, to show you that I don't just dislike Gnus (and who ever said "hate," I didn't) here's what I wrote on that: <br /><br />http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/12/i-can-see-why-gnu-atheists-dont-like.html<br /><br />Beyond that, you seem to certainly be some defender of Gnu-dom as well as chiding me for hate, so, I won't worry about trying to persuade you further, etc.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57495976873212931572013-12-24T09:26:46.575-05:002013-12-24T09:26:46.575-05:00I would like to add that this is an intrinsic prob...I would like to add that this is an intrinsic problem of the utlitarian aproaches to ethicsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60715808925243294652013-12-24T09:01:09.894-05:002013-12-24T09:01:09.894-05:00The problems of atheistic regimes are not caused b...The problems of atheistic regimes are not caused by the "atheistic" nature of those regimes per se, but are related with the sacralization of abstractions (and the arbitrary behavior from those in power that may arise from those type of abstractions) such as "the interest of the people, or the working class or the fatherland". Plus it is not even directly related with the totalitarian nature of the regimes, as it may well happen in democratic regimes, if the majority of the people don’t care to protect the rights from minorities, or see that as a minor problem.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18839961832093658602013-12-24T00:48:38.446-05:002013-12-24T00:48:38.446-05:00@ michael fugate
Well, now that you bring it up. ...@ michael fugate<br /><br />Well, now that you bring it up. I think we've seen this act once before. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism" rel="nofollow">New Atheism</a>" seems to be another incarnation of the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_reason" rel="nofollow">Cult of Reason</a>." Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07422653606947285608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41598203838390326542013-12-24T00:27:15.855-05:002013-12-24T00:27:15.855-05:00There are always reasons to hate - it is the easie...There are always reasons to hate - it is the easiest thing to do. I don't see your commentary here as any less desperate than those you condemn. You are trying to justify your views by running others down rather than having yours stand on their own. I am not sure why you find the new atheists so threatening.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16409868109483770562013-12-23T20:06:47.152-05:002013-12-23T20:06:47.152-05:00Maybe or maybe not, as for personal theism being t...Maybe or maybe not, as for personal theism being the target of at least the Gnu Atheist thought leaders. From individual people who would probably be identified as Gnu Atheists, or perhaps, to revive an old term, village idiot atheists, uhh, no. Via the wonderful world of social media, there are cases where Gnu types have focused on personal theism.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53712731693612112302013-12-23T19:14:17.016-05:002013-12-23T19:14:17.016-05:00There are other reasons, though, to dislike other ...There are other reasons, though, to dislike other Gnu actions. Like claiming that the rise of the "nones" shows the rise of atheism when it does no such thing. That's not the only playing loose with statistics, but it's one good example.<br /><br />See you in the funny pages.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49848447334325588542013-12-23T19:12:33.195-05:002013-12-23T19:12:33.195-05:00We all, as human beings in a modern, heavily popul...We all, as human beings in a modern, heavily populated world, have to make assumptions about people and their motivations all the time without being able to personally talk to them. And, so, we act inductively on the evidence available.<br /><br />It wasn't a non-answer. It was the answer I gave, and continue to give. As for whether I hate all things Gnu, or 90 percent, or 82.4 percent or whatever ... Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55817740640581230872013-12-23T19:06:54.151-05:002013-12-23T19:06:54.151-05:00It was popularized and promulgated by him (and Daw...It was popularized and promulgated by him (and Dawkins). And, he's the one who issued the denial that it implied that theists were "dims" or whatever.<br /><br />And, IIRC, he only proposed "supers" after the "implied" angle was publicly brought up, including by plenty of atheists and secularists besides me.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement<br /><br />Even though (and I agree with Massimo totally) he's the most conciliatory of the Gnus, uhh, on this issue, I'm not that inclined to be that charitable.<br /><br />Beyond that, I'll once again repeat what I have said more than once before, because it refutes the heart of the Dennett/Dawkins meaning,t the whole movement, etc.:<br /><br />>> Atheism is no guarantor of either moral or intellectual superiority. <<<br /><br />And, that's one of my strongest dislikes of Gnu Atheism, the assumption that atheism IS such a guarantor.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10562447674989726052013-12-23T16:26:02.676-05:002013-12-23T16:26:02.676-05:00I am just wondering whether we should hold secular...I am just wondering whether we should hold secular humanists and Christians to a higher standard - why weren't the humanists more humane after the FRench revolution, for instance. Or why wasn't someone like Thomas More more humane - as a Christian humanist - when confronted with the reformation? The ideology of these groups really is supposed to be about love of their fellow humans. michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49435075639436429302013-12-23T15:32:36.882-05:002013-12-23T15:32:36.882-05:00@michael
Umm, that's kind of an excellent poi...@michael<br /><br />Umm, that's kind of an excellent point. Crucial, even.<br /><br />It seems Dennett's contribution was to suggest a name for the non-brights. And it wasn't "dims" or "dumbs" but "supers".<br /><br />Any comment, Gadfly?Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75107771165607492472013-12-23T14:42:27.272-05:002013-12-23T14:42:27.272-05:00Not to mention - the term wasn't coined by Den...Not to mention - the term wasn't coined by Dennett.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86746430219414862392013-12-23T12:58:30.471-05:002013-12-23T12:58:30.471-05:00I think he was looking at the progress made by the...I think he was looking at the progress made by the gay community and trying to emulate it.<br /><br />"Gay" is a positive term that connotes happiness and well-being. It does not imply that straight people are unhappy.<br /><br />I can see how you interpreted it the way you did, but I think there is a plausible innocent explanation of Dennett's choice. I would be inclined to interpret him charitably.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52752831972704351422013-12-23T12:55:05.809-05:002013-12-23T12:55:05.809-05:00@Tom D.
“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may...@Tom D.<br />“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”<br /><br />Good point. I was not specific enough.<br /><br />I do think what Harris said is defensible, but he is also not specific enough. He's not advocating murder for the belief itself, but for the potential harm indicated by the belief.<br /><br />For example, if somebody believes that it is his duty to murder as many people as possible, and is committed to act on that belief, and if it is not practical or feasible to imprison this person or to change his mind (e.g. because he has immunity from prosecution for some reason), then in those extreme circumstances it may be ethical to kill him.<br /><br />But we're not killing for the belief itself. We're killing to prevent the harm directly caused by that belief. I see that as a different context from my original comment.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90316094030029858782013-12-23T12:52:58.638-05:002013-12-23T12:52:58.638-05:00Great non-answer. So no evidence other than your h...Great non-answer. So no evidence other than your hatred of all things new atheist. michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.com