New Atheism

Reply to Moliere In America, anything that's presented as "a more philosophical version" of some public issue will be ignored by most media and the general public. Almost all of the "New Atheism" advocates are really just old-time irreligious, pro-secular polemicists in a new social media age.

Reply to Moliere

If you’re talking about Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett, then I largely agree. Dennett at least has philosophical things to say, but I’ve been gradually less impressed with him over the years. Too scientistic, in my view. Harris has interesting things to say about meditation, which I like— but his political ideas are immature, as demonstrated clearly in 2015 when he discussed the Al Shifa bombing with Noam Chomsky. He was also traumatized by 9/11 and clearly motivated by it in his dealings with Islam. Hitchens too, who became a sad apologist for Bush because of it.

I like all these guys, really. I have far more in common with them than most people I’ve met. But I think the appeal back in ‘06–‘09, when they were seemingly everywhere (recall even South Park spoofed Dawkins), was part of the backlash against Christianity (in the wake of the Catholic sex abuse scandal) and Islam (in the wake of 9/11) and the need to ground oneself in something— in this case, rationality and science.

Goofy guys like Michael Shermer pop up and Carl Sagan (who I still admire) gets made into a high priest to the church of “naturalism.” I began to snap out of all that jazz after discovering much more interesting and relevant thinkers — Chomsky being an easy living example, but also Bert Dreyfus and Richard Wolff and Arendt and Fromm and Orwell and Marx etc etc. In many ways so much deeper, more complex, and more relevant than a thesis that essentially boils down to “religion is faith-based and thus irrational, and therefore bad; science is evidence-based and rational, and (while fluid and imperfect) is good.”

Glad I grew out of that, and glad you have too.

From the wiki page on New Atheism:

Roger Scruton has extensively criticized New Atheism on various occasions, generally on the grounds that they do not consider the social effects and impacts of religion in enough detail. He has said, "Look at the facts in the round and it seems likely that humans without a sense of the sacred would have died out long ago. For that same reason, the hope of the new atheists for a world without religion is probably as vain as the hope for a society without aggression or a world without death." He has also complained of the New Atheists' idea that they must "set people free from religion", calling it "naive" because they "never consider that they might be taking something away from people."

If this were a sincere criticism it would have to define exactly what the social effects and impacts of religion are, what exactly is ‘being taken away from people’, and explain why only religion can deliver it. But it’s not a sincere criticism and no explanation is possible because it isn’t true.

Reply to 180 Proof Yup. The media personalities were actually what made it harder to organize, IMO.

I put it in the lounge because I was wishing and pining :D -- there were legitimate concerns that people had I met, and real organizations came out of it that still operate today.

I suppose I believe that most people are philosophical in the loose sense of wondering about things, but it's easy to stop that impulse and I think that the personalities which focused people's attention mostly tried to stop that impulse, but in reverse.

And because there were no material conditions tied to it in terms of the people who were paying attention to them, it'd entirely depend on how appealing the personalities were to the general public -- which they weren't :D

Reply to Mikie Sweet. Glad someone else felt all those things, too. I was in college at that time and there were organizations putting on events that I participated in.

The one thing I remember, even though I had all these doubts, were the people who were there because they were a minority in their culture, and it was a kind of way to connect to others in that similar situation. The quieter part of the group? Basically just wanting to be treated like anyone else. And it got drowned out in the noise.

I suppose that's why I think back to it, still, even though I also dislike the usual suspects -- other than, as you mentioned, Dennett. I disagree with him on so, so many things, but he does have the distinction of having written something interesting on the problem of free will this late in the conversation. Way more than I've done! :D

Quoting Moliere

So I sort of wonder if it's possible for a more philosophical version to take off.

My experience is that people usually find philosophy to be a turn off for reasons mentioned in OP's here often enough.

New Atheism was more of a publishing, marketing phenomenon and a poor label to describe a wave of renewed interest in secular polemics.

I think those people who are susceptible to philosophy will read Hitchens (or whoever) and move on to something meatier if they already have or develop a taste for critical thinking and the history of ideas.

The only self-described "new atheist" who impresses me with his approach and arguments is the late particle physicist & philosopher Victor J Stenger. Also, the philosopher-novelist Rebecca Goldstein's anti-god writings are worthwhile for being much more philosophical than polemical.

Reply to 180 Proof I remember liking both of them. I even got to see them give talks through the organizations then.

For me I think I traveled elsewhere after because my political beliefs have been more materially focused, in the sense of who gets to own what according to what rules, rather than personally focused. (probably explains why I still remember people who wanted equal rights) -- for me, there were too many people who just wanted to be accepted in the current regime, and I already knew that was wrong ;)

Hm, I remember when The God Delusion hit the shelves. I knew of it before I ever saw a physical copy, so I was curious when I finally cam across one and picked it up to read a little. I read an excerpt about the evils religion wrought, I think I remember the section being about Australian aboriginies, and I wondered, so what about the British Empire and it's take on civilisation? I wasn't impressed. It felt too much of a simplistic polemic, so I put it back. Over the years, I found I liked some of Harris and Dennett, but Hitchens has always been nails on chalkboard for me. All in all, I'm not well-read in them, though.

I'm an atheist. I'm not inherently against religion, but personally I'm bored by ritual, and I've just never found anything to be certain about (which as a negative effect means there's a constant background-radiation anxiety underlying anything I do, but when I'm fine it expresses itself a good-natured ironic attitude towards life - or so I hope).

I'm interested in philosophy, but I'm not well-read in philosophy. On the topic of theism... my main drive is understanding what theists are trying to tell me when they talk about God. The topics themselves don't interest me much; what's interesting is why they interest others. When it comes to questions such as "Does God exist," I'm not keen on joining discussions, and I feel like building a philosophy around this is... walking into a trap? It feels like fly paper... I can never tell if I'm strawmanning, or if they're shifting goal posts. I can't tell the difference. It's not native mind-space, and I have no good map.

Atheism, then, interests me more as a social phenomenon than as a topic for philosophy. I just can't see enough substance to gods to start serious thought.

Quoting Dawnstorm

Atheism, then, interests me more as a social phenomenon than as a topic for philosophy. I just can't see enough substance to gods to start serious thought.

That’s pretty much how I feel.

Quoting Moliere

So I sort of wonder if it's possible for a more philosophical version to take off.

Some off the cuff thoughts…

New Atheism feels like jumping the shark. My reaction is always something like, do we really still have to talk about this stuff? New Atheists, famous and not, tend to just make me cringe. I have to tell myself that many vocally atheist atheists have grown up religious or live in countries in which religion does damage.

And that’s the thing. There’s plenty of bad religion around. Intolerant theism in the US and the Middle East, a whole Christian church in the service of an authoritarian state in Russia. So maybe we need some better New Atheism after all.

But no, I don’t think so (I’m thinking as I write here). I’m an atheist but I don’t think the problem is religion as such, just the bad stuff. Take Islam. It’s stupid for Western atheists to tell Muslims that their whole way of life, in its most important aspects, is not only false and a sham but is also responsible ultimately for some terrible crimes against humanity. This does not help reformers at all.

So throw New Atheism in the bin and foster tolerance and understanding for religious people while helping reformers within religions. This is a basis for fighting the bad religion.

It has nothing to do with believing in things without evidence or all that. It’s not about faith. What someone is expected to do for their faith, how far they will go, and exactly how the holy texts should be interpreted, are political and historically specific.

Quoting Jamal

New Atheism feels like jumping the shark. My reaction is always something like, do we really still have to talk about this stuff? New Atheists, famous and not, tend to just make me cringe. I have to tell myself that many vocally atheist atheists have grown up religious or live in countries in which religion does damage.

Heh. Being the self-critical sort, I've felt that cringe in spite of basically being a part of the group :D.

Kind of, at least. More just a participant than an organizer (though I did grow up religious, so I fit that part of the description). The one interesting trend that I saw coming out of it all was Atheism+, or something along those lines, where people wanted to say more than "Boo, religion!", but wanted to create ethical secular communities. Those are still around, though definitely not as sexy for the press as "Boo, religion!" :D

But, for me, the political has a deeper pull. I was interested in world-changing philosophies and action, not just acceptance under the norm. (tho that's a worthy goal, too)

Quoting Jamal

And that’s the thing. There’s plenty of bad religion around. Intolerant theism in the US and the Middle East, a whole Christian church in the service of an authoritarian state in Russia. So maybe we need some better New Atheism after all.

But no, I don’t think so (I’m thinking as I write here). I’m an atheist but I don’t think the problem is religion as such, just the bad stuff. Take Islam. It’s stupid for Western atheists to tell Muslims that their whole way of life, in its most important aspects, is not only false and a sham but is also responsible ultimately for some terrible crimes against humanity. This does not help reformers at all.

Heh, no worries. I'm also thinking as I write. I think that this would have been a much better approach -- helping reformers, fostering acceptance, that sort of thing. Definitely better than "You're a bunch of dummies and I'm super smart and ethical!" :D

And, yes, I despised the "criticisms" of Islam from the New Atheists -- the so called rationalists couldn't see that where they thought they were being rationally consistent, in that time it was just clear they were talking about it due to geopolitics -- and leaning into Islamophobic talking points to be "part of the conversation". So incredibly stupid.

So when I think fondly of the New Atheism, I guess I think more along the lines of the people who were asking for much less than what I was looking for: the people that just wanted a community, and to not be discriminated against for not believing. I was driven away by the talking heads, but looking back those were the people I'd consider to be the only reason it took off. When you're pissed, angry talking heads can sell books. It's consoling to find a voice for an anger you couldn't express.

The leaders were just stupid enough to really believe they were these rationally enlightened people, which totally killed it for me :D (plus, I remember one of the talks I went to, an organizer trying to explain science, and even as an undergrad I was like "Uhh... you're sort of using these Aristotelian notions which are not applicable at all", but that's just the philosophy nerd in me)

Quoting Jamal

So throw New Atheism in the bin and foster tolerance and understanding for religious people while helping reformers within religions. This is a basis for fighting the bad religion.

It has nothing to do with believing in things without evidence or all that. It’s not about faith. What someone is expected to do for their faith, how far they will go, and exactly how the holy texts should be interpreted, are political and historically specific.

Oh yeah, we're on the same page here.

There are many communities of faith that just straight up rock. So there are counter-examples to the atheist screed, at least if you have a political viewpoint. As a for instance, Quakers.

Still... sometimes one wishes that things went different. Could still happen! But I agree, overall, that for me at least, I'm not willing to organize along these lines because I really do want more than the status quo. (even though that is a respectable political goal)

Quoting Dawnstorm

Hm, I remember when The God Delusion hit the shelves. I knew of it before I ever saw a physical copy, so I was curious when I finally cam across one and picked it up to read a little. I read an excerpt about the evils religion wrought, I think I remember the section being about Australian aboriginies, and I wondered, so what about the British Empire and it's take on civilisation? I wasn't impressed. It felt too much of a simplistic polemic, so I put it back. Over the years, I found I liked some of Harris and Dennett, but Hitchens has always been nails on chalkboard for me. All in all, I'm not well-read in them, though.

I agree that the books that the New Atheists published were generally uninteresting. Even looking back at Richard Carrier's book: I like the idea of building your own worldview. So I still admire him for that. But I look back at a worldview and think: "Hrmm... but here's a problem here, and here, and here..." :D

It's an interesting idea, but I wonder to what extent one can actually accomplish "building a worldview" -- it seems like a lifelong project. In which case, we're sort of talking about a way of life, which starts sounding like a religion on its face.

Quoting Dawnstorm

I'm an atheist. I'm not inherently against religion, but personally I'm bored by ritual, and I've just never found anything to be certain about (which as a negative effect means there's a constant background-radiation anxiety underlying anything I do, but when I'm fine it expresses itself a good-natured ironic attitude towards life - or so I hope).

I'm interested in philosophy, but I'm not well-read in philosophy. On the topic of theism... my main drive is understanding what theists are trying to tell me when they talk about God. The topics themselves don't interest me much; what's interesting is why they interest others. When it comes to questions such as "Does God exist," I'm not keen on joining discussions, and I feel like building a philosophy around this is... walking into a trap? It feels like fly paper... I can never tell if I'm strawmanning, or if they're shifting goal posts. I can't tell the difference. It's not native mind-space, and I have no good map.

Atheism, then, interests me more as a social phenomenon than as a topic for philosophy. I just can't see enough substance to gods to start serious thought.

Fair.

I think, just with my background, it's very much native mind-space, but in this weird way due to being an atheist. Maybe that's why I come back to it.

More thoughts:

Quoting Dawnstorm

I'm interested in philosophy, but I'm not well-read in philosophy. On the topic of theism... my main drive is understanding what theists are trying to tell me when they talk about God.

I think this is one of the most interesting questions with respect to the philosophy of religion -- and I think it may get at why religion is as powerful as it is. (I think secular persons tend to underestimate the power of religion too...)

The topics themselves don't interest me much; what's interesting is why they interest others. When it comes to questions such as "Does God exist," I'm not keen on joining discussions, and I feel like building a philosophy around this is... walking into a trap? It feels like fly paper...

I agree that building a philosophy around that question is a fly paper trap :). At least, in our day and age. The medievals get a pass, due to it being their economic way of life. It'd be downright strange if philosophers didn't write about God when the Church ruled.

I can never tell if I'm strawmanning, or if they're shifting goal posts. I can't tell the difference. It's not native mind-space, and I have no good map.

While I claim it's native mind-space for me, I also feel this -- generally speaking religion fulfills more than philosophic desires, so the tools of philosophy will be used to defend rather than explore, even if we're just wanting to know "ok, really, I don't care what you believe, I just want to understand!" -- but that understanding is often viewed with suspicion. Understandably so, since a common religious outlook is that the faith is a way of testing others to see if they conform to your belief structure, and hence can be trusted. So if you start picking at those sorts of beliefs, the natural instinct is to protect the beliefs, and mistrust the person picking at them.

It's not exactly a rational conversation, so often times it's a mixture of strawmanning and goalpost shifting, but you just have to go with it.

Atheism, then, interests me more as a social phenomenon than as a topic for philosophy. I just can't see enough substance to gods to start serious thought.

I can see this, but I guess along the lines of "the power of religion" that I mentioned... I think along those lines and asking what people are talking about are philosophically interesting.

So, yeah, not the denial of gods conversation -- but atheism as a starting point? "OK, God doesn't exist. Sure. So why in the world does this idea have so much influence today, and why did it have influence before?"

Quoting Moliere

God doesn't exist. Sure. So why in the world does this idea have so much influence today, and why did it have influence before?

Read e.g. Zapffe's "The Last Messah", Nietzsche's The Antichrist, Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity or Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus ... to start.

Quoting Moliere

I think this is one of the most interesting questions with respect to the philosophy of religion -- and I think it may get at why religion is as powerful as it is. (I think secular persons tend to underestimate the power of religion too...)

What do you think the power of religion is? or rather the primary power or purpose?

Quoting Moliere

...but atheism as a starting point? "OK, God doesn't exist. Sure. So why in the world does this idea have so much influence today, and why did it have influence before?"

Ah, see, that's already a step too far for me. That's what I mean by flytrap: the moment I say "God doesn't exist," I get tangled up in a conversation of the type winning-losing that I can't win. I've admitted too much already, and now I'm comitted to a statement I ultimately feel is meaningless. I can argue back and forth in that groove, but I get more and more alienated by the stuff I say. And I can't get away.

The truth is, if you ever catch me saying something like "God doesn't exist," it's most likely a bid to end the conversation. It's more a hyperbolic demonstration of my worldview in a simplified manner that my interlocutor can easily understand. The problem is, though, I project a false view of myself. I'd have to say something like "To me, the concept of God is nonsense," which would be closer to the truth, but it's about my intuition and doesn't easily lead to rational talk. And, also, people tend to miss the "to me," so I have to explain that I'm a relative of some sort (which sort I'm not even sure of myself), and... So it's just easier to say stuff like "God doesn't exist." But I use that rarely, and only as a conversation ender, and only if I feel the person I'm talking to isn't going to view this as a challange.

I grew up the son of Catholic person, but my belief in God to the extent that it was there to begin with never grew up with me for some reason. I always knew who got my Christmas presents; my parents made no secret of it. But around Christmas they'd never admit to that; it's always the local equivalent of Santa around that time of the year. (Add to that me being an animal geek and never seeing the easter bunny as anything else than an amusing absurdity.) It's possible I thought believing in God was a similar game? To be honest, I don't remember. I do know I don't remember a moment when I realised I didn't believe in God. I do remember worrying about telling my mother about it (which would have had to be somewhere between 9 and 12 I think?). I don't know how that came to be.

I'm fairly relaxed about being an atheist, mostly because I'm living in a fairly secular society (Austria), and religion is mostly a private affair people don't ask about, and when they learn you're an atheist people aren't prone to argue (unless there's nothing else to do; most of my face-to-face discussions happened in trains). There are... incompatibilities. For example, when my mum's down turning to God's a source of comfort, so God talk would come naturally to her when sees me feeling down, but that's precicely the moment I have the least tolerance for God talk. I can't or don't want to spare the effort to translate.

A computer metaphor might help: I'm running the OS unLucky-relativist, and it doesn't natively run programs written for DeusVult; all that's available is a shoddily written emulator and it takes up a lot of processing power, and the programs won't run as intended anyway. So when I need to run intensive debugging routines because the OS acts up, also running the emulator could crash the system. But not running the emulator might cause background processes like Interaction to crash...

Reply to 180 Proof

IIii..... probably will not anytime soon. :D

I did read the Anti-Christ once upon a time... but I've forgotten its contents by this point.

And I tried the Theological-Political Treatise last year! I put it down, though. I remember getting impatient with all the arguments from the Bible (I'm a bad Spinoza student, I'm afraid). A buddy loved Spinoza for that stuff, but my rejection of theism has always been on a more general level.

Though, these days, I'm more inclined to listen to see what people mean by "theism", because often times they mean things closer-to-metaphor, like Hegel, which is where things get interesting -- it's often been put that we have a civic religion, for instance. And if we're not getting caught up in fairy-land tales or ancient histories, then differentiating between a civic religion and a non-civic one is a lot harder when one means "theism" to mean something like "love", or an ideal. Anthropologically -- materially -- they function similarly.

Quoting praxis

What do you think the power of religion is? or rather the primary power or purpose?

I think it morphs, really... as @Jamal pointed out, these are, through history, political ways of organizing. Or, at least, we'd look at them like that, having little invested in the various disputes between or within religions. And when you start considering religion, in general, it might be too abstract a category to definitively say. (how much of a similarity is there, really, between the worship of Cleopatra, and the modern civic religion, though we can reasonably call them both religions?)

What I really mean by the power of religion is more in the political sense: however religion operates, which I'm uncertain about, it's demonstrably a powerful manner of organizing people, up to even having state powers, though that has diminished in some parts of the world.

When I say I think secular people underestimate religion, I mean that it's not going to fade away. Further, while its power has diminished in some parts of the world, it is still very powerful in the sense of how many people are organized around religion. That's not to say why it's appealing, nor am I trying to say something like "oh, these are brainwashed persons, that's the power of religion!" -- I'm just talking about the raw numbers, and the political power that comes from having numbers of people organized together.

Quoting Dawnstorm

Ah, see, that's already a step too far for me. That's what I mean by flytrap: the moment I say "God doesn't exist," I get tangled up in a conversation of the type winning-losing that I can't win. I've admitted too much already, and now I'm comitted to a statement I ultimately feel is meaningless. I can argue back and forth in that groove, but I get more and more alienated by the stuff I say. And I can't get away.

I think flytraps are common among philosophical topics. What you describe here is a pattern I'm familiar with! "Saying too much" is a wonderful insight, once you know that's what you are doing.

I'm fine with taking a step back. I'm an apatheist in addition to being an atheist.

The truth is, if you ever catch me saying something like "God doesn't exist," it's most likely a bid to end the conversation. It's more a hyperbolic demonstration of my worldview in a simplified manner that my interlocutor can easily understand. The problem is, though, I project a false view of myself. I'd have to say something like "To me, the concept of God is nonsense," which would be closer to the truth, but it's about my intuition and doesn't easily lead to rational talk. And, also, people tend to miss the "to me," so I have to explain that I'm a relative of some sort (which sort I'm not even sure of myself), and... So it's just easier to say stuff like "God doesn't exist." But I use that rarely, and only as a conversation ender, and only if I feel the person I'm talking to isn't going to view this as a challange.

Well, I won't bite.

How do you get to the belief that the concept of God is nonsense?

I grew up the son of Catholic person, but my belief in God to the extent that it was there to begin with never grew up with me for some reason. I always knew who got my Christmas presents; my parents made no secret of it. But around Christmas they'd never admit to that; it's always the local equivalent of Santa around that time of the year. (Add to that me being an animal geek and never seeing the easter bunny as anything else than an amusing absurdity.) It's possible I thought believing in God was a similar game? To be honest, I don't remember. I do know I don't remember a moment when I realised I didn't believe in God. I do remember worrying about telling my mother about it (which would have had to be somewhere between 9 and 12 I think?). I don't know how that came to be.

Mormanism for lil ol me.

It's the new Catholicism. Flashier. More blatantly racist. ;)

As you can see, I have fond thoughts for the faith of my birth :D

I'm fairly relaxed about being an atheist, mostly because I'm living in a fairly secular society (Austria), and religion is mostly a private affair people don't ask about, and when they learn you're an atheist people aren't prone to argue (unless there's nothing else to do; most of my face-to-face discussions happened in trains). There are... incompatibilities. For example, when my mum's down turning to God's a source of comfort, so God talk would come naturally to her when sees me feeling down, but that's precicely the moment I have the least tolerance for God talk. I can't or don't want to spare the effort to translate.

A computer metaphor might help: I'm running the OS unLucky-relativist, and it doesn't natively run programs written for DeusVult; all that's available is a shoddily written emulator and it takes up a lot of processing power, and the programs won't run as intended anyway. So when I need to run intensive debugging routines because the OS acts up, also running the emulator could crash the system. But not running the emulator might cause background processes like Interaction to crash...

Hrmm... think I understand what you're saying. I'd say it's possible to, say, switch out not just OS's, but even hardware, and that the hardware morphs along with the OS in a weird (dialectic? no... no! it can't be! :D)

I'd say that the worldviews are likely incommensurable, up front, but that one can eventually develop a way of commensurating. (though, usually, no one is satisfied with such a language)

Reply to Moliere :up:

Again I’m reminded of a scene from a film.

Reply to praxis

Another great flick. (one which I'd even defend to the hoity toitys :D)

Quoting Moliere

How do you get to the belief that the concept of God is nonsense?

It's not a belief. Anything I can't make sense of is nonsense to me. Once I try to understand a concept I sometimes make progress. With God it's a random number of steps in a random direction (I can't even tell where forward is). Since I need a worldview I made mine with placing God into the category of things that other people say but make no sense. I fear I'm old enough now that there's a crust of dust around it. I can't scale back my own worldview far enough to make sense of God and still have enough concepts left to think with. But maybe not. There's always the chance that someone says something, or something happens, that makes me suddenly experience a... shift? Maybe a change in the hardware'll do it? A stroke, maybe?

Reply to Dawnstorm Yes, I think the idea of god/s is/are incoherent too. What do we do with these stories? The literalist accounts (myths) are easily junked, but the sophisticated theology of, say a Paul Tillich is harder to grapple with. Of course not understanding something does not give us carte blanche to deny its existence. There are plenty of things I don't understand which are useful and exist, from quantum mechanics to chemistry. But the god concept is a strange one. I find it hard to see what utility it has other than as a child like comfort in adversity, or as a fuzzy placeholder to explain things we don't fully understand, like abiogenesis or consciousness. I suspect where we land often boils down to people's aesthetic experience of the world. The idea of a transcendent being (magic man) seems right and beautiful to some folks, wrong and ugly to others.

Quoting Moliere

How do you get to the belief that the concept of God is nonsense?

Speaking for myself, I start and then stop at 'what we say about g/G', that is, 'what religious scriptures attribute to (the) deity', and assess them as claims which are either true, false or incoherent. I don't bother with addressing g/G itself. As far as I can discern it, theism – its sine qua non claims about g/G – consists of both false and incoherent claims; and an idea (e.g. theism) of a deity ascribed false or incoherent properties is a nonsensical idea, no? So theism is not true, to my mind, whether or not '(the) deity is real'.

Quoting Tom Storm

I suspect where we land often boils down to people's aesthetic experience of the world. The idea of a transcendent being (magic man) seems right and beautiful to some folks, wrong and ugly to others.

Yet isn't applying "aesthetic" (like epistemological) preferences to answering ontological questions a category mistake to begin with?

Reply to Moliere

Is Richard Dawkins an example of New Atheism?

Quoting Tom Storm

I suspect where we land often boils down to people's aesthetic experience of the world. The idea of a transcendent being (magic man) seems right and beautiful to some folks, wrong and ugly to others.

Sometimes it doesn't. It's not necessarily a problem if you don't believe but like the concept. You can just get something out of your religion of affinity via metaphor or so. (Though if that doesn't work out, you might feel a strong sense of discontent with the way the world is?) But it's gotta suck to dislike the concept but believe it. I expect a common reaction is guilt and slef-doubt? Just guessing, really.

Quoting 180 Proof

Yet isn't applying "aesthetic" (like epistemological) preferences to answering ontological questions a category mistake to begin with?

Yes, I think so. Category mistakes are at the heart of so many fallacious beliefs.

Quoting Dawnstorm

But it's gotta suck to dislike the concept but believe it.

I spoke to an observant Jewish man once who told me he hated god and loved him in equal measures because life was so unfair and tragic. To me this just sounds like living with an abusive partner.

Quoting Tom Storm

I spoke to an observant Jewish man once who told me he hated god and loved him in equal measures because life was so unfair and tragic. To me this just sounds like living with an abusive partner.

Also, isn't obeying "the command to love God" (by God!) akin to consensual rape or willing slavery? Toxic. :mask:

Reply to 180 Proof What can I say, he's a sick motherfucker!

Reply to Tom Storm :pray: :lol:

Reply to frank

Yup.

Though of the sorts that I've been critical of so far, he counts.

Quoting 180 Proof

Speaking for myself, I start and then stop at 'what we say about g/G', that is, 'what religious scriptures attribute to (the) deity', and assess them as claims which are either true, false or incoherent. I don't bother with addressing g/G itself. As far as I can discern it, theism – its sine qua non claims about g/G – consists of both false and incoherent claims; and an idea (e.g. theism) of a deity ascribed false or incoherent properties is a nonsensical idea, no? So theism is not true, to my mind, whether or not '(the) deity is real'.

Thanks for laying this out, because it's giving me a "shard" of thought to start from.

I have an anthropological bent when it comes to understanding God. That people are brought together across cultures in similar-ish looking organizations is what sticks out. And I know that the evaluation of claims aren't the sorts of things that bring people together -- so it's not the particular claims that seem to matter at all. Especially given the diversity of those claims in comparison to how common the general frame seems to be. Claims seem to be secondary, as the sorry state of apologetics will attest to.

So coherency is a lot harder to pin down, with such a notion. Also why I'm bringing up the civic religion as a contrast point -- voting and praying being fairly close to one another. (at this level of abstraction, at least)

Quoting Dawnstorm

It's not a belief. Anything I can't make sense of is nonsense to me.

Cool. I understand.

Once I try to understand a concept I sometimes make progress. With God it's a random number of steps in a random direction (I can't even tell where forward is). Since I need a worldview I made mine with placing God into the category of things that other people say but make no sense. I fear I'm old enough now that there's a crust of dust around it. I can't scale back my own worldview far enough to make sense of God and still have enough concepts left to think with. But maybe not. There's always the chance that someone says something, or something happens, that makes me suddenly experience a... shift? Maybe a change in the hardware'll do it? A stroke, maybe?

God makes sense to me from an anthropological perspective, as I said above -- while the specific claims of the various religions, some of which don't even quite have a God in the Abrahamic sense, are all over the map, there seems to be a general structure or pattern to communities of faith, and from my atheist perspective I really only see humans organizing as such -- and noticeably, from a scientific picture of the world, we didn't start with a scientific worldview (it had to be developed), yet we still survived.

That's the part that always sticks with me. I figure you have to understand truth at some level to survive -- I am a realist of some kind, though I get confused in the discussions there -- but the specific meanings and claims of various religions, while wildly different in that particular sense, seem to have some kind of general coherence that got our species this far (just assuming the scientific picture true)

Quoting Moliere

Cool. I understand.

I've been looking for a word to use that fits better than "belief". The best I could come up with was "impression". The concept could be incoherent in itself (whatever that means - I'm a relativist, so I don't think that's the case). Or I could be missing something. Or it's incompatible with the way I think. Or... something I can't think of.

Quoting Moliere

I figure you have to understand truth at some level to survive -- I am a realist of some kind, though I get confused in the discussions there -- but the specific meanings and claims of various religions, while wildly different in that particular sense, seem to have some kind of general coherence that got our species this far (just assuming the scientific picture true)

I see turth a tool of some sort. Something we make to get a grip on reality. As I said, I'm a relativist.

So, if you stand in the middle of the road, you're likely to get run over by cars. Now, let's say you have some cognitive impairment that doesn't let you conciously perceive cars, and you don't like admitting something's wrong with you. So you develop a worldview without cars. There's a divine taboo to stand in the middle of the road, and you still instinctively detect movement on the road (you're brain just doesn't make them into cars). So you're convinced that cars don't exist, but you still won't stand in the middle of the road, because some sort of divine taboo, and you don't cross a street when cars are about, but you edit out the actual vehicles, and in its place you have some sort of intuition which you interpret as divine guidance. (And this is where this analogy becomes to silly to continue, because how you avoid getting rides is sort of harder to explain; but luckily the point is about not dying in the road here, so it doesn't need to be plausible or coherent, just sort of illustrative - which I hope it is):

Anyway: as long as you don't get run over, it doesn't matter whether it's because of "the truth". "Truth", unlike reality, needs some system of... axioms and transformation rules? Not sure. Something. Truth conditions. And for such a "truth" to be useful, it needs to compatible with reality. How much compatibility you need? Well, reality's the judge of that. So not just anything goes (and that's why the no-car example above is ultimately silly, but to me it feels more like extreme hyperbole than a category mistake).

Of course, "truth" is always social, too, which complicates matters.

I just think some things are so high up the abstraction ladder that the meaning of this is most closely related to the one making the abstraction. And an abstraction can be so habitual, that it's just felt backgound and not accessible to introspection without difficulty. A lot of it can just be random variation that cancels out statistically: some theists survive, some atheists survive - none of it matters from a survival point of view. Is that true? Who knows?

I'm skeptical about anything that sounds like evolutionary psychology. It feels a little too much of a mix between hermeneutics and empirical pea counting to be useful. But then I have sociology degree and that discipline isn't all that different in some of its incarnations.

While I'm rambling about playfully, I might as well share my hermeneutical indeterminacy principle: of a proposition you can either know whether it's true, or what it means, but never both at the same time. There you go. That's the sort of atheist I am.

Quoting Dawnstorm

So, if you stand in the middle of the road, you're likely to get run over by cars. Now, let's say you have some cognitive impairment that doesn't let you conciously perceive cars, and you don't like admitting something's wrong with you. So you develop a worldview without cars. There's a divine taboo to stand in the middle of the road, and you still instinctively detect movement on the road (you're brain just doesn't make them into cars). So you're convinced that cars don't exist, but you still won't stand in the middle of the road, because some sort of divine taboo, and you don't cross a street when cars are about, but you edit out the actual vehicles, and in its place you have some sort of intuition which you interpret as divine guidance. (And this is where this analogy becomes to silly to continue, because how you avoid getting rides is sort of harder to explain; but luckily the point is about not dying in the road here, so it doesn't need to be plausible or coherent, just sort of illustrative - which I hope it is):

Anyway: as long as you don't get run over, it doesn't matter whether it's because of "the truth". "Truth", unlike reality, needs some system of... axioms and transformation rules? Not sure. Something. Truth conditions. And for such a "truth" to be useful, it needs to compatible with reality. How much compatibility you need? Well, reality's the judge of that. So not just anything goes (and that's why the no-car example above is ultimately silly, but to me it feels more like extreme hyperbole than a category mistake).

Of course, "truth" is always social, too, which complicates matters.

I like the example. Makes perfect sense to me.

So one way to parse the example would be to say there are two worlds, which can be represented by the set of objects within that world, and that there is a relationships between the worlds such that it's irrelevant which set we are thinking of when we make choices.

The important thing here is that there is a relation between the objects of each world (given our psychological description above, we could call these "mental worlds" or something along the lines designating how a person is experiencing). It doesn't matter that we have the truth (whatever that is), it only matters that we can relate to the world around us such that we do not die. In fact, I'm inclined to agree that it's irrelevant whether we call it a road or The Devils Deathbed: functionally, the words work the same. (and, yes, we could come up with more plausible versions, but I'm understanding I think so no need)

And so what's interesting to me, up reflection, when we suppose that our current scientific picture is not just true in the same way that The Devils Deathbed is true, but rather is the truth to which we can compare all other sentences to check for a relation to reality (rather than just using the sentence for our ends), then one must conclude that for the majority of our species' time on earth we believed in false things, or maybe relatively true things depending upon how we want to skew this relationship.

Now, you say you are a relativist, so I'd wager you'd not make this commitment. I, for one, am not a scientific realist, so the scenario is there more for explication than to state my belief: hopefully it highlights rather than confuses.

Quoting Dawnstorm

I just think some things are so high up the abstraction ladder that the meaning of this is most closely related to the one making the abstraction. And an abstraction can be so habitual, that it's just felt backgound and not accessible to introspection without difficulty. A lot of it can just be random variation that cancels out statistically: some theists survive, some atheists survive - none of it matters from a survival point of view. Is that true? Who knows?

I'm skeptical about anything that sounds like evolutionary psychology. It feels a little too much of a mix between hermeneutics and empirical pea counting to be useful. But then I have sociology degree and that discipline isn't all that different in some of its incarnations.

I'm thinking less on an individual basis here and more on a cultural basis and its relationship to our biological reality -- they aren't one and the same, and I'm equally suspicious of evolutionary psychology. (evo-psych is also annoying because it makes it more difficult to attempt teasing out the relationship between biology and human social structures)

So true in the above sense, such that there is a relationship between the sets of worlds and reality that the previous cultures from us could navigate their environment. Not the truth. (also, note how I'm looking at truth and knowledge on this social level rather than an individual level. Individual a/theists and their beliefs aren't as important as the success of general social structures)

While I'm rambling about playfully, I might as well share my hermeneutical indeterminacy principle: of a proposition you can either know whether it's true, or what it means, but never both at the same time. There you go. That's the sort of atheist I am.

Hrm! I'd say truth is part of language, and that meaning and truth have a relationship to one another such that we could -- but I suspect this is just a way of using words, and I could adopt your way.

But I couldn't say I understand it up front :)

Quoting Moliere

Individual a/theists and their beliefs aren't as important as the success of general social structures

If you view it like this... I think it's in the nature of atheism to be "less successful" (interpreted as evolutionary success) than theism. I mean, if the theism goes away, so does atheism. What's the point? But theism can go on indefinitely, with or without atheists.

I mean there's stuff like naturalism or nihilism; atheist stuff. And that can go on without theism, too. But none of that would be atheistically tinged, without theism reaching enough social power to disadvantage those worldviews. Atheism depends on theism. It's reactive. It's never going to be more successful than theism. (Though it can be more successful in certain contexts, say Academia.)

But then, also, secular humanists (atheists) have more in common with many theists than with nihilists (also atheists). Atheism has no content without theists; and in the absence of socially powerful theists, the potentially atheistically interpreted world views are likely to quibble amongst each other, drawing different borders in the process. (And it's not like theists all agree, when among themselves.)

Reply to Dawnstorm I think with the dedicated atheists they were sort of evangelists for atheism. So the point would have been a kind of self-elimination, except there was always more to it than that in practice: it had political goals and ends (which is why I didn't pursue further).

More generally, the liberal capitalist state is an atheist organization, at least intentionally speaking. The library, too, is an atheist organization, in the sense that it's not organized around theism.

I think if we took the New Atheists seriously, they'd have liked the liberal capitalist state to be rid of all influence from God or religion in any way for . . . various reasons. "rationality" figured prominently.

So a reflection of what you've set out could be -- that theism would be nothing without atheism, and what the dedicated atheists want is a return to something before their perversions ;)

Quoting Moliere

More generally, the liberal capitalist state is an atheist organization, at least intentionally speaking.

That's... muddying the water even further. I feel obliged to bring up the word "secular" here. And the secular isn't... exactly antithetical to the religious. It's a space where various faiths can meet. The separation of church and state isn't a dividing line between monotheistic religion and atheism, or not only. A secular state can allow various incompatible faiths to live in close proximity without too many problems. I'm no expert, but I think that most of the Christian denominations who see themselves as part of the oecomene would also favour a secular state? (I think a popular goes "Give Caseser what belongs to Caesar..." I wonder who said that?)

This is the problem I have with the use of "atheist" in the sentence I quoted. Theists can be fine with a secular state; not with an atheist one. There's a faultline here somewhere, but it's hard to detect. You never quite know when you've crossed the border.

I know people like to say that "atheism" is just a lack of belief in God (or gods), and for most contexts that's a pretty good line to follow. But we end up with absurdity when we count rocks and shoes as atheists. So is it people who don't believe in God? Poeple who don't believe in God, even though they'd have had the opportonutiy to do so? Again, where do we draw the line?

I mean I think "God" is nonsense; something that doesn't make sense. That's what makes me dismiss theism as of no value to my world view. And that's why I'm an atheist. It's not just non-belief. But it's also definitely not a believe in the negative.

New Atheist may scapegoat religions, but it's any cause really. Gather enough people under a shared cause and you get a small share of radicals, a larger share of well-intentioned people Who Know Best, an a really small share of people who actually do manage to draw strength from their cause and do good. The rest, which I think is the vast majority, just muddle through somehow (kind of like I do without a cause). For what it's worth, I'd consider the New Atheists "Well-intentioned people Who Know Best", for the most part. They're not really radicals from what I hear from them (though there is the occasional tendency maybe). As a muddler-through, they don't really represent me.

Reply to Dawnstorm Fair. And I think New Atheism's decline is pretty well explained by your expression here:

Quoting Dawnstorm

As a muddler-through, they don't really represent me.

For the most part the people in leadership positions who were prominent didn't really represent the group that's there. Where most atheists don't feel the need to evangelize, I think it's fair to say that a goal of New Atheism was to make the, in your terms, the secular state into a strictly atheist state -- so not the sort of state which allows many faiths, as you put it, but rather doesn't allow faith into the state at all.

Which, given the rationalist roots, largely consisted of a sort of a dreamy mental picture of what the Enlightenment was (as defined by the words).

But, as you say, most atheists aren't really like that, so while that anger can sell books, it didn't build anything. Anger can start an organization, but it can't feed it. And the organizations that still survive this day didn't pursue that line of thinking, but rather were more interested in building ethical communities for atheist people -- basically fulfilling the social function of a church without the classical works of faith. (though, IMO, obviously still faith based in a wider sense)

Quoting Moliere

I think it's fair to say that a goal of New Atheism was to make the, in your terms, the secular state into a strictly atheist state

No, not at all. They have two goals: (A) in America, to advocate the deliberate transition of the US into a much more secular state and civil society more like Western Europe (esp. Scandanavia), and other developed nations in East Asia, Australia & New Zealand and (B) to keep ringing the alarm bells about the clear and present danger of theofascistic JCI & Hindu fundamentalisms so that complacency and lack vigilance doesn't return to either developed or developing countries. The faults of "New Atheism" are conspicuous enough that you don't have to caricature it, Moliere.

Reply to 180 Proof I'll attempt to defend my expressions as not-caricature.

"Atheist evangelism", as a goal, was a phrase I heard in public speeches at least. Not shared by the people gathered, necessarily, but certainly advocated for.

Long run, with my pining and wishing, I'd prefer to pursue the (A) and (B) -- from where I sit, though, the ethical secular communities that arose out of all that which fulfill the social functions of church seem to be the most lasting thing?

Or, maybe, I've gone too far astray and haven't realized what's come about.

Quoting Moliere

all that which fulfill the social functions of church seem to be the most lasting thing?

"Lasting things" like sanctifying marital rape? holy wars? homophobia? patriarchy? witch hunts/trials? pogroms?censorship? blasphemy laws? :brow:

Reply to 180 Proof No, just like -- an organization. Something which came out of it all. Networks of people who weren't in communication before now are. Something more substantive than an internet blip.