Evangelical Atheists

[The Personist]

People like this (http://sillyfundies.blogspot.com/) destroy the credibility of those who don't accept religion or believe in God.

As an agnostic, I'm also offended by the entry about different kinds of non-theists just being "closet atheists."

Thoughts?

[Lueda Alia]

I had a similar argument with a friend a while ago. He was basically telling me that being an Agnostic (which is what I am) is as stupid as being "religious" because neither make any sense. It was extremely annoying.

[x togepi x]

they're called neo-atheists. and meh.

[vodyanoj]

Oh, c'mon. How is your credibility destroyed by the simple pointing out that the particular statement on US money violates the separation of church and state and that European nations are slightly ahead of us on at least this curve?

For lueda: before claiming to be an agnostic, you may want to know that agnosticism and atheism, philosophically, do not contradict one another. They are apples and oranges, two different beasts: agnosticism being an epistemological term and atheist, metaphysical. Otherwise, agnosticism is only a function of one';s ignorance and indecision. Are you seriously claiming that you do not lean one way or another on this issue? Are you atheistic with respect to Odin? Or Christ? Or Krsna?

For x togepi x: there is no such thing as neo-atheism. Simply, for just about the first time in history, we can speak out without fear of persecution 9at least, in some parts of the world). So we do. Should we keep our mouths shut about the--let's face it--idiocy--of religious beliefs, especially those of fundamentalist kind?

[Nevuk]

I had a professor like this. It really wasn't that bad, or really even annoying.

[J.C.]

I have encountered far too many atheists who possess the same annoying sense of certainty that always bugged me about religion.

[The Personist]

Oh, c'mon. How is your credibility destroyed by the simple pointing out that the particular statement on US money violates the separation of church and state and that European nations are slightly ahead of us on at least this curve?

For lueda: before claiming to be an agnostic, you may want to know that agnosticism and atheism, philosophically, do not contradict one another. They are apples and oranges, two different beasts: agnosticism being an epistemological term and atheist, metaphysical. Otherwise, agnosticism is only a function of one';s ignorance and indecision. Are you seriously claiming that you do not lean one way or another on this issue? Are you atheistic with respect to Odin? Or Christ? Or Krsna?

For x togepi x: there is no such thing as neo-atheism. Simply, for just about the first time in history, we can speak out without fear of persecution 9at least, in some parts of the world). So we do. Should we keep our mouths shut about the--let's face it--idiocy--of religious beliefs, especially those of fundamentalist kind?

Did you read beyond that? I mean, the money thing is, perhaps, excusable. I mean, it even made me laugh a bit. But the rest of the blog is bigoted against any ilk of religious believer. I'm offended and I'm not even a believer.

If you read the blog, you'll also see that this fool said that agnostics and skeptics and all other ilk of non-theists are really closeted atheists. This is patently false. You yourself just said it.

I don't care if you're open about your beliefs (or lack thereof, though atheism really shouldn't be the name for a group of people who don't believe in anything, which I've seen it used as before), and I don't care if you laugh at how insipid religion can be. The beliefs themselves are silly in a fundamentalist sense, but he isn't making fun of fundamentalists so much as he is all people of faith. This is as bad as fundamentalism, because it alienates people based on their beliefs and discriminates against them. If you think that what this kind of thinking is doing is in some way superior to that of fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, then you've failed to understand that a common thread of arrogance, self-importance, and dogmatism permeates both schools of thought.

[x togepi x]

For x togepi x: there is no such thing as neo-atheism. Simply, for just about the first time in history, we can speak out without fear of persecution 9at least, in some parts of the world). So we do. Should we keep our mouths shut about the--let's face it--idiocy--of religious beliefs, especially those of fundamentalist kind?


false dichotomy, i'd like to introduce you to vodyanoj. vodyajnoj? this is false dichotomy. you guys seem like you'll hit it right off.

but seriously, i can cite articles from both academic and "regular" sources talking about the movement within atheism called neo-atheism. we talked about it in my modern religions class. i am probably less "religious" than you'll ever be but that doesn't mean i'm going to complain about pointless bullshit like "in god we trust" being on our money. it hardly fucking matters, and it's kind of funny since the economy is going to shit.

[vodyanoj]

Interesting that you bring up false dichotomy, since your insistence that talking about constitutional violations somehow detracts from our ability to deal with the economic crisis is a beautiful example of such. Some of us can multitask, you know. Meanwhile, references to "neo-atheism"? Preferably from neutral observers, and not from a crowd of theists running scared? Seriously, the arguments proposed by the so-called "neo-atheists" are not new, so the moniker is somewhat misplaced. The really interesting stuff goes on in Dennett's work, as well as Atran, Boyer, and other working on the evolutionary underpinnings of religious belief. That may be new, but their work is not polemically atheistic either.

You make some unwarranted assumptions about both my religiosity and my level of education. I am a metaphysical naturalist, by the way, and do not hold that position lightly, nor religiously.

[vodyanoj]

ArtfullyAborted: granted, I did not looktoo far in the blog. And, to be honest, I have seen plenty of idiots on the atheistic side of the fence. As Sturgeon had said, reputedly, "95% of everything is crud". In defense of "irate atheism", I must say that one gets tired of explaining basic princples of logic and (in the USA) constitution to theists and quite understandably becomes upset. I've been debating with creationists for 20+ years now, and no longer even bother to try to be nice to them. Why should we, to those that directly lie, ignore logic and science and would gladly legalize all kinds of discrimination towards people like us if they could?

The above applies to fundamentalists, of course, but even "liberal" theists are guilty of massive logical errors. My religious friends and I argue a lot, and even while friendly, our debates are quite barbed. We call each other a number of names and then have a pint together. Sometimes one of us manages to convince others of some minor point, but all in all it's all done in the spirit of futility. Since faith is not supported by any evidence, and must be blind, no evidence contradicting it will ever change anyone's mind.

[vodyanoj]

JC: There are degrees of certainty in everything. Would you be happier if I said that I am 99.99% certain that God does not exist? I am still an atheist: but most of us admit that there is a possibility we could be wrong. Lacking evidence to the contrary, however, we can remain atheists. We are not 100% sure about anything in the Universe; that does not mean that we cannot make provisional statements about it.

[x togepi x]

Interesting that you bring up false dichotomy, since your insistence that talking about constitutional violations somehow detracts from our ability to deal with the economic crisis is a beautiful example of such.

Wow, for someone who claims the authority that an entire media/scholarly acknowledge movement doesn't exist and that we should accept it on face value, it's hilarious that you completely misunderstood my point. Maybe i shouldn't find those links since you lack reading comprehension.

I'll break it down for you. I wasn't saying "if we fight 'in god we trust' on our money that we won't be able to solve the economic problems of our country as if there was some sort of trade off between doing one. I said it was funny that we put our trust in god so much that it's on our money and yet our economy went to shit.

My reasoning for whining about "in god we trust" on our money making atheists look bad is completely independent from the economy or solving problems. It's in the idea that whining about something so asinine doesn't serve any point. It's money. Everyone who's educated knows that this was merely a symbolic way of one upping the Soviet Union. We also admit that there's the concept of "god of philosophers" (also merely called god) which even tons of atheists believe in. "In god we trust" is such a vague statement that it's pointless to whine about it.

Meanwhile, references to "neo-atheism"? Preferably from neutral observers, and not from a crowd of theists running scared?

Well, considering that many athiests and other nonbelievers use the term, I'd say it's fairly neutral. it doesn't really have a value judgment involved in it. It's just a type of atheist. I have friends who buy into that line of thinking who use it to describe themselves. Surely they're not threatened christians!

Seriously, the arguments proposed by the so-called "neo-atheists" are not new, so the moniker is somewhat misplaced. The really interesting stuff goes on in Dennett's work, as well as Atran, Boyer, and other working on the evolutionary underpinnings of religious belief. That may be new, but their work is not polemically atheistic either.

There is a line of thinking implicit in all of their works that is attacking the dominant religious movements. This is different than other kinds of atheists who are more apathetic/treat religion differently. The "neo" part of the term comes, not from how new their ideas supposdly are, but rather from the fact that a contingent of atheists speaking out in such a public manner is fairly new.

You make some unwarranted assumptions about both my religiosity and my level of education. I am a metaphysical naturalist, by the way, and do not hold that position lightly, nor religiously.

meh i am still going to claim you're more religious than I.

[perceptrons]

I think it's dumb that people like to use words like "evangelical" etc, to describe fervent atheists.

Anyway, yes, they are over the top, and they give the atheist movement a bit of a black eye. However, they serve their purpose; every movement has their attack dogs.

[The Personist]

I think it's dumb that people like to use words like "evangelical" etc, to describe fervent atheists.

Anyway, yes, they are over the top, and they give the atheist movement a bit of a black eye. However, they serve their purpose; every movement has their attack dogs.

The term "evangelical" is perfectly acceptable in this context, and is being used completely correctly.

[perceptrons]

I know it's acceptable, but it's always used to conjure up the image that these atheists are like fundamental christians in their beliefs, and they aren't the same.

[The Personist]

The dogmatic means through which they express them is. That's what the "evangelical" part is, both in referring to Christians and to atheists.

[x togepi x]

Evangelical is still a poor word to use because it only describes a small subset of dogmatic christians.

That's why Neo-atheist is the correct one. But that's just semantics.

[The Personist]

I never said the term "neo-atheist" wasn't appropriate. You could say that neo-atheists were being evangelical. It's a perfectly reasonable statement.

[vodyanoj]

Well, considering that many athiests and other nonbelievers use the term, I'd say it's fairly neutral. it doesn't really have a value judgment involved in it. It's just a type of atheist. I have friends who buy into that line of thinking who use it to describe themselves. Surely they're not threatened christians!


meh i am still going to claim you're more religious than I.

Meh, you can claim whatevr you want, and I will laugh whenever I want. I am sure that you can twist the definition of religion to include me in it somehow, but logic-bending and unsupported claims and assumptions aren't goint to get you very far...

Meanwhile, on "neo-atheism": I read several screeds a week that use the term in a pejorative sense. What's more, none of the so-called "leaders" of this movement accept this moniker. I see that you are trying to attach it to those atheists who are politically/socially active, but there have always been a few of them. The fact that today they have a much higher public profile is simply a sign of the times. Fundamentalist religions are doomed; my only worry now is that they do not drag the rest of us into oblivion with them.

[vodyanoj]

Evangelical is still a poor word to use because it only describes a small subset of dogmatic christians.

Evangelical is far from a "small subset". In some ways, all Christians can be considered evangelical, since Xianity itself is an "evangelical" religion, unlike Islam or Judaism. In a narrower sense, it would still include the majority of Protestant denominations in this country. Whether they actively evangelize or not is a different question.

[vodyanoj]

I never said the term "neo-atheist" wasn't appropriate. You could say that neo-atheists were being evangelical. It's a perfectly reasonable statement.

I would just call some of the "neo-atheists" stupid. There are idiots on both sides of the divide, although the proportions appear to be somewhat different. Atheist idiots do not get the level of exposure that religious ones do. Consider, for a moment people like Ray Comfort and Ben Stein and compare them to, say, Victor Stenger and Dan Dennett.

[The Personist]

Evangelical is far from a "small subset". In some ways, all Christians can be considered evangelical, since Xianity itself is an "evangelical" religion, unlike Islam or Judaism. In a narrower sense, it would still include the majority of Protestant denominations in this country. Whether they actively evangelize or not is a different question.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evangelical

Definition 5. Doesn't just apply to Christians.

[vodyanoj]

Definition 5. Doesn't just apply to Christians.

Heh-heh. Never said it did. There are other religions (and ideologies) that resort to evangelism. However, the word has specifically religious etymology (FYI, in Russian, the word for the New Testament is "евангелие" (yevangeliye)), and it certainly has religious connotations. All connotations aside, tho, it is incorrect to call atheism "evangelical" since none of the atheists are out to convert anyone. Convert into what, anyway? Atheism, by itself, is simply a lack of belief in God; it is not necessarily a strict disbelief (a positive belief in the non-existence of God), although it can be such. So, at best, an atheist would call for a skeptical analysis of one's beliefs. And if an atheist happens to be "evangelical" in your sense, we have a better word for such: an idiot. :)

[x togepi x]

Meh, you can claim whatevr you want, and I will laugh whenever I want. I am sure that you can twist the definition of religion to include me in it somehow, but logic-bending and unsupported claims and assumptions aren't goint to get you very far...

You obviously haven't read anything on religion aside from intellectual masturbation coming from atheists since there are insanely many religious perspectives/definitions of religion. I am sure your understanding of the world fits into one of them.

I mean, what is your problem with Christianity? Is it because it's irrational?

Meanwhile, on "neo-atheism": I read several screeds a week that use the term in a pejorative sense.

of course they do, most people are "religious," but that doesn't mean that there's a specific movement of like minded thinkers that can be lumped together under some name. Don't like neo-atheism as a name? Fine, but that doesn't mean "neo-atheism" doesn't exist, like you claim. There is a huge distinction between that and other forms of atheism.

What's more, none of the so-called "leaders" of this movement accept this moniker.

this doesn't mean anything. i thought christopher hitchens was okay with the term, but i guess i was wrong. regardless, people doing work on religion have dubbed them this, it's a term that's commonly used to describe their movement so it's irrelevant if they dislike the moniker or don't use it to describe themselves.

I see that you are trying to attach it to those atheists who are politically/socially active, but there have always been a few of them.

1) No, there have always been politically/socialy active athiests, but they all didn't hold the position that religion was wrong AND bad for society, like neo-athiests do. You need to draw a distinction between them and other forms of atheism. I do not share the hard on for science and the enlightenment that Hitchens has. My atheism is not the same as his.

Earlier public atheists tended to focus on their right to be "nonreligious" without punishment. It was a freedom of religion issue. The atheists we're talking about, however, have specific political/social goals which involve changing Religion as a whole. Totally not the same.

Your claims here is one big reason why I say you're more religious than me. You're more than willing to paint all atheists with a broad stroke, as if we're all the same. This line of thinking tends to lend itself to wide arching narratives in other areas, which is religious.

The fact that today they have a much higher public profile is simply a sign of the times.

You're right! A sign that they have a movement, called neo-atheism, in our times.

Fundamentalist religions are doomed; my only worry now is that they do not drag the rest of us into oblivion with them.

People been saying this since Nietszche and Marx. I really doubt it's going anywhere.

[vodyanoj]

You obviously haven't read anything on religion aside from intellectual masturbation coming from atheists since there are insanely many religious perspectives/definitions of religion. I am sure your understanding of the world fits into one of them.

Um, obviously incorrect. I can (based on your later statements) make the same claim about your understanding of religion and science, but I won't...not yet...;) However: the "insanely many" definitions are treated by Boyer, among others, quite interestingly (in fact, most of the world's religions are ontologically vague and share very few fundamental principles, except for some form of a non-skeptical acceptance of certain metaphysical claims which vary between different denominations). And I have no sympathy for Kierkeraardian or Thomistic view, to name just a few.

I mean, what is your problem with Christianity? Is it because it's irrational?

I would say that my problem is the same as with any non-empirical description of reality: I'd go with Popper for a bit and claim that anything unfalsifiable is mostly useless and potentially harmful (but only for a bit! things are quite more complex than that).

of course they do, most people are "religious," but that doesn't mean that there's a specific movement of like minded thinkers that can be lumped together under some name. Don't like neo-atheism as a name? Fine, but that doesn't mean "neo-atheism" doesn't exist, like you claim. There is a huge distinction between that and other forms of atheism.

You are the one expanding the definition of religion, apparently, to include any belief system whatsoever. Sure, that is your call, but as usual in philosophy it helps to have specific definitions for the phenomena observed; too broad a definition is useless.

this doesn't mean anything. i thought christopher hitchens was okay with the term, but i guess i was wrong. regardless, people doing work on religion have dubbed them this, it's a term that's commonly used to describe their movement so it's irrelevant if they dislike the moniker or don't use it to describe themselves.

True that, but just because Hitchens is an an atheist (to use an elementary example) does not mean that I agree with him on everything else.

1) No, there have always been politically/socialy active athiests, but they all didn't hold the position that religion was wrong AND bad for society, like neo-athiests do. You need to draw a distinction between them and other forms of atheism. I do not share the hard on for science and the enlightenment that Hitchens has. My atheism is not the same as his.

And your experience of science is what? Not to say that Hitchens' credentials are any better, necessarily, but as a pragmatist I would claim that there is nothing even close to science in terms of providing reliable data about the universe we live in. And, of course, religion (as defined by most philosophers) is the opposite of critical thought (which, BTW, is an important component of Enlightenment, and one I have no disagreement with in any sense). As such, it IS "wrong and bad for society". At the same time, as a pluralist, I recognize that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to. It's when they try to pass their subjective beliefs into law that I start having problems.

Earlier public atheists tended to focus on their right to be "nonreligious" without punishment. It was a freedom of religion issue. The atheists we're talking about, however, have specific political/social goals which involve changing Religion as a whole. Totally not the same.

Actually, they don't. That is a gross misinterpretation fo pretty much anything people like Dennett, Stenger or Dawkins are saying. Harris and Hitchens, I have my own problems with (even though I agree with much of their analysis, I do not share their conclusions).

Your claims here is one big reason why I say you're more religious than me. You're more than willing to paint all atheists with a broad stroke, as if we're all the same. This line of thinking tends to lend itself to wide arching narratives in other areas, which is religious.

And here I thought that saying that all atheists share is the lack of belief in a deity of some sort was the opposite of broad stroke. Silly me. And, forgive me, there is no equivalence between "wide-arching narratives" (of which scientific realism and metaphysical naturalism are only two) and "religion", outside of the broadest and largely meaningless definition of the word

You're right! A sign that they have a movement, called neo-atheism, in our times.

Give me at least several points--a political platform, if you will--on which Dennett, Stenger, Myers, Dawkins, Martin, McKie, Nielsen and Hitchens agree on, besides the general disdain for muddy and illogical thinking and rejection of a deity as an explanans for anything.

People been saying this since Nietszche and Marx. I really doubt it's going anywhere.

Oh, do reread your Marx. Much as I dislike his metaphysics, his primary beef with religion was political and hence irrelevant to this conversation. In any case, the experience of Northern Europe over the last 30 years disconfirms your claim. People may indeed have a predilection for belief despite evidence to the contrary, but as independent (t a degree) agents, we can at least attempt to overcome such biases.

[x togepi x]

Um, obviously incorrect. I can (based on your later statements) make the same claim about your understanding of religion and science, but I won't...not yet...;) However: the "insanely many" definitions are treated by Boyer, among others, quite interestingly (in fact, most of the world's religions are ontologically vague and share very few fundamental principles, except for some form of a non-skeptical acceptance of certain metaphysical claims which vary between different denominations). And I have no sympathy for Kierkeraardian or Thomistic view, to name just a few.

I like how irrelevant all of this is, as my contention here is that I was fairly certain that you fit your worldview into the same sort of metanarrative based around science, which is functionally a religion (the metanarrative itself, not science).

I would say that my problem is the same as with any non-empirical description of reality: I'd go with Popper for a bit and claim that anything unfalsifiable is mostly useless and potentially harmful (but only for a bit! things are quite more complex than that).

and here we go! the first steps of science being a metanarrative. I'll remember how useless religion was when I think about the Civil Rights movement.


You are the one expanding the definition of religion, apparently, to include any belief system whatsoever. Sure, that is your call, but as usual in philosophy it helps to have specific definitions for the phenomena observed; too broad a definition is useless.

I'm not really "expanding" the definition of religion as much as I'm acknowledging that there are a ton of perspectives on religion that are different than my own and your own personal definitions of it. We have barely talked about your "religious outlook" enough to know if you fit under my definition or not, though I am getting more and more sure you do.

but your response here isn't a response at all. You missed the entire point. I was saying that just because you can find flaws in the word "neo-atheist" doesn't mean that there's not a movement of people that fit under that category.

True that, but just because Hitchens is an an atheist (to use an elementary example) does not mean that I agree with him on everything else.

this is why his movement is considered a movement. they are like minded in specific issues in a sense that is distinct from other kinds of nonbelievers.

And your experience of science is what? Not to say that Hitchens' credentials are any better, necessarily, but as a pragmatist I would claim that there is nothing even close to science in terms of providing reliable data about the universe we live in.

having studied the philosophy of science, especially the work of Kuhn, I am ready to acknowledge that while science is a great tool, and very explanatory of a great deal of things, it doesn't explain everything, nor can it. It still doesn't answer questions like: what is the meaning of life?, why are here?, etc.

I'm just saying that scientific explanations or other explanations relying on the same methodology cannot and will not explain all of human existence, and so an approach like Hitchens saying we should champion that approach is flawed. It would be more beneifical to let science and other perspectives be on an equal playing field so that we can learn the lessons from both (don't be an idiot and think this means i'm for intelligent design or any of that psuedoscientific bullshit).

And, of course, religion (as defined by most philosophers) is the opposite of critical thought (which, BTW, is an important component of Enlightenment, and one I have no disagreement with in any sense).

First off, your claim (which is not one that "most philosophers" would buy) is completely ignoring all of the post-Enligtenment religious thinkers/philosophers. There has been a big movement in religion, time and time again, to incorporate the lessons of the Enligthenment into religious thought. That's why you see large strands of religious thinkers who don't take the bible literally or Muslim feminists.

But secondly, the Enligthenment is still based on flawed assumptions, much like any of the world religions were, so to thrust it above everything else is ridiculous. It did a lot of amazing things for society (an obvious undestatement, to be sure), but this idea that Reason is tantamount and that we can be purely objective is just as wrong as God being a benevolent dude who made everything.


Actually, they don't. That is a gross misinterpretation fo pretty much anything people like Dennett, Stenger or Dawkins are saying. Harris and Hitchens, I have my own problems with (even though I agree with much of their analysis, I do not share their conclusions).

I realize that there are differences in conclusion, like Sam Harris thinking that Eastern Religions are the way to go while Hitchens saying that Eastern Religions are just as bad as Western ones, but the general positions they take about Christianity, for example, seem to be the same perspective, one born out of a distate for religion rather than an apathy towards it.

And here I thought that saying that all atheists share is the lack of belief in a deity of some sort was the opposite of broad stroke. Silly me. And, forgive me, there is no equivalence between "wide-arching narratives" (of which scientific realism and metaphysical naturalism are only two) and "religion", outside of the broadest and largely meaningless definition of the word

Again, you miss the point. Your definition of atheist in this quote is merely a definition. It's not painting with a broad stroke. You're painting with a broad stroke when you say that we shouldn't be drawing distinctions between types of atheist like the neo-atheists or whatever they should be called and other atheists.

Give me at least several points--a political platform, if you will--on which Dennett, Stenger, Myers, Dawkins, Martin, McKie, Nielsen and Hitchens agree on, besides the general disdain for muddy and illogical thinking and rejection of a deity as an explanans for anything.

the disdain for illogical thinking and rejection of a diety as an explanans for anything, plus their will to persuade people to take such a view through the publication of said books (all around the same time) as well as their public debates with religious thinkers during the same period represents a movement. One need not share political positions to be considered part of a movement, as I was talking about movement in the religious sense, not political one.

example: there were tons of people in the American Protestant movement in the 1800s. Some of them were socialists, some of them were isanely conservative. They share no political goals but fit within the religious movement.

Oh, do reread your Marx. Much as I dislike his metaphysics, his primary beef with religion was political and hence irrelevant to this conversation.

Oh, do reread my post. I made no claims on his statements on religion. I just said people have been saying it's on its last legs since Marx, Nietszche and etc.

In any case, the experience of Northern Europe over the last 30 years disconfirms your claim. People may indeed have a predilection for belief despite evidence to the contrary, but as independent (t a degree) agents, we can at least attempt to overcome such biases.

Oh, I wasn't aware that Northen Europe is a good predictor of everywhere else in the entire world.

[perceptrons]

and here we go! the first steps of science being a metanarrative. I'll remember how useless religion was when I think about the Civil Rights movement.

Not to ruin the quote parade, but, I don't think most claim religion has done no good at all at any point in history. Just that religion isn't and wasn't needed to accomplish the task, and that there are better ways to accomplish such tasks.

[x togepi x]

Not to ruin the quote parade, but, I don't think most claim religion has done no good at all at any point in history. Just that religion isn't and wasn't needed to accomplish the task, and that there are better ways to accomplish such tasks.

Hitchens claims it hasn't. But i was going more on what the poster i was arguing with said than what they said themselves.

[vodyanoj]

I like how irrelevant all of this is, as my contention here is that I was fairly certain that you fit your worldview into the same sort of metanarrative based around science, which is functionally a religion (the metanarrative itself, not science).

And here we go: an attempt to expand the definition of religion again. If you claim that any "'metanarrative" is a religion, then every cluster of beliefs--examined or not, stable or grounded in reality or not--is a religion and the term loses any functional meaning. So I reject your definition as useless.


and here we go! the first steps of science being a metanarrative. I'll remember how useless religion was when I think about the Civil Rights movement.

Please do, since for each religious person that defended the idea of civil rights, I can point out several that were completely opposed to them based on their religious convictions. if a belief allows one to reach any conclusion whatsoever, it is useless.

I'm not really "expanding" the definition of religion as much as I'm acknowledging that there are a ton of perspectives on religion that are different than my own and your own personal definitions of it. We have barely talked about your "religious outlook" enough to know if you fit under my definition or not, though I am getting more and more sure you do.

And you may fit under my definition of a stale ham-and-cheese sandwich. A definition peculiar to one narrow school of philosophy is irrelevant. I do not buy a structuralist definition of science either.

this is why his movement is considered a movement. they are like minded in specific issues in a sense that is distinct from other kinds of nonbelievers.

Again, what do the people i have mentioned in the previous post all have in common besides their disbelief in God?

having studied the philosophy of science, especially the work of Kuhn, I am ready to acknowledge that while science is a great tool, and very explanatory of a great deal of things, it doesn't explain everything, nor can it. It still doesn't answer questions like: what is the meaning of life?, why are here?, etc.

Having an undergraduate degree in philosophy (specifically that of science and particularly biology, my second B.), I have to point out several things: 1.with all respect for Kuhn, his case is highly overstated and unsupported by the specific scientific revolutions (i.e., an almost immediate acceptance of the theory of relativity); and 2.the meaninglessness of the last two questions. Before you ask "what is the meaning of life?", you must first establish that there is such a thing, independent of a given observer. Otherwise you won't get very far, with a logical fallacy buried in your question. (Notice that I do not claim that life is meaningless, only that all "meanings" re subjective).

I'm just saying that scientific explanations or other explanations relying on the same methodology cannot and will not explain all of human existence, and so an approach like Hitchens saying we should champion that approach is flawed. It would be more beneifical to let science and other perspectives be on an equal playing field so that we can learn the lessons from both (don't be an idiot and think this means i'm for intelligent design or any of that psuedoscientific bullshit).

Well, at least your last statement gives me hope..;) While I do not disagree in principle, it would help if you provided examples of "other perspectives" and showed in what way they are valid and capable of generating reliable knowledge. (And before quoting Feyerabend: I love his work and disagree with him on many many things).

First off, your claim (which is not one that "most philosophers" would buy) is completely ignoring all of the post-Enligtenment religious thinkers/philosophers. There has been a big movement in religion, time and time again, to incorporate the lessons of the Enligthenment into religious thought. That's why you see large strands of religious thinkers who don't take the bible literally or Muslim feminists.

Yes, do tell me about Muslim feminists. I am aware that there are some: I still claim that it requires a massive compartmentalization to hold such a view. I am not ignoring post-Enilightenment religious thinkers; i am well familiar with the tradition to Barth and even--gasp!--Plantinga. I happen to think that their arguments are bullshit, but that is an entirely different thread.


But secondly, the Enligthenment is still based on flawed assumptions, much like any of the world religions were, so to thrust it above everything else is ridiculous. It did a lot of amazing things for society (an obvious undestatement, to be sure), but this idea that Reason is tantamount and that we can be purely objective is just as wrong as God being a benevolent dude who made everything.

Indeed, but the fact that the direct experience of reality may forever be out of reach for creatures that experience the world via their obviously imperfect senses does nothing to undermine the concept of scietific realism. What's more, just because reason may not be perfect (agreed!) does not imply that anything else comes even close. Again, you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or, at the very least, failing to demonstrate an alternative source of soap.


I realize that there are differences in conclusion, like Sam Harris thinking that Eastern Religions are the way to go while Hitchens saying that Eastern Religions are just as bad as Western ones, but the general positions they take about Christianity, for example, seem to be the same perspective, one born out of a distate for religion rather than an apathy towards it.[/quotte]

Ah, and if every theist in the world was of your liberal variety, we would not have had a problem in the first place. Unfortunately, many of them, both in the West and the Moslem and Hinduist worlds, aren't. I see the rise in vocal opposition to religion over the last few years to be, in some ways, a reaction to the growth in the strength of fundamentalists in certain parts of the planet. And that growth itself is a reaction: a death's rattle, if you will.


[quote=x togepi x;38624182]Again, you miss the point. Your definition of atheist in this quote is merely a definition. It's not painting with a broad stroke. You're painting with a broad stroke when you say that we shouldn't be drawing distinctions between types of atheist like the neo-atheists or whatever they should be called and other atheists.

Grouping atheists is like herding cats, considering that many of them are also quite anarchic. I prefer to group ideas in the simple categories of intelligent and agreeable, intelligent and disagreeable and stupid (disagreeable naturally...;)). There are plenty of atheists that fall in the "stupid" category, but, as I have mentioned earlier, they are generally not representative and/or prominent, unlike the spokesmen for the fundamentalist movements. Compare Dawkins and Comfort, for example.


the disdain for illogical thinking and rejection of a diety as an explanans for anything, plus their will to persuade people to take such a view through the publication of said books (all around the same time) as well as their public debates with religious thinkers during the same period represents a movement. One need not share political positions to be considered part of a movement, as I was talking about movement in the religious sense, not political one.

The problem with that definition (and I may even agree with it, to the extent) is its adhocratic nature. Sure , at some given moment in time you may claim: see they are doing this together, so that is a movement! The difference between that and a "real" movement is that of organization and structure, which "neo-atheism" obviously lacks.

What's more, there have always been atheists willing to "persuade people". In fact, any philosopher of note, whether atheistic or not, has had such a will. My belief that I am fundamentally correct and my willingness to expose such a belief to public discussion and criticism is not a new discovery and does not constitute a movement in any but the most general sense.


example: there were tons of people in the American Protestant movement in the 1800s. Some of them were socialists, some of them were isanely conservative. They share no political goals but fit within the religious movement.

OK, but in this case a movement is defined quite narrowly. Does it even make sense?Since the methods and goals of liberal and conservative theists would have been quite different, I really se no point in lumping them together (yes, I am a splitter rather than lumper). To be somewhat silly, on Sunday, am I a part of the movement for the cleanliness of one's clothes just because I happen to be at a laundromat with several other people?

Oh, do reread my post. I made no claims on his statements on religion. I just said people have been saying it's on its last legs since Marx, Nietszche and etc.

Oh, I wasn't aware that Northen Europe is a good predictor of everywhere else in the entire world.

Marx never claimed that religion was on its last legs, only identified it as an enemy of (his particular version of) social progress. Nietszche famously claimed that god was dead, but did not speak out agaisnt religion itself, and in fact, appeared to be as much anti-reason as the next manic street preacher.;)

And Northern Europe, as an affluent, post-national, post-religious grouping of people, had better be a predictor, if we are to have any hope of surviving the next 100 years...

Seriously though, religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated to the insecurities of life, which themselves are strongly correlated to education and stabllity and equitability of social structures. Hence, Scandinavia may be a picture of what is possible to achieve, if not necessarily of what will actually be achieved. But a goal worth striving towards, nevertheless.

[vodyanoj]

Not to ruin the quote parade, but, I don't think most claim religion has done no good at all at any point in history. Just that religion isn't and wasn't needed to accomplish the task, and that there are better ways to accomplish such tasks.

In which case we cannot make a claim that it was religion that is responsible for the good, but individual people some of whom happened to be religious. Conversely, however, things are much less clear, since many religious texts specifically require doing what we would consider to be wrong now as necessary requirements for belonging to that religion.

[perceptrons]

Hitchens claims it hasn't. But i was going more on what the poster i was arguing with said than what they said themselves.
Link? or a paraphrasing?

I would like to see the context in which he said it. I've watched and read a lot of Hitchens' stuff, and what he says isn't usually so black and white.

[x togepi x]

Link? or a paraphrasing?

I would like to see the context in which he said it. I've watched and read a lot of Hitchens' stuff, and what he says isn't usually so black and white.

Paraphrasing from his book God is not Great. Any good effects from religious thinkers in that book are attributed to their "humanism" instead of their religious acts.

[x togepi x]

And here we go: an attempt to expand the definition of religion again. If you claim that any "'metanarrative" is a religion, then every cluster of beliefs--examined or not, stable or grounded in reality or not--is a religion and the term loses any functional meaning. So I reject your definition as useless.

you're wrong because not every perspective is a metanarrative. i only make these claims because of your prophetic views that "religion is on its deathbed." but you're just trying to change the subject.

my first claim was that there are a ton of definitions of religion. You accuse me of "expanding" the definition which is flawed in many ways. one being a mere acknowledgment that there are a ton of perspectives in a concept such as widespread throughout history as religion is not at all the same as an expansion. secondly you're accusing me of expanding THE definition of religion as if there's some essentialist notion of Religion, which i'm not ever going to buy.

I might have been too strong in my claim that you're "more religious than I am" but I am not going to back off the claim that you are religious as statements as your opinion that religion is going to die out plus your essentialist definitions of certain concepts in this discussion lead me to go down that road.

Please do, since for each religious person that defended the idea of civil rights, I can point out several that were completely opposed to them based on their religious convictions. if a belief allows one to reach any conclusion whatsoever, it is useless.

first off, i would contend that the dominant religious movements of the late 1800s-early 1900s helped create a culture in which the civil rights movement was possible. much of the wars waged for equal rights were done by insanely religious thinkers like MLK.

Secondly, I'll admit that yeah there are tons of people who used religion to justify oppression. MLK was considered a secularlist by some southern christians. This flows right into my assertion that we cannot essentialize religion in that sense.

but third, your last line is completely ridiculous. on a subjective level, religion can be a driving force for social change. i know quite a few people who were driven to volunteer work because they were christian. I'd say that is, on a personal level, quite useful. Sure if we're talking about objectively in a definitional sense, your claim is true, but that wasn't where i was arguing from.

And you may fit under my definition of a stale ham-and-cheese sandwich. A definition peculiar to one narrow school of philosophy is irrelevant. I do not buy a structuralist definition of science either.

whether you buy a definition or not is irrelevant if you can fit under it. there's tons of perspectives on religion, you fit under one most likely.

Again, what do the people i have mentioned in the previous post all have in common besides their disbelief in God?

their contention that there is something wrong with religion.

Having an undergraduate degree in philosophy (specifically that of science and particularly biology, my second B.), I have to point out several things: 1.with all respect for Kuhn, his case is highly overstated and unsupported by the specific scientific revolutions (i.e., an almost immediate acceptance of the theory of relativity);

meh, i think the acceptance of the theory of relativity is merely an exception of the rule, but whether Kuhn's theory really holds weight is kind of irrelevant to the discussion because of what i'm going to say to your next point

and 2.the meaninglessness of the last two questions. Before you ask "what is the meaning of life?", you must first establish that there is such a thing, independent of a given observer. Otherwise you won't get very far, with a logical fallacy buried in your question. (Notice that I do not claim that life is meaningless, only that all "meanings" re subjective).

What's interesting about your line of thinking here is that it's decidedly unscientific. It comes from a perspective outside of science. This was my entire point in asking those questions. There are obvious perspectives/ways of understanding the world that do not fit in the scientific mode of thinking as well as the Reason of the Enligtenment. Art, for example, allows us to understand ourselves/the world in certain dimensions that science/Reason never touch. Religion is another way of understanding the world in a different way that science. Properly stated, they don't conflict, they are just different modes of understanding. As some people feel the need for this religious mode, it serves a purpose.

Well, at least your last statement gives me hope..;) While I do not disagree in principle, it would help if you provided examples of "other perspectives" and showed in what way they are valid and capable of generating reliable knowledge. (And before quoting Feyerabend: I love his work and disagree with him on many many things).

Yes, do tell me about Muslim feminists. I am aware that there are some: I still claim that it requires a massive compartmentalization to hold such a view. I am not ignoring post-Enilightenment religious thinkers; i am well familiar with the tradition to Barth and even--gasp!--Plantinga. I happen to think that their arguments are bullshit, but that is an entirely different thread.

I wasn't talking about Barth. I was referring to Tillich's idea of ultimate concern or Caputo's weak theology. Tillich's ultimate concern explains faith in a way that doesn't necessarily conflict with science, history and philosophy, but also attempts to explain how pretty much every position one could take has some sort of faith based qualities.


Indeed, but the fact that the direct experience of reality may forever be out of reach for creatures that experience the world via their obviously imperfect senses does nothing to undermine the concept of scietific realism. What's more, just because reason may not be perfect (agreed!) does not imply that anything else comes even close. Again, you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or, at the very least, failing to demonstrate an alternative source of soap.

Not at all. I'm saying that we should not be deferring to Reason/Science in a slavish manner by acknowledging that there are other perspectives that have something to offer. They just offer us different things. I don't think it's a competition between Reason/Science and religion/art/whatever. We should be trying to learn as much as we can from as many perspectives as possible if we're truly lovers of knowledge.


Ah, and if every theist in the world was of your liberal variety, we would not have had a problem in the first place. Unfortunately, many of them, both in the West and the Moslem and Hinduist worlds, aren't. I see the rise in vocal opposition to religion over the last few years to be, in some ways, a reaction to the growth in the strength of fundamentalists in certain parts of the planet. And that growth itself is a reaction: a death's rattle, if you will.

but not everyone's response is anti-religious. in fact, fundamentalism is causing debate within these religious communities, forcing the religious perspectives to evolve with the changes in history. I don't think religion is something that's static enough to be able to make such strong claims like you are.

Grouping atheists is like herding cats, considering that many of them are also quite anarchic. I prefer to group ideas in the simple categories of intelligent and agreeable, intelligent and disagreeable and stupid (disagreeable naturally...;)). There are plenty of atheists that fall in the "stupid" category, but, as I have mentioned earlier, they are generally not representative and/or prominent, unlike the spokesmen for the fundamentalist movements. Compare Dawkins and Comfort, for example.

I think their disregard for the usefulness of religious perspectives is fundamentalist in a sense. I don't think it has the same social import of a religious fundamentalist, which is why my first post here was to say "they're called neo-atheist" because I think distinctions need to be drawn between Fundamentalist and the kind of fundamentalists they are.

The problem with that definition (and I may even agree with it, to the extent) is its adhocratic nature. Sure , at some given moment in time you may claim: see they are doing this together, so that is a movement! The difference between that and a "real" movement is that of organization and structure, which "neo-atheism" obviously lacks.

of course it's ad hoc, this is a recent phenemonon in the philosophy of religion. I'm claiming that the ideas within these thinkers are aligned in such a way that it is considered a movement of ideas, not a real social movement with organization and structure. Replace movement with "school of thought" if you want to be more precise.

What's more, there have always been atheists willing to "persuade people". In fact, any philosopher of note, whether atheistic or not, has had such a will. My belief that I am fundamentally correct and my willingness to expose such a belief to public discussion and criticism is not a new discovery and does not constitute a movement in any but the most general sense.

my position here is based on the fact that unlike past atheists, these thinkers are on the forefront of attacking religion as a whole. They aren't merely claiming religion is wrong but that it's also bad in certain senses. That's where the new movement/school of thought comes in.


OK, but in this case a movement is defined quite narrowly. Does it even make sense?Since the methods and goals of liberal and conservative theists would have been quite different, I really se no point in lumping them together (yes, I am a splitter rather than lumper). To be somewhat silly, on Sunday, am I a part of the movement for the cleanliness of one's clothes just because I happen to be at a laundromat with several other people?

I would contend the reason why you can split conservative and liberal theists apart in your example is because their movement had more time to blossom and split apart. I think such a split could, and will occur in the neo-atheist movement. One such a split could be between people siding with Harris and people siding with Hitchens. The problem is this school of thought is fairly new.

Marx never claimed that religion was on its last legs, only identified it as an enemy of (his particular version of) social progress. Nietszche famously claimed that god was dead, but did not speak out agaisnt religion itself, and in fact, appeared to be as much anti-reason as the next manic street preacher.;)

Marx didn't claim that, other people claimed it after him based on his political views on religion. Nietszche is a little harder to read, i always interpreted the idea of the Ubermensch to be above religion. Either way people have been calling for the death of religion for a long time and we still haven't seen it. that doesn't prove anything either way, i just think the claim that religion is dying out now is too strong.

And Northern Europe, as an affluent, post-national, post-religious grouping of people, had better be a predictor, if we are to have any hope of surviving the next 100 years...

and this is where i bring up the is-ought gap. The entire world obviously isn't affluent, post-national and post religious.

Seriously though, religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated to the insecurities of life, which themselves are strongly correlated to education and stabllity and equitability of social structures. Hence, Scandinavia may be a picture of what is possible to achieve, if not necessarily of what will actually be achieved. But a goal worth striving towards, nevertheless.

I understand that, but I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to claim that every culture in the world is going to fall into this model,especially when we look at things like the North-South economic divide.

[vodyanoj]

I understand that, but I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to claim that every culture in the world is going to fall into this model,especially when we look at things like the North-South economic divide.

Too much to respond to! I'll be quick, then, since, fundamentally, we do not seem to disagree on too many things.

But: regarding different modalities: again, you are assuming that there are parts of the universe inherently inaccessible to scientific method, so begging the question of whether science in itself is sufficient to describe the Universe. I am still waiting for examples, and such examples cannot be appeals to ignorance.

The non-overlapping magisteria is a fine thought, but has little to do with reality, since most religions make specific empirical claims about the universe and come into conflict with science in that way. Conversely, however, science has a lot to say about the domains traditionally considered to be within religious magisterium, such as ethics. Now scientific claims about ethics--let's say, grounded in evolutionary theory--are not necessarily normative, but only descriptive. That is sufficient, most of the time. In fact, I'll make a strong claim that we do not *need* religion to derive most of our social/political/ethical norms. (purely secular philosophy does the job). What purpose does it serve then?

Again, as a pluralist (which neither Harris nor Hitchens appear to be) I have no problem with people believing whatever the fuck they want to believe. However, lines must be drawn across areas where their beliefs affect others (and that would appear to include children). Of course, I would also claim that religion is harmful in the sense that any unfounded belief is harmful, at least potentially. That said, I do not believe in the validity of seat belt, motorcycle helmet or drug prohibition laws either, without necessarily committing myself to any of those behaviours. However that does not mean I am going to shut up about the harm such behaviours may cause, or let someone ride in my car without a seat belt, or let people mainline in my bathroom. Same with atheism: in the hope of perhaps getting some people to abandon these harmful modalities of thought, I will continue to speak out against them. Persuasion =/= coercion.

[vodyanoj]

I understand that, but I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to claim that every culture in the world is going to fall into this model,especially when we look at things like the North-South economic divide.

Oh, one final thing: you probably do not mean it this way, but I have a hard time with cultural relativism, at least its stronger varieties. The concept of human rights and basic equalities is non-negotiable for me. A society I envision may contain enclaves in which it is possible for an individual to voluntarily give up their basic rights, but the emphasis is on the word "voluntary" and the flow of information that may enable them to change their minds at a later date should not be impeded. yes, I realize it is a utopian concept, but then again, just as in science the goal of our investigations/endeavours may forever be out of reach without compromising our efforts to reach it.

And I have much hope in the erosion of the North-South divide. Perhaps the current economical crisis is a step in the right direction...;)

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

i know this doesnt add anything to the thread but x togepi x, how long did it take you to write that last post? that has to win an award for something.

[The Personist]

He's written longer.

[x togepi x]

T
But: regarding different modalities: again, you are assuming that there are parts of the universe inherently inaccessible to scientific method, so begging the question of whether science in itself is sufficient to describe the Universe. I am still waiting for examples, and such examples cannot be appeals to ignorance.

I gave examples: art and religious understandings of reality. Art promotes the creation of personal narratives about reality which stand distinct from scientific modes of understanding reality (though in the case of some art, they can overlap). i'm not entirely sure how the scientific method is going to explain the understanding of myself I got from watching a great film or explain the almost transcendental feeling I got from seeing one of my favorite bands. I mean, if you want to explain that with science, go right ahead.

The non-overlapping magisteria is a fine thought, but has little to do with reality, since most religions make specific empirical claims about the universe and come into conflict with science in that way.

No, most pre-modern religious perspectives and those modern perspectives rooted in pre-modern understandings of religion are the ones that make empirical claims on reality that contradict science. There's a large tradition in those perspectives borne out of modernity to either reconcile religious claims of existence with the empirical claims of science or to consider those religious claims mythic, but ultimately false in a scientific sense. Criticize literalist fundamentalists all you want, but not all religion is of that sort.

Conversely, however, science has a lot to say about the domains traditionally considered to be within religious magisterium, such as ethics. Now scientific claims about ethics--let's say, grounded in evolutionary theory--are not necessarily normative, but only descriptive. That is sufficient, most of the time. In fact, I'll make a strong claim that we do not *need* religion to derive most of our social/political/ethical norms. (purely secular philosophy does the job). What purpose does it serve then?

I'm never going to claim we *need* religion in a objective sense. I'm claiming that religion has importance on a subjective level. It all goes back to the creation of personal narratives in relation to questions like life's inherent meaning/meanginlessness.

Again, as a pluralist (which neither Harris nor Hitchens appear to be) I have no problem with people believing whatever the fuck they want to believe. However, lines must be drawn across areas where their beliefs affect others (and that would appear to include children). Of course, I would also claim that religion is harmful in the sense that any unfounded belief is harmful, at least potentially. That said, I do not believe in the validity of seat belt, motorcycle helmet or drug prohibition laws either, without necessarily committing myself to any of those behaviours. However that does not mean I am going to shut up about the harm such behaviours may cause, or let someone ride in my car without a seat belt, or let people mainline in my bathroom. Same with atheism: in the hope of perhaps getting some people to abandon these harmful modalities of thought, I will continue to speak out against them. Persuasion =/= coercion.

My problem isn't criticizing obvious wrongs in religious perspectives, it's that you essentialize all forms of religion into something that can be easily attacked. On fundamentalist religion we most likely come down on the same side (at least in a vague allied way), but I'm not willing to claim all religious perspectives are the same. Faith is more dynamic than it is static, and it often refers to nonfalsfiable beliefs. While it can be quite harmful, certain religious perspectives can be quite liberating as well. I'm not willing to reject Religion on face, rather i want to promote the value in certain religious perspectives.


Oh, one final thing: you probably do not mean it this way, but I have a hard time with cultural relativism, at least its stronger varieties. The concept of human rights and basic equalities is non-negotiable for me. A society I envision may contain enclaves in which it is possible for an individual to voluntarily give up their basic rights, but the emphasis is on the word "voluntary" and the flow of information that may enable them to change their minds at a later date should not be impeded. yes, I realize it is a utopian concept, but then again, just as in science the goal of our investigations/endeavours may forever be out of reach without compromising our efforts to reach it.

And I have much hope in the erosion of the North-South divide. Perhaps the current economical crisis is a step in the right direction...;)

I'm not speaking of cultural relativism when I say we should accept the value of various perspectives. One need not accept any oppressive perspective simply because they see some value in it. Example: I believe the value in fascist perspectives comes not from buying their claims at face value, but because understanding said perspective allows one access to the tools to defeat/oppose them. One can easily say let's accept the value in a plethora of perspectives and still draw the line at human rights and equality because one can easily draw a distinction between understanding the value of a perspective and rejecting/accepting the perspective.

[vodyanoj]

I gave examples: art and religious understandings of reality. Art promotes the creation of personal narratives about reality which stand distinct from scientific modes of understanding reality (though in the case of some art, they can overlap). i'm not entirely sure how the scientific method is going to explain the understanding of myself I got from watching a great film or explain the almost transcendental feeling I got from seeing one of my favorite bands. I mean, if you want to explain that with science, go right ahead.

Ach so. However: artistic endeavour is studied closely within evolutionary framework, so it does not appear to be completely barred to scientific investigation.

As far as "religious understandings of reality", I am sure you can see the problem with such a statement, "reality" being a rather subjective term here (are the miracles of St Iago real in any non-mythical sense?), "understanding" being a serious departure from its general meaning (at least in empirical sense), and, of course "religion" being a term not even we seem to be able to agree on.

On a related, but tangential subject, I take it that you do not think strong AI is a possibility?

[loveisdead]

This is fun to watch.

[The Personist]

This is fun to watch.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Nevuk]

The theory of relativity wasn't accepted relatively quickly... I mean, it is semantics, but it took several years after the initial paper, and it was around before Einstein's 1905 paper.

[x togepi x]

Ach so. However: artistic endeavour is studied closely within evolutionary framework, so it does not appear to be completely barred to scientific investigation.

I wasn't talking about "artistic endeavor", i was talking about how specific pieces of art affect specific people and help said indviduals feel certain ways/learn new things about themselves. The sheer subjectivity involved in this claim makes it fairly impossible for science to explain this, even if it could be explained within a scientific framework.

As far as "religious understandings of reality", I am sure you can see the problem with such a statement, "reality" being a rather subjective term here (are the miracles of St Iago real in any non-mythical sense?), "understanding" being a serious departure from its general meaning (at least in empirical sense), and, of course "religion" being a term not even we seem to be able to agree on.

I think the fact that you acknowledge the subjectivity tied up in that concept of reality entails the sort of seeking value in multiple perspectives such as "religious understandings of reality" and science. It's kind of hard to clarify such terms like you pointed out without essentializing since premodern, modern and postmodern conceptions of religion are going to have different epistemologies (or understandings).

On a related, but tangential subject, I take it that you do not think strong AI is a possibility?

I am not sure. the closest i got to something like that was a brief mention of AI in a philosophy of mind class/psychology class. the teacher brought it up and didn't make it that clear.

[vodyanoj]

The theory of relativity wasn't accepted relatively quickly... I mean, it is semantics, but it took several years after the initial paper, and it was around before Einstein's 1905 paper.

Well, that *is* relatively quickly. On Kuhn's thesis, it should have taken a generation of scientists. Of course, the simple fact is that the scientific community was prepared for something *like* relativity, since it solved a whole set of problems that have been around for years at one fell swoop, despite its unorthodoxy. In general, though, this is applicable to *all* scientific revolutions: they have to have motivation of some sort, in the form of unsolved problems and once the community recognizes that there are some problems like that, it is quite prepared to accept a solution. And that goes directly against Kuhn's claims of incommensurability between theoretical frameworks.

[BrennanHickson]

I don't understand the concept of evangelism as a whole; regardless of whether it is intended for the use of sharing about the Bible or about the Big Bang Theory.

[vodyanoj]

I wasn't talking about "artistic endeavor", i was talking about how specific pieces of art affect specific people and help said indviduals feel certain ways/learn new things about themselves. The sheer subjectivity involved in this claim makes it fairly impossible for science to explain this, even if it could be explained within a scientific framework.

So basically, your claim is that qualia are the problem here. However, there is a fair amount of work that at least shows the tractability of the hard problem, if not its direct solution (see Dennett, and for responses, Dennett and His Critics is a wonderful volume).

The reason I bring up strong AI is because if one accepts the possibility of such, one is almost inevitably forced to admit that qualia have a valid objective (ok, intersubjective) existence, since they can be modeled directly. If a computational paradigm of human consciousness (in any of its variants) is correct, and our subjective perceptions are substrate-independent the they can be programmed directly into the system.. Whether it is correct or not is a different story: I am reasonably sure that a weak form of it is OK, but am not sold on substrate-independence. However, the dependence of the thoughts and experiences we can possibly have on the biology and computational structure of our brain is itself a blow against the ineffability of subjective experience.

[vodyanoj]

I don't understand the concept of evangelism as a whole; regardless of whether it is intended for the use of sharing about the Bible or about the Big Bang Theory.

There is a difference between religious evangelism and physics.

[BrennanHickson]

There is a difference between religious evangelism and physics.
That post was essentially directed to the title of this thread: "Evangelical Atheists."

[The Personist]

I don't understand the concept of evangelism as a whole; regardless of whether it is intended for the use of sharing about the Bible or about the Big Bang Theory.

It's an overzealous form of self-righteousness that gets old and annoying fast.

[BrennanHickson]

It's an overzealous form of self-righteousness that gets old and annoying fast.
That's a great way to put it.

[vodyanoj]

That post was essentially directed to the title of this thread: "Evangelical Atheists."

I do not see though how one can be self-righteous about the Big bang theory. It does not stand or fall on one's personal convictions.

[perceptrons]

So basically, your claim is that qualia are the problem here. However, there is a fair amount of work that at least shows the tractability of the hard problem, if not its direct solution (see Dennett, and for responses, Dennett and His Critics is a wonderful volume).

The reason I bring up strong AI is because if one accepts the possibility of such, one is almost inevitably forced to admit that qualia have a valid objective (ok, intersubjective) existence, since they can be modeled directly. If a computational paradigm of human consciousness (in any of its variants) is correct, and our subjective perceptions are substrate-independent the they can be programmed directly into the system.. Whether it is correct or not is a different story: I am reasonably sure that a weak form of it is OK, but am not sold on substrate-independence. However, the dependence of the thoughts and experiences we can possibly have on the biology and computational structure of our brain is itself a blow against the ineffability of subjective experience.
Once the neocortical algorithm is discovered, we will be able to have AI that is almost identical to us (although it would be rather silly to use it to make something that is identical to us). For anyone interested, check out Jeff Hawkins, and Numenta.

[.invisible ink.]

Perhaps I'm missing the point here (I only bothered to skim 50% of the posts in this thread), but the blog that was linked to didn't seem bad and who cares if there are fervent atheists, there's fervent people of every belief system! It's a shame that although atheists are a growing part of the population, that we are expected to keep quiet when our freedoms are treaded upon (ever heard of separation of church and state?). We have no lobbyists and we damn well deserve them. I'm not going to personally go around trying to convert people, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a group of like-minded individuals gathering to discuss their beliefs and trying to rally together enough support to get their piece of the pie, just as every other special interest group has been doing for decades. It has disgusted me all throughout schooling from as far back as i can remember to be required to say the "One nation under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance, for example, but I did it anyway, because it was required. I'm sick of staying quiet. I have just as much right to the freedom of NON-religion as they do to their theistic freedoms.

[batmannj]

Being a Christian, I wish that Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians could get along to be honest. I have my faith, and I want to share it with others, but I don't want to make people feel bad if they don't. I don't like people who are self-righteous or inconsiderate on either side.

[Siren Silently]

Being a Christian, I wish that Atheists, Agnostics, and Christians could get along to be honest. I have my faith, and I want to share it with others, but I don't want to make people feel bad if they don't. I don't like people who are self-righteous or inconsiderate on either side.

Therein lies the problem, for both sides. Unless you are talking about conjugating in a Church or something; I interpreted it as trying to 'convert' other nonbelievers.

[batmannj]

Therein lies the problem, for both sides. Unless you are talking about conjugating in a Church or something; I interpreted it as trying to 'convert' other nonbelievers.

Understandable. What I mean by share is by sharing testimony if people don't mind listening to what I have to say. As a Christian we are supposed to try and share it with other people. If people don't like that I understand and I don't get to pushy with them.

[.invisible ink.]

Understandable. What I mean by share is by sharing testimony if people don't mind listening to what I have to say. As a Christian we are supposed to try and share it with other people. If people don't like that I understand and I don't get to pushy with them.

dude, that's one of the biggest problems most of us non-Christians have with Christians - Proselytizing. It's pushy and offensive, to be honest. I get that you (not you personally, Christians who do this) really believe in your religion and want to create other believers but converting people and ultimately insinuating that you're in a better position to get to a better "after-life" or whatnot is basically stating your religion is better than theirs. Until you can give me some solid proof (which you cannot, so don't even try), I don't want anyone pushing their beliefs on me. Believe what you want, but leave it at that. "Sharing" your beliefs was an ideal created by the men who organized Christianity to spread the word and get more converts. Do you know how many cultures have been destroyed or at least drastically altered by missionaries?

How many religions can you name that try and push their beliefs down others throats? I can tell you who doesn't - Hindus and Jews, for instance, yet they seem to be doing quite alright.

[vodyanoj]

Proselytizing. It's pushy and offensive, to be honest.

I am also offended by this assumption on the part of Christians that we are somehow stupid and/or ignorant:

"Have you heard the good news?"--"Well, duh, it would have been somewhat difficult not to, even if I am the most isolated person on the planet."

It's this smug superiority that their logic is so waterproof that the only ones that do not believe MUST have never heard about their religion. The fact that most of us have analyzed and rejected their claims does not seem to enter their pointy little heads, perhaps because most of them would not recognize logic or analysis when run over by them on the freeway.

[weownthestreets]

People like this (http://sillyfundies.blogspot.com/) destroy the credibility of those who don't accept religion or believe in God.

As an agnostic, I'm also offended by the entry about different kinds of non-theists just being "closet atheists."

Thoughts?

I don't believe there can be such a thing as an evangelical atheist. There certainly are militant atheists, however. I believe this distinction is important, but there's still a methodological flaw in the way such atheists go about professing their beliefs.

Also, the thing about closet atheists might seem odd, but, to me, it's often correct. I once considered myself an agnostic because I thought belief in god was metaphysically ignorant and "faith" in no god was arrogant. I eventually realized that there's a difference between claiming with certainty that there is no god (which I do not do) and holding the belief that the statistical likelihood of there being a god is insignificant enough to be an atheist for all practical purposes. Hence, I believe that strong negative agnosticism is akin to atheism--except some agnostics just refuse to adopt the label atheist because they think it somehow mandates a degree of certainty that cannot be attained. This is not true, and is not an accurate reflection of many (most?) atheists' beliefs.

[vodyanoj]

Hence, I believe that strong negative agnosticism is akin to atheism--except some agnostics just refuse to adopt the label atheist because they think it somehow mandates a degree of certainty that cannot be attained. This is not true, and is not an accurate reflection of many (most?) atheists' beliefs.

In actuality, agnosticism and atheism are not icompatible in any sense, since they describe two different things. Agnosticism is an epistemological term, meaning that one does not have perfect certainty about a piece of knowledge. We are all agnostics about everything except for the outcomes of formal system manipulations. Atheism, OTOH, is a metaphysical term. So one can be (I am, for example, an agnostic atheist, i.e., I do not believe that such an entity as God exists, but I am prepared to admit that I am wrong, given evidence to the contrary. As a matter of fact, even Dawkins is one such.

[weownthestreets]

In actuality, agnosticism and atheism are not icompatible in any sense, since they describe two different things. Agnosticism is an epistemological term, meaning that one does not have perfect certainty about a piece of knowledge. We are all agnostics about everything except for the outcomes of formal system manipulations. Atheism, OTOH, is a metaphysical term. So one can be (I am, for example, an agnostic atheist, i.e., I do not believe that such an entity as God exists, but I am prepared to admit that I am wrong, given evidence to the contrary. As a matter of fact, even Dawkins is one such.

Formally, yes, this is true. But in general usage, the terms are stripped of their philosophical subtleties, and agnosticism is taken to be "fence-sitting". Only our terminology differs, but I totally agree with what you're saying.

Dawkins definitely is. He's precisely what I described: an empirical/statistical agnostic, but a practical atheist. In the God Delusion he described his scale 0-7, and (assuming I remember the scale's direction correctly), then he'd be a 6, just short of absolute disbelief, but allowing for the remote possibility of evidence changing his view. Any reasonable atheist should hold exactly this view.

[vodyanoj]

Formally, yes, this is true. But in general usage, the terms are stripped of their philosophical subtleties, and agnosticism is taken to be "fence-sitting". Only our terminology differs, but I totally agree with what you're saying.

Dawkins definitely is. He's precisely what I described: an empirical/statistical agnostic, but a practical atheist. In the God Delusion he described his scale 0-7, and (assuming I remember the scale's direction correctly), then he'd be a 6, just short of absolute disbelief, but allowing for the remote possibility of evidence changing his view. Any reasonable atheist should hold exactly this view.

Certainly! Howevr, tehre are also degrees of agnosticism regarding different conceptions of deity. I may be more agnostic about some nebulous creator of deistic belief than I am about Yahweh. I am pretty close to 7 on that scale for the latter...

[weownthestreets]

Certainly! Howevr, tehre are also degrees of agnosticism regarding different conceptions of deity. I may be more agnostic about some nebulous creator of deistic belief than I am about Yahweh. I am pretty close to 7 on that scale for the latter...

Fair enough.

[ssion1984]

Evangelism means to try to convert someone to a particular religion, belief, or non-religious theory.

[vodyanoj]

Evangelism means to try to convert someone to a particular religion, belief, or non-religious theory.

The problem with this statement is that the word "convert" can hardly be used in reference to scientific theories. If I give you the evidence for evolution, I am not trying to convert you. I only expect you to apply reason to the evidence and draw your own conclusions. Religious conversion, on the other hand, depends on story-telling and generally discourages attempts to citically evaluate such stories.