It’s amazing how many supposedly rationalist movements fall into the trap of crippling “reverse stupidity.” Many in the atheist movement would not have you make positive pronouncements, not have you form organizations, not have you advocate, not have you adopt symbols or give the movement a name, not have you educate children on atheism, and so on, all because “religion does it.” I think in the case of atheism the source is unique: every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding but few atheists are willing to admit it (having taken up also the false belief that some things are “outside science”), so they go looking for other reasons, and “reverse stupidity” offers such reasons in abundance.
“I think in the case of atheism the source is unique: every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding...”
We are already “stronger” by far, than most of the “pagan” gods. This century, we may well create our own worlds (“virtual”, yea—but theology doesn’t hold our own world as the “real” for its creator...s). It’s all comes down to terminology.
I think atheists would do well to encourage agnosticism, seems like an easier sell to me, training wheels? Much of the atheist movement reeks of fundamentalism. By definition atheism is closed minded. So much of science is unknown. I don’t discount the idea that the possibility of collective consciousness or any number of other things viewed as supernatural, and therefore dismissed, exist. Read some theoretical physics, we don’t understand a lot of stuff. That stuff could be the basis completely different ways of thinking about reality. It may very well be that what we perceive as reality is a small part, or an expression of something that no one has begun to understand. It’s cliche but what if we are programs running on some ultra advanced computer. Would the operator of that computer not be a “god.” Dismissing that idea is silly, creating computers of that complexity is science fiction but it certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Who’s to say we’d be the first one’s to do it.
Is it, really? I find more open mindedness in “there is no evidence for this, so I have no reason to believe it” than any theism. Someone telling you to be open minded usually means they want you to agree with them: Accepting a solution instead of considering others as well. It’s happened to me, when people talked about ghosts, which have been disproven regardless. But then, it’s just accepting one seemingly possible solution.
If all unlikely explanations seem possible, how is it open minded to select just one?
I think there are several problems with your statements; I’ll try to address a few. In the interests of full disclosure, I’m an atheist myself, but I obviously can’t speak for anyone other than myself.
Much of the atheist movement reeks of fundamentalism.
I don’t know about “much”, though some atheists are undeniably fundamentalist—and some theists are, as well. However, this doesn’t tell us anything about whether atheism (or theism) is actually true or not.
By definition atheism is closed minded.
I think this depends on which definition you’re using; but something tells me it’s different from mine.
So much of science is unknown. I don’t discount the idea that the possibility of collective consciousness or any number of other things viewed as supernatural, and therefore dismissed, exist.
Neither do I, and neither do most atheists. In fact, most atheists don’t discount the possibility of lots of other things existing, as well: Zeus, unicorns, a teapot in orbit of Saturn, leprechauns, FTL neutrinos, etc. But a possibility is not the same thing as probability; and we humans simply don’t have the luxury in believing everything we can think of. We’d never get anywhere if we did that. So, atheists make the conscious choice to live their lives and think their thoughts as though that orbiting teapot did not, in fact, exist. Of course, once someone presents some evidence of its existence, we’d change our minds, and re-evaluate all of our beliefs to include the teapot (or gods, or leprechauns, or what have you).
Read some theoretical physics, we don’t understand a lot of stuff.
I suspect we understand more than you think—there are whole books written on the subject, after all. But more importantly, a lack of understanding doesn’t automatically make any alternative hypothesis any more likely. For example, I don’t know with certainty how that suspicious puddle under my car got there, but “aliens !” or “demons !” are not the kinds of answers that instantly spring to mind.
That stuff could be the basis completely different ways of thinking about reality.
Sure, it could be. But is it ? If it is, then I’d like to see some evidence. Note that the scientific method has a whole mountain of evidence behind it; your computer, for example, is merely a tiny piece of it.
It’s cliche but what if we are programs running on some ultra advanced computer. Would the operator of that computer not be a “god.”
I don’t know, which god did you have in mind ? And do you have any evidence that we’re all programs running on a giant computer, or dreams in the mind of a butterfly, or astral manifestations of Krishna’s vibrations, or whatever else one can come up with ?
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what “fundamendalist” atheism is. Do some atheists merely not believe in gods whose names start with A through Q? Do some atheists attend mass once every eighth Thursday?
Meh… In a way, this entire site is dedicated to evangelism of skepticism (and, therefore, atheism).
No it isn’t. It’s a rationality site… which actually puts it at odds with skepticism when it comes to approach and some major conclusions. It is that same rationality which mandates that even if people on the site go ahead and evangelism atheism on the side they do so while acknowledging that most people would be better off getting off the pulpit and living their lives.
It’s a rationality site… which actually puts it at odds with skepticism when it comes to approach and some major conclusions.
How so ? The site promotes (one might say, “evangelizes”) rational thinking, especially the Bayes Rule, and evidence-based reasoning in general. These are the core values of skepticism; disbelief in fairies/UFOs/gods/etc. is merely a consequence.
Number theory and numerology both have number as a core principle. This doesn’t make them the same thing. Look for where they differ, and you might spot why they differ.
It’s amazing how many supposedly rationalist movements fall into the trap of crippling “reverse stupidity.” Many in the atheist movement would not have you make positive pronouncements, not have you form organizations, not have you advocate, not have you adopt symbols or give the movement a name, not have you educate children on atheism, and so on, all because “religion does it.” I think in the case of atheism the source is unique: every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding but few atheists are willing to admit it (having taken up also the false belief that some things are “outside science”), so they go looking for other reasons, and “reverse stupidity” offers such reasons in abundance.
“I think in the case of atheism the source is unique: every (modern) atheist knows his or her atheism is a product of scientific understanding...”
We are already “stronger” by far, than most of the “pagan” gods. This century, we may well create our own worlds (“virtual”, yea—but theology doesn’t hold our own world as the “real” for its creator...s). It’s all comes down to terminology.
I think atheists would do well to encourage agnosticism, seems like an easier sell to me, training wheels? Much of the atheist movement reeks of fundamentalism. By definition atheism is closed minded. So much of science is unknown. I don’t discount the idea that the possibility of collective consciousness or any number of other things viewed as supernatural, and therefore dismissed, exist. Read some theoretical physics, we don’t understand a lot of stuff. That stuff could be the basis completely different ways of thinking about reality. It may very well be that what we perceive as reality is a small part, or an expression of something that no one has begun to understand. It’s cliche but what if we are programs running on some ultra advanced computer. Would the operator of that computer not be a “god.” Dismissing that idea is silly, creating computers of that complexity is science fiction but it certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Who’s to say we’d be the first one’s to do it.
A few months have passed since that comment, but maybe you should consider reading: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/ny/sneaking_in_connotations/
Is it, really? I find more open mindedness in “there is no evidence for this, so I have no reason to believe it” than any theism. Someone telling you to be open minded usually means they want you to agree with them: Accepting a solution instead of considering others as well. It’s happened to me, when people talked about ghosts, which have been disproven regardless. But then, it’s just accepting one seemingly possible solution.
If all unlikely explanations seem possible, how is it open minded to select just one?
I think there are several problems with your statements; I’ll try to address a few. In the interests of full disclosure, I’m an atheist myself, but I obviously can’t speak for anyone other than myself.
I don’t know about “much”, though some atheists are undeniably fundamentalist—and some theists are, as well. However, this doesn’t tell us anything about whether atheism (or theism) is actually true or not.
I think this depends on which definition you’re using; but something tells me it’s different from mine.
Neither do I, and neither do most atheists. In fact, most atheists don’t discount the possibility of lots of other things existing, as well: Zeus, unicorns, a teapot in orbit of Saturn, leprechauns, FTL neutrinos, etc. But a possibility is not the same thing as probability; and we humans simply don’t have the luxury in believing everything we can think of. We’d never get anywhere if we did that. So, atheists make the conscious choice to live their lives and think their thoughts as though that orbiting teapot did not, in fact, exist. Of course, once someone presents some evidence of its existence, we’d change our minds, and re-evaluate all of our beliefs to include the teapot (or gods, or leprechauns, or what have you).
I suspect we understand more than you think—there are whole books written on the subject, after all. But more importantly, a lack of understanding doesn’t automatically make any alternative hypothesis any more likely. For example, I don’t know with certainty how that suspicious puddle under my car got there, but “aliens !” or “demons !” are not the kinds of answers that instantly spring to mind.
Sure, it could be. But is it ? If it is, then I’d like to see some evidence. Note that the scientific method has a whole mountain of evidence behind it; your computer, for example, is merely a tiny piece of it.
I don’t know, which god did you have in mind ? And do you have any evidence that we’re all programs running on a giant computer, or dreams in the mind of a butterfly, or astral manifestations of Krishna’s vibrations, or whatever else one can come up with ?
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what “fundamendalist” atheism is. Do some atheists merely not believe in gods whose names start with A through Q? Do some atheists attend mass once every eighth Thursday?
I would suggest you read the following two posts:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
For most part they would also do well to eschew evangelism.
Meh… In a way, this entire site is dedicated to evangelism of skepticism (and, therefore, atheism). I’m ok with that.
No it isn’t. It’s a rationality site… which actually puts it at odds with skepticism when it comes to approach and some major conclusions. It is that same rationality which mandates that even if people on the site go ahead and evangelism atheism on the side they do so while acknowledging that most people would be better off getting off the pulpit and living their lives.
How so ? The site promotes (one might say, “evangelizes”) rational thinking, especially the Bayes Rule, and evidence-based reasoning in general. These are the core values of skepticism; disbelief in fairies/UFOs/gods/etc. is merely a consequence.
Number theory and numerology both have number as a core principle. This doesn’t make them the same thing. Look for where they differ, and you might spot why they differ.