Some of Mike's post deleted to try and reduce the length of my reply a bit - I've tried to keep sufficient context, though. Check the original if I seem to have wiped out something important. . .
Darth Wong wrote:Generally, I liked your post, Nick. Just a few nits:
Nick wrote: In this context, it DOES make sense to talk about atheistic fundamentalism. ("You should believe in atheism because it is more rational!" "Why is it more rational?" "It just is!")
Do you know any examples of this sort of atheist, or are you assuming that they probably exist?
I know at least one person who fell into this category - for a while, anyway (I was present when he participated in an exchange much like my example above - I joined in the conversation, since it was a general 'Why do we believe what we believe?' sort of discussion). I agree with you that it isn't a particularly stable state - such a person is liable to either figure out (or have it pointed out to them) _why_ atheism is more rational, or else they'll decide they don't really consider themselves atheists after all.
Darth Wong wrote:
For others, atheism is NOT an authority-based faith. It is a matter of noting that the transcendent (i.e. matters legitimately within the purview of religion) is, by definition, unobservable.
The notion that religion is intrinsically limited to unobservable realms is the fallback position of religion, after it lost its original purpose of explaining reality (to science). It is, in every sense of the word, an apologist's excuse, designed to shore up a belief system that, when taken literally, predicts a great variety of empirical and testable phenomena (all of which fail the test, hence the excuse).
Some religions are limited to the transcendental (particularly the newer ones, and Eastern ones). But Judeo-Christianity-Islam is most definitely not, unless you disregard most of their "scriptures".
True - however, I'd consider a religious or spiritual belief that acknowledges it must be in accordance with known science infinitely preferable to one which claims to be able to _overrule_ ( or 'not be constrained by') known science. (I guess modern liberal Christianity, as compared to Christian fundamentalism, is the type of distinction I am trying to draw here).
As you say, it is much easier to do this with traditions such as Taoism or Buddhism than it is with the unholy trinity. (Throwing out most of the Old Testament as mythology and most of the New Testament as the writings of a bunch of misogynists, so that only the good bits are left is, as you point out, about the only way to bring Christianity into the running)
Darth Wong wrote:
This form of belief is in fact almost entirely compatible with a scientific worldview - if the transcendental realm you believe in helps you cope with some of the stuff that science _doesn't_ have a good handle on yet, then belief is a _good_ thing.
I think you're being overly charitable here. It's a "good thing" to get people to invent various superstitions and mythologies when confronted with an unsolved mystery rather than attempting to find a rational explanation? How is this good? Try telling that to Andrea Yates' children. She drowned them to save them from some of these "transcendent" phenomena she so therapeutically believed in.
Yeah, I thought the same thing after I'd posted it - 'good' is too strong a word. Perhaps, 'usually not a particularly bad thing' would be better. I also left out the requirement for the belief to be harmless - causing harm to yourself or others on the basis of an irrational belief is obviously unhealthy. I don't know the particular example you cite, but I agree that when a religious belief leads directly to real world injury or death (for the believer or for others), it is far from the realm of being harmless!
A rational explanation, or an honest 'I don't know', would almost certainly be a _better_ response, but achieving that can sometimes be a hard ask. In those cases, a harmless religious belief or superstition, even if not entirely desirable, is unlikely to be too detrimental. (and if it cuts down on stress/fear/anxiety, and helps an individual function, possibly even mildly beneficial - this is almost certainly the exception, rather than the rule, though).
Darth Wong wrote:
However, the only people I know who hold these sorts of belief are also quite willing to revise their beliefs in light of new scientific evidence - in other words, when they find a discrepancy between their beliefs and science, they go with the science. Only in those areas where science remains silent do their beliefs hold sway.
I have found that such people are often
highly amenable to pseudoscience, particularly of the creationist variety.
I guess it depends on how well versed in critical thinking they are - my best friend falls into that category, and he's even less fond of creationists than I am.
Generally, the people I know that fit into this category hold a form of _personal_ belief, rather than toeing the party line of any particular religion. They may nominally accept their particular faith, but each of the precepts is judged on its merits, rather than accepted entirely on authority. (Also, none of them try to claim that their belief is based on objective evidence - they openly acknowledge that it is their explanation for their own subjective experiences).
Darth Wong wrote:
The argument has NEVER been advanced that religious belief and a scientific education are completely incompatible.
Not necessarily, but the combination is far more difficult than atheism and a scientific education. It is quite easy to show that religious faith demands illogical thought from the believer, and it is also quite easy to show that habitual illogical thought is not healthy for a scientist. Religious belief impedes scientific activities rather than helping in any way or even being neutral. Even in those who can successfully walk the line, they are subjecting themselves to a difficult balancing act which should ideally not be necessary.
Agreed - it was precisely this balancing act which I got sick and tired of, and finally prompted me to realise that I really _didn't_ believe any more. I was having to work harder and harder to reconcile the faith I professed with the knowledge I had of physics and psychology and so forth, and eventually realised that I was comfortable with the idea of atheism.
However, I also realise that it took me quite a while to bring together the various elements required to make that decision (interestingly enough, it was some of the SDN anti-creationism pages which finally crystallised things). On that basis, though, I can hardly deride people who are making an honest effort to reconcile their beliefs and their knowledge of science. So, the position I currently take (that, as the null hypothesis, atheism is the most rational course, but that other approaches may still offer valuable insight), is an attempt to acknowledge the fact that abandoning a belief is not something humans can do easily. Being rational is a rather unnatural state of affairs for the human animal - drawing the line at 'harmless belief which does not contradict known science' means I don't have to think of my friends and family as ignorant fools. (Which is good, because they are most certainly neither ignorant, nor fools).
Darth Wong wrote:
There's a hell of a difference between calling someone irrational for holding a particular belief system (i.e. the opinion of many atheists about believers), and hunting down and killing people for having different beliefs (i.e. the Crusades and the Inquisition).
Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Christian apologists are fond of the imaginary persecution syndrome, whereby any form of criticism is instantly labelled a reverse witch hunt.
My biggest problem is the common belief that it's wrong to criticize someone's beliefs. Why is that wrong? It's wrong to make fun of someone's disability. It's wrong to discriminate based on race or sex. But why is it wrong to criticize someone's beliefs? Unlike disability, race, or sex, beliefs can be voluntarily changed, if one is willing to examine them rationally.
*shrug* In an ideal world, it wouldn't be a problem - people would be able to say, "Fine, you don't like what I believe, that's your lookout" (either that, or actually take valid criticism on board and adjust their point of view).
As far as I can tell, though, for a lot of people in the real world, their beliefs become intertwined with their self-identity. Attack the belief and you are attacking the person. The person making the criticism might see it as a legitimate criticism of an irrational belief, but the person on the receiving end is incapable of making that distinction - they perceive it as a personal attack. This, of course, is irrational, but rationality is something which has to be imposed on human consciousness, rather than coming naturally. So, the natural social consequence is disapproval of attacking people's beliefs, not because it is inherently wrong, but because it creates friction - and the general perception is that social friction is bad, and should be avoided. Whether this state of affairs is particularly desirable is an entirely different question (given what I cited as the ideal case, my own opinion should be obvious).
I don't wonder at the fact that people are sometimes irrational. I wonder at the fact that any of us are _ever_ rational.
"People should buy our toaster because it toasts bread the best, not because it has the only plug that fits in the outlet" - Robert Morris, Almaden Research Center (IBM)
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
