Things I Don't Get, #3476
Dec. 15th, 2005 07:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thessalianMilitant or otherwise highly vocal atheists:
As I've said repeatedly, in this journal and elsewhere, I honestly don't give a shit if you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, the Great Old Ones or nothing at all. I'm not against atheists as a general rule; after all, they have faith in something, even if that 'something' constitutes a nothing, if you get me. But honestly, atheism is as big a leap of faith as any theistic belief because, really, you're still believing in something you can't prove: to wit, that there is no divine power that created / is watching over the universe. How do you prove a negative? You can say, "We have no proof that there is even one God, let alone several, therefore there must not be one", but that's not really very scientific at the end of the day because there is still stuff we can't explain in the universe and that hasn't really been ruled out as Act of Deity yet. Besides, technically we as a race don't have any proof that microscopic germs cause disease either; we're taking it on faith that the doctors know what they're talking about because we're not all medically schooled. Church parallel drawn here.
But the thing is, I can understand atheism as a position. What I don't get is people who so strongly defend a negative position. Atheism has gone hand-in-hand with scientific rationalism (and therefore 'superior' intelligence) for as long as I can remember, predominantly because the rampaging militant atheists I've known have claimed to have reached their conclusion from an entirely rational and scientific viewpoint; they have no proof that there is a God, they have not seen a God, therefore there is no God. I'm not seeing the rationale of that. It's sort of the adult equivalent of "There's no divine power in the universe because I say so." Or maybe it's just that I resent the fact that, in the eyes of that particular cross-section of humanity, my intelligence takes a nose-dive because I have religious beliefs. You know, it's not necessary to defend a belief that is apparently held with good logical reasons by undermining the intelligence of those with a different view by effectively calling them 'superstitious natives', just as it's not necessary to defend your One True Faith by undermining the humanity and goodness of those with a different view by deeming them hellbound for not sharing yours. I'm not sure which is worse, really -- militant Bible-bashers are tenacious little fuckers, but being dismissed as slightly dumber than I am just because I have faith is really harsh.
It's funny that, in any belief system, be it theistic or atheistic, it's the quiet ones who tend to make the strongest cases for their arguments; specifically, the ones who can intelligently talk about why they believe what they do but don't because they know that it's an individual, personal thing and also know how much they'd hate it if someone came in and shat all over their beliefs by advocating that theirs was the only way to live. It's the people who say, "Well, I can't say for sure what's out there but I've had experiences that really can't be described any other way without serious psychological gymnastics, therefore I believe that there is something, at least. This is how I'm comfortable expressing that faith." It's also the people who say, "Well, I suppose I can see that, but I personally haven't experienced anything that leads me to believe that there's any spiritual force in the universe at all, so I can't really believe in it. Still, if you have, and it makes you happy, go for it."
There's the crux of the matter. After all, with the exception of some of the more militant Christian sects or the so-called 'Muslims' who claim they perform acts of terrorism for Allah, what harm is there to an atheist in other people having faith? That's the bit I really don't understand. I even understand militant Christians to a point, as long as they're as kind as Jesus would have been about it -- they're afraid that all these people are condemned to an eternity of suffering if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts, and perhaps they feel it's their Christian duty to ensure that these good people don't go to hell. But why on earth would an atheist want to convert anybody? Honestly, if we're all just going to die and cease to exist as rational human beings anyway, does it matter if people want to dream of something more after death? If you have religion, what you do in life might make a difference to whatever comes after this life, in whatever way; if you don't, it doesn't matter. So why preach atheism beyond some smug self-righteous desire to be right?
I don't care what people worship, but it's nice to see the signs of it all the same -- if people would just shut the fuck up about this "war" to claim the winter festival, the entire holiday could be a Western world celebration of joy on whatever grounds people wanted rather than this commercial and religious bitch-fest. I like church architecture, and mosques, and Diwali lights, and sacrificing jelly beans to Cthulu, and I'm not hurting anyone by liking these things. I don't like most organised religion, and I don't like how people use it, but I do like the idea of faith. I have a fair bit of it myself, come to that. If you don't believe, good for you, but to me, that doesn't mean that you've proved that you can 'get by without some sort of spiritual crutch', or that you've somehow escaped a trap of irrationality. It just means your faith is different than mine. In the words of Andy Cairns, welcome to the church of noise.
As I've said repeatedly, in this journal and elsewhere, I honestly don't give a shit if you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, the Great Old Ones or nothing at all. I'm not against atheists as a general rule; after all, they have faith in something, even if that 'something' constitutes a nothing, if you get me. But honestly, atheism is as big a leap of faith as any theistic belief because, really, you're still believing in something you can't prove: to wit, that there is no divine power that created / is watching over the universe. How do you prove a negative? You can say, "We have no proof that there is even one God, let alone several, therefore there must not be one", but that's not really very scientific at the end of the day because there is still stuff we can't explain in the universe and that hasn't really been ruled out as Act of Deity yet. Besides, technically we as a race don't have any proof that microscopic germs cause disease either; we're taking it on faith that the doctors know what they're talking about because we're not all medically schooled. Church parallel drawn here.
But the thing is, I can understand atheism as a position. What I don't get is people who so strongly defend a negative position. Atheism has gone hand-in-hand with scientific rationalism (and therefore 'superior' intelligence) for as long as I can remember, predominantly because the rampaging militant atheists I've known have claimed to have reached their conclusion from an entirely rational and scientific viewpoint; they have no proof that there is a God, they have not seen a God, therefore there is no God. I'm not seeing the rationale of that. It's sort of the adult equivalent of "There's no divine power in the universe because I say so." Or maybe it's just that I resent the fact that, in the eyes of that particular cross-section of humanity, my intelligence takes a nose-dive because I have religious beliefs. You know, it's not necessary to defend a belief that is apparently held with good logical reasons by undermining the intelligence of those with a different view by effectively calling them 'superstitious natives', just as it's not necessary to defend your One True Faith by undermining the humanity and goodness of those with a different view by deeming them hellbound for not sharing yours. I'm not sure which is worse, really -- militant Bible-bashers are tenacious little fuckers, but being dismissed as slightly dumber than I am just because I have faith is really harsh.
It's funny that, in any belief system, be it theistic or atheistic, it's the quiet ones who tend to make the strongest cases for their arguments; specifically, the ones who can intelligently talk about why they believe what they do but don't because they know that it's an individual, personal thing and also know how much they'd hate it if someone came in and shat all over their beliefs by advocating that theirs was the only way to live. It's the people who say, "Well, I can't say for sure what's out there but I've had experiences that really can't be described any other way without serious psychological gymnastics, therefore I believe that there is something, at least. This is how I'm comfortable expressing that faith." It's also the people who say, "Well, I suppose I can see that, but I personally haven't experienced anything that leads me to believe that there's any spiritual force in the universe at all, so I can't really believe in it. Still, if you have, and it makes you happy, go for it."
There's the crux of the matter. After all, with the exception of some of the more militant Christian sects or the so-called 'Muslims' who claim they perform acts of terrorism for Allah, what harm is there to an atheist in other people having faith? That's the bit I really don't understand. I even understand militant Christians to a point, as long as they're as kind as Jesus would have been about it -- they're afraid that all these people are condemned to an eternity of suffering if they don't accept Jesus into their hearts, and perhaps they feel it's their Christian duty to ensure that these good people don't go to hell. But why on earth would an atheist want to convert anybody? Honestly, if we're all just going to die and cease to exist as rational human beings anyway, does it matter if people want to dream of something more after death? If you have religion, what you do in life might make a difference to whatever comes after this life, in whatever way; if you don't, it doesn't matter. So why preach atheism beyond some smug self-righteous desire to be right?
I don't care what people worship, but it's nice to see the signs of it all the same -- if people would just shut the fuck up about this "war" to claim the winter festival, the entire holiday could be a Western world celebration of joy on whatever grounds people wanted rather than this commercial and religious bitch-fest. I like church architecture, and mosques, and Diwali lights, and sacrificing jelly beans to Cthulu, and I'm not hurting anyone by liking these things. I don't like most organised religion, and I don't like how people use it, but I do like the idea of faith. I have a fair bit of it myself, come to that. If you don't believe, good for you, but to me, that doesn't mean that you've proved that you can 'get by without some sort of spiritual crutch', or that you've somehow escaped a trap of irrationality. It just means your faith is different than mine. In the words of Andy Cairns, welcome to the church of noise.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 10:58 am (UTC)> granted is simply taken on faith.
Absolutely. However, strictly from a personal point of view, I believe that because these notions are built up from a worldview that starts off being provable and because they are subject to stringent and open peer review they are _more likely_ to be true. It's impossible for them to be known as facts but on balance the probability is higher that they are right. The important thing is that even their strongest adherents will actively seek people to question their beliefs and change they if they receive convincing arguements. This doesn't happen with any other faith.
> Science can explain how the brain processes signals and stores memories, > but doesn't even begin to explain how this translates into a functioning > human personality.
Not yet.
> The existence of background radiation that supports either the big bang
> or oscillating universe models does not prove or disprove any theories
> about what kick-started the whole thing.
Indeed, not does it claim to. It says that we should wait for more evidence and testable theories _or_ (and this is the clincher) admit that we will just have to remain ignorant of knowing the truth for certain. No other faith is so open for admitting it's ignorance.
> Nothing in science explains the human need to express and create
> (thinking in terms of art here, not basic physical needs). Science is
> great for hardware - for software you need philosophy.
Science has always been a sub-set of meta-physics.
> It's just posturing by equally inflexible orthodoxies, as far as I can
> see.
It shouldn't be in theory (at least from the science side) but the reality is that most people (myself included) find it hard to put up a good arguement and therefore often resort to rhetoric.
> I just hope there's space between the two (or, preferably, far away from
> either of them) where people who actually care about the questions both
> sides should be asking - let alone the answers - can have a proper
> discussion in peace and quiet.
Me too.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 12:04 pm (UTC)How on earth do you prove something like that? What model are you using to stand up and say, "Well, I can't prove that these things are fact but it's more probable than your explanation"? I'm not seeing how that's doing anything but further illustrating the point made, that science is as much faith as Christianity if you take it beyond a certain level.
The important thing is that even their strongest adherents will actively seek people to question their beliefs and change they if they receive convincing arguements. This doesn't happen with any other faith.
Erm ... really, not. Christianity has undergone all kinds of schisms because of changes of opinion and questioning beliefs. Church of England, for example, to allow divorce. Lutheranism. Baptists and Methodists and all manner of other branches of Christianity show that, given the argument, things can change in a religious context. Protestant churches doing gay weddings, for example. Also, a fair few pagans (chaotes in particular) re-examine their beliefs in the light of other pagan traditions on a regular basis.
Indeed, not does it claim to. It says that we should wait for more evidence and testable theories _or_ (and this is the clincher) admit that we will just have to remain ignorant of knowing the truth for certain. No other faith is so open for admitting it's ignorance.
Again, only true if considering the foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist. Most of the people I speak to who are religious in any way at all do not claim to know anything; only to believe, which are not the same thing. Knowledge implies irrefutable fact. I believe that the cleaning lady does the office washing-up, but I don't know, because I've never seen her. Likewise, I believe that there is a guiding force to the universe, but I don't know. Most people don't; they just believe.
It shouldn't be in theory (at least from the science side) but the reality is that most people (myself included) find it hard to put up a good arguement and therefore often resort to rhetoric.
And that makes it all right? The fact that you correct the statement that we haven't discovered what makes humans capable of having memories or a personality or makes them tick psychologically and emotionally with "Not yet" is more than just rhetoric; it's arrogance, and it's further hardline materialism. You believe so strongly in the fact that someone somewhere will come up with a scientific explanation for what the theistic among us call a soul that you can't help but remark in a way that makes clear your absolute assurance that they will someday prove the rational side right. Maybe they will, someday, when science has advanced a fair sight more. Maybe they won't, and even that leaves any number of possibilities for why not. Maybe they just won't be able to process the data no matter how hard they try, leaving it a mystery. Maybe they'll actually find proof of the existence of a soul. Or maybe the religious right will decide that trying to find out such a thing is sacrilege and ban the research. Point is, you don't know, so it's not really fair to talk about it like you do.
And that's kind of the point: it's not so much the possibility of having the discussion at all as the attitude with which the arguments are presented. Hardline atheists tend to take this view of "It's okay if we have to resort to rhetoric because they haven't got anything better", and rabid religious fundies take this view of "Blasphemers questioning the Word of God and they are hellbound because the Bible says so!" Meanwhile, the rational people who should be doing all the talking sit there and go, "Condescended to on one side, verbally molested on the other ... I'm going to shut up now"
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 12:05 pm (UTC)"I believe that because these notions are built up from a worldview that starts off being provable and because they are subject to stringent and open peer review they are _more likely_ to be true."
I still think that's a stretch when it comes to anything that isn't physically demonstrable. Peer review of something entirely theoretical doesn't make it true simply because the bedrock of the theory is commonly accepted by those peers, that's an article of faith again.
"Indeed, not does it claim to. It says that we should wait for more evidence and testable theories _or_ (and this is the clincher) admit that we will just have to remain ignorant of knowing the truth for certain. No other faith is so open for admitting it's ignorance."
That might be the case within the scientific community, but look at how it's explained to everyone outside those hallowed halls - everything presented to the general public, from popular science programmes to New Scientist articles, tends to spout theory as fact. TV scientists as priests of the new church. Even if you're right and there's less dogma within the community, that's not how it's handed down to us plebs.
"Science has always been a sub-set of meta-physics."
Somebody please try explaining this to CSICOP...
no subject
Date: 2005-12-15 01:33 pm (UTC)Indeed. If we were all going to be logical about it we should all be agnostics since we don't know (perhaps can't know) about the existance or properties of anything devine. In reality we all make choices depending on what we think is most likely given what we know (and feel for some).
> Peer review of something entirely theoretical doesn't make it true simply
> because the bedrock of the theory is commonly accepted by those peers,
> that's an article of faith again.
Very true. The idea is once a theory is accepted tests are thought of and created to test that theory. Even if they work as planned it does not prove that the theory is a fact - simply that it is the best model we have to date. This is why even things like the law of gravity should still be considered theories.
> That might be the case within the scientific community, but look at how
> it's explained to everyone outside those hallowed halls - everything
> presented to the general public, from popular science programmes to New
> Scientist articles, tends to spout theory as fact.
Very much so. This is because people are brought up to believe in facts and have an instinctive fear of ignorance. If you say to someone that something is true they will accept it. If you say the same thing is 99% likely to be true they won't trust is anywhere near as much. I believe that this is a fault of the way children are educated.
>>"Science has always been a sub-set of meta-physics."
>Somebody please try explaining this to CSICOP...
I always thought that CSICOP debunked people who came to them and didn't so much actively go out to 'attack' other people. I could be wrong...