The Official Cult Of Gnu Survey
Posted in Atheism, Quickies on | 1 minute | 108 Comments →
Howdy all. Hopefully it’s as beautiful in your part of the world as it is in mine. So, here’s the skinny: I’m looking to compile a list of New Atheist-types for an upcoming project. Who do you see as a New Atheist worth exposing? The first people that come to my mind are obviously the obvious ones like Dawkins, PZ, Coyne, Harris, Carrier and the late Hitchens (can anyone explain why Dennett is always lumped in this category? Most of what I’ve seen from him seems rational, or, at least not blatantly irrational unlike the others, but maybe I just haven’t seen enough).
1. What would you list as the defining characteristics of particular New Atheists, and/or the New Atheist movement in general?
2. Who would you list as the most competent and/or entertaining critics of New Atheism, online or elsewhere?
3. What are some of the better New Atheist exposés you’ve read online?
Karl Grant
says...Of the the New Atheist Movement in general? Hmm, I think it’s defining characteristics are:
1. Fanatical worldview: most of the ones I have seen or talked to show considerable intolerance and outright hatred for those that don’t share their beliefs.
2. Missionary worldview: they are out to actively convert people to atheism and they have this belief (Dawkins, Harris and Meyers especially) that if the entire world became atheist there would be no more wars, no more hunger, no more major problems period.
3. Egotism: Most New Atheists have an inflated opinion of themselves, imagining themselves to be totally rational and/or logical, that they are superior thinkers to religious people, that they don’t need a “Magical Sky Daddy” crutch like theists do, etc…
4. Worship/Infatuation of Science and Technology: Vast majority of them believe that science is the only way to acquire knowledge, that it has replaced religion as a place for answers about life’s ultimate questions (Why am I here? Do I have a purpose?) and that advanced technology holds the key to mankind’s salvation.
4-A. Willful blindness to Science and Technology’s shortcomings and/or harm they have done to the world at large: Just try bringing up machine guns, nuclear weapons, global warming, the Children of Thalidomide, etc… and watch the evasions, rationalizations and word games begin.
5. Lack of Historical Knowledge: Most seem unaware of earlier, similar movements such as the old Logical Postivists, that several of the actions they advocate have been tried before and backfired drastically or (as evidenced in 4-A) times when mainstream science screwed up royally.
6. Desire to Whitewash Atheism: Most seem committed to the idea that atheism has a spotless record. Bringing up the actions of atheist world leaders such as Joseph Stalin or countries that espoused state atheism like the Soviet Union leads to evasions and rationalizations like they didn’t kill because of atheism or communism is a religion etc….
Karl Grant
says...And I forgot:
4-B. Science and Religion are incompatible.
lackofcheese
says...I would consider myself a “New Atheist”, but I don’t really meet your criteria, Karl;
1) Nope
2) I’m not very active, but I do see merit in deconverting people.
3) I definitely don’t consider myself to be totally rational and/or logical, nor do I think I’m innately a superior thinker to religious people.
4) I think science is a very good way of acquiring knowledge, but it definitely has shortcomings and flaws.
5) You have me on that count; my historical knowledge is pretty limited.
6) I don’t feel the need to argue that the record of atheism is “spotless”. I do think that Stalin’s atheism was not the root cause of his actions, though I wouldn’t argue that Communism is a religion.
Peter Hurford
says...From an entertainment point of view, I’d love to see you expose Carrier and PZ Meyers. Also, don’t forget the other various FreeThoughtBloggers: Greta Christina, Adam Lee, etc.
On the flipside, could I ask you who you think are other effective Christian bloggers?
Adamoriens
says...Here’s a critical review of one of his books by David Bentley Hart:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/01/003-daniel-dennett-hunts-the-snark-15.
Matt
says...I suppose the essentials are:
1. Belief in the superiority of science over other epistemologies and the inherit conflict between science and religion.
2. Desire to spread atheism to those outside of acadamia.
3. Willingness to use rhetorical devices in addition to or in place of reasoned discussion.
Oh, and an important one…
4. Adherence to a naturalist worldview.
I tried not to make this list in a way that looks like I have an axe to grind against the New Atheist movement. To me these are the essential qualities that establish someone as a member of the New Atheist group as opposed to simply an atheist. Not being a member of either group perhaps I am not equipped to make a proper list.
Cl,
Have you considered directly requesting essential qualities from those who identify as a member of the Cult of Gnu (maybe this post is intended to do that)?
Daniel
says...I would count Lawrence Krauss, Victor Stenger, Matt Dillahunty,John Loftus, and Dan Barker among the rank and file.
Crude
says...CL,
can anyone explain why Dennett is always lumped in this category?
Because he was Dawkins’ lackey in these debates, though given that Dawkins is apparently still pounding on philosophers (even after Krauss backed off, due to Dennett’s influence) it’s an open question how that stands. Dennett was louder early on – he was one of the guys pushing the “Brights” thing before that became an embarrassing joke for the cult – and whenever he pokes his head out to discuss religion, he functions as Dawkins’ parrot. But he quieted up after the Brights thing blew up, and after Dinesh D’Souza (of all people) smacked him down in a debate. I think he’s a fragile sort who doesn’t brush off mockery so easily (despite being pretty legendary for dumping it on others), so he prefers to stay out of the fray.
Who do you see as a New Atheist worth exposing?
I’ll second Myers and Carrier, purely for the entertainment value. But I’d have to ask what the plan is? Most of them have already been worked over severely – it’s just a matter of piecing that together from various sources. But if you’re doing it just to get the word out and have some fun, Carrier and Myers are great choices.
Oh, so long as we’re dealing with entertainment: Luke. Purely on a mockery level, regarding his obsession with hostile AI wiping out humanity.
Also, what would you list as the defining characteristics of particular New Atheists, and/or the New Atheist movement in general?
Defining characteristics of the Cult of Gnu generally:
* Heavy internet presence. They seem numerous online, until you realize it’s usually the same small pack of guys on numerous sites. (Stephen Carr’s inanities are all over the net. The guy pretty much lives for the comments box.)
* Thin skin. They cannot handle mockery, witty mockery in particular, and especially in a forum where they are outnumbered. If they find themselves being laughed at in a public forum, they will bolt, or call in reinforcements from a cesspool like FTB, begging people to show up to tip the scales.
* Ignorance of science. This isn’t an exceptionless rule, but more often than not the average Cult of Gnu member’s interest in science begins and ends at science fiction, if that. Actual science, much less the limits of science, is something they just have little interest in. They love to scream about the value of science, but actually knowing any or – better yet – doing any, is another issue. For example. For the average Gnu, having a scientific discussion means google and wikipedia scholarship.
* Social autism, a la Vox Day. Though I’d actually up this to ‘functional schizophrenia’. Screaming hatred for Christians, regarding religious belief as a mental illness, etc one day, then the next day whimpering about how most (religious) people have a poor view of atheists and wondering why anyone could be so unfair. Yelling about how atheists are extremely numerous and they’re taking over the world one day, then the next, complaining that they’re an extreme minority and everyone pushes them around. Redefining ‘atheism’ to mean something different each time it’s discussed, depending on how much they like the application at the moment.
* Slogans and anger.
Defining characteristics of Myers specifically:
* Ex-scientist, non-scientist, though everyone’s too polite to say so. He gave up science (like Dawkins) to be a Gnu “leader”. Poster boy for, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”
* Internet RAAAAAAAAAGE, but poorly executed. Lately he’s been taking to trying to give rousing speeches to the flock, that only sound good in an echo chamber. Outside of it, they’re closer to ‘pathetic dorkery’ in summary.
cl
says...Great replies, thanks much to all of you. I added a few new questions to the OP, I’d be grateful if y’all can spend a few keystrokes on those as well.
2. Who would you list as the most competent and/or entertaining critics of New Atheism, online or elsewhere?
3. What are some of the better New Atheist exposés you’ve read online?
cl
says...Another question: who coined the phrase, “Gnu Atheist?” What does it refer to? The ox-like nature of the gnu, typified by most New Atheists?
Peter,
Is Adam Lee a freethought blogger as well? If so, I didn’t know that. I have a hard time lumping Greta in the Gnu category. Then again, she definitely fits the “atheist activist” bill. Even Ebonmuse doesn’t really strike me as a Gnu, but, the more I think about it, the more I see it. More on that some other time.
I personally enjoy the whole crew at Dangerous Idea, along with Feser, Vox, all the believers in my blogroll and a few others I’ll eventually getting around to mentioning.
Matt,
I hadn’t actually, and this post was only aimed at my scant readership, but I do think you have a good idea there…
Karl Grant
says...Lackofcheese,
I said most and the vast majority. I was talking about a movement as a whole, for example the majority of people in Meyer’s comment box fits what I said to a T. Obviously, there will be exceptions.
Karl Grant
says...Well, I like this article on Dawkins:
http://www.arn.org/authors/williams.html
And as for New atheists in general I like this article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17/opinion/oe-allen17
And John Gray has a good one here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society
cl
says...lackofcheese,
If you lack most of those traits, why do you consider yourself a New Atheist? What do you see as the overlap between yourself and the rest of them?
cl
says...Peter,
I’d add Tom Gilson to my list of effective Christian bloggers, citing this utter evisceration of Dawkins as one of many examples.
Garren
says...It took me a long time to realize “Gnu” was a pun and not a reference to Linux zealotry.
lackofcheese
says...cl,
I’d say that the defining characteristics of “New Atheism” are
1) Atheism
2) Rejection of the idea that religion and science are “non-overlapping magisteria”. In conjunction with this, the view that skepticism and rationality should be brought to bear on questions of religion as much as everything else.
3) The view that religion should be actively and vocally criticized.
cl
says...Garren,
Do you know what it’s a pun for?
lackofcheese,
Doesn’t 3) strike you as myopic? Why should you only be concerned with criticizing religion when you could equally be concerned with teasing out the positives and encouraging religious believers to be more intellectually responsible? After all, you don’t know if God exists, so who are you to criticize other people’s beliefs, especially in a country like ours which is essentially founded on religious freedom?
Now, I’m right there with you when the religious people get out of line, say, policy-wise or whatnot. It just strikes me as weird to have a one-way bent towards criticism of religion.
Thinking Emotions
says...cl, I feel the same way. Why not actively and vocally criticize atheism, or Islam, or Judaism? In fact, why not actively criticize lazy thinking and lack of good faith? After all, that’s what we should all really be concerned about.
Johnny Buoy
says...To answer your 3 questions:
1. Angry (defining characteristic)
2. Prof Feser. (best critic of NA)
3. Feser’s (best exposes of NA)
lackofcheese
says...cl,
The word “only” doesn’t apply here, just as I don’t have to only be concerned with women’s rights to be a feminist, and I don’t have to only be concerned with MLP:FiM to be a brony.
However, with regards to positive aspects, I can just leave it to religious advocates to point them out to me – for the most part, I don’t think that looking for positive aspects of religion is the best use of my time. Due to confirmation bias, most people are generally much less likely to point out criticisms of their own beliefs rather than supporting points, and so that’s why I think it’s important for atheists to criticize religion.
Also, of course I’d like everyone to be intellectually responsible – my primary concern is rationality.
Religious freedom is not freedom from criticism; you are free to believe what you believe, but I am free to criticize you for it.
As for “you don’t know if God exists”, well, that depends on what is meant by “know”; at the very least, I consider your God’s existence highly unlikely, but this comment thread is not the place for that discussion.
Thinking Emotions,
My primary concern is, in fact, rationality, and so I am all for criticizing lazy thinking and all other kinds of human failure modes.
Religion isn’t at the top of my priority list, and nor is “New Atheism”, but that doesn’t mean the label doesn’t apply to me.
Also, as far as criticism of other religions is concerned, I see this as an important part of “New Atheism”, although it’s definitely the case that Christianity receives disproportionate attention. Given the level of harm done, it’s probably more important to criticise Islam.
cl
says...TE,
Yeah, I tend to agree. It seems weird to me that these people single out religion, and usually Judeo-Christianity almost exclusively, as if there aren’t much more important problems to solve than whining about people’s metaphysical preferences.
I’m with you, and I notice that lackofcheese seems to be making emendations in this direction, which really makes me question why lackofcheese identifies as a New Atheist.
lackofcheese,
If your primary concern is rationality, why did you state criticizing religion as a pillar belief? The desire to promote rationality does not strike me as a requisite Gnu belief. You’d have plenty of irrationality to fight even if you completely ignored religion. Why not focus on fighting irrationality in medicine and science, where the consequences are seemingly much more crucial? There are plenty of non-atheists with the desire to promote rationality, so I don’t see the connection. I still don’t understand why you identify as a New Atheist.
Did I say it was? Or were you just reminding me?
Granted, ala freedom of speech, but why is it so important to criticize me just because you don’t believe in God and I do? Don’t you think there are more important matters to focus on? After all, I don’t feel the need to criticize your atheism—until you step out of line rationally. If you just want to be an atheist, hey, whatever, no skin off my back. However, if you want to be a Gnu who promotes irrationality and false claims ala Dawkins, then I’m forced to step up.
Well, here’s your chance to criticize me then. There are plenty of other posts here that *ARE* the place for that. Should you oblige, maybe you can quantify “highly unlikely” and give supporting evidence showing how you arrived to that conclusion? Make your case!
Alternatively, how about the other questions? Who do you see as the most effective critics of the Gnu movement? What, in your opinion, are some of the best critiques of New Atheist beliefs and arguments?
lackofcheese
says...cl,
Gnu Atheism is not at the peak of my priorities and is not a core part of my identity, and I personally may not be especially vocal. However, I self-identify as one because I agree with the core ideas I mentioned before, and I see it as an important movement.
Human irrationality has a very wide range of manifestations, but religion tends to be something of an accumulation point for it. More importantly, there are quite a lot of people with such beliefs.
Medicine is indeed a very important area for rationality – fake medicine is a serious issue. As for science, it at least has some inbuilt guards against irrationality, but it too is far from immune.
As for the discussion of religious freedom, I was responding mostly to this:
I think you’ve actually got this one backwards. I would argue that the freedom to criticize religion, and, more generally, open and rational discussion of religion, is a key component of religious freedom.
As a minor side note, I am not a citizen of the country in question, though I do agree with many of its founding ideals.
So, you don’t feel that my atheism is itself irrational? I would have thought you did.
I feel it is valuable to criticize religious beliefs (which, it’s important to note, is notthe same as criticizing you) because I think they are irrational, though some are much less rational than others.
Also, my position is not about “wanting” to be an atheist – what I want is for my beliefs to reflect reality as closely as possible.
Though I don’t have specific examples to bring up, I think an all-too-common tendency of many Gnu Atheists is to oversimplify, and to blame various things entirely on religion even when there are other underlying factors.
Daniel
says...Other feature of “New Atheism”: scientism, implicit positivism, an uncritical acceptance of scientific realism, and the denial of metaphysics, and even logic when such fields of inquiry prove problematic for their world-view. They often are not very clear on who their opponents are, e.g. they will lump together all Christians under the umbrella term “creationist” and then attack a very specific form of creationism. Currently, they are attacking philosophy as “the last bastion of theism, even though most philosophers are atheists and naturalists.
Peter Hurford
says...You’re right, he’s not. Sorry.
~
I already read Dangerous Idea, Feser, and Crude — they’re all not bad at all.
I like Daniel, but he doesn’t update that often, and I’ve already read all his stuff. Unshielded Colliders looks very dead. Merely Mist hasn’t updated in a long time. Sc>Sc, Marcschooley, Don’tAskThatInChurch and BiblicalScholarship all don’t strike me as relevant to my interests. I can’t stand Vox at all, and I’m not about to start.
“He Lives” seems really good, though. I look forward to reading that.
~
That’s a good one. I never really understood the child abuse reference by Dawkins anyway. I’ll have to look for more writing from him.
~
I’d go with Atheism (non-belief in God) + Anti-theism (belief that religion is harmful for society and needs to be reduced or eliminated) + Activism (convincing people of atheism on the public level rather than in philosophy journals). There’s also a temporal component, with the whole “New” part and all.
I’m not sold on Anti-theism, but am sold on Atheism and Activism.
~
I think it depends on which New Atheist is being criticized. Feser has some great take-downs of Krauss and Rosenberg, for example.
Crude
says...Daniel,
Other feature of “New Atheism”: scientism, implicit positivism, an uncritical acceptance of scientific realism, and the denial of metaphysics, and even logic when such fields of inquiry prove problematic for their world-view.
I really question this. I think, superficially, a lot of the Cult of Gnu would say they embrace all the things you list here. In practice, they don’t. “Denial of metaphysics” would mean denial of naturalism and materialism, though frankly I’ve met more than one CoG who was stunned when I pointed out that materialism and/or naturalism are metaphysical views. Logic denial definitely happens.
Scientism and scientific realism I think are given lip service, but again, in practice it tends to not pan out. It’d depend on how you’re defining scientism in part – I think most CoGs treat it as “Really, really saying you like science” and that’s about it.
Matt
says...The podcast/blog Partially Examined Life did an episode on The New Atheism which may be worth listening to and reading their posts on. These guys were all at one point philosophy teachers and they go over various philosophy issues. Pretty sure none of these guys are theists but they don’t seem that impressed with the Cult of Gnu.
http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/09/07/topic-for-44-new-atheism/
cl
says...lackofcheese,
So? There are quite a lot of people with irrational political beliefs, people with direct influence to policies that affect billions. I”m not saying there aren’t dangerous expressions of religious irrationality, by any means. Lord knows there is. Why be concerned with people’s metaphysical preferences when there are so much more dangerous expressions of irrationality around the globe? Do you spend as much or more time highlighting political, medical and scientific irrationality? If not, why not?
As I allude to here, I agree with you. My remark came out wrong. I meant something more like what I just said above.
Well, I don’t know enough about *YOUR* atheism to say, but, since the vast majority of atheist worldviews I’ve examined strike me as irrational, I’d say the chances of yours being the same are well over 50%. Maybe not. I don’t know. Either way, it doesn’t matter. It’s human nature to have some irrational beliefs. As long as your irrationality isn’t hurting anybody else, I don’t really have a problem with it. If you want to start preaching it, if you want to start using it as a weapon against others who don’t think like you, then, we’ve got a problem—especially if these others aren’t hurting anybody with their faith.
Understood, but, where in reality do we have either empirical evidence or cogent logic suggesting that everything can come from literal nothing (not Krauss’ equivocated “nothing”)?
I feel the same way about most of my fellow believers, only they blame science and atheism even when there are other underlying factors. This is inline with my belief that irrationality is a human trait, not exclusive to (a)theism.
cl
says...Peter,
Well, remember, I said all *believers* on my blogroll, so no need to mention Unshielded. Also, that some people don’t update often doesn’t mean they’re not effective at swatting down atheist irrationality. As for Biblical Scholarship, you should take a closer look. Every (a)theist with an interest in Judeo-Christianity could benefit from a better understanding of Scriptural context.
Yet, you just started. :) I think you’re letting your distaste for Vox blind you to his effectiveness. He is certainly intelligent and erudite, and very effective at cutting through atheist irrationality. I think that denial of this point—were you to explicitly deny it—would suggest irrationality on your part.
I agree. Correct me if I’m wrong, but, in a discussion we had on your blog (which I wasn’t able to easily locate), you were telling me that Krauss’ pontifications made a universe from nothing “much more tenable” than a universe created by God. Can you find that link, and explain to what extent this opinion may have changed?
Daniel
says...Crude,
I think you’re right. There needs to be a distinction between Gnu in theory and Gnu in praxis. The attack on philosophy is a more recent phenomenon (a result of Hawking I suspect).
-Daniel
cl
says...Crude / Daniel,
I’m having trouble following. In particular, this part:
In my experience, practically every Gnu I encounter goes emphatically beyond this. Almost all of them treat scientism conventionally, meaning, it’s not just, “we really like science,” but “science is the epitome of human knowledge,” or, “science is the best method we have for uncovering truth.”
lackofcheese
says...cl,
I think all kinds of irrationality are worth speaking out against. Individually, I don’t have the time to do so, of course, but collectively, different people can handle different areas. For me, it’s primarily a result of the subjects I am more curious about.
As for “everything coming from literal nothing”, well, I don’t know what happened in the very earliest moments of the Big Bang, so I don’t even really know if that question is meaningful or applicable.
cl
says...lackofcheese,
Interesting. It would seem a person with a stated interest in making their beliefs match reality should fight irrationality accordingly. IOW, of all the places you could fight irrationality that would arguably matter much more IN REALITY, you focus on people who don’t share your atheism, because you’re curious about the subject? To each their own I suppose, but if I wasn’t a believer, and still wanted to participate in activism, I sure as hell wouldn’t waste time on atheists or believers (unless they started encroaching on religious freedom). If I wasn’t a believer I’d spend more time fighting irrationality in politics, medicine and science, because the results of irrationality seem much more dangerous in those fields—and I want both my beliefs and my actions to match reality.
Oh, so, what you’re saying is that for all you know God could have created the universe, but at the same time, you’re telling me God is “highly unlikely.” Well, what happened to wanting your beliefs to match reality? If the latter truly is the case, shouldn’t you at least *NOT* be an atheist, let alone one who feels the need to crusade against religion?
lackofcheese
says...cl,
First of all, wanting my beliefs (and those of others) to match reality does not directly dictate which subjects I should care enough to talk about on the Internet, nor who I should talk to. As I said before, I think all kinds of irrationality are worth speaking about, but as individuals we can’t know everything about everything. I think that people’s interests are diverse enough that if we all fight irrationality in our own individual areas of interest, that would be a huge step forwards.
As for why religion in particular is worth criticism, I think it plays a big role in normalizing irrational modes of thinking. Also, I think criticism of religion is integral to combating a significant element of discrimination and bigotry.
Overall, I’m personally probably not enough of an activist to qualify as a “Gnu Atheist” from an outside perspective, but I do support those ideas. The reason I’m posting in this thread in particular, though, was not for criticism – cl individually isn’t really at all harmful – but mostly to improve the quality of the discussion. It seemed to me that there was a bit of an “echo chamber” effect going on with the people in this thread being happy to score points against a stereotype, and I thought it would be helpful to reduce this effect.
Just as much as “for all I know, a flying monkey could have created the universe”. Not knowing one particular thing doesn’t mean that I know nothing; nor does it mean that I should just come up with answers rather than following wherever it is that reality leads.
If you want to actually discuss this, at least start with a clear question, or clarify what it is that you’re asking – the phrase “everything can come from literal nothing” simply serves to play on human intuitions that could easily make no sense at all in the context of the origin of the universe.
cl
says...lackofcheese,
How do you currently fight religious irrationality? You rarely comment here—which I suppose might be a sign you don’t think I’m irrational enough to criticize—but either way, I’m curious. Maybe there is some overlap in our opinions about the negative ramifications of faith run amok.
I agree. You’re free to spend your time as you wish. I just wonder what it suggests, that so many “defenders of rationality” focus almost exclusively on religion. I think there’s plenty to think about there.
Okay, so, *SURELY* you think criticism of mitlitant Gnuism is also integral to combating a significant element of discrimination and bigotry, right? How do you currently fight irrational Gnuism?
You were the second person to comment in this thread. That you commented to reduce echoes in this thread is impossible. Can you clarify?
LOL! Maybe you are a Gnu after all! Seriously though, it seems we’ve left good faith discussion. I emphatically do not believe that *YOU* believe an all-powerful eternal Creator and a flying monkey are on equal grounds WRT potential causes of the universe. In fact, that comment is a beautiful example of Gnu irrationality that I think deserves exposé, perhaps even a little tactful mockery.
I disagree. If you are an atheist, you have no other choice but “eternally existing randomly influenced matter that manages to arrange itself so intricately as to allow highly improbable carbon-based life forms,” or “everything came from nothing.”
I did. Here it is again, rephrased for clarity: If you truly want your beliefs to match reality, and for all you know God could have created the universe, shouldn’t you at least *NOT* be a vocal atheist who claims God’s existence is “highly unlikely,” let alone one who feels the need to crusade against religion? Shouldn’t you assume a role better described as humble agnostic?
As for the universe discussion in particular, which of the two aforementioned options do you have either cogent argument or empirical evidence for? Those are clear, serious questions. Reply with another Gnuish “flying monkey” remark and I’m over it.
Crude
says...cl,
In my experience, practically every Gnu I encounter goes emphatically beyond this. Almost all of them treat scientism conventionally, meaning, it’s not just, “we really like science,” but “science is the epitome of human knowledge,” or, “science is the best method we have for uncovering truth.”
I agree that they say this. I just think that, in practice, it tends to cash out to nothing but lip service. You see the CoGs get shady when you just ask them what their definition of science is. I also don’t think “science is the best method we have for uncovering truth” is strong enough for the typical CoG claim, since that still leaves open the door that there’s a second-best method which is very good itself (say, in areas where science can’t properly investigate a claim.)
There’s a big gulf between, as Daniel said, the CoG’s typical statements, and their actual behavior.
lackofcheese
says...cl,
Currently, I mostly just speak out when I encounter it, so I don’t really qualify as much of an activist overall.
Yes, criticism of Gnu atheists is rather important (setting aside the silly use of “militant”), and there are certain kinds of irrationality that they are indeed susceptible to. However, Gnuism is vastly less prevalent than religion, and unlike religion I feel the overall effect is currently quite positive. I do try to point it out when I notice irrationality among Gnus, but in the general sense this can be difficult to do, given how flawed human cognitive architecture is.
You’re right there. I guess I just thought that if I didn’t bother, Karl Grant’s stereotype would remain untouched (Crude seems to agree with it as well). Granted, I may have only put myself forward as an example, but in the end the best way to beat a stereotype is through lots of examples.
It’s ridiculous to suggest a touch of hyperbole means that I’ve left good faith discussion. You misrepresented my position by saying “for all you know God could have created the universe” and I felt the response was appropriate.
The point is that I don’t need to know for sure in order to discount God’s existence as “highly unlikely”. To elaborate further, I could come up with vastly many such “explanations”, but there isn’t sufficient evidence to single out that one in particular, especially given that Occam’s razor weighs heavily against it.
Side note: depending on what you mean by “know”, I’m happy to call myself an agnostic.
As for the options you put forward – if you want to discuss cosmogony, you’re going to have to clarify what you mean by “everything came from nothing”, or the discussion won’t get anywhere.
jason
says...lackofcheese,
by something from nothing, i believe cl means:
all the existing aggregate of matter, space, time, and energy was randomly and instantaneously brought forth from nothing that consists in any part of all the existing matter, space, time, or energy.
sorry to jump in there and please correct me if that’s not what you meant cl.
cl
says...lackofcheese,
Why is it silly to refer to people like Dawkins or Al Stefanelli as militant? Note that I mean militant in spirit, not that they are actually in an army.
Can you give an example, either from real life or online, of you speaking out against irrational theism and irrational atheism? I’m trying to find out where you stand.
I don’t understand. What about “flawed human cognitive architecture” makes it difficult for you to criticize folks like Dawkins, or Al Stefanelli, who calls for the outright eradication of religion?
I disagree, and counter that it’s ridiculous to proffer flippant hyperbole in response to good faith philosophical inquiry.
I think that’s false. You said you, “don’t know what happened in the very earliest moments of the Big Bang.” Is it not a straightforward inference that this leaves room for Creation?
I’m not saying you need certainty. Now you’re misrepresenting my position.
I think you’re misusing the razor. The way I see it, if an unmoved mover has always existed, we have a single, simple explanation that requires no additional explanations. That is in accord with Ockham’s razor, not contra. Compare that to the multiverse theory, for example.
I already explained it. What part is giving you difficulty?
cl
says...jason,
No worries, jump in anytime.
No, that’s not what I meant. I’m talking about the ultimate beginning here. Meaning, whether we’re talking about this current universe, or proffering the existence of many universes which gave birth to this one, at the beginning of it all, the atheist is still left with the two options I outlined: either we have “eternally existing randomly influenced matter that manages to arrange itself so intricately as to allow highly improbable carbon-based life forms,” or, “everything came from literal nothing.” If you think I’m missing an option for the atheist, let me know, I’ve been trying to think of one for a long time.
In my opinion, the former violates Ockham’s, and the latter violates cogent logic, as well as empirical evidence and observation. Atheists can mock all they want, but it doesn’t get any simpler than “God did it.”
Crude
says...cl,
Meaning, whether we’re talking about this current universe, or proffering the existence of many universes which gave birth to this one, at the beginning of it all, the atheist is still left with the two options I outlined: either we have “eternally existing randomly influenced matter that manages to arrange itself so intricately as to allow highly improbable carbon-based life forms,” or, “everything came from literal nothing.”
I’m in the minority on this one, but I think it gets worse: once you’re dealing with ‘eternally existing randomly fluctuating nature’ and ‘multiple universes’, gods and ID drop out almost automatically. If I were an atheist, the fact that many prominent scientists who discuss the multiverse inevitably start talking about designed/simulated universes would shatter me. Worse, once you start taking that line, it actually starts wreaking havoc on Darwinism and evolutionary theory. (Recall that one reason natural selection is treated as central is because it’s supposed to be what allows an otherwise extremely unlikely or effectively impossible development to take place. If you assume eternity or infinite universes, you don’t need NS anymore even in a practical sense.)
And I’d note Feser and company would argue that even the ‘eternally existing universe’ still is compatible with the God of classical theism (First way, etc.)
lackofcheese
says...cl,
The word militant has connotations of violence that, as far as I know, simply do not carry across. Vocal? Yes. Strident? Many are. Militant? Doesn’t seem like an appropriate term to me. It doesn’t really bother me, though, so feel free to keep using it, as long as you’re happy to be called a “militant theist”.
Well, I do think it would generally be better if people did not hold supernatural beliefs, so I’m not exactly sure what the issue is.
Your comments did not strike me as “good faith philosophical inquiry”, though it seems I was mistaken. However, I will note that I did not mean to put the flying monkey and God on equal grounds – it was just the first thing that came to mind.
It’s not impossible (as a side note, neither is the flying monkey), but that doesn’t make it at all likely.
Karl Grant
says...Lackofcheese,
.
Me and Crude run into a lot of people that fit that stereotype. Sad to say but all stereotypes have at least some basis in reality (and New Atheist leaders like Meyers, Dawkins or bloggers like Papalinton or Tony Hoffman do a good job of conforming to the criteria me and Crude listed). Any generalization, no matter how valid, can be blown off as a stereotype. The way I see it it doesn’t matter if the comment is stereotypical but whether it’s valid.
And while I am glad you don’t seem to act like Meyers simply listing counterexamples isn’t going to get rid of that stereotype when the self-appointed public spokesmen of atheists act almost like a caricatures of the traits me and Crude listed.
lackofcheese
says...cl,
Thanks for finally clarifying a little bit.
To me, it seems the notion of a beginning is inherently tied to a concept of time, and so I can’t see what an “ultimate beginning” is.
From what I know, extrapolating backwards with general relativity gives a point in time beyond which we can’t really tell what the deal is, without a working theory of quantum gravity.
I do agree that either there is a time before which there was no time, or time continues back indefinitely, and the former seems more likely at the moment.
However, I don’t see how the second idea equates to “everything coming from nothing” – the idea of “coming from” is one that only makes sense within time.
cl
says...lackofcheese,
By “militant” I don’t mean violent.
It doesn’t work that way. I’m not calling for the eradication of atheism. I’m not claiming bringing your kids up atheist = child abuse. I’m not advocating separatism in any way, shape or form. I’m perfectly willing to co-exist with atheists so long as they don’t tread on my liberty ala Stefanelli, or clutter up the internet with false claims ala Dawkins. If you can’t see the difference, well… oh well.
Despite evidence to the contrary, I might add. You might be more of a threat to liberty and freethought than I originally supposed. Seriously, what’s your problem with people believing in God?
Fair enough. Onward we go.
That’s it? That’s all you have to say? You need to explain, with evidence and cogent argument, why you find God highly unlikely. Otherwise, what is your justification for being an atheist? Unless of course you just mean to say that such is your opinion or gut feeling, in which case I have no interest in pursuing the matter. I think your answer is a bit of a cop-out, especially in light of the legitimate questions I asked and my comments about Ockham’s. If you’re simply mulling things over and plan to give a substantial defense of your position later, then I apologize and eagerly await your evidence and logic.
cl
says...lackofcheese,
I apologize. Apparently you did have in mind to give a more legitimate answer.
So then, by direct inference, isn’t a timeless Creator consistent with the state of affairs you just conceded as more likely? IOW, wouldn’t “eternally existing randomly influenced matter” be less likely than a timeless Creator? It seems to me you have no way out of this but to agree, and if you agree, that seems to do much damage to your opinion that a Creator is highly unlikely, unless of course you can provide a comprehensive case that trumps your stated positions on cosmology.
Because these are the options: either something always existed and from that something came everything else, or there was literal nothing and then all of a sudden everything. Note I’ve omitted the string “coming from,” which should do away with your complaint about “coming from” only making sense in the context of time. If you think I’m missing an option, by all means, enlighten.
Crude
says...Karl,
And while I am glad you don’t seem to act like Meyers simply listing counterexamples isn’t going to get rid of that stereotype when the self-appointed public spokesmen of atheists act almost like a caricatures of the traits me and Crude listed.
Not only that, but it’s self-appointed public spokesmen and the weight of their followers. Show me the public spokesman for Atheism who condemned Dawkins over his child abuse crap, or who condemned Blasphemy Day. I can point at plenty of guys who condemn Westboro Baptist on the Christian side.
cl,
Note I’ve omitted the string “coming from,” which should do away with your complaint about “coming from” only making sense in the context of time.
If I’m understanding the charge correctly, even the “coming from” complaint doesn’t fly. Simultaneous causation, first way, etc.
lackofcheese
says...Consistent? Possibly so, depending on just how much you’re packing into the words “timeless Creator”. However, consistency does not imply likelihood, nor truth – the timeless flying monkey is consistent.
What? That’s hardly equivalent to your previous statement! No, I don’t agree with this one.
That’s not enough; you’re still talking in the context of time – note “always existed”, “from that … came”, “all of a sudden”. Simply rephrasing the question doesn’t solve that problem.
From what you’ve said so far, I have seen little reason to posit a God at all. I also disagree with your view of Occam’s razor – to me, a more formal notion of Occam’s razor strongly suggests that a concept like “God did it” is far from simple – the complexity is hidden away behind the words “God” and “it”. Without formalizing the concept, you’re just letting your brain hide this complexity away; while it comes naturally to your brain to think in terms of agents and their motivations, that doesn’t make those things at all simple.
For the moment, I need some sleep, but I wouldn’t mind discussing further (though this does seem pretty off-topic at the moment).
Peter Hurford
says...Of course, sorry. I mentally swapped from “who’s effective?” to “who do I want to read?” kind of without warning.
Also, you should look at ShadowToLight. Good takedowns there.
~
Vox Day is intelligent, but an example at how complex yet incorrect ideas can be defended with amazing intelligence. Here, I’m thinking not about theism (though I do think it’s complex yet incorrect and can be defended with amazing intelligence), but thinking about creationism and Austrian economics.
~
Are you thinking about the discussions in “God is Unproven”? I had mentioned that I thought the loop quantum cosmology model was “far less tenuous” than a god.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never endorsed Krauss’s pontifications. If I have, point it out and I’ll recant it.
As for a more generic update, I’ve learned that a lot more research is needed into cosmology before I can make any conclusions about gods. But I do look forward to reading some books in that area.
Ronin
says...http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/
http://www.mandm.org.nz/
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/
It actually depends on what one is looking for. Is it biblical scholarship, is it philosophical, or etc.?
cl
says...lackofcheese,
Yeah, I was getting burnt, too. If you want to continue the cosmology thing, leave a comment in the kinesis thread and let’s take it over from there. If not, thanks for your input and patience.
Peter,
Crude actually put me on to ShadowOfLight. I agree. Pretty hilarious that Francis Collins has contributed more knowledge to the scientific community (and humanity) than Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, and Harris combined! I bet the Gnus just love that! LOL!
You’ve mentally swapped again. That you disagree with Vox on Creationism (which, to my knowledge, he does not defend, but if I’m wrong shoot me links) or Austrian economics has nothing to do with the fact that Vox is highly skilled at dismantling Gnu atheist arguments.
Ah, that’s right… you were referring to Bojowald’s theory, “still in its early stages and very speculative,” and passing that off as “far less tenuous” than a First Mover, despite the facts that “far less tenuous” was never quantified or explained, and “a general demonstration is still lacking” for Bojowald’s theory. Now I remember.
So then, were your previous remarks about tenuity somewhat premature?
Ronin,
By any metric. Thanks for your input, it’s exactly what I was looking for. I’d like to get more, so, if you or anybody else can suggest any other links let ’em fly.
Ronin
says...http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
http://danielbwallace.com/
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/ [Not all are Christians but a lot of them are.]
Peter Hurford
says...Looks like good stuff.
~
I’d personally be looking for those who make a compelling case for theism (or a specific kind of theism), but will settle for those who provide compelling cases against pro-atheist arguments.
~
Sure thing. You’re right, I won’t deny that he’s effective. I just find him insufferable, that’s all. You’re also right that he doesn’t advocate for creationism, just against evolution.
~
That’s correct.
~
Yes. The topic needs more investigation and an actually thorough assessment.
cl
says...Great links guys, thanks again.
Peter,
I feel you on the insufferable thing. “The masses are so unintelligent I just *HAVE* to patronize them!” Talk about BARF!
From what I’ve read, I’d hesitate to say Vox argues against evolution, because to me, that implies he’s taken up the position that evolution is false. From what I can glean, Vox’s position is better described as evolutionary skepticism, and that’s a position I share with him, 100%. In his own words:
Regardless, I think you might be letting irrationality get the best of you WRT Vox Day. It seems you’re letting the “insufferable” traits prevent you from legitimately grappling with his arguments. If this weren’t the case, I would expect you to have legitimate responses to his evolutionary skepticism, but, as far as I know, no such responses exist. Am I mistaken?
I agree. Since I know you’re busy, I went ahead and tacked that onto the God Is Unproven thread. I await the next leg of the journey.
Ronin
says...Peter,
Well, I suppose, it remains to be seen what you mean by “compelling.” Anyways, I rather enjoyed Nagasawa’s defense of the “Anselmian” God. See: http://www.yujinnagasawa.com/resources/anselmian.pdf
Here is a list of his publications, which you can read some of them for free. See: http://www.yujinnagasawa.com/publications.html
Peter Hurford
says...Fair enough.
~
I’m not a professional biologist, so it would take quite a lot of time to unravel. I wouldn’t even rule out that some of his skepticism is right on, given that evolution isn’t absolutely settled in all of its finer details, even if its foundations are well-verified.
I do know Vox says something like “The amusing thing is that in an effort to claim that evolution really is a predictive science despite the inability of scientists to use it to predict anything”, which is extra amusing because scientists have used evolution to predict things.
He also seems to have a tendency to take details in the evolutionary theory that have changed over time (such as horizontal gene transfer within microscopic organisms) and take this to indicate that evolution is falling apart (I have his essay “They just never learn” in mind here). I don’t think that’s the case.
In his essay “Questions for evolutionists”, he endorses the “Question Evolution Campaign”, which has been nicely addressed here and here.
That’s about as deep into the archives as I could stomach for one trip. You’re right that the omnipresent snark makes me have trouble giving unbiased assessment of his views.
I’m also not one to typically assert the “he’s wrong about one thing, therefore he’s wrong about these different things as well” fallacy, but I am very intrigued by his prediction that Obama will withdraw from presidential nomination and be replaced by a different candidate prior to the 2012 election.
That flies completely counter to everything I know about a subject I do specialize in — political science (which is distinct from my knowledge of biology based on only an intro course, two books, and lots of google searching). As far as I know, it’s provably idiotic. If Obama does withdraw, then I’ll accept Vox Day as a superintelligence and become a regular reader of his blog.
cl
says...Peter,
Well, first off, we’d need to unpack the loaded term, “evolution,” but I’m only going to be brief here.
Are they? How so?
I’ll leave that alone for now.
Well, if you frown on Vox for that, why are you quite fond of “religious dissonance” arguments? You take differing opinions on God and within Christianity and imply that these differences indicate theism is a mess, right?
LOLOLOL! That was hands down the wittiest thing I’ve ever heard you say. Big ups. And goodnight. What an awesome day of blogging.
Karl Grant
says...Cl,
Don’t know if you are still following this discussion but I recently came across an article by Michael Prescott:
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/a-thumb-in-gods-eye.html
which has an interesting insight about why the Cult of Gnu is like it is:
Adamoriens
says...^There’s something seriously off about that quote. Is it the pretence at detached psychoanalysis for the purpose of insult? Is it the total lack of any empirical appeal? Or is it the odd irony in exchanging one flimsy generalization for another; “religion is stupid” for “religion teaches the taming of the ego.”
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
Religion does teach the taming of the ego. Take a look at any religious text and you will usually see major emphasis on humility. Christian texts often view humility as annexed to the cardinal virtue of temperance. Buddhism stresses humility, compassion and wisdom as the path to enlightenment. Islam holds that humility and humbleness are among the noblest virtues a believer can be blessed with. I could go on and on.
As for the empirical appeal, I have seen many atheists who do act like overgrown teenagers. Meyers, for example, acts like a drunken frat boy half the time.
Thinking Emotions
says...Adamoriens,
I’m glad we agree about that quote! Okay, sure, religion teaches the taming of the ego. Most people would indeed agree that a tamed ego is a more desirable trait than an untamed ego. Excuse my bluntness, but so what? Religions teach a lot of things, but they’re not the only source for teaching such things nor are all the things they teach genuinely desirable. If there were a religion that prescribed hatred and violence toward others, I don’t think anyone would subscribe to it or even admit its intentions were understandable from a different point of view. What we’re ascribing as a goodness of the belief/relgion is really just the goodness of the lesson/trait being purported as important or desirable.
The fact of the matter is that hubris has nothing to do with one’s belief system in a causal way. One might conduct an experiment and find that atheists or theists are more likely to be arrogant/cocksure, but it would not then follow that the beliefs were the cause of this. I’ve always believed that arrogant people are that way due to some psychological shortcoming or sincere personal error, and I’d like to think I’m right.
To put it concisely, there are a bunch of insecure, over-compensating theists and atheists out there. Let’s not even try to pretend that the belief system or the veracity of the belief system might have something to do with it.
Adamoriens
says...Hi Karl. You wrote:
What would an atheist say? God is the ego writ large. Or, we make God out of our own ego: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.
Prescott said most, not many, and not one particular Minnesota professor.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
Mind explaining how using a Tu quoque, or appeal to hypocrisy, disproves Mr. Prescott’s statement? Even if I grant you believers often reason egocentrically, how does that disprove the oberservation that most atheists are egotists? Also, if I provided you with a scientific study that shows most people don’t obey the speed limit would that somehow prove that speed limits don’t exist or that there is a reason for their existence? Because that is the same type of reasoning you are using right now ‘Religion teaches taming of the the ego.’
Adamoriens
says...I did not counter Prescott’s claim of adolescence among atheists with the atheistic claim of the same among atheists; rather, in post 58 I pointed out that it has no compelling empirical support. In other words, I have no compulsion to counter an observation that lacks substance.
The “ego writ large” comment is merely an alternative view to Prescott’s generalization.
I’m inclined to agree with you that personality precedes worldview, but I can’t find that this materially contradicts anything Prescott says in the quote.
cl
says...Karl Grant,
Yep, I’m still following, and thanks for that banger of a link.
Adamoriens,
That’s irrelevant though. It’s a complete non-sequitur WRT to Karl Grant’s claim. It doesn’t refute the fact that religions, in general, teach the taming of the ego, exactly as Karl suggested.
Total nonsense, unless of course one wishes to constrain “compelling empirical support” to “replicated scientific findings.” I can chime in “empirically” here because I’m in these trenches every day (well, not lately, but you get the point). Most—not many, but most—of the atheists I encounter *DO* act like overgrown teenagers. Read the comments at Pharyngula, or the Dawkins Foundation, or on freethought blogs, etc. Making obscene jokes about God and believers. Taunting believers with profanity and insults. Thinking they’re cute by parodying religion with flying pasta monsters. Need I go on? Sure, you’ll find the occasional atheist with a voice of respect and reason—for example yourself 99% of the time—but for the most part, it’s all just impassioned teenage bluster, often as irrational and unscientific as the religious counterpart it purports to criticize. I honestly consider myself blessed because, with a few notable exceptions, the “overgrown teenager” type of atheist doesn’t really frequent my blog.
Your resistance to Karl’s remarks, well… I don’t know what to make of it. I sense a change going on with you lately. Go ahead, call me Dr. Phil, I’ll take it just as I’ve dished it out… but I’m just being dead honest here. There’s more anger / intolerance in your atheism (agnosticism?) these past few weeks. What gives?
ThinkingEmotions,
I appreciate your carefulness there. When I read the article, I didn’t get the impression that Prescott suggested a causal link between atheism, the belief, and “overgrown teenager syndrome” (hereafter OTS). By suggesting such, I think you might have taken the article a bit out of context. The part Karl cited occurred directly after this line:
In my opinion, Prescott wasn’t making any sweeping generalization or feigned connection between atheism and OTS. Prescott was stating the fact that egoism is antithetical to religion proper, and suggesting that egoism blinded Angier to irony of her own petulance—and I wholly agree with him. I’ve seen it. I’ve experienced it. Yes, you’re right, OTS can befall a theist or an atheist, but Prescott wasn’t claiming that atheism produces OTS, or that “overgrown teenagers” were predominantly atheist.
Karl Grant
says...Cl,
Glad you liked it, I have been reading some of his other essays. the one entitled Why I’m not a Skeptic is fairly interesting also:
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/why-im-not-a-skeptic.html
For some reason, the last couple of paragraphs reminds me of quite a few atheists I have met in my life:
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
Than why did you provide that link? It had nothing about the mental state of atheists, nothing that would refute Prescott’s statements, rather it claimed that many believers reason egocentrically? Really it comes off as a, well, so do you! statement. As for empirical evidence, would you kindly do as CL suggests and spend a few hours on the big name atheists blogs and forums? I have and my eyes started to glaze over at the self-righteous hypocrisy and crude, adolescent attempts at sarcasm and humor that fill comment after comment.
Cale B.T.
says...Hi Cl, sorry I’m late to the party, but I thought you or someone else might like to critique some of the articles from “The Australian Book of Atheism”. (http://www.amazon.com/Australian-Book-Atheism-Warren-Bonett/dp/1921640766)
Buy this volume for the humour value and sheer concentration of Gnu. One of the worst essays, I think, was “Theology is Not Philosophy” by Peter Ellerton
(http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/peter-ellerton-8574)
cl
says...Hey no problem, sorry I’m late in approving your first comment here. So long as you always go by “Cale B.T.” comments should now post without issue.
Yeah, I’ll definitely check those links out. You dropped one over at Victor’s place the other day, I think it went to some ironically-titled “freethought” Wiki equating atheist conversion with adult re-belief in Santa Claus. The sad thing is, young, impressionable people who don’t know any better read that crap and immediately assume it *IS* genuine free thought to espouse such bigoted and irrational nonsense.
Thanks for stoppin’ by.
Adamoriens
says...Hi cl. You wrote:
Supposing that the Sensus Divinitatus is actually the projection of one’s own wishes and desires, religion would actually amplify the effect of the ego. Again, this is an alternative to Prescott.
I actually wouldn’t be surprised if atheists posting online exhibited more of the characteristics that you describe than the general population. Internet users are disproportionately young, as are atheists (just tossing that out; haven’t fact-checked), and it does seem that narcissism correlates with youth.
However, what assurances do we have that online atheists are representative of atheists in general?
Also, I read Prescott incorrectly. In the quote, he doesn’t accuse atheists of narcissism so much as “those who despise religion — who militantly denounce and decry it.” But my criticism still holds. In matter of fact, he does even less than you or Karl in substantiating this claim; the whole of his essay is taken up with one Natalie Angier (who’s supposed to be representative of religion’s critics, I guess), and nowhere does he offer other grounds for believing him.
If I may, his whole article has a whiff of ad hominem. He does attempt some legitimate defence of religion against charges of inherent violence and irrationality, but to conclude by accusing one’s opponents of emotional, moral and intellectual dysfunction is rather suspicious. Poison the well?
I think my responses to Karl can be taken at face value. I do resist false attributions of fallacy.
I don’t register any more conscious animosity toward religious believers than I ever have. Perhaps other frustrations have manifested.
Karl wrote:
It’s no use accusing me of fallacy when my comments are public record. Again, you’ll see that the link was provided in response to the thesis of religion as tamer of the human ego, not in refutation to the alleged emotional immaturity of atheists.
My responses to cl above are pertinent.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
I know what the link was a response to and I specifically said even if I grant you that religious believers reason egotistically, i.e. project their own wishes and desires onto the Divine, that does not disprove that religious doctrine and religious texts specifically warn against doing that and advocate the opposite. Remember my comment about speed limits: if I provided you with a scientific study that shows most people don’t obey the speed limit would that somehow prove that speed limits don’t exist or that there is a reason for their existence?
See I can point to verses in the Bible, Torah and the Koran about humility being a virtue and instructing believers not to put words in God’s mouth. I can point to texts written by theologians and clergy expounding on those principles. The fact that there are religious adherents who do not follow those instructions does not change the fact those instructions exist anymore than the fact that people go 80 mph by my house changes the fact there is a 55 mph speed limit on the road.
Nor does it change the fact that your post with said link can broken down into one simple sentence: You say atheists are egotists, that religion teaches taming of the ego, well this study says you’re egotists too! In other words, well, so do you, Tu quoque.
Adamoriens
says...Karl Grant:
If it’s turtles, it’s turtles all the way down. Given that communication with the Divine is ultimately egotistical, it follows that “God’s Word” itself and all that doctrine, theologians and clergy stand on is ultimately egotistical. After all, what is divine revelation if not a communication with the Divine?
There’s no need to paraphrase, summarize or otherwise rework anything I’ve said. Instead, why not just quote me directly and thereby demonstrate that I’ve committed the fallacy you suggest?
For what it’s worth, I’ve read Prescott’s whole article a few more times over. I’m even more convinced of the “offness” of his writing; there is something sinister in the way he sets up his ideological opponents as “creatures of vanity” and so on.
cl
says...Adamoriens,
I had a feeling your hypothesis was off so I did some checking. Though a little outdated, this link lists the average user age at 37-40. This link, much more recent, supports the first: 45-54 is the largest user demographic, followed by 35-44 then 55-64. Also, the smallest demographics were 12-17 and 18-24, respectively. IOW, internet users tend to be middle-aged or older. As for atheists, this link does affirm that atheists tend to be young (55% are under 35), but it also says half are over 30. I see no evidence to support the hypothesis that internet atheists are younger than average, and I actually see decent evidence to the contrary (that atheists over 30 are more likely to be on the internet than atheists under 25).
And again, it’s a total non-sequitur WRT to Karl Grant’s claim.
I think you’re still reading him incorrectly. I didn’t read him as making an argument of the variant, “As Natalie is, so all the others are.” I simply read him as saying he’s encountered many critics like Natalie. Does he really need empirical support for that? It’s an op-ed piece. I can affirm his experience. Most atheists I come across—online or in flesh—act like he describes.
I disagree. He doesn’t attempt to go from “Angier is petulant” to “her arguments against religion are false.”
Again, I disagree. He didn’t supply negative information about Angier prior to arguing against her case. Rather, he analyzed her case first, gave reasons for rejecting it, and then made his psychoanalytical conclusions WRT to Angier and “angry teenage atheist syndrome.”
I’m still not sure what you’re resisting here. WRT to fallacy, isn’t non-sequitur a fallacy?
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
Bullshit. Just because some members of an institution or a group display certain traits does not mean those traits apply to the institution or group as a whole. This is basic sociology. Have you ever heard of the Generalization Fallacy? But if you wanna play this game than I am going to be justified in saying atheism is egotism and teenage wish-fulfillment writ large. Hey, if it’s turtles it’s turtles all the way.
Not if such communication actually took place. Then it’s no more an egotistical statement then saying “I talked with President Obama today.” And I suppose an army private is being egotistical when he says his commanding general gave him orders? I mean, are you really stating that being spoken to by an important, powerful individual is an act of egotism on the recipient’s part?
I have quoted you directly. It didn’t seem to do any good. And I have been trying to demonstrate it and deep down I think you know did commit an appeal to hypocrisy. That’s why instead of contesting the statement that there are verses in the Bible, Torah and the Koran about humility being a virtue and instructing believers not to put words in God’s mouth and by theologians and clergy have expounded on those principles you instead resort the Generalization Fallacy and a truly weird argument stating that being spoken to by an important, powerful individual is an act of egotism on the recipients part.
Adamoriens
says...Karl Grant:
No.
So far as I can tell (feel free to straighten me out on this), most religions teach that one can communicate with the Divine. In fact, most religions are alleged to be founded on communications with the Divine. Now, if as per the “ego writ large” theory, communications with the Divine ultimately reduce to projections of our own egos, it follows that religions in general do not teach the taming of the ego. You write that religions teach us not to “put words in God’s mouth”, but this misses the mark; most religions have always “put words in God’s mouth”. Divine revelation is words from God’s mouth.
The alleged fallacy was committed in post #61. You haven’t quoted any portion of that post thus far.
If divine revelation itself is a projection of the human ego, then even if it were to state that nothing is to be added or taken away, it would still be the case that it is human ego that is being unleashed and worshipped.
Besides, Prescott only says that “religion teaches the taming of the ego.” That’s rather too ambiguous to say that he refers only to some foundational religious texts.
Cl:
Sorry for delay; on lunch break now, will reply later.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
Adamoriens this entire argument you are engaging in is one big example of question begging. You are automatically assuming there is no God and anybody who claims to have experienced Divine Revelation is simply engaging in ego projection. Divine Revelation is only putting words in God’s mouth if there is no God. However, if there is a God, or something close to it, that is engaging communication with humanity to make its wishes and desires known then Divine Revelation no more ego projection then receiving orders from the President of the USA.
What would an atheist say? God is the ego writ large. Or, we make God out of our own ego: Satisfied now? You explanation to why this is not appeal to hypocrisy still leaves something to be desired.
Again, question begging. Unless, of course, you can provide definitive, undeniable proof there is no God.
Adamoriens
says...But of course. I was presenting an atheistic theory. If God exists and communicates with humanity, this theory is false.
That comment was made in response to this:
Note the lack of any reference to alleged flaws in atheists, agnostics or other non-believers. Clearly mine is not a “well your Daddy sucks too” line of thinking.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
So you admit the argument’s question begging and is therefore a logical fallacy and not a valid counter to the statement “Religion teaches taming of the ego.” Thank you.
There was no overt reference, true, but considering that the entire discussion began because of Prescott’s statements: Religion teaches the taming of the ego….But those who despise religion — who militantly denounce and decry it — seem, for the most part, never to have outgrown that adolescent infatuation with the self it was kind of hard not to see it as well, theists are egotists too!
Adamoriens
says...The statement that “religion teaches the taming of the ego” excludes the thesis that communication with the Divine is a projection of the human ego. Thus it seems that one would have to see the latter as implausible or false before we could hold to the former.
But I have not referred to the argument itself to show that it is true, so I am not guilty of question-begging.
You may be a bit trigger-happy with accusations of fallacy.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
If that was the case I could dismiss all arguments against atheism = egotism on similar grounds. Personally, I find it more than a little bit dishonest to attempt to dismiss all those inconvenient religious texts and sermons that support the statement “Religion teaches taming of the ego” with Well, I can’t be sure God isn’t just ego projection so I am going to ignore this stuff. Well if that’s the case I can’t be sure atheism isn’t just teenage egotism/narcissism, but I believe it is, so I am just going to ignore any arguments and evidence to the contrary.
You are the one who introduced the argument into this conversation and you are the one who has spent the last several posts defending it. So, yes you are.
It’s a bad habit I acquired hanging around in forums populated by pseudo-logical atheists.
Adamoriens
says...Karl Grant:
I can acknowledge that many religious texts and sermons warn against “putting words in God’s mouth”, whilst observing that many religious texts and sermons teach that we can communicate with the Divine. But if it’s a live option that communication with the Divine is just a projection of the ego, then overall I cannot agree with certainty that religions, on the whole, teach us to subjugate the ego.
You’re accusing me of reasoning tautologically. Do you have a quote to demonstrate that I have included my conclusion in my premises somewhere?
Also: I have only defended this thesis against misunderstanding and tried to articulate it’s implications were it true. I’ve not actually asserted it to be true.
Adamoriens
says...Cl:
What do you think of this?
http://imgur.com/r/atheism/94vdC
Do you mean to say that my thesis has no logical relevance at all to Karl’s claim? If so, perhaps my foregoing response to Karl above may clarify where I’m coming from.
Perhaps you’re right.
No, it’s not Angier that I’m talking about, but rather all those religious critics he refers to. Why conclude your essay by contrasting religion as humbling and good (and by implication religious believers as selfless) with “anti-religion” as narcissistic and evil? It seems to me that this is not some dispassionate attempt to understand religious critics psychologically, but rather a rhetorical attempt to poison or bias the reader’s opinions against his opponents.
I mean, consider this:
If I made statements of equivalent disparagement about the apologists for religion, I daresay I would be accused of intellectual skulduggery on the spot.
[Actually, I did disparage presuppositionalists in a post on my blog. It appears that I kept the criticism confined, but perhaps someone can show I went too far.]
Karl Grant
says...Admoriens,
Nice double-edged sword you got there. Let’s change the wording a little:
Well, if it’s a live option that God exists and atheism is simply a infantile rebellion against the Ultimate Authority, then overall I cannot agree with certainty that atheists, on the whole, are not egotistical overgrown wannabe teenage rebels.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all.
And if I bought someone a gun and ammunition after hearing them saying they wanted to kill someone I would be completely blameless were the murder is concerned? Yeah, right. Whither true or untrue the argument is still a logical fallacy. Whither true or untrue, you are still one who introduced it into this conversation. Whither true or untrue, you are still one who defended the argument.
Adamoriens
says...Quite right.
Which logical fallacy is this and where is it? I’ve lost track.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
So you admit the argument is nothing more than a rhetorical device that is used to dismiss inconvenient evidence out of hand? Then why defend it?
Thinking Emotions
says...cl,
I’m usually okay with statements like this, but not from someone that purports to be objective and fair. Would you also concede that most Christians’ beliefs are not motivated by rationality or genuine desire for truth? Because, you know, that’s tended to be pretty damn true in my experience with your average Christian. Most of them, when you get down to it, genuinely believe in Christianity because they think morality dissolves without it, life is meaningless without it, they’ll go to Hell, it’s what they were raised with, etc.
Not trying to add fuel to the fire, but I’m honestly irritated with some of the things I’m reading here. And yeah, you can bet I’d be contesting this junk if people were accusing Christians of being overgrown teenagers or something. It’s just silly when you get down to it. I’m really not sure why a conversation like this even needs to be had, or why I’m participating in it… but too late, I suppose. This all just seems like angst to me.
Okay, fine. On this leg, can we also grant that religion does not cause humility, even if it teaches it? That seems to be the logical consequence of what you’re maintaining, especially considering the fact that there are plenty of humble irreligious folks and plenty of prideful religious folks. A good chunk of Christians I encounter hold a latent belief in God — it’s just what everyone else believes in, so they passively accept it. I’m not so sure these people even qualify as Christians.
Karl,
Do you mean that most of the atheists you’ve encountered or egotists, or that most atheists period are egotists? And it wouldn’t disprove it, per se, but here’s the problem. You’re seemingly trying to assert that religion is less egocentric than atheism (if that’s not it, I have no idea what you’re trying to say), and you really don’t have the evidence to show this.
Instead of talking about how atheism is egocentric, you’re talking about how atheists are egocentric. If that’s game, then I can just talk about how theists are egocentric. Do you see what I’m saying? Believers =/= belief. What does it matter if religion teaches the taming of the ego if the followers aren’t going to take that to heart?
So I’ll go ahead and repeat myself… who cares if religion teaches the taming of the ego? So what? It’s not like atheism even has any central tenets, dogmas, or teachings. Most atheists have a hodgepodge of beliefs regarding their philosophy on life. Some Christians do as well, for that matter.
Karl Grant
says...Thinking Emotions,
That most of the atheists I’ve encountered are egotists.
What does it matter if public schools teach the importance of good grammar, spelling and punctuation if several high school think LOL THatZ suz Kool! is a proper sentence? The fact said students don’t take a lesson to heart is a failure on the part of the students and is not evidence against the validity of the teachings themselves.
Who cares if high schools teach algebra? It’s not like most people use it anyway.
Thinking Emotions
says...I’m puzzled. I don’t know how to respond to that because there isn’t much I can respond to. What are you even saying? Look, I said earlier that having a tamed ego is a desirable quality. That doesn’t mean being religious or holding a belief in a religion is also a desirable quality. It also does not entail that religion causes one to be humble, or that one can only be humble if they are religious, etc. I feel you’ve overlooked the meat of my response and instead made an attempt to parody me.
If you don’t want to have this conversation, then we don’t have to. Thanks anyway.
Karl Grant
says...Thinking Emotions,
I was under the impression that you were saying since religious believers do not follow the teachings of their respective faiths that such teachings are worthless. Or at least that is how I read sentences such as What does it matter if religion teaches the taming of the ego if the followers aren’t going to take that to heart? and who cares if religion teaches the taming of the ego? So what? In response I pointed out how lessons about subjects such as Math and English often fail to stick with the students later in life, but that is a failing on the students parts not the validity of subject or the teachings.
Nobody ever said people can only be humble if they are religious in this discussion. Also the original statements were Religion teaches taming of the ego which was further elaborated by CL and I to be Religion teaches humility and compassion. That is not the same thing as religion causes one to be humble. That is like confusing the statements High schools teach algebra with High school algebra turns kids into math geniuses.
I apologize if I came across like that, but I am right now feeling like you are attempting to construct strawmen with phrases like that one can only be humble if they are religious when nobody in this discussion said anything even remotely close to that.
Thinking Emotions
says...I understood your analogies. I apologize if I came off as attacking the teachings themselves. I stated in my initial response to you and earlier in this thread that I think the taming of ego is a desirable quality to have. IOW, I approve of it. I just think it’s odd to be casting aspersions onto atheists when it’s not like the average Christian is any better.
Not at all. I’m saying we should hesitate to praise the religion and instead praise the specific teaching. After all, that’s what we both seem to value in this case, and it only seems accurate given the fact that not all people learn to tame their ego from religion.
No, you didn’t say religion causes people to be humble, but I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, either. I was just pointing it out.
Basically, are you trying to say that religion is less egocentric than atheism? That’s what I wanted to know. I’m sorry my earlier response to you was slightly rude.
Adamoriens
says...This is the fallacy of the loaded question. Presupposition which I deny: “the argument is nothing more than a rhetorical device used to dismiss inconvenient evidence out of hand.”
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
Actually, I asked that because you seemed to be conceeding defeat in your last posting. But anyway that is what the argument is. Let’s reveiw the characteristics of said argument
1. It presupposes God’s nonexistence, something that had not been proven to be true. Now when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof that’s question-begging.
2. It also doubles as a argument from ignorance, since it relys on the veracity of the proposition God does not exist not being disproven to arrive at the definite conclusion Communication with the Divine is ego projection.
3. And that by appealing to said argument, you claim that evidence that supports the statement Religion teaches taming of the ego such as religious teachings that stress compassion and humility as virtues to religious texts warning about ‘putting words in God’s mouth’ can be dismissed out of hand.
In short, it is nothing more than a rhetorical device that is used to dismiss inconvenient evidence out of hand
Karl Grant
says...Thinking Emotions,
Who said they were? The original statement, Religion teaches taming of the ego means Christians are instructed to be better, not that they actually are.
That’s more then a little ungrateful. Let’s say I am biology teacher at the local high school and I hear you say Teaching the evolutionary theory is the right thing to do and I replied Thank You. We at Local High School are determined that today’s youth get a good education to which you reply Sorry, but I praise the specific teaching, not the teachers or the instituions that carry out such teachings. I am not sure public schools are worthwhile when kids have other means to aquire the knowledge such as homeschooling. I would be a little pissed. You’re refusing to give credit to my hardwork and my coworkers’ efforts in spreading an idea you think is important merely because their are other ways for someone could aquire that knowledge. That seems both ungrateful and hypocritical. Even if you don’t agree with all parts of a religion at least give credit were credit is due.
I am saying that religion tries to be less egocentric.
cl
says...Here’s my 15-minute take on accusations of fallacy and the argument between Karl and Adamoriens:
First, there’s no “odd irony” there at all. Adamoriens unfairly equates two unequal statements. Any reasonable interpretation of “flimsy generalization” must include adjectives of the variant, “weak,” or, “unsupported.” On that note, yes, “religion is stupid” is a flimsy generalization, besides incoherent (religion denotes a set of beliefs and can’t lack the capacity to be intelligent). OTOH, to call “religion teaches the taming of the ego” a “flimsy generalization” shows, at best, gross neglect on Adamoriens’ behalf. As Karl correctly pointed out, “religion teaches the taming of the ego” is a very valid generalization. So, at the very least, Adamoriens is guilty of a significant category error. Or, apples and oranges, if you prefer.
Second, at #61, Adamoriens responded with a non-sequitur. This is technically a fallacy. What “an atheist would say” has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what Prescott said. Rather, it served as a flanking remark that didn’t address the meat of Karl’s claim (that religion teaches taming of the ego).
Third, I tend to agree with Karl WRT the “tu quoque” charge:
This was a valid response to Adamoriens’ non-sequitur, which—though it assumes an indirect form—certainly strikes me as a tu quoque. A smarmy retort like “God is the ego writ large” is wholly insufficient here. Adamoriens at #63:
Well, technically true, Adamoriens *DIDN’T* say “oh, theists also act like adolescents,” but he *DID* attempt to paint theism as (potentially) the product of “ego writ large,” the same way Prescott painted militant anti-theism as the product of ego writ large. So I think that Karl’s tu quoque charge stands, or, at the very least, has some merit.
Fourth, Adamoriens at #74:
This is wrong. The conclusion does not follow. Religions still teach the taming of the ego regardless of whether God exists or not. If God does not exist, all religious teachings persist, as they are. If the “ego writ large” theory is true, then religious teachings to tame the ego ironically reduce to projections of our own egos. Adamoriens is incorrect to posit that, “it follows that religions in general do not teach the taming of the ego.” Religions still teach taming of the ego regardless of the veracity of Adamoriens’ “theory.”
Fifth, at #76, Adamoriens writes,
True, but Adamoriens seems to imply that if God doesn’t exist, then the theory is true—but that doesn’t hold. It’s fallacious reasoning. It is not at all a given that if God doesn’t exist, all religious teachings reduce to projections of ego. That’s a very hoaky implication.
Lastly, at #79, Karl writes,
Perhaps, but I don’t think you were trigger happy here at all (with the possible exception of the question-begging charge, which I haven’t investigated). Everything you said seems to stand. Adamoriens is clearly taking tangential swipes at best. I don’t see even a semblance of a cogent response from him. Nor do I think Adamoriens belongs in the “pseudo-logical” atheist category. He’s one of the better, more careful writers out there, despite what I perceive to be the missteps outlined in this comment.
cl
says...Adamoriens,
To begin, I have but scant background information: what was the question? Who was polled? Where were they polled? Etc. However, let’s ignore all that and cut straight to the chase. In the context of atheists, the bottom line was, “Not exactly angry 13-year-olds at all.” IOW, that poll supports Prescott and I: we both observe “angry teenager syndrome” in the atheist community, yet the available data suggests it comes not from teenagers, but by adult atheists.
Yes, that’s what I meant to say, and it is true.
It clarifies where you’re coming from, a little bit, but it cannot absolve you of the non-sequitur charge, or the tu quoque charge IMHO. Also, the logic is flimsy. You write,
Your conclusion doesn’t follow. The latter has nothing to do with the former. The teachings persist regardless of God’s existence. Religions still teach one to subjugate the ego whether God exists or not.
Why distort what was written? Prescott didn’t say or even imply what you attribute to him. He didn’t say or imply that “religion is humbling and good.” He’s much more careful than that. Contrary, he acknowledges “the evil of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witchhunts.” Neither does he say or imply that “anti-religion is narcissistic and evil.” Rather, he refers to a very specific subset: anti-religionists like Angier. You’ve made terrible caricature of his writing. It’s clear as day to me that something in Prescott’s piece really pushed your buttons. That, I think, is more worthy of investigation that this (so-far) fruitless back-and-forth with Karl. What about Prescott’s piece got you so unnerved? It clearly wasn’t the logical shortcomings you attempted to paint it with.
Uh… I hate to break it to you, and I can’t believe you’re apparently missing this, but Prescott’s piece forcefully exposed Angier’s inability to dispassionately understand religion, and her rhetorical attempts to bias the reader’s opinion. In short, you are accusing Prescott of doing that which Angier did—but Prescott himself didn’t do what Angier did. I’m confused. If you’re all for dispassionate attempts at understanding one’s opponent, then you should be agreeing with Prescott and condemning Angier, unless of course my previous estimations of you are incorrect. Prescott simply criticizes that which you just criticized (failure to dispassionately understand opponents, bolstered by rhetoric).
This is another terrible disanalogy, presumably influenced by Thinking Emotions’ misunderstanding. Were Prescott’s remarks about *ATHEISTS*? No. They were about a specific strain thereof: those in Angier’s ilk. To fix your analogy, if you made statements of equal disparagement about Fred Phelps and his ilk, I would not accuse you of intellectual skulduggery. Rather, I would join hands and shout along with you.
Look, you don’t have to endorse Prescott, but you should at least get both the facts and their logical implications correct.
cl
says...ThinkingEmotions,
I agree. That’s why I suggest you endeavor to read more carefully, and think more critically, lest you make more comments that completely fail to address the topic(s) at hand. I’d be more than happy to explain this comment in depth should you be inclined to ask, but for now, I’m a bit tired of trying to clarify things for those who seem wont to misunderstand them—especially when the evidence suggests you’ve already got your mind made up WRT to my “inconsistencies.”
Thinking Emotions
says...Whatever, man. I’m not going to apologize for calling it like I see it. You’ve made a lot of posts recently that are all about smearing atheists, not atheism. Do I think your agenda has changed? Nah, not really. Do I think you’re beating a dead horse? Absolutely.
It stings to read things like, “[you] seem wont to misunderstand [the things I explain].” The statement was even more hurtful in context since you’re now apparently lumping me into a group of commenters and readers that seem to have a desire to distort things and a lack of good faith. I mean, if that’s the impression you get from me, so be it. I’ve always thought of myself as one of the more innocuous readers and commenters over here. I’m frequently apologetic, quick to see both sides of an issue, likely the youngest one here, and fairly open to new ideas and approaches.
Oh, and that last bit at the end there: you know that’s not true. I just think you’re squandering your energy when it comes to all this stuff. That’s all. Your blog, your call, however. I love how it’s never you that has misunderstood me — it’s always me that has misunderstood you.
Anyway, I’m going to drop out of here for a little while. After all, I can’t keep wasting all this time of yours since your explanations always fall on deaf ears. You don’t have all the time in the world to cater to my foolish questions or misunderstandings, so it’s probably best that way.
cl
says...Wait, you’re not going to apologize for “calling it like you see it,” — which I don’t think you need to apologize for, BTW — but I call it like I see it, and you’re going to stop commenting for a while? Whatever floats your boat, but all I did was call it like I see it! And I’m about to do it again. As you said yourself, no offense.
Your imagination is running wild TE. You know what happened here? I’ll tell you. You came here yesterday morning, early at 6AM (or late if you’re a night owl), and you totally misunderstood the “average atheist” remark here. You got irritated with me for something you thought I said but didn’t, then, you came here shortly after (an hour or so), and left #85. Go ahead, call me arrogant, but I am going to suggest that your misunderstanding from the first comment clouded your ability to think critically on the second. Case(s) in point (backing up to #85): I had said,
…to which you replied,
Dissecting your comment:
How am I departing from objectivity and fairness here? All I’ve done is state that in my experience, most of the atheists I encounter *DO* act like overgrown teenagers. Notice how I properly worded my statement specifically to avoid lame overgeneralizations: I said in my experience and most of the atheists I encounter. That’s a true claim, TE, not the type of lame overgeneralization you’re trying to crucify me for.
Taking it a step further: I believe most religious beliefs are not motivated by rationality, but do reflect genuine desire for truth.
So? The “average” Christian or the “average” atheist is irrelevant here. This line was direct spillover from the “average atheist” comment in the other thread.
That’s all irrelevant here. Again, all I did—and in an off-the-cuff response to a comment, mind you—was say that most of the atheists I encounter *DO* tend to act like overgrown teenagers. It’s not like I made Prescott’s remarks about atheists the focus of any post here. Why condemn me when I’m only relaying my personal experience to you?
At any rate, let me respond to a few things from #96, and then you can go do whatever you have to do to feel better:
Nonsense. Name one. Anticipating your first response, I didn’t smear Dawkins. I merely reported true, public information about the man, and suggested his negative experience with a religious figure might explain some or possibly all of his irrational, militantly anti-religious stance.
Well, hey, I’m sorry… but you were comin’ at me irritated and hard, in response to what you heard, which is not always necessarily what I said, is it? I’m sorry, I don’t mean to come across as arrogant or dismissive but all I can suggest is to slow down and read more carefully, especially on the high-sensitive topics like Gnu atheism. We all fly off the handle at times. At the very least, you could say something like, “cl, it seems like you’re saying this, is that actually what you’re saying?” and at least give me a chance to clarify before you grab the tar and feathers.
Nonsense. “Wont to misunderstand” says nothing about your desire, only that you’ve become accustomed to misunderstanding lately, and I believe that’s the truth. Further supporting evidence for that claim: I have never declared or even implied reason to doubt your earnestness or good faith, nor do I think you intentionally distort things. I bring no charge but innocent misunderstanding caused by a sensitive topic.
As I just alluded to above, I think you’re all that and more, but that shouldn’t mean I can’t call it out when I think you’re misunderstanding me.
Oh come on… quit overreacting. I’ve misunderstood you plenty of times and the same goes for other commenters. It’s the internet, it’s a tough method of communication because we lack visual and auditory emotive cues (among other things).
True, I don’t, but I value your input here and more that that I value you as a person. So I just spent 40 more minutes of my time trying to clarify and may God help us all with some sort of common ground!
I do, too. That’s why I basically dismissed your last comment. I didn’t want to squander more energy. You took it personal when it wasn’t. I just didn’t want to explain for the umpteenth time what seems to be clear misunderstanding to me. But, since we’re this deep now, we might as well get some kind of closure. I await your volley.
Oh, if you can, please wait until I address the comment in the other thread, since I’m claiming this misunderstanding really begins there.
Adamoriens
says...Where possible, I’m going to respond by articulating my own position rather than attempt to defend it piecemeal.
First, I’ve been accused of the tu quoque fallacy. Here’s what fallacyfiles.org has to say:
To be guilty of this fallacy, then, I must have either attempted to disprove the statement “critics of religion are mostly narcissists” by arguing that “apologists for religion or religious people in general are mostly narcissists.” Obviously I’ve done no such thing. Or, I must have attempted to divert discussion away from “critics of religion are mostly narcissists” by accusing apologists for religion or religious people in general of the same. I’m not guilty of this either; I’ve been open to discussion on that thesis all along. In matter of fact, I would rather talk about that than squabble, and I’ll offer some prompts at the end of this post to help that along. In any case, the charge that I engaged in a tu quoque fallacy is false.
Second, the “ego writ large” suggestion is apparently irrelevant or otherwise fallacious with respect to the generalization that “religion tames the ego.” Before getting to that, I’ve apparently been read as claiming or implying that the “God as ego writ large” theory follows from atheism; perhaps this has been occasioned by my referring to it as an “atheistic” theory or one that an atheist might endorse. In any case, contra Karl, it’s truth does not depend on the existence of non-existence of God whatsoever; indeed, if the study I referenced earlier is any good, we have grounds to think that religious believers reason egocentrically whether God exists or not.
Anyway, my point in bringing up the theory is this:
If communication with the Divine is ultimately egocentric, and religion in general teaches that we can and do communicate with the divine, then it’s possible that religions teach us to be ultimately egocentric. In assessing the probability of the idea that religion teaches us to “tame” our ego, then, we have to take this possibility into account. As a result, it seems to me that we can’t make a proper assessment of the idea that religion teaches us to tame our ego so long as the very opposite is a live possibility (by which I mean a probability around 0.5).
Cl:
The survey is inaccessible; however, the title was, “r/atheism, how old are you?” Over 30,000 people responded. No idea if they were all actually atheists, but I expect this is still representative of atheists on reddit, and perhaps the atheist blogosphere as a whole.
I’ve already acknowledged that Prescott refers to those who despise and denounce religion, rather than atheists in general as I had first supposed. And he does state that religion is humbling and good; well, perhaps not good, but what is “taming the ego” if not humbling (and humility if not good)? When he states that those who oppose religion (“denounce and decry” etc.) are narcissists on the whole, I don’t take as a distortion to say that he sees anti-religion as narcissistic on the whole. He does not say evil, however, so perhaps that’s a misreading on my part. Since narcissism is widely seen as evil, though, the implication is certainly present.
As for my discomfort with Prescott, it is as I said earlier; I can’t help but see his odd comments as an attempt to silence critics of religion by poisoning the well.
Since I’ve never voiced disagreement with how Prescott treats Angier, this all misses the mark. Where I pause at is Prescott’s derogatory comments about critics of religion; whether he’s correct in his criticisms of Angier or whether he’s a hypocrite are another matter entirely.
There is no disanalogy. Were I to make disparaging remarks about apologists for religion equivalent to those Prescott makes about critics of religion, I would be accused of intellectual misconduct. If you wish, I can attempt an equivalent “psychoanalysis” to test your reaction.
I was going to suggest more fruitful topics of discussion in conclusion, but it’s getting late so I’ll post another time.
cl
says...Adamoriens,
I disagree. You write,
In your own words:
IOW, you countered Prescott’s “atheists like Angier reason egocentrically” with “apologists for religion or religious people in general reason egocentrically.” Tu quoque, plain as day. You just couched it in less direct language. As I explained in #93, you *DIDN’T* say “oh, theists also act like adolescents,” but you *DID* attempt to paint theism as (potentially) the product of “ego writ large,” the same way Prescott painted militant anti-theism as the product of ego writ large. It’s not the end of the world, and I’m not going to try and persuade of it again.
Pure non-sequitur bluster that wantonly overlooks my supplied clarification on the issue. There is no—as in zero—possibility that the opposite is true: Religion still teaches taming of the ego regardless of whether your “theory” is true or not. Think about it.
Doesn’t matter. As I explained, even if we grant the study merit, it supports my position: we need something besides a prevalence of teenage atheists to explain the prevalence of “overgrown teenager syndrome” in the online atheist community. Also, my data suggest your claim that “mostly younger people are on the internet” is false. I notice how you conveniently omitted a response to that.
Thanks, but that’s irrelevant at this point. Your new error is claiming Prescott said “religion is humbling and good.” To say, “Religion teaches the taming of the ego” is a very different claim than the broad, “religion is humbling and good.” I suspect Prescott was careful for a reason, but you seem not to care.
Yet I already defended Prescott from that charge, in #73, and instead of grapple with that you simply repeat the charge. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first few times, but now I’m left to conclude that you either A) don’t know what poisoning the well means, or B) are too entrenched in your own myopic view of Prescott’s article to realize he didn’t poison the well. Again: Prescott didn’t supply negative information about Angier prior to arguing against her case. Rather, he analyzed her case first, gave reasons for rejecting it, and then made his psychoanalytical conclusions WRT to Angier and “angry teenage atheist syndrome.” That is not poisoning the well.
Did you mean to suggest Prescott “poisoned the well” not against Angier but critics like her? If so we can talk about that.
Actually, you missed the mark in understanding my comment. Look:
…I understand, but you’re distorting again (and I’m not saying it’s intentional, I think you’re just too entrenched in your own myopic view of Prescott’s piece). Prescott’s derogatory comments aren’t about “critics of religion,” they are about “critics of religion like Angier.” Therefore, if you haven’t voiced any disagreement with how Prescott treats Angier, why should you voice disagreement with how Prescott treats “critics of religion like Angier?”
Yes there is. Look:
Are all “atheist apologists” like Angier? Of course not. Now, from #73: Were Prescott’s remarks about *ATHEISTS*? No. They were about a specific strain thereof: those in Angier’s ilk. To fix your analogy, if you made statements of equal disparagement about Fred Phelps and his ilk (or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, etc.), I would not accuse you of intellectual skulduggery. Rather, I would join hands and shout along with you.
Go ahead. It might just provide the badly needed clarity here.
Karl Grant
says...Adamoriens,
I think CL already handled this well enough.
That directly goes against your previous statements because in #75 I stated that: You are automatically assuming there is no God and anybody who claims to have experienced Divine Revelation is simply engaging in ego projection. Divine Revelation is only putting words in God’s mouth if there is no God.
What was your reply in #76? But of course. I was presenting an atheistic theory. If God exists and communicates with humanity, this theory is false.
First you say the theory depends on atheism, now you are saying it doesn’t? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
cl
says...Karl,
Of course, it’s possible Adamoriens changed his mind, although if that’s the case it would have been nice to have that made more explicit. But the trouble with his argument goes deeper than this: even if we grant atheism, even if we grant that *ALL* religious teachings derived from human ego, said teachings *STILL* teach the taming of the ego! In fact, we end up with a state of affairs that is at least as difficult to explain: if all religious teachings reflect but the vanity of human ego, whence the irony of ego ultimately condemning ego?
Karl Grant
says...Cl,
Yeah, I know. That is why I called Adamorien’s argument a rhetorical device used to dismiss evidence such as religious teachings that stress compassion and humility as virtues.
Adamoriens
says...Cl wrote:
Is there a passage where I did in fact attempt to disprove or divert attention away from the alleged narcissism of religion’s critics by alleging narcissism (or possible narcissism) among theists? If there is not, I am not guilty of tu quoque.
Endowing human ego with the quality of divine perfection and authority seems a bit egocentric to me. If religion encourages this practice, then religion, on the whole, does not teach us to tame our egos.
You were correct that internet usage in general is not proportioned unduly to the young. However, it appears that I don’t need evidence so indirect when direct (weak, admittedly; vagaries of extrapolation and all that) evidence that internet atheists are disproportionately young is at hand. I don’t know what point you’re trying to achieve with the teenage syndrome thing; if immature internet behaviour correlates with youth, then an atheistic presence of disproportinate youth would lead us to expect disproportionately immature behaviour from internet atheists.
I take “religion is humbling” and “religion tames the ego” to be synonymous.
Of course; I said precisely this in the passage you quoted.
Prescott doesn’t actually say that Angier is representative of those “who despise religion — who militantly denounce and decry it.” Even if he had asserted that, we’d need a comprehensive analysis of the majority of such critics to accept the case.
I’m attempting a role reversal, such that “those who despise religion — who militantly denounce and decry it” becomes “those who despise irreligion – who militantly denounce and decry it.” I suppose that latter group isn’t necessarily representative of religious apologists.
Adamoriens
says...Karl wrote:
I was mistaken to agree with you. Divine communication could be ego projection even if God exists.
cl
says...Adamoriens,
Sorry for any perceived animosity, there really isn’t any. I value your commentary despite the fact that my criticisms are brash at times. I’m trying to become a better communicator. We all know it’s tough.
#61, as explained in #99 and #93.
What do you mean by, “Endowing human ego with the quality of divine perfection and authority?”
Just that I wasn’t sold on your hypothesis. You seemed to be suggesting that I observe overgrown teenager syndrome because most online atheists are young.
Then he still didn’t poison the well. In order to poison the well, don’t you have to introduce negative information about an actual person before they can present their argument? Well, Prescott doesn’t present any *SPECIFIC* negative information about *SPECIFIC* critics like Angier. He simply implies that, in his general experience, critics like Angier display certain egocentric characteristics. How is that poisoning the well?
Sure, Prescott didn’t type the literal string, “Angier is representative of those who despise religion.” While that’s true, I think it’s reasonable to assume Prescott is alluding to Angier in the initial paragraph Karl cited at #57. After all, he typed an entire critique of Angier, then turned his attention to critics who display all the negative traits he just critiqued. Surely it follows that he believes Angier is representative of that ilk, don’t you think?
Again, if you said of people like Fred Phelps what Prescott says of people like Angier, I’d *AGREE* with you. So why would you say I’d accuse you of skulduggery?
Adamoriens
says...It just isn’t there. When pressed about the alleged narcissism of atheists, I simply respond by pointing out the lack of (compelling) empirical support. Nowhere do I counter by alleging the same in theists. Given my openness to the possible narcissism among internet atheists and religious critics (note the lack of argument against it), the reader can be assured that any implication to the contrary is misapprehended or unintended. I suggest we drop the matter.
If communication with the divine is ultimately egocentric, then the projections of our ego takes on the authority and perfection of God.
I’m not trying to explain your observations so much as offer a prediction of what we’d expect given the age of atheists online. Your observations may be an artifact of something else entirely; perhaps the places you choose to frequent and observe online, or your particular prejudices, or perhaps the greater exposure of narcissistic personalities, or perhaps the ways in which atheists and theists express their narcissism. Or perhaps you’re correct that they are more narcissistic, but this can be explained by their age rather than their irreligion (contra Prescott).
There are all these hidden factors to complicate rational assent that critics of religion (or atheists online, as you allege) are disproportionately narcissistic. My own experience has been more ambiguous than yours, it seems; when the topic is other than religion, I’m unable to accurately guess who is irreligious and who is not. Also, despite my years online, I’ve only observed the behaviour of perhaps a thousand atheists, and I suspect your pool is not much bigger. I expect the online world is populated with millions.
At this point, I’m interested to know whether youth correlates with immature online behaviour. Also, it’d be fascinating to float a survey around the blogosphere to get a comprehensive assessment of how atheists and theists think about their online opponents.
I’m uncertain whether “poisoning the well” or ad hominem is more technically appropriate. In any case, an illustration of my point:
Ie. Angier doesn’t see that religion is foundational to morality and meaningful living because of her narcissism.
Ie. their criticisms of religion arise from their wounded feelings. I think he means to imply that they’re attempting to protect egos threatened by authorities exterior to themselves.
Ie. they attack religion because it threatens their narcissism.
These are cardinal cases of ad hominem. The intent is clearly to silence religion’s critics by biasing our opinion against them- “they criticize religion because they’re assholes.”
You’re probably right. But, absent reason to think Angier is a case study for religion’s critics, agreeing with his assessment of Angier still wouldn’t obligate me to agree with his assessment of religion’s critics in general.
Furiously resentful at any departure from their chosen dogma, they lash out at anything redolent of independence or autonomy of thought, atheists above all. They are, in short, perpetual tyrants, ever-angry children, creatures of subjugation and rigidity, avatars of the self.
Do you regard the preceding as a sober, well-intentioned assessment of theists, or atheism’s critics online?
I wouldn’t.
cl
says...Adamoriens,
No you didn’t. You responded by saying, “What would an atheist say? God is the ego writ large. Or, we make God out of our own ego.”
Whenever you’re ready.
Prescott committed neither.
I don’t think Prescott implied that at all.
That doesn’t seem too bad a stretch. However, it’s far from poisoning the well or ad hominem. Not even close.
Nonsense, and quite frankly, the way you twist Prescott’s words has really rubbed me the wrong way. That’s it for me in this conversation. Sorry.