Fundamentalism: It’s Not Just For TheistsWith a slight modification, I wrote the following comment at CSA the other day, and felt it deserves reproduction here. While I intend to develop it as a full post or perhaps even part of a chapter in my book, here’s what we’ve got so far:
…I think deconverted fundamentalists and evangelicals tend to make the most dangerous atheists. Often, the mental weaknesses that led them to dogmatic ways of thinking in the first place persist. These traits then carry over into their newly-embraced “skepticism,” the weaknesses again take the helm, yet, this time, they are actually far worse off because a thin veneer of rationalism masks their dogmatic and irrational tendencies and puffs many up with a false sense of confidence. Consequently, many mistakenly believe that their change of psychological allegiance solved the problem. They’re often less likely to see it, because they still have that “in the tribe” mentality, only now, they fancy themselves in the right tribe. I cannot overemphasize the threat this phenomenon poses to critical thinking and pursuit of truth. Trading one’s cross for a scarlet A accomplishes nothing unless the old habits are shed. [February 14, 2011 at 3:38 pm]
What sayest thou? Doth this ringeth true in thine own experience?
Inconsistency & Personal Attacks: Why You Should Be Skeptical Of John W. Loftus, IIIn his post, Listing of Cognitive Biases, Loftus states, unequivocally, the following:
We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true.
Okay, if there’s one thing I admire in (a)theist discussion, it’s a firmly cemented goalpost, and I think the above certainly qualifies. How about you? If you agree with me, perhaps it won’t be much of a stretch to gain some empathy for my consternation at the transactions that follow.
The Atheist Afterlife: p37-56So I’ve had plenty of time to read over the past five days, and I figured it’s time to do another installment on The Atheist Afterlife, by philosopher David Staume.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I really admire and respect Staume for the approach he took with his work. Sure, there are areas I think could use improvement, but by and large, David adheres to the majority of the rules. He tends to state claims conservatively. He lets his reader know when he’s making assumptions or operating off speculation. He doesn’t overstate his case. I could go on, but, let’s just get to it. We begin in Chapter 5, titled, The Geometry of Space and Time.
A Quest For Second BestOver the past six months, the arguments I've read and wrote have led me to what I believe to be a logically-valid, undeniable argument for DCT's superiority over any other moral theory. As such, I state confidently today that all contemplation of "the best moral theory" is actually a quest for second best.
The Atheist Afterlife: p17-36Today's post covers pages 17-36 of The Atheist Afterlife, by David Staume.
An Interesting Snippet That Caught My AttentionToday's post is just a quickie. A friend of mine said that he would read more often if I posted shorter posts. I used to post shorter posts more frequently. There is a "Quickies" category on the sidebar, but if you notice it's been spared attention for about 4 months now.
I was reading a paper titled Atheist Foundation of Ethics written by John B. Hodges:
If there WERE any Cosmic Parent, it would not need human messengers; it could speak directly to whomever it wished. If a divine being wants me to do something, they should tell me, not you. If they have a message for all humankind, they could write it on the face of the Moon, in letters five miles wide. Any alleged "revelation" DELIVERED BY HUMAN BEINGS is presumptively fraudulent.
It's ironic that the Bible describes a God much like the one Hodges proffers as plausible, that is, a God that can and does share divine Will with individuals (cf. John 14:16). However, I thought that the really interesting part was that last bit about "any alleged 'revelation.'"
Let's say hypothetically that God did reveal something to one of us, perhaps even Hodges. It would certainly be within reason to expect the person experiencing this revelation to share it with others. So I object to any sort of categorical disqualification of a revelation from other human beings. It could very well be that somebody else saw or experienced something far beyond that which my limited mind can comprehend. To judge them as "presumptively fraudulent" beforehand seems to me, well.. presumptive.
The Atheist Afterlife: p1-17Today’s post covers the Introduction and Chapter 1 of The Atheist Afterlife, by David Staume. In a nutshell, the book aims to demonstrate the plausibility of, well.. an atheist afterlife (as if you needed my review to tell you that, right?).
As stated, my initial reactions about the book are largely positive. Overall, I’d say the author takes the road less traveled, and tends towards conservatively stated beliefs and secure premises. I guess when one is used to online (a)theist discussions, those virtues tend to stand out more. As an example of some statements I appreciated or agreed with,
The Atheist Afterlife: Why I’m An IdiotSo, I don't check the email associated with this blog nearly as often as I check other emails, which means I'm about a month-and-a-half late in paying David the gratuity of posting the preface he'd taken the time to write and include back when he sent the book. Better late than never I suppose, but at least now you know where this post's title came from. Sorry David, and thanks for not being one of those people who expresses offense at such things. Sometimes TWIM's email just doesn't get checked for 6 weeks!
Anyways, without further adieu, David Staume's preface, open for comments and considerations:
The Atheist Afterlife: IntroductionA few weeks back, I discovered a most pleasant surprise in the mailbox: a copy of philosopher David Staume's The Atheist Afterlife. If nothing else, it ought to catch one's attention for the title alone.
Like many other things, I first heard of Staume's book on Common Sense Atheism, which in my opinion is probably the best all-around atheist blog out. David also comments at CSA and on one occasion, I responded favorably to a comment of his that hit on some of the ideas in TAA, which led to him offering me a copy of the book. Much obliged, David!
Why Is That? Proof Of God’s Existence, 3Happy MLK Day, all. I encourage you to read jim's third installment of his series Proof of God's Existence for yourself before reading mine.
After setting up an odd series of events between Mary the neighborhood realtor and Carol the neighborhood skeptic, jim closes with the following set of questions:
Are Carol's [suspicion and uneasiness] justified at this point, slight though they be, or can they be summarily dismissed? Is this early foreboding of suspicion rational? Irrational? Pre-rational?
As far as justification goes, my first thoughts were that suspicion and uneasiness are ontologically distinct from beliefs. I'd say what we call uneasiness is pure feeling that may or may not be rooted in some observation or experience. On the other hand, suspicion seems to be a little bit of both feeling and belief. To me, a suspicion is basically a provisional hypothesis cast in response to some (often anomalous) observation or experience. As such we should evaluate each according to their own merits.