New Atheism and Your Probs With It, If Any

[JackRiddler]

Words are a tricky thing, they give one the impression of a unified front where there is in fact great diversity and even disagreement.

Not everyone means the same thing when they claim themselves to be an atheist. Not everyone means the same thing when they claim to believe in god.

Very true. Which is why my first question in either case is how god or without-god is further defined.

By categorizing one's self as either, one is essentially buying into a social "game".

Not at all an absolute. The social "game" is playing out with consequences on all of us regardless, we're included in it from birth and have no choice about having had a culture and family pre-buy us into some part of it. Later we can decide what to buy, but only in the same context where the social "game" is played regardless, and will have impact on all regardless. There is no escape position.

There is no need to define unless one has something to prove, to one's self or to someone else.

Disagree for the above stated reasons. First, there is overwhelming human need to ask, to try to understand, therefore to attempt definitions, preferably with the ability to rethink and revise and RECEIVE, which means communicating with others. And communing with others about this meaning, whether given or constructed, is also a fundamental human need. And then the "social game" goes on regardless, again with consequences on all.

.

[BrandonD]

Not at all an absolute. The social "game" is playing out with consequences on all of us regardless, we're included in it from birth and have no choice about having had a culture and family pre-buy us into some part of it. Later we can decide what to buy, but only in the same context where the social "game" is played regardless, and will have impact on all regardless. There is no escape position.

There is no need to define unless one has something to prove, to one's self or to someone else.

Disagree for the above stated reasons. First, there is overwhelming human need to ask, to try to understand, therefore to attempt definitions, preferably with the ability to rethink and revise and RECEIVE, which means communicating with others. And communing with others about this meaning, whether given or constructed, is also a fundamental human need. And then the "social game" goes on regardless, again with consequences on all.

.

There is an overwhelming human need to ask and understand, but placing one's attention and focus on a particular idea reveals that this person has already given that idea a great deal of value and credence - no matter what position is taken.

The whole subject is a social issue at its core, rather than a philosophical (or "spiritual") issue as it is often presented. It is proposing a quandary where essentially there is none - this is a skill which western culture has honed to a razor sharp point.

Picture a war between two imaginary countries, and then one is asked to take up a position in that war. This is what is taking place with the subject of god vs atheism, IMO.

I am totally fine with anyone disagreeing, and in addition I'm totally fine with being wrong. It just occurred to me that perhaps an unconventional point of view might be enjoyable for people to intellectually munch on.

[JackRiddler]

There is an overwhelming human need to ask and understand, but placing one's attention and focus on a particular idea reveals that this person has already given that idea a great deal of value and credence - no matter what position is taken.

Are all ideas equally good?

The whole subject is a social issue at its core, rather than a philosophical (or "spiritual") issue as it is often presented. It is proposing a quandary where essentially there is none - this is a skill which western culture has honed to a razor sharp point.

You imagine this insight is possible as long as clerical hierarchies and preachers-prophets-messiahs set themselves up as arbiters? Also, is it really a Western phenomenon? People kill each other over their understandings of god outside the Western context, no?

[BrandonD]

Are all ideas equally good?

Maybe I don't follow, that seems a bit of a non-sequitir. YOU decide which ideas are good by choosing to direct your attention and thoughts upon them. That was my point. There is no external meter apart from this, for any supposed external meter must still pass through the filter which is you.

The whole subject is a social issue at its core, rather than a philosophical (or "spiritual") issue as it is often presented. It is proposing a quandary where essentially there is none - this is a skill which western culture has honed to a razor sharp point.

You imagine this insight is possible as long as clerical hierarchies and preachers-prophets-messiahs set themselves up as arbiters? Also, is it really a Western phenomenon? People kill each other over their understandings of god outside the Western context, no?

It seems you are supporting my point that this is a social issue, everything you have listed has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with social issues.

Here's another illustration: Say that I am jealous of this guy. He is better-looking than me, so I dislike him. Rather than conquering my own weakness, I choose to sustain my opinion of this guy by saying that he is a witch. He dislikes me, I am more wealthy than he is. Rather than conquering his own weaknesses, he chooses to sustain his opinion by saying that I am a warlock.

So now witches hate warlocks, and warlocks hate witches. Books are written about it, TV pundits discuss how we are going to make warlocks and witches get along.

That's the issue, in a nutshell. An imaginary dichotomy has been created, underneath which is really just simple human psychology and weaknesses. When it is all peeled away, no one actually cares about the subject that they presume to be so passionate about.

[Hammer of Los]

...

TV pundits discuss how we are going to make warlocks and witches get along.

I think that's a rather fine idea.

Wizards? Witches? Load of Warlocks!
Underground like wide-eyed moorlocks.

...

[justdrew]

Not at all sure there is anything worth calling "Scientism"
Who shall determine what the "legitimate fields" are? and how shall extension be prohibited?
Must conform? How then these thoughts of yours?
We should give currency to untouchable, unseeable entities? Like Dragons?
Also, there's a lot of metaphysical currency given to things that are only theory, as well as to many things that don't have a pointable-to physical existence. As for theory, most everything remains in the realm of theory, some more evidenced than others. The world moves on many contingencies.

I probably wasn't clear. I'm speaking in more general terms. The strictly scientific effort to found mechanics as the basis for physical science transformed into a more general frame of mind which can be called "scientific materialism". This became de facto the dominant mentality of the West, or the de facto philosophy of an era, not so much, explicitly but as an unspoken attitude of mind, the assumption that the world of material science is the only way to truth, which is, of course, only as good as the tools we have to measure.
Thus, the achievements in physical sciences and technology become the invisible standard by which to measure thinking in all domains, despite the fact that we all exist within the question of God. Does God exist or not exist? Atheists respond to that question with God does not exist, but they answer the question, nevertheless.

Well, I don't think it's AS dominant as you do, maybe not exactly dominant at all really. It's a key player in a mix of mentalities. if there is a de facto dominant frame of mind, I'd say it's more along the lines of logical rationalism. but even that is only somewhat primary. There's a huge ecosystem of world views, and most people move around within them at varying personal speeds. A little of this a little of that, this today, something else tomorrow, with a network of increasingly higher inertia (no easily moved) guiding principles.

It is precisely the fundamentalist desire to enforce and impress their worldviews on others that makes this authoritarian mentality anathema to any true human spirit.

what doesn't become an oppressor in context of governance? Is not the role of governance to compel right action? Perhaps you mean a more specific kind of oppression.

The "scientific dictatorship". We're led to believe science is objective, when it's not. It's about the uses of measurement. As author Michael Hoffman says, "What does not fit the "yardstick" of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or "cut, burn and poison" methods of cancer "treatment." Much like religion, right?

they do not defy quantification, happiness levels are perfectly quantifiable. Dignity is perfectly quantifiable, just ask people if they have dignity or happiness.

Well, that's not very scientific, yet, you base your belief in the non-existence of God on the lack of scientific proof, right?

who says I have a "belief in the non-existence of God" ? Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. What I DO don't believe in is the presentation of Religion by certain often self-proclaimed leaders of men. It's horrible that such leaders can do such evil as filling hearts with hate over concepts such as creationism. If there is a God, it's absolutely sure that He could have caused this universe to be made in a fashion we can, with great effort, come to understand. We're still far from it, but have some good theories, but no sure answers. We don't need to rely on specific short textual descriptions from books of dubious authenticity.

People should follow what's in their hearts, and not try to force their own vision on others. and that goes for atheists too. It's one thing to have an awareness campaign, let people know they're not alone, but I can't agree with launching conversion crusades.

Pretty sure rulers did that pretty much always, in one form or another. Lot of those rulers ruled religiously. I've seen little more effective at such indoctrination than religion. and what about this concept of "accountability to a moral master" - prey tell, who were the Spanish inquisitors morally accountable to?

Certainly not Jesus Christ.

yet they so claimed.

the problem of universals is interesting to think about, but it's an on-going thing. Don't turn Ockham's dumb razor into a boogieman. Though some hyper-skeptics make way too much use of it. If there's one thing science has learned in the intervening hundreds of years, it's that shit is way more complicated than Ockham ever conceived, and that simple explanations typically only go so far, before they have to be replaced with more complex models.

Well, it's nominalism that led to the bifurcation of epistemology thus the belief that all things quantifiable represent the totality of reality. So all of those entities that defy quantification are relegated to impotent and ambiguous subjectivism. This is the epistemological rigidity that underpins scientism, which mandates the universal imposition of science upon all fields of inquiry.

so you're advocating for Platonic realism ? What would that look like instantiated into a functioning worldview?

[BrandonD]

...

TV pundits discuss how we are going to make warlocks and witches get along.

I think that's a rather fine idea.

Wizards? Witches? Load of Warlocks!
Underground like wide-eyed moorlocks.

...

I for one would watch that show.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Coming to a youtube channel near you soon!

...

[divideandconquer]

Religionism mandates the imposition of religion upon all fields of inquiry. When extended beyond it's legitimate fields of application, religion becomes a rigid template, even the most complex of entities, like man, must conform. Thus, the epistemological cartel or epistemic autocracy only give metaphysical currency to empirically un-demonstrable and un-quantifiably un-demonstrable entities.

So in the context of governance, religion becomes an oppressor. The religiously regimented state must jettison concepts of freedom and dignity because they defy dogma. The citizen becomes little more than an amalgam of behavioral repertories who’s every thought, feeling, and idea becomes the product of divine stimuli. From the government's standpoint the populace's motivations can be calculated and systematized thereby allowing those few religious leaders who are accountable to no-one but God to develop economic and religious stimuli that can produce the desired patterns of mass behavior. Such a societal model is known as theocracy, or in the words of Dr Evil, a religious dictatorship.

If you eliminate or replace the following sentence: "From the government's standpoint the populace's motivations can be calculated and systematized thereby allowing those few religious leaders who are accountable to no-one but God to develop economic and religious stimuli that can produce the desired patterns of mass behavior." I agree. That is, unless science is the religion governing...

[DrEvil]

If you eliminate or replace the following sentence: "From the government's standpoint the populace's motivations can be calculated and systematized thereby allowing those few religious leaders who are accountable to no-one but God to develop economic and religious stimuli that can produce the desired patterns of mass behavior." I agree. That is, unless science is the religion governing...

If science is a religion (which it is not), at least it is evidence based. You do realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for science? When was the last time religion did something like that?
Science produces tangible results. Religion doesn't.

[BrandonD]

If science is a religion (which it is not), at least it is evidence based. You do realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for science? When was the last time religion did something like that?
Science produces tangible results. Religion doesn't.

This is where the cleverness of words reveals itself.

Yes, the discipline of science, by definition, is evidence-based.

However, contemporary scientific institutions are very poor representatives of science as a discipline. This is why some people call science a religion, because of the behavior of its representatives.

Contemporary scientific institutions (as well as religious institutions) operate more like political organizations, whose main goals are the continuation of the institution and the increase of its influence.

When one invokes the label "science", it implies that any institution with this label operates on strictly scientific principles, which of course is not necessarily true.

All throughout history, individuals who've made significant scientific discoveries were in fact *rejected* by the scientific authorities of the time. Later generations come to accept these discoveries as those authorities die, giving the mistaken impression that leaders of the scientific establishment welcome challenge and innovation. Of course they do not, they want to retain their position as top dog.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." -Max Planck, founder of quantum theory

[JackRiddler]

Are all ideas equally good?

Maybe I don't follow, that seems a bit of a non-sequitir.

No, what I mean is that if all ideas are not equally good, then there may be good reason for one to give value and credence to a given idea over another, and it's not all an arbitrary social game.

Also, people very clearly do care sincerely about their conceptions as to the nature of the world, it's not a parlor game that becomes important only once sides are taken.

[IanEye]

*



"But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again."
"He was lost, and is found."


*

[JackRiddler]

(remorsefully) Some grenades are too sweet not to throw.

[coffin_dodger]

^^^^
most excellent!