The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_Tal Bachman]

I think that much of what passes these days for argument on behalf of non-theism is intolerably crude and embarrassingly naïve, and it's driving me nuts. Am I wrong about this?

So here are a few of my objections. Non-theists out there: can you satisfactorily answer them? (By the way, I have no particular religious beliefs).

1.) Non-theists (call them NTs) never tire of proclaiming that while hundreds of thousands have been killed in the name of theism, that no one has ever been killed in the name of non-theism; but appalling ignorance of historical fact doesn't make that fact non-existent. The fact is that many millions have been killed in the name of non-theism, by way of an explicitly, fundamentally non-theist ideology which claimed to be the "one true way" of seeing the world (in fact, the "one true [social] science"). I'm speaking of course of Marxism.

Their usual retort is that Marxists killed in the name of Marxism, not non-theism; but that is only like saying that Catholics killed in the name of Catholicism, not theism. This retort, in other words, is no defence at all; or at least, if it is, then by the same line of reasoning, no one has ever killed in the name of "theism", only particular "belief systems" which included theism.

Conclusion: "belief systems" don't need to include a supernatural god to encourage or justify mass murder.

2.) While acknowledging that some religious beliefs may have had adaptive value and therefore selected for, non-theist blowhard Richard Dawkins paints religious belief largely as a "super-meme", as alluded to by Dartagnan in another thread. I find this characterization of religious belief problematic; but even if it were true, it would be as damaging to non-theism as to theism. First point first.

In Dawkins's telling, "memes" include things like bell bottom jeans, a rage for checkers at a particular school, a new way of wearing a hat, or a new buzzword. They are units of culture stemming often from quirky expressions of human creativity, or even mere accident, which, in essence, float into some social miasma, and - due to our natures as social and imitative beings - are then in effect "downloaded" into our brains.

Certainly, religious beliefs can be shaped, meme-like, by a sort of joint-sculpting over generations, or by bold new "add-ons" created immediately by imaginative, ambitious men like L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith; but I submit it is extremely difficult to account for the enduring popularity of religious beliefs in general - and more to the point given my comments about Marxism above - the popularity of cosmologies, or narrative, moralized, teleological contexts for our existence - without positing a deep, hardwired biological predisposition for them. Dawkins gives this inference fairly short shrift in "The God Delusion" - I imagine because he is committed to the belief that religious beliefs come close to being "the root of all evil".

That is, Dawkins's problem is that to the extent the roots of religious belief are hard-wired, to that extent is implied the adaptiveness of religious beliefs over eons, and this conflicts with Dawkins's view that they have virtually no adaptive value at all. (He attempts to deal with this in "TGD" by venturing that it is possible for some traits to be carried even though they confer no survival advantage at all [see p. 191]). (On this point, I find David Sloan Wilson's account of religion far more plausible given evolutionary theory. See "Darwin's Cathedral").

Dawkins's memophilia drives him to focus on the "virus" itself - religious belief - and its "effects" on the human organism, rather than the deep psychological wellsprings which all great critical thinkers on religion, from Hobbes to Freud to Marx to Boyer, have identified as the roots of religious belief. In short, rather than leveling his ammo at the beliefs themselves, he ought perhaps to be leveling his ammo at the human psyche which so naturally, instinctively craves them. (But then again, he can't - because to do so would be to tacitly acknowledge that religious beliefs appear to have been adaptive in a net sense).

One other little problem for Dawkins (though I don't think he would concede it) is one which Dartagnan points out: that to the extent that theism is, or could be, considered nothing more than a meme, to the same extent NON-theism is, or could be, considered nothing more than a meme. But Dawkins wouldn't like this very much at all, would he?

3.) NTs often distinguish belief systems in terms of whether they are religious or non-religious, and then label the former as more "potentially dangerous". But since both "religious" and "non-religious" belief systems can be more or less warranted by the evidence, I think NTs would be far better off focusing on "warranted versus unwarranted beliefs", period. Otherwise, you would be lumping Marxism into the non-religious side, when really all it did was replace god as a figment of human imagination with a tangible god (the state), and Buddhism into the religious side, when officially, it posits no god at all. In short, contests between belief systems should be, in fact, contests between the evidences for belief systems, regardless of what category we tend to sort them into.

Just a few thoughts, don't know if that makes any sense.

I have to run, see ya.

Tal

[_Ren]

Hey Tal,

I actually generally agree on all 3 points. I'm not sure how popular my views - as a non-theist - are around here though ;)

Certainly on point 2 - I think history is pretty clear. Belief in the supernatural and / or 'God belief / worship' wasn't some utterly freak occurrence that happened 'once' somewhere on the globe, and then spread 'virus-like' from there to engulf most of humanity. It actually popped up continuously and independently in all kinds of separate, isolated cultures around the world throughout history - again, and again and again. This - to me - clearly points to supernatural belief being something 'innate' in human beings. Innate in our natures.

Whether the explanation is that there really is a 'supernatural' realm, or whether it has a biological / cultural explanation - well, I obviously am going to lean one way as a non-theist ;) But certainly, I think the case for religion as a 'meme' is overblown. I think you're pointing out that there can be considered to be 'some' truth to the 'meme' idea. If you are saying that, then I agree. But I don't think history gives us the necessary ammunition to go 'too far' with that reasoning - certainly in relation to religion.

None of this is to deny the 'dangers in religion'. I accept that they are there, and they are deadly serious. But when those dangers are isolated and dissected, I think the final conclusion is that they are not attitudes 'owned by' or 'unique to' religion, nor theism. I think that is pretty clear. To think of them that way would not only be missing quite an important point, but I would consider such a misfire 'dangerous' in and of itself.


Just to warn ya, I think a few people around here are a bit tired of this topic, and frankly I don't blame them! It's been a highly emotive one around here recently...
Lets hope that this thread can proceed with cooler heads prevailing. (Speaking to myself there as much as anybody else...!) Because while it may well - yet again - stomp over the same old ground, I do see this as an important issue. Whatever the 'answer' is, either way, it's all very relevant. It's something that we need to be able to reasonably and sensibly discuss.

....somehow... :)

[_GoodK]

I think that much of what passes these days for argument on behalf of non-theism is intolerably crude and embarrassingly naïve, and it's driving me nuts. Am I wrong about this?

Yes, but I don't think that you are really asking if you are wrong about this. We'll see.

So here are a few of my objections. Non-theists out there: can you satisfactorily answer them? (By the way, I have no particular religious beliefs).

I will try, hopefully marg or Seth can jump in too.

1.) Non-theists (call them NTs) never tire of proclaiming that while hundreds of thousands have been killed in the name of theism, that no one has ever been killed in the name of non-theism; but appalling ignorance of historical fact doesn't make that fact non-existent. The fact is that many millions have been killed in the name of non-theism, by way of an explicitly, fundamentally non-theist ideology which claimed to be the "one true way" of seeing the world (in fact, the "one true [social] science"). I'm speaking of course of Marxism.

This is your number 1 argument? This has been brought up and dismissed ad naseum. Think about "the many millions that have been killed in the name of non-theism" and ask yourself honestly if too much skepticism, too much lack of belief in celebrated myths, too much doubt is too blame for what you call "the fact" that millions of people have been killed in the name of non-theism.

Their usual retort is that Marxists killed in the name of Marxism, not non-theism; but that is only like saying that Catholics killed in the name of Catholicism, not theism. This retort, in other words, is no defence at all; or at least, if it is, then by the same line of reasoning, no one has ever killed in the name of "theism", only particular "belief systems" which included theism.

Conclusion: "belief systems" don't need to include a supernatural god to encourage or justify mass murder.

That is a reasonable conclusion. And yes you are right, Marx, like Pol Pot, replaced religious dogma with a different kind of dogma. Dogma is the real enemy here. Too bad non-theism does not have any sort of dogma attached to it, while theism always does, so I think we can check numero uno off your list.

2.) While acknowledging that some religious beliefs may have had adaptive value and therefore selected for, non-theist blowhard Richard Dawkins paints religious belief largely as a "super-meme", as alluded to by Dartagnan in another thread....
One other little problem for Dawkins (though I don't think he would concede it) is one which Dartagnan points out: that to the extent that theism is, or could be, considered nothing more than a meme, to the same extent NON-theism is, or could be, considered nothing more than a meme. But Dawkins wouldn't like this very much at all, would he?

I don't l ike it either. How can a lack of belief be a belief? Some of this reads like a long winded version of number 2 of the below list by Sam Harris of ways people defend religion

1. Argue that it's true
2. Argue that it is useful or necessary
3. Argue that atheism is dogmatic, a religion, or otherwise worthy of contempt

If I'm misreading number 2, please let me know.

3.) NTs often distinguish belief systems in terms of whether they are religious or non-religious, and then label the former as more "potentially dangerous". But since both "religious" and "non-religious" belief systems can be more or less warranted by the evidence, I think NTs would be far better off focusing on "warranted versus unwarranted beliefs", period. Otherwise, you would be lumping Marxism into the non-religious side, when really all it did was replace god as a figment of human imagination with a tangible god (the state), and Buddhism into the religious side, when officially, it posits no god at all. In short, contests between belief systems should be, in fact, contests between the evidences for belief systems, regardless of what category we tend to sort them into.

Just a few thoughts, don't know if that makes any sense.

For the ten-billionth time, not believing something is not a belief system, thus requires no evidence.

Are you a non-racist? Should we compare the evidence for racism and non-racism to determine what belief system is more dangerous? Of course not.

I think Russell took care of number 3 nearly a century ago.

[Guest]

Think about "the many millions that have been killed in the name of non-theism" and ask yourself honestly if too much skepticism...

Why is non-theism hard-linked with skepticism? (I've met way to many non-skeptical and - frankly - non-'thinking' non-theists to hard-link non-theism with skepticism...)
Why can't theism be linked with skepticism, given that even some of the most hardened non-theists on this board have admitted that theists can be 'critical thinkers'?

Dogma is the real enemy here.

I'd freely agree with you, but I've got a feeling we are thinking two different things when we see that word.

Too bad non-theism does not have any sort of dogma attached to it, while theism always does, so I think we can check numero uno off your list.

You do recognise that theism can be (and is often) removed from religion - right?

Are you a non-racist?

Are you a non-altruist?
...a non-Libertarian?

...why pick one of the 'worst' words that you can think of, and try and pin it to theism (.via the placing of 'non' before it) - as if it would serve as an accurate analogy?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Why is non-theism hard-linked with skepticism?

Given the nature of "Skepticism,” I don't know why anyone would want to be hard-linked to it.

Unless of course you two are just using it in the benign sense and not using it in the more historical sense that ties it to such people as Pyrrho(?)

[Guest]

Given the nature of "Skepticism,” I don't know why anyone would want to be hard-linked to it.

That's certainly worthy of discussion Doc. I wasn't using the word in a moral sense at that point (although I do think morals can be discussed 'logically' - the problem is agreeing on a common 'framework'...)

As far as inspecting 'reality', I'm aware of the limitations of 'knowledge' and being 'ridiculously' skeptical. I guess I am using the word and mentally adding 'within reasonable bounds' every time I use it...! Of course, the fact that I'm doing that is relevant to the discussion I guess.

It would probably be sensible to use the term 'Reasonable skepticism' - if for no other reason than to prompt the question: 'So, what is reasonable skepticism'?


But a separate point is (as I see it) over-generalising of the theist and non-theist groups. I'd consider that a separate point to be tackled, regardless of whether 'Skepticism' is considered to be a 'good' or 'bad' thing...

[_GoodK]

Why is non-theism hard-linked with skepticism? (I've met way to many non-skeptical and - frankly - non-'thinking' non-theists to hard-link non-theism with skepticism...)
Why can't theism be linked with skepticism, given that even some of the most hardened non-theists on this board have admitted that theists can be 'skeptical thinkers'?

Are you serious? What is the connection, in your opinion, with being a skeptic and a man of faith?

Dogma is the real enemy here.

I'd freely agree with you, but I've got a feeling we are thinking two different things when we see that word.

I'm ok relying on the dictionary for the defintion of the word dogma :)

Too bad non-theism does not have any sort of dogma attached to it, while theism always does, so I think we can check numero uno off your list.

You do recognise that theism can be (and is often) removed from religion - right?

Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I would not say it is often removed from religion... and I would also say it is not useful to consider those people who are on the fence and have decided religion is stupid, but aren't quite ready to come out of the closet and admit that believing in God - even seperated from formal religion - is equally stupid.

...why pick one of the 'worst' words that you can think of, and try and pin it to theism (.via the placing of 'non' before it) - as if it would serve as an accurate analogy?

It is a perfectly accurate analogy, as demonstrated by the quote below. I think it may just ring a little to true to some people.

We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “BS” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism. Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. We are talking about deeply held convictions. I’m sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns in the South, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business.

Of course, I’m not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.

So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? There was a civil rights movement, of course. The KKK was gradually battered to the fringes of society. There have been important and, I think, irrevocable changes in the way we talk about race—our major newspapers no longer publish flagrantly racist articles and editorials as they did less than a century ago—but, ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?

Perhaps you are also forgetting that racism is deeply rooted in theism.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Given the nature of "Skepticism,” I don't know why anyone would want to be hard-linked to it.

That's certainly worthy of discussion Doc. I wasn't using the word in a moral sense at that point (although I do think morals can be discussed 'logically' - the problem is agreeing on a common 'framework'...)

Indeed they can be discussed "logically," and that was one of the main endeavors of the philosophers when philosophy was essentially a "religion." But as far as the philosophical school of Skepticism is concerned, how to live ones life is not addressed, nor can it be addressed in my opinion. This is mainly why I was wondering if you were referring to the school of philosophical thought, or more-so the common (and benign) English usage of the word.

As far as inspecting 'reality', I'm aware of the limitations of 'knowledge' and being 'ridiculously' skeptical. I guess I am using the word and mentally adding 'within reasonable bounds' every time I use it...!

Groovy.

Of course, the fact that I'm doing that is relevant to the discussion I guess.

It’s relevant in-as much as it shows that you aren’t a hardliner dogmatic extremist… which is probably why I like you.

Perhaps others don't make such a mental addition? Might explain quite a bit...
It would probably be sensible to use the term 'Reasonable skepticism' - if for no other reason than to prompt the question: 'So, what is reasonable skepticism'?

I’m sure many (most[?]) probably just use the term loosely without (knowledge of) the historical baggage that is accompanied by it. But, you do propose quite the conundrum of a question there, and one that I could imagine countless hours being spent on the “painted steps” discoursing and arguing about (occasionally raising the leg of my toga to disclose my underwear status).

I’d imagine that one of the prime aspects of “reasonable skepticism” would be maintaining a skepticism that does not put a hindrance upon living. Oft times suspension of judgment (and especially the negativity that is inherent in the skeptic ideal) can lead to a negative complacency in lieu of a positive activism -- at least in my opinion.

But a separate point is (as I see it) over-generalising of the theist and non-theist groups. I'd consider that a separate point to be tackled, regardless of whether 'Skepticism' is a 'good' or 'bad' thing...

Agree.

[Guest]

GoodK,

I'm ok relying on the dictionary for the defintion of the word dogma :)

...there are many different dictionary definitions of the word.
And different definitions are helpful to different 'agendas'.

Are you serious? What is the connection, in your opinion, with being a skeptic and a man of faith?

Given what I hope to be our common understanding of what a 'skeptic' is...
Watch this video all the way through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Now, tell me that the man giving the presentation isn't what you would consider to be a 'skeptic'. If you don't believe him to be a 'skeptic', please describe to me exactly why he is not.
And I'd appreciate some detail please.

EDIT: Ahh - ok. This may well be a definition thayng again:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
–adjective
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics.

...are you concentrating on definition 3? If so - ok, then using that definition - what you said makes sense...
I guess Doc had definition 4 in mind...

I would not say it is often removed from religion

Actually, I would use the word often. Based on this forum alone, many of the theists involved in it appear to be more than happy to separate belief in God from religious 'dogma'.

and I would also say it is not useful to consider those people who are on the fence and have decided religion is stupid, but aren't quite ready to come out of the closet and admit that believing in God - even seperated from formal religion - is equally stupid.

Can you clarify what you mean here?
Are you saying that it's just as stupid to believe in religion, as it would be to reject religion and yet still believe in God?

Perhaps you are also forgetting that racism is deeply rooted in theism.

Hard to forget something I never knew, nor (in my humble opinion) could I ever have known.
In my opinion, racism is fairly deeply rooted in humanity - and religion expresses that just as effectively as the non-theistic racist bullies who beat me at school, and sprayed NF (National Front for you non-UK peeps) on my front door.

If memes are real, then I do believe that non-racism is a 'meme'. And a very good one at that. Long may it spread and overcome our more primitive tribalistic impulses.


Doctor Steuss,

This is mainly why I was wondering if you were referring to the school of philosophical thought, or more-so the common (and benign) English usage of the word.

Ahh - ok.
I'm sure it was the second, and not the first. Certainly no expert on the first...
You will have to allow me some time to educate myself before continuing down that line.
From my quick look at it, it sounds like the kind of grounds we covered in the 'Epistemology' thread way back when...

Science does caution against claiming to know much at all. And I accept not only the philosophical soundness of the principle, but also the usefulness of that principle.
I just try to keep it in due perspective and don't let it drive me crazy... (Or at least I try my best not to...!)

It’s relevant in-as much as it shows that you aren’t a hardliner dogmatic extremist… which is probably why I like you.

What you meant to say was, you like me because I'm just so damn cool. But point taken :D
I like to think I like you because I think like you sometimes. But I'm sure that's just wishful thinking...!

occasionally raising the leg of my toga to disclose my underwear status

I think I already know the answer. But sure, I would require evidence to reach a 'firm' conclusion.

I’d imagine that one of the prime aspects of “reasonable skepticism” would be maintaining a skepticism that does not put a hindrance upon living. Oft times suspension of judgment (and especially the negativity that is inherent in the skeptic ideal) can lead to a negative complacency in lieu of a positive activism -- at least in my opinion.

Yeah. I wanted to say what you just said, but you've already said it better. So...
What you've just said above perfectly represents my viewpoint also.

...now - about that underwear...

[_GoodK]

...there are many different dictionary definitions of the word.
And different definitions are helpful to different 'agendas'.

Ok...

Given what I hope to be our common understanding of what a 'skeptic' is...
Watch this video all the way through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Now, tell me that the man giving the presentation isn't what you would consider to be a 'skeptic'. If you don't believe him to be a 'skeptic', please describe to me exactly why he is not.
And I'd appreciate some detail please.

LOL.. ok.
I will when I get a chance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
–adjective
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics.

...are you concentrating on definition 3? If so - ok, then using that definition - what you said makes sense...
I guess Doc had definition 4 in mind...

I am talking about skepticism as it relates to dogma. Dogma authoritatively lays down doctrine, skepticism questions the validity or "truthiness" of said doctrine.

Dogma
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

I would not say it is often removed from religion

Actually, I would use the word often. Based on this forum alone, many of the theists involved in it appear to be more than happy to separate belief in God from religious 'dogma'.

And this forum is a representation of what "most" people believe "often"?
Of course it is not.
I live in a country where about half of its occupants believe Jesus will be returning, wielding his magic powers, sometime in their lifetime.
I'm worried about those people more than I am worried about theists like Jersey Girl, who seem more than happy to separate belief in God from religious dogma. If half of our country believed in Jersey Girl's form of theism (sorry Jersey Girl, just using you as an example) the United States would be a lot better off, and people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens might have to find something else to write about.

and I would also say it is not useful to consider those people who are on the fence and have decided religion is stupid, but aren't quite ready to come out of the closet and admit that believing in God - even seperated from formal religion - is equally stupid.

Can you clarify what you mean here?
Are you saying that it's just as stupid to believe in religion, as it would be to reject religion and yet still believe in God?

Yes, I'll say that. I don't see the benefit of the latter over the former. Do you?

Perhaps you are also forgetting that racism is deeply rooted in theism.

Hard to forget something I never knew, nor (in my humble opinion) could I ever have known.

Wow, I'm surprised to hear this. Have you thumbed through the Bible lately?

In my opinion, racism is fairly deeply rooted in humanity - and religion expresses that just as effectively as the non-theistic racist bullies who beat me at school, and sprayed NF (National Front for you non-UK peeps) on my front door.

"non-theistic racist bullies" - Now who is trying to

pick one of the 'worst' words that you can think of

and tie it to something?

As if "non-theistic racist bullies" somehow negates the fact that racism has been practiced and condoned by religion for centuries, specifically Christianity.

If memes are real, then I do believe that non-racism is a 'meme'. And a very good one at that. Long may it spread and overcome our more primitive tribalistic impulses.

I've been trying to avoid this whole 'meme' conversation since Kevin brought it up. I don't really see it as a worthwhile discussion. Lack of belief, as in not believing black people are inferior to white people, is not a 'meme' by definition.

You can call non-beliefs beliefs, and I can call a duck a stapler if I want... doesn't make it true...