DiscussMormonism.com

In the last week or so I’ve come across criticism of atheists or neo atheists that they are espousing “certainty”. Stak posted to a blog regarding certainty ..in which he writes critically of atheists for this:


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20038

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/se ... ainty.html

Stak: "So I’m left wondering how I am to navigate in a virtual world, where the John Loftus and P.Z. Meyers types. They enjoy their certainty, and hide behind the shallow Courier’s Reply or the Outsider Test of Faith."


And yesterday, I received an email in which Sam Harris responds to a Dr. David Eagleman against his criticism that “neo" atheists promote science is about certainty and their atheism is as well strict certainty.

What I’ve noticed on this board over the years is that whenever Neo atheists have been attacked on here, it is always without fail from what I can recall, a function of setting up a strawman and attacking it, things they don’t claim and it’s not their position.

So I thought I’d post Sam Harris’s response to this strawman argument against neo atheists that they claim “certainty”.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/whither-eagleman/

Sam writes:

"David –
I greatly appreciate your willingness to have a public conversation about science and religion. Given that I began this exchange by declaring some of what you said in your TEDx talk to be “intellectually dishonest,” I probably owe you a brief account of what I meant. First, let me remind our readers, by way of blunting any perceived insult, that calling a person “intellectually dishonest” is not merely a long way of calling him dishonest. I was not claiming that you were lying about your views or about those of the “neo atheists” (as you referred to us in your talk). You were, however, failing to see the implications of the former and misrepresenting the latter. (How’s that for an ice-breaker? You are not a liar, but you are very confused… ☺.)

In your talk, you repeatedly convict Richard Dawkins et al. of false certainty. You say that we have “left the public with a misconception that scientists don’t have the capacity to gamble (gambol?) beyond the available data—that scientists are acting as though we have it all figured out.” But Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and I have never claimed that we can establish the nonexistence of God. We simply observe, as you do, that the God of Abraham has the same empirical status as Poseidon and that the books attesting to His existence bear every sign of having been cobbled together by ignorant mortals. This is all one needs to judge Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to be incorrigible cults peddling ancient mythology. No “possibilian” apologies necessary.

In fact, atheism (old and new) is entirely comfortable with the sentiment, famously expressed by the geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, that “the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” Indeed, I now notice that Dawkins gave an entire TEDGlobal talk on this very theme. The strangeness of reality, or of specific theses about it, is not a problem—but patently bad ideas held for bad reasons (and often with murderous intensity) are. You will notice that the new atheists have not attacked the physicist David Deutsch for believing in the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. Nor have we criticized the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom for alleging that the entire universe could be running as a simulation on a supercomputer of the future. Nor has Ray Kurzweil and other proponents of an eschatological “singularity” fallen afoul of our rigid orthodoxies. These people have produced serious arguments in support of their peculiar beliefs that are not so easily dismissed.

But there are no serious arguments to be summoned in defense of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (despite the hopes of their apologists). How can I be sure? Well, for one, these faiths are embraced for the same reasons, and yet are mutually canceling. Worse still, each rests on the premise that its holy book contains the transcribed thoughts of an omniscient Deity. A glance at the books reveals this claim to be manifestly insane, as each is barren of scientific insights and bursting with logical, factual, and moral errors. You know this to be true—you say as much in your talk—and yet this knowledge constitutes nothing more, nor less, than atheism.

There is nothing about atheism that is hostile to mystery, intellectual humility, or wonder. Religious faith is hostile to these things, being based on an abject fear of mystery, perfect (if unwitting) arrogance, and a frank perversion of wonder. In place of genuine ignorance, humility, and wonder—and even in place of real knowledge—religious people erect false idols and false certainties. As scientists, we must simply lament this perverse and pointless sublimation. You do lament it, in fact, but then you move on to say that “we know too little to commit to a position of strict atheism where we act as though we have it all figured out… but we know too much to commit to any particular religious story. So that puts me somewhere in the middle…”

There is no middle, David, and your definition of “strict atheism” is a straw man. The middle you presume to occupy is, simply, atheism. You may want to argue that atheists like Dawkins and me take the wrong tone, or say things that are politically counter-productive. But you can’t honestly claim that we have closed our accounts with a wider reality or that we presume to know more about the universe than we, in fact, know.

I do not intend to cut our dialogue short, as I think we have many interesting things to talk about (consciousness, free will, “neurolaw,” etc.). But it seems to me that now might be a good time for you to admit that “possibilianism,” this middle position of yours, is just a piece of performance art, rather than a serious thesis.
Best,
Sam"

There's a widespread misconception that the very label of atheist implies a certainty in the nonexistence of God. If that wasn't the case, the reasoning goes, then they would be agnostics. In extreme form, I've seen people imply that to be an atheist you have to have something like Cartesian certainty in the nonexistence of God.

There's a semi-popular argument in fundamentalist circles that says that to be an atheist you need to be omniscient because you need to know absolutely everything about the universe to eliminate the possibility of God existing. You have to know, with certainty, that there is no proof of God just waiting around the corner. But if you have that omniscience, then you're basically claiming to be a god yourself, so atheism is self-refuting.

No, seriously.

Beyond that, fundamentalists tend to forward a strawman argument that argues against using science to draw conclusions against a religion because science is prone to flaws and change. The evolution believin' atheist, it would seem, is putting science on a pedestal as a sure thing it does not deserve. Closer to this message board, Juliann was fond of arguing that Book of Mormon critics say all the science on Mesoamerica is in because they believe Book of Mormon historicity is unlikely given what we know about the ancient Americas. Others in the FAIR crowd liked to ape that. I think most everyone reading this can recognize that as being ludicrous.

It's that kind of thinking Sam Harris is replying to here. But that's not Stak's position. He is an atheist. I'm sure Stak full well knows that atheists can allow for reasonable confidence without certainty, to accept mystery, to admit to the possibility of being wrong. Rather, what Stak is doing is criticizing fellow atheists for being too confident. Too certain, if you will. I think he's overstating the extent to which this goes on, but you should read him as being broadly critical of the level of confidence people have in their own epistemic abilities rather than saying anything like the fundamentalist criticisms that Harris is tackling.

EAllusion wrote:It's that kind of thinking Sam Harris is replying to here. But that's not Stak's position. He is an atheist. I'm sure Stak full well knows that atheists can allow for reasonable confidence without certainty, to accept mystery, to admit to the possibility of being wrong. Rather, what Stak is doing is criticizing fellow atheists for being too confident. Too certain, if you will. I think he's overstating the extent to which this goes on, but you should read him as being broadly critical of the level of confidence people have in their own epistemic abilities rather than saying anything like the fundamentalist criticisms that Harris is tackling.

Sam Harris is replying to a a David Eagleman's talk which is on youtube and which he linked to and I put the link there. It's not just a response to strict atheism which Sam Harris is objecting to ..it is the mischaracterization of the "neo" atheists position that they are promoting "certainty" not just with atheism but with science as well. I would agree with Sam Harris that Mr. Eagleman is being intellectually dishonest because the scientific method itself does not promote certainty and Dawkins and Sam Harris I'm confident are acutely aware of this.

You say: "Rather, what Stak is doing is criticizing fellow atheists for being too confident."

Since you want to speak on behalf of Stak...then what do you mean by "too confident" or what do you think Stak means by "fellow atheists are too confident".

marg wrote:Since you want to speak on behalf of Stak...then what do you mean by "too confident" or what do you think Stak means by "fellow atheists are too confident".

I think that's a self-explanatory statement. Stak looks out over the field of atheists and sees a a trend of naïve level of confidence in their conclusions on religion. If I were to guess, he's motivated by see atheists thinking religious argument to ridiculous to even take seriously. Knowing that Stak isn't an idiot, I'm sure he allows for differences among individual atheists and and atheist subcultures. Again, he's an atheist. But he wants to write a post arguing for more self-doubt and introspection among atheists generally. If you want this measured in certatons, that's not the sort of thing he was writing. It's just an impression he gets. And, as I pointed out in my first post, my impression is that he's overstated the problem. His post wasn't social science and I don't think anyone should take it that way.

Well EA it appears to me Stak is arguing against a strawman. Stak likes to criticize Dawkins et al. Appears to like to criticize "atheists" generally. I really don't care when someone says they are agnostic or atheist...I'm more interested in their critical thinking than whatever position they claim to hold.

Stak writes: " I’m as much as a biblical minimalist as Israel Finkelstein or Thomas Thompson, but this shouldn’t prohibit me from enjoying and learning from what the text is trying to convey? Instead of exhausting a thesaurus trying to convey my disdain for the God of Joshua, why not focus on the genocide itself, what does it teach? As sad as it is, genocide is part of the collective human experience. Nonbelievers are not immune to hate, fear, and the sweet taste of revenge, the rush of pure rage at an injustice inflicted on one of your own. There is much more in the text, context, and texture, than just ammo for justifying your metaphysical beliefs."

I know Dawkins has said he thinks the Bible should be read as literature.

It's very easy to criticize. When Stak or the Dr. Eagleman Harris responded to or anyone else throwing out jabs at public figures who have argued against current religions..when they argue with as much high critical thinking as those they criticize, such as Harris, Dawkins PZ Myers et al and when they criticize with actual substance and justification instead of strawmen arguments ..then their criticisms might have merit.

I like strawpeople.

I'm critical of Stak's seeming certainty that people should exhibit less certainty.

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/se ... ainty.html

"So I’m left wondering how I am to navigate in a virtual world, where the John Loftusand P.Z. Meyerstypes. They enjoy their certainty, and hide behind the shallow http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _reply.php]Courier’s Reply or the Outsider Test of Faith."

I'm not aware of John Loftus's work/books, but it is not shallow to offer a counter argument employing reasoning as P.Z. Myer's does in the Coutier's Reply..whereas it is shallow to criticize without any (from what I can see) justification and reasoning.

If there is one thing scientists such as P.Z. Myer's, Harris and Dawkins understand very well is the scientific method. That is what they promote. That method entails temporary truths..for practical purposes those truths may be used as certain truths until reasoning and/or evidence justifies changing them. But at least the scientific method entails that one maintain a willingness to change and be open minded.

It is religion which promotes absolute unchanging truths. And philosophy from what I've seen on message boards spouted by self professed philosophers, doesn't seem to offer much of anything requiring much critical thinking. On message boards "philosopher types" offer philosophical jargon which is simply a learned language requiring no critical thought.

marg wrote:But there are no serious arguments to be summoned in defense of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (despite the hopes of their apologists). How can I be sure? Well, for one, these faiths are embraced for the same reasons, and yet are mutually canceling. Worse still, each rests on the premise that its holy book contains the transcribed thoughts of an omniscient Deity. A glance at the books reveals this claim to be manifestly insane, as each is barren of scientific insights and bursting with logical, factual, and moral errors. You know this to be true—you say as much in your talk—and yet this knowledge constitutes nothing more, nor less, than atheism.

There is nothing about atheism that is hostile to mystery, intellectual humility, or wonder. Religious faith is hostile to these things, being based on an abject fear of mystery, perfect (if unwitting) arrogance, and a frank perversion of wonder. In place of genuine ignorance, humility, and wonder—and even in place of real knowledge—religious people erect false idols and false certainties. As scientists, we must simply lament this perverse and pointless sublimation. You do lament it, in fact, but then you move on to say that “we know too little to commit to a position of strict atheism where we act as though we have it all figured out… but we know too much to commit to any particular religious story. So that puts me somewhere in the middle…”

There is no middle, David, and your definition of “strict atheism” is a straw man. The middle you presume to occupy is, simply, atheism. You may want to argue that atheists like Dawkins and me take the wrong tone, or say things that are politically counter-productive. But you can’t honestly claim that we have closed our accounts with a wider reality or that we presume to know more about the universe than we, in fact, know.

Uncharitable and strident Sam may be, but he deserves real credit for being a persuasive, incisive, and entertaining writer. At the end of the day, it's hard not to agree with him.