The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_marg]

I find discussions with ROP usually confusing, somewhat surreal

Not often had this complaint. I've had plenty of people disagree with me - all the time - but I don't often get the complaint that I cannot be understood.
Takes all kinds I suppose.

I have the same problem as GoodK. I try to figure out what your argument is but it gets lost in all the diversions you add.

[_Tal Bachman]

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.

***On what basis could "general skepticism" be equated with "non-theism"? This is a very crucial point, and the one on which (in my opinion) most non-theists totally fall down on. A man, for example, could disbelieve in theos, but at the same time believe that invisible leprechauns live under his bed, or a million other things.

It is perfectly possible to fancy oneself a skeptic, and to be extremely skeptical of theism and "religion", while being entirely UNskeptical about certain other "meta-narratives", cosmologies, or "belief systems". In other words, being a "true believer" - and one who will kill for those "true beliefs" - doesn't require a supernatural god figure.

How can I put it so you get what I'm saying...Think of it this way: people may not kill in the name of general skepticism, true enough - but that's not the point here, because while general skepticism is required for non-theism, general skepticism is not synonymous with 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.

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.

---Dogma is a problem, yes. But to say that "non-theism" and "dogmatism" are mutually exclusive, is like saying that black people can't be racist. Flattering to some folks, but belied by human experience.

For example, in my original post I suggested that Dawkins's anti-religionism seems to inhibit his ability to plausibly account for the roots of religious belief. If that is true - and I think it is - then it is an example of a dogma (a non-theist dogma, to be precise) blinding someone to a series of pertinent facts, isn't it? Sadly, simply acknowleding that there aren't many, or any, good reasons to believe that Jesus lives in outer space and is watching us, is no immunity against dogmaticism. And how could it be, GoodK, when the roots of dogmatism lie within us? A tendency toward dogma isn't caused by some unique "dogma" meme...rather, our tendency toward dogmatism simply finds expression through particular beliefs. If it didn't, you wouldn't have self-styled true believing evolutionists in effect denying selection at the group level largely because at that level, religious beliefs make evolutionary sense. You would have, instead, David Sloan Wilson, who Dawkins is tellingly snide to.

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.

***It doesn't really matter if "some of this" reads like Sam Harris's list. What matters is whether Harris, or me, or anyone else, is on to something. In the case of your list, I don't know of any good arguments that a particular religion is true. There are good evolutionary reasons for suspecting that religious beliefs conferred a net survival advantage on to certain groups. And as for number three, a lot depends on how we define "religion", or even dogma. But, I suggest that the history of the past century indicates that one can be murderously dogmatic about a fundamentally non-theist ideology. That Harris has enumerated these objections doesn't mean he's refuted them.

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

***Hear me out on this, GoodK. I want to walk through this with you, then I want to hear what you say.

"Belief systems", by definition, require selective disbelief. To be a devout Mormon, or Moonie, or conservative, or non-theist, is not just to believe certain things - it is to DIS-believe certain things. For example, Mormonism requires DISbelieving that the Pope is infallible. Non-theism requires disbelieving the same thing. Every belief system excludes belief in certain propositions, just as much as it requires belief in other propositions.

There is no way around this...and in this sense, a belief system which does NOT include a belief in God but does include a belief in, say, the healing power of homeopathy (or anything else), is because of that no less a "belief system", than one which DOES include a belief in God, but DOESN'T include a belief in the healing power of homeopathy. Structurally, they're the same.

This is why I suggest, GoodK, that non-theist belief systems don't have any inherently greater immunity to dogmatism than do theist belief systems. After all...does the mere presence or absence of one particular belief somehow magically transform human nature? I think history furnishes ample evidence of the answer to this question.

Now, a follow-up point. Let us say that Roger looks at history and says, "religious belief has caused all these wars, divisions, heartache...it's horrible. Religion, by and large, has been a blight upon mankind". And Roger wants to help mankind. What can he do?

He can write books like "The God Delusion", certainly. But what will he do when he finds that his book hasn't done enough toward reducing the great evil of religion? He has other options, doesn't he? One option is to use violence to destroy the blight upon mankind that is religion. Given his premises, his argument would seem quite rational: "whatever damage I do through violence to the growth of religious belief on this planet, will reduce the sum total of human suffering, since if religious belief is allowed to flourish, it would have damaged many more". Maybe he could burn down a temple, assassinate a rabbi or imam or preacher...the possibilities for violence against the blight of religion are endless, aren't they?

All this seems quite "sensible". And the whole sequence of reasoning is non-theist; it is humane, in its way; but...it has also led Roger to conclude that he should use pre-emptive violence against what seems to him to be a (or the) big, fat root of evil. Nor is this sort of thinking hypothetical.

The point is that there is no inherent protection against idiocy, violence, or anything else, in simply not believing in God or religion; and to believe otherwise is itself as unwarranted, as to believe that believing in God confers the same protection. That is the tragedy.

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

***I'm glad you brought up Bertrand Russell, because he actually supports my point, and strikes a blow against yours. Russell, that supposedly rational man, was so "rational", that for years he defended - with nearly the same blind lunacy that any Mormon apologists defends Joseph Smith - the grotesque, genocidal regime of Joseph Stalin. That is, his blindness was as fantastic as that caused by any "religion".

And that's exactly my point, GoodK. Simply not believing in God didn't give Russell ANY protection against being a complete idiot, who gave intellectual cover to the most prolific butcher of the 20th century.

See what I mean?

[_Ren]

What on earth is your argument RoP? That most theists hold no religious dogma beliefs?

I'm not positive whether 'many' or 'most' is the right word, but it actually doesn't matter in relation to the discussion at hand. It only matters that clearly 'some' theists aren't tied to dogma.
You are interested in what I was actually disputing in GoodKs post - correct?

Well, take a look and find out. Here's one clear point:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 257#134257

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.

Well, what is bolded simply isn't true. Theism isn't always tied to dogma...
I'm as tired of discussing 'dogma' - and what the word means - as everyone else. But when the same 'line' gets used repeatedly ad-nauseum, then - well. You've gotta say something, even when it has all already been said.

Unfortunately.

It boils down to critical thinking. To the extent that people relinguish responsibility to question no matter the authority, to be closed minded as opposed to skeptical and willing to adapt their thinking to new information..they pose a potential threat of harm to others and themselves due to poor and irrational decision making based on unwarranted/unjustifed reasoning.

Indeed. And those theists who are willing to question every single last part of their belief system can't be accused of doing anything but - even if they still remain theists. What they can be accused of is disagreeing with non-theists about the conclusions of the inspection of evidence.

GoodK wasn't just talking about religion, which is debatable in and of itself. GoodK was referring to theism in its entirety - which is a whole new brave world of generalisation from just 'religion'.

I have the same problem as GoodK. I try to figure out what your argument is but it gets lost in all the diversions you add.

Again - like I said - you and GooK and about 3 other occasions I can think of in years of being on forums like these - doesn't exactly count as 'often'.
Yeap. 'Diversions'. Got ya.

[_marg]

What on earth is your argument RoP? That most theists hold no religious dogma beliefs?

I'm not positive whether 'many' or 'most' is the right word, but it actually doesn't matter in relation to the discussion at hand. It only matters that clearly 'some' theists aren't tied to dogma.
You are interested in what I was actually disputing in GoodKs post - correct?

Well, take a look and find out. Here's one clear point:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 257#134257

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.

Well, what is bolded simply isn't true. Theism isn't always tied to dogma...
I'm as tired of discussing 'dogma' - and what the word means - as everyone else. But when the same 'line' gets used repeatedly ad-nauseum, then - well. You've gotta say something, even when it has all already been said.

And GookK acknowledged it isn't always tied to a religion. So that point is done and overwith..so move on.

Let's look at your point further via the discussion:

Goodk : 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.

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


GoodK : Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I would not say it is often removed from religion

RoP: 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'.

GookK: And this forum is a representation of what "most" people believe "often"?

RoP: I didn't use the word 'most'. I only used the word 'often'.

Your response to me RoP is disingenous when you say: "I'm not positive whether 'many' or 'most' is the right word, but it actually doesn't matter in relation to the discussion at hand. It only matters that clearly 'some' theists aren't tied to dogma."

You clearly implied in that exchange that you are referring not just to "some" but to a large percentage of theists. And GoodK acknowledged that theism can be divorced from dogma but not often, so GoodK already acknowledged that "some" theists are not blindly tied to religious dogma.

previous (marg): It boils down to critical thinking. To the extent that people relinguish responsibility to question no matter the authority, to be closed minded as opposed to skeptical and willing to adapt their thinking to new information..they pose a potential threat of harm to others and themselves due to poor and irrational decision making based on unwarranted/unjustifed reasoning.

RoP:

Indeed. And those theists who are willing to question every single last part of their belief system can't be accused of doing anything but - even if they still remain theists.
GoodK wasn't just talking about religion, which is debatable in and of itself. GoodK was referring to theism in its entirety - which is a whole new brave world of generalisation from just 'religion'.

I don't know what the heck you are talking about or what your point is and given the way you have been arguing fallaciously in this thread I'd rather not continue to engage you because I think it would derail the thread.

[_GoodK]

I'm going to try and respond as well as I can given my time constraints, I probably won't be back on until tomorrow.

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.

***On what basis could "general skepticism" be equated with "non-theism"? This is a very crucial point, and the one on which (in my opinion) most non-theists totally fall down on. A man, for example, could disbelieve in theos, but at the same time believe that invisible leprechauns live under his bed, or a million other things.

I don't know what "general skepticism" is, but let's work with skepticism in the context I was using it, and that is when it relates to dogma. Skepticism most importantly involves doubt, in my opinion, and doubting authoritative certitude's is essential to a non-theist - as long as they have been given ample opportunity to hear an authoritative certitude. If a non-theist hasn't at least considered an argument for God, well I might not call that skepticism.

I am not saying a non-theist is always a skeptic, skepticism is attached to non-theism, or any other generalities about skeptics and non-theists. I actually asked you a question, specific to your dubious Marx example. Did you see it?

---Dogma is a problem, yes. But to say that "non-theism" and "dogmatism" are mutually exclusive, is like saying that black people can't be racist. Flattering to some folks, but belied by human experience.

WOW. That is quite a connection.
I do agree that it is possible for an non-theist to subscribe to the "dogma's" of cosmology, or even political dogma.
I see no substance to that argument as it relates to your case.

I don't think you are catching my drift. When I say that in being a non-theist there is certainly no belief system attached, we are just examining that one aspect of a person's life, there is no dogma attached to that non-belief. We are not going to go off on tangents, decide if the non-theist believes dogmatically in unicorns or the purity of Arian blood, we are talking about not believing in God.

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.

***It doesn't really matter if "some of this" reads like Sam Harris's list. What matters is whether Harris, or me, or anyone else, is on to something.

Of course you are right. I'm not quite sure you are on to anything, because your arguments aren't entirely authentic - i.e they have been disputed, and refuted by the likes of Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell.

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

***Hear me out on this, GoodK. I want to walk through this with you, then I want to hear what you say.


This is why I suggest, GoodK, that non-theist belief systems don't have any inherently greater immunity to dogmatism than do theist belief systems.

This is horribly simple, friend. Of course non-theists are more immune to dogmatism than a theists belief systems. Theism is by definition dogmatic.
Positing the idea that non-theists CAN be dogmatic in other aspects of their lives is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Now, a follow-up point. Let us say that Roger looks at history and says, "religious belief has caused all these wars, divisions, heartache...it's horrible. Religion, by and large, has been a blight upon mankind". And Roger wants to help mankind. What can he do?

He can write books like "The God Delusion", certainly. But what will he do when he finds that his book hasn't done enough toward reducing the great evil of religion? He has other options, doesn't he? One option is to use violence to destroy the blight upon mankind that is religion. Given his premises, his argument would seem quite rational: "whatever damage I do through violence to the growth of religious belief on this planet, will reduce the sum total of human suffering, since if religious belief is allowed to flourish, it would have damaged many more". Maybe he could burn down a temple, assassinate a rabbi or imam or preacher...the possibilities for violence against the blight of religion are endless, aren't they?

No, I doubt it would do anything but perpetuate the martyr complex. I don't find your hypotheticals to be realistic.

All this seems quite "sensible". And the whole sequence of reasoning is non-theist; it is humane, in its way; but...it has also led Roger to conclude that he should use pre-emptive violence against what seems to him to be a (or the) big, fat root of evil. Nor is this sort of thinking hypothetical.

Of course it doesn't seem sensible. Your hypothetical is ridiculous.

***I'm glad you brought up Bertrand Russell, because he actually supports my point, and strikes a blow against yours. Russell, that supposedly rational man, was so "rational", that for years he defended - with nearly the same blind lunacy that any Mormon apologists defends Joseph Smith - the grotesque, genocidal regime of Joseph Stalin. That is, his blindness was as fantastic as that caused by any "religion".

I don't care if Russell said that he supported Stalin's "genocidal regime" - PS I think you are really taking things out of context, but it's ok - I don't have to subscribe to everything he says to remind you that he flattened one of your arguments with:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

And that's exactly my point, GoodK. Simply not believing in God didn't give Russell ANY protection against being a complete idiot, who gave intellectual cover to the most prolific butcher of the 20th century.

See what I mean?

I see that you have modified your argument slightly from non-theists are sloppy apologists and victims of dogma to non-theists are not immune from being idiots. I can agree with you on the latter.

[_marg]

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.

[***On what basis could "general skepticism" be equated with "non-theism"? This is a very crucial point, and the one on which (in my opinion) most non-theists totally fall down on. A man, for example, could disbelieve in theos, but at the same time believe that invisible leprechauns live under his bed, or a million other things.

Nowhere does GoodK argue that those who don't hold religious beliefs/nontheists are going to be skeptical critical thinkers. He/she is quoting your words in which you claim "many millions have been killed in the name of non-theism" and he/she is commenting on that. Generally it is an accepted rational argument that a good reason for rejection of religious claims is due to lack of evidence and hence one is justified on remaining skeptical. So to the extent that a non-theist remains skeptical of religious claims about God/Gods they are being rational. That says nothing else about how they think in general, about whether they maintain a skeptical attitude about other issues, whether or not they are good critical thinkers. And at no point did Goodk argue otherwise.

[_GoodK]

I don't know what the heck you are talking about or what your point is and given the way you have been arguing fallaciously in this thread I'd rather not continue to engage you because I think it would derail the thread.

I think it would be a good idea for ROP to start a new post regarding these issues, at least until this discussion has run its course.

[_dartagnan]

Don't expect sensible conversation here.

Tal, didn't you know you're an atheist, "logically"?

Marg looked up something the ancient pagans said, and by that authority, says she can totally turn our understanding of the word on its head. And all this time I thought I was a theist. Those damn pagans screw me every time.

[_marg]

Don't expect sensible conversation here.

Tal, didn't you know you're an atheist, "logically"?

Marg looked up something the ancient pagans said, and by that authority, says she can totally turn our understanding of the word on its head. And all this time I thought I was a theist. Those damn pagans screw me every time.

fallacious ad hominem

Excuse me mods but enough is enough of this sort of argumentation from Kevin. Nothing in his post addresses the topic, addresses what is being discussed in this thread. In the previous thread of Kevin's in the celestial forum "atheism" was being discussed by both Kevin and Chap and I had a legitimate reason to comment on that, his response was excessive ad homs to me which I commented on but they were allowed to stay.

I really am tired of Kevin's excessive ad hominems in lieu of discussion ..it detracts from the goals of this board but in particular this particular level of the board. Please do something about it and when you do I will delete this post. thanks

[_Tal Bachman]

---Dogma is a problem, yes. But to say that "non-theism" and "dogmatism" are mutually exclusive, is like saying that black people can't be racist. Flattering to some folks, but belied by human experience.

WOW. That is quite a connection.
I do agree that it is possible for an non-theist to subscribe to the "dogma's" of cosmology, or even political dogma.

---Then you agree that non-theism is not synonymous with skepticism; and therefore, that it seems about as likely for a non-theist to turn into a raving lunatic ideologue willing to commit all manner of horrors upon his fellow men (is everyone digging this sexist language? :P), as it is for a theist. Another way of putting what we agree on is that a non-theist "belief system" can't be presumed inherently morally superior to a theist one, or even any less weird. After all, the existence of God is only one of an infinite number of unevidenced beliefs one may have.

I see no substance to that argument as it relates to your case.

---Why not, since it is crucial to a point you took issue with? Isn't that telling in itself?

I'm not quite sure you are on to anything, because your arguments aren't entirely authentic - I.e they have been disputed, and refuted by the likes of Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell.

---They why don't you tell me exactly how they've been refuted by Sam Harris or Russell?

Now, a follow-up point. Let us say that Roger looks at history and says, "religious belief has caused all these wars, divisions, heartache...it's horrible. Religion, by and large, has been a blight upon mankind". And Roger wants to help mankind. What can he do?

He can write books like "The God Delusion", certainly. But what will he do when he finds that his book hasn't done enough toward reducing the great evil of religion? He has other options, doesn't he? One option is to use violence to destroy the blight upon mankind that is religion. Given his premises, his argument would seem quite rational: "whatever damage I do through violence to the growth of religious belief on this planet, will reduce the sum total of human suffering, since if religious belief is allowed to flourish, it would have damaged many more". Maybe he could burn down a temple, assassinate a rabbi or imam or preacher...the possibilities for violence against the blight of religion are endless, aren't they?

No, I doubt it would do anything but perpetuate the martyr complex. I don't find your hypotheticals to be realistic.

---Have you ever heard of the Stalinists? It wasn't all that long ago, GoodK. How can you leave out entire chunks of human history? Isn't that indicative of a dogma-inspired blindness itself?

All this seems quite "sensible". And the whole sequence of reasoning is non-theist; it is humane, in its way; but...it has also led Roger to conclude that he should use pre-emptive violence against what seems to him to be a (or the) big, fat root of evil. Nor is this sort of thinking hypothetical.

Of course it doesn't seem sensible. Your hypothetical is ridiculous.

---Ah - of course. No need to reckon with it when you can simply label it as "hypothetical" (even though something close to that line of thinking has motivated much Marxist persecution of religious believers) and "ridiculous" (even though it's a lot more tragic than it is ridiculous, since of course it's not so hypothetical at all).

***I'm glad you brought up Bertrand Russell, because he actually supports my point, and strikes a blow against yours. Russell, that supposedly rational man, was so "rational", that for years he defended - with nearly the same blind lunacy that any Mormon apologists defends Joseph Smith - the grotesque, genocidal regime of Joseph Stalin. That is, his blindness was as fantastic as that caused by any "religion".

I don't care if Russell said that he supported Stalin's "genocidal regime"

---Well that doesn't surprise me at this point...

PS I think you are really taking things out of context

---Wouldn't you say it's kind of hard to take a state-sponsored famine which killed millions "out of context"?

, but it's ok - I don't have to subscribe to everything he says to remind you that he flattened one of your arguments with:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

---That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written on this thread.

I have to run, I'll try to get to your other points later.