The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_Some Schmo]

But, in my view we need more than what scientific evidence provides. We also need love and wisdom and host of other virtues that I cannot reduce to the language of hard science. Perhaps, in the end, we need some kind of "God", but why that may be, and what kind of god it may be, is still unclear.

Great post.

With respect to what science can't provide, I don't understand what would be so difficult in simply acknowledging the power and synergy of people. Mankind has accomplished incredible things working in teams. We already inherently have a sense of our own morals; they are more or less similar among everyone. I think many of the virtues you're talking about would take care of themselves, namely love, if we just tried to reserve our "worship" for each other, which is to say, hold each other in high regard to the best of our ability. Do we really need a religious icon or god to tell us that simple common sense fact?

What do we need god for when we've got each other? When it comes right down to it, that's all we've ever had anyway. Why not embrace it?

[_dartagnan]

Oh, go cry us a river marg.

You're the one who went to the celestial forum where I had tried to start a cordial discussion with sethbag, and invaded it with your rhetoric about me being "intellectually dishonest" when you have never once demonstrated any dishonesty on my part.

Now you want to pretend you're some kind of victim here, just because I poke fun at your ridiculous declarations of what's "logical"?

You don't know what's logical, and I think it is important to point that out when you start ranting. If you continue to be embarrassed by your own comments, then maybe you should start thinking before you make them. Don't take it out on me. I don't attribute anything to you that you haven't said, and you know it. So don't give me this crap about context. You said "logically" everyone is an atheist, and I think you're now beginning to realize how moronic that comment was. Live and learn.

[Guest]

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

Look at GoodK's post directly after your own:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 339#134339

Theism is by definition dogmatic.

GoodK has acknowledged nothing on the actual point. No admission has been made regarding one of the central points made in the post I linked to:

* Dogma is the real enemy
* All theism is tied to 'dogma'
* Therefore, theism - in it's entirety - is 'bad'. (It can even be morally equated with racism - apparently...)

GoodK didn't state that non-dogmatic theists weren't on the 'hit list'. What GoodK actually did - when it was made clear the second step in the chain is in fact false - was imply that they were actually no better than the dogmatic theists. They are certainly just as 'stupid'. If you need me to point out those sections of the discussion for you (which I'm sure I may well need to), I can do that for you.

You clearly implied in that exchange that you are referring not just to "some" but to a large percentage of theists.

Err actually, I was correcting GoodK on the use of the word 'most' that misrepresented my position. A word that I never used.
The exact numbers involved is a discussion that could still be had - if discussion were actually a priority here.

[Dawkins] is also just as opposed to homeopathy and astrology as he is to religious beliefs.

Not so sure on this one. Specifically in relation to astrology, he has specifically said that it probably isn't 'harmful' in any meaningful way. I'm sure it is fair to say he is opposed to astrology - since it isn't 'true'. But given that he has often catagorised religious beliefs as 'harmful', I'm not sure it can be said that he is 'just as opposed'.
Dennett has stated that if all religious belief were of the same 'strength' / 'nature' as astrology, that he'd be 'happy'.

I like your post generally - I think overall it is balanced and pretty fair. I still would rather emphasise the uncritical swallowing of positions / opinions from ANY source as the real 'enemy' here. I'm sure it is quite easy to show that religion has plenty of such thinking involved, but to not look at the full diversity present and ignore what mistakes can still be made outside theism and religion can give a skewed impression imho.
With all our focus on the problems present in religion, we may well miss the dogmas that are happily growing in our own backyard.

[_marg]

RoP, if you want me to reply to you you will need to bring it to a new thread. The reason being I really don't want to derail this thread.

And Kevin my response to you is here: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=5466

[_bcspace]

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?

Not at all. For example, you have someone here claiming that reading the New Yorker passes for erudition.

[_Chap]

I am an atheist.

Do I make a career of presenting my atheism (and attacking theism) in a popularised and attention-grabbing form on TV and in books designed for a mass audience? No. I don't have the time, and there are other priorities to which I am committed. What is more, I should feel uncomfortable having to present my views in sound-bite form, and without being able to add the precautionary and conditional phrasing that helps me reduce the possibility of people misunderstanding me.

Do I feel remotely disturbed when I see others presenting atheism and attacking theism in a popular way, with all the compromises and sometimes crudities of presentation that can involve? No. That is simply a consequence of the fact that we live in a free society, and a free society in which atheism is becoming a more and more normal and acknowledged part of our culture - just in the same way that popularised and often crude presentations of theist positions in mass media are a consequence of the fact that theism is a normal and acknowledged part of our culture.

What would people like to see changed about this situation?

[_Tarski]

[Dawkins] is also just as opposed to homeopathy and astrology as he is to religious beliefs.

Not so sure on this one. Specifically in relation to astrology, he has specifically said that it probably isn't 'harmful' in any meaningful way. I'm sure it is fair to say he is opposed to astrology - since it isn't 'true'. But given that he has often catagorised religious beliefs as 'harmful', I'm not sure it can be said that he is 'just as opposed'.

But, if astrology were widely believed by kings and presidents, the danger would be much higher. Conversly, if only a few people weakly believed in Christianity or Islam, then I am sure Dawkins would assess it as not very dangerous.
But, intrinsically, superstitions are harmful when people center their lives around them.
By the way, he has categorized astrology and homepathy as harmful.

[_beastie]

Tal,

While I agree with many of your points (such as the fact that religious belief is likely hard-wired into the species), what I really object to is the generalizing tone of your criticisms. "Nontheists NEVER TIRE of..." "New Testament's often distinguish"....and, of course, asking nontheists to defend Dawkins.

Please, please, would you recognize that "nontheists" (I prefer atheists) are united by only one thing - lack of belief in a god. We have no leader who speaks for us. Period. We have no dogma upon which we all are expected to agree.

Obviously you, and some others, have specific bones to pick with specific atheists. How about addressing your bones in specific terms instead of the sweeping generalizations behind which I strongly doubt you have solid data? What you appear to be doing is listening to some high-profile athiest authors, like Dawkins and Hitchens, and acting as if you have good reason to believe THEY fairly represent "nontheists" in general. I strongly object to that.

Other than that, it seems to me the underlying question is whether or not theism - aside from religion - is inherently dangerous. Personally, I don't think it is - and I don't think I'm unusual for an atheist, either. Every time this comes up, it seems to me just as many atheists object to that proposition as support it... which is why I so strongly object to Tal's generalizations. I even used to participate on a discussion board for atheists only, and I would NOT feel comfortable saying ANYTHING like "Nontheists never tire of" in regards to ANYTHING other than "Nontheists never tire of not believing in any god."

[_Tarski]

Now the atheists I see on these forums (not all) can be as dogmatic and fanatical as any fundamentalist theist. The dogma of this religion comes in the form of materialism

Explain to me what you mean by materialism and how it is a dogma?

In the universe we have material forces acting between material bodies. By material, I mean that which is composed of fundamental particles, both what we usually call matter, as well as the force carriers like photons and other gauge bosons.
Then we might include spacetime itself although this would be included in the force carrying particle category if we could detect gravitons. (all of this could be superceded by a better theory of matter and energy)

Then we have all the things that can live on top of matter and energy as patterns: biological organization, information, software, societies, love affairs, striving etc. These are recognizable patterns in the dance of matter.

Now if you say that this is materialism then all I can say is where and what is the other stuff? And, why shouldn't it be referred to as matter or energy should you somehow display it?

[_Ren]

But, if astrology were widley believed by kings and presidents, the danger would be much higher.

I take 'wildly' to mean to swallow your horoscope as 'dogma', and not only beleive it but change your practical actions depending on what the horoscope said.

And not read them in some kind of:
"This has some wierd cosmic significance, but in no way is meant to direct my practical actions"
kinda way...

If so, I certainly agree.

Conversly, if only a few people weakly believed in Christianity or Islam, then I am sure Dawkins would assess it as not very dangerous.

In some cases (and more common in some places than others), that is how it works. (At least belief is kept in due perspective).
In others, it isn't.
In any case, the 'answer' to any of religions problems isn't necessarily calling all moderately religious people 'stupid' and / or 'dangerous' (which I'm not just 'saying' I disagree with - I truly believe both those accusations are fairly hideous generalisations), and wishing for its utter destruction.

But, intrinsically, superstitions are harmful when people center their lives around them.

I would say it depends what you mean by 'make a center of your life'.
There is difference between allowing superstitions to drive practical action, and holding onto to 'belief' as a source of hope, comfort and as a solution to philosophical problems for which more scientific avenues (in the opinion of the person involved) don't quite 'hit the spot' of. (Not to say that science isn't taken seriously, or that it is ignored).

By the way, he has categorized astrology and homepathy as harmful.

Well, if he has, he has changed his mind from speaking in this video, which I think was fairly recent).
Or perhaps you are thinking of an earlier statement... Anyway...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7312538919
Jump to 17:40 in this video, and you will hear Dawkins utter the words:

"I want to live in a world where people think skeptically for themselves, look at evidence. Not because astrology is harmful - I guess it probably isn't harmful. But if you go through the world thinking that it is OK to just beleive things because you beleive them without evidence, then you are missing so much. It is such a wonderful experience to live in the world and understand why you are living in the world, and understand what makes it work - understand about the real stars, understand about astronomy. It's an impoverishing thing to be reduced to the pettiness of astrology..."

His argument here isn't that astrology is 'dangerous'. He clarifies the above as more an 'asthetic' case against it, and similar beliefs.