The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_Tarski]

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's changed his mind from speaking in this video (which I think was fairly recent)

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.

Perhaps it was just homeopathy which certainly is harmful since it can keep people away from real medical help. Tax dollars in the UK pay for homeopathy! that's harmful too.

Anyway, Dawkins is not perfectly consistent. Not surprising. I would swear that I heard him say astrology was harmful but maybe he said that it could be or had been in times past. Maybe it was only homeopathy. (Or maybe my memory sucks)

[_Ren]

Perhaps it was just homeopathy which certainly is harmful since it can keep people away from real medical help. Tax dollars in the UK pay for homeopathy! that's harmful too.

Ahh - yes. I think you are right. I think I specifically remember the program.
And I certainly take THIS argument more seriously then astrology. (At least as astrology is commonly approached and 'practiced')

And yes - I'm not happy that tax dollars are being plowed into homeopathy...!
If people wanna go for that kinda thing, then - well, yes I accept that it can easiely be considered 'dangerous' because they may rely on it.

But individuals should pay for it either way...
Cheaper placebos are certainly available! Heh.

Anyway, Dawkins is not perfectly consistent. Not surprising. I would swear that I heard him say astrology was harmful but maybe he said that it could be or had been in times past. Maybe it was only homeopathy. (Or maybe my memory sucks)

I'm sure it's possible. There was a bit of back and forth in the discussion I linked to. It's possible he may have made what he considered a 'minor' decision right then, based on what was said between them... Donno.

I doubt your memory sucks ;)

[_GoodK]

I can see this post has already pretty much derailed (surprise) so this will probably be my last comments on the subject:

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:

Do you even know what the "actual point is? I certainly don't know what your actual point was. I was responding to the OP, and you hijacked that conversation and made it about how many different meanings there can be for words.

Actually, I think you are sort of talking to yourself here, rather, arguing with yourself. This is what YOU said your point was:

My argument is that the Bible isn't a decent representation of the concept 'Theism' as a whole, as I made very clear earlier. It only represents a very specific subset of 'theistic' thought.
I'm sorry that you didn't follow along. But that really isn't my problem.

No one made this argument that you are arguing against. No one said the Bible is a representation of the concept of Theism as a whole.

Wow.

* 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 does 'hit list' mean? More confusion... If you asking for clarity on my statement regarding Theism always being attached to Dogma, I stand by that statement. I am not saying Dogma can only be attached to Theism.
That is the third time this has been said now, first by me, second by marg, third by me again.

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.

Do that for me, please. I don't want my statements to be mauled by your Boggle word games.

ROP,

Bolding and underlining your own words don't make them any more meaningful. In fact, your post is almost illegible, especially when held up to the OP. You have yet to mount a substantial argument against anything I have said, and it is obvious you really are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not going to play along anymore either. I'd rather talk to people who know what the conversation is about, and know what position they hold.

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.

No, it is not as likely. I'm not saying that. Did you read that? I don't see how.

Let's just quote my last post again (although I wish you'd just pay attention the first time)

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?

I'll also quote Marg, who clarified MY point for YOU. Apparently it didn't help (or maybe my answer didn't suit you?)

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.

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 wish you would make your case instead of trying to mold my position to fit yours... please get to the point... By the way I think that a non-theist position is usually morally superior to a theist, and I think history and prison statistics would support that thought.

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?

You said dogma is not exlusive to theism. I agreed. Still doesn't mean non-theism is dogmatic, nor does it mean non-theists are equally likely to be dogmatic. Still doesn't mean theism is not dogmatic. Theism is dogmatic. Always.

So like I said, your original comment which I agreed with, is not relevant to the point you are trying to make.

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

I don't have time to read all of their books to you, but I'll give you some starting points to begin your education:

You made three points - and also implied in your post that a non-theists position is "intellectually crude" (a bold statement)

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

This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism. There are many kinds of dogmatism. There's nationalism, there's tribalism, there's racism, there's chauvinism. And there's religion. Religion is the only sphere of discourse where dogma is actually a good word, where it is considered ennobling to believe something strongly based on faith.

But first let me deal with Stalin. The killing fields and the gulag were not the product of people being too reluctant to believe things on insufficient evidence. They were not the product of people requiring too much evidence and too much argument in favor of their beliefs. We have people flying planes in our buildings because they have theological grievances against the West. I'm noticing Christians doing terrible things explicitly for religious reasons—for instance, not fund-ing [embryonic] stem-cell research. The motive is always paramount for me. No society in human history has ever suffered because it has become too reasonable.

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.

I'm not going to get into "meme's" as I've stated earlier. If you would like to quantify this argument a little better, I'll be more than happy to respond. But you seem to be implying that non-theism is equally dogmatic as theism. This is silly, and easily refuted:

One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

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.

Russell took care of this. So did Sam Harris. A non-theist position is simply the rejection of an "unwarranted belief". It is not a belief in and of itself. It is the burden of the claimant to substantiate the claim, and since they can't, it is not adopted by the non-theist.

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?

Yes I have heard of Stalinists. Everytime a theist feels pressured to defend religion, I hear of him.
Like I said, none of these arguments are authentic.

And, no it is not indicative of a dogma-inspired blindness. In fact, I think your version of the events in question show a lack of historical objectivity. Perhaps indicative of a dogma inspired bias... ;)

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.

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.

Oh I beg to differ my friend. The title of your post begins with the false presumption that non-theism is a belief system that can and is argued with "crudity". Russell simply points out the flawless logic in what you call non-theism.

I think I've covered just about everything.


Edited to add ROP's half-assed response:

No one made this argument that you are arguing against. No one said the Bible is a representation of the concept of Theism as a whole.
Wow.

When I made the point, you told me that I was 'grasping at straws'.

Because you were. But did you forget that this was your point along the way?

The issue at the time was whether racism can be said to be 'deeply embedded' in theism.
You turned to the Bible to try and make your point.
Since it is conceded that the Bible isn't a representation of theism as a whole, your original point is now hung out to dry.

The Bible is just one example - for Christianity and Judaism - and I made the point briefly because you were trying to make the thread about my use of non-racism as an example of a non-belief system. Start a new thread on racism and theism if you'd like.

I hope you don't interpret our ignoring your tangents as some sign of the strength of your argument. It's more likely the opposite.

Also, your statement to Marg about me doing nothing to address what you think the point is has been "hung out to dry".

Of course you do. Even though it is false.

Ummm... No it isn't. Theism always entails at least some Dogma. Always.

I don't expect reasoning to do any good on that point...

Translation: There isn't enough reason to support my statement.

(what's new)

[_Ren]

The title of this thread is: "The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists"
I have talked about nothing else since posting in this thread.

No one made this argument that you are arguing against. No one said the Bible is a representation of the concept of Theism as a whole.
Wow.

When I made the point, you told me that I was 'grasping at straws'.

The issue at the time was whether racism can be said to be 'deeply embedded' in theism.
You turned to the Bible to try and make your point.
Since it is conceded that the Bible isn't a representation of theism as a whole, your original point is now hung out to dry.

If you asking for clarity on my statement regarding Theism always being attached to Dogma, I stand by that statement.

Of course you do. Even though it is false.
I don't expect reasoning to do any good on that point...

[_Moniker]

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.

Am I allowed to just say I agree with you? I do! :)

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."

I don't think it's inherently dangerous either. Can it be? Of course! I think humans are drawn into social behaviors and these can operate to harm society and the members a part of them. This transcends religion and is found anytime people start to think as a group. I'm less startled at the people I see praying outside prisons before the death penalty is enacted than the people that riot during soccer games!

[_Loquacious Lurker]

This question is for Mr. Bachman, and it is perfectly serious though it may not sound it.

So what?

Crudity of non-theist arguments harms no one, except perhaps the personal standing of the apologist in question. Theist arguments, on the other hand, can prove to be very harmful indeed. Perhaps you are familiar with Westboro Baptist Church? If ham-handedness and plodding logic is really the worst of the non-theist crimes, I'd say they're ahead.

[_GoodK]

This question is for Mr. Bachman, and it is perfectly serious though it may not sound it.

So what?

Crudity of non-theist arguments harms no one, except perhaps the personal standing of the apologist in question. Theist arguments, on the other hand, can prove to be very harmful indeed. Perhaps you are familiar with Westboro Baptist Church? If ham-handedness and plodding logic is really the worst of the non-theist crimes, I'd say they're ahead.

Which is probably why Mr. Bachman wishes to blame the crimes of men like Marx and Stalin on non-theism. Seems to make the argument seem more important, and adds a little dramatic effect to it.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

Seems to make the argument seem more important, and adds a little dramatic effect to it.

Not only that, but he does not loose his venom equally on Daniel Dennett, who took Dawkins' meme idea and expaned upon it, or upon Hitchens, who has written a potentially equally error-fraught book.

[Guest]

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion" - Sam Harris

"One of Lenin's great accomplishments was to create a secular Russia" - Christopher Hitchens

"The part neutral toward religion because religion is something opposite to science" - Joseph Stalin

I don't recall any theist trying to take steps to enforce religion on atheists in America. Atheists are viewed by American theists as those who have yet to discover God. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but it is antithetical to most religious beliefs (Islam being the exception) to think one could force a faith on someone else. Some theists want to preach to atheists, but none wish to enforce belief on them or deny them their right to disbelieve. Yet, the rhetoric coming from today's atheists is downright scary. They would enforce disbelief if they had the power, whether it be a "magic wand" or the fist of a tyrant. They seem to be perfectly fine with that outcome; end justifying the means, and all that jazz. Would they really strip us of our right to practice a religion or even believe in one?

I think they would.

That's the irony I think, because they want to proclaim that theists are the "danger" to society.

They have already begun laying the groundwork for such an endeavor, and they're justifying it with ignorant propaganda sent out under the banner of science.

[_beastie]

Kevin,

I'm going to make the same point in regards to your comments that I made earlier in regards to Tal's. You keep speaking in generalizations, as if Christopher Hitchens, John Lennon, and Joseph Stalin are some sort of atheist leaders outlining "atheist dogma". They are not. Period. They are (were) particular atheists with particular opinions and agendas. Period. I'm starting to get very irritated by the repeated over-generalizations I've been reading on this board lately in regards to atheists.

I don't recall any theist trying to take steps to enforce religion on atheists. Atheists are viewed by theists as those who have yet to discover God. Some wish to preach to them, but none wish to enforce belief on them.

Now this is another over-generalization I'd like to see backed up with something solid. I am skeptical that, during the various periods in which one religion sought to convert others at the point of a sword, atheists would have been excepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_atheists