Village Atheism VS Chapel Mormonism

[_Tarski]

Are you sure that this wasn't originally the result of some theists trying to make Russell look bad by pinning this possibly phoney quote on him?

(it smells funny. I can't picture even village atheists holding this sentiment.)

[_CaliforniaKid]

(it smells funny. I can't picture even village atheists holding this sentiment.)

It does seem more like something a theist would say, doesn't it? Particularly the "because I might be wrong" bit. That logic makes sense you believe in an afterlife. The believer has a motive to martyr himself, because he can expect a reward afterward. If he's wrong, then there's no reward. But for the atheist, there's no reward either way. "Because I might be right" would seem as good a reason for the atheist to avoid martyrdom as "because I might be wrong."

[_Tarski]

(it smells funny. I can't picture even village atheists holding this sentiment.)

It does seem more like something a theist would say, doesn't it? Particularly the "because I might be wrong" bit. That logic makes sense you believe in an afterlife. The believer has a motive to martyr himself, because he can expect a reward afterward. If he's wrong, then there's no reward. But for the atheist, there's no reward either way. "Because I might be right" would seem as good a reason for the atheist to avoid martyrdom as "because I might be wrong."

well, also, it seems to play into the idea that there are no atheists in foxholes.
Actually, there are and many have given their lives. Further, when they do it, they are under the impression that they really are giving their lives, not just transitioning to a better life.
That is a whole other level of willingness to sacrifice.

Check out:
http://militaryatheists.org/expaif.html

[_EAllusion]

It does seem more like something a theist would say, doesn't it?

It strikes me as a wishy-washy self-described agnostic sentiment. Many Christians I've known outright fantasize about their moment where they will be forced to heroically martyr themselves for their faith when they refuse to deny Jesus. Remember the the story that developed out of the Columbine shootings that a student was asked if she believed in God under threat of her life, she said yes, and then was murdered? Almost right away it was clear that this was a myth, but it the story held and for some people continues to hold tremendous power in evangelical circles precisely because it plays into this fantasy. It's a way of asserting the primacy of their religious faith.

[_Chap]

The statement ascribed to Russell in the OP precisely describes my own attitude, so far as the simple affirmation or denial of propositions are concerned.

With a gun to my head, I would be quite happy to stay alive at the cost of stating:

"Yes! There is a greatest prime number" or "No! Men are definitely not endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights!" and so on.

If on the other hand the demand was "Tell us where your wife and children are hiding", I hope the answer would be 'Shan't."

But had I been a first-century Christian, it would seem there would have been a non-zero chance of my being unwilling to deny that there was only one God, and that Jesus was his son, even if threatened with death should I continue to affirm my beliefs. I don't think I have any beliefs that I feel strongly enough to affirm at that price, independent of other considerations.

[_EAllusion]

Chap -

I think in a gun to the head or torture situation, most of us would be willing to say most anything and be Ok with it. But I don't think this is because of the possibility that we might be wrong. Rather, we find lying to be morally forgivable in that circumstance.

Most people would be willing to lie to the Nazis about the Jews we are hiding in our attic. Well, if we're the one about to be killed/tortured, we are the Jews we are hiding in our attic.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Autobiography wrote:

I found the Nazis utterly revolting -- cruel, bigoted, and stupid. Morally and intellectually they were alike odious to me. Although I clung to my pacifist convictions, I did so with increasing difficulty. When, in 1940, England was threatened with invasion, I realized that, throughout the First War, I had never seriously envisaged the possibility of utter defeat. I found this possibility unbearable, and at last consciously and definitely decided that I must support what was necessary for victory in the Second War, however difficult victory might be to achieve, and however painful in its consequences.

MS:

Utter defeat did entail everyone’s death, it meant bowing to Nazi ideology. Bertrand was prepared to do that with the Kaiser, not the Furher. Cash this out in terms of Utilitarian calculus or any other normative ethics, the result is the same.

MS,

You lost me here. I take it that Bertrand wasn't willing to do that with the Kaiser, but was prepared to do that with Hitler. Am I missing something?

- VRDRC

[_Chap]

Chap -

I think in a gun to the head or torture situation, most of us would be willing to say most anything and be Ok with it. But I don't think this is because of the possibility that we might be wrong. Rather, we find lying to be morally forgivable in that circumstance.
...

But some theists do feel disabled from denying certain propositions about their beliefs under any circumstances, do they not, because they feel that there are some truths that may not be denied without grave sin? And some of them have died because of that.

I on the other hand do not believe in their concept of sin at all. So I refuse to die for the sake of any proposition - even one I am certain is correct (e.g. "there is no greatest prime number"), but even more in the case of propositions open to doubt ("endowed by creator with inalienable rights etc").

[_EAllusion]

But some theists do feel disabled from denying certain propositions about their beliefs under any circumstances, do they not, because they feel that there are some truths that may not be denied without grave sin? And some of them have died because of that.

Sure, though the ones who get to that point are few and far between. But you or I wouldn't begrudge anyone for lying in that circumstance, right? I think that's the point. It has nothing to do with the possibility of being wrong.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Which leads me to think that the differences between the village atheism and true blue chapel Mormonism is that they only differ in content, but the uncritical methods are nearly identical.


Thoughts?

This is an interesting idea, but could you list the uncritical methods as they relate to "village atheism" and "TBMism" to further the discussion along?

- VRDRC