Daniel Dennett and Andrew Brown

SebBerkovich

The men in question had a debate recently, though the video isn't up yet. It's probably a little more interesting than a lot of other Dennett debates/discussion because they're both Atheist, who disagree fundamentally.

Brown has written an article in the Guardian referencing points in the debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/may/27/im-an-atheist-wont-try-deconvert-anyone

What separates Dennett from Brown in seems to be that while Dennett feels that people are generally better off as rational atheists, Brown's argument can be summarized by this quote

[..] atheism is medicine too strong for most people

Thoughts?

Obliq

That's very interesting, but it seems to me that Dennet is the one who is essentially saying atheism is medicine too strong for most people. Brown writes "He accused me of a kind of intellectual snobbery – of believing that I am clever and brave and strong enough to understand that there is no God, but that this is a discovery too shattering for the common people who should be left in the comfort of their ignorance."

I'm with Brown - I agree with his argument that "when you see the relish with which some atheists dismiss their opponents as "morons" you might even suppose that even some atheists are attracted by the idea that they are of necessity cleverer than believers." and I think people are nicer when they are open to the idea that they could (possibly - if proof was given ) be wrong.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Brown's argument can be summarized by this quote

I don't think that quote is a valid summary of his point. A better one is

It's a demand to try to listen to what the other person means, rather than dismiss what they say just because it makes no sense.

He specifically isn't saying he thinks atheists are smarter.

I think he's broadly right, and I also think these "new atheists", if that's what we're to call them, are immature and naive about social organisation. They underestimate the difficulty involved in getting people to co-operate, because they're the product of a culture that had won the battle for security so overwhelmingly that they've forgotten the problem exists.

Plus, I'm delighted to discover that I'm apparently a member of an identifiable social group. I'm an "atheist but". And an Official atheist but, not one of those Continuity atheist but nutjobs.

Obliq

...or a member of the "I can't believe I'm not a real Atheist" league

SebBerkovich

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't think that quote is a valid summary of his point. A better one is He specifically isn't saying he thinks atheists are smarter.

True, i could have summarized his position better in the OP

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

A better one is He specifically isn't saying he thinks atheists are smarter.

Not sure i agreed after reading it. He seems to think he's simply secretly smarter. when he says

I know that prayers go unanswered: they know their own prayers do.

It comes across to me like he is happy enough to be internally smug about being correct rather than being more direct like Dennett.

Obliq

SebBerkovich wrote: »

It comes across to me like he is happy enough to be internally smug about being correct rather than being more direct like Dennett.

I don't know. Seems to me he could be just being careful not to trample on people's beliefs when he says "The reason that I don't go around trying to deconvert all my Christian friends is that they know the arguments against a belief in God so very much better than I do. I can entertain the possibility that Christianity is true. They have to take it seriously"
Although he could have just said "they know their own prayers go unanswered" and left it at that without pointing out that he's right. Could be smugness alright.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SebBerkovich wrote: »

He seems to think he's simply secretly smarter.

But only in the sense that we all do. By that I mean, we all assert the position that we think is right. Or (if I can tie myself in knots even more) I've never deliberately held a view that I knew was wrong.

By the same token, if you're a sincere believer, you might be saying to yourself "I can see why those people feel this story about Jesus on the Cross seems unlikely, and I can see they are very clever people. But, at the end of the day, they're still wrong on this one."

joseph brand

atheism is medicine too strong for most people

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

It's awkward, debating blind ignorance without bluntly stating the obvious. I know people who aren't ready, but their kids are perhaps more ready. Change is slow, it can take generations, but as we've seen, technology is helping to speed up the process of change.

Just Sunday gone (last Sunday?) I asked a devout christian a few basic questions about the bible and every single answer was "I don't know." Which inevitably lead back to the old phrase "we've always done it." I'd say 90% of 'believers' are out of their depth when debating an atheist, while even a clergyman will find himself out gunned against any of the more famous atheist debaters.

Take some time and put the Bible on your summer reading list. Try and stick with it cover to cover. Not because it teaches history; we've shown you it doesn't. Read it because you'll see for yourself what the Bible is all about. It sure isn't great literature. If it were published as fiction, no reviewer would give it a passing grade. There are some vivid scenes and some quotable phrases, but there's no plot, no structure, there's a tremendous amount of filler, and the characters are painfully one-dimensional. Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for a moral code: it advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition, and murder. Read it because: we need more atheists — and nothin' will get you there faster than readin' the damn Bible. Penn Jillette

Theism is a crutch for many minds, and the idea of it being taken away is terrifying to many believers. If only they understood that it's NOT a crutch, but a ball and chain.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But only in the sense that we all do. By that I mean, we all assert the position that we think is right. Or (if I can tie myself in knots even more) I've never deliberately held a view that I knew was wrong.

By the same token, if you're a sincere believer, you might be saying to yourself "I can see why those people feel this story about Jesus on the Cross seems unlikely, and I can see they are very clever people. But, at the end of the day, they're still wrong on this one."

Interesting that the example you've used is of a religious belief. To strongly hold a religious belief at all, you can't (unlike us atheist but's) be open to the idea that you could be wrong. I've never deliberately held a view I knew was wrong either, but I've always explored the possibility that I could be.

Obliq

joseph brand wrote: »

Theism is a crutch for many minds, and the idea of it being taken away is terrifying to many believers. If only they understood that it's NOT a crutch, but a ball and chain.

True that, except that until it is a ball and chain, it is a necessary crutch.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

Interesting that the example you've used is of a religious belief. To strongly hold a religious belief at all, you can't (unlike us atheist but's) be open to the idea that you could be wrong. I've never deliberately held a view I knew was wrong either, but I've always explored the possibility that I could be.

In one sense, I know what you mean. However, I'd be mindful of the extent to which handling doubt is integrated into religious practice. I don't know if they still do, but I can recall priests saying things like "even the Pope has doubts", as they must know that every day most of their subscribers say "this is nonsense" at some moment. Also, bear in mind the (somewhat fudged) Vatican position that (so long as you're not an atheist), if you didn't know the Catholic Church existed, you're still saved.

By all of which, I'd mean to distinguish between the formal statement of the religion - say, only those who accept Jesus are saved - to both the fine print (if you didn't encounter any Christian religion during your life, but worshipped some god, you're OK) and to the practical situation of many believers - which I think would be "yeah, all this stuff might be a waste of time, but (frequent doubts aside) I contend it is true."

joseph brand

Obliq wrote: »

That's very interesting, but it seems to me that Dennet is the one who is essentially saying atheism is medicine too strong for most people. Brown writes "He accused me of a kind of intellectual snobbery – of believing that I am clever and brave and strong enough to understand that there is no God, but that this is a discovery too shattering for the common people who should be left in the comfort of their ignorance."

I'm with Brown - I agree with his argument that "when you see the relish with which some atheists dismiss their opponents as "morons" you might even suppose that even some atheists are attracted by the idea that they are of necessity cleverer than believers." and I think people are nicer when they are open to the idea that they could (possibly - if proof was given ) be wrong.

I'll put my hand up and admit that I came across as a 'smart ar*e' when talking to my friends gf about her night out with her friends to see a 'psychic' over in Tallaght. She was the local version of psychic Sally Morgan. She's the fraud who made the headlines last year I think, after an audience member seated at the back overheard someone (through an open window) directing Sally via an earpiece. Obviously Sally denied this.

Recently, Derren Brown and others from his line of work, have displayed the techniques involved in cold reading in order to erode the 'mystery' which helps these frauds to skim money off the unfortunate people who literally buy into the magic.

Imagine a magician trying to explain how he performed his trick, to someone who fell for it, only to be met with incredulity and hostility. Any ignorant people I've ever met really do not want to be helped. Best to walk away, or bang your head off a wall. Pidgeon chess?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

True that, except that until it is a ball and chain, it is a necessary crutch.

And even when we say crutch, is calling it a crutch a bit of a crutch for us?

Whether we like it or not, religion is a very, very frequent and popular way that humans have of conceiving of themselves and others. So, unless we're contending that most humans are inherently flawed (as distinct from Christianity, which argues that we are all flawed), I think we need to be careful about the crutch business.

joseph brand

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But only in the sense that we all do. By that I mean, we all assert the position that we think is right. Or (if I can tie myself in knots even more) I've never deliberately held a view that I knew was wrong.

By the same token, if you're a sincere believer, you might be saying to yourself "I can see why those people feel this story about Jesus on the Cross seems unlikely, and I can see they are very clever people. But, at the end of the day, they're still wrong on this one."

And Noah's Ark, the Parting of the Sea, and the Singing Bush.

One of the above may be from The Three Amigos.

SebBerkovich

Personally i'd rather be a person that doesn't stay mute when someone is discussing something i don't think is accurate.

I can see the point that calling someone you disagree with a moron doesn't get you anywhere, but how far does Brown get by not engaging at all in the debate.

I fall somewhere in between the two men i think. A space that A.C. Grayling generally occupies. Accept that someone might hold a counter position and understand it enough to challenge it reasonably without offence.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And even when we say crutch, is calling it a crutch a bit of a crutch for us?

Whether we like it or not, religion is a very, very frequent and popular way that humans have of conceiving of themselves and others. So, unless we're contending that most humans are inherently flawed (as distinct from Christianity, which argues that we are all flawed), I think we need to be careful about the crutch business.

I see what you're saying, I think. Most religious people I know are religious only in that it is a way of life that they're born to and have no reason to change that - What I should have said is "only when it becomes a ball and chain, continued belief is a crutch". I definitely don't contend that there is an inherent flaw in people who have religious beliefs. Possibly though, that's because I was brought up an atheist rather than the more common path of having rejected religious indoctrination.

Brian Shanahan

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Thoughts?

Brown is a soi-disant atheist (I'd say self-hating, but it is obvious from his writings that he doesn't know what atheism is about).

Reading most of his articles his line of thought is "Even if god is not real it is better to believe, because community, morality and place in society [essentially because derp]", "atheism is only about destroying religion, and has no good morality of its own" and "Atheist are big meanie bullies because they keep pointing out that a) despite calling myself an atheist I know nothing about atheism and b) the many logical inconsistencies and fallacies in my thinking".

I honestly cannot stand his brand of writing, trying to insinuate himself within the group he is trying to denigrate.

Obliq

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I honestly cannot stand his brand of writing, trying to insinuate himself within the group he is trying to denigrate.

Maybe he's not actually trying to denigrate them and that's the difference. You'd be with that Dennett fella then, eh?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Brown is a soi-disant atheist (I'd say self-hating, but it is obvious from his writings that he doesn't know what atheism is about).

I prefer that to "atheist but". French makes it seem more sophisticated, and suggests it has a longer and more noble tradition behind it. Anyway, is there anything substantially wrong with those views, other than you find them unpleasant?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Reading most of his articles his line of thought is "Even if god is not real it is better to believe, because community, morality and place in society [essentially because derp]"

But isn't the new atheist position naive, as it underestimates the difficulty of getting people to co-operate?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"atheism is only about destroying religion, and has no good morality of its own"

Well, surely atheism has no intrinsic morality, good or bad.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"Atheist are big meanie bullies because they keep pointing out that a) despite calling myself an atheist I know nothing about atheism and b) the many logical inconsistencies and fallacies in my thinking".

I've a feeling someone has a mote in their eye. Can you give any example of an inconsistency and/or fallacy that fits into this category? There's a risk (which may or may not apply here) of assuming we know more than we do.

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I prefer that to "atheist but".

No soi-disant is more accurate, especially as it translates as "so called". The reasons for same (not exhaustive):
1) He thinks atheism is a religion.
2) He thinks atheists uniformly have the goal of destroying religion, to the point of obsession.
3) He thinks there is a being out there worthy of worship, analogous to the religious idea of god.
4) His concept of secularism is the same as JC's on this site, i.e. that he misrepresents it to be a movement to destroy religion, and has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

For those reasons every time I see him profess his so called atheism, I rightly denounce him as a liar.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

1) He thinks atheism is a religion.
2) He thinks atheists uniformly have the goal of destroying religion, to the point of obsession.
3) He thinks there is a being out there worthy of worship, analogous to the religious idea of god.
4) His concept of secularism is the same as JC's on this site, i.e. that he misrepresents it to be a movement to destroy religion, and has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

For those reasons every time I see him profess his so called atheism, I rightly denounce him as a liar.

Maybe you are being ironic, and apologies if you are, but haven't you just illustrated the point about new atheists denouncing heretics? As if there was some atheist canon, and this guy had offended it.

In any event, while the precise statements you attribute to him would be hard to defend, isn't there a germ of truth some of them? I don't know what point 3) is about. But don't guys like Dawkins have an apparent desire to "convert" people to atheism? I've memories of Dawkins saying something to the effect that his purpose in "The God Delusion" was to convince people with a marginal attachment to some religion to just throw it in.

All atheists don't have an obsession with destroying religion. But I think, in the immediate aftermath of leaving a religion in particular, most of us do feel like looking back and taking a swipe at it. I'd suspect it's probably to feel we're putting distance between us and it, so if someone shouts "Any Catholics here?", you don't absent-mindedly put up your hand. And some atheists - Dawkins, Sam Harris, whatever, do seem to be making a bit of a career out of it.

As to secularism, I'd suggest the issue isn't so much about taking religion out. The issue is about identifying what's the set of values that guide our State, if we ever do take Christianity out of the Constitution. I'm not pretending I understand Ireland, as it's a complex little country. But I don't think we've a shared value of equality, for the sake of argument. This place works on a delicate balance of groups, and the core value is nothing should be done to unseat the status that any group has acquired.

So the National Maternity Hospital is moving to Vincents, and the State will get the building Holles Street vacates in exchange for €150 million (current guide price for the vacated Hume Street Hospital is €3 million, in case this looks like a bargain). At the end of it, the ex-Officio Chair of the National Maternity Hospital will still be the RC Archbishop of Dublin and Vincents will still be owned and controlled by the Religious Sisters of Charity. There's no question of anyone's status changing, on foot of the State investment of €150 million. What you'll notice is no-one is even suggesting that it should. And that's not especially a religious thing. It's just a mechanism through which the hospitals concerned can avoid any kind of external management.

Galvasean

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Maybe you are being ironic, and apologies if you are, but haven't you just illustrated the point about new atheists denouncing heretics? As if there was some atheist canon, and this guy had offended it.

The first rule of atheism is you don't believe in God(s).
The second rule of atheism is you don't believe in God(s).
There are no other rules/criteria.

If you believe in a God, however non-specific, you aren't an atheist. You can call that as 'dogma' or 'canon', but that seems somewhat disingenuous when it is just pointing out what the word actually means.

If someone says, "I'm an atheist but I believe in a sort of supreme universal being" then they are simply incorrect in their understanding of what the word atheist means and are mislabeling themselves.

joseph brand

Who is this Andrew Brown guy anyway? He reminds me of Alain de Botton.

I think it says a lot more about the religious side of the debate than it does about Dennett/ Dawkins/ Harris/ Hitchens, when these oddballs pop up complaining that theists aren't being spoken to in a friendlier tone and with more patience.

In all the debates I've seen, Dawkins and Dennett show a lot more patience than I ever could.

An example would be when debating against the likes of D'Souza (an unsavoury character), who uses the Gish Gallop debating technique (incredibly frustrating) amongst others, which has been pointed out by Harris on the Joe Rogan podcast.

Personally, I think Harris has more patience than all the saints combined.

Dawkins and Dennett aren't talking to small children, but grown-ups! So, one would expect that the believers wouldn't need to be given sweets and a pat on the head, telling them 'it's okay'.

Galvasean

I think the fact that Dawkins didn't bludgeon Wendy Creationist to death with his glasses is proof that they're being nice enough.
But seriously, how certain atheist debaters don't completely lose the rag on a regular basis when confronted with some of the arguments that certain religious folk throw at them... I think they are doing okay.

joseph brand

Dawkins/ Hitchens/ Dennett/ Harris/ Jillette: "Think for yourselves, inquire, ask questions, don't be easily lead, think critically."

Theists: "Just try and make us!"

dulpit

^ You forgot the bit where atheists are always right though, and unwilling to listen to any alternative thoughts...

SebBerkovich

dulpit wrote: »

^ You forgot the bit where atheists are always right though, and unwilling to listen to any alternative thoughts...

Similarly to doctors who think THEY'RE always right and won't list to anyone about alternative medicine - shame, the undertakers industry could use a boost.

Galvasean

dulpit wrote: »

^ You forgot the bit where atheists are always right though, and unwilling to listen to any alternative thoughts...

There's a subtle difference between being unwilling to listen to alternative views and hearing them out and finding them wanting.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Galvasean wrote: »

The first rule of atheism is you don't believe in God(s).
The second rule of atheism is you don't believe in God(s).
There are no other rules/criteria.

Oh, I agree. That's part of what I've said. Atheism contains no moral content, which is linked to some of the points made above.

Galvasean wrote: »

If someone says, "I'm an atheist but I believe in a sort of supreme universal being" then they are simply incorrect in their understanding of what the word atheist means and are mislabeling themselves.

I agree on that point isn't "deist" a more common term for that position, depending on exactly what claim the person is making. I'd only observe that the term "atheist" (while meaningful) can mean slightly different things to people. There was a poster on here recently who contended that it meant someone who rejects the beliefs of theists, rather than someone who doesn't believe in a god. People also have discussions around how much you can say "I don't know, sure nobody knows", without having to call yourself agnostic. But, I'd agree, if someone contents there's some kind of vague, spiritual being, then they're probably deist.

I suspect inside every deist, there's a soi disant athée trying to get out. They're the real scum, imho.

joseph brand wrote: »

I think it says a lot more about the religious side of the debate than it does about Dennett/ Dawkins/ Harris/ Hitchens, when these oddballs pop up complaining that theists aren't being spoken to in a friendlier tone and with more patience.

I don't. I feel an amount of atheist ire is adolescent, and an indication of weakness and social incompetence. I mean, we probably all do it sometimes. But there's absolutely no reason for us to ever persist in an argument with someone who doesn't want to listen, if it's not a discussion about some matter of common interest - like what our abortion law should be, for example.

dulpit

Galvasean wrote: »

There's a subtle difference between being unwilling to listen to alternative views and hearing them out and finding them wanting.

Agreed. Unfortunately it is my experience that the vast majority of what I call card-carrying atheists are unwilling to listen to anyone else.

Fundamentally atheism is a belief structure, just one that doesn't believe in any deity/etc.

Gbear

dulpit wrote: »

Agreed. Unfortunately it is my experience that the vast majority of what I call card-carrying atheists are unwilling to listen to anyone else.

Fundamentally atheism is a belief structure, just one that doesn't believe in any deity/etc.

I'm not sure you could call something with 1 element a structure.

robindch

dulpit wrote: »

Unfortunately it is my experience that the vast majority of what I call card-carrying atheists are unwilling to listen to anyone else.

That's certainly not my experience of the vast majority of atheists and agnostics who've posted here in A+A over the last eight years or so. In fact, I can think of very few indeed, perhaps four or five, who haven't entertained free discussion and most of those were banned.

Could you describe exactly what a "card-carrying atheist" is? Or is your definition a tail-eating one, in that a "card-carrying atheist" is somebody who isn't willing to listen?

dulpit wrote: »

Fundamentally atheism is a belief structure, just one that doesn't believe in any deity/etc.

Atheism as it's practised by posters here (inasmuch as it's possible to practice something that isn't there) is a lack of belief.

Means that it's not a belief.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

robindch wrote: »

Could you describe exactly what a "card-carrying atheist" is? Or is your definition a tail-eating one, in that a "card-carrying atheist" is somebody who isn't willing to listen?

In fairness, it probably is possible to come up with some definition of what people mean. Presumably, the card-carrying atheist is the Dawkins model. A person who, in addition to being atheist, feels that religion is a Bad Thing and feels a need to tell people that they would generally be better off if they dropped it.

robindch wrote: »

Atheism as it's practised by posters here (inasmuch as it's possible to practice something that isn't there) is a lack of belief.

Means that it's not a belief.

Is it fair to say that this is playing with words? A belief is surely just something we assert. The assertion can be positive or negative, either "I assert there's a god" or "I assert there isn't a god". A lack of belief in a god is also a belief in no god. A simple absence of belief would be agnosticism, or "I can make no statement about a god".

dulpit

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, it probably is possible to come up with some definition of what people mean. Presumably, the card-carrying atheist is the Dawkins model. A person who, in addition to being atheist, feels that religion is a Bad Thing and feels a need to tell people that they would generally be better off if they dropped it.Is it fair to say that this is playing with words? A belief is surely just something we assert. The assertion can be positive or negative, either "I assert there's a god" or "I assert there isn't a god". A lack of belief in a god is also a belief in no god. A simple absence of belief would be agnosticism, or "I can make no statement about a god".

Basically this.

When I talk about a 'card carrying atheist', I mean those people are evangelise about their atheism. I don't believe in God, but I don't tell people on a constant basis that, and I don't let it be my major moral guiding point, which some people seem to do. I can also see the good that religion has for people, in some respects it's something I would love to have, but don't.

nagirrac

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect inside every deist, there's a soi disant athée trying to get out. They're the real scum, imho.

How humble of you:rolleyes:

I assume you mean scum like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, John locke, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Walter Kohn, etc. I am intensely proud as an agnostic deist to be even remotely associated with such intellectual giants, and most importantly men of great humility.

Contrast the above with the likes of Dawkins and Dennett, whose shallow and self serving dogma has the sole purpose to attempt to hitch science to the New Atheist bandwagon. The sad reality for the so called "brights" is that Dawkins and Dennett will be long forgotten as men of little consequence when those whose shoes they are not fit to lace will still be studied and admired by future generations of true "brights".

SebBerkovich

dulpit wrote: »

Basically this.

When I talk about a 'card carrying atheist', I mean those people are evangelise about their atheism. I don't believe in God, but I don't tell people on a constant basis that, and I don't let it be my major moral guiding point, which some people seem to do. I can also see the good that religion has for people, in some respects it's something I would love to have, but don't.

out of interest, what in respect to religion or belief in god would you like to have, and of course - what's preventing you?

Mark Hamill

dulpit wrote: »

Basically this.

When I talk about a 'card carrying atheist', I mean those people are evangelise about their atheism. I don't believe in God, but I don't tell people on a constant basis that, and I don't let it be my major moral guiding point, which some people seem to do. I can also see the good that religion has for people, in some respects it's something I would love to have, but don't.

So you have gone from a "card carrying atheist" is someone unwilling to listen, to a "card carrying atheist" is someone who is vocally sure of their atheism? These are not the same thing.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

How humble of you:rolleyes:

I assume you mean scum like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, John locke, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Walter Kohn, etc. I am intensely proud as an agnostic deist to be even remotely associated with such intellectual giants, and most importantly men of great humility.

Contrast the above with the likes of Dawkins and Dennett, whose shallow and self serving dogma has the sole purpose to attempt to hitch science to the New Atheist bandwagon. The sad reality for the so called "brights" is that Dawkins and Dennett will be long forgotten as men of little consequence when those whose shoes they are not fit to lace will still be studied and admired by future generations of true "brights".

I'm not sure that GCU Flexible Demeanour was being serious.

dulpit

SebBerkovich wrote: »

out of interest, what in respect to religion or belief in god would you like to have, and of course - what's preventing you?

From watching people who take solace/etc in religion (especially in darker times, deaths/etc). The reason I can't take anything from it is that I personally cannot believe in a god or organised religion. It's the affect that believers get that seems nice, not the belief itself.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you have gone from a "card carrying atheist" is someone unwilling to listen, to a "card carrying atheist" is someone who is vocally sure of their atheism? These are not the same thing.

Someone who is vocally sure and unwilling to listen. Similar to how this forum has a tendency to work - if you're not an atheist you're wrong.

nagirrac

koth wrote: »

I'm not sure that GCU Flexible Demeanour was being serious.

I fully realize it was tongue in cheek, but when you leave the ball hanging over home plate like that it deserves to be hit.

The larger point however is how intolerant "some" New Atheists are of any opposing view. You simply cannot claim to be agnostic imho if you are so hostile to those who hold a different view looking at the same inconclusive evidence. Only a strong atheist would attack those whose disbelief is not strong enough to pass the "true atheist" test, whatever that is.

The latest convert to the New Atheist cause, Lawrence Krauss, has been embroiled in a recent kerfuffle with a fellow physicist David Albert, who wrote a critical review of his book in the NY Times. These are basically two PhD scientists differing over a speculative theory. In more than one interview Krauss has referred to Albert as a "moron". Now what sort of talk is that for someone who expects to be taken seriously while attempting to lecture others on how society should function?

Can you imagine Einstein referring to Bohr, who he vehemently disagreed with, as a moron?

robindch

dulpit wrote: »

When I talk about a 'card carrying atheist', I mean those people are evangelise about their atheism. I don't believe in God, but I don't tell people on a constant basis that, and I don't let it be my major moral guiding point, which some people seem to do.

Sounds absolutely appalling. I can certainly say that I've never met anybody who goes on about their atheism constantly and in the hideous offchance I did meet some sad individual who did, I'd vacate at approximately the speed of light.

There is a more serious point though, and that's the hypocritical and highly asymmetric language game going on, played mostly by the religious and the undecided, when it comes to atheism. In general, people are allowed to discuss their religion pretty much as they want to. But when it comes to atheism, the gap between mentioning that one's an atheist, and being described as "militant" seems to me absolutely tiny.

The following graphic describes the problem fairly well and no, I don't accept your position at all. At least, I reject it because you don't appear to notice or accept that a far greater degree of "card-carrying" and general unpleasantness goes on on the other side.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

I fully realize it was tongue in cheek, but when you leave the ball hanging over home plate like that it deserves to be hit.

The larger point however is how intolerant "some" New Atheists are of any opposing view. You simply cannot claim to be agnostic imho if you are so hostile to those who hold a different view looking at the same inconclusive evidence. Only a strong atheist would attack those whose disbelief is not strong enough to pass the "true atheist" test, whatever that is.

The latest convert to the New Atheist cause, Lawrence Krauss, has been embroiled in a recent kerfuffle with a fellow physicist David Albert, who wrote a critical review of his book in the NY Times. These are basically two PhD scientists differing over a speculative theory. In more than one interview Krauss has referred to Albert as a "moron". Now what sort of talk is that for someone who expects to be taken seriously while attempting to lecture others on how society should function?

Can you imagine Einstein referring to Bohr, who he vehemently disagreed with, as a moron?

I think you're romanticising agnosticism to be something it isn't here.

Being agnostic doesn't mean someone is going to be sensible about something. Atheism is the same.

Some academics are just d*cks. Krauss, PZ Meyers the way address they address some people can be downright disrepectful but I've seen this too in religious theists. Civility isn't soley to do with intelligence or religious beliefs. Obviously they play a role but jerks exists on all sides.

Sure the "founder" of agnosticism was hardly a saint in this regard.:)
Einstein was allegedly a sexist and then there was Feynman and how he supposedly treated women. I say supposedly because I've never had to a chance to look these up. I don't really care either because I know that every figure from the past was wrong on something.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

Sure the "founder" of agnosticism was hardly a saint in this regard.:)
Einstein was allegedly a sexist and then there was Feynman and how he supposedly treated women. I say supposedly because I've never had to a chance to look these up. I don't really care either because I know that every figure from the past was wrong on something.

Both were clearly womanizers, but I'm not so sure about being sexist, as you have to also consider the era they lived in and the lens we currently view through. When it came to things that truly mattered, Fehnman supported a female colleague who filed a sexual discrimination suit against CalTech and also supported his sister's quest to become a scientist against his parents wishes.

Although any commentary on personal relationships is a minefield, quite often with people with commitment issues the root cause is the result of trauma in childhood or in early relationships. In the case of Fehnman, the loss of his first wife must have left quite the scar. Speaking of romanticising, this is the letter he wrote to her 2 years after her death and unopened until after his own death.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-love-my-wife-my-wife-is-dead.html

Mark Hamill

dulpit wrote: »

Someone who is vocally sure and unwilling to listen. Similar to how this forum has a tendency to work - if you're not an atheist you're wrong.

Can you give examples from this forum that make you think the posters here are vocally sure and unwilling to listen?

nozzferrahhtoo

Obliq wrote: »

Brown writes "He accused me of a kind of intellectual snobbery – of believing that I am clever and brave and strong enough to understand that there is no God, but that this is a discovery too shattering for the common people who should be left in the comfort of their ignorance."

I could find some agreement with both parties in this regard. There clearly are some atheists, though I suspect they are not the majority, who think their atheism is symptomatic of them simply being smarter than theists. This is a very poor line of reasoning which I reject often on boards threads, and in fact there are some very smart theists in the world and in our history.

To use the analogy I use often between religion and disease... being much fitter than someone else does not leave you less prone to catching, say, the common cold. In fact being healthier and fitter can often leave you MORE prone to some infections. Similarly being more intelligent or better educated does not necessarily mean you are less prone to infection by religion and in fact sometimes it could make you more prone to it.

However I am also with Dennett on what he is saying that it is ALSO a poor line of reasoning to think "I am smart and intelligent enough to take atheism... but perhaps some people are not and should not be exposed to it". This kind of arrogance and hubris is not for me either. There is nothing super special or amazing about atheists that makes them the ones that should be atheists but the "common folk" are not up to it.

On another note however I have long been saying to anyone who will listen at atheist conventions and the like that we need a lot more inter-atheist debates of this sort. The theist v atheist ones are great and serve a purpose but I would hate for that to be the only thing that defines us. Inter-atheism debates show we have a lot more to talk about that simply being anti-religion and I would love to see a lot more inter-atheist debates on everything from "Right to Die" topics all the way through to "Do we have Free will" topics (Harris and Dennett have long promised to have a good one) through to "Social impacts of Islam" type topics (Scott Atran meeting Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one that has been suggested) to to to to... many many more.

igCorcaigh

RIP Daniel Dennett.

Not sure where else to post this.

https://twitter.com/DailyNousEditor/status/1781337418915893613?t=anmMX_xq8MH48BR-7ftWPQ&s=19

robindch

Smart lad, young Dennett was. Smart indeed.

Hotblack Desiato

Still waiting for a sign that he was wrong about the afterlife thing. Heard nothing yet.

robindch

You could be waiting. There's this lad called Jesus - jewish guy from Palestine, never wrote a word down himself, but a few friends did, decades later, or maybe it was friends of friends, and maybe lots of decades later. But anyway, a lot of people reckon he's coming back, but it's been nearly 2000 years and no sign of him, unless he came back as a madman and I suppose that might be exactly what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052955#Comment_122052955

I think your list may have missed one guy… ;)

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052955#Comment_122052955

The real JC2 would have a hard sell these days, what with the likes of David Icke and all the other charlatans even the son of God himself would have a hard time making himself heard over all the internet noise.

Joke: Why was Jesus rubbish at social media?

He only had twelve followers.

An incredible amount of fanfic created since though…