nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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…