Atheism that limits, or atheism that empowers?

[Hapax]

There's an interesting article by Mike Marqusee in the current print edition of the indy-left UK magazine, Red Pepper, on the currently hot debate between religion and secularism. I'll quote just a couple of snippets to indicate his angle, with which, as an atheist before it was profitable or popular in Ireland, I find myself greatly in sympathy.

The sheer variety of religious experience and expression should make people wary about generalizing. Undeniably, religion has a long, brutal history as a mask for privilege and exploitation. But it also has a history as a vehicle for freedom and equality. . . . Inscribed in the history of many religions is their own emergence out of a conflict with power, in defiance of an oppressive orthodoxy. . . . In just about all religious traditions, repressive, hierarchical strands are found alongside emancipatory, egalitarian strands, often tangled together.

There's a world of difference between the atheism of a Bakunin - 'as long as we have a master in heaven we shall be slaves on earth' - and the New Atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens et al. One seeks to empower people, the other to set limits on them. Thou shalt not doubt the wisdom, coherence and finality of the existing secular (western) order. What virtue is there in an atheism that is entirely conventional, merely assumed as part of the 'common sense' of the age? This is received opinion, as little an expression of independent thought as the religious doctrines of the past. It is a highly un-dialectical materialism

[Sidewinder]

Gibberish that relies on the concept that only religion can provide ethics.

Personally I think anyone religious should be shunned if they are lucky, and doing the hemp dance if they aren't.

People call me extreme for this point of view, but really - live a life where religious people of any stripe get met with a shovel to the face - things will work out just fine. Life is always better if you refuse to tolerate lunatics that wibble on about invisible sky spirits.

Just say no, kids.

[Hapax]

Gibberish that relies on the concept that only religion can provide ethics.

Personally I think anyone religious should be shunned if they are lucky, and doing the hemp dance if they aren't.

People call me extreme for this point of view, but really - live a life where religious people of any stripe get met with a shovel to the face - things will work out just fine. Life is always better if you refuse to tolerate lunatics that wibble on about invisible sky spirits.

Just say no, kids.

Well, it's a point of view, sure enough, though a tad intolerant, but you already know that. How are you going to distinguish between those people who know that they're ruled, at least in part, by irrationalism, and those who don't? Are the latter preferable?

At least a good number of theists openly acknowledge their irrationalism (credo quia absurdum) and I can deal with that, despite not sharing their beliefs, whereas I find the truly devoted and committedly self-proclaimed rationalist often as dangerous, and dangerously looy, as any religious fanatic. Can you honestly claim to be free of all irrationalism? If you can, and you're right, then good luck to you, but for now you sound to me like an old crank yelling at the kids to stay off his lawn. No reason one person's bounds should be binding on another.

[fluffybiscuits]

Well, it's a point of view, sure enough, though a tad intolerant, but you already know that. How are you going to distinguish between those people who know that they're ruled, at least in part, by irrationalism, and those who don't? Are the latter preferable?

At least a good number of theists openly acknowledge their irrationalism (credo quia absurdum) and I can deal with that, despite not sharing their beliefs, whereas I find the truly devoted and committedly self-proclaimed rationalist often as dangerous, and dangerously looy, as any religious fanatic. Can you honestly claim to be free of all irrationalism? If you can, and you're right, then good luck to you, but for now you sound to me like an old crank yelling at the kids to stay off his lawn. No reason one person's bounds should be binding on another.

That is what religion does though. It dictates policy and has done here for a while from gay rights to the abortion issue and everything in between. It has placed boundaries on others and impinged on their rights. Atheism just seeks to remove the religious influence and place is behind closed doors

[Seán Ryan]

It's an interesting article alright. But I don't think it's very well informed. It hints that religion has brought some degrees of freedom in spite of its bloodsoaked past. It doesn't go into enough detail to warrant refuting, other than a generalisation that would argue that no system of subjugation can intentionally (or accidentally for that matter) bring about liberty for the enslaved.

As for pointing out that there are differences between Bakunin and Dawkins. Well, one has a beard, the other doesn't...

The author has allowed his confusion to inform his article. Whilst it may be true to say that atheism is a subset of secularism, it does not follow that secularism is a subset of atheism. Indeed the first logically forbids the second.

Atheism is a lack of belief with regard to the existence of sky fairies and the like. It is not a belief itself. It is not a philosophy. It's not political. It doesn't give a toss for the gushings from the various religions with regard to their delusions about having had positive contributions with regard historical and sociological progress. It is simply and properly the stance of any person with a sceptical bone in his or her body. It is the stance of the person who will not consider hyperbole and hysterics as evidence of the supernatural.

Secularism is a whole new ballgame. The reasonings behind it are as vast and as differing as the individuals who hold themselves to be secularists.

Here's a link to the article: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/beyond-church-and-state/

[Hapax]

The author has allowed his confusion to inform his article. Whilst it may be true to say that atheism is a subset of secularism, it does not follow that secularism is a subset of atheism. Indeed the first logically forbids the second.

You talk about secularism here (as does the article) as though it were something fairly simply and clearly defined. Can you point me at something you'd consider as giving a reasonably good version of that definition? This was the part of the piece that I found least interesting.

Atheism is a lack of belief with regard to the existence of sky fairies and the like. It is not a belief itself.

Surely you're describing agnosticism here, rather than atheism? Agnosticism, by definition, makes no claim to knowledge, where as atheism does make that claim: the atheist believes there is no god. Proving a negative is an exhausting business, and in such a large and abstract case as this, I'd suggest, always ends in faith.

Here's a link to the article: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/beyond-church-and-state/

Great! Thanks.

[Seán Ryan]

You talk about secularism here (as does the article) as though it were something fairly simply and clearly defined. Can you point me at something you'd consider as giving a reasonably good version of that definition? This was the part of the piece that I found least interesting.

I'm afraid, Hapax, that that's kinda the point I was making. On the one hand, secularism rejects religion outright, on the other, it rejects religious interference in politics and education. One can even be a theist and be a secularist at the same time without an absurdity arising. The article seem to premise that atheists and secularists are the same thing...

Surely you're describing agnosticism here, rather than atheism? Agnosticism, by definition, makes no claim to knowledge, where as atheism does make that claim: the atheist believes there is no god. Proving a negative is an exhausting business, and in such a large and abstract case as this, I'd suggest, always ends in faith.

Neither really makes a claim to knowledge. The agnostic chooses to see a lack of proof as not deciding the issue one way or the other. The atheist sees the lack of evidence as nullifying the argument that requires faith to supercede evidence so that it might be proven. Neither relies on faith or beliefs.

[Hapax]

I'm afraid, Hapax, that that's kinda the point I was making. On the one hand, secularism rejects religion outright, on the other, it rejects religious interference in politics and education. One can even be a theist and be a secularist at the same time without an absurdity arising. The article seem to premise that atheists and secularists are the same thing...

Having reread the article, even the bits I find least interesting, I don't see that claim to identity anywhere in it. Marquess does say, early on, that "‘Religion’ and ‘secularism’ are not mutually exclusive categories but are too often treated as such by people on both sides of this much‑hyped, ill-defined divide" but that's a far cry from what I take you to be objecting to. Am I missing something?

Neither really makes a claim to knowledge. The agnostic chooses to see a lack of proof as not deciding the issue one way or the other. The atheist sees the lack of evidence as nullifying the argument that requires faith to supercede evidence so that it might be proven. Neither relies on faith or beliefs.

As I understand it, Huxley coined the term agnosticism to describe his own position, precisely to distinguish it from what he regarded as the excessive claim involved in the term atheism: "Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

I should, by the way, distinguish my own position, that even the most supposedly 'rational' positions are grounded on irrationalism, from Marquess'. He doesn't say anything of the sort.

[fluffybiscuits]

There's an interesting article by Mike Marqusee in the current print edition of the indy-left UK magazine, Red Pepper, on the currently hot debate between religion and secularism. I'll quote just a couple of snippets to indicate his angle, with which, as an atheist before it was profitable or popular in Ireland, I find myself greatly in sympathy.

Religion acting as a vehicle for freedom is just masking the fact that psychologically humans do not like to be forced to live a a certain way. Faith acts as a mechanism to free us from our fears and is liberating in that way but to say that over all is a force for over all freedom is nothing short of disingenious. Humans would stil strive for freedom if there was no religion in the world, there would still be a world of morals in a world without religion. Cap'n Con put it very well before with his analogy of two cave men coming across one and other. One is a hunter and the other a fisher man. One thinks to himself he can kill the other and rob his catch but then he figures that would be wrong and they can work as a team. Add religion and a third bloke comes in and tells them to worship the sun and be thankful for their catch and to utter a few juju words. The origins of religion were to bring people together as a like minded groups but this is inate in us as humans, we all long to identify with like minded others and this is going to happen regardless of religious intrustions or not into the lives of people. There was research done on the psychology of identity, some people come to an identity crisis and flirt with different ones till they find one that suits (http://psychology.about.com/od/theor...titycrisis.htm ) . Religion is often one that is flirted. For others its gangs, companies or one Im most familiar with , football fans

[Hapax]

[quote]Humans would stil strive for freedom if there was no religion in the world, there would still be a world of morals in a world without religion. [quote]

You believe that, eh? How would you prove it?

Cap'n Con put it very well before with his analogy of two cave men coming across one and other. One is a hunter and the other a fisher man. One thinks to himself he can kill the other and rob his catch but then he figures that would be wrong and they can work as a team. Add religion and a third bloke comes in and tells them to worship the sun and be thankful for their catch and to utter a few juju words.

That yarn may be good at describing CC's scepticism, or yours, but it's a long way short of a coherent argument.

The origins of religion were to bring people together as a like minded groups . . .

They were? Says who? That certainly doesn't match the most recent theorizing about the origins of religion that I've read, among cognitive scientists. If fact, it sounds very much like an expression of a belief on your part. An act of faith, so to speak.

[fluffybiscuits]

[quote=Hapax;247429][quote]Humans would stil strive for freedom if there was no religion in the world, there would still be a world of morals in a world without religion.

You believe that, eh? How would you prove it?



That yarn may be good at describing CC's scepticism, or yours, but it's a long way short of a coherent argument.



They were? Says who? That certainly doesn't match the most recent theorizing about the origins of religion that I've read, among cognitive scientists. If fact, it sounds very much like an expression of a belief on your part. An act of faith, so to speak.

http://www.rationality.net/religion.htm

That was the link I was looking for.

Religion may also satisfy an irrational human need for cosmic significance. Some persons yearn to be more than the grain of sand in the vastness of the universe that man really is. As long as men and women feel week and insignificant in the face of awe-inspiring natural forces, logic will not be as important as religion and man will prefer the sanctuary of imaginary, all-powerful beings.

Thus, people tend to associate in communities of like-minded people. Believers restrict their circle of friend and family to other believers. They surround themselves with mirror images of themselves

.

Agnosticism is a cop out, similar to Pascals wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager), live life as a religious person in case there is a god. Pascals wager says there is no god...

[Hapax]

[quote=fluffybiscuits;247438]

http://www.rationality.net/religion.htm

That was the link I was looking for.

Come on, Fluffy, admit it - you're pulling my leg, right?

That atrociously written farrago of a website includes the observation that "It is interesting to note that the degree of involvement with the supernatural, including religion, is directly proportional to the degree of factual knowledge available to a person", yet provides not a single reference to any reputable scientific, philosophical, historical, or indeed any other class of a work, to give factual support to its wild imaginings.

[fluffybiscuits]

[quote=Hapax;247442]

Come on, Fluffy, admit it - you're pulling my leg, right?

That atrociously written farrago of a website includes the observation that "It is interesting to note that the degree of involvement with the supernatural, including religion, is directly proportional to the degree of factual knowledge available to a person", yet provides not a single reference to any reputable scientific, philosophical, historical, or indeed any other class of a work, to give factual support to its wild imaginings.

Its only the theory Im interested in but my point is such a statement that seems rational is made without any evidence, are not such similar claims made about God?" I believe in a sky fairy without any evidence?... "

[Kev Bar]

There's an interesting article by Mike Marqusee in the current print edition of the indy-left UK magazine, Red Pepper, on the currently hot debate between religion and secularism. I'll quote just a couple of snippets to indicate his angle, with which, as an atheist before it was profitable or popular in Ireland, I find myself greatly in sympathy.

I'm obviously a little slow off the mark, not to mention short of funds, but how - pray (eek) tell - does a man turn a profit with his atheism in this old kip of a country?

[Hapax]

I'm obviously a little slow off the mark, not to mention short of funds, but how - pray (eek) tell - does a man turn a profit with his atheism in this old kip of a country?

As elsewhere: by not failing to recognize common idioms.