Author
|
Topic: Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible? (Read 2619 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #15 on: 2006-12-30 12:00:58 » |
 |
Quote from: Perplextus on 2006-12-30 11:06:30 Perhaps we should take more seriously the metaphor of virology in seeking a cure for Theistic memes?
|
My assumption was that religions were like species competing in an ecological niche (in this case, the "hearts and minds" of the human population). The cure for theism is to design a memeplex that outcompetes them in their own territory. The Church of Virus is an experiment at such a memeplex. Notice we don't try to actively convert theists, we just provide an alternative religion free of superstition and supernatural b.s. Obviously the CoV doesn't appeal to the masses yet, but my hope is that it will evolve into something that does.
|
|
|
|
|
Perplextus
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 55
Reputation: 7.44
Rate Perplextus
|
|
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #16 on: 2006-12-30 13:40:45 » |
|
Lucifer: First, I did not mean to appear as going so far as to dismiss logic as "having no application". When I said that logical consistency is defined arbitrarily, that is exactly akin to saying "the shape of a hammer is defined arbitrarily". You can shape a hammer however you want; whether it will be good for pounding nails into something is another question altogether. If you design a hammer that is horrible for that purpose, but insists on using it for that purpose regardless, there is nothing to stop you. Heck, you could make a hammer that looks exactly like a screwdriver, but what feature of reality exists that will stop you from using it as a hammer and referring to it as one?
Next point: I don't doubt that many of us were at one time Theists. I certainly was. But a shift from Theism to Atheism is frequently paradigmatic; the new paradigm renders the old one insensible. Atheists frequently appear, at least to me, to lose touch with the reasons Theism made sense to them in the first place; once they find reasons to reject theistic belief, that seems to render in them the inability to understand Theism at all. Atheism "just makes sense", whereas Theism does not, and now appears to the new atheist as a jumbled mass of contradictions and inconsistencies (to say the least). The Theistic mindset has become alien. This is certainly evidenced in dialogues and encounters between Atheists and Theists.
Of course, Atheists do not lack for understanding of motivations Theists have for their beliefs; we all know what Theists find their beliefs useful for. What we don't have a sophisticated understanding of is how Theists make their beliefs work...it is generally dismissed as blind acceptance of dogma (which is certainly what it seems to be). This is overly simplistic, antagonistic, and frankly unhelpful. The mechanics of "faith" are complex, and I've seen no evidence in the approaches of any of the out-spoken Atheists I've encountered of understanding of these mechanics. Not that I have such an understanding myself, I usually lack the patience to study theology in any depth, let alone to psychoanalyze Theists in any depth...and most Theists are rather secretive when it comes to revealing the inner workings of their faith. Attempts to get them to open up are usually interpretted as hostile, in my experience. Do you deny any of this?
Next point: I agree with most of the approach of this Church (of which I assume you are a founding member, if not the founder?). What I do not agree with is not actively seeking converts. Do you imagine that this memeplex will spread enough to compete with Theism through voluntary adoption alone? The missionary process is one of the most effective traits of most Theistic beliefs. But this is not the thread to talk of my ideas on how this Church might more effectively spread its memeplex...I ask again, does such a thread already exist, or should one be started (and where)?
|
Praise Bob!
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #17 on: 2006-12-30 16:37:53 » |
|
Quote from: Perplextus on 2006-12-30 13:40:45 | Lucifer: First, I did not mean to appear as going so far as to dismiss logic as "having no application". When I said that logical consistency is defined arbitrarily, that is exactly akin to saying "the shape of a hammer is defined arbitrarily". You can shape a hammer however you want; whether it will be good for pounding nails into something is another question altogether. If you design a hammer that is horrible for that purpose, but insists on using it for that purpose regardless, there is nothing to stop you. Heck, you could make a hammer that looks exactly like a screwdriver, but what feature of reality exists that will stop you from using it as a hammer and referring to it as one? |
Sure it is a tool. But if you insist on calling a muffin a hammer and trying to use it as one don't blame me for being skeptical. What is to be gained from agreeing that your muffin is a kind of hammer? (Not a rhetorical question)
Quote:Next point: I don't doubt that many of us were at one time Theists. I certainly was. But a shift from Theism to Atheism is frequently paradigmatic; the new paradigm renders the old one insensible. Atheists frequently appear, at least to me, to lose touch with the reasons Theism made sense to them in the first place; once they find reasons to reject theistic belief, that seems to render in them the inability to understand Theism at all. Atheism "just makes sense", whereas Theism does not, and now appears to the new atheist as a jumbled mass of contradictions and inconsistencies (to say the least). The Theistic mindset has become alien. This is certainly evidenced in dialogues and encounters between Atheists and Theists.
|
I'm skeptical of this perspective simply because real people populate the whole whole spectrum between atheism and theism. At what point are they unable to communicate with their neighbors? I doubt such a point exists, and if there isn't one then there are always bridges between the viewpoints.
[addendum: I think there is a more compelling counter-argument and that is that atheists and theists have far more in common than differences when it comes to considering what to accept as true. Theists don't use faith when they cross the street. They don't use faith when on jury duty. They don't use faith to balance their checkbook or treat a disease or build a house or launch a satellite or harvest a crop or the vast number of other activities where the results are important. Theists don't have a different kind of logic, they just fail to apply their own regular common-sense logic to their religious beliefs.
Or, perhaps more likely, they simply lack the knowledge that a viable alternative to theism exists to explain the apparent design in the natural world. Before Darwin it was quite reasonable to be a theist (though skepticism of the gods goes back at least to ancient Greece). The most common refrain I hear from theists is something like "you don't think this all happened just by chance, do you?" This shows a pretty deep misunderstanding of evolution which is anything but chance.]
Quote:Of course, Atheists do not lack for understanding of motivations Theists have for their beliefs; we all know what Theists find their beliefs useful for. What we don't have a sophisticated understanding of is how Theists make their beliefs work...it is generally dismissed as blind acceptance of dogma (which is certainly what it seems to be). This is overly simplistic, antagonistic, and frankly unhelpful. The mechanics of "faith" are complex, and I've seen no evidence in the approaches of any of the out-spoken Atheists I've encountered of understanding of these mechanics. Not that I have such an understanding myself, I usually lack the patience to study theology in any depth, let alone to psychoanalyze Theists in any depth...and most Theists are rather secretive when it comes to revealing the inner workings of their faith. Attempts to get them to open up are usually interpretted as hostile, in my experience. Do you deny any of this?
|
Well Sam Harris (as an example of one outspoken atheist) is doing a PhD researching the neurological basis of faith. Dennett and Dawkins have both recently published books examining the issue (after extensive research and discussions with theists). Our approach here at the CoV is to view belief systems as ecosystems of competing replicating entities (memes), which is hardly simplistic.
Quote:Next point: I agree with most of the approach of this Church (of which I assume you are a founding member, if not the founder?). What I do not agree with is not actively seeking converts. Do you imagine that this memeplex will spread enough to compete with Theism through voluntary adoption alone? The missionary process is one of the most effective traits of most Theistic beliefs. But this is not the thread to talk of my ideas on how this Church might more effectively spread its memeplex...I ask again, does such a thread already exist, or should one be started (and where)?
|
The topic has come up a few times before but I suggest starting a new thread in the Church Doctrine board. I look forward to your views.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #18 on: 2006-12-30 17:05:01 » |
|
I have nothing to add (ATM) to this thread, but just finished reading it and wanted to extend my appreciation to all those who have participated.
Outstanding discourse from some outstanding old friends.
Walter
PS--I'd like to extend a warm and somewhat belated welcome to Perplextus.
I hope you'll find CoV as important an addition to your life as it has been to mine.
Henceforth, for some odd reason, I'll probably think "Oh, Perplextus. That's the guy that joined us on Christmas Day 2006."
Hmm. Odd reasons.
Here's to odd reasons. (WW raises his coffee cup).
And to why they won't go away.
;)
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #19 on: 2006-12-30 20:42:33 » |
|
[Perplextus] Mentions Kuhne
[Hermit] Acknowledges Kuhne's importance, but raises a note of skepticism.
After the nature of a Post Script
[Hermit] [ Church of Virus BBS, General, Science & Technology, Thomas Kuhn's irrationalism, Kharin, 2003-08-08 ] .
[Hermit] Also worth reading are any of Alan Sokal's works (including those where he has acted as collector and editor) on postmodernists or "Pomos," (those noted for leftism in politics, relativism in epistemology, and murkiness in expression). Here is a readily accessible Amazon search.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.06
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
|
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #20 on: 2006-12-31 05:43:52 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2006-12-30 16:37:53
What is to be gained from agreeing that your muffin is a kind of hammer? (Not a rhetorical question)
|
The fact of it being a very tasty hammer 
|
|
|
|
|
Perplextus
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 55
Reputation: 7.44
Rate Perplextus
|
|
Re:Is genuine debate between theists and atheists possible?
« Reply #21 on: 2006-12-31 18:43:36 » |
|
Lucifer: Judging by your responses, I think you do actually understand me, even if you don't realize it. The purpose behind my muffin-hammer analogy is one of methodology; if you live in a society where a vast majority are going around using muffins as hammers, and insisting that their muffins are in fact hammers, it is more helpful to try to understand the internal mechanics of their delusion than to simply dismiss it as a delusion. We could easily rest in the assumption that they are simply insane, that there is no means to understand and displace these delusions; but that is rather unhelpful.
You certainly seem to agree, though, that the workings of the faith-oriented mind ought to be studied scientifically. I appear to be preaching to the choir here, and the fact that I'm "preaching" must be making you think that I'm saying something different than that which is already accepted, which I don't think I am. All I'm saying is that the hostile and dismissive approach I've noticed among many Atheists doesn't work, nor does reasoning. Atheists at large tend to fight fire with water, and what we need is to fight fire with fire. To find a way to beat them at their own game, rather than trying to beat them at our own (which they do not seem interested in playing).
Your point that most Theists do not use faith for every-day real-world matters is completely consistent with what I originally maintained, in that Theists DO use logic, but with a slightly (or profoundly) altered set of axioms that allow them to maintain that scripture is self-consistent. Or, more generally, that some claims may be accepted prima facie, without evidence or justification.
There was more I wanted to do with this, but I feel like I'm trying to address too many points at once, so I'm going to leave it at that and start some new threads to make this more cognitively-manageable. Specifically, the other points I wish to address are about the synthetic nature of axioms (to argue against the reification of reason), as well as the impossibility of communicating subjective states such as those that occur during a religious conversion, for the purpose of answering your "skepticism". I'll get to this perhaps tomorrow some time, as it's New Year's Eve and I've got some serious partying to do.
|
Praise Bob!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
