Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[yankee_doodle]

The English journalist and Catholic Malcolm Muggeridge always found that particular point hilarious. I do not at all believe you and I and others typing on this thread are just products of some grand cosmic purposeless random Accident or some such and that somehow we can argue of the highest issues of life at the same time. IMHO, it is unreasonable. Then again they may say they never said that just that they don’t know.

it’s not necessary to say we’re the product of some grand random accident to debunk religion.

Hmmm…As Chesterton once said, if there were no God, there would be no atheists.

That’s an illogical statement. Logically stated, if there were no religion there could be no atheists.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But why did crime rates soar in the first place (because before the 60’s crime rates were low)?

I am familiar with the term, and yet a highly positive correlation between two variables indicates influence of a kind that permits us as social researchers to measure a relationship.

No, that’s the whole point. Even if two variables are almost perfectly correlated, that itself is not evidence of any kind of causal relationship. As a simple example, if there was a near perfect correlation between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches, that would not mean that there was any kind of relationship between the two. There could be some third factor, likely population in this case, that was the reason for the similar number of both churches and bars. So we can measure a relationship all we want, but unless we make sure that there are no other factors that could be influential, we have no evidence that one thing is causing the other.

If pornography actually does help to reduce crime then what’s the reason for having even lower rape rates before the advent of the sexual revolution (and thus the porn industry) and high rates after it.

I don’t know, but as pornography really took off with the growth of home video and the internet, the number of rapes declined. There are also a number of ways, some of which I have already cited, where pornography is correlated with lower crime rates. I was just trying to say that it’s inconsistent to try to use statistical correlation as proof when it agrees with your intuitions and then disregard it or assume there must be some other explanation when it does not.

Divorce has sky rocketed since the 60’s because of the “me” obsessed society we live in courtesy of the moral relativistic push of the cultural/sexual revolution that has allowed us to redefine what is good irrespective of others. We now see divorce as a normal course of action (over 50% of couples end their marriage, with 75% initiated by women) even though we have seen the harm it has done to children.

There are cases in which I think it is better for a child if the parents divorce than if they remain married. For example, if the parents would have been fighting all the time or if the relationship had become very physically or verbally abusive, the child is probably better off if they divorce. So I think that some amount of divorce is good, and I think that since the ‘60’s, there are probably more people in those abusive relationships who have ended up getting divorced and whose children are better off as a result. So while some divorces make things better for the children and some make things worse, I have no idea whether the increase in the rate of divorce had more of a positive or a negative effect. But even if the average child whose parents divorced is worse off, that doesn’t mean that fewer people should get divorced. In fact, even if every single divorce was beneficial to the children, the aggregate stats could still show that children whose parents divorced are worse off. For example, if divorce usually improved things slightly for the children and disadvantaged families were significantly more likely to get divorced, you could get such a result (illustrating Simpson’s paradox).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This post is directed to Evil Atheist in particular.

I woke up with the following thoughts and considered them worth sharing, hopefully they are not redundant.

You are participating in this forum for one of two reasons; you are either earnestly searching for absolute Truth or you are are working towards aiding souls in the direction of apostasy.

I trust you are doing the former and so I offer what I believe to be consolation.

In your honest efforts you are using to the best of your ability, your gift of reasoning, it is in those efforts that I believe you will fare well in your eternal encounter with God.

If in fact you are working towards the latter above mentioned reason, you will be permitted to continue your disbelief for all eternity and that you will discover was a terrible error.

It is my personal opinion based on much of the information I have gathered over a lifetime and the gift of faith that was given to me, that someone such as yourself is likely to receive great Mercy and those who claim to believe but are half hearted and who expend little energy in living out their beliefs, will receive that Mercy equal to their true faith; little or none.

Your efforts are admirable in that you continue to search without the gift of faith, a most difficult journey. I will pray that upon your death you are most pleasantly surprised.

JT

Thank you for your kind words. I consider myself in the former group. Like pretty much everyone, I think my current beliefs about God are true, otherwise I wouldn’t believe them. But I also am a firm believer in constantly putting my beliefs to the test and that’s one of the reasons I come here. I don’t really see the point of trying to convert the world to atheism since I don’t think that everyone would necessarily be better off if they became an atheist. But I do encourage people to expose themselves to the arguments on both sides and make up their own mind, because I think that the question of God is too important not to carefully examine.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Ditto with the “let’s remove ‘so help me god’ from the oath of office!” nutjobs that came out of the woodwork during the inaugeration. As another example, I saw an episode of The Atheist Experience on youtube the other day in which a crazy atheist caller wanted to sue someone over a bumper sticker that insults atheists; the hosts were trying to convince him that his plan was stupid and terrible PR for atheists, which it is.

I agree with you that the whole bumper sticker thing is stupid, but I think you’re a little too harsh on the oath of office people. I don’t think it’s that big an issue, but I think they have somewhat of a case. The Constitution spells out exactly what the oath is supposed to be and does not include the phrase “so help me God”. I don’t think that the Supreme Court justice should add that additional statement unless the president specifically asks him to.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

By the way, I haven’t forgotten about posts 48-52. But it’s getting late, and I figure I should save those for when I’m a little bit less tired.

 

[survive]

The atheists I’ve known, and there are thousands of them, some fo whom are among the peopel I’ve known closest in my life, have tended to psychobabble-ize away all opinions other than their own, become vicious in their speech or even physically aggressive toward anyone exposing them to a concept they don’t already believe, and talk endlessly about how nice it is to be smarter than everyone else. However, there are several who are kind, intelligent and even down-to-earth at times and probably unconscious of their blocks.
After so many years of reaching out to them subtly, openly, slyly, cutely, jocularly and warmly about the difference of opinion between me and them, I have noticed that all rational discussion of it triggers in many to most of them a reaction in the form of extreme irrationality – more irrationality than I have seen in any religious context at all in my life. Self-contradicting, screaming, blazing eyes, four-octave syllables, running while barking, lurching into my face and heaving and huffing and barking syllables that don’t even form words, changing the subject five times per sentence, irrationality.
I have dropped the attempt to introduce a drop of reason here and a drop there into my conversations with them. Instead I must deal with them, experience sadly shows, as I have to deal wit the severely impaired (part of my work deals with those who suffer impaired mental functioning). It concerns me deeply that this is necessary, because I care about my old friends, relations and acquaintances, and it hurts me to see the evidence that they require such an approach to a central topic.
I am now writing a book detailing all the things I have tried to reason with them about that they couldn’t allow themselves to consider or even usually hear by accident. If it reaches even one in a more relaxed, normal moment, it may do some good.
In light of the side of these people I have now seen, I am psychologically intrigued. I don’t want to use psychobabble to dismiss what I don’t like; that would descend to the level of reaction they have displayed. I don’t want that. Instead, by imagining myself acting that way, I try to figure out what might inspire it. But I can’t imagine behaving like that. I also read diligently books suggesting what they have been exposed to that might have prepared them to believe some of the stories some of them swallowed, such as the Da Vinci Code. Yet, even the pre-Dan-Brown anti-Christian cultural fare they were fed seems so outlandish and hard to swallow, I remain bewildered.
Using simplified Freudian terminology and being careful not to put too much store in it until I have tested it somehow, I’m guessing that some of my anti-religious atheist acquaintances are graduates of the consciousness-raising movement, and are deeply emotionally bonded to the ideas that movement promoted. Given that the history of Christianity and religon in general has been distorted wildly, and they are emotionally motivated to accept the distortions and even add to them, perhaps they associate opinions other than their own with danger or pain; if they are highly emotionally-driven people, that could account for the irrationality they show. Add to that the concepts of mental blocking, projection, displacement and competition to display enthusiasm for their cause and it almost makes a kind of sense. I wish I could just calm some people down long enough to get through.
I hope to write something that will be a voice of reason.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I agree with you that the whole bumper sticker thing is stupid, but I think you’re a little too harsh on the oath of office people. I don’t think it’s that big an issue, but I think they have somewhat of a case. The Constitution spells out exactly what the oath is supposed to be and does not include the phrase “so help me God”. I don’t think that the Supreme Court justice should add that additional statement unless the president specifically asks him to.

What about our currency & pledge? The references to god on both of these weren’t added in until later (during the civil war in the case of currency, and 1954 in the case of our pledge allegiance). These post-colonial era additions clearly do not reflect the sentiment of our founding fathers or their express declarations found in the constitution. Particularly in the case of the pledge, where children in many schools recite it daily, it can be a mild form of indoctrination (whether they’re compelled to recite it or not, it forces people to choose between advocating theism or patriotism).

 

[yankee_doodle]

I hope to write something that will be a voice of reason.

I certainly didn’t see any “reason” in that long post of yours. What I read is typical religious intolerance.

 

[wcknight]

The media says that a large number of folks are losing their faith to atheism every year and almost half of that number are former Catholics (including a couple of my young adult kids).

Are some of the atheists folks here former Catholics ??? If yes, why did you leave.

At one point in my life, I too left the Church (for around 10+ years). I never reached the point of total atheism, but I got pretty close. I’ve come full circle and now I believe even more strongly than before that the Church has it right. I searched and looked at the protestants, the new age stuff, and a few other ideas but the more I read, the more I found that the Church has it right.

I think a close look at the lives of the saints and mystics throughout the ages reveals a whole lot about what folks should believe.

As far as whether reason alone can bring you to recognize the Truth, I seriously doubt it. Very rational souls are have landed on both side of the fence and I don’t think either side can completely convince the other side to convert to their way of thinking by reason alone.

And I don’t believe faith works that way. There comes a point when everyone has to choose to either believe or not. That leap of faith can either lead you to acceptance of all spiritual truths or it can lead you to the nothingness that atheists find themselves believing in.

The common compliant that I find from Atheists is, what proof is there ? I/they have never seen anything supernatural. They have not personally experienced any miracle(s) (some will ask for a very particular miracle -as in when has anyone had the regeneration of a limb) or have not seen God or heard God.

They are the doubting Thomases of the X Y and Z generation.

It is not enough for other folks to have seen or witnessed these things (or things similar or even more spectacular), they need it first hand for themselves. There are so many miraculous and wondrous things happening all the time, and there is physical proof of these things throughout the world. All you need to do, is to look for them. (google Eucharistic Miracles, or Incorruptible saints or Our Lady of Guadalupe)

BTW, the regeneration of a limb thing is an oddity, I have read of many many incredible miracles, but no one with a missing limb has been regenerated yet. Maybe it is long overdue. I believe regardless, and I know even IF someone gets all their limbs regenerated, the atheists will still be atheists until it actually happens to them or to someone very close to them.

Can you imagine someone excusing themselves before God. I failed to believe because YOU never cured anyone with a missing limb. That turned me into an atheist.

I don’t think that will go over any better than any other lame excuse.

 

[Hobble]

I think scientists generally believe the combination of matter and anti-matter caused the explosion.

The theory I learned was that the escape of light within the condensed matter caused the explosion.

 

[josie_L]

Josie:

Again, it’s perfectly possible for a person to hold an irrational belief and be rational in other areas of life.

I’m not quite sure who you’re arguing against here; I have no problem accepting that there are and were many intelligent supernaturalists throughout history, supernaturalists of various religions and cultures who believed in various god-claims.

I see no reason to accept the god-claims that they did. Their opinions on matters outside of those god-claims are separate issues, on which they may be right or wrong, have good reasons or no reasons.

This is what you initially said:

Josie

I would agree that a person who bases his or her entire life on irrational beliefs would qualify as an “irrational person”; most believers that I know do not base all – or even close to all – of their decisions on their irrational belief in gods.

Is a saint not a person who bases his/her entire life on irrational beliefs, don’t famous theologians likewise base the entirety of their life on irrational beliefs, haven’t Catholic intellectuals such as Chesterton, Belloc, Muggeridge, Tolkien, Jacques Maritain, Christopher Dawson, Evelyn Waugh, St. Edmund Campion . . .etc., used their faith to positively affect their lives as well as societies, in order words, they lived out their faiths to the fullest? So my statement stands, you think that these people were/are irrational because they allowed their beliefs to totally shape their lives and worldview despite the fact that many of them were considered some of the greatest thinkers and/or humanitarians that ever lived.

p.s. And by the way they are not supernaturalists as using this term would presuppose that God doesn’t exist of which you yourself cannot be sure of, so let’s stick to theist alright.

 

[AntiTheist]

So my statement stands, you think that these people were/are irrational because they allowed their beliefs to totally shape their lives and worldview despite the fact that many of them were considered some of the greatest thinkers and/or humanitarians that ever lived.

Well, the first point to make is that a person can accept an irrational belief and still be considered a good thinker – a person can still form valid syllogisms from a false premise, for example. And certainly, a person can hold an irrational belief and do good things for others.

Just because a peson does good things and can make articulate arguments doesn’t demonstrate that all of his or her premises are true. For instance, there are people of other faiths – Muslims or Hindus – who do good things and can make an articulate case for their religion. That doesn’t change the fact that believing in their god or gods isn’t justified by reason.

But the larger point here is this idea of labeling people “rational” or “irrational,” which is getting in the way of conversation.

Thinking it over, I’m leaning towards the position that it might not make sense to use the label “irrational” for people – most people have a mix of rational and irrational motivations behind their actions. Ideas can be irrational, beliefs can be irrational, actions can be irrational, but a person, as a whole entity, can’t really be spoken of as totally “rational” or “irrational.”

I thus withdraw my statement above, that “a person who bases his or her entire life on irrational beliefs would qualify as an ‘irrational person’” – I withdraw it on the grounds that the terms employed in it (equating an entire person with the adjective “irrational”) is inherently meaningless.

Now, the people you cite – saints and religious intellectuals (and let’s include intellectuals of other faiths as well: Muslims, Hindus, and ancient pagans, for starters) – most definitely held irrational beliefs. A lot of them took actions that probably had irrational motivations – but many of those actions probably had rational motivations as well.

I’m interested in talking about the ideas, of course, not the lives of people who believed in the ideas, as their lives are irrelevant to whether or not the beliefs are true or not.

 

[josie_L]

No, that’s the whole point. Even if two variables are almost perfectly correlated, that itself is not evidence of any kind of causal relationship. As a simple example, if there was a near perfect correlation between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches, that would not mean that there was any kind of relationship between the two. There could be some third factor, likely population in this case, that was the reason for the similar number of both churches and bars. So we can measure a relationship all we want, but unless we make sure that there are no other factors that could be influential, we have no evidence that one thing is causing the other.

I’m well aware that it is not evidence of a causal relationship (I have the equivalency of a Masters in Administration), however, a highly positive correlation indicates that whenever variable A for example is present variable B envariably shows up (by whatever degree presented by the correlation). And any researcher worth his salt must needs control variables (and/or the group being controlled) so as not to allow for extraneous variables to affect the correlation. You can get much pertinent information from correlations if properly executed.

I don’t know, but as pornography really took off with the growth of home video and the internet, the number of rapes declined. There are also a number of ways, some of which I have already cited, where pornography is correlated with lower crime rates. I was just trying to say that it’s inconsistent to try to use statistical correlation as proof when it agrees with your intuitions and then disregard it or assume there must be some other explanation when it does not.

I was not using statistical correlation, I was using reason, i.e, before the 60’s cultural/sexual revolution crime was much less than what it is/was after this event. Stating that the more pornography we have will lead to fewer rapes is absolutely ridiculous as we know that in the 50’s and way before that, such crimes were much lower than what they are now.

There are cases in which I think it is better for a child if the parents divorce than if they remain married. For example, if the parents would have been fighting all the time or if the relationship had become very physically or verbally abusive, the child is probably better off if they divorce. So I think that some amount of divorce is good, and I think that since the ‘60’s, there are probably more people in those abusive relationships who have ended up getting divorced and whose children are better off as a result. So while some divorces make things better for the children and some make things worse, I have no idea whether the increase in the rate of divorce had more of a positive or a negative effect. But even if the average child whose parents divorced is worse off, that doesn’t mean that fewer people should get divorced. In fact, even if every single divorce was beneficial to the children, the aggregate stats could still show that children whose parents divorced are worse off. For example, if divorce usually improved things slightly for the children and disadvantaged families were significantly more likely to get divorced, you could get such a result (illustrating Simpson’s paradox).

Well, there are always marriages which necessitate divorce in order to keep the mother and/or children safe, but I’m pretty sure that the majority of divorces cases are not due to such reasons, rather money issues play a big part in the breakdown of marriages. Anyways, you can read about the effects of divorce easily and it sure as heck isn’t positive (I just heard on the radio yesterday that Pink, the singer, turned to drugs as a result of her parents divorce). It is extremely hard on children when parents divorce as they are for the most part unable to see one parent or another due to custody, they have lost complete control of their life. It makes me want to cry.

 

[josie_L]

Well, the first point to make is that a person can accept an irrational belief and still be considered a good thinker – a person can still form valid syllogisms from a false premise, for example. And certainly, a person can hold an irrational belief and do good things for others.

Just because a peson does good things and can make articulate arguments doesn’t demonstrate that all of his or her premises are true. For instance, there are people of other faiths – Muslims or Hindus – who do good things and can make an articulate case for their religion. That doesn’t change the fact that believing in their god or gods isn’t justified by reason.

But the larger point here is this idea of labeling people “rational” or “irrational,” which is getting in the way of conversation.

Thinking it over, I’m leaning towards the position that it might not make sense to use the label “irrational” for people – most people have a mix of rational and irrational motivations behind their actions. Ideas can be irrational, beliefs can be irrational, actions can be irrational, but a person, as a whole entity, can’t really be spoken of as totally “rational” or “irrational.”

I thus withdraw my statement above, that “a person who bases his or her entire life on irrational beliefs would qualify as an ‘irrational person’” – I withdraw it on the grounds that the terms employed in it (equating an entire person with the adjective “irrational”) is inherently meaningless.

Now, the people you cite – saints and religious intellectuals (and let’s include intellectuals of other faiths as well: Muslims, Hindus, and ancient pagans, for starters) – most definitely held irrational beliefs. A lot of them took actions that probably had irrational motivations – but many of those actions probably had rational motivations as well.

I’m interested in talking about the ideas, of course, not the lives of people who believed in the ideas, as their lives are irrelevant to whether or not the beliefs are true or not.

Why do you wish to talk about religious beliefs/ideas as it seems from your previous posts that you have things pretty well figured out? Are you doubting yourself?

 

[AntiTheist]

I think a close look at the lives of the saints and mystics throughout the ages reveals a whole lot about what folks should believe.

Whatever you happen to think people “should” believe is not a good indicator of what’s true.

There comes a point when everyone has to choose to either believe or not.

Well, there comes a point when everyone has to choose whether the evidence available points to Hinduism or Islam or Zoroastrianism or Greek paganism or Roman paganism or Buddhism or Christianity or Raelianism or Judaism or Sikhism or Pantheism or Celtic paganism or etc., etc. – or whether there is no evidence for any of those things.

That leap of faith can either lead you to acceptance of all spiritual truths or it can lead you to the nothingness that atheists find themselves believing in.

Atheists don’t “believe in nothing.” They lack a belief in gods. They hold lots of beliefs, many of which are also probably held by you. For example, the vast majority of atheists believe in the value of the social contract, patriotism, family, love, art, etc., etc.

Atheists believe in many diverse things, just like everyone else. It’s just false to say that “atheists believe in nothing.”

It is not enough for other folks to have seen or witnessed these things (or things similar or even more spectacular), they need it first hand for themselves.

I’d actually be more suspicious of something “miraculous” that I think I see with my own two eyes – I’m quite aware of how easy it is for people to fool themselves and to be fooled by the simplest things.

Most atheists – most of the thoughtful and intelligent ones, anyway – aren’t looking for personal confirmation. It’s not like we’re going to start believing when grandpa amazingly gets better or when we find our car keys after muttering a prayer to some supernatural being.

Most atheists are looking for evidence. Not a bunch of anecdotes, not a bunch of “gee, the saints were nice people, so their beliefs must have been true!,” and certainly not a warm fuzzy feeling inside that you can give yourself if you reflect really hard on the Christmas story.

[Note: it is more than possible to give yourself the same exact warm, fuzzy feeling inside if you use any mythology; ask a Hindu or a Muslim]

Can you imagine someone excusing themselves before God.

Can you imagine a Christian excusing himself before the Hindu gods? Or the Zoroastrian gods? Or the Muslim god?

Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say to God (I guess the Christian god) if it turns out that he’s real. His response: “Not enough evidence, Lord. Not enough evidence.”

Josie:

Why do you wish to talk about religious beliefs/ideas as it seems from your previous posts that you have things pretty well figured out? Are you doubting yourself?

No, I’m not doubting myself – you’re right, I do have things pretty well figured out. I want to talk about such ideas because I enjoy doing so. If, as a result of my posts, I get other people to think a little bit, so much the better, but I’m not counting on it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’m well aware that it is not evidence of a causal relationship (I have the equivalency of a Masters in Administration), however, a highly positive correlation indicates that whenever variable A for example is present variable B envariably shows up (by whatever degree presented by the correlation). And any researcher worth his salt must needs control variables (and/or the group being controlled) so as not to allow for extraneous variables to affect the correlation. You can get much pertinent information from correlations if properly executed.

I agree completely. But I just think that some of your claims are based more on personal speculations than on such studies. But if there are studies you’ve read that do examine the effects of the sexual revolution, I’d be interested in taking a look.

I was not using statistical correlation, I was using reason, i.e, before the 60’s cultural/sexual revolution crime was much less than what it is/was after this event.

But what you say is reason seems to be just inferring that two things that could be in a causal relation must be in a causal relation, just because there was a major change in both at the same time. If, as others have said, other countries did not have this correlation between liberalization and crime, then there may be some other reason.

Stating that the more pornography we have will lead to fewer rapes is absolutely ridiculous as we know that in the 50’s and way before that, such crimes were much lower than what they are now.

Okay, but the more widespread pornography became, the fewer rapes there were. If you looked at the links I cited, you’ll see that as pornography became more and more accessible, first with movie theaters, then home videos, and then the internet, rape became less frequent. Additionally, people in states with little access to internet pornography had an increase in the number of rapes, even while the country as a whole had a significant decline. Furthermore, I think pornography offers people a safe outlet for their sexual urges and could prevent someone from resorting to rape. So I definitely don’t think it’s an “absolutely ridiculous” position. I don’t think the data is yet good enough to know for sure, but I think that based on the evidence, it’s more likely that pornography decreases the number of rapes rather than increases them.

Well, there are always marriages which necessitate divorce in order to keep the mother and/or children safe, but I’m pretty sure that the majority of divorces cases are not due to such reasons, rather money issues play a big part in the breakdown of marriages. Anyways, you can read about the effects of divorce easily and it sure as heck isn’t positive (I just heard on the radio yesterday that Pink, the singer, turned to drugs as a result of her parents divorce). It is extremely hard on children when parents divorce as they are for the most part unable to see one parent or another due to custody, they have lost complete control of their life. It makes me want to cry.

I didn’t just mean just safety; I meant that in cases where the couple grew to hate each other, it may be better for the child if they divorced rather than raised him in a dysfunctional household. I recognize that divorce can be extraordinarily painful for children in many cases; I was just saying there are some cases where I think it’s good. I think that it’s much more important to focus on the type of environment the family provides, then on the raw divorce numbers.

 

[KyivAndrew]

the vast majority of atheists believe in the value of the social contract, patriotism, family, love, art, etc., etc.

Social Contract? Hobbes had one view of the “state of nature” and Locke and Rousseau another on the “state of nature”. Patriotism? Of what kind; should it include nationalism, integral nationalism? What measuring stick would you as an atheist use to determine when patriotism, an emotion, becomes extreme?

Love? How does reason explain love? You quote Russell, here is an interesting excerpt from his debate with Father Copleston which illustrates the difficulty an atheist may have in seeking standards to differentiate moral evil from moral good, R for Russell, C for Coplestone:

R: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don’t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

C: Yes, but what’s your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

R: I don’t have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

R: By my feelings.

C: By your feelings. Well, that’s what I was asking. You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling?

R: Well, why does one type of object look yellow and another look blue? I can more or less give an answer to that thanks to the physicists, and as to why I think one sort of thing good and another evil, probably there is an answer of the same sort, but it hasn’t been gone into in the same way and I couldn’t give it [to] you.

C: Well, let’s take the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen. That appears to you as undesirable and evil and to me too. To Adolf Hitler we suppose it appeared as something good and desirable, I suppose you’d have to admit that for Hitler it was good and for you it is evil.

R: No, I shouldn’t quite go so far as that. I mean, I think people can make mistakes in that as they can in other things. if you have jaundice you see things yellow that are not yellow. You’re making a mistake.

C: Yes, one can make mistakes, but can you make a mistake if it’s simply a question of reference to a feeling or emotion? Surely Hitler would be the only possible judge of what appealed to his emotions.

R: It would be quite right to say that it appealed to his emotions, but you can say various things about that among others, that if that sort of thing makes that sort of appeal to Hitler’s emotions, then Hitler makes quite a different appeal to my emotions.

C: Granted. But there’s no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen, in your view?

R: No more than there is for the color-blind person who’s in exactly the same state. Why do we intellectually condemn the color-blind man? Isn’t it because he’s in the minority?

C: I would say because he is lacking in a thing which normally belongs to human nature.

R: Yes, but if he were in the majority, we shouldn’t say that.

C: Then you’d say that there’s no criterion outside feeling that will enable one to distinguish between the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen and the behavior, say, of Sir Stafford Cripps or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

R: The feeling is a little too simplified. You’ve got to take account of the effects of actions and your feelings toward those effects. You see, you can have an argument about it if you can say that certain sorts of occurrences are the sort you like and certain others the sort you don’t like. Then you have to take account of the effects of actions. You can very well say that the effects of the actions of the Commandant of Belsen were painful and unpleasant.

C: They certainly were, I agree, very painful and unpleasant to all the people in the camp.

R: Yes, but not only to the people in the camp, but to outsiders contemplating them also.

C: Yes, quite true in imagination. But that’s my point. I don’t approve of them, and I know you don’t approve of them, but I don’t see what ground you have for not approving of them, because after all, to the Commandant of Belsen himself, they’re pleasant, those actions.

R: Yes, but you see I don’t need any more ground in that case than I do in the case of color perception. There are some people who think everything is yellow, there are people suffering from jaundice, and I don’t agree with these people. I can’t prove that the things are not yellow, there isn’t any proof, but most people agree with him that they’re not yellow, and most people agree with me that the Commandant of Belsen was making mistakes.

C: Well, do you accept any moral obligation?

R: Well, I should have to answer at considerable length to answer that. Practically speaking – yes. Theoretically speaking I should have to define moral obligation rather carefully.

AntiT, do you agree with Bertrand Russell where he avers there may be no objective criterion outside feeling then for condemning the conduct of the Commandant of Belsen?

 

[josie_L]

Incidentally, the Big Bang tells us nothing about what happened or existed before the Big Bang. It’s not necessarily true that “the cone tapering into the past must end [with the Big Bang].” We might, for example, be living in an accordian universe that has had multiple Big Bangs and Big Crunches thus far (i.e. a universe that has always existed in some form or another).

Hopefully, you can see how silly it is to say, “We have no idea what came before the Big Bang – therefore, an intelligent creator of everything is more likely.”

But there must be a first cause, the Universe in and of itself cannot be eternal as it is mired in space and time? And yes you can say that everything is more likely due to an eternal cause, i.e., God created the Universe, ever heard of Ockham’s razor?

Well, I can certainly tell you what one kind of irrationality is: accepting claims without sufficient evidence.

But that’s the issue I think there’s more evidence for a God than there is for there not being one. I use faith and the experiences it has brought forth and reason to formulate my beliefs and knowledge of the world.

Ok, I clearly explained that by “antitheist,” I mean that “accepting claims without evidence for them is in and of itself a harmful thing.” That’s what a theist is – someone who accepts a claim (“god X exists”) without any evidence for it.

I think you’re being highly presumptious and at this point annoying by indicating there is no evidence.

An atheist is someone who does not accept the claim that gods exist. It’s not a positive position that requires a burden of proof, any more than saying, “I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster” is a positive position that requires a burden of proof. It’s up to Nessie believers (and, by analogy, the religious) to provide evidence for the things they believe in. Until they do, the rational position is to say, “I don’t believe you.”

You can prove a negative (moreover because neither you nor I can prove God’s existence, we’re on an equal footing), furthermore, atheists shouldn’t just claim that God doesn’t exist they should give reasons as to why they don’t accept the possibility of a God existing otherwise you end up sounding very dogmatic.

In other words, atheism does not consist of accepting a claim without evidence and thus does not promote the acceptance of claims without evidence.

But there is evidence for God otherwise how could famous atheists like Anthony Flew (and there are many like him) become deists and/or theists?

Ok, here’s the problem: you think atheism is somehow synonymous with “liberal” and “morally relativistic.”

No, I’m saying that atheist tend to be liberals as you yourself admitted.

It’s not, and I’ve tried to point this out by telling you that I know atheists who are neither liberal nor moral relativists. Atheism is not liberal or conservative; it’s not morally relativistic or morally absolutist. It’s a position on a single question. That’s it. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about various secular things, of various kinds, as “atheist.”

But I’m not arguing that atheism is liberal, but that atheists are more liberal-minded than they are conservative, and as such are more or less morally relativistic as well (as the more liberal-minded you are the less likely you’ll believe in moral absolutes).

For example, a movie that promotes what you might consider “liberal attitudes” about a particular subject isn’t, by default, “atheist.” A movie that has a lot of violence in it is not, by default, “atheist.”

I never said that so you’re arguing against a strawman.

Such movies might be secular, but “secular” and “atheist” are not synonyms. For example, the United States has a secular government, but that doesn’t mean it’s an “atheist government.” The two terms are separate, and confusing them is a sign of sloppy thinking.

I know that already, and it’s a point I’ve made when atheists like to point to the secular government of Sweden as a way of stating that this is a prime example of an “atheist” country that provides “evidence” of an atheist utopia.

 

[josie_L]

Josie: No, I’m not doubting myself – you’re right, I do have things pretty well figured out. I want to talk about such ideas because I enjoy doing so. If, as a result of my posts, I get other people to think a little bit, so much the better, but I’m not counting on it.

Oh wow, a conceited atheist, how novel!!!

 

[yankee_doodle]

Social Contract? Hobbes had one view of the “state of nature” and Locke and Rousseau another on the “state of nature”. Patriotism? Of what kind; should it include nationalism, integral nationalism? What measuring stick would you as an atheist use to determine when patriotism, an emotion, becomes extreme?

Love? How does reason explain love? You quote Russell, here is an interesting excerpt from his debate with Father Copleston which illustrates the difficulty an atheist may have in seeking standards to differentiate moral evil from moral good, R for Russell, C for Coplestone:

Philosophy, no matter how great, is the wrong place to look for the origins of human emotion. If you like poetic platitudes then fine, but if you prefer real explanations, then psychology and biology will certainly provide more concrete answers than the musings of philosophers or sages.

As for the causation argument (that I often hear in these discussions) the same principal applies. The ontological argument is based on the metaphysical assumption that every action or event can be traced back to a preceding action. Hume argued that we make these sort of inductive assumptions based on our experiences, but we cannot take our experiences for granted (and assume they’ll be consistently true). I suppose you can call this argument an overly complex explanation (and believe god is a simpler explanation; and therefore more likely to be true i.e. an Occam’s razor argument), but Hume was right in a sense, because today we now know we can’t take our experiential sense of reason or the physical world for granted.

For instance, one of the reasons Einstein disliked quantum mechanics was because of the principal of quantum entanglement – coining the term “spooky action at a distance” (simple explanation is where a system of two or more objects is linked together even if spatially separated). The idea is certainly counter-intuitive and doesn’t match up with our experiential view of the natural world. However, the principal is true and there are even many current applications for entanglement.

I suppose I’m a philosophical realist (at least I agree with its basic premise); but I believe believe that science and new facts we continually discover about our own past, validates this view very clearly.