What are an atheist's assumptions?

[djeter]

Not a “list of assumptions” but a list of motivations for atheism can be found here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Dr David R. Carlin, a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, is the author of The Decline and Fall of Catholicism in America (Sophia Institute Press, 2003). His most recent book is Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? (Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

The intro:
In this essay I wish to make a modest contribution to the study of the motives that give rise to atheism. In doing so, however, I warn the reader of two things. First, I don’t claim that the list of motives I give below is a complete list; there may well be further motives. Second, it is possible, indeed it is very likely, that an atheist will have more than one motive for his atheism. After all, not many people have only a single motive for what they do, and in this atheists are no different from everybody else…

I found the list quite compelling, having observed most of it first hand in the encounters I have had with atheists (and having been a sort of a new age freak myself for many years before my conversion).

dj

 

[liquidpele]

Not a “list of assumptions” but a list of motivations for atheism can be found here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Dr David R. Carlin, a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, is the author of The Decline and Fall of Catholicism in America (Sophia Institute Press, 2003). His most recent book is Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? (Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

The intro:
In this essay I wish to make a modest contribution to the study of the motives that give rise to atheism. In doing so, however, I warn the reader of two things. First, I don’t claim that the list of motives I give below is a complete list; there may well be further motives. Second, it is possible, indeed it is very likely, that an atheist will have more than one motive for his atheism. After all, not many people have only a single motive for what they do, and in this atheists are no different from everybody else…

I found the list quite compelling, having observed most of it first hand in the encounters I have had with atheists (and having been a sort of a new age freak myself for many years before my conversion).

dj

I think that article makes a lot of assumptions and generalizations.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I’ve got to say in my experience, atheisms can be quite diverse - some Buddhists can be defined as atheists, for example, whereas many cannot.

The ‘orthodox’ atheist, I’d say is essentially a disciple of scientism, whereby we are expected to deny our experience of the existence of anything outside of that which science proves to it’s own rather vaguely defined standards of reasonable conclusivity. Since scientifically we can understand empirically only that which is material of nature (Ghosts, God, and visions, for example don’t show up well under a microscope) we should assume such things don’t exist as such, since we can’t really evaluate their nature scientifically.

The assumption regarding supernatural experience is that it is either:

a) a hallucination
b) a misunderstanding of natural phenomena or
c) made up

The assumption regarding spiritual experience is that it is a comforting psychological funtion to cushion the blow of harsh (or, perhaps pointless) reality, or otherwise a mental malfunction.

This all presumably comforts the scientismic atheist, since that would mean that science has no God, Ghosts, miracles or visions (etc.) to mess up it’s sums… what could be more important?

What we should really do is get an atheist here - I think there are a few on this board who understand that they are making such assumptions…

 

[liquidpele]

I’ve got to say in my experience, atheisms can be quite diverse - some Buddhists can be defined as atheists, for example, whereas many cannot.

The ‘orthodox’ atheist, I’d say is essentially a disciple of scientism, whereby we are expected to deny our experience of the existence of anything outside of that which science proves to it’s own rather vaguely defined standards of reasonable conclusivity. Since scientifically we can understand empirically only that which is material of nature (Ghosts, God, and visions, for example don’t show up well under a microscope) we should assume such things don’t exist as such, since we can’t really evaluate their nature scientifically.

**The assumption regarding supernatural experience is that it is either:

a) a hallucination
b) a misunderstanding of natural phenomena or
c) made up

The assumption regarding spiritual experience is that it is a comforting psychological funtion to cushion the blow of harsh (or, perhaps pointless) reality, or otherwise a mental malfunction.**

This all presumably comforts the scientismic atheist, since that would mean that science has no God, Ghosts, miracles or visions (etc.) to mess up it’s sums… what could be more important?

What we should really do is get an atheist here - I think there are a few on this board who understand that they are making such assumptions…

You are correct on those stated assumptions, as far as I go anyway.

However, to say that it “comforts” us is incorrect. I would think a world where I could earn eternal life much more comforting. It’s not like I want to just cease to exist. Rather than it being comforting, it’s instead simply the rational explanation given the claims and our own understanding of how the world actually works. If I ever meet a real psychic or someone that can levitate, perhaps I’ll change my mind.

 

[greylorn]

Not a “list of assumptions” but a list of motivations for atheism can be found here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Dr David R. Carlin, a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, is the author of The Decline and Fall of Catholicism in America (Sophia Institute Press, 2003). His most recent book is Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? (Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

The intro:
In this essay I wish to make a modest contribution to the study of the motives that give rise to atheism. In doing so, however, I warn the reader of two things. First, I don’t claim that the list of motives I give below is a complete list; there may well be further motives. Second, it is possible, indeed it is very likely, that an atheist will have more than one motive for his atheism. After all, not many people have only a single motive for what they do, and in this atheists are no different from everybody else…

I found the list quite compelling, having observed most of it first hand in the encounters I have had with atheists (and having been a sort of a new age freak myself for many years before my conversion).

dj

DJ
Excellent link. Carlin is clear and cogent. Don’t expect many of the posters here to actually examine his material, or to invent counter arguments.

Your conversion to what, exactly?

 

[greylorn]

I’ve got to say in my experience, atheisms can be quite diverse - some Buddhists can be defined as atheists, for example, whereas many cannot.

The ‘orthodox’ atheist, I’d say is essentially a disciple of scientism, whereby we are expected to deny our experience of the existence of anything outside of that which science proves to it’s own rather vaguely defined standards of reasonable conclusivity. Since scientifically we can understand empirically only that which is material of nature (Ghosts, God, and visions, for example don’t show up well under a microscope) we should assume such things don’t exist as such, since we can’t really evaluate their nature scientifically.

The assumption regarding supernatural experience is that it is either:

a) a hallucination
b) a misunderstanding of natural phenomena or
c) made up

The assumption regarding spiritual experience is that it is a comforting psychological funtion to cushion the blow of harsh (or, perhaps pointless) reality, or otherwise a mental malfunction.

This all presumably comforts the scientismic atheist, since that would mean that science has no God, Ghosts, miracles or visions (etc.) to mess up it’s sums… what could be more important?

What we should really do is get an atheist here - I think there are a few on this board who understand that they are making such assumptions…

Valid points.

I’m oft mistaken for an atheist because I disbelieve in the God defined by Christianity, and as evenly taken for a religious fruitcake by scientists who find my insistence upon a Creator to be absurd and irrational.

Are you taking these thoughts someplace interesting?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

You are correct on those stated assumptions, as far as I go anyway.

However, to say that it “comforts” us is incorrect. I would think a world where I could earn eternal life much more comforting. It’s not like I want to just cease to exist. Rather than it being comforting, it’s instead simply the rational explanation given the claims and our own understanding of how the world actually works. If I ever meet a real psychic or someone that can levitate, perhaps I’ll change my mind.

I think it’s that comforting idea that reality is of a kind which is within our ability to empirically classify and convince ourselves we can conclusively understand the truth about is where the comfort lies.

I saw a quote somewhere by Ian Watson (I think) about Charles Fort which went something like “Some people have a psychological need to believe that supernatural, mysterious things happen, whereas others have a psychological need to believe that everything that happens is mundane”

The horror of the unknown or mysterious (not least, God) is most classically displayed in the writings of HP Lovecraft, where anything outside of the mundane is portrayed as grotesque, terrifying and evil. It’s the alternative comfort of an illusion of knowledge which scientism promises that is the comfort.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Valid points.

I’m oft mistaken for an atheist because I disbelieve in the God defined by Christianity, and as evenly taken for a religious fruitcake by scientists who find my insistence upon a Creator to be absurd and irrational.

Are you taking these thoughts someplace interesting?

I’m trying. So are you not tempted to define yourself as a deist? Or, if you think there is validity in the idea that religion involves some true insight and value in interacting/serving God, a (Syncretic?) Theist?

 

[liquidpele]

I think it’s that comforting idea that reality is of a kind which is within our ability to empirically classify and convince ourselves we can conclusively understand the truth about is where the comfort lies.

I saw a quote somewhere by Ian Watson (I think) about Charles Fort which went something like “Some people have a psychological need to believe that supernatural, mysterious things happen, whereas others have a psychological need to believe that everything that happens is mundane”

The horror of the unknown or mysterious (not least, God) is most classically displayed in the writings of HP Lovecraft, where anything outside of the mundane is portrayed as grotesque, terrifying and evil. It’s the alternative comfort of an illusion of knowledge which scientism promises that is the comfort.

What a curious statement… are you saying that if it’s not mundane it has to be supernatural? This seems a blatant false dichotomy.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think it’s that comforting idea that reality is of a kind which is within our ability to empirically classify and convince ourselves we can conclusively understand the truth about is where the comfort lies.

I saw a quote somewhere by Ian Watson (I think) about Charles Fort which went something like “Some people have a psychological need to believe that supernatural, mysterious things happen, whereas others have a psychological need to believe that everything that happens is mundane”

The horror of the unknown or mysterious (not least, God) is most classically displayed in the writings of HP Lovecraft, where anything outside of the mundane is portrayed as grotesque, terrifying and evil. It’s the alternative comfort of an illusion of knowledge which scientism promises that is the comfort.

An additional point is that atheism has several version of it’s own of ‘eternal life’:

1. Continuation via the replication of DNA in your children
2. The continuation of life itself, of which we are all a part (pantheistic - in this case, neo-pantheistic, I suppose) and
3. Science will develop for humanity a form of eternal life sometime in the future, or we’ll evolve it (these crop up regularly in Eugenic type TV shows promoting genetic manipulation, but far more in ‘hard sci fi’ novels, Star Trek etc.)

I’ve certainly had the first one seriously evangelised to me by eager breeding Po-faced followers of Davros.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

What a curious statement… are you saying that if it’s not mundane it has to be supernatural? This seems a blatant false dichotomy.

We can argue over terms. Here’s the first definition I found:

1. Of, relating to, or typical of this world; secular.
2. Relating to, characteristic of, or concerned with commonplaces; ordinary.

I suppose by mundane I mean natural, or, specifically material. It’s encapsulated in the stereotypical phrase:

“There MUST be a rational explanation!”

Where rational, of course, is taken to assume scientifically rational. Which presuposes, material in nature.

 

[Oreoracle]

An additional point is that atheism has several version of it’s own of ‘eternal life’:

1. Continuation via the replication of DNA in your children
2. The continuation of life itself, of which we are all a part (pantheistic - in this case, neo-pantheistic, I suppose) and
3. Science will develop for humanity a form of eternal life sometime in the future, or we’ll evolve it (these crop up regularly in Eugenic type TV shows promoting genetic manipulation, but far more in ‘hard sci fi’ novels, Star Trek etc.)

Those possibilities aren’t sold as “eternal life.” Think about it: eventually, the sun will run out of fuel and explode, obliterating Earth in the process. This planet won’t last forever, nor will any planet that is harboring life. Apparently, the whole universe is slowly losing stability, too. It’s all temporary.

 

[greylorn]

I’m trying. So are you not tempted to define yourself as a deist? Or, if you think there is validity in the idea that religion involves some true insight and value in interacting/serving God, a (Syncretic?) Theist?

Nope. Maybe, a odd sort of theist, except that theists generally don’t think so.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Those possibilities aren’t sold as “eternal life.” Think about it: eventually, the sun will run out of fuel and explode, obliterating Earth in the process. This planet won’t last forever, nor will any planet that is harboring life. Apparently, the whole universe is slowly losing stability, too. It’s all temporary.

But it’s easy to leave these issues to future generations…

There was a report on British TV not long ago in which it was postulated that in the future, humankind could conceivably develop spaceflight, and even transport to other universes!

Also, there is Sci-fi (and not very little of it) involving the conception of evolving into noncorporeal forms… ascention, but in terms a scientist can evaluate, understand, and even theoretically regulate…

Both these hold promises of eternal life for our DNA, which is for some, seen as themselves… and in a world where Science Fiction has been redefined as speculative fiction, these things are considered possibility, not fantasy. A cause for hope?

Through, of course, holy Scientific Progressivism and/or sacred evolution!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Nope. Maybe, a odd sort of theist, except that theists generally don’t think so.

Fair enough - it implies you think religion has some kind of relevance in it’s practices in terms of it’s aims, I’d say, incidentally.

 

[greylorn]

Fair enough - it implies you think religion has some kind of relevance in it’s practices in terms of it’s aims, I’d say, incidentally.

Religious beliefs underscore all human thoughts and actions. “Relevance” is an understatement. How you get your inferences from my simple statement is a bit mysterious, however.

 

[greylorn]

I think it’s that comforting idea that reality is of a kind which is within our ability to empirically classify and convince ourselves we can conclusively understand the truth about is where the comfort lies.

I saw a quote somewhere by Ian Watson (I think) about Charles Fort which went something like “Some people have a psychological need to believe that supernatural, mysterious things happen, whereas others have a psychological need to believe that everything that happens is mundane”

The horror of the unknown or mysterious (not least, God) is most classically displayed in the writings of HP Lovecraft, where anything outside of the mundane is portrayed as grotesque, terrifying and evil. It’s the alternative comfort of an illusion of knowledge which scientism promises that is the comfort.

Banana—
Thanks for the insights. I’ve never considered anyone’s psychological needs when presenting ideas, All the really interesting ideas I’ve learned, from high school algebra to general relativity, were presented in totally emotionless presentations. For most of my life, I thought that ideas derived from logic needed only to be presented with the same logic. alas…

Incidentally, I hope you’ve read Charles Fort. One of his books, New Lands, I believe, was required reading in an Astronomy 101 course at the University of Wisconsin in the late 60’s or early 70’s. The professor who taught that course was of the opinion that Fort wrote his books for the 3% of readers capable of appreciating under-the-table humor.

I continue to find it curious that Fort’s theories were all derived from factual, if bizarre, information. While his theories designed to explain these facts range from equally bizarre to more bizarre, they fit the facts nicely. The curious part is that the facts he used have yet to be given more intelligent and logical explanationa than Fort’s imaginative originals.

Your comments on Lovecraft imply that he used God as an object of horror. I’ve read nothing remotely suggestive of this. To which story or stories are you referring, or did you make that up?

Your “anything outside of the mundane…” comment strikes me as a tad pretentious, and incorrect to boot, unless, for example, an old house with blood dripping from an upper floor fits within your definition of “mundane.” Not mine.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Religious beliefs underscore all human thoughts and actions. “Relevance” is an understatement. How you get your inferences from my simple statement is a bit mysterious, however.

It’s they way I understand theism as opposed to deism, I suppose

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Banana—
Thanks for the insights. I’ve never considered anyone’s psychological needs when presenting ideas, All the really interesting ideas I’ve learned, from high school algebra to general relativity, were presented in totally emotionless presentations. For most of my life, I thought that ideas derived from logic needed only to be presented with the same logic. alas…

Everyone has an agenda, I generally find, whether they admit it to themselves or not

Incidentally, I hope you’ve read Charles Fort. One of his books, New Lands, I believe, was required reading in an Astronomy 101 course at the University of Wisconsin in the late 60’s or early 70’s. The professor who taught that course was of the opinion that Fort wrote his books for the 3% of readers capable of appreciating under-the-table humor.

I continue to find it curious that Fort’s theories were all derived from factual, if bizarre, information. While his theories designed to explain these facts range from equally bizarre to more bizarre, they fit the facts nicely. The curious part is that the facts he used have yet to be given more intelligent and logical explanationa than Fort’s imaginative originals.

It’s amazing stuff, but always overlooked… one of the reasons I have faith in religion over science is because it at least realises faith is involved… one of the reasons I like to argue against evolution-as-fact is the tenuousity of certain ‘proofs’… the whole realization of geomorphology and exactly how adaptable to assumptions it is, with further concern being added when I realised that radiometric testing is often (and as far as I can tell, inconsistently) applicable in a vast number of fashions, to any number of components, again implying to me a kind of ‘take your pick until you find something that fits’ option…

Your comments on Lovecraft imply that he used God as an object of horror. I’ve read nothing remotely suggestive of this. To which story or stories are you referring, or did you make that up?

Lovecraft used the unknown in general as a subject of horror - his tales consist almost exclusively of people dabbling (both supernaturally and naturally, or more accurately, both) beyond the remit of traditional science, and perpetually suffering unnamable horrors as a result…

I read a short story not long ago about a God up a mountain, under a trap door, who’s face is not to be seen, which I suspect refers back to Exodus, where “no man may look upon the face of God and live”, where Lovecraft interprets this as being because the visage of this God is so horrible as to petrify a man alive for all eternity… most of his stories refer to some God or other as amoral, cruel and destructive - just waiting for rational man to step away from the ordinary to be horribly gobbled up in their infernal tentacles… :frighten:

the moral? Just deny the possibility of the whole lot, read your Scientific American, and you’ll be fine - those foul things beyond our empirical understanding (and therefore, evil) can’t touch you! :aok:

Your “anything outside of the mundane…” comment strikes me as a tad pretentious, and incorrect to boot, unless, for example, an old house with blood dripping from an upper floor fits within your definition of “mundane.” Not mine.

So long as the blood can be conceived of as coming from some natural source (however tenuously), I’d say the scientismic mind would be happily convinced they understand the general nature of the reality of the situation

 

[greylorn]

Everyone has an agenda, I generally find, whether they admit it to themselves or not

True. I try to keep mine open and upfront. I’m engaged in a search for ideas about the cause of those things which exist, and if those causes include an intelligent entity, its motivations. I’m writing a book which expresses my own ideas on the subject, to which a couple of CAF members have already supported with their forthright criticism.

In the process I’ve learned much about how people think, or evade thought. Thanks to the excellent CAF moderators, I’m learning to express my ideas appropriately, or not at all.

Ultimately, my agenda is that the people on this planet quit squabbling about which religion is right, or if there is a God or not, and figure out the truth of the matter. There is a reality, or truth, or whatever one chooses to label it. Our job is to find it, and despite the assertions of religious people and atheists, it is within our grasp. I believe that if my ideas, or even better ideas which integrate the idea of a Creator with physical science, were widely adopted, science and religion would be working together for the development of the human mind and elevation of the human spirit.

This is a pretty stupid and pointless agenda, since I’ve already learned that believers just want to believe whatever they’ve decided upon, whether they be religionists or atheists. But there are some first-rate minds who show up on this channel, and I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas with them.

It’s amazing stuff, but always overlooked… one of the reasons I have faith in religion over science is because it at least realises faith is involved… one of the reasons I like to argue against evolution-as-fact is the tenuousity of certain ‘proofs’… the whole realization of geomorphology and exactly how adaptable to assumptions it is, with further concern being added when I realised that radiometric testing is often (and as far as I can tell, inconsistently) applicable in a vast number of fashions, to any number of components, again implying to me a kind of ‘take your pick until you find something that fits’ option…

If you’ve worked in science, you’d have more reasons to be skeptical of various scientific opinions. You would not be inspired by the amount of invented material.

Science is strongly dependent upon faith, but most of these beliefs are not known to the non-scientist. For example, there is the belief that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, and at all times. (Except,of course, during the Big Bang.)

There is the belief that the velocity of light is the same everywhere in the universe, and has been the same even in the past (except in the aftermath of the Big Bang).

First rate scientists are aware of these elements of their faith. (It is from such men that I learned them, since beliefs do not overtly appear in textbooks.)

Comparing the ideas about the beginnings of things, it would seem that fine Christian minds have proven that the universe must have been the creation of an extraordinarily intelligent entity. When given their turn, brilliant atheistic minds have shown that belief in God is illogical. In effect, both sides have proven one another to be wrong.

Why not believe them both, accept their excellent work with gratitude, admit that both atheism and current religions have failed to adequately explain the reasons for existence, and then, freed of beliefs which once showed promise, discover a set of ideas which correctly explain the nature and purpose of man and of everything else?

Let us find a concept of God which is consistent with the understandings and facts our sciences have discovered, and with a purpose sufficient to make sense of the existence of human beings. That’s my agenda.

Lovecraft used the unknown in general…etc. etc.

I apologize for having been sucked into an irrelevant topic and wasting valuable words discussing it. The hour was late and I must have been tired. And I sure hope that you don’t find a mid-day postmark on the relevant post.

And, if the answer is appropriate to this thread, what is your agenda?