Ask an atheist

[ciphergoth]

In a discussion about religion in wildeabandon's journal, meihua writes: "this seems to have turned into me interrogating you. [...] Is there anything you'd like to challenge me on, instead?"

I think it's only fair enough to open up my own beliefs to the challenges of others, since I'm always keen to respond when theists invite me to give my perspective on some aspect of their beliefs as wildeabandon has in a series of recent posts. So, is there anything you'd like me to respond to?

Rules:

• You don't have to read this thread. This post is an invitation, not a challenge; if you don't like to read me talking about this then feel free to skip this.
• Be honest. Please don't advance arguments you don't personally buy, unless you're also an atheist and you want to discuss how best to counter it.
• If you come to change your mind about the validity of an argument, think about how you can generalise the lesson learned so as not to misassess similar arguments in future.
• Don't just match the politeness of what you reply to, but try to exceed it - see Postel's Law. Otherwise it is very easy to end up with a thread where each contributor thinks they are merely matching the snark level of the other, and yet the thread starts with the very slightest suggestion of rudeness and finishes with "please choke on a bucket of cocks".

Comments

[calum]

Not a question, but both your links have an extra " in them, so they dont work

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Thanks - fixed!

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

I'll ask as sensible question later... But tell me, what's the original source for please choke on a bucket cocks? The link seems to be a locked post.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

The post isn't locked; the link was broken. Fixed now (see above).

atheism and morality

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

A lot of atheists seem to take the same approach to morality as they do to God - that moral statements have no meaning. Hence, for many people their only justification for behaving morally is "because it's in my interests". Do you agree with this?

[I'm just rather confused at the moment about how to reconcile atheism and morality.]

Re: atheism and morality

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I am I think a moral non-cognitivist. That means that there's no ultimate justification either for self-interest or for generosity. We work towards the world we would like to see.

Re: atheism and morality

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

Out of sheer curiosity, what's your religious position?

To suggest that 'moral statements have no meaning' to an atheist isn't quite the same as the usual assertion that atheists have no moral sense but the difference isn't obvious without careful reading and at least an undergraduate's knowledge of philosophy.

Very few people knowingly act in their own interests alone and consider this moral: to act in the interests of others - altruistically or with some acknowledged or unacknowledged degree of self-interest - is the minimum definition of 'good' in it's moral sense. All stable societies teach a functional morality in which a good act is that which benefits the community as a whole; and it follows that a moral man who is neither a solipsist nor a psychopath would aspire to a state of grace in which his thoughts and actions are motivated by this 'greater good' first, and his self-interest second.

There is, of course, a rather barbed criticism of your comment in there. But your question is certainly relevant, as I read all too many corporate statements proclaiming some or other shocking and immoral act to be a virtuous deed with the phrase 'Our first duty to is to the shareholders' - it is clear that many corporate bodies believe self-interest to be their definition of morality. But I doubt that many individuals do, and I would question the motives of those who assert that many - or any - members of an 'out-group' such as atheists view self-interest as their moral compass.

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Cool idea. As an agnostic and believer in the importance of embracing uncertainty (not that I always manage it so well) I'd ask you how you can be so certain (a question I'd also ask religious believers).

And - along similar lines - given that atheism involves taking a pretty critical position on things, how do you pick and choose which things to turn that critical lens on and which you simply accept.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Certainty is relative. An individual belief may move in one direction or another on the scale of certainty, but it doesn't really do anything useful to try and move the entire scale; the scale is measured by its end points. In other words, there have to be some things of which I am most confident. Into that category goes my opinion of beliefs which appear to make no sense, where I have gone to great lengths to find out what the arguments in favour are and been astonished by their poverty, and where it's very easy to see how they could come to be widely believed while lacking all real merit.

The second question is a smidgeon away from "how do you decide what you think?", because obviously you can't turn your critical lens on everything at once and so you have to have some way of settling on what really needs it. The answer is (1) I try not to decide what I think, but to find myself persuaded of things - deciding what to think doesn't seem to have a role for evidence and such. (2) in order to describe how that process works, I would pretty much have to describe my entire brain, which I think will exceed LJ's comment limit.

[keirf.livejournal.com]

As an atheist I assume that you believe the universe emerged without any conscious intention behind it. What's your take on consciousness, and determinism versus free will?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much a determinist, modulo quantum mechanics which doesn't really change the philosophy here. I am pretty much persuaded by the account of consciousness provided by Consciousness Explained.

I made quite a few comments here on my beliefs re determinism and free will...

[mskala.livejournal.com]

I have friends who are Catholic and who believe with all possible seriousness that I and all non-Catholics are headed for Hell, for sure, just for not being Catholic. They believe that I and all non-Catholics could be saved from that if we converted, and that that would be a good thing and worth promoting. Nonetheless, I don't hear much about it from them, and I've never heard snideness or insult from them on the subject. I've never had a Catholic call me an idiot to my face for not converting to Catholicism.

I have friends who are Evangelical Protestant and it's the same story. I have at least witnessed some Evangelical Protestants engaging in snideness and insults towards Catholics and others who aren't Evangelical Protestants, but never any of the ones who are my friends, and my friends don't seem to condone that kind of behaviour.

But when it comes to atheism, snideness, insults, and venom seem to be the order of the day. Many people I otherwise like a whole lot, stop behaving in a way I could call admirable when they start talking about their anti-religious beliefs. Calling all non-atheists idiots is routine. Calling me an idiot to my face if I mention that I'm not an atheist, is routine. The standard of what's acceptable discourse is completely different from what I expect from people who have other strong opinions and beliefs. It is also different from the standard of discourse between professional scientists. Religion is, by what looks like common agreement among very many of the atheists I've seen, so vile that there is no reason to have any respect whatsoever for anyone who follows any of it, there is no need to learn anything about religion before rejecting it, and it's perfectly okay and acceptable to be an asshole.

Even atheists who do not engage in those behaviours themselves openly associate with the ones who do and don't seem to feel any need to disclaim or distance themselves from anything. The assholes are treated as valued assets to the cause. I don't think you've ever called me an idiot directly, Paul, but you've certainly posted with approval and no disclaimer links to people who did. My Catholic and Evangelical Protestant friends have never done that, despite having at least as strong disagreement with my eclectic neo-pagan beliefs.

If that's what atheists are like, then I sure wouldn't want to be one. It is fortunate, since I'm employed as a scientist myself, that I know not all scientists are like that - but I'm certainly annoyed and disappointed by those of my colleagues who think that the only true scientists have to be atheists and the only true atheists have to be assholes.

So my question is, and I'm sorry if this is less polite than you were hoping for but I think it's pretty important: why do atheists seem to be such assholes, and especially, why are they different in this respect from adherents of theistic religions? It'd be easy to say - not convincing, but easy to say - that atheists are different from adherents of theistic religions in the way of being right, but how and why would it lead to also being different in the way of often being assholes? It'd also be easy to say that I don't know enough atheists and non-atheists, or enough about how good atheism is and how bad theism is, to judge, but that's unfalsifiable; no matter how many people I meet and how much I know one could always claim that if I met a few more or learned a little more I'd feel differently. Even if it were possible to somehow measure the proportion of theists and atheists and find out how many of each are assholes, and even if it turned out that actually a far larger proportion of theists are assholes about their beliefs, there remains the question of what led me to form the impression of atheists being unique in this way.

(over the comment length limit - continued below)

[mskala.livejournal.com]

(continued)

I've read (and, sometimes, cited) Karla Mclaren's article "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html)" - I think it was you who brought it to my attention, and thank you - and I think it's a wonderful start but I don't think she's completely right. In particular, I think there's not really so much difference between science and what she calls "the New Age" in terms of cultural standards of discourse. Interactions among scientists, when they're doing their actual jobs instead of attacking non-atheists, are not the pure rational fact-based activity she seems to imagine. If I want to publish a paper saying that someone else is WRONG, it's not enough that I can prove I'm right; I still have to say it respectfully or that article is not getting published. There are the scientists who get up in the question periods at conferences to call other people idiots to their faces, and those scientists are rightly treated as being way out of line. They're certainly not considered assets to the profession. Atheists, including the ones who are off-duty scientists and the ones who seem in all other ways to be decent people, seem to think that being right is enough and in fact some of them seem to think they get bonus points for stating their positions as snidely as possible. I almost never see this occur in any other realm of human endeavor. (Though I also don't watch US political television and maybe if I did...)

Why?

[mskala.livejournal.com]

Oh - I did think of one exception. I do hear comparable levels of venom emanating from the pro-abortion lobby.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

you've certainly posted with approval and no disclaimer links to people who did.

Are you sure? Could you give an example?

If I've ever linked to Christopher Hitchens without a disclaimer, let me say again as I say many times - the man is a gigantic cock, but he's sometimes so witty, insightful and compelling that it's worth putting up with his cock-ness to hear what he has to say. But even he doesn't think that all believers are idiots, and you'd have to be pretty blind and/or idiotic to think that, since there are so many very obvious counterexamples of whom you are clearly one. Could you give an example to where I've linked to/quoted with approval someone who's said something so patently ridiculous? Honestly, I don't think I have, and if I have I'd like to know.

If you go looking you'll find people who say this and worse, of course, especially if you apply John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Naturally, if you go looking you can find some pretty rude believers too.

I think that atheists do show less respect towards belief than believers show each other, and that's quite on purpose. In common with Dawkins, I believe that what is termed "respect" is closer to a conspiracy of silence with regards serious attempts to evaluate religious propositions, and it's one that I think does more harm than good. If any challenge to religious belief is rude, I'll just have to be rude, if you like. However, I would like to maintain the standards of politeness that are common in other contentious debates, such as debates about politics or philosophy, where you can robustly disagree with a point of view without insulting the intelligence of the believer.

I've even heard Greta Christina dismissed as rude and snide, and frankly if even she is to be considered so then questioning the validity of religion without being rude and snide may be impossible. Still, even in that case I should like to keep rudeness and snideness to a minimum, and if I fail in that then do let me know.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I am very struck by your strength of feeling on this, by the way. Is it me personally that has engendered such anger, are there other atheists in particular who have given you cause to feel this way but I'm providing an opportunity to discuss it, or is it all vocal atheists?

[duranorak.livejournal.com]

Without having seen this post, I was thinking about all this yet again earlier today.

I haven't read anyone else's comments here yet, I usually get caught up in what other people are saying and then don't say anything myself because I feel like everything I might say is far too simplistic. I still feel like that, because it is simplistic, but, oh well. I still have a question or two that I hope you don't feel are beneath you. :)

Dear Mr atheist,

The only thing I would ever try to assert as 'truth' about my gods is that they were once worshipped by a relatively significant number of people, and that I experience things I believe are me having an interaction of some kind with them. (NB, I would assert that I have the experiences, and that I believe etc etc, not that those experiences are me having said interaction.)

I would not attempt to tell you that they had a hand in the creating of anything, or that they have the power to affect the earth or people on it in general in any way, nor that they ever have had. I would not attempt to tell you that any stories about them are accounts of actual events, or that they are any kind of allegory - just stories. Also, the experiences I have, that I believe are connected to these gods, have not at any time involved requiring any specific action of me, and therefore I would say there is nothing remotely Bible-comparable in what I do. While I discuss the concepts with people, I have never done nor do I have any intention of ever doing anything connected with my gods or 'religious beliefs' with or in front of anyone else.

Given the above, how would you respond to what I believe compared with, say, a practising Christian or Jew? Are there differences in how you would want to go about arguing with me? Am I less of an enemy of reason than someone who follows rules because they believe those rules were put there by god/a god, or is it the same with me as with anyone else, and why? Would you class me as 'religious'?

These and other things, but if I don't post this now I will delete it in fear of being laughed at, so~ You don't have to answer, I was just wondering this earlier.

E.
x

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I think you're asking "given all this, why would I want to convert you?"
If so, then see in part my reply to friend_of_tofu below, though that's not all there is to it. Let me know if that's what you're getting at and I can compose a longer answer.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

The question I've always wanted to ask you - and this is a genuine question and actually not really a 'challenge' at all, IMHO - is;

WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH?

I honestly don't get it. Personally, I don't like most sport. I find it confusing, tedious, expensive & time-wasting. I think it's been responsible for perpetuating a lot of damaging attitudes and stereotypes (including racism & homophobia). Therefore, I don't watch sport, read about sport, attend sporting events or join in sporting conversations, because it's just not my thing.

I just don't understand why you seem so, well, obsessed with something you neither like nor want.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

An excellent question, and one I've been giving a lot of thought recently.

I don't really think that getting rid of religion is our first and most important priority in making the world a better place. I haven't failed to notice that I know quite a few people who are religious and also politically radical in ways I approve of. I don't really buy Dawkins's argument that we must attack moderate religion because it provides cover for fundamentalism. I do think that religion is an error and I will overall do good if I can free some people of that error. But I don't think it will do some tremendous, world-changing amount of good that deeply deserves all the rhetorical might I can bring to play.

The truth is, and I've recently said this to seph_hazard and booklectic, I do it because it makes my brain itch! I look at the things people say about their beliefs and I feel the itch come on - how can they think that? How is it possible that that (often) highly intelligent, thoughtful, probing head can contain that belief? Rationally I just about see how it can happen and it sort of makes sense, but on a gut level, when it's real people I really know, I just can't fathom it, and I'm hypnotised by this mystery.

I'd probably do better to scratch at it less, I am sure, but it itches so much!

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Do you ever worry that you suffer from confirmation bias when observing the poverty of the arguments in favour of theism?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't have quite the same reaction to the things people say in other debates where I have strong opinions, though I know it may seem that I do. To be honest, I keep half-expecting to discover that you all have much better arguments for your beliefs, and all I have to do is ask the question in the right way and I'll find out something that makes it make sense to me; I do go over the arguments I'm presented with to see if there's some sense that I missed. But after all this time I feel like I've given the "arguments are stronger than I think" hypothesis all I can and it's just not working out, and the "very smart people can advance very bad arguments if the psychology lines up" explanation is just one I'm going to have to accept.

And I can at least assign different merits to different arguments. The "fine-tuning" argument, for example, I can really see how someone could fall for that; it's taken me a while to work out the 30-second refutation to that one.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

You fetch the bucket, and I'll wield the tiny shears.

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Reading through all the comments here I realise that what baffles you is why sensible people choose to have religious beliefs. I think the answer lies in the existential givens. Existentialism tells us that the following things terrify people:

* Death,
* Uncertainty (about what to do or what happens),
* Realising they are free to choose
* Realising that life is meaningless and the only meaning there is is that which we create which could just as well be otherwise.

I don't find religious belief baffling at all. It takes away all of these (as do many other things that we choose to believe in)

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Before people leap on me I'm not saying all people are religious for these reasons or that all religions are about escaping these givens. Many branches of Buddhism, for example, are based on looking these right in the face. It is just a very good answer to the question of why sensible people might choose to be religious if you're looking for.

And personally I believe that very few people go through life without a few unjustifiable beliefs that help them not to look at this stuff too closely.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Bugger, I always miss the interesting stuff.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Another question, if I'm not to late to ask this - what do you mean when you use the word "theist"?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I don't think I mean anything very different from the standard meaning - maybe if you have any interesting corner cases in mind I could say what I think about them?