Paul Crowley (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ciphergoth) wrote2008-08-03 11:03 am
ciphergoth) wrote2008-08-03 11:03 am
Entry tags:
Ask an atheist
In a discussion about religion in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 aswildeabandon has in a series of recent posts. So, is there anything you'd like me to respond to?
Rules:
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".
no subject
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.
no subject
That doesn't mean jokes about religion can't be allowed. I like SinFest (http://www.sinfest.net/), for example. It might be interesting to think about what's the difference between the two.
I don't know Greta Christina's work and I'm due out the door for something else basically right now without time to read it and form a real opinion. I do notice, in a glance at the front page of her Web log, that she has a bold headline asking "DO BELIEVERS REALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY THEY BELIEVE?" and I wonder how many atheists would be happy to have the same question asked about atheists and answered in the negative by theists discussing it among themselves without, y'know, asking the atheists.
no subject
I can also think that someone's beliefs are rather silly, while still respecting them. There is a difference between saying "all Christians are idiots" and saying "Christian views are very silly".
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
If I thought all Christians were like that, I wouldn't be one — and indeed wasn't for the longest time because the vocal Christians tend (unfortunately, but fairly naturally) to be the ones with the most extreme, most unpalatable views. They also wouldn't consider me to be a Christian anyway (which I should probably take as a compliment)!
no subject
no subject
It certainly looks like it's on purpose, and it amazes me that atheists seldom see a problem with the fact that it looks like they are deliberately disrespectful.
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.
Do you really think that all non-atheist religions, and some atheist religions (such a Buddhism) are part of a global conspiracy against your own brand of atheism? If that is what you think, what do you think could be a possible motivation for such a conspiracy? Why should I consider that kind of conspiracy more likely to be real than the conspiracy Jack Chick tells me exists between the homosexuals, the Tarot readers, and the Dungeons and Dragons players to recruit souls for Satan? It does not seem plausible to me, and I'm accustomed to affording respect to some pretty wacky ideas. However, I don't want to mischaracterize your position if that's not really what you mean to claim; I realize I'm quoting just one line out of a much longer message. If it's not really that kind of conspiracy you mean, what kind of conspiracy do you mean?
What you're saying above (including the parts I didn't quote) sounds a lot like special pleading to me: that there are some rules other people follow that you shouldn't have to follow because of something special about your position that makes it different from other positions, and something important about your goal that is more important than being respectful.
Maybe it'd be better that I phrase this as a question: why do you think atheism is different? Atheism looks the same as other forms of belief to me - and it absolutely does look like a form of belief - with the main difference being that its adherents demand special treatment. Why? Even if you don't think atheism is different, why do you think many other atheists think atheism is different? Even if you don't think many atheists consider atheism different, what mistake do you think was made (on my part, if necessary) for me to form the impression that many atheists think atheism is different?
no subject
If by respect you mean "don't be nasty" fair enough. I don't go around calling believers idiots. But if you mean "don't challenge religious belief" then I won't show that kind of respect.
no subject
I think that really is disrespectful, but I just made and deleted a couple of attempts at explaining why without being insulting towards you, and I don't think I can do it, so let's drop that particular question.
Instead, I'd like to point out that even if you have on one occasion been called "disrespectful" unjustly, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I want to make, which is that being respectful is in general both a meaningful concept and worthwhile, and that if you treated it as a first-class goal, then you would have more success in achieving your other goals. But that does mean treating respect as a first-class goal, not as a motion to go through to trick people into listening to you.
no subject
Re: atheism and morality
I think saying "any critism you make of my beliefs is Mean and Horrid and you Mustn't do it you horrible person" is disrespectful to the whole concept of debate and rational thought and analysis. I can see that criticism ought to be polite, well thought out and aimed at the argument not the person; yes (and of course everyone fails at that from time to time) - but that doesn't mean the questions should not be raised, nor answers made to questions (if I was asked "what do you think of Jesus' ressurection" the only honest answer is to tell them that I think it never happened).
no subject
God (if there is one) is big enough and old enough to look after itself without Christians (or whoever) saying that we mustn't disrespect or offend it.
no subject
Yes. This.
no subject
If an opinion about religion is considered to be disrespectful, isn't that itself disrespectful to the person who holds that opinion? Consider, if
Maybe it'd be better that I phrase this as a question: why do you think atheism is different? Atheism looks the same as other forms of belief to me - and it absolutely does look like a form of belief - with the main difference being that its adherents demand special treatment. Why? Even if you don't think atheism is different, why do you think many other atheists think atheism is different? Even if you don't think many atheists consider atheism different, what mistake do you think was made (on my part, if necessary) for me to form the impression that many atheists think atheism is different?
I think we should note the different views among atheists - in particular, those that reject belief in god, versus those who believe that gods do not exist.
Not that there's anything incorrect with having belief - atheists happen to believe all sorts of things. But each individual tends to feel that some forms of belief are supported by evidence, while some forms of belief are not. Obviously theists and atheists disagree over belief in God, as well as other aspects of religious belief. I don't think there's anything special here - it's just that one group of people do not believe claims made by another group of people.
I'm not sure what sort of special treatment it is that atheists demand? I'm happy for people to criticise atheism just as strongly as atheists criticise theism. I will probably disagree with them, but I don't think I will be offended by it.
no subject
Then from that point of view, atheism doesn't look like an alternative to religion, it just looks like a crappy substandard religion with a lot of bugs and few features compared to other religions. I imagine that most atheists don't want atheism to be judged by the standards that I apply to religions, but in that case, they need, hey, let's call it evidence, that there is a useful difference, and I'm seeing an utter lack of that. And that's why I asked - why is atheism different?
Another example would be shown in this statement of Paul's:
"I think that atheists do show less respect towards belief than believers show each other, and that's quite on purpose."
There's the "I'm something other than a believer" claim again, but there's also a claim that atheists deserve an exemption from a basic rule ("treat people with respect") that everyone else routinely follows. No atheist in the thread above has acknowledged respect as a core value; it always, always has to be qualified with "But not if it means I can't challenge..."
If you think "I challenge you!" is so important as to be worth sacrificing "I respect you!", well, that explains pretty much everything else in this discussion. What should we rationally expect will happen when a group of people who holds that opinion about the priority of values, interacts with a group who doesn't?
I'm not saying this is anyone's fault, I'm saying it's predictable. I am surprised that anyone is still surprised by it.
no subject
Atheism is not a religion. Really.
I have to admit that I find it a bit startling that you think this is a case where I'm demanding special treatment. Even if you believe atheism is a religion, wouldn't it make more sense to say "you and I obviously have different definitions" than "you are demanding special treatment"?
I also don't think the atheists here are demanding special treatment in saying that they should be allowed to challenge people's beliefs (please note that challenging a belief system is not really the same as "disrespecting" the people who believe it). But even if it were, I don't think atheists alone should be allowed to do this! Everyone should challenge beliefs all the time - their own and other people's.
I mean, you're quite clearly challenging atheism in your comments here - does this mean you're not showing enough respect to me as an atheist? I don't think so, but you might disagree. It's OK though, I won't accuse you of demanding special treatment ;-)
no subject
To be fair, I hear theists talk of "believers" and "non-believers" too.
The distinction (as I see it) is between "people who believe in God" and "people who don't believe in God".
Is this distinction important? Well, perhaps in some sense it shouldn't be - all it is is a disagreement about a philosophical question of how everything began. On the other hand, religious belief often comes with a lot more than that: claims of intervention in the Universe (either directly, or through communication with people's minds), or people basing their morality on religion.
But nonetheless, I don't want special treatment for this distinction - I won't be offended or find it disrespectful if someone criticises atheism.
There's the "I'm something other than a believer" claim again, but there's also a claim that atheists deserve an exemption from a basic rule ("treat people with respect") that everyone else routinely follows.
Atheists (I hope) treat people with respect.
Atheists do not want an exemption, rather we want religious belief to fit into the same rule as all other beliefs. Even though everyone routinely follows this rule of treating people with respect, it's still acceptable to criticise (or even ridicule) all sorts of beliefs, such as political or economical beliefs, or beliefs on moral issues, or indeed, atheism.
Is your point of view that religious belief should not be treated in the same manner? Or do you feel that the criticism that atheists give to theism is above and beyond any criticism given to any other belief?
If you think "I challenge you!" is so important as to be worth sacrificing "I respect you!"
I feel that people can challenge someone's beliefs, without sacrificing respect for people. Just as you can challenge atheism, without being disrespectful towards them. Consider, supposing if, instead of responding to your comment, I only said "I find your comments disrespectful"? Supposing if instead of a debate on theism/atheism, it was a debate on economics, and someone found criticism of an economical theory to be disrespectful to them?
I don't think atheists are making any profound statement about criticism versus respect, we just want to be able to criticise religious belief like people can criticise any other kind of belief or opinion. I also don't feel people were qualifying with "But not if it means I can't challenge", rather it's a question of what we mean by the word "respect". I'm happy to acknowledge respect for people as a core value; I'm not ignoring that value if I debate or criticise ideas about the origins of the Universe, claims that particular events took place, or ethical issues.
Re: your article - I don't think that religious people are stupid. On the contrary, the fact that many of them are intelligent people is all the more reason why I am interested and engage in debate with them on these issues. If it was that they were stupid, then as you say in the article, there'd be no point in doing so.
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
Re special pleading - not at all - I would like to change altogether the tradition of tiptoeing around matters of religion, and I welcome it when religious people consent to join in robust debate on the subject.
Re being perceived as disrespectful. I think that not all beliefs are worthy of respect. In fact measured across all belief space, very few do, and religion is not in my opinion in that number. I have a great deal of respect in many ways for many religious believers. However, I do not believe that it is possible for any atheist to criticise religious belief itself without being accused of disrespect to the believer. I think it's very indicative that you accused me of linking to someone who claims that "all believers are idiots" when to the best of my knowledge I never have and I'd be really surprised to learn otherwise, because who would say something so stupid?
Can you give an example of an atheist who gets it right, who criticises religious belief itself and who you don't consider goes out of bounds? A counterexample to what I say above. How could it be that there be literally no-one who gets it right?
no subject
You have made clear that you think that. As long as you do think that, you will be unwelcome at the table of the people who think that all beliefs are worthy of respect.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)