ciphergoth | Ask an atheist

Entry tags:

atheism

Ask an atheist

In a discussion about religion in

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".

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

I guess the assumption here is that people (should) believe things on the basis of rational argument. My hunch is still that we all believe a lot of things without this basis (especially given what we were saying above about not being able to turn a critical lens on everything).

I tried to suggest to you once before that perhaps religious belief is most akin to human love relationships which mostly - to my mind - are a matter of faith to a far greater extent than they are a matter of logic. I guess I'm not sure about anybody critiquing religious belief/faith for irrationality and poor arguments when they base their relationships with other human beings on just the same (as I'm fairly convinced we all do!)

But love works. For all the potential heartache and pain and loss and all that, love is a success, it really does make people happy. In that sense, I don't think it is irrational to love - I think it would usually be irrational to decide not to love.

But religion works! Religious people, statistically speaking, live longer, have less diagnoses of mental illness, commit suicide less, and are more happy.

I'm not actually positive that the same can be said for love ;-)

In fact I do know what can be said for love statistically speak. It works... for men. Men are far better off in relationships than single (in terms of happiness, satisfaction, physical and mental health, etc.) Women are far better off single than in relationships.

Yes, but the point is that religion makes claims about the world beyond that it makes people happy, and those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

In so far as love makes those claims, I don't think it's actually a good idea to buy them. I don't think people should fool themselves into thinking that the person they are with is, say, somehow The One that they were fated to spend their life with. It's enough that you love them and that it works.

*grin* the claims that are made about love are not dissimilar I would say. I know that you don't buy into it here but the claim is certainly made that love will conquer all and the one will be all things to you and make you happy ever after.

In my work I see one hell of a lot of people who are unhappy because love hasn't worked out for them the way they wanted. I'd be willing to wager there are far fewer people who feel that way about religion (in fact there is an argument I've seen that love - as society currently understands it - has become a new religion, and it doesn't hold up nearly as well as the old ones did)

I am really enjoying these conversations btw :-)

in fact there is an argument I've seen that love - as society currently understands it - has become a new religion, and it doesn't hold up nearly as well as the old ones did

Read Boswell. Seriously. I know I'm like a stuck record on tis topic, but damn that man was good.

Boswell?

It's enough that you love them and that it works.

But presumably if someone's religion didn't make any claims about the world beyond that it made/might make them happy, it would still make your brain itch; what would be your position then? (I'm not sure I think religion/relationships is all that good an analogy, but since you've run with it here, I'm curious.)

E.
x

Oi it's an excellent analogy for my purposes here which is to suggest that

ciphergoth also does something which is based on faith/belief rather than rationality or logic (not that I think those two are mutually exclusive);-)

That does sound awfully like the argument that "being religious makes me happy so I'm going to do it whether it's actually true or not".

See my reply to

some_fox above - I'm not saying that people should fool themselves, very much not, I'm saying that they needn't fool themselves to choose to love and in fact should still try to avoid it.

Religion works for me, even though I'm intellectually very well aware that it may be self-delusion in just the same way that love can be. And I agree that people should try to avoid fooling themselves. That, in fact, is what a lot of my theological work is aimed at; showing people that consistency is an important criterion in doctrine, so that fewer people are clearly fooling themselves.

This is at the root of my disagreement with

robhu on one of

wildeabandon's threads. I think it's perfectly OK to say 'My working model of a deity makes more sense than yours, even though it relies on the same base axioms'. If you don't like the axioms, or think them at odds with other, better, ones, you don't have to adopt them. But for those of us who don't think the axioms are self-evidently false, understanding what really is a consequence of them and what isn't is a worthwhile pursuit.

My religion works better for me when I do this, even if it's only myself I'm debating with.

You make an important point that this is an assumption.

It's an imperative (from the word should), and I'm not sure that any argument can really be made for it morally, only that it seems to be a good, reliable belief-forming mechanism that serves us well as individuals, as groups and as a species.

I am aware that this argument is subject to the problem of induction, but isn't everything?

You're trying to make a rational argument for rational argument?

Certainly.

Rational behaviour (if I may use that shorthand for a complex series of belief-forming mechanisms and the behaviour they tend to give rise to) has served us very well over the ages, indeed it's made us the top species on the planet.

It also, generally, serves individuals well in achieving their ends.

...

You may call the above a rational argument, and I'll gladly take the compliment.

But if it is, so what?

Not all circularity is vicious.

Yes, it's useful to see how we come to be equipped with mechanisms for making halfway sensible decisions sometimes, but what I mean is that if someone says "Why should I let myself be persuaded by rational argument?" there's no answering them.

I hypothesise it's more akin to an addiction or love at first sight model, actually. People get that first hit of crack/vision who presses their buttons/religious experience and spend a tremendous amount of time trying to get that high back.

It's always been the opposite for me - I've never had that kind of 'religious experience' and don't especially want it - in the same way I don't particularly want to commune with a god, because I don't think I need it.

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'm sure you're *not* intending to do this, but do you see how that could read, to some, as an example of Smug Atheism?

(Leaving aside the whole trope about personal spiritual paths not being things which one can argue in favour of, but can only be grasped experientially - I'm 50/50 on that one anyway)

Er, would you find it less smug if I said the opposite? If I go with my head instead of my gut, then I am as convinced as I can be that it doesn't make sense and there's nothing I can ask that will change that.

If the smug part is simply my belief that religion doesn't make any sense, I'm not sure what I can do about that!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ask an atheist

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

Rational argument as good belief-forming mechanism

Re: Rational argument as good belief-forming mechanism

Re: Rational argument as good belief-forming mechanism

Re: Rational argument as good belief-forming mechanism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject