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

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I know that all famous atheists are accused of saying this while none of them do

I agree, and I don't think that's right - I firmly don't agree with some of the remarks made above. But (assuming I'm parsing this correctly), I think it would be fairer to say 'few', not 'none'. I'm actually thinking more of the sort of things which made me stop wanting to identify as an atheist in the first place - this happened long before any kind of active spirituality.

I think we disagree less than you might think - I'm sure a lot of what makes smart people smart is simply a culturally-imbued willingness to turn their minds to thinking hard about such things in the first place. Still, that does make a big difference.

Maybe. But I'm not sure I even believe in the concept of 'smart people'. Smart actions, maybe, but smart people, not so much.

in the process of arriving at the truth, science is precisely a set of mechanisms that counteract human fallibility, while religion is a set of mechanisms that elevate it

Big generalisations, of course (hell, if there wasn't so much 'bad science', Ben Goldacre'd be out of a job!), and also those which assume a particular form of 'science' and 'religion'. But leaving even that aside, I'd agree mostly with the former but not so much with the latter part of that sentence, because it elides the truth-seeking element of many religious/spiritual paths. That doesn't mean that they necessarily take the form of what we might regard as scientifically rigorous experiment, but I'm not sure they always inevitably elevate fallibility. And can highly personalised paths even be said to be 'a set of mechanisms', particularly if they contain events which are extremely circumstantial? It might be fairer to say that I regard 'science' and 'religion' as words of indistinct and variable meaning describing events which are ranged across a spectrum of human experience - sometimes they're far apart, sometimes extremely close, rarely absolutely opposed. And yes, this is at least as much of a generalistion!

I don't think I'm expressing this well. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there are very few beliefs that I consider 'strange', because I think I can generally get my head round *why* people believe things, even if they're things I find weird or WTF!? in relation to myself. I don't for example, think David Icke is mad, even though I think he's wrong. At least it's interesting.