Frontpage Feed
Community Feed
The Idea Market Feed
The 'Verse Feed
Should Atheists Go Forth and Multiply?
Submitted by Scott Scheule on Fri, 2007-10-12 09:55.
No, according to Ilya Somin (at least, it's not a priority):
The strong pro-proselytization stance of atheist writers such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins leads many people to assume that proselytization is an inherent requirement of atheism, or at least that most atheists put a high priority on persuading theists of the nonexistence of God. Neither claim is true. The majority of atheists have little or no commitment to proselytization...
[T]he problem is not belief in God in itself, but the theist's secondary beliefs about what kind of behavior God commands. The latter, not the former, should be the primary target of reformers. Moreover, most voluntarily accepted religious burdens don't exactly rank high on the scale of serious social problems.
Very good. I agree. Though my reason for not being a proselytizing atheist is more than just the "live and yet live" principle. In addition to that, I don't think the case for atheism is as overwhelmingly strong (or important) as its more vocal adherents do, Dawkins in particular, who seem to view the world through a kind of naive logical positivism that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, either historical or philosophical.
As to the importance of the debate, Raymond Smullyan sums it up nicely:
I have always felt that the gap between atheism and belief in God is extremely small compared with the difference between a mere belief that there is a God and the belief that God wrote any of the existing holy books! A mere belief in a creator God, without postulating any properties to this God, would hardly have much effect on how one would conduct one's life, whereas any of the orthodox religions are chock full of moral regulations. Stated otherwise, the gap between atheism and natural religion is small compared to that between natural religion and revealed religion. (Curiously enough, though, with many of the eighteenth-century English and Continental deists, their concept of God was highly influenced by many ideas of the Judeo-Christian tradition.)
Let me put the matter another way: I would say that whether or not one believes in God is less important--far less important--than the kind of God in whom one believes.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://distributedrepublic.net/trackback/10001
»
Revealed religion
Wut ! U meanz ceiling cat not wrtie oli lolcatbble ??
This has been covered before, multiple times
Go through your entire post and replace the word God with "tooth fairy," and you'll quickly see how retarded it all is (no personal offense intended). Here's just a small sample, but I recommend trying it for the whole thing, it's quite humorous.
And just to make it clear to those who don't go through with the exercise, the point is that religious belief itself is illogical, wrong, crazy, and probably dangerous.
Even better, try replacing
Even better, try replacing God with "poop."
Either way, that doesn't prove anything.
Poop exists, gods and tooth
Poop exists, gods and tooth fairies don't.
Unless you have some new evidence that no one's seen yet of god's existence, the kind which could not also be counted as evidence of the tooth fairy's existence.
There's an idea for a co
There's an idea for a colorful children character here, the poop fairy !
If you don't flush, the poop fairy will come and punish you by leaving a steaming turd under your pillow.
What you do and don't accept
So you say.
What you do and don't accept as proof is going to be controversial. Do I have to see something for it to be proved? Will blunt intuition support it? People speak all the time of feeling God's presence--does that suffice as proof? Why or why not? Will simple reason supply proof (of the vintage we typically use to justify many a mathematical axiom)? How does one get around Hume's problem of induction?
For the sake of the
For the sake of the argument, I feel the presence of the tooth fairy.
And I feel like the future
And I feel like the future will resemble the past.
There are many laws of
There are many laws of nature that seem immutable, we construct our understanding of nature by using our senses.
It allows us to categorize many propositions about the physical world as true or false.
It does not exclude the possibility of error, but it is our only mean of investigating
the world, that's how we live.
Religion make the claim that god exist in the physical world, this claim means that we
can investigate some aspects of god by the use of our senses and through experience. However, it fails to do so.
More Research Needed
Tooth Fairy vs. God and Poop
Leave tooth under pillow:
Poop- No results.
Tooth fairy- Coin appears
God- No results
Pray for cure from cancer:
Poop- Not yet tested.
Tooth Fairy- Not yet tested.
God- May be cured.
Pray that you don’t step on land mine.
Poop: Not yet tested
Tooth fairy: Not yet tested
God: May avoid stepping on mine.
Should I kill a guy I hate?
Poop- No opinion.
Tooth Fairy- No opinion.
God –No.
Name you invoke when you hit your head on something hard.
Poop- yes. (Synonym used more commonly)
Tooth Fairy-No
God- Yes ( Usually combined with other words.)
More research is needed but as you can see, Mr.Scientist, the terms are far from equivalent.
Dave
Tooth Fairy vs. God
Answers prayer: Tooth Fairy: No God: No
Falsifiable: Tooth Fairy:No God:No
Visible: Tooth Fairy:No God:No
Magical: Tooth Fairy:Yes God:Yes
Invented to control behavior: Tooth Fairy:Yes God:Yes
Purported to have special powers: Tooth Fairy:Yes God:Yes
No physical evidence for: Tooth Fairy: no God: no
Traditional belief: Tooth Fairy: yes God: yes
Encourages good behavior: Tooth Fairy:Yes God: Yes
Also encourages bad behavior: Tooth Fairy: No God: Yes
Oops, I guess there is a difference.
Depends
In France the tooth fairy is "la petite souris" - the little mouse - and for her to exchange your tooth for a gift, it is commonly assumed you have to brush your teeth thoroughly every night. Thus, she does encourage good behavior by decreasing children's time preference.
You playing straight man ...
... for a joke at the expense of the British here?
Falsifiable: Tooth Fairy?
I beleive she has been validated many times. She doesn't show up if you are looking.
Please explain your doubts.
Dave
What's to explain?
Falsification and validation are two different things. I said he is not falsifiable. BTW, where did you get this bizzare idea he was a she? ;)
Inflates the money supply:
Inflates the money supply: God: No, Tooth Fairy: Yes
No one heard of the tooth fairy getting money by selling goods or services, therefore the money she leaves is created through fairy magic and the so called "gift" to the children is really taken from the money holders. The money is likely spent on candy, creating a bubble in the candy making industry... this creates decayed tooth which have less value to the tooth fairy, therefore she reduces her gifts and the candy industry collapses.
God deflationary
Yes and god produces manna which increases the supply of goods relative to money which is deflationary.
Heretic
Heretic !
Deflation is and has always been a contraction of the money supply, using this word to refer to a lowering of the price level is heresy, this acceptation is all but a fabrication of the devil!
Though I'm no theologian, I
Though I'm no theologian, I imagine many religions do not claim that God exists in the physical world (whatever that may mean), and many strains--Deism, perhaps--don't expect any physical proof to pop up.
But you are skewing the frame of the debate unfairly by excluding certain data from the realm of "senses" and "experience"--at least, I assume as much from your comment. Many theists will happily attest to feeling God's presence in their lives. Some may actually claim to see Him or hear Him, but many claim something subtler. One "intuits" God. Or "senses" God. Whatever. Now, simple intuition may be invalid as a means of finding truth (though that stance leads to problems of its own--Hume's problem of induction comes to mind again), but regardless, it's by no means clear that any kind of simple materialism along the lines of "It's only real if I can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell it" is an acceptable epistemological theory.
I have no problem with
I have no problem with religions claiming god does not exist in the physical world, or claiming God is a "spiritual truth". Plenty of things don't exist in the physical world... ethics exist in a moral world, they represent normative truthes, Spider-Man exists in the "Marvel Comics world", etc.
Claiming God does not exist in the physical world puts it on par with Superman and the tooth fairy. This is not what religion holds.
I can perfectly accept the "feeling of god" as a sensory input, but from that sensation does not follow the set of property usually attributed to god. People feel "something", they cannot invalidate by that sensation the fact that God created the universe for exemple.
Actually morals do exist in the physical world
Morals exist in the physical world the same way that software does. That is if you are talking about actual morals that people follow and are instatiated in their beliefs. Just like there are plenty of potential humans that don't exist there are plenty of potential moral systems that don't exist. Likewise humans die and moral systems die. Like the moral system of the Aztecs. It once existed in this world but no longer does.
People feel "something",
I find it curious you're willing to allow people feel "something" but not to allow that people feel "God created the universe." Why should the data be limited to the presence of something and not extend to the properties of that presence?
Religion, what good is it?
Leaving aside the truth or falsity of the concept of god, the evil done by believers and the mutual exclusiveness of various theological dogmas, the near universality of religions in developed societies needs explanation. Also the reason the major religions enlarged and spread from one society to another, sometimes with no evidence of violent coercion needs to be addressed. Why is not the next step after primitive religion such as sun worship, atheism? Why do major universities have large schools of theology but there are few departments of paranormal studies, let alone departments witch craft or atheistic studies?
There seems to be some theistic reality inhabiting man's psyche. Of course this does not prove god. It does beg for some explanation. Also, what happens when religion is jettisoned? Does everyone live happily ever after or do we get substitute variants of mass social movements which are potentially just as tyrannical.
Carl Sagan wrote a book about religion call The Demon Haunted World and then became haunted by ill founded fears of world wide apocalypse caused by nuclear war. So I don’t think we can escape from mass hysteria or irrationality by becoming atheists.
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense."
Carl Sagan
Dave
the near universality of
the near universality of religions in developed societies needs explanation.
The near universality of the flu virus too :)
A clear explanation of why god doesn't exist
Do I have to see something for it to be proved?
No, but you would be wise to have either direct/indirect evidence or reason to support your belief in something's existence.
Will blunt intuition support it?
No, people have had blunt intuitions about all sorts of wrong things, from Zeus' existence to wearing hotpants. I would recommend using evidence or reason to support your belief in something's existence, particularly a big thing like God.
People speak all the time of feeling God's presence--does that suffice as proof?
No, people have spoken of feeling the presence of Allah, aliens, Luke Skywalker, tooth fairies, and all sorts of other non-existent things. I would stick with evidence or reason.
(A "feeling" that god is present is a sort of evidence, but it's not at all convincing evidence considering the alternative explanations of those feelings, which is illustrated by all the other make-believe things of which people "feel the presence.")
Will simple reason supply proof (of the vintage we typically use to justify many a mathematical axiom)?
If you can provide convincing reason that I as a current non-believer in the existence of God can also apply to understand that God does exist, sure. Please provide that reasoning. So far every piece of reasoning that purports to prove the existence of God would work equally well to provide the existence of Allah, Zeus, tooth fairies, or any other supernatural "explanation."
How does one get around Hume's problem of induction?
If you give up induction, then you still don't have any reason or evidence to believe in gods or anything supernatural. You also give up any reason to believe in reason, and for that matter you give up any "you" to believe or reason or do anything else. There's never any reason to prefer any one supernatural explanation (e.g. gods, etc.) over any other supernatural explanation (tooth fairies, invisible pink unicorns, devils, poop fairies, etc.).
I have evidence of poop's existence and a rational explanation of how it came about. Can you offer me any evidence or reason to believe that anything supernatural whatsoever exists?
If you are against proselytization
Then stop doing it. I don't share your opinion on this and yet you keep trying to convert me. At least you do in the same sense that Dawkins or Hitchens do. I don't find Smullyan's argument persuasive because how you arrive at a position is far more important than that you got there. For some atheists like me it's journey not destination. I disagree with Ilya Somin because I can't attack God's purported commands without expressing how I arrived at different conclusions.
Let's Not Be Overly Cute
I didn't say I was against proselytization in every circumstance, just religion.
Atheism isn't a religion
Last I heard atheism isn't a religion.
Ok. Would you accept "in
Ok. Would you accept "in the field of religion?"
I would accept that but ...
then my original statement would stand. After all you are trying to convince us of something in "the field of religion". Something like atheists shouldn't express their opinions about religion.
I used to think of myself as not only an atheist but as a-religious. Probably because I associated religion with irrationality. I think that is not the case now. I still think all the traditional religions are irrational. I just think now that it might just be possible to have a rational religion. I wouldn't be opposed to that and frankly it might have it's benefits.
Damn its
I know. I know. "its" not "it's". That's my fingers doing the apostrophe on all possessives even when there is an exception to the rule.
This verges on Goedelian.
This verges on Goedelian. Fine, I'm against proselytization in the field of religion except for the proselytization against proselytization in that field.
However
You may be right as far as that goes. But I draw the line at proselytization in favor of proselytization against proselytization. On the other hand, proselytization against proselytization in favor of proselytization against proselytization is okay, in my book. And also...oh, look at the time. Gotta go.
Why?
I find your position strange. I'm not against religious proselytization in most cases. There are however exceptions. This list is not exhaustive:
I'm against:
1) Coercive religious proselytization
2) Defamatory religious proselytization
3) Fraudulent religious proselytization
4) Inciteful religious proselytization
5) Harrassing religious proselytization
6) Negligent religious proselytization
Thing is that if you removed the word "religious" from each I would still be against them. So it's not the religious part that bothers me.
However, certain religious beliefs will fall into these categories merely by being proselytized. For instance, the Koran states that Jews are greedy. That is certainly a gross overgeneralization and therefore most probably false, is harmful to Jews if believed, and is a considered a negative attribute. So it is by its very nature a defamatory statement once expressed as would be necessary if someone were to proselytize about it.
Same is true when preachers get on the pulpit and say atheists are evil, or are endangering others with their beliefs. Those are pretty serious charges to be making someone else with no empirical evidence. If nothing else it's negligence.
Supernatural
Is religion inherently supernatural?
As a matter of faith, I do not accept the supernatural. Yet, I would like to think that I am sensitive to the suffering of others and am filled with a sense of wonder at the subtle complexity of the world.
Am I not allowed to call these feelings religious?
You're allowed
but it's not accurate.
I too feel sensitive to the suffering of other, I too am filled with a sense of wonder at the subtle complexity of the world, that doesn't make me "religious". I can admire the complexity of the world without making the positive statement: "some being created that", and certainly not adding "and this being has such and such property".
Why not?
Don't see why not. A religion can be atheist. That doesn't make atheism a religion. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in god or gods.
Theism isn't a religion either
Think about it. No one belong to the religion "theism" either. Just like no one belongs to the religion atheism.
Tooth Fairy as Substitute for God
Don't know if anyone has already made this distinction because I didn't read all the comments. Many of them seem very long on wind and short on sense. It is not a sound rebuttal to insist on substituting the tooth fairy for God without discussion. This assertion in and of itself requires argumentation, and isn't sound because it begs the question.
By the way, for those of you who doubt the existence of the "tooth fairy," who put the money under my pillow? Does it matter that the "tooth fairy" and "my mother" refer to the same thing? It didn't when I was a kid and it surely doesn't really matter now.
Tooth fairies and gods
You should have read the discussion instead of calling it "very long on wind and short on sense," because then you would have known that your points have already been addressed, and you might have offered counter-points instead of name-calling. Nobody insisted on substituting the tooth fairy for God without discussion, you're free to compare God to whatever else you want, or to make a claim about God without comparing it to anything else at all.
And if you want to use the phrase "tooth fairy" to refer to your mother, that's fine in the same way that one could use "Jesus Christ" to refer to a dead Jewish carpenter, however I've never seen anyone who prays for forgiveness to the historical guy who resided in Nazareth. It's the magic powers people are after, whether with the tooth fairy or their deities.
Post new comment