Why atheists are not as rational as some think + Templeton funds more atheist-bashing

#21
(Sep 28, 2018 08:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Meanwhile, a new generation of postmodern atheists highlight the limits of human knowledge, and see scientific knowledge as hugely limited, problematic even, especially when it comes to existential and ethical questions. These atheists might, for example, follow thinkers like Charles Baudelaire in the view that true knowledge is only found in artistic expression.

I consider myself somewhat of a postmodern atheist. I don't jump on the bandwagon of scientism like most atheists do. That to me is a sort of continued religious devotion to an infallible authority and ideology.

I'm inclined to think that science is the best means that contemporary humanity has for understanding the physical universe that surrounds us.

But I do retain considerable skepticism as well. (I'm skeptical about just about everything.) There are just too many questions in the philosophy of science, questions that impact almost every aspect of scientific practice and belief, for me to grant science a "scripture"-like authority. It won't be the last and final word on reality until the many epistemological and metaphysical questions that science seemingly begs are finally answered.

Quote:My deepest objection to theism is simply the self-evident absence of God from every aspect of my experience. We never see him or hear from him or touch him.

That's a big part of why I don't personally believe in God. There's nothing that really persuades me.

It turns into an 'objection' when the question of believing in things for no plausible reason arises. If we go too far in that direction, we end up with psychiatric delusions. There really is a sort of epistemic value in having our beliefs conform as closely as possible with reality.
Reply
#22
Almost all of theology is an attempt to contrive some kind of convincing excuse for why God is never seen or heard. It is the core problem of theism, and despite their long torturous apologies for freewill and eschatology and God's special "unseeable and mysterious nature" nothing even comes close to resolving this issue. So ridiculous has been the attempts to justify God's absence from our world that they even had to invent a new virtue called "faith" that is needed to trust that God is really there when he clearly isn't. "Just have faith that God isn't really missing and he will reward you my son." What a farce that is! As if not believing your senses were some heroic accomplishment. To me it is the door to madness, as in fact mental illness is often linked to the unrelenting grip of religious delusions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173112/
Reply
#23
I'm an irrational atheist. I think that most humans are irrational. I’m sure it’s irrational to grieve something that never even existed. It’s been years but I still mourn the death of God.

"That's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."

It’s kind of interesting if you think about it. Whether its nature, science, love, or the love of god, we all need some form of escapism.

I loved this article.

Life Lessons from Goethe

[…]"Yet, far from ennobling its hero, "Werther" is actually a warning against what Goethe sees as a consuming spiritual disease. What kills Werther is not disappointed love but toxic self-centeredness, subjectivity run wild. Whether he is enjoying the sublimity of a landscape or the company of Charlotte, Werther is always really only involved with himself, his own ideas and emotions. “The rich and ardent feeling which filled my heart with a love of Nature, overwhelmed me with a torrent of delight, and brought all paradise before me, has now become an insupportable torment—a demon which perpetually pursues me,” he writes. The fatal complication of his illness is pride. Werther is not just miserable but proud of his misery, which he takes as proof that he is exceptionally sensitive—finer than the world that disappoints him. Having identified himself with the universe, he finds that when he is unhappy the universe becomes a prison.

So far, Werther strongly resembles Hamlet, who calls Denmark and the whole world a prison, “for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

[…]This might seem, as it did to many at the time, a waste of Goethe’s genius—like harnessing Pegasus to a cart. But Goethe, with the unerring instinct that seemed to guide him throughout his long life, had chosen the existence he needed—an existence as unlike Werther’s as possible. Instead of remaining focussed on his own passions and desires, he subdued his mind to the discipline of the objective, of work and responsibility. He turned toward objectivity in other ways as well, particularly in his study of science. Throughout his life, Goethe published scientific theories and “discoveries,” most of which were wrong and roundly ignored by the scientists of his day. But, while he failed to overthrow the Newtonian understanding of optics, Goethe found in science a necessary distraction from self."
Reply
#24
(Sep 29, 2018 06:46 PM)Yazata Wrote: I'm inclined to think that science is the best means that contemporary humanity has for understanding the physical universe that surrounds us.

But I do retain considerable skepticism as well. (I'm skeptical about just about everything.) There are just too many questions in the philosophy of science, questions that impact almost every aspect of scientific practice and belief, for me to grant science a "scripture"-like authority. It won't be the last and final word on reality until the many epistemological and metaphysical questions that science seemingly begs are finally answered.  
Since science cannot answer it own epistemological and metaphysical questions, and you think is it the best means to understand the physical universe, do you think philosophy, or some other discipline, can eventually rise to your desired level of confidence (i.e. "best means")?
It sounds like your reasoning justifies a perpetual agnosticism just as much as scientism or religion perpetuate themselves.
Quote:
Quote:My deepest objection to theism is simply the self-evident absence of God from every aspect of my experience. We never see him or hear from him or touch him.

That's a big part of why I don't personally believe in God. There's nothing that really persuades me.

It turns into an 'objection' when the question of believing in things for no plausible reason arises. If we go too far in that direction, we end up with psychiatric delusions. There really is a sort of epistemic value in having our beliefs conform as closely as possible with reality.
So you're skeptical of the epistemological foundations of scientific knowledge, but you still seem to rely sole on it as a measure of plausibility?
What science makes love plausible to you? Does it have no more significance to you than a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate long enough to raise children?
The reality is that certain beliefs do confer benefits, to both happiness and survival.

(Sep 29, 2018 07:09 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Almost all of theology is an attempt to contrive some kind of convincing excuse for why God is never seen or heard. It is the core problem of theism, and despite their long torturous apologies for freewill and eschatology and God's special "unseeable and mysterious nature" nothing even comes close to resolving this issue. So ridiculous has been the attempts to justify God's absence from our world that they even had to invent a new virtue called "faith" that is needed to trust that God is really there when he clearly isn't. "Just have faith that God isn't really missing and he will reward you my son." What a farce that is! As if not believing your senses were some heroic accomplishment. To me it is the door to madness, as in fact mental illness is often linked to the unrelenting grip of religious delusions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173112/

Yeah, a study about diagnosed mental illness does not speak to theism in general. And no, that does not link general religiosity to mental illness....no matter how much you may wish it.

And you have yet to give the faintest refute for what I've already told you. Irrefutable evidence of god would bar the sane free will to disbelieve, just like denying the sun exists. You'd have to refute that before your bare assertion that "nothing even comes close to resolving this issue" holds any water at all. And every bare assertion just makes you sound as dogmatic as a fundamentalist.

faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I pity you if you don't have complete confidence in at least one person. I would consider the inability to do so a character flaw, even completely aside from religion or god. Maybe faith is a general life lesson. Faith is not about disbelieving your senses (again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence*); it's about believing your reason, intuition, etc..


*Another thing you're either too ignorant or too dogmatic to effectively refute.
Reply
#25
Quote:I pity you if you don't have complete confidence in at least one person.

Spare me your fake sympathy. I put my trust (not faith) in real flesh and blood people--my family members. Not in an alleged magical being nobody ever sees or hears from.
Reply
#26
(Sep 29, 2018 08:34 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:I pity you if you don't have complete confidence in at least one person.

Spare me your fake sympathy. I put my trust (not faith) in real flesh and blood people--my family members. Not in a being nobody ever sees or hears from.

There is nothing fake about pitying anyone who can't trust (your phobia to certain words aside) completely. Faith in the divine goodness in others does lend itself to trust in others and oneself. There would be little reason to have faith if it didn't have an appreciable effect on people's lives.

Again, telling what arguments you arduously avoid.
Reply
#27
Quote:There is nothing fake about pitying anyone who can't trust (your phobia to certain words aside) completely.

Are you an illiterate idiot? I just told you I trust my family members. And that is not a faith in "divine goodness". It is a trust in a very human and unconditional love.
Reply
#28
(Sep 29, 2018 08:54 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:There is nothing fake about pitying anyone who can't trust (your phobia to certain words aside) completely.

Are you an illiterate idiot? I just told you I trust my family members. And that is not a faith in "divine goodness". It is a trust in a very human and unconditional love.

Are you? I didn't say otherwise.
I was obviously speaking to the accusation of "fake sympathy".
Regardless of what you may imagine, I didn't refute who you trust (as no one can refute such subjective things).

It is a faith (complete trust) in their goodness. If you believe that goodness is just a result of social/evolutionary pressures, what happens if those pressures change? Otherwise, where does such goodness come from? Inherent? Why would a species evolved by happenstance be inherently good? Why would such a species by anything but amoral?
Reply
#29
(Sep 29, 2018 09:25 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Sep 29, 2018 08:54 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:There is nothing fake about pitying anyone who can't trust (your phobia to certain words aside) completely.

Are you an illiterate idiot? I just told you I trust my family members. And that is not a faith in "divine goodness". It is a trust in a very human and unconditional love.

Are you? I didn't say otherwise.
I was obviously speaking to the accusation of "fake sympathy".
Regardless of what you may imagine, I didn't refute who you trust (as no one can refute such subjective things).

It is a faith (complete trust) in their goodness. If you believe that goodness is just a result of social/evolutionary pressures, what happens if those pressures change? Otherwise, where does such goodness come from? Inherent? Why would a species evolved by happenstance be inherently good? Why would such a species by anything but amoral?

You're kidding. Why would love and altruism evolve in family relationships? Because it enhances the survival of the members to cohere as a group. There is nothing divine about it. It is the bond of kinship that contributes to the well-being and survival of all the members. This is simply self-evident.
Reply
#30
(Sep 29, 2018 09:31 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Sep 29, 2018 09:25 PM)Syne Wrote: It is a faith (complete trust) in their goodness. If you believe that goodness is just a result of social/evolutionary pressures, what happens if those pressures change? Otherwise, where does such goodness come from? Inherent? Why would a species evolved by happenstance be inherently good? Why would such a species by anything but amoral?

You're kidding. Why would love and altruism evolve in family relationships? Because it enhances the survival of the members to cohere as a group. There is nothing divine about it. It is the bond of kinship that contributes to the well-being and survival of all the members. This is simply self-evident.

You need to learn what "self-evident" means.

self-ev·i·dent
not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious.

Explaining it in terms of evolution and survival is the opposite of "not needing to be explained".


So your trust of your family is just a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate?
Does it have nothing to do with their individual characteristics? Do you even have a choice in the matter?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Atheist funerals Magical Realist 1 122 Jul 29, 2018 07:52 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Atheist Qualification Zinjanthropos 20 952 Aug 21, 2017 02:53 AM
Last Post: Syne
  My life as an atheist + How to laugh at God C C 1 158 Apr 8, 2017 03:39 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Six kinds of atheist Magical Realist 2 798 Jan 19, 2015 10:51 PM
Last Post: Yazata



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)