Is Atheism Intellectual Cowardice?

[Angrboda]

Is Atheism Intellectual Cowardice?

• like
  
• don't
  

What the fuck is this shit. The question calls for an opinion as to a potential fact, and the answer is given in terms of like or don't like? That would have been a more appropriate choice set for, "Cowardly Atheists?" The verb to be in the question requires an existential response. Not a facebook up vote.


Grumble, grumble, grumble.

Since the lack or a possession of a belief in a god has not been demonstrated to correlate systematically with differences in character, indeed the reverse, the only logical answer is that there are roughly as many cowardly atheists as there are cowardly theists; and likely just as many brave atheists as brave theists. You can substitute most any human trait you can think of, and the answer is going to be the same. The only traits that superficially have some level of scientific support is the notion that there may be more suicidal atheists than suicidal theists, per capita. (Though, having looked at a couple of the studies supporting this conclusion, I have good reason to believe this result rests on a mountain of methodological flaws.) Historically it has been presumed that there are more charitable theists than charitable atheists, but new approaches to that question have put that conclusion in doubt. Therefore, since there is no correlation between cowardice in general with the atheistic position, it's unlikely there is a corollary intellectual cowardice.

I guess I'm fuzzy on the whole concept of "intellectual cowardice." Sounds like bullshit. But maybe that's because, intellectually, "am strong like tractor."

Google-fu to the rescue!

The following, randomly chosen author defines it thusly:

Intellectual cowardice is one of the many sins that an academic can be accused of (I believe it falls immediately after sloth but before not having tenure). When considering it three questions come to mind. First what is intellectual cowardice? Secondly, why is it bad? And, thirdly, how does it actually manifest itself? Defining intellectual cowardice is the easiest of these three tasks, and so I will start with that. To say that someone is demonstrating intellectual cowardice is to say that they are simultaneously putting forward a claim as a claim and refusing to stand by it. For example, a scientist could demonstrate intellectual cowardice by presenting an empirical generalization on the basis of data but refusing to stand by that generalization as a good one. Intellectual cowardice is motivated by a fear of being shown to be wrong, hence its name, but at the same time desiring to recognized for intellectual accomplishments.

—

If that definition is taken at face value (not necessarily endorsing such), it would appear clear that the question should be reversed, as many apologists, creationists, intelligent design crea-propotionists are frequently documented lying, dishonestly representing the evidence, hiding evidentiary failures and all manner of intellectual cowardice. Moreover, since atheists are a religious minority, and a despised one at that, it would seem de rigeur for an atheist to stand behind her assertions, as they are at greater peril from evidentiary failure. So, no, on that definition, it would seem that theists more frequently display intellectual cowardice than atheists.

But that's only one definition; I'm open to others.

As to agnostics, I used to think they were cowardly fence sitters, fence sitters only one notch on the coward-o-meter further than weak atheists. Anymore, I think agnostics are simply confused, likely due to improper analysis of the question. And I'm moving away from separating atheists out along the lines of weak, strong, and anti-supernaturalist, and am more interested in finding the causes and commonality of the socio-epistemic processes that lead each to their position. There is something identifiably familiar and common that is shared between them that allows them to say to each other, "Hey, you're one of us," and that something isn't clear from the "belief statement" paradigm for atheism.

But that's in general how I look at all social groups bound together into shared social spaces and discourses — this stuff happening up top, at the "belief" level — gives the appearance of significant and both qualitative and quantitative differences, say between weak atheist, Buddhist, Christian and agnostic, when if you step down a few levels into the base operations of the brain, what's happening is largely the same: agonizing behaviors which antagonize discomfort (increase behaviors that reduce discomfort), antagonize behaviors which agonize discomfort (reduce engaging in things that make it worse), developing and maintaing models of the environment, develop and maintain skills which exploit the environment, and so on. On that view, while their are some neurological differences between a brain entertaining religious beliefs, that difference is only one of degree, and so essentially what you have is a bunch of minds, each at a different place in their programs, and many different programs — but underneath, the hardware, and what it's doing, is largely the same.

If anything, the only real emotional qualifier I would attach to the spectrum is that agnostics have embraced a position that is fundamentally incoherent. But that's okay. That's okay because that's simply where they are in their particular program in attempting to manage those questions. The agnostic isn't herself faulty, but it "appears" from another perspective — mine — that there are nearby program states which have considerably greater instrumental utility in dealing with their world and environment. But it always looks easy to someone else who isn't there...

[Brian37]

Intellectually, there is not much difference between an Atheist and a Theist. As a species we have only existed for a miniscule amount of time compared to the age of the universe(~14 Billion years according to Scientists). Of this time we have only been studying Science in a rigorous sense for ~ 300 years. It is no exageration to say that, although we have learned a lot in that time, we have much to learn in the future. In fact, it is not just that we do not know everything, but we do not even know how much we don't know.

From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability, based upon current scientific knowledge. But probability is only based upon uncertainty and therefore, any claim that God does not exist must be, in the end, a belief (even if based upon the latest empirical and scientific evidence). From this perspective an Atheist and a Theist both share something in common - belief.

Atheism cannot, therefore, be ascerted based upon certain knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the truly honest position of any member of humanity is Agnostic. It is intellectual cowardice, on the part of Atheists, not to accept the rational conclusions that reason leads to - namely, that no definitive statement can be about the existence/or not of God, due to lack of knowledge.

I hate this fallacy of equivocation that gaps in scientific knowledge means anything goes by default. Cowardice is when someone tells you the earth rotates around the sun and then you have that person jailed because you don't like reality.

Whe have recorded hurricans for centuries without knowing how they manifested. Now we do the conditions that lead to them. But when we didn't, did not make Posiden the cause when we didn't know.

There is no equality in claims between science and theism. Theism is rooted in comic book pasts based on the wishful thinking of the writers of holy books and is nowhere near the high standard of testing and falsification of moderen scientific method.

FACT, thoughts require a material process. There is no scientific example of a thought occuring outside of biological evolution. Combine that with the scientific ignorance of most humans, especially in antiquity, and combine that with the fact that there is abundant evidence that humans make up gods, the meter leads to obvious. PEOPLE MAKE UP GODS.

There is lots in science we have yet to discover, but cowardice is when you refuse to throw away bad claims and simply cling to them because of some stupid sense of fairness. Human rights is not the issue, the ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim is the issue. And so far humans have come up with only ONE universal way to test and falsify and verify claims.

AND atheism is not equal to science for that matter. Atheist can and do have varying degrees of education. All "atheist" means, is not holding a belief in a god or gods. Their justifications can be as vairied as a theist.

All claims are NOT equal by default.

"The sun is a god"
"The sun is a burning ball of gas"

If you can accept that the first is false, and the second is true, then what lead us to the fact of the second is the tool we used to know the truth. Allowing the childish mentality that claims are equal is what keeps us from future discovery.I am tired of the bullshit claim that we should never discard some ancient superstition merely because it is popular.

Intelectual cowards cling to the past. Intelectual bravery is the willingness to accept when one is wrong.

Otherwise Santa is real because children like believing it and we shouldn't upset them with the truth that he is not.

[frankiej]

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Many atheists are cowards.

But atheism as a whole isn't cowardice, no.

[Brian37]

Many atheists are cowards.

But atheism as a whole isn't cowardice, no.

The 19 hijackers were brave in slamming the planes into the buildings. And you wont find Christians that wouldnt take a granade on D day to save Jesus.

Atheism is not cowardice because it is not about testosterone. Atheism is not bravery or cowadice. Humans in all of history even prior to Islam and Christianity chose to fight or flee and atheists are no different.

I think humanity's probem is male testosterone more than politics and religion. Our brawn as a species seems to dominate any compassion we know we have as a species.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Many atheists are cowards.

But atheism as a whole isn't cowardice, no.

The 19 hijackers were brave in slamming the planes into the buildings. And you wont find Christians that wouldnt take a granade on D day to save Jesus.

Atheism is not cowardice because it is not about testosterone. Atheism is not bravery or cowadice. Humans in all of history even prior to Islam and Christianity chose to fight or flee and atheists are no different.

I think humanity's probem is male testosterone more than politics and religion. Our brawn as a species seems to dominate any compassion we know we have as a species.

Have you thought about joining Atheism+?

They hate testosterone and men as much as you do.

[Oregon Alley Cat]

I tend to disagree with you. I view atheism as, simply put, the absence of belief in god, or gods, or spirits, and the supernatural in general. There is no evidence to suggest that anything supernatural exists. It seems to me that the morally superior position is to admit this and view metaphysical claims with doubt and disbelief unless and until the evidence comes in. I view it as somewhat dishonest to look at things in the universe that we dont understand (yet) and try to shoehorn in a "god did it".

[Polaris]

Atheism is only intellectual cowardice if any atheist foolishly uses the excuse of being an atheist for not needing to continue the lifelong passion of studying and expanding one's knowledge....I've seen it but I am glad it is quite rare.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Atheism is only intellectual cowardice if any atheist foolishly uses the excuse of being an atheist for not needing to continue the lifelong passion of studying and expanding one's knowledge -of my god-....I've seen it but I am glad it is quite rare.-

Fixed that for you troll.

[Polaris]

Nope. On general academia. A few atheists compare themselves to the stereotypical theist and get the impression they don't need to further their lifelong education because they are just content with up-staging Fundies. Again, thankfully, these atheists are few and far between. The only reason they even show up at all is because of the pervasiveness of the internet.