Atheism is a religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not inconceivable Polaris, even without reference to power. It's hard for me to imagine what sort of process might run through that atheists mind - but it isn't too hard....if you get my drift. People do terrible things for all sorts of reasons.

[Polaris]

The way some atheists are going, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those few atheists (a small fraction of a very small fraction) they started imitating the worst fundemenatlsist in terms of their barbarism. Not to promote atheism, but out of a misguided approach to counter what they see as the evil of religion (or as the 20th century proved, to consolidate power). It's always about power, no matter the side (first thing that is taught in political science).

What kind of counters to religion do you see as dangerous? Currently, I'm not seeing more than a concerted effort to keep church and state separate and religion out of the science class room.

I'm basing it on what I saw from the 20th century throughout the world. Religion was seen by many nations as a threat to their own legitimacy. The religions they oppressed stood contrary to the own morals these leaders were promoting. Even though Christianity states for slaves to obey their masters and you would think it again would be referenced and used for nefarious purposes, it also stated for masters to take care of their slaves (something many of these leaders were against).

[The Grand Nudger]

-as organized religion still sees the state as a threat to it's legitimacy. They're both right, of course. It's those rare moments when the two set aside their personal differences to really give John Q a good dickin that makes the hackles stand up though, imo.

[Polaris]

That's true and it's always the innocents who end up suffering under either extreme.

[ManMachine]

I often wonder how much of a coincidence it is that the three modern prophets of atheism get spoken and written about together so much, why three? A trinity - perhaps. I find it fascinating. Try countering their ideologies in the forum and see how many will step forward with proverbial stones in hand...

MM

Perhaps because there are three of them?

Dawkins doesn't offer much philosophy, he's a scientist. Harris is more thoughtful about morality and advocates meditation or mindfulness. The man boarders on mystic. Hitchens is political and his views have changed over time. Can't imagine how anyone could follow this "trinity" anywhere coherent beyond lack of belief.

I think you are missing my point.

Firstly, there are more than three agnostic/atheist commentators in the world. I was raising a point I find interesting in that these three are often presented together in media like a 'trinity'. It's a comment on the media, not them.

Everybody has a system of belief, there is no such concept as lack of belief. The idea that religion is the only social construct that supports the human need for a system of belief is nonsense. I've not yet met a scientist who doesn't believe that scientific endeavour will lead to human progress. But the very idea of human progress is not a scientific one, there is no universal standard by which humans can be empirically measured, this irrational faith, that technology and knowledge will deliver human progress, is part of the system of belief that props up science.

What I am saying is that these systems of belief meet our human needs, whether they are religious or not. We can replace our prophets of god with prophets of science but that will not change a thing. Each generation will continue to irrationally believe they are more enlightened than the previous generation, we will continue to believe we have made progress as a species, we will continue to believe we are masters of our own destiny. All of these are not scientific facts, they are articles of faith born of our hubris, and the only reason we elevate these prophets is they support the delusions we have about ourselves.

MM

[Mudhammam]

MM, you seem to not recognize the difference between rational, evidenced-based philosophies that may or may not allow for naive optimism or be overly ego-centric and blind, retarded, religious devotion.

[ManMachine]

MM, you seem to not recognize the difference between rational, evidenced-based philosophies that may or may not allow for naive optimism or be overly ego-centric and blind, retarded, religious devotion.

I don't think religious devotion is retarded. The need to have systems of belief is hardwired into our brains. It's reasonable to suggest they have had some evolutionary benefit for us as a species for a period long enough they have become a permanent part of our neural structure.

I completely accept that we have no idea what form this took prior to the advent of writing, when humans were able to express these ideas in permanent form. But this was probably tens of thousands of years after the neural structures appeared in our brains.

What we can say is that systems of belief have performed a useful function for us, whatever that may be.

'Blind faith', as you put it, also has obvious evolutionary benefits. We need to take some information from others at face value without the need to go find the evidence for ourselves (e.g. don't go in that cave, there is a human eating bear in there).

I can rationalise the human need for both systems of belief and 'blind faith'.

If we accept this as a rational position then we can reason that religion as we know it today is probably predicated on these neural functions, it is also reasonable to ask the question that if these neural functions are still there even when we consciously reject organised religion, then they probably play a part in selecting whatever we choose to replace rejected religions.

That the system of belief we call religion does not require 'rational, evidenced-based philosophies' is beside the point. We make the rules up as we go along, most early scientific theories would not pass the falsifiability test if presented today, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of them, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is another.

You believe you are right because you believe you are more enlightened than previous, more religious generations because of your 'rational, evidenced-based philosophies', but this notion itself is not rational, there is nothing to scientifically measure this. This is nothing more than 'blind faith' in your own system of belief.

MM

[The Grand Nudger]

I would suggest that your use of the word belief makes the term a little less than useful. I don't have to believe in a man eating bear in a cave, and I don't have to believe that science will "deliver us" from anything. I can watch the bear eat a man, and we're definitely not at a loss to demonstrate all the ways in which science has delivered us. Natural hardwirings and evolutionary benefits aren't a compelling case for continuing in any particular behavior. I'm naturally hardwired to be aggressive. You don't want me stumbling around killing every tom dick and harry I come across, amiright? In any case, I don't actually think that we're talking about hardwiring, we're talking about words and their ability to paint a picture. You've made these things so by choice of vocab, which is cool......but it doesn't go much further than your narrative. We're hardwired to seek out survival strategies, belief being one of them - we're not hardwired for belief itself. Further, blind faith as evolutionary benefit is stretching it to point of breaking. If we were hardwired for such in-and-of-itself, or if it were truly blind, it wouldn't reflect the situation and environment of the believer - changing as that environment and their situation within it changes- and we wouldn't be losing said faith so rapidly.

I can't find (but if you can, please share) anything that suggests that "blind faith" or even "faith" as you've expressed it is a heritable trait - or any mechanism by which evolutionary processes in and of themselves would manufacture it as a trait. What I do see, is an inheritable trait that can be leveraged to produce the effect....or not.

[Jenny A]

[quote='Jenny A' pid='710969' dateline='1405636250']


Firstly, there are more than three agnostic/atheist commentators in the world. I was raising a point I find interesting in that these three are often presented together in media like a 'trinity'. It's a comment on the media, not them.

Everybody has a system of belief, there is no such concept as lack of belief. The idea that religion is the only social construct that supports the human need for a system of belief is nonsense. I've not yet met a scientist who doesn't believe that scientific endeavour will lead to human progress. But the very idea of human progress is not a scientific one, there is no universal standard by which humans can be empirically measured, this irrational faith, that technology and knowledge will deliver human progress, is part of the system of belief that props up science.

What I am saying is that these systems of belief meet our human needs, whether they are religious or not. We can replace our prophets of god with prophets of science but that will not change a thing. Each generation will continue to irrationally believe they are more enlightened than the previous generation, we will continue to believe we have made progress as a species, we will continue to believe we are masters of our own destiny. All of these are not scientific facts, they are articles of faith born of our hubris, and the only reason we elevate these prophets is they support the delusions we have about ourselves.

MM

Hmmm. Still don't see atheism as a religion or even a philosophy. Atheism by itself is at most a premise: I don't have a belief in god. It is not a system of anything.

It is possible to make science into a kind of religion though one can be a scientist without making science a religion or even a philosophy. Science is a useful method. But you don't have to know much or any science to lack a belief in god.

Belief in human progress is getting closer, but there are atheists who think we are going to hell (excuse me, nuclear oblivion or global warming toast) in a hand basket.

But although both might be hindered by a belief in god, neither science nor belief in human progress flows from a lack of belief in god.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think religious devotion is retarded. The need to have systems of belief is hardwired into our brains. It's reasonable to suggest they have had some evolutionary benefit for us as a species for a period long enough they have become a permanent part of our neural structure.

It's also reasonable to suggest that whatever benefit religion provided to our species, we've outgrown its functions. I say "we've" as in religion no longer offers any net benefits to mankind as a whole, though it might for those who believe in it, but these are not proven benefits, especially not in the way it probably was before humans had a rational methodology and a cohesive foundation for civilization, philosophy, science, HISTORY, etc.

'Blind faith', as you put it, also has obvious evolutionary benefits. We need to take some information from others at face value without the need to go find the evidence for ourselves (e.g. don't go in that cave, there is a human eating bear in there).

Not all things taken at face value are equal and not all can be rendered "blind faith." Clearly both the practical and evolutionary benefit of taking things at face value ends at a certain point (or reasonably should), and it does so long before religion in today's day and age.

I can rationalise the human need for both systems of belief and 'blind faith'.

No, you can't.

If we accept this as a rational position then we can reason that religion as we know it today is probably predicated on these neural functions, it is also reasonable to ask the question that if these neural functions are still there even when we consciously reject organised religion, then they probably play a part in selecting whatever we choose to replace rejected religions.

Yes, the neural functions which allow us to engage with the external world and measure what can be reliably said to exist independently of any single person's experience with it. Sorry, religion fails this simple test.

You believe you are right because you believe you are more enlightened than previous, more religious generations because of your 'rational, evidenced-based philosophies', but this notion itself is not rational, there is nothing to scientifically measure this. This is nothing more than 'blind faith' in your own system of belief.

MM

Okay, stop acting like you're deaf to every achievement mankind has made by actually following a paradigm informed by tools of a rigorous methodology designed to make knowledge more precise and to expose errors. I'm talking about the scientific method, which is what I utilize to form my beliefs, and for you to compare this to the religious method (believe, believe, believe! feel, feel, feel!) is incredibly naive or simply dishonest.