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...