Community help for Non-Cognitive?

[Angrboda]

Meh. The Taoist in me wants to say something cheeky, like maybe "It's not who you are on the inside that matters, it's what you are on the outside."

Still, I recognize the validity of the question, but am averse to doing any heavy lifting tonight. Other than to note that there is a similarly named group of ethical theories; not sure I see much greater parallels than that.

Although I'm deeply religious, and as hard nosed a materialist as you'll find here, I don't find myself breaking the world up into discrete cognitive states known as belief. This has been, and may still be, an important issue in eliminative materialism (see Stich for example); I'm just not sure even if 'belief' and its static, qualitative aspects are real that it is a useful way of carving up the world.

Anyway, I'm rambling because I have nothing substantive to say, other than that non-cognitivism may be a superficial concept which is at odds with deep structure and the nature, of, well, nature, as reflected by minds and evolution.

[jonb]

Dear apophenia, I am sorry to have to tell you this, but are you aware you have put on weight, you seem a little wider these days, maybe one picture to many? It has expanded your waist so much that I cannot read to the ends of your lines without reducing you a little. I hope as a Taoist you don't get overly upset with this comment on your superficial nature.
love and best wishes

[Angrboda]

Dear apophenia, I am sorry to have to tell you this, but are you aware you have put on weight, you seem a little wider these days, maybe one picture to many? It has expanded your waist so much that I cannot read to the ends of your lines without reducing you a little. I hope as a Taoist you don't get overly upset with this comment on your superficial nature.
love and best wishes

It's likely a temporary effect, a result of loading up on sweets in this the Halloween season. I may (should?) try to cut back once the excitement has subsided.(**)


(**) A couple on another forum uses an animated gif that cycles through various still photos for their avatars, resulting in an avatar that changes from one moment to the next viewing; perhaps I can do that with my signature.

[mralstoner]

TROC, you seem to have two concerns that are not shared by the atheist community:

1 - An emphasis on life after religion, rather than on arguments against god's existence.
2 - An understanding of the emotional needs that drive us, regardless of our beliefs.

Point 1 suggests that you would be more interested in humanism (in the broad sense of the word) rather than atheism/skepticism. Humanist writers include Paul Kurtz, Robert Ingersoll, James Croft, Susan Jacoby, and Alain de Botton (though he calls himself a philosopher).

Point 2 suggests that you would be interested in authors who (unlike most atheists) understand the full relationship between reason and emotion i.e. that reason informs us, but emotion moves us. Pure reason cannot move us, we require emotion to have drive/motivation e.g. David Hume, Epicurus, Bertrand Russell, Antonio Damasio, Jonathan Haidt, Drew Westen, David Brooks, George Lakoff, etc.

You might like this video:
The Best Argument for Atheism: Emotional Attention



Also, I would not be so quick to draw a distinct line between yourself and "cognitive" atheists. To my knowledge, nobody can prove god does not exist. Nor can anyone prove he is even less than 50% likely to exist. We can point out logical fallacies in religious arguments but, beyond that, I don't think anyone can statistically say that god is unlikely to exist. My point is that even the most "cognitive" atheist still has to admit that seemingly impossible gods still might exist. Hence, when you get down to it, all atheists either make a guess or (more likely) choose atheism as an emotional preference (though many internet atheists will vehemently deny this - which is often a good indication of someone who can't refute the point with logic).

This was true in my own case. No matter how much I thought god was impossible/unlikley I still couldn't definitely say he doesn't exist. Nor could I even say he was less than 50% likely to exist. In the end, I had to admit uncertainty, and hence chose to ignore god because of my emotional preference for getting this infernal nonsense out of my head and getting on with my life.

Richard Dawkins creates a scale of theistic probability and puts himself 6 out of 7 in non-belief, but he appears to have plucked this number out of the air (i.e. it's an emotional preference).

So, I don't think there really is a distinct line between cognitive and non-cognitive atheists.

If I were you, I would simply call yourself some brand of humanist.

I can expand on these topics if something interests you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Speaking of avatars, before I get too giddy......where'd you grab that new one Apo?

[Whateverist]

TROC, you seem to have two concerns that are not shared by the atheist community:

1 - An emphasis on life after religion, rather than on arguments against god's existence.
2 - An understanding of the emotional needs that drive us, regardless of our beliefs.

Point 1 suggests that you would be more interested in humanism (in the broad sense of the word) rather than atheism/skepticism. Humanist writers include Paul Kurtz, Robert Ingersoll, James Croft, Susan Jacoby, and Alain de Botton (though he calls himself a philosopher).

Point 2 suggests that you would be interested in authors who (unlike most atheists) understand the full relationship between reason and emotion i.e. that reason informs us, but emotion moves us. Pure reason cannot move us, we require emotion to have drive/motivation e.g. David Hume, Epicurus, Bertrand Russell, Antonio Damasio, Jonathan Haidt, Drew Westen, David Brooks, George Lakoff, etc.

Wonderful post .. albeit not an evaluation based upon reason alone. I saw you only have one rep point and thought "shit, someone beat me to it." But then when I trudged off to become number two found that I was already number one. Yay.

So do you just not hang out here much? Is there another forum you frequent that is more balanced cognitively/emotively? Maybe I should check it out.

[TROC]

Thanks very much mralstoner;

Particularly the author advice! Your atheism and mine might have similar roots and dispositions (proof/disproof/un-provable/improbable?... heck I just don’t believe).

I guess I've been focused on the whole non-cog in the interpersonal aspect; allow me to illustrate by contrast:

I've learned that in dealing with the majority population that I should declare myself as an atheist out of courtesy. If a Christian says "would you like some Jesus?" I say (calmly, politely yet confidently and firmly) "Thank you... no... I'm an atheist". When I was very young I thought that if I should say I'm agnostic I would be able to avoid silly arguments but found that though I am (like any healthy person) logically/rationally agnostic, and a humanist; If I should describe myself as such to a Christian - particularly an evangelist - they are left with the mistaken impression that I'm undecided or might benefit from some Jesus. This results in an ineffective conversation as they try to sell me a product I've no interest in. I travel and work in rural/evangelical areas so I had to learn to avoid this type of thing.

When I've done it the proper (and candid) way by accurately but politely declaring my atheism; 80% of the time they may look surprised but end up saying "oh..." and we go about our business. 20% of the time they are actually inquisitive (I keep in mind we atheists represent <2% of the population and something of a 'mythical beast' to most people) and they end up asking me lots of questions - not interrogating just inquisitive. These conversations are pleasant for me, I enjoy them. << 1% of the time I'll bump into a whacky unpleasant person who will rile about Jesus (actually only 2 in 40 years and the first was a young person who I think had some emotional issues that neither I nor Jesus could help with so I have difficulty 'counting' it, and another who was much older and dealing with clear mortality concerns so I have a hard time counting that one either).

Bottom Line: as a result of thinking and practice I have built up a good, honest, highly effective communication strategy for dealing the majority population. Not so with my own.

You mention the 'internet' community, but I can confirm in experience over the last year that it happens on the ground in groups and conferences also. Describing myself as an atheist among atheists is something of an invitation to have a harumph about how dumb Christians are, or have yet another debate about why pascal's wager is a bad idea... Dawkins is and excellent example: Why did we just spend two chapters in an adventure of butchering the disciplines of probability and statistics make an emotional decision in the end? I find that kind of behavior detestable.

In the end I may need to describe myself as an atheist among Christians and a humanist/agnostic among atheists, but it seems a bit sub-optimal for me and I'm not entirely comfortable with it yet.

---

So do you just not hang out here much? Is there another forum you frequent that is more balanced cognitively/emotively? Maybe I should check it out.

I've been looking for somewhere to hang out that is more cognitively/emotively focused (both forum and in person), haven't found it yet. I just started being 'active' in the last year though so I came here to start asking around. mralstoner's book list is a good start both for my reading but forums where discuss dawkins=false, discuss Jacoby=true is also a good start.

If I bump into something I'll report back!

[Angrboda]

Speaking of avatars, before I get too giddy......where'd you grab that new one Apo?

rasetsu is the Japanese word for rakshasa, which is a demon in Buddhism and Hinduism, and my name on another forum. In addition to being a traditional subject, there is a manga 'rasetsu' which has inspired a lot of fan art. I just googled rasetsu.

[mralstoner]

So do you just not hang out here much? Is there another forum you frequent that is more balanced cognitively/emotively? Maybe I should check it out.

I lurk on a few atheist/humanist forums but I find the anti-religion stuff boring, so I tend to wait until the occasional interesting topic comes up.

The most balanced forum I've found is:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

There's a few people who call themselves 'emotivists' there.

Ideally we need a new forum, but I don't have the capacity to start one, so I wait in hope. I may start a blog about the topic soon though.

If you have a specific question I can try and answer it.

[mralstoner]

Bottom Line: as a result of thinking and practice I have built up a good, honest, highly effective communication strategy for dealing the majority population. Not so with my own.

You mention the 'internet' community, but I can confirm in experience over the last year that it happens on the ground in groups and conferences also. Describing myself as an atheist among atheists is something of an invitation to have a harumph about how dumb Christians are, or have yet another debate about why pascal's wager is a bad idea...

In the end I may need to describe myself as an atheist among Christians and a humanist/agnostic among atheists, but it seems a bit sub-optimal for me and I'm not entirely comfortable with it yet.

I see your point. In Australia we are largely non-religious these days, so the topic rarely comes up at all. I understand it's different in the USA. But I agree that if I were to attend an atheist/humanist group here, I expect there would be the same harumph and religion-bashing. The big atheist convention we had this year in Melbourne looked much the same.

Regarding what to call ourselves, I answered a similar question at Atheist Nexus the other day. My main point was that the word choice was not the main problem. Rather, it was a lack of organisation/identity/community behind the idea. So if we had an internet forum or formal organisation that had a complete view of emotion and reason, then we would have more impact and respect in both the atheist and general community.

But, that said, the word choice is still important. Paul Kurtz ("the father of humanism") recognised the complementary nature of emotion and reason and created a word "eupraxsophy" to include both (eu = well/good/happy, praxis = conduct, sophia = wisdom):

... one of the great failures of the atheist and freethought movement may be attributed to the fact that it was largely cerebral and cognitive in function ...

... in spite of the scientific/technological revolution, the secularist outlook will not succeed in enlisting human devotion and dedication unless it appeals not simply to the mind, but to the hearts of men and women; unless, that is, it is able to arouse and stimulate feeling, and unless there is some intensity of emotion.

And that is why I think that the term "humanism" is crucial, because humanism is an effort to suggest that if we reject God and proclaim that "God is dead," we need to affirm human worth ... Humanism has a basic cognitive aspect, and it involves a commitment to rationalism ... But humanism involves not simply that, but a way of life. Humanism must address itself to the heart and the passions; it must have some relevance to practice and conduct; and it must have some effect upon how we live. I submit that broadly conceived the freethought movement has failed in that direction ...

True, but we need a word more self explanatory than eupraxsophy - because the public has no idea what it means without an explanation. Someone on the philosophy forum called themselves a rational emotivist. That's closer to the mark.

I've been looking for somewhere to hang out that is more cognitively/emotively focused (both forum and in person), haven't found it yet. I just started being 'active' in the last year though so I came here to start asking around. mralstoner's book list is a good start both for my reading but forums where discuss dawkins=false, discuss Jacoby=true is also a good start.

I don't think such a group exists yet, either in reality or on the internet. Someone will probably have to start a new forum. I will try to start a blog and do a short video on the topic of emotion and reason, but that's about all I can do.

If we had a forum to educate people, then people could take these ideas to existing humanist groups and broaden their outlook. Humanist groups should be teaching the complementary nature of emotion and reason, so that is the place where we should take these ideas, and change the groups from within, rather than creating a new group. If that fails, you can always start your own group.