Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[Duty]

[Jackalope]

[Gwaithmir]

Of the hundreds of non-believers I've met over the last 36 years, the only genuinely angry atheists/anti-theists who I knew personally were Madalyn Murray-O'Hair and her son Jon.

[vulcanlogician]

My comment was more directed towards people who unjustifiably claim authority when they have none.

I am constantly surprised that so many people posting on the internet have such wide-ranging interests these days, and can support their positions with any number of references to books and websites.  It seems to me a rather substantial segment of the general population is continuing their education on their own, and that internet discussions are yet another means by which they widen their horizons.

Authority is not something you either have or you don't.  Everyone knows certain things to certain degrees.  That's what makes these discussions so interesting.

Yeah, forgive me for being a bit of a pessimist. It's in my nature. I'm an introverted pessimist who's trying very hard not to be a misanthrope. I'll admit: real progress has been made as far as the general "knowledgeableness" of people, especially in the last few decades... and the past two centuries. But I tend to focus on how much more work there is to be done. In my defense, however, I'll add that there is a shitload of more work to be done. I wouldn't impose this on the general populace, either, if I wasn't willing to impose it on myself.

I am committed to increasing my own knowledge/understanding concerning a great many things. And I don't allow myself shortcuts. If I haven't learned something, I don't pretend to have learned it. And more importantly: I acknowledge the boundaries of my own knowledge.

What gripes me pretty hard is that (in some religious circles) folks are encouraged to disregard the limits of their knowledge-- fundamentalists are a good example. You don't really understand the origins of life or the universe? Don't go to college for six years studying it. Read three short paragraphs from an ancient book, and use that as justification to oppose science.

But fundamentalists are just exemplars of a problem which (though more dilute) is found throughout the population. People are encouraged to project "confidence"... which sometimes means acting as if one is certain when one isn't. Those who can do so earn success and can then, in turn, influence many others. And those who project uncertainty aren't taken as seriously because they don't "confidently project knowledge." ... even though uncertainty will carry you from non-knowledge to knowledge faster than assuming you already know ever could... oops... there I go being pessimistic again. I'll see myself out now.

[Belacqua]

But fundamentalists are just exemplars of a problem which (though more dilute) is found throughout the population. People are encouraged to project "confidence"... which sometimes means acting as if one is certain when one isn't.

I share your pessimism. 

And as always, I find this misplaced confidence more troubling when I see it in people who really ought to know better. We expect it in creationists or other pure ideologues. We have no excuse for letting it go by when it shows up in people like ourselves. 

To me, this is one of the differences between regular old atheists and so-called New Atheists. If we don't believe, we can just say we don't believe, without pretending that we also understand all the theological arguments. But some people who don't believe also assume that they are qualified to pass judgment on things they've never studied. 

The worst example I can think of off hand is in Dawkins' book, where he thinks he has rebutted Thomas Aquinas. This is in a book put out by a [formerly] reputable publisher, but apparently nobody bothered to check whether his argument was embarrassingly bad or not. I mean -- he lives in Oxford, which is probably the town with the most English-speaking people in the world who understand Thomas Aquinas. Yet he didn't walk across the street to ask someone who knows better than he does. He just assumes that because the argument is Christian, it must be stupid. (Even my own editor, in a much less high-priced publishing company, called me out when I used a pre-Cantor definition of infinity. Yet nobody did such a favor for Dawkins.) 

I don't know whether the false assumption of expertise is worse now, or whether we just see it more because of the Internet. But it's pretty glaringly obvious in any field you happen to know something about.

[Alan V]

What gripes me pretty hard is that (in some religious circles) folks are encouraged to disregard the limits of their knowledge-- fundamentalists are a good example.

There will always be a segment of the population who argues from dogma rather than information, and yes, they are largely anti-intellectual. I am pessimistic about their chances of changing too, since they are intellectually lazy or dishonest, and are usually much more interested in advancing socially than it checking their assumptions.

What bothers me the most is that they vote in such numbers.

So perhaps this should not be a discussion about anti-theists so much as about pro-intellectuals.

[Agnostico]

[Alan V]

The default position in science is agnostic.

I disagree. The default position in science should be to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Thus dismissive atheism, when theists promote their unwarranted assumptions.

[Agnostico]

I disagree.  The default position in science should be to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  Thus dismissive atheism, when theists promote their unwarranted assumptions.

               Ooooo "unwarranted" good one i like it
Strong beliefs for or against religion are unwarranted in science
                            Facts over feelings

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[quote='Agnostico' pid='1867488' dateline='1544650896']
Intersting and again varying responses.

Why the large font?