Is Religious Neutrality a Myth?

[GeorgCantor]

I lived 13 years in communism(until its fall in 1989) in a Eastern European country where atheism was the predominat doctrine about why anything exists. For good or bad, the number of atheists around these parts is probably higher than anywhere else and the atheist attitude is generally taken for granted among people who don't know each other. Yet, the most number of militant atheists I've seen so far are from the relatively religeous US. Is militant atheism(sometimes militant to the point of absurdity) a knee-jerk reaction to people having been coerced into a religion they didn't want in their early lives? I mean, if something terrible didn't happen, what motivates a person to become and react so irritated every time they hear the word god?

 

[Cyrus]

I lived 13 years in communism(until its fall in 1989) in a Eastern European country where atheism was the predominat doctrine about why anything exists. For good or bad, the number of atheists around these parts is probably higher than anywhere else and the atheist attitude is generally taken for granted among people who don't know each other. Yet, the most number of militant atheists I've seen so far are from the relatively religeous US. Is militant atheism(sometimes militant to the point of absurdity) a knee-jerk reaction to people having been coerced into a religion they didn't want in their early lives? I mean, if something terrible didn't happen, what motivates a person to become and react so irritated every time they hear the word god?

Because my fellow AMERUIKANS just LOVE to proselytize. And try to rewrite science, and government policy.

 

[brainstorm]

Because my fellow AMERUIKANS just LOVE to proselytize.

This is what came up when I googled the word, proselytize:

pros·e·lyt·ize/ˈpräsələˌtīz/Verb
1. Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another: "the program had a tremendous effect, proselytizing many"; "proselytizing for converts".
2. Advocate or promote (a belief or course of action).

Do you think that religion is the only thing people proselytize with?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Freedom of incorrect thought is protected from govt interference over here and so runs rampant. This provides a great deal of irritation to those of us who entertain correct thoughts. Fortunately, private umbrage against other peoples' exercise of their freedom is also protected. Thus we all fed up to the eyeballs with each other at the tops of our tongues. Freedom is noisy.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is not; it is by definition correct. This is not argumentum ad populum, it's how language works.

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion. I would hope that definitions of terms within math, science and philosophy not be subject to the vagaries of pop-culture. If we decided to go by the popular interpretation of the word 'theory' in a philosophical discussion we would be making the same mistake.

Even though the term originated from a wider sense of "without gods", or equivalently "lack of belief", it is "unnatural", or "wrong" to insist on that being the true meaning.

I'm not arguing on the basis of origin or etymology. My point is simply that this is how the word is defined, and here are my citations to support that claim.

This is like conflating the LDS with the FLDS.

No, I am contrasting lack of belief to rejection of belief, I am not contrasting denial to rejection of belief. I see a difference between actively rejecting a belief, and passively not taking a stance.

Then I suspect we are talking about two different things. One can actively take a stance against belief in a deity without actively denying existence of said deity.

We don't commonly call small children atheists for example. And we don't commonly call various groups of people with a non-religious tradition and culture atheist. Some do, but these are the same people who insist on equating atheism with "lack of belief".

Lack of belief is just that, lack of belief. Atheism means something more.

If you say so. I have nothing more to add here.

 

[Gokul43201]

You're strawmanning by talking about a "leap of faith." I just posted that faith includes an everyday sense of belief in things that are empirically regarded as "real."

I was using the term "taking a leap of faith" synonymously with "having faith". There was no intended attempt at strawmanning. But I suspect my use of the word 'faith', as in something based not on empirical evidence but on dogma, is different from yours. Even within your definition, you must recognize that there is a difference in the degree to which one relies on faith in the context of science versus that of religion.

 

[Danger]

This is like conflating the LDS with the FLDS.

Who is inflating Mormons with fluid?

Freedom of incorrect thought is protected from govt interference over here and so runs rampant. This provides a great deal of irritation to those of us who entertain correct thoughts.

This presupposes, however, that there are such things as "correct" or "incorrect" thoughts. Such concepts are purely subjective.

 

[Gokul43201]

Such concepts are purely subjective.

Tut tut. Now you're just setting yourself up for the obvious take-down.[/color]

 

[Danger]

Now you're just setting yourself up for the obvious take-down.[/color]

Yeah, I know. I'm a sucker for punishment...[/color]

 

[Cyrus]

Do you think that religion is the only thing people proselytize with?

This question is irrelevant to my comment, and therefore deserves no answer.

 

[Cyrus]

You're strawmanning by talking about a "leap of faith." I just posted that faith includes an everyday sense of belief in things that are empirically regarded as "real." This is not "leaping" faith, it is just basic faith in the existence of reality. Psychologically, they are the same mechanism, imo. Also, it is not such a "far cry" from other things I've said, because atheism does require faith in the belief that materialism is all there is. If you can't see beyond the universe, how can you assume nothing exists beyond it except through faith about the non-existence of what you cannot observe?

If I can't see beyond the universe...hrmmmm...o-kayyyyyy.

 

[Danger]

If I can't see beyond the universe...hrmmmm...o-kayyyyyy.

Yeah... it always puzzles me that a lot of people don't recognize that "universe" means "everything". There can't possibly be anything "beyond" it, since that anything would be a part of it.

 

[disregardthat]

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion.

In which case you must provide some evidence for that atheism commonly means "lack of belief" in a philosophical context.

I will allow myself to quote the following from encyclopedia britannica's article on atheism:

"in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."

from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

I'm not arguing on the basis of origin or etymology. My point is simply that this is how the word is defined, and here are my citations to support that claim.

I can't see any citations?

Then I suspect we are talking about two different things. One can actively take a stance against belief in a deity without actively denying existence of said deity.

Well, "lack of belief" certainly doesn't necessarily include denial, so I don't see your point.

I can of course accept that atheism in some cases might mean "lack of belief" if it is understood by all parts in a discussion, but the problem is that some people insist on equating it with "lack of belief", hence dismissing the dominant meaning and even denying it.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah... it always puzzles me that a lot of people don't recognize that "universe" means "everything". There can't possibly be anything "beyond" it, since that anything would be a part of it.

Well, it's a pitiful argument from many perspectives - it assumes there is something 'outside' the universe that we cannot see. First, you must prove that there is 'something' (and exactly what that something is) outside the universe, and then you must further prove that we cannot see it.

But more to the point, anyone can pull any claim they want out of their anus and play the 'you can't disprove it, but I can't prove it' card and pass it off as plausible. In statistics, the default argument is always the null argument. Therefore, if something passes the test, the null argument is rejected, as this is a stronger statement of validity. The fact that these folks would like to bypass this and add shades of gray 'maybes' is worthless.

 

[disregardthat]

Yeah... it always puzzles me that a lot of people don't recognize that "universe" means "everything". There can't possibly be anything "beyond" it, since that anything would be a part of it.

Universe more commonly means the material world, or everything that physically exist. Something "outside" the universe could be something spiritual. Of course, by insisting on your definition of universe you could say that everything spiritual is in the universe by definition, but that doesn't mean that other interpretations of the word universe can apply.

If you reject the possibility of spiritual existence the meanings are interchangeable, but if you merely reject the actuality then it makes sense to distinguish between the two. In any case, the issue is shallowly semantical. They could easily re-state their opinion to that there can be something beyond that which physically exists.

 

[Cyrus]

Universe more commonly means the material world, or everything that physically exist. Something "outside" the universe could be something spiritual.

What an empty statement: 'something' (who knows what) "outside" (who knows where), "Could" (who knows for sure), be something "spiritual" (whatever that is).

 

[disregardthat]

What an empty statement: 'something' (who knows what) "outside" (who knows where), "Could" (who knows for sure), be something "spiritual" (whatever that is).

I'm sure they will have a good explanation. Leibniz proposed monads as general spiritual metaphysical entities which also cause material existence, and he had a reasonably sophisticated account of his opinions. It is not an empty statement. False and/or unverifiable perhaps, but not empty.

It has classically been the philosophical consensus that matter was the appearance necessarily caused, by the categories of reason, by something which is not attainable for the senses. Kant proposed Transcendental idealism. The metaphysical world consisting of the "things-in-themselves" causing the appearances we sense is essentially unknowable, so it makes no rational sense to speak of them. He argued however that by reason alone we must infer their existence.

The opinion of e.g. George Berkeley was that materialism in itself was a contradictory perspective, a position which he (some might say successfully) argued for. His solution to the problem was an all-observant god.

I am not arguing for these possible solutions, I am arguing that the notion of something "outside" the material world is not non-sense and certainly not merely empty statements. But it's easy to say that firmly grounded in a materialist view.

 

[Gokul43201]

In which case you must provide some evidence for that atheism commonly means "lack of belief" in a philosophical context.

I will allow myself to quote the following from encyclopedia britannica's article on atheism:



from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism



I can't see any citations?



Well, "lack of belief" certainly doesn't necessarily include denial, so I don't see your point.

I can of course accept that atheism in some cases might mean "lack of belief" if it is understood by all parts in a discussion, but the problem is that some people insist on equating it with "lack of belief", hence dismissing the dominant meaning and even denying it.

Don't have much time now. Some/most of these questions are answered in post #90.

 

[Evo]

Lack of belief is just that, lack of belief. Atheism means something more.

Gokul's citations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

Bolding mine.


See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Bolding mine.

Mine.

Practical atheism

In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[52] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

And this isn't the Philosophy forum, so please do not drag it off into philosophical hand waving. There have been many discussions on the subject in Philosophy, this is not one of them.

 

[disregardthat]

Don't have much time now. Some/most of these questions are answered in post #90.

I only had one question, and that was that the citation did not appear. I see evo have provided them now.

I don't see how the subcategory "pragmatic atheism"/"apatheism" in the wikipedia article, or the alternative definition (second to rejection of belief) given by wikipedia, or religioustolerance.com(!) gives the picture that "lack of belief" as opposed to "rejection" is the dominant meaning in philosophical discussions. The article I referred to in #133 from encyclopedia britannica, the first reference in the wikipedia article, explicitly says otherwise.


This text from the wikipedia article discusses this issue.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[33] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[34] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

Bolding mine.

 

[Evo]

I only had one question, and that was that the citation did not appear. I see evo have provided them now.

I don't see how the subcategory "pragmatic atheism" in the wikipedia article, or the alternative definition (second to rejection of belief) given by wikipedia, or religioustolerance.com(!) gives the picture that "lack of belief" as opposed to "rejection" is the dominant meaning in philosophical discussions. The article I referred to from encyclopedia britannica, the first reference in the wikipedia article, says otherwise.

Were not talking about philosophical discussions, we're talking about the mistaken notion that atheism is a religion. That it is fath based.

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

His reasoning, as far as I can remember, was that atheism relies on the axiomatic assumption that there is no God(s).

 

[disregardthat]

Were not talking about philosophical discussions, we're talking about the mistaken notion that atheism is a religion.

My discussion with gokul is about the common use of the word atheism in philosophical discussions, as he explicitly clarified:

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion.

My stance is not that atheism is faith based.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure they will have a good explanation.

Who is "they" and what is their explanation?

Leibniz proposed monads as general spiritual metaphysical entities which also cause material existence, and he had a reasonably sophisticated account of his opinions. It is not an empty statement. False and/or unverifiable perhaps, but not empty.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

It has classically been the philosophical consensus that matter was the appearance necessarily caused, by the categories of reason, by something which is not attainable for the senses. Kant proposed Transcendental idealism. The metaphysical world consisting of the "things-in-themselves" causing the appearances we sense is essentially unknowable, so it makes no rational sense to speak of them. He argued however that by reason alone we must infer their existence.

Sounds like more nonsense.

The opinion of e.g. George Berkeley was that materialism in itself was a contradictory perspective, a position which he (some might say successfully) argued for. His solution to the problem was an all-observant god.

Again, nonsense.

I am not arguing for these possible solutions, I am arguing that the notion of something "outside" the material world is not non-sense and certainly not merely empty statements. But it's easy to say that firmly grounded in a materialist view.

And, I am saying they are all crackpot horse manure. At least an empty statement has no value, these ideas have negative value (they are stupid).

 

[disregardthat]

Who is "they" and what is their explanation?]
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Sounds like more nonsense.
Again, nonsense.
And, I am saying they are all crackpot horse manure.

All right, I get the feeling that you are not particularly philosophically inclined by your non-constructive replies. It is a good job calling leibniz, kant and berkeley stupid crackpot horse manure, but it is not intellectually convincing.

 

[Cyrus]

All right, I get the feeling that you are not particularly philosophically inclined by your non-constructive replies. It is a good job called leibniz, kant and berkeley crackpot horse manure, but not intellectually convincing.

Who cares, their statements are (a) based on nothing (b) are speculative nonsense at best, and (c) are completely unsubstantiated and do not even use any form of rational scientific principles. But hey, it allows you to use big words and have coffee shop conversation - Kudos. You've convinced me that they are right.

 

[Cyrus]

Care to prove this statement by Leibniz then:

Leibniz proposed monads as general spiritual metaphysical entities which also cause material existence

Cyrus proposes that the spiritual metaphysical entities come out of my butt. See how silly that sounds, so do his statement. Factual claims, based on hypothetical nonsense hyped up with big words and philosophical babble.

 

[disregardthat]

You've convinced me that they are right.

Uh, I explicitly mentioned that my intention was not to argue for their ideas.

Furthermore, I don't think your butt-related attack on leibniz is any better than my coffee-shop explanations. This is childish and silly.

 

[Cyrus]

Uh, I explicitly mentioned that my intention was not to argue for their ideas.

Then don't mention them.

Furthermore, I don't think your butt-related attack on leibniz is any better than my coffee-shop arguments.

Good, because it was only to illustrate the baseless stupidity of these arguments.

 

[disregardthat]

Good, because it was only to illustrate the baseless stupidity of these arguments.

It illustrated something quite else

 

[Cyrus]

It illustrated something quite else

Come on, Jarle, its clearly a form of playful banter to expand upon the pseudointellectual nonrationalistic basis of the nonsensical opinion formulated through the hypothesis of such great thinkers as Kant et al, thereby utilizing their own arguments against itself...bleeehh. I can't do it! I can't BS with big words using such eloquence - you philosophy guys win. Keep it simple, stupid - I say.