Atheists and Ignorance

[thegreypilgrim]

I do not mean to distribute what I'm about to say to atheism universally, this only really applies to particular atheists whose sort appears to be growing in number.

I've been to several message boards where religion/philosophy is discussed and debated, and I've noticed several things. Firstly, that for whatever reason, the boards seem to generally be dominated by atheists (or, if not, they still make a substantial minority). Secondly, the good majority of them are of the stereotypical (though it's hard to call it that anymore) "militant" type.

These people aren't necessarily more intelligent than their theist counterparts (the full spectrum of intelligence seems to be present from blindingly stupid to brilliant), but their arguments seem more effective to the unknowing reader because of the emotional force and aggressiveness with which they state their case. Also, their arguments nearly universally assume that when one says "religion" what one means is "Christianity" and when one says "Christianity" what one means is "fundamentalist Reformed Christianity". They, remarkably, do not bother to qualify their statements to that effect or differentiate between various broad systematic theologies. Their cases are significantly under-researched, and simply don't apply to more sophisticated theists/Christians

Now, none of that is really news to anyone; but, what I've noticed is that when one points out to them that they're making sweeping generalizations and essentially arguing against one form of Christianity by proxy and thinking that that is sufficient to defeat all forms they do not concede even that basic point. What they do is tantamount to defending their own ignorance.

More often than not, whenever I point out that all they've done is knocked down fundie Protestantism (hardly a challenge) they are just as dismissive and hostile to more mainline/liberal and intellectual forms of the Christian faith. I've seriously had people tell me that ultimately it's all the same nonsense and so they don't have to address other types or that because the masses seem to hold more fundamentalist type beliefs that those are the ones that really matter, and that this "academic" Christianity I'm talking about is just ad hoc attempts to water down the faith and make it more palatable. I really cannot fathom this perverse logic. One particular instance that always left me baffled was when one atheist I frequently debated with announced to me that being an expert on theology is like being an expert on the Klingon language.

Has anyone else experienced this? Atheists literally defending their own ignorance? They don't just do it with theology, but also philosophy (remarkably...I would have thought philosophy to be the most hospitable home for an atheist...but they're all scientistic in their thinking it seems, for them the only thing that could ever justify anything is science) as I've been told that philosophy is simply irrelevant because there's no practical application for it.

[krkey1]

Hey Grey

This was one of the things that really turned me off from identifying myself as an Atheist. I simply found it be embarrassing to be associated with them! I took to calling myself agnostic.

I think Atheism has become more a movement then what it used to be before, that is a intellectual rejection of religion. Like any movement it seeks to openly recruit people and with any recruiting you are bound to recruit idiots.

I also think some people who are attracted to the new atheism are people who want to feel smart without really having the done the work to be smart. They feel like they are smart by association. You see all atheist are smart.... They also get to feel smart because God knows it is very easy to scrape up a stupid theist.

Lastly it is false heroics. They consider religion to be evil and of course you wage war against evil. Of course they realize Christians will never hurt them over it, but still they get to brag about how heroic they are. It is the same reason people bravely go to Israel protest the " cruelties" of Israel but never seem to find the courage to go to the Sudan and do the same thing....

[Al Moritz]

Jan 17, 2009 23:56:30 GMT thegreypilgrim said:

, but also philosophy (remarkably...I would have thought philosophy to be the most hospitable home for an atheist...but they're all scientistic in their thinking it seems, for them the only thing that could ever justify anything is science) as I've been told that philosophy is simply irrelevant because there's no practical application for it.

The lack of any sufficient philosophical knowledge makes it incredibly frustrating to discuss with atheists. You give a good philosophical argument and they don't even seem to understand it. Their ignorance in philosophy also leads them to a complete ignorance of the boundaries between science and philosophy, inevitably leading them to ascribe more powers to science than it has -- further enforcing their scientism.

[unkleE]

Grey

Hi and welcome.

I have been a member of several discussion forums, and I also have found it much as you say. I discussed some of my experiences at Dancing with atheists, so I won't repeat my general comments here. But on a couple of your specific points .....

the boards seem to generally be dominated by atheists ..... the good majority of them are of the stereotypical (though it's hard to call it that anymore) "militant" type

There are apparently many strongly christian discussion forums, though apart from this one, I haven't tried any out. So I think it works both ways.

I am an inactive member of a forum started by atheists (because they were dissatisfied with the forum we were all previously on, and because they recognised that imbalanced or rude forums do not attract thoughtful members), which set out to have more balanced numbers and a less adversarial approach. It worked well for a while, a lot of christians and a few Jews and Muslims joined, and discussion was generally cordial. A few atheists who were used to being more scathing and nasty left in disgust when it was indicated to them that such behaviour wasn't welcome. But gradually the discussion became predictable, repetitive and adversarial, several moderate christians dropped out and the dream has died a little. But it showed that something better is possible if people have the will.

their arguments seem more effective to the unknowing reader because of the emotional force and aggressiveness with which they state their case

I think this is true. Its ironic, because they pride themselves on being reasonable, yet I think emotion is a stronger weapon for them than reason.

they're making sweeping generalizations and essentially arguing against one form of Christianity by proxy and thinking that that is sufficient to defeat all forms

I think they try to deal with metaphysics, especially religion, as if it was science. So they expect there should be one simple, correct answer to each question, and it's difficult for them to deal with ambivalence. Further, it is easier to attack fundamentalism, which is also prevalent in some parts of the US, so that is what they want to argue against. I was once in a farcical situation where I had presented my view of Hell (basically annihilationism), only to have an atheist opponent try to convince me that I should believe the more traditional doctrine. I replied that I found it strange that he would try to convince me to hold a belief I didn't think reflected Jesus' teachings and which he personally loathed, so that then he could attack me!

one atheist I frequently debated with announced to me that being an expert on theology is like being an expert on the Klingon language

Yes, Richard Dawkins made this pseudo argument popular. If I wanted to discuss Aztec religious belief, which I don't believe is true, I would still want to be told about it by an expert, not by someone who admitted they knew nothing about it. I think "obscurantism" might be the word!

Further, it ignores that there is apparently genuine scientific work being done on the psychology/sociology of religion from an evolutionary viewpoint. It was Dawkins' inadequate recognition and valuing of this that led biologist and fellow atheist David Sloan Wilson to say: "Dawkins’ diatribe against religion, however well-intentioned, is so deeply misinformed."

But unfortunately, the Dawkins acolytes and followers don't seem able to think this issue through for themselves or follow other atheists who recognise the problems.

Has anyone else experienced this? Atheists literally defending their own ignorance?

I think we have to be fair, christians can do this just as well as atheists. But, yes, I have found it too. Unfortunately, atheists are again following some of their leaders, for example:

• Dawkins on knowing something about religion before commenting on it (as above.;
  
• In his excellent book "The Cosmic Landscape", cosmologist and agnostic Leonard Susskind tries to defend the multiverse hypothesis against the charge that it cannot be scientific because it can be neither verified or falsified, by arguing that "it would be the height of stupidity to dismiss a possibility just because it breaks some philosopher's dictum about falsifiability." So what I have always been told (especially by atheists criticising religion) is the basis of the scientific method can be jettisoned that easily?
  
• Professor P Z Myers, wrote: "the majority of people on the planet are practicing really bad science, because they don't recognize that their very first premise, that a god exists, is false". I wonder whether he understands that (1) that is not a premise of most christians I know (it is a conclusion), and (2) the first premise of science, that truth can be known by empirical observation, is in fact a philosophical premise and not a scientific one?
  

But with these bad examples of philosophy from atheistic leaders, what chance do their followers have?

[Al Moritz]

Jan 18, 2009 8:30:44 GMT unkleE said:

[/li][li]In his excellent book "The Cosmic Landscape", cosmologist and agnostic Leonard Susskind tries to defend the multiverse hypothesis against the charge that it cannot be scientific because it can be neither verified or falsified, by arguing that "it would be the height of stupidity to dismiss a possibility just because it breaks some philosopher's dictum about falsifiability." So what I have always been told (especially by atheists criticising religion) is the basis of the scientific method can be jettisoned that easily?
[/quote]

Here is an excellent presentation (pdf file) by eminent cosmologist George Ellis, who also happens to be a theist, as to why the multiverse hypothesis cannot be science because it abandons the very principles of science, observation and test of hypothesis, that have made it so successful:

www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/George%20Ellis%20Lecture/Ellis-Faraday.pdf

(The presentation also points out incredible flaws in Suesskind's book.)

Atheists usually pride themselves so much on basing their views on the "scientific evidence". It is ironic then that not only has science arisen from a theistic background (it wanted to rationally investigate the laws of nature given by the lawgiver God), but finds its best cosmologist defender in a theist, who has to remind atheists what science is all about.

[humphreyclarke]

I'm afraid there is no denying that Atheism is an 'easy sell'. People in general tend to take the simple option and view the world through a series of crude interpretive myths. A powerful one of these is the myth of the inevitable triumph of scientific rationality and progress over religious superstition. Another is the idea that your intellectual opponants are under the spell of some kind of mind virus which they need to be cured of in order to be 'perfected'. Atheism can be easily distilled into a series of simple bullet points and can usurp the authority of science because of the 'conflict' mythology. I'm not convinced you can easily do that with theism, especially when it is under sustained attack in every area of intellectual thought; and, critically, when there are so many different varieties of faith with differing interpretations on key issues.

[hawkinthesnow]

A "one size fits all" epistomology seems to be the flavour of the month doesn't it? I remember when I was studying philosophy at uni. that one of the first ideas we were introduced to was "naive realism", that is that things are what they appear to be. This view was regarded as something of an intellectual fossil, but it does appear to have made something of a comeback, at least on the internet!