She's right in a way, there is a debate going on about this but I think it's less of a schism and more of an awakening. A realisation, in the light of the "Bush" era and the rise of a politically motivated Christian-right in the USA, that in order to get anything done you need a lobby. Atheists seem to be acquiring a more prominent voice and an assertiveness through literature, music, art, comedy and more generally in society, which religious people are simply not accustomed to. The other important dynamic seems to be the rise of seemingly ever more intolerant and aggressive strains of Islam that increase tension and division within both secular and non-Islamic communities, in short, a lot of Atheists have had enough of "in your face" religion.
The debate within Atheism is about how far "new atheists" should go in promoting a more secular society, its about strategy. Should strategy include "insulting" religious people for example, is it ok to ridicule particular ideas that they hold?. These are good questions, and they doesn't have a clear cut answers. The problem centres around the definition of "insult", to some people simply disagreeing with them is deemed insulting, to others any idea they hold may be debated to the point of ridicule and beyond without them feeling any offence. Clearly this is not a one size fits all debate there is a spectrum of opinion on both sides, for example, a lot of Atheists build upon a position of rationalism and scientific thinking and this bleeds across into the approach they take to reasoning about these things; to a lot of religious people this comes across as dismissive because it represents the antithesis of the way in which they believe spiritual knowledge is acquired through revelation, a kind of knowledge that many Atheists simply reject because that's what you do in science when there is no evidence for something.
For years secular non-religious people have tended to work around religion, giving it respect and simply stating their position without direct criticism or attack directed at the other side, the disagreements have always been there under the surface of course but they have tended to be reserved for private conversations rather than presented with any conviction in the public square. Then came 9/11 and Dawkins, he (and a few others) started to make public the otherwise private views on religion, he published the God Delusion and this seemed to become some kind of tipping point, many people who perhaps hadn't previously thought about the subject picked up that book up or at least contemplated the debate seriously for the first time, the Atheist head was tentatively raised above the parapet for the first time since the 60s.
Dawkins is a great populariser, his Biology books in the 70s were pivotal in changing the mind set of Biologists and interested lay people regarding the role of genes in evolution; however he is not an innovator, his ideas are not original but he has two important attributes, he presents the case with clarity and conviction and he has the courage to take those ideas into the lions den of places like the Bible belt of the USA. In many ways Dawkins says the things that we are all thinking but lack the courage or incentive to actually say ourselves. Hardly any of these arguments are new of course, many of them originate from great free thinkers of the past, Spinoza through Hume, Paine, Russell and so on, what is new is the context of modern scientific thinking and the ever increasing body of scientific knowledge which continues to reduce the gaps into which God may be inserted.
So what of this supposed schism, should Atheists be vocal and outspoken or timid and respectful? Clearly the vested interests of religion would prefer the latter and apparently the so called "new atheists" the former, there still exists of course a collection of "old atheists" (for want of a better term) who end up somewhere in the middle but err towards the timid and respectful end of this spectrum. Personally I'm with the new Atheists on this. I think it's possible to be confident in your position without being overtly aggressive also that it's perfectly reasonable to attack an idea and yet not insult the person who holds it, and although I think is is important to engage with people and to listen to them respectfully I also believe that honesty is equally as important as politeness; thinking one thing whilst pitching another is a dangerous path to follow for all but the most politically devious among us.
14 comments:
Interesting discussion.
One point about your pretty Venn diagram.
Q: Where is the point of true enlightenment?
A: There is none. True enlightenment is the ability to see the whole picture. We can't do this if we place ourselves within it.
Hi OP, I forgot to add a question mark to my little Venn diagram! (now updated)
Well true enlightenment is a questionable aim isn't it, you assume it is achievable, Heisenberg and I would suggest it probably isn't. Even if it were possible, going on past achievements, religion seems to have little to add?
Speaking as someone in your alleged "Wishful thinking" sector... I was a science undergraduate when I became a Christian and I've never ever looked for God in any gaps. The Bible refers to a God in whom "we live and move and have our being", and that's the one I believe in. Not one who lurks in black holes and Higgs Bosons and dodgy theories. I never needed to retreat a religious position under pressure from any scientific position, for the simple reason I came from the other end. And I'm still trying to grasp the mindsets of "either or" people at either end.
Having said which, I'd rather talk to a scientist of any religious view than a creationist any time. We can at least share one language!
Hi G, I don't think you can put a person in one segment or another, that would be way to simplistic and you are living proof that such a simplification is not adequate! That wasn't really the intention of the chart - I should explain...
For me, the problem with faith and science is that to be a scientist and have a faith you need to suspend the underlying principals of science at some points of your life, i.e. at least on Sundays when evidence for things is clearly not required. (the opposite is also true)
Clearly some people can do this quite happily, it seems our brains are more than capable of such cognitive dissonance. This is all fine of course, each to their own! However, I would prefer more honesty about it, lets be clear that this is dissonance rather than pretend that the two things are "compatible", they are not, in order to have "faith" rationality has to be suspended (at least temporarily) by definition.
"should Atheists be vocal and outspoken or timid and respectful?"
vocal and respectful sounds good.
I tend to see faith not as ignoring the evidence, or suspending rationality, but of going just a bit further than the evidence allows you. Like hope, or the first time you bungee jump. I have friends who, when they tell me things I didn't know, I'll immediately believe them, because I trust them. I don't have to go and research every statement for myself. Is that suspension of rationality, or just normal human behaviour?
None of us live life by fine scientific calculations alone, science doesn't give us a full description of life as it is lived. A brain scan of me as I type this would (hopefully) reveal some brain activity and electrical impulses, but it can't talk about what it's like to have and process these thoughts.
Greetings dmk, your comments are eminently sensible and most welcome as always.
"Vocal and respectful", I like what you did there!, so long as we can agree that "disagree" isn't the same as "disrespect" and that humour allows us to flex that principal (at least a little bit) then I would agree.
I know what you mean about a "scientific life stance" kind of thing, of course we don't, but all the things you mention we do because of evidence. I wouldn't do a bungee jump where the provider of the equipment had killed everyone before me for example, it's a (well) calculated risk (albeit not a mathematical one) not a leap into the dark in that case. I trust people too, and love them unconditionally (well that's never been tested but I would hope I would), but again, I believe what people tell me because what they have told me in the past has empirically turned out to be reliable, and perish the thought, I even take a gamble sometimes too :)
re. "Science doesn't give us a full description of life", that's just God of the gaps!, religion doesn't give us a complete understanding of conciousness either! Out of interest though, which do you think has provided a *more* complete understanding of the human condition, religion or science?
BTW, did you see Marcus du Sautoy on Horizon last night?, he's got Dawkins old job at Oxford and was investigating conciousness and the brain. What he discovered is very relevant to your last point, it would seem that such an understanding is not that far off, fascinating stuff.
I don't think there's anything wrong with telling someone that their premises are specious or that their conclusion does not follow. Maybe I have spent too many years in a classroom (behind the desk, not in front of it) and am accustomed in the extreme to having my arguments scrutinised and criticised.
But I have seen it time and again where someone thinks that the results of their flawed thought process should be respected just because they conjured it up. I support people's rights to make non-rational arguments, and to believe non-rational things. But "respect" them, as in hold them in some high esteem? No thanks; I don't respect them in that sense.
Furthermore, what happens when people's non-rational beliefs are used to discriminate against others, or do harm and violence to people, do we need to behave respectfully about the beliefs that are used to justify that kind of behaviour?
I think "respect" is one of those mythical social goals that embodies the hope that no one ever has to face getting their feelings hurt by being told their position is unfounded. I think it's actually quite destructive of robust discussion about what is constitutive of the good life.
Hi Lisa, you are right about respecting ideas, I see no reason to respect ideas simply because someone holds them; that would be placing politeness above honesty, fine when you're talking about someone's ugly baby but not when it's a subject as important as this one.
It's one thing having a modicum of restraint in regular conversation; but as you say when the results of irrational beliefs are shoved down our throats in the shape of legislation, persecution or violence then I think that politeness needs to be put to one side.
The challenge in regular conversation I suppose is in attacking the idea without attacking the person, sometimes people are plainly well intentioned but simply ignorant, that's not a crime; some are passionate about what they believe and yet willing to take a rational argument seriously and engage with it; the remainder are typically not interested in engaging sensibly and can ideally be ignored or if they persist then exposed.
Believe me, Lisa. My unsubstantiated assertions were hammered far more severely in my Theology qualification than they ever were in my Chemistry one. Mind you, my Theology assessors were generally more sober than the Chemistry ones (Prof Graham Richards excluded - he was always sober in working hours!)
Steve - do I switch off my mind from a scientific view to a religious one on the right day of the week? Don't think so. At least no more than the change of language that we employ when moving between different subject areas. When I'm in "Barcode quality" mode, the language is different from when I'm in "Database design" mode or "Health and Safety" mode. The thing I love about theology though is that it's more integrative than any other subject I've ever studied. I could and do bring sociology, economics, literature/language and - especially - history and science to bear in theology in a way that I could never have done in any other discipline. And I love it. I don't need scientific "evidence" when playing guitar, either. But it informs that as well!
G, yes but (there's always a but :) playing your guitar isn't making claims about the universe like 'we have a soul' or 'God answers prayers' or 'the Bible was authored by the creator of the universe' or 'homosexuality is immoral' etc.. there is a difference, and in any case we could "test" your guitar playing objectively (although I don't need faith to assert it's probably better than mine! :) but we choose not to. There is a big difference between can't test and don't bother to test etc.
You're right, God isn't testable. But ultimately neither are the bases for any other world view apart from nihilism, and that's only testable on the basis of the universe we can observe. We all construct world views to make sense of where we are. I construct mine based on the historical account of a man called Jesus Christ. tbh if I didn't I'd probably create it on my perception that the world is ultimately good, predictable and meaningful, because that's what I believed before I came to faith in Jesus. And that would still be a "religious" worldview with "scientific" insights. Out of interest, what do you base yours on? I'd love to see a systematic blog from you on the positive side of what is clearly a deeply-felt and life-affirming worldview.
On the subject of music - it's not testable that Beethoven's Fifth is better than Tina Marie's "I'm in the mood for dancing". Unless you try to dance to them, I suppose... Poor old Ludwig. Deaf and a failure.
G,
We can "test" music in the sense that the sound waves are real and we can measure them, compare them and predict what they will sound like, we know they exist. The question of "better" is only relevant to one human brain at a time, i.e. if one person likes a tune or not is testable also (i.e. they can confirm they do) but possibly not predictable without empirical data to indicate the general preferences of that particular person in advance; in which case we have a probability that we can predict an outcome.
Compare this to say, prayer, we have no proposed physical mechanism for it, it has been shown many times not to work empirically via large scale trials and it is (apparently) selective with no proposed selection mechanism either. Of course, I am neglecting potential benefits for the person doing the praying as I am sure there are some psychological perks along meditative lines but essentially from an efficacy point of view you must simply believe it, no questions asked.
You pose a very good question indeed, harping on about atheism and science is all very interesting (to me at least :) but I would agree that we all seem to need create positive purposes in life and Atheism as simply a "lack of belief" does not offer it directly as religion seems to do for some people. I will think about that and do a post when I have captured some coherent ideas.
Of course, immediately after posting I realised I'd managed to conflated three awful disco acts - Nolans, Tina Charles, and Kellie Marie - into one even more awful one. Need to check my sources!
My theology is in ruins...
G, LOL, never mind, don't make your brown eyes blue over it... :)
Post a Comment