I'm a member of The Clergy Project, a private initiative to provide a safe haven for ex-religious leaders, where they can talk together and support each other (I'm an ex-missionary). We've recently had quite an interesting and spirited discussion about the 'atheism movement' as a whole, and thought I'd share my comments here to see what others might say:
Let me begin by exploring one of the most common logical mistakes made by people on both the religious and atheist side of the debate -- that of mistakenly equating atheism with specific religions. Richard Dawkins is among many who've made this mistake, when he repeated in "The God Delusion" the common argument that "people have killed in the name of religion, but nobody has killed in the name of atheism". Now, this argument is superficially correct. It is true that people have killed in the name of specific religions. And it is true that nobody has killed in the name of atheism.
But there's a fundamental logical flaw here. It's not just comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apples and trucks.
Atheism is not a belief system. It is a category of belief systems. Just as "theism" is not a belief system, but rather a category of belief systems. To clarify further, all belief systems that explicitly include belief in god are theistic -- Christianity, Islam, etc. And by that same token, all belief systems that explicitly exclude belief in god are atheistic -- Secular Humanism, Communism, etc. (There is a third category of non-theistic belief systems...those that don't include belief in a god, but nor do they explicitly exclude belief in a god).
If someone says they are a theist, they are not saying anything about their beliefs, beyond the fact that they believe there is a god or gods of some kind. They can believe pretty much anything beyond that, and in fact there is no common belief shared by all theists beyond the belief that there is some kind of god.
Likewise, if someone says they are an atheist, they are not saying anything about their beliefs, beyond the fact that they do not believe in any kind of god or gods. They can believe pretty much anything beyond that, and in fact there is no common belief shared ay all atheists beyond the belief that there is no god.
Let's take a look at Dawkins' statement above in this light. Nobody has ever killed "in the name of theism"...they have killed in the name of specific theistic ideologies. So his statement, if it is to be truly accurate, should read, "people have killed in the name of specific theist ideologies, but nobody has killed in the name of atheism." But then, consider that the following statement is just as true: "people have killed in the name of specific atheist ideologies, but nobody has killed in the name of theism." Yet if I were to present the latter argument to atheists, they'd have no problem whatsoever in identifying just how logically flawed and wrong it is. So it rather amazes me to see so many prominent atheists making the former argument.
Which brings us to the "atheist movement" as a whole. Richard Dawkins, again, has been one of those at the forefront of trying to create some sort of atheist movement. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why. There are tons of atheists out there that I want absolutely nothing do with, and with whom I absolutely don't want to be associated. Many Communist leaders in China are atheists...and engage in brutal, immoral actions against others in the name of their Communist ideology. It's not 'because they are atheist'...their atheism has nothing to do with it. It is because they follow an ideology that says such things are right.
I've also engaged in debates with people in the Transhumanist community that are quite shocking. For those who may not be familiar with Transhumanism, it is a movement that seeks to look at what humans will be like in the future, as we A) gain the ability to manipulate genes to create tailor-made humans, and B) merge biological and technological together, to create an entirely new form of 'humanity' (ie. downloading your consciousness into a computer to become immortal). For many Transhumanists, "humanity" is defined not by the physical body, but by the mind...so long as the 'mind' exists, the physical container for that mind makes no difference, be it a normal human body, a genetically altered body, or a computer/robot.
Its an interesting exercise in imagination and philosophy, but there's one aspect of it that I find particularly troubling...many Transhumanists argue for the elimination of "inferior" humans. That is, those humans with sub-par intellect. They advocate for a program of deliberate eugenics that explicitly designates such individuals as 'sub-human', because although their body is human, their mind doesn't meet the Transhumanist definition of a fully human mind.
It seems to me that what is really happening in the so-called "atheist movement" is that they are seeking to re-define the term "atheist", and add on a whole bunch of other stuff. Such as "atheists believe in human rights", so they can dismiss Communists as "not being one of us". Or "atheism is a rational belief system based on evidence", so that they can dismiss all atheists who hold irrational or undesirable beliefs.
I'm sorry -- but even if people believe things that you find repulsive, if they explicitly deny the existence of a god, then they are atheists. Period. And it is foolish and self-defeating to try to define a movement which by its very nature must logically include such people.
Look at religion. I don't think I've ever met someone who says, "I'm a theist". Because they recognize that that means nothing. They identify the specific theist group or sub-group to which they belong. Jewish, Christian, whatever. Why? Because saying "I'm a theist" says nothing whatsoever about their actual beliefs, beyond the general fact they believe in some kind of god. And it lumps them in together with a whole bunch of other beliefs that are entirely irreconcilable with their own.
When is atheism going to mature to the point that we can see this fundamental problem? Yes, I'm an atheist...but I don't identify as an atheist, I identify as a Humanist. By identifying as a Humanist, I am positively identifying a specific set of beliefs and values who which I subscribe (belief in human rights, human equality, rationalism, scientific inquiry, etc.), while at the same time explicitly excluding those whose beliefs are different from my own (like Communists or extreme Transhumanists).
Worse, by identifying primarily as atheists, we give theists ammunition to attack us, specifically because it allows them to point out things like "Look at the terrible things that Communists did...and they were atheists!" The moment I identify as Humanist instead of an atheist, that argument loses all validity.
Let's go back to the quote by Dawkins. It is true that there are theist ideologies who've gone to war in the name of their religion. But it's important to recognize that there are also theist ideologies who have not gone to war. A good example of the latter would be Mennonites, whose religious beliefs include a radical adherence to pacifism. There may be some individual Mennonites who've gone to war...but there has never, ever been a war in the name of Mennonism. By that same token, there are atheist ideologies who've gone to war in the name of their ideology (Communism being the most obvious example); and there are atheist ideologies who've never gone to war (Humanism again being a good example).
To theists, it is self-evident that it's stupid to identify primarily as a theist, and almost nobody will do it. Why on earth are so many atheists, who pride themselves on their rationality, so determined to identify themselves in a way that theists can see is self-defeating and illogical?
P.S. -- My frequent use of Richard Dawkins as an example is not meant to show disrepect or dismissal of his arguments; in many areas, particularly those of biology and evolution, I think he is absolutely brilliant, and I very much enjoy reading his books and listening to him speak. However, in this one area of the "atheist movement", and his arguments relating to that movement, I am very much in disagreement with him. That's one of the nice things about being an atheist...we don't all have to agree with each other!
Let me begin by exploring one of the most common logical mistakes made by people on both the religious and atheist side of the debate -- that of mistakenly equating atheism with specific religions. Richard Dawkins is among many who've made this mistake, when he repeated in "The God Delusion" the common argument that "people have killed in the name of religion, but nobody has killed in the name of atheism". Now, this argument is superficially correct. It is true that people have killed in the name of specific religions. And it is true that nobody has killed in the name of atheism.
But there's a fundamental logical flaw here. It's not just comparing apples and oranges. It is comparing apples and trucks.
Atheism is not a belief system. It is a category of belief systems. Just as "theism" is not a belief system, but rather a category of belief systems. To clarify further, all belief systems that explicitly include belief in god are theistic -- Christianity, Islam, etc. And by that same token, all belief systems that explicitly exclude belief in god are atheistic -- Secular Humanism, Communism, etc. (There is a third category of non-theistic belief systems...those that don't include belief in a god, but nor do they explicitly exclude belief in a god).
If someone says they are a theist, they are not saying anything about their beliefs, beyond the fact that they believe there is a god or gods of some kind. They can believe pretty much anything beyond that, and in fact there is no common belief shared by all theists beyond the belief that there is some kind of god.
Likewise, if someone says they are an atheist, they are not saying anything about their beliefs, beyond the fact that they do not believe in any kind of god or gods. They can believe pretty much anything beyond that, and in fact there is no common belief shared ay all atheists beyond the belief that there is no god.
Let's take a look at Dawkins' statement above in this light. Nobody has ever killed "in the name of theism"...they have killed in the name of specific theistic ideologies. So his statement, if it is to be truly accurate, should read, "people have killed in the name of specific theist ideologies, but nobody has killed in the name of atheism." But then, consider that the following statement is just as true: "people have killed in the name of specific atheist ideologies, but nobody has killed in the name of theism." Yet if I were to present the latter argument to atheists, they'd have no problem whatsoever in identifying just how logically flawed and wrong it is. So it rather amazes me to see so many prominent atheists making the former argument.
Which brings us to the "atheist movement" as a whole. Richard Dawkins, again, has been one of those at the forefront of trying to create some sort of atheist movement. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why. There are tons of atheists out there that I want absolutely nothing do with, and with whom I absolutely don't want to be associated. Many Communist leaders in China are atheists...and engage in brutal, immoral actions against others in the name of their Communist ideology. It's not 'because they are atheist'...their atheism has nothing to do with it. It is because they follow an ideology that says such things are right.
I've also engaged in debates with people in the Transhumanist community that are quite shocking. For those who may not be familiar with Transhumanism, it is a movement that seeks to look at what humans will be like in the future, as we A) gain the ability to manipulate genes to create tailor-made humans, and B) merge biological and technological together, to create an entirely new form of 'humanity' (ie. downloading your consciousness into a computer to become immortal). For many Transhumanists, "humanity" is defined not by the physical body, but by the mind...so long as the 'mind' exists, the physical container for that mind makes no difference, be it a normal human body, a genetically altered body, or a computer/robot.
Its an interesting exercise in imagination and philosophy, but there's one aspect of it that I find particularly troubling...many Transhumanists argue for the elimination of "inferior" humans. That is, those humans with sub-par intellect. They advocate for a program of deliberate eugenics that explicitly designates such individuals as 'sub-human', because although their body is human, their mind doesn't meet the Transhumanist definition of a fully human mind.
It seems to me that what is really happening in the so-called "atheist movement" is that they are seeking to re-define the term "atheist", and add on a whole bunch of other stuff. Such as "atheists believe in human rights", so they can dismiss Communists as "not being one of us". Or "atheism is a rational belief system based on evidence", so that they can dismiss all atheists who hold irrational or undesirable beliefs.
I'm sorry -- but even if people believe things that you find repulsive, if they explicitly deny the existence of a god, then they are atheists. Period. And it is foolish and self-defeating to try to define a movement which by its very nature must logically include such people.
Look at religion. I don't think I've ever met someone who says, "I'm a theist". Because they recognize that that means nothing. They identify the specific theist group or sub-group to which they belong. Jewish, Christian, whatever. Why? Because saying "I'm a theist" says nothing whatsoever about their actual beliefs, beyond the general fact they believe in some kind of god. And it lumps them in together with a whole bunch of other beliefs that are entirely irreconcilable with their own.
When is atheism going to mature to the point that we can see this fundamental problem? Yes, I'm an atheist...but I don't identify as an atheist, I identify as a Humanist. By identifying as a Humanist, I am positively identifying a specific set of beliefs and values who which I subscribe (belief in human rights, human equality, rationalism, scientific inquiry, etc.), while at the same time explicitly excluding those whose beliefs are different from my own (like Communists or extreme Transhumanists).
Worse, by identifying primarily as atheists, we give theists ammunition to attack us, specifically because it allows them to point out things like "Look at the terrible things that Communists did...and they were atheists!" The moment I identify as Humanist instead of an atheist, that argument loses all validity.
Let's go back to the quote by Dawkins. It is true that there are theist ideologies who've gone to war in the name of their religion. But it's important to recognize that there are also theist ideologies who have not gone to war. A good example of the latter would be Mennonites, whose religious beliefs include a radical adherence to pacifism. There may be some individual Mennonites who've gone to war...but there has never, ever been a war in the name of Mennonism. By that same token, there are atheist ideologies who've gone to war in the name of their ideology (Communism being the most obvious example); and there are atheist ideologies who've never gone to war (Humanism again being a good example).
To theists, it is self-evident that it's stupid to identify primarily as a theist, and almost nobody will do it. Why on earth are so many atheists, who pride themselves on their rationality, so determined to identify themselves in a way that theists can see is self-defeating and illogical?
P.S. -- My frequent use of Richard Dawkins as an example is not meant to show disrepect or dismissal of his arguments; in many areas, particularly those of biology and evolution, I think he is absolutely brilliant, and I very much enjoy reading his books and listening to him speak. However, in this one area of the "atheist movement", and his arguments relating to that movement, I am very much in disagreement with him. That's one of the nice things about being an atheist...we don't all have to agree with each other!
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1xwfUFI
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire