Before I jump into this, a few quick points, and a disclaimer or two.
(Edit) 0: The title of this post is (deliberately, I’ll admit) misleading. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination ‘oppose’ atheism – but rather the attitude that (in my experience) is held by many who claim that (or any other) view, which I see as disruptive to inclusive, unbiased and reasonable debate.
1: My original point (which got a little lost in the ruckus this post is actually about) was very simple. Following an interesting episode of the SBS program Insight addressing religious education – scrap that – theological indoctrination in the public school system, and a number of trialled, suggested and in one case rejected alternatives, I concluded the following.
If we are going to include Religious Education in the public school system, for God’s sake (pun fully intended – and it is a pun, just so you’re clear on that) can we actually educate our kids about, you know – religion? Not the Christian or Catholic or Hindu or Islamic faith, but RELIGION. After all -
..The history of religion is the history of human endeavour to understand a universe greater than ourselves. Regardless of your personal beliefs, religion has been pivotal in global politics, law, science and cultural change (or lack of) so why wouldn’t we want our kids to learn about the significance and impact of (all) religion on our societies?
Yeah, quoted myself. So ner.
2: If I’m wrong here, let me know. Not in the “No, you infidel – God is real!” or “There is no god you ignorant twit” sense, but if I am at all mistaken in my observations – I’m more than happy to stand corrected.
3: This is one of those really fun topics that you either don’t give a crap about (in which case I suggest you leave now – this get’s a little long and ranty) or if you do, you feel quite strongly about (usually in one particular direction). I encourage and welcome comments – you may have noticed there aren’t many on the site, so it’d be a novelty, if nothing else – but typically these kinds of discussions degenerate into a perfect example of one of the bigger issues I see with this kind of thing (there’s a post in that I’m sure) and I’d much prefer a reasoned debate than an outright flame war. (Most of the time)
Bottom line though, is that (frustrating as it may sometimes be) ignorance can stand corrected – intolerance, more rarely so. Needless to say, intolerance trumps ignorance on Collin’s ‘wanker-meter’, so if you really feel the need to be an arse – do it elswhere.
Cool, now I’ve quoted myself and referred to myself in the third person. How conceited is that!
4: I’m not an expert on anything that I’ll (eventually, I swear) be looking at in this post. My opinions on these topics are essentially just that – opinion, based on casual observation for the most part, and backed by a preoccupation with finding out the ‘why’ of things.
5: Despite the apparent assumptions of some commentors on the ramblings that kicked this off, I’m not a ‘believer’ when it comes to the ‘One God’.. thing. If you were reading around April Fools day it should be pretty clear I’m an equal opportunity fun pokerer. But then, I’m not a believer in the ‘No god’ thing either.
What? Huh? What on earth can this mean?!
It’s pretty simple. Three words, in fact. If you think you can manage, you can say them with me. Ready?
I don’t know.
And I’m OK with that. Because when it comes to contending views on the ‘truthiness’ of a given thing, to ’round out’ to the most likely, or most evidenced version is essentially a cop out. A by product of our biological compulsion to rationalize perhaps. Or maybe just a big flip of the bird to the party unable to prove their claim. (Either way, ‘liklihoodiness’ sounds nowhere near as good as ‘truthiness’)
And while most of the ‘scientifically minded’ folk are happy with the way the ‘burden of proof‘ works, I am not – it’s never really made sense to me. Lack of proof of the existence of a thing (in this case, a deity) does not, in any way, validate the counter-argument attesting to that thing’s non-existence. Something either exists, or it does not. It is either true, or it is not. The burden of proof shouldn’t fall on either party – determining the actual truth should be the goal of both. And if that truth cannot be determined, the only remaining option to to admit ignorance.
In the simplest possible way I can think to put it:
x = their view
y = your view
n = the ‘truth’ of the matter
n will never be either x or y – it will always be n.
x or y might accurately describe n, however if x or y cannot be infallibly found to do so there is no basis on which to claim that either x or y has anything to do with n at all. For all you know, a better description would be q. Or 784. Or Batman.
After you die-hard philosophers out there get over your apoplexy, I’ll ask you to consider this:
Should the answer to any question posed regarding the nature of a thing be biased toward the conventionalism, and the likeliness of one presented answer according to common opinion and the ideology of the time?
Once you’ve answered that (I’m sure it won’t take long) perhaps reflect on what Socrates might have thought.
I can’t tell you if god exists, but I can tell you something of what I do believe – that throughout our history, human beings seem compelled to envision an entity or power greater than themselves to whom (when anthropomorphized) they will submit their will, and while our nature leans toward an abuse of the power such compelling beliefs hold over our fellow mortals, these same beliefs have spawned such institutionalised concepts as law, morality, consequence and in a (granted, very) broad sense, are in fact a form of scientific endeavour.
While such beliefs may be inconsequential in the view of some, I myself cannot dismiss them as easily, given the impact they’ve had (and still have) on our culture, and by virtue of my own (irritating, I’m sure) tendency to leave every matter ‘open to discussion’ unless completely, unequivocally resolved.
OK, enough of the preamble. On with the show.
The particular comment that so enraged a select few:
Source: http://twitter.com/collinvanuden
In hindsight, it was very badly written. Essentially, I changed the reference between the sentences from the belief structure (Atheism) to the individuals (Atheists) A small mistake, but stupid, and unintentionally stepping on the ironic toes of one of my favourite mantras. To clarify, I’ll put it a slightly different way.
Atheism is not a religion, if you define religion as a belief dependant on the existence of one or more god(s). Well, duh.
However – in terms of religious views, the atheistic principle declaration that god(s) do not exist (Atheism derives from the Greek ‘Atheos’ – literally, “without gods”) than you must concur that by nature, it is contentious, dismissive, and intolerant of alternate religious views. Which is (say it with me now) much like the attitude of the fundamentalists. (And I’m one of those pesky ‘all religious views are fundamental’ folk, so I can’t wait for your comments on this one)
It’s here that many would try and derail the argument I’m making here by stating that atheism in it’s broader sense can mean that you hold no view on the existence of gods, or abstaining from holding a belief on the matter altogether. Sorry, but I see that as a gross misinterpretation, and here’s why:
The prefix ‘a’ (also Greek, god(s) love ‘em) alters the meaning of a word thusly:
No, absence of, without, lack of, not.
So, as applied to the word ‘theism’ (from ‘theos’ – God and ‘ism’ – belief in, or principle held)
We get any/all of the following:
No God
Absence of God
Without God
Lack of God
Not God
It seems to me that there’s not really any room for ambiguity there.
For the sake of not being completely intolerant myself, I’ll point out there are other interpretations.
To me, in a way, it’s this whole ‘interpretation’ thing that really gets in the way when we discuss this kind of thing. When did stuff start meaning stuff other than it means?
This post was provided to me as an aside to my comments – and to me, it’s a good example of my more common experiences with atheists, and in fact anyone who so strongly holds to a particular perception that their vision becomes filtered by it.
Simply put, the author comments on this piece by the Dalai Lama, published in the New York Times.
In the NYT piece, the Dalai Lama writes:
Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.
To which the Associate Professor of Mathematics responds:
“Radical atheists” write books expressing their views, and when invited to do so they speak publicly about what they believe. The Dalai Lama regards such activities as representing a dangerous extreme of religious intolerance, on the same level as violence against Muslim immigrants or fanning the flames of war in the Middle East. Forgive me if I question his moral judgment.
Ummm.. The Dalai Lama also writes books expressing his views (there’s one plugged on the NYT article) and speaks publicly about what he believes when invited to do so. So no, I’m pretty sure that he doesn’t, in fact, regard such activities as representing a dangerous extreme. You nitwit. Nice job on proving his point though.
I thought it interesting that I got a similar response to my own comments:
So, in pointing out the similarity in response, am I in fact comparing myself to one of the most respected religious leaders in the world? Of course not. Neither is the Dalai Lama comparing atheists who issue ‘blanket condemnations’ with more violent expressions of religious intolerance. All are presented as an example of that intolerance.
Others have made the points here, others still have countered them. All I can offer is my individual view, and hope you do the same. Feel free to comment, question or ignore as you see fit. All I have to wrap this thing up with is this:
Science, religion, reason, faith. They can all exist and even work together in a collaborative and mutually beneficial way – but utimately, I don’t think it is, or has ever been the ideals that are the problem. It’s the people who hold them that screw things up.
Incidentally, from what you've said about "I don't know" above, you sound like an agnostic. I don't wish to label you, however that's how I label myself currently and occasionally write about such ideas. Well OK, often write about such ideas ;)
Jonathan - thanks for checking out the site, and your comments. I had labeled myself an agnostic once upon a time, so good call.
Then I went and got all thinky and decided if I ever did have any kind of fully fledged spiritual experience that I'd probably be OK with that, and that having had that (hypothetical) experience, I could hardly claim to have no knowledge of it could I?
In regard to this post, I'd hoped to distinguish "I don't know" from "We can't know" (generalized version of agnosticism, for those playing at home) - Sorry if that didn't come through clearly.
Lately, I've been toying with the theory that the assorted deities we've inherited were originally anthropomorphic expressions of things we did know about ourselves, and the way that we 'work' - still playing with the concept, but would love to hear what you think on the origins of common deities.
Oh, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by origins of common deities. Do you mean "we all need healthy crops so all invented a fertility deity"? Perhaps we could call that the deities of necessity. Or "we all experience love so attribute 'love' as a high attribute of deity"? We might call that the deities of psychology.
My first reaction is a sense of caution around extrapolating from our feelings to how g0ds came to exist. I have no real expertise in this area though, it's just a feeling. I'm also thinking of Jung, for some reason.
I think it's perfectly OK to label yourself an agnostic while still being open to the possibility of spiritual experience/knowledge. Labels are just pointers, it's only in discussion that we understand the nuance of each others' position, imo.
There are plenty of agnostics who are at the atheist end of the scale, and that's fine. I call myself an "open agnostic", by which I mean I'm open to the idea that either might be true - no spiritual reality, or vice versa. From discussions I've participated, agnostics can have vehement disagreements among themselves, just like any other religion ;)
I'm agnostic about aliens for example, but think they probably haven't visited earth. if I had reasonable evidence that we've met some I'd have to change my mind. If it was important to me, I'd probably be on the search for ET right now.
Great point you made there! ... I found myself astonished about agreeing with you pretty much 100%. You've got a great style anyway, I guess I will check by every now and then ...
Oh, and before I forget: FIRST!!!!!!!! :D keep it up!
Me vs Atheism
Before I jump into this, a few quick points, and a disclaimer or two.
(Edit) 0: The title of this post is (deliberately, I’ll admit) misleading. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination ‘oppose’ atheism – but rather the attitude that (in my experience) is held by many who claim that (or any other) view, which I see as disruptive to inclusive, unbiased and reasonable debate.
1: My original point (which got a little lost in the ruckus this post is actually about) was very simple. Following an interesting episode of the SBS program Insight addressing religious education – scrap that – theological indoctrination in the public school system, and a number of trialled, suggested and in one case rejected alternatives, I concluded the following.
If we are going to include Religious Education in the public school system, for God’s sake (pun fully intended – and it is a pun, just so you’re clear on that) can we actually educate our kids about, you know – religion? Not the Christian or Catholic or Hindu or Islamic faith, but RELIGION. After all -
Yeah, quoted myself. So ner.
2: If I’m wrong here, let me know. Not in the “No, you infidel – God is real!” or “There is no god you ignorant twit” sense, but if I am at all mistaken in my observations – I’m more than happy to stand corrected.
3: This is one of those really fun topics that you either don’t give a crap about (in which case I suggest you leave now – this get’s a little long and ranty) or if you do, you feel quite strongly about (usually in one particular direction). I encourage and welcome comments – you may have noticed there aren’t many on the site, so it’d be a novelty, if nothing else – but typically these kinds of discussions degenerate into a perfect example of one of the bigger issues I see with this kind of thing (there’s a post in that I’m sure) and I’d much prefer a reasoned debate than an outright flame war. (Most of the time)
Bottom line though, is that (frustrating as it may sometimes be) ignorance can stand corrected – intolerance, more rarely so. Needless to say, intolerance trumps ignorance on Collin’s ‘wanker-meter’, so if you really feel the need to be an arse – do it elswhere.
Cool, now I’ve quoted myself and referred to myself in the third person. How conceited is that!
4: I’m not an expert on anything that I’ll (eventually, I swear) be looking at in this post. My opinions on these topics are essentially just that – opinion, based on casual observation for the most part, and backed by a preoccupation with finding out the ‘why’ of things.
5: Despite the apparent assumptions of some commentors on the ramblings that kicked this off, I’m not a ‘believer’ when it comes to the ‘One God’.. thing. If you were reading around April Fools day it should be pretty clear I’m an equal opportunity fun pokerer. But then, I’m not a believer in the ‘No god’ thing either.
What? Huh? What on earth can this mean?!
It’s pretty simple. Three words, in fact. If you think you can manage, you can say them with me. Ready?
I don’t know.
And I’m OK with that. Because when it comes to contending views on the ‘truthiness’ of a given thing, to ’round out’ to the most likely, or most evidenced version is essentially a cop out. A by product of our biological compulsion to rationalize perhaps. Or maybe just a big flip of the bird to the party unable to prove their claim. (Either way, ‘liklihoodiness’ sounds nowhere near as good as ‘truthiness’)
And while most of the ‘scientifically minded’ folk are happy with the way the ‘burden of proof‘ works, I am not – it’s never really made sense to me. Lack of proof of the existence of a thing (in this case, a deity) does not, in any way, validate the counter-argument attesting to that thing’s non-existence. Something either exists, or it does not. It is either true, or it is not. The burden of proof shouldn’t fall on either party – determining the actual truth should be the goal of both. And if that truth cannot be determined, the only remaining option to to admit ignorance.
In the simplest possible way I can think to put it:
x = their view
y = your view
n = the ‘truth’ of the matter
n will never be either x or y – it will always be n.
x or y might accurately describe n, however if x or y cannot be infallibly found to do so there is no basis on which to claim that either x or y has anything to do with n at all. For all you know, a better description would be q. Or 784. Or Batman.
After you die-hard philosophers out there get over your apoplexy, I’ll ask you to consider this:
Should the answer to any question posed regarding the nature of a thing be biased toward the conventionalism, and the likeliness of one presented answer according to common opinion and the ideology of the time?
Once you’ve answered that (I’m sure it won’t take long) perhaps reflect on what Socrates might have thought.
I can’t tell you if god exists, but I can tell you something of what I do believe – that throughout our history, human beings seem compelled to envision an entity or power greater than themselves to whom (when anthropomorphized) they will submit their will, and while our nature leans toward an abuse of the power such compelling beliefs hold over our fellow mortals, these same beliefs have spawned such institutionalised concepts as law, morality, consequence and in a (granted, very) broad sense, are in fact a form of scientific endeavour.
While such beliefs may be inconsequential in the view of some, I myself cannot dismiss them as easily, given the impact they’ve had (and still have) on our culture, and by virtue of my own (irritating, I’m sure) tendency to leave every matter ‘open to discussion’ unless completely, unequivocally resolved.
OK, enough of the preamble. On with the show.
The particular comment that so enraged a select few:
Source: http://twitter.com/collinvanuden
In hindsight, it was very badly written. Essentially, I changed the reference between the sentences from the belief structure (Atheism) to the individuals (Atheists) A small mistake, but stupid, and unintentionally stepping on the ironic toes of one of my favourite mantras. To clarify, I’ll put it a slightly different way.
Atheism is not a religion, if you define religion as a belief dependant on the existence of one or more god(s). Well, duh.
However – in terms of religious views, the atheistic principle declaration that god(s) do not exist (Atheism derives from the Greek ‘Atheos’ – literally, “without gods”) than you must concur that by nature, it is contentious, dismissive, and intolerant of alternate religious views. Which is (say it with me now) much like the attitude of the fundamentalists. (And I’m one of those pesky ‘all religious views are fundamental’ folk, so I can’t wait for your comments on this one)
It’s here that many would try and derail the argument I’m making here by stating that atheism in it’s broader sense can mean that you hold no view on the existence of gods, or abstaining from holding a belief on the matter altogether. Sorry, but I see that as a gross misinterpretation, and here’s why:
The prefix ‘a’ (also Greek, god(s) love ‘em) alters the meaning of a word thusly:
So, as applied to the word ‘theism’ (from ‘theos’ – God and ‘ism’ – belief in, or principle held)
We get any/all of the following:
It seems to me that there’s not really any room for ambiguity there.
For the sake of not being completely intolerant myself, I’ll point out there are other interpretations.
To me, in a way, it’s this whole ‘interpretation’ thing that really gets in the way when we discuss this kind of thing. When did stuff start meaning stuff other than it means?
This post was provided to me as an aside to my comments – and to me, it’s a good example of my more common experiences with atheists, and in fact anyone who so strongly holds to a particular perception that their vision becomes filtered by it.
Simply put, the author comments on this piece by the Dalai Lama, published in the New York Times.
In the NYT piece, the Dalai Lama writes:
To which the Associate Professor of Mathematics responds:
Ummm.. The Dalai Lama also writes books expressing his views (there’s one plugged on the NYT article) and speaks publicly about what he believes when invited to do so. So no, I’m pretty sure that he doesn’t, in fact, regard such activities as representing a dangerous extreme. You nitwit. Nice job on proving his point though.
I thought it interesting that I got a similar response to my own comments:
So, in pointing out the similarity in response, am I in fact comparing myself to one of the most respected religious leaders in the world? Of course not. Neither is the Dalai Lama comparing atheists who issue ‘blanket condemnations’ with more violent expressions of religious intolerance. All are presented as an example of that intolerance.
Others have made the points here, others still have countered them. All I can offer is my individual view, and hope you do the same. Feel free to comment, question or ignore as you see fit. All I have to wrap this thing up with is this:
Science, religion, reason, faith. They can all exist and even work together in a collaborative and mutually beneficial way – but utimately, I don’t think it is, or has ever been the ideals that are the problem. It’s the people who hold them that screw things up.