Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 13, 2011 at 8:45pm

Well, if you look at atheism in the same manner as those who PZ Myers has dubbed "dictionary atheists", then one could easily fall into all sorts of woo, including back into religion.  But, I have argued that being "born an atheist" is pretty much a meaningless statement and if you take atheism to mean nothing but a lack in a belief of a god or gods, then it really says nothing.  Why WOULDN'T they be susceptible to falling for some scam like religion or astrology?

 

I think you hit upon why many atheists wouldn't fall back into religion when you added "intellectual conclusion" to this post.  Critical thinking and Scientific Skepticism are ways to atheism that are not likely to lead to a backslide into mushy thinking and religion. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by scLovely on February 13, 2011 at 8:53pm

Agreed. But because the ones (and I don't think there are many) that reject god emotionally, or because the church has hurt them somehow, are the ones that will go back. That makes many religious followers believe that all atheists can be swayed, when this simply isn't true. Hardly any atheists can be fooled into believing again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 13, 2011 at 9:04pm

This level of agreement between us threatens to stifle a discussion.

But, I might argue that we shouldn't expect too much from those whose thinking is already suspect.  That they might fully expect water to turn into wine by mere whim should numb us to their other assumptions about what may or may not persuade atheists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 14, 2011 at 2:58am

"Why WOULDN'T they be susceptible to falling for some scam like religion or astrology?"

 

It's not credible, and I am not a blank slate nor a naïve pup waiting for someone to fill my head.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 14, 2011 at 10:22pm

YOU may not be, but so many others are.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 14, 2011 at 10:29pm

I know quite a few others in the same boat, and it just hasn't typically proven the case in my experience.

 

 

I'm not saying it doesn't happen; I just don't know why some assume it so likely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 14, 2011 at 10:46pm

I don't think it is necessarily likely, but I don't see religion as anything more than a symptom of uncritical thinking.  Without religion, people seem to turn to some other woo or some other religion than the one they bought into before.  It is least likely to happen if the person thinks critically.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 15, 2011 at 3:08am

At the start of this chain was a statement about those 'born an atheist' and those that describe their atheism as a lack of belief.  These terms do imply a lack of significance attributed to atheism as a product of critically dismantling theism.

 

Not applying critical thought to a/theism does not mean that a person doesn't apply critical thinking to the rest of their life.  So why not apply critical thinking to theism?  When you don't grow up with someone telling you that this stuff is true, it's more than likely going to sound like the total nonsense that it is right from the start.  Worse than nonsense, most of it just isn't that interesting.

 

Incidentally, I have applied critical thinking to religion.  I have also applied critical thinking to Scooby Doo.  It wasn't really necessary in either case to dismiss them as inaccurate descriptions of reality; both are pretty clearly fiction.

 

This notion that atheism requires some sort of dedicated critical thought process simply lends too much credibility to theism for my liking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 15, 2011 at 7:11am

Incidentally, I have applied critical thinking to religion. I have also applied critical thinking to Scooby Doo. It wasn't really necessary in either case to dismiss them as inaccurate descriptions of reality; both are pretty clearly fiction.

This notion that atheism requires some sort of dedicated critical thought process simply lends too much credibility to theism for my liking.

 

Well, then you are not giving religion enough credit because billions of people believe that it is an accurate description of reality.  And some of these people are very intelligent people, and even might apply critical thinking to other areas in their life.

 

While we both agree that religious claims are preposterous and without merit, we have come to that conclusion for arguably good reasons.  And, no, it doesn't take much thought to formulate these reasons.  But where critical thinking is so essential is for examining beliefs that we are emotionally fond of.  We must posess a willingess to challenge and confront our own biases.  For me, I was never enamored with religion so it was not too difficult.  But, I find it much more difficult to challenge some of my political views.  And this is where I must exert myself and apply critical thinking to override that emotional bias in order to seek a truth that may be obvious to someone else. 

 

Babies are atheists in the same manner that rocks and trees are atheists. Their atheism is incidental. My atheism came as a result of critically examining these claims that I was raised to believe.  This is why I argue that atheism by way of Skepticism is superior, more meaningful, and gives credit to atheism rather than religion.  It has greater value because it inoculates me from a vast array of scams and cons.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 15, 2011 at 2:27pm

Well, then you are not giving religion enough credit because billions of people believe that it is an accurate description of reality.  And some of these people are very intelligent people, and even might apply critical thinking to other areas in their life.

 

I don't think we're talking about the same people.  I thought I had clearly enough established that I am talking about a subset of the human population.  This subset couldn't possibly number in the billions.

 

Of the billions of religious adherents, how many of them do you think came to their faith rationally?  I'm sure a small percentage did, but aren't the majority simply adherents of the system they were born into?  Not to trivialize their convictions, nor their faculties of reason, but there's a certain level of religious preconditioning and conditioning involved there.  We weren't all born into that.  We didn't all grow up with (significant) cultural religious reinforcement or emotional dis/incentives to be part of the flock.

 

While we both agree that religious claims are preposterous and without merit, we have come to that conclusion for arguably good reasons.

 

That's just it; you're wrong here.  I didn't come to this conclusion for good reasons.  All manner of things in my world view have changed for various reasons, but religion was always incredible from the get go.  That was my starting position.

 

Babies are atheists in the same manner that rocks and trees are atheists. Their atheism is incidental.

 

When people say that babies are atheists, it's generally rhetoric stating that babies don't start with built-in religious beliefs; they are indoctrinated as they grow older.  It isn't comparable to rocks or trees, as rocks and trees don't have the potential to become theists (to the best of our knowledge).  

 

There isn't a clear point in time at which a person is philosophically capable of being an a/theist.  Even if there was, I don't believe there's a definitive understanding of the progression to that point starting from the moment of birth.  What I can say is that absent religious upbringing, no child is suddenly going to jump to revelations of Heaven and Hell, the Trinity, Mary, Moses, and the divinity of Christ.

 

My atheism came as a result of critically examining these claims that I was raised to believe.  This is why I argue that atheism by way of Skepticism is superior, more meaningful, and gives credit to atheism rather than religion.

 

You weren't raised on the other end of things.  By what means are you relating to that experience?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on February 16, 2011 at 12:58am

I don't think we're talking about the same people. I thought I had clearly enough established that I am talking about a subset of the human population. This subset couldn't possibly number in the billions.



Of the billions of religious adherents, how many of them do you think came to their faith rationally? I'm sure a small percentage did, but aren't the majority simply adherents of the system they were born into? Not to trivialize their convictions, nor their faculties of reason, but there's a certain level of religious preconditioning and conditioning involved there. We weren't all born into that. We didn't all grow up with (significant) cultural religious reinforcement or emotional dis/incentives to be part of the flock.

 

Well, maybe we aren't talking about the same people.  But I am speaking more to the irrational nature of human beings in general.  Religion is not the only thing that we are irrational about and it doesn't take indoctrination to hold irrational beliefs.   My argument is that it takes effort and critical thinking to avoid irrational beliefs, whether it is religion or something else.

 

That's just it; you're wrong here.  I didn't come to this conclusion for good reasons.  All manner of things in my world view have changed for various reasons, but religion was always incredible from the get go.  That was my starting position.

 

So, you are saying that seeing claims as being incredible is not a good reason?

 

When people say that babies are atheists, it's generally rhetoric stating that babies don't start with built-in religious beliefs; they are indoctrinated as they grow older.

 

I understand that.  But without the tools to critically analyze beliefs, we are subject to all sorts of irrational beliefs.  Even simple and seemingly innocuous events of confirmation bias are a natural product of being human and require no structured indoctrination.  Pareidolia is another example of this where we are hard wired to see patterns in noise.  We also see patterns in otherwise unrelated events and construct narratives.  This is, I believe, how religion got a foothold in human cultures.  How atheists use the rhetoric of babies being atheists is not accurate and I think is a faulty argument for atheism.  Babies aren't born able to think critically, either.  It takes education and effort to do so.  Is critical thinking lesser for this, too?

 

You weren't raised on the other end of things. By what means are you relating to that experience?

 

I thought I had pointed this out already.  Thinking critically inoculates from other forms of woo.  It doesn't need to be an outside influence.  Humans are quite capable of readily fooling themselves with no help from anyone.  It is this tendency that makes confidence scams so successful.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 16, 2011 at 1:16am

"So, you are saying that seeing claims as being incredible is not a good reason?"

 

You've skipped over the important part: I didn't come to this conclusion; I started at that point.  I did not reject religion; I never had it.  My understanding of religious texts has always been that they are largely fictional with, perhaps, shreds of real history embedded in them somewhere.  I'll be honest, up until I was in middle school, it was less of a reason, and more of a basic understanding.  

 

"I thought I had pointed this out already.  Thinking critically inoculates from other forms of woo.  It doesn't need to be an outside influence.  Humans are quite capable of readily fooling themselves with no help from anyone.  It is this tendency that makes confidence scams so successful."

 

That doesn't address the question asked at all.  If you were born into religious influence, by what means are you relating to those that were not?  Studies?  Psyche papers?  First hand accounts from friends?

 

As for people fooling themselves or holding irrational beliefs about other things outside of religion, this brings us almost full circle from what I said near the beginning.  Just because someone doesn't waste time applying critical analysis to fairy tales does not automatically mean that they do not apply critical thought to the rest of their lives and the universe around them.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page