Originally Posted by Xei
Now you're back into prejudice territory again. Perhaps it's because you're an American and so many of the small number of people who do arrive at atheism are quite reactionary, but in Europe secularism is simply the normal position. There are a whole range of things you can believe without believing in a God. You can be spiritual, or believe in a life force, for example. Do you really believe Buddhists have a 'nihilistic, materialistic' world view?
I covered this, and me covering it was the first thing you quoted in your reply. Here's another version, lifted from the RatSkep thread Blueline made on my behalf:
I'm not saying that atheism, defined narrowly and literally, constitutes an ideology. What I'm saying is that those who argue on behalf of atheism, and particularly those most inclined to fall back on semantics when it is suggested that they believe in anything, do in fact share a comprehensive and identifiable worldview, of which atheism itself is a minor component, but a convenient flag to rally around. No, not all atheists (defined literally) are Materialists, nor, even if they have some rationale for their atheism, are all thoroughgoing Rationalists. Those atheists, however, are largely shut out of the debate in the same way that religious persons who are not scriptural literalists (i.e. most religious persons) are shut out of the debate, because it is framed a priori with the following Rational Materialist assumptions (among others):
- All religious beliefs are truth-claims about objective reality.
- All of these claims compete with each other and with Materialism for exclusive veracity.
- Only fixed, objective qualities of reality exist.
- Reality has fixed, objective qualities.
- The accuracy of one's worldview is determinable by the number of correct facts in one's possession.
- Non-rational modes of thought do not yield useful knowledge.
All of the above are philosophical stances, not evidentiary findings or known facts, and they limit the number of possibilities one can consider. Many more current philosophies are less skittish about acknowledging the role of subjectivity in constructing even the seemingly most evident and concrete aspects of our experience, and less bent on the notion that there is one "correct" viewpoint that should be inflicted upon all of humanity.
Originally Posted by Xei
And to say that most Europeans are nihilists and don't see any purpose in existence is just extraordinary. I'm sure most of us don't really consider it, but if pressed would say that enjoying life, friends and family, or discovery, or helping others, are good purposes. Pretty much the same as oh-so-enlightened theists actually. Materialism also carries various strong connotations that 'material things are the only things that matter in life', with a disregard for morals or emotions or cultures. Applying this to all, or even most atheists is totally wrong. Just absolutely wrong and prejudiced.
You're arguing against the connotations accrued to the terms in idiomatic usage, not the philosophical positions themselves. Stormcrow summed up Materialism well enough:
1. Materialism is a positive ontological position stating that the universe is composed of entirely physical entities and the interactions between them.
Is this your position, Xei, or is it not? Stormcrow seems to be affirming that it is his.
He biffed Existential Nihilism a bit:
2. Existential Nihilism. I dont even know anyone over the age of 17 that even entertains this idea. Nihilism is the idea that existence is meaningless and knowledge is impossible.
Existential Nihilism asserts that existence lacks inherent meaning or purpose, which has nothing to say regarding whether it can (or should) be made meaningful or purposeful. I'm over 17 and subscribe to some degree of both Existential and Ontological Nihilism. That knowledge is impossible is Epistemological Nihilism, which I did not introduce to the discussion.
Originally Posted by Xei
I think there are two reasons. One is truth. They see religious people being totally intellectually dishonest with themselves, and that is disturbing. If somebody says 'I have a belief in God because I hear him speak to me / I had an ineffable spiritual experience which convinced me' then that is fine and there is nothing more that can be said. But when atheists in your sense see somebody obstinately saying 'I believe in God because evolution has been shown to be a lie' or some other factual inaccuracy or fallacy, in other words trying to use reason but clearly having been lied to by propaganda/themselves, the the atheists will try to show that these reasons are flawed.
The second reason is humanism. Many atheists see dogma as the chief cause of all human suffering. Whether it's oppression of a group of people or a line of thought, or partisanship, jingoism, and war; atheists see the Enlightenment as a great event in the potential betterment of humanity, and will do battle with its antithesis, dogma.
You're saying yourself that such "atheists" are advancing a considerably broader agenda than literal atheism, including many more shared, specific positions than lack of belief in deities. Isn't it intellectually dishonest to then fall back on the semantics surrounding the term "atheism" when confronted with that fact?
Originally Posted by stormcrow
If someone believes in no gods, what inferences can we draw from this without rehearsing our own prejudices?
This thread has nothing to do with drawing inferences from lack of belief in deities. Discussions in which people assert their identity as atheists often have little, if anything to do with deities specifically, yet avowed atheists in these discussions still fall back upon the literal definition of "atheism" to claim they believe nothing, rather than subject their actual positions to scrutiny.
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Rationalism
Admittedly, I was using the term loosely. Maybe my meaning would be better conveyed by "Pro-Rational"--elevating rational (or rationalized) thought and expression above all other means (or even to the exclusion of all other means) of acquiring, holding or sharing knowledge.
Originally Posted by stormcrow
5. Logical positivism...
...Again I don't know why this is on the list no one has advocated LP since the 30's.
Perhaps that's why it wasn't? The term I used was "Scientific Positivism," but in fact it's more often termed "Science Positivism," simply "Positivism," or "scientism" in a critical sense, which is probably most relevant here. It is the position that science and the scientific method are the only credible or authoritative approach to reality or the human experience.
Originally Posted by stormcrow
The point is that none of these "5 tenets of atheism" are exclusive beliefs to atheists. You can be an atheist and not be a materialist or a determinist, etc. No one is trying to "sell these underlying world views".
As I told Xei, I'll table Determinism--some adherents are quite insistent that it's part and parcel with Materialism, but that's an internal schism, as it is in theology. Regardless, I hope you can see by now that neither the exclusivity nor universality of these positions to atheism are relevant to the discussion. They are not presented as "tenets of atheism," but as a body of more fundamental beliefs shared and promoted by those who present themselves in discussion as atheists.
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Who says modernism is out of date? Avant-garde french philosophers? Modernism isnt the assertion that "we live in a strictly physical, rigidly determined universe with no purpose or meaning" you are thinking of the Enlightenment, of which modernism was a reaction against. Ya know Postmodernism is a like an old dirty hobo that rambles seemingly incoherent dribble to himself while onlooker have no idea what the hell he is talking about. This is why postmodernism has absolutely no relevance outside of France and among teenagers who read Nietzsche.
So you fully accept characterization as a holdover Modernist?
Oy, I can't believe I made that much copy-pasta
|
|
Bookmarks