under attack, sentiments harden
Dogma:
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
In a recent Tweet, a friend accused me of using “atheistic dogma.” Of course, the common misconception of atheism was apparent, that atheists “believe” that there is no god. This is the usual mischaracterization of atheism by believers, as it reduces the philosophy of atheism to no more than mere superstition, on a level with the believers themselves. It is not true that I believe there is “no god.” As I have stated before, and will continue to, I perceive that there is no proof of one.
For the million or so years that homo sapiens and our predecessors have been wondering about The Nature of Things, the factor that has led intellectual pursuits is ignorance (and I use the term in opposition to “knowledge,” not in the pejorative sense). Ignorance breeds one thing in the human mind: a desire to fill in the gaps. The primitive mind looked at the bright ball of light in the sky and assumed it was a god; it was unreachable by human means, it came and left on its own (though regularly), and could either save them or kill them. All very deific traits. It took many thousands of years to determine that the sun is no more than an average star, like a nearly infinite number of other ones in the universe. But given that our predecessors didn’t know, or have the ability to find out, that their Sun God was a big ball of flaming hydrogen, was it wise for them to worship it? Was it sensible for them to offer produce, meat, or (in the case of many Mesoamerican cultures) human lives in sacrifice to it? If we determine that it was *not* sensible to presume that the sun was a god, how do we make the case for the deific status of our own particular perception of the unexplained? If it was indeed sensible for them to worship the sun, does it not follow that our determinations of what is worship-worthy should be guided by the proofs which are discovered about those phenomena? Furthermore, as modern minds, should we take a proactive approach to the evaluation of phenomena, rather than a reactive “wait-and-see” approach?
Returning to the notion of “atheistic dogma,” I wanted to evaluate what it is an atheist (at a basic level) should believe. Fundamentally, we should believe in proof. We should believe in the ability of the mind to evaluate the world around us. Unfortunately, human perception is often suspect. So, we trust the work of others in concert to keep us honest. Where we find new information, we alter our paradigm to fit the new data. Speaking of paradigms, we create ours based on that which is testable, saving the untestable for the field of superstition. So, then, what is our “dogma?” As shown, we don’t have “established opinions” – other than that of learning and discovery. There is neither a code of such; the individual retains his or her own definition of reality. And the only point of view or tenet atheists have to put forward is that religionists have failed to meet their end of the intellectual deal. And that can be said quite authoritatively.
When it comes down to it, I will choose logical over illogical. I don’t believe in intellectual abandonment.
Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary. — Steve Jobs
1.) I could argue that Atheism is a religion. I think that would make a great Google Wave topic.
2.) The more logical conclusions we come to as humans, we are left even more questions. Even though we have improved our methods of empirical induction exponentially over time we still us deduction to come to conclusions and fill in the holes. Educated guesses are guesses. Even though, I don’t have any desire to discredit science in the least, it is organic. A living breathing organism that evolves constantly. There is the possibility that 500 years from now, in a history of ideas class, some smart ass Philosophy student will laugh that we believed in the Big Bang. I think that is what Steve Jobs is saying. We didn’t come up with some of these ideas, we just have the cognitive skills to say “Hey, that makes sense” and agree. Ultimately,our knowledge is limit by “I watched that on the Discovery Channel and I can quote my source.”
3.)I do agree that logic in decision making is extremely important. Intuition is even more important, like my hero Steve Jobs said. Remember, that religious weirdo Albert Einstein said “Imagination is more import than knowledge.” Pure logic is limiting. After all we weren’t there to see the Big Bang, we don’t KNOW that it happened. We had creatively fill in the spaces. Just because their are irrational people screaming that book says Yahweh did it in 6 days doesn’t mean it’s true either. Well ok, its extremely unlikely that dinosaurs died out 10,000 years ago. My intuition tells me that we are still at beginning of human knowledge. TOTALLY abandoning one for another could prove to fatal.
Thanks again for an interesting point of view.
P.S. I was the one who coined the phase “Atheistic Dogma.” for those who didn’t see the tweet.
P.S.S. “Belief with out Logic is Blind. Logic without Belief is Deaf.”
“So, we trust the work of others in concert to keep us honest. Where we find new information, we alter our paradigm to fit the new data. Speaking of paradigms, we create ours based on that which is testable, saving the untestable for the field of superstition.”
ANY thinking individual would follow this precept regarding information, knowledge and evolving technology, it cannot be limited to individuals who think without a belief in a higher order.
“So, then, what is our “dogma?” As shown, we don’t have “established opinions” – other than that of learning and discovery. There is neither a code of such; the individual retains his or her own definition of reality.”
Should this be “reality” or “established truth”? Because frankly anyone who exists with their own “definition of reality” needs medication and or will soon end up in a hug-me jacket.
But what about emotion? Emotions are illogical and cannot be definitively explained by Science. Where forth do they come?
And do you have a soul? I know- knowing you- that you have a moral compass. What drives that? Emotion? Chemicals? Study and discipline?
What about supernatural happenings? Ghosts? I’ve seen ghosts. I know for a fact that my grandmother haunts my house. Does that suggest an afterlife?
Kelly; no doubt you could argue that Atheism is a religion. You won’t be successful, but the argument would definitely be interesting to hear. And I disagree with “Educated guesses are guesses.” The educated don’t guess; they hypothesize, test, and invite others to replicate the results (which is why we don’t have cold fusion yet). If a guess is in order, then education is likely irrelevant. And, you say science is “a living, breathing organism that evolves constantly.” That’s what I’ve been saying all along! Outcomes change as new info comes in; it doesn’t get written into a book and offered up two thousand years later as fact. That smart-ass Phil student can laugh all he wants – unless the evidence (as it does now) stands overwhelmingly against his position. (and even Steve and Al tested their hunches – hence the iPhone and Arkansas Nuclear One)
Em; I don’t see how you can validly argue that point. Either the superstitious is verifiable, or it cannot be accepted as fact. Whether a ghost or a god.
“Emotions are illogical and cannot be definitively explained by Science.” In the ancient world, a round earth was illogical. It could not be definitively explained. What happened? Eventually, somebody definitively explained it. The same has happened with gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, astronomy – all of it used to be mysterious, and now it is all pretty humdrum. And much of that only within the last hundred years. On the flip side, how emotions work is pretty well-explained. Why we have them is, of course, theorized, but the theories make damn good sense. Why obfuscate and ascribe it to a supernatural source?
Afterlife? If you mean “I’ve been a good boy, so I’m off to heaven,” no. If you mean (perhaps) an as-of-yet intangible quantum force that, upon the death of the spatial body, is no longer bound by a specific D-brane subspace, then I’m willing to listen. But only ’cause there’s math involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions
But if emotions ARE explained, they have not been definitively identified, located and or summed up at the source. We are more than serotonin, et al. If emotions were all summed up in chemicals, you could medicate or locate the gland producing the chemical and correct those who are over-emotional or out of balance. If it were possible to identify the emotional source, why are laws not being written in order to remove the violence or psychotic urge in criminals? If there is no God, and even if there is, if we have identified and completely mapped the creation (or the creature) why no play God? But the truth is no matter how much medication you throw at a person who is out of balance, bi-polar, lithium deficient, etc. the emotions still pour through. Dulled perhaps, but they still remain. You say the theories make pretty good sense. Ok. I guess we’ll all have to see.
As far as supernatural stuff is concerned, Wiccans can do some pretty wicked (and by wicked I mean kick ass cool) stuff that is scary powerful. Things happen. Physical things happen and or affected. I’m not sure any of that could be explained by science. I’ll leave the ghost thing alone(short of this- the woman wore Charlie cologne and smoked. I do neither. She died 2 yrs before I married Greg and we moved into a new house. Far too often I will pass through a room and smell cigarette smoke and Charlie.) until I tape the Ouija board event my mom and I are planning to see if we get a reading. Not that that will prove anything scientifically, but it will be interesting.
What drives the moral compass? What is that still small voice that says don’t? Is it innate? If so, why would nature give humans a conscience? Why do humans feel guilt? Regret? envy? lust? love? value? joy? elation? respect? Far to subtle and way beyond the animal scale of emotional responses.
God or no God, I certainly hope that once my physical body is gone, my spirit continues, in some way. Either as a member of a collective, universal force (don’t think Borg!) of energy or evolves into a higher level of existence. How sad to think this is it.
Em; “We are more than serotonin, et al.” There’s no evidence to believe otherwise. That said, the combination of chemicals, experience, and free will provides for an endless set of circumstances and outcomes, with no need to assign a mystical component to it. Is it “definitively identified?” No, but neither is gravity, yet we don’t randomly fly off the earth. And I continue to state my point: just because we don’t know “why” yet doesn’t mean we need to start spiritualizing the “because.”
Why not “play god?” Because it is patently immoral. Where does the “moral compass” come from? It comes from each of us, inculcated by our upbringing and environment. Hence the sociopath; a person that CANNOT behave according to a moral compass. Why? Has god failed? No, the person’s mechanism is broken – like any complex machine, it can break down. Add the volitional element to it, and you have Antisocial Personality Disorder. And it’s no different than cancer – you don’t “catch” cancer, your cells rebel against the body. There’s no mystical component to it, and no reason to think that there’s a difference in the emotional arena, just because we understand the mechanism of genetic abnormality.
Em, I’m not trying to argue with you. I am merely stating that I believe in science and logic because they work. Nearly every “what if” has an answer, even though it may not be looked for. I look for those answers. I am a profound skeptic now; I always thought I was, ironically, but now I question things. If the answer isn’t satisfactory, I keep looking. And for me, the mystical realm is the last of all possible resorts, simply because there are SO MANY answers out there, and they are so easily come by. There has been a world of research done on your next-to-last paragraph, and the results simply make sense. I run the risk of coming off sounding pedantic, but there is so much research out there – animals have a full range of emotions – guilt, regret, respect, for instance – yet if you don’t go to the places where you get that information, you’ll never know. And therein lies the beauty of science and knowledge. What has been discovered is far more wondrous than anything mystical. FAR more. And when we crack open that door, there is the glorious beauty of a thousand glowing doors beyond it, each with more wonder than we could imagine.
“And I disagree with “Educated guesses are guesses.” The educated don’t guess; they hypothesize, test, and invite others to replicate the results (which is why we don’t have cold fusion yet).”
hy⋅poth⋅e⋅sis:
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
Source: Dictionary.com
“I am merely stating that I believe in science and logic because they work.”
Why can’t you have both both be a believer and scientist?
Is reality either black and white?
Is reality a contour line drawing? No shadows or colors?
Are the only answers just yes and no?
Some examples of some “irrational” scientist or mathematicians :
Albert Einstein-Jew, The author of “Relativity”
Sir Isaac Newton- Some sort occult, Laws of Gravity
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarisizmi- Islam, The Father of Algebra
John Polkinghorne- Particle Physics and Anglican Priest, President of Queens College at Cambridge and author of “The Way the World is : The Christian Perspective of a Scientist”
Francis S. Collins- Christian, Director of NIH and author of “The Language of God”
Everyday, I here some of the worlds leading oncologists say that remission is greater with people of faith than those who have none. Why is this?
I also know that I can’t convince you that atheism has is a religion. The denial of belief makes one deaf.
Woo Woo! The Logical Fallacy Train has pulled into the station! Now boarding are Appeal to Authority, Bare Assertion, the ever-popular Red Herring, the Historian’s Fallacy, and rounding it up is Tex, the Sharpshooter!
“Why can’t you… both be a believer and scientist?” I never said you couldn’t. I am saying that there is no need to “believe” the results of the rigorous scientific endeavour. The outcome is the outcome, whether you believe it or not.
Please read what you quote: definitions one and four can’t BOTH be accurate. And you know why Those of Faith heal better. The research is there, and it is a perfectly-demonstrated scientific theory, at that, having nothing to do with the supernatural.
So I gave you an out from having to “prove” atheism is a religion? How convenient. And you threw in the Straw Man and Ad Hominem, to boot. Hope there’s room left on the train.
Reality is Grey. And if Reality is a contour line drawing the line is a blur.
Knowledge without faith or belief in something, is mechanics.
I don’t want to be a computerized marionette. I want to be a real girl.
Then don’t be. You guys are defining it that way, not me.
“Knowledge without faith or belief in something, is mechanics.” Interesting opinion. In what “something?”
A greater purpose; a reason to know in order to move forth humanity, or an ideal, or a greater good, or a purposeful end. Without a contributory goal this all just feels futile and dry. Like sawdust.
I can’t fathom it. And if I was in a position where I didn’t see that my presence was for an infinite purpose (and I mean that in an humble way, not in arrogance) to an infinite power, I would simply wish to cease to be. But, that is how it strikes me.
I truly want to understand how this all works for you. Which is why I enjoy discussing these things with you. 1.) You are one the most brilliant people I know. And 2.) one of the few people truly respect and value an opinion of.
You mentioned “just because we don’t know “why” yet doesn’t mean we need to start spiritualizing the “because.”” Ok I respect your direction in that. But I feel my spirituality around me and through me like a veil, ever-present. Say I find the cure to cancer, scientifically proven. And in finding that cure I give all the credit to God. Do you doubt the validity of my Science because I claim spiritual assistance?
“A greater purpose; a reason to know in order to move forth humanity, or an ideal, or a greater good, or a purposeful end.” Atheists have all that. I know I do. I would argue that believers – at least Christians – don’t. Re: “apart from me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) THAT, in my opinion, is what’s sad; that a life is so empty it needs a god-figure in it. If I cure cancer, I do it so that people will stop suffering. If you do, you do it because god told you to/wants you to/etc. I don’t think obeying a god-commandment is a moral decision; I think it boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. And ultimately, if that makes you happy, it’s a Good Thing.
If you find the cure to cancer, scientifically proven, then that’s the end of the discussion. You have done an amazing thing, and it satisfies my intellectual curiosity (FWIW). What you do after that is of no relevance to my View of Things, as long as it Makes You Happy, and your Happiness doesn’t make other people Not Happy.
Your quote of John 15:5 is out of context. You did not include “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” This is in regards to the works of Heaven. This is perfectly logical that apart from the center; a person would wither and die in the effort. You must be renewed, reenforced and reenergized from the main to continue. But this is true in all things, regardless of the process. A hermit, no matter how brilliant, without renewed access to continued knowledge; reenforcement & re-energized from technology advancements will be come stagnet, obsolete and eventually useless in any advancement of knowledge whether it be philosopy to medical advancement.
Since God does not send Angels with 3X5 index cards spelling out todays’ directive; I still feel blessed and HONORED, not subjegated when I am allowed an ephiphany that is forward thinking and helps either my friends, coworker or others; and should I have been a scientist who was blessed with capacity to obtain the knowledge (and yes I believe in “Pray to God” but keep rowing to the shore)to cure cancer, I would feel obligated to God to give him praise for using me as a vessel for good works. As we are here for His pleasure, I’m good with that. I do not see it as a sad thing, but an honor. I have free will and get to do anything I damn well please; good or bad. But I can place that aside, and ask to be a servant of the Lord. If I am used, it is a blessing, not a curse. I do not feel smothered,or less myself; more often I have a sense of fulfillment not otherwise obtained.
I undestand a desire of individuality. A desire to say, this is mine, I did it. “Look mom, no hands.” I also will acknowledge that a great many things have been accomplished by Folks who did not acknowledge the existance of God. But the opposite is true as well.
My biggest hope is that everyone, believers and non-believers, will learn to look at eachother not on a spiritual level, but on a human level. We are all on this big round boat together. It is way past time we learned to live together.
Well, whereas the word “nothing” is pretty all-encompassing, I’ll stipulate to my out of context-edness for the sake of the discussion. And since I advocate reason rather than devotion (as that’s where the discussion has gone), I’ll let this thread go dormant.
Well, I’m coming to this thread late, but I have to add at *least* this one comment.
Dan, your comment: “What you do after that is of no relevance to my View of Things, as long as it Makes You Happy, and your Happiness doesn’t make other people Not Happy.”
You have successfully defined absolute nothingness. There is absolutely NO ACTION a person can take that would satisfy the criteria you stipulate. Most assuredly, what makes one person happy will make another NOT. Choices by their very existence are the rejection of one option and a rejection of another, or a host of other, options.
Even one’s decision to act solely for the happiness of another often makes self unhappy, or one’s parents, or one’s friends. That premise is nonsensical. The only true, verifiable option is to follow the only barometer one can truly know at all, and that is one’s own. Anything else is is supposition at best, interpretation at worst.
I wish I could “INSERT” beneath the relevant/related source comments like you can on Wave!
FYI – I was going to “let” this thread go dormant, not “make” it, in case anyone wondered.
And, in case anyone wondered, I DO post the critical statements as well.
And you called me out appropriately; I was going for more of the Wiccan Rede, but I took it to an Epicurean level. Happiness is elusive. The “Not Happy” I was really referring to was the just response to “I’m happy in Christ, therefore no gays should get married” or the “we have billboards all over America, but we’ll complain about yours” approach.
tags
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
my twitter feed
feed
blogroll
flickr photos
More Photos
pages
Recent Posts
about