[MD] a-theism and atheism

[John Carl]

dmb,

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> dmb says:
> Well, no. You want religion and science to be equally bogus. You want to
> make science and religion equal by discrediting both.


No, I don't.  I de-absolutize both.    I give preference to science when and
where  it's explanations work, because its explanations work.  I understand
pragmatism, dave.

But even as you pointed out, there is a huge well-spring of human
psychological need that science just doesn't meet.  Humans have had religion
for as long as there have been humans.  Disparaging it won't make it go
away.  Not unless you figure out a way to meet those needs.  And science
can't do it.



> That's no good. The difference between them still obtains, regardless or
> whether or not you can find fanatical subscribers to scientism. Science
> itself - as a method - is better than religion because science is based on
> empirical evidence and it is far more open to change.


Science is better at what it does well.  It's worse in some areas.  But i do
agree with you that important differences obtain.  My point about a tool of
analysis, such as the MoQ, being necessary, is to put things in their proper
places.  Where scientific empiricism is needed, use that.  Where religious
cosmology comforts real human need, let it.  Everything in it's place.



> It's more dynamic and more concrete.
> And yes, atheism and non-theism mean exactly the same thing.


Literally, yes.  Experientially, no.  My, yours and everyone's experience of
atheism as it instantiates in the academy and atheistic society is as a
highly  intolerant reaction against theism.  And yeah, I realize this is a
somewhat natural reaction, what with religious fanaticism's fight against
science.  I can see how this social pattern of enemy formation arises.  But
intellectually, I think we should be aloof from participating in the battle
between societys.  At least sometimes.  Perhaps you can use insights gained
for furthering your side in the war, but not if you demonize.   In order to
conquer an enemy, you first must come to understand them.  "Love your enemy"
then isn't a formula for capitulation, but a formula for conquering.




> The connotation that concerns you, ironically, is a product of the fact
> that so many of today's atheists are actually former theists who are in
> recovery, who are trying to undo their religious upbringing. Their
> fanaticism and their stridence is a thought STYLE. They've exchanged the
> substance of one worldview for another but their style remains the same.
> Once a fanatic, always a fanatic.


I think you're right.  That's pretty much the way I see it too.



> I've seen the same thing happen in politics. Check out David Horowitz, for
> example. He used to be a fanatical left-winger and now he's a fanatical
> right-winger. Different content, same form.
>
> And that kind of "atheists" defies the actual meaning of the term.


Yes, I agree.  But when so many people use a term a certain way, whether or
not it's really valid, it obtains the meaning in usage.



> It's not just that they don't believe in God. Their non-belief is asserted
> is asserted as a positive position rather than the absence of one. As Sam
> Harris points out, almost everyone is an atheist with respect to Zeus but
> they don't go around insisting that they is no Zeus. They don't set up
> organizations or have meetings about how there is no Zeus. Why bother?
>
>
As  James Carse says,  all belief is  belief against.



> Next time you run across an annoying atheist, make sure you remember this.
> He's probably trying to exorcise some demons, he's trying to heal the
> damage, he's trying to grow. And that's a good instinct. But NOT believing
> something is just a form of rejection. It's purely negative. And eventually
> one has to decide on something positive to believe. And in such cases,
> science is not a crazy place to start. At least it's based on experience and
> it's open and checkable and refutable and testable.
>
>
Yeah, I can see what you mean.  What you describe, however, is a problem in
that it has created a modern vacuum in values.  And any attempt to put
meaningful values back into the cosmos, is interpreted by these escapees as
a reversion to religion.  Wouldn't you say that's been a big problem in the
academic acceptance of the MoQ?


> And this is the big difference between a theistic religion like
> Christianity and a non-theistic religion like Buddhism. Christianity says
> you should believe because it is written in the word of god, you should
> believe on the basis of faith and authority. Buddhism says you should go
> find out for yourself. That makes all the difference in the world.
>
>
Those two aren't the only religious formulations available in the world, and
while you make a good point in comparing them and them alone, I don't see
how Buddhism is capable of handling the problems of modernity in facing a
growing Islamic challenge.  Or a growing mormon, or christian fundamentalist
reaction either, for that matter.  I really think the only way to get
through these conflicts is a well-thought application of the Metaphysics of
Quality.  And if the MoQ just sides with the scientific atheists, it's not
going to be a very effective tool in fixing the conflicts.

Thanks for the response, dave.  It's always a  pleasure when you play nice.

John