Where is the hope in atheism?

[bhsmte]

Science has always adapted due to religious beliefs. It came into existence because of Scholasticism, which has deep religious overtones. The idea of God as sustainer of the world, that it is ordered and regular, is implicitly there.

Similarly, after the Renaissance and the Reformation, Science was changed by philosophic/religious ideas like mind/body duality to consider the world in new ways. That is why animals came to be seen as biological machines, and why mechanistic explanations came to predominate. This is also why vivisection came to be seen as more acceptable practice, which shifted the old debate between empiric observers and dissecters in Medicine, in the latter's favour.
Similarly, Priestley and others supported Phlogiston in Chemistry, and the reason Lavousier could set it aside, was the spirit of the times that no longer thought in such immaterial ways.
The same can be said of the acceptance of Geology, which only really became controversial as part of the opposition to Evolution.

So religion has deeply influenced Science, via its deep influence upon the culture from within which the Scientists are working. The Sciences thus adapted in part due to religion, although you could frame this as 'religion getting out of the way of the Sciences', but that is a post-fact rationalisation, little more.
It is the same reason stem-cell research was opposed on ethical grounds, as detritus of Christian culture, which shifted the research in favour of pleripotent cells instead of harvesting the embryonic variety. If the latter was uncontroversial, the ultimately better prospects of the former might never even been thought viable.

I think it a bit foolish to juxtapose religion and science, as if they are somehow two sides of a coin. I mean, we don't juxtapose mathematics and animal husbandry, which obviously function in different ways, though one can vaguely be applied to the other.

I think we are saying two different things.

There is no question, that those who are engaged in religious beliefs, are influenced by it, I agree. What I am saying is; science doesn't change it's methods of acquiring knowledge, based on religion and science does not alter how they interpret data and the evidence, based on religious beliefs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think we are saying two different things.

There is no question, that those who are engaged in religious beliefs, are influenced by it, I agree. What I am saying is; science doesn't change it's methods of acquiring knowledge, based on religion and science does not alter how they interpret data and the evidence, based on religious beliefs.

Ah, but that's the rub. Depending on the specific scientist doing whatever particular science happens to be on today's agenda, there will be various philosophical considerations that do alter how a scientist interprets the data and the evidence. Even though people who are religious are caused to think twice by science, let's not pretend that science is simply all hermetically sealed and homogenized through and through, even among each and every scientist. That's not what's been going on in the history of science, although a number of scientists have seemed to overplay the level of objectivity available in each and every case where scientific method(S) have been applied.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, but that's the rub. Depending on the specific scientist doing whatever particular science happens to on today's agenda, there will be various philosophical considerations that do alter how a scientist interprets the data and the evidence. Even though people who are religious are caused to think twice by science, let's not pretend that science is simply all hermetically sealed and homogenized through and through, even among each and every scientist. That's not what's been going on in the history of science, although a number of scientists have seemed to overplay the level of objectivity available in each and every case where scientific method(S) have been applied.

And, any faulty interpretations in science, tend to be revealed in due course.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And, any faulty interpretations in science, tend to be revealed in due course.

Yes and there is a reason for that in science, a reason that is also perhaps one which similarly explains why Christians have "changed" their interpretations about their Bible over the years, and not just in response to science per say, but inclusive of it. As science educator, and Christian, Michael Poole (2007) relates:

As with the [study of our physical world], readers do not approach the [biblical] text with entirely open minds. They are influenced, perhaps uncritically, by their presuppositions. These in turn are affected by their culture, by what counts as common sense and rational. Interpretations sometimes say more about the interpreter than the text. Studying the text [among other things] in turn modifies these presuppositions, reshaping subsequent study. This two-way, circular process is repeated and referred to as the hermeneutical circle. The term is applicable to science as well. (pp. 14-15)​

Reference
Poole, Michael. (2007). Questions of faith: Exploring science and belief. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

 

[Silmarien]

It is unreasonable to expect to find a religious explanation, because religion doesn’t have a separate method of investigation. Anything we actually find, we find through science.

Depends on the religion. Hinduism and Buddhism in particular have carried out extensive empirical research on the phenomenon of consciousness, exploring it from the perspective of the subjective self. It is not at all clear to me that this is a less adequate approach than Western science's insistence on a controlled and analytic study of the brain. If you begin with methodological materialism, all of your results will be forever processed through that framework.

This is the one glaring problem with the scientific picture of the world: it's extremely influenced by the tools that scientists bring to the table with them. Physics is heavily mathematical, but does this mean that there are physical laws underlying reality written in elegant mathematic formula? Nope. Because science actually has surprisingly little to say about reality as it actually is. It can't tell us whether the laws of physics govern the way substances interact or are themselves just the observed result of those substances interacting. It's a powerful tool for exploring reality, but data doesn't interpret itself.

The problem with this is that once you accept a religious explanation for a mystery of the universe, you risk importing all kinds of religious baggage along with it that has a real influence on your decision making. I don’t think I have to name any examples to impress on you how catastrophic this can be.

Have you read any Marxism lately? The amount of baggage that particular atheistic belief system imports is truly impressive, and the catastrophic results are quite visible for all too see. But even in less extreme situations, baggage is honestly unavoidable to a certain degree. The idea that religion must have a negative effect on someone's decision making process is itself atheistic baggage that can lead nowhere good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you read any Marxism lately? The amount of baggage that particular atheistic belief system imports is truly impressive, and the catastrophic results are quite visible for all too see. But even in less extreme situations, baggage is honestly unavoidable to a certain degree. The idea that religion must have a negative effect on someone's decision making process is itself atheistic baggage that can lead nowhere good.

Don't knock Marxism too hardily there in saying that it has some imported [belief] baggage. Surely in today's age and social climate, everyone would just think it's peachy-keen to share their spouses, or I guess "significant others" with all of their next door neighbors..........................right? Don't be such a party-pooper!

[Note to those reading this who don't know anything about Marx: yes, I'm resorting to sarcasm as a form of agreement with Silmarien on this. Thanks.]

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Sacred" is an interesting word choice, since that's an inherently religious concept.

I mean "worthwhile for what it is, and not merely as a means to something else". That's not inherently religious.

Is there something in the nature of finite existence that might imbue it with anything approaching sacredness?

Yes, one's existence as a living being.

I don't see how there even could be, unless you're borrowing from Judeo-Christian theology.

I can see that you don't see that.

I don't think the OP is being an idiot. They're just asking a question that can't be answered, because values are necessarily subjective. If an atheist sees value in their own existence, that's great, but that doesn't mean that anyone else has to see anything worthwhile about it.

Life is the context of any values, whether objective or subjective. Just because someone doesn't see that, doesn't mean that they can't recognize value to their own life if they try. They are being an idiot if they don't try. I'll make an exception for concentration camps.

All is vanity, and no death can be foolish or wasteful. Just absurd.

I reject that view. It trivializes life. Is that what you are honestly defending?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Silmarien]

Don't knock Marxism too hardily there in saying it has imported baggage. Surely in today's age and social climate, everyone would just think it's peachy keen to share their spouses with all of their next door neighbors..........................right? Don't be such a party-pooper!

Oh, I'm thinking more about our dear friend Zizek and the crazed Hegelianism. The idea that history is inexorably heading in specific direction with all previous eras pointing the way to a glorious and inevitable utopian future. That's serious baggage.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I'm thinking more about our dear friend Zizek and the crazed Hegelianism. The idea that history is inexorably heading in specific direction with all previous eras pointing the way to a glorious and inevitable utopian future. That's serious baggage.

Yes, I figured that's what you meant. It's just that I thought I'd further the implication of your statements (all true in this case) since it's not always easy to extricate the associated axiological affirmations made by a philosopher, such as Marx, from his/her ontology in all cases.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, one's existence as a living being.

That seems to presuppose that there's anything good about existence. There are people out there who say that extinction is the ultimate fate of the universe and everything in it, and the sooner the better. If life is just a mindless drive to survive an inhospitable and indifferent universe, I think they're actually right. I like my atheism intellectually robust and coherent.

Life is the context of any values, whether objective or subjective. Just because someone doesn't see that, doesn't mean that they can't recognize value to their own life if they try. They are being an idiot if they don't try.

Why? Perhaps the Absurdists and Buddhists are right, and the source of human suffering is striving for meaning in a meaningless universe. The first thing we must do is let go of the illusions that sustain us and accept reality for what it really is. Which in this scenario means absent of all values and purpose. After that... well. Absurdists and Buddhists will give you different advice on what follows.

I reject that view. It trivializes life. Is that what you are honestly defending?

I don't trivialize life. I point out that rationally speaking, by its very nature it can't be anything but trivial. I see no way around that except empty emotivism or the leap to faith. Or rebellion. Only the second two have any chance of being anything besides self-deception.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I'm thinking more about our dear friend Zizek and the crazed Hegelianism. The idea that history is inexorably heading in specific direction with all previous eras pointing the way to a glorious and inevitable utopian future. That's serious baggage.

...crazed Hegelianism! Lol! Yes, that is serious baggage.

Also, it's kind of an eschatological rip-off from the Judeo-Christian sense of eschatology which has been around for eons and has informed the writing of the various Jewish texts. Of course, you already knew that, I'm sure. And in Marx's case, I'm sure his pseudo-eschatological, Hegelian adaptation had nothing to owe to the fact that he was also Jewish...(?)

 

[gaara4158]

Depends on the religion. Hinduism and Buddhism in particular have carried out extensive empirical research on the phenomenon of consciousness, exploring it from the perspective of the subjective self. It is not at all clear to me that this is a less adequate approach than Western science's insistence on a controlled and analytic study of the brain. If you begin with methodological materialism, all of your results will be forever processed through that framework.

I'm not really seeing a difference here between the axioms they take in order to do their empirical research and the general axioms taken by epistemic pragmatists to do theirs. Controlled and analytic study aims to produce more reliable results, but when that's not possible it doesn't mean absolutely no research can be done. If you're testing a hypothesis and taking the results as usable information, you're doing science. It counts whether you're in a sterilized laboratory with a microscope or simply button mashing in a video game. It might be the case that some religions adopt scientific realism or something similar into their dogmas; this is the only way I can see it being possible to say that religion can demonstrate its claims to be true, and even then it's through the use of science.

This is the one glaring problem with the scientific picture of the world: it's extremely influenced by the tools that scientists bring to the table with them. Physics is heavily mathematical, but does this mean that there are physical laws underlying reality written in elegant mathematic formula? Nope. Because science actually has surprisingly little to say about reality as it actually is. It can't tell us whether the laws of physics govern the way substances interact or are themselves just the observed result of those substances interacting. It's a powerful tool for exploring reality, but data doesn't interpret itself.

I fully accept that it's not perfect or foolproof, but it's the best thing I've been able to come up with. If you know of something more accurate or reliable, I'm all ears.

Have you read any Marxism lately? The amount of baggage that particular atheistic belief system imports is truly impressive, and the catastrophic results are quite visible for all too see. But even in less extreme situations, baggage is honestly unavoidable to a certain degree. The idea that religion must have a negative effect on someone's decision making process is itself atheistic baggage that can lead nowhere good.

I didn't say theism was the only pathway to dogmatic, destructive baggage. It's true any kind of belief system, theistic or not, can land you in serious trouble. We see that with the very logic OP puts forward, and to which you are somewhat sympathetic. My point was that religions, being full belief-systems, are inherently more prone to additional baggage than a pragmatic method of investigation is.

 

[Silmarien]

It might be the case that some religions adopt scientific realism or something similar into their dogmas; this is the only way I can see it being possible to say that religion can demonstrate its claims to be true, and even then it's through the use of science.

Eastern religions really aren't based around claims to truth in the same way that Western ones tend to be. The goal is spiritual enlightenment, and the religions provide a guide along that path. So it's a lot of psychotherapy and philosophy, and they've got a great deal of insight specifically into the phenomenon of consciousness because of this. They've spent centuries studying the same thing cognitive scientists do from a different perspective, and would amongst other things provide alternative ways of thinking about the issues.

The data is what it is in neuroscience--it's trying to make sense of it where problems arise. We're very dualistic in the West, and they're not at all in the East.

I fully accept that it's not perfect or foolproof, but it's the best thing I've been able to come up with. If you know of something more accurate or reliable, I'm all ears.

For exploring the physical universe? It's fine for that, but you're going to run into trouble if you're trying to apply it directly to ontological questions. Metaphysics should be beholden to scientific data, but not to scientific methodology.

Honestly, it's not either/or. There are scientists out there who think that modern scientific knowledge fits better with a theistic worldview of one sort or another. If that's where they think the evidence leads, they really ought to follow it.

I didn't say theism was the only pathway to dogmatic, destructive baggage. It's true any kind of belief system, theistic or not, can land you in serious trouble. We see that with the very logic OP puts forward, and to which you are somewhat sympathetic. My point was that religions, being full belief-systems, are inherently more filled with additional baggage than a pragmatic method of investigation is.

In the first half of the 20th century, there was a movement that dominated academic philosophy called logical positivism, which held that the only meaningful philosophical problems were those which could be solved by empirical observation and logical analysis. This approach was dogmatic in its very pragmatism--you cannot determine empirically that empirical observation is necessary for a question to be meaningful. Eventually the movement collapsed as people realized how self-defeating it was, but it goes to show that you can turn even methodological pragmatism into a creed.

I'm not sure how the OP's logic involves baggage of any kind, though. It's destructive, sure, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If someone thinks they can actually refute philosophical pessimism, they're welcome to try, but I don't see how it can be done. Naturalism has got a really big Problem of Evil.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That seems to presuppose that there's anything good about existence.

Have you never had a warm moment petting a kitten? It takes "philosophy" (the fake sort) to just ignore life experience. If you want to focus only on the negatives of life and the universe, no one can stop you, but you won't be pursuing wisdom. You'll just be fashionably negative.

There are people out there who say that extinction is the ultimate fate of the universe and everything in it, and the sooner the better.

Yes, the fashionably negative. So what? Why should I care what they think?

If life is just a mindless drive to survive an inhospitable and indifferent universe, I think they're actually right. I like my atheism intellectually robust and coherent.

No, you like it negative.

We have minds. Our lives are not mindless. Mind is an integral part of what our lives are, by nature. In having minds, we are capable of appreciating our lives. We don't need to rest on "mindless drives". We are capable of loving and valuing our lives consciously in a way that mindless amoebas, for instance, can't.

The Earth, the Solar System, and anywhere else we can reach are as hospitable as we make them. We are capable of taking mindful action, that is, to pursue life-nourishing values, consciously recognizing that we need them and that they are beneficial for us -- they are our good and we are justified in seeking them given our natures as human beings.

And human beings, as part of the universe, are as lacking as indifference as they choose to be.

Perhaps amoebas are entitled to be nihilists. Human beings are not.

Why? Perhaps the Absurdists and Buddhists are right, and the source of human suffering is striving for meaning in a meaningless universe.

I'm not certain that you have understood Buddhism correctly, but maybe they are wrong. I personally am sure that they are.

The first thing we must do is let go of the illusions that sustain us and accept reality for what it really is.

Including letting go of absurdism. Yes, let go of illusions, but that doesn't require one to arrive at a negative conclusion about reality. Sure, at least 99.99999999% of the universe is inhospitable, but that doesn't mean that all of it is and that we should just wallow in negativity. That isn't philosophical maturity; it's just giving up on wisdom.

Which in this scenario means absent of all values and purpose.

Life is value -- both the means and the end. It is absurd indeed to imagine that life is devoid of value.

I don't trivialize life. I point out that rationally speaking, by its very nature it can't be anything but trivial.

I'd say the exact opposite. Human life, by its very nature, can't be anything but the well-spring of value, purpose, and meaning. If you don't see this, you have misunderstood just what human beings are.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are correct that atheism is different from nihilism. However, if atheism is true nihilism is the logical product.

It is not.

Unless you believe there is an afterlife apart from gods (supernatural energies and spirit orbs ect..)

Nihilism isn't dependend on believing in an afterlife (or not) either.

You are also correct that wanting to believe something to be true does not make it true. The reality is that if there is no afterlife, the reality is that this existence if futile.

That is just your opinion. An opinion I do not share. An opinion most atheists don't share. I say "most" out of honesty, but I really mean "every single atheist that I have ever met".

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, the fashionably negative. So what? Why should I care what they think?

You don't have to. But if you actually intend to criticize the view, something more substantial than name calling would be appreciated. Though I am not sure why anyone would embrace such a view because it's somehow fashionable.

We have minds. Our lives are not mindless. Mind is an integral part of what our lives are, by nature. In having minds, we are capable of appreciating our lives. We don't need to rest on "mindless drives". We are capable of loving and valuing our lives consciously in a way that mindless amoebas, for instance, can't.

I didn't say that we were mindless (though there are any number of eliminative materialists who would say precisely that, and I hope you have a better refutation for them than a mere assertion that their view is false). I said that life was a mindless drive to survive an inhospital and indifferent universe. Our will to survive is not based in rational thought; it's based in biological functions. What is the end goal? The perpetuation of the species, if the naturalists are correct. Why is this actually a desirable outcome? I see no answer forthcoming on that front.

What I see is an ecological system built upon death and sacrifice, which we partake in because how could we not? The comforts of the few are built upon the suffering of the many, and every attempt to resolve that has led to even greater suffering. And if we could somehow build a utopia, what then? Boredom is a known cause of suicide as well.

Perhaps amoebas are entitled to be nihilists. Human beings are not.

Why not? What obligation could I possibly have to not be a nihilist?

Including letting go of absurdism. Yes, let go of illusions, but that doesn't require one to arrive at a negative conclusion about reality. Sure, at least 99.99999999% of the universe is inhospitable, but that doesn't mean that all of it is and that we should just wallow in negativity. That isn't philosophical maturity; it's just giving up on wisdom.

Absurdism is actually not about "wallowing in negativity." It's about facing the cold reality that the search for meaning is doomed to failure and continuing anyway, in full knowledge of the impossibility of the goal. Albert Camus and the Myth of Sisyphus.

I'm not sure what your alternative is, though. Unless you're proposing some sort of atheistic Platonism, what positive conclusion about reality could you possibly arrive at? Without the transcendentals, things like beauty, goodness, and warm moments with kittens are ultimately empty. Evolutionary byproducts with no inherent worth except in their ability to help us turn a blind eye to reality as it truly is. You can shout me down and tell me I'm willfully misunderstanding things if you want, but a Calvinist can do that too.

I'd say the exact opposite. Human life, by its very nature, can't be anything but the well-spring of value, purpose, and meaning. If you don't see this, you have misunderstood just what human beings are.

Have I? If I've misunderstood it, you should be able to demonstrate for me how it could possibly be the case that humans are well-springs of such ineffable things as value, purpose, and meaning. These just seem like more illusions that need to get tossed out alongside God, the detritus of an obsolete Christian worldview. A lot of atheists grew up Christian and are unconsciously still working within a religious framework when it comes to values and their understanding of what it means to be human; for those of us who grew up with Nietzsche instead, that particular emperor has no clothes.

Or on the other hand, maybe it's atheism that's the illusion and all the rest of this stuff that's real? I don't know, but it seems that denying my premises are the only way to avoid the conclusions they ultimately entail.

It would appear that I am not allowed to do that either, though, for reasons that escape me. I must be an atheist, but I must not be a nihilist, and if one invariably leads me to the other, I have some mysterious obligation to engage in mental gymnastics until I can embrace an appropriately optimistic form of atheism. You guys are exhausting.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That seems to presuppose that there's anything good about existence. There are people out there who say that extinction is the ultimate fate of the universe and everything in it, and the sooner the better. If life is just a mindless drive to survive an inhospitable and indifferent universe, I think they're actually right. I like my atheism intellectually robust and coherent.



Why? Perhaps the Absurdists and Buddhists are right, and the source of human suffering is striving for meaning in a meaningless universe. The first thing we must do is let go of the illusions that sustain us and accept reality for what it really is. Which in this scenario means absent of all values and purpose. After that... well. Absurdists and Buddhists will give you different advice on what follows.



I don't trivialize life. I point out that rationally speaking, by its very nature it can't be anything but trivial. I see no way around that except empty emotivism or the leap to faith. Or rebellion. Only the second two have any chance of being anything besides self-deception.

That is extraordinarily condescending, who are you to determine whether or not meaning is trivial for anyone else?

Triviality is itself a subjective value. It's not a factual value like weight or length.

You find life trivial from your approximation of an atheist perspective? Fine. Frankly, I find your understanding of meaning trivial.

 

[Silmarien]

That is extraordinarily condescending, who are you to determine whether or not meaning is trivial for anyone else?

Triviality is itself a subjective value. It's not a factual value like weight or length.

You find life trivial from your approximation of an atheist perspective? Fine. Frankly, I find your understanding of meaning trivial.

If you want condescending, look in a mirror.

This isn't an approximation. I'm a former atheist existentialist, so this is all pretty authentic. A bit more consciously nihilistic than I used to be, but I can afford to face up to that now. This is not hypothetical at all.

I never said that anyone else had to view things in the same light. In fact, I explicitly said quite the opposite. My point is merely that there is nothing that can be said from an atheistic perspective to someone who actually feels this way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you want condescending, look in a mirror.

This isn't an approximation. I'm a former atheist existentialist, so this is all pretty authentic. A bit more consciously nihilistic than I used to be, but I can afford to face up to that now. This is not hypothetical at all.

I never said that anyone else had to view things in the same light. In fact, I explicitly said quite the opposite. My point is merely that there is nothing that can be said from an atheistic perspective to someone who actually feels this way.

Then surely you understand there's no point in arguing there's no meaning to someone who believes there is...they're equally valid positions.

 

[gaara4158]

In the first half of the 20th century, there was a movement that dominated academic philosophy called logical positivism, which held that the only meaningful philosophical problems were those which could be solved by empirical observation and logical analysis. This approach was dogmatic in its very pragmatism--you cannot determine empirically that empirical observation is necessary for a question to be meaningful. Eventually the movement collapsed as people realized how self-defeating it was, but it goes to show that you can turn even methodological pragmatism into a creed.

Yeah, I edited "inherently more filled with" to "inherently more prone to" after thinking about that for a minute. You can make a dogma out of anything, really, but religions seem to be in the business of it. I'm not saying all religions are dogmatic, that no atheistic worldview has dogmatic elements, or that dogma is necessarily a bad thing. We were talking about whether it's more logical to approach a gap in human understanding as something that science may one day explain, or something supernatural and therefore a "god of the gaps." I have argued that a scientific approach is more reasonable because a) it's the only way we can expect to confirm an explanation whether it's possible or not and b) depending on the god you insert into that gap, you risk importing additional dogmas that a purely scientific approach does not.

I'm not against theistic ideas or explanations themselves. I just contend that by their nature, they can't really be examined with any of the rigor necessary to be confirmed or denied in a good epistemology.

I'm not sure how the OP's logic involves baggage of any kind, though. It's destructive, sure, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If someone thinks they can actually refute philosophical pessimism, they're welcome to try, but I don't see how it can be done. Naturalism has got a really big Problem of Evil.

Oh, that's easy. He's taking the objective, cosmic perspective to be more valid or important than his own subjective one, but that importance comes from his subjective values, not logical necessity. Also, Problem of Evil in Naturalism? How's that work?