In my last blog, I explained that many of the current debates regarding God's existence are flawed. It's not a good idea to pit science against religion and it's definitely not a good idea to pit creationism against evolution. The correct way to engage in this debate is to accept scientific theory to explain process and postulate on philosophy to explain purpose; did our existence come to being without guidance (naturalism) or by design (theism)? When we frame the debate like this, things get a bit more interesting. Since both philosophies exist independently of science, religious and non-religious individuals actually share more characteristics than you might imagine. But can we take this further? What evidence is there that atheists are actually becoming religious themselves?
Atheism as a belief system
We should differentiate between two types of non-religious individuals: Firstly, we have those who do not assert philosophical beliefs of any kind and claim simply to have no beliefs in particular1. These people abstain from any opinions regarding the existence of God and will happily watch those that do jump down each other's throats. Secondly, we have atheists, who actively profess that there is no God and assert a belief in naturalism. As covered in my previous blog though, naturalism is a philosophy and, like any theistic belief, is based on unprovable and untestable assumptions. By definition then, a belief in naturalism requires faith. So, while those with no beliefs in particular do not subscribe to a faith of any kind, atheism is a faith in naturalism.
Atheism as a social identity
Atheism is traditionally thought to be an abstinence from faith altogether but this appears not to be the case. Not only do atheists practice faith, but we see evidence of this being used to mirror characteristics of religious individuals. A short while ago, the BBC ran an article about a new atheist church in London; a place where atheists can meet with each other and join in a celebration of their beliefs. The attendees listen to lectures on science and sing 'hymns' by John Lennon & Queen. Whenever I hear about this, I'm actually reminded of George Orwell's novel, Animal Farm. As we know, the animals in Manor Farm seek to overthrow their perceived oppressors but, in doing so, end up adopting the characteristics and ideologies of the very people they are refuting. I sense that atheists are doing exactly the same with religious individuals.
This behaviour isn't really anything new. In 2009, Richard Dawkins engaged in a campaign to run adverts for atheism on buses in London and has since supported atheist campus for children to encourage non-religious belief. For years, some atheists have glamorised their identity with atheist fish emblems, and it has even become possible to be baptised as an atheist. All of these behaviours appear to be reactions to the same behaviour exhibited by religious individuals.
Of course, not all atheists engage in these activities but, regardless, this does grant atheists an identity and encourage membership to an established social group. Of course, this is all well and good, but it's important to understand this does come with problems: Social Identity Theory shows that, when we are a member of a social group, this membership alone can encourage us to be hostile towards others. Back in 1971, Henri Tajfel and his colleagues from Bristol University demonstrated that, by assigning people to a (meaningless) group, the members would show in-group favouritism and be prejudiced towards those assigned to other groups2. So, do atheists, with an established group membership and a clear belief system, behave similarly to religious individuals and uphold their group ideals dogmatically?
Atheism and dogmatism
To examine whether atheists could be dogmatic (characterised as a rigid viewpoint and an intolerance of others'), I conducted an experiment with some colleagues over the summer of 2012. We gave a questionnaire to 193 people; comprising atheists, those with no particular beliefs and Christians. The first thing we found was that dogmatism could be measured reliably in atheists and, while those with no particular beliefs had significantly lower dogmatism scores than Christians, atheists did not. In general, we found that the more an individual identified with a belief group, the more dogmatic they were. This gave us some support for the idea that being dogmatic in your beliefs isn't something exclusive to religious individuals, but is true of anyone that subscribes to a belief system (whether it be religious or non-religious).
Atheism and personality
Not everyone without religion chooses to think this way, so does it take a certain type of person to be an atheist? To investigate this, we considered 'Openness' in our questionnaire (the well-established personality trait that measures open-mindedness) and how this differed between atheists and those with no particular beliefs. For those with no beliefs in particular, we found what we expected: The more open-minded a person was, the less dogmatic they were (and this was also true of Christians). However, we found the opposite relationship with atheists: The more open-minded they were, the more dogmatic they were. This is an intriguing finding, and there are of course reasons behind this (which I will discuss in a future blog). The most important thing to note here though is that a key personality difference exists between those that self-identify as atheists (and subscribe to naturalism) and those that don't (and claim simply to have no beliefs). This key distinction explains critical differences within the non-religious community.
Final thought
I think there a number of considerations to take in here. Firstly, it's important to recognise that there are different types of non-religious individuals, and this is an important consideration to make when measuring people's religious standing in questionnaires3. Just because somebody does not have a religion, this does not make them atheist (or even agnostic); it is possible simply to have no beliefs in particular. However, being an atheist requires you to subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism. Second, and more controversially, strong atheist views (like any strong religious views) can be quite detrimental. While I'm sure I don't need to cite examples of secular war4, we must remember that any ideology and intolerance of others' views breeds conflict, and anyone with a strong social identity is capable of being hostile towards others and dogmatic in their thoughts. This is something that secularists are not excused from.
I imagine that some atheists would be upset at the prospect of sharing certain characteristics with religious individuals. This is not necessarily a dig at atheists; just a gentle reminder that atheism is not an elitist position devoid of bias. It's actually very positive to think that, no matter what you think or believe, we're all susceptible to exactly the same issues and biases.
We're all human after all.
Read our original paper here:
Gurney, D. J., McKeown, S., Churchyard, J., & Howlett, N. (2013). Believe it or not: Exploring dogmatism and different belief structures across non-religious groups. Personality & Individual Differences. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.471
1 Some would call these people agnostics. However, there appears to be some discrepancy over the definition of an agnostic (ranging from a simple 'don't know' or a belief that a supernatural being could exist but cannot be objectified through organised religion). To avoid confusion, I use the term 'no beliefs in particular'.↩
2 In one study, participants were randomly assigned to group X or Y. The authors found that people favoured their in-group members and were more prejudiced to their respective out-group members as they discriminated between them in a monetary awarding task.↩
3 In our study, 37 claimed to be atheist and 66 people claimed to have no beliefs in particular. If this ratio is true of the wider population then it suggests that, without this distinction, the number of 'true' atheists may actually be overstated.↩
4 But I will anyway: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, civil wars. Etc. ↩
We should differentiate between two types of non-religious individuals: Firstly, we have those who do not assert philosophical beliefs of any kind and claim simply to have no beliefs in particular1. These people abstain from any opinions regarding the existence of God and will happily watch those that do jump down each other's throats. Secondly, we have atheists, who actively profess that there is no God and assert a belief in naturalism. As covered in my previous blog though, naturalism is a philosophy and, like any theistic belief, is based on unprovable and untestable assumptions. By definition then, a belief in naturalism requires faith. So, while those with no beliefs in particular do not subscribe to a faith of any kind, atheism is a faith in naturalism.
Atheism as a social identity
Atheism is traditionally thought to be an abstinence from faith altogether but this appears not to be the case. Not only do atheists practice faith, but we see evidence of this being used to mirror characteristics of religious individuals. A short while ago, the BBC ran an article about a new atheist church in London; a place where atheists can meet with each other and join in a celebration of their beliefs. The attendees listen to lectures on science and sing 'hymns' by John Lennon & Queen. Whenever I hear about this, I'm actually reminded of George Orwell's novel, Animal Farm. As we know, the animals in Manor Farm seek to overthrow their perceived oppressors but, in doing so, end up adopting the characteristics and ideologies of the very people they are refuting. I sense that atheists are doing exactly the same with religious individuals.
This behaviour isn't really anything new. In 2009, Richard Dawkins engaged in a campaign to run adverts for atheism on buses in London and has since supported atheist campus for children to encourage non-religious belief. For years, some atheists have glamorised their identity with atheist fish emblems, and it has even become possible to be baptised as an atheist. All of these behaviours appear to be reactions to the same behaviour exhibited by religious individuals.
Of course, not all atheists engage in these activities but, regardless, this does grant atheists an identity and encourage membership to an established social group. Of course, this is all well and good, but it's important to understand this does come with problems: Social Identity Theory shows that, when we are a member of a social group, this membership alone can encourage us to be hostile towards others. Back in 1971, Henri Tajfel and his colleagues from Bristol University demonstrated that, by assigning people to a (meaningless) group, the members would show in-group favouritism and be prejudiced towards those assigned to other groups2. So, do atheists, with an established group membership and a clear belief system, behave similarly to religious individuals and uphold their group ideals dogmatically?
Atheism and dogmatism
To examine whether atheists could be dogmatic (characterised as a rigid viewpoint and an intolerance of others'), I conducted an experiment with some colleagues over the summer of 2012. We gave a questionnaire to 193 people; comprising atheists, those with no particular beliefs and Christians. The first thing we found was that dogmatism could be measured reliably in atheists and, while those with no particular beliefs had significantly lower dogmatism scores than Christians, atheists did not. In general, we found that the more an individual identified with a belief group, the more dogmatic they were. This gave us some support for the idea that being dogmatic in your beliefs isn't something exclusive to religious individuals, but is true of anyone that subscribes to a belief system (whether it be religious or non-religious).
Atheism and personality
Not everyone without religion chooses to think this way, so does it take a certain type of person to be an atheist? To investigate this, we considered 'Openness' in our questionnaire (the well-established personality trait that measures open-mindedness) and how this differed between atheists and those with no particular beliefs. For those with no beliefs in particular, we found what we expected: The more open-minded a person was, the less dogmatic they were (and this was also true of Christians). However, we found the opposite relationship with atheists: The more open-minded they were, the more dogmatic they were. This is an intriguing finding, and there are of course reasons behind this (which I will discuss in a future blog). The most important thing to note here though is that a key personality difference exists between those that self-identify as atheists (and subscribe to naturalism) and those that don't (and claim simply to have no beliefs). This key distinction explains critical differences within the non-religious community.
Final thought
I think there a number of considerations to take in here. Firstly, it's important to recognise that there are different types of non-religious individuals, and this is an important consideration to make when measuring people's religious standing in questionnaires3. Just because somebody does not have a religion, this does not make them atheist (or even agnostic); it is possible simply to have no beliefs in particular. However, being an atheist requires you to subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism. Second, and more controversially, strong atheist views (like any strong religious views) can be quite detrimental. While I'm sure I don't need to cite examples of secular war4, we must remember that any ideology and intolerance of others' views breeds conflict, and anyone with a strong social identity is capable of being hostile towards others and dogmatic in their thoughts. This is something that secularists are not excused from.
I imagine that some atheists would be upset at the prospect of sharing certain characteristics with religious individuals. This is not necessarily a dig at atheists; just a gentle reminder that atheism is not an elitist position devoid of bias. It's actually very positive to think that, no matter what you think or believe, we're all susceptible to exactly the same issues and biases.
We're all human after all.
Read our original paper here:
Gurney, D. J., McKeown, S., Churchyard, J., & Howlett, N. (2013). Believe it or not: Exploring dogmatism and different belief structures across non-religious groups. Personality & Individual Differences. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.471
1 Some would call these people agnostics. However, there appears to be some discrepancy over the definition of an agnostic (ranging from a simple 'don't know' or a belief that a supernatural being could exist but cannot be objectified through organised religion). To avoid confusion, I use the term 'no beliefs in particular'.↩
2 In one study, participants were randomly assigned to group X or Y. The authors found that people favoured their in-group members and were more prejudiced to their respective out-group members as they discriminated between them in a monetary awarding task.↩
3 In our study, 37 claimed to be atheist and 66 people claimed to have no beliefs in particular. If this ratio is true of the wider population then it suggests that, without this distinction, the number of 'true' atheists may actually be overstated.↩
4 But I will anyway: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, civil wars. Etc. ↩
I think you need to do a little more research Dan as you seem to misrepresent some facts:
ReplyDeletehttp://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler
WW2 was not a secular war; Hitler was a practicing Catholic and openly stated this in his speeches.
I'm surprised you didn't know this really, being an atheist. It seems you seems to look more to the theist part of the field for evidence as it's, more often than not, a theist's perspective to say WW2 was a secular war, as they seem to think it wins the argument.
The Nazi soldiers all had emblems on their belts that said, in German, Gott Mit Uns (God With us)(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/1069962/) doesn’t sound very atheistic to me, does it to you?
I know you don't like Dawkins, I don't know how you feel about Christopher Hitchens, but it seems you are actually being dogmatic in your views as the evidence I've cited above clearly shows otherwise. I understand that you feel, as you've stated in your previous blog,.. “Above all, the most important thing is to accept that both philosophies are respectable positions to take and, no matter what you believe, you've got a good reason to believe it”....well this is a dangerous thing to state. As clearly it DOES matter what people believe, especially if their beliefs are incorrect or misrepresent the facts of history; it only seeks to mislead and misrepresent what actually happened. This maybe unintentional, on your part, however, being in a position such as yourself, it may be wise to recover the facts a little more delicately in the future.
Hitler was well known for not telling the truth, ask the Polish. Hitler said a number of conflicting things about his intentions and his beliefs. This is why so many people are confused about him and his beliefs, it's why we have people like yourself claiming that he was a 'practising Catholic'. Rather than thinking a five hundred word internet article proves your point, why don't you take the time to read Ian Kershaws biography and find out what Hitler said both in public and in private. Two very different things, surely you don't think what politicians say in public are the same as their actual private beliefs?
DeleteIn regards to the Nazi belt buckles, they were inherited from the Prussian army and prove nothing unless you think because the US has 'In God we trust' on it means that God is responsible for how the use their money, people who use the money aren't necessarily endorsing the motto...the same with the belt buckle.
Hitler wasn't a Christian or an Atheist that much can probably be said to be certain, any-more is really speculation. Quite rightly no-one wants him on their side.
You are misrepresenting my position. I didn't say God was responsible, I was highlighting why someone would use a belt buckle that says "God with us," if they are atheist or secular; it makes no sense. It's like a vegetarian wearing a belt buckle that says, "I love meat," unless they are being ironic of course. Is it possible the Nazi party were being ironic? SO if a person openly admits they are Catholic then denounces their faith in private does this mean they are not a Catholic? If a person represents themselves as something in public view then they have to been taken at their word. Whether or not we believe them is immaterial, as what they say in public is how they should be perceived.
DeleteYour name is funny, 'Failedatheist' rather cheeky really but I admire your tenacity. I'm assuming you don't believe in Zeus? Everyone is an atheist to a 'God'so I can only assume your name is in jest.
Thanks for your comment! There is some controversy on the specific motives of Hitler / WW2 (hence why this was only mentioned in a footnote, amongst other examples) but I don't believe the validity of the argument above pivots on this one observation.
ReplyDeleteThere is evidence for both atheism and theism, though neither position can categorically be proved. In light of this, I think it's important to recognise that any individual is entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence and shouldn't be judged either way. This is what I tried to convey in the previous blog - I don't think this is a dogmatic attitude!
I think you'll also find that no wars have been secular. No one killed in the name of not believing there is enough evidence for God or that there is no God. Surely by stating the wars as secular you are misrepresenting the truth? Footnote or not, this is a cardinal error as the logic doesn't follow. It's very important to at least believe in something based on evidence rather than an interpretation. "I think it's important to recognise that any individual is entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence and shouldn't be judged either way." The problem with this type of thinking is there is no reality check. Let's take religion for example as this is what your blog is about.
DeleteIf a person's religious opinion is not based on evidence then there is no reality check as it's not based on anything other than their own subjective view: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. This is fine if the view concerns music, art, food, sexual preference etc, as to some extent, it doesn't impede on another person's rights. The problem with having no reality check is those that deem themselves as experts in the field of religion are insulated from testing as all they have to do is protest it's their own interpretation which shouldn't be judged: they employ special pleading and that their opinions should be respected as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is true to some extent. However, without a reality check it is impervious to criticism or correction. One could not state that gravity doesn't exist and expect applause for having their own opinion; it would be deemed nonsense as evidence clearly states otherwise. Sadly religion dodges this bullet as the more a person believes the more they are extolled to the higher echelons of the church/religion. All other belief systems (Atheism is not a belief system by the way, in the same way being an a-fariest is not a belief system) needs to stand up to criticism and has to provide evidence for what it purports. Religion, sadly cannot allocate itself to evidence because, as of yet, nothing outside of the realm of our world can be tested with any repeatable accuracy. Yet religion is a solid part of everyday life for many people in the world. People need a reality check to keep themselves IN REALITY.
"There is evidence for both atheism and theism, though neither position can categorically be proved. "
DeleteThere is evidence for neither Dan. Seriously, there has never been any testable evidence for Atheism or theism. By its very nature the God hypothesis is unfalsifiable: it cannot be proven false OR true. Watch these videos for an explanation of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&list=SPEE35CE6166F7B834).
I think you'll find that most atheists use the "Not enough evidence for God" claim rather than the "There is no God". The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. When a religious person claims a God exists they have to provide evidence; when a person says they don't believe their God exists due to not being given evidence they do not have to provide evidence for the other person not providing evidence. This is what theists tend to do when arguing the God hypothesis. Lennox uses the argument, along with countless other theists, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim there is not God. This is what is known as "Shifting the burden of proof". Realistically the only plausible position to take is agnostic. God cannot be driven into existence with philosophy, although it can be argued that God doesn't exist, or that it is highly unlikely one does.
I agree with you that some atheists can be dogmatic, but the definition of dogmatic can be interpreted as opinionated or asserting a view that is unproven or unprovable. To claim there is not enough evidence for the God hypothesis is a valid claim and not dogmatic; to claim there is no God is slightly ambiguous due to the unfalsifiable problem mentioned earlier; to say God exists is erroneous. It's hard to prove a negative (There is no God) but it's even harder still to prove a positive (There is a God) especially without any objective evidence.
By allowing people to believe whatever they wish without a reality check using objective evidence, and allowing these views to infiltrate society, one runs the risk of living in a state of constant flux, between what's real and what is not.
Surely the magic of reality is better,than the reality of magic.
I'm not sure you actually understand what secular means, secular isn't a synonymous with atheism.
DeleteThanks again for your comments. I appreciate your desire to argue for atheism here though, in the interest of keeping this post focused, I'll just comment on a few of your points.
ReplyDeleteI made the point in my previous post that being agnostic is the most scientific position to take: With both theism and atheism, one relies on a philosophy to assert that God does or does not exist and has only an interpretation of evidence to support their claims. There is objective, scientific, empirical work to make an excellent case for both arguments (atheism and theism) and, in light of this, the choice to believe in God, or resist a belief in God is one anyone is entitled to make.
The take-home message of this post really is that religious and non-religious individuals do share key similarities (both are capable of being dogmatic and enforcing their views on others). However, given that each viewpoint can be justified (and supported by scientific and empirical evidence) it's important to be respectful of this.
"The take-home message of this post really is that religious and non-religious individuals do share key similarities (both are capable of being dogmatic and enforcing their views on others). However, given that each viewpoint can be justified (and supported by scientific and empirical evidence) it's important to be respectful of this."
DeleteReligious viewpoint can be supported by scientific and empirical evidence? If you can provide scientific empirical evidence for religion Dan you may win yourself a nobelprize. Seriously! No one has ever done this.
"There is some controversy on the specific motives of Hitler / WW2"
ReplyDeleteWhat specific piece of controversy surrounding Hitler's motives are you referring to? Are you suggesting Hitler pretended to be a Catholic and used religion as a vehicle to conduct his massacre of the Jews et al? Are you suggesting he was in fact an atheist who was misinterpreted as a Catholic who massacred the Jews et al? Or was he secular and used religion to conduct his sordid endeavours as he knew people would follow his lead? Would you kindly illustrate your meaning, please?
Unless there has been a huge misnomer by those writing history surely the evidence points to Hitler killing the Jews et al for religious reasons? I think you need to realise that people do not kill in the name of scepticism or of their non belief for a God or their belief in there not being enough evidence for a God existing. By representing any war as secular you are inducing that they do. By hiding behind a veil of ..."I think it's important to recognise that any individual is entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence and shouldn't be judged either way"... you are trying to dodge the bullet of reality and actively seek to brandish special pleading as an excuse for erroneous thinking. Meaning, I can think whatever I want and that's fine. Not if it misrepresents reality or history for that matter. This is precisely the problem religious beliefs have caused for countless years; the same goes for those that seek to misrepresent science also. However, science can be questioned, religion cannot. (See special pleading)
Evidence it necessary for living life in reality. The scientific method should be held paramount to any concept that seeks to explain reality. Religion, however, seeks to explain why we are here, but doesn't present any evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If religion claims that God made the earth and those that inhabit it, then it must present evidence to prove so. Saying, it's fine to think what we like, is not good enough, especially for a scientist such as yourself.
See this blog to gain an understanding in the dangers of believing in whatever suits us: http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/the-common-belief-fallacy
There is a clear danger in allowing people's beliefs that are independent of evidence, to dictate how the world should be run. If one wants to believe in the flying-spaghetti-monster, or Russell's cosmic teapot, then that's fine. But to proselytize it is a necessity to believe, and not doing so will result in an eternal punishment in the fires of hell (many Christians believe this to be true) without providing, adequate, objective evidence then there is a problem. How does one fight against such erroneous concepts of reality? If one can't question such foolish beliefs, they can never be proven to be wrong. By stating, as you do, it's fine to believe in whatever you wish, and one shouldn't be judged, you allow a torrent of ill thought out viewpoints to puncture the very heart all of humanity. By allowing this viewpoint to bleed into the minds of this world the consciousness of man is burdened needlessly. We have not got where we are by using a method of “...believe what you will...unquestionably so...it’s your right to do so...” It is precisely this type of ‘thinking’ that has stifled us, as a species, in the past. The default position is always non-belief, until evidence proves otherwise; it should never be: believe what you want, you’ll never be judged. Only those that hold weak arguments or ill thought-out concepts of logic cling to this erroneous comfort blanket.
ReplyDeleteIn the last 150 years it has been science that has pushed our race into greatness; only after we break from the shackles of religion can we truly shine and start to realise our potential. This has only been accessible due to the scientific method of obtaining evidence to prove hypothesis. Once we submit to allowing thoughts analogous to an anencephalic anthropoid to rule the roost we run the risk of repeating the same mistakes again and again. Only then, we rely on serendipity and blind luck; which is not a good concept of proof. Only by searching for answers and following the evidence, wherever it leads, can we truly carve out a reality that can be questioned for truth.
Admittedly, science doesn't have all the answers, but it only claims what it can prove; religion claims it has all the answers, but can prove nothing.
I assume when you write a paper you have to provide evidence for your claims and don't suggest the peer reviewers accept your viewpoint verbatim as "any individual is entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence and shouldn't be judged either way."
That may be harsh Dan, but where does reality stop and magic start?
You’d do better arguing for spirituality as Sam Harris does than trying and point out the inconsistencies of atheists. cont...
(The points you make are only a very small minority of atheists; it seems your viewpoint is taken verbatim from Lennox’s own) You seem to be batting for one team but cheering on the other. You could counter with...”It’s not about sides...or...why split it into opposing teams...” but you seem to shirk the responsibility of pointing out the flaws of religion and its inconsistencies with truth and reality. As you said at the start of your previous blog...” I've found it pretty tricky to find anyone that gives a balanced view...” concerning the topic in hand it will never be a balanced argument as one side is for providing evidence and the other side is for asserting beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIn your last blog you never showed an atheist in a balance way (your HMS Belfast jibe) but you actively sought out to show Lennox’s view point as credible. How is this balanced?
Your rendition of faith as: “a belief based on reasonable evidence is a catalyst to any hypothesis formation process” is not applicable to people that believe in God. They don’t believe due to reasonable evidence, as there is none; they believe because they want to, nothing more. The true definition of faith that is applicable to religious beliefs is: a belief independent of evidence based on logic, proof or material evidence. Lennox uses the ‘alternative definition’ because it seems more plausible to have a belief in something that is based on reasonable evidence. Lennox believes the universe has intelligence behind it, he believes in intelligent design, essentially. This is his evidence for God. By stating the universe has intelligence behind it is not even close to providing evidence for intelligence. Why is it a God and not John the Fisherman for Durham, or Magic Ted, or the myriad of Gods postulated into existence over the years?
Psychology has provided many lessons on how humans can be easily mislead by beliefs and opinions; even your own work has shown that people can be swayed by gestures; even nodding can subdue a person’s faculties pertaining to logical deduction. So there is clear, evidential danger that beliefs can be flawed; so why then do you proselytize that it’s fine to believe in whatever one wishes, as one has a good reason for believing it. Does this not tear at the very heart of your premise?
If people’s views can be flawed or easily mislead, then it is clear believing in whatever we wish is not a good concept for drawing conclusions about the world; only evidence based approaches to cognition can truly provide something more sustainable, in terms of a truthful, testable reality.
I feel you are treating both sides of the argument as valid; they are not as only one is based on testable evidence. Do you really subscribe to a way of life that is not based on evidence, and based on accepting something because we can think it, rather than thinking whether or not it should be accepted?
So then, to keep my opinion in-line with your blog as you clearly do not wish to have a discussion about the wider concepts.
ReplyDeleteHas Atheism become a religion? No. Religion is based on belief that a supernatural force created the universe that it can control at will.
Atheism is the rejection of this belief based on not enough evidence.
You are not really understanding the word religion. Unless you want it to mean whatever you wish it to, then you are correct.
When arguing point as salient as this one it is wise to clearly define what it is you are arguing; for example: what is religion, it's definition in regards to the post? The definition of religion in regards to 'religion' in not analogous to what the belief system of atheism is, and cannot be applied to atheism in the same way as it can to religious beliefs.
Again, one is based on evidence, the other is based on faith, the belief of something independent of evidence.
Please, Dan, use your next blog to provide the evidence for both sides or the argument: the scientific empirical evidence for theism and atheism.
If you can do that you will do something that no one has ever done before; I don't mean to be coy or terse, but no scientific empirical evidence for God, or theism has ever been provided that wasn't just someone's subjective view or experience.
I commend you on your cavalier attitude to tackle this subject, but your views are flimsy and not based on any new evidence. It's riddled with logical flaws and misconceptions of the definitions of words and how they should be applied to beliefs.
I look forward to your next blog.
This video explains the Atheist's position rather well, and is the most commonly held viewpoint. The definition you use is not widely held by the non-believing community. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHsFA7cp7M0
DeleteYou're putting the viewpoints of naturalism and theism on equal footing, however it's not an question of one or the other.
I hope you take the time to read the links I have sent you and watch the videos I've linked.
Sorry to spam your blog but isn't that what it's here for?
I think the point of this blog (if I'm not mistaken) is that anyone can be dogmatic in their thinking and that in this case atheists can be just as stuck in their beliefs as any other social group. Whether you believe your group to have more of the 'facts' is probably missing the wider issue. These elaborate responses conform quite clearly to a dogmatic mindset that will not accept another person's differing opinion, just a thought....
ReplyDeleteI think the most important part of an opinion is what an opinion is based upon. Why should an opinion be accepted just because it's an opinion. To swerve from the wider issue of the 'facts' is to dissuade critical discourse from happening; only a disingenuous person would do this.
DeleteIf one is not willing to discuss the 'wider issue' then why post on a blog in the first place. To not accept or even discuss the 'Wider issue' is dogmatic and goes against what this blog is suppose to represent!!!
Clearly the author has done next to no research on the matter and only cites his own bias opinion. He cites a study that had 193 participants yet this is deemed appropriate??
When questioned the author ceases to acknowledge an alternative viewpoint whilst dogmatically extolling his own. You can't have it both ways.
It seems the author has shot himself in the foot with the very gun he is using to make his opinion about others.
I admit that people can be bias about their beliefs as any other social groups can; that is not the problem here. The problem is the authors inability to accept another's point of view or allow his own to be questioned. If that's not being dogmatic, I don't know what is....Slightly ironic, don't you think??
"These elaborate responses conform quite clearly to a dogmatic mindset that will not accept another person's differing opinion, just a thought...."
DeleteSo if I accepted his views as true even though I don't think they are that would be better and not dogmatic. But being honest and stating I don't agree is being dogmatic?? I don't think accepting a viewpoint one doesn't agree with is the right way to enlightenment. Critical discourse should be allow to ensue.
So essentially if I don't agree with the blog I'm being dogmatic; if I agree with it them I'm not. Sounds like a dictatorship! North Korea anyone??
I've had the privilege of discussing our research paper (cited in the article above) with many atheists and have enjoyed having very measured, civilised conversations about its implications. The peer reviewers, editor and many other atheist colleagues have been very accommodating of this specific research and I've been pleased with the reception it has had.
ReplyDeleteAfter fighting my way through some of the comments above, I've unfortunately seen some great hostility towards the research (including some rather personal attacks). These are extraordinary reactions, but do demonstrate our findings rather well: Some atheists appear incapable of rational conversation on this topic and (much like the fundamental Christians) will enforce their views on others in a rather exhaustive way. This is a great shame, and I think this does a great disservice to atheism.
Dan, you’re just dodging the conversation mate.....
DeleteI'm still waiting to see this scientific evidence that you claim to have for God/religion/theism....where is it?
It's far too easy to post your personal opinion on an open forum, and then hide behind a veil of 'holier than thou ‘attitude of "I've been personally attacked etc....." You do the very thing you are accusing other people of doing: being dogmatic about your own opinions and being unable to accept that other people have views different to your own. Is it right to comment that other people are intolerant of your views, whilst being intolerant of theirs at the same time? You’re joking, right?
Like you said:"I think it's important to recognise that any individual is entitled to their own interpretation of the evidence and shouldn't be judged either way" yet you seem to judge the views/comments that have been posted on here that differ from your own. This would make you a hypocrite, wouldn't it?
Then you take the moral high ground of "this does a great disservice to atheism." Just because no one challenges your views doesn't by definition make them correct.....Like a lot of work in science...Just because no one has proven something wrong, doesn't make it, by definition correct, it just means that it hasn't been proven wrong.
It saddens me to see you shy away from having a conversation Dan, and instead claim you have been woefully attacked.
Pertaining to the comments above you have addressed none whatsoever, and instead claim you have been personally attacked and that the comments are somehow deemed not worthy of attention...This is a sign of a narrow mind Dan. At least have the guts to address what has been commented on.
Why post on an open forum then not accept other people's opinions....Clearly all you wanted was acceptance of your own views, not a conversation. You tarnish the comments with a brush of intolerance then amazingly brandish the person analogous to a fundamental Christian. How does this make the comments invalid; it doesn’t? It’s easy to take this defensive approach whenever your views are questioned; religious folk have been doing it for millennia. Clearly you are not willing to have a conversation about your views intellectually defend them for that matter. If you only have conversations with people you like, or that agree with you, your life will ultimately be lived in a bubble.
If you think what has been said here is hostile Dan, you really need to get out more....
Quite funny how the angry comments on here just help make Dan's point. Some atheists really need to calm down...
ReplyDeleteQuite funny how the person writing the above comment can actually get emotion from text...
DeleteQuite funny how Dan doesn't respond to any of the points made in the comments, and instead pleads special pleading privileges...
Quite funny how the person writing the above comment assumes the other comments are from atheists and not agnostics, humanists, Satanists, Ante-theists...etc...
Quite funny how some people think giving an opinion, alongside evidence, is somehow being angry...
Quite funny...ahh...WTF...enjoy your ignorance....
“Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
― Winston Churchill
“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”
― Christopher Hitchens
http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4114/yes-ann-i-am-having-a-laugh
Heya Dan,
ReplyDeleteInteresting blog, I also liked the other one you posted the other week. Would it be possble for you to clear up a few things for me? I am quite new to the atheist/theist debate and the help would be greatly appreciated.
I was told that atheists say there that is not enough evidence for the argument of "God does exist" and so dismiss it? Is this right? Someone mentioned to me it is like pouring lots of sweets into a jar and then saying "the total number is even!", and then saying that it may be but the person doesn't have enough evidence to show that the total number is 'even' and so the claim is rejected. All they have to do it count them and that would be enough evidence! i guess? We know that it could be an odd number, but also an even one. Would you agree with this? – or are they always saying that God does not exist 110%?
I am also wondering about the criteria of a 'religion'. You talk about"belief systems" "social identity" "dogmatism" and "personality". Are these all the things you looked at in your research? If they are then would you consider political parties religions? I think that they would affect all of those areas. It seems to me that doctrine and the supernatural are things which should be included when you consider if something is a religion, otherwise everything may become one! Haha!
So, yes, are you able to clear any of this up for me? I think that the criteria of a religion is what I am most interested in. The idea of the supernatural seems to me the most obvious thing about a religion? – but I may be wrong.
Look forward to your reply!! (or maybe one of these other commenters will help?) I dont mind who comments, i would just like to understand this a bit better.
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and well done for taking an interest in the subject. I commend anyone that's interested in this controversial issue and approaches it with an open mind! I'll do what I can to answer your points:
The analogy you posted about evidence is interesting, but I don't agree entirely with the logic. It assumes that an absolute answer is possible to find, but in the case of atheism / theism, it isn't. (We will never have the evidence to give an absolute answer one way or the other.) I think a more appropriate analogy would be for someone to say "the sweets were placed into the jar by X" and use what evidence we have (i.e. did X have access to sweets? Are these sweets ones which X likes?" etc) to form a belief on what the answer could be based on this. The evidence may point to a conclusion (and could be interpreted multiple ways), but it only takes us so far. The rest is speculation and requires a degree of faith.
Many definitions of religion describe it as a belief about the world comprising a set of values and ideals that is indicative of, but not limited to, a supernatural force. (A good set of definitions is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t). In our research, we found that atheists tick many of these boxes: They ascribe themselves a social identity and, just as with Christians, the strength of this identity (and the subsequent beliefs it carries) can determine how dogmatic they are. We also found there are key personality differences between people that forcibly assert that God doesn't exist, and those who have no beliefs in particular (i.e. an interaction between 'openess' and 'dogmatism'). All of these things imply that atheists share many characteristics with religious individuals.
It's funny you should mention politics actually because, you're right, people can stick to political views dogmatically too. (However, political views do not make assertions about the world and its origins, so wouldn't necessarily be defined as religious). It was thought for some time that dogmatism was exclusive to right-wing thinkers, though left-wing thinkers can also be dogmatic. Dogmatism just describes how avidly people stick to their beliefs and undermine alternative views. This is something many people from lots of different areas / beliefs can be guilty of!
I hope this helps answer your points, and thanks again for your comments on the blog.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for replying to me. I have had a think about your response and have come up once again with a few problems.
So I have an example for you, if you don’t mind: If a scientist makes a claim, then that claim is only as strong as the evidence that they have. Correct? If they can’t give evidence then the claim may be said to be true or not true, but it is not yet proven. Or is ‘proven’ the wrong word? Maybe I should say it is not shown to be a fact? Or less probable? What i mean is that another scientist wouldn’t have to show how the theory was wrong to dismiss it. I think that this is the core of the ‘sweet analogy’ that I stated. Can this rule not apply to those who state God exists? I know this is a little off the subject of Atheism being a religion but this point definitely seems to be a little strange to me?
I am not sure if I am making sense. I was thinking about ghosts. What if I said that ghosts exist, then you would not believe me until i showed that they exist. Or would you still say that there is equal probability that they exist or do not exist because there is no evidence either way? i am unsure or the best way to consider questions like this.
What you have said about the definitions for religions certainly makes sense, however i do think that the supernatural/spiritual bit is more helpful to categorise the majority of these sects, and that is the main aim of labels(maybe?). You mention beliefs of an atheist; to you, what do they include?
What do you think the future holds for atheism then? Do you think that they will become more dogmatic? Although some atheistic speak out, do you think they may act out? And persecute religious people? It seems that atheism is more than the claim that there is no God/s. It is an attack on them, is that a more accurate description? There have been horrendous acts in the name of religion. Soon or maybe even now Atheists may do such things?
I have spent the last week or so reading around this subject, and found this blog through twitter and is also making me question lets of things, hope to hear from you soon. I realize I have posed lots of questions, I hope you have the time to reply.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteNo problem, and thanks again for your questions. Happy to help.
Yes, I would agree that claims require evidence and that such claims are only as strong as the evidence supporting them. In the absence of proof, we rely on evidence to form a belief; and this belief should be based on what the evidence points towards. People choose to form a belief in atheism / theism based on how they interpret the evidence, though an argument for one is usually, by default, an argument against the other. Since we will never fundamentally be able to prove one or the other, the two opposing arguments will always exist!
Your point about ghosts is interesting: If it could be shown that evidence points towards the existence of ghosts (and I'm not sure there is!) then you could form a basis for believing ghosts exist. This is a little different from theism however as, in this example, there is little basis for believing in their existence. However, the logic in the previous paragraph would still apply.
It is true that most religions invoke supernatural explanations (though it's worth noting that some, such as Buddhism, reject the idea of a deity). Of course, there's no denying the fact that many ugly things have been done (supposedly) in the name of religion. I would hasten to add though that this is abuse - not use - of religion. Because of this, I wouldn't feel comfortable asserting that atheism would cause war as, equally, I don't believe that religion causes war.
Hostility towards others however can be attributed to the strength of social groups and - as we argue in this paper - this can be true of both non-religious and religious groups. We see this happening today (and you could even argue the recent comments of Richard Dawkins are evidence of this). It is clear that non-religious individuals can display the same intolerance towards others that some fundamental religious individuals show. As atheism becomes a strong social group, it adopts the same (dogmatic) characteristics as highly religious groups.
I hope this helps. Thanks again for the comments, and keep reading around the topic. I look forward to more insightful questions.