Dogmatic Atheism

I was wondering if any UK posters caught the Channel 4 documentary on radical atheism last night, and its parallels with religion. I would have thought this would be especially interesting to such posters as Ubuntu, and possibly a good stimulus for discussion.

The presenter, Rod Little, claimed that inflexible atheism was at least as misguided as inflexible religious faith, interviewing eminent atheists and theists alike.

I was surprised he didn't bring up the "Brights organization" (essentially a church of atheism) which I think Ubuntu referred us to a while ago.

No, but it sounds interesting. I've made the same claim on these boards several times.

I don't suppose there's any way to access the documentary online, for those outside of the UK?

I don't think any dogs believe in God.

I'm not sure there's an actual online copy of the program itself, but http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/index.html is the blurb describing it and the discussion surrounding it.

Definitely and clearly false.

Atheism revolves around the idea of looking at all the evidence and drawing a conclusion.  With today's science, we can explain virtually everything about religion.  We know that it happens in the temporal lobes.  We know that it usually is caused in early childhood.  We have a number of strong theories as to why it happens relating to our survival advantage in believing what we're told at a young age and our instinct to see purpose or intent in everything including inanimate objects.  We also know that supernatural experiences are usually caused by stimulating the temporal lobes and we know that we can simulate religious experience by stimulating the temporal lobes.  We know that prayer has no effect on the people you're praying for and that the claims made by religion are false.  We know how life could have come from no life and how it could have evolved from such simple forms to the life we see today.  We know how all this could happen without direction or purpose.

If we accept science, which is the pursuit of knowledge and of the fundamental truths of the world that are not effected by our perceptions then we can say that with all probability, no supernatural beings of any description exist.  We can't rule that out 100%, but we can rule it out 99.99%.  If we accept there is a possibility that supernatural beings exist, we need to accept that there is a possibility that we have giant fridge sized diamonds in our back yards and that there are invisible pink unicorns running around.  If we dismiss those beliefs as ludicrous, we must dismiss all the ludicrous beliefs.

On the other hand, a religious person - fanatical or not - ultimate has, by definition, a belief in something which does not have evidence or infallible reason to back it up.  It's not a probability or a likelihood.  It's a delusion.

Definitely and clearly false.

...

On the other hand, a religious person - fanatical or not - ultimate has, by definition, a belief in something which does not have evidence or infallible reason to back it up.  It's not a probability or a likelihood.  It's a delusion.

While I may disagree with some of beasts supporting points, mostly on minor, semantic issues, I have to agree overall.  Religion demands faith without reason -- if you have reasons, even if you also have faith, it's not the same thing as religion.

p.s. Oh, and, atheism doesn't involve worshipping anything as far as I can tell; I believe this to be an essential feature of religion.

Beast, much of what you say is true, but entirely besides the point. The point is that religion has a long history, a vast following, and immense importance to those who believe in it, and their beliefs are not ludicrous because 1) it doesn't include easily disproved beliefs, and 2) the things it does believe are made mainstream and acceptable by the aforementioned long history and vast following. Furthermore, many of the things they do believe are quite good and right, such as "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "thou shalt not kill". So calling them deluded and their beliefs ludicrous is an entirely unjustified personal attack, which is every bit as vicious as the claims made by other religious against nonbelievers. It is irrelevant whether you can use science to explain the things religious people believe. This is indeed a good argument in favor of accepting atheism, but it is not an argument for intolerance of religious people.

Do you not agree that people have a right to believe what they want, and teach their kids what they want? It is irrelevant whether the things they believe are correct or even damaging - as long as they are not comitting actual crimes, they have the right to believe whatever they want to. And you have to admit that the vast majority of religious people do not commit crimes in the name of religion, and most religions actively discourage their followers from doing evil.

To me, even if someone's beliefs were provably false, that doesn't provide a justification for attacking that person, unless they are actually comitting crimes, or encouraging others to do so. And in this case, the beliefs aren't even provably false, just very unlikely to be true (in our opinion, which is backed up by some evidence, but not proof).

P.S. Let's not quibble about whether atheism is or is not a religion. Ultimately it's not a question about the nature of atheism, but of how you define the term "religion". The point is whether radical atheism is comitting the same sin as radical religious belief by preaching intolerance. I believe it is, and I think being tolerant, kind, and accepting of others' differences is far more important than whether you do or do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Do you not agree that people have a right to believe what they want, and teach their kids what they want? It is irrelevant whether the things they believe are correct or even damaging - as long as they are not comitting actual crimes, they have the right to believe whatever they want to.

I agree with most else that you said, but this is unsettling.  I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

This should be fun:

I believe it is, and I think being tolerant, kind, and accepting of others' differences is far more important than whether you do or do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Why?

Why do you believe it's important to be accepting of others' differences?  I agree that "tolerance" in the political sense of not hanging people or preventing them from holding public office because of their religion is probably the right way to go.  But "accepting" sounds like saying, "Yeah, it's okay with me that you believe that," which, as a person that admits to having often tried to change what people believe, is not a response I can honestly make to religious views in all circumstances.

I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"

I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?

Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"

I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

Why?

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?

Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.

But there's freedom of speech. To offset parents' influence, we need to have stronger education on such things in schools.

Hopefully by then it'll actually work.  I think most damage is done in the 5 years before kids get to school

I don't believe that it is morally right for society to let parents teach their kids hate and intolerance.

Fine. What should society do about it then? There are people now who teach their children to be white supremacists, which is pretty universally accepted to be an intolerant, hateful, and evil thing to teach. But what can society do about it, other than hope that the children are intelligent, independent, and freethinking enough to rise above their upbringing? We can't take the children away from their parents, or jail the parents, as this is worse than simply allowing the parents to teach their kids. We could (and do) teach tolerance in public schools, but this may not be able to stop the parents from getting their message across to their kids, and nothing stops the white supremacists from homeschooling or sending their kids to private schools which don't teach the same things as the public schools. We could make public schooling mandatory, but it still won't teach anything contradicting what most of the population believes, and still won't carry the same weight as what the parents teach their children.

I agree that teaching hate and intolerance is a terrible wrong that parents inflict on their children and on society as a whole, but what can society do to stop it that isn't worse than the problem itself? With apologies to Benjamin Franklin, people who are willing to give up freedom in the name of stamping out intolerance, deserve neither freedom nor tolerance. I hope that religion will eventually die out as scientific knowledge and education grows, but I expect that this process will take centuries if not millenia, and I don't see any way of speeding it up without resorting to the same sort of pogroms and religious persecution that have been caused by religions in the past. I think the atheists have the chance to let people come 'round the right way, by calmly and rationally explaining our views and reasons for them when asked, attacking nobody because of their beliefs, and accepting whatever choice of belief other people may make.

Unfortunately yes. We can't dictate good parenting. Parents have freedom of speech.

What authority do you think we have to tell anybody what to teach their children?

Well said.

This should be fun:

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

I believe it is, and I think being tolerant, kind, and accepting of others' differences is far more important than whether you do or do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Why?

Why do you believe it's important to be accepting of others' differences?  I agree that "tolerance" in the political sense of not hanging people or preventing them from holding public office because of their religion is probably the right way to go.  But "accepting" sounds like saying, "Yeah, it's okay with me that you believe that," which, as a person that admits to having often tried to change what people believe, is not a response I can honestly make to religious views in all circumstances.

Yes, I guess I am saying "yeah, it's okay with me that you believe that" when it comes to others religious beliefs in a lot of cases. I don't feel this way when people's religious beliefs tell them to blow themselves up as long as they take as many infidels as possible with them, but I do feel this way when it comes to people who believe in a god who wants them to be nice to their fellow human being. If they draw strength and comfort from this belief, and it doesn't hurt anyone, why shouldn't I be okay with it? When it comes to the more objectionable beliefs (like the first example) then certainly those who commit crimes - or who urge others to commit crimes - should be punished for those actions, but I defend the rights of my fellow men and women to believe that homosexuality is an abomination, that Jews should leave the Middle East, and that I'm going to hell, no matter how much I disagree with those beliefs, and deplore the use of violence in the name of those - or any - beliefs.

Seems reasonable enough to argue that not allowing such intolerance to be taught will undoubtedly prevent future crimes based on that hate and intolerance.

Perhaps it will. It seems reasonable to me as well that if we were to place a monitoring device on every individual to determine their location at all times, and immediately execute anyone who was within 1 block of a serious crime, it would undoubtedly prevent future crimes. That doesn't mean we should do it. Simply teaching your kids is not telling them to commit crimes, so it is an untenable breach of parental freedom to treat it as if it were. A human rights violation for a good cause is still a human rights violation, and every parent has a right to raise their own children as they think is right.

I don't really have time to answer the specific posts, but to answer Skeptic's general theme.

I have never heard of any serious atheist seriously state that we should force people not to have religion and I have certainly never stated that.  People should be free to believe whatever they want.  I'm not so sure if they should be able to teach their kids whatever they want.  A friend of mine's Dad was a Nazi and brought his son up to be a nazi as well.  I think that's pretty wrong and I'm glad that my friend has actually met people from different races and changed his political views, but I imagine that there are a lot of kids in jail for hate crimes because of what their parents taught them.  I don't know if the solution is to issues like that, but certainly I think it's morally wrong to teach your child to follow a particular religion or ideology.  I will give my children as much evidence as I can and let them make up their own minds.  Presumably I'll be biased towards atheism but if they decide to be Christians, Mormons or Wiccan's I'll love them just the same (but not if they're emo - obviously).  But obviously there are significant ethical issues with not letting people teach their children whatever they want either and at this stage, like with religious belief, I would be happy to go with strong arguments rather than actual law changes.


So to sum up.  I know of no atheists, including myself, who believe that we should in any way force atheism on to people.  We should simply argue and verbally attack religion in a mature and responsible manner at every opportunity.  I do not advocate anything beyond this, and I've never heard the atheists who I read advocate anything else.  I simply think it is a false and misleading claim to suggest otherwise.

I have no doubt that you can find some off the cuff remark made by an atheist about killing all religious people, just as you can find a million remarks by religious people suggesting we kill all atheists, but those a certainly very rare and probably said in jest, rather than a serious intent.

A friend of mine's Dad was a Nazi and brought his son up to be a nazi as well.  I think that's pretty wrong and I'm glad that my friend has actually met people from different races and changed his political views, but I imagine that there are a lot of kids in jail for hate crimes because of what their parents taught them.  I don't know if the solution is to issues like that, but certainly I think it's morally wrong to teach your child to follow a particular religion or ideology.

I, too, am glad that your friend managed to get past the intolerant and unenlightened beliefs he was taught by his father, and think that anything we can do to spread tolerance is a good thing. But I still stand up for the right of parents to teach their children what they believe is right, as long as they aren't telling their children that they should commit crimes. I wish they would be more tolerant, but I also think that society should not interfere with parents raising their children.

I will give my children as much evidence as I can and let them make up their own minds.  Presumably I'll be biased towards atheism but if they decide to be Christians, Mormons or Wiccan's I'll love them just the same.

This is what I intend to do as well (depending, obviously, on the views of their mother, but probably we would be like-minded).

(but not if they're emo - obviously)

Yet more evidence that you are a horribly terrible and rotten person who would stop loving his own children if they listen to the wrong music.

But obviously there are significant ethical issues with not letting people teach their children whatever they want either and at this stage, like with religious belief, I would be happy to go with strong arguments rather than actual law changes.

I'm glad we agree on this.

So to sum up.  I know of no atheists, including myself, who believe that we should in any way force atheism on to people.  We should simply argue and verbally attack religion in a mature and responsible manner at every opportunity.  I do not advocate anything beyond this, and I've never heard the atheists who I read advocate anything else.  I simply think it is a false and misleading claim to suggest otherwise.

I didn't mean to suggest that any atheists were presently suggesting the use of violence or coercion, but I would also point out that christian evangelists were not originally suggesting it either, and then the inquisition happened. If atheist organizations teach that religious people are "deluded", religions are "ludicrous" and that religious belief causes people to hate and commit violence, it's not such a big step once atheism becomes a majority viewpoint to use coercive measures to stamp out religion "for the protection of society" or "for their own protection". On the other hand, if you believe as I do that religious belief is (in my opinion) probably false, but a perfectly understandable and acceptable world-view, as long as they are tolerant of other people not believing what they do, then this type of step becomes much harder.

It's not the actions that you are recommending that concern me, beast, as you strike me as someone who wouldn't ever try to force atheism on others. What concerns me is the attitude that you say we should all take towards people with religious beliefs, and what I see that leading to in a future when atheism becomes the norm, and many less enlightened atheists have been taught to think of religious belief as a dangerous delusion.

Lets worry about what is currently happening, not what could theoretically happen one day when the planets align.  There have been atheist movements for thousands of years and none of them have resorted to violence.  It's hard to imagine it starting now.

Communist Russia and China have both persecuted religion.

Communist Russia and China have both persecuted religion.

So has every theocracy the world has ever known. Your point?

Lets worry about what is currently happening, not what could theoretically happen one day when the planets align.

What is wrong with thinking about the future? I am worried about what is currently happening - I'm worried about the attitude that is spreading among atheists and which is being actively promoted by some atheists, and what that attitude could lead to.

There have been atheist movements for thousands of years and none of them have resorted to violence.

As has been mentioned, this is not true - communist regimes are a very good example of state-mandated atheism and it's repressive practice, including violence and human rights violations.

It's hard to imagine it starting now.

I don't find it at all hard to imagine. People behave very differently when they are in the majority from when they are a small community in the midst of a much larger one which believes differently than they do. People don't need religion to single out others as "different", and in every age there are people who have committed violence against those they perceive as "other". What do you think the type of people who in the past have thrown rocks and bottles at gay teenagers will do in a time when atheism is the norm and strongly religious people are a small minority? Do you think violence and mistreatment of religious people is more likely if you think that it's fine to believe whatever you want - as I do - or if you think of religion as a "delusion" and a "disease" whose "impact on society is negative and destructive" as you are telling us to?

It is never too soon to preach tolerance and acceptance of differences. People should be free to believe whatever, and when you start saying that the majority of people on this planet are deluded and diseased you are not part of the solution - you are contributing to the problem.

If I may respond for beast here...

People should be free to believe whatever, and when you start saying that the majority of people on this planet are deluded and diseased you are not part of the solution - you are contributing to the problem.

Does "freedom to believe whatever" include freedom to believe the majority of people on the planet are deluded?

Does "freedom to believe whatever" include freedom to believe the majority of people on the planet are deluded?

Yes it does. I don't mind if beast wants to hold the belief - what worries me is that he's trying to persuade as many people as he can to join him in that attitude, and doesn't have any concern at all that the attitude may later lead to persecution in the name of atheism very like the persecution in the name of religion we've seen in the past. He doesn't seem to think atheists will treat others badly because they are different, and claims that no atheist government has persecuted religion in the past, completely ignoring the evidence from communist countries. This strikes me as a dangerously naive attitude, and I will try to dissuade him if I can.

Also, I would like to point out another difference between my view and beast's - he is lumping all religion in to one basket and labelling it 'bad', without any consideration about what the religion actually believes and teaches, while I am specifically saying that it is bad to promote intolerant attitudes.

what worries me is that he's trying to persuade as many people as he can to join him in that attitude,

Interestingly, I am concerned when people try to persuade others to join them in ignorant and irrational attitudes -- which is the habit of religion.  So, the response that you are making towards beast's intolerance of religion is the response that I make towards religion itself... and, I suspect, that beast is making as well.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

what worries me is that he's trying to persuade as many people as he can to join him in that attitude,

Interestingly, I am concerned when people try to persuade others to join them in ignorant and irrational attitudes -- which is the habit of religion.  So, the response that you are making towards beast's intolerance of religion is the response that I make towards religion itself... and, I suspect, that beast is making as well.

Yes, and I too am concerned about specific practicers of some religions who try to persuade them in ignorant and irrational attitudes. I am no fan of radical islam, and I think that many of the practices of conservative Christianity in the United States are problematic, and I would be fully in support of any attempt to persuade people to be more tolerant. The point is that I'm not making a blanket statement that religion is a problem - I am highlighting specific teachings of some religions as being the ones which promote intolerance, and saying they are the problem - there is no problem with a great many religions, and broadly attacking all religious belief because of some teachings of some religions strikes me as intolerant and prejudicial.

I am no fan of radical islam, and I think that many of the practices of conservative Christianity in the United States are problematic, and I would be fully in support of any attempt to persuade people to be more tolerant. The point is that I'm not making a blanket statement that religion is a problem

Okay, so you're focusing on some religions' intolerance of other religions.  But I (and I think beast) am concerned with the religion itself -- it, by definition, is telling people to believe things for no rational reason, to act on faith.  They are brought up with a certain notion of epistemology.  Then they go and vote in elections or run for office.  I think this is problematic.

Okay, so you're focusing on some religions' intolerance of other religions.  But I (and I think beast) am concerned with the religion itself -- it, by definition, is telling people to believe things for no rational reason, to act on faith.  They are brought up with a certain notion of epistemology.  Then they go and vote in elections or run for office.  I think this is problematic.

I don't see how it is inherently problematic - it highlights the need for a good scientific education, but most religious people with scientific educations understand that some things are in the realm of religion, and others are in the realm of science, and understand things accordingly. I have no problem with such people voting. Now it does concern me when senators and other powerful elected people are biblical literalists, but again I would say the problem is not religion in general, as it is perfectly possible to have faith in god and still have a good understanding of science - the problem is certain teachings and certain beliefs, and indicting religion as a whole is overgeneralizing to an absurd degree.

As for the title of this thread, the very premise is ridiculous. I sincerely doubt there are really any (or many) dogmatic atheists. Who is teaching this dogma? You might as well say "dogmatic logic" or "dogmatic mathematics;" all of these things are tautological.





No one is suggesting that we violently attack or legally prosecute religion. But we definitely cannot continue treating it with the same amount of respect and tolerance as we do now. Religious arguments should be totally absent from politics and legal battles. Children should be taught logic and critical thinking, as well as philosophy and world religions in school. Kansas should stop teaching Intelligent Design. Stem cell research should be legalized in all states. Gay marriage should be legalized. People should stop wasting money on churches. People should stop praying and start doing. Christian humanitarians should stop trying to spread "the good news of Christ" and spend 100% of their time healing the sick.  Condom use ought to be encouraged by all people, including the pope. Ideas need to be justified using logic and evident, not faith. Kids should stop being taught it's okay, or even good, to belief something just because they want to.

All these things ought to happen, but religious tolerance is in the way. If these beliefs have any value, religious people should be able to rationally defend them.

If atheist organizations teach that religious people are "deluded", religions are "ludicrous" and that religious belief causes people to hate and commit violence...

All of these things are true. God is demonstratively a delusion. Religions are truly ludicrous and unfounded beliefs. And evil, violence, and hatred caused by religious doctrine it is glaringly present.

Is the truth forbidden for the sake of irrational and devoted respect to religions?

...most religious people with scientific educations understand that some things are in the realm of religion, and others are in the realm of science...

Skept, what realm would the Kwakiutl belief that lunar eclipses are caused by a sky monster swallowing the moon be in?

I don't see how it is inherently problematic - it highlights the need for a good scientific education, but most religious people with scientific educations understand that some things are in the realm of religion, and others are in the realm of science, and understand things accordingly. I have no problem with such people voting. Now it does concern me when senators and other powerful elected people are biblical literalists, but again I would say the problem is not religion in general, as it is perfectly possible to have faith in god and still have a good understanding of science - the problem is certain teachings and certain beliefs, and indicting religion as a whole is overgeneralizing to an absurd degree.

For sure.  The reason to oppose religion and to fight against it is because of the disproportionate power over the world that it carries.  The fact that there is a debate about evolution vs intelligent design being taught in schools is reason enough to oppose it, let alone all the atrocities and lies that are perpetrated in the name of religion.  If we moved into a society where religious belief played no part in education or politics then I wouldn't care how many people personally believed in God.  It is the influence religion has on society that I think is a bad thing.  Maybe once it was a good thing, and maybe there are good points to it (although I deny both these points, that's irrelevant) but I think a clear fact is that today we have no need for religion and it harms our society in many ways.  When I look at all my atheist heros, from Mark Twain to Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins to Douglas Adams, it is clear that they all have such strong and positive moral views and I think that's the world I want to live in, a world where morals are decided by thought and reason, not what is taught in a book.  

How many atheists do you know who are in your government?  I mean people who have clearly stood up and said "I'm an atheist?"  Yet how many religious politicians do you know?