Irrational Atheism

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/a-leap-of-atheist-faith/381353/

Religious beliefs are remarkably various. But sometimes it can seem that there is only one way to be an atheist: asserting, on the basis of reasoned argument, that belief in God is irrational. The aging "new atheists"—Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, for example—pit reason against faith, science against superstition, and declare for reason and science.

It pictures the universe as a natural system, a system not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits; a universe that can be explained by science, because it consists of material objects operating according to physical laws. In this sense, atheism embodies a whole picture of the world, offering explanations about its most general organization to the character of individual events.

Ironically, this is similar to the totalizing worldview of religion—neither can be shown to be true or false by science, or indeed by any rational technique. Whether theistic or atheistic, they are all matters of faith, stances taken up by tiny creatures in an infinitely rich environment.

I'm an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system. I think of it, on the basis of my own extremely limited experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing. It isn't bent on saving me, or damning me: It just is. I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That's my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience. But it's not an argument; it's an interpretation.

I have taken a leap of atheist faith.

The idea that the atheist comes to her view of the world through rationality and argumentation, while the believer relies on arbitrary emotional commitments, is false. This accounts for the sense that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins are arrogant: Their line of thinking often takes the form of disqualifying others on the grounds that they are irrational. But the atheist too, is deciding to believe in conditions of irremediable uncertainty, not merely following out a proof.

Religious people have often offloaded the burden of their choices on institutions and relied on the Church's authorities and dogmas. But some atheists are equally willing to offload their beliefs on "reason" or "science" without acknowledging that they are making a bold intellectual commitment about the nature of the universe, and making it with utterly insufficient data. Religion at its best treats belief as a resolution in the face of doubt. I want an atheism that does the same, that displays epistemological courage.

Let me be the first to welcome my good, atheist friends into the lake of irrationality. The water is great this time of year!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

they are all matters of faith

Then we can dismiss all of them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But sometimes it can seem that there is only one way to be an atheist: asserting, on the basis of reasoned argument, that belief in God is irrational.

Nit: If it's on the basis of a reasoned argument, are we really 'asserting' that? (/nitpicked)

Aside from that, that's really not the way that i 'be an atheist.' I'm an atheist because i find all the arguments offered so far for any god to be unconvincing. I'm not an atheist because of the idea that "belief in gods is irrational."
That's more of an observation about the lengths some people will go to, in order to rationalize their beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't like the OP article much. There is theism and then there is deism. Want to believe that something is a cause because without one, seems kind of nutty... deist. Believe a guy was crucified on the cross, died, resurrected, and now all of our sins are forgiven... theist.

A theist has a shit-ton more they need to defend than merely the rationality that there is a god(s).

 

[bilby]

It is perfectly possible to be an atheist for completely irrational reasons; It is also perfectly possible to be a theist for completely irrational reasons. Irrational people can (and do) believe anything - including, in some cases, that there are no gods.

However, it is possible to be an atheist for rational reasons; but it is not possible to be a theist for rational reasons - At least, not for any common definition of a theist. The least irrational position a theist can take is to discard parsimony, and add a 'god' or 'gods' to the various scientifically established models of the universe, in such a way as to be careful not to overlap with those established models. However the huge scope and extraordinary accuracy of the Standard Model renders such a 'god' minimal in ability and scope, as well as unparsimonious.

If we postulate a god that set up the basic laws of nature and triggered the Big Bang, but then stepped aside and did nothing since, then that is not a demonstrably false position; but it is a very weak claim for the status of 'god'. Certainly if such an entity were to have existed, it is not worshipful, and we owe it neither our gratitude nor our respect. The same is true of any 'small gods' that are used as place-holders for the unknown. As nobody knows everything, it is not directly irrational to assign such a place-holder to the unknown - but it IS irrational to refuse to obtain new knowledge that renders these small gods obsolete; and our modern world is so pervaded by access to knowledge that there are no excuses for disseminating ignorance by claiming such a god or gods as 'the reason' for something.

As soon as a god is postulated that has attributes as described by the major world theistic religions, it becomes impossible to remain both a believer in that god, and a rational thinker on the topic.

Essentially, it is irrational to believe in any of the gods people are known to have believed in, now or in the past, with the trivial exception of gods which are barely worthy of the name.

The author of the article seems to be saying that his trust in the scientists who have developed our models of reality is of the same quality as a theist's trust in the words of his holy books, prophets or preachers - in each case, it is taking someone else's word for how things are, on faith - faith not in gods, but in the people who claim to know things.

But these are not the same thing at all, for the simple reason that all formal scientific knowledge is open to be tested, by anyone, at any time. When a preacher says that god commands you not to eat pork, there is no way to question or challenge this assertion. You can only take it or leave it. But when Newton says that masses are attracted to one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, this is not a bald assertion that we are required to accept (or reject) on faith alone - Science encourages us to go and check for ourselves, even to the extent of requiring those who publish their conclusions to include a detailed description of the methodology used to reach those conclusions, so that anyone can, in principle, attempt to reproduce the results they have reported.

Scientific faith is based on the understanding that questioning of results, theories and hypotheses is expected, and that such questioning should be encouraged and facilitated by those making the claims. Religious faith is based on the understanding that asking questions about the validity of the faith itself is immoral, or at least to be avoided and discouraged outside the strict framework arbitrarily imposed by the religion in question. As such, they are very different things, and the author of the article does nobody any favours by perpetuating the fallacy that they are similar and equal.

The rational faith that the results of the scientific method will give us a better model of reality than any other technique, is not remotely the same thing as the irrational faith in gods, preachers and holy texts.

 

[DBT]

I'm an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system. I think of it, on the basis of my own extremely limited experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing. It isn't bent on saving me, or damning me: It just is. I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That's my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience. But it's not an argument; it's an interpretation.

I have taken a leap of atheist faith.

Not resorting to an explanation that is not supported by evidence is the justified position (even if it happens to be proven wrong eventually). A 'leap of faith' involves introducing an unfounded element, a Creator of the Universe, in order to fill the gaps in our understanding of the World and how it came about.

 

[Malintent]

The article conflates Atheism with Naturalism... and throws a bit of Rationalism in there for seasoning.

Naturalism is the worldview purpported - That the universe "makes rational sense" (and there is the rationalism for ya). Atheism is a response to the assertion that, "god wears a white robe and sits upon the clouds".. and all other assertions that have been made about some entitie's characteristics that poeple like to label, "god".

 

[skepticalbip]

Atheism only requires accepting that there are many, many things we just don’t understand and skepticism of any explanation that is not backed by supportable evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That article could only have been produced in a country where the majority holds theist beliefs. It's a person that operates in a world where it's ok to hold irrational beliefs, and they are respected for it. Good luck with that in Sweden. Everybody will think you're a moron and laugh at you.

Respecting other people's beliefs, simply because they are a belief is a disease. It's a poison that permeates theist countries and eats away at any rational thought. Turning everybody into uncritical fools. Even the rationally inclined...as this article demonstrates.

Yes, of course Swedes can hold irrational beliefs. But everybody will nominally base their belief on some empirical evidence somewhere. Makes for a much more intellectually honest discussion on faith issues.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sighhhhhhh....
This sort of argument is why I try to develop very strong atheist arguments, super-omnipotence, omnigenesis et al. For me, I can demonstrate the basic grand God of grand theologies is logically impossible.The basic omni-everything, creator God. For me, atheism is in no way a leap in faith.

For a weak atheist, theism's lack of ability to demonstrate God as a concept has any evidence of being true is not a leap of faith. Its a hard fact. And so again atheism is not a leap of faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sighhhhhhh....
This sort of argument is why I try to develop very strong atheist arguments, super-omnipotence, omnigenesis et al. For me, I can demonstrate the basic grand God of grand theologies is logically impossible.The basic omni-everything, creator God. For me, atheism is in no way a leap in faith.

For a weak atheist, theism's lack of ability to demonstrate God as a concept has any evidence of being true is not a leap of faith. Its a hard fact. And so again atheism is not a leap of faith.

Exactly. It's not a 'leap of faith' to adopt a position of not believing in pegacorns simply because no one's ever actually shown objective proof that winged narwhal-horses don't exist.

 

[doubtingt]

Theists assume everything that atheists do about the Universe, but also assume a God, and yet are less capable of using that worldview to predict and explain the world around them. That makes their view unparsimonious and with less explanatory and predictive power, which logically makes it more likely to be wrong (based on the assumption that every assumption has a non-zero prob of being wrong, thus adding any assumption that doesn't add explanatory/predictive power increases the net prob of being wrong).

Choosing one view over an alternative, despite objective lower probability of it being more correct is the definition of irrationality.

Thus, being an theist is irrational.

Atheism can be arrived at other than by rational thought, but it is always the more rational position.

 

[untermensche]

...It pictures the universe as a natural system, a system not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits; a universe that can be explained by science, because it consists of material objects operating according to physical laws. In this sense, atheism embodies a whole picture of the world, offering explanations about its most general organization to the character of individual events...

This is not an atheistic view.

It is a scientific view.

The opening article confuses a rational scientific view of the world that demands evidence before it believes things exist with atheism.

Basically an atheistic view of the world that wasn't a scientific view of the world would be irrational.

To say one believes in science and evidence and also in gods is irrational.

 

[Underseer]

So... because we point out that their arguments are not good, we are therefore just as irrational?

*sigh*

 

[Atheos]

Classic  tu quoque fallacy.