Is atheism a relic of modernism?

[Lion IRC]

...um, it wasn't religionists mocking the A plussers
It was real atheists.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheists can be assholes and intolerant like anybody.

Within the active atheist community there is religious like 'sectarian' divides. Some years back the woman who ran the forum had a running dispute with an atheist forum.

As I always say, all human organizations and social groups are fundamentally the same. Philosophies, theists, atheists, politicians, unions, social peer groups. The NRA. Power relationships. Social norms to be part of the group.

The problem with the Abrahamic religions especially American Christian Evangelicals is a presumption of absolute uniqueness and superiority.

 

[Ovazor]

I am aware that the discussion has moved on from the OP, but I think that there is another angle to this question that has not been addressed:

You ask if the apparent disdain of atheists for postmodernism implies that atheism is a relic of modernism. However, most if not all of the really big names of post-modernism are or were atheists.

 

[Sarpedon]

Some atheists, like me, disdain post modernism. It is not accurate to say that atheists in general disdain post modernism. Michel Foucault was an atheist, after all. This whole thread is based on an absurd straw man.

 

[steve_bank]

A man hands a man a paper bag. Their man opens it and says 'Why this is a bag of shit!'

The other replies, 'Yes, but it is great shit'.

Old SNL joke.

 

[Politesse]

The problem with the Abrahamic religions especially American Christian Evangelicals is a presumption of absolute uniqueness and superiority.

Would you say that most atheists do not consider their perspective on religion to be both unique and superior to all others? I've met a few open-minded atheists, but most seem to consider their philosophy to be not even of the same kind, let alone equal to, other religious claims.


- - - Updated - - -

Some atheists, like me, disdain post modernism. It is not accurate to say that atheists in general disdain post modernism. Michel Foucault was an atheist, after all. This whole thread is based on an absurd straw man.

What straw man? I was interested in people's opinions on the matter. "No" is an acceptable response to the question...

 

[Ovazor]

Then I think that "No" is the answer. You asked about correlations. It is fairly clear that there is a strong positive correlation between being post-modernist and being atheist. Almost all of the most influential postmodernists are/were atheists, including at least Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrillard, Lyotard Levi-Strauss and Kristeva. But this of course does not work in reverse, most atheists are not post-modernists.

 

[lpetrich]

Then I think that "No" is the answer. You asked about correlations. It is fairly clear that there is a strong positive correlation between being post-modernist and being atheist. Almost all of the most influential postmodernists are/were atheists, including at least Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrillard, Lyotard Levi-Strauss and Kristeva. But this of course does not work in reverse, most atheists are not post-modernists.

Why do you conclude that they are all atheists?

- - - Updated - - -

I had modernism, not "modernity", in mind -- usually characterized as a 19th-20th century push toward technological advancement, philosophical objectivity, and anti-authoritarian attitudes. A very positivistic outlook that saw great promise in the power of humanism and materialism to remake humanity into a technology-fueled new era of prosperity and general profitability. Self-consciousness, parody, and satire abounded, as well as an almost fetishistic love of, and trust in, science.

If that's what you meant, then why didn't you say so in the first place? Like put it in your OP. Don't expect everybody to instantly understand your special meanings of words.

I did not invent the concept of modernism...

Even if you didn't, you ought to have been more explicit about it.

But I do get what you are getting at now.

 

[Ovazor]

Why do you conclude that they are all atheists?

Is there somebody in the list who should not be there? Most of them are on Wikipedia's List of Atheist Philosophers. For the rest, it is easily found by few minutes of googling.

 

[Tammuz]

What about Lucretius?

He was a deist rather than atheist I think.

 

[Tammuz]

Atheism does not mean disbelieving in God and stopping there. Of there is no God, then we cannot rely on religion as a foundation for morals and ethics. So atheists need to deal with the issue of what are good ethics and morals and how do we deal with these issues. Atheists are under no compulsion to let theology mandate morality or ethics based on ancient books from bronze age billy goat herders.

You can frame this in different ways. I view my atheism as an outcome of skeptical, critical thought. I view the nature of ethics and morality as distinct from if gods are real or not.

I would say that my view of morality is mostly Humean, in that morality is primarily based on feelings and empathy. But there are atheists who have very different views from me about the nature of morality.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i

"Recently, Gary Gutting interviewed Alvin Plantinga for the Stone (The New York Times philosophy column). “Is atheism irrational?” the title asked, with the implied answer: “Yes.” Yet among philosophers, a supposedly rational group, 62% are atheists (compared to about half that among all academics and 2% in the general population). When asked why this is so, Plantinga suggested their motivations were psychological, not philosophical. Maybe they are like Thomas Nagel, he suggested, and don’t “want there to be any such person as God” because that means they are constantly being observed, judged and evaluated. Or perhaps, like Heidegger, they desire autonomy and think God’s existence threatens it. None of these philosophers, however, specialized in studying religious belief. On the other hand, there are numerous philosophers of religion who argue directly and philosophically for atheism and whose motivation Plantinga seems to completely ignore (e.g., A. C. Grayling; William Rowe; John Leslie Mackie, who argued that theism is irrational; and Michael Martin, who has written an entire philosophical defense of atheism)."

----


A long read but interesting in that most living philosophers are in fact atheists.

 

[steve_bank]

The problem with the Abrahamic religions especially American Christian Evangelicals is a presumption of absolute uniqueness and superiority.

Would you say that most atheists do not consider their perspective on religion to be both unique and superior to all others? I've met a few open-minded atheists, but most seem to consider their philosophy to be not even of the same kind, let alone equal to, other religious claims.


- - - Updated - - -

Some atheists, like me, disdain post modernism. It is not accurate to say that atheists in general disdain post modernism. Michel Foucault was an atheist, after all. This whole thread is based on an absurd straw man.

What straw man? I was interested in people's opinions on the matter. "No" is an acceptable response to the question...

As has been said over and over there is no singular meaning to atheist. From here and others I have known atheism is generally a defensive reaction to the intrusion of religion into our lives.

As to intrusionyou only have to look at the Christian polical agenda demanding policoes that conform to some interpretation of the bible.

Look at this way. The 1st amendment clause on freedom of religion was not penned to protect religion from atheists, it was to protect minority Christians from majority Christians. Colonial and 19th century Christians were not tolerant of opposing interpretations. Along with the first amendment there is the prohibition against religious test for office and govt implementing religion.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[steve_bank]

Like Christians there are atheists who make money writing and speaking about atheism. IMO often flip sides of the same coin.

 

[lpetrich]

Why do you conclude that they are all atheists?

Is there somebody in the list who should not be there?

I should clarify what I meant. I did not mean anyone in particular, just that it seemed rather improbable that they would all be atheists.

Most of them are on Wikipedia's List of Atheist Philosophers. For the rest, it is easily found by few minutes of googling.

Interesting.

It includes Bertrand Russell, who preferred to call himself an agnostic. As to Lucretius, he thought that the deities of his society's religion were real beings, but that they a lot like us, rather than superpowerful cosmic superbeings.

 

[lpetrich]

I had modernism, not "modernity", in mind -- usually characterized as a 19th-20th century push toward technological advancement, philosophical objectivity, and anti-authoritarian attitudes. A very positivistic outlook that saw great promise in the power of humanism and materialism to remake humanity into a technology-fueled new era of prosperity and general profitability. Self-consciousness, parody, and satire abounded, as well as an almost fetishistic love of, and trust in, science.

But to call atheism a "relic" of that ideology implies that many of the believers in it have either died off or moved away from that. Since many present-day people seem to believe in versions of that ideology, it is unlikely that that has happened.

 

[Politesse]

I had modernism, not "modernity", in mind -- usually characterized as a 19th-20th century push toward technological advancement, philosophical objectivity, and anti-authoritarian attitudes. A very positivistic outlook that saw great promise in the power of humanism and materialism to remake humanity into a technology-fueled new era of prosperity and general profitability. Self-consciousness, parody, and satire abounded, as well as an almost fetishistic love of, and trust in, science.

But to call atheism a "relic" of that ideology implies that many of the believers in it have either died off or moved away from that. Since many present-day people seem to believe in versions of that ideology, it is unlikely that that has happened.

Lots of older things have modern descendants. How many American religious traditions could be seen as the ongoing repercussions of the Great Awakening? I will concede that "relic" was not the best choice of words (it seems to have a pejorative edge that I did not intend) but I am not sure, either, what the right word is for the idea I mean.

 

[abaddon]

I will concede that "relic" was not the best choice of words (it seems to have a pejorative edge that I did not intend) but I am not sure, either, what the right word is for the idea I mean.

Relic explicitly means "done and over with, now of only historical interest".

Maybe you meant byproduct, consequence, result, effect, outcome, upshot, or development?

 

[Politesse]

Relic explicitly means "done and over with, now of only historical interest".

Perhaps to an atheist.

I did mean to imply that the context in which it flowered is perhaps not as relevant as it once was. But I don't think that means it should go extinct. I am not one to throw out old ideas simply because they are old; I spent much of my younger days chasing after actual relics, and regret not a minute of it. People who chase mindlessly after the new, and assume that anything old is therefore useless, are not my kind of people.

Perhaps "legacy" would be a better term.

 

[lpetrich]

David Kyle Johnson discussed Alvin Plantinga's arguments in rather gory detail, like the fine-tuning argument. Titled links:
Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part I) | Psychology Today
Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part II) | Psychology Today
Why 62 Percent of Philosophers Are Atheists Part III | Psychology Today
Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part IV) | Psychology Today
Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part V) | Psychology Today
Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part VI) | Psychology Today
Is Atheism Irrational? - The New York Times -- that Alvin Plantinga interview

I find Alvin Plantinga's take on Bertrand Russell's teapot argument to be rather hopelessly literal-minded. He asks how a teapot could have gotten into interplanetary space, when he believes in a God who could have poofed it into existence there.