Is atheism a relic of modernism?

[Politesse]

After we recently had a go over the old auteur theory/death of the author scuffle, I was thinking about something: I have noticed a strong preference among atheists for the philosophies and even aesthetics (thinking back to the art contest I used to run on SC) of modernism, and a noticeable disdain for postmodernism and everything connected to it. Is there a logical connection, or is this merely a meaningless correlation?

 

[rousseau]

Can you give an example of the modernism atheists prefer, and the postmodernism they disdain? Those seem like two broad descriptors.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Define modernism. For many in the world of philosophy, Descartes is the where the old world of scholasticism and the modern era of philosophy begins. Or perhaps what is meant is the enlightenment. Or the Renaissance. Or the rise of logical positivism and it's progeny, analytical philosophy. maybe the modern era of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics.

Magic eight ball says, "Unclear - Try Again Later".

Postmodernism? An utter waste of time. Masses of gibberish enveloping small ideas which may or may not be worth considering, but not in a pomo manner.

 

[steve_bank]

Metaphysical pointless mumbo jumbo.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

 

[Wiploc]

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Nonsense. Without theism, everyone is atheist by definition.

 

[repoman]

What about Lucretius?

 

[Valjean]

Metaphysical pointless mumbo jumbo.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Palpable poppycock.
How are you defining "atheism?"

 

[rousseau]

After we recently had a go over the old auteur theory/death of the author scuffle, I was thinking about something: I have noticed a strong preference among atheists for the philosophies and even aesthetics (thinking back to the art contest I used to run on SC) of modernism, and a noticeable disdain for postmodernism and everything connected to it. Is there a logical connection, or is this merely a meaningless correlation?

relic - an object surviving from an earlier time

I'd argue no. Atheism/Agnosticism is the logical conclusion of materialism.

Theism exists because, historically, living things were presumed to have a spiritual essence, which was a natural extension of a creator/divine nature of the universe. In lieu of a materialistic answer, people just presumed a spiritual world because it was apparently obvious.

Enter science where we realize living things can be explained via the laws of nature. This is the materialistic answer that our ancestors didn't have available to them.

Basically, our new technical capacity was able to give us answers we didn't previously have. Atheism is just a natural extension of that, it has nothing to do with philosophy or any fields.

 

[steve_bank]

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Nonsense. Without theism, everyone is atheist by definition.

An I witnessing the birth of an atheist scripture and ideology? Wiplocism.

- - - Updated - - -

Metaphysical pointless mumbo jumbo.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Palpable poppycock.
How are you defining "atheism?"

I define it as a-theism....

 

[Politesse]

Define modernism. For many in the world of philosophy, Descartes is the where the old world of scholasticism and the modern era of philosophy begins. Or perhaps what is meant is the enlightenment. Or the Renaissance. Or the rise of logical positivism and it's progeny, analytical philosophy. maybe the modern era of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics.

Magic eight ball says, "Unclear - Try Again Later".

Postmodernism? An utter waste of time. Masses of gibberish enveloping small ideas which may or may not be worth considering, but not in a pomo manner.

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.

 

[Politesse]

After we recently had a go over the old auteur theory/death of the author scuffle, I was thinking about something: I have noticed a strong preference among atheists for the philosophies and even aesthetics (thinking back to the art contest I used to run on SC) of modernism, and a noticeable disdain for postmodernism and everything connected to it. Is there a logical connection, or is this merely a meaningless correlation?

relic - an object surviving from an earlier time

I'd argue no. Atheism/Agnosticism is the logical conclusion of materialism.

Theism exists because, historically, living things were presumed to have a spiritual essence, which was a natural extension of a creator/divine nature of the universe. In lieu of a materialistic answer, people just presumed a spiritual world because it was apparently obvious.

Enter science where we realize living things can be explained via the laws of nature. This is the materialistic answer that our ancestors didn't have available to them.

Basically, our new technical capacity was able to give us answers we didn't previously have. Atheism is just a natural extension of that, it has nothing to do with philosophy or any fields.

"Laws of Nature"? That seems more like an Enlightnment mode of thinking than a modern one even. I mean, given your handle that is not surprising... But I don't hear a lot of people talk about "Laws of Nature" these days. Do you think these are actual laws? What enforces them? Because the implication used to be that there was some sort of Deistic Lawgiver, but I assume that is not what you are going for.

 

[Politesse]

I should have thought to make a poll of it, really. Some Pollitesse I am.

 

[rousseau]

After we recently had a go over the old auteur theory/death of the author scuffle, I was thinking about something: I have noticed a strong preference among atheists for the philosophies and even aesthetics (thinking back to the art contest I used to run on SC) of modernism, and a noticeable disdain for postmodernism and everything connected to it. Is there a logical connection, or is this merely a meaningless correlation?

relic - an object surviving from an earlier time

I'd argue no. Atheism/Agnosticism is the logical conclusion of materialism.

Theism exists because, historically, living things were presumed to have a spiritual essence, which was a natural extension of a creator/divine nature of the universe. In lieu of a materialistic answer, people just presumed a spiritual world because it was apparently obvious.

Enter science where we realize living things can be explained via the laws of nature. This is the materialistic answer that our ancestors didn't have available to them.

Basically, our new technical capacity was able to give us answers we didn't previously have. Atheism is just a natural extension of that, it has nothing to do with philosophy or any fields.

"Laws of Nature"? That seems more like an Enlightnment mode of thinking than a modern one even. I mean, given your handle that is not surprising... But I don't hear a lot of people talk about "Laws of Nature" these days. Do you think these are actual laws? What enforces them?

Laws of Nature aren't a mode of thinking, they're a repeatable aspect of reality, proven by scientific technology. They are not philosophy, nor modernism, nor post-modernism, or anything else.

If you want to talk about science as a cultural mode of thought, fair enough, but that doesn't make science as an amoral tool to reveal things about our world any less real. And what science has revealed is that the universe can be defined mathematically, and that there is no evidence of anything besides material substance.

 

[steve_bank]

After we recently had a go over the old auteur theory/death of the author scuffle, I was thinking about something: I have noticed a strong preference among atheists for the philosophies and even aesthetics (thinking back to the art contest I used to run on SC) of modernism, and a noticeable disdain for postmodernism and everything connected to it. Is there a logical connection, or is this merely a meaningless correlation?

relic - an object surviving from an earlier time

I'd argue no. Atheism/Agnosticism is the logical conclusion of materialism.

Theism exists because, historically, living things were presumed to have a spiritual essence, which was a natural extension of a creator/divine nature of the universe. In lieu of a materialistic answer, people just presumed a spiritual world because it was apparently obvious.

Enter science where we realize living things can be explained via the laws of nature. This is the materialistic answer that our ancestors didn't have available to them.

Basically, our new technical capacity was able to give us answers we didn't previously have. Atheism is just a natural extension of that, it has nothing to do with philosophy or any fields.

"Laws of Nature"? That seems more like an Enlightnment mode of thinking than a modern one even. I mean, given your handle that is not surprising... But I don't hear a lot of people talk about "Laws of Nature" these days. Do you think these are actual laws? What enforces them? Because the implication used to be that there was some sort of Deistic Lawgiver, but I assume that is not what you are going for.

What we call laws of natures are descriptions of observations. Newton's Laws Of Motion. In electricity Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Laws. They are used and demonstrated to the point we rely on them without question. There is no intent or implied cosmic design in the use of the term natural laws. There in is no creation to a set of laws and rules is implied.

Genetic inheritance. Newtonian gravity.

 

[Valjean]

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.






Nonsense. Without theism, everyone is atheist by definition.

An I witnessing the birth of an atheist scripture and ideology? Wiplocism.

- - - Updated - - -

Metaphysical pointless mumbo jumbo.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Palpable poppycock.
How are you defining "atheism?"

I define it as a-theism....

In that case we're all born a-theists; my cat is an a-theist.

 

[rousseau]

If we're talking cultural modes of thought I'd be comfortable calling science a relic of modernity and atheism an artefact of science.

Not sure where postmodernism comes into play, though. Mostly atheism is a product of scientific thought entering our collective consciousness.

 

[Politesse]

"Laws of Nature"? That seems more like an Enlightnment mode of thinking than a modern one even. I mean, given your handle that is not surprising... But I don't hear a lot of people talk about "Laws of Nature" these days. Do you think these are actual laws? What enforces them? Because the implication used to be that there was some sort of Deistic Lawgiver, but I assume that is not what you are going for.

What we call laws of natures are descriptions of observations. Newton's Laws Of Motion. In electricity Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Laws. They are used and demonstrated to the point we rely on them without question.

Speak for yourself! I'm a question-asking kind of guy.

 

[repoman]

This is kind of complicated, but it seems like that the Abrahamic religions got halfway there by killing the infusion of spirit (sort of like Japanese Kami) into the natural world - or at least having independent spirits in different aspects of nature.

Is an atheist coming from an Abrahamic religious background different from an atheist raised in a religion that has hints of Animism?

 

[steve_bank]

An I witnessing the birth of an atheist scripture and ideology? Wiplocism.

- - - Updated - - -

Metaphysical pointless mumbo jumbo.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Palpable poppycock.
How are you defining "atheism?"

I define it as a-theism....

In that case we're all born a-theists; my cat is an a-theist.

That sounds like a cat-astrophe.

 

[steve_bank]

"Laws of Nature"? That seems more like an Enlightnment mode of thinking than a modern one even. I mean, given your handle that is not surprising... But I don't hear a lot of people talk about "Laws of Nature" these days. Do you think these are actual laws? What enforces them? Because the implication used to be that there was some sort of Deistic Lawgiver, but I assume that is not what you are going for.

What we call laws of natures are descriptions of observations. Newton's Laws Of Motion. In electricity Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Laws. They are used and demonstrated to the point we rely on them without question.

Speak for yourself! I'm a question-asking kind of guy.

It is what it is is. Sconce does not answer why thing snare as they are in terms of a cosmic reason why. It bios models to explain observation and extrapolate based on experiment and observation. Why the universe exists is not within the pursue of science. That is philosophy and religion. If you really understand science there is no conflict between science and religion.

Science makes some theists uncomfortable, but that is not the problem of science to reconcile.

The trick and key to understanding is being able to question yourself. Why do I believe in a god allegedly of love who killed off almost all of humanity in a flood out of displeasure?