Is atheism a relic of modernism?

[Sarpedon]

The argument that theism must precede atheism because there must first be a statement before a negation can be made is just another stupid semantic argument.

You could just as easily say there was never a time before the existence of cars, because such a state would be called 'carless,' and you need 'cars' before you can be 'carless.'

Reality is not a word game, and does not obey the rules of grammar. It existed before humans started forming ideas and using words to describe them. The words and definitions are conventions which are useful only in communicating ideas. There is nothing else to them.

 

[Lion IRC]

Getting back to the Op...

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?

I think there is a noticeable disdain for postmodernism.

They don't like to accept that - far from delivering us the enlightenment we were promised - modernity has delivered truck loads of uncertainty.

The age of mass communication (internet) has left us drowning in a sea of competing fact claims such that we don't know who to believe. So we retreat to that most trustworthy basis of belief - our own intuition. Atheists used to think the Information Age would liberate us from belief. But look what we have. Fedeism.

The age of scientism science has given us uncertainty principles and quantum weirdness. God of the Gaps? Those gaps are getting bigger and more numerous thanks to scientific discovery. And science has (ironically) discovered that we simply don't have and will never have the resources or time to answer those newly discovered questions before the visible universe effectively 'disappears'. Atheist scientists are writing books about things coming into existence out of nothing, not by divine fiat, but by the invisible hand of random chance.
We haven't progressed past the problem of ontological contingency. Verificationism/ logical positivism has been replaced by "elegant theories'. Come back Spinoza, all is forgiven.

Post modernism is defined by moral relativism and autonomous self-selection of ones own preferred 'truth'. (And loving tolerance of everyone else's 'truth') Listen to the tentative way we all... like you know... kind of put stuff like..out there... and like... speak like about stuff in a sort of like... 50:50 kind of way... so that we can like... test the market of ideas to see if what we think is "on trend" and won't provoke the cause de jour outrage junkies.

Atheists can't be all emphatic about Leviticus' error calling a bat a bird when Bruce Jenner can call zirself a Caitlin. And when Pluto is/isn't/is/isn't a planet. The objective truth atheists can't quibble about bible contradictions and Jesus having both Joseph and Heli as fathers, while those same atheists simultaneously affirm and embrace the LGBTQ two-dads husband and husband love fest.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's not correct to say we are all born atheist.
The tabula rasa does not default to a positive or negative view about the existence of God/gods.
We aren't born 'believing' that there's no God.

Nor are we born believing that there are gods. So that puts babies in the middle, between the two kinds of believers.

What do we call those people in the middle? Some call them agnostics. That's awkward and confusing, but it isn't indefensible. Common usage and dictionaries support that usage, so it isn't exactly wrong.

But there's also another popular system of nomenclature. According to this usage, all non-theists are atheists. The atheists who believe gods don't exist are called strong atheists, and the atheists in the middle, the ones who don't believe either way, are called weak atheists.

This usage is also supported by common usage and dictionaries. So it can't be called wrong either. And it is overwhelmingly popular among those who identify as atheists. So, when you're talking to atheists, there's a presumption that "all non-theists" is what they mean by "atheists."

Further, it wouldn't make sense to claim that babies are born believing that gods don't exist. So, clearly, anyone claiming that babies are born atheist is using the all-non-theists definition of "atheists."

You wouldn't go to a website frequented by black people to claim something like, "You are not blacks. You are Browns." They get to decide how they want to think of themselves and what they want to be called.

Likewise, you wouldn't go to a male-to-female transexual website and insist, "You are not women; you are men." That would be the height of bad taste. They get to choose their own identities and labels. You may elect to think of them as men, but you wouldn't tell them that they should think of themselves as men.

So, unless this was an oops-I-didn't-understand-that moment, I think your post wasn't tactful. We atheists don't need a lecture on what our label means.

If you wanted to point out that you use the word differently than we do, so you don't call babies atheists, that would be fine. But that isn't how your post struck me. It seems to me that you were correcting us, straightening us out, telling us how we ought to describe ourselves.

That's not a move I recommend.

My post struck you? Or you walked right into it face first? Sorry about that.
You of course have the option to think of yourself (identity atheism) how ever you want.
What you can't do is tell me how I must see you. So despite what you may recommend I do or don't do, I'm going to think what I like and say what I think about atheism.

There's only 3 options.
God? Yes (theist)
God? No (atheist)
God? Maybe (agnostic/undecided/indifferent)

Atheism is not the default option. It didn't come "first". It didn't come "second".
It, like theism, is a position one takes with respect to the existence or otherwise of divinity.

You said that plenty of atheists can freely believe in angels and fairies and souls and karma and the afterlife and magic and....(stop me now before I start laughing.) But you aren't born DISbelieving in those things. The belief (claim) that God does not exist is just as much a self-asserting proposition as its negation - the claim that God does exist. These are two opposite claims, not one default position versus a brand new competing theory.

 

[abaddon]

Post modernism is defined by moral relativism and autonomous self-selection of ones own preferred 'truth'. (And loving tolerance of everyone else's 'truth') Listen to the tentative way we all... like you know... kind of put stuff like..out there... and like... speak like about stuff in a sort of like... 50:50 kind of way... so that we can like... test the market of ideas to see if what we think is "on trend" and won't provoke the cause de jour outrage junkies.

Atheists can't be all emphatic about Leviticus' error calling a bat a bird when Bruce Jenner can call zirself a Caitlin. And when Pluto is/isn't/is/isn't a planet. The objective truth atheists can't quibble about bible contradictions and Jesus having both Joseph and Heli as fathers, while those same atheists simultaneously affirm and embrace the LGBTQ two-dads husband and husband love fest.

When I read the bit about talking in "sort of like... 50:50 kind of way", the first person to come to mind was Learner trying to make science into an issue of perspectivism so he can have unscientific opinions about science.

I agree with perspectivism, but I recognize some perspectives are better than others. Some are silly, and others "work". But none are wholly and finally definite.

That's not a total wash regarding what's true-enough and what isn't. It's just recognition humans cannot be wholly aware of the framework in which their concepts work. They can't know what's past the edges of their conceptual maps. The choice is being aware it's more complex than we can know. Or choosing to not even acknowledge that. "Believers" (dogmatists) are people that choose to not acknowledge there are contingencies they don't know.

So certainty feels certain thanks to a limited awareness that won't acknowledge its limits.

There's no solution to that, it's something to learn to live with. But you're calling it a problem that needs a solution. You think atheists solve it hypocritically, by allowing relativism in things like social conventions but acting certain in others. Your superior solution is total certainty, as if that's even a reasonable goal. But it cannot be achieved except by what I described above: by unawareness of how many assumptions went into forming the feeling of certainty.

 

[steve_bank]

Well lion, you must not be lightening to all the commentary on religion forum.

The problem we have with Christianity is a fundamental hypocrisy. Contrary to being an absolute morality, Christians invariably practice a moral relativism, or perhaps situational ethics. Given a situation find a verse that can be made to fit a situation.

We see it in politicians. Something fundamental like thou shalt not lie or bear faslse witness or commit adultery.

Fred Thompson the actor and politician who divorced and remarried when questioned on divorce said 'I am right with god and god is right with me'. There is little real adherence to any scriptural morality. Faith and scripture mean little. Conservative Christians pick homosexuality in Leviticus to focus on and ignores the rest.

You do not have a leg to stand on labeling a secular philosophy moral relativism as a pejorative give the long history of Christianity to today.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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...

 

[Lion IRC]

...Don't expect everybody to instantly understand your special meanings of words.

In fairness to both you and Poli the word modernity isn't exactly a fixed goal post.
Did the modern era start with Baconian principles? Did it start with the investiture controversy? Did it start with the invention of writing and the wheel?

 

[Politesse]

Oh, good lord in heaven. Modernity is not the same thing as Modernism. And I did not invent either one.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think anyone says they are the same thing.

 

[Politesse]

Then why are several people in this thread talking about things other than modernism? I was clear in my OP that it was to the philosophical/artistic school of modernism that I was referring, not some vague concept of modern life. If there is such an animal as "modernity" we are all equally living in it, whether we prefer to or enjoy its aesthetics or not. Likewise, post-modernism was a reaction to modernism, not to "modernity".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Then why are several people in this thread talking about things other than modernism? I was clear in my OP that it was to the philosophical/artistic school of modernism that I was referring, not some vague concept of modern life. If there is such an animal as "modernity" we are all equally living in it, whether we prefer to or enjoy its aesthetics or not. Likewise, post-modernism was a reaction to modernism, not to "modernity".

Because it is a slippery term. So which version or idea of modernism you mean is the key to understanding your question. Modernism for example was the term used by the RCC as a label for modern scholarship on the nature of the Bible etc. Those of us who are familiar with that might have a different idea of the spectrum of what one might call modernism than somebody not familiar with that. Some people use that term as a label for the modern world of science, the era of Darwin, quantum mechanics, relativity, and modern astronomy and cosmology. as people like Dawkins have noted, modern science made it much easier to be an atheist.

Your original post was "Is atheism a relic of modernism?" There was a time in the past where atheism could get you executed if you publically were an atheist. Gradually, that ended because so many powerful men were religious skeptics. As atheism spread in England, lots of working class people were atheists. We had the phenomena of Charles Bradlaugh, a well known public atheist who was elected to parliament in the mid-1800's for example. How to account for this change in attitudes? Atheists had to fight for that, and fight hard. How well do you know the history of modern atheism? For example, when American women fought for their rights and the vote, many leaders of that feminist movement attacked the bible that fed society's misogyny. This attack came about after progressive women fought slavery and then realized the same Bible that was used to support slavery was used to subject women to second class citizenry. atheism for many women was a reaction to religious misogyny. Unless one is aware of the ups and downs of atheism in the world, mainly Europe, it is hard to answer your question. We had the rise of religious skepticism for example in France that lead to the Revolution, and eventually to today's French laicite.

Speaking of atheism as a "relic" is not a good start. Atheism is no relic but has some deep roots. Popular atheism can been found in the writings of some of the English ranters of the 1600's. It ain't that new.

 

[Sarpedon]

I know quite well what you mean by modernism, and I am not talking about it much because I reject your thesis that Atheism is a relic of it. The intellectual fads of the ever more irrelevant field of philosophy are of little concern of mine. I addressed post modernism because I am particularly scornful of that movement, and its claims to have disproved 'modernism' just because it supplanted it in fashion are particularly empty.

The current anti-intellectual and nationalistic backlash the world is now experiencing does not yet have a name (Trumpism is as good as any) but it can be seen as the 'intellectual' successor to post modernism, in its extreme rejection of rationality in favor of empty rhetoric.

Atheism is not a product of Modernism, despite a number of our thinkers being part of that movement. The idea that this makes Atheism obsolete is absurd. After all. when was the last great theological thinker? How many movements have elapsed since then?

 

[Politesse]

I know quite well what you mean by modernism, and I am not talking about it much because I reject your thesis that Atheism is a relic of it. The intellectual fads of the ever more irrelevant field of philosophy are of little concern of mine. I addressed post modernism because I am particularly scornful of that movement, and its claims to have disproved 'modernism' just because it supplanted it in fashion are particularly empty.

The current anti-intellectual and nationalistic backlash the world is now experiencing does not yet have a name (Trumpism is as good as any) but it can be seen as the 'intellectual' successor to post modernism, in its extreme rejection of rationality in favor of empty rhetoric.

Atheism is not a product of Modernism, despite a number of our thinkers being part of that movement. The idea that this makes Atheism obsolete is absurd. After all. when was the last great theological thinker? How many movements have elapsed since then?

Perhaps people have read more into "relic" than I meant? I don't think atheism is obsolete.

 

[steve_bank]

I know quite well what you mean by modernism, and I am not talking about it much because I reject your thesis that Atheism is a relic of it. The intellectual fads of the ever more irrelevant field of philosophy are of little concern of mine. I addressed post modernism because I am particularly scornful of that movement, and its claims to have disproved 'modernism' just because it supplanted it in fashion are particularly empty.

The current anti-intellectual and nationalistic backlash the world is now experiencing does not yet have a name (Trumpism is as good as any) but it can be seen as the 'intellectual' successor to post modernism, in its extreme rejection of rationality in favor of empty rhetoric.

Atheism is not a product of Modernism, despite a number of our thinkers being part of that movement. The idea that this makes Atheism obsolete is absurd. After all. when was the last great theological thinker? How many movements have elapsed since then?

Perhaps people have read more into "relic" than I meant? I don't think atheism is obsolete.

Artifact would be a better word.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why would the atheist have a noticeable disdain for post-modernism? Presumably because modernism was a more conducive environment for atheism to flourish - a comfort zone.

Politesse could help us out by giving some more specific examples of post-modernism that atheists in particular might find threatens their relevance.

One example comes to mind. See how easily Atheism Plus+ sprang up as an outgrowth of New Atheism? Surely that's a very post-modern thing to do. Old Atheists were indignant at the suggestion of "New" atheism. And New Atheists in turn became outraged by the emergence of an Atheist cult which was redefining atheism into a quasi-religion.

 

[Lion IRC]

A great article at Public Discourse (December 2018) on the tension between secular, free market capitalism, where natural selection is the law of the jungle, and the post-modern, touchy-feely, on-trend phenomenon of mindfulness.

If the Dalai Lama Ran General Mills
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/12/47154/

Firms like Aetna, Apple, LinkedIn, Google and General Mills launching meditation, yoga, t’ai chi, focused breathing, chanting programs - "McMindfulness"

Be careful! You wouldn't want anyone to think religion was creeping into your secular boardrooms.

Deracination refers to the uprooting of selected features of mindfulness and meditation from their origins in ancient Eastern spiritual disciplines and strategically using them to reap secular rewards in non-religious and non-sacred contexts.

 

[Sarpedon]

We have no problem adopting good ideas, even if they come from a religion. Like how we got separation of Church and State from Jesus.

 

[steve_bank]

lion
As Shrpedon said. With the philosophy of freethinking one use whatever paradigm fits the situation or need.

The practice of yoga, tai chi, mediation and the rest are generally practiced without the associated supernatural aspects. Modern medicine has mainstreamed the psycho-physical effects of the piracies.

In the true practice of Tai Chi it is a combat art. At the mystical level it is believed by practioners that ones life force or energy called chi in Chinese can be used to defend and injure an opponent, without physical contact. In both Chinese and Indian traditions there is a healing principle using transfer of life energy, in Indian pranja.

You can see it in the Chinese period movies like recent The Forbidden Kingdom.

Christian faith healing was preceded by other traditions. In Tibetan yoga there are beloved to be internal psychic energy camels analogues to the circulatory system.
Nothing religious or mystical about it.

The common practice of yoga in the USA is a form of hatha yoga, health yoga. Stretching and strength exercises.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Atheism + isn't really new. Again for example, many female leaders of the Feminist movement that got women the vote and ended the worst misogynistic laws that made women very much second class citizens were atheists attacking the religious ideas that kept women without rights enjoyed by men for centuries. Early American atheists were very much leaders against American slavery. Atheists have always been at the forefront of these things since they were able to be atheists without being imprisoned for that, which took quite a bit of fighting to gain that.

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.

Trying to paint such atheist + proponents as tin foil hat kooks is bullshit and will only get the amoral nature of your god and his utter lack of good morals pointed out in detail. The angry God of murders, massacres and genocides. The Great Potter of Romans 9 who arbitrarily makes some people vessels of honor and others vessel of dishonor. The God who arbitrarily declares some elect and others not elect and damned. Is that what you are aiming for?