The Atheist Experience call-in

[Rhea]

Here's an example from Sweden. In the 19'th century the pro democracy movement sprung from the sobriety movement. Top politicians in Sweden are still predominantly being reqruited from the sobriety organisations. 40% of Sweden's politicans today, 150 years later, have never touched any mind altering substance ever in their lives.

That’s interesting, I didn’t know that.

 

[southernhybrid]

While Christianity remains the dominant religion, it comes in many varieties. Some are far more tolerant than others. Most don't condemn those who don't believe. It's more about community and doing charity work in my small city. While the northeast is full of Catholics, my city has one tiny Catholic Church. While Atlanta has quite a large Jewish population, smaller Georgia towns have very few Jewish people. Non believers are everywhere, but we aren't a majority. There are many organized atheist groups in Georgia. Atlanta has most of them, from The Atlanta Freethought Society to the Black Non believers and others.

And, while it's true that Europe kicked out the religious extremists, the US was also highly influenced in the early days by Deists and probably non theists who may not have used a specific term to describe themselves.

What matters is what group is the political elite. The political elite will have whatever beliefs they need to have to keep the power. It doesn't really matter if most of society isn't evangelical Christian. What matters is what subgroup you belong to that gives you access to the political elite. It's pretty clear what flavour that has in USA. The idea that any American can become the president is obviously a lie.

Here's an example from Sweden. In the 19'th century the pro democracy movement sprung from the sobriety movement. Top politicians in Sweden are still predominantly being reqruited from the sobriety organisations. 40% of Sweden's politicans today, 150 years later, have never touched any mind altering substance ever in their lives.

History matters.

I feel like I"m in the wrong place to be discussing this, but I will respond to your last post. Who is in power changes frequently. Don't forget that prior to Trump, we had our first Black president. Actually, he was mixed race. His white mother was an atheist, who he described as a secular humanist in his book, "The Audacity of Hope". His administration didn't contain any fundamentalists that I'm aware of, but his presidency did seem to cause a racist backlash which Trump helped push along with his false claims that Obama wasn't born in the states. The US swings back and forth over the years. We are due for a change and hopefully we will get one this fall.

So, sure history matters. And, what I'm trying to tell you is that the US was established by some very secular people, despite Europe sending us their religious extremists. Trump is the worst president that we've eve had in my lifetime, possibly the worst president ever. He's not at all religious, but he pretends to be so he can manipulate the most extreme Christians by promising to appoint conservative judges, with the hopes of making gay marriage and abortion illegal among other things.

Unfortunately, he has some powerful religious nuts in his administration that support that goal. But, what's going on right now will likely change, unless the current administration successfully destroys what's left of our democracy. If we have a fair election this fall, without voter suppression, I have no doubt that he will be out and things will start to swing back the other way. Trump has even lost the support of about 10% of evangelicals. Those are the ones who finally realize that he's a sociopath. I don't think you can fully understand what's going on in the US, unless you've lived here for most of your life.

 

[Torin]

[MENTION=71]Brian63[/MENTION], how long did you have to wait to get on the show? I've heard that people have to call in 45 minutes before the show starts.

 

[Brian63]

It is a long time like that, just to be kept in the queue before the show even begins. Then there is the added discretion of the host(s) of how long you wait in the queue after the show begins, whatever order they grab the calls.

One or two weeks prior to that episode I had tried calling in for the same topic, and at some earlier point someone came on and let me know that they would not be able to take my call because of time constraints. They told me that, just as the show was beginning. So that was nice of them, rather than waiting forever and never getting any time to be on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

While Christianity remains the dominant religion, it comes in many varieties. Some are far more tolerant than others. Most don't condemn those who don't believe. It's more about community and doing charity work in my small city. While the northeast is full of Catholics, my city has one tiny Catholic Church. While Atlanta has quite a large Jewish population, smaller Georgia towns have very few Jewish people. Non believers are everywhere, but we aren't a majority. There are many organized atheist groups in Georgia. Atlanta has most of them, from The Atlanta Freethought Society to the Black Non believers and others.

And, while it's true that Europe kicked out the religious extremists, the US was also highly influenced in the early days by Deists and probably non theists who may not have used a specific term to describe themselves.

What matters is what group is the political elite. The political elite will have whatever beliefs they need to have to keep the power. It doesn't really matter if most of society isn't evangelical Christian. What matters is what subgroup you belong to that gives you access to the political elite. It's pretty clear what flavour that has in USA. The idea that any American can become the president is obviously a lie.

Here's an example from Sweden. In the 19'th century the pro democracy movement sprung from the sobriety movement. Top politicians in Sweden are still predominantly being reqruited from the sobriety organisations. 40% of Sweden's politicans today, 150 years later, have never touched any mind altering substance ever in their lives.

History matters.

I feel like I"m in the wrong place to be discussing this, but I will respond to your last post. Who is in power changes frequently. Don't forget that prior to Trump, we had our first Black president. Actually, he was mixed race. His white mother was an atheist, who he described as a secular humanist in his book, "The Audacity of Hope". His administration didn't contain any fundamentalists that I'm aware of, but his presidency did seem to cause a racist backlash which Trump helped push along with his false claims that Obama wasn't born in the states. The US swings back and forth over the years. We are due for a change and hopefully we will get one this fall.

So, sure history matters. And, what I'm trying to tell you is that the US was established by some very secular people, despite Europe sending us their religious extremists. Trump is the worst president that we've eve had in my lifetime, possibly the worst president ever. He's not at all religious, but he pretends to be so he can manipulate the most extreme Christians by promising to appoint conservative judges, with the hopes of making gay marriage and abortion illegal among other things.

Unfortunately, he has some powerful religious nuts in his administration that support that goal. But, what's going on right now will likely change, unless the current administration successfully destroys what's left of our democracy. If we have a fair election this fall, without voter suppression, I have no doubt that he will be out and things will start to swing back the other way. Trump has even lost the support of about 10% of evangelicals. Those are the ones who finally realize that he's a sociopath. I don't think you can fully understand what's going on in the US, unless you've lived here for most of your life.

In a democratic country the person at the very top is almost irrelevant. What matters is that the person is someone a large group of people is willing to endorce, and all pull in the same direction as. That means that their interests need to be taken care of by the person at the top.

The medeival kings of Europe couldn't run their kingdoms. They had no idea what they were doing. They were depdendent on their advisors. They were a separate class of people. They were the lords and scholars. They knew they would never be kings. But they knew that if the kingdom was well run their property would be protected, and they would be in a great position to first exploit new markets opening up. So they all had a vested in interest in protecting the king from his own idiocies and make sure they do minimal damage.

The power elite of any democratic country is the same. Being the president in a democracy is a shit job. Nobody sane wants it. They know they can't run the country. They are completely in the lap of their advisors. Each with their own vested interests.

It can be quite turbulent at the very top. But among the elites supporting that power it's very stable. The same families year after year. Gaining access is hard. It's possible, through hard work. It may be a heriditary elite, but it is meritocratic. Because these people can't afford anything else. But getting the best at something means having the best mentors. And they are all within the power elite. If they weren't there to start with, they get included into it.

What happens at the top is mostly theatre. "The people" demand change. Since the change they demand is usually unrealistic pipe-dreams, the president asks members of the elite if he can have it to give to the people. The elites explain why it's stupid. The president then turns to the people, promises change, throws them something symbolic, and then it's back to the usual.

Yes, having a black president is huge. There's now hope for black people to aspire to the very top of society. But there's only one guy at a time who can be the president. For the individual black person there won't be much difference. It's like when the Swedish parliament changed the royal succession from patrilinial to gender neutral in 2002. It's still only the people in that one family who can ever become king or queen. For most people it's irrelevant. Sure, it's nice for women that the person at the top is a woman. But whoop-die-fucking-do. It's just a symbol. Trump is also just a symbol. He's the symbol of the people who didn't like progressive Obama. When the UK economy was in tatters in the 80'ies they needed a painful ecomic shift to open up the market. The political elites picked a woman, Thatcher, to do this. Because people were more likely to accept harsh news from a woman. It shut up the progressive liberal leftist feminists. For a while at least.

Here's a fun little scene from The Wire explaining how it is to be a political leader in a democratic country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzqO6UOPFQ

And just to be clear about this, I'm in favour of this system. I like that the political elites run our nations. Because they actually know what they are doing. I'm against direct democracy. "The people" tend to be greedy, short sighted and dumb. I'm also against dictatorships, ie all power collected at the very top, because something is needed to keep the political elite from comitting egregrious crimes.

I think the shift of power from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump didn't really matter that much in the big picture. It's mostly theatre.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My current Danish girlfriend is Christian. When I challenged her on why she was Christian her answer is "it works for me". Matt Dilahunty has nothing to say against that form of Christianity. My girlfriend is a very liberal and very sensible Christian IMHO. She'd never claim to know for sure that the Bible is true, accurate or have faith in that she will go to heaven. She has a form of Christian faith that I respect 100%.

So she didn't answer your question.

If she's "christian" what exactly about her behavior makes her christian and not buddhist or hindu or something else? How does she demonstrate that she is christian? Does she pray, go to church, give money to the homeless, read from a bible, stone infidels, wear a cross, have a cross in her house, other?

 

[abaddon]

If she's "christian" what exactly about her behavior makes her christian... ?

That she says so is indication enough.

Making it an issue of behavior a door wide-open to the no true scotsman. "You're not really christian because <insert personal opinion about what behaviors she 'should' be doing>".

In any case, how does it matter if she's "really" a Christian in anyone else's assessment but her own? Is anyone "objectively" this or that "-ist" or "-ian" or "-ologist"? No... it's a choice and no person or committee gets to gainsay it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If she's "christian" what exactly about her behavior makes her christian... ?

That she says so is indication enough.

Making it an issue of behavior a door wide-open to the no true scotsman. "You're not really christian because <insert personal opinion about what behaviors she 'should' be doing>".

In any case, how does it matter if she's "really" a Christian in anyone else's assessment but her own? Is anyone "objectively" this or that "-ist" or "-ian" or "-ologist"? No... it's a choice and no person or committee gets to gainsay it.

On one hand I agree with you. I certainly didn't want it to sound like a "No true Scotsman" thing.

Certainly there must be something in her behavior or experience that demonstrates the accuracy of what she says. And there probably is. It's that the question didn't get answered.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My current Danish girlfriend is Christian. When I challenged her on why she was Christian her answer is "it works for me". Matt Dilahunty has nothing to say against that form of Christianity. My girlfriend is a very liberal and very sensible Christian IMHO. She'd never claim to know for sure that the Bible is true, accurate or have faith in that she will go to heaven. She has a form of Christian faith that I respect 100%.

So she didn't answer your question.

If she's "christian" what exactly about her behavior makes her christian and not buddhist or hindu or something else? How does she demonstrate that she is christian? Does she pray, go to church, give money to the homeless, read from a bible, stone infidels, wear a cross, have a cross in her house, other?

She doesn't stone infidels. But otherwise, yes. She takes it very seriously. She now listens to church services on-line. But otherwise there's no difference.

It fits my definition of religious faith. I don't think religion is primarly about beliefs. I think it's an activity. It's the rituals that make it religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My current Danish girlfriend is Christian. When I challenged her on why she was Christian her answer is "it works for me". Matt Dilahunty has nothing to say against that form of Christianity. My girlfriend is a very liberal and very sensible Christian IMHO. She'd never claim to know for sure that the Bible is true, accurate or have faith in that she will go to heaven. She has a form of Christian faith that I respect 100%.

So she didn't answer your question.

If she's "christian" what exactly about her behavior makes her christian and not buddhist or hindu or something else? How does she demonstrate that she is christian? Does she pray, go to church, give money to the homeless, read from a bible, stone infidels, wear a cross, have a cross in her house, other?

She doesn't stone infidels. But otherwise, yes. She takes it very seriously. She now listens to church services on-line. But otherwise there's no difference.

It fits my definition of religious faith. I don't think religion is primarly about beliefs. I think it's an activity. It's the rituals that make it religion.

Thank-you.

Matt Dillahunty likes to ask 'What do you believe and why do you believe it?' When he encounters persons who believe but who cannot explain the why of their beliefs he tends to be dismissive because he is very interested in how that person's mind is operating. Matt would like to ask the why question of her because he's genuinely interested in the subject from a rational perspective. My brother thinks most of christianity's teachings are nothing short of dopey and infantile but he enjoys going to services. Matt would be very accepting of such an answer.

 

[abaddon]

It's the rituals that make it religion.

Is candle-lighting accompanied by chanting and bowing in itself a religion?

Which religion, and why?

---------------

Sorry, but I'm baffled by the wish to objectify the topic and pretend that one can get better answers about religion by ignoring what people say about themselves and their religion.

We started a few posts ago at "why is she a Christian?" And the answer was that Christianity "works" for that person. Which is a nicely subjective response and, IMV, adequate to qualify as Christian because it's the person's choice. The "why" that it works for some people can have been delved into but no, something else happened.

From "why is she a Christian?" the topic went to (in effect): "But is she REALLY a Christian? Is she accurate in her self-description?" (And I'm still LOL'ing to myself that this is a matter of concern to anyone).

And from there to "it's the rituals that make it religion".

It keeps getting more abstract in each post. Maybe it's that people like to abstract away from reality in order to feel as if they have solved anything. But squeezing out a simplistic generalization is a move away, not towards, reality.

-------------------

Rituals are a How and not a Why. So they can't be what religion is about. It's like trying to explain psychedelic experiences by saying "they ingest chemicals and then make funny faces and point at something on a blank wall". That person then feels like they've explained anything...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's the rituals that make it religion.

Is candle-lighting accompanied by chanting and bowing in itself a religion?

Which religion, and why?

---------------

Sorry, but I'm baffled by the wish to objectify the topic and pretend that one can get better answers about religion by ignoring what people say about themselves and their religion.

We started a few posts ago at "why is she a Christian?" And the answer was that Christianity "works" for that person. Which is a nicely subjective response and, IMV, adequate to qualify as Christian because it's the person's choice. The "why" that it works for some people can have been delved into but no, something else happened.

From "why is she a Christian?" the topic went to (in effect): "But is she REALLY a Christian? Is she accurate in her self-description?" (And I'm still LOL'ing to myself that this is a matter of concern to anyone).

And from there to "it's the rituals that make it religion".

It keeps getting more abstract in each post. Maybe it's that people like to abstract away from reality in order to feel as if they have solved anything. But squeezing out a simplistic generalization is a move away, not towards, reality.

-------------------

Rituals are a How and not a Why. So they can't be what religion is about. It's like trying to explain psychedelic experiences by saying "they ingest chemicals and then make funny faces and point at something on a blank wall". That person then feels like they've explained anything...

Matt might add that there are at least as many different descriptions of 'god' as there are people in the pews. He wouldn't intend the statement to be pejorative, it's only the conclusion he's come to on the topic. There are general similarities but then there are important differences, enough for some people who are 'christian' to claim that other christians aren't christians. It's just the observation, the evidence. He likes to explore individual minds, but if he isn't getting anything rationally satisfying from the individual wrt the "why" he moves on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

She doesn't stone infidels. But otherwise, yes. She takes it very seriously. She now listens to church services on-line. But otherwise there's no difference.

It fits my definition of religious faith. I don't think religion is primarly about beliefs. I think it's an activity. It's the rituals that make it religion.

Thank-you.

Matt Dillahunty likes to ask 'What do you believe and why do you believe it?' When he encounters persons who believe but who cannot explain the why of their beliefs he tends to be dismissive because he is very interested in how that person's mind is operating. Matt would like to ask the why question of her because he's genuinely interested in the subject from a rational perspective. My brother thinks most of christianity's teachings are nothing short of dopey and infantile but he enjoys going to services. Matt would be very accepting of such an answer.

She was raised atheist in a predominantly atheist society. She thinks the Christian teachings often are silly and doesn't understand them herself. I speculated that it's not supposed to make sense. It's supposed to be mysterious. She agreed and accepted that explanation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's the rituals that make it religion.

Is candle-lighting accompanied by chanting and bowing in itself a religion?

Which religion, and why?

---------------

Sorry, but I'm baffled by the wish to objectify the topic and pretend that one can get better answers about religion by ignoring what people say about themselves and their religion.

We started a few posts ago at "why is she a Christian?" And the answer was that Christianity "works" for that person. Which is a nicely subjective response and, IMV, adequate to qualify as Christian because it's the person's choice. The "why" that it works for some people can have been delved into but no, something else happened.

From "why is she a Christian?" the topic went to (in effect): "But is she REALLY a Christian? Is she accurate in her self-description?" (And I'm still LOL'ing to myself that this is a matter of concern to anyone).

And from there to "it's the rituals that make it religion".

It keeps getting more abstract in each post. Maybe it's that people like to abstract away from reality in order to feel as if they have solved anything. But squeezing out a simplistic generalization is a move away, not towards, reality.

-------------------

Rituals are a How and not a Why. So they can't be what religion is about. It's like trying to explain psychedelic experiences by saying "they ingest chemicals and then make funny faces and point at something on a blank wall". That person then feels like they've explained anything...

I think religions are fundamentaly packages of rituals and practices designed to make life easier and more bareable, and to help us in focusing on what is the most useful things in life. I think the core of religion is very practical.

Rituals are a part of this. I support her in being Christian.

But sometimes religious people go overboard.

 

[Brian63]

Oddly, my prior call to TAE seemed to be raised again in the most recent episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhN...WWsmqOkcAnMvkDCG2MC_c_EImIHgY9hEN-JxO0SZnBc5U

The caller references a call from weeks earlier where Matt clarified that he believed there are no gods. He also claimed to be not certain of it either. That seems the most reasonable position to me as well.

In this call though, at about 34:20 he asks why we would willfully believe something is true while knowing it is potentially false.

Matt’s question is rather bizarre to me and the answers seem rather obvious---it is because we can be wrong. The information that we have at the present time may be incorrect or incomplete, or our analysis of it flawed. We later come across new and better information, or realize our error. Then we (ideally) would change our minds. Should we always withhold believing something is true until we are certain that it is true, that it is impossible for it to be potentially false? That is a luxury that we cannot practically afford ourselves.

If you go into the ER because you have strong leg pain, the doctors will do some initial examinations and ask questions of you to establish what is most likely the etiology (cause) of the pain. They may be wrong though. There is always the potential for being wrong. So doctors should not ever believe they know what causes pain or illness in anybody?

In my own call with Matt linked in the OP, he mentioned that he believes that there are no gods, but that he is not certain of it. So there is potential that his belief is false. So he contradicts himself.

Matt is an intelligent person but I am not following his thinking on this. Am I in error somewhere?

Thanks.

 

[abaddon]

The word believe is confusing. It's primary meaning is "to feel sure about". So it'd seem that he says he feels sure there are no gods but he also does not feel sure.

But a secondary meaning is to assume something's the case based on what evidence is available.

This is more likely what he intends: that he would estimate a high likelihood there are no gods but it's not a 100% certainty.

His belief is in a high probability of no gods. Not that there are no gods.

 

[abaddon]

Should we always withhold believing something is true until we are certain that it is true, that it is impossible for it to be potentially false?

Yes. Until we are certain-enough that it's true. Belief, in the sense of feeling certain about things that might be false, can be withheld. Everything is a "maybe" or a "probably" until then.

That is a luxury that we cannot practically afford ourselves.

A lot of people believe the notion "you gotta believe in something, how would you function without belief?" I've been testing this and the results so far indicate it's a superstition. After all, what feelings of certainty do I really need? I know stepping in front of a speeding car will get me run down, so I don't. It's an abuse language to say "I believe that if I stepped in front of a speeding car it'd mow me down". Because it's not an issue of belief... I know it.

People with strong beliefs about answers to "the big questions" like EoG tend to present their beliefs as knowledge because of the certainty that they invest their beliefs with. They hold it's true, but also may present it as possibly not true (in spite of holding it's true). So they talk about knowing AND they talk about believing and it's a confusing mess.

So doctors should not ever believe they know what causes pain or illness in anybody?

"Believe they know". As in feel certain that they know? No, absolutely not. They should find what's most likely the case and treat it with that working assumption and see how things go. They'll be more open to changing their minds by not believing. People who seek certainty always invest their egos into their sense of certainty. So belief, if you're not using it in the "assume it's the case" sense of the word, is never a good thing.

 

[Brian63]

So it'd seem that he says he feels sure there are no gods but he also does not feel sure.

That would be a self-contradiction though.

This is more likely what he intends: that he would estimate a high likelihood there are no gods but it's not a 100% certainty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFwgERzC6wg

At about 40:35 of that clip, he denies claiming a high degree of confidence that there are no gods.

 

[atrib]

Oddly, my prior call to TAE seemed to be raised again in the most recent episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhN...WWsmqOkcAnMvkDCG2MC_c_EImIHgY9hEN-JxO0SZnBc5U

The caller references a call from weeks earlier where Matt clarified that he believed there are no gods. He also claimed to be not certain of it either. That seems the most reasonable position to me as well.

In this call though, at about 34:20 he asks why we would willfully believe something is true while knowing it is potentially false.

Matt’s question is rather bizarre to me and the answers seem rather obvious---it is because we can be wrong. The information that we have at the present time may be incorrect or incomplete, or our analysis of it flawed. We later come across new and better information, or realize our error. Then we (ideally) would change our minds. Should we always withhold believing something is true until we are certain that it is true, that it is impossible for it to be potentially false? That is a luxury that we cannot practically afford ourselves.

If you go into the ER because you have strong leg pain, the doctors will do some initial examinations and ask questions of you to establish what is most likely the etiology (cause) of the pain. They may be wrong though. There is always the potential for being wrong. So doctors should not ever believe they know what causes pain or illness in anybody?

In my own call with Matt linked in the OP, he mentioned that he believes that there are no gods, but that he is not certain of it. So there is potential that his belief is false. So he contradicts himself.

Matt is an intelligent person but I am not following his thinking on this. Am I in error somewhere?

Thanks.

Coincidentally enough, I watched this video by Matt last night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDr6DCSi7tY

Perhaps the video will answer your questions.

 

[Brian63]

Thanks for the video. I just finished watching it, and while I do not think it addressed my specific objections here, still found it helpful and educational.

Last night one of the members of the show and I were emailing back and forth a little about the issue, and I think he was largely missing the point. Just minutes ago, however, Matt also chimed in and clarified. It was just a matter of using the wrong word for his point. When he criticized Gerard for believing X to be true while also acknowledging that it potentially is false, substitute the word "likely" for "potentially."

Believing X is true and *potentially* false is not a problem and not what he objects to.
Believing X is true and *likely* false is a problem.


So no biggie after all. A minor miscommunication when speaking off the cuff.