I have been fortunate in my life to have been able to observe some truly brilliant people, people who are consistently analytical, curious, and persistent, all coupled with an attitude of natural intellectual integrity. Folks who are possessed of this combination of attitudes and intelligence are truly “intellects”[1]. Their curiosity and desire for honest investigation is infectious, exciting even.
These folks admit freely to not having all the answers, that every problem solved inevitably opens up several new interesting questions, which they pursue with excitement. Their attitudes are far from dogmatic, because the questions and the pursuit of truth are more important than any dogma obtainable from previous answers.
One characteristic of these intellects is humility, which is generated in the awe of the unknowns that still exist for us. There is no reason for arrogance; how would that be useful in the answering of the inevitable new questions?
Arrogance is found amongst those who already have all the answers, or at least so they think. When thinking congeals into rigid dogma, the ensuing rules take the place of any further thought.[2]
This is the case with Philosophical Materialism. The artificial closure of thought to the possible existence of non-material realities slams the door on thought itself. Accompanying this restriction of thought all too frequently is an arrogance that is not found in the curious intellect I described above. It is not difficult to find atheist websites that are awash in arrogance and self-bestowed elitism. Try any of the New Atheists dogma sites; try PZ Meyers; try Massimo Piggliucci.
Within the concepts of atheism, there is no need for humility, not even intellectual humility in light of the massive mountain of unknowns yet to be researched. In fact, humility is a liability to atheists if one is to believe most of the atheist philosophers.
Regardless of the potential conquering capabilities of a huge “will to power”, it is hard to be much impressed with the arrogance and self-inflation found in so many atheists. The reason is, to my thinking, that once arrogance sets in, any potential for true “intellect” is obviated. The irony of the atheist self-appellations of “intellectuals” or “brights” is especially biting in the face of petrified thinking, and the arrogance surrounding it.
One of the huge intellects of our time was Richard Feynman, a marvelously curious physicist who also delved into such metaphysical mysteries as out-of-body-experiences. Feynman (who described himself as a "curious fellow") is proof that there is no need for limiting thought, or for the massive egos that accompany limited thought. Feynman was a cautious materialist…plus a curious intellect. And compared with the obvious genius of Feynmann, the New Atheists are penny ante, and arrogant; reality limiters and thought inhibiters; who claim an absolute truth, all the while restricting the realm of thought. Compared with Feynman, they are just elitist frauds with followers.
One thing is certain. The New Atheists are not encumbered with humility. It just doesn't seem to be a feature of atheism at any level. From my perspective this is a debility. The humility debility is a signal feature of atheist irrationality. It is a differential between true intellects, and the "intellectuals".
......
[1] As opposed to the term "intellectuals", which is a term appropriated, abused, and inverted in meaning by the chronic haunters of campus ivory towers.
[2] Never mind religions that are dogmatic; they exist, they are arrogant, they inhibit thought. But they are not the subject of this article: dogmatic atheism is.
2 comments:
I think that extreme forms of atheism has a psychological basis.
In his book "The irrational atheist", Vox Day argues that many atheists suffer of Asperger Syndrome. If you read about that syndrome, you'll find out that one of its classic symtoms is pedantry and lack of empathy. These symtoms can be seen even in children with that syndrome (some call them "little proffesors", because their pedantic language).
Most aspies aren't atheists; but it seems that in atheism, the proportion of aspies is very high.
It could be a psychological explanation of extreme atheists' consistent and manifest pedantry and intellectual megalomany. If that hypothesis is right, we could understand extreme atheists' psychology a little bit better.
Aspies are prone to use logic and reason; but they also tend to have difficulties to think "outside the box", and tend to be very rigid in their views. It can explain extreme atheists' bigotry and intellectual intolerence, tendency to dogmatism, and other of their well-known irrationalities.
That comment doesn't imply that atheism is true or false because its psychological origin. My point is about the origin of atheists' lack of humilty and manifest pedantry, not about atheism's validity as a worldview (even thought I think it's a false worldview)
Maybe, a psychological analysis of atheists could to complement your views about their lack of intellectual humilty, and tendence to irrationality.
By the way, the article "intellectual vs. pseudo-intellectual" could be pertinent here:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/intellectuals.html
A psychological study has been done by Professor Paul Vitz and published in his book, "Faith of the Fatherless". Vitz studied the lives of the famous atheist Philosophers with special attention to the most formative years, those from around 5 years old to 8 years ols or so (I don't remember the ages exactly). With a very strong correlation, these Atheists suffered a missing father or bad male influence during these formative years; they were raised by females, sometimes not even from the family.
These atheists came to resent the father that had abandoned or failed them as a role model. And they came to resent the females that "feminized" them, leaving them to find masculinity through idealized public role models.
Eventually the resentment grew to hatred of all authority figures, especially ecclesiastical figures that were perceived to have control over their lives.
So in these cases there is a common root in the defective childhoods shared by these people who became atheists.
The one exception was John Stuart Mill, who was taught atheism by his father, John Mill. John Mill suffocated his son with such excessive materialist education (and little or no socialization) until John Stuart Mill had a mental breakdown in his late teen years. J.S.Mill recovered and remained an atheist.
By contrast, Vitz studied famous Theologist scholars, and found that they all came either from homes with a loving father, or had a nurturing male role model that was influential in their lives.
I tend to agree with Day's assessment, but I don't think there is a truly unbiased testing method for such a thing as Asperger's. Even if there were, we might find that irascibility is not strictly restricted to atheists, nor are all atheists influenced by the same input mechanisms.
Atheists tend to think that religious folk are insane or stupid, and would probably want all of them tested for something or other.
So I guess I'll stick to poking holes in the inverted logic that atheists use. I'm not convinced that psychology is a science.
Post a Comment