A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
I may have addressed this topic before. Have you ever locked horns with an atheo- materialist who shares your political views ? I'm thinking here of opponents of the left of the Ayn Rand variety. The staunch traditionalist conservative, William Buckley, once commented that "Atlas Shrugged" was a book that was as close as possible to being devoid of goodness.
It's interesting that one can find atheists and theists on both sides of the modern political divide. I'd love to witness a debate between a conservative and liberal atheist. Ungrounded logic arriving at two very different destinations. What does the conservative atheist "get" that the his liberal counterpart doesn't?
Interesting questions. I don't recall too many conservative atheists spending much time here. The only big name conservative Atheists of which I am aware are Christopher Hitchens, and Penn Jillette, although I'm sure there are others.
Hitchens wrote, "As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything" (God is Not Great, pg 13 - end of CH1).
Hitchens does not differentiate between religions, and further he claims that all the Atheist totalitarian mass murdering regimes are religious, since they demand obedience to a seemingly omnipotent man-god. He quotes Orwell:
"A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible"
Is North Korea a theocracy or an Atheist, Communist, Totalitarian state? Hitchens says: theocracy.
So he exonerates Atheism from his own position of moral authority (opinion) and excoriates all religion in the spirit of equality.
Hitchens is called a major intellectual. But his capacity for logic is hampered by his ideology. He seems to be conservative because he "wants to be left alone" (GING, pg 13)... a libertarian view. But his ideology is Scientism:
" Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important." (God Is Not Great, pg 282.)
And Hitchens calls for a new enlightenment, one where science provides all knowledge and poetry and literature provide all ethics. (GING, pg 283)
I think Hitchens makes all the common logic errors to which Atheist are prone. How his politics fall out is not all that clear. He is rather obsessed with the idea that "religion" including Christianity, are out to get him, to destroy him and his source of knowledge. And that is not rational.
Yes, what strikes is how much the rejection is of religion - history, doctrine, effects on the world, etc., rather than purely the existence of God.
To throw away God along with religion is understandable for many, but for the distinguished people on this list you'd think they might not make that leap without some serious justifications. Perhaps they've done so elsewhere, though the British Humanist Assn website would seem like a pretty good place.
Calvin often eschews convention, particularly social convention. His strong desire to be unique leads him down paths of rebellion, ranging from mild social angst to extreme political stances. This example is pretty typical, involving Calvin's rejection of normal social values in favor of post-modern self-interest. The main theme of this experience is that complete self-interest is unwise, as Hobbes points out with a shove rather than a sentence. Hobbes often demonstrates Calvin's flaws in succinct, physical manners such as the one above. It's an excellent delivery system; Calvin immediately sees the problem. As flawed as Calvin's newfound persepctive is, he does present a fair point much the same as Hobbes does. History is indeed written by the victor. We like to believe otherwise, and perpetuate otherwise, but that's simply how it ends up. Look at World War II, Israel, or ancient Greece. And while he is rebuffed by Hobbes in the end, the concept is not defeated. Hobbes simply acted in his own self-interest much as Calvin professed to enjoy, and just because Hobbes enacted his own agenda does not negate the power of self-interest. The classic example of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the classical counterpoint, but is often misleading. Perhaps it is your desire that people act only as they please, even at your inconvenience. In this way, Calvin's philosophy is still intact. Do not assume that someone's self-worth differs from their value for others. Indeed, it is a dog-eat-dog world, and we decide morality on a relative basis (even if you believe in universal morality, there are dim shades of gray), and Calvin makes an excellent points. People are going to decide the morality of your actions regardless of your input, so concern for your own morality becomes a fuzzy issue. For children, this comic illustrates the point marvelously of the "do unto others" argument. Acting in pure self-interest will end you up only in the mud, so play nicely.
I don’t read Calvin & Hobbes on a regular basis; this was referred by another blogger. I agree that the cartoon is an excellent delivery system. It takes a concept – Consequentialism – which most likely have never heard of, and deals with both the idea and its consequences in a direct and reductionist fashion, showing not only the consequences, but the reaction to the consequences.
I disagree that it is a dog-eat-dog world. At least not completely. All the beloved technology of today is provided not by solitary geniuses locked in their basements, but by teams of cooperative engineers, with outside teams of suppliers with their own teams of engineers, all working with teams of production people, and so forth. I think this fact is totally missed by academe, which in fact does consist of individuals in perfect competition with each other… a dog-eat-dog world.
And the fact that history is written by the winners is not always bad, depending upon who wins. And it is not always the case. The history of corporations, which are large, cooperative units consisting of many humans, will be written by academe, which hates corporations. The history of WWII is probably fairly accurate, despite being written by the winner.
But mostly I disagree with this position:
”Indeed, it is a dog-eat-dog world, and we decide morality on a relative basis (even if you believe in universal morality, there are dim shades of gray), and Calvin makes an excellent points. People are going to decide the morality of your actions regardless of your input, so concern for your own morality becomes a fuzzy issue.”
Morality starts and ends with personal character. What other people think of you and your character is moot, unless you place too much concern on the opinions of other people. A well developed character will do what’s moral, even when no one is watching. In the grey areas, a well developed character will find the least grey option, or search for the fallacy of the non-existent dichotomy and then do the right thing.
Character is built around First Principles. Non-Contradiction produces honesty; honesty produces trustworthiness. The Excluded Middle eliminates false dichotomies and clarifies objectives such as good and bad. Cause and Effect illuminates responsibilities as well as rights. And educating the open and willing mind in the principles of discernment and discrimination that are given form by the principles of the discipline of logic provides a rational method for assembling a rational worldview, and associated behaviors.
Because character and morality are derived independently from mere ungrounded opinion, character and morality are not relative, they are not derived from the opinions of other people, and in fact those opinions do not matter.
In this strip, Calvin makes up his own first principles, all of which are cynical takes on human behavior, rather than established self-evident principles of logic. This is the product of untethered, ungrounded thought processes. And untethered thought processes can produce unpredictable results.
So Calvin and Hobbes works at two levels, at least. As you say, it is a good illustration for kids, too. (I love Calvin's expression in the last three frames).
5 comments:
Stan,
I like.
I may have addressed this topic before. Have you ever locked horns with an atheo- materialist who shares your political views ? I'm thinking here of opponents of the left of the Ayn Rand variety. The staunch traditionalist conservative, William Buckley, once commented that "Atlas Shrugged" was a book that was as close as possible to being devoid of goodness.
It's interesting that one can find atheists and theists on both sides of the modern political divide. I'd love to witness a debate between a conservative and liberal atheist. Ungrounded logic arriving at two very different destinations. What does the conservative atheist "get" that the his liberal counterpart doesn't?
Interesting questions. I don't recall too many conservative atheists spending much time here. The only big name conservative Atheists of which I am aware are Christopher Hitchens, and Penn Jillette, although I'm sure there are others.
Hitchens wrote,
"As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything"
(God is Not Great, pg 13 - end of CH1).
Hitchens does not differentiate between religions, and further he claims that all the Atheist totalitarian mass murdering regimes are religious, since they demand obedience to a seemingly omnipotent man-god. He quotes Orwell:
"A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible"
Is North Korea a theocracy or an Atheist, Communist, Totalitarian state? Hitchens says: theocracy.
So he exonerates Atheism from his own position of moral authority (opinion) and excoriates all religion in the spirit of equality.
Hitchens is called a major intellectual. But his capacity for logic is hampered by his ideology. He seems to be conservative because he "wants to be left alone" (GING, pg 13)... a libertarian view. But his ideology is Scientism:
" Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important."
(God Is Not Great, pg 282.)
And Hitchens calls for a new enlightenment, one where science provides all knowledge and poetry and literature provide all ethics. (GING, pg 283)
I think Hitchens makes all the common logic errors to which Atheist are prone. How his politics fall out is not all that clear. He is rather obsessed with the idea that "religion" including Christianity, are out to get him, to destroy him and his source of knowledge. And that is not rational.
On that note, there are further testimonies/justifications/explanations here:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/about/people/distinguished-supporters
Yes, what strikes is how much the rejection is of religion - history, doctrine, effects on the world, etc., rather than purely the existence of God.
To throw away God along with religion is understandable for many, but for the distinguished people on this list you'd think they might not make that leap without some serious justifications. Perhaps they've done so elsewhere, though the British Humanist Assn website would seem like a pretty good place.
Calvin often eschews convention, particularly social convention. His strong desire to be unique leads him down paths of rebellion, ranging from mild social angst to extreme political stances. This example is pretty typical, involving Calvin's rejection of normal social values in favor of post-modern self-interest. The main theme of this experience is that complete self-interest is unwise, as Hobbes points out with a shove rather than a sentence. Hobbes often demonstrates Calvin's flaws in succinct, physical manners such as the one above. It's an excellent delivery system; Calvin immediately sees the problem.
As flawed as Calvin's newfound persepctive is, he does present a fair point much the same as Hobbes does. History is indeed written by the victor. We like to believe otherwise, and perpetuate otherwise, but that's simply how it ends up. Look at World War II, Israel, or ancient Greece. And while he is rebuffed by Hobbes in the end, the concept is not defeated. Hobbes simply acted in his own self-interest much as Calvin professed to enjoy, and just because Hobbes enacted his own agenda does not negate the power of self-interest.
The classic example of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the classical counterpoint, but is often misleading. Perhaps it is your desire that people act only as they please, even at your inconvenience. In this way, Calvin's philosophy is still intact. Do not assume that someone's self-worth differs from their value for others. Indeed, it is a dog-eat-dog world, and we decide morality on a relative basis (even if you believe in universal morality, there are dim shades of gray), and Calvin makes an excellent points. People are going to decide the morality of your actions regardless of your input, so concern for your own morality becomes a fuzzy issue.
For children, this comic illustrates the point marvelously of the "do unto others" argument. Acting in pure self-interest will end you up only in the mud, so play nicely.
GM: Interesting comment.
I don’t read Calvin & Hobbes on a regular basis; this was referred by another blogger. I agree that the cartoon is an excellent delivery system. It takes a concept – Consequentialism – which most likely have never heard of, and deals with both the idea and its consequences in a direct and reductionist fashion, showing not only the consequences, but the reaction to the consequences.
I disagree that it is a dog-eat-dog world. At least not completely. All the beloved technology of today is provided not by solitary geniuses locked in their basements, but by teams of cooperative engineers, with outside teams of suppliers with their own teams of engineers, all working with teams of production people, and so forth. I think this fact is totally missed by academe, which in fact does consist of individuals in perfect competition with each other… a dog-eat-dog world.
And the fact that history is written by the winners is not always bad, depending upon who wins. And it is not always the case. The history of corporations, which are large, cooperative units consisting of many humans, will be written by academe, which hates corporations. The history of WWII is probably fairly accurate, despite being written by the winner.
But mostly I disagree with this position:
”Indeed, it is a dog-eat-dog world, and we decide morality on a relative basis (even if you believe in universal morality, there are dim shades of gray), and Calvin makes an excellent points. People are going to decide the morality of your actions regardless of your input, so concern for your own morality becomes a fuzzy issue.”
Morality starts and ends with personal character. What other people think of you and your character is moot, unless you place too much concern on the opinions of other people. A well developed character will do what’s moral, even when no one is watching. In the grey areas, a well developed character will find the least grey option, or search for the fallacy of the non-existent dichotomy and then do the right thing.
Character is built around First Principles. Non-Contradiction produces honesty; honesty produces trustworthiness. The Excluded Middle eliminates false dichotomies and clarifies objectives such as good and bad. Cause and Effect illuminates responsibilities as well as rights. And educating the open and willing mind in the principles of discernment and discrimination that are given form by the principles of the discipline of logic provides a rational method for assembling a rational worldview, and associated behaviors.
Because character and morality are derived independently from mere ungrounded opinion, character and morality are not relative, they are not derived from the opinions of other people, and in fact those opinions do not matter.
In this strip, Calvin makes up his own first principles, all of which are cynical takes on human behavior, rather than established self-evident principles of logic. This is the product of untethered, ungrounded thought processes. And untethered thought processes can produce unpredictable results.
So Calvin and Hobbes works at two levels, at least. As you say, it is a good illustration for kids, too. (I love Calvin's expression in the last three frames).
Post a Comment