Monday, November 21, 2011

From PZ's Place: Natasha Krasle, USA, on Why I Am An Atheist:

I suppose my journey to atheism started with spirituality. When I was a kid, I attended a Unitarian Universalist church in Seattle. We had both a Solstice and a Christmas pageant, celebrated Easter and the Equinox. My parents sought not to force an ideology upon me, but to expose me to many traditions so that I could piece together my own collage of beliefs. I remember one day, standing in my living room, when someone inquired as to my religion. Bewildered, I said “I don’t know…” and turned to my mother, who replied “Good.” When my sisters were born, though, our house and traditions were suddenly too small.

We moved to a cohousing community about half an hour away when I was nine or ten, and my father moved back to Seattle soon afterward. He was and is a very scientifically minded person, fascinated with the acquisition of any kind of knowledge he can get his hands on, and I believe his transition to atheism came soon after my parents split. I began attending a New Thought church with my mother (and later my stepfather). In this place, I was taught that god is just a word for some spiritual thingy that makes up everything, a person’s natural state is perfection, that our thoughts affect what happens to us, and that heaven and hell are merely states of mind. After a while, though, I became disenchanted with that fat box of joy. They started asking people to tithe after every service. They acquired a new TV spot, associated themselves with Deepak Chopra, and built a new “celebration hall” with the money they constantly milked their audience for…. The average wealth of the people attending rose visibly, and not because the church was making anyone richer. Our old holding-hands-during songs tradition was abolished without a word. Not to mention the fact that we were building ugly new buildings instead of, say, helping people through devastating world crises. Attached to my previous participation in the music program and to the friends I’d made there, I dangled on for a little while before I gave up.

As I began my college career last year, I discovered my fascination with anthropology and psychology; the reasons people are how we are, and how we perceive the world around us. And in the light of my recent split from the New Thought movement, and the insight I was being given into humanity, I turned my questioning nature upon my own beliefs. I’d read Pharyngula before, and was already better versed in biology and the scientific method than most people my age, but had held tightly to my vague, earthy spirituality. Under closer scrutiny, I was shocked at my conclusion:

None of the important values I was holding onto and associated with spirituality- self-fulfilling prophecy (a well-known psychological phenomenon), respect for life, empathy, getting to know oneself- needed to be assigned to any sort of supernatural being or force. There was just no reason I had to believe something quite frankly silly to be a whole, happy person living on a fascinating speck in a vast and astounding universe.

So I did. And now I’m an atheist.


Natasha Krasle
United States


Krasle makes two points:

1. Science, specifically anthropology and psychology, inform her insight into humanity.

2. Values don’t need any grounding other than personal conviction.

Krasle’s thought process brought to mind my own suspicions as to why the philosophy of science is not taught prior to teach science itself: understanding the basic limitations of science would undermine its authority and the intellectual hegemony it provides to its practitioners. Understanding that science is a limited tool, not an ideology would be a blow to many of the Scientism persuasion.

And the lack of training in logic allows the rejection of grounding as a necessity for one’s beliefs. She now has the sole moral authority to develop her own value beliefs.

Summary: Krasle came from rootless ideologies into Scientism as a freshman in college.

15 comments:

Nats said...

She does not believe in New Thought?

How did she prove true human self-hood is not divine? How did she prove all disease isn't mental in origin?
It is illogical for her not to believe in New Thought without proof New Thought is false.
Her disbelief in New Thought is based solely on faith alone!

Stan said...

Well, that depends on the evidentiary requirements of New Thought I suppose. But from an Atheist perspective, you are quite right; from an Atheist perspective, material evidence is required, so she rejected it without meeting the Atheist requirement. Tsk.

But that's not the evidentiary requirement for most people, those not captured by Materialism.

Yes, I understand that your comment was sarcasm, and yet it does demonstrate the double standard of Atheism.

Nats said...

New Thought has a lot of non-material evidence. It has spiritual evidence, philosophical evidence and a history.

When you were disproving New Thought how did you examine the spiritual evidence of New Thought? What is the positive case for disbelieving in New Thought?

vandelay said...

You're doing good work with this series. Once we have a large enough number of editions to draw from it'd be interesting to see a breakdown of ages at which the writers became atheists and their reasons for doing so.
I have a few ideas about what the results might show...

Stan said...

I've actually never heard of New Thought. I'll leave it to the Atheists to produce their material evidence regarding New Thought. I admit to not having material evidence myself, so I can't help you out. You'll have to do it yourself... Feel free to present your data here, OK?

Actually, I'm sure you will be camped out at their website, denying any need for evidence to support your view, whatever it is.

Stan said...

Vandelay,
It is interesting, isn't it? And more to come, it appears.

Nats said...

"I've actually never heard of New Thought"

You were ignorant but now you don't have that excuse.
Do you believe it or do you not believe it?

Stan said...

The subject of this blog is what Atheists believe, not what I believe. That keeps the pathways clean so Atheists don't get confused about what is expected of them. Otherwise they would want to change the subject, wouldn't you?

We're still waiting for Atheist data on their empirically, evidentially supported worldviews.

Nats said...

"The subject of this blog is what Atheists believe, not what I believe."

Well, this atheist Natasha used to believe in New Thought and now she doesn't. What method should she, the atheist, have used to examine the non-material evidences of New Thought? And how can she make herself believe something if it seems to her unbelievable?

Chris said...

A comment a blogger made about the New Atheists that is entertaining, but that is also disturbingly true.

The spectacle of materialists writing millions of words of closely reasoned prose, all in the service of trying to persuade me to choose to believe that I have no free will is one of the most entertainingly absurd acts of human folly I have ever witnessed.

-Mark Shea

FrankNorman said...

They started asking people to tithe after every service. They acquired a new TV spot, associated themselves with Deepak Chopra, and built a new “celebration hall” with the money they constantly milked their audience for…. The average wealth of the people attending rose visibly, and not because the church was making anyone richer. Our old holding-hands-during songs tradition was abolished without a word. Not to mention the fact that we were building ugly new buildings instead of, say, helping people

Wow!
Reading this, I was struck by just how much this sounds like what I've seen happen to some of the initially Bible-centered, Christian churches I've been in contact with.
Something that starts as a group of believers meeting together for worship, prayer and fellowship suddenly changes into a money-making racket for a small elite. (And most of the original members of the congregation up and leave when that happens!)
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised - a New Age-ish sect would be way more vulnerable to such trends, since they don't believe in the Bible to start with, and hence are even less likely to heed the Biblical warnings about this sort of thing.

But I suggest this one goes into the category of professed "Atheism" really being about no longer wanting to be part of some religious group.

Martin said...

I wonder if there is some kind of analysis of these you can do when you have a sufficient number. Like try to categorize each "reason for being an atheist", plop them into Excel, count them up, and see which ones are most popular.

If you have a largish number (say, 100 or so), that would be a good sample size and would be very telling. When you claim that atheists believe XYZ for bad reason abc, you will actually have empirical force behind your claim and they can't make accusations of strawman.

Stan said...

Nats,

This is an excellent question.

"The subject of this blog is what Atheists believe, not what I believe."

Well, this atheist Natasha used to believe in New Thought and now she doesn't. What method should she, the atheist, have used to examine the non-material evidences of New Thought? And how can she make herself believe something if it seems to her unbelievable?


There is a difference between “want to believe” and “self-evidence”. “Want to believe” involves retrofitting a belief system to your needs. It is a form of rationalization, where belief systems are “shopped” until one finds something comfortable.

On the other hand there is the search for something which is true, using the techniques which assure valid thought processes. If that which is true is uncomfortable, so be it: truth exists outside of comfort.

The search for truth, if that is the actual goal, starts with understanding the processes of intellectual validity. Without that one cannot reject any non-valid syllogisms, nor ungrounded premises. So the process of grounding must also be studied and internalized.

Then existing propositions can be viewed for validity of their argument, coherence, and other grounding; then judged for possibility, and finally probability.

The final two steps are individual judgment calls. There is no hard evidence of an empirical nature which can assist in these judgments. Most propositions will be rejected due to improbability, compared with other propositions. But they are still personal judgments.

This is where Materialism fails to understand its own process. It is a judgment call, but it claims to be an empirical, scientific principle. So it fails the early process of logical coherence. And that, in turn, makes the existence of non-physical entities a possibility. Following that, given the existence of mathematics and logic itself, which are not physical lumps but are interpreted, volatile states which are non-physical, then it is probable that non-physical space can exist.

Some things, after being analyzed and the probability accepted (say the existence of mathematics), become first principles themselves due to self-evidence.

In other words, once accepted via the valid search for truth, a principle is not fought for over and over and over. It is accepted and the search turns to consequences (deductions) based on the self-evidence of that first principle.

This is what is interpreted as “Blind Faith” by Atheists. And it is not. It is the result of holding a first principle in one’s worldview, a principle which Atheists reject, usually based on the fallacy of Materialism. But the “believer” usually moves well on and beyond the first principle, and when the Atheist attacks the first principle, the “believer” no longer has an argument at the ready. This is interpreted, again, as Blind Belief by the Atheist, who remains stuck at the point of rejecting the first principle over and over and over………

It’s not unlike saying to a scientist, “you cannot prove science is true, due to the Goedel Theorems”! The scientist, raising his head from his work might easily reply: “Don’t be stupid. It is logically valid, coherent, grounded, possible, and probable. Science only claims to be probable, not True. You are merely an annoyance without data for disproof. Go away.”

And both are right, but only one has any meaning to worldviews. The other is merely Skepticism, attempting to excessively limit knowledge.

I’ll stop here for the moment. I appreciate the question. I’m sure that the answer will generate objections and discussions. I won’t be around much for the next six or seven days since we have a road trip starting today. I’ll try to pop in if I can.

One final comment. Return to the idea of "shopped" belief systems. Then consider how Atheist systems of values and ethics are selected.

Stan said...

Martin,
Could you do me a favor? Could you capture the next "Why I am a Atheist" stories from PZ's place for me? I'll be back circa Sunday, if you could email them, I'd appreciate it, Thanks.

World of Facts said...

@Martin&Stan

In another thread, Stan wrote:

"What is immediately noticeable on WeAreSMRT is the abundance of Ad Hominem and the lack of actual argument either for or against any serious topic.

When people visit here and then don't engage (I answer virtually all commenters) but rather go back to their dens of like thinkers to denigrate, it seems to verify the image they project that they cannot make a rational refutation or logical argument.
"

It's pretty ironic to read this comment since, when there is an actual argument going on, people at weAreSMRT enjoy participating in a civilized way just as much as what we can see here.

Moreover, over here, we can read things like:
- 'the magnitude of that ignorance is breathtaking'
- 'That kind of "closed-mindedness" is just pretty much common.'
- 'they will not be persuaded by logic'
(from 1 single comment thread...)

So, to be clear, my point is simply that there are always people to have discussions with; there are always people that will resort to ad hominem, and there are always people who will try to support an argument and then simply leave without a word instead of conceding that it was wrong.

It happens on "both" sides!

Have a nice trip Stan...

Martin, I am curious to read your replies at weAreSMRT since we do have a conversation going on. I am surprised that you came to read the last messages but did not reply; you were very fast to do so for the last 2 days...