It would be a convenient lie to say that I am an atheist because of rationalism, reason and the application of logic. I was an atheist well before I had any idea what those things were. I know that many people like to argue that everybody is born an atheist, and of course, in a sense that is true, but I like to differentiate between being ignorant of religion, and the realisation that it’s false.
I grew up almost completely unexposed to religion. My mother is a Quaker, and sometimes took me along to meetings, but I had no idea what they were, other than a bunch of “old people” sitting around occasionally speaking; not appealing to a 6 year old.
My first school had no religion classes, and I knew nobody religious. I didn’t even know what the word “god” meant for most of this time. But then I changed schools to a (public) school that did have almost compulsory religious (Christian) education classes. If you’ve never been told the stories of Adam and Eve, or Moses, or Jesus’s birth, miracles and resurrection, until an age when you’re starting to think for yourself (10), I think it’s inevitable you’ll be suspicious of such stories. It only took a month of such classes (once a week) for me to realise it was just rubbish. The volunteers taking the classes were unintelligent and uneducated, and the stories were as believable as any of the mythology books we had at home.
At this point, I asked my parents if I could stop attending the classes, which they agreed to, and my life as an atheist activist began, as the (public) school fought hard to prevent me from not attending those classes. Eventually they relented, and I was allowed to spend an hour once a week in the library. I know in Australia now, with the push for ethics classes as a replacement for religious classes, there are many complaints about sending the non-religious students to the library with nothing to do, but for me, that was probably when I started to become such a prolific reader, so in hindsight it was an incredibly valuable experience.
I’m very glad that I came to atheism, and to atheist movements, at such a young age, and basically by myself. I see many atheists now who I think dogmatically accept philosophical concepts for which no proof or evidence exists; “burden of proof,” and various logical “fallacies,” that are actually just names of types of arguments (ad hominem springs to mind). My experience taught me not to believe people, just because they say something is true, but to examine it closely, and make my own mind up. Religion is just a tiny facet of the subjects I apply that critical thinking to.
Jeremy O’Wheel
Australia
O’Wheel makes this point:
1. Encountering Bible stories at the age of inquiry (10) shows the Bible to be false.Summary: never religious, unaware of God until religious training at 10 years old. Bible stories seemed false; became Atheist activist at age of 10. Now is a Critical Thinker. He also criticizes some Atheist dogmatic thinking.
5 comments:
I see many atheists now who I think dogmatically accept philosophical concepts for which no proof or evidence exists; “burden of proof,” and various logical “fallacies,” that are actually just names of types of arguments (ad hominem springs to mind).
This got me thinking.
Ad hominem attacks can be useful as a method of truth-seeking and error-detection if you can accept an uncertain approach to model-building of the world.
The so-called "logical fallacies" that are sometimes taught to people in schools are in some ways a brittle approach to truth and error detection as they seek infallibility as a necessary criteria.
Appeals to authority, or attacks on the character of persons (sort of a reverse to an appeal on authority) are probablistic approaches to model-building that are especially useful when the person considering the propositions does not have easy access to all the facts, or lacks the educational training to do so.
When a person listens to their doctor, while their doctor may attempt to explain some things, ultimately, they are trusting in the authority of the position that the doctor is in; with that position comes assumptions that the doctor is practicing medicine in accordance to widely accepted practices, and that the doctor is acting in good faith that their approach is the best approach. This appeal to authority can save people time and mental energy which they can reserve for truth and error-checking on other matters. This appeal to authority can also lead to grave exploitation. This is a probalistic approach after all, not an infallible one.
The probablistic approach is a more robust solution than the ones implied through the learning of "logical fallacies", which yearns for a standard of infallibility or logical certainty.
When many people retort against an argument by listing a logical fallacy, I suspect they might be slavishly regurgitating something they learned from an authoritative source (such as their teacher or professor), without considering the practical problems behind it -- probably because, as I've argued above, they're reserving their brainpower to truth/error-check matters more important to them, and leaving these issues to a matter of trust with teachers.
Trust is a complex system that is constantly updating with new information with regards to the security or insecurity of that trust. An attack on a person, rather than the merits of their argument, is an attack on the level of trust. They are seeking to persuade you that a person is untrustworthy, and that they are a boy who has cried wolf too many times (note that in that story, the townsfolk receive updating information on the trustworthiness of the boy, and ultimately learn to distrust him -- to great misfortune)
Sir Meow Meow,
Interesting comment, thanks.
It does appear to me that there is a certain class of commenters which has observed rational conversation and tries to produce a simulation by asserting fallacies which have absolutely no bearing on the assertion being attacked. This is accompanied by ignoring their own fallacies as they charge ahead with ever more drivel which they consider an approximation of the rational conversation which they have observed, but do not comprehend.
Combine this with personal insults intended to arouse emotions in the target, and you get chaos rather than intelligent conversation.
It appears to me that this class of commenters feels that they have "won" if they succeed in producing such chaos. In other words, they interpret destructive tactics to be acceptable and useful, and act as barbarians at the gate. That type of mentality is not worth allowing into an environment which is devoted to logic and rational approaches to issues. So one must close the gate.
Stan, that contains some of the
most marvelous projection I've ever read.
And I mean "marvelous" is the sense that I literally marveled gob-smacked at your response.
You can not be so unperceptive as to not understand that the previous commenter is speaking about you.
You speak of "logic[al] and rational approaches to issues" and your sidebar states few people even know what rationality entails. Do you consider you writings on this blog rational? Do you consider your logic optimal for finding truths about reality?
RK,
Interesting. But make it specific rather than just a blanket accusation. Show us where I have attacked a person for personal characteristics (other than banning bad behavior), rather than analyzing their comments.
" Do you consider you writings on this blog rational? Do you consider your logic optimal for finding truths about reality?"
It is not "my logic". That is a widespread misunderstanding amongst Atheists and Materialists. Logic is a specific discipline. It is not an opinion. It is based on First Principles which are considered axiomatic. It is a basic college course. It is not "my logic".
Without logic, one has only illogic. My choice is logic. And that requires the personal discipline to learn it, to apply it, and to double check it. Not against opinion, but against standards.
Thanks for sharing my story :)
I feel like there might be some background in the comments that I'm missing.
I think people can come to any view through reason or through dogma, and that includes atheism. There are plenty of atheists that are rational, but also some that are not. More so than anywhere else in my life, when I see "logical fallacies" misused, it's by atheists. I think it's something to be cautious of. The name of a logical fallacy isn't, in it self, a convincing argument, and it's almost as easy to explain the fallacy without giving it it's name.
Eg. "You assert that because I am generally argumentative, therefore my opinion is wrong, but that doesn't follow. Can you tell my why my opinion is wrong, based on the merits of the opinion, and not the person expressing it." (instead of "ad hominem")
This is a much better approach because not everybody knows what the fallacy terms mean, and it prevents accidental misuse (for example, all the people who think merely insulting a person is an "ad hominem").
Jeremy
Post a Comment