The full Atheist 101 is still at the "line-edit" stage. While that is being prepared an interesting question has arisen for the editors--to what degree is some of the discussion of atheism/agnosticism in the west informed with the presumptions/attitudes of colonialism, orientalism and cultural appropriation?
For example:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes. [Smart, J. J. C., "Atheism and Agnosticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/atheism-agnosticism/>.]
Discuss.......
The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)
Speaking as an atheist/non-religious person, I can't imagine that it would have that much impact on discussions of modern atheism. One of the choice tidbits to bring out in discussion is the idea that an atheist only has one fewer god than someone who believes in the Abrahamic God. A Christian or Muslim or Jew is atheistic regarding Zeus, Odin, Anansi, Isis, and any number of other gods who have been worshiped. So from my perspective, I can't even imagine a question that isn't thoroughly ignorant in the first place that could be problematic in these ways.
Yes, I think it would be tremendously racist, colonialist, and just plain stupid to say "oh, you're an atheist, you believe in a different god than I do". I'd have thought the word "atheist" was in common enough parlance that the simplest meaning, "believes in no god or gods", would get through.
Posted by: Samantha C | Aug 31, 2011 at 07:37 PM
A Christian or Muslim or Jew is atheistic regarding Zeus, Odin, Anansi, Isis, and any number of other gods who have been worshiped.
Speak for yourself. There are Christians (and, I imagine, some Jews) who have no problem with the idea of Zeus, Odin, etc existing - they just don't follow them.
Posted by: Deird, who is other-god-agnostic | Aug 31, 2011 at 07:55 PM
That's nice, Samantha, but when, as a polytheist, someone describes hirself as an atheist, I still have to ask whether that means disbelieving in the very possibility of gods/powers/spirits/etc (essentially materialism) or whether it means not believing in the monotheistic conception(s) of a God. I've met atheists who are quite open to and/or interested in the ideas of powers/spirits/deities, especially when conceived of as thought-forms or archetypes or mythical constructs, as the encyclopedia entry above so blithely dismisses.
I think it's also quite inaccurate to say "A Christian or Muslim or Jew is atheistic regarding Zeus, Odin, ..." as different adherents to Abrahamic traditions may have individual approaches to that. Some are henotheist, not monotheist, or monolatrous, when one gets right down to it. Kindly do not make vast indefensible generalizations of this sort.
Posted by: Literata | Aug 31, 2011 at 07:57 PM
To respond to the original post....I personally find that most atheism I encounter these days is specifically reactionary against monotheistic conceptions of a god. I don't know if I would describe that as colonial, racist, or culturally appropriative, but I would describe it as accepting the framing of the hegemonic religion(s).
Personally, I wonder how many atheists might rather describe themselves as areligionists, in the sense that what they don't have or want is religion. I think the "New Atheists" - the kind who assert that any belief in deity or practice of religion may be harmful - might be genuine a-theists, but I suspect that many people who don't have a problem with others having religions/beliefs might fall more accurately under areligionist.
I think that once again the issue of conflating belief with practice - as is particularly present in Christianity and Protestant Christianity - is confusing the language here. An areligionist, as I conceive of it, may be agnostic about whether deities/spirits/powers exist, or can exist, or may believe that they might exist, especially as archetypes, but have no interest in working with them. What the term seeks to describe is behavior, not belief, and primarily personal behavior at that.
Then one could mix and match atheist and/or areligionist to better describe the full potential of belief and/or practices. More importantly, whether or not one is atheist, in this sense, all areligionists would have a significant interest in civil liberties protecting them from religious intrusion, which I see, as an outsider, as one of the uniting factors of the atheist movement (beyond the crusading New Atheists).
Scuse wall'o'text; on my way to bed, hope it made sense, look forward to the discussion in the morning.
Posted by: Literata | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:08 PM
okay, I apologize. The vast majority of people who I've met or talked to or read the writings of, who identify as a member of a monotheistic religion, are themselves monotheists.
I think it holds though, that I don't understand the question in the first place. If I'm asked as an atheist whether I have any belief in mythic archetypes, or spirits or aliens or supernatural or unearthly phenomena, that sounds like people who are being very un-presumptuous and not assuming, not being orientalist, colonialist or culturally appropriative. I'm still not finding myself able to imagine a conversation about atheism - that actually understood the word "atheism" to mean "lack of belief in deities" - that would be any of the above. I'm wondering if anyone could give me examples.
Or is it just that by defining "atheism" as "no gods" that I seem to be discounting atheistic religions like (so I've been told) Buddhism?
Posted by: Samantha C | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:11 PM
Literata: That's nice, Samantha, but when, as a polytheist, someone describes hirself as an atheist, I still have to ask whether that means disbelieving in the very possibility of gods/powers/spirits/etc (essentially materialism) or whether it means not believing in the monotheistic conception(s) of a God. I've met atheists who are quite open to and/or interested in the ideas of powers/spirits/deities, especially when conceived of as thought-forms or archetypes or mythical constructs, as the encyclopedia entry above so blithely dismisses.
But you shouldn't have to ask that. If someone is accurately calling hirself an atheist, it means zie does not believe in any gods at all. It doesn't only mean not believing in the Abrahamic god.
It is also quite possible to be interested in something without believing in it. Many nonbelievers find religion fascinating. That doesn't mean we believe the gods are real or that the stories actually happened.
Posted by: Ruby | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:11 PM
@Samantha C: Speaking as an atheist/non-religious person, I can't imagine that it would have that much impact on discussions of modern atheism.
hmmmm.......rather dismissive of a question that arose out of doing research on atheism and cultural appropriation.
Basically what one finds is that much of the discussion around atheism is framed specifically from a western conception of what one even means by saying there is or is not a god.
And the question is not about whether it is racist/colonial to dismiss atheism but rather do atheists display colonial/eurocentric attitudes towards believers in gods.
Posted by: Mmy | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:11 PM
Ruby, I might have to ask that, though, since I encounter people who not only are interested in religion but actively practice it. It is perfectly possible to be an atheist Wiccan, if one will either accept the idea of deities as thought-forms (is that "real"?) or the value of the religion/rites in and of itself. Therefore, there are multiple competing definitions of atheist that are not all the same as yours.
Posted by: Literata | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:17 PM
Samantha C: Or is it just that by defining "atheism" as "no gods" that I seem to be discounting atheistic religions like (so I've been told) Buddhism?
Well, that is what atheism is: "no gods." It is certainly possible to ask more questions of the atheist to see if they believe in other things, but atheism means no gods at all.
I am an atheist (and agnostic depending on the god) who doesn't believe in anything supernatural. I don't believe in ghosts or fate or leprechauns or a world of the spirit, and all for the same reason I don't believe in gods--I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to believe. But I know there are atheists who believe in some supernatural things and are still atheists. That's just asking a new and different question.
Posted by: Ruby | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:18 PM
Literata, if someone thought that a deity or deities existed, in any form that rendered them "real," I would not consider that person an atheist. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and still see value in religion and/or ceremony. Atheists can fall pretty much anywhere on the spectrum as far as seeing value in religion.
Posted by: Ruby | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:26 PM
Why?
I was just about to come back and say that the way atheism is usually defined against or in reaction to monotheism might be illustrated by the wide range of potential atheist opinions about potential spirits/energies such as nature spirits, land spirits, water spirits, spirits of place - or the number of atheists who have never considered such topics. And what about ancestors? I'm not just talking about ghosts; I'm talking about reverence for and the idea of potential relationship with dead ancestors, without anything supernatural being necessary. Again, I think a statement that atheism equals pure materialism is a result of accepting the hegemonic monotheistic framing that anything spiritual/supernatural/whatever has to be related to the one god in some way, shape, or form.
In my religion, there are lots of beings that I might or might not call gods. It is not clear to me that atheism, considered apart from the monotheistic framework to which it is usually responding, must mean a disbelief in or rejection of practices involving all those possible beings - and please note, again, that those are two separate things, belief and practice.
Posted by: Literata | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29 PM
Yeah, what Smart says is...I can't find definitions of 'colonialist' and 'orientalist' that mean what you seem to be saying, and 'cultural appropriation' isn't the phrase I want, but ze's something as all hell, and if ze's an atheist I'm ashamed to be associated with zir.
do atheists display colonial/eurocentric attitudes towards believers in gods[?]
Dismissive, yeah, seen that. Colonial and eurocentric, not so sure. Haven't seen it myself, or didn't recognize it when I saw it. Won't disbelieve anyone who says they've seen it, though.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:29 PM
Literata: Why?
Because atheism is an answer to the question, "Do you believe in any gods?" not "Do you believe in anything supernatural?"
I was just about to come back and say that the way atheism is usually defined against or in reaction to monotheism might be illustrated by the wide range of potential atheist opinions about potential spirits/energies such as nature spirits, land spirits, water spirits, spirits of place - or the number of atheists who have never considered such topics. And what about ancestors? I'm not just talking about ghosts; I'm talking about reverence for and the idea of potential relationship with dead ancestors, without anything supernatural being necessary. Again, I think a statement that atheism equals pure materialism is a result of accepting the hegemonic monotheistic framing that anything spiritual/supernatural/whatever has to be related to the one god in some way, shape, or form.
Um, I'm not saying that anything supernatural has to be related to the one god. In fact, I'm saying that it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and still believe in supernatural things, just not in any gods.
That said, I am fascinated by this idea of a relationship with an ancestor that does not involve anything supernatural. How would that work? I had a relationship with my grandmother, but I don't anymore, because she is not here to have a relationship with me. I don't see how I could have a relationship with someone not here.
In my religion, there are lots of beings that I might or might not call gods. It is not clear to me that atheism, considered apart from the monotheistic framework to which it is usually responding, must mean a disbelief in or rejection of practices involving all those possible beings - and please note, again, that those are two separate things, belief and practice.
I don't think atheism does necessitate rejection of practices. It only necessitates lack of belief in any gods.
And all that said, I'm glad this isn't the real Atheism 101 yet, because I'm more than a little uncomfortable that the pre-Atheism 101 has quite quickly turned into atheists needing to (once again) defend ourselves, rather than explain ourselves.
Posted by: Ruby | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:46 PM
"Basically what one finds is that much of the discussion around atheism is framed specifically from a western conception of what one even means by saying there is or is not a god.
And the question is not about whether it is racist/colonial to dismiss atheism but rather do atheists display colonial/eurocentric attitudes towards believers in gods."
MMY, thank you - that makes more sense. I really didn't understand what the question was trying to ask in the first place, I think because I'm missing steps in the logic process since I'm coming from a point of view of "of COURSE atheism means what I understand it to mean!" I apologize for that, and I do hope I haven't been dismissive of anyone.
I've always heard atheists describe themselves as not believing in "god or gods" specifically because a lot of us don't just reject the Western idea. I agree with Ruby as well, and I'm trying to phrase what I was thinking in a clearer way...
"atheism" only refers to a lack of belief in any and all deities. This is independent of any other scale of spiritual or religious belief. There are atheistic religions, and there are theists who don't follow particular religions. There are atheists and theists both who believe in cryptozoological creatures or places haunted by ghosts or alien conspiracies. But none of that has anything to do with the definition of "atheism".
Posted by: Samantha C | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:49 PM
@Literata: Are you talking about men like Hitchens? They're a step beyond mere atheists; they've accelerated right into the realm of Antitheism (while remaining atheists). I'll agree - there is a lot of open and sometimes disturbingly hateful antitheists on the internet, probably as a reaction to the rise of the hateful nature of RTCism in the West (and Islamic extremism, but that to a lesser degree.)
The thing I find, in my case, that separates New Atheists from other atheists is the presence of skepticism. And it's not just any kind of skepticism - it's an almost militant skepticism that I actually admire; probably as a reaction to the lack of skepticism seen in the greater society as a whole. Further more, I've found that New Atheists aren't just militantly skeptical, but they're also extremely vocal about it. That's why men like PZ Myers end up with all the criticism that they end up with. They're vocal about the lack of skepticism that others display.
While I'm an atheist, probably a New Atheist with the fact that I'm also a diamond-hard skeptic, I ultimately end up taking Asmiov's route: I dislike the term "atheism" because it says more about what I don't believe in than what I do. Hence, my adherence to Humanism.
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Aug 31, 2011 at 08:57 PM
The distinction between "materialism" and "atheism" is by no means a settled question (at least not among some of discussions I have read in print and online, and among both atheists and theists), and one that is certainly worth addressing in any sort of 101 discussion.
There are also other notions connected with Abrahamic monotheism (I'm uncomfortable with saying "Western") that are occasionally *assumed* as part of the whole package of "theism" by representatives of both atheists and theists.
For example, there is the exceedingly vague question of "spirituality" (what meaning, if any, does this have in an atheistic context?), as well as specific conceptions of an "afterlife" (especially one with "rewards and punishments"), and a transcendent source of morality. There are atheists who reserve the term exclusively for beliefs; there are atheists who would include a rejection of ritual practice.
I'm quite certain that no thoughtful denizen of the Slacktiverse would say something like "I'm an atheist [because] I can't accept the notion of a just god that would consign anyone to everlasting torment"; yet there are a surprising number of arguments like that out there that seem not to consider that "theism" does not necessarily entail a (single) god, any sort of imputation of justice to divinity, any sort of judgment on the part of divinity, any concept of "everlasting" let alone "torment"...
...not to mention what a "theist" is supposed to take from such a statement other than "Religion, U R Doin It Rong".
Posted by: hapax | Aug 31, 2011 at 09:36 PM
Atheism and colonialism, orientalism, and cultural appropriation…? Talk about a can of worms. I think a lot of people in "organized atheism" -- largely white and from Christian backgrounds -- have big problems with this that they've yet to acknowledge.
I don't think it's coincidental that in the past decade (after 9/11) we've seen a new wave of Islamophobia and the rise of New Atheism, many of whose "leaders" (as much as there can be leaders!) have expressed shockingly hateful and ignorant views about Muslims. Islam is seen as barbaric, foreign, and backwards. Secular-minded, well-meaning Western feminists endorse neo-colonialist/imperialist ventures to, like Spivak says, save brown women from brown men -- from what they see as the inherent sexism of Islam.
The ties between religion and culture also get elided because, I think, it's not as obvious in Western (Eurocentric) contexts. Atheists have a tendency to focus on religious doctrines in isolation. The push for secularization becomes in effect pressure to assimilate, Westernize...
And with regards to non-Abrahamic religions, especially Buddhism, Eurocentrism lets people get away with ignorance, dismissing Buddhism for example because it's "really a philosophy" or whatever (without addressing the diversity of Buddhist practice, actual Buddhist texts, and so on). Or just plain ignoring religions that don't fit into a particular model, or gods that don't fit the Christian model of divinity. See discussion of ancestor worship upthread.
Sorry for the wall o'text, back to lurking :)
Posted by: Nev | Aug 31, 2011 at 09:46 PM
I'm quite certain that no thoughtful denizen of the Slacktiverse would say something like "I'm an atheist [because] I can't accept the notion of a just god that would consign anyone to everlasting torment"
One of our main fronters identifies as an atheist "because God doesn't like us." but he doesn't usually discuss this belief because he's aware of the problem inherent in his argument and he's worried people will think he's a troll.
Posted by: Pthalo | Aug 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM
That's not even a full screen, Nev, it's hardly a wall of text. And you make some very good points.
Organized atheism has a problem with privilege, full stop. Elevatorgate et al. This is why I do not in the least disbelieve anyone who says there are atheists who behave abhorrently to people who lack privilege along any dimension other than Christianity---atheism. But my experience of atheism as a movement is pretty much limited to Friendly Atheist, Greta Christina, Blag Hag, and here, and nobody on that list is inclined to behave abhorrently on account of privilege.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | Aug 31, 2011 at 10:04 PM
I very, very much hope that the actual Atheism 101 discussion will be positive and productive, like Paganism 101.
Posted by: Ruby | Aug 31, 2011 at 10:21 PM
I don't think it's so easy to define "exists."
I am pretty sure that most atheists would agree that, say, Hera does not exist as a tangible being. I am also pretty sure that they would agree that Hera *does* exist as a historically documented myth. But there are several points in between on which there is, I think, not such clear agreement: Hera as archetype existing within a hypothetical universal consciousness, Hera as archetype existing within individual people, Hera as symbol or personification of real but non-personal tendencies in humans or in the world at large, Hera as mythologization of historical realities.
When I have been on circle with self-identified atheist Wiccans, they have drawn the belief/non-belief line in a variety of places: pretty much anywhere between "exists in the collective consciousness" and "is purely a symbol."
I found CS Lewis' comment on "real" helpful: he says (paraphrase) that it's often not very useful to ask "is it real?" and more useful to ask "it's a real *what*?" It's not a real ghost but it's a real sheet, or a real hallucination, or a real folktale. Similarly (in my somewhat outside view as a theist Wiccan) the question for atheist Wiccan circlemates is not "Is Hera real?" but "What is she?" Obviously she is real on some level--you know what I am talking about when I talk about her, as with unicorns--and clearly they did not think she was tangibly real the way a human is, but there are a lot of other possibilities. Several different ones seem consistent with calling yourself an atheist and doing Wiccan ritual.
I have to say, I didn't read the original post as accusing atheism of anything; I saw it as accusing Western thought of being blinkered by one concept of "religion" and extending that to oversimplification of "non-religion" as well.
Posted by: MaryKaye | Aug 31, 2011 at 11:11 PM
I have to say, I didn't read the original post as accusing atheism of anything; I saw it as accusing Western thought of being blinkered by one concept of "religion" and extending that to oversimplification of "non-religion" as well.
Yes! This is what I was struggling to articulate, and very poorly. THANK you.
Posted by: hapax | Aug 31, 2011 at 11:21 PM
MaryKaye: I have to say, I didn't read the original post as accusing atheism of anything; I saw it as accusing Western thought of being blinkered by one concept of "religion" and extending that to oversimplification of "non-religion" as well.
Except that Mmy clarified:
And the question is not about whether it is racist/colonial to dismiss atheism but rather do atheists display colonial/eurocentric attitudes towards believers in gods.
The phrasing of that question is more likely to put the atheists in a defensive rather than explanatory posture.
And if that's the way this pre-discussion discussion is going to go, then so be it. But the Paganism 101 discussion was one of explanation, not of addressing negative viewpoints. I would like to think that atheism, and a discussion of it, can be just as positive and affirming as Paganism and a discussion of it. Atheists spend a lot of time having to defend ourselves, and I admit I was looking forward to the Atheism 101 as an open discussion--not free of hard or complicated or even pointed questions, but also not filled with the same-old-same-old of atheists perpetually having to defend ourselves.
We aren't even past a page so far, and in addition to the starting points or colonialism and cultural appropriation, we've already hit on are-atheists-really-using-the-right-word-to-describe-themselves and aren't-atheist-"leaders"-mean-and-Islamophobic.
In the Paganism 101 thread, the participants described and explained what they thought and believed. Again, if this thread is going to be completely different, that's one thing. But I just hope that the actual Atheism 101 thread is in the same spirit as Paganism 101.
Posted by: Ruby | Aug 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM
MaryKaye: "I don't think it's so easy to define "exists.""
As a materialist, I disagree.
If I have evidence for something, I know it exists. If I have no evidence for it, it doesn't exist until I have evidence for it.
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:05 AM
Can we agree to restrict the word "militant" to people engaging in or advocating violence, please? Thanks.
***
I normally disagree with Ruby about when and to what extent a (conscious or otherwise) anti-atheist bias is at work. In this case, though, I have to ask: Why is this question being asked about atheism, but not Paganism, where it's an equally applicable question? Why is the Atheism 101 so much more sensitive and so much more in need of careful editing than previous 101's? It does feel a little like there's a double standard at work. I don't think that's intentional, and maybe I'm wrong, maybe some of the submissions were particularly problematic, but I worry that atheism is just assumed to have more potential to create offense than other worldviews.
***
So, on to the actual question of the thread.
One issue, I think, is that there are a LOT of different traditions of and approaches to atheism.
My own atheism, for example, is an extension of strict philosophical materialism, so my kneejerk reaction is "Of course atheists disbelieve in all non-physical entities equally." Then I have to remind myself that that's just me.
Some atheist traditions have strong ties to philosophical materialism, because they're descended from Enlightenment philosophy by way of humanism and logical positivism.
Other forms of atheism are just people who had really shitty experiences with the local dominant religion growing up, and since they can't imagine any other religion, they become atheists as a reaction.
Still other atheists descend from the Marxist variant, which is apocalyptic, utopian, and highly skeptical of everything except itself. (I never said this would be an unbiased accounting...)
Some people just don't believe in any gods they've encountered and don't feel any particular need for or interest in seeking out others.
And, increasingly, some people were raised atheist and don't feel there's any evidence for or reason to believe in gods. (Hi!)
Atheists vary. A lot. There is no atheist canon, no atheist authorities to appeal to, and no shared atheist experience.
Do some atheists implicitly (or explicitly, in Hitchens' case) assume the superiority of Western, European, Christian culture over others, and therefore conclude that rejecting Christianity is sufficient basis to reject all religion? Hells yes.
Do all? Definitely not.
***
On an aside, I wonder if JJC Smart is related to Ninian Smart, who wrote my Comparative Religions textbook and was my professor's thesis advisor.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:08 AM
@J. Enigma: Um... so... if astronomers find a previously undiscovered asteroid, it just pops into existence at the moment of discovery? I really hope that's not what you meant, because that's not materialism, it's solipsism.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Also, despite being a materialist, I agree that "exists" is difficult to define. It is easy to define in the case of concrete entities such as a rock or Paris or the planet Jupiter: a concrete entity exists when it has physical properties. It is harder in the case of abstractions: Does NATO exist? What about love? Free will?
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Froborr: I normally disagree with Ruby about when and to what extent a (conscious or otherwise) anti-atheist bias is at work. In this case, though, I have to ask: Why is this question being asked about atheism, but not Paganism, where it's an equally applicable question? Why is the Atheism 101 so much more sensitive and so much more in need of careful editing than previous 101's? It does feel a little like there's a double standard at work. I don't think that's intentional, and maybe I'm wrong, maybe some of the submissions were particularly problematic, but I worry that atheism is just assumed to have more potential to create offense than other worldviews.
This brings up a question I have been wondering about for several weeks now, and should have asked sooner: Why were the atheists (but not the Pagans, IIRC, and please correct me if I'm wrong) specially requested not to be rude in their submissions?
Posted by: Ruby | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:15 AM
@Ruby: That bothered me, too.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:17 AM
@Ruby and Froborr: me as well.
Posted by: ZMiles | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:27 AM
@Froborr:
Gah. No, that's not what I meant at all. I only got part of the philosophy in there (in a rather back asswards fashion). There's a whole epistemological element that I left out without meaning too.
This is what I get for posting while tired...
Re Love - Well, lemme give this a shot: I can test love to find evidence for it, making it a concrete thing. It's a matter of finding what neurotransmitters fire at what time and what the "feeling" is that they trigger. By sticking someone under an MRI, and monitoring it, and doing that a few times, I can test and prove the biological aspect of love, and then mesh that with the sociological expectations and come up with a reasonable definition, giving solid evidence to it's existence.
Free will, however, is one sticky issue and I'll concede the point there.
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:28 AM
Free will is a sticky but delightful issue. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. It's a very interesting discussion of free will, and how it might emerge in a purely naturalistic way in the course of human evolution.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:45 AM
Of the three things I mentioned, though, I think NATO is the thorniest and most interesting philosophical problem. There isn't a straightforward "NATO brain state"; it's actually really hard to define what, exactly, NATO is in materialistic terms.
I think the best bet is to regard it as a sort of system constructed of individual people, rather like a multicellular organism is constructed of cells, but simpler. Like a slime mold or a biofilm, maybe.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:50 AM
I've heard a handful of the arguments on all four sides, but I don't really know enough to make any claim of meaning beyond "Hoo-boy is that a convoluted problem."
I'll have to check that book out. Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:52 AM
I think--and this is no excuse for it, only an attempt at explanation--that some contributors to this group were feeling bruised by aggressive and dismissive atheists on Patheos, and wanted to avoid a repetition of that experience. I know that I have been feeling somewhat bruised in that regard: there's a certain amount of "of *course* you are a Christian" and a certain amount of "of *course* you don't believe in the supernatural, especially if you're not a Christian" and they both become painful after a while. But I hope that I am not transferring any of that here, and if I am, I trust the community here will correct me.
Posted by: MaryKaye | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:54 AM
Froborr writes:
The one that has caused me a lot of confusion is "species" (in the biological sense). I accept that none of the higher taxonomic categories exist except as human concepts, but sometimes it seems like "species" might actually exist--and sometimes not. (For maximum confusion, consider the water frog _Rana esculenta_.)
I will also note that while there are a lot of buildings in a site in France, and a lump of rock with an erratic orbit near Neptune's, that this is "the city of Paris" or "the planet Pluto" is much more slippery. "The city of Paris" is very much a concept--it has an edge, legally speaking, that does not necessarily correspond with any material thing, but is significantly "real" to humans. Does "Paris" exist outside a human mind, or only a lot of buildings?
I am not a materialist, but even on a material level I don't think "exist" is straightforward for anything but matter, and possibly not even for that--the more deeply you look at matter the more qualified its existence seems to become. (Consider Hawking radiation--black holes decay because of particles and antiparticles appearing from the Void and then returning to it at once, unless they are too close to a black hole, in which case they become Real.)
Posted by: MaryKaye | Sep 01, 2011 at 01:07 AM
@MaryKaye: I understand that, but that's kind of what bugs me. Have the atheist contributors to Slacktiverse given any reason to believe that we are more likely to be rude or combative than contributors of other worldviews? I don't believe we have, and it kind of feels like we are being held accountable for the actions and statements of others, just because we happen to self-identify similarly. There's a word for that.
Not to mention, I and a lot of other atheists have encountered a lot of double-standards and moving goalposts on politeness: No matter how nicely you put "No gods exist and all religions are human cultural constructs," you will be accused of rudeness by someone. A lot of someones, most of the time.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 01:08 AM
Froborr, I agree with you; it's rude and it's unjustified. If I've had any part in this I'm sorry.
Posted by: MaryKaye | Sep 01, 2011 at 01:10 AM
"(Consider Hawking radiation--black holes decay because of particles and antiparticles appearing from the Void and then returning to it at once, unless they are too close to a black hole, in which case they become Real.)"
[incoming general silliness]
*shudders*
Yeah, but that's quantum theory. By it's very nature, quantum theory delights in flipping everything we acknowledge as "Real" off while driving away in reality's expensive car that it stole and reality's spouse of three years in the passenger's seat with all of reality's lifetime savings in the trunk. Quantum theory is so incredibly counter intuitive that when applied to things like ontology, it does all sorts of nasty stuff (#DIV/0!).
"Exists" is truly a relative term in the little world. I've actually wondered about this before; that if you apply quantum theory to ontology and epistemology, what nonsensical, logical anathema develops. I might do a blog post on that, actually. That sounds like a fun Calabi-Yau manifold of contradictions and counter-intuitive conclusions to visit.
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Sep 01, 2011 at 02:10 AM
I love the phrase "Calabi-Yau manifold." It sounds like something Lovecraft would say.
..I really, really, REALLY ought to be asleep, I have to be at work in seven hours, but I am unable to fall asleep.
There is Bad Stuff going on. I can't really talk about it, as it's other people's mental health issues, but they're people I care about and they're having a rough time, and so I worry and have trouble sleeping and so forth.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 02:18 AM
You and me both, Froborr. And I promised myself I would after I finished a writing paragraph I never did finish in my novel. I hate stopping for the night at the beginning of a chapter. Coming back that next morning and having that blank screen stare at me makes it feel like I'm starting all over again.
Best of luck with all of the problems. I'll keep you guys in my thoughts.
Re. Calabi-Yau manifold. It also looks like something Lovecraft would create. "Okay everyone, you spotted a wild Calabi-Yau manifold. SAN checks*."
(*Why yes, I do play Trail of Cthulhu, why do you ask?)
Posted by: J. Enigma (the Transhumanist!) | Sep 01, 2011 at 02:31 AM
@MaryKaye: Thank you, but no need to apologize, I don't think you've contributed in any way. For that matter, I don't believe there's any ill will at work here. Quite the opposite; I think the request against rudeness is intended to protect people's feelings. It's just that the effort to protect some people's feelings had an effect of othering other people. I chalk it up to "nobody's perfect, let's air this out here and now so the Atheism 101 thread can be more about sharing and less about defending."
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 02:33 AM
I used to be an atheist before my conversion; I'll look forward to reading whatever comes up.
Posted by: DS | Sep 01, 2011 at 03:21 AM
@DS: Maybe it's lack of sleep, but the fact that you put it in passive voice makes it really creepy. "I converted" sounds like a religious experience; "my conversion" sounds like it should involve Cybermen or vampires. =P
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 03:47 AM
Okay, that last post was horrible. I apologize deeply, and I'm going to stop commenting for the night before I say anything else offensive.
Posted by: Froborr | Sep 01, 2011 at 03:53 AM
No, no, the culprit is the Passive Voice. The Passive Voice is pure evil; it exists only to shunt responsibility. 'Mistakes were made.' Who made mistakes? It's... cowardly, the passive voice. It weakens language.
So, then, my contribution to whatever's written about Atheism - always use the Active Voice! Do this, and whatever's written will, at least, satisfy me.
Posted by: DS | Sep 01, 2011 at 04:11 AM
Another atheist materialist* here who thinks that "exists" is an extremely tricky notion to pin down. Especially when it comes to mathematical entities, ever since I read "Proofs and Refutations" I've found the my Platonist position unsupportable (but oh so emotionally compelling, there are few beliefs I would like to but am unable to possess more than Mathematical Platonism, it's just so neat and pretty), but most other views have great trouble explaining the utility of infinity in mathematics.
*I've never liked that word, it's not like gravitational fields or quantum wave functions are material in any usual sense, but you won't find many materialists who dispute them. Not to mention the other, pejorative meaning of the word.
Posted by: malpollyon | Sep 01, 2011 at 05:11 AM
MaryKaye: I think--and this is no excuse for it, only an attempt at explanation--that some contributors to this group were feeling bruised by aggressive and dismissive atheists on Patheos, and wanted to avoid a repetition of that experience.
Which is a bit ironic, considering that the reason I don't go to Patheos is the dismissive attitude towards atheists. (And, although I can't be sure, I don't think I was the only one who made that decision.)
Posted by: Ruby | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:40 AM
Okay, I'm still getting caught up, but Ruby, if you're feeling defensive, at least part of that may be attributable to me being annoyed that you seem to be taking a position of being able to define what atheism means for everyone who is an atheist, and I'm deliberately challenging you on that, not because I disagree with your ability to define it for yourself, but because I disagree with your ability to define it that simply for all atheists everywhere.
I would also like to point out that Pagan contributors to the Paganism 101 were not asked to be polite because no similar announcement went out about the Paganism 101. The process of constructing the Paganism 101 took a different course, just as the process of constructing the Paganism 101 was different from the construction of the Depression 101, because of the differences between the populations and concepts involved.
Posted by: Literata | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:45 AM
mmy: Basically what one finds is that much of the discussion around atheism is framed specifically from a western conception of what one even means by saying there is or is not a god.
Nev: And with regards to non-Abrahamic religions, especially Buddhism, Eurocentrism lets people get away with ignorance, dismissing Buddhism for example because it's "really a philosophy" or whatever (without addressing the diversity of Buddhist practice, actual Buddhist texts, and so on). Or just plain ignoring religions that don't fit into a particular model, or gods that don't fit the Christian model of divinity. See discussion of ancestor worship upthread.
Froborr: Other forms of atheism are just people who had really shitty experiences with the local dominant religion growing up, and since they can't imagine any other religion, they become atheists as a reaction.
mmy's, Nev's and Froborr's points here were basically what sprang to my mind when I read the initial post. To use myself as an example, I'm a British atheist raised nonconformist Christian, and consequently the Christian God is still the picture accompanying "god" in my mental dictionary, as it were. That concept of deity to some extent informs all my conversations about religion as much as I try to keep an open mind. When someone describes their deity, and their relationship with deity, I am not starting from a blank slate; I'm starting from vague leftover Christian ideas of deity and how you should relate to it and revising that in line with what they say. Massive distortions are pretty much inevitable.
I waver between just trying to make the best of things and really resenting having been raised Christian. It frustrates me that I'm being biased by something I don't even believe. On the other hand, laying it on my mother's religious habits is unjust: Western culture is soaked in Christocentrism as much as it's soaked in racism or sexism or any other prejudice, and it's not like I would have avoided picking up Christian concepts of god just by not going to church. To put my language hat on for a moment, I've wondered from time to time how much English has contributed to that - that, in Standard English, if you say "god" with no further context, that means YHWH. The construction of Christianity as the default is built right into the language. (It's one of the reasons I prefer "deity".) Not to go full-on Orwellian, but the language available does tend to shape how people think about things - kind of like Froborr's point I quoted above: if the extent of the god-language you've been raised with is Believer and Unbeliever, that's far more likely to send you from theism to atheism than from Religion A to Religion B.
---
Froborr: No matter how nicely you put "No gods exist and all religions are human cultural constructs," you will be accused of rudeness by someone. A lot of someones, most of the time.
I think it's because nobody takes kindly to being told, however politely, that someone else thinks they're delusional, and generally that's how "I don't believe that this thing you believe in exists" is understood. That said, I don't think the problem is in the statement; I think it lies ultimately in hostile societal attitudes to mental illness and mental difference generally that result in "Your reality is clearly very different to mine" being understood as synonymous with "There is something wrong with you, and you need to be fixed."
---
And with that, back to lurkerdom. I will try and keep up with the conversation but I am also trying to write my dissertation, so I may be incommunicado for most of the day.
Posted by: This Wicked Day | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:58 AM