The Evangelical Atheist

[iceaura]

So clearly the absence of long term survival of any atheistic society to the same extent as theistic societies shows that they are incompatible with social health and human endeavor.

You appear to be confusing theism with religion (again, do I need to observe? ).

As Spidergoat has pointed out - and Buddhism is but one example - the god is not necessary.

Even formal religion is of dubious necessity in abstract, since it seems to be all but confined to agricultural societies.

But the theist/religious confusion is especially ruinous, because it hides the effects of theism - especially monotheism - on religion. Adopting a god is a big step, and seems to have serious consequences.

There's a scene in the Bible that warns of this, by sly suggestion - the Israelites are about to set up a king over themselves, and the contemporary prophet warns them of the consequences. They can govern themselves without a king, he notes. But no, they will have one - - - .

 

[Turduckin]

Buddhist societies are atheistic. The long-term survival of Tibet, for instance, was threatened by their essentially peaceful nature. An Islamic-style guerilla war would have been easy in the mountains of Tibet. Instead, it's a part of China now.

Nice try, but there is a counterpoint. Sri Lanka is 70% Buddhist, and the Tamil are accusing them of ethnic cleansing in the name of Buddhism, and call on every 'True Bhuddist nation' to condemn the actions of the Sri Lankan government.

Everyone's attempt to 'vertically classify' positive and negative attributes to religion, or religious groups (or athesim for that matter) is doomed to failure because the underlying cause is rooted in the 'horizontal class' called Humanity.

 

[spidergoat]

Well, Tamils are 90% Hindu, but the conflict is ethnic in nature. The Tamils want an independent state, and Sri Lanka wants to keep the country together, it's a civil war.

I'm not arguing that atheism as a philosophy prevents violence, just that it's counterpart has historically been the cause of much violence. I think once religion as a cause to fight disappears, there remain fewer causes for which to fight. It's like the European enlightenment, the rise of reason and logic rather than superstition. We still have wars, but I think reason is a step in the right direction.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Perhaps we have different criteria for evil. The way I see it, even Genghis Khan went on to establish a society that was both admired and emulated.

The Mongols conquered China and were assimilated, just as the Manchu conquerors were in turn and just as the Communist conquerors are currently. Scholars disagree on how much of "Mongol society" was the creation of Khan and how much is what the Mongols picked up while becoming Chinese.

While, if you add up the religious and political persecution of all the known atheists in positions of power, not one could create a society until they acceded to the peoples desire for religious freedom, and even then only societies that others like them would choose to emulate. In the meantime, their toll on those societies was unbelievable.

Power corrupts. Atheists are no more immune to that corruption than theists.

If I were Emperor of Earth I would mandate freedom of religion. You can't legislate an idea out of existence, much less an instinctive belief. Overriding our other instincts with reasoned and learned behavior took millennia. The pack-social instinct is still with us, we merely whittle away at it one behavior at a time. First the instinct to only trust and care about people we'd known since birth, then the instinct to only trust and care about people we are at least acquainted with, then the instinct to only trust and care about people who share our culture. We're still stalled on that last one, because sometimes caveman throwbacks become leaders of large nations due to the nature of politics: once you rise high enough in a tall hierarchy, the only attributes that identify the winners are lust for power and ability to win competitions.

Religion can only be conquered by patience and education, not by coercion.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

I believe you. But as you say we disagree. I think that obliterating the Egyptian, Inca and Aztec civilizations is the greatest evil ever done by mankind.

If there have been six civilizations and Abrahamists have destroyed three, then we'd better get going on the soil erosion problem... between it and the Abrahamists, we don't stand a chance.

This writer uses the word "civilization" differently. He would obviously call our Greco-Roman society and Arab-Islamic society two different civilizations, whereas they are both offshoots of Mesopotamian civilization. In the model I use, each of the six original civilizations was designed from scratch by Neolithic people. That's why the destruction of three of those is so irredeemably evil. No one carried bits and pieces of them forward to reassemble them in a more modern form. They are simply lost. Some more than others. The Muslims did not destroy all of Egypt's cultural artifacts, but the Christians burned the Aztecs' "heathen" libraries and melted down the Inca's "heathen" art objects.

The civilization of the Maya did not disappear. The Maya were carrying forward the civilization of the Olmecs, and the Aztecs picked it up as the Maya were losing their grip on their empire. The Aztecs didn't invent civilization, they were barbarians like the Mongols. And like the Mongols they assimilated the civilization of their conquered peoples. It was only when the Christians showed up that Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization was truly destroyed forever.

So clearly the absence of long term survival of any atheistic society to the same extent as theistic societies shows that they are incompatible with social health and human endeavor. Like the appendix, one is only aware of their existence when they get inflamed.

Nice try. Why could it not just as easily show that they are too honorable to respond to violence with violence, so they get conquered by the less honorable theistic societies? Like Tibet as an example of modern Buddhism?

 

[Turduckin]

I think once religion as a cause to fight disappears, there remain fewer causes for which to fight. It's like the European enlightenment, the rise of reason and logic rather than superstition. We still have wars, but I think reason is a step in the right direction.

And ever since the rise of reason and logic, the neccessary first step is to get rid of the intelligencia, whether you are cloaking yourself in a theistic or athiestic shroud. I'll have to respectfully disagree that there will be fewer causes to fight for. Ultimately, all violence is about gaining control. If it's me vs. everyone else, then I can't do much damage. But if I can convince enough people that it's us vs. them, well then....

 

[spidergoat]

You mean getting rid of the upper class. The intelligencia is part of the rise of reason.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nice try. Why could it not just as easily show that they are too honorable to respond to violence with violence, so they get conquered by the less honorable theistic societies? Like Tibet as an example of modern Buddhism?

You mean the Tibet that was made up of Banpo theists who were skinned alive if they resisted conversion under a Buddhist king?

And who are now under oppression by a Communist regime?

Which one?

Buddhist societies are atheistic. The long-term survival of Tibet, for instance, was threatened by their essentially peaceful nature. An Islamic-style guerilla war would have been easy in the mountains of Tibet. Instead, it's a part of China now.

Uh which Buddhist society are we talking about?

The oldest one in Sri Lanka is made up of supremacist Buddhists, the ones in Japan, China and Tibet have a history of oppression and the one in Burma is run by a military junta.

Is there some particular Buddhist society you refer to?

 

[Turduckin]

You mean getting rid of the upper class. The intelligencia is part of the rise of reason.

No, I exactly mean the intelligencia - those people who use reason to parse an argument and offer up dissent to those who want control. The upper class can be mollified with an offer of comfort and privilege if they keep their mouths shut. (They may even be helpful, if they are convinced that the 'other' will take away their privilege. The only reasons you woudn't want them around are if a) you want what they have, or b) their existence damages the religious or philosophical 'shroud' you are cloaking yourself in to gain control.)

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You mean the Tibet that was made up of Banpo theists who were skinned alive if they resisted conversion under a Buddhist king?

Regardless of how Buddhism arrived in its current form, we're both using this Buddhist population as an example of a society that has arrived at the enlightened philosophy that violence is wrong, and is therefore being persecuted by a more primitive society that has no qualms about violence. The eternal peril of being honorable is to be swindled and oppressed by the dishonorable.

And who are now under oppression by a Communist regime?

That was my point, wasn't it? The Tibetans, who have transcended their violent past, have been occupied by the less noble government of a neighboring country.

Besides, wasn't theism one of the things they discarded on their path to enlightenment? A great many modern Buddhists withhold judgment as to whether there's more to the universe than the natural side of it that we can observe, yet they stop far short of postulating a supernatural creature who controls our destiny.

Uh which Buddhist society are we talking about? The oldest one in Sri Lanka is made up of supremacist Buddhists, the ones in Japan, China and Tibet have a history of oppression and the one in Burma is run by a military junta. Is there some particular Buddhist society you refer to?

Don't use your superior language skills to argue disingenuously. At this particular point the discourse is focused on the modern Tibetans, who are farther from their violent ancestors than I am from the assholes who deployed nuclear weapons against civilian targets. And we're not referring to the religion of the Tibetans but rather the pacifist philosophy they have adopted, whether or not they adopted it in the belief that it is Buddha's recommendation. The rest of us are having no trouble following the contextual turns of the discussion and I'm sure you're not either.

 

[S.A.M.]

Regardless of how Buddhism arrived in its current form, we're both using this Buddhist population as an example of a society that has arrived at the enlightened philosophy that violence is wrong, and is therefore being persecuted by a more primitive society that has no qualms about violence. The eternal peril of being honorable is to be swindled and oppressed by the dishonorable.That was my point, wasn't it? The Tibetans, who have transcended their violent past, have been occupied by the less noble government of a neighboring country.

By your own logic and considering the prosperity of China, it would not matter, would it, if the ultimate social result was prosperity.

The strange thing is that until the Chinese allowed people (not all, only some as yet) to practice their religion freely, China was essentially a closed society.

Besides, wasn't theism one of the things they discarded on their path to enlightenment? A great many modern Buddhists withhold judgment as to whether there's more to the universe than the natural side of it that we can observe, yet they stop far short of postulating a supernatural creature who controls our destiny.Don't use your superior language skills to argue disingenuously. At this particular point the discourse is focused on the modern Tibetans, who are farther from their violent ancestors than I am from the assholes who deployed nuclear weapons against civilian targets. And we're not referring to the religion of the Tibetans but rather the pacifist philosophy they have adopted, whether or not they adopted it in the belief that it is Buddha's recommendation. The rest of us are having no trouble following the contextual turns of the discussion and I'm sure you're not either.x

Could you give me an example of "modern" Buddhism?

As for the modern Tibetans, would you be surprised to hear that the average Tibetan farmer prefers the Chinese who brought the railroad, infrastructure, prosperity and land ownership, to the monks who took advantage of them and prefer to keep them in ignorance?

And you may be interested to also know that it was Lamaism that wiped out Mongolian shamanism.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

By your own logic and considering the prosperity of China, it would not matter, would it, if the ultimate social result was prosperity.

Prosperity is a more comfortable version of survival, but it's still only the bottom steps of Maslow's Hierarchy. It may be the first goal of civilization but it's hardly the only goal.

The strange thing is that until the Chinese allowed people (not all, only some as yet) to practice their religion freely, China was essentially a closed society.

I have never argued against freedom of religion and I apologize if my often passionate language gives the impression that I might.

• People must be given the freedom to be wrong or else debate will be suppressed.
• You can't legislate a stupid idea out of existence, you have to do it with education.
• The spiritual side of religion is often noble regardless of its genesis.
• As scientists we have to accommodate the tiny fraction of a nanopercent probability that we're wrong.
• We're the good guys so we can't use the bad guys' own tactics against them.
• A religion is a system of archetypes--a set of instincts--and we know how difficult it is to overcome instinct. Forcing it can be dangerous. It's taken us twelve thousand years to get this far away from our inner pack-social hunter-gatherer; it may take twelve thousand years more to transcend religion.

There are lots of perfectly sensible reasons that people must be free to choose religion and the rest of us must be patient and just guide them.

Could you give me an example of "modern" Buddhism?

My wife has been studying with the Vipassana "school" or whatever it's called. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me but the goal seems to be finding peace within oneself followed by peace with the rest of the world. And it's clear that the students are welcome to regard the supernatural trappings as useful metaphors.

As for the modern Tibetans, would you be surprised to hear that the average Tibetan farmer prefers the Chinese who brought the railroad, infrastructure, prosperity and land ownership, to the monks who took advantage of them and prefer to keep them in ignorance?

Hey, I'm not going to spring to the defense of any religion. I'm here to represent moral, intellectual atheism. I'll restrict my praise of the Tibetan monks to their development of the Lhasa Apsos that have taken over our house.

 

[S.A.M.]

It just astonishes me how much myth surrounds certain notions in the west.

e.g. when I see the reception of the Dalai Lama in the west, it always surprisesa me that no one bothers to find out what Tibet was like under the Dalai Lamas (pre-1959). How, as majority landholders they held 95% of the people under "debt" going back several generations AND serfdom which included working on land they could not own AND paying a 20-30% tax on the produce.

The backward, feudal and dark system benefited only the upper echelons of the Lamas and their "noblemen" and was no mystical eastern paradise. It was similar to the feudal landowner system in India under the Europeans and possibly in other parts of Europe as well.

The notion that bringing anything "modern" to Tibet is destructive is a narcissistic one that depends on a short attention span that remembers nothing beyond the projected image.

Sorry for the rant, its a pet peeve of mine. It just bugs me when its held up as some kind of Shangri-La

 

[Turduckin]

• People must be given the freedom to be wrong or else debate will be suppressed.
• You can't legislate a stupid idea out of existence, you have to do it with education.
• The spiritual side of religion is often noble regardless of its genesis.
• As scientists we have to accommodate the tiny fraction of a nanopercent probability that we're wrong.
• We're the good guys so we can't use the bad guys' own tactics against them.
• A religion is a system of archetypes--a set of instincts--and we know how difficult it is to overcome instinct. Forcing it can be dangerous. It's taken us twelve thousand years to get this far away from our inner pack-social hunter-gatherer; it may take twelve thousand years more to transcend religion.

There are lots of perfectly sensible reasons that people must be free to choose religion and the rest of us must be patient and just guide them.

Are you really being serious?.. because if you are, this reads like a pile of condescending crap - soft though it may be.

There's something less then a 99.999999999 percent chance your wrong? That makes you only .0000000001 percent different then most hard-core evangelical theists, who are sure they're 100% right. As a matter of fact, I've heard 5 out of 6 of your bullet list recited at church, and it makes me want to puke when they say it. Your joking, right? :bugeye:

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are you really being serious?.. because if you are, this reads like a pile of condescending crap - soft though it may be.

I have no objection to being called condescending when it comes to religion--especially on SciForums since religion is antiscience and we're therefore under no obligation to treat it with respect.

There's something less then a 99.999999999 percent chance your wrong? That makes you only .0000000001 percent different then most hard-core evangelical theists, who are sure they're 100% right.

The difference is that I have 500 years of testing and peer review as supporting evidence for the basic premise of science: The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observations of its present and past behavior. Religionists have zero evidence for their hypothesis that an unobservable supernatural universe exists, which is exempt from the rules of logic, and controls the behavior of our universe in unpredictable ways.

, As a matter of fact, I've heard 5 out of 6 of your bullet list recited at church, and it makes me want to puke when they say it. Your joking, right?

I'm not joking. However this is not normally the way I would present moral intellectual atheism to theists. This was posted in response to the vaguely inferred hypothesis that I believe if atheists ever achieve the power that theists now have, we should not allow freedom of religion. These are arguments I would make to other atheists, who would not find the underlying assumptions as outrageous as you do.

As for the sixth bullet... Yes I'm sure you won't hear religionists discussing the Jungian explanation for religion: instincts we inherited as an accident of evolution, beliefs that feel more true than things we learn for ourselves.

I felt that it was more important to reassure a theist colleague that I have no intention of lobbying for infringement of her freedom of religion, and in fact support it as much as any other American, than to worry about being called before the Elders Council of the Atheists Guild and upbraided for divulging guild secrets to an outsider.

 

[Turduckin]

I have no objection to being called condescending when it comes to religion--especially on SciForums since religion is antiscience and we're therefore under no obligation to treat it with respect.

Your under no obligation to treat any idea with respect -- unless your the 'good guys' and your trying to behave differently than the 'bad guys'.

The difference is that I have 500 years of testing and peer review as supporting evidence for the basic premise of science: The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observations of its present and past behavior.

Models behave chaotically based on the precision of the data inputs. If your Logic is a formal system with axioms, then it contains underivable theorems that are nonetheless true.

The mind has limits on knowing itself, based on its nature as a self-referential system - and besides, eight to ten pounds of meat cannot contain all the knowledge in the physical universe.

Some of the latest theories (e.g. string theory) or an hypothesis that might explain entangled systems come uncormfortable close to being unscientific, or at least tread into the territory of being unprovable by emperical methodology.

Regardless of what you mean by the "natural" universe, Your claim cannot be supported logically. It can only be accepted dogmatically... a leap of faith that can't be justified by the underlying principles you claim to value so highly.

Religionists have zero evidence for their hypothesis that an unobservable supernatural universe exists, which is exempt from the rules of logic, and controls the behavior of our universe in unpredictable ways.

This is the point where atheistic claims turn toward darkness. The quest for understanding becomes entangled in the methodology for knowing. Knowledge becomes entangled with certainty. When evidence becomes the sole criteria for truth, and rationalism becomes the sole mechanism for ethical judgement - then the the claim of absolute knowledge is close at hand. You become no different than the 'bad guys' you hold in contempt... an obedient ghost of your own dogma about the nature of knowledge.

From 'The Ascent of Man' Jacob Brownoski, pp 373-374
There are two parts to the human dilemma, one is the belief that the end justifieds the means. That push-button philosophy, that deliberate deafness to suffering, has become the monster in the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit: the assertion of dogma that closes the mind, and turns a nation, a civilization, into a regiment of ghosts - obedient ghosts, or tortured ghosts.

It is said that science will dehumanise people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. I was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgement in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken'.

PS-
LS-"Your overconfidence is your weakness"
EP-"And your faith in your friends is yours!"

 

[iceaura]

The strange thing is that until the Chinese allowed people (not all, only some as yet) to practice their religion freely, China was essentially a closed society.

The authoritarian and coercive government necessary for oppressing people's religious practice is going to close a society almost by definition.

That's one of the objections to having a state religion, or basing a system of laws on the assumed legitimacy of a particular religion's dogma. Few religions fail to regulate their believers' religious practice as a matter of dogma, and writing those rules into the laws of the coercive state is inevitably oppressive.

Sorry for the rant, its a pet peeve of mine. It just bugs me when its held up as some kind of Shangri-La

No problem with the rant. Do you recognise it as something you've been hearing from others, about bringing modern ways to people blighted by oppressive and medieval religions ?

IIRC I've made that exact observation about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and it was received unsympathetically by you.

Your under no obligation to treat any idea with respect -- unless your the 'good guys' and your trying to behave differently than the 'bad guys'.

He has different view of what constitutes "good" and "bad" - treating nonsense with too much or the wrong kind of respect, to the point that the issues involved become confused and the innocent are misled, is not something "good guys" necessarily do.

btw: Fraggle does not speak for science, atheism, or secular intellectual positions in general, when he rejects spirituality and religion along with deity. That's his own take on a multi-faceted and complex issue.
Meanwhile:

Religionists have zero evidence for their hypothesis that an unobservable supernatural universe exists, which is exempt from the rules of logic, and controls the behavior of our universe in unpredictable ways. ”

This is the point where atheistic claims turn toward darkness. The quest for understanding becomes entangled in the methodology for knowing. Knowledge becomes entangled with certainty. When evidence becomes the sole criteria for truth, and rationalism becomes the sole mechanism for ethical judgement - then the the claim of absolute knowledge is close at hand.

You seem to have taken from the quoted statement almost the opposite of its apparent meaning. The rejection of claims of absolute knowledge, the assertion that all knowledge is contingent and everyone must demonstrate at least consiistency with evidence, is the major point of it.

 

[S.A.M.]

The authoritarian and coercive government necessary for oppressing people's religious practice is going to close a society almost by definition.

Yep

That's one of the objections to having a state religion, or basing a system of laws on the assumed legitimacy of a particular religion's dogma. Few religions fail to regulate their believers' religious practice as a matter of dogma, and writing those rules into the laws of the coercive state is inevitably oppressive.

I believe that is linked to two factors: one is the tolerance shown by the religious groups towards each other, the second is the ability to recognise that diversity of thought and belief is not incompatible with a stable society.

No problem with the rant. Do you recognise it as something you've been hearing from others, about bringing modern ways to people blighted by oppressive and medieval religions ?

Like the native Americans and Australian aboriginals?

Does one need to "bring" modern ways to anyone? You appear to assume I feel positive about the Chinese takeover of Tibetan culture.

IIRC I've made that exact observation about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and it was received unsympathetically by you.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was percipitated by American policymakers and was not bringing anything to anyone.

 

[iceaura]

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was percipitated by American policymakers and was not bringing anything to anyone.

Which would resemble the Lamaist description of the Chinese takeover of Tibet.

The Soviets were not taking orders from American policymakers. And they brought, or attempted to bring, much the same sorts of benefits the Chinese now bring to Tibet.

Sauce for the gander, SAM.

Does one need to "bring" modern ways to anyone? You appear to assume I feel positive about the Chinese takeover of Tibetan culture.

I don't make that assumption. You appear to assume everyone who decries the oppressive effects of Islamic fundiehood, and opposes the spread of such effects to regions not yet blighted by them, feels positive about the various Western endeavors in the Middle East.

In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken'.

The context of that quote, and the nature of Cromwell's own beliefs and actions, are enlightening in this context.

As with other religious fundies, he did not recognize the effects of the affliction in himself.

Note here:

Do you recognise it as something you've been hearing from others, about bringing modern ways to people blighted by oppressive and medieval religions ? ”

Like the native Americans and Australian aboriginals?

The American and Australian aboriginals were not, except in a a couple of specific cases, blighted by oppressive and medieval religions. Their conquerers, in some cases, were. The effects of having that blight spread are worth pondering, by the advocates of the spread of fundie theisms into new areas.

 

[S.A.M.]

Which would resemble the Lamaist description of the Chinese takeover of Tibet.

I'm glad you see my point.

The Soviets were not taking orders from American policymakers. And they brought, or attempted to bring, much the same sorts of benefits the Chinese now bring to Tibet.

Sauce for the gander, SAM.

The Soviets were responding to US policymakers interfering at their gates, much like they now resent the anti-missile base
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2006/russia-061213-rianovosti01.htm

And if the short reign of communism in Afghanistan is any indication it would be preferable to the result of western liberation at present.

I don't make that assumption. You appear to assume everyone who decries the oppressive effects of Islamic fundiehood, and opposes the spread of such effects to regions not yet blighted by them, feels positive about the various Western endeavors in the Middle East.

Unlike the conditions in the middle east, the societies in the west are elected and represent the people. If they don't represent you, you must be the minority.

 

[iceaura]

Which would resemble the Lamaist description of the Chinese takeover of Tibet.
”

I'm glad you see my point.

I doubt you see mine.

The Soviets were responding to US policymakers interfering at their gates, much like they now resent the anti-missile base

And the Chinese have similar and ulterior motivations. Hence my observation of the parallels in the situations.

The divergence in your take on the situations remains unexplained.

Unlike the conditions in the middle east, the societies in the west are elected and represent the people. If they don't represent you, you must be the minority.

So?

And if the short reign of communism in Afghanistan is any indication it would be preferable to the result of western liberation at present.

As I pointed out earlier, without meeting agreement. But the observation here is that the short reign of Soviet Western influence brought (at least in potential) features preferable to the oppressive medieval religion it displaced - much as the Chinese bring certain benefits in replacement of the Tibetan Lamacracy.