Atheism Isn't About Philosophy, Either.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

From another thread:

And that's fine, but it makes you unfit to do Philosophy of Religion, because either your exposure to the source material has been horribly disadvantaged (no fault to yourself) and you have some catching up to do before you can hold your own in a conversation, or else this thing we're doing here just isn't your bag, and you ought to find another hobby.    
That's what I'm saying.  The atheist is condemning themselves by adhering to this argument.  Bane thinks I'm arguing with him, what I'm trying to do is elevate the position of atheism above the gutter you and he are putting it in.  
 If you really, really insist that you're an atheist because you just don't know any better, and the notion of this as a controversial issue has escaped you, then you have my pity. I still hold out hope, though, that the majority of sophisticated atheists actually reject Christian theism [i]for a reason[/i], and not becaue they're ignorant that there's something to reject.

What this is, is negative philosophy Anti-philosophy, one could almost say. You realize that the strongest position in an argument is the position that doesn’t need to be defended because it’s a default. Since all the atheist cares about is winning an argument against his enemy, and not actually developing something worthwhile in philosophy, they gravitate to this position. What you don’t see, or don’t seem to care about, is that by making all your positions inevitiable defaults, you make yourself into a dog- that is, the sort of creature who’s ‘beliefs’ just sort of happen to it, as a part of the tragedy of their lives.
On the other hand, a person who is a philosopher first and an atheist second would immediately realize this, because they are trying to engage the world. A philosopher who said ‘I never realized there was any reason to be a theist’ would understand that they were admitting to sleeping on the job. Why? Because a part of that job is to go out and get things, to do the research required to actually make coherent statements about the subjects you choose to enter into discussions about. But, again, the strongest position is to let the enemy do all the work, present their findings, so you can just shake your head and say “I’m not convinced”. And again, since the atheist wants more than anything to win, this is the position they go for, regardless of the consequences. If they have no honest interest in philosophy beyond winning this fight, there aren’t really any consequences, anyway.

2

Atheism is not a position. It’s a property that some positions have.

3

Yes, and that kind of statement just makes my point. Anything, anything to gain a rhetorical one up- regardless of the cost.

If atheism isn't a position, then what does that say about 'philosophers' who refuse to discuss anything other than atheism?  Seems to me, they are rendered pointless.
4

Good luck with that Ucci, most athesists/secular humanists do just that, although, and no offense intended, if it takes a Christian to save them from doing that to themselves … :astonished:

I would never make an enemy of anyone, predicated upon the rudiments of belief. It is the actionability of belief, (atheist or theist), that makes an individual objectionable to the point of adversarialism.

Again, no offense, but you are broad brushing all atheists with the same brush, (yes, I understand why, because the exact converse can always be found to be factual), but not everything that is a flower is a rose.

Not all of us, meaning atheists, are out to win at any cost. Some of us do actually just enjoy the debate, especially amoungst amiable company, and can be quite comfortable and respectful, regardless the beliefs we encounter.

I will admit that one of the primary issues facing atheism, (and you have no idea how much I blame individuals such as Dawkins for this), is that belief, (generalised, not specific), is a function of the human brain to help ease the tension and grief of being faced, far too often, with a world that is not only incompatible with our ideals, (absolutes), but is utterly emotionless in so doing, (what most refer to as “cruelty”, “evil”, “wickedness”, etc). Some, for reasons that escape me even though I’ve investigated, see belief as an almost tangible quality. I can’t explain or find equitable reason for this behavior, the standard models fail to tell the story.

The bottom line would be, regardless one’s position as theist or atheist, belief will never die. Belief is hope for something better, as a counterbalance to suffering.

Perhaps you can understand that the label “atheist” is no more indicative of the totality of “atheism”, than “Christian” is to “Christianity”. Both, in that context, are errors of logic.

5

What does atheism claim, my man? Nothing. It doesn’t claim anything. Your beef is with those who make a positive claim about the existence or non-existence of God. Anti-theists, or whomever. Atheism, as I see it, has no epistemology, no ontology, in short nothing. Atheism, as Faust put it, is a null set. There is nothing in it to be discussed. Philosophers might discuss atheistic ideas, of which there’s plenty, but that’s different.

As such, you’re right, atheism has no philosophy, among other things it does not have. Atheistic ideas, and there’s plenty of those, however do.

6

Well, you know how it is, Mastriani. Us sophists are like onions- we have layers. If a few atheists that AREN’T like what I described read this, get upset, and come here to post to show how it’s done properly, I can live with that. If on the other hand, a bunch of atheists who are exactly like what I’ve described drop by to prove me right, that works too.
The more I do this, the more it seems like the reasons why a person gets started affects the whole mess in huge ways.

7

I can agree that both theism and atheism are empty positions unless they are informed by a broader philosophical outlook. Indeed, in a perfectly philosophical world, one ought be either a theist or not as a result of the philosophy in which they have engaged. But of course, the world isn’t perfectly philosophical (nor should it be) and in addition to that, many decisions with respect to our philosophical stances are not consciously made and are instead a result of the method of our upbringing and exposure. The nice thing about this situation is that most people have been indoctrinated in long-standing traditions of thought that give them an area to work in and provides much of the foundation for their thought. That means that even those who rail against their particular tradition and seek to do something different are still largely defined by it. These reactionary thought movements do tend to exist purely to “win” in some way, they seek to correct what they see as a defect in the tradition(s) in which they developed; however, if their exclusive goal is the elimination of some wrong without replacing what that “wrong” supports, they will tend to fail. The challenge then becomes one of either innovation or obsolescence. Obsolescence is the easiest corrective to employ, because it reacts against some system that has outlived its usefulness and can be removed with no difficulty. King Kamehameha II of Polynesia and his removal of various long-standing taboos is an example of this. Society went along much as it had before because the reasons behind the taboos had been long since forgotten and the taboos had become an arbitrary set of prohibitions no one much cared for. In this case, all that is necessary is for an individual of sufficient standing to announce that the Emperor has no clothes and people will sigh with relief because they will have been freed from a parasitic system. The challenge of innovation is much harder, since the particular thought being rejected is still vital and necessary for some other structures, this is also one of the primary goals of philosophy: to expand and improve our understanding of the world by replacing that which is incorrect and replacing it with something more correct. That style of innovation can and does exist in both theist and atheist circles, but I think we can all agree that resolving the issue is not one of obsolescence on either end.

8

it can be for the dudes that don’t believe in anything :laughing:

9

Ucc,

And of course, those who would refuse to accept the possibility of any but a theistic universe have the same problem, do they not.? Knowing without evidence is a problem regardless any position. But I suppose that is the fun of metaphysics. People can squabble all day long and nobody loses, even though there is no way to win.

The truly pointless position belongs to those who KNOW one way or the other.

10

I do believe, unless I overstep myself with imagination, I have met you at the door. Your thread, wither do you go now friend?

11

Ahtiesm is a religion

12

A second thread started all about me, wow.

No, my exposure has not been disadvantaged. I have been presented with the idea many, many times. However, I have never found it to be an intelligent idea.

I really don’t think there was a necessity to start an entire thread to let me know you don’t think I should be replying here.

13

Uccisore,

Your OP appears to be soliciting from atheists a serious and adequately philosophical treatment of atheism, in lieu of what you must be finding to exist on here otherwise…and which has caused you to perceive this lack of depth as being due to atheism being something folks have ‘just fallen into’ or are, perhaps sub-consciously, attaching to as a form of rebellion against their experience of theism as oppressive. Thus what you find offered up by atheists as a justification is more along the lines of arguments as to why Christianity is not believable versus why atheism is believable. Is this both your perception and what you’d like to see addressed? If so, what particular area could be addressed by atheists that would satisfy your requirements? Atheism as a basis for virtue, perhaps? There’s a thought…except that if we try it, the issue then becomes “non belief in a god as a basis for virtue”. Not much to work with, eh?

Really, hasn’t the ‘atheistic’ basis for virtue long since been sufficiently addressed by any theory of virtue that doesn’t include a god? Because that’s all atheism is. As has been said, it’s a position about a particular type of belief, not a philosophy in itself. I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in supernatural gods, but I’m a Buddhist philosophically. In light of that, it would be nonsensical if I were to base my theories of virtue or wisdom (which are quite intricately linked to what the Buddha taught) based on what I don’t believe to be a justifible basis for my values!

14

tentative

Of course not, because no atheist in their right mind would assert “theism isn’t a position”. If they did, they would lose their percieved tactical advantage.

Mastriani

Well, a simpler, more broadly applied re-statement of the above, I suppose. The problem with atheist philosophy right now is that too many atheists see philosophy as ‘the clever things you learn to say to make religious people look bad’. It’s the only aspect of it that matters to them, and this causes problems. For example, a atheist may make some grandiose claim about the nature of ‘sufficient evidence’ or ‘justified belief’ for the sake of making a religious person look bad. The reality is, their grandiose claim would make their day-to-day functioning as a human being impossible if fairly applied. But the atheist won’t be around for that conversation, and those implications have nothing to do with why they make their statements. Which is why I say so much of it isn’t philosophy. Any religious engagement beyond the level of sitting and listening is philosophical by nature, because it is in the strictest sense constructive. When you find exceptions to this rule, it’s generally because the atheist is primarily something else- a person with a way of thought you can name, that requires it’s own defending and affirmation (that they aren’t afraid to make known, that is). For example…

Xunzian

And as you know, this I have no problem with. (a)theists will be (a)theists because their parents told them (not) to, well and good. As long as those people know their place, I have no gripe. Perhaps this is a symptom of the recent easy access of ‘information’, I don’t know.

15

Ingenium

Kind of.  What I'm really addressing is an internet phenomenon, I think, but it's got ramifications any time a person is speaking to strangers, such as seminars and presentations and such.   If I don't know you, and there's no guarentee that I'm ever going to talk to you again, then any conversation we have exists in a sort of vacuum.  If you and I discuss politics, say, and I say I hate Bush and you say you love him, then if we never speak again, you are the Bush [i]person[/i], and I am the not-Bush [i]person[/i]. 
But note that a not-Bush person is not the same thing as a Gore person.  I'm not required to mention Gore to be not-Bush.  I'm just required to mention Bush, in counter-point to the ways you mention him.  This makes my obligation in the conversation completely different than yours.  Now, it may be that I as a Not-Bush support some other politician.  Perhaps the politician I support is guilty of the exact same things I criticize when making my Not-Bush points. But as long as I am very careful to ensure that politician doesn't get mentioned, and I am inexplicibly absent from conversations concering him, my hypocrisy is never revealed. In fact, with regards to my goal of winning points for the Not-Bush cause, my hypocrisy doesn't even matter, so long as I pick my fights carefully enough. 
I see this attitude in atheist discussion.  The atheist gets himself far by saying that atheism isn't a position, that it doesn't require defending, and that they aren't advocating anything.  But, of course, in their fullness as human beings, they certainly DO have positions, they certainly DO advocate things, and those things certainly DO require defending.  And if many of the criticisms they level against theism could be leved, too, against those  things they cherish and defend, that would be a fair criticism of their full position - including the atheistic parts of it- as a total philosophy.  
But that's the nature of atheism as a non-position- there is nothing on the face of it which requires defense or examination. Obviously that's a rhetorical power position, and any power position creates a temptation, and it's not take that modern atheism is falling for it.  
Simply put, becoming critics instead of philosophers.  Read the snippet I responded to when starting this thread, in light of that.  A philosopher, and not a critic, would be shamed to make the admission I cited.  A critic, and not a philosopher, sees it as scoring a touch down.
16

Ucc,

You’re welcome to correct me, but it seems that you’re saying that one can espouse a philosophy(s) from a theist or atheist perspective, but not belief or disbelief. Philosophy may inform belief and/or a position, but belief in itself is not philosophy.

17

tentative:

I don’t know if I meant to say that, but I agree with the second part of what you said. Not sure what you mean by the first part. I think a person can be an (a)theist as a result of philosophy, or become a philosopher as a result of their (a)theism. But I think ‘winning all my pro (a)theist debates’ and ‘being a good philosopher’ are radically different aims, and the gulf is wider by nature for the atheist than it is the theist.

18

I’d have to disagree if we are talking about those capable of seeing both sides. My impression that the more strident atheist argumentation is less about winning, (nothing to win) than in countering the theists who are 100% sure of their KNOWING and in their misplaced enthusiasm, declare everyone who fails to agree with them as “wrong”. It is as I have observed many times: “There is no one saved like a sinner.” :unamused:

19

tentative

Then I think we DO see it the same way. “Countering the theist” is the rhetorical game the atheist is trying to win, and it lures them into all kinds of anti-philosophical proclamations. That’s my point here. The aim of the philosopher (who happens to be an atheist) shouldn’t have anything to do with theists. It should be to discover or construct a coherent world-view to live by. To date, I think the theists are doing a much better job at that, and the atheists are (at least the popular ones), for some reason, content to nip at their heels and delcare victory whenever someone cries “Ouch!” When the religious person seems irrational to the atheist, more often than not, it’s precisely because the religious person is ignoring them.
An atheist who was primarily concerned with philosophy, instead of trying to win arguments, wouldn’t be able to raise many of the points you often hear; stones and glass houses and such.

20

I agree with Uccisore. Atheism is more about the desire to hold rational beliefs and the need to apply simple common sense to propositions that others would have us believe are true than it’s about any sort of full-blown byzantine philosophical system.