Friendly Atheist

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I’m a friendly atheist b/c I’m uncertain about life itself, what it is, what matters, where does meaning derive. Therefore, I can’t dismiss religious impulses out of hand, because I allow that religion might be an equal or better approach to living than non-religion, sort of like Kierkegaard, who deduced that the only escape from despair was faith. I haven’t fully thrown in with Kierkegaard, but he and others certainly raise enough doubt to give me pause, and where I’ve landed on the issue is that I am tolerant to religious people and their beliefs. I can certainly attack the reasoning, but I have since stopped attacking the reasoner. I only have compassion where I once had derision.

This position I’ve taken affords me a measure of objectivity not available to theists or rampant angry atheists.

My latest observation on this front is with a quote that once made me laugh with anger and now makes me think:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

On the surface this seems like a slam dunk. It hits its target perfectly. If a theist indicts me for being “atheist” I can simply point out he is, too, with respect to Zeus. Sam Harris also says this.

But these days, this reasoning isn’t quite as satisfying. What once seemed air tight now seems flawed, given my tolerance for theism.

What now jumps out as obvious is that, to be fair and accurate, different Gods are arrived at via different pieces of evidence, different pieces of logic, different movements of faith. It’s possible that many religions arrive at their belief in deity due to similar or even same fallacies, but possible does not mean “always.”

It’s not enough to say I reject Jesus or Yahweh or Allah in the same way you reject Zeus, etc. It’s not enough, it’s not accurate, it’s a fallacy. If you ask an orthodox Jew how they believe (some might believe from childhood) it’s possible they have a rigorous explanation. They have examined the evidence and have found it to be superior. For instance, they might employ the incunabular argument, which involves the likelihood of mass belief spreading over a period of time, and the unique claim to revelation occurring simultaneously to 600,000 Jews all at once – a claim unique to Judaism.

You can attack this claim and provide counters for the incunabular fallacy (and I do believe it’s a fallacy) but it’s a fallacy that is unique to Jewish orthodoxy.

This quote and thinking:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

…is wrongheaded, a generalization, and is a hindrance to discussion. It is only when an atheist comprehends deeply and subtly the belief systems of certain religions, that they can begin to indict the reasoning.

If a Muslim employs the teleological argument, or the ontological, etc., then yes, and atheist can equate that fallacy with any religion, and this goes for many of the common arguments. But the major religions have arguments unique to that religion. Atheists looking to dismantle theism, if they wish to be as rational as they pretend, can’t rest on generalizations. You have to dismantle and examine the merits and flaws of each religious contention.

There is the issue of bias. A muslim person for instance will often reject certain Christian tenets (those which conflict with current Muslim contention) out of hand and embrace their own tenets, and this bias often comes from upbringing and the grip of faith which they are in the midst of. You can equate this phenomenon across religions, and this might indeed be the spirit of the Atheists quote above. But the spirit is not reflected in the words chosen, and the message is muddied.

Many Atheist criticisms are muddied in this way. It takes compassion, study and a full appreciation of the mystery involved in fabric of existential existence for all humans, to come to the realization that religious choice and faith is a normal, healthy part of being human, and we should be tolerant of all peaceful religious behavior and peaceful belief. We should not tolerate violence in the name of religious faith. But Atheists should keep in mind that fallacies equating all religions into one generalization is itself a kind of intellectual violence.

Athiests should guard against their own tendency to think they can attack one religion by attacking all religion.

2

I would add that to be a Humanist in the full sense, we must accept that fallacy is something that we humans tend to do. If we are to love and support the Human, we must accept that to be a human often means being a creature of Faith. To be a human often means to be a creature of logic, which means I forgive the Atheist. To be human also means to have compassion,empathy, wisdom, and to be tolerant. This is the highest, luckiest trait of the human. It means we are capable of fair discussion and can cut each other a break in the interest of understanding and brotherhood.

3

Gamer,

But if they began to deeply comprehend their own self as part of their spiritual life, their religious but not necessarily organized religious beliefs, perhaps then they would feel no need to indict another’s reasoning as to that person’s religious beliefs, unless if the other was a philosopher and was actually searching for the truth of it.

4

There’s two problems with that old chestnut, and they come from two opposite directions. The first is as you describe- the gods aren’t all created equally. If you assert that you disbelieve in Nyarlathotep for the same reason you disbelieve in Sauron for the same reason you disbelieve in Zeus for the same reason you disbelieve in YHWH, then to the theist (and most thinking atheists) you just make it clear that you haven’t thought about theism very much.

   The other problem is that most theists, in my experience, don't entertain the possibility of an array of hypothetical gods, from which they believe in one and disbelieve the others. That introduces a sort of...weird apolytheism that isn't actually present.  A Christian thinker probably thinks that Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Allah, and etc are all depictions of the same thing, and that the Christian depiction is the most accurate. Some god-concepts may be far enough away from the mark that the Christian could say "That one doesn't exist at all", but it's not as though the Christian is hearing about Allah and saying "bullshit, there's no such thing as that" while inexplicably believing in a Being that is 99% the same thing.

So yeah, the difference between atheism and theism is qualitative, not quantitative.
5

Arcturus, I think the “need” to indict someone else’s reasoning is independent of how much we’re in touch with our own “spiritual” orientation. Bad reasoning is always fair game to indict. I don’t have a problem with indicting bad reason. I have a problem with attacking the reasoner, and I also have a problem with attacking bad reason with bad reason, as is the case with that old chestnut…

6

The problem is that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are by definition “thinking atheists.” Which is why I’m so stymied that this old chestnut is bandied about and applauded.

I guess it’s true in a general sense. “I don’t believe in Jesus for the same reason you don’t believe in Zeus. That reason being: believing in it is stupid, etc.”

It may in fact be true, in a general sense, but it’s not useful, it isn’t pro-discussion, it doesn’t put a finer point on anything. It’s bad. It doesn’t help the atheist understand where the religious person is coming from. It merely conveys to the religious person the level of stupidity the atheist perceives in them. Sometimes religious people deserve this, when they are haughty, militant or insist on repeating the same fallacy and indulging in wanton intellectual dishonesty. Then, in those cases, it might be accurate to invoke the chestnut. I guess context is everything. Perhaps what I object to is the chestnut itself, the famous quote, the soundbite version of it. In fact, in the course of a conversation, it could be useful.

In some cases yes the theist may not disbelieve in the God outright but disagree on the claims and attributes of said God. This is the case in Judeo-Christian monotheism. However, Zeus is very different, or Apollo or Poseidon for that matter. If I compare your disbelief in Poseidon with mine in Allah, it would be hard to argue that Poseidon is a 99% version of Allah. And furthermore, the argument is at its core more about theistic claim than about deity. I can say I reject Christianity for the same reason you reject Islam, and vice versa. With respect to Islam, a Christian is a heathen, a lost sheep, and vice versa. Throw the worlds’ thousands of religions into the mix and we have a problem. I can tell a Christian that I don’t believe in the Christian God or heaven and hell, for the same reason they don’t believe eating pork is wrong, etc. So I don’t know that I agree with your second issue as a matter of absolutes. It’s important to be precise about what works and what doesn’t.

I don’t see how you arrive at the difference between theism and atheism being qualitative and not
quantitative. I think it can be both and often is both. However it isn’t always both and sometimes it’s neither. Sometimes the position is there irrespective of qualitative or quantitative thinking or experience, there by rote, by programming, by inertia, by psycho-social pressures, etc., and this can go for Atheism, too, but I believe it goes less so with Atheism, at least in the USA. In any case, there are lots of sticky things going on and a lot of anger, etc., cause it’s a highly charged high-stakes game.

I think we have to accept that some of us believe and some don’t and that it’s a variation in the human organism, we do both, as humans. I have compassion for believers and no-believers alike. I can see why people would be scared in their heads, searching for meaning, this is life, not a dress rehearsal. Belief is often a reflection of what we’re capable of, it’s where our minds end and our instincts begin. Everyone has a different threshold. I think rampant outspoken anger and hatred toward others in their spiritual orientation, believer or not, will be phased out at some point and be seen like racism.

For this to happen it will be incumbent on the religious fundamentalists to cease violent persecution and bigoted behavior, there must be a separation of church and state, etc.

7

That is a tiny bit from elsewhere.

8

I get it Dan, believe me, but if you think about, a God that banishes me to Hell for eternity for not believing in Him, is a very different God at its core than a God who doesn’t do that. At some point we have to admit to differences in the actions, laws, behavior, personalities and conditions, of various Gods and accept the fact that these conditions contribute to the very definition of that God. It’s simply not fair to say that many Religions believe in the “same” God.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

An answer could be: Tell me why you dismiss each God and I’ll tell you how none of those dismissals apply to my God. If you want to dismiss my God, you have to find a unique reason, since my God and faith are unique to my religion.

One example I recall is the Kuzari, where a Jewish sage carefully examined the claims of Christianity, Islam, Paganism and Philosophy and dismantled each one, and explained why none of these dismissals could possibly apply to Judaism.

While I don’t agree with the outcome of Kuzari, I respect the lucid shape of the prose, the time and care it gives in admitting the right questions and the right procedure. We see very few Kuzari-style arguments today.

9 
I'm not sure I accept that, at least not in every case. This is what I mean by it being a qualitative difference and not a quantitative.   There are some gods, really preposterous ones like the Spaghetti Monster or something, that a theist disbelieves in in the same way that Dawkins disbelieves in God.  But what about Allah? Allah is so similar to the God Christians believe in, that when a Christian says they don't believe in Allah, I think they are making a fundamentally different kind of statement- or at least they should be. Any given Christian COULD be daft enough to imagine Allah and YHWH as these two completely different beings, one fake and one real.   And of course there's all sorts of in-between cases- the Christian may think that believers in Zeus were 'on to something' but pretty off the mark in many respects.  So, when the atheist says "I stand with respect to your God as you stand with respect to all other gods", I think they are mistaken much of the time.

Right, there are theists that really do behave like Dawkins when considering any belief that isn’t there’s, and in that circumstance, the analogy works.

But are you sure that’s so? I mean, I accept that there’s an immortal, eternal Creator being responsible for the existence and maintenance of the universe, and the source of all moral order. You don’t. Doesn’t it seem likely, then, that our reasons for rejecting Islam are quite different from each other?

10

As thinkers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are embarrassing.

11

What is Religion?

12

Gamer

.

True, if we’re speaking of a philosophical argument or discussion and we ARE aware of that.

Me neither though it doesn’t always work out for the best.

I’ll have to keep my eye on you then - just to be sure. :wink: Sometimes though being human we forget NOT to and flow right into that.
How do we avoid that?

,

We do this too --------- but what old chestnut are you referring to, gamer?

13

gamer,

My original response:

But if they began to deeply comprehend their own self as part of their spiritual life, their religious but not necessarily organized religious beliefs, perhaps then they would feel no need to indict another’s reasoning as to that person’s religious beliefs, unless if the other was a philosopher and was actually searching for the truth of it.

…went to what you said above in quotes.

You may not attack the ‘reasoner’ but ARE YOU also discriminate in attacking his/her reasoning? I posted what I did above because you call yourself a friendly atheist. O:) Some “religious” people are deeply imbedded within their religious “beliefs”. Wouldn’t part of being a “friendly atehtist” demand that sometimes we leave well enough alone and leave believers to their own devices - just in case attacking someone’s reasoning might lead to a loss of faith - which might lead to chaos within their lives? Trust me, I know about this. I am an agnostic now and not wrapped up in knowing or believing but some “believers” are.

So, are you discriminate, depending on the individual? I mean, there are times when we take mercy much too far and actually become quite unloving in the process, but there are times when we do not take it far enough. Sometimes i have to reflect: "Is my ego and pride in convincing others more important than their having their faith and beliefs? Who am I to take that from them?

I am not referring to a discussion with so-called philosophers who are theists and deists…though i suppose even with them, we ought to exercise some degree of discrimination and mercy. No? Do you think that I am wrong in what I say here, friendly atheist? :evilfun:
I ask this question because I still struggle with this.

14

Ive been in that place in life where all that matters is reason, and it felt heated, like I had to fight, but probably because I had somehow married into a religious family and constantly felt an urgent need to resolve issues that were getting in the way of closeness, love, understanding.

Not sure why anyone in their right mind would marry someone who believed differently, knowingly, and then endeavor to sort it out later, if ever. (Guys do a lot of dumb things for their woman, initially.) Not sure what I was thinking. Sometimes you get attached and it’s too late, you take the good with the bad, and figure you’ll fix the rest over time. Nothing’s ever perfect anyway. You got to throw in with something at some point or no babies would ever get made.

In any case, these days I’m much more aware of how a life is a ship put together with spit and bubblegum, it’s sort of like Ender’s Game where you just have to last long enough to get through it, and for some people this means religion, and not only is that okay with me, it’s fantastic. I think religion is fantastic for certain people. I would never do anything to talk someone out of it if it clearly seemed to be a positive, stabilizing thing in their lives. I’m not that stupid, not anymore.

But if I find someone willing to discuss it, or who enjoys discussing it, or who are on the offensive and invite discussion, then I have no problem and enjoy questioning the reasoning. I guess attacking is a bad word, what I do these days is question. I say, “I don’t see how that works…” and I invite them to explain until they put themselves into a fallacy…and yes that in itself can be damaging, but I sense most people made their minds up and see something I don’t, and nothing I say really matters. It’s less important they change, and more important they at least understand where I’m coming from.

One great thing about my marriage is we both know where the other stands, and we’ve learned to accept it and respect it. With that stuff out of the way, it’s amazing how little it matters. We both have the same values (gratitude, humility, ethics, helping others, courage, raising healthy children) the same wishes, and we make good partners in the end, regardless of what we think sits behind that far wall of the universe. Mysterium tremendum, the big nature. Whatever it is, mindful God or mindless flux, we are both, logically, children of whatever that thing turns out to be, and we both know it. What more is there?

15

This is a “real” post. I like it and I look forward to responding to it when I am able.

16

This is a “real” post. I like it and I look forward to responding to it when I am able.

17

And I await to read it.

Meanwhile can I say, I like nice atheists, and nice theists also.

18

V-Outofthewilderness,

Are you gamer? :laughing: Not that it matters. My response will be the same irregardless of who you are…or not.

You didn’t say whether you liked agnostics. :blush:

19

Good point. Maybe I’m a agnosticist. Aren’t we suppose to spew the lukewarm out of our mouth? I think some famous person said that. But should be taken with a grain of salt, as it, and He, may have been a creation of ergot poisoning, and hallucinations, while trying to survive exile on the isle Patmos.

Any way, there’s not lots of friendliness in the theists, in the end … according to that crazy book.

Take care AD. Thanks for pointing out that I failed to include the agnostics. Specially since I’m prolly most friendly with that group of “ists.”

20

You failed to say whether or not you are Gamer. You can PM me your answer if you like…that is if you are and you so wish to. I learned from the CIA. I am a hush hush kind of person. :evilfun: