One might feel this belongs on the religion board but I see it as having much broader basis. (please don’t construe this as saying that only atheists do this. Theists have their quirks).
I look over atheist/theist message boards and I see a uniformity of atheist thought. they seem to almost universally (few exceptions) believe that the only form of knowledge worth accepting is scientific data. I confront them with arguments against this view and they deny holding it; then always go back to saying it when the smoke clears.
The problem with this view, which I think is just an excuse to avoid arguments for the existence of God that they can’t beat, is the same problem posited by logical positivism; it takes everything else down with it. I find atheists many message boards saying “philosophy sux, philosophy is no good because it’s just making stuff up.”
In my view anyone who says that is not well read in philosophy, isn’t aware of the various disciplines and subdivisions and all the many uses to which philosophy can be put.
I think there are more forms of useful knowledge than just scinece. When I speak of them these atheist say “O that’s not like science.” For example Phenomenology or deductive logic. “that’s not scientific.” On the hand they deny that scinece is the only form of knowledge and on the other hand they expect alternatives (which they usually pronounce not to exist) must be clones of scinece. So there could be other forms of knowledge but they must be scinece too.
I find the advancement of technology has left all non scientific forms of knowledge wanting and unclaimed and orphaned, wondering the world seeking adherents.
I am an atheist by all accounts, but I see myself as nothing like that.
I suspect that you derive your experience by visiting Atheism fora. Then I am not surprised that you find these characters à la Dawkins as predominant - (logical) positivist adamant in their faith competing with yours.
I for one, and probably some other posters on ILP, consider both faiths a bit passées, so my atheism is nothing like worshiping Science in lieu of Thy God.
(By the way, to me evolution is way preferable to creationism).
Sometimes these threads aiming at proving the existence of God, as well as those aiming at proving His non-existence, are fun. But I do not feel so emotionally involved in this subject. I have not a visceral condemn for Him - far from it. I just think that God is dead. Probably that idea has been my most powerful drive to philosophy, but as He is just an absence to me, and as religion is no longer hegemonic - at least in Europe - I normally do not focus on this subject , so to speak.
As for the remarks about Science as the only form of legitimate knowledge, I see it as just a prejudice - and I guess that most people tend to see it likewise nowadays.
I use a mix of modern and ancient ideas.
Some atheists think it’s cool to reject all paranormal stuff instead of studying it for themselves.
Rejecting stuff saves time. Maybe the atheists you seen didn’t have allot of free time on their hands.
good. Actually I was an atheist but a long time ago. I was an atheist before the net back then there were a lot more non scientism type atheists, as I was. I was more into Sartre and liberal arts sots of things, philosophy, literature, social sciences. those new atheists don’t like social sciences.
I still have respect for the Startean kind in fact I look to them with nostalgia.
sure me too.
I find god arguments fun when people are willing to argue the logic. Atheists on the net have killed the fun by constantly going “You can’t think you don’t know nothing yu can’t argue right. yada yada.” It’s always gotta a be a test of how smart you are in relation to them. They must be terribly afraid of their intellectual ability to measure up. that pretty much the kills the point of having a good discussion. I’m not sure that God arguments would help people find faith anyway, at least not by themselves.
I’m not concerned with that here. I’m talking bout philosophy as a whole. They talk like they want to kill off philosophy as a discipline.
my theory is that the scientism types need to feel they are in control. believing that science is the only way to know things then that they are learning all about it makes them feel they are in control of their destinies. Maybe it’s about self esteem and that’s why they always have to put it in terms of who is smarter.
Hmmm. If they felt a deep need for control over their state and their life, wouldn’t they focus on money instead of science? There’s a difference between certainty and control. I haven’t met a majority of atheists. They atheists I met were mostly cool dudes, they weren’t super-opinionated. It sounds to me like the type of atheists you are refering to want to have something irrefutable.
sure but isn’t that a form of control? I’m sure they do want money but I give them credit for having some brains. they are not just crass materialists. They want intellectual control. Maybe, what do I know. I’m no shrink.