Antitheism?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any creature with external senses and an intellectual capacity ought to eventually discover how to study nature effectively.

This is a very faith based assumption. In 100,000 years most societies showed not the slightest inclination to do so and while we have the capability to reason, we are not a rational species.

I don't see any faith there. That's a reasonable expectation. Many people share it. It's the philosophical basis for the SETI program and fiction like Star Trek and Star Wars - the tacit assumption that if there is intelligent life in the universe, that it will will have evolved biologically and culturally in its own direction, but that it will have developed the same science.

And if you want to use human history as your example, you just picked a species that did exactly what I described.

The implicit Humanist teleology that seems to believe that "Humanity progresses until people think like me", which I think is a failure of imagination to try to view things from outside a modern Western mindset.

Straw man. Your words, not mine.

Reducing religion, theology and its philosophical implications to a literalist reading of words in a book is inane. Especially if you see the diversity of cultures that emerged all based around that same book.

You still fail to make the distinction between what is the religion and what is not. When you say that science comes from Christianity, you need to show me what part of Christianity it came from, not just that Christians did it. There is nothing preventing Christians from employing the same principles as atheists.

"There's no good thing that a church or religion does that cannot be achieved by a purely secular means." - Matt Dillahunty.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are literally arguing that the divergence between different forms of Christianity is not based on Christianity as many of the differences are not written literally in a book.

The ideas that can be attributed to the Christian faith are in the holy book. Ideas that came later derive from something else. You seem to want to attribute the evolution of the church over the centuries to Christianity. It stopped supporting killing witches and owning slaves long after its Bible was written. Those ideas did not come from that Bible. They came from rational ethics - people getting together and deciding how best to live together. That's a foreign notion to Christianity. It's not in the book. The book just issues fiats - commandments. There's no place for debate or change.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that man would not have developed science without Christianity. Had religion never been invented, including that one, we should expect that we would have developed the scientific method. You call that a faith based belief. I call it common sense.

It depends on the philosophy of the atheist in question. Enlightenment ones were from the same cultural tradition so it is possible. My argument has never been that Christianity was the only possible philosophical framework, just that it was the one that existed and worked in way not universally found in other cultures. The 'scientific revolution' would have been unlikely to occur if Europe had been animist for example.

Then you're not crediting Christianity, but the lack of animism. That's what I referred to as a permissive effect. It is not a cause.

Newton, continually brings God into his work as both a foundation and motivation, for example on the fundamental role of God in his philosophy.

Yet, you seem to be insisting that he is mistaken about his own thoughts and that his natural philosophy was completely unaffected by Christianity.

I'm saying that his work didn't include faith based thought. His belief in a god was incidental to his work.. It was the same work that an atheist with Newton's intellectual gifts would have done. It would have been the same calculus, the same laws of motion, and the same optics. There is no Christian calculus.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When they finally got around to saying that slavery was wrong, they got the idea from outside of Christianity.

Where though? It just magically appeared with a solid philosophical grounding that enabled mass acceptance? Where does this "rational ethics" come from and why has is it a historical anomaly? Why would "rational ethics" appear to be wildly irrational to most societies in history?

What difference does it make where it came from? Not Christianity. Christians perhaps, but not Christianity.

I hope to not have to keep making that point.

Basically natural philosophy was seen as a pretty pointless activity with few practical benefits. Its link to theology gave it credibility as a discipline worth studying and investing in thus making it a legitimate option for many people.

The natural philosophy of Christianity is divine creation. That could be why it was considered pointless. Creationism has been sterile since its inception right up to the modern Intelligent Design program. It has no explanatory power, has made no predictions that have been confirmed, and has no practical application. I wouldn't have much interest in that, and it was already tied to theology.

Also, no one is doubting that some other cultures developed some forms of scientific activity, we are asking why these cultures did not develop 'modern science' as is generally accepted to have occurred in Western Europe in the 17th/18thC. Why not China, despite being more advanced and not being repressed by Christianity? Why did it emerge in one of the most unlikely, 'anti-scientific' cultures?

I cannot tell you. Perhaps they didn't have the benefit of Enlightenment values.

You're making the same argument as those that want to credit the modern, liberal, democratic state to Christianity because it first appeared in Christian nations. That wasn't the doing of the Christian church, and the ideas that comprise the US Constitution such as limited, transparent and divided government, and guaranteed personal rights and freedoms, are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Rather than freedom of religion, you are commanded to worship a particular god. Rather than freedom of speech, you are told that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unpardonable and will result in eternal punishment.

A similar argument is implicit in the claim that Christianity is a superior religion to Islam. Nope. The differences are in the cultures in which they are rendered. The Christian West had the benefit of several centuries of humanist influence. The cultures that still practice and even encourage honor killings, suicide bombing, pushing homosexuals off of towers and stoning adulterers to death are still where Christian culture was before the humanist infusion.

Is there any doubt that if you exchanged the holy books of the two that you would still have those same atrocities being performed in the Middle East by people holding Bibles, and that they would not be occurring in the Western democracies if the Qur'an were the dominant holy book there?

Just because something happens in a largely Christian nation does not mean Christianity was its source

Also, unsupported claims like this are not persuasive: "Far from science breaking free of religion in the early-modern era, its consolidation depended crucially on religion being in the driving seat: Christianity took over natural philosophy in the seventeenth century, setting its agenda and projecting it forward in a way quite different from that of any other scientific culture, and in the end establishing it as something in part constructed in the image of religion."

Unfortunately the support covers 2 volumes and 1000 pages, it's not really practical to include it. Interesting books on the development of modern science though if you fancy a read.

Thanks for the tip. The author apparently convinced you. Wasn't there anything more substantial that you could have offered from his argument? You gave me a summary of his conclusions. It wasn't anything that I could use.

I still don't see a reason for not believing that our science would have been as advanced or more advanced today without Christianity.

Ironically this teleological view of history is likely a legacy of monotheistic influence on your worldview: that Western Rationalism must necessarily emerge as it is the One True Belief.

So now you want to credit religion for my thoughts as well? Praise the Lord.

 

[Augustus]

And if you want to use human history as your example, you just picked a species that did exactly what I described.

And every other species on the planet failed to do what you described. Why the confidence when we are such a rank anomaly and only exist as a result of countless random happenings, any of which being different could have had massive effects on what evolved later.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you consider it already locked in that modern science must necessarily develop? Dinosaurs? Mammals? Humanoids? Homo sapiens?

The ideas that can be attributed to the Christian faith are in the holy book. Ideas that came later derive from something else. You seem to want to attribute the evolution of the church over the centuries to Christianity.

This position is almost anti-reason, 'not even wrong'. Christianity is not simply "whatever a literalist reading of the Bible says" it is. By your logic nothing can be called 'Marxist' unless it is a direct and literal reference to something written by Marx.

Your argument is also based on a version of religion that has (almost) never actually existed.

No religion has ever been about a purely literal reading of a singular text. The fact that it contains many contradictions tells you the Bible is not to be read in that manner either. It's not like the people who complied the texts were oblivious to these.

The text is a start point around which a complex set of beliefs develop based on philosophical debates, exegesis, analogy, etc. which are continuously revised and updated due to internal and external factors. It is a living tradition, not a book.

What about religions not based on scripture? Can nothing be attributed to them?

I cannot tell you. Perhaps they didn't have the benefit of Enlightenment values.

What are "Enlightenment Values" and where did they come from? (and if the answer is Humanism, then where did Humanism come from)?

Everything seems to be based on circular reasoning.

Straw man. Your words, not mine.

Ok, sorry if I I misunderstood your position. Which of these do you disagree with?

1. Modern science must necessarily evolve because humans are rational.
2. Humanism is based on "rational ethics" rather than any preexisting cultural factors.
3. A rational species must therefore develop a system like Humanism.

 

[Augustus]

What difference does it make where it came from? Not Christianity. Christians perhaps, but not Christianity.

I hope to not have to keep making that point.

I'm saying that his work didn't include faith based thought. His belief in a god was incidental to his work.. It was the same work that an atheist with Newton's intellectual gifts would have done. It would have been the same calculus, the same laws of motion, and the same optics. There is no Christian calculus.

Incidental? He is literally stating that belief in God is essential to his entire philosophy. I'm unsure how it could be any clearer or more direct verbatim 'to lay this aside is unphilosophical'.

Also, and I hope not to have to keep making this point, I have never claimed that no other belief system could have theoretically provided the necessary preconditions, I am saying that certain preconditions were necessary and these were provided by the Christian tradition that existed in parts of 17th C Europe and were not present in the vast majority of historical societies. The Christian tradition did not develop from reading the Bible literally and was subject to external influences, especially Greek philosophy, although it does have clear theological roots.

As an analogy, there are languages that exist that do not contain the concepts of left, right, forward, back. They only use cardinal directions. So you might say 'I'm holding it in my Southwest hand' and if you changed position you would now be holding it in your East hand even though it was in the same hand as before.

Such a culture a) makes people think about their environment differently as they must constantly be aware of their orientation b) makes any concepts that rely on left/right nonsensical.

For modern science to emerge, among numerous other things, it required people to think or their environment in a certain way and a belief system in which a) the world was rational because it was structured around fixed laws b) that these laws were discoverable and c) discovering them was a worthwhile activity despite offering little practical benefit.

While these things might seem obvious to the modern mind, most belief systems throughout history do not meet those criteria.

Western Christianity did specifically due to theological beliefs about God and the creation of the universe that had developed over time. This is why you see people like Newton explicitly stating how his Natural Philosophy is dependent of God.

Another example would be economics. Free market economics is based around the idea of the market being guided by an 'invisible hand'. Adam Smith believed that the invisible hand was that of God: Divine Providence.

Modern economists don't now cite Divine Providence to support their views, just like modern scientists don't need to believe the universe was created by God.

To say that such beliefs were "incidental" to Newton and Smith is simply false. Again, Newton: "the most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” This is not an 'incidental' belief.

In another world modern science could have developed without Christianity, although it couldn't have developed in just any belief system (and I don't see it as necessarily developing either). Just because some things seem self evident to the modern mind, doesn't mean they were self evident to the pre-modern one.

Is there any doubt that if you exchanged the holy books of the two that you would still have those same atrocities being performed in the Middle East by people holding Bibles, and that they would not be occurring in the Western democracies if the Qur'an were the dominant holy book there?

Yes, of course there is doubt. Actually, imo, there is absolutely no doubt that the same things wouldn't be happening. Are you saying there is no functional difference between the worldview of a ME Christian and a ME Muslim?

You say the text religion is incidental and it is really the culture that matters, but religion is one of the primary drivers of culture. Culture grows from countless influences, religion influences culture and in turn culture influences religion.

Separation of Church and State was the result of a long process that began in power struggles between the Pope (Gregory VII) and the Holy Roman Emperor (Henry IV) and justified by recourse to the Bible (as an aside, the Crusades arguably were partially caused by forces arising from this same process).

That religion could be separated from governance is, again, not something found in most belief systems.

Very little in history happened purely as a result of a single religion/belief system/philosophy that was self-contained and unaffected by other influences. A religion is certainly one of the biggest single influences though. If Christianity had never spread to Europe or had been replaced by Islam or Tengriism or whatever then it would be a very different place. If culture matters and religion influences culture then how could it not have any effect? Maybe it would have been better, maybe worse, who knows. I am only going on what actually did happen.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And every other species on the planet failed to do what you described. Why the confidence when we are such a rank anomaly and only exist as a result of countless random happenings, any of which being different could have had massive effects on what evolved later.

At what point in our evolutionary history do you consider it already locked in that modern science must necessarily develop? Dinosaurs? Mammals? Humanoids? Homo sapiens?

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was saying that every civilization with the intellectual capacity to elucidate the scientific method would eventually do that.

What about religions not based on scripture? Can nothing be attributed to them?

I thought that you were discussing Christianity specifically - the religion you credited with having some important role in the evolution of science.

What are "Enlightenment Values" and where did they come from? (and if the answer is Humanism, then where did Humanism come from)?

Man beginning to reject faith and the intellectual and moral authority of the church

1. Modern science must necessarily evolve because humans are rational.
2. Humanism is based on "rational ethics" rather than any preexisting cultural factors.
3. A rational species must therefore develop a system like Humanism.

Enlightenment values come from man reacting to disappointing Christian values.Science will become an enterprise on all planets holding creatures capable of symbolic reason.

But yes, kind and rational species throughout the universe will likely ultimately generate tolerant cultures that recognize the inherent qualities of its kind or die out, understand reality without superstition, and to devise communities that promote reason and harmony and facilitate maximal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness.

I don't intend to try to prove that to you or anybody else. If that isn't self-evident to you yet, I don't expect to be able to make you see it now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Incidental? He is literally stating that belief in God is essential to his entire philosophy. I'm unsure how it could be any clearer or more direct verbatim 'to lay this aside is unphilosophical'.

I can have Newton's belief without a god belief.

I have never claimed that no other belief system could have theoretically provided the necessary preconditions, I am saying that certain preconditions were necessary and these were provided by the Christian tradition that existed in parts of 17th C Europe and were not present in the vast majority of historical societies.

That's still not an argument for Christianity or wanting to preserve it.

The Christian tradition did not develop from reading the Bible literally and was subject to external influences, especially Greek philosophy, although it does have clear theological roots.

As an analogy, there are languages that exist that do not contain the concepts of left, right, forward, back. They only use cardinal directions. So you might say 'I'm holding it in my Southwest hand' and if you changed position you would now be holding it in your East hand even though it was in the same hand as before.

Such a culture a) makes people think about their environment differently as they must constantly be aware of their orientation b) makes any concepts that rely on left/right nonsensical.

For modern science to emerge, among numerous other things, it required people to think or their environment in a certain way and a belief system in which a) the world was rational because it was structured around fixed laws b) that these laws were discoverable and c) discovering them was a worthwhile activity despite offering little practical benefit.

While these things might seem obvious to the modern mind, most belief systems throughout history do not meet those criteria.

Western Christianity did specifically due to theological beliefs about God and the creation of the universe that had developed over time. This is why you see people like Newton explicitly stating how his Natural Philosophy is dependent of God.

Another example would be economics. Free market economics is based around the idea of the market being guided by an 'invisible hand'. Adam Smith believed that the invisible hand was that of God: Divine Providence.

Modern economists don't now cite Divine Providence to support their views, just like modern scientists don't need to believe the universe was created by God.

To say that such beliefs were "incidental" to Newton and Smith is simply false. Again, Newton: "the most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” This is not an 'incidental' belief.

In another world modern science could have developed without Christianity, although it couldn't have developed in just any belief system (and I don't see it as necessarily developing either). Just because some things seem self evident to the modern mind, doesn't mean they were self evident to the pre-modern one.



Yes, of course there is doubt. Actually, imo, there is absolutely no doubt that the same things wouldn't be happening. Are you saying there is no functional difference between the worldview of a ME Christian and a ME Muslim?

You say the text religion is incidental and it is really the culture that matters, but religion is one of the primary drivers of culture. Culture grows from countless influences, religion influences culture and in turn culture influences religion.

Separation of Church and State was the result of a long process that began in power struggles between the Pope (Gregory VII) and the Holy Roman Emperor (Henry IV) and justified by recourse to the Bible (as an aside, the Crusades arguably were partially caused by forces arising from this same process).

That religion could be separated from governance is, again, not something found in most belief systems.

Very little in history happened purely as a result of a single religion/belief system/philosophy that was self-contained and unaffected by other influences. A religion is certainly one of the biggest single influences though. If Christianity had never spread to Europe or had been replaced by Islam or Tengriism or whatever then it would be a very different place. If culture matters and religion influences culture then how could it not have any effect? Maybe it would have been better, maybe worse, who knows. I am only going on what actually did happen.

This has been beaten to death. I still don't see an essential role for Christianity, and am not interested in these diversions from that discussion. If you cannot demonstrate that science could not have developed had the Christian religion not been formed, then this discussion has reached its natural terminus, If science didn't utterly depend on Christian doctrine, then such doctrine is irrelevant to this matter.

It is irrelevant that some of the scientists also went to church on Sunday. If their science isn't derived from Christian doctrine, it isn't Christianity or dependent on it.

 

[Augustus]

But yes, kind and rational species throughout the universe will likely ultimately generate tolerant cultures that recognize the inherent qualities of its kind or die out, understand reality without superstition, and to devise communities that promote reason and harmony and facilitate maximal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness.

We aren't a rational species though, in fact we evolved countless cognitive mechanisms to make us irrational. That's the scientific view anyway. I'm also unsure of what from our present or history makes you think we are a kind species. We can be kind, cruel, violent, power hungry, altruistic, oppressive etc. all are part of our nature.

We like emotionally comforting stories and myths, 'superstitions' if you wish, such as that we are 'rational', treat evidence fairly, and arrived at our positions through an unbiased use of 'Reason'. We think everyone who disagrees with us is biased, yet don't apply the logic to ourselves. Many also like to pretend their values are universal, rather than an emotionally based preference, however apparently well reasoned.

The idea of a 'self-evident' Humanity of common interests is also quasi-religious and pretty unscientific.

The primary function that drove the evolution of coalitions is the amplification of the power of its members in conflicts with non-members. This function explains a number of otherwise puzzling phenomena. For example, ancestrally, if you had no coalition you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency, preexisting and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership. This is why group beliefs are free to be so weird. Since coalitional programs evolved to promote the self-interest of the coalition’s membership (in dominance, status, legitimacy, resources, moral force, etc.), even coalitions whose organizing ideology originates (ostensibly) to promote human welfare often slide into the most extreme forms of oppression, in complete contradiction to the putative values of the group...

Moreover, to earn membership in a group you must send signals that clearly indicate that you differentially support it, compared to rival groups. Hence, optimal weighting of beliefs and communications in the individual mind will make it feel good to think and express content conforming to and flattering to one’s group’s shared beliefs and to attack and misrepresent rival groups. The more biased away from neutral truth, the better the communication functions to affirm coalitional identity, generating polarization in excess of actual policy disagreements. Communications of practical and functional truths are generally useless as differential signals, because any honest person might say them regardless of coalitional loyalty. In contrast, unusual, exaggerated beliefs—such as supernatural beliefs (e.g., god is three persons but also one person), alarmism, conspiracies, or hyperbolic comparisons—are unlikely to be said except as expressive of identity, because there is no external reality to motivate nonmembers to speak absurdities.

This raises a problem for scientists: Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, one's friends, and one's cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who does not make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? - Coalitional Instincts
John Tooby

I still don't see an essential role for Christianity, and am not interested in these diversions from that discussion. If you cannot demonstrate that science could not have developed had the Christian religion not been formed, then this discussion has reached its natural terminus, If science didn't utterly depend on Christian doctrine, then such doctrine is irrelevant to this matter.

Your reply is mostly strawman after strawman that has almost no relevance to anything I have been saying, and explicitly pointing this out in the past has made little difference..

Anyway, if you want to read about the history of science from a more nuanced and academic perspective, here's a whole journal issue discussing the topic. There is room for a position between absolutist positions of it being either 100% essential or completely irrelevant.

Vol. 16, 2001 of Osiris on JSTOR

To ask how religious beliefs, however indirectly, may have informed the content of scientific theories seems immediately to assume the existence of boundaries that allow the two domains to be sharply differentiated for the purpose of asking the question. No historians worth their salt would admit the kind of essentialism that such language can so easily imply, and there have indeed been salutary warnings against insensitivity to changing boundaries. In some forms of seventeenth-century "natural philosophy," for example, theological questions were incorporated as a matter of course. Andrew Cunningham, James Moore, Martin Rudwick, and David Wilson have each argued in their different ways that if we wish to understand the historical interaction between "religion" and "science" it may be wise to dispense with those two terms, so much freight do they carry, so easily are they reified

It is irrelevant that some of the scientists also went to church on Sunday. If their science isn't derived from Christian doctrine, it isn't Christianity or dependent on it.

One more for the road...

At first sight it may seem especially implausible to suggest that hypotheses about the intricate workings of nature could be entailed by or deduced from theological premises. In the last analysis, however, this may reflect a failure of imagination on our part, since claims for such deducibility have certainly been made, most famously, perhaps, by Descartes, with his deduction of the conservation of motion from the conserving action of an immutable God.

(Religious Belief and the Content of the Sciences - John Hedley Brooke)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We aren't a rational species though, in fact we evolved countless cognitive mechanisms to make us irrational. That's the scientific view anyway. I'm also unsure of what from our present or history makes you think we are a kind species. We can be kind, cruel, violent, power hungry, altruistic, oppressive etc. all are part of our nature.

We like emotionally comforting stories and myths, 'superstitions' if you wish, such as that we are 'rational', treat evidence fairly, and arrived at our positions through an unbiased use of 'Reason'. We think everyone who disagrees with us is biased, yet don't apply the logic to ourselves. Many also like to pretend their values are universal, rather than an emotionally based preference, however apparently well reasoned.

The idea of a 'self-evident' Humanity of common interests is also quasi-religious and pretty unscientific.

The primary function that drove the evolution of coalitions is the amplification of the power of its members in conflicts with non-members. This function explains a number of otherwise puzzling phenomena. For example, ancestrally, if you had no coalition you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency, preexisting and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership. This is why group beliefs are free to be so weird. Since coalitional programs evolved to promote the self-interest of the coalition’s membership (in dominance, status, legitimacy, resources, moral force, etc.), even coalitions whose organizing ideology originates (ostensibly) to promote human welfare often slide into the most extreme forms of oppression, in complete contradiction to the putative values of the group...

Moreover, to earn membership in a group you must send signals that clearly indicate that you differentially support it, compared to rival groups. Hence, optimal weighting of beliefs and communications in the individual mind will make it feel good to think and express content conforming to and flattering to one’s group’s shared beliefs and to attack and misrepresent rival groups. The more biased away from neutral truth, the better the communication functions to affirm coalitional identity, generating polarization in excess of actual policy disagreements. Communications of practical and functional truths are generally useless as differential signals, because any honest person might say them regardless of coalitional loyalty. In contrast, unusual, exaggerated beliefs—such as supernatural beliefs (e.g., god is three persons but also one person), alarmism, conspiracies, or hyperbolic comparisons—are unlikely to be said except as expressive of identity, because there is no external reality to motivate nonmembers to speak absurdities.

This raises a problem for scientists: Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, one's friends, and one's cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who does not make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? - Coalitional Instincts
John Tooby



Your reply is mostly strawman after strawman that has almost no relevance to anything I have been saying, and explicitly pointing this out in the past has made little difference..

Anyway, if you want to read about the history of science from a more nuanced and academic perspective, here's a whole journal issue discussing the topic. There is room for a position between absolutist positions of it being either 100% essential or completely irrelevant.

Vol. 16, 2001 of Osiris on JSTOR

To ask how religious beliefs, however indirectly, may have informed the content of scientific theories seems immediately to assume the existence of boundaries that allow the two domains to be sharply differentiated for the purpose of asking the question. No historians worth their salt would admit the kind of essentialism that such language can so easily imply, and there have indeed been salutary warnings against insensitivity to changing boundaries. In some forms of seventeenth-century "natural philosophy," for example, theological questions were incorporated as a matter of course. Andrew Cunningham, James Moore, Martin Rudwick, and David Wilson have each argued in their different ways that if we wish to understand the historical interaction between "religion" and "science" it may be wise to dispense with those two terms, so much freight do they carry, so easily are they reified




One more for the road...

At first sight it may seem especially implausible to suggest that hypotheses about the intricate workings of nature could be entailed by or deduced from theological premises. In the last analysis, however, this may reflect a failure of imagination on our part, since claims for such deducibility have certainly been made, most famously, perhaps, by Descartes, with his deduction of the conservation of motion from the conserving action of an immutable God.

(Religious Belief and the Content of the Sciences - John Hedley Brooke)

Thanks for your interest and effort, but we've wandered pretty far from where we started into areas that aren't of as much interest as where we started. The original poster (is that what OP stands for?) wrote, "I noticed there seems to be a small number of Antitheists here, and I just wanted know what others thought about this theological position."

I gave an answer in support of antitheism, which I described as the position that the world would be better off with less organized religion, which is mainly the Abrahamic faiths. Another poster suggested I call that anti-Abrahamism since I wasn't including most of the world's religions.

If I recall correctly, you were making the case that we owe a debt of gratitude to Christianity for the advent of science. I disagreed. You made what I presume was your best argument, and I was not convinced. I made counter-arguments that I don't recall you addressing, such as presenting multiple examples of ancients already doing science (Aristotle, Ptolemy, Thales) or describing science (Buddha, Mo Tze), and that your description of Christianity's role was of a permissive rather than a causal effect.

I still don't know what you think we needed that Christianity provided. You described the idea that if God was rational, the universe should be comprehensible. That idea predates Christianity, and has never appeared in my encounters with Christianity. If it existed at all, it was a minority viewpoint. I have seen a different Christianity than you. I have seen a tradition of anti-intellectualism and opposition to science in particular. I have been told that my mind is too puny to comprehend what God has conceived.

And I have seen Christians trying to claim credit for just about every gift of humanism and Enlightenment ideals including the rise of the modern liberal, democratic state and the evolution of moral values. I'm not surprised that books have been written extolling Christianity and its role in the rise of science. You have made reference to some of these, but haven't supplied a compelling argument from any, instead implying that I would need to read tomes to see the argument. Any valid argument could be summarized in a few hundred words and could include the best supporting evidence as I did demonstrating the role the ancient Greeks played in the rise of science and the difference between Newton's rigorous work (calculus, mechanics, optics) and his faith based work (alchemy).

Much more can be written about any of these subjects, but that doesn't mean that the essential kernel of the argument cannot be tersely presented.

That is why I say that this is played out now. I have nothing more to add, and I doubt that you do, either. I presume that I've already seen your most forceful arguments, and as I said, for me, they weren't persuasive.

Now you're discussing human coalitions and man's irrationality and unkindness. I'd rather get back to antitheism, or anti-Abrahamism if you prefer. I'd rather discuss the balance sheet comparing organized religion's net contributions and costs, and why that suggests that we would be better off with less Christianity and Islam.

Once again, thanks for an interesting discussion.

 

[Augustus]

we've wandered pretty far from where we started

I'm definitely not good at sticking to one topic as I see things as being interconnected and tend to go off on tangents.

If I recall correctly, you were making the case that we a debt of gratitude to Christianity for the advent of science.

What we probably agree on (sorry if I misrepresent you):

For modern science to arise (it's generally accepted that what arose in Europe around the 17th C was different from earlier scientific ventures) it required a certain set of preconditions such as (but not limited to).

1. A certain type of educational system (in this case universities)
2. Certain philosophical beliefs (the universe is built on rational laws, these laws are discoverable, that these laws should be discovered etc but also some others)
3. The idea that learning something with little practical benefit is a worthwhile pursuit: for motivation and, importantly, funding and prestige (and it was of little practical benefit)

What we didn't agree on:

1. The degree to which these preconditions were met in other belief systems
2. That all of these preconditions being met in Europe had a significant relationship with Christianity (not that Christianity was, theoretically, the only possible source, just that it was the source in the only reality we have)
3. Based on probabilities, given that these preconditions were not all met in most other societies to that date, it is more likely that Christianity actually aided, rather than hindered, the development of modern science (despite obvious anti-scientific incidents at times)
4. That when specific natural philosophers directly stated God was part of the fundamental reasoning behind their philosophy it is integral, rather than incidental, to their beliefs and how they came to hold them. Thus it should not be taken for granted that they would have arrived at these beliefs had they been born into a completely different cultural tradition.
5. That the modern secular West is greatly shaped by its Christian history

And I have seen Christians trying to claim credit for just about every gift of humanism and Enlightenment ideals including the rise of the modern liberal, democratic state and the evolution of moral values.

While many Christians do indeed massively overplay it, imo (and nothing to do with our discussion), many atheists want to do the opposite and erase its influence from any values they hold dear.

I'm a completely non-religious atheist, and was a Humanist until I came to believe that human 'Reason' was scientifically and philosophically unsustainable. All belief systems are based on subjective fictions (as in not objectively true narratives), and these fictions have an intellectual genesis, and new belief systems tend to be 'hybrid' iterations rather than 'pure' revolutions. As such, I tend to consider that Christianity played a greater role than most atheists give it credit for as it combined with other philosophical perspectives.

I also keep getting 'forcibly converted' on RF by people who assume I'm religious if I make any parallels between religious and atheistic ideologies

Once again, thanks for an interesting discussion.

Thank you too

 

[Augustus]

I'd rather get back to antitheism, or anti-Abrahamism if you prefer. I'd rather discuss the balance sheet comparing organized religion's net contributions and costs, and why that suggests that we would be better off with less Christianity and Islam.

One of my views that usually gets me 'converted' is my belief that non-religious ideologies currently have a much worse track record overall than religious ones.

This is due to the French Revolution, Nazism and Communism really posting some big numbers (perhaps distorting due to a small sample size), and because I don't think you can argue for a 'best case' scenario based on removing religion from society.

Religions are not replaced by nothing, but by something. Antitheists tend to argue against a baseline of zero or a best case scenario (Humanism).

What is certain though is that whatever ideologies replaced religion, they would be diverse and prone to the same virtues and failings that we have as a species. Some would be benign, others would be oppressive

A flawed religion might well be good if it prevented a worse ideology arising; it can be better the devil you know.

If we'd be better off is very much unproven.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm a completely non-religious atheist, and was a Humanist until I came to believe that human 'Reason' was scientifically and philosophically unsustainable.

Which humanist values to you reject, and what have you replaced humanism with?

The Affirmations of Humanism - A Statement of Principles
Affirmations of Humanism - Council for Secular Humanism

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill tprophheir aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

 

[Cephus]

One of my views that usually gets me 'converted' is my belief that non-religious ideologies currently have a much worse track record overall than religious ones.

This is due to the French Revolution, Nazism and Communism really posting some big numbers (perhaps distorting due to a small sample size), and because I don't think you can argue for a 'best case' scenario based on removing religion from society.

Except Nazism was a very religious ideology, and communism was non-religious, not atheistic. There is a difference between an ideology that simply has nothing to do with religion, and one in which religion is specifically excluded.

 

[Augustus]

Except Nazism was a very religious ideology, and communism was non-religious, not atheistic. There is a difference between an ideology that simply has nothing to do with religion, and one in which religion is specifically excluded.

A basic familiarity with Marxist philosophy would tell you that it was very much both atheistic and antitheistic.

"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

There therefore was no distinction between [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself

Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"

Excerpts from Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Doctrinally, Marxist Communism was as atheistic as Islam is theistic. It is a fundamental principle, as the above quotes unequivocally prove.

Re Nazism: most ideologies are "religious" in some form as they fulfill the same psychological and philosophical role. Nazism also had the ritualistic components as well, and certainly borrowed from the religious playbook.

Was really referring to the Abrahamic theisms though, which tend to be the target of antitheism. The argument that the world would be better off without the Abrahamic theisms has to deal with a balance sheet that covers all of the alternatives that have developed as there is a certainty that there will be a diversity of replacements.

Rejecting theism won't magically make everyone peaceful Secular Humanists. It's not like religion is the main reason for collective human irrationality or violent and tribal tendencies, they are hard wired.

History has proven that forms of violent utopianism will always arise every now and again be they based on traditional religions or 'Enlightenment values' (not the platitudinous modern conception, the actual values of the Enlightenment were diverse and often very illiberal as the French Revolution showed).

To this date, the post-Enlightenment utopianisms have been significantly more violent and murderous. That would be the rational and evidence based conclusion anyway.

 

[Augustus]

Which humanist values to you reject, and what have you replaced humanism with?

I don't like identifying myself as a Humanist as I find they tend towards scientism which I see as harmful. They also massively overstate the role of formal science in human technological advancement. While it has certainly produced some major benefits, most advances have been made by 'people doing stuff', trial and error, tinkering and fiddling with stuff.

I also consider their faith in human Reason to be unscientific, and being opposed to 'irrationality' is a bit like being opposed to the wind. Irrationality is part of our nature and is only harmful when it is harmful rather than being intrinsically harmful. 'Reason' is only beneficial when it is beneficial, the obvious example of the potential harm of 'Reason' were scientific racism and eugenics. Even though these are now seen as 'pseudoscience', at the time they were seen as proper science and were widely accepted among the European intelligentsia.

Humanism itself is irrational in its optimism about the 'redemptive' potential of Science and Reason to solve our problems. As you know (and disagree with), I see this as analogous to religious salvation narratives.

If we acknowledge the 'pessimistic' view of human nature, we can build a society that mitigates this. I think it is important, and ironically optimistic, to frame things around mitigating major problems rather than solving them, and see this as an important philosophical difference rather than simply a semantic one.

I also don't agree with their philosophy of meliorism. We confuse technological advances with moral progress, and I find it difficult to rationally claim we are making moral progress when we are just out of the 20th C which was certainly one of the worst, if not the worst in human history in terms of its murderousness. Whether it is 1, 2 or 3 makes little difference to the Humanist position.

what have you replaced humanism with?

Not sure it has a specific name

I like the philosophy of Michel Oakeshott and John Gray (not the Men are from Mars... one ) as regards their critcisms of Rationalism.

I believe in value pluralism (a sort of half-way house between moral objectivism and moral relativism). Basically, there are some things we can say are objectively immoral, but with most things there is no way to (purely) rationally prefer one over the other. An example would be whether or not the basic unit for establishing rights is the individual, or the society. Or whether liberty should take priority over security. These contrasting views cannot be resolved.

As a result, I favour localism, reducing most aspects of government to the municipal level within a federalised system. We can't make everyone get along and like each other, but we only really care when people who we dislike affect our lives in some way. The question is not "how can we make everyone get along?", it is "how can we get people who hate each other to live peacefully?"

If we are a value pluralist species then we need to create value pluralist societies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. If being religious and 'pro-life' is important, then you can live in a pro-life city. If you live in a religious and pro-life city and find this is oppressive, then move to a pro-choice city (and vice versa).

Yes it is unfair on people who have to move, but there is no magic solution. It is the least bad option.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't like identifying myself as a Humanist as I find they tend towards scientism which I see as harmful. They also massively overstate the role of formal science in human technological advancement. While it has certainly produced some major benefits, most advances have been made by 'people doing stuff', trial and error, tinkering and fiddling with stuff.

I also consider their faith in human Reason to be unscientific, and being opposed to 'irrationality' is a bit like being opposed to the wind. Irrationality is part of our nature and is only harmful when it is harmful rather than being intrinsically harmful. 'Reason' is only beneficial when it is beneficial, the obvious example of the potential harm of 'Reason' were scientific racism and eugenics. Even though these are now seen as 'pseudoscience', at the time they were seen as proper science and were widely accepted among the European intelligentsia.

Humanism itself is irrational in its optimism about the 'redemptive' potential of Science and Reason to solve our problems. As you know (and disagree with), I see this as analogous to religious salvation narratives.

If we acknowledge the 'pessimistic' view of human nature, we can build a society that mitigates this. I think it is important, and ironically optimistic, to frame things around mitigating major problems rather than solving them, and see this as an important philosophical difference rather than simply a semantic one.

I also don't agree with their philosophy of meliorism. We confuse technological advances with moral progress, and I find it difficult to rationally claim we are making moral progress when we are just out of the 20th C which was certainly one of the worst, if not the worst in human history in terms of its murderousness. Whether it is 1, 2 or 3 makes little difference to the Humanist position.



Not sure it has a specific name

I like the philosophy of Michel Oakeshott and John Gray (not the Men are from Mars... one ) as regards their critcisms of Rationalism.

I believe in value pluralism (a sort of half-way house between moral objectivism and moral relativism). Basically, there are some things we can say are objectively immoral, but with most things there is no way to (purely) rationally prefer one over the other. An example would be whether or not the basic unit for establishing rights is the individual, or the society. Or whether liberty should take priority over security. These contrasting views cannot be resolved.

As a result, I favour localism, reducing most aspects of government to the municipal level within a federalised system. We can't make everyone get along and like each other, but we only really care when people who we dislike affect our lives in some way. The question is not "how can we make everyone get along?", it is "how can we get people who hate each other to live peacefully?"

If we are a value pluralist species then we need to create value pluralist societies rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. If being religious and 'pro-life' is important, then you can live in a pro-life city. If you live in a religious and pro-life city and find this is oppressive, then move to a pro-choice city (and vice versa).

Yes it is unfair on people who have to move, but there is no magic solution. It is the least bad option.

OK. Thanks for that.

I'm not sure that you're representing humanism accurately.

I think we have a reasonable understanding of what science is and does, and what the limits of its methods are. We're not looking to science for anything except to study nature and develop a useful body of knowledge about it to best understand it, to predict it, and at times, control it. Science brings us the Internet, but will not prevent it from being used to disseminate fake news, for example.

Once, man had reason to hope that science would continue to transform society for the better as it seemed to have done through the sixties. We had an Jetsons image of the future, where mom hopped out of her hover vehicle, walked past the robotic maid, pushed a button, and dinner is served.

But we have all seen the darker side since, nicely reflected in the post-apocalyptic movies like Road Warrior, Eli, The Terminator, The Postman, Soylant Green and Waterworld

Who's opposed to irrationality? Foolish thinking is one thing, but sensations and feelings, which are not rational, is what life is all about.
Was it you who recently referred to Star Trek's Vulcans? Mr. Spock was not an exemplary individual. He was an empty vessel - reason without passion.

Captain Kirk was the exemplary character. He was rational as well, but enjoyed a full set of healthy emotions, none rational.

Reason is black-and-white, passion is color. Life without passion, ambition, desire, interest, etc.. is colorless, and is pretty much the definition of depression, a condition that often leads to suicide. All one might have left at that stage is reason. Such a person can still get through his work day accounting or engineering, but It's not enough.

We try to apply reason to maximize the pleasant experiences and minimize the negative ones. It's a tool, not a goal. Happiness is the goal. So is pleasure. I am very much dionysian ("relating to the sensual, spontaneous, and emotional aspects of human nature.") in spirit. This is all consistent with humanism, which celebrates the human spirit as much as the human potential.

I think that you overstate the optimism in humanism. Humanists simply hope to make the world as good a place as it can be, whatever that is. We understand that there will cabals and cartels, and people conspiring to wage war or damage the environment for profit. Humanists don't expect to eradicate that from the earth, just to minimize it to whatever extent is possible.

I don't think that calling oneself a value pluralist is enough to define an ideology or worldview. Nor do I see it as making you a non-humanist. Humanism accommodates value pluralism. It supports tolerance and pluralisitic societies.

You have more or less the same metaphysics (atheism, naturalism) and epistemology (rational skepticism, empiricism) as I do, and I suspect that our moral theories are similar. Mine combines utilitarianism ("the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.") and pragmatism ("an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application").

Anyway, another nice discussion.

 

[Thumper]

...
Was it you who recently referred to Star Trek's Vulcans? Mr. Spock was not an exemplary individual. He was an empty vessel - reason without passion.

Captain Kirk was the exemplary character. He was rational as well, but enjoyed a full set of healthy emotions, none rational.

...

You forgot Dr. McCoy. This was a classic 3 part dynamic -- parent, teacher, child. Spock was the teacher and Kirk was the child. But the cohesion was the parent, Dr. McCoy. If you look for it, you can see this interplay in a lot of the more popular dramas. Sometimes the 3rd part is played by guest appearances, but most often all 3 parts are defined within the core cast.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You forgot Dr. McCoy. This was a classic 3 part dynamic -- parent, teacher, child. Spock was the teacher and Kirk was the child. But the cohesion was the parent, Dr. McCoy. If you look for it, you can see this interplay in a lot of the more popular dramas. Sometimes the 3rd part is played by guest appearances, but most often all 3 parts are defined within the core cast.

OK, but I think you're using a different metaphor. I wasn't referring to the relationship between Spock and Kirk - how they viewed one another or interacted - but a comparison of their personas. McCoy would be more like Kirk in that he was both intelligent and passionate. The point was that life is in the passion, not the reasoning. Reasoning is a tool to optimize the emotional experience, without which, there is emptiness.

 

[Thumper]

OK, but I think you're using a different metaphor. I wasn't referring to the relationship between Spock and Kirk - how they viewed one another or interacted - but a comparison of their personas. McCoy would be more like Kirk in that he was both intelligent and passionate. The point was that life is in the passion, not the reasoning. Reasoning is a tool to optimize the emotional experience, without which, there is emptiness.

I know. I just appreciated the side track. It's the id, ego, superego metaphor.

 

[Thumper]

I know. I just appreciated the side track. It's the id, ego, superego metaphor.

And, in truth. We humans seem conflicted between emotion and reason and need the referee of the "parent" to try and effect balance, not always very successfully.