Dogmatic atheism and fundamentalist Christianity: creating certainty in an uncertain world

[Quintessence]

An atheist who admits of no possibility whatsoever that he or she could be wrong.

To follow up on this, the peer-reviewed article this blog post is based on goes into more detail about this. For everyone's edification, this is what the writers of the study meant by it:

Literal inclusion, or religious orthodoxy, is typical of individuals defining themselves as religious and interpreting religious contents in a rigid, closed-minded, and dogmatic fashion. These individuals uncritically and strictly adopt religious contents as taught by a particular religious tradition. Individuals with an attitude of literal exclusion, that is, dogmatic atheists, reject the possibility of a religious reality on the basis of strict and literal arguments (e.g., the lack of scientific evidence for what is written or said; if anything is considered absolute, it is the scientific method and rational principles of knowledge). Thus, dogmatic, closed, and rigid belief system may be found among people who believe that there is no God as well as those who believe that there is God.
*source*
​

 

[Demonslayer]

Apparently if you claim to be very certain that some mystical uber-being who is either invisible or lives in some other dimension didn't poof the universe into existence, you're dogmatic.

I'm a dogmatic gravity believer. Does it make sense to use the word dogmatic to describe my certainty that I'm not floating off the surface of the planet?

This seems to be another one of those angles that theists take when they want to say that atheists have the same issues that they do...like "you have faith too, it takes faith to believe in No God" or "you have religion too, atheism is a religion." These days religious people feel threatened by the rapid decrease in adherence to the major religious and the rapid rise of atheists who are critical about their beliefs. This is a common defense mechanism...to say "yeah, we'll you're religious too, you have faith too, you're dogmatic too!"

The definition of dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." This certainly fits most modern theism where the major religions have sets of principles...the criteria to get to heaven, what is a sin, karma/dharma, reincarnation...whatever those may be. I don't see how it fits atheists who are merely certain that people's God-tales are not literally true.

The word dogma does not just mean certain. No atheist is dogmatic because there is no set of principles. You're not going to call someone dogmatic about their belief that antibiotics stop infections.

You'd never think to call adults who are certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist "dogmatic." Being certain that other fantastic beings like demons, orcs and deities isn't dogmatic either. The term does not fit just any old thing that you're certain about, it is a specific term describing someone that has a whole set of principles and beliefs that mesh together to form a very certain worldview.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because weak atheists of course couldn't be dogmatic, they lack belief and stance completely to the issue. So if someone asks "What the hell is a "dogmatic atheist?"", then I suggest that if they exist, then you would find them in the category of antitheists and strong atheists rather than the weak atheists.

Ah - so, based on some bad assumptions, you decided to tar anti-theists as a group, even though you acknowledge that this wasn't valid?

After all, according to the article, a "dogmatic atheist" is someone who "agreed with statements like “Faith is an expression of a weak personality”. And I thought that an atheists who would say that would probably fall into the antitheist category or the strong atheist category rather than the weak atheist category.

Why on Earth would you think that?

It's entirely possible - and very common, actually - for a weak atheist to think things like "I may not know for sure what's out there, but if a god does exist, it isn't because of the line of nonsense *this* theist is trying to feed me."

Overall, I'd say that many of the people who I run into who are very opinionated about religion are agnostics.

Doesn't mean that all antitheists or all strong atheists are dogmatic though.

... but you decided to bad-mouth them all anyway?

What if instead of slagging anti-theists, you had slagged, say, black people? If we found some dogmatic people who happened to be black, would that make the statement okay?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why yes. You have been quite dogmatic in trying to debate with me in the past over things you yourself had strawmanned, regardless of my actual postings and beliefs, so yes, we are on the same forum.

Sure I have.

Are you sure this isn't just sour grapes on your part? That you're assuming my failure to accept your arguments implies something wrong with me, instead of flaws in what you're arguing?

 

[Sunstone]

Apparently if you claim to be very certain that some mystical uber-being who is either invisible or lives in some other dimension didn't poof the universe into existence, you're dogmatic.

I'm a dogmatic gravity believer. Does it make sense to use the word dogmatic to describe my certainty that I'm not floating off the surface of the planet?

This seems to be another one of those angles that theists take when they want to say that atheists have the same issues that they do...like "you have faith too, it takes faith to believe in No God" or "you have religion too, atheism is a religion." These days religious people feel threatened by the rapid decrease in adherence to the major religious and the rapid rise of atheists who are critical about their beliefs. This is a common defense mechanism...to say "yeah, we'll you're religious too, you have faith too, you're dogmatic too!"

The definition of dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." This certainly fits most modern theism where the major religions have sets of principles...the criteria to get to heaven, what is a sin, karma/dharma, reincarnation...whatever those may be. I don't see how it fits atheists who are merely certain that people's God-tales are not literally true.

The word dogma does not just mean certain. No atheist is dogmatic because there is no set of principles. You're not going to call someone dogmatic about their belief that antibiotics stop infections.

You'd never think to call adults who are certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist "dogmatic." Being certain that other fantastic beings like demons, orcs and deities isn't dogmatic either. The term does not fit just any old thing that you're certain about, it is a specific term describing someone that has a whole set of principles and beliefs that mesh together to form a very certain worldview.

See post #22 for the definition of "dogmatic" as used in the study. What do you think of the correlation the study found between dogmatic atheists and prejudice against groups that violated their values?

 

[Orbit]

Sure I have.

Are you sure this isn't just sour grapes on your part? That you're assuming my failure to accept your arguments implies something wrong with me, instead of flaws in what you're arguing?

Um, the conclusion of that argument was that I don't believe in the same God you don't believe in. But it took forever to get there because you were being dogmatic.

 

[Ouroboros]

...

Whatever.

---edit

My apologies for offending you so much and all non-dogmatic anti-theists, it wasn't my intention.

 

[Sunstone]

Once and for all, "dogmatic atheist" is not equivalent to anti-theist. Whew! Now that that's finally settled...

 

[Quintessence]

The definition of dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." This certainly fits most modern theism where the major religions have sets of principles...the criteria to get to heaven, what is a sin, karma/dharma, reincarnation...whatever those may be. I don't see how it fits atheists who are merely certain that people's God-tales are not literally true.

If you can, read the study. Or at least the excerpt posted above. Personally, I wish that the writers of the article had framed things in different terms. It seems to me that this is less about "religion" and "atheism" (which are not opposites) than it is about "religious orthodoxy" (their term) and "empirical orthodoxy" or what is sometimes known as "scientism."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To follow up on this, the peer-reviewed article this blog post is based on goes into more detail about this. For everyone's edification, this is what the writers of the study meant by it:

Literal inclusion, or religious orthodoxy, is typical of individuals defining themselves as religious and interpreting religious contents in a rigid, closed-minded, and dogmatic fashion. These individuals uncritically and strictly adopt religious contents as taught by a particular religious tradition. Individuals with an attitude of literal exclusion, that is, dogmatic atheists, reject the possibility of a religious reality on the basis of strict and literal arguments (e.g., the lack of scientific evidence for what is written or said; if anything is considered absolute, it is the scientific method and rational principles of knowledge). Thus, dogmatic, closed, and rigid belief system may be found among people who believe that there is no God as well as those who believe that there is God.
*source*
​

Thanks for the quote - I couldn't get past the journal's paywall.

The quote includes something that turned on a light bulb for me: the idea that dogmatism implies that the belief was accepted uncritically.

I think people in general have a tendency to overestimate themselves... including their ability for critical thought. This can mean that when we run into someone who holds a person with a firm position that disagrees with our own, they must have accepted it uncritically (since if they used critical thought, they'd agree with me, a very logical person), and uncritical certainty implies dogmatism.

It's like the whole "everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac and everyone who drives slower than me is a moron" thing: they disagree with me, so their opinion must be less well-founded than mine.

 

[Deathbydefault]

[Source (The article is short)]

What do you make of the notion that fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic atheists have in common an intolerance for uncertainty?

The thing that isn't in common is the death toll for either party due to that intolerance.

 

[Sapiens]

I suspect that with further study this hypothesis will be show for what it is, a badly designed social science experiment, illustrative of the old saw: "garbage in, garbage out." Strong atheism increases (at least in the sciences) with the level of education and professional accomplishment, reaching 95% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. I suspect that this atheist enriched population is composed of people who have demonstrated that they are well equipped to deal with uncertainties of life, people who relish dealing with uncertainty, yet who are "dogmatically" dedicated to the scientific method and who "dogmatically" reject all claims of the supernatural.

 

[Erebus]

[Source (The article is short)]

What do you make of the notion that fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic atheists have in common an intolerance for uncertainty?

I'm not at all surprised by the findings of this particular study. I've found during my time on this forum that there are some people who seem incapable of seeing shades of grey. Nothing can be vague, abstract or uncertain for them. As a result, they can come across as rigid or even abrasive.
This is a quality that both theists and atheists can possess, but seems to be more common among theists from strict, dogmatic religions and among atheists who came from a strict, dogmatic background. That's my experience anyway.

​

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not at all surprised by the findings of this particular study. I've found during my time on this forum that there are some people who seem incapable of seeing shades of grey. Nothing can be vague, abstract or uncertain for them. As a result, they can come across as rigid or even abrasive.
This is a quality that both theists and atheists can possess, but seems to be more common among theists from strict, dogmatic religions and among atheists who came from a strict, dogmatic background. That's my experience anyway.

​

Well put!

 

[PackJason]

People who don't collect stamps are dogmatic about not collecting stamps.

Got it.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect that with further study this hypothesis will be show for what it is, a badly designed social science experiment, illustrative of the old saw: "garbage in, garbage out." Strong atheism increases (at least in the sciences) with the level of education and professional accomplishment, reaching 95% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. I suspect that this atheist enriched population is composed of people who have demonstrated that they are well equipped to deal with uncertainties of life, people who relish dealing with uncertainty, yet who are "dogmatically" dedicated to the scientific method and who "dogmatically" reject all claims of the supernatural.

An interesting straw man. The study is not asserting that all atheists are dogmatic, nor does it imply that dogmatic atheists would be proportionally represented in the sciences to the extent they are in the general population of atheists.

 

[Demonslayer]

See post #22 for the definition of "dogmatic" as used in the study. What do you think of the correlation the study found between dogmatic atheists and prejudice against groups that violated their values?

What I think is that the invention of the term "dogmatic atheists" is misleading and factually incorrect. As noted, all the term seems to mean is "strong" or "certain" atheists. Being certain about something is not dogma. Again, you'd never refer to any other non-belief as dogmatic. There are no "dogmatic gravityists" or "dogmatic aleprechaunists" It's a term invented by religious people to try to make their own dogma looks a little bit less silly and outdated. You need to be living by a set of principles to be considered dogmatic. The term dogmatic atheist is patently absurd, no different than trying to say atheism is a religion.

Now, that factually incorrect and incredibly biased term aside, what do I think about a link between atheists who are very certain about their beliefs, and prejudice of those people towards against "groups that violated their beliefs?" I think the study has some fatal flaws. The following is the entirety of the data they give to support their conclusions:
------------------------
Then they asked them about their prejudices. For example, what they thought about homosexuals or anti-abortionists (pro-lifers).

Dogmatic believers and atheists were, as you might expect, more likely to support prejudiced attitudes towards the ‘other’ side. But, for both groups, the level of prejudice increased when they experienced uncertainty.

So it seems that dogmatic atheists, like dogmatic believers, reinforce and retrench their beliefs as a way of dealing with a complex and uncertain world.
----------------------------
There is no data here. They just say "we asked them about prejudices and, as you might expect, both groups equally support prejudice against the 'others." Ipso facto, 'dogmatic atheists' are just as bad as 'dogmatic theists'

What kind of study is that? No data, a very questionable categorization process as far as who counts as dogmatic and who doesn't, nothing whatsoever to support their conclusion, which is all of once sentence long.

The real thrust of the study seems to be saying "people who are very certain that there is a God, and people who are very certain that there isn't a God, are both averse to uncertainty." I mean...I guess to that I say, duh, of course. Right? People who are very certain are less tolerant of uncertainty. I don't think I need a study to recognize that.

This "study" is a hot mess.

 

[Sunstone]

People who don't collect stamps are dogmatic about not collecting stamps.

Got it.

Please read the article cited in the OP. Please, for everyone's sake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See post #22 for the definition of "dogmatic" as used in the study. What do you think of the correlation the study found between dogmatic atheists and prejudice against groups that violated their values?

The definition is problematic, since it includes things like "closed-minded" and "uncritical", implying that a person could never arrive at conclusions that the researchers considered "dogmatic" in a reasonable way.

 

[Sunstone]

What I think is that the invention of the term "dogmatic atheists" is misleading and factually incorrect. As noted, all the term seems to mean is "strong" or "certain" atheists. Being certain about something is not dogma. Again, you'd never refer to any other non-belief as dogmatic. There are no "dogmatic gravityists" or "dogmatic aleprechaunists" It's a term invented by religious people to try to make their own dogma looks a little bit less silly and outdated. You need to be living by a set of principles to be considered dogmatic. The term dogmatic atheist is patently absurd, no different than trying to say atheism is a religion.

Now, that factually incorrect and incredibly biased term aside, what do I think about a link between atheists who are very certain about their beliefs, and prejudice of those people towards against "groups that violated their beliefs?" I think the study has some fatal flaws. The following is the entirety of the data they give to support their conclusions:
------------------------
Then they asked them about their prejudices. For example, what they thought about homosexuals or anti-abortionists (pro-lifers).

Dogmatic believers and atheists were, as you might expect, more likely to support prejudiced attitudes towards the ‘other’ side. But, for both groups, the level of prejudice increased when they experienced uncertainty.

So it seems that dogmatic atheists, like dogmatic believers, reinforce and retrench their beliefs as a way of dealing with a complex and uncertain world.
----------------------------
There is no data here. They just say "we asked them about prejudices and, as you might expect, both groups equally support prejudice against the 'others." Ipso facto, 'dogmatic atheists' are just as bad as 'dogmatic theists'

What kind of study is that? No data, a very questionable categorization process as far as who counts as dogmatic and who doesn't, nothing whatsoever to support their conclusion, which is all of once sentence long.

The real thrust of the study seems to be saying "people who are very certain that there is a God, and people who are very certain that there isn't a God, are both averse to uncertainty." I mean...I guess to that I say, duh, of course. Right? People who are very certain are less tolerant of uncertainty. I don't think I need a study to recognize that.

This "study" is a hot mess.

Well, I'll grant some of your points seem valid enough. My own opinion is the study is intriguing and suggestive, but further studies are needed.