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

[PackJason]

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

The problem is the term. Demonslayer already pointed out what is wrong with the term and the methodology and agenda for which the term seems to have been created.

 

[Erebus]

Well put!

Thank you

 

[Demonslayer]

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.

The vague thrust of the study seems to be that very certain atheists are less tolerant of ideas projected by theists. I think that's pretty logical. I'm a very strong atheist in that I leave a tiny sliver of a chance for some unknown type of God-ish thing, and a 0% chance of any of the named Gods (Yahweh/Allah, Zeus, Shiva, Kokopelli, etc) being factually true.

So yes, I'm very intolerant of ideas like creationism, the power of prayer, the eternal damnation of certain 'souls' if they don't meet some nebulous criteria.

A "weak" atheist, or someone who thinks "maybe there really IS a Yahweh as defined by the Christian Bible, maybe there isn't" is probably going to be more tolerant of those ideas because they aren't quite sure either way.

That all seems self-evident to me. Of course if you're certain about something you're going to be less tolerant of things that go against what you're certain of. I'm very certain that water turns to ice at a temperature below 32F degrees. If anyone tried to tell me it was really invisible butterflies that make the water turn to ice, I'd be intolerant of that idea. On the other hand I'm not certain that the Boston Bruins are the best hockey team on that ice. If someone told me the Washington Capitals were the best team, I'd be tolerant of that idea because I'm not personally certain about it.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

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.

Assuming your evidence is accurate, I'm tempted to reply that anyone whose been to university (let alone worked in one) knows that you get some very weird people in the science faculty. If by "strong atheist" you mean one who claims to know that there are no gods, I'd say I don't think much of a scientist who thinks such a thing could be proved.

I could equally quote a survey in Britain that showed that people with a post-graduate degree are twice as likely to have had a religious experience than those with no higher education, but that would be equally useless. If you've ever played a role-playing game, you may remember the distinction between Intelligence and Wisdom. That applies in real life too, and the former does not necessarily imply the latter.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

So they should've used the term "strong minded and strongly convinced" instead, or such.

I saw you used the term "intolerant" in one of your other posts, and that perhaps is a better term.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

I never claimed most of what you are going on about. I identified a population, that I suspect, as a result of personal experience, that knocks the psychologists' "findings" into a cocked hat. That is to say people who simultaneously are dogmatic in their views concerning empiricism, rationality and naturalism yet who are well equipped to deal with uncertainties of life and who deal well with uncertainty. If the psychologists are correct this population should not exist, so either my read on this population is wrong or the basic hypothesis of this study is that easily falsified.

 

[Demonslayer]

If by "strong atheist" you mean one who claims to know that there are no gods, I'd say I don't think much of a scientist who thinks such a thing could be proved.

Knowing something and being able to prove it are two very different things. I think we can all say we know there are no leprechauns. Can we prove there are no leprechauns? Nope. Do we know there aren't any? Yep.

Why are Gods any different? Only because they are so important to some people and because so many have been programed from birth to believe in them.

 

[Sapiens]

Assuming your evidence is accurate, I'm tempted to reply that anyone whose been to university (let alone worked in one) knows that you get some very weird people in the science faculty. If by "strong atheist" you mean one who claims to know that there are no gods, I'd say I don't think much of a scientist who thinks such a thing could be proved.

I could equally quote a survey in Britain that showed that people with a post-graduate degree are twice as likely to have had a religious experience than those with no higher education, but that would be equally useless. If you've ever played a role-playing game, you may remember the distinction between Intelligence and Wisdom. That applies in real life too, and the former does not necessarily imply the latter.

Not even Dawkins would say that he "knows" that there is not god, no competent scientist would, Rather they would say that there is no evidence of there being a god ... a very different statement, since god can always be hiding behind the next tree, over the next hill or under the next rock, it is impossible to check everywhere that he, she or it might be hiding.

I'm using as my example the cream of American science (whom I've not found to be "weird people," not even the Brits who move in that circle, though they do tend to be a bit more eccentric). You are trying to make a point by looking at an entirely different population, one composed primarily of Masters level technicians, who very well may be somewhat more rigid. Could you reference the survey for me, please?

 

[Sunstone]

I never claimed most of what you are going on about. I identified a population, that I suspect, as a result of personal experience, that knocks the psychologists' "findings" into a cocked hat. That is to say people who simultaneously are dogmatic in their views concerning empiricism, rationality and naturalism yet who are well equipped to deal with uncertainties of life and who deal well with uncertainty. If the psychologists are correct this population should not exist, so either my read on this population is wrong or the basic hypothesis of this study is that easily falsified.

Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected as to your argument. Although, to be sure, we have different impressions of the scientific community. Years ago, I had several friends who were practicing scientists (living at the time in a university town), and I knew them to be more open-minded about such things as empiricism, rationality, and naturalism than most people I've met since. But mine was a small sample. You might be right.

 

[Demonslayer]

Not even Dawkins would say that he "knows" that there is not god, no competent scientist would

The trick here is defining what "God" your saying you "know" isn't out there.

Here's the drill.

1) a theist brings up their very specific, theistic God. I'll use Yahweh as an example because I'm an American and Christianity dominates the religious demographic here. They talk about God having a son named Jesus, creating the world, answering prayers, judging people and eventually either damning them to hell or allowing them life everlasting in the paradise of Heaven.

2) an atheist says "I know there is no such God."

3) the theist, in an attempt to make this claim of knowledge seem unreasonable and arrogant says "Oh, so you're SO SURE there is nothing bigger than yourself? You're so sure there is no higher power or force we don't understand?

What has happened here is that the theist has backpedaled from the God they claim to know exists, to some vague deist sort of notion of "maybe something God-like that we don't understand."

Do I know there is no God that the theist claims to know exists? Yes.

Do I know that there is no vague deist sort of notion of "maybe something God-like that we don't understand?" No, of course not. This is the only kind of doubt that people like Dawkins leave. Dawkins isn't saying "Maybe Allah really exists and made people out of mud" or "maybe Yahweh exists and if you pray to him He will remove your cancer or help your team win the big game:" What he's saying is "hey, I don't know everything, maybe something incredible is out there that we don't quite understand.

There is a big difference between a God with a capital G who comes with a whole set of stories, and a deist notion of god for which people don't make any specific claims. You're right that no competent scientist would claim to "know" there is no such thing as the second one, but plenty will claim to "know" there is no such thing as the first one.

It's amazing in these kinds of discussions how rapidly people flip back and forth between the two definitions without even realizing it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

No, it took forever because:

- you were using the same terms as others without telling anyone that you were using your own private definition.
- your definition of "God" was literally nonsense.

There's no dogmatism in recognizing that phrases like "'God' is a word that describes the undescribable" is self-contradictory and meaningless.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

FYI, there's a lot more in the full article about how they're framing these ideas, along with a literature review. Given copyright laws, I can't very well C&P the entire thing up here for you guys, unfortunately. But it'll hopefully suffice to say that I didn't get the impression that this was the intended implication from the full review. This is one of those studies that it's best to read the entire thing than attempt to do a short summary of it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Whew! Divisive topic!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FYI, there's a lot more in the full article about how they're framing these ideas, along with a literature review. Given copyright laws, I can't very well C&P the entire thing up here for you guys, unfortunately. But it'll hopefully suffice to say that I didn't get the impression that this was the intended implication from the full review. This is one of those studies that it's best to read the entire thing than attempt to do a short summary of it.

I made sure to at least check the abstract, since I didn't want to rely on the blogger's interpretation.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to read the study for myself right now.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Fundamentalist Christians and Dogmatic Atheists do not have real certainty at the deepest level, they just have the apparent bluster of certainty and have formed the ability to block having to experience their deepest levels. No one exposed to the thoughts of other intelligent people with different views can have such absolute certainty.

 

[Demonslayer]

I think Fundamentalist Christians and Dogmatic Atheists do not have real certainty at the deepest level, they just have the apparent bluster of certainty and have formed the ability to block having to experience their deepest levels. No one exposed to the thoughts of other intelligent people with different views can have such absolute certainty.

What about people that are very certain that there are no leprechauns? Is that bluster of certainty?

How certain are you, personally, that there are no such things as leprechauns?

 

[Demonslayer]

Whew! Divisive topic!

HAHA, yes it's like Penguin's signature...

Who'd have thought this frank talk about religion would result in heated debate?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one exposed to the thoughts of other intelligent people with different views can have such absolute certainty.

While I don't claim absolute certainty about anything...

I recognize that there are many intelligent people who I respect who happen to be theists. On the strength of that, I used to assume that there might be something to the whole "god" idea that I was missing.

... but after years and years of asking intelligent theists why they believe in their god(s) and getting nothing reasonable or substantial in response ever, my benefit of the doubt is pretty much worn out.

 

[George-ananda]

What about people that are very certain that there are no leprechauns? Is that bluster of certainty?

How certain are you, personally, that there are no such things as leprechauns?

Notice I said: No one exposed to the thoughts of other intelligent people with different views. I guess I am not hearing intelligent people arguing for the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Leprechauns, so that would not be a like analogy.

 

[Demonslayer]

Notice I said: No one exposed to the thoughts of other intelligent people with different views. I guess I am not hearing intelligent people arguing for the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Leprechauns, so that would not be a like analogy.

This goes back to the very important point in post #51. This "God" that intelligent people are supposedly arguing the existence of...which God is it?

is it A) One of the very specific Gods, such as Yahweh, who did very specific things like flood the entire earth, impregnate a human woman, who listens to humans thoughts and sometimes grants wishes based on the requests presented in those thoughts, and who eventually damns many people to a place of eternal torture?

or is it B) a vague notion of a "higher power" or of some amazing being that we don't really understand?

I would argue that very, very few intelligent people argue for A, but would agree with you that many intelligent people argue for B.

Thoughts?