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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I have more evidence for Santa Claus than I do for God.

When I was little, one Christmas Eve I heard sleigh bells and stomping coming from the roof.

When I got older, I brushed it off by figuring that it was the Dad from the house next door trying to keep up the illusion for his kids, but I never actually did anything to check. Maybe I'm being closed-minded by dismissing the evidence.

The analogy works just fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

I've known a number of intelligent people who believed in the literal existence of the Christian God, Jesus, the Prophets, and the whole deal. Some of them have even been Young Earth Creationists.

 

[Demonslayer]

Because to further that point, Leprechauns are like God A. Leprechauns wear green outfits, protect pots of gold at the end of rainbows, and, if caught, can grant three wishes to gain their freedom.

This IS a very like analogy to a A-type God like Yahweh who once made a dry escape route by parting an ocean, killed every human being on the planet except for one who he told to build a giant boat to save all the animals, and somehow impregnated a human with a super-baby half-god half-man hybrid that could walk on water, turn water into wine, and presumably, walk on wine.

If you're going to talk about a B-type God...the much more acceptable notion that perhaps there is some sort of great intelligence that might be "god-like" is some way, that none of us fully understand, then an apt analogy would be a "leprechaun-like" creature. Perhaps there is some rare green creature that very few people have seen that lives in the forest, and perhaps the association with rainbows is because these creatures only come out of their nests after a rain storm.

That wouldn't be a true Leprechaun, with all the tales and characteristics we associate with it. It would be a Leprechaun-like thing.

So we need to determine if we are talking God A or God B here.

 

[Demonslayer]

I've known a number of intelligent people who believed in the literal existence of the Christian God, Jesus, the Prophets, and the whole deal. Some of them have even been Young Earth Creationists.

Then I would ask, what makes you believe they are intelligent? Because Young Earth Creationism can be directly and easily disproved. A person that would deny such provable truth, I would argue is not intelligent.

 

[George-ananda]

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?

You are perhaps more seeing my point now.

I would even add

C) The fundamental consciousness is God/Brahman, The eastern/Indian pantheist view.

 

[Demonslayer]

You are perhaps more seeing my point now.

I would even add

C) The fundamental consciousness is God/Brahman, The eastern/Indian pantheist view.

I believe I understand your point, yes.

I'm not as familiar with Hinduism, but let me try to make a ham-handed parallel between what I was talking about and what I gather is your faith.

In Hinduism I believe the idea of fundamental consciousness is more like my God B.

Ganesha, the thing with the giant pink elephant head if more like my God A.

Intelligent Hindus likely talk about concepts like fundamental consciousness all the time. But I very highly doubt that many intelligent Hindus are expecting to see this fella any time soon:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then I would ask, what makes you believe they are intelligent? Because Young Earth Creationism can be directly and easily disproved. A person that would deny such provable truth, I would argue is not intelligent.

Problem solving ability, linguistic ability, academic proficiency, wit, spatial reasoning, the ability to empathize, etc... all the normal markers for intelligence.

How they reconcile their religious beliefs with everything else, I don't know, but they apparently do.

Take my high school geography teacher: quick-witted, well-read, good speaker... but when we got into the unit that touched on geology, he told us that he didn't agree with the material he would be covering that implied an old Earth, but it was part of the required curriculum. I was shocked.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe I understand your point, yes.

I'm not as familiar with Hinduism, but let me try to make a ham-handed parallel between what I was talking about and what I gather is your faith.

In Hinduism I believe the idea of fundamental consciousness is more like my God B.

Ganesha, the thing with the giant pink elephant head if more like my God A.

Intelligent Hindus likely talk about concepts like fundamental consciousness all the time. But I very highly doubt that many intelligent Hindus are expecting to see this fella any time soon:

This is off topic but no one intelligent is saying Ganesh is a physical being. However, I do believe Higher Intelligences can appear to people with a name and form the person expects. I believe in realities and beings above the physical plane also.

 

[Demonslayer]

This is off topic but no one intelligent is saying Ganesh is a physical being.

That's all I'm saying.

There are many people who believe Jesus Christ is literally going to come flying back to Earth someday with an army of angels on horseback, because that's what it says in the Bible.

I don't believe that is a very intelligent idea, and I don't think claiming certainty that this idea is untrue should be called "dogmatic" which brings us back on topic.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't believe that is a very intelligent idea, and I don't think claiming certainty that this idea is untrue should be called "dogmatic" which brings us back on topic.

It sounds to me like you're averse to the word "dogmatic" for some reason. Do you have strongly negative associations with it? It wouldn't surprise me, given the common parlance connotations of the term.

Personally, I'm not seeing the issue. I think the word "dogmatic" is appropriate as the authors use it in the study. Besides, it is very important to recognize that everybody uses dogmatic thinking in some aspects of their lives. Some use it more than others, some use it less than others; some will use it on topic A, and not on topic B. But we are all dogmatic about this or that or the other thing. And that really is okay, normal, and human.

 

[Demonslayer]

Take my high school geography teacher: quick-witted, well-read, good speaker... but when we got into the unit that touched on geology, he told us that he didn't agree with the material he would be covering that implied an old Earth, but it was part of the required curriculum. I was shocked.

That is quite shocking. The power of early indoctrination is scary and powerful.

I wonder why some of us shake it off and others don't? I was raised in a very fundamentalist Catholic home. For most of my youth I was terrified of hell, worried about going there, and had nightmares about the poor people who were trapped there. I completely accepted all the things that were drilled into my head...that God was watching, that he listed to me when I prayed, the whole nine.

Then I rapidly realized what a load of horsepoo it was. I mean if you study and think and reason, how can you maintain beliefs so contrary to what you study and think?

 

[Demonslayer]

It sounds to me like you're averse to the word "dogmatic" for some reason. Do you have strongly negative associations with it? It wouldn't surprise me, given the common parlance connotations of the term.

Yes you're right, I am. I explained it above, it's not accurate. Dogmatic doesn't just mean certain.

See my posts #23 and #38 and tell me what you think.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

[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'd say not at all, the inherent bias towards denying uncertainty, declaring premature supreme knowledge, has unambiguously manifested itself with atheists- in endless 'theories' that claim to make God redundant, by explaining the entirety of physics, biology, chemistry with 'undeniable, immutable, facts' that invariably turn out to be complete cobblers.

The theist has no motive to present reality in any abbreviated overly simplistic form- if it turns out to have yet another deeper, mysterious, uncertain layer to investigate, that's fine, that does not threaten the premise of divine creation, quite the opposite.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is quite shocking. The power of early indoctrination is scary and powerful.

I wonder why some of us shake it off and others don't? I was raised in a very fundamentalist Catholic home. For most of my youth I was terrified of hell, worried about going there, and had nightmares about the poor people who were trapped there. I completely accepted all the things that were drilled into my head...that God was watching, that he listed to me when I prayed, the whole nine.

Then I rapidly realized what a load of horsepoo it was. I mean if you study and think and reason, how can you maintain beliefs so contrary to what you study and think?

I don't know, but your post reminds me of episodes I had with my ex, with her literally sobbing at the idea that her unbaptized husband was going to Hell. Saying it was unpleasant would be an understatement.

 

[Orbit]

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.

There you go, being dogmatic again. Thinking your definition is THE definition, just like a fundamentalist Christian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There you go, being dogmatic again. Thinking your definition is THE definition, just like a fundamentalist Christian.

I'm not thinking that "my definition" is the only one; I just recognize that self-contradictory statements aren't meaningful.

Is everyone who disagrees with you "dogmatic"?

 

[Orbit]

I'm not thinking that "my definition" is the only one; I just recognize that self-contradictory statements aren't meaningful.

Is everyone who disagrees with you "dogmatic"?

Other definitions that you don't understand are wrong. That's dogmatic. Dogmatic atheists have the same black and white thinking as fundamentalists do.

 

[Yerda]

[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?

My instinct is to entertain the notion since I was once a dogmatic atheist. It had never occurred to me that it may have been linked to the difficulty in dealing with uncertainty but now that you've brought it to my attention I have to say that it makes some immediate sense. It's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks. Great post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Other definitions that you don't understand are wrong. That's dogmatic. Dogmatic atheists have the same black and white thinking as fundamentalists do.

It's a self-defeating definition. "God" as "description of the undescribable" is literally meaningless: if it really is undescribable, you aren't describing it, and if you are describing it, it isn't indescribable. Either way, your definition is useless.

If anyone is accepting things uncritically, it's you.

If someone has a coherent idea of what "god" means to them, I'm happy to talk with them about their definition and whether something fitting it might exist in reality.

...But when our starting point is the oxymoronic stuff you're peddling, rational discussion is impossible. We can't rationally evaluate a claim that's irrationally expressed.

 

[Orbit]

It's a self-defeating definition. "God" as "description of the undescribable" is literally meaningless: if it really is undescribable, you aren't describing it, and if you are describing it, it isn't indescribable. Either way, your definition is useless.

If anyone is accepting things uncritically, it's you.

If someone has a coherent idea of what "god" means to them, I'm happy to talk with them about their definition and whether something fitting it might exist in reality.

...But when our starting point is the oxymoronic stuff you're peddling, rational discussion is impossible. We can't rationally evaluate a claim that's irrationally expressed.

Still dogmatic. Still assuming you know how others think, and what others think without bothering to inquire. Honestly, I feel sorry for you.