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

[Ouroboros]

As to the OP, I'm uncertain. <joke>

Actually, I think some people are attracted to the idea that their belief system/worldview must be the 'correct' one or it is worthless. I do see this in atheists as well as many theists. As for myself, I am not certain, I am OK with that, and it is why my belief in God is called 'faith.' People who always claim certainty, like those who adhere to any ideology, kind of scare me.

The only thing I'm certain of is that I'm not certain about anything else.

 

[Yerda]

That's fascinating! I would never have suspected that you'd gone through a dogmatic atheist phase. What got you out of that?

It might have been exposure to theists who I could see were not the cartoon gullible fools I had suspected all theists were. It might have been that I felt less threatened as I worked out more about how I felt and what I knew. I might have grown up a little (grudgingly ). I'm not sure I'm entirely out of it, if I'm honest.

The notion that dogmatic atheism is linked to an intolerance of uncertainty makes sense to me based merely on various people I've come across now and then. I'm kind of perplexed why the idea is as controversial as many of the responses in this thread would seem to suggest.

When I read the OP I have to admit I got the feeling that I was confirming a suspicion that atheists can be as dogmatic as theists. If I had read it a decade ago I would probably have bristled at the suggestion and seen it as threatening. I can't speak for others though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"I believe in the existence of something, x, that cannot be adequately defined nor described" is meaningless?

You replaced "indescribable" with "cannot be adequately defined or described." I'm not sure they mean the same thing.

But for the sentence with the original wording: yes, I think it's meaningless. How would the person making that statement respond to the question "exactly what is it you're saying you believe in?"

There goes most people's notions that "infinity" might exist right out the door.

Why do you say that? "Infinity" is pretty well-defined, IMO.

Now, I do agree with you that if you define "x" (or "god") in such circumstances, you are being self-contradictory and your definition or description is meaningless. But to merely say you believe that "x" exists seems to me another matter.

If the terms used to make up a statement is meaningless, then the statement itself is meaningless.

Of course, that leaves us with a statement that is perhaps trivial, "I believe there is something that can neither be adequately defined nor described."

It gets even trickier if we allow for the possibility that any number of indefinable things might exist and "God" only refers to one of them (or some of them).

And that would seem to raise Thomas' question of whether you can legitimately provide a negative definition of that "something". i.e. "That something is not this. That something is not that. etc."

If a negative definition of "God" can be given that actually works, great - I haven't seen it.

It also occurs to me that defining God negatively wouldn't work for pantheistic god-concepts (since if God is everything, there's nothing that God is not).

 

[GodlessHeathen]

[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 haven't read the previous six pages of responses, mind, so someone might indeed have said what I'm about to say.

1. There is no such thing as "dogmatic atheism". Dogma is a set of beliefs held to be incontrovertibly true. Atheism is a lack of belief, so therefore it has no dogma. You cannot be a fundamentalist atheist. It's impossible.

2. You'd have to be 100% certain to devote your life to going to church every Sunday to eat stale crackers, reading the Bible, learning about Jesus, emulating your life after Him, praying endlessly, and singing that God-awful gospel music. If anyone has an intolerance for uncertainty, it's all theists (not just the fundamental ones). Now you could point to those Christians who genuinely believe in God, but do none of the above. However, if you really believe that an all-powerful God created the universe and is watching your every move and has the power to roast your *** in Hell for eternity if He doesn't like you, if you don't get up off the couch every Sunday to try and appease Him, can we really say you are set in your convictions? You're probably a theistic-leaning agnostic who hasn't put much thought behind it (if we had to give you a label).

3. Most atheists, at least in my experience, are not 100% certain that God doesn't exist (they're agnostic atheists). Not even Richard Dawkins, the Pope of Atheism Himself, is 100% certain. Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim. If you claim to have an invisible pink unicorn tied up in your front yard that only you can see, that claim is unfalsifiable. You can't really prove it exists to me, but nor do I have sufficient evidence to accept it. If I reject the claim that you have an invisible pink unicorn tied up in your yard, that's not being "dogmatically certain". That's saying "Come back when you have some evidence." Atheism, by definition, cannot be 100% certain because it is the rejection of an unfalsifiable claim. To be 100% certain is to take a minuscule leap of faith and assume that 0.000000001% likelihood of God existing is false, but it's still not a position based on evidence. That would be a positive claim requiring evidence and that's why many atheists (from a philosophical standpoint) reject the notion of 100% certainty. Those atheists who claim to be 100% certain still mostly acknowledge they're taking that minuscule leap of faith.

4. To be an atheist doesn't require certainty. Since atheists are not making a positive claim (such as "God exists"), atheists have no burden of proof on them to falsify the existence of God (which is an unfalsifiable concept anyways). Agnostic atheism is the most logical and rational position. If you don't have evidence for the existence of God and think it's highly unlikely (like our pink unicorn example) because it's so uncommon with our normal experiences, the logical and rational thing to do is to reject that claim until sufficient evidence is produced. Likewise since sufficient evidence for God hasn't been produced, and since a supernatural being is so uncommon with our normal experiences, the logical thing to do is to reject that claim until sufficient evidence is produced. Until that point, the claim will stay in the "I guess it's possible theoretically, but extremely highly improbable..." basket in the office at work.

5. As an aside, although the question didn't explicitly say it, I'm wary of these types of questions that try to create a false equivalence between fundamentalist theists and anti-theists. The question may not be couched in these terms, but usually the underlying purpose is to try to establish a commonality as a basis to claim moral equivalence and invoke a "tu quoque". With a mark against each side, we can all agree to disagree and nobody has to actually present evidence for the beliefs they claim. Now that may or may not be the intent of this question, but it is an eerily similar line of question to these types of arguments I've seen in the past. While anti-theists can be annoying, people who are annoying on the Internet are in no way the moral equivalent of gay-bashing, abortion clinic-bombing, militia-forming fundamentalist Christians. Full stop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As to the OP, I'm uncertain. <joke>

Actually, I think some people are attracted to the idea that their belief system/worldview must be the 'correct' one or it is worthless. I do see this in atheists as well as many theists. As for myself, I am not certain, I am OK with that, and it is why my belief in God is called 'faith.' People who always claim certainty, like those who adhere to any ideology, kind of scare me.

It's always struck me as strange when religious people say things like this, because to me, devoting onesself to a church or religion IS an expression of certainty.

Maybe there's a bit of wiggle-room (e.g. different Protestant denominations considering each other acceptable) and there are a small number of religious groups (e.g. the UUs) that make a point of embracing uncertainty, but for the most part, devoting one's life to a religion and living by its tenets is something I would expect only from people who are sure that their religion is correct.

IOW, it seems to me that most people who take their religion seriously would fall into the category that you and other posters in this thread seem to be condemning... no?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you kidding? They are all over RF!

Dogmatic atheists? It's a pretty constant argument around here, in some ways.

Atheists, such as myself, would commonly say you can't have dogmatic atheists. Thing is, you can, but it's not atheism per se that they are being dogmatic about.
Generally, we get folks who are conflating atheism and materialism, or some sort of world-view that includes atheism. They certainly exhibit dogmatic traits.

So, in a technical sense, I'd argue there aren't dogmatic atheists, and that you can't conflate theism and atheism as equitable positions. In a practical sense, I get what you mean. People make more of atheism that it is very commonly, and some of those people are atheists.

As someone mentioned in another thread, there was at one point a movement to refer to Atheists as 'Brights'. I mean...ffs...

 

[Kori]

Quick question that doesn't need me to start a thread about: Is someone who just doesn't care about Religion an Atheist or an Agnostic? It could be either. But someone who just doesn't care, do they have a name?

 

[Ouroboros]

Quick question that doesn't need me to start a thread about: Is someone who just doesn't care about Religion an Atheist or an Agnostic? It could be either. But someone who just doesn't care, do they have a name?

I heard the term areligious in the past, perhaps that's it?

 

[GodlessHeathen]

Quick question that doesn't need me to start a thread about: Is someone who just doesn't care about Religion an Atheist or an Agnostic? It could be either. But someone who just doesn't care, do they have a name?

Agnostic: "I don't know"
Atheist: "I don't believe"
Ignostic: "Define God, then we'll talk. Until then, it's all babble."
Antitheist: "You're an idiot for thinking that."
Apatheism: "Religion? I don't care..."

 

[LuisDantas]

[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 find the example question used to justify a classification as "dogmatic atheist" highly inappropriate.

That makes me mistrust the whole research without a second thought. I can't trust their understanding of what would make one "dogmatic".

Edited to add: thanks for Quintessence for giving the definitions used in post #22.

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*​

I find those definitions way too biased to be useful. So I maintain my objection to the research. It may be well-intentioned, but it is not nearly objective enough to be useful.​

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

[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?

Of course it's true. Doubt is viewed by many as weakness. Yet, ironically, the strongest are those who can shrug it off, and thus not dwell on it. Besides, given this rational universe, there's plenty of certainty to be had.

 

[atanu]

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:

Ganesha, the Lord of all created categories. Controller of intellect. I believe that possibly the following symbolism is implied.

 

[Audie]

Agnostic: "I don't know"
Atheist: "I don't believe"
Ignostic: "Define God, then we'll talk. Until then, it's all babble."
Antitheist: "You're an idiot for thinking that."
Apatheism: "Religion? I don't care..."

We have people. All sorts. Some are crazy about
basketball. Could shorten that to basketballist.

The rest of us dont call ourselves abasketballists.
If a basketballist says someone is an ig, ag, apa
or any kind of -basletballist, we'd think they
are being weird.

If soneone wants to be a "theist" or a
"pyramidist" good for them. Defining or labelling
others in term of their chosen weirdness, not
so much.