Fundamentalist Atheists?

[des]

I heard an interesting sermon at the UU today. (Yes I did go today, and probably will go again). Anyway, it was "The Defense of Atheism". She talked about Harris' books and Dawkins book, and how they were anti-liberal. It goes by the extreme stand they take, that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and esp that agnostics and religiously liberal/progressive people are aiding and abetting terrorists and actually as bad as fundamentalists and more confused.

She also defended the atheists in the UU family who she believed were not really represented in these books. (She feels that there were not represented in these books, and are a much more heterogeneous group than they imagine).

In fact, I think, she didn't use the term, that they act like fundamentalist atheists. The term doesn't seem to make much sense, but consider. 1. There is one true path. Everyone else is deluded, misinformed, etc.
2. They are evangelizing their beliefs. Not just defending them (in fact, not really defending them), but saying you need to be like us. Believe like we did. 3. Great harm will befall the world if they don't follow our word (s).
(More in Harris' books). (That the only answer to radicalized Islam is radicalized atheism.)

I was happy I heard this. I have been rather stirred up over them. Also I went over to samharris.org and signed on as someone else. I found it a very intolerant and rather nasty bunch. This does not jive with the atheists and agnostics I know that are just not like that.

BTW, she said that some high percentage of UUs were atheists, of several "flavors". She also talked about functional atheism. This is where you believe in a deity but it doesn't affect you.

Any thoughts.
--des

 

[lilithu]

Hi des,

You might be interested in this thread.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39289

Just keep in mind that it's in the atheist forum and therefore I should not have posted there as I did. (I didn't notice that it's in the atheist forum.)

Hmm... also this one.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58183




I would *LOVE* to read a copy of the sermon btw. Does this church put up copies of past sermons online?

 

[Stairs In My House]

I have been feeling the same way for a while. I haven't read Dawkins' new book but I've read a few interviews with him and I consider him to be the Ann Coulter of atheism. He insists on attacking people without even trying to understand them, and as soon as anyone suggests he might benefit from actually learning a little bit about religion before condemning it, they are accused of fraternizing with the enemy ("the courtier's reply").

The problem with Dawkins is one I've seen before, where someone trained in natural science assumes that those same analytic tools can be applied just as easily to cultural analysis. Feynman did it when he wrote disparagingly about the Japanese language after his brief visit to Japan. His assessment was unbelievably naive and completely uninformed by contemporary linguistic theory, but he felt that being a physicist qualified him to go on at length about it in his autobiography, and I actually had someone quote it all back to me when I said I was learning Japanese many years ago.

Any analysis of religion has to be at least in part a cultural analysis (and I would say it must be wholly a cultural analysis, but that's just me). Dawkins has not demonstrated any knowledge of current thinking on the matter, and everything I have heard from him sounds identical in both form and spirit to the way European colonists and missionaries talked about indigenous peoples during the colonial era: full of ignorance and bigotry, the product of a small mind that cannot imagine a point of view outside its own.

 

[Stairs In My House]

I would *LOVE* to read a copy of the sermon btw. Does this church put up copies of past sermons online?

In two weeks at my church (First UU Columbus, reprezent!! :clap2 the sermon topic is "Is religion dangerous?" I have a feeling it will be along the same lines. The sermons get put online eventually, so I'll make sure I link it in this thread when it does. Rev. Mark is usually pretty good, and this is the sort of topic that he would knock right out of the park, like he did with the one on Islam.

 

[lilithu]

I have been feeling the same way for a while. I haven't read Dawkins' new book but I've read a few interviews with him and I consider him to be the Ann Coulter of atheism. He insists on attacking people without even trying to understand them, and as soon as anyone suggests he might benefit from actually learning a little bit about religion before condemning it, they are accused of fraternizing with the enemy ("the courtier's reply").

Could it be that we liberal religionists feel this more accutely because we're in an environment (ie- liberalism) that's more predominantly atheist? I mean, I was surrounded by atheists when I was in science and also in leftist activism, so I have an experience of the hostility of atheists towards theism. And I have less first hand experience of the hostility of theists towards atheism. Whareas, for some of my atheist friends, their experiences are just the opposite. And maybe we're all sensitized to and reacting against our experiences??

Then again, it could just be that we don't like it when people won't see both sides of the argument.

I know that I hate that!

The problem with Dawkins is one I've seen before, where someone trained in natural science assumes that those same analytic tools can be applied just as easily to cultural analysis. Feynman did it when he wrote disparagingly about the Japanese language after his brief visit to Japan. ...

Not just cultural analysis. It's also like Francis Crick thinking that he can solve consciousness just because he helped determine the structure of DNA. But yeah, I agree with you. Many scientists think that the scientific method (reductionism) can solve everything without having a grasp on why it works in science (and therefore may not work elsewhere). I am a firm believer in requiring every science major to study the philosophy of science.

 

[Stairs In My House]

Could it be that we liberal religionists feel this more accutely because we're in an environment (ie- liberalism) that's more predominantly atheist? I mean, I was surrounded by atheists when I was in science and also in leftist activism, so I have an experience of the hostility of atheists towards theism. And I have less first hand experience of the hostility of theists towards atheism. Whareas, for some of my atheist friends, their experiences are just the opposite. And maybe we're all sensitized to and reacting against our experiences??

For me, it's almost entirely from having been one of "them" myself, back when I was younger and thought I had all the answers. One day I will write a book about this, titled I Was A Teenage Randroid. I remember all too well what I thought of religion and religious people, and how I spoke to them back when I was a militant atheist. Now, maybe there is a certain degree of projecting my old intolerant mindset onto the anti-religionists I encounter these days, but I really do believe that the wording reflects the thinking, and I definitely recognize the wording.

I don't think this is so much a conflict between theists and atheists, though it typically plays out that way. In many ways I could still be said to be an atheist (I don't believe in a creator deity or divine authority), though I would not self-identify as an atheist. What I see is a conflict over the authority of knowledge, with three sides: scientific authority (Dawkins and friends), scriptural authority (Robertson and friends), and personal/experiential authority (liberal religion and tolerant humanism). The first two are similar in that they insist on external authorities for knowledge (science is external in the sense that it is a discourse of inquiry rather than inquiry itself), which may explain why they sound so alike sometimes.

Many scientists think that the scientific method (reductionism) can solve everything without having a grasp on why it works in science (and therefore may not work elsewhere). I am a firm believer in requiring every science major to study the philosophy of science.

Agreed. Reading Thomas Kuhn changed my life, and it saddens me that someone who holds the position of Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford obviously hasn't. There really is no excuse for that.

 

[Stairs In My House]

This is totally off-topic but... you wouldn't happen to know the Gerhardstein family, would you? I know that my officemate hails from Columbus (and are active UUs).

I don't, but it's a pretty big congregation. I'll keep an eye out for them!

 

[robtex]

I heard an interesting sermon at the UU today.

I am glad you enjoyed your UU time. I am happy for you. I would suggest you read some of Harris and Dawkins before jumping to that conclusion. I personally don't find either of them to be extremist. Dawkins is considered incidently, to be one of the leading researchers in the field of genetics in the world. They both are really interesting people to read about.

As far as "fundamental atheism, and this might be a good debate topic, I don't think it exists. Fundamental is the subscription to dogma which is absent outside of religion. Maybe the sermon speaker was thinking of extremist.

Many, if not most UU churches post their sermons online. Do you have a link?

BTW, she said that some high percentage of UUs were atheists, of several "flavors". She also talked about functional atheism. This is where you believe in a deity but it doesn't affect you.

Any thoughts.
--des

I have met a number of atheist uu's in person and on the net. I think if you are humanistically bent, and find validity in the 7 princples of UU you can be a UU irrgardless of belief system. Interestingly though, I have met a much much larger number of atheist jews (secular jews) than I have atheist UU's.

 

[robtex]

Here is a 23 minute clip of Sam Harris talking about religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

 

[Sunstone]

***MOD POST***

This thread is in the UU DIR Forum.

This Forum is for UUs to debate and discuss their concerns. Respectful questions from non-UUs are allowed, but outside POVs are not allowed.
​

 

[lilithu]

I would suggest you read some of Harris and Dawkins before jumping to that conclusion. I personally don't find either of them to be extremist. Dawkins is considered incidently, to be one of the leading researchers in the field of genetics in the world. They both are really interesting people to read about.

Hi Robtex, namaste.

You're probably aware that I have read Dawkins (not Harris) and I do find him to be too extreme. Yes, he is a respected geneticist and an even more gifted writer. But that's not really relevant to whether or not his views against religion are too extreme.

As far as "fundamental atheism, and this might be a good debate topic, I don't think it exists. Fundamental is the subscription to dogma which is absent outside of religion. Maybe the sermon speaker was thinking of extremist.

That seems to me like a semantic argument. The issue is whether or not the person is intolerant of opposing views. And if so, whether or not this intolerance is antithetical to the nature of liberalism. If there's an objection to the word "fundamentalist" I am happy to use the word "extremist."

I have met a number of atheist uu's in person and on the net. I think if you are humanistically bent, and find validity in the 7 princples of UU you can be a UU irrgardless of belief system.

I agree!

Interestingly though, I have met a much much larger number of atheist jews (secular jews) than I have atheist UU's.

Well, Judaism is unique in that many people consider themselves culturally Jewish and will observe the practices, but do not believe. I think that's cool.

UUs are about 45% atheist/agnostic/non-theist, last I heard.

 

[Stairs In My House]

I think a bit of the intolerance lilithu is talking about can be found in the way some atheists, in talking about religion, take the "irrationality" of religious views as a foregone conclusion. There is nothing about disbelieving in God(s) that requires such a conclusion about the beliefs of other people but it's one that I hear (or read, actually--most people don't seem to want to say this to anyone's face) quite often, even in UU circles.

While I absolutely agree with robtex that atheism is perfectly acceptable (and very commonplace) in UUism, I feel that the characterization of theists or "supernaturalists" (which I think is intended to mean people who do not believe in a wholly deterministic universe, but I'm not sure) as "irrational" is not, and when it happens in broader society it should be criticized for the same reason religious fundamentalists should be criticized. It is harmful discourse that only serves to put some people down and distort the issues.

 

[lilithu]

For me, it's almost entirely from having been one of "them" myself, back when I was younger and thought I had all the answers. One day I will write a book about this, titled I Was A Teenage Randroid.

Randoid as in Ayn Rand?! :cover:

I don't think this is so much a conflict between theists and atheists, though it typically plays out that way. In many ways I could still be said to be an atheist (I don't believe in a creator deity or divine authority), though I would not self-identify as an atheist. What I see is a conflict over the authority of knowledge, with three sides: scientific authority (Dawkins and friends), scriptural authority (Robertson and friends), and personal/experiential authority (liberal religion and tolerant humanism). The first two are similar in that they insist on external authorities for knowledge (science is external in the sense that it is a discourse of inquiry rather than inquiry itself), which may explain why they sound so alike sometimes.

You make a good point. The only thing I would quibble about is that science as it is practiced *is* the inquiry itself. It's empiricism. To that extent it is experiential. When empiricism is practiced, it generates a body of knowledge that then gets codified into what we generally think of as "science." And then some people take that body of knowledge to be the Truth with a capital T. Similarly in religion, there is the experiential aspect of religion, which is akin to the gathering of "data." Then those experiences get called "revelations" and codified into scriptures and dogmas, and people take them to be the Truth with a capital T.

The crucial distinction is, as you said, external authority versus internal/experiential authority. I just wanted to highlight that there are two aspects to science, and it isn't science itself that's the problem. Nor scripture. It's how we choose to look at them. To trust external authority is to see truth as static, an object to be possessed. To trust experiential authority is to see truth as dynamic/living, something that can only be lived.

I think the tension that we experience within UU is that some of us trust the more empirical experience. That which we can see and touch and measure. And some of us trust the more "mystical" experience, which cannot be quantified. BUT the thing that keeps us UUs altogether is that we all ultimately side with personal experience, including the personal experiences of others which we may not share.

I may not believe the same things as you do because I haven't had the same personal experiences as you, but I trust that you have, and therefore must respect your beliefs.

 

[des]

>I am glad you enjoyed your UU time. I am happy for you. I would suggest you read some of Harris and Dawkins before jumping to that conclusion. I personally don't find either of them to be extremist. Dawkins is considered incidently, to be one of the leading researchers in the field of genetics in the world. They both are really interesting people to read about.

Of course I *did* read *both* books by Harris and have heard him speak on BookTv (CSpan2) and while I haven't read Dawkins book, I also heard him on BookTV as well. While I enjoyed their POVs. I do feel they are quite intolerant.

Dawkins is quite well known and I know of this. But this does not mean he is not intolerant.

I actually thought both were interesting to listen to. Dawkins is more sarcastic. Of course, the meaning of this word is interesting. It means "biting flesh".

Intolerance would mean that he does not seem to tolerate or regard other pov as valid or even worthy of being attended to. Both of them are even intolerant towards agnostism, feeling it is somehow not a serious position.

>As far as "fundamental atheism, and this might be a good debate topic, I don't think it exists. Fundamental is the subscription to dogma which is absent outside of religion. Maybe the sermon speaker was thinking of extremist.

The pastor didn't use the term "Fundamentalist", and I can see from another thread how literally some people are taking that term.
No it does not really make sense. However, they demonstrate to me some of the *behaviors" of fundamentalism. And I listed these above. I am using fundamentalism as an analogy. (As anyone knows about Islam, for instance, fundamentalism doesn't really apply to Islam either. The original term was meant to apply to "keeping the fundamentals of Christian belief" (at least in their eyes). One of them was clearly literalism. Since almost all Moslem's read the text literally, you can't really apply the term). So it has come to mean extremist views.

>Many, if not most UU churches post their sermons online. Do you have a link?

I looked for it last night and didn't see it. If I find it I would post a link. I'm thinking there is another site that was down.



--des

 

[Stairs In My House]

Randoid as in Ayn Rand?! :cover:

Haha, yep. Seven years! The next time you run into one of those people, remember that there is hope. People do recover. There are dozens of us! Dozens!

I just wanted to highlight that there are two aspects to science, and it isn't science itself that's the problem. Nor scripture. It's how we choose to look at them. To trust external authority is to see truth as static, an object to be possessed. To trust experiential authority is to see truth as dynamic/living, something that can only be lived.

You are exactly right, of course. I was thinking of science the way Kuhn talks about it, where once a consensus is achieved, scientists work within that paradigm to "do" science, and the consensus is only challenged when it no longer provides "do-able" science. As one paradigm is replaced with another, we may come closer to the truth, but the paradigm (the consensus) is never the truth itself.

I may not believe the same things as you do because I haven't had the same personal experiences as you, but I trust that you have, and therefore must respect your beliefs.

This sums it up perfectly. Furthermore, I would say that even if your experiences lead to beliefs that seem to contradict mine, it is probably because we are approaching the problem from two different directions and the apparent contradiction will be resolved by some as yet unrevealed truth.

 

[des]

Ok, a string of posts and then I'm off.
I did see the other current post on "fundamentalist atheism". I guess the comment was resented. I'm perfectly happy to revert to extremist, militant or some other term. But it was quite clearly an analogy and not a literalist comment.

You make an interesting comment. I have never liked religious people quoting scripture at me. And I also never thought it proved anything (except to say that Leviticus would want to kill you for all sorts of things!)

Funny thing then when I saw the scientists, Dawkins and Harris, quoting science at me. Science certainly explains much of external experience and observation. Even Harris acknowledges that there are internal experiences, that are maybe beyond what is easily knowable. Harris seems to believe that it all will be eventually knowable (I'm not sure, this is the impression I get). But I would argue that perhaps they aren't and can't be. That there are some things about experience that are not knowable. You wouldn't need to call that God, in fact, I sort of dislike the man in the white beard idea I get from that term.

However, all said, you could look at what I just wrote and decide that that had nothing whatsoever to do with a deity. And I would have no problem with that viewpoint in the slightest. As long as you accepted that I had a different one. In fact, if they didn't have such a big hand in political life, I wouldn't even be bothered by fundie Christians, if they just left me alone.

I guess I am now worried we have yet another group of people emboldened to proselitize to others, as we are all the screwed up ones.

BTW, Sam Harris and Reza Aslan are debating Sunday on BookTv. Reza Aslan is a "progressive" Moslem, very witty and a great debater. I saw him on a video with Bill Mauer (my favorite atheist ). Aslan wrote the book "No God but God". (If you want to know where the progressive voices here, he might be a good one to start with.) Anyway, this would no doubt be very interesting.

--des

The crucial distinction is, as you said, external authority versus internal/experiential authority. I just wanted to highlight that there are two aspects to science, and it isn't science itself that's the problem. Nor scripture. It's how we choose to look at them. To trust external authority is to see truth as static, an object to be possessed. To trust experiential authority is to see truth as dynamic/living, something that can only be lived.

I think the tension that we experience within UU is that some of us trust the more empirical experience. That which we can see and touch and measure. And some of us trust the more "mystical" experience, which cannot be quantified. BUT the thing that keeps us UUs altogether is that we all ultimately side with personal experience, including the personal experiences of others which we may not share.

I may not believe the same things as you do because I haven't had the same personal experiences as you, but I trust that you have, and therefore must respect your beliefs.

 

[Stairs In My House]

You make a good point. The only thing I would quibble about is that science as it is practiced *is* the inquiry itself. It's empiricism.

Today I accidentally ran across a very interesting paper on storytelling as a form of theory construction while I was looking for something else, and I thought I'd pass on this little quote, which I think you will find interesting and relevant, and very much in the spirit of UU views on religion, science, and reason.

Some have challenged the realist position (cf. Popper, 1959) that individual scientists discover facts inherent in the universe. (For a discussion of this dialectic in science, see Angelus, 1981; Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984; Laudan, 1984; Walker, 1963.) These scholars take the point of view that scientists construct 'facts' rather than discover them and that they do so through co-construction (i.e., construction involving more than one participant). Debunking the image of the lone researcher tucked away in a personal laboratory, these scholars have suggested that important explanations--in the form of theories--emerge out of everyday conversational interaction about collective observations among members of a research group and thus depend on a social interactional process ...

This perspective recognizes that scientific and other scholarly thinking thrives in an atmosphere of open-mindedness where every 'fact' is vulnerable to challenge. Scientific laboratories and schools are predicated on the assumption that human awareness gains from cultivating the ability to step out of our world of 'fact' and sometimes rigid convictions in order to consider alternative explanations and multiple perspectives on our reality.
​

Ochs, Elinor, Carolyn Taylor, Dina Rudolph & Ruth Smith. 1992. "Storytelling as a Theory-Building Activity." Discourse Processes 15:37-72.

(Italics added by me. I'll be happy to provide full references for the citations if you're interested.)

 

[Storm Moon]

Quick question: Why do so many people get so into Rand? I just don't see her logic at all...

 

[lilithu]

Hi des, namaste.

Science certainly explains much of external experience and observation. Even Harris acknowledges that there are internal experiences, that are maybe beyond what is easily knowable. Harris seems to believe that it all will be eventually knowable (I'm not sure, this is the impression I get). But I would argue that perhaps they aren't and can't be. That there are some things about experience that are not knowable. You wouldn't need to call that God, in fact, I sort of dislike the man in the white beard idea I get from that term.

I haven't read Harris but from what others have told me I get the impression that he thinks that such internal experiences will eventually be "known." And by "known" I mean objectively identified, quantified and reduced. Harris is a materialist. I am not.

I do call the unknowable/ineffible "God" but I don't mean the man in the white beard. It's just that no other word connotes the same amount of awe and mystery.

In fact, if they didn't have such a big hand in political life, I wouldn't even be bothered by fundie Christians, if they just left me alone.

Yup, me too. Actually, I think they have the right to be involved in political life and promote their views. They just need to understand that they have to share this country with others. It cannot be a theocracy.

BTW, Sam Harris and Reza Aslan are debating Sunday on BookTv. Reza Aslan is a "progressive" Moslem, very witty and a great debater. I saw him on a video with Bill Mauer (my favorite atheist ). Aslan wrote the book "No God but God". (If you want to know where the progressive voices here, he might be a good one to start with.) Anyway, this would no doubt be very interesting.

Yes, I am familiar with Reza Aslan. He's been on both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report promoting his book. And he intrigued me enough to check out his website.

http://www.rezaaslan.com/

 

[Hacker]

Quick question: Why do so many people get so into Rand? I just don't see her logic at all...

Hey spirit moon, where have you been?