Fundamentalist Atheists?

[Storm Moon]

Hey spirit moon, where have you been?

All right, I'll go ahead and tell you. Living my own life. That simple enough an answer for you?

 

[Stairs In My House]

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

Why does anyone embrace any extremist and/or fundamentalist belief?

Part of me would love to explain my experience in detail, but most of me doesn't want to get back into that headspace again, even just to produce an explanation. I will say that it made sense to me at the time. I was 15 years old and at a point in my life when nothing else did. There are worse things a troubled teenager could turn to. And it was the 80s, that might have something to do with it too.

There is a tremendous internal consistency to Rand, and getting away from her philosophy had a lot more to do with personal experience and growth than any sort of logical argument. I honestly believed it was a philosophy that could bring about a better world for everyone. Obviously I don't believe that now, so please don't ask me to defend it, but I do think most people who are into Rand really do imagine a better world (not just for themselves--in spite of what you might think, it's really a lot more complicated than simple selfishness).

 

[Storm Moon]

Why does anyone embrace any extremist and/or fundamentalist belief?

Part of me would love to explain my experience in detail, but most of me doesn't want to get back into that headspace again, even just to produce an explanation. I will say that it made sense to me at the time. I was 15 years old and at a point in my life when nothing else did. There are worse things a troubled teenager could turn to. And it was the 80s, that might have something to do with it too.

There is a tremendous internal consistency to Rand, and getting away from her philosophy had a lot more to do with personal experience and growth than any sort of logical argument. I honestly believed it was a philosophy that could bring about a better world for everyone. Obviously I don't believe that now, so please don't ask me to defend it, but I do think most people who are into Rand really do imagine a better world (not just for themselves--in spite of what you might think, it's really a lot more complicated than simple selfishness).

Oh, I don't want to put you on the spot or anything, so don't worry about it I guess I could bring it up in another thread or something. Still, I just don't get what is so fascinating by her. I was taught that selfishness was wrong, but I guess it's how you look at it.

 

[Stairs In My House]

Oh, I don't want to put you on the spot or anything, so don't worry about it I guess I could bring it up in another thread or something. Still, I just don't get what is so fascinating by her. I was taught that selfishness was wrong, but I guess it's how you look at it.

No, I don't mind. What Rand called selfishness and what most people call selfishness aren't exactly the same thing. Rand knew this and made a point of saying so, then proceeded to play semantic shell games by frequently equivocating the two anyway, so it's not surprising that it's unclear.

 

[lilithu]

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.)

Hi Stairs, namaste.

I definately find it interesting and in line with my own view of science. One of the first things that we learned in graduate school is that we tend to find the answers that we look for. That is, how we frame the question will partly determine what we "discover." It's not like the "truth" is something out there waiting to be discovered, as if it were an object. You've already mentioned Thomas Kuhn. What science develops is a set of constructs that work - that have practical utility. When something no longer works to explain the observations, or when someone comes along with something that works better, the new construct is adopted.

In the history of science, the scientists who are bound by the belief that the current theory is the truth, who's work only serves to cement the current construct... they're not the ones who make the text books. It's those visionaries who conceptualized a new way to look at things that we consider to be the geniuses.

Of course, easier said than done. Most of us are bound to see things within the framework to which we've been socialized.


As I said, I loved your quote and it is in line with my own views. But I'm not sure it's true that it's in line with UU views in general. (It's always hard to generalize UU views.) Is it your impression that most UUs recognize that science is not completely objective? Is it your impression that most UUs approach religious truth from a narrative perspective? I think a lot do. I first encountered narrative theology as a UU. But I'm not sure that it's the commonly held view.

 

[Stairs In My House]

One of the first things that we learned in graduate school is that we tend to find the answers that we look for.

Cool, what did you study in grad school? Where? I'm (hopefully) in the last year or so of the PhD program in linguistics at Ohio State.

As I said, I loved your quote and it is in line with my own views. But I'm not sure it's true that it's in line with UU views in general. (It's always hard to generalize UU views.) Is it your impression that most UUs recognize that science is not completely objective? Is it your impression that most UUs approach religious truth from a narrative perspective? I think a lot do. I first encountered narrative theology as a UU. But I'm not sure that it's the commonly held view.

Well, I don't know enough UUs to say, actually. I was thinking that a lot of this is implicit in the six sources, but I guess other interpretations are possible. It's definitely consistent with what I hear at my own church's services, when I'm not occupied with looking after rugrats.

 

[lilithu]

Cool, what did you study in grad school? Where? I'm (hopefully) in the last year or so of the PhD program in linguistics at Ohio State.

Biology. Caltech. Cool.

Well, I don't know enough UUs to say, actually. I was thinking that a lot of this is implicit in the six sources, but I guess other interpretations are possible. It's definitely consistent with what I hear at my own church's services, when I'm not occupied with looking after rugrats.

I agree that it's implicit, and am glad to hear that there's some agreement amongst us.

 

[des]

>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.

Me neither, but that is essentially correct. He believes that these "things" are "just" states of consciousness which we will eventually be able to control and apply. Of course, I'm not even sure that what consciousness is and who or what is conscious will ever be entirely nailed down. I think what we have in Harris is a scientist that thinks that all questions are answerable by science. I don't agree with this for if experience holds then for each question answered comes a new question. So I don't even think science is so "tangible". The word "literalist" comes to mind.

>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.

I have to say I have also but I'm not entirely happy with the term God with all the baggage, but I haven't got a better one. ;-)

Re: fundies:
> 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.

Oh I think they not only have a right but a duty (to be involved) in politics, as we all do. However, as you say it is the tendency to want to impose their theocratic ideals on the rest of us. Very similar to their wanting to impose their religious views on the rest of us.

>Yes, I am familiar with Reza Aslan.

Thanks for the link. I'll go to out now. I think a debate will be interesting between the two, however, I would wonder how much of an actual debate it can be. I'm fairly sure it wont' be a formal debate, but they have done this in the past on Booktv. (This is a geeky thing. And I embrace my inner geek. )


BTW, I don't remember where it was but I was informed I had to spread the karma around before I gave it to you again.

--des

 

[des]

Hi Stairs, namaste.

As I said, I loved your quote and it is in line with my own views. But I'm not sure it's true that it's in line with UU views in general. (It's always hard to generalize UU views.) Is it your impression that most UUs recognize that science is not completely objective? Is it your impression that most UUs approach religious truth from a narrative perspective? I think a lot do. I first encountered narrative theology as a UU. But I'm not sure that it's the commonly held view.

If they are anything at all like UCCers, and from what I can tell they aren't much (though I have never met a UCC atheist), if you put ten in a room together you might get 20 different opinions.

--des

 

[des]

Hey, this is kind of a back thread but I found the UU website and there are sermons. This is the sermon of a more 'generous atheism" and generally a critique of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Some of you expressed interest in seeing it. It is in podcast, mp3, and pdf formats.

--des