Generalisations About Groups Of Individuals
There is much controversy surrounding the debate about the merits of evaluation through generalisation versus evaluation of the individual. This isn't helped due to each position typically lacking rigour and sophistication. Given this, the issue can't be given anywhere near adequate analysis here but I tentatively offer the following as reasons to be cautious when encountering generalisation.
(To be clear, I am
only talking about generalisations about groups of individuals)
Firstly, due to the large variation between individuals, we need to give serious consideration to the charge of inaccuracy. If a generalisation is inaccurate, this would lead to poor reasoning and, consequently, poor judgement. Is it worth generalising unless we can determine the accuracy of our generalisation? How can we assume that generalisations have epistemic value unless we have first considered how much epistemic value they actually possess?
Secondly, generalisations create a cyclic dependence on inaccuracy. Any generalisation that isn't universal is, by definition, inaccurate and, in using them, we create a belief set of which the coherence dependent on them. This then necessitates a greater tolerance of inaccuracy in our belief set which opens the door to further generalisations and generalisations that are even less accurate.
Thirdly, generalisations create a cyclic emotional charge greater than that associated with evaluating the individual. Whenever we make a judgement, we associate positivity or negativity with that judgement which then biases us in our future judgements. When we do this with individuals, we can end up failing to evaluate them accurately. When we induce features of individuals onto groups, this risk future bias is multiplied greatly because it then becomes easier to ignore those individuals that buck the identified trend.
Examples of generalisations about atheists in this thread can be seen in the posts of Somkid, Sola'or, Bouncing Ball and others as quoted below.
I think because there are so many religious people and when you tell them they are living a lie they tend to get annoyed.
Hmmm. Maybe it's not that popular but the Atheists sure have a loud voice.
Both theists and atheists want to express their thoughts. The standard atheist way, sadly, is to throw with words like "rational", "science", "meaningless bookquotes", etc..
This could make the theist feel like the atheist is saying, "I am smarter than you, I think", while theists are thinking just as hard, only in a different section. I can imagine that being annoying.
Just as annoying as "you just got to have faith" or "Atheists do not exist" btw
As atheists, I feel that we need to be careful about how we respond to such generalisations. If generalisations about groups of individuals are faulty then attempting to refute those generalisations is, at the very least, an insufficient response as it looks at the truth of the premises without considering the validity of the argument. By ignoring the issue of validity we create more work for ourselves by having to research the epistemic justification of the claim; risk implying that the argument is valid; and, perhaps most dangerously, fail to challenge the worldview that generates generalisations.
Religion & Politics: What Does Separation Mean?
I feel that 9-10ths Penguin gives an excellent account of this issue:
Because government laws don't dictate the consciouses and actions of the electorate, I'm guessing. That bit is part of what the American founding fathers intended, IMO. Nobody has the right to hold political office, so if the voters don't want atheists to be elected, atheists don't get elected.
Much of this debate is semantics. When Jeremiah says
You can't have a separation of state and religion in a democracy. Where 80% of the populous is of similar faith with the power to vote.
then he is right
if you define separation to mean that voters cannot base their political decisions according to their religious beliefs.
On the one hand this position has merit. There appear to be many that simultaneously want universal suffrage but also want complete separation of church and state without given an account of how these two may be held coherently.
On the other hand this position misses the point. When criticising a position we must find the strongest possible argument and tackle that. There is no merit in knocking down a weak argument for a position for which there is a stronger. In this the stronger argument is the one that carefully defines what it means by separation of church and state and notably excludes voter obligation.
That an atheist cannot openly be elected president of the United States of America is indeed cause for concern but casting it as part of this debate is not productive for atheists. It is an issue of social tolerance, respect and understanding all of which require the changing of individual attitudes. This cannot be done by legal means and so we should stop referring to the Constitution when we attempt to achieve it.
By all means require of your government that atheists are equally protected under law as any other group. However, when it comes to promoting tolerance, that approach will achieve nothing.
Ozzie and rojse specifically associate separation with the unpopularity of atheism:
Hint: Move to a country with a separation between religion and politics.
I thought America had a segregation between religion and politics. I thought it was a clear statement in the first amendment.
It is very true that America has separation of religion and politics but there is nothing incoherent about
that and a lack of tolerance amongst some Americans towards atheists. Additionally, the law should not be advocated as the potential solution to this problem. If we want the law to preserve democracy then it can only prevent intolerance, not promote tolerance.
