Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[Nakosis]

Do you believe that faith can overcome fear, or love overcome hate? If you don't, I pity you. If you do, how did you reach that conclusion?

Belief in the transformative power of faith, love and compassion are religious or philosophical precepts, which have proved their value time and again, when put into practice.

Yes, faith in one's self can do these things. Faith based on a past proven track record. If you lack faith in yourself, I'd supposed you might be able to successfully substitute faith in something/someone else. However, if the latter be the case, I'd suggest maybe reevaluating some of your life choices.

 

[Nimos]

Well, here is one for you that you will get even in this forum in effect:
Science is the best way to understand the world!

The joke is there is not evidence for that one. So religion is not the only way to do what you don't like. Science can be claimed for that too.

Science is the best way to understand the natural world.

It is our only way, we have no other methods to go about at the moment, so the state is true (if you add "natural"), which I assume anyone has written it would mean.

Im not saying that religion has no purpose, it gives people hope, meaning comfort etc. But that doesn't mean that the answers are true. Exactly like there are lots of scientific ideas floating around that are not true either even if they sound plausible, if we want the truth we have to demonstrate it, until then it is just an idea a thought or something hoped for, which is not meaningless, but it simply can't be called truth.

There needs to be a perspective here in regard to what we are talking about. If we are talking about people's emotional opinions, anything goes. I have no objections against them. If we are talking about truth claims, emotional opinions are simply not valid, they can be interesting etc.
I also share my opinions, but that doesn't mean that what I'm saying reflects reality, it is what I believe is most likely to be true based on my experiences, observations etc. just like we all do in everyday life.

 

[wellwisher]

Most atheists think that atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. However, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues that atheism is actually an ideology that shapes how people see and interact with the world. He says atheism isn't just the opposite of theism: it's a worldview with its own set of beliefs and values. Many atheists do treat atheism as an ideology, with its own beliefs, values, and dogmas. They argue, debate, and defend their beliefs just as fiercely as believers defend theirs. For example, many atheists strongly believe in scientific rationalism as the only way to understand the world. They often dismiss or ridicule any belief in the supernatural as irrational or ignorant. They also often advocate strongly for separation of church and state and oppose religious influence in public life. In this way, their atheism becomes an ideology, a belief system not so different from a religious one. They feel they have the "truth," while believers are deluded or brainwashed. This sense of superiority can lead to aggression towards those they see as inferior or ignorant. Also, some atheists may feel threatened by religious beliefs. They see religion as holding back progress, limiting freedom of thought, and encouraging harmful practices. In their minds, aggressively challenging religious beliefs is a way to promote reason, equality, and social progress. I believe that Zizek might be on to something here and based on how some atheists behave you can't consider their form of atheism has just passive non-belief because they act like ideological foot soldiers - they are activists. What do you guys think?

Although Atheism is defined in the dictionary as not believing in deities, it often goes beyond just that and tries to throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to those who do believe in deities. It becomes more like Religion in an inverted mirror. If Religion says X, Atheism will say -X.

The classic example is the nuclear family is still the most efficient social construct. This social constructed is most often associated with religion. Atheists, who claim to be about science and reason, will defy reason and not accept this, since Religion said it first. There is an irrational side to Atheism that appears. Many religions have discovered rational solutions to day to day social problems.Belief in God is only one aspect of a full life. There are also challenges in secular life.

Irrationality is what makes some aspects of Atheism, become a type of mirror religion. It sort of reminds me of a child in the terrible two's, where they learn the word "no" and by negating anything the parents say, creates an illusion of ego individuality. But this only works if the parent offers a positive so they can negate it, even if irrational. Many Atheist come to the Religious Forum to feel alive via negation; terrible two's of Atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is the best way to understand the natural world.

It is our only way, we have no other methods to go about at the moment, so the state is true (if you add "natural"), which I assume anyone has written it would mean.

Im not saying that religion has no purpose, it gives people hope, meaning comfort etc. But that doesn't mean that the answers are true. Exactly like there are lots of scientific ideas floating around that are not true either even if they sound plausible, if we want the truth we have to demonstrate it, until then it is just an idea a thought or something hoped for, which is not meaningless, but it simply can't be called truth.

There needs to be a perspective here in regard to what we are talking about. If we are talking about people's emotional opinions, anything goes. I have no objections against them. If we are talking about truth claims, emotional opinions are simply not valid, they can be interesting etc.
I also share my opinions, but that doesn't mean that what I'm saying reflects reality, it is what I believe is most likely to be true based on my experiences, observations etc. just like we all do in everyday life.

Well, truth is a cognitve state of mind without any evidence as philosophy failed in grounding truth as objective, rational and what not. In effect if you combine methodological naturalism and cogntive relativism, your belief sysyem of science, truth and the natural world is without evidence as it is in effect the belief in a certain set of axiomatic assumptions.

That is the postive version that most atheists believe in here and that you can't admit is a belief system.

 

[Nimos]

Do you believe that faith can overcome fear, or love overcome hate? If you don't, I pity you. If you do, how did you reach that conclusion?

Belief in the transformative power of faith, love and compassion are religious or philosophical precepts, which have proved their value time and again, when put into practice.

Yes, having faith in something can overcome fear, but so can courage and it depends on how strong the fear is. Im not sure love can overcome hate, it depends. If someone killed your whole family, I doubt love could overcome the hate.

This is what I meant by religious people not addressing these questions particularly critical because I assume that your answers are straightforward.

Faith > than fear
Love > than hate

End of story, no need to reflect on whether this is actually true or even relevant questions to ask?

Belief in something is a strong motivator, do you think belief in a God is the only valid motivator?

Do you think that this person was strongly motivated by his beliefs?
On November 2, 1965, Norman Morrison, an anti-war activist, doused himself in kerosene and set himself on fire below the office of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara at the Pentagon, to protest United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

 

[Nimos]

Well, truth is a cognitve state of mind without any evidence as philosophy failed in grounding truth as objective, rational and what not. In effect if you combine methodological naturalism and cogntive relativism, your belief sysyem of science, truth and the natural world is without evidence as it is in effect the belief in a certain set of axiomatic assumptions.

That is the postive version that most atheists believe in here and that you can't admit is a belief system.

Philosophy has many interesting points and can raise a lot of questions. But I don't find it particularly useful when it comes to figuring out what is most likely to be true.

If it was up to philosophy, we would probably still argue whether humans even exist or not.

That is not a view of reality I share or even care about except because it is occasionally fun to talk about.

Because let me guess, based on what your wrote, that your final conclusion might as well be, we don't know anything at all, and therefore we might as well not bother trying to figure out anything, because it isn't real anyway?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy has many interesting points and can raise a lot of questions. But I don't find it particularly useful when it comes to figuring out what is most likely to be true.

If it was up to philosophy, we would probably still argue whether humans even exist or not.

That is not a view of reality I share or even care about except because it is occasionally fun to talk about.

Because let me guess, based on what your wrote, that your final conclusion might as well be, we don't know anything at all, and therefore we might as well not bother trying to figure out anything, because it isn't real anyway?

Now reread your own post and notice when you in effect use emotions and notice how you use that to claim what is the best way to understand the world. That is my point!
I believe that the universe is epistemologically real, fair, orderly and knowable, but I admit that is based on that it subjectively makes sense to me.

Can you admit the same of your world view in the end or will you claim that it is absolutely without doubt true?

 

[Nimos]

Now reread your own post and notice when you in effect use emotions and notice how you use that to claim what is the best way to understand the world. That is my point!
I believe that the universe is epistemologically real, fair, orderly and knowable, but I admit that is based on that it subjectively makes sense to me.

Can you admit the same of your world view in the end or will you claim that it is absolutely without doubt true?

I not saying there is one way to understand the world, I'm saying that we currently only have one method to verify whether things are true or not.

That doesn't mean that our lives aren't filled with feelings, opinions etc. that all make up how we understand the world in which we live. But that doesn't mean that these reflect reality, simply because no one can comprehend everything. But that is not to be confused with then thinking that there are an infinite number of realities. Even if both of us look at an apple and even use different names for it, it is still an apple (In that sense), the reality is the same but our perspective of it might not be.

The question for me is to figure out what this shared reality is, that is what I consider the truth.

I can't simply convince you that it is an apple because I say so, but I can demonstrate it and that ought to convince you. In which case, our realities align so to speak.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I not saying there is one way to understand the world, I'm saying that we currently only have one method to verify whether things are true or not.

...

No, there are several versions of theories of truth and that includes several versions in science in effect.
I can't help it that you are not educated enough to know this, but that is how it is.

In effect we have now left science and entered philosophy of science and philosophy proper. But that is how your kind of atheists do it at least sometimes. You claim philosophy without knowing that you are doing it, because your subjective version of science is the only correct version of truth. And you claim a we that is not there, because you are not all humans.

 

[Nimos]

No, there are several versions of theories of truth and that includes several versions in science in effect.
I can't help it that you are not educated enough to know this, but that is how it is.

In effect we have now left science and entered philosophy of science and philosophy proper. But that is how your kind of atheists do it at least sometimes. You claim philosophy without knowing that you are doing it, because your subjective version of science is the only correct version of truth. And you claim a we that is not there, because you are not all humans.

But you keep referring to these other versions of the truth, yet you haven't presented anything, what are these other versions? And how do they verify that something is true or not?

 

[wellwisher]

Science is the best way to understand the natural world.

It is our only way, we have no other methods to go about at the moment, so the state is true (if you add "natural"), which I assume anyone has written it would mean.

Im not saying that religion has no purpose, it gives people hope, meaning comfort etc. But that doesn't mean that the answers are true. Exactly like there are lots of scientific ideas floating around that are not true either even if they sound plausible, if we want the truth we have to demonstrate it, until then it is just an idea a thought or something hoped for, which is not meaningless, but it simply can't be called truth.

There needs to be a perspective here in regard to what we are talking about. If we are talking about people's emotional opinions, anything goes. I have no objections against them. If we are talking about truth claims, emotional opinions are simply not valid, they can be interesting etc.
I also share my opinions, but that doesn't mean that what I'm saying reflects reality, it is what I believe is most likely to be true based on my experiences, observations etc. just like we all do in everyday life.

Science is the best way to understand the natural world. However, the black box of statistical science, is not the most rational approach to science. How can you reason inside a black box when you cannot see anything in the darkness? Margin of error does not allow for any facts. Facts are sharp points and not fuzzy dice. This is not fully rational science. It is more like oracle science; fortune teller, and not exclusively based on reason. It is somewhere between religion and reason. It still has spirits like Lady Luck and Murphy law.

Rational science has a much higher standard. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity are expressed with math logic; equations. If anyone was to run an experience and one data point did not touch these math curves, the entire theory would be re-examined.

With statistical science you draw your curve, after the fact and curve/ theory is the best fit to the data even it does not touch any of the data points. Rational theory has a higher much higher standard. I am not sure if statistical theory can define reality. It can correlate but that is not the same as explain with reason. Statistical should be called Science lite.

Another problem with science lite, is since you start in a black box, how do you know you are running the correct experiments for what is in the black box. If you run the wrong experiments your data will never touch the correct line to create a self fulfilling prophesy of randomness. A rational theory knows how things work in advance; open the box and see. Therefore it can run the correct experiments so all the data touches. This is what is needed for applied science.

The Golden Age of science was a more rational time. Most of the advances, now are in Applied Science and Technology; tools, but little in pure science, due to too much science lite. Applied science has to be more rational, since irrational is not reliable or stable in reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you keep referring to these other versions of the truth, yet you haven't presented anything, what are these other versions? And how do they verify that something is true or not?

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nimos]

Science is the best way to understand the natural world. However, the black box of statistical science, is not the most rational approach to science. How can you reason inside a black box when you cannot see anything in the darkness? Margin of error does not allow for any facts. Facts are sharp points and not fuzzy dice. This is not fully rational science. It is more like oracle science; fortune teller, and not exclusively based on reason. It is somewhere between religion and reason. It still has spirits like Lady Luck and Murphy law.

Rational science has a much higher standard. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity are expressed with math logic; equations. If anyone was to run an experience and one data point did not touch these math curves, the entire theory would be re-examined.

With statistical science you draw your curve, after the fact and curve/ theory is the best fit to the data even it does not touch any of the data points. Rational theory has a higher much higher standard. I am not sure if statistical theory can define reality. It can correlate but that is not the same as explain with reason. Statistical should be called Science lite.

Another problem with science lite, is since you start in a black box, how do you know you are running the correct experiments for what is in the black box. If you run the wrong experiments your data will never touch the correct line to create a self fulfilling prophesy of randomness. A rational theory knows how things work in advance; open the box and see. Therefore it can run the correct experiments so all the data touches. This is what is needed for applied science.

The Golden Age of science was a more rational time. Most of the advances, now are in Applied Science and Technology; tools, but little in pure science, due to too much science lite. Applied science has to be more rational, since irrational is not reliable or stable in reality.

A lot of data has deviation, as you say it depends on what is being examined. A lot of things you can't simply make a formula and then you get the correct number. Science is a lot of things, but as far as I know, common for all of them is that they rely on the scientific method.

Let's say you should do a study of when people die, then you would have dots all over the graph, but that doesn't mean that you can't conclude on it, even though there are deviations within the dataset, you would be looking at tendencies. That is still a much better reflection of reality compared to if we were just guessing.

And if the data showed that 80% of people died at the age of 50 years old, then we could still say that any claim that most people die when they are 90 years old is not true.

Science doesn't work in absolutes. So I see nothing wrong with what you are writing here, we have the data that is available to us, no different than we can't go back in time and see how exactly the dinosaurs looked, so we have to draw on the data that is available and from that get as close to the truth as we can.

 

[Nimos]

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is not what I asked you.

What are those other versions of truth?
How do they verify that what they are saying is true, do they use a method?

You linked me to pages about philosophers even having difficulty figuring out what is meant by truth. Which is fine, but has nothing to do with what I asked.

2. What Sorts of Things are True (or False)?
Although we do speak of true friends and false identities, philosophers believe these are derivative uses of “true” and “false”. The central use of “true”, the more important one for philosophers, occurs when we say, for example, it’s true that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh. Here,”true” is contrasted with “false”, not with “fake” or “insincere”. When we say that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh, what sort of thing is it that is true? Is it a statement or a sentence or something else, a “fact”, perhaps? More generally, philosophers want to know what sorts of things are true and what sorts of things are false. This same question is expressed by asking: What sorts of things have (or bear) truth-values?

The term “truth-value” has been coined by logicians as a generic term for “truth or falsehood”. To ask for the truth-value of P, is to ask whether P is true or whether P is false. “Value” in “truth-value” does not mean “valuable”. It is being used in a similar fashion to “numerical value” as when we say that the value of “x” in “x + 3 = 7” is 4. To ask “What is the truth-value of the statement that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh?” is to ask whether the statement that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh is true or whether it is false. (The truth-value of that specific statement is true.)

As I said philosophers have interesting thoughts, but I'm not going to read through all this (to be fair, it's quite a lot), especially when this is how they start, I assumed you have some thoughts about the questions I asked, that don't require that much reading.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is not what I asked you.

What are those other versions of truth?
How do they verify that what they are saying is true, do they use a method?

You linked me to pages about philosophers even having difficulty figuring out what is meant by truth. Which is fine, but has nothing to do with what I asked.

2. What Sorts of Things are True (or False)?
Although we do speak of true friends and false identities, philosophers believe these are derivative uses of “true” and “false”. The central use of “true”, the more important one for philosophers, occurs when we say, for example, it’s true that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh. Here,”true” is contrasted with “false”, not with “fake” or “insincere”. When we say that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh, what sort of thing is it that is true? Is it a statement or a sentence or something else, a “fact”, perhaps? More generally, philosophers want to know what sorts of things are true and what sorts of things are false. This same question is expressed by asking: What sorts of things have (or bear) truth-values?

The term “truth-value” has been coined by logicians as a generic term for “truth or falsehood”. To ask for the truth-value of P, is to ask whether P is true or whether P is false. “Value” in “truth-value” does not mean “valuable”. It is being used in a similar fashion to “numerical value” as when we say that the value of “x” in “x + 3 = 7” is 4. To ask “What is the truth-value of the statement that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh?” is to ask whether the statement that Montreal is north of Pittsburgh is true or whether it is false. (The truth-value of that specific statement is true.)

As I said philosophers have interesting thoughts, but I'm not going to read through all this (to be fair, it's quite a lot), especially when this is how they start, I assumed you have some thoughts about the questions I asked, that don't require that much reading.

Yeah, science is nothing more as method of verifing what is true!!!
I am not goint to keep it simple, because it is not simple. Just as theists are told to learn about science, but nobody here teaches them science as such, it is the same for truth.

But if you really want the short versions, then okay.
There is correspondence, that what you call verify for truth.
There is coherence, that is all beliefs make a cohherent logical totality as true.
There is redudency, that we don't need the word true.
There is pragmatic, that truth is what works and makes sense.
There is that truth is a language system, where you can prove the meta-truth of language, but you need the meta-meta truth of meta-truth. I.e. there is no real objetive truth as it is a cognitive state of mind/brain.

For science there is verification versus falsification and those are not the same.
Then there is instrumentalism. Just do the rules and don't worry about it being true or real.
There is coherence as above.
There are different versions of that science is a kind of social behaviour and thus as much about how we do different culture and in effect cogntive relativism.

That is even too simple, but you asked. I am not going to do it longer as I am not your teacher. Start reading and learn that true is more than just verify as per science!!!

 

[Nimos]

I am not goint to keep it simple, because it is not simple. Just as theists are told to learn about science, but nobody here teaches them science as such, it is the same for truth.

But if you really want the short versions, then okay.

That is even too simple, but you asked. I am not going to do it longer as I am not your teacher. Start reading and learn that true is more than just verify as per science!!!

You can't expect anyone to read 100s of pages when asked a question, that is absurd. Besides that I wasn't asking 3 weblinks these questions, I was asking you

If there were some sections in these links that you thought were particularly relevant to your point, that is perfectly fine, have no problems reading that.
Besides that, I'm not a philosopher and have never claimed to be one either.

There is redudency, that we don't need the word true.

If we were to write it:
It is true that Car A drives faster than Car B or Car A drives faster than Car B.

Making "true" redundant doesn't change that the statement is only true if we can verify it. Don't see how removing the word "true" is relevant for science?

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I don't see how any of these examples/ideas have anything to do with figuring out what is likely to be true and what isn't.

This one:
There is pragmatic, that truth is what works and makes sense.

How do you figure out if something works and makes sense? If you can't do that, then you can't establish the truth about it. This is what confuses me about what you write, what approach or method is used for these statements to be considered true?

How do you decide that the word "true" is not needed, if nothing is tested or verified objectively?

 

[LuisDantas]

Gee... how come so many people go so enthusiastically out of their ways to make so many complications about something as simple and spontaneous as atheism?

 

[LuisDantas]

I mean it. People such as Zizek and (pardon the mention) Jordan Peterson build such fantastic fantasies of otherworldly atheism and atheists that I sometimes would really like to read the books of those tales.

They would probably be lousy, but highly entertaining.

You know, somewhat like "God is Not Dead" or "Left Behind".

Then again, I would have to be exposed to the so-called ethics of those fictions. Never mind then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't expect anyone to read 100s of pages when asked a question, that is absurd. Besides that I wasn't asking 3 weblinks these questions, I was asking you

If there were some sections in these links that you thought were particularly relevant to your point, that is perfectly fine, have no problems reading that.
Besides that, I'm not a philosopher and have never claimed to be one either.


If we were to write it:
It is true that Car A drives faster than Car B or Car A drives faster than Car B.

Making "true" redundant doesn't change that the statement is only true if we can verify it. Don't see how removing the word "true" is relevant for science?

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I don't see how any of these examples/ideas have anything to do with figuring out what is likely to be true and what isn't.

This one:
There is pragmatic, that truth is what works and makes sense.

How do you figure out if something works and makes sense? If you can't do that, then you can't establish the truth about it. This is what confuses me about what you write, what approach or method is used for these statements to be considered true?

How do you decide that the word "true" is not needed, if nothing is tested or verified objectively?

So it is absolutely true that science is about verification?
Or is science in part a cultural human behaviour that in part depends on what is true is believed to be?

See, that is how simple it is. Science is what you think it is.

 

[Nimos]

So it is absolutely true that science is about verification?

Science is about figuring out what is most likely to be true and what is definitely not true.

For instance, the redundancy of the word "true" (if I understood the general idea behind it correctly), is only possible if we can even reach the point where talking about it makes sense. Don't you agree, that we can't remove the word "true" if we can't even verify that such a concept even exists, it wouldn't make sense.

Science as I see it, is the method by which we can do that. Because it lets us objectively distinguish between true and false statements and ideas.

Or is science in part a cultural human behaviour that in part depends on what is true is believed to be?

(Im not sure I 100% understand your question, so if I got it wrong, just let me know. )

If science is done correctly following the method then belief is irrelevant, whatever results are gained from it is what matters, obviously, wrong conclusions can be drawn, it happens a lot in science and it constantly changes as we gain more and more knowledge, that is why I refer to it as a process, what is considered the most likely to be true now, is not necessarily the case in 30 years.

But it is not based on people just believing that something ought to be true and then run with it.

Science is not absolute, it is just the best current explanation based on the data we have.

See, that is how simple it is. Science is what you think it is.

So science isn't what you just think it is. Science is what can be demonstrated and repeated etc.

You and I could make a science project, where we want to claim that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that it is science or that we even approached it using the correct method.