Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[Nimos]

Objective evidence based on observation that the world is natural and that it is the only way to understand the world.
Not what you think. Observation! The same with true. Not what you think. Observation of the referent of true. And the referent of world.

Edit - could you please reread your post and notice where you in effect say that people think sicence is so, therefore it is a fact that science is so. And could you then realize that what you claim science is, is just as God, based on how a given person thinks.

What you are saying if I understand you correctly, is for something to be referred to as science it just depends on one's opinion, correct?

That would be like saying that children playing with water are the same as firemen because they have water in buckets, it just depends on whether one agrees with it or not.

For something to be called science as with so many other things, requires that certain conditions are fulfilled. I have no clue who decided these, but I don't get the impression that anyone disagrees with it.

This is what classifies something as being science:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence.

And you can surely find other descriptions of it, but it doesn't mean that anyone at random can just call whatever they feel like for science.

Can you name me something that you think ought to be classified as science but isn't at the moment? And if you can't then I don't understand what issues you have with how science is being classified?

 

[RestlessSoul]

What we have learnt with relativity and quantum mechanics is objective - hardly ever predictable, but that is the way things are.
No problem with 'Wissenschaft', unless they talk about things against science.
All rubbish and superstition cannot be hidden under the cloak of 'Wissenschaft'. I am sure it does not mean that.

​

Quantum theory, the measurement problem, the uncertainty principle, and quantum entanglement, all point at the limitations of objectivity

 

[Madsaac]

I imagine you can probably guess my opinion on this subject, which is as follows;

I suspect that atheists as a body, though they be liberated from ecclesiastical dogma, are as prone to assumptions and unquestioned axioms as any the rest of us are. Indeed, you don't have to look far for examples of atheists who exhibit an unwavering commitment to their own rigid beliefs, and a refusal to contemplate the possibility that there may be "more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamed of in [their] philosophy."

And I think you do religious people a great disservice, if you assume most have never questioned their own beliefs, and are incapable of independent thought.

Yes, what you say is correct, as individuals we all have our own levels of reflection and I certainly don’t think that religious people haven’t questioned their own beliefs and grown from it.

It’s a hard thing to measure but because religion has to follow more ‘rules’ for want of a better term, than atheism, then it could be concluded that it might limit the chance for contemplation.

And does it really matter?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What we have learnt with relativity and quantum mechanics is objective - hardly ever predictable, but that is the way things are.
No problem with 'Wissenschaft', unless they talk about things against science.
All rubbish and superstition cannot be hidden under the cloak of 'Wissenschaft'. I am sure it does not mean that.

​

Do you understand German?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you are saying if I understand you correctly, is for something to be referred to as science it just depends on one's opinion, correct?

That would be like saying that children playing with water are the same as firemen because they have water in buckets, it just depends on whether one agrees with it or not.

For something to be called science as with so many other things, requires that certain conditions are fulfilled. I have no clue who decided these, but I don't get the impression that anyone disagrees with it.

This is what classifies something as being science:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence.

And you can surely find other descriptions of it, but it doesn't mean that anyone at random can just call whatever they feel like for science.

Can you name me something that you think ought to be classified as science but isn't at the moment? And if you can't then I don't understand what issues you have with how science is being classified?

Well, I gave you a link in Dansh that explain how human(istic) science is not considered the same as natural and social science by some people.

The issue I have is that you treat as what makes science science as objective, where it is a cultural inter-subjective human behaviour.
And indeed there are also no objective evidence for what is natural or social. Go back, find the link and read it.

 

[Nimos]

Well, I gave you a link in Dansh that explain how human(istic) science is not considered the same as natural and social science by some people.

The issue I have is that you treat as what makes science science as objective, where it is a cultural inter-subjective human behaviour.
And indeed there are also no objective evidence for what is natural or social. Go back, find the link and read it.

The main issue between the two fields is the methods used, where the natural sciences do not think that the humanistic approach is objective enough, which to me, at least is a fair point. So I can understand your view.

It would probably be relevant to discuss whether humanistic science fits within the field of science at all or whether it should be covered by something else. One focuses purely on objectivity and the other on subjectivity/objectivity, or where you split them based on the underlying methods used.

Sure, there is an issue here, that would probably be healthy to get solved

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The main issue between the two fields is the methods used, where the natural sciences do not think that the humanistic approach is objective enough, which to me, at least is a fair point. So I can understand your view.

It would probably be relevant to discuss whether humanistic science fits within the field of science at all or whether it should be covered by something else. One focuses purely on objectivity and the other on subjectivity/objectivity, or where you split them based on the underlying methods used.

Sure, there is an issue here, that would probably be healthy to get solved

But the bold is subjective.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will offer this to you then, how do you explain the attitude of many atheists who put science as the end-all, be-all, and the obsession with being anti-Christian to the point books that feature atheophobia are frequently on books considered atheist books?

I don't think that happens to any significant extent.

If anything, the opposite (unwarranted protection of theistic, and specifically Christian and Muslim superstition and dogma) is a very real and very intense problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

Reasons....
- Believers need to rationalize why atheism is wrong.
That's a tough job, so it's couched on lengthy arguments
to hide flaws in premises & reasoning.
- Philosophers would never get tenure if their arguments
were simply stated. Then anyone could easily grasp their
meaning....& anyone could join the Philosopher's Union.

The hard sciences (eg, math, physics) are complex.
Philosophy must be made complex.

FYI...

Why Is Academic Writing So Needlessly Complex?

A new movement strives for simplicity.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[TheSwede]

I see many that adhere to the new atheists movement that behaves like Slavoj Zizek says. I've also noticed that especially American atheists (which seems to be a bit more polarized society) behave in a tribal manner.

I disagree with Slavoj Zizek. I think he is noticing the anti-theists and the American atheists, they/we are the ones you see and hear. Most atheists do not bother about religion so you never hear them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think he is noticing the anti-theists and the American atheists, they/we are the ones you see and hear. Most atheists do not bother about religion so you never hear them.

Problem is religion bothering us, eg, trying to turn
USA into a Christian Dominion. No abortion rights
is one problem. Subsidizing their religion is another.

 

[Nimos]

But the bold is subjective.

To some degree at least

The reason I write it is because to me at least, I think there is an argument to be made that science should be repeatable. However given the humanistic approach is a subjective one, it is difficult to see how it could reach the same solid conclusion as something that can be.

I think that is a fair argument against the humanistic approach, but I'm not an expert by any means in these fields, so how much subjectivism it relies on I don't know. But let's say that we conducted the same study about something, but reached completely different conclusions, having no way to verify it through objective data I think it is going to cause some issues. Because it allows for almost anyone to draw their own conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To some degree at least

The reason I write it is because to me at least, I think there is an argument to be made that science should be repeatable. However given the humanistic approach is a subjective one, it is difficult to see how it could reach the same solid conclusion as something that can be.

I think that is a fair argument against the humanistic approach, but I'm not an expert by any means in these fields, so how much subjectivism it relies on I don't know. But let's say that we conducted the same study about something, but reached completely different conclusions, having no way to verify it through objective data I think it is going to cause some issues. Because it allows for almost anyone to draw their own conclusions.

Well, yes. The problem is that some aspects of psychology and other fields are impossible to get a handle on, unless you allowed for subjectivity. But yes, there are limits to subjectivity, just as there are limits to objectivity.

 

[Nimos]

Well, yes. The problem is that some aspects of psychology and other fields are impossible to get a handle on, unless you allowed for subjectivity. But yes, there are limits to subjectivity, just as there are limits to objectivity.

But again, maybe they should just give it another name. I don't really see why it is important for them to be classified as science, just invent another branch/title, we have many of those anyway

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But again, maybe they should just give it another name. I don't really see why it is important for them to be classified as science, just invent another branch/title, we have many of those anyway

Yeah, the same applies to your side.
No, just don't use science as such, but rather natural, social and so on.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Reasons....
- Believers need to rationalize why atheism is wrong.
That's a tough job, so it's couched on lengthy arguments
to hide flaws in premises & reasoning.
- Philosophers would never get tenure if their arguments
were simply stated. Then anyone could easily grasp their
meaning....& anyone could join the Philosopher's Union.

The hard sciences (eg, math, physics) are complex.
Philosophy must be made complex.

FYI...

Why Is Academic Writing So Needlessly Complex?

A new movement strives for simplicity.

www.theatlantic.com

Atheism is wrong because God exists, there's really nothing complicated about that. Obviously I can't prove that to you, you have to find it out for yourself. This is where confusion arises, and communication easily breaks down. Many atheists hold entrenched positions, out of which they cannot be coaxed, even for long enough to consider other perspectives.

Different problems arise when trying to communicate philosophical concepts. Some are subtle, and not easily conveyed. However, it is impossible, ultimately, to do science without philosophy.

'There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.'
- Daniel Dennett

Which philosophers and which branches of philosophy have you studied, btw?

 

[Nimos]

Yeah, the same applies to your side.
No, just don't use science as such, but rather natural, social and so on.

Hopefully they can sort that out at some point, seems like a rather silly thing to me

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism is wrong because God exists, there's really nothing complicated about that.

It is indeed un complicated.
But not in the way you believe.

Obviously I can't prove that to you....

And yet you claim it's true.
Sounds like mental illness to me.

...you have to find it out for yourself. This is where confusion arises, and communication easily breaks down. Many atheists hold entrenched positions, out of which they cannot be coaxed, even for long enough to consider other perspectives.

Different problems arise when trying to communicate philosophical concepts. Some are subtle, and not easily conveyed. However, it is impossible, ultimately, to do science without philosophy.

'There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.'
- Daniel Dennett

Philosophy is indeed useful. But
the over-complicated academic
& religious kinds are feckless.

Which philosophers and which branches of philosophy have you studied, btw?

I studied the "why bother" branch.
Oh, and symbolic logic too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I studied the "why bother" branch.
Oh, and symbolic logic too.

Yeah, that is an old one. Protagoras - "Man is the measure of all things ..."

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

I believe the above is kind of splitting frog hairs over how and what atheists do not believe in Gods. I do not see any real difference between whether atheism is specifically an ideology or not. It is simply a belief the no sort of Gods exist. Atheist do approach the justification of their belief in different ways. Some are indifferent, some go with 'there is no reason to believe,' others strongly believe that absolutely no Gods exist or other spiritual realms associated with Gods. By far most atheists appeal to science and metaphysical naturalism to support their belief. Though it is beyond the capability of science to demonstrate or falsify whether Gods exist or not.

I believe in God, but I consider the atheist/agnostic beliefs ,more rational and reasonable than ancient tribal religions belief in Gods loaded with mythology and created history and often rejects the reality of science. Many if not most traditional Theists have a warped irrational view of science and history.

It is best to let atheists define their own belief and not try and define it for them. The Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world and are mostly irreligious with a high percentage of the population are atheist and agnostic.