Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[shunyadragon]

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

No, too simplistic and lack of understanding of the above. Science has an adequate objective understanding of the predictable nature of the above and they are predictable properties of our universe, @Aupmanyav is correct,

Appealing to unknowns does not limit does not negate the scientific understanding of the above.

 

[paarsurrey]

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Do the Atheism (all hues/shades/denominations of Western Atheism-a flip side of Pauline-Christendom) people agree, please, right?

Atheism isn't ideology at the offset

There is a disagreement voice, here some post later, please, right, or I misunderstood it?

Regards

 

[Audie]

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.

What do you mean by " repeatable"

 

[shunyadragon]

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Do the Atheism (all hues/shades/denominations of Western Atheism-a flip side of Pauline-Christendom) people agree, please, right?

Regards

Basically in the West it is simply a matter of choice based on independent investigation. The atheists do not separate based on difference, In fact they mostly do not form organized groups. There are a few atheist churches, but not denominations, and some affiliate with Unitarian Universalists

 

[Nimos]

What do you mean by " repeatable"

Simply that others can repeat or duplicate the study/experiment and get the same result. If your study is mainly based on a subjective approach, it is very difficult to verify things, because your conclusion about the results might differ from what I think.

You can compare it to us doing experiments regarding gravity and if we constantly get the same results and they match up that is strong evidence for gravity working that way, even if we don't fully understand gravity in all its details, we can then use this to make predictions etc.

However were we to analyze the behaviour of a human being and why they behave in a certain way, we might not agree to why that is and therefore it might be extremely difficult if not impossible to repeat the experiment because we are working with humans and our own subjective view. Obviously we can use tendencies to a certain degree.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

You need to describe what you call "humanistic approach." Humanism is a belief:

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

Atheist are humanists. The humanist belief is from the basic belief that subjective supernatural matters and Gods cannot be objectively determined from the human perspective. It is a very viable philosophy.

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.

This is confusing, because humanist beliefs are based on what can be objectively determined and falsified, where subjective religious claims cannot be objectively determined to be believed without faith.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Atheism isn't ideology at the offset because It's how things started, being without any gods.

Now the response to theism is where the ideological atheism came into play since the gods were invented and introduced, requiring the introduction of atheism as a responsive position as being one who has no gods.

 

[Audie]

Simply that others can repeat or duplicate the study/experiment and get the same result. If your study is mainly based on a subjective approach, it is very difficult to verify things, because your conclusion about the results might differ from what I think.

You can compare it to us doing experiments regarding gravity and if we constantly get the same results and they match up that is strong evidence for gravity working that way, even if we don't fully understand gravity in all its details, we can then use this to make predictions etc.

However were we to analyze the behaviour of a human being and why they behave in a certain way, we might not agree to why that is and therefore it might be extremely difficult if not impossible to repeat the experiment because we are working with humans and our own subjective view. Obviously we can use tendencies to a certain degree.

How would you apply repeatability to
a species known from a single specimen?
Maybe a single bone, or tooth.

 

[Nimos]

You need to describe what you call "humanistic approach." Humanism is a belief:

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

Atheist are humanists. The humanist belief is from the basic belief that subjective supernatural matters and Gods cannot be objectively determined from the human perspective. It is a very viable philosophy.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with humanism But understand why one would think that.

Humanistic approach is just the word @mikkel_the_dane and I have used, for the approach used in some social science.

This is confusing, because humanist beliefs are based on what can be objectively determined and falsified, where subjective religious claims cannot be objectively determined to be believed without faith.

Yes, it is confusing

This will clarify what we are talking about (It is translated from a Danish article):
I used Chatgpt to translate it, but it doesn't seem to understand the word "Humaniora" which is a Danish one, and it isn't really translated into "humanities." so just be aware of that. (Edit: Apparently it is called humanities in English, which is a bit confusing I think, but anyway"

Here is what it is:
The humanities, or human sciences, are the study of human cultural products and language, the study of humans as acting and creative beings, and the study of human nature.

---
Natural science is about providing an objective explanation of general phenomena and processes in nature. In short, natural scientists describe the universal and lawful – that which happens every time. However, natural science and the humanities each have their own area of interest, which makes it very difficult for them to find common ground and agree.

"There are some extremely important questions within the humanities that do not exist in natural science. What is the meaning of an event? Natural scientists do not ask that. Natural science does not distinguish between what is good and evil," says Helge Kragh. He believes that it is ingrained in the education of natural scientists that they only investigate things that can be answered – in contrast to the humanities, where there is interest in both the questions that have an answer and those that do not, such as what the purpose of human existence is.

Associate Professor Henrik Kragh Sørensen from the Department of Science Studies at Aarhus University knows the inductive method like the back of his hand, and he says: "In physics, for example, one observes that a stone falls to the ground, after which one makes a so-called inductive inference – that is, one generalizes – that every time one drops a stone, it will fall to the ground in the same way as the first." After this, the hypothetical-deductive method is used, where, based on assumptions – i.e., hypotheses – predictions are derived, which can then be tested with experiments. The experiments can either support the hypotheses or pull the rug out from under them.

This approach doesn't make sense within the humanities, where the focus is on the individual, with each person having free will, a background, a culture, and a history. In the humanities, the world is not viewed as a collection of things around us but as our understanding of them. This understanding is not neutral but is tied to all the experiences and thoughts we have had throughout our lives. When faced with a choice, we will choose differently depending on our personality and what we have previously experienced.

The humanist will therefore never be able to find a definitive answer as to why a person behaves in a certain way. But he can offer an interpretation, which is typically done using the so-called ‘hermeneutic method.’ "Hermeneutics means understanding the sources, which is different from knowing something. To understand other people, you must be able to put yourself in their place, and therefore it is a science of understanding," explains Professor of History Lene Koch from the University of Copenhagen.
---

What we refer to as the humanistic approach is what is written in bold.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, it has nothing to do with humanism But understand why one would think that.

Humanistic approach is just the word @mikkel_the_dane and I have used, for the approach used in some social science.


Yes, it is confusing

This will clarify what we are talking about (It is translated from a Danish article):
I used Chatgpt to translate it, but it doesn't seem to understand the word "Humaniora" which is a Danish one, and it isn't really translated into "humanities." so just be aware of that. (Edit: Apparently it is called humanities in English, which is a bit confusing I think, but anyway"

Here is what it is:
Humaniora, or human sciences, are the study of human cultural products and language, the study of humans as acting and creative beings, and the study of human nature.

---
Natural science is about providing an objective explanation of general phenomena and processes in nature. In short, natural scientists describe the universal and lawful – that which happens every time. However, natural science and the humanities each have their own area of interest, which makes it very difficult for them to find common ground and agree.

"There are some extremely important questions within the humanities that do not exist in natural science. What is the meaning of an event? Natural scientists do not ask that. Natural science does not distinguish between what is good and evil," says Helge Kragh. He believes that it is ingrained in the education of natural scientists that they only investigate things that can be answered – in contrast to the humanities, where there is interest in both the questions that have an answer and those that do not, such as what the purpose of human existence is.

Associate Professor Henrik Kragh Sørensen from the Department of Science Studies at Aarhus University knows the inductive method like the back of his hand, and he says: "In physics, for example, one observes that a stone falls to the ground, after which one makes a so-called inductive inference – that is, one generalizes – that every time one drops a stone, it will fall to the ground in the same way as the first." After this, the hypothetical-deductive method is used, where, based on assumptions – i.e., hypotheses – predictions are derived, which can then be tested with experiments. The experiments can either support the hypotheses or pull the rug out from under them.

This approach doesn't make sense within the humanities, where the focus is on the individual, with each person having free will, a background, a culture, and a history. In the humanities, the world is not viewed as a collection of things around us but as our understanding of them. This understanding is not neutral but is tied to all the experiences and thoughts we have had throughout our lives. When faced with a choice, we will choose differently depending on our personality and what we have previously experienced.

The humanist will therefore never be able to find a definitive answer as to why a person behaves in a certain way. But he can offer an interpretation, which is typically done using the so-called ‘hermeneutic method.’ "Hermeneutics means understanding the sources, which is different from knowing something. To understand other people, you must be able to put yourself in their place, and therefore it is a science of understanding," explains Professor of History Lene Koch from the University of Copenhagen.
---

What we refer to as the humanistic approach is what is written in bold.

It put it in simple terms I reviewed an English translation of tis book and challenged @mikkel_the_dane on misrepresenting the text, which is an internationally well known text on how to teach the social sciences and their distinction from the objective basic sciences subject to falsification by scientific methods.

@mikkel_the_dane drew false conclusions from this reference questioning the objectivity of basic sciences, and misrepresenting social sciences.

I called him on this cited the correct translation, unethical use of the scientific reference, poor translation and misuse of terminology, The above bold does not even make sense,

This confusing terminology has no application for the rational justification of atheist beliefs, which is based on the humanist objective approach to basic sciences, and nothing to do with questions concerning social science.

 

[Nimos]

How would you apply repeatability to
a species known from a single specimen?
Maybe a single bone, or tooth.

That is the question, you can read the short article I posted just above. It is what they are discussing.

So one group (Natural science) don't agree with the other side, they want objective and solid data so to speak. They don't like these subjective approaches.

I don't have an answer, I can understand the natural science argument because I personally see the value of science being as objective as possible and beyond human interpretation, the data should speak clearly for themselves. However, the humanists work is extremely important when it comes to learning about ourselves, our behaviour etc. It is not nonsense. The question is if it should be considered science or not? And as @mikkel_the_dane and I have been talking about, it is a difficult question and I do agree with him, that it is muddy, depending on what people think science should be.

Should it allow for subjective approaches or not? or would it be better to simply call these two things different things?

 

[Nimos]

It put it in simple terms I reviewed an English translation of tis book and challenged @mikkel_the_dane on misrepresenting the text, which is an internationally well known text on how to teach the social sciences and their distinction from the objective basic science.

I called him on this cited the correct translation, unethical use of the scientific reference, poor translation and misuse of terminology, The above bold does not even make sense,

@mikkel_the_dane didn't translate this, I did. It is from a link in an article he linked.

Im pretty sure that it is not nonsense. Since the article is from a Danish Science website and is written by this person:
Mikkel Willum Johansen is an associate professor at the Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen. His primary research area is the philosophy of mathematics, and in 2014, he co-authored the book Invitation to the Philosophy of Mathematics with Henrik Kragh Sørensen from Aarhus University. Additionally, Mikkel Willum Johansen is involved in general philosophy of science, particularly focusing on topics related to research integrity and good scientific practice.

You can read the whole article here (You have to translate all of it) I just pasted the part that explained it the best.
Whole article

Sorry linked the wrong one, the text I quoted is linked to in the article written by the person above, the one I linked to is from the Science website, but by a journalist. (Anyway just wanted to correct it)

This is the journalist background:
This passage describes the professional background of someone who worked as a journalist at Videnskab.dk from April 2008 to April 2013. They hold a Master of Science in Physics and Astronomy, obtained in 1997, and also completed the Journalistic Supplementary Education at the Danish School of Journalism (DJH) in 1995.

Before joining Videnskab.dk, they worked as an editorial secretary at Ingeniøren, and prior to that, at Illustreret Videnskab, where they spent several years. Their first job after completing their education was as a consultant for UNI-C in Aarhus.

Their primary focus areas include:

• Research Policy (education, H-index, peer review, bibliometrics, research methods, didactics)
• Natural Sciences (climate, astronomy, space exploration, technology, IT, chemistry, physics, biology, and geology)
• Medicine (pharmaceutical research, diseases, health, treatment)

Additionally, they occasionally write articles in the humanities, particularly in archaeology, history, music, psychology, and anthropology. The passage ends with an invitation to view the editorial team of Videnskab.dk.

 

[shunyadragon]

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Do the Atheism (all hues/shades/denominations of Western Atheism-a flip side of Pauline-Christendom) people agree, please, right?

There is a disagreement voice, here some post later, please, right, or I misunderstood it?

Regards

Zizek's philosophy is very complex, to attempt to understand it please do some bed time reading it may put you asleep"

Žižek, Slavoj | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

The debate over whether atheism is an ideology or not is arguing which color is a white horse. Not really meaningful. Atheism is atheism regardless whether it is an ideology or not. It may be defined as the lack of belief in Gods or the disbelief in Gods.

It is best to let atheists describe the justification for their belief if there is one, and not generalize and put them in a box.

 

[shunyadragon]

@mikkel_the_dane didn't translate this, I did. It is from a link in an article he linked.

Im pretty sure that it is not nonsense. Since the article is from a Danish Science website and is written by this person:
Mikkel Willum Johansen is an associate professor at the Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen. His primary research area is the philosophy of mathematics, and in 2014, he co-authored the book Invitation to the Philosophy of Mathematics with Henrik Kragh Sørensen from Aarhus University. Additionally, Mikkel Willum Johansen is involved in general philosophy of science, particularly focusing on topics related to research integrity and good scientific practice.

You can read the whole article here (You have to translate all of it) I just pasted the part that explained it the best.
Whole article

Sorry linked the wrong one, the text I quoted is linked to in the article written by the person above, the one I linked to is from the Science website, but by a journalist. (Anyway just wanted to correct it)

This is the journalist background:
This passage describes the professional background of someone who worked as a journalist at Videnskab.dk from April 2008 to April 2013. They hold a Master of Science in Physics and Astronomy, obtained in 1997, and also completed the Journalistic Supplementary Education at the Danish School of Journalism (DJH) in 1995.

Before joining Videnskab.dk, they worked as an editorial secretary at Ingeniøren, and prior to that, at Illustreret Videnskab, where they spent several years. Their first job after completing their education was as a consultant for UNI-C in Aarhus.

Their primary focus areas include:

• Research Policy (education, H-index, peer review, bibliometrics, research methods, didactics)
• Natural Sciences (climate, astronomy, space exploration, technology, IT, chemistry, physics, biology, and geology)
• Medicine (pharmaceutical research, diseases, health, treatment)

Additionally, they occasionally write articles in the humanities, particularly in archaeology, history, music, psychology, and anthropology. The passage ends with an invitation to view the editorial team of Videnskab.dk.

Still remains a confusing misuse of humanism as it would be understood in the context to this thread concerning atheism.

Social Sciences are not totally subjective sciences. They re a blend of objective evidence and subjective judgement to reach their conclusions. Over time the social sciences utilize more objective evidence and methodology particularly i archaeology and anthropology,

The relevance to the question of humanistic approach to atheism is described in #286
In English the humanistic approach

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Either limitations of objectivity or need for further research to fill the gaps of our knowledge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you understand German?

No. Google translates 'Wissenschaft' as science, which is good. As I said I have no problem with 'wissenschaft'.
Now, rebirth, reincarnation is not science. God and soul too are not science. They are superstitions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Do the Atheism (all hues/shades/denominations of Western Atheism-a flip side of Pauline-Christendom) people agree, please, right?

#287
Atheism isn't ideology at the offset

There is a disagreement voice, here #287 some post above, please, right, or I misunderstood it?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Do the Atheism (all hues/shades/denominations of Western Atheism-a flip side of Pauline-Christendom) people agree, please, right?

There is a disagreement voice, here #287 some post above, please, right, or I misunderstood it?

Regards

See post #293

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Google translates 'Wissenschaft' as science, which is good. As I said I have no problem with 'wissenschaft'.
Now, rebirth, reincarnation is not science. God and soul too are not science. They are superstitions.

Well, I won't debate that with you. Sorry.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Either limitations of objectivity or need for further research to fill the gaps of our knowledge.

And all roads will lead us, ultimately, to the consciousness of the observer, without a full understanding of which no description of a system, from science or philosophy, can ever be complete. So again we will be faced with the limitations of the human condition: there is no view from everywhere, every view is a view from somewhere; unless there be a God’s eye view, of course.