My views on religion have … drifted … a lot over the last year on Less Wrong. It isn’t that any specific belief has changed, but all of my amorphous impressions about religion have shifted so that whereas I used to think that religion had value and even “deep wisdom” hidden away here and there, if only I could find it, I now consider this much less likely. I do believe value and deep wisdom can be found co-locally with religion, but this seems in spite of, rather than because of, religiosity.
The problem with religion is epistemology and authority. Being right about a few things (the golden rule, ritualising big life events) doesn’t make you right about the other things (bigotry, detrimental policies due to unchecked idealism).
However, I still have the same objections to ‘new atheism’ I began with. Perhaps now I can describe them more effectively.
I think that the Non-Existence of God is the weakest and least relevant argument that New Atheists make, but it is the one they focus on nearly exclusively, especially with theists.
The non-existence of God is a weak argument because—especially depending on how you define God—it’s not clear whether God should exist or not. It’s also a weak argument because it polarizes the discussion and builds defensive walls in ways that questioning other beliefs would not. I think it would be most effective to allow that God exists—as say, the “first cause”, whatever it is—and then try and deduce together what his properties are. They’re pretty unexciting given a scientific worldview...
The non-existence of God is an irrelevant argument because the problems of religion aren’t belief in God, but problems with epistemology and authority. Telling a theist that God doesn’t exist sounds most absurd to a theist, but if you ask a theist whether humans sometimes interpret God incorrectly, they’ll have to admit ‘yes’. So you would already be where you wanted to be—at a place where they are also wondering, how do human beings make sure they interpret reality correctly?
I am looking forward to a talk next week given by a theist at a nearby college ‘giving a response to New Atheism’.
I have also decided to go to a Unitarian service this Sunday. On my way home from work on Tuesday, I saw a billboard that said, “If you like free coffee and discussion, join us”. That night I was thinking, “I like coffee” and, “I like discussion” but worried about what they could discuss that would be of interest to me, given my burgeoning discomfort with religious thinking. On my in to work this morning, I read the other side of the billboard that read, ’This week’s topic: Atheism”. So I’m definitely going.
Over the next week, I’ll share the main points and my impressions of the talk and the Sunday gathering here in this thread.
I attended the Unitarian service “topic:atheism” this morning.
I expected some mild, non-pushy arguments for theism—perhaps not any new or convincing ones even though I would like to encounter some. Instead, they just defined atheism, talked about some common misconceptions, and related the extent to which atheism wasn’t tolerated very well in my community, in the spirit of increasing awareness.
It hadn’t occurred to me that atheists were a discriminated group. I recently moved to the “Bible-belt” from elsewhere, and haven’t yet encountered the phenomenon of Nice-to-meet-you-what-church-do-you-go-to? (Or maybe I did and didn’t notice and now my neighbors don’t talk to me, which again I haven’t noticed.)
Four years ago I wrote a research paper on discrimination against atheists in America. I can post it if anyone wants, but it’s 10 pages long and I can just summarize the evidence.
*#1: Anti-atheist provisions in state constitutions of Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Delaware grants freedom of religion with the additional clause that “it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God” and that “the prosperity of communities” depends on “piety and morality.”
*#2: Surveys showing atheists are more distrusted than Muslims and that many people would not vote for an atheist.
*#3: Cold war hysteria leads to “In God We Trust” on money and “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance.
*#4: The Boy Scouts
*#5: Atheists discriminated against in child custody hearings
I am looking forward to a talk next week given by a theist at a nearby college ‘giving a response to New Atheism’.
Although the talk was interesting, it was a watershed moment when I realized that after a year of dwelling on the theism/atheism debate, I’ve grown weary of it. Many religious views have a long way to go before their beliefs are consistent with a scientific worldview, and the part of theism I would defend isn’t—in my opinion—in any real danger of being marginalized by atheism anytime soon. For a while I was testing and developing my own views on theism, but I realize they’ve been steady now for a while. I’m curious to know if my interest in theism will revive, or if I’ll pick something else to think about…
My views on religion have … drifted … a lot over the last year on Less Wrong. It isn’t that any specific belief has changed, but all of my amorphous impressions about religion have shifted so that whereas I used to think that religion had value and even “deep wisdom” hidden away here and there, if only I could find it, I now consider this much less likely. I do believe value and deep wisdom can be found co-locally with religion, but this seems in spite of, rather than because of, religiosity.
The problem with religion is epistemology and authority. Being right about a few things (the golden rule, ritualising big life events) doesn’t make you right about the other things (bigotry, detrimental policies due to unchecked idealism).
However, I still have the same objections to ‘new atheism’ I began with. Perhaps now I can describe them more effectively.
I think that the Non-Existence of God is the weakest and least relevant argument that New Atheists make, but it is the one they focus on nearly exclusively, especially with theists.
The non-existence of God is a weak argument because—especially depending on how you define God—it’s not clear whether God should exist or not. It’s also a weak argument because it polarizes the discussion and builds defensive walls in ways that questioning other beliefs would not. I think it would be most effective to allow that God exists—as say, the “first cause”, whatever it is—and then try and deduce together what his properties are. They’re pretty unexciting given a scientific worldview...
The non-existence of God is an irrelevant argument because the problems of religion aren’t belief in God, but problems with epistemology and authority. Telling a theist that God doesn’t exist sounds most absurd to a theist, but if you ask a theist whether humans sometimes interpret God incorrectly, they’ll have to admit ‘yes’. So you would already be where you wanted to be—at a place where they are also wondering, how do human beings make sure they interpret reality correctly?
I am looking forward to a talk next week given by a theist at a nearby college ‘giving a response to New Atheism’.
I have also decided to go to a Unitarian service this Sunday. On my way home from work on Tuesday, I saw a billboard that said, “If you like free coffee and discussion, join us”. That night I was thinking, “I like coffee” and, “I like discussion” but worried about what they could discuss that would be of interest to me, given my burgeoning discomfort with religious thinking. On my in to work this morning, I read the other side of the billboard that read, ’This week’s topic: Atheism”. So I’m definitely going.
Over the next week, I’ll share the main points and my impressions of the talk and the Sunday gathering here in this thread.
I attended the Unitarian service “topic:atheism” this morning.
I expected some mild, non-pushy arguments for theism—perhaps not any new or convincing ones even though I would like to encounter some. Instead, they just defined atheism, talked about some common misconceptions, and related the extent to which atheism wasn’t tolerated very well in my community, in the spirit of increasing awareness.
It hadn’t occurred to me that atheists were a discriminated group. I recently moved to the “Bible-belt” from elsewhere, and haven’t yet encountered the phenomenon of Nice-to-meet-you-what-church-do-you-go-to? (Or maybe I did and didn’t notice and now my neighbors don’t talk to me, which again I haven’t noticed.)
Four years ago I wrote a research paper on discrimination against atheists in America. I can post it if anyone wants, but it’s 10 pages long and I can just summarize the evidence.
*#1: Anti-atheist provisions in state constitutions of Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Delaware grants freedom of religion with the additional clause that “it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God” and that “the prosperity of communities” depends on “piety and morality.”
*#2: Surveys showing atheists are more distrusted than Muslims and that many people would not vote for an atheist.
*#3: Cold war hysteria leads to “In God We Trust” on money and “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance.
*#4: The Boy Scouts
*#5: Atheists discriminated against in child custody hearings
Upvoted for reporting on a change of mind.
Your points on the New Atheist movement are very interesting—I will have to spend some time thinking them over.
Although the talk was interesting, it was a watershed moment when I realized that after a year of dwelling on the theism/atheism debate, I’ve grown weary of it. Many religious views have a long way to go before their beliefs are consistent with a scientific worldview, and the part of theism I would defend isn’t—in my opinion—in any real danger of being marginalized by atheism anytime soon. For a while I was testing and developing my own views on theism, but I realize they’ve been steady now for a while. I’m curious to know if my interest in theism will revive, or if I’ll pick something else to think about…