Faith is hutchputch therefore so is atheism
It can be interesting to see the effect that a need to protect cherished beliefs can have on the health of a person’s thought processes. That need has a tendency to warp and distort the ability to 1) think clearly and 2) talk or write in a straightforward way.
Hitchens distances himself from the idea that he is a form of believer, claiming that his views are not beliefs like those of religious people but are based on reason. Thereby he privileges atheism and calls the result secular neutrality.
Note the sly implication that Hitchens is doing something illegitimate and probably elitist by ‘privileging’ non-theism. Note the faint implication of paranoia if not cowardice – Hitchens ‘distances himself’ from the (silly, bogus, defensive) idea that he is a believer, as opposed to disputing it or challenging it or saying it’s fraudulent and pathetic – as if he’s afraid of it, as if he thinks it has teeth and claws.
The point that Hitchens fails to understand is that faith is not simply about giving assent to the existence of a supernatural being. Faith is infinitely more comprehensive than this. Faith is a world view, an underlying narrative to people’s lives that helps them to answer profound questions to do with meaning, identity, purpose and the future. On this basis, atheism certainly is a faith and the version of it promoted by Christopher Hitchens is of the extreme fundamentalist sort.
Note first the nonsensical and grandiose redefinition, the brazen Humpty Dumptyism – faith is a world view. Then note the wild leap from that to the claim that atheism is a world view; note the complete non sequitur. On this basis? On what basis? You call that a basis? Faith is a world view, on this basis atheism is certainly a faith? Wo – try writing that out formally, dude; you’ll find it lacks a certain something. And that’s the point. Funny how the enemies of atheism keep doing that – keep making conspicuously bad arguments by way of defending their ‘faith’ or their ‘beliefs.’ An occupational hazard, it seems.
Perfect. This genius who equates “faith” with “world view,” and says that any world view is a faith is named Woolley!
The argument goes like this: An apple is not simply about what grows from an apple tree. An apple is something good to eat. On this basis, chocolate bon bons are certainly apples.
Hmm…yes but not quite. The last sentence should be more like: On this basis, blue socks are certainly apples. Because part of his woolly problem is that atheism isn’t necessarily a world view, just as (as we all know) not playing the guitar is not necessarily music.
Woolly belief-defenders are so woolly that it’s hard to keep track of all their non sequiturs!
To be sure, but there’s more to it.
“[F]aith is not simply about giving assent to the existence of a supernatural being. Faith is infinitely more comprehensive than this. Faith is a world view, an underlying narrative to people’s lives that helps them to answer profound questions to do with meaning, identity, purpose and the future.”
Faith is not just belief without evidence, it affects people’s lives in “infinitely” more ways than simply a belief in a supernatural being. People whose “narrative” is faith use the same kind of evidence-free reasoning to answer questions about “meaning, identity, purpose and the future.” Or so Woolsey claims. I’m not saying I disagree, but this is, after all, a factual assertion without stated evidentiary support. If it’s true, it’s a pretty good example of why faith is dangerous, or at least scary.
You’re right, OB. Woolley’s non sequitur was much bigger than the one I came up with, if you use the narrow definition of atheism (weak atheism). I tend to equate atheism with philosophical materialism, which I think of as a kind of world view, I guess because my atheism is the strong kind.
B&W > Tacka dig mycket. Jag tyckte om din artikel. UPPEHÄLLE DET UPP!< Cor blimey, as the fella says- 2what was that about" - eh? Keep it up any way! Ahhh, it is just simply me – speaking in atheistic SVENSKA tongues. Ja = Yes No = Nej Hello = Hej! Goodbye = Hej då! Thank You = Tack! I’m sorry, I don’t speak Swedish — Tyvärr talar jag inte svenska
That’s about all I know. See B&W news.
That, and the ongoing campaign by the “believers” that if they keep on shouting, LOUDLY, and KEEP ON REPEATING – “But Atheism is just another faith!”
… Then they hope that people will believe this transparent (erm, err, dither, looks for non-libellous term …) piece of gross self-delusion.
It would be funny, and a little sad, were it not for the untold harm that religion inflicts.
“Faith is a world view, an underlying narrative to people’s lives that helps them to answer profound questions to do with meaning, identity, purpose and the future”.
Yes, Faith is a worldview all right- which is sadly, by its overlords, worldwide – from the cradle to the grave- by them – foisted, without their consent – upon humans – with a worldwide view of brainwashing.
Its underlying narrative to peoples lives is in the guise of a Faith that essentially seeks to control, dominate, dictate, subjugate; vanquish, defeat, crush, subdue, suppress, conquer, annihilate; rout; overcome; eradicate; extinguish; destroy; asphyxiate, exterminate; kill; eradicate, massacre, slaughter; torture, execute; overwhelm, murder; trounce, slay; douse; snuff out; quench, tear down , devastate; obliterate; raze; and demolish – women/children especially is its major scapegoat.
Faith of an atheistic kind certainly does help people [like those for example – who are cunning enough to see through its connivance] to answer profound questions such as; “why is GOD so utterly cruel to billions and billions of people – while at the same time telling same that God is love. What in God’s name is this “God is love” meaning? How can a God who proclaims to be “Love” bring so much suffering and meaninglessness into people’s lives? Why is this love not apparent in people’s lives and in the nature of those who profess to love God? Is God perhaps a misogynist that thrives on dishing out the same pain that his son allegedly suffered while carrying the cross to his own death? Maybe that is his definition of love? Does Love mean carrying the cross of Jesus.? RELIVING DAILY THE CRUCIFIXION? Is this the same faith that is supposed to give purpose to people empty lives? Heaven forbid! As for identity, and future. well, what do you know? What a whole load of poppycock! What identity and future have people got – who are the recipients of the above?
NONE! NONE! NONE!
Oh. most importantly I omitted to mention, the one and only – STONING.
I’ve always thought that the attempted rebranding is for a specific pragmatic reason. If the men in funny hats can convince a few atheists that they really are faithy faith-heads, they can break out their well-honed toolkit for converting people from one brand of fairy stories to another.
But a person who rejects the entire enterprise completely? The only tool they’re used to for dealing with that isn’t allowed any more in polite society.
Hold on, I cant keep up – if atheism is a faith because ‘it’s a world view … that helps [atheists] to answer profound questions to do with meaning, identity, purpose and the future’, what happened to the idea that atheism leaves us poor souls hopelessly mired in a meaningless morass of identity-less purposelessness?
Ummm…
Atheism is a world view that helps atheists to answer profound questions to do with meaning, identity, purpose and the future, in the wrong way?
Is that it? Must be.
Ah yes. Like the wrong faiths always do:)
A good example of what New Scientist calls nominative determinism
Hee hee. Classic.
Re the occupational hazard: I suspect this is what it does to the brain, reading too many apologietics. Eventually you absorb the implicit notion that any grammatically correct (or, for that matter, nearly correct) sentence or sequence thereof constitutes a valid argument.
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Therefore: atheism is a religion.
True, “faith” (I guess Woolley means “Christianity” and maybe some other similar religions by that) is not simply giving assent to the proposition “a supernatural being exists”; it does involve a whole way of life (which is what I think he means b the rest of that paragraph). At least it does for some Christians; for a lot of them it is simply a social group which provides them with folks they can see on Sunday mornings, etc., but doesn’t affect their lives any more deeply than that.
And it is true that for a lot of atheists, atheism is not particularly a way of life in itself. They just get on with life without any belief in supernatural beings.
But I do dissent (mildly) from the attitude that a lot of atheists seem to have: “once we have stated we don’t have this belief in gods, that’s all we need to do. Just go away, believers!” Regardless of all the arguments about who has the “burden of proof” (primarily a legal rather than a philosophical term, I think), if atheists are going to get into philosophical discussions with theists, I think they do owe theists an answer to the question, “But why don’t you assent to the existence of supernatural beings”?
We can’t just say, “We just don’t, that’s all. Now sod off!” Or at least we shouldn’t. We ought to explain why we don’t, I think; after all, it’s not hard to do. The standard spiel about rationality and why it’s important will do.
But I do understand why a lot of atheists grow tired of this sort of discussion, which never seems to get anywhere, and prefer the simple “sod off!” response.
“means b” = “means by”
If atheists are going to get into philosophical discussions with theists, then sure we owe everyone an explanation, because otherwise we haven’t gotten into a philosophical discussion. But that’s a big if. What we don’t owe anyone is an explanation for merely being an atheist, or for answering to the name, or for saying we are atheists. As so very very (numbingly) often in discussions with theists, the two different (and distinct) situations get elided so that expectations that are legitimate and reasonable in one context get carried over to another in which they’re not.
I have to say, theists and theism-defenders of this type are doing a bang-up job of causing people like me to develop a real contempt for their ability to think clearly and above all to argue honestly. (They in turn have real contempt for atheists – but on grounds that I have trouble quite pinning down, because they rely on all these extravagant misdescriptions. [Cf Mark Vernon commenting recently at Philosophy Talk.] I have contempt for what they really do in these ‘colourless green sheep’ arguments; they have contempt for what we don’t really do. I wonder if they have any actual contempt for what we do really do.)
I think a lot of theists secretly envy us for lacking the fear of god. They want us to have the same existential dread that they do. All we have to worry about is this world and this life, and they constantly fear that they aren’t sufficiently appeasing their supernatural master(s) in order to acquire a comfy chair in the next life.
As GWB says, “They hate us for our freedoms.”
Python fans, I know you’re out there.
http://tinyurl.com/e2zfb
Maybe if we lowered the bar on the ‘burden of proof’ to ‘a shred of evidence’?
After all, it must surely be a rare non-theist who actually demands proof of the existence of a supernatural being. I’m happy to debate with respect any theist who can provide just a couple of good reasons to even take the hypothesis seriously. Not including personal conviction, unsupported anecdotes or ventures into the farther reaches of cosmology to demonstrate that – with a little linguistic dexterity – the concept of ‘god’ is not in theory impossible.
It’s a while since I’ve been asked ‘Why don’t you believe in god?’ If it happens again I am resolved to reply, ‘Because he hardened my heart and stopped my ears that I might feel his wrath in the End Times, as was written before the beginning of the world; you got a problem with that, take it up with him.’
Oh, there are plenty of theists who provide what they, at least, *think* are good reasons; theist philosophers and theologians coming out of your ears. Some of them show rather fascinating thought processes. I’m currently digging into the Reformed epistemologists (the Plantinga crowd), who basically argue that religious beliefs can be considered rational even though they refuse to give any evidence for them, and the “presuppositional apologists,” who try to argue that Christian beliefs are “presupposed” by a bunch of things, including science and logic.
It looks as though half-digested imitations of these schools of thought are echoed in a lot of the stranger posts by Christians in the blogosphere.
Huele como Merlijn de Smit. ¿Dónde está?
Heh. Yeah, I was thinking it sounded very like Merlijn. He comes and goes; I’m sure he’ll be back soon.
Oh, he’s moved over to Talking Philosophy. Splitter!
I’ll be back. Was away last week on a trip.
Bienvenido, splitter. De veras.
Marie.T. Atheism has such a great track record dosnt it?look at the wonderfull examples of atheist states like the former Soviet Union,China,nazi Germany,Albainia ect!
Again with the “ect”! Richard, you’re either braindead or a troll. I’m guessing the latter.
And you’re simple-minded if you think the reigning influence on the societies you mention was atheism. Most of the problem there was belief in dogma, regardless of theism or atheism. Dogma is the enemy of rational inquiry. All power structures need criticism, and the more rational, the better. Obeisance to theism won’t help anyone.
Richard,
I don’t think you’re a troll, but you should bear in mind that there are some ‘atheism leads to moral collapse’ arguments that most people here have engaged with several times.
So a brief list of nasty nations is neither original nor a killer punch. Presenting it as such can irk people. By all means make a case if you think you can, but a two-line drive-by is inevitably going to draw responses like Pyor’s.
A little research wouldn’t go amiss, either. Try;
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
(First hit on google)
“Atheism has such a great track record doesn’t it? look at the wonderful example of an atheist state like like…[N]azi Germany etc”!
Richard,
Nazis: “The Occult Conspiracy” speaks in great detail about the religious aspects of the Nazi movement. Given that Nazi Germany is often cited by theists as an example of how destructive an atheist government etc
See:
A Beginner’s Mind
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck… It’s a mother fuckin’ duck. —D.L. Hugley, March 30, 2007 Real Time with Bill Maher
Philosophy Friday: The Nazi Religion.
Very interesting blog article by: Samuraisam.
Did you know that Hitler’s relatives who now reside in New York or somewhere near had Irish connections.
Hitler’s brother worked as a chef in the Shelbourne Hotel, [which I have in the past frequented with my uncle]. He subsequently married Bridget Dowling. People think I am cracked in the head when I to them regale this snippet of information.
“Popes, priests and nuns supported Hitler’s regime. Indeed, Hitler could not have come to power without Christianity’s help”. What does one make of that fact. It is enough to give one the creeps. GOTT MIT UNS! INDEED! There are plenty of archival photographs depicting Roman Catholic Heirarchical figures with the Nazi’s.
Es macht mich sehr sehr SCHRECKLICH verrückt
The connection with the Nazis and occultistic/neo-pagan religious ideas is very true – and connections between Fascism and conservative religious forces are perhaps even clearer outside Germany (Croatian Ustashi, Spain’s Falangists etc.). Though that would leave us with Albania, Stalin’s Soviet Union, etc. which had an explicitly atheistic ruling ideology. I think Pyotr’s answer is partially germane here: that the key lies in totalitarianism itself. Not all totalitarianisms are necessarily theistic – but the atheism of, say, Hoxha’s Albania is hardly a defining factor in bringing about the nastiness of said regime. You’d more directly have to look into ideologies about human beings – the subordination of the individual to the collective in both Fascism and Stalinism. For Stalinism specifically, the perverted determinism by which individual opinions were made out to be reflections of hostile class interests, so any political conflict leads to one of the sides being objectively pro-bourgeois and ready for the firing squad.
Secularism is by itself not a defense against this kind of thing. But the connection between the opinions of most modern-day liberal atheists and secular humanists and the NKVD is tenuous to say the least.
On another note. I wonder if G. Tingey is reading this, and would comment on the following disproof of theism I helpfully concocted:
1. Unobserved physical systems, particles etc. exist in a state of superposition, the probability of them being observed in a given location to be described mathematically.
2. Observation collapses superposition.
(Standard Copenhagen, right?).
3. An omniscient and omnipresent Deity knows the precise location and momentum of each individual particle at each given point in time.
4. Therefore, the observations of an omniscient and omnipresent Deity would lead to each system in superposition collapsing, virtually instantaneously.
5. Yet, we know that particles can exist in superposition (double-slit experiment).
6. Ergo, an omnipresent and omniscient God does not exist.
There’s also the collorary 6b:
Merlijn has been gorging on too much pop science and should get back to work.
Well, I’m glad we finally got that question answered.
Merlijn, I like your disproof of theism, but wouldn’t theists rebut it by saying that an omniscient deity has no need to observe anything; it simply knows without observation, so there would be no collapse of superposition?
They’re tricky that way. (You oughtta know.) ;)
Don I said atheism does not have a great track record not that it leads to moral collapse!that would take a 3 line drive by.