Antitheism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easily: our natures aren't indivisible, with only one aspect. They are the result of a jumble of evolutionary outcomes that often pull us in different directions. Very often we can find our emotions or 'gut' instincts at odds with our rationality. Our rational ability cannot stop our brains from 'seeing' faces in clouds and fires...

....or arseholes on websites?

[Stranger]

I am not claiming there is only one aspect, indeed, the point is that there are many aspects but it is still just all us. We created all the theism because of that jumble of evolutionary outcomes.

Indeed we did. Obviously whatever causes theism (hyperactive agency detection?) may have had an evolutionary advantage but that doesn't mean that theism is helpful or desirable in modern societies.

As for our emotions, I will return to Hume, rationality will never tell you an ought without an emotion or desire to tell you that ought. Rationality can help you work out how to achieve that ought.

Not entirely sure why you added this - I basically agree, although there seems to be a lot of collaboration involved in defining morality. Societies tend to take a collective view.

To return to the point, societies can and do change what is considered acceptable and reasonable, and I see no reason not to encourage (as best we can) the promotion of rational thought, when it comes to matters of fact, over superstitions (including theism). Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed we did. Obviously whatever causes theism (hyperactive agency detection?) may have had an evolutionary advantage but that doesn't mean that theism is helpful or desirable in modern societies.

Not entirely sure why you added this - I basically agree, although there seems to be a lot of collaboration involved in defining morality. Societies tend to take a collective view.

To return to the point, societies can and do change what is considered acceptable and reasonable, and I see no reason not to encourage (as best we can) the promotion of rational thought, when it comes to matters of fact, over superstitions (including theism). Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

God definitely doesn't exist....when was that incontrovertibly established?

Mind you, on this forum of variable definition, would I be right in saying that a Non existent God is really a God for whom there is no physical evidence? or a God who probably doesn't exist?

[Shaker]

God definitely doesn't exist....when was that incontrovertibly established?

Please point to the bit of SKoS's post where you think you got that from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please point to the bit of SKoS's post where you think you got that from.

Er, this:

Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

How does he know God is non existent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

A three-for-one deal for you:

Me:

You're digging too deep. Ultimately, there's no "free" in free will but using the paradigm of the model we appear to have then if, say, you allow yourself to be persuadable at least in principle by reason and evidence then different outcomes will follow. The alternative as Some says is fatalism - if there's no real "me" at the controls, I may as well stay under the duvet then.

It's a bit like the material world: a different model of my wife from the one I experience is that she's almost all empty space populated by vibrating quantum strings held together by fundamental forces, but that'd be a lot less fun on my birthday so instead I play the hand I'm dealt.

You:

indeed we do and, as ever at such times,I will quote Isaiah Berlin ' Of course, I believe in free will, I have no choice'

That things might be determined has no real impact on what you should believe. You will be a fatalist if it is so determined. I find the whole belief in reason rather odd since many who make the argument also do not believe that we choose what to believe.

Do they though? Again, it’s playing the hand we appear to have: sure, everything is deterministic ultimately but the hand we’re dealt appears otherwise and there are plenty of examples of people who have changed their minds in response to arguments put by others. Had the interlocutor been struck by lightning that morning and not shown up at the debate, maybe that mind would never have been changed.     

Me:

Milgram: the students were not by nature homicidal maniacs but, given the right stimulus - also part of nature - they could be made to behave as though they were.

You:

Which surely means that they were going to behave like that in that situation, it was in their nature to do so?

I would have thought that Milgram might be an example you want to avoid since it illustrates exactly that in a given situation people will behave 'worse' and that would indicate that talk of inherent altruism is merely that given certain situations people behave as they 'behave'.

It may have been in their nature somewhere, but it’s not how they would ordinarily have behaved – it took a very specific set of circumstances to cause them to behave not as they ordinarily would. That’s the contention here: convincing people (generally from a young age) that personal faith is an infallible guide to the truth is equivalent to Stanley Milgram’s experiments: it causes them to behave other than they ordinarily would but for their religion.

That’s what Milgram illustrates. The “given situation” that causes altruism to be our default position is what we have when it’s not overwritten by something else, eg religion (or other dogmatic paradigms).       

Me:

No, I think we're inherently pattern and explanation-seeking: that religions happen to satisfy that need for some is a secondary issue, and other types of dogma are available too. It's the tools of reason and skepticism that help us determines when those explanations are false ones.

The point though I think is that I'm anti- any dogma that thinks itself to be infallible because they seem to me to take the brakes off our inherent empathy and circumspection. Kill that guy over there for apostasy? Sure, why not - after all, I know with absolute stone cold certainty that that's what my god wants me to do.

You:

These dogmas are inherent too, they cannot exist without us and our belief in them is not externally caused.

Inherent in whom? All it takes is enough dogmatic authority figures involved (clerics for example) for it to override the default setting for a given population, but without them the default persists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

Why?
How can a non existent being have dictats?

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed we did. Obviously whatever causes theism (hyperactive agency detection?) may have had an evolutionary advantage but that doesn't mean that theism is helpful or desirable in modern societies.

Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't. Arguing that it isn't would be missing the point.

Not entirely sure why you added this - I basically agree, although there seems to be a lot of collaboration involved in defining morality. Societies tend to take a collective view.

To return to the point, societies can and do change what is considered acceptable and reasonable, and I see no reason not to encourage (as best we can) the promotion of rational thought, when it comes to matters of fact, over superstitions (including theism). Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

And if some want it to be based on their idea of a god then evolutionary-wise, that's surely correct? Don't get me wrong I have no problem arguing that theists are wrong but that's a different category of position than saying we can get roid of what causes it without fundamentally changing what we are.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,


Do they though? Again, it’s playing the hand we appear to have: sure, everything is deterministic ultimately but the hand we’re dealt appears otherwise and there are plenty of examples of people who have changed their minds in response to arguments put by others. Had the interlocutor been struck by lightning that morning and not shown up at the debate, maybe that mind would never have been changed.     

Wrll I've certainly seen the you don't choose your beliefs on here - BeRational used it today in fact. That with different input that belief might change doesn't show any form of choice.

It may have been in their nature somewhere, but it’s not how they would ordinarily have behaved – it took a very specific set of circumstances to cause them to behave not as they ordinarily would. That’s the contention here: convincing people (generally from a young age) that personal faith is an infallible guide to the truth is equivalent to Stanley Milgram’s experiments: it causes them to behave other than they ordinarily would but for their religion.
That’s what Milgram illustrates. The “given situation” that causes altruism to be our default position is what we have when it’s not overwritten by something else, eg religion (or other dogmatic paradigms).       

That it is an experiment doesn't remove it from being a position in which they behave according to their nature though. It may not be a position that they would normally be in - but in that position that is how they naturally behaved.
It's not being 'overwritten' by anything. we react to the situtaion as is our nature. There isn't a default position, or if there is Milgram illustrates that in that position behaving as those who took part is the default.

Inherent in whom? All it takes is enough dogmatic authority figures involved (clerics for example) for it to override the default setting for a given population, but without them the default persists.

Inherent in us as humans. Unless the clerics are being beamed down messages from on high, then they are just acting as they are determined to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

So you guys are against argumentum ad populum for everything else but are for making morality the mother and father of argumentii
ad populum.

[Shaker]

So you guys are against argumentum ad populum for everything else but are for making morality the mother and father of argumentii
ad populum.

No.

There's a difference between the fallacy of AaP - something is right/good/true because lots of people think so; as I've said before you can usually spot the point at which these statements become fallacies as it's generally the because that gives the game away - and the brute fact of consensus. SKoS seemed to be saying - rightly - that societies reach a broad consensus on what they regard as right and wrong, and some (by no means all) of those things can change over time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't. Arguing that it isn't would be missing the point.

On the evolutionary timescale it's far too early to know whether or not religion will persist. Maybe it was helpful for tribal cohesion purposes but will be disastrous when the tribes get too big (and tooled up with nukes), maybe it is/was just an aberrant blip outcropped from our explanation-seeking natures, maybe...

And if some want it to be based on their idea of a god then evolutionary-wise, that's surely correct? Don't get me wrong I have no problem arguing that theists are wrong but that's a different category of position than saying we can get roid of what causes it without fundamentally changing what we are.

But why? Why for example could not enough people be persuaded over time that it's a nonsense that they would opt to get rid of it. Indeed, isn't that to a significant extent what has happened in countries that are now secular?

[Rhiannon]

In my experience we certainly don't choose our beliefs. What can happen is that someone puts something in front of us; if we hear it we may find that it feels more right than what we believed previously. it's not a conscious choice; it just happens as this real thing changes into that.

[Stranger]

Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't. Arguing that it isn't would be missing the point.

You seem to be slipping into fatalism - which is not implied by determinism. We can and do make judgements and have goals based on them.

And if some want it to be based on their idea of a god then evolutionary-wise, that's surely correct?

How did you get from "the result of evolution" to "correct"?

Don't get me wrong I have no problem arguing that theists are wrong but that's a different category of position than saying we can get roid of what causes it without fundamentally changing what we are.

Who said we could get rid of what causes it? We can, and do, learn to make rational judgements that override some of our evolved instincts. As far as superstition goes, as I said earlier in the conversation, we don't tend to burn "witches" anymore, perhaps we can learn to ditch gods too.

Why should we not try to influence people to get rid of superstitious thinking?

[Rhiannon]

Of course the repeal of the Witchcraft Act meant a huge surge in the number of witches.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Wrll I've certainly seen the you don't choose your beliefs on here - BeRational used it today in fact. That with different input that belief might change doesn't show any form of choice.

It does if the idea "I'm persuadable" is only your starting position. That something persuasive may or may not actually turn up after that event is a different matter. That's all that's being said here: in what circumstance may or may not religion turn up - and should it be allowed to?

That it is an experiment doesn't remove it from being a position in which they behave according to their nature though. It may not be a position that they would normally be in - but in that position that is how they naturally behaved.

It's not being 'overwritten' by anything. we react to the situtaion as is our nature. There isn't a default position, or if there is Milgram illustrates that in that position behaving as those who took part is the default.

Don't agree. Surely Milgram precisely overwrote (albeit for a short time) the behaviour that otherwise have pertained didn't he? Yes, it's all in our "nature" somewhere but nature is a multi-faceted thing and unless something is physiologically impossible for some reason then every behaviour - and every potential behaviour - is in our nature.   

Inherent in us as humans. Unless the clerics are being beamed down messages from on high, then they are just acting as they are determined to do so.

Yes, but if they can be sufficiently forceful, threatening, persuasive, whatever to cause others to behave in ways that are other than those that would ordinarily pertain. That's the point!

[Stranger]

Er, this:

Morality has to be a question of what sort of society we (collectively) want to live in - not the dictates of a non-existent being, as written in old myths.

How does he know God is non existent.

That is a different conversation to the one I was involved in. However, all the various gods cannot exist; logically, at least most of them don't. You can take it as read that as soon as anybody comes up with any objective evidence or rational reasoning to support the existence of one or some of them, I will reconsider.

[Stranger]

How can a non existent being have dictats?

The same way Sherlock Holmes was known to say "elementary".

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be slipping into fatalism - which is not implied by determinism. We can and do make judgements and have goals based on them.

I presume you are using fatalism in the sense of events being predetermined, rather than the idea of a resigned approach to life? If so, then no, since I would accept the possibility of random events.

How did you get from "the result of evolution" to "correct"?

Simply that it as a result of evolution

Who said we could get rid of what causes it? We can, and do, learn to make rational judgements that override some of our evolved instincts. As far as superstition goes, as I said earlier in the conversation, we don't tend to burn "witches" anymore, perhaps we can learn to ditch gods too.

Why should we not try to influence people to get rid of superstitious thinking?

but we still manage to kill many more than were killed in the burnibgd, and we don't need religion to 'cause' it.

I have not said you shouldn't try and influence people just that we make religion not the other way round. If we were able to make religion stop, it would be impossible to begin to understand the consequences of what that means.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

On the evolutionary timescale it's far too early to know whether or not religion will persist. Maybe it was helpful for tribal cohesion purposes but will be disastrous when the tribes get too big (and tooled up with nukes), maybe it is/was just an aberrant blip outcropped from our explanation-seeking natures, maybe...

But why? Why for example could not enough people be persuaded over time that it's a nonsense that they would opt to get rid of it. Indeed, isn't that to a significant extent what has happened in countries that are now secular?

But you are actively antitheist because you must think it's not beneficial. What is your evidence that were we not that inclined to religion we, as a species would be better off? What does the concept of 'better off' mean here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The same way Sherlock Holmes was known to say "elementary".

So the dictats of Sherlock Holmes are the dictats of Conan Doyle.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It does if the idea "I'm persuadable" is only your starting position. That something persuasive may or may not actually turn up after that event is a different matter. That's all that's being said here: in what circumstance may or may not religion turn up - and should it be allowed to?

but surely your starting position is determined? Your belief in you being persuadable is no more chosen actively than any other belief. It's an outcome.

Don't agree. Surely Milgram precisely overwrote (albeit for a short time) the behaviour that otherwise have pertained didn't he? Yes, it's all in our "nature" somewhere but nature is a multi-faceted thing and unless something is physiologically impossible for some reason then every behaviour - and every potential behaviour - is in our nature.   

But he did that by putting them in a situation where it was in their nature to obey. Just as it was in his nature to experiment. His instruction isn't beamed down any more than god's or Stalin's.


And note given the Stanford prison experiment, you don't have to be instructed to behave badly to do so, if the situation is something that we might behave so inherently.

Yes, but if they can be sufficiently forceful, threatening, persuasive, whatever to cause others to behave in ways that are other than those that would ordinarily pertain. That's the point!

And that 'whatever' is in their nature. It isn't external. That we tend to obey what we see as authority is inherent. It is not external to nature.

[Stranger]

I presume you are using fatalism in the sense of events being predetermined, rather than the idea of a resigned approach to life? If so, then no, since I would accept the possibility of random events.

No, I meant fatalism in the sense of "whatever we do, X will happen". When I suggested theism may not be helpful or desireable, your response ("Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't") - seemed fatalistic in that sense. The point is human actions and attitudes now will play a vital role in whether it persists. We have evolved the ability to reason and argue about it.

Simply that it as a result of evolution

So is seeing faces in fires and clouds, so is motion sickness, so is tribalism and prejudice - in what way are these "correct"?

I have not said you shouldn't try and influence people just that we make religion not the other way round.

Of course we make religion (we make racism, homophobia and sexism too). If you aren't arguing for not trying to influence people, then what are you arguing for? Why do you keep talking about it being "correct"?

If we were able to make religion stop, it would be impossible to begin to understand the consequences of what that means.

So what? The same could be said for racism, homophobia and sexism - or could have been said about keeping slaves or burning "witches", for that matter...

[Stranger]

So the dictats of Sherlock Holmes are the dictats of Conan Doyle.

Conan Doyle made up a character and gave him certain characteristics (he gave Moriarty different characteristics).  Likewise, the diktats of the various gods were made up by the originators of the myths. (At least that appears to be the case, unless you have some evidence or reasoning to support the idea that one, or more, of said gods actually does exist and did communicate with said originators.)

[Nearly Sane]

No, I meant fatalism in the sense of "whatever we do, X will happen". When I suggested theism may not be helpful or desireable, your response ("Surely if it persists, it is. If it doesn't it, isn't") - seemed fatalistic in that sense. The point is human actions and attitudes now will play a vital role in whether it persists. We have evolved the ability to reason and argue about it.

But not to act in ways that are not determined or random. We will do what we will do. Actions play a part but they are determined as well, at least by your position on this.

So is seeing faces in fires and clouds, so is motion sickness, so is tribalism and prejudice - in what way are these "correct"?

in any objective sense, not at all, and I suspect that is what you are getting hung up about the point is there is no wrongness, or external influence here. As an atheist, there isn't something influencing evolution.

Of course we make religion (we make racism, homophobia and sexism too). If you aren't arguing for not trying to influence people, then what are you arguing for? Why do you keep talking about it being "correct"?

So what? The same could be said for racism, homophobia and sexism - or could have been said about keeping slaves or burning "witches", for that matter...

Theism though is not a moral position. It isn't arguing for a specific action or consequence.