>All a lack of consensus proves is that some people make faulty inferences based on faith, no that we shouldn’t have faith in either religious testimony or religious experiences.
How do we tell correct inferences based on faith from faulty ones? Without that it's mainly just a lottery as to what faith your parents happened to have.
I concur with his contention that "pretending" to know what you don't know is not correct for faith. I just think people with faith are completely oblivious to the fact that their reasons are not what they think they are. After all they're only human and it's probably true for most of us.
I've become convinced that people generally don't choose a faith, they choose a community and set of religious practices. Usually that's the one most familiar or accessible to them, and this draw towards community is a powerful instinct. How many of us are capable of making rational decisions that would lead us to be ostracised by our community and the people we love?
Boghossian does sound like a bit of an arse though.
"How do we tell correct inferences based on faith from faulty ones?"
The Catholic Church claims teaching authority based on the argument that Jesus gave Peter, the mantle of the rock he will build his church. The Church argues it knows what Jesus meant, even though it is the first to admit it has often erred and has a history of ancient corruption and new corruption. The Church further argues that God cannot be in error, but our understanding of God is often in error.
As a Catholic, the arguments of the church are summarized in the Catechism which is available on the vatican.va website. The best apologetics I have ever read are those of Pope Emeritus Benedict and those of Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher.
As for philosophical arguments, the teachings of the church are summarized by two arguments. a) We are all brothers and sisters, children of God, deserving of equal dignity and respect, and literally made in the image of God. b) We should reject evil even if it brings about good. This is a direct rejection of utilitarianism, the argument that the ends justify the means, and it is why the Church argues against eugenics, abortion, and capital punishment.
As for historical arguments, the Catholic narrative is like this. God intervened directly throughout mankind's history and has slowly revealed himself. First, to Abraham, then to Moses, and lastly through his divine Son. The world of ancient Europe during Jesus' time was dominated or some might argue enslaved by Rome. Through a divine miracle, the faith of impoverished uneducated Jewish fishermen became the official religion of the Roman and Byzantine empires.
> people generally don't choose a faith, they choose a community and set of religious practices
People generally don't choose a set of religious practices either. They are either born in that community or "convinced" to belong to it. People don't often have a choice between one or other "community and set of religious practices".
> For example, we have “faith” that the laws of nature are uniform across time and space even though we don’t have nearly enough evidence to confirm that belief (see the problem of induction).
I stopped reading there because he doesn't understand that of which he speaks. This is actually a hotly debated topic among scientists in many fields, and it is definitely _not_ taken on faith.
These sort of arguments from the faithful really annoy me. It feels like they're protesting too much by insisting that I'm making the same mistake that deep down they know they're making.
I don't think it's hotly debated. It's frivolously debated. Occasionally someone acknowledges that certain formulae or constants might actually be variable, but ultimately move on to assume they are fixed. But even in those hypothetical scenarios it's assumed that the laws of nature would evolve by some meta-laws. I've never seen it considered that there are no laws at all, despite the fact that this seems to me the most likely case. The existence of laws is supposed as a prerequisite for the method of science. I think calling it faith is apt because the idea that the universe works by "laws" is, at its inception, a religious idea! Newton after all saw science as a religious endeavor.
Yeah, I think the crux is the conflation of "assumption" with "faith". We assume the speed of light in a vacuum is uniform across all of space and that is how we can estimate how far away stars are in "light-years". But that doesn't make it faith; nobody is opposed to revising that assumption when better evidence comes in.
Biblical faith is specifically "the evidence of things not seen", so it's fundamentally different than an assumption.
You're familiar with Hume's Problem of Induction? I like how Stephen Law puts it here:
> It’s a good test of whether someone has actually understood Hume’s argument that they acknowledge its conclusion is fantastic (many students new to philosophy misinterpret Hume: they think his conclusion is merely that we cannot be certain what will happen tomorrow.) ... [But] if Hume is right, the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is as unjustified as the belief that a million mile wide bowl of tulips will appear over the horizon instead. We suppose the second belief is insane. But if Hume is correct, the first belief is actually no more rational. ... [T]he onus is on these defenders of “common sense” to show precisely what is wrong with Hume's argument. No one has yet succeeded in doing this (or at least no one has succeeded in convincing a majority of philosophers that they have done so).
Contrary to the other response to your comment, no amount of evidence should ever increase one's confidence, in a strictly rational sense. It is, in that sense, a matter of faith. Similarly, Sean Carroll on radical skepticism:
> There is no way to distinguish between [metaphysical] scenarios by collecting new data.
> What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. We’re allowed to pick priors however we want—and every possibility should get some nonzero number. But it’s okay to set our prior credence in radically skeptical scenarios at very low values, and attach higher prior credence to the straightforwardly realistic possibilities.
> Radical skepticism is less useful to us; it gives us no way to go through life. All of our purported knowledge [...] might very well be tricks being played on us. But what then? We cannot actually act on such a belief [...]. Whereas, if we take the world roughly at face value, we have a way of moving forward. There are things we want to do, questions we want to answer, and strategies for making them happen. We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful, in preference to those that would leave us paralyzed with ennui.
I was raised by a strict materialist. Then, after 40 years of atheism, I realized that some people have a natural instinct to believe. And, that I was one of them.
Ignoring and not satisfying that instinct was creating anxiety for me. I found universalism and UUs, and have thoroughly enjoyed having faith. It’s been the ultimate existential brain hack. Now that I believe that I have this ultimately powerful best friend who just wants me to be me, it’s made decision making so much easier. YMMV
How did you switch from not believing to believing? That's something I find really interesting.
I feel like I would require such an enormously convincing proof that there is some sort of higher power, that I can't ever see it happening, unless God himself appears on Earth in front of millions. And then there are people who say to me "oh, I just close my eyes and feel His presence", and it's just mindblowing to me that they take something so clearly subjective as proof.
Interesting, i probably wouldn't buy the book for anyone anyway, but still, interesting criticism.
I really like the socratic method, i think everyone should be trained to use it on their own belief/knowledge during highschool, its a good autodefense tool and was usefull to me during the "gay marriage" debacle in France where a no small part of my familly manifested against basically something that had no impact on their lives at all. Loss of time and energy to fight against something that wouldn't change anything outside a couple except tax rate for gay couple, maybe.
Against theism, i only have two thing to say:
- Why should i believe your theism is better than the others (it helps that my mother loosely believe in Vishnu while most of my family is catholic on this side)?
- Would the existence of a god have any impact on how i already live my life? I already have a community (two even, not counting online ones), i'm already doing the most good i can, will my belief in any god change what i'm already doing?
1. In the case of Christianity (those theistic beliefs which believe Jesus is God in the flesh), it makes a pretty bold claim (i.e. that a human physically came back from the dead) which, if true, is remarkable regardless of faith tradition. It is more difficult to verify the claim now, but eyewitness accounts still exist and can be cross-examined.
Interestingly, there are accounts of Jesus' miracles from non-believers as well, who generally believed they were Egyptian magic due to Jesus having spent his early years in Egypt, which has long had a reputation as a land of magic. But the point is, Christianity makes certain assertions about things that it claims historically happened which can be verified or falsified, which is pretty great as belief systems go.
I have no particular defense in hand for other theistic beliefs, though.
2. Yes, because "good" is subjective, and the context of our understanding is limited. Someone might believe it is generally good to be tolerant. Others might believe it is good to be intolerant of things which bring about long-term (usually spiritual) harm even if they seem immediately harmless. Supposing we grant that an omniscient benevolent creator god exists and that this god has told us how to live, it stands to reason that those instructions would be of more value than trying to figure things out for ourselves, because we're not omniscient.
> Would the existence of a god have any impact on how i already live my life?
If you instead ask, "How would my acting as a sincere believer in this god effect my life?", that gets to what I think of as the honest evangelical impulse. Because the assumption would be you'd go to their events, form relationships with their community, support their ethical assertions and demands for power, etc.
There's a less honest, or at least more manipulative, reason as well. Many religious cultures encourage naive evangelism, especially among the young, as a way to expose them to outsider ridicule. It strengthens dedication to the flock.
About the only form of religious debate I engage in is gently pointing this out to any young suckers who try to convert me. I don't care what other people believe, but I despise manipulative shitbags. My hope is they'll remember the conversation later when people react predictably and Elder Whoever explains that's because the unclean hate them.
Theism is distinct from a particular form of theism. I know someone created my computer even though I know nothing about the person. Different people may have different theories about the identity of my computer creator, all of which may be false. But it is still a fact that someone created my computer.
Between 'pray for the pedophile priests' (catholic) and 'trump is our savior' (evangelicals) is seems the church is doing a better job of making athiests than anyone else could.
I was going to say exactly that. In Poland the biggest enemy of the church is the church. Bishops and common priests are above the law and can get away with rapes and financial crime (and they do a lot), the church is heavily subsidised by the state (when people are financially struggling), the public education system ignores science and drifts towards religious dogmas instead, priests making it almost impossible to conduct apostasy. They also introduced abortion ban recently even though overwhelming part of Polish society being against it. The examples are just too many and the level of conceit from the church officials is just mind-boggling.
All this happening with strong opposition from the common people and directly against their will. It's just a matter of time when catholic church disintegrates.
> "you have good reasons to think that what you believe is true"
These "good reasons" always seem to be, "I'll feel lost if I don't adhere to and/or profess this superstition."
Atheism has no answer to this psychological vulnerability and feeling of "lostness", except to say "man up, woman up, this is life and these are its bounds."
My objection is not that superstition exists or that it comforts some people. My objection to the practice of superstition is that it misguidedly imposes itself on public policy.
> Boghossian says that if a street epistemologist doesn’t convince someone to give up his faith, then the person is either secretly giving up his faith while trying to “save face” or the person is literally brain damaged (chapter 3). In a chapter called “Containment Protocols,” Boghossian says we should stigmatize religious claims like racist claims, treat faith like a kind of contagious mental illness that should be recognized by medical professionals, read apologist’s books but buy them used so they don’t make a profit (“Enjoy a McDonald’s ice cream courtesy of the royalty from my purchase of your book, Pete!”), and promote children’s television shows where “Epistemic Knights” do battle against “Faith Monsters.”
One person saying, "I am an unbiased, logical arbiter of reason and facts" and "I think all religious people are mentally ill, but I'm going to dedicate time and energy just to spiting them" is weirdly ironic. Blind hate based off of stereotypes and exaggeration is inherently illogical.
The article's invocation of trust is pretty interesting. 'Trust' is a word with positive vibes; life is clearly better in a high-trust society than a low-trust one. Extending trust to someone builds relations with them; visibly distrusting them does the opposite. So characterizing faith as about trust goes together with thinking of religion as about community.
The article uses these positive vibes rhetorically without ever really contesting, it seems to me, the "[Boghossian says] faith is belief without sufficient evidence". Its supporting link about faith-as-trust goes to the Catholic catechism saying "Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said [...] because he is truth itself."
I'm reminded of "trusted computing" -- a positive framing of something you want to minimize your reliance on.
What is the basis of atheism? Is it evidence based? Is is gut feeling based? What the general or most commonly cited bases of the validity of atheism by atheists?
I think Trent Horn is not the target audience of the book “A Manual for Creating Atheists”. Trent Horn’s expertise and level of knowledge both religion and specifically the debate about the existence of a monotheistic deity are clearly very advanced. The purpose of the book he is reviewing is to introduce new atheists, and help others introduce new atheists, to a survey of ideas and positions that the average person has not been introduced to.
Very often this review attacks the author for not including an argument, or including an incomplete argument. That is an editorial decision based on the target audience. Even if Trent Horn was more well read and articulate then Peter Boghossian, that itself is no proof that Trent Horn’s view is correct. Smart people hold incorrect beliefs, opinions and conclusions often.
"The advice I would give atheists who are interested in this book..." is a good indication of where apologists think that the line is currently drawn. However, the line typically is not "why should folks have faith in certain beliefs?" but "why should folks obey abusive churches?" The only reason that faith and beliefs are examined at all is because folks routinely excuse abuse with professions of faith.
> The only reason that faith and beliefs are examined at all is because folks routinely excuse abuse with professions of faith.
That's a great point. I'm a Christian, and I think the reason why you have a lot of intellectual firepower directed against modern "Christianity" (which is an ideology that can't be found in the New Testament) is not simply because atheists think that Christians are wrong. You don't read polemics against Bob down at the insane asylum, arguing that he is not, in fact, a dog, despite his insistence. The difference to an atheist between a lunatic and a Christian is simply this: the lunatic doesn't _vote_ to force his insane views on the world, but a Christian does.
Personally, I don't think voting, or any form of political participation, is consistent with Christ's teachings, specifically when he says "Don't resist evil" in Matthew 5:39. The entire point of the state is to resist evil (Max Weber even defines a "state" as the group that holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a geographic area), and voting is informing the government about how you want them to resist evil for you. And of course the very existence of the modern church depends on using the government to resist evil and get money, so you'll find all sorts of casuistry and rationalizations about how Jesus didn't really mean what he said, but none of them hold water.
Point being, if Christians started following Christ, even a little bit, they'd find that they have a lot fewer "enemies".
I disagree. I simply have a hard time believing there is a bearded man in the sky who cares a whole lot about what porn everyone watches, wants us to not wear multi color clothing, and insists that being gay is bad, but is also all knowing, all powerful, and in charge of the entire universe. To my tiny human brain it seems more likely that these are stories people made up that just haven’t been superseded by new ones, like stories about Zeus or Thor, rather than some divine knowledge that was passed down to us.
Organized religion is, to me, organized control of the masses. But not feeding into that is not the primary reason. It’s that I have a hard time believing that the more we learn about the world the harder it becomes to find any evidence of god’s existence, which would be the exact opposite if he did exist.
Indeed, my admittedly simplistic argument is: If your faith is the true one out of all others, why does it demand its adherents give it money and power? If it was the true faith wouldn't that be enough to drown out the rest? Doesn't that money and power corrupt the faith rather than enrich it?
I tried to load this site and so much of the viewport is covered instantly by interstitial/modal/garbage it barely displays the entire title. It’s like opening a door to find a pile of rocks blocking the entrance behind. Does that type of design actually create desirable outcomes? I have to imagine the bounce rate is through the roof.
Usually when an atheist says "there is no god" what they mean is "there is no reason to take seriously the claim that there is a god, because there is too little evidence". And by "too little" they mean the same amount as there is for the core of the moon being cheese, or something, i.e. essentially zero.
So I don't think they're really making the assertion, or the mistake, that you think they are.
Theists are the ones claiming an explanation for the nature of existence - the burden of proof is on them. “Belief” is not a valid argument when putting forward a theory. I might “believe” we are living in a simulation, but it doesn’t make it any more true than a belief in a magical all knowing space unicorn that rockets through the universe propelled by rainbows while it creates life or any other as of yet non provable nonsense
Nobody can prove existence or non-existence of a god (except a god if a god would exist).
It is usually just a statement about likelihoods. Absence of evidence for existence of god(s) makes it seem very unlikely god(s) exist. Especially after millennia of people looking for evidence.
Not all beliefs are equal. You personally probably wouldn't put the likelihood of the existence of the great spaghetti monster in the sky to the same level as your belief in your personal god.
Interesting to read a summary of what are essentially Socratic rhetorical techniques. To me the question is, why bother, and what is the conclusion of choosing an atheistic belief? I was a fan of Hitchens, and I took his atheism the same way I take an actor's belief in astrology, in that it is a part of who they are, but not what I find interesting about them.
There is a western tradition wherein atheists are considered untrustworthy men, as no matter how different or foreign someone is to you, if you can agree there exists a god (by whatever name) who rewards good and punishes evil, and that some intentions of this being have been revealed, this belief is a foundation for a basic level of trust that transcends language.
The whole atheist enterprise is premised on an "anti-" identity, where the "-ist" person evaluates their own identity against a perceived reflection of this divine straw-man. A recent pope described "hell" as being "the absence of God," I suspect atheist hell is the absence of someone to hector with tedious hypothetical arguments. The anti- identity is what we used to call being a punk, or someone who identifies as exempt from the scale of "good," because they perceive themselves as having been victimized by the bearers of that standard, and they look for others to seduce with a misery-loves-company sympathy. They're people you tolerate and have compassion for, but don't take as much risk to invest in. Whether or not one agrees with the morality of that, it's a summary of the very roots of what we call western civilization.
The simple answer is that, if one is convinced that religions are not real (not even necessarily an atheist, a deist can believe this as well) seeing their loved ones "wasting" (again, according to them) their lives on things that do not exist kicks in an instinct to "protect" these people.
This is the simplest explanation of why people try to convert others to atheism. I'm not making a judgement call, I'm just explaining why people do that. As an atheist (well, I identify as an ignostic [1] which I view it so be a subcategory of atheism) I don't go convince people to be atheist. This is partially because all my close friends are already irreligious; and partially because religion is inflammatory so the cost/benefit trade-off isn't in my favor. However, if I had a very close friend, say my wife, who believed in God and spent a good amount of time and energy I would consider talking about these issues with them. This certainly doesn't sound crazy to me, as long as you're being civil, polite, considerate etc all that jazz.
Don't you want to live in a world where people make decisions based on observable things, rather than blind faith in arbitrary nonsense?
You can't reason with a religious person. Their axioms can be completely incompatible if, for example, they believe the afterlife is more important than actual life.
> To me the question is, why bother, and what is the conclusion of choosing an atheistic belief?
For me I was a kid and approaching confirmation in the Catholic Church and realized I didn't believe in any of it. The conclusion was that I don't think there is any reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods so I don't spend my time worrying about them.
The rest of your rant is getting confused between anti- and a-. There is nothing negative or combative implied by a-theist that there is with anti-theist.
It is worth remembering that this same "Western tradition" that you mention also did not consider Jews or Muslims trustworthy, and eventually broke into several factions which mutually distrusted each other. Today, as a Pastafarian, I am routinely lumped in with atheists, Satanists, or pagans, despite not being any of those.
Perhaps the "Western tradition" is European Christianity?
[+] [-] simonh|5 years ago|reply
How do we tell correct inferences based on faith from faulty ones? Without that it's mainly just a lottery as to what faith your parents happened to have.
I concur with his contention that "pretending" to know what you don't know is not correct for faith. I just think people with faith are completely oblivious to the fact that their reasons are not what they think they are. After all they're only human and it's probably true for most of us.
I've become convinced that people generally don't choose a faith, they choose a community and set of religious practices. Usually that's the one most familiar or accessible to them, and this draw towards community is a powerful instinct. How many of us are capable of making rational decisions that would lead us to be ostracised by our community and the people we love?
Boghossian does sound like a bit of an arse though.
[+] [-] rawgabbit|5 years ago|reply
The Catholic Church claims teaching authority based on the argument that Jesus gave Peter, the mantle of the rock he will build his church. The Church argues it knows what Jesus meant, even though it is the first to admit it has often erred and has a history of ancient corruption and new corruption. The Church further argues that God cannot be in error, but our understanding of God is often in error.
As a Catholic, the arguments of the church are summarized in the Catechism which is available on the vatican.va website. The best apologetics I have ever read are those of Pope Emeritus Benedict and those of Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher.
As for philosophical arguments, the teachings of the church are summarized by two arguments. a) We are all brothers and sisters, children of God, deserving of equal dignity and respect, and literally made in the image of God. b) We should reject evil even if it brings about good. This is a direct rejection of utilitarianism, the argument that the ends justify the means, and it is why the Church argues against eugenics, abortion, and capital punishment.
As for historical arguments, the Catholic narrative is like this. God intervened directly throughout mankind's history and has slowly revealed himself. First, to Abraham, then to Moses, and lastly through his divine Son. The world of ancient Europe during Jesus' time was dominated or some might argue enslaved by Rome. Through a divine miracle, the faith of impoverished uneducated Jewish fishermen became the official religion of the Roman and Byzantine empires.
[+] [-] ranit|5 years ago|reply
People generally don't choose a set of religious practices either. They are either born in that community or "convinced" to belong to it. People don't often have a choice between one or other "community and set of religious practices".
[+] [-] alangibson|5 years ago|reply
I stopped reading there because he doesn't understand that of which he speaks. This is actually a hotly debated topic among scientists in many fields, and it is definitely _not_ taken on faith.
These sort of arguments from the faithful really annoy me. It feels like they're protesting too much by insisting that I'm making the same mistake that deep down they know they're making.
[+] [-] zzbzq|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tines|5 years ago|reply
Biblical faith is specifically "the evidence of things not seen", so it's fundamentally different than an assumption.
[+] [-] monktastic1|5 years ago|reply
> It’s a good test of whether someone has actually understood Hume’s argument that they acknowledge its conclusion is fantastic (many students new to philosophy misinterpret Hume: they think his conclusion is merely that we cannot be certain what will happen tomorrow.) ... [But] if Hume is right, the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is as unjustified as the belief that a million mile wide bowl of tulips will appear over the horizon instead. We suppose the second belief is insane. But if Hume is correct, the first belief is actually no more rational. ... [T]he onus is on these defenders of “common sense” to show precisely what is wrong with Hume's argument. No one has yet succeeded in doing this (or at least no one has succeeded in convincing a majority of philosophers that they have done so).
Contrary to the other response to your comment, no amount of evidence should ever increase one's confidence, in a strictly rational sense. It is, in that sense, a matter of faith. Similarly, Sean Carroll on radical skepticism:
> There is no way to distinguish between [metaphysical] scenarios by collecting new data.
> What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. We’re allowed to pick priors however we want—and every possibility should get some nonzero number. But it’s okay to set our prior credence in radically skeptical scenarios at very low values, and attach higher prior credence to the straightforwardly realistic possibilities.
> Radical skepticism is less useful to us; it gives us no way to go through life. All of our purported knowledge [...] might very well be tricks being played on us. But what then? We cannot actually act on such a belief [...]. Whereas, if we take the world roughly at face value, we have a way of moving forward. There are things we want to do, questions we want to answer, and strategies for making them happen. We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful, in preference to those that would leave us paralyzed with ennui.
[+] [-] Dirlewanger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afpx|5 years ago|reply
Ignoring and not satisfying that instinct was creating anxiety for me. I found universalism and UUs, and have thoroughly enjoyed having faith. It’s been the ultimate existential brain hack. Now that I believe that I have this ultimately powerful best friend who just wants me to be me, it’s made decision making so much easier. YMMV
[+] [-] barrucadu|5 years ago|reply
I feel like I would require such an enormously convincing proof that there is some sort of higher power, that I can't ever see it happening, unless God himself appears on Earth in front of millions. And then there are people who say to me "oh, I just close my eyes and feel His presence", and it's just mindblowing to me that they take something so clearly subjective as proof.
[+] [-] orwin|5 years ago|reply
I really like the socratic method, i think everyone should be trained to use it on their own belief/knowledge during highschool, its a good autodefense tool and was usefull to me during the "gay marriage" debacle in France where a no small part of my familly manifested against basically something that had no impact on their lives at all. Loss of time and energy to fight against something that wouldn't change anything outside a couple except tax rate for gay couple, maybe.
Against theism, i only have two thing to say:
- Why should i believe your theism is better than the others (it helps that my mother loosely believe in Vishnu while most of my family is catholic on this side)?
- Would the existence of a god have any impact on how i already live my life? I already have a community (two even, not counting online ones), i'm already doing the most good i can, will my belief in any god change what i'm already doing?
[+] [-] indigochill|5 years ago|reply
Interestingly, there are accounts of Jesus' miracles from non-believers as well, who generally believed they were Egyptian magic due to Jesus having spent his early years in Egypt, which has long had a reputation as a land of magic. But the point is, Christianity makes certain assertions about things that it claims historically happened which can be verified or falsified, which is pretty great as belief systems go.
I have no particular defense in hand for other theistic beliefs, though.
2. Yes, because "good" is subjective, and the context of our understanding is limited. Someone might believe it is generally good to be tolerant. Others might believe it is good to be intolerant of things which bring about long-term (usually spiritual) harm even if they seem immediately harmless. Supposing we grant that an omniscient benevolent creator god exists and that this god has told us how to live, it stands to reason that those instructions would be of more value than trying to figure things out for ourselves, because we're not omniscient.
[+] [-] _jal|5 years ago|reply
If you instead ask, "How would my acting as a sincere believer in this god effect my life?", that gets to what I think of as the honest evangelical impulse. Because the assumption would be you'd go to their events, form relationships with their community, support their ethical assertions and demands for power, etc.
There's a less honest, or at least more manipulative, reason as well. Many religious cultures encourage naive evangelism, especially among the young, as a way to expose them to outsider ridicule. It strengthens dedication to the flock.
About the only form of religious debate I engage in is gently pointing this out to any young suckers who try to convert me. I don't care what other people believe, but I despise manipulative shitbags. My hope is they'll remember the conversation later when people react predictably and Elder Whoever explains that's because the unclean hate them.
[+] [-] yters|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulHoule|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitcharmer|5 years ago|reply
All this happening with strong opposition from the common people and directly against their will. It's just a matter of time when catholic church disintegrates.
[+] [-] kaladin_1|5 years ago|reply
The critique shows that belief in God is not an easy thing to toss aside/refute as one might think.
Boghossian: “You need to become comfortable in not knowing and not pretending to know . . . “ Good advice!
[+] [-] mrkeen|5 years ago|reply
It really is.
You're already doing it for all supernatural entities (past, present and future) not going by the name 'God'.
[+] [-] heresie-dabord|5 years ago|reply
These "good reasons" always seem to be, "I'll feel lost if I don't adhere to and/or profess this superstition."
Atheism has no answer to this psychological vulnerability and feeling of "lostness", except to say "man up, woman up, this is life and these are its bounds."
My objection is not that superstition exists or that it comforts some people. My objection to the practice of superstition is that it misguidedly imposes itself on public policy.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subjectsigma|5 years ago|reply
One person saying, "I am an unbiased, logical arbiter of reason and facts" and "I think all religious people are mentally ill, but I'm going to dedicate time and energy just to spiting them" is weirdly ironic. Blind hate based off of stereotypes and exaggeration is inherently illogical.
[+] [-] debbiedowner|5 years ago|reply
I wonder if it is fair to say conspiracy theorists "trust in a certain kind of claim"
[+] [-] abecedarius|5 years ago|reply
The article uses these positive vibes rhetorically without ever really contesting, it seems to me, the "[Boghossian says] faith is belief without sufficient evidence". Its supporting link about faith-as-trust goes to the Catholic catechism saying "Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said [...] because he is truth itself."
I'm reminded of "trusted computing" -- a positive framing of something you want to minimize your reliance on.
[+] [-] mrkeen|5 years ago|reply
The author accepts faith from the religious, but demands evidence from the atheist.
[+] [-] jgalt212|5 years ago|reply
What is the basis of atheism? Is it evidence based? Is is gut feeling based? What the general or most commonly cited bases of the validity of atheism by atheists?
[+] [-] throwaway202102|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
There are reports of people 30 miles from the site seeing the miracle
For me, this is qualitatively different than eg the traditional proofs of God
[+] [-] after_care|5 years ago|reply
Very often this review attacks the author for not including an argument, or including an incomplete argument. That is an editorial decision based on the target audience. Even if Trent Horn was more well read and articulate then Peter Boghossian, that itself is no proof that Trent Horn’s view is correct. Smart people hold incorrect beliefs, opinions and conclusions often.
[+] [-] myWindoonn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tines|5 years ago|reply
That's a great point. I'm a Christian, and I think the reason why you have a lot of intellectual firepower directed against modern "Christianity" (which is an ideology that can't be found in the New Testament) is not simply because atheists think that Christians are wrong. You don't read polemics against Bob down at the insane asylum, arguing that he is not, in fact, a dog, despite his insistence. The difference to an atheist between a lunatic and a Christian is simply this: the lunatic doesn't _vote_ to force his insane views on the world, but a Christian does.
Personally, I don't think voting, or any form of political participation, is consistent with Christ's teachings, specifically when he says "Don't resist evil" in Matthew 5:39. The entire point of the state is to resist evil (Max Weber even defines a "state" as the group that holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a geographic area), and voting is informing the government about how you want them to resist evil for you. And of course the very existence of the modern church depends on using the government to resist evil and get money, so you'll find all sorts of casuistry and rationalizations about how Jesus didn't really mean what he said, but none of them hold water.
Point being, if Christians started following Christ, even a little bit, they'd find that they have a lot fewer "enemies".
[+] [-] IgorPartola|5 years ago|reply
Organized religion is, to me, organized control of the masses. But not feeding into that is not the primary reason. It’s that I have a hard time believing that the more we learn about the world the harder it becomes to find any evidence of god’s existence, which would be the exact opposite if he did exist.
[+] [-] dwater|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hattar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OneGuy123|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tines|5 years ago|reply
So I don't think they're really making the assertion, or the mistake, that you think they are.
[+] [-] jtms|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrucadu|5 years ago|reply
A gnostic atheist claims that, and yes that is a faith-based position. I think most atheists are agnostic atheists though.
[+] [-] bitcharmer|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
[+] [-] herewegoagain2|5 years ago|reply
It is usually just a statement about likelihoods. Absence of evidence for existence of god(s) makes it seem very unlikely god(s) exist. Especially after millennia of people looking for evidence.
Not all beliefs are equal. You personally probably wouldn't put the likelihood of the existence of the great spaghetti monster in the sky to the same level as your belief in your personal god.
[+] [-] motohagiography|5 years ago|reply
There is a western tradition wherein atheists are considered untrustworthy men, as no matter how different or foreign someone is to you, if you can agree there exists a god (by whatever name) who rewards good and punishes evil, and that some intentions of this being have been revealed, this belief is a foundation for a basic level of trust that transcends language.
The whole atheist enterprise is premised on an "anti-" identity, where the "-ist" person evaluates their own identity against a perceived reflection of this divine straw-man. A recent pope described "hell" as being "the absence of God," I suspect atheist hell is the absence of someone to hector with tedious hypothetical arguments. The anti- identity is what we used to call being a punk, or someone who identifies as exempt from the scale of "good," because they perceive themselves as having been victimized by the bearers of that standard, and they look for others to seduce with a misery-loves-company sympathy. They're people you tolerate and have compassion for, but don't take as much risk to invest in. Whether or not one agrees with the morality of that, it's a summary of the very roots of what we call western civilization.
Edit: removed some snark.
[+] [-] gnulinux|5 years ago|reply
This is the simplest explanation of why people try to convert others to atheism. I'm not making a judgement call, I'm just explaining why people do that. As an atheist (well, I identify as an ignostic [1] which I view it so be a subcategory of atheism) I don't go convince people to be atheist. This is partially because all my close friends are already irreligious; and partially because religion is inflammatory so the cost/benefit trade-off isn't in my favor. However, if I had a very close friend, say my wife, who believed in God and spent a good amount of time and energy I would consider talking about these issues with them. This certainly doesn't sound crazy to me, as long as you're being civil, polite, considerate etc all that jazz.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
[+] [-] tiglionabbit|5 years ago|reply
Don't you want to live in a world where people make decisions based on observable things, rather than blind faith in arbitrary nonsense?
You can't reason with a religious person. Their axioms can be completely incompatible if, for example, they believe the afterlife is more important than actual life.
[+] [-] meheleventyone|5 years ago|reply
For me I was a kid and approaching confirmation in the Catholic Church and realized I didn't believe in any of it. The conclusion was that I don't think there is any reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods so I don't spend my time worrying about them.
The rest of your rant is getting confused between anti- and a-. There is nothing negative or combative implied by a-theist that there is with anti-theist.
[+] [-] myWindoonn|5 years ago|reply
Perhaps the "Western tradition" is European Christianity?