long-winded rant
Before I start, I would like to let it be known that I consider myself neither an atheist, nor religious, and do not particularly have any stake in this argument one way or another. I try to view things from a perspective of pragmatism (primarily) and logic/rationality (secondarily). Thus when people dismiss religion outright without considering its functional value within an emotional and/or societal context, while claiming to do so under the guise of reason, I tend to get annoyed. Even if religion does not offer any value to an individual, it seems indisputable that there are individuals (and societies and cultures) that have benefited greatly from religion in one way or another. Whether or not we would be better off as a whole without religion, another common topic, is another matter entirely, and beyond the scope of this discussion.
I will now make explicit one of my personal biases. I believe that different people have different values. I have my own set of values, some of which I expect others to adhere to, but for the most part I believe people should be allowed to choose what is important to them in life. As such, as least a portion of my evaluation of others is based upon their adherence to their self-reported values. If someone cares about compassion and self-sacrifice, and gives freely and selflessly of their time and assets, then that reflects positively on them. If they live a lavish lifestyle and occasionally donate money to charity, not so much. Similarly, if someone claims that logic and reason are important to them, then I am going to expect them to apply them more consistently than someone who does not value them. I do not believe that logic and reason hold any intrinsic value (they are useful tools, but as noted above, pragmatism is, to me, a higher value than any other). I am not saying that this is how I expect everyone else to live, but am providing this to explain some of the implicit biases in my statements (indeed, I know that I, like everyone else, am not without bias).
Without further rambling:
I think it goes without saying that "religious" people who respond to mockery with death threats (when murder and violence are explicitly decried within their faith) are hypocrites. Also, I try not to generalize 'atheists' into a single group, since it seems like there are two main 'factions', one of which simply doesn't believe in any specific religion, and another which claims that religion as a whole is false. The primary distinction being that one makes no assertions, and thus need not provide support for anything, while the other makes a positive assertion (there is no god), for which I have yet to see solid logical support.
Memetic Self-Defense
Hypocrisy is often not apparent from within the ideological construct that many of what I refer to as 'religious atheists' operate within, just as the inherent hypocrisy in issuing death threat in defense of a religion that condemns murder is not apparent to the religious zealot from within the framework of his beliefs.
Consider the following:
Religion is an archetypal exemplar of a highly evolved meme (or, due to the complexity of world religions, it might be more accurate to say species of memetic organism). As such, it is necessarily resilient to attack. As a side note, I would group any form of atheism in which unsupported positive assertions (i.e. "God does not exist") are an integral portion of the belief system in with these religions, due to structural similarities.
Biological organisms that host these memetic organisms will typically respond strongly to attacks on them. This is analogous to the strong response seen when deeply rooted societal memes are violated (such as proscription against murder, cannibalism, etc., which I suspect would elicit a similarly strong reaction from many atheists). Just as the host of religious memes might react adversely to an attack on those memes, a host to a set of non-religious memes as above will do the same if the memes are deeply rooted and self-perpetuating enough. I suspect that for any given atheist, there is an example of such a meme that would elicit a strong defensive reaction. This is why I think that it is inane to be shocked that people react negatively when their cherished beliefs are attacked, when in reality, those who are so shocked might behave in a functionally similar manner were the tables turned. And often do.
The hypocrisy exists in the tacit assertion that OTHER (religious) people should behave differently than OTHER OTHER (atheists) people. Ignore for a moment the question of degree (i.e. threats of violence/murder vs. personal attacks as per Larry, etc.), and consider the nature of the reaction.
It is obviously a predictable reaction, and one that is fairly universal among humanity. Acting surprised at a very predictable negative outcome to an action is childish... most (good) parents wouldn't let their child get away with pretending like they had know way of foreseeing the logical consequence of their action when it is obvious that they did.
For a clever (in my mind) illustration, imagine religion X, a highly evolved, competitive memetic organism as a big grizzly. If you poke the grizzly with a sharp stick, it is fairly obvious the direction that encounter is going to go.
Doctors are Jerks
Please do not confuse this with blaming the victim. The actions of the people threatening another individual for exercising free speech are inexcusable, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Those promulgating exclusion and discrimination based upon beliefs should be similarly castigated (this goes for ALL parties, religious or not). I unequivocally condemn such actions. I don't think it is even worth discussing them further, as by virtually any standard of morality, they are indefensible. These actions are not the victim's responsibility, and they cannot be blamed for them. They CAN, however, be held accountable for their own actions.
Imagine I walk into a convention for medical professionals, and put up a big sign saying "DOCTORS ARE JERKS". I then proceed to act surprised when people get upset at me. When people claim that it is in fact I who am the jerk, I say "WHOAH! I am just exercising free speech and poking fun at doctors... look at the way they act, they are obviously proving me right! Doctors are jerks! Medicine is stupid! I am not a jerk!"
Maybe hypocrisy isn't the right word. Maybe juvenile and ignorant is a better descriptor. Either way, it really rubs me the wrong way. The REAL hypocrisy is the lack of logic and rationality often exhibited (see entire above argument) by those who claim logic and rationality as their motivation behind rejecting religion. Note for atheists who simply don't care/believe, and don't outright reject religion: none of this applies to you, you are more or less beyond reproach from a philosophical standpoint, and as long as you're happy and whatever (non-religious) belief system you have constructed and/or elected to utilize is working for you, then high fives all around. For people who vehemently reject religion as false... why? I don't reject the notion that the sky is made out of invisible tortoises... it is simply completely irrelevant to my belief system. I don't have to accept or reject it, and if someone else chooses to believe it, why would that bother me?
Footnote: Is Bill a jerk?
"If you want to mock atheism, feel free. I doubt you'll get any death threats"
Premise: Atheism is not a religion, but rather the rejection of religion.
Given that premise, then that statement is somewhat nonsensical. To whit:
Let's go with apples. Bob is an appletarian, who eats only apples. He owns an apple farm, has apple art on his wall, and uses only Apple computer products. Bill refuses to eat apples, and really doesn't like them at all. When Jim satirizes apples, and accuses apple-eaters of being a bunch of namby-pamby riffraff, this, needless to say, upsets Bob. He cries a little bit, and say to himself, "That Jim guy is a real jerk!" When Jim makes fun of Bill for not liking apples, this, unsurprisingly, probably does not have as much impact. If Bill says, "Wow, Bob, you're a big baby, he's just making fun of apples. Apples are stupid anyway!" then we can conclude that Bill is also a jerk. If, instead, Bill says, "You know Bob, I think that apples are kinda silly, but I respect you, and I respect that you like them. Jim should be more constructive in his feedback!" then we can all buy each other a beer and be friends. None of this is rocket science.
Let's go with apples. Bob is an appletarian, who eats only apples. He owns an apple farm, has apple art on his wall, and uses only Apple computer products. Bill refuses to eat apples, and really doesn't like them at all. When Jim satirizes apples, and accuses apple-eaters of being a bunch of namby-pamby riffraff, this, needless to say, upsets Bob. He cries a little bit, and say to himself, "That Jim guy is a real jerk!" When Jim makes fun of Bill for not liking apples, this, unsurprisingly, probably does not have as much impact. If Bill says, "Wow, Bob, you're a big baby, he's just making fun of apples. Apples are stupid anyway!" then we can conclude that Bill is also a jerk. If, instead, Bill says, "You know Bob, I think that apples are kinda silly, but I respect you, and I respect that you like them. Jim should be more constructive in his feedback!" then we can all buy each other a beer and be friends. None of this is rocket science.
Silly humans always crying foul when their ideas become so entrenched that they turn into beliefs and get poked at.
ReplyDeleteThe sky is not made of turtles and it can be expressly show through experimentation and prediction, via scientific method, so I'll tell you your wrong if you try to espouse it. But as an agnostic in nature, I could give a rats ass about your choice in deity, be it first mover or active mover. But if your organisation tries to infiltrate and inject it's ideology into the collective laws of society I'll consider that an act of aggression.
I can also stand here and say that there is not one single human collective/organisation that is beyond reproach with regard to hypocrisy as it is a human failing and multiplied when derived through a collective. Furthermore, to attempt to rationalize one groups hypocrisy as being greater than another on the basis of the structure of their collective or the action of their members, could possibly be the pentacle of hypocrisy itself.
What am I saying here? People are hypocrites in nature, it's part of self interest, a simple survival function. Collectives are hypocritical, see first point and multiply it. Attempting to Shame one collective over another based on limited "pragmatics" is pretty much exposing self bias and personal hypocrisy at best.
Both groups have an extremely long history reaching back to the earliest records of human society and both have been at odds with each other in some fashion or another. A quest for Utopian co-existence is a fantasy at best given the simple nature of mankind and the diametrically opposing framework of both of these collectives.
A jerk is a jerk, and opinions are like assholes, we all have them and they all stink. Moreover, as a wise professor once told me any argument can be valid, but not all valid arguments are true. Most of all, Truth and Right are not indicative of each other.
I don't see any attempts to indicate "one groups hypocrisy is greater than another" or "attempting to shame on collective over another" - at least not on this end.
DeleteWhether or not utopian co-existence is a fantasy doesn't mean that society won't benefit from attempts to steer it in that direction.
"Whether or not utopian co-existence is a fantasy doesn't mean that society won't benefit from attempts to steer it in that direction."
DeleteI say such a statement is based in bias. What about the simple matter of the necessary balance of force, friction, light, dark. The life we have and live may very well be intrinsic due to the friction, the ebb and flow of positive and negative forces. Such as the yin and yang or the good and evil, the struggle that makes existence what it is. We can not deny the universe is abound in turbulence, and this could be the the very essence of being.
We commonly define ourselves as people through our journey and our journey is defined as the struggle. Would it not be less futile to understand and respect the nature of things within the self than it would be to force such expectation on the universe.
A phrase I derived in my many years reading the teaching of eastern philosophy and the Buddha is that expectation is the forefront to disappointment. We enable disappointment by resisting that which "IS" in favor for our desire for what we think it "should be".
As a side note, from a distanced view this topic and how it progresses does appear as a name and shame, who's worse and on what grounds. Which, is common in such a debate as various view points are mixed in and evolve the debate. I understand your premise is to establish that if the atheists are grounded in reason and rational thought then their behavior as a collective should be better than that which they, like any other collective expresses. But the answer to this long winded convolution is summed up in a single sentence.
"They are only human".
Prior to the side note, you seem to be somewhat contradictory. It seems as if you point out the universe is meant to be in balance, that forces are supposed to push against each other - then you suggest it would be less futile not to be one of those forces?
DeleteUnless such was simultaneously applied to all forces, the balance would be disturbed. If a force changes its nature, accepts things as they are and quits pushing to change them to its preference, its counterforce would go unopposed.
If I acknowledge that a balance exists, then accepting 'what is' entails me accepting that I too am a force, and my behavior is necessary to maintain the balance. Is it not my very role to try and persuade atheists to be aware of how their behavior is potentially hindering their progress toward what appears to be their goal?
As to the side note: When you say I'm appear to be establishing "who's worse and on what grounds" do you mean that it appears I'm implying that the atheist behavior is worse than the behavior of the religious people that issue death threats? If so, what gives you that impression - that I'm not focused on the death-threat behavior, or something else?
My reference to the universe was that balance is derived by the very instability, something that is contrary to a Utopian ideal. Step back from the conflicts of micro-social collectives and you will find a continual ebb and flow and an overall tidal like balance. The conflict or force pushing allows anomalies in conceptualization to arise, new ideas and such. Without the tidal opposing forces entropy takes over.
ReplyDeleteOur discourse is such a friction, good, and health. Many can not maintain such a discourse without resorting to personal attacks because they make the idea, a belief, and therefore intrinsic.
So for me the idea of Utopia co-existence is counter to what I find necessary to life, a constant healthy friction. What is healthy, I will agree is a matter for debate. But I can only make that debate if we agree that all collectives and individuals are equally susceptible to excessive friction, without labeling one over another.
If your goal is to point out to atheists that their method is failing them, then I would say your approach is as wrong as any religious persons common anti atheist retort. Then again maybe that is what your intent is. Maybe for me the issue I'm having revolves around that. I feel your method is failing your intention, and that is the futility I am interpreting.
That would be terribly ironic.
ReplyDeleteI'm presently hoping it only appears to you as such because of the format, which might not be readily apparent. I think of my overall message as similar to a english paper: introductory paragraph, point, point, point, (maybe a couple more of those), then conclusion re-iterating the introductory paragraph. But I've chosen to omit the introductory paragraph/post, hoping that the controversial nature of each point/post attracts members of my target audience that otherwise wouldn't be reading the message at all.