What Should Atheists Be Like?

[harvey1]

Let's assume that someone genuinely has a problem conceiving of God to exist, and they in all honesty cannot accept such a view without feeling that they are sacrificing a rational depiction of the world. (That is, they aren't in any kind of deep psychological battle with God.)

Then, in that case, what would the proper reaction be for how they deal with religious issues and religious people? For example, let me take an improper reaction. It is well-documented that a few scientists spent years trying to promote an oscillating universe despite the physical problems with this. In effect, certain atheists (and agnostics) were endorsing a bad model for no apparent reason other than to give the impression that this was a very viable model to theism without mentioning the problems with this model. I would take this as a bad reaction toward religion by atheists. It hints at pettiness on the part of the non-believer to sway people away from a belief they do not share even though the approach they propose is conceptually problematic at best.

Supposing that theists are not always pleased with how some atheists approach religion in public, outside of asking them to convert, what should an atheist be like--i.e., speaking in terms of an ideal atheist?

(Btw, atheists can and should respond, but you might phrase your answer in terms of what you think the ideal atheist should be like with respect to how they promote their views without embarrassment to other atheists. For example, astrophysicist Lawrence Krause recently wrote an article where he criticized non-theists for acting too aggressively against religion because of its potential negative impact on science--referring to Dawkins. That would be an example of Krause voicing his opinion of the ideal atheist in terms of their approach to religious issues.)

[harvey1]

I have a number of pet peeves with how most atheists interact with religion. However, I have one major ideal for an atheist:

If you wish there was a God, then act like it. Make people realize that you continually look for solutions such as this, and talk about what kinds of scenarios that you have considered. If you haven't done so, then you're not an ideal atheist in my view because you're not allowing hope to have any possibility in your thinking.

[QED]

Just to mention that I personally feel that atheists show a remarkable amount of restraint while being immersed in a superstitious and religious world. If theists were the ones in "plain clothes" and atheists the ones wearing pointy hats and constructing special buildings everywhere in a particular geometrical shape, I can imagine a great deal more fuss being made. I'll try to come up with a more sensible reply later on

[harvey1]

Just to mention that I personally feel that atheists show a remarkable amount of restraint while being immersed in a superstitious and religious world. If theists were the ones in "plain clothes" and atheists the ones wearing pointy hats and constructing special buildings everywhere in a particular geometrical shape, I can imagine a great deal more fuss being made. I'll try to come up with a more sensible reply later on

I can see your point, but I just don't think that we should make excuses for people. Why not let them take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming it on someone else. Is it because they have no free will to do other than what they did (/must do/cannot help but do)? Oops, I injected an opinion on another topic...

[juliod]

In effect, certain atheists (and agnostics) were endorsing a bad model for no apparent reason other than to give the impression that this was a very viable model to theism without mentioning the problems with this model. I would take this as a bad reaction toward religion by atheists.

That might or might not be a bad reaction. For example, I have encounter a certain number of theist arguments like this. They talk vaguely about some physical phenomena, then pronounce that the only possible explanation is god. They seem to regard this as a sort of triumph.

In these cases, the most economical response is merely to show that there are other possabilties. It is not necessary to believe in one or more of the alternatives, nor is it necessary to show that the alternatives are likely to be true. The alternatives falsify the theist argument by being merely present.

It's not a question of whether a theory "has problems". At the fronteir of science all theories have problems, that's why it is a fronteir.

The question is whether a theory has been definitively falsified. No one should continue to advance a theory once it has been falsified by significant, coherent, and comprehensive evidence. In fact, we have a word for people who refuse to give up on a falsified theory: crank.

So, if a theory is not soundly falsified, it is reasonable to use that theory as part of any argument. Since atheism has no doctrine, it is unreasonable to expect someone to "believe in" something as a prerequisite to using it.

And since atheism is inherently a non-organising belief system, I have no opinion on how other atheists behave, and neither do I feel any responsibility for them.

DanZ

[harvey1]

For example, I have encounter a certain number of theist arguments like this. They talk vaguely about some physical phenomena, then pronounce that the only possible explanation is god. They seem to regard this as a sort of triumph.

Maybe it is. Have you continued to go back and forth with them until someone admits that they are wrong? You should try that sometime.

In these cases, the most economical response is merely to show that there are other possabilties. It is not necessary to believe in one or more of the alternatives, nor is it necessary to show that the alternatives are likely to be true. The alternatives falsify the theist argument by being merely present.

If you can show that, then I agree that you have shown that theism is not de facto true. However, that doesn't falsify theism unless you can show that theism is eliminated by the mere fact that those other possibilities are possible.

It's not a question of whether a theory "has problems". At the fronteir of science all theories have problems, that's why it is a fronteir.

Sure. However, if there's a philosophical issue which is crippling, e.g., an answer leads to a direct contradiction of the assumptions, then the problems aren't problems--the solution is untenable from the start.

The question is whether a theory has been definitively falsified. No one should continue to advance a theory once it has been falsified by significant, coherent, and comprehensive evidence. In fact, we have a word for people who refuse to give up on a falsified theory: crank.

I always preferred to call them crackpots.

So, if a theory is not soundly falsified, it is reasonable to use that theory as part of any argument. Since atheism has no doctrine, it is unreasonable to expect someone to "believe in" something as a prerequisite to using it.

No. No. If a theory is untenable, then it shouldn't be promoted as a reasonable solution. That's just dishonest, and in the long-run self-depreciating.

And since atheism is inherently a non-organising belief system, I have no opinion on how other atheists behave, and neither do I feel any responsibility for them.

I don't find this argument convincing. A belief in something puts us in a category with those who share those beliefs whether we like it or not. For example, someone who believes the earth is flat (which I doubt there are such people now) is a crank and is naturally grouped with anyone who shares that view. Of course, we aren't responsible for them nor should we necessarily be grouped with their behaviors, but beliefs affect the way we think about other issues and common beliefs (e.g., a belief in jihad against the west) can make us see and do things similar to the way others who hold those beliefs see and do things. Hence, atheists ought to be embarrassed by other atheists and they ought to have ideals as to what an atheist should be.

[OccamsRazor]

To be honest I looked at this question and drew a blank. What should an ideal atheist be? I would say that an ideal atheist should be the same as an ideal theist. Both should examine the both sets of arguments and concepts until they may draw a sound conclusion. Then once this conclusion is drawn the (a)theist may, if they so choose, explain their conclusions and reasoning to others. They may also respectfully dispute another's position so long as they have understood and processed this position (i.e. accepted, rejected or incorporated the idea) for themselves.

I think that the issue here is the scale, importance and historical context of the argument. Theists have subjected many to cruel punishment for blasphemy and more recently persecute people for being homosexual. On the other side theists are ridiculed by non-theists bringing their intelligence into question. I do however think that this non-theist view is a reaction to a long running and oppressive theocratic rule which has only abated in the last century.

To be honest I don't think that an ideal can be achieved on either side of such an immotive issue.

I would not class myself as an ideal atheist because I am too quick to believe that people only believe in God because they have not truly considered or understood the arguments.

[Chad]

I thought it was interesting that you mentioned the oscillating universe in your post. I've actually debated another atheist a few weeks ago that used the oscillating universe as an argument. They seemed to ignore the problems that the theory had. They seemed rather to just enjoy the idea of the theory itself. This is something that I dislike. It would be interesting if the evidence favored an oscillating universe, but we don't really have any evidence that would suggest this is the case. More people need to put their beliefs, or non-beliefs, aside when examining evidence and other theories.

However, I recognize that atheists, like theists, can't just be jumbled into one huge group. We share only one belief/disbelief/lack of belief (however you want to phrase it). This may or may not affect your views on other topics. However, I would agree that being an atheist or theist may give someone a stronger tendency to lean a certain way in some other ideas and beliefs, such as politics or the sciences. This doesn't mean that atheists, or theists, all hold the same views on different topics though. As for believing in a flat earth, you may want to check out The Flat Earth Society .

With that said, I don't really have an idea of what an ideal atheist would be like I do wish, however, that some atheists used better arguments or didn't act in a way that is familiar with some fundamentalists. I can't really think of a good way to promote atheism though. I don't really like the idea of promoting it even, I'd rather people come to their own conclusions through education and critical thinking. For example, children who grow up with a good education and the ability to apply different logical fallacies to everyday circumstances are probably more likely to question different aspects of fundamental behavior from both ends of the fence. I think this is a good thing.

I also wanted to comment on the criticism of Dawkins that you mentioned. I can't help but feel for the guy. Here's a person that has spent their life studying a certain field of science only to have their work attacked by people for mostly religious reasons. The intelligent design movement in America is one such example. I do think that he is sometimes a bit too hostile with his approach, but I almost find it hard to blame him.

[Cathar1950]

Let's assume that someone genuinely has a problem conceiving of God to exist, and they in all honesty cannot accept such a view without feeling that they are sacrificing a rational depiction of the world. (That is, they aren't in any kind of deep psychological battle with God.)

Why would any one be disingenuous regarding their atheism? What would be a deep psychological battle with God and wouldn’t that be irrational? Do you really think you are giving your depiction of atheism a fair shake?

Personally I am not an atheist. I just don’t have enough information to make an informed commitment. I have not looked under ever rock. But I see Theist and Christians making commitments with less information and evidence. I personally think you evidence of theism is strained and largely looks like word games. It is hardly the God of faith or faithfulness. It seems to be if there is a God that was not personal and communicated that it would not be indistinguishable from the universe.

In effect, certain atheists (and agnostics) were endorsing a bad model for no apparent reason other than to give the impression that this was a very viable model to theism without mentioning the problems with this model. I would take this as a bad reaction toward religion by atheists. It hints at pettiness on the part of the non-believer to sway people away from a belief they do not share even though the approach they propose is conceptually problematic at best.

What model do you propose that would keep people from being swayed by the big bad atheist? Is it their pettiness or your? Where is this viable model that you think theism has?

If you wish there was a God, then act like it. Make people realize that you continually look for solutions such as this, and talk about what kinds of scenarios that you have considered. If you haven't done so, then you're not an ideal atheist in my view because you're not allowing hope to have any possibility in your thinking.

I would like to know why you think that you know how an “ideal” atheist should act or respond. Should a theist respond any different then an atheist or vise versa? Do they have to wish there was a God? Do you wish there was a God? Maybe they don’t feel they need to prove their position because there is no need to do so. It seems it would be the theist job to convince others there is a God and to go even further and explain his/her/its nature and why it is so beside what men have said. What should theist be like?

[harvey1]

Why would any one be disingenuous regarding their atheism?

It's not that someone would be disingenuous with their atheism, rather it's that their atheism could stem from a psychological state versus an intellectual attempt to conceive of God. For example, someone who had their puppy run over at the age of 5 might blame God for allowing such a horrible event to happen, and then forever live with the resentment that if there were a God, then they will forever more hate God. The best way to get back at such a God is to psychologically deny God's existence even to the point of being dishonest. Now, of course, I'm being a little factitious in my example, but the point is that psychological resentment caused by an abuse or event can have marring effects that last a lifetime. I honestly suspect that those atheists who are the most vocal in their enmity with God suffer from this malady.

What would be a deep psychological battle with God and wouldn’t that be irrational?

I think psychological issues are often irrational, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Someone might even see "God" as akin to the father that deserted them, and that might set off an attempt to conceive of God as female or not at all. Of course, they don't tell anyone this incident (if they even know it themselves), but it does affect how they conceive of God.

Do you really think you are giving your depiction of atheism a fair shake?

Only to those who are obviously psychologically motivated. There's of course great thinkers who I think really approach the issue objectively. They are rare individuals, but they do exist I think. For example, I think that Richard Feynman, an atheist, approached the subject of God more or less rationally. I honestly don't think he was fighting any battles with God, but rather he tried to give a rational explanation for things. The problem with Feynman though, is that he had no patience with philosophical issues. It's funny because I recently was watching a lecture of his to some university in New Zealand and they asked him a question of phenomenology, and he looked completely dumbfounded by the question. His Moorean realism couldn't allow him to conceive of the question as a real one. He replied to the questioner that that was a dumb philosophy question. It seemed in subsequent lectures he became much more careful in his choice of words. In any case, my impression of Feynman was that he was one of the most open-minded individuals in recent years in physics. He would answer crackpot letters and try to reason with just about anyone (except philosophers whom he detested).

Personally I am not an atheist. I just don’t have enough information to make an informed commitment. I have not looked under ever rock. But I see Theist and Christians making commitments with less information and evidence. I personally think you evidence of theism is strained and largely looks like word games. It is hardly the God of faith or faithfulness. It seems to be if there is a God that was not personal and communicated that it would not be indistinguishable from the universe.

I know that's your opinion, but I think that my view of God is every bit the Christian conception of God. In fact, I think my view was gradually lost in favor of a superhero God view which I think is adolescent in its image of God. As far as my commitments, I make a commitment to logical reasoning. These issues might seem like word games, but I think you ignore the fact that the world is mathematical all the way down. The only way to explain this fact, I think, is by acknowledging the reality of mathematical order. That requires that we think of math propositions and logic propositions as having a platonic existence. My disappointment is that atheists who come to this view are way too reluctant to acknowledge theism. This is where I wonder if psychological purse strings to their atheism prevent them from taking the natural next step in their beliefs. There is just so much psychological resistance in atheism that I think it undercuts their ability to think objectively.

What model do you propose that would keep people from being swayed by the big bad atheist? Is it their pettiness or your? Where is this viable model that you think theism has?

It doesn't matter what other models there are or aren't. The point is that you do not endorse a bad model no matter what to propagate your belief system. It's dishonest and unethical. If I didn't honestly believe that Plantinga's view was correct on propositions, I wouldn't promote it. There are many theist arguments (e.g., moral arguments for God's existence, most ontological arguments, etc.) which I don't think are at all credible. I never use those arguments.

I would like to know why you think that you know how an “ideal” atheist should act or respond. Should a theist respond any different then an atheist or vise versa? Do they have to wish there was a God?

No, they don't have to wish there was a God. But, many atheists give lip service to this wish, but they sure don't act like it.

Let me give an example. There's many scientists who are skeptical on warp drive engines because of the enormous energies that it would take to warp space. However, a number of these scientists will go home at night and try to figure out how it is possible that a warp engine could possibly work. They want humans to someday travel to the stars. They demonstrate this desire by working on the problem.

Once Andei Linde gave a Russian tale. There were two frogs stuck in cream. Both frogs could not jump out of the cream and if they did not try to jump, they would sink into the cream and drown or suffocate as a result of being immersed in the cream. One of the frogs had the attitude that there was no way that getting out of the cream was possible, so this frog stopped trying and drowned in the cream. The other frog kept trying to stay alive and kept trying to figure out how to get out of the cream. With all the frogs effort the frog churned the cream into butter, and was able to jump out of the cream. The moral of the story is to keep working on solving the problem. Do not give up. Don't be like the frog that just let itself sink into the cream.

Unfortunately too many atheists who "want" there to be a God apply no reasoning at all to trying to figure out how God could exist. Rather, they are like the frog that just drowns in the cream.

Do you wish there was a God?

Of course.

Maybe they don’t feel they need to prove their position because there is no need to do so.

They do try to prove their position, and that's the problem. They ought to work toward a view of God that they can intellectually commit to. For example, Hawking found that position by coming to see that God is mathematical order to the world. Linde found that position by seeing that consciousness appears to be non-reducible to the material world (i.e., non-eliminativeness).

It seems it would be the theist job to convince others there is a God and to go even further and explain his/her/its nature and why it is so beside what men have said. What should theist be like?

I think it is quite natural to try and explain one's intuitions of the world using cogent reasons.