Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by BRUTE »

a bit inspired by the sexual misconduct threat, where Dear Leader Jacob brought up this concept. brute was recently listening to a podcast where someone claimed that Atheism (especially the New Atheists, e.g. Sam Harris, Dawkins, ..) had "torn down the church, and now everyone's sitting in the rain". brute thought this a very good metaphor.

what do ERE forum attending humans think? did Atheists deconstruct faith without providing a sufficient secular culture, or are current troubles unrelated?

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by chenda »

Yes I would agree. Religious belief, in the sense of believing in something beyond what we can perceive, is probably an natural need for most people. And its fine as long as it sticks to its own turf and doesn't interfere with matters outside, like science. And vice-versa. Both the New Atheists and religious fundamentalists are guilty of this thinking.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Atheism didn't tear down the church. Technology tore down the church and then commenced to reconstruct it. The alienated can now tune in Joel Osteen on XM radio while alone in commuter vehicle.

I am currently reading "Learning to Die in the Anthropocene" and "Nature's Metropolis", so I am favoring explanations rooted in means of flow of primary energy source of culture. So, for instance, the social democracy movements of the last couple hundred years were due to the fact of the concentrations of workers needed to mine coal and the rigidity of the railroads. Under these circumstances, a group of miners in Pennsylvania could actually cause major disruption to the literal flow of power to the economy throughout much of the nation.

Any 19th century intellectual writing about the philosophy of Atheism while the Church was still in central position of power was just being prescient, not causative. I would also note that in both the circumstances of early Christendom and early Islam, those who were systematically or naturally excluded from benefiting under current or rapidly changing economic system (orphans, mistreated whores, the "sheltered" wives of affluent Romans, ethnic minorities) were among the first converts.

Jason

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by Jason »

The acceptance of atheism as an option to an ecclesiastically based intellectual system dates back to the mid-17th century. Dawkins/Hitchens et. al. did not "invent" atheism. It's merely a repristination of the Radical Englightment, namely Spinoza. Until that point it was a battle between The Holy Roman Church, Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicism. The Moderate Englightement tried to reign it in with deism, but the cat was out of the atheistic bag. So there is nothing particular to 1717, 1817, 1917, 2017 that led to atheism. What changed was the cultural conditions that gave it increasing prevalence and acceptance over that time.

The "church" nor "atheism" are monolithic terms or movements, but for argument sake, call "church" a worldview view with a heteronomous, personal creator and atheism as one that does not have one. Both simultaneously exist, and both provide hegemonic influences on individual's views towards the world. They are mere options. Historically speaking, the Reformation opened up the sacred/secular divide when it revolted against the Holy Roman's Church totalitarian control over all of life in Europe. So to some the church remained magisterial, to others, merely ministerial. Atheism just took it a step further and completely bifurcated the secular and sacred. Chesterton's fence is just standing on the other side of Lessing's ditch.

The faith vs. science debate is a false dichotomy. Members of either "party" are allowed to participate in science and members of both have made serious contributions to the field. How they want to interpret the "data" is up to them. Creationists, intelligent designers, and evolutionists find each other mutually appalling but they still are exchanging information with one another. All "camps" fight over exactly who is in their camp. None should disavow discoveries, progress, or information just because they dislike the other's ultimate commitments.

When it comes the structure one is protecting himself with or what you have is not necessarily a complete antithesis of two viewpoints but a "rearrangement." Theists never opposed and still do not oppose "science" nor "philosophy" nor "reason" they just view each as handmaiden's to "creationism" "theology" and "supernatural revelation" respectively. A lot of the aspersions cast are strong man arguments.

This is important not to make faith and reason oppositional i.e. fideism. Because ultimately faith demands an object of faith. And that is the issue. Power abhors a vacuum. If you remove something, you necessarily replace it with something else. And that extends to faith. If you remove God as the object of your faith where are you now putting it? Atheism is therefore a faith based in no God (Metaphysical), that man's reason is sufficient and autonomous and not to look for corroboration in a divine "mind" (epistemology) and is not morally obligated to any idea of supernaturally based law. (ethics). Whether you are looking down a microscope, casting a ballot, looking at the stars whatever, to ask someone to put aside their presuppositions is absurd, because they can't and even if they could, they wouldn't.

The bottom line is that no matter what you believe, the world remains as it is. So ultimately, you are searching for a system that explains the universe to you. Both exist but you can only choose one. And ultimately what you believe is ultimately both the ladder and the roof on which you use it to climb.

And both parties are not consistent. To say that atheists act only according to what they perceive assumes (1) that their mind is the ultimate arbiter of reality and that things in the universe by definition have to be known and/or capable of being known, which is a faith commitment in itself (2) is logically inconsistent. One utilizes faith and assumptions every day that are not "perceivable" just as those who are "faithful" act unfaithfully every day.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by BRUTE »

what the human in that podcast argued was specific to culture. maybe brute should have explained.

the argument basically said that faith was a useful fiction, as it helped center morality, and enforced certain rules, making society somewhat cohesive (for some value of society).

developments like the Overton windows constantly moving even further apart, society seeming to fracture, social bubbles, extreme ingroup/outgroup effects, self sorting along ideological lines, unwillingness to compromise with other world views ("x is literally Hitler").

brute would sure like a "reasonable philosophy" that most humans could accept, and there is no shortage of secular ethics. but somehow, almost nobody seems to stick to them, maybe because there's little to "believe" in.

Jason

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by Jason »

I think the best example of the type of philosophy that you are referring to is the Scottish Common Sense Realism of Thomas Reid that was adopted in the late 19th century by William James, Dewey and Pierce in America as Pragmatism. It essentially truncates any idea of a metaphysic and finds its relevance and usefulness only in its practical application.

But you have to consider why it started and became popular - the optimistic, progressive period that followed the end of Civil War and the country trying to find its ethical moorings - and why it ended - the advent of WW I.

The problem with "reasonable" philosophies is that they work when the times are reasonable. But culture's are subject to extreme disruption, challenges, periods of internal and external violence where the philosophy is either disproven or rendered moot. A reasonable philosophy assumes that people are reasonable. Tell a guy who just experienced trench warfare that man is inherently ethical and reasonable. He's just not going to agree.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by BRUTE »

maybe reasonable is a bad word then. or, if brute had to ask the question differently: is it inherently impossible to create a secular ethic as strong as a faith based ethic, that would survive even in trench warfare? or are different ethics needed for different situations?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by jacob »

@brute - Example from one of the least religious countries in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

The general ethics of Danish culture is humanism. For social coherence, various clubs (sports, community, politics, bingo, ...), have replaced the church in terms of where locals meet. The churches are still there, it's just that most people attend them about as often as they go to the circus: Once as a kid, once as a parent, and once as a grand-parent. Therefore, the "fence" wasn't taken down as much as it's fading from non-use.

The US shows the same trend over time.

Religiosity and GDP are strongly inversely correlated over space (US is one of the few outliers). Maybe trench warfare can be thought of as an instant decrease in GDP :-P Apparently, there are no atheists in foxholes.

For another example of a developed ethics code w/o much reliance on deities, consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Ethics

PS: Maybe a good idea to differentiate between atheists of the kind who actively takes the position that there's no god, and the more common kind who just doesn't think about it (i.e. "nonpracticing agnostic").

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by chenda »

Science and religion are both belief systems, but the methodology used for science is different from religion. For practical purposes, we can assume literal truth to much of science. We can consider that the sun definitely does not rotate around the earth, which was definitely not created in 7 days.

Science and religion can be reconciled so that they sit comfortably alongside each other. We can consider much of religious teaching as metaphorical, where it appears to contradict scientific belief. We can still believe in say a higher power or an afterlife, but as an act of faith within the religious belief system, not as a scientific theory. Some though would reverse this and see science as all supposition, with literal truth to be found in their preferred religion.

Ethics are another separate belief system, which can overlap to some degree with science and religion. Science can, and should, help determine our ethical beliefs. Religion may strengthen our ethical beliefs, and provide us with personal solace and purpose in an unjust world. Or, if used unethically, undermine it.

Jason

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by Jason »

(@) Brute

I think its absolutely possible but it will ultimately depend on the commitment of the individual. Hence, the derogatory term "fox hole Christians".

Christopher Hitchens was uncompromising in his atheism in his dying moments. It was admirable in how he denied himself any comfort (to him false comfort) in God in his most dire circumstances. He specifically stated that the question was not "Why he got cancer" but "Why not", meaning he should not exempt himself from the absurd happening when one lives in a random, meaningless, universe. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I don't know how much comfort that provided him (he seemed to be in complete agony) but he stuck to it. Not only that, he stated that the only reason he would start believing in God is that upon his death, the world would be freed from one more Christian, a statement I believe to be the greatest personal atheistic testimony in history.

For his sake, I hope he was right because he fought it tooth and nail for it to be true. For the opposing viewpoint would be that he had "faith" that there was no God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ23ZPIZIao

Jason

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by Jason »

(@) Chenda

You believe the world was definitely not created in seven days. There are many who do as the war rages on.

Saying religion is metaphorical and should be subjected to scientific methodology? Not only is that an epistemological leap, but what exact scientific methodology is it? The a priori or the a posteriori? The the Lockean blank slate or the Kantian principles of the categorical imperative? Science does not have one methodology to resort to.

And of course every scientist when he goes into the laboratory checks his ethics at the door. Who would ever integrate that into their research.

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by chenda »

You believe the world was definitely not created in seven days. There are many who do as the war rages on.
Correct, that is my belief. But there is not a war within science, only a conflict between scientific belief and religious belief.
Saying religion is metaphorical and should be subjected to scientific methodology?
No - but can avoid apparent conflict or contradictions (e.g. evolution vs creationism) between the two by adopting a metaphorical interpretation of religious concepts.
Science does not have one methodology to resort to.
Maybe not from a philosophical perspective. But from any practical viewpoint, we can distinguish between scientific methodology and religious belief.
And of course every scientist when he goes into the laboratory checks his ethics at the door
Obviously not. Scientific knowledge may in itself may be ethically neutral, but undertaking scientific research and its application clearly raises ethical considerations.

Jason

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by Jason »

(1) Patently false. There are scientists who believe in seven day creation. As their are scientists who believe in intelligent design, as there are scientists who believe in material origins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

Creationism vs. science is once again a false dichotomy. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science can never be unfettered from the scientists ultimate commitment. That is naivety. There is no "neutral" science. People can try to be objective, but they are never neutral. Good scientists know this.

(2) Creationists do not believe they are allegorical. When there is a conflict, they will take creation account over science. So once again, you are just committing to an epistemological prioritization that is based on a belief system.

(3) No you cannot. People do not check their "religious" beliefs at the lab door. Two scientists can see a tree. One thinks its created one doesn't think it is. Their "scientific" agreements are merely coincidental.

(4) Scientific is anything but ethically neutral. As I said, people can try to be objective, but they are never neutral. Many scientists have been swayed based on geological findings from one "camp" to another. There is no monolithic world of science where people live magically in agreement over methodology and maintain neutrality. It's like every other endeavor on earth. Science is not necessarily anti-religious and it is conducted by humans and where there are humans, there is no religious neutrality.

chenda
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Nether Wallop

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by chenda »

1. Yes there are, and are an example of religious beliefs trespassing into the domain of science which I previously mentioned. Conditions of acceptance in scientific thought is not something I'm qualified to discuss, but as I understand, Ken Ham et al can be considered to have thus far failed to meet them.
2. I never said creationists did believe they were allegorical. I suggested allegory as a position a religious person may choose to take towards religious teachings, to avoid apparent conflict with scientific thought.
3 and 4. Yes - scientists are prone to biases like everyone else, and yes, good scientists acknowledge this. Science is not necessarily anti-religious. We can still accept that the scientific method exists, or act 'as if' it exists.

What you are saying isn't necessarily wrong, at least at some level, it just has little to no use beyond that of a philosophical exercise. If I have an infection, I'm going to follow the scientific method and listen to medical advice. I would likely consider the medical diagnosis to be literal truth. If I'm having an existential crisis, I might study some religious teachings, but I don't consider them to be all literal truth. We can and do distinguish between the two domains of belief.

How old do you believe the earth is ?

Jason

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by Jason »

(1) My point is that all scientists possess intellectual commitments to a worldview that presuppose their scientific endeavors. A theist will say that a non-theists's worldview is ultimately guiding and dictating his scientific work. The non-theist will say the say thing about the theists. You are saying Ken Ham is failing in bringing his religious views into the equation. Ken Ham will say that Carl Sagan is failing because Carl Sagan makes statements in his scientific work that are making atheistic commitments. You are saying that in order for science to be legitimate that it has to be stripped of religious commitments. I am saying that's impossible. The theistic scientist will say you have to acknowledge that very divine being in order to understand science. The atheistic scientist will say you have to deny the divine being in order to understand science. You are only defending a non-theistic basis of science which is only the default position of the atheist. It is not the only view or the correct view. That being said, your definition of science does not exist in the real world. There is no hyperbolic chamber of study that scientists go in on, strip themselves of their commitments and dedicate themselves to some pure notion of science or scientific methodology.

The below seminal book on the topic testifies to this fact. The basic architectonic structure of scientific endeavor is always evolving.

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scient ... 0226458083

(2) Your bi-furcation of religion and science presupposes the idea that religion is ahistorical and exists only on the level of story telling or allegory. The theist disagrees. Therefore, your suggestion is only a valid suggestion to an atheist.

Anyways, what exactly is this pristine, beyond subjective "scientific method" you keep referring to? I mean if it can be explained by going to a doctor it disproves your point because religious people use doctors too. Well, just not those Christian scientist people.

And what is literal truth? The truth you believe. The literal truth to the theist is that God created the universe and everything studied within the earthly realm testifies to that fact. The non-theist will say there is no God and that everything in the universe testifies to that fact. Which one is the literal truth? The one you believe. Neither can scientifically disprove the other. That is one thing scientists agree upon. Therefore, they know they are working with prior commitments.

This is not a philosophical exercise. It's an attempt to defend an anthropological basis of the scientific method that scientists themselves are concerned with i.e how does the scientist and the subject he is studying interact. Where does the scientist end and the science begin. Is the scientist imposing order i.e. Hume or does order exist in the universe. This has been of both scientific and philosophic interest since the Ancient Greeks. And the fact that you ask an ad hominem question in the middle of such a discussion to me only illustrates you ultimately do not understand the implications of said debate because you are most likely seeking to discredit my argument by what viewpoint I may hold.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Jason:

I fail to see what the concept of radical paradigm shift in science has to do with the absurd notion that literal document creationism is science.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE:

Gotcha now. My answer is Dr. Seuss.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by BRUTE »

Dr. Seuss? does not compute. does 7Wannabe5 want to elaborate?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by BRUTE »

jacob wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:12 pm
@brute - Example from one of the least religious countries in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews
holy shit. there is a god. or is there..?

brute kind of wants to believe that there can exist a functioning secular system of ethics, like humanism. yet, as they say, every system works in Sweden (and apparently Denmark). for reference, more humans die of automobile crashes every year in the US than jews lived in Denmark, apparently (7,800).

brute thinks there's definitely some "ugly atheists", not in the beauty sense, but in the "out to destroy something others like" sense. brute used to feel the urge to discuss the faith out of humans, but then he turned 18 and it started boring him.

in the very least, it seems that widespread atheism is no guarantee for ethical behavior. perhaps religion and ethics are simply unrelated, as suggested by chenda.

of the problems in US society today, brute would say that on average, atheists have more overlap with those who brute finds acting inappropriately. maybe it's simply because faithful humans are in the minority and mostly not in power (at least socially/in the media, where many of these battles are fought today), therefore making it harder to abuse their (non-existent) power.

as a complete atheist, brute finds this somewhat troubling.

Hitchens: a true atheist would find no comfort through faith in a god, so Hitchens wouldn't have denied himself any comfort.

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Chesterton's Fence - Atheism and Culture

Post by George the original one »

BRUTE wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:36 pm
someone claimed that Atheism (especially the New Atheists, e.g. Sam Harris, Dawkins, ..) had "torn down the church, and now everyone's sitting in the rain".
Considering how few people still self-identify as atheist, I'd say it's an overreaction. Not even 1 in 5 Americans will declare they are atheist... lots of wishy-washy cop-outs though.

Locked