are you an atheist?

i thought i was backing up your point about responding to a complex environment

i dunno dudes, economics lookin a lot like eschatology for like, the past few decades...

they involve forcible re-education, penalties for teaching religion to children, etc.

The english tried that in Ireland with the Penal Laws. The irish catholics just went underground with the hedge schools. And ironically, the greatest success the english had was in solidly uniting irish nationalism with irish catholicism so that the church was greatly strengthened by alliance with a powerful secular movement.

I should have used the term supernatural rather than metaphysical. Economics involves some highly abstract concepts, but even the most arcane wall street paper-pushing shenanigans are ultimately tied to the physical at some level (real estate, oil, etc).

And is there such a thing as an economic agnostic? Somebody who claims that the way markets work is fundamentally unknowable?

throw your hand in the ay-er
if you eschew prayer

― fman29.5 (k3vin k.), Monday, June 7, 2010 11:53 AM (2 years ago)

this was a good post

isn't economics called "dismal science" because of its lack of verifiability? anyway in a foxhole we're all keynesians.

And is there such a thing as an economic agnostic? Somebody who claims that the way markets work is fundamentally unknowable?

― wk, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Market goes up, market goes down- you can't explain that!

this is a really good read (i'm interested in checking out his new book too): http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

The writer is making a pretty big assumption that the entire content of spiritual writings seems to be in a literal, historical, non-metaphorical readings, which is a terrible interpretation. In addition to this gross oversimplification, there are a few more things i take issue with:

No other feature of religion creates a bigger divide between religious believers and modern secular people, to whom it staggers the imagination that anyone could entertain such beliefs. No other feature creates a bigger divide between believers in two different religions, each of whom firmly believes its own beliefs but considers it absurd that the other religion’s believers believe those other beliefs.

Supernatural beliefs are bad because they divide people. Inversely, modern secularists are above such illogical divisiveness. Yet the author polarizes all possible shades of spirituality into either antiquated dogmatic religious literalists or modern secular people. There is some level of hypocrisy here, though taking into account the author's logical desire to sell books to the neo atheist market, it does make sense.

I do agree that the sort of Old World Creationist this article is criticizing is ridiculous. But to use that as a general example for all religious experience is a simple and easy way to go about making your argument.

He could do with toning down the condescension too. But that may make it difficult to market his book to the desired demographic.

maybe new world creationists should do more to separate themselves from the old world ones, if being lumped in together is such a problem, idk

Not really feasible as I have known both to exist within the same congregations/denominations, and the distinction cuts across a plethora of beliefs.

It only becomes a problem when writers oversimplify the scope of religious belief in order to make broad, clumsy statements like the one quoted above.

The title of that piece is really really dumb. Was anyone really arguing that religion is a rational thing today? Or are religious people more likely saying 'yeah, but rationality will only get you so far'? And then, the article concludes: 'Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying.' Yep, because being emotionally satisfied is a totally irrational thing to choose to be...

The ex-communicated minister episode of "this american life" makes a similar point though, not that TAL doesn't also sometimes oversimplify, but there's something to it, and if it in any way counters the idea that you can bring people of clashing faiths into accord by simply defeating them in an argument, then it's a net positive.

you have to defeat them in a race war

Um, reading what I wrote, perhaps they are not more likely saying that, but... some people are saying that.

what I found interesting was the idea that it is specifically the irrationality of the belief that makes it constitutive; you signal belonging by saying some crazy shit no one could possibly believe

literary cfuck rules

it's interesting to me that articles like that never mention, say, William James. Not that James is foundational but he signals a particular way of taking religion on its own terms. what happens too often (particularly of the Dawkins/Hitchens school) is that we are just fighting the same old battles of secularization and modernity over and over again. maybe that's necessary but it's also boring and not a little obtuse.

Mordy i like that idea too, particularly if you're willing to reject the idea of rationality as totalizing (ie, as simply a replacement for the pre-modern role of religion).

I think it's more being high stakes than irrationality, but it's easier to access high stakes through irrationality? Like global warming deniers aren't necessarily resorting to irrational arguments off the bat.

Pointing out that people believe something or socially proclaim something because it gives them an emotional gratification is sort of duh. There are plenty of things we do - rational and otherwise - that have that appeal and don't have roots in religion. Pointing it out specifically in this case just seems like a dog whistle for neo atheists.

Well it's not kind of "duh" if people are still stockpiling appeals to rationalism as antidote, and atheists of the dawkinsy-evangelical bent especially ought to absorb that point.

Also, the fact that it's obvious (or 'duh') doesn't constitute an argument against it. That amounts to discounting an argument because it's obviously true, which is a rather odd point of view. Lots of theories are intuitively obvious, and that doesn't mean, by itself, that we should dismiss them.

Moreover, while many people have an emotional connection to certain true beliefs, it is non-emotional facts that make that belief true. So, for example, the fact that the earth is round may make me feel warm and fuzzy. The illusory belief that I am a member of the master race may also make me feel warm and fuzzy. The fact that both beliefs are, in my belief system, entirely emotionally founded does not mean that an understanding of how this process works is irrelevant to understanding how delusion is created. On the contrary, it's extremely important that we understand this process.

'Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying.' Yep, because being emotionally satisfied is a totally irrational thing to choose to be...

― Frederik B, Monday, January 14, 2013 3:05 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So all delusions are rational as long as they make you feel good?

more like: it may be rational to hold irrational beliefs. tho how one can choose whether or not to hold a belief i'm not sure.

I must be an atheist. I think I had a level of agnosticism, possibly something close to faith all the way up into my early 20s, but now I find the whole subject of religion a bit icky, like talking about the existence of Father Christmas with grown adults might.

got no truck with militant atheists though - that's the most hypocritical bullshit. i'd like to read some of Dawkins's philosophical/sciencey stuff because it sounds interesting, but his fanatical agenda completely puts me off.

Dawkins doesn't do philosophical stuff. He's good on evolutionary biology tho.

yeah, i'd say read anything he did up til ooooh say '87 not sure how much he's repeating himself after that tbh

That Diamond thing reads like someone who understands very little about the psychology of religious belief or of group dynamics in a religious community. I find the idea that believers spout irrational claims as a sort of badge of identity to be preposterous. For one thing, "rationality" is a lot more ambiguous and complex than Diamond gives it credit for. For another, I think the core beliefs of most believers are things that make sense to them on a deep level, and not necessarily without justification. The elements of their tradition that most strain credulity are usually the ones they privately struggle with, and not the ones they tend to focus on.

Or, to quote William James:

The opinion opposed to mysticism in philosophy is sometimes spoken of as rationalism. Rationalism insists that all our beliefs ought ultimately to find for themselves articulate grounds. Such grounds, for rationalism, must consist of four things: (1) definitely statable abstract principles; (2) definite facts of sensation; (3) definite hypotheses based on such facts; and (4) definite inferences logically drawn. Vague impressions of something indefinable have no place in the rationalistic system, which on its positive side is surely a splendid intellectual tendency, for not only are all our philosophies fruits of it, but physical science (amongst other good things) is its result.

Nevertheless, if we look on man's whole mental life as it exists, on the life of men that lies in them apart from their learning and science, and that they inwardly and privately follow, we have to confess that the part of it of which rationalism can give an account is relatively superficial. It is the part that has the prestige undoubtedly, for it has the loquacity, it can challenge you for proofs, and chop logic, and put you down with words. But it will fail to convince or convert you all the same, if your dumb intuitions are opposed to its conclusions. If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. Your whole subconscious life, your impulses, your faiths, your needs, your divinations, have prepared the premises, of which your consciousness now feels the weight of the result; and something in you absolutely knows that that result must be truer than any logic-chopping rationalistic talk, however clever, that may contradict it. This inferiority of the rationalistic level in founding belief is just as manifest when rationalism argues for religion as when it argues against it. That vast literature of proofs of God's existence drawn from the order of nature, which a century ago seemed so overwhelmingly convincing, to-day does little more than gather dust in libraries, for the simple reason that our generation has ceased to believe in the kind of God it argued for. Whatever sort of a being God may be, we know to-day that he is nevermore that mere external inventor of "contrivances" intended to make manifest his "glory" in which our great-grandfathers took such satisfaction, though just how we know this we cannot possibly make clear by words either to others or to ourselves. I defy any of you here fully to account for your persuasion that if a God exist he must be a more cosmic and tragic personage than that Being.

The truth is that in the metaphysical and religious sphere, articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion. Then, indeed, our intuitions and our reason work together, and great world-ruling systems, like that of the Buddhist or of the Catholic philosophy, may grow up. Our impulsive belief is here always what sets up the original body of truth, and our articulately verbalized philosophy is but its showy translation into formulas. The unreasoned and immediate assurance is the deep thing in us, the reasoned argument is but a surface exhibition. Instinct leads, intelligence does but follow. If a person feels the presence of a living God after the fashion shown by my quotations, your critical arguments, be they never so superior, will vainly set themselves to change his faith.

we don't have to confess any such thing, paragraph two

I think you'll find you have lots of company. Neo-atheists place great stock in their own thorough-going rationalism. Which is particularly odd if they take the evolutionary story of the brain's origin seriously.

i think you'll find i'm not asking for company nor claiming any badge other than 'when we think about our individual feelings we must confess the following' is a tricky little fulcrum that doesn't convince me as an argument, tbh.

It's not an argument - more an invitation to self-reflection. If you don't agree, then you're not obliged to accept his conclusions.

i think james + diamond are looking at religion from different perspectives (ok, that's obv but) religion can be satisfying on different levels. it certainly relates to both the things our subconscious selfs find satisfying and give us meaning, and also ways of organizing our communities and families. they are not incompatible explanations bc one could always ask - why do we find these particular irrationalities personally satisfying, or why do we chose to arrange ourselves ideologically through these particular beliefs?

invitations to self-reflection, imo, are v often v little more than chastisement that lands softly due to the height of the horse from atop which twas issued

I don't think James is trying to chastise anybody. It's not a knock-down argument. He's pretty much admitting that the best-sounding arguments by definition issue from the rationalist camp.

i think there's perhaps two separate questions here. the first would be, a la James, what is a private, subjective, religious experience?

the second, and by necessity foregrounded given the nature of the first, is what constitutes a religious communication? or what is religion as a socially communicable thing?

i think rationalism a la Dawkins cannot help but interpret religion as a rival rationality (not sure it could interpret it any other way). that is, it sees religious communication as making claims about reality.

Niklas Luhmann points to religion as a kind of "world doubling" or "the observation of the unity of the observable and unobservable." what i like about these statements is that they start to point to how religious communication can identify itself as religious. and no wonder rationalism seeks to reject it, it should! but we're past a point in history where "claims about reality" having a binding quality in any one mode of communication.

I'm an it-takes-all-kinds type of guy and I understand that we all have ideas about the world that aren't based on pure rationalism or empiricism. I certainly do.

But it rankles me when people 1) see supernatural forces at work in natural occurrences, due to misconceptions about probability, or 2) attribute personal fortune to the will of a higher power.

You want to believe that it's turtles all the way down? No skin off my nose. The turtle tells you to be nice to people? That's great! You want to tell me about how the turtle made you run into that long lost friend in an unlikely place at just the right time? I will become irrationally angry and look for the nearest exit.

Whatever sort of a being God may be, we know to-day that he is nevermore that mere external inventor of "contrivances" intended to make manifest his "glory" in which our great-grandfathers took such satisfaction, though just how we know this we cannot possibly make clear by words either to others or to ourselves. I defy any of you here fully to account for your persuasion that if a God exist he must be a more cosmic and tragic personage than that Being.

For not believing in God atheist certainly do have specific ideas on what this God who doesn't exist is like. Often

The failure of words to describe the spiritual experience should not be a strike against it. In fact, this is crucial to understanding it. If words and logic and rationality were valid enough tools to transmit the religious experience, they would be the domain of religion and not science. Anyone who read a Bible would understand God as if understanding the plot of a novel.

This is why God must be believed in rather than rationalized. Words and logic do not faithfully (pun, sorry) describe the spiritual experience. Any God that is a being, is an external force, separate from the world, perfectly describable in words or math, is not God. It is science. It is logic. It is gravity, or calculus, or engineering, or FORTRAN, or a drawing of a tree. It is tied to the senses. It is not a mystical personal experience.

i think rationalism a la Dawkins cannot help but interpret religion as a rival rationality

Very well put!

thanks!

it's worth remembering that Kant saw his project in the first critique as essentially limiting the prospects of reason in order to "make room for faith." but that's at a historical moment where reason could be seen as a viable alternative for a return to a "pre-modern" holistic cosmos. too many contemporary arguments on this topic seem to take terms to be set in a pre-Kantian framework--and that's totally wacky!

"or FORTRAN"

FORTRAN is language of the devil! not of this realm.

I'm a big fan of the Bart Ehrman theory that Jesus was an apocalypticist Jewish rabbi that believed he was living in the End Times, and all of the nonsense about Heaven and Hell and most of what we know as today's Christianity came from future followers who had to bend over backwards to explain why the prophecy of the new "Kingdom on Earth" wasn't fulfilled.

but hell even without that, I see no evidence of the Judeo-Christian God in my own life (though haven't thought much about any other type of spiritual presence).

the worst thing about the yay-science atheist books is how fucking excited they seem to be about bleak shit, like the vast scale of the cosmos that renders human life less than insignificant or worst of all the fact that humans evolved due to evolution. of course i believe what they believe, but i don't think it's anything to celebrate, at least not as unequivocally as dawkins seems to.

lol "evolved due to evolution." but yeah, natural selection is kind of a brutal, amoral process and its not flattering to our conception of ourselves as ethical subjects and this is a real problem for people. it's not that they just don't get how cool it is.

I do hate smug and cloying atheists, but I actually find the lack of a clear, defined collective purpose to our existence to be more fulfilling and exciting than the idea of having to adhere to some rigid dogma. like some folks would ask me "isn't that sad, to think that we're here for no reason and that everything happens for no reason", and like, I don't think that at all. I've always felt like it was my job to figure out my individual purposes in life, and that they don't have to be some static thing.

(spoken as someone whose mind was almost wrecked by a Fundamentalist church in his late teens).

i think any version/vision of evolution is no less bleak than the notion of a creator who allows/compels vast swathes of its creation to damn themselves or condemn themselves to oblivion

All that shit is awesome, go get a teddy if u need comforting