5 ms·

From reading a couple of replies now, I'm thinking that I didn't express myself well. I respect atheists, especially ones that have taken the time to think abou

From reading a couple of replies now, I'm thinking that I didn't express myself well. I respect atheists, especially ones that have taken the time to think about the world and their place in it and the nature of truth. Most atheists are engaged with the big questions and that's more than I can say for most. I probably have more in common with the average atheist, in terms of our desire to engage big questions and draw conclusions, than most of my Christian friends on that count. I also realize in my post that I haven't adequately taken into account how persecuted most atheists probably feel. It's a problem of perception on both sides -- both feel attacked and misunderstood. But I can definitely see how an atheist in America might feel marginalized. I respect the atheist if nothing else for the simple fact that they have the integrity to hold to a conviction, the intellectual curiosity to engage the biggest questions and then the courage to stand with that conviction in a society that doesn't tend to hold with such opinions. With such atheists I can have long discussions and good beer. Beer seems to be a recurring theme with me here...

drivebyacct2 15y ago
I guess I'm curious for more clarification on your post then. I guess I don't get the point. I feel like it would be summarized, "Lots of people like to loudly be ignorant about their beliefs". I don't disagree with that, but I don't find it uniquely or even tilted towards atheism. Further, I still don't understand the reductive criticism on Dawkins. Again, I find much of his positioning to be directly related or relatable to very palpable issues. Even in his books, he uses real life modern and historical examples and addresses their basis in logic and their societal effects before breaking it down and discussing it in what I might call a reductive fashion. If anything, I feel like you're looking for a philosophical discussion that Dawkins, and I would suspect many Atheists, are flatly uninterested in. (I find myself a little surprised to see such a discussion surrounding Santa Claus. I won't purport to know how the cited individuals would reply to such a simplistic response, but I've yet to have it sufficiently answered and though it may spark a larger discussion, it's simplistic nature is a way for me to express how little initial\fundamental stock I put in the existence of either.) In closing, yes, beer and a good theological discussion sounds nice. Most of the people who were willing to sit down with me simply refer me to a higher authority now though (they tell me that they can't answer my questions and to go ask a Preist or a Preacher, I've already been Catholic once though :P).
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  To me Richard Dawkins is a bit like Carl Von Clausewitz or Nietzsche. In a sense they all see their respective fields with an astonishing clarity and try to lay it all out in the open. But due to the sheer size and complexity of their work, few in their audience posses necessary sophistication to understand it completely. Thus Dawkins spawned a legion of believers that got everything mixed up and who by applying their teaching literally, become more dogmatic than their target.
  - davesims 15y ago
    I'm glad Dawkins can play that role for you. But for me the chasm between Dawkins and Nietzsche is...vast.
davesims 15y ago
A clarification then (the reply tree seems to halt, so I'm posting this higher up): I run into a lot of atheists these days who've read Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris, maybe even Stephen Pinker, heck maybe even the whole John Brockman crew of "Brights" and so forth. And that's all, and I don't understand that. I'm no exemplar of intellectual integrity, but I'm just too curious to not read contrary points of view. I thought that was the point. When I first started questioning my own faith, I went after the best atheists I could find to read, which at the time were guys like Antony Flew, Quentin Smith Kai Nielson, Peter Singer. Then later some pretty deep reading of Russell and Ayer. On the existential side Sartre, Camus and finally the greatness of Nietzsche. I don't find that same aggressive curiosity and charitable engagement with this generation of atheists that have latched onto the Four Horsemen, and honestly I don't find the Four Horsemen all that compelling, even at a distance. Dennett of course is the deepest intellectual of the bunch but I don't find much new there. Consciousness Explained just really, really wasn't, sorry. But that's ok -- we can debate that, I would just like to see some curious, adventurous young atheists who can read both Dawkins and someone like, say, Christopher Dawson or T.S. Eliot -- not just for the sake of debate and argument but for the understanding of the soul of a worldview that deserves at least respect and not derision. Likely the same thing you're asking from me...
- robertk 15y ago
  A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. To me, philosophical and theological reasoning are not fundamental as they may be to you, because I have accepted they are an outcome of a particular brain architecture with its own tendencies and biases, itself an outcome of a more general process. This argument is convincing to me because it seems a natural progression to our realizations that humanity is not fundamental (which, coming from antiquity, is counterintuitive), and a natural extension of the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric point of view. Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded. We have a limited amount of time. I was a faithful, practicing Catholic who scoffed at atheist ideas because I didn't understand them. I remember the precise position I sat while reading the God Delusion when my brain was shocked into realizing "Wait a second, I'm agreeing with this." I took a few more months to verify the ideas were sensible, and what I got was much more; a worldview with more coherence and explanatory power than anything I'd yet seen. So for me, I don't spend my time on reading further theological / atheist philosophy for the same reason I am not proofchecking Deligne's demonstration of the Weil conjectures, even though I accept and use his result.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

drivebyacct2 15y ago

I guess I'm curious for more clarification on your post then. I guess I don't get the point. I feel like it would be summarized, "Lots of people like to loudly be ignorant about their beliefs". I don't disagree with that, but I don't find it uniquely or even tilted towards atheism. Further, I still don't understand the reductive criticism on Dawkins. Again, I find much of his positioning to be directly related or relatable to very palpable issues. Even in his books, he uses real life modern and historical examples and addresses their basis in logic and their societal effects before breaking it down and discussing it in what I might call a reductive fashion. If anything, I feel like you're looking for a philosophical discussion that Dawkins, and I would suspect many Atheists, are flatly uninterested in. (I find myself a little surprised to see such a discussion surrounding Santa Claus. I won't purport to know how the cited individuals would reply to such a simplistic response, but I've yet to have it sufficiently answered and though it may spark a larger discussion, it's simplistic nature is a way for me to express how little initial\fundamental stock I put in the existence of either.) In closing, yes, beer and a good theological discussion sounds nice. Most of the people who were willing to sit down with me simply refer me to a higher authority now though (they tell me that they can't answer my questions and to go ask a Preist or a Preacher, I've already been Catholic once though :P).

JanezStupar 15y ago
To me Richard Dawkins is a bit like Carl Von Clausewitz or Nietzsche. In a sense they all see their respective fields with an astonishing clarity and try to lay it all out in the open. But due to the sheer size and complexity of their work, few in their audience posses necessary sophistication to understand it completely. Thus Dawkins spawned a legion of believers that got everything mixed up and who by applying their teaching literally, become more dogmatic than their target.
- davesims 15y ago
  I'm glad Dawkins can play that role for you. But for me the chasm between Dawkins and Nietzsche is...vast.

davesims 15y ago

A clarification then (the reply tree seems to halt, so I'm posting this higher up): I run into a lot of atheists these days who've read Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris, maybe even Stephen Pinker, heck maybe even the whole John Brockman crew of "Brights" and so forth. And that's all, and I don't understand that. I'm no exemplar of intellectual integrity, but I'm just too curious to not read contrary points of view. I thought that was the point. When I first started questioning my own faith, I went after the best atheists I could find to read, which at the time were guys like Antony Flew, Quentin Smith Kai Nielson, Peter Singer. Then later some pretty deep reading of Russell and Ayer. On the existential side Sartre, Camus and finally the greatness of Nietzsche. I don't find that same aggressive curiosity and charitable engagement with this generation of atheists that have latched onto the Four Horsemen, and honestly I don't find the Four Horsemen all that compelling, even at a distance. Dennett of course is the deepest intellectual of the bunch but I don't find much new there. Consciousness Explained just really, really wasn't, sorry. But that's ok -- we can debate that, I would just like to see some curious, adventurous young atheists who can read both Dawkins and someone like, say, Christopher Dawson or T.S. Eliot -- not just for the sake of debate and argument but for the understanding of the soul of a worldview that deserves at least respect and not derision. Likely the same thing you're asking from me...

robertk 15y ago
A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. To me, philosophical and theological reasoning are not fundamental as they may be to you, because I have accepted they are an outcome of a particular brain architecture with its own tendencies and biases, itself an outcome of a more general process. This argument is convincing to me because it seems a natural progression to our realizations that humanity is not fundamental (which, coming from antiquity, is counterintuitive), and a natural extension of the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric point of view. Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded. We have a limited amount of time. I was a faithful, practicing Catholic who scoffed at atheist ideas because I didn't understand them. I remember the precise position I sat while reading the God Delusion when my brain was shocked into realizing "Wait a second, I'm agreeing with this." I took a few more months to verify the ideas were sensible, and what I got was much more; a worldview with more coherence and explanatory power than anything I'd yet seen. So for me, I don't spend my time on reading further theological / atheist philosophy for the same reason I am not proofchecking Deligne's demonstration of the Weil conjectures, even though I accept and use his result.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]