Post-theism?

[searcherman]

I want to read this book by James Lindsay, that is reviewed by Ryan Bell. I am trying to give up the debates of biology and physics here. That is more appropriate in a scientific skeptic debate. It's the debates on human consciousness and society that are critical, IMO.

"In short, he claims that atheism and theism exist in a kind of symbiosis, one enabling the existence of the other. Atheism is a not-thing; a negation. It exists as a counterpoint to theism and can only continue to be a distinct idea if the notion of theism is still a credible set of ideas. Escaping from this vortex is essential if we are to move to the important issues facing humanity and the planet. We do this, Lindsay argues, by calling the question on theism, pronouncing it dead, and then moving on to a post-theistic conversation about life itself—the actual psychological and social issues that are the very real issues keeping the idea of “God” alive."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2015/11/25/the-end-of-atheism-a-review-of-everybody-is-wrong-about-god/

[searcherman]

Here is an example of the kind of debate that is more relevant, IMO. These two atheist professors critique the New Atheist position on religion in society.

"Moreover, the question as commonly phrased (“Would the world be better off without religion?”) is probably not strictly answerable with scientific data because the word better necessarily entails a series of value judgments. Reasonable people will surely disagree on what would make the world a better place. Would the world be “better” with more political conservatism, invasive animal research, modern art, McDonald’s hamburgers, or Justin Biebers? The answers to these queries are matters of personal preference and lie outside the boundaries of science (although we would dispute the rationality of readers who reply “yes” to the last option). Nevertheless, when scholars have pondered whether the world would be better off without religion, the lion’s share have almost always referred, either implicitly or explicitly, to a world that is more humane—one in which people treat each other kindly. For provisional research purposes, we can operationalize this propensity roughly in terms of lower rates of aggression and higher rates of altruism. In this article, we therefore address the more tangible question of whether a world devoid of religion would witness (a) lower levels of criminal and antisocial behavior1, including violence, and (b) higher levels of prosocial (altruistic) behavior than a world with religion.

It should perhaps go without saying that the question of whether the world would be better off without religion has no logical bearing on the ontological question of God’s existence. It is entirely possible to maintain that (a) God does not exist, but belief in God makes the world a more humane place on balance, or (b) God does exist, but belief in God makes the world a less humane place on balance. Indeed, a group of scholars who are sometimes encompassed under the rubric of Atheism 3.0 have recently lobbied for (a). They maintain that although there is no God, belief in God makes the world a kinder and gentler place (e.g., Sheiman 2009)."

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/would_the_world_be_better_off_without_religion_a_skeptics_guide_to_the_deba

[Nelvan]

What exactly are your views on the matter?

[Nelvan]

I recommend a podcast episode:  Syptomatic redness, episode 2, Interview with Michael Rectenwald on Secularity, Singularity, and the Left. 

He is a Marxist who seems to conclude that pushing atheism is pointless and doesn't really help his cause anyway. 

[searcherman]

What exactly are your views on the matter?

I am happy to debate theists on cosmological and Darwinian science. But I don't see my position on modern science as a theological debate. If I'm confident I "win" such a debate, it doesn't disprove the existence of any deity or supernatural force. Nor am I interested in "deconversion". But the psycho-social aspects are what interest me. What makes people "feel" there is a deity? What is spirituality? From what l have read of CS Lewis, he makes me want to read more of him. His arguments are more compelling.

[Brian_G]

I've noticed a trend among some atheists.  Instead of showing that the traditional proofs for God fail, and giving us solid reasons for the non-existence of God, they simply assume that the question has already been answered in the negative and talk about how we can move on in life without God.  From what I can tell, the people who talk like this don't have any privileged information the rest of us lack.  It seems to be a case where people have lock themselves up in their own delusion.  They've convinced themselves that God doesn't need to be taken seriously and thus wont consider the evidence for God.

[searcherman]

I've noticed a trend among some atheists.  Instead of showing that the traditional proofs for God fail, and giving us solid reasons for the non-existence of God, they simply assume that the question has already been answered in the negative and talk about how we can move on in life without God.  From what I can tell, the people who talk like this don't have any privileged information the rest of us lack.  It seems to be a case where people have lock themselves up in their own delusion.  They've convinced themselves that God doesn't need to be taken seriously and thus wont consider the evidence for God.

Just because I'm not convinced of God's existence, doesn't mean it's been disproven. Ryan Bell's review seems to say it is "settled". It's "settled" to me in the sense that the KCA and fine tuning arguments. etc., are about science and its methodology. I don't want to make those arguments about God. It's not good science to say you can disprove God.

Obviously God still exists in people's spiritual lives, and not in others. People's personal faith I take seriously, and I believe it is a natural part of humanity. I have never believed in God from my earliest memories. I want to understand that belief, not tell folks they are wrong in that belief. That would be hubris on my part.

[searcherman]

I recommend a podcast episode:  Syptomatic redness, episode 2, Interview with Michael Rectenwald on Secularity, Singularity, and the Left. 

He is a Marxist who seems to conclude that pushing atheism is pointless and doesn't really help his cause anyway.

Thanks, I'll check it out!

[Bertuzzi]

I've noticed a trend among some atheists.  Instead of showing that the traditional proofs for God fail, and giving us solid reasons for the non-existence of God, they simply assume that the question has already been answered in the negative and talk about how we can move on in life without God.  From what I can tell, the people who talk like this don't have any privileged information the rest of us lack.  It seems to be a case where people have lock themselves up in their own delusion.  They've convinced themselves that God doesn't need to be taken seriously and thus wont consider the evidence for God.

Scientifically impossible. Atheists are just searching for the truth, etc.

[searcherman]

Scientifically impossible. Atheists are just searching for the truth, etc.

Not all of them!

[Philip Rand]

What undercuts and undervalues Lindsay's thesis is the point made by Nietzsche:

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.”

Which in effect is a recognition of:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Unfortunately Lindsay is posing a pseudo-Atheism/Theism-puzzle with his pseudo-proposition:

"It is entirely possible to maintain that God does not exist, but belief in God makes the world a more humane place on balance, or God does exist, but belief in God makes the world a less humane place on balance."

This pseudo-proposition has absolutely no sense, though the external sense he is attempting to ground it upon is pseudo-science.

I mean, the idea of "more humane place on balance" is non-sense... how does one measure this on a global level?

It is clear that beneath his words is his idea of a form of Human Utopia that can be rationally planned.... dodgey....

[searcherman]

What undercuts and undervalues Lindsay's thesis is the point made by Nietzsche:

"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.”

Which in effect is a recognition of:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Unfortunately Lindsay is posing a pseudo-Atheism/Theism-puzzle with his pseudo-proposition:

"It is entirely possible to maintain that God does not exist, but belief in God makes the world a more humane place on balance, or God does exist, but belief in God makes the world a less humane place on balance."

This pseudo-proposition has absolutely no sense, though the external sense he is attempting to ground it upon is pseudo-science.

I mean, the idea of "more humane place on balance" is non-sense... how does one measure this on a global level?

It is clear that beneath his words is his idea of a form of Human Utopia that can be rationally planned.... dodgey....

Unless I missed something, you might be conflating the two posts. In the article by Scott O. Lilienfeld and Rachel Ammirati, they very carefully pick their categories for a better society that have clear psycho-social metrics

[Philip Rand]

Example of pseudo-science:

"...categories for a better society that have clear psycho-social metrics"

You are being sucked in!

[searcherman]

Example of pseudo-science:

"...categories for a better society that have clear psycho-social metrics"

You are being sucked in!

They found categories. There is a database for recidivism. They are small discreet categories and the authors are agreed on the subjectivity of "better society".

[Philip Rand]

Recidivism, eh searcherman.... interesting approach... I can see the line of attack quite clearly now...

Here's a quote from Nietzsche:

"The criminal and what is related to him. — The criminal type is the type of the strong human being under unfavorable circumstances: a strong human being made sick. He lacks the wilderness, a somehow freer and more dangerous environment and form of existence, where everything that is weapons and armor in the instinct of the strong human being has its rightful place. His virtues are ostracized by society; the most vivid drives with which he is endowed soon grow together with the depressing affects — with suspicion, fear, and dishonor. Yet this is almost the recipe for physiological degeneration. Whoever must do secretly, with long suspense, caution, and cunning, what he can do best and would like most to do, becomes anemic; and because he always harvests only danger, persecution, and calamity from his instincts, his attitude to these instincts is reversed too, and he comes to experience them fatalistically. It is society, our tame, mediocre, emasculated society, in which a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea, necessarily degenerates into a criminal. Or almost necessarily; for there are cases in which such a man proves stronger than society: the Corsican, Napoleon, is the most famous case."

The bold underlined portion of the quote is the important bit... it would appear then, that the whole point of the work would be to say that for a criminal being under unfavorable circumstances...is to say that the unfavourable circumstances is "religion"....and this is what is making him sick...

Still sounds like New Atheism to me...

By the way, Lindsay's book entitled Everybody Is Wrong About God is a very bad title... for one thing it is an empirical proposition...for the other it uses the word "Everybody", i.e. All people....

Now, CFI uses the writings of J S Mill a lot to point out how one should "critically think"... problem is... Mill would say to Lindsay that with this title... he is showing little critical thinking... because the title is completely meaningless because it is incomplete...

Check out Mills ideas concerning epistemological propositions using "All" qualifiers... and you will see the problem... for me this would suggest that if the title is "incomplete" the ideas contained therein will also be "incomplete".... sounds like a bad book...