Monday, October 4, 2021

On Medium: Are Atheists Hypocritical for Rejecting Faith-Based Evidence?

Here's an article that clarifies the differences between how religious and scientific or philosophical beliefs are sustained, and how some worldviews are more faith-based than others.

9 comments:

  1. What i tell you but seems you call it "my philosophy": atheism itself is a best argument for social justice, knowing we are essentially the same rather than totally and hierarchically different move us to help the other as if we are helping ourselves. So why we help other people. I doubt most of christian charity is only based on God's desire because we need firstly connect deeply with the other to help him and, to do that, we need recognize our commoness.

    But i think more than a debate between atheists and theists is the debate between subjectivists and objectivists, respectively, those who prefer believe in what make them confortable and those who learn to control their own personal biases and try to always search for objective truth, no matter their feelings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that atheists have a humanistic argument for empathy and altruism, since there would be limited time in life to make everything work, and no one else would be there to save us. But as Dostoevsky pointed out, there's also an atheistic argument for immorality and for free-riding. Precisely for the above two reasons, we should make the most of our limited lifespan, even if that means double-crossing each other as necessary.

      Theistic morality is just as ambiguous and problematic, of course. That's why I'm interested in reconstructing morality in less familiar, aesthetic terms.

      Delete
    2. Of course there are but they are not based on very absolute truth of universal equality and also the frivolity of irrational cruelty.

      Delete
    3. I tell you atheism is not fundamentally the disbelief on god but what it supposedly offer: protection on earthly life and five stars eternity in after-death. God as a stalker Just like what money is for capitalism. People don't really like money but what it offer.
      I also said there are two types of atheists: mundane and existentialist. The first reduce their atheism on disbelief on god and it is self limitating because you can believe in another mythology-like like free market and nazism. Lots of atheists are of this mundane type. The second group emphasise their atheism on what is the most important: the nonexistence of eternity, Five stars or not, the five stars supposedly a gif of god for those who follow it. When we enphasise our common ultimate faith we also enphasise our universal commoness and then selfishness lose its value-parity with solidarity. What is the point being mean-like with people and another living beings just for fun??

      Specially the mundane atheism which incentivize nihilistic selfshness on people.

      Delete
  2. What are your views on suicide and psychiatry? The person who runs the Schopenhaueronmars.com blog recently made a post (https://schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/10/03/paternalism-from-safe-spaces-to-suicide-prevention/) essentially saying that suicide is rational and that suicide prevention is paternalistic. They also seemed to suggest that psychiatry is a pseudoscience that has no basis in reality. Do you have any thoughts pertaining this? Personally, I think that there might be some truth to this claim. However, I am not sure if its entirely accurate. As far as the right to die is concerned, I do think that it should be available (especially when considering the rise of ideas such as transhumanism). But I also think that suicide isn't always rational. For instance, if an individual A decides to end their life because they believe that nothing can go right for them, even though there are reasonably better options for happiness available, then their decision to end everything could be considered irrational. Also, the right to die should be a reality, not something that should be actively encouraged, since that could lead to what the efilist calls a "culture of death" (something they clearly prefer). Hope you've been having a wonderful time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've written on both topics, especially psychiatry, although not so much recently. I don't see why suicide should be necessarily unjustified. I'm not so interested in pondering, though, the conditions under which suicide would be rational since that would be somewhat morbid. I'm not sure rational justifications would even be relevant. There are surely heroic self-sacrifices that have little to do with reason.

      I don't know if psychiatry as a whole is a pseudoscience. I have problems mainly with the pro-social definition of "mental illness."

      http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2013/11/enlightenment-and-suicide.html

      https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/how-pessimists-should-avoid-despair-9421374c0209?sk=2883a2944eb0cee1b45e1d9c093ae1bf

      ****

      https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/anxiety-and-the-condemnation-of-foolish-societies-2d8ca41e7705?sk=de9511d4c752e2cb793547badb76a799

      http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2017/04/freud-and-nietzsche-psychiatry-between.html

      http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2016/09/when-madness-is-normal-sanity-in-minds.html

      http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2011/12/mental-disorder-and-monstrosity.html

      http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/04/psychiatry-anxiety-disorders-and.html

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the links! I agree that suicide isn't always unjustified. I think that it can be unjustified in certain situations.

      Delete
  3. If Christians could even live in harmony among themselves, it would be start! But I suppose if Christianity really had ushered in an era of peace & justice (instead of the European dark ages) then it would be miraculous in the sense that it would be anomalous, without historical precedent & would fly in the face of what we know about human nature. If that had happened I think most would need to acknowledge that there must be at least some truth in Christianity. If it even worked on the individual -- if every sinner who gave themselves to Jesus, no matter how selfish or even malicious they had been before, became humble, compassionate, chaste, & brave -- then I'd give credit where credit was do & convert myself!

    But of course none of the above is true.

    Adopting Christianity did not transform Rome into Jerusalem & every single person I've known who got 'saved' became worse (by Christian standards), not better. Sentell's challenge at the end of his essay has already been answered by 2000 years of Christian history. A few truly Christ-like Christians such as Francis of Assisi do not vindicate Christianity, they only prove how rare but resilient good men & women are even under the most demoralizing influences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points. There might indeed be a miraculous moral transformation of humanity. It would depend on how long the transformation lasted and how deeply felt and effective it would be. Even if that happened, though, it wouldn't entail that Christianity is true. A delusion could make everyone just as happy as a fortunate truth. This was the point of The Matrix.

      Delete