tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post6295875526101083110..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: New Atheist and Spiritual Atheist in DialogueBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-26459840696746088242012-10-22T09:20:30.027-04:002012-10-22T09:20:30.027-04:00You say they're not arguing about atheism. Wel...You say they're not arguing about atheism. Well, they're not arguing about whether God exists, since they're both atheists. But they're arguing about a question of atheistic lifestyle. Should the atheist be spiritual or should she live like Data from Star Trek, as a hyper-rationalist? As I put it in another article, should the atheist mourn the death of God? And is there a form of spirituality--which I call existential cosmicism--that's consistent with atheism? That's what this dialogue's about.<br /><br />As for the objection that the new atheist character in this dialogue is a strawman, I responded to this at length in the Reddit TrueAtheism forum where I posted a link to this dialogue. Here's a link to that discussion:<br /><br />http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/11qzg0/new_atheist_and_spiritual_atheist_in_dialogue/<br /><br />To summarize what I say there, I agree the dialogue is one-sided, especially with respect to its structure but also perhaps to the style of how the debaters talk; at any rate, the SA talks more than the NA. But I deny that I oversimplify the content of new atheism, or that even if I do so, this somehow affects the new atheist's best response to the main points made by the SA. In other words, even if the NA's response to the SA sounds weak, I tried my best to come up with that response and I'm unaware of a better one. Nor did any of the atheists at the Reddit forum back up their objection by actually providing the superior NA response to the spiritual atheism defended in the dialogue.<br /><br />Instead, their responses were much like yours. For example, what is the NA's "terrible response" which goes to the dialogue's main point? Granted, sometimes the NA's responses on some details may be weak, to keep the dialogue moving. But what is the superior NA response to the dialogue's main point, that there's a form of spirituality, mysticism, and pantheism, called existential cosmicism, which is consistent with atheism and which shouldn't be dismissed along with religious fundamentalism or New Age, pseudo-scientific claptrap? Perhaps the reader is deprived of a more fruitful conversation in this respect because such a conversation is impossible, the superior new atheist response being nonexistent.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45824084363830977402012-10-22T01:36:20.186-04:002012-10-22T01:36:20.186-04:00I understand the rhetorical reasoning behind havin...I understand the rhetorical reasoning behind having the popular stereotype of a "New Atheist" (though Sam Harris is a very prominent "New Atheist" who also calls himself spiritual) up against a "Spiritual Atheist" in a mock debate, but neither of them are arguing anything to do with atheism. <br /><br />This debate would be better representative of spiritualist and skeptic, and a skewed one at that. There's a lot of straw-person and non-sequitur argumentation being implemented. <br /><br />The "New Athiest", or "Skeptic", in this scenario brings up terrible points which serves only to deny the reader what would be an otherwise fruitful conversation. :(<br /><br />I guess it really just depends on your target audience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-43255411470648595742012-05-29T12:14:24.902-04:002012-05-29T12:14:24.902-04:00I've watched many interviews and debates with ...I've watched many interviews and debates with William Lane Craig on the internet. He's probably the most effective Christian debater. What I've heard him say about why there's nothing wrong with God killing babies is that our morality comes from divine commandments, but that since God doesn't command himself, he's not subject to our morality; hence, God can create and destroy as he chooses. The most obvious and decisive problem with this argument is that it undermines the Christian's metaphor of God as a loving parent. Once you grant that God's unknown to us, and that our metaphors are at best limited, you're led from exoteric religion to esoteric mysticism, and most Christian doctrines then go by the wayside as flawed metaphors, including Jesus' resurrection. <br><br>Put simply, if God's not bound by anything like human morality, he must be dissimilar to a human parent, who is bound by such morality, in which case there's no reason to believe that God's loving, merciful, just, etc. The whole exoteric picture of God goes out the window. But instead of acknowledging this, Craig equivocates, cherry-picking Christian metaphors. That is indeed very weak stuff. Benjamin Cainhttp://FuturoticaComics.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-72560712717931945992012-05-28T22:01:27.194-04:002012-05-28T22:01:27.194-04:00I saw the post over at Debunking Christianity, and...I saw the post over at Debunking Christianity, and the Christians commenting on it just furthered the point. In fact I think some of my interactions on that post were what got me wondering if there is any point at all. I mean a number of Christians basically took it as a sign of victory instead of realizing that they were hopelessly deluded... :\<br><br>The only reason I consider even engaging them at all, is that I was once as firm a believer as they were, and at least as fundamentalist. I don't assume my story is necessarily the norm, or that I am somehow special for overcoming it. I still am not sure what to learn from it other than the fact that I am apparently capable of believing things that are obviously not true, and I have limited power for discerning what is in fact true.<br><br>I definitely agree with your assessment of getting morality from a deity. It really seems like a no win situation to me now that I understand what the naturalistic fallacy is (I have looked it up a few times since I started reading your blog, but I feel like I firmly understand it now :) ).<br><br>I am not sure if you have ever listened to William Lane Craig try and defend things like infanticide, but his only defense is to literally redefine words. It is highly obnoxious.<br><br>Anyways, I do definitely look forward to the post on Christianity. I probably shouldn't enjoy criticism towards Christian theism as much as I do, but I can't help it.jkxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-81508805124504592332012-05-28T21:27:17.396-04:002012-05-28T21:27:17.396-04:00Theologians like to say that morality's based ...Theologians like to say that morality's based on God's nature and not on his will, to escape the inference that morality is arbitrary, that God could have willed for the killing of infants to be good. But there's a dilemma here, since if morality derives from God's nature, we've got the naturalistic fallacy.<br><br>We shouldn't generalize about treating all theists the same way. Some theists are surely lost causes, meaning not just that they'll never change their minds and that they lack the intelligence or the curiosity to learn where they err, but that we've got nothing to learn from them, which is to say that talking to them would be boring. I think we should decide what sort of person we're dealing with and direct most of our energy to dealing with the more interesting theists. But I suppose that rule applies to which people we should interact with in general. Still, with online debates between theists and atheists, there's the chance of neutral onlookers who each side wants to impress. Once again, though, we should be realistic and humble in thinking about the results of these debates. Look at John Loftus at Debunking Christianity, who recently gave up in despair. <br><br>By the way, the next time I write about religion here, I'll be blasting Christianity again rather than forms of atheism that disappoint me.Benjamin Cainhttp://FuturoticaComics.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-39430749545667826202012-05-28T16:12:06.981-04:002012-05-28T16:12:06.981-04:00Interesting point about morality still being based...Interesting point about morality still being based on a person, even if that person is a deity. I never really thought about it that way before... Dr. Craig does say that morals are based on God's nature, and I agree, I think that is pretty clearly a case of naturalistic fallacy.<br><br>I suppose you are right that people seldom change their minds about these things. For me, I am more thinking about a way within my own moral framework to deal with the question of how I should treat people of faith, or rather I am interested in what the best way to treat them is. Would it be best to challenge their faith and ideas, or to generally not make an issue of it? As you said it's not a question easily answered, and people rarely do change their minds on these types of things, so perhaps the time and effort are best spent on other things.<br>Anyways, I continue to look forward to future entries :)jkxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-34190911450273391232012-05-28T15:25:20.403-04:002012-05-28T15:25:20.403-04:00Thanks, as always, for reading, jkx. I've got ...Thanks, as always, for reading, jkx. I've got some more dialogues <br>planned. They're fun to write, but they also test a writer's <br>understanding of his opponent's viewpoint.<br><br><br><br>I'm not sure that Rawls' thought experiment is improved if it's <br>construed as having a domain of the world rather than of a society. The <br>point remains the same, as does a problem with it, which is that <br>parasitic persons are free to prefer a wild, antisocial environment in <br>which they can try their luck.<br><br><br><br>If you're asking me, though, how I'd respond to a theist who trots out <br>the moral argument for God, or at least the objection that there can be <br>no atheistic morality, I'd say that the theist's interest in "objective"<br> or "absolute" morality is confused. The theist makes morality dependent<br> on a person, just as many atheists do. If the theist says morality is <br>based on God's nature rather than on his will, or his subjectivity, that<br> leads to the naturalistic fallacy. Likewise, many atheists say morality<br> derives from our interests, so the difference is just that theistic <br>morality is nonhuman, in which case we have to trust in God's plan for <br>us. <br><br><br><br>Here, the theist's comforting metaphors of God should be challenged and <br>contrasted with the much more plausible, science-informed and <br>Lovecraftian ones. If God exists and created the universe, the <br>anthropomorphic notion of God is ludicrous and comically feeble. <br>Instead, given that God would had to have created the whole, crazy <br>universe, God's evident inhumanity makes him much more like a terrifying<br> monster or alien, in which case theistic morality is no longer so <br>obviously trustworthy. Granted, we'd have a reason to fear divine <br>punishment, but we'd have little understanding of God's plan and thus <br>little reason to trust that his interests are best for us. Maybe God's <br>using us for a horrifying purpose. Once we dispense with the childish <br>anthropomorphism, all bets are off. <br><br><br><br>Theistic morality at least gives an omnipotent overseer as a deterrent, <br>while atheistic morality supplies only the human justice system (police,<br> judges, the law, etc) plus a scientific appreciation of natural <br>constraints (our social instincts, mode of raising children and <br>instilling a conscience, etc). The difference is that the latter are <br>tangible but fallible, while the former is ideal but imaginary. <br><br><br><br>Some years ago, I used to debate Christians on the internet much more <br>frequently. I stopped because it becomes addictive and I had other <br>things to do, but I also found that minds are seldom changed in internet<br> debates. My main goal wasn't to change minds, but to improve my <br>debating and writing skills and my understanding of opposing viewpoints.<br> Certainly, many theistic beliefs deserve to be mocked and not just <br>refuted. (I'd say the same is true regarding some nontheistic beliefs.) <br>It's hard to know strategically, though, how an atheist should interact <br>with theists. I'm sure you're familiar with the disagreement between <br>"accommodationist" nontheists and more zealous New Atheists. Should the <br>atheist put the friendliest face on nontheism or bring down the hammer <br>on nonsense to shock the theist out of dangerous folly? The answer's not<br> obvious, but it's also likely irrelevant since people seldom change <br>their minds on such fundamental issues.Benjamin Cainhttp://FuturoticaComics.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-32744222226009354332012-05-25T12:31:45.401-04:002012-05-25T12:31:45.401-04:00Using a dialog for this one really works well, and...Using a dialog for this one really works well, and I think helps clarify more your critique of the new atheists. However, I ended up appreciating the last paragraph the most, as I share a similar view. <br><br>Semi-related question here. In regards to determining moral ways someone might act given the knowledge of cosmicism, would it be beneficial to apply a modified version of something like Rawls' theory of Justice? <br><br>It would be modified to say "no one knows his place in the world" instead of "no one knows his place in in society". We don't know if we will be delusional right-wing theists in America, or if we will be born as a starving child in Africa whose parents believe she has a demon. If we all had knowledge that the universe was indifferent, and that there was no personal God, but didn't know what we would believe once born, could we use this as a possible foundation for deciding what acts would be moral or immoral?<br><br>I ask because often wonder how to properly engage theists. I do believe it is important to criticize and even at times mock their views. I know some would argue that they will just entrench themselves further, but in my personal experience, eventually enough criticism can lead a person to question what they believe.jkxnoreply@blogger.com