tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post8186634653774387742..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Untangling Scientific and Philosophical AtheismBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-36559086966171964102013-03-04T08:34:04.980-05:002013-03-04T08:34:04.980-05:00Certainly, Protestantism would be more influential...Certainly, Protestantism would be more influential in the US than in most parts of Europe, but if New Atheists are pragmatic, I think the greater influence now would be technoscience. "Science is true true because it works," is the slogan, meaning that science can be usefully applied in the invention of technologies that raise the standard of living. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-7737923967174722852013-03-03T23:00:44.360-05:002013-03-03T23:00:44.360-05:00I think the distinctions in it are pretty importan...<i>I think the distinctions in it are pretty important</i><br /><br />Of course they are; "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" as Plato has Socrates saying.<br /><br /><i>The problem at the moment...</i><br /><br />True. Granted, this kind of exoteric religion is more prevalent in the US, but that brings us to the other problem of the so-called New Atheism: it's too... <i>I was gonna say US-centric, but that's wrong</i> it's too protestant-centric.<br /><br />For instance, it's easy to spot a huge gap in the atheist discussion about christian and muslim mysticism; not surprising, since monasticism is all but non-existent in protestant denominations (unlike countries with an orthodox of catholic majority).<br /><br />Second, it's obvious that New Atheism is obsessed with results. I have several atheist groups on my Facebook and I see daily the question "In 2012 science brought us these things; what did religion do" as if the question even coherent (and I've heard theories that this is a direct product of protestant thought). And this trend is contaminating atheist thought in all western countries. For instance (and speaking of monasticism) I see discussions about the monastic tradition in Greece degrade into the incoherence of "what useful things do the monks produce for us?".<br /><br />And this is not surprising at all, since New Atheism relied too much on appeal to consequences to attract followers early on, the "religion flies you into buildings" being the most emotionally manipulative of all in this category. The anti-religious social justice agenda often floats dangerously close to this fallacy as well (when it doesn't blatantly cross it, that is).EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-3623831070159254832013-03-03T10:15:35.404-05:002013-03-03T10:15:35.404-05:00Thanks very much, Evan. I think you have a good ey...Thanks very much, Evan. I think you have a good eye, even if I do say so myself. Rereading this article, I think the distinctions in it are pretty important. In fact, I think next week I'll come back to the connection between scientific atheism and New Atheism. I see at the end, too, I anticipated what I wrote later in "Is the Devil a Hero?"<br /><br />It's very important for atheists to be aware of the different strengths and weaknesses that science and philosophy bring to the conflict with religion. The problem at the moment is that science-centered atheists go after what they call "religion" whereas their target is really theism and more specifically exoteric theism.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-74778004144213123042013-03-03T07:44:06.134-05:002013-03-03T07:44:06.134-05:00Translated into Greek (link)Translated into Greek (<a href="http://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/bc-untangling-scientific-and-philosophical-atheism/" rel="nofollow">link</a>)EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-66641914438236390942012-03-30T16:23:18.670-04:002012-03-30T16:23:18.670-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Benjamin Cainhttp://FuturoticaComics.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-30449359273595037032012-03-30T16:21:10.740-04:002012-03-30T16:21:10.740-04:00Jkx,Thanks for the link. Instead of replying to wh...Jkx,<br><br>Thanks for the link. Instead of replying to what you say about Harris' argument here in the comments section, I decided to blog my critique of his book, most of which I've since read. If you're interested, check out my March 30 blog entry, "Sam Harris' Science of Morality."Benjamin Cainhttp://FuturoticaComics.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-48046815695105478362012-03-26T17:01:17.915-04:002012-03-26T17:01:17.915-04:00Ben,Thanks very much for trying out DISQUS! Hopefu...Ben,<br><br>Thanks very much for trying out DISQUS! Hopefully your experience with it is good. I understand about the post-length, and I was really unsure about even suggesting it. After further reflection, I think what would really solve my gripe about the length would be Google reader remembering my place when I close an entry before completing it.<br><br>I do intend to come back to this post, I am a little more than half way through, but it is a very interesting subject, and makes me reconsider a number of things. Some ideas that I used to hold solidly in my mind are a little less sure, and I think that's a good thing.<br><br>Going back to the morality issue, I think Harris would argue (I have heard him use this analogy) that science can't show that humans ought to desire to be healthy anymore than they could show that humans ought to desire to be happy, yet we make a science out of medicine. <br><br>I believe his whole argument hinges on whether or not Morality is really about well-being. If it is, then I don't see why there could not be a science that determines the morality of actions based on their promotion or destruction of well-being. I am not sure if I could conclude morality is really about well-being. I think a case could be made for it based on the fact that if the very concept of morality developed as we evolved from individuals into more social species, then the morality of an action would be at least partly determined by how it affected the well-being of the members of the social group.<br><br>It is possible what I am saying is non-sense :) I am not a philosopher, but I find philosophy particularly interesting.<br><br>If interested, Sam talks far more in-depth, and has a QnA regarding this topic here:<br><br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g<br><br>It is lengthy, with about 45 minutes of lecture and another 30-45 of QnA, but he does at least attempt to respond to objections similar to ones your making.<br><br>Hopefully this subject matter is close enough to the content of the post to be appropriate...<br><br>Thanks for replying,<br><br>jkxjkxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-49827699985142087122012-03-23T18:17:44.412-04:002012-03-23T18:17:44.412-04:00Hi Ben,Just wanted to stop by and leave my first c...Hi Ben,<br><br>Just wanted to stop by and leave my first comment. <br><br>I really enjoy your blog. Since someone linked me to your post on "Christian Chutzpah" I have been reading pretty much everything you post. It's generally great stuff, and always makes me think. I was hooked when you pointed out that Pauline theology generally allows Jesus' sacrificial death to supersede his radical ethical teachings. I have tried to word that before, but it was unclear to me exactly what I was thinking until you said it so well in that post.<br><br>As great as your blog is, I have managed to come up with just a couple suggestions you might consider :) <br><br>First, your writing style is extremely dense. You sometimes present huge ideas and thoughts very skillfully condensed into a single sentence. I think this is a great skill to have, and I think it is preferred to other writing styles. However, for a post that is as lengthy as this one it makes reading a single post a bit of a chore. Not in a bad way per se, it's just that I can hardly digest 1/10th of what you have said here in a reasonable amount of time. I have come back to this post about 3 times today, and there is so much in it, that I have barely dug into what you are saying. Maybe this just proves I lack the brain power necessary, but I wonder if breaking up larger posts like this into a series of posts would make them easier to digest, allowing the readers subconscious to process what they have read between posts. I could be way off here, and I am by no means a professional blog reader or blogger or whatever the relevant expert would be here, and it is very possible I am the only reader who feels this way, so please keep this also in consideration along with the suggestion.<br><br>Second, I have tried to comment a couple of times, but I do all my commenting with Disqus. Just wondering if you have considered it as a comment engine? I feel like most the blogs I read use it, and it seems to work pretty well. I have a google account, but I am in a bad place to have it linked with my atheist type worldview, and posting on sites like this using it could have some consequences for me in my current situation. I guess just about everybody has a google account, so again maybe this suggestion is one to take with some skepticism :)<br><br>That's all for my suggestions, but after reading this post, I was wondering if you had read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape? I have heard Sam and others talk about it at length, but have not yet myself gotten around to reading it. You seem to indicate in the post that science can't be applied to everything, especially some parts of philosophy (correct me if I am misreading you), but I wonder if you agree with Sam's conclusion that Science can be applied to determine morality?<br><br>Thanks Ben!<br><br>Jkxjkxnoreply@blogger.com