I'm tired of the "Atheism Causes X" strawman

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm tired of the "Atheism Causes X" strawman

I’d like to highlight the fallacy/strawman that’s annoying me the most right now.

Theist: “You atheists are wrong for saying that atheism causes people to be good people.”  (Or, causes societies to be less dysfunctional, or causes people to go to jail less, or whatever&hellipEye-wink

Let me say this clearly and unequivocably.  ATHEISM DOESN’T CAUSE ANYTHING. I don’t claim that atheism makes me a better person, or that it cures depression or causes rational thinking or anything else.

Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is not a moral code.  Philosophically speaking, atheism is a giant hole waiting to be filled.  That is, anyone who rejects the claim that there is a God has to come up with alternate explanations for the things God is reported to be responsible for — or leave questions unanswered for lack of a good explanation.   To say that one is an atheist is only to say that they have rejected one explanation for something.  It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about what they have accepted, or indeed, if they have accepted any explanation at all.

Having established this, we must now realize that ATHEISM IS AN EFFECT, NOT A CAUSE. Unless a person is quite philosophically naive, he does not just arbitrarily decide that there is no god.  Instead, he reaches that decision based on a pre-existing worldview.  The most common worldview that leads to atheism  is naturalism.  Nihilism can also lead to atheism.  (I must add the disclaimer that I think nihilism is a failed worldview that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.  Nevertheless, it can and does logically lead to atheism in many cases.  Sometimes bad logic yields true conclusions.)  There are certainly other worldviews that can lead one to atheism.  The broad point is that atheism is the result, not the cause.

Why, then, are there statistical correlations between less societal dysfunction, crime, divorce, etc, and atheism?   If atheism doesn’t cause it, what does?  Put simply, by rejecting theism, atheists are more or less forced into a results-driven conception of reality.   Theism — the belief that there is an inscrutable God at the bottom of the chain of causation — defies falsification from results.  Since this god can pretty much do whatever he wants and defy logic or evidence on a whim, theists are free to follow their own belief system regardless of its correlation to observable reality.

Since atheism, by definition, is the rejection of intelligent meddling with the nature of reality, atheists are quite limited in the number of ways they can defy reality checks.  What could they appeal to?  I suppose there are a few atheists who believe really wacky things.  Perhaps they believe that our reality is an illusion and that we are all part of an alien experiment.  For the most part, though, most sane atheists simply don’t have any viable worldviews available to them that defy reality checks.

Atheists then, are quite diverse in their worldviews, political views, and beliefs about reality.  The one thing they have in common, though, is that there’s no God dictating things that defy reason but must be done anyway.  If they’re going to defy reason, they have to justify it in some other way.  Since there simply aren’t very many non-theist worldviews that argue against reason… well… most atheists, regardless of their particular philosophy, are driven by reason, and therefore, results.  They look for the best way to run a society, get married and stay married (or, avoid getting married when it's a bad idea), prevent pregnancy and disease transmission, and reduce crime in society.   Since they don’t have preachers and holy books telling them it’s against God’s will to do things this way or that way, they tend to base their decisions on what reason tells them will work the best, and what really does work best when the rubber meets the road.

Lest I invoke another strawman, I’m not suggesting that atheists are always more rational than theists, or that atheism causes people to be more rational.  Remember — atheism doesn’t CAUSE anything.  Atheism is the result of a worldview.  It is an effect.  Rather than focusing on “atheism,” the statistics should focus on reason/results driven worldviews as opposed to rigid non-reason/results worldviews.  Since theism is the overwhelmingly dominant non-results driven worldview, and virtually all the results driven worldviews coincidentally lead logically and naturally to atheism, it can appear to an untrained observer that atheism is the cause.  It is not.  It is just a coincidental side effect.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ok...There are only a few

 Ok...

There are only a few ways this can work out:

1) Naturalism extended to its logical (natural? (sic!)) conclusion:  There can be no supernatural gods.  There are no coherent explanations nor evidence for natural gods.

2) Naturalism takes a detour:  Logic, reason, etc... except for God.  This is not where naturalism leads.  It's where people go despite naturalism.  Their beliefs are internally contradictory.  They may believe themselves to be naturalists, but they cannot be, for they believe in the non-natural.  They are not naturalists.

3) Naturalism extended to its logical conclusion with bad facts:  Everything is natural, and god can exist naturally.  Of course, this position depends on either not attempting a definition of god and just taking it on faith that such a definition exists -- which is contrary to naturalism -- or having an incoherent definition, in which case you are a naturalist with bad data.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
All I'm doing is preventing

All I'm doing is preventing you from saying "Well, they're Theist despite their results driven worldview" which is why I am stressing that a belief is not incompatable with it.

 

All Christians, every single one are naturalistic in at least one aspect of their lives.

 

And as per my last topic, I am sick and tired of atheists saying something happens "despite" a belief and as per my last post in this topic, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the no true scotsman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Another thing, there are

Another thing, there are billions of religious people that take a results driven world view, and believe in God.

 

You are stuck if you say that naturalist can't hold a belief in God, and the naturalism is the only way to a results driven world view.

 

Since they are holding a belief in God, and having a results driven worldview then you're stuck playing mental gymnastics as to how they can hold a results driven worldview and be Theist while claiming that the results driven world view leads to atheism

 

 

oh and for the record

 

I wrote:

All I'm doing is preventing you from saying "Well, they're Theist despite their results driven worldview"

 

Flip that around.

 

I meant to prevent you from saying "Well, they hold to a results driven worldview despite their Theism"

 

Which I sure as hell know that's exactly what you're going to do and you haven't shown that that's the case.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 No, Alison, there aren't

 No, Alison, there aren't billions of people who have a results-driven worldview that includes God. There are billions of people who think that they do.

By including God in your worldview, unless you have the data/evidence to back it up, you forfeit it being results-driven because God is not a results-driven concept. It's a magical concept.

 

Magical concepts are, again, *by definition* incompatible with naturalism. I mean, you can throw them into a worldview that is otherwise naturalistic, but while a magical deity is included you cannot possibly call it a naturalistic view while being honest.

 

I don't have to play 'mental gymnastics' at all. The person who thinks that they are naturalists while believing in magical entities is just being plain stupid.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think I've ever

 I don't think I've ever said theists hold some aspects of a naturalist worldview despite their theism.  That'd be very wrong.  Look... naturalism and god belief are incompatible philosophically, but that doesn't stop lots of people from holding two incompatible beliefs.  We've talked about this a lot.  Thats cognitive dissonance, and some people -- a lot of people, it would seem -- are very good at being ok with contradictory beliefs.

It's pretty much impossible to NOT have some naturalistic aspects to a worldview.  Without some grounding in the belief that the universe is predictable and measurable, a person would be so mentally deranged that we could only lock them in a padded cell and use them as a case study for total, incurable, debilitating insanity.

You keep getting hung up here.  There are are only two kinds of people in the world with regard to naturalism:  Naturalists, and people who subscribe to a hybrid of naturalism and something else.  It can be no other way, for the basic assumptions about reality that we hold as self-evident from our first sentient thought are rooted in naturalism.  That thing over there is an automobile.  It exists.  If I turn the proper key in the engine, it will start.  If I push the gas pedal, it will go forward.  Etc...  These beliefs about reality are dependent on the car existing as something that is quantifiable, qualifiable, and materially real.  The car is not supernatural -- at least not completely so.  There is some aspect of it that is "natural."

When I say that naturalism leads to atheism -- or should lead to atheism -- I mean that anyone who holds to genuine naturalism should reach the conclusion that there can be no god(s).  By genuine naturalism, I mean naturalism without a contradictory belief in non-natural things.  Un-tainted naturalism.  Pure naturalism.  Whatever.

If we allow the inclusion of people who believe in some aspects of naturalism but not the foundational assumption -- that ONLY natural things exist, period -- then we have cut naturalism off at the kneecaps and we might as well not even speak about it.  To call oneself a naturalist, one must be a naturalist.  It's pretty basic.

Theists do not hold their beliefs despite being naturalists.  They are not naturalists.  They incorporate -- out of practical necessity -- naturalistic beliefs into their life.  They can't avoid it.  Hell, you've been around long enough that you remember the arguments Todangst used to have with people who didn't think supernaturalism and dualism HAVE to steal from naturalism.  Theists aren't theists despite naturalism.  They steal from naturalism to make their worldview functional enough to make sense.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Another

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Another thing, there are billions of religious people that take a results driven world view, and believe in God.

And there are billions of people experiencing cognitive dissonance. When one says "results-driven", exactly how would one test for results without at least a decent idea of what was causing said results? It makes no sense.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Since they are holding a belief in God, and having a results driven worldview then you're stuck playing mental gymnastics as to how they can hold a results driven worldview and be Theist while claiming that the results driven world view leads to atheism

Not really. People are actually fond of cognitive dissonance. If they were to follow "results-oriented" all the way back to their God belief, then they'd see the contradiction in the whole set-up.

If you say you believe in something, but you can't say what it is, then what do you actually believe in? If you say you believe in something that makes absolutely no sense, then what do you actually believe in?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Why should it lead to atheism?

Because no coherent natural definition of god has ever been offered.

 

God has been defined in thousands of languages and codes, whereas naturalism has it's own language which was painstakingly and deliberately set apart from these in conception. This is essentially the bulk of what stands between the naturalist and the conclusion that the profferred definition of God is coherent and in natural terms.  So you can say semantically, "naturalism must lead to atheism", but that says nothing much about the actual world, does it.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:I don't know

theTwelve wrote:

I don't know of a single living atheist thinker whose' worldview isn't rather dopey, and revoltingly shallow.

Opinion isn't much of an argument, Mr Twelve.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:theTwelve

Eloise wrote:

theTwelve wrote:

I don't know of a single living atheist thinker whose' worldview isn't rather dopey, and revoltingly shallow.

Opinion isn't much of an argument, Mr Twelve.

Eloise, as far as Theists on this forum are concerned, you're just about the cat's pajamas. 

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Opinion isn't

Eloise wrote:

Opinion isn't much of an argument, Mr Twelve.

uhmm......I never said my opinion was anything other than a opinion. But it's nice to know you like to cut portions of what I said out:

Quote:
I don't know of a single living atheist thinker whose' worldview isn't rather dopey, and revoltingly shallow. Who are you going to professes doesn't hold one? Dawkins? Harris? Dennet?

All the popular atheist that I've read, I consider to be dopey and shallow, and can defend exactly why I feel these terms fit them (and hint, hint, it's not because they are atheist), no differently than many of us can do so with Bush. But I did leave the floor open, for suggestions of living non-dopey atheist I haven't read.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Your claim that atheists are

Your claim that atheists are dopey and shallow is subjective. In my experience, atheists are no more shallow or dopey than the rest of the population.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Your claim that

Ciarin wrote:

Your claim that atheists are dopey and shallow is subjective. In my experience, atheists are no more shallow or dopey than the rest of the population.

Well, I don't know how you can claim someone is "dopey" and "shallow" in any other way other than subjective? Is their an objective standard to go off of when attaching those labels to individuals? Is George Bush objectively dopey?

When i said atheist "thinkers", I didn't mean to imply it to the general populace, but the popular intellectuals. such as Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and company. I also did exaggerate when I said all living atheist thinkers were dopey, because I'd grant exceptions, for John N. Gray, and Jurgen Habermass. 

But more importantly, I said what I did, to elicit a response, I wanted to hear what living atheists are even worth a read these days? I wanted to know what living thinkers, other atheist thought weren't dopey.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Ciarin

theTwelve wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Your claim that atheists are dopey and shallow is subjective. In my experience, atheists are no more shallow or dopey than the rest of the population.

Well, I don't know how you can claim someone is "dopey" and "shallow" in any other way other than subjective? Is their an objective standard to go off of when attaching those labels to individuals? Is George Bush objectively dopey?

When i said atheist "thinkers", I didn't mean to imply it to the general populace, but the popular intellectuals. such as Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and company. I also did exaggerate when I said all living atheist thinkers were dopey, because I'd grant exceptions, for John N. Gray, and Jurgen Habermass. 

But more importantly, I said what I did, to elicit a response, I wanted to hear what living atheists are even worth a read these days? I wanted to know what living thinkers, other atheist thought weren't dopey.

Such opinions about other people do have strongly, or entirely, subjective aspect, sure, but a serious response would give some specific action or statement of the person that you felt justified that description.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Eloise

theTwelve wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Opinion isn't much of an argument, Mr Twelve.

uhmm......I never said my opinion was anything other than a opinion.

That wasn't why I mentioned it, either. Rather, my point was that your argument really only offered unsubstantiated opinion. So I wondered if you had anything to add there.

theTwelve wrote:

But it's nice to know you like to cut portions of what I said out:

Quote:
I don't know of a single living atheist thinker whose' worldview isn't rather dopey, and revoltingly shallow. Who are you going to professes doesn't hold one? Dawkins? Harris? Dennet?

All the popular atheist that I've read, I consider to be dopey and shallow, and can defend exactly why I feel these terms fit them (and hint, hint, it's not because they are atheist), no differently than many of us can do so with Bush. But I did leave the floor open, for suggestions of living non-dopey atheist I haven't read.

I think it might be unreasonable to expect people to determine what insight you are looking for just from that. You haven't really said what it is you think makes a person shallow and dopey, not even in a vague way, so your dice are loaded and you probably won't get any bites on this forum.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:God has been defined

 

Quote:
God has been defined in thousands of languages and codes, whereas naturalism has it's own language which was painstakingly and deliberately set apart from these in conception. This is essentially the bulk of what stands between the naturalist and the conclusion that the profferred definition of God is coherent and in natural terms.  So you can say semantically, "naturalism must lead to atheism", but that says nothing much about the actual world, does it.

An interesting observation, but I don't see how it affects my argument in any way.

* Naturalism logically leads to atheism.

* Many atheists are naturalists.

* Naturalism is a results based, empirical model.

* Many atheists evaluate the world by results and empiricism.

My OP doesn't address the "ultimate truth" of naturalism.  It explains how and why people misattribute causality to atheism.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
God has been defined in thousands of languages and codes, whereas naturalism has it's own language which was painstakingly and deliberately set apart from these in conception. This is essentially the bulk of what stands between the naturalist and the conclusion that the profferred definition of God is coherent and in natural terms.  So you can say semantically, "naturalism must lead to atheism", but that says nothing much about the actual world, does it.

An interesting observation, but I don't see how it affects my argument in any way.

* Naturalism logically leads to atheism.

* Many atheists are naturalists.

* Naturalism is a results based, empirical model.

* Many atheists evaluate the world by results and empiricism.

My OP doesn't address the "ultimate truth" of naturalism.  It explains how and why people misattribute causality to atheism.

 

 

Yeah, I haven't got any issue with the original argument, really. The comment was mostly addressed to this one thing you were saying about getting off track if atheism wasn't concluded. I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's a matter of getting off track between A and B where it's implied that A and B are worldviews. I concur that it happens, but I think to say it represents the general case might be at risk of just conflating one's semantics with one's philosophical grounds for a position.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Let me

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Let me say this clearly and unequivocably.  ATHEISM DOESN’T CAUSE ANYTHING. I don’t claim that atheism makes me a better person, or that it cures depression or causes rational thinking or anything else.

I've often said this about theism and atheism alike, as if these things were agents. Blaming a worldview, belief or disbelief for a particular act is like crediting the bat rather than the batter for a homerun. Agents act, and the agent's acts are causes. This of course is disputed if you don't adhere to agent causation, but even those who prefer event causation would point to the events, rather than philosophical or theological underpinnings of it. In any case, you're right -- atheism is not a cause.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”