Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

Hvad er der galt med ateisme?

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 13 14 15 16
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 14/3 2013 15:21

I think you have misunderstood something. I am not referring to Nietzsche and Camus but to Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.

I find it dubious that this guy has read their work enough or listened to some of their talks.

I feel compelled to provide a reading list here, too, and a long list of links to videos of talks, but I will remit.

Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 14/3 2013 15:27 | Indlæg redigeret den: 14/3 2013 16:15

I am talking about Dennett, Dawkins and Harris when I think of popularists, particularly Dawkins. Several of his fellow atheists distance themselves from him. His sources in "The God Delusion" are mainly (sometimes dubious) website links. Kenneth Miller shows up the fault lines in Dennett´s foundation. Hitchens was good on rhetoric, but often rather "loose" regarding facts. As is Dawkins. I once wrote a critique on his book. Perhaps I should post a link here. In fact, I almost feel compelled to send all three of them book lists and video links!

And there is no reason to think the author of the article I posted hasn´t read any of their books or listened to their talks. After all, I have. He possibly doesn´t consider them to be honest atheists. I mean, what does, "There probably is no God. Relax and enjoy life" offer to people genuinely suffering and without hope? Hallo! Totally white urban middle class!!! ;)



Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 14/3 2013 16:31 | Indlæg redigeret den: 14/3 2013 19:44

Okay, then he must be rather dishonest by making the claims that he does as if questions of the inspiration of religion have not been considered by these authors.

I favor evidence over fairy tales.

And I find it an utterly specious complaint that "yet another" book on atheism has been written. Although it is not to taken as a sophisticated analysis, a search on Amazon for keyword "atheism" after 2011 yielded 2,431 results, whereas a search on the keyword "religion" for the same period yielded 557,336 results. We need not try to improve on the approach by searching on "god", "Christianity", or "faith", etc. I think the point is salient enough. Somehow, "Give your life to Jesus" can be cranked out in volume after volume after volume from sacred and secular presses with no critical glance cast, but we are supposed to be up in arms because someone repeated a doubt or concern about all that just one more time.

I am astonished and yet amused by this kind of hysteria.

Added: To make my point, I will quote from Daniel Dennett's 2006 book, Breaking the Spell:

Religion can certainly bring out the best in a person…for day-in, day-out lifelong brac there is probably nothing so effective as religion: it makes powerful and talented people more humble and patient, it makes average people rise above themselves, it provides sturdy support for many people who desperately need help staying away from drink or drugs or crime. People who would otherwise be self-absorbed or shallow or crude or simply quitters are often ennobled by their religion, given a perspective on life that helps them make the hard decisions that we all would be proud to make. [p. 55]


Additionally, large parts of the eighth chapter of the book deal with what is called "belief in belief" and questions of what happens when we don't believe religious things anymore. So how is Dennett being dishonest about this "true and terrible" thing as the reviewer would have us believe? My real point his is that the reviewer seems to be erecting demons to cast out where there are none.

Finally, I would point out that most of the "honest atheists" referred to are not 21st century persons. The so-called tragedy we are warned of may have been more acute than it is now in a world where religion for a very large part of the population of the world does not constitute all the truth and hope a world view - our way of discussing a great number of issues, not just religion has changed to fit the way the issues figure in our lives. I really don't follow the argument that we are required to have 19th century or 20th century discussions about things that impact in a 21st century context. I don't really buy the argument about this looming psychological tragedy for the masses that seems to be inherent in the review.

With that said, Linker's two books appear to be balanced and informed and I think that this is just a case of going out on a limb a little too far.
Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 16/3 2013 13:14 | Indlæg redigeret den: 16/3 2013 13:15

As far as I can see, Damian Linker, the author of the said article does not suggest that inspiration of religion have not been considered by these authors. He simply raises a very valid possibility: "That godlessness might be both true and terrible is something that the new atheists refuse to entertain". He also gives credit to Nietzsche and others for having the honesty to look at that possibility. Conor Cunningham raises a very valid question for atheists with regard to a purely material universe.

Again, evidence means pointers, leading to belief in that which is most reasonable. Many people of high intellectual calibre consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. More precisely, in a particular kind of God. Fairy tales don´t come into it. It´s a dishonest misnomer.

Your opinion about "yet another book" on atheism being published and your claims of "hysteria" are also pretty superficial, given that the new atheists are the ones who launched the campaign mostly as a knee-jerk reaction to September 11. Apart from which, if people consider that the so called new atheists are making poor arguments and spreading untruths, they have the right to address them. It´s the nature of free speech and freedom of religion. You claim that Linker is making false claims, being dishonest, generalizing, focussing too much on specific authors in a specific period and making important omissions. Strange, how you are so ready here to make such allegations, yet unwilling to look at such claims with regard to the new atheists...

I see nothing hysterical in having a civil discussion and in publishing books. As I often said before, I have no problem with anyone making a valid criticism (of some aspects) of religion. I even agree with some of those criticisms. And I think it´s purifying, even healthy. I do have a problem with seeing all religions being lumped together, being judged entirely by their weakest link, and with glaring omissions, stereotyping, bigotry and lies. I also have a problem with atheists who bitterly denounce religion while refusing to look honestly at questions being posed with regard to atheism.

Of course, anyone who googles 557,336 results under "religion" on Amazon will find both believers and non-believers coming under that category. Again, looking under God or Christianity, we won´t just find books about giving our lives to Jesus! If you look, I am pretty sure you will also find a host of books looking at philosophy, science, art, architecture, history, education, music, literature, medicine, theology, social justice, etc., etc. Books of very high calibre, I might add. I´m pretty sure you know this too. I can give you dozens of links if you wish me to prove my point ;)

I know Dennett´s view of religion. I have no issue with that as such. Jonathan Haidt makes exactly the same point. My issue is with Dennett´s basic world view. Kenneth Miller address his basic claims in his book, "Darwin´s God", specifically in the the chapters, "The God of Disbelief" and "Beyond Materialism". He also addresses Dawkins and others in these chapters.

Human nature doesn´t change (much), regardless of whether we are talking about the 19, 20 or 21 century so I fail to see the relevance of that comment on your part! And we have no way of knowing how the "so-called tragedy we are warned of may have been more acute than it is now in a world" without religion. We could try and imagine a scenario where we take a very honest look at the contributions of people who are/were inspired and motivated by belief in God, serve(d) their brothers and sisters in love, and who made/make great advances in areas such as those I mention above in their belief that this was the gift and desire of their God. Imagine a world where the contributions of Mendel, Stinisson, Le Maitre, Pasteur, Lejeune, Aquinas, Stein, Kant, Mozart, Bach, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Erasmus, De Vinci, Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, Dante, Erasmus, Rembrant, Florence Nightingale, Wren, and many, many others throughout the centuries... up to our own day... is totally and irrevocably removed. There would be precious little left.

Imagine a world in which the only consolation you receive when suffering acute hunger, injustice, poverty, imprisonment, sickness, depression, or whatever is: "There probably in no God. Now go and enjoy life". For myself, I can say that I regularly accompany people who suffer(ed) because of family breakdown, alcoholism, depression, suicide attempts, sustained violence, rape, incest, bulimia, abortion, etc. People who have belief in God (sometimes distorted) and people who have no belief in God. People who come from every walk of life and every strata of society. It also includes people who have had help from psychologists, psychotherapists and psychiatrists, but for whom none of that help was enough. They find REAL healing within the framework of faith, hope and love. Many of those who encounter THIS spiritual and loving framework say it is what was always missing. Interestingly, the non-believers sometimes come to belief in God via this path.

Enjoy life?! How does one enjoy life when one´s world is falling apart, and when one is suffering and has no resources? It´s like telling people who have no bread to eat cake! It´s a fairytale!!!

You might be right when you say that Linker´s article is just a case of going out on a limb a little too far. It might also be the case that you are over-reacting to a perfectly valid question-suggestion: "That godlessness might be both true and terrible is something that the new atheists refuse to entertain", and/or demanding too much of a single, short article ;)


Earthling
Forum-indlæg: 1079
Område: KBH
Dato: 2/4 2013 10:10 | Indlæg redigeret den: 2/4 2013 10:16

An interesting (I think) article relating to the point raised by Conor Cunningham at the end of his video with regard to atheists being required to account for a few things in a purely material universe.

- The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him?
Andrew Ferguson
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?nopager=1


Some atheists obviously define atheism more broadly than others - and raise a few pertinent questions.

- Has militant atheism become a religion? Can the gap between the religious and the non-religious be bridged, when the debate itself is so attention-getting?
Frans de Waal
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/militant_atheism_has_become_a_religion/

Enjoy! ;) <3




katchetowa
Forum-indlæg: 43
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Sjælland
Dato: 5/9 2018 10:53

Ateisme er også en tro.At tro der ikke findes noget ud over det som umiddelbart kan ses er også en tro.For vi ved overhovedet ikke om der findes noget(tanken er ikke virkelighed) ud over det som kan ses.Guruer og andre har postuleret der findes andet,i mange henseender har de brugt det som et magt middel overfor forvirrede mennesker eller som en levevej for at erhverve sig materielle goder.
Curator
Forum-indlæg: 637
Område: KBH
Dato: 5/9 2018 12:13 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/9 2018 16:26



Vi har dog gode forklaringer på hvorfor nogen mennesker kan have behov for at tro på Gud. Det biologiske imperativ til at leve for evigt er brændt ind hjernen via evolution. Men vi er formentlig det første dyr der ved at det ikke sker. At tro på Gud og efterliv er at benægte døden - copingstrategi.

Aros
Forum-indlæg: 835
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 7/9 2018 14:18

Ateisme er også en tro


Det svarer lidt til at sige at det også er en sport at lade være med at spille fodbold . Definitionen på ateisme er ikke at kun tro på det der kan ses. Der er mange ting der ikke kan ses med det blotte øje, men som alligevel kan videnskabeligt konkluderes at eksistere. F.eks ilt for blot at nævne en ting. Jeg tror der er flere grunde til at folk tror på en gud, herunder som Curator nævner, fordi vi er bevidste om livets forgængelighed og derfor finder på myter og eventyr fordi vi ikke kan acceptere at vi skal dø. Altså benægte døden - copingstrategi. Tror også Freud havde fat i noget med hensyn til det formål ideen om gud tjente rent psykologisk.

Aros
Forum-indlæg: 835
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 7/9 2018 14:22



Aros
Forum-indlæg: 835
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 7/9 2018 14:24





Lidt mere dybtgående
Omega
Forum-indlæg: 20
Område: Ikke oplyst
Dato: 13/9 2018 19:45

Det, der gør, at jeg synes, at Freud måske går lidt galt i byen er det, at han sammenkæder behovet for at tro med Guds eventuelle eksistens. Mange tror på et intelligent ophav til verden og livet, fordi atomernes har en evne til og helt ufattelige hang til at udvikle liv, der hvor mulighederne er tilstede samt det faktum at livsfænomenet rummer ufattelige mængder af meningsfuld kompleks information, som muliggør tilstedeværelsen af "geniale opfindelser" og forbavsende effektive løsninger på alle mulige problemstillinger - løsninger der ligner og i mange tilfælde overgår, hvad vi andre kunne have fundet på.
Har Freud ret i, at vi har behov for at tro på en kærlig guddommelig faderskikkelse, der elsker os og sørger for at vi ikke dør, men får et efterliv, som vi kan glæde os til. Garanteret ja og hævet over enhver tvivl. Men dette faktum synes jeg, siger noget om, hvorfor der er så mange, der er troende og måske hvorfor mennesker har udformet religionerne, som de har, og også på en måde, der måske stabiliserer samfundslivet. Der kan siges meget mere klogt om disse ting, men jeg synes det har meget lidt at sige om spørgsmålet om hvorvidt, vi og verden er her i kraft af en intelligent instans.
Illusioner kan hverken bevises eller falsificeres. Gud Kan ikke verificeres eller falsificeres. Ergo er Gud en illusion. Ja Freud - og Morlil er en steen. Omega
Aros
Forum-indlæg: 835
Opskrifter: 2
Område: Århus
Dato: 14/9 2018 15:29

Hej Omega. Jeg bragte Freud på bane fordi Curator var inde på de psykologiske grunde til at folk tror på gud for at håndtere livets realiteter, at vi en dag skal dø osv. Jeg er enig med dig i at et psykologisk behov for at tro på en gud og spørgsmålet om en Guds eventuelle eksistens ikke er det samme. Det er to forskellige adskilte spørgsmål. Freud argumenterer godt for de psykologiske grunde til hvorfor folk tror på gud, men andre har argumenteret bedre for at selve ideen om gud er en illusion end Freud gjorde det. Men nu var han jo også psykolog, så det klart at det var der hans fokus var. Jeg bragte ikke Freud på banen, fordi jeg synes han er den der argumenterer bedst for at selve ideen om gud er en illusion.

Jeg skrev også i mit indlæg
Tror også Freud havde fat i noget med hensyn til det formål ideen om gud tjente rent psykologisk.
Omega
Forum-indlæg: 20
Område: Ikke oplyst
Dato: 14/9 2018 18:46

Helt enig i det hele :) Omega
Sider: << < 13 14 15 16