Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Something I’ve been working on - comments appreciated.
Humans create religions in an attempt to make sense of the world and encourage social stability. They base their ideas on current scientific/intellectual and moral standards, combining current ideas about the world with what they consider plausible speculation about the unknown (and it is precisely ‘the unknown’ that they desire to explain or have explained).
In the case of constructing an explanation for the origin of the universe and human life, and what happens after death, in the absence of relevant evidence, widespread ideas about deities and the afterlife were available as models - all major religions have basically similar explanations of how the world was created and the afterlife, only the details are different. (Deity creates heaven and earth, creates man in his image, establishes cloud or feasting hall with carousing, virgins or harps where pious men can spend eternity after death.)
Adlerian psychology describes ‘guiding principles’, constructs that people create to help them make sense of the world and then assume to be true (and act accordingly, etc.). People establish these guiding principles in response to psychological and intellectual impulses and in accordance with their existing understanding of the world. Most of the guiding principles we use in everyday life tend to be fairly reasonable, being based on evidence and rational thought. In the case of Creation and the afterlife, however, these factors are necessarily absent (obviously - they don’t exist).
Normally, guiding principles are adapted and discarded in light of new evidence or more advanced understanding, but this is not possible in dogmatic belief systems. The fundamental flaw of major religions has not, therefore, been their failure to provide accurate explanations, but their inflexibility: ‘this is the true God, you must worship him!’ In a manner similar to the friction that develops between religious (dogmatic) morality [see my discussion at ]http://atheistprinciples.tripod.com/discussions.htm] and social reality, the explanations provided by religion become increasingly at odds with scientific/intellectual standards, resulting in a decidedly negative influence on the intellectual development of both individuals and society in general. This is why religious superstition should be actively opposed - its potentially damaging effect on clear thought is a real and significant social and psychological problem.
Some very nice writing in the links provided. I commend these to all reading here. Maybe(?) one small comment, I’m not sure if “atheism” in one of your links otherwise quite on, can be implied to have any particular set of beliefs. If that word means “not share” a theism, it does not mean any other set of beliefs are implied. Darned tricky word, “Atheism,” with the generally accepted definitions, especially by theists, implying all sorts of beliefs, so perhaps your use is not that far off. “Nonbelievers,” “Secularists,” “Humanists,” etc., all carrying some extra baggage. I’m a little more taken by “secularist,” but maybe there’s a more accurate term out there of which I’m not aware.
Welcome aboard for your first post here, hope to see more of you.
The fundamental flaw of major religions has not, therefore, been their failure to provide accurate explanations, but their inflexibility: ‘this is the true God, you must worship him!’ In a manner similar to the friction that develops between religious (dogmatic) morality [see my discussion at ]http://atheistprinciples.tripod.com/discussions.htm] and social reality, the explanations provided by religion become increasingly at odds with scientific/intellectual standards, resulting in a decidedly negative influence on the intellectual development of both individuals and society in general.
I think the most dangerous part of all is that this isn’t true regarding the imperative to join. I think the addition of a sense of voluntary commitment actually makes people less likely to leave their church… they do everything they can to make it look like “we are right and this is the right thing to do” as opposed to simply “we are right and you must do this”. From there they can provide “advice” to their new followers on how best to proceed from there. While their dogmatism does openly conflict with scientists and intellectuals, the alarming factor is the lack of friction between dogmatism and society at large; rather the two often form a sort of unholy alliance against secularism.
Dennis - thanks for the comment. Yes - I admit I’m being slightly propagandistic in my approach…
kbk - yes very good point, need t think about that. The pressure to conform to a ‘religious way of life’ can be considerable though - it’s quite a subtle and (what’s new?) self-contradictory complex of influences and imperatives.
the link you have provided must have been written by someone with an IQ of ten. the flaws in the arguments are so big, you can fly a plane through it. (maybe it written by richard dawkins or your other ape hero, sam harris). i have been to that website and it does talk load of rubbish. as i have mentioned before, atheists have no universal morals. its all about what suits you guys. you cant judge whats right or wrong as you have no criteria to judge it upon. its all personal opinions which you can only enforce upon yourselves, even then, you keep changing your minds as “society advances”. you have accepted gays, allow acts of indecency in public, you may even accept paedophiles in the future ! who knows?
Time and again theists present atheism as a ‘belief’ - reflecting the necessary ‘faith’ of their own standpoint. Aside from Sam Harris’s excellent point (‘Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, ‘atheist’ is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a ‘non astrologer’ or a ‘non-alchemist’.’), this raises a number of very important points.
If 90% of the world were astrologers or alchemists and they ran the world and decided what was right and wrong and true or false then you can be damn sure that there would be a word for people who didn’t believe such things.
I really hate that argument, IMO it is really lame and self defeating for Atheism and in context of your paper it seems contradicting.
the link you have provided must have been written by someone with an IQ of ten. the flaws in the arguments are so big, you can fly a plane through it. (maybe it written by richard dawkins or your other ape hero, sam harris). i have been to that website and it does talk load of rubbish. as i have mentioned before, atheists have no universal morals. its all about what suits you guys. you cant judge whats right or wrong as you have no criteria to judge it upon. its all personal opinions which you can only enforce upon yourselves, even then, you keep changing your minds as “society advances”. you have accepted gays, allow acts of indecency in public, you may even accept paedophiles in the future ! who knows?
SR,
One of the annoyances we have on this forum is “GH,” who at least provides ample reasons for becoming an antitheist if not any intellectual depth. If one of the functions of theisms is to make people feel good, another is social/politcal control, and someone like GH exemplifies that quite well.
’ atheists have no universal morals. its all about what suits you guys. ‘
what, you mean like theists? you do exactly the same, you just try to justify it by pretending it’s the decree of ceiling cat. as for my discussion of the basic logical flaws of traditional theist arguments, they are quite straightforward. your basic problem is trying to use logic to justify religion, it just doesn’t work. if you believe in god, you need to abandon all pretence of rational capabilities, otherwise you will just appear stupid. you belive because you have ‘faith’ - in other words, you believe what your psychological needs decree. you are weak, you lack the necessary strength of mind to make sense of the world for yourself, so you rely on ancient delusion.
your agression also points to some sort of underlying psychological problem. perhaps one day you will question why your experience of life is so shit, and you’ll seek help. or maybe you’ll die ignorant and angry, and you won’t be be surprised when you don’t find yourself in heaven because you’ll just be dead. what a waste of a life…
If 90% of the world were astrologers or alchemists and they ran the world and decided what was right and wrong and true or false then you can be damn sure that there would be a word for people who didn’t believe such things.
yes, but they don’t. if they did, would you believe them? either way, we’d be having the same discussion, just about ‘a-alchemism’ - i’m not a big harris fan and i haven’t read much of his stuff, but the argument holds true.
’ atheists have no universal morals. its all about what suits you guys. ‘
what, you mean like theists? you do exactly the same, you just try to justify it by pretending it’s the decree of ceiling cat. as for my discussion of the basic logical flaws of traditional theist arguments, they are quite straightforward. your basic problem is trying to use logic to justify religion, it just doesn’t work. if you believe in god, you need to abandon all pretence of rational capabilities, otherwise you will just appear stupid. you belive because you have ‘faith’ - in other words, you believe what your psychological needs decree. you are weak, you lack the necessary strength of mind to make sense of the world for yourself, so you rely on ancient delusion.
your agression also points to some sort of underlying psychological problem. perhaps one day you will question why your experience of life is so shit, and you’ll seek help. or maybe you’ll die ignorant and angry, and you won’t be be surprised when you don’t find yourself in heaven because you’ll just be dead. what a waste of a life…
SR,
Was that lifted from GH? Otherise it makes no sense. I’ve got GH on ignore and refuse to waste any more of my time with him.
GH was useful to me for a time to get him to demonstrate some of his views, especially on civil governance matters, but apart from that, he is a broken record with nothing to offer but rank bigotry, prejudice and delusions of grandeur.
the link you have provided must have been written by someone with an IQ of ten. the flaws in the arguments are so big, you can fly a plane through it. (maybe it written by richard dawkins or your other ape hero, sam harris). i have been to that website and it does talk load of rubbish. as i have mentioned before, atheists have no universal morals. its all about what suits you guys. you cant judge whats right or wrong as you have no criteria to judge it upon. its all personal opinions which you can only enforce upon yourselves, even then, you keep changing your minds as “society advances”. you have accepted gays, allow acts of indecency in public, you may even accept paedophiles in the future ! who knows?
I see insults are rife in this thread too. Would you please explain the ‘flaws in the arguments . . . so big, you can fly a plane through it’, goldenhawk786? Please don’t refuse to do that on the grounds that we are too stupid or recalcitrant, because if you don’t try to enlighten us, we’ll surely remain stupid and / or recalcitrant.
P.S. I notice that I keep misspelling your name goldenhawk786. My apologies - it’s only a typing error.
the link you have provided must have been written by someone with an IQ of ten. the flaws in the arguments are so big, you can fly a plane through it. (maybe it written by richard dawkins or your other ape hero, sam harris). i have been to that website and it does talk load of rubbish. as i have mentioned before, atheists have no universal morals. its all about what suits you guys. you cant judge whats right or wrong as you have no criteria to judge it upon. its all personal opinions which you can only enforce upon yourselves, even then, you keep changing your minds as “society advances”. you have accepted gays, allow acts of indecency in public, you may even accept paedophiles in the future ! who knows?
I see insults are rife in this thread too. Would you please explain the ‘flaws in the arguments . . . so big, you can fly a plane through it’, goldenhwak786? Please don’t refuse to do that on the grounds that we are too stupid or recalcitrant, because if you don’t try to enlighten us, we’ll surely remain stupid and / or recalcitrant.
GG,
My respect to you. Your patience far exceeds mine.
