Gray continues to peddle his caricature of present day atheists on the BBC.

We tend to understand atheism as a war between religion and science - but in earlier times atheism was both more complex and more rich, says philosopher John Gray.
In recent years we've come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things. In the type of atheism that's making the most noise today, religion is a primitive theory of how the world works - an intellectual error without human value, which we'd be better without.

Main article here.

Comments are invited by the BBC. Feel free!

John Gray wrote:
An atheist we tend to assume is someone who thinks science should be
the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things

Hello John I am an atheist but your assumptions about me are completely wrong so allow me this opportunity to correct
you. First of all I do not do belief of any kind. Sometimes I use the word believe as synonymous with the word think but
that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is belief as an article of faith. And I have no such
belief in any thing at all. There are things that I know to be true. And things that I know not to be true. And things that
may or may not be true. But which I do not have a fixed opinion on either way. So there is no need for any belief there

Now on to science being the basis for belief. There is no need to believe in that that can be objectively determined
And that is because belief is an article of faith and nothing else. But science is an inductive discipline which through experimentation and observation subjects hypotheses to potential falsification. And because of such observation any
belief is therefore entirely superfluous. So science is not in the business of belief. For that is more of a philosophical
question as it pertains to ontology which is beyond the remit of science. As all science does is observe phenomena. It
has absolutely nothing to say about what that phenomena is beyond its physical properties. And so no need for belief

Convert is another religious word John and so does not apply to science. One does not convert anyone to science. One
instead is educated about what science is and what it does. This can be explained without employing woo terminology

Now while I would suggest that it is a good thing to be scientifically knowledgeable I think adults should have the freedom
to think whatever they want. If they reject science in favour of religion for example then they are perfectly entitled to do
so. I defend without reservation the right of anyone to think or believe whatever they want long as it does not impact upon
the right of others to think or believe whatever they want. And I am not interested into converting anyone to science or any
thing else. I cannot do that. I only have control over my own mind. I have no control over other minds. And even if I wanted
to convert them to science I could not. Since everything has to pass through individual minds before it can ever be accepted

And so I hope that you are now better educated John about what I think and do not think with regard to atheism and science

In recent years we have come to realise that people called John Gray are pricks.

Have I got this right?

No, it doesn't. There are, in fact, PRO religion atheists. My sister is one. She believes that the great mass of unwashed proles need religion to keep them in line. I tend to agree, having heard enough "The Bible makes me moral" arguments. There are people who need the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell to keep them from going berserk.

laklak wrote:No, it doesn't. There are, in fact, PRO religion atheists. My sister is one. She believes that the great mass of unwashed proles need religion to keep them in line. I tend to agree, having heard enough "The Bible makes me moral" arguments. There are people who need the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell to keep them from going berserk.

When someone says, "I'm a sociopath!" My typical response isn't to say, "No, you're not." I'm just glad for the warning and the opportunity to keep them away from things that are important to me. Taking people at their word is the polite thing to do.

Atheism does not have to be, and factually cannot be, anti-anything, in my view. What are the principles and values dictated by ''atheism'' which can be, or are directly in conflict with the values and principles dictated by any religion?

There is no conviction associated with atheism that I know of. For example, atheists are not invariably pro-choice or supportive of same-sex marriage, there is no dogma, so where does the ''anti-religion'' part kick in? There are also people who claim belonging to a given religion (and that religion indeed promotes (or even dictates) an anti-choice and anti-same-sex marriage) but prove more open and actually disagree with what their religion dictates.

Atheism vs Theism is not equivalent to Science vs Religion. Atheism can be a purely philosophical conclusion with little basis in Science. Many seem to believe that they can use Science to either prove or disprove the existence of a God of some kind, which is entirely misguided. Science is simply not at all concerned with the supernatural and potential existence, or non-existence of deities. Science seeks to explain the natural world, so it's not that Science seeks to go against God, but that Science factually could not care less about God.

Time for this again.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than proper suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is it.

The fact that said proper suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions, leads many in turn to consider evidence for the malign influence of supernaturalist doctrines, and the malign nature of enforcement of conformity thereto, is not an integral part of atheism, even if it arises sufficiently often for people to think mistakenly that it is an integral part. Instead, the latter is actually a derived phenomenon. Of course, hostility to religion can arise from other sources, such as the hostility that sometimes arises from rival, non-supernaturalist doctrines, and the adherents thereof seeking hegemony for those rival doctrines, which means that said derived phenomenon is not unique in any way to atheism.

What I thought was so odd about John Gray's talk were the two atheists of whom he seemed to approve: Giacomo Leopardi and Llewelyn Powys.

I haven't read either of them, but he seemed to be saying that Leopardi thought that, although Catholicism was untrue, it would be a bad thing for people to abandon it, because, if they did, Catholicism would immediately be replaced by something much worse -- so presumably religion is a good device for keeping people in order, though superior folk like Leopardi know that it's all nonsense really.

Powys, he seemed to be saying, thought that religion had the merit of providing us with material for agreeable and exciting fantasies.

It would have been interesting to have been told to what extent John Gray agrees with either, of both, of them.

If I were religious, I think I would have found his talk insufferably annoying and patronising. Would any religious person who reads this care to comment?

You seem to be saying above, that Gray is, in effect, espousing a particularly pernicious brand of intellectual snobbery. A brand that says those outside of his rarefied pale, need to be told sweet little lies in order to stop them asking questions that are inconvenient for the elite to bother answering.

My response to that, would be to say that it's far preferable to demonstrate to those who genuinely lack the ability to understand critical ideas, that those critical ideas work. That those critical ideas are in place because they have survived ruthless tests intended to break them, and have not only survived said test, but have emerged from said test with demonstrable utility value, with respect to our understanding of the universe and its contents, and have enabled us to make progress toward leaving the world behind us a better place than we found it.

Although technically, an atheist is nothing more than a lack in belief in god[s], it is misleading to suggest it happens spontaneously. One only needs to look at cases of those "temporary athests" who revert back to some form of faith, even if it is not the same one as they started with. This suggests to me that such atheists did not become atheists due to any consideration of the evidence or reason, but made a decision to reject religious authority, perhaps over disgust at the pervasive corruption and abuse that religions tend to practice. This may be an "unstable" POV.

In contrast, and using the "True Scotsman" fallacy, those who become or maintain their lack of belief due to their rejection of the fatuous arguments for god and/or the complete lack of evidence for gods will tend to remain atheists for the rest of their lives. It is a matter of insight or awareness, the true atheist, once insight has dawned, will not return to theism.

Modern cultures are embedded with the results of science and technology. So instinctively many will realize that evidence-based thinking gets results. Why else would religions who perceive themselves to be under threat tend to attack science education? Or make science impotent where it matters?

On the issue of souls, science is indeed impotent to describe the [posited] supernatural aspects of the soul. The supernatural, or immortal or transportable souls is bollocks, but mortal souls [which die with the body] are explainable by science. So Popes do this bait and switch, and claim evolution produces the "meat" and god injects the soul.

This leads people to conclude that science cannot do everything [which is of course true], and turn to religion or mysticism or magic, imagining these things can tackle such unknowns, but of course they can't. They just give bogus answers extracted from the nearest cleric arse.

An absence of belief in god is a minimum condition for atheism, but practically without awareness or insight into how an atheist came to be, it is an empty, useless term.
The task for any religion that wants to maintain itself [or grow] is to define the social reality, and discourage dissidents. Theocracies control the information, the message [if they can] to ensure conformity and minimize or try to eliminate deviations. Theism in individuals then, is just a default condition that requires no insight.
Because of this, atheism needs to be an activist stance, at least in terms of secularism. By default, secularism is anti-religious from a religious POV, unless that religion is a minority one, and hence a religious group may play the secularism card to defend against a rival faith. Religions themselves are anti-religious in terms of other religions, even though they make a big deal out of appearing to be on the same page. They aren't, the continuous process of schisms is ongoing in all religions, peppered here and there with cooperative movements like the Uniting Church.

I observe again, that there is one thing which both atheists and theists of generally good character should be able to meet and toast together at the nearest pub about, which is that both viewpoints are always awash with very loud self-proclaimed members, eager to to energetically make their side of things look like a collection of maniacal, vindictive hypocrites.

laklak wrote:No, it doesn't. There are, in fact, PRO religion atheists. My sister is one. She believes that the great mass of unwashed proles need religion to keep them in line. I tend to agree, having heard enough "The Bible makes me moral" arguments. There are people who need the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell to keep them from going berserk.

Yes. Seven years of studying the Bible has made me realise that the reason it is still the most popularly sold book is just that. People need religion, for the reasons you've expressed.

Behold! The Atheist!



Attack at will.

Calilasseia wrote:You seem to be saying above, that Gray is, in effect, espousing a particularly pernicious brand of intellectual snobbery. A brand that says those outside of his rarefied pale, need to be told sweet little lies in order to stop them asking questions that are inconvenient for the elite to bother answering.

My response to that, would be to say that it's far preferable to demonstrate to those who genuinely lack the ability to understand critical ideas, that those critical ideas work. That those critical ideas are in place because they have survived ruthless tests intended to break them, and have not only survived said test, but have emerged from said test with demonstrable utility value, with respect to our understanding of the universe and its contents, and have enabled us to make progress toward leaving the world behind us a better place than we found it.

I came across someone just this week who doesn't have a clue about the most basic scientific concepts. She gave up religion because of seeing how hypocritical her closest family members were with their religion, but without making an effort to learn other ways of dealing with moral issues. As a result of this, she is floundering in a world of knowledge and even though she knows how to find answers outside of religion, she has turned instead to nonsense beliefs, like "fate" and being able to "foresee" events etc. When I say she doesn't understand basic concepts in science, she asked me this week if it was possible for a single child to have two biological fathers. She finds comfort in believing in nonsense pseudoscience, and rejects ideas about psychology for example. She is someone who would really benefit from a friendly priest listening to her problems, and from the platitudes of Sunday services. Also her moral compass is way off. I sometimes a little shocked at the things she thinks are completely acceptable and that she can't see the immorality of the things she does. Having a priest tell her that "God" is watching and judging would probably help her be a little less casual with the laws of what is right and what is wrong.

Agrippina wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:You seem to be saying above, that Gray is, in effect, espousing a particularly pernicious brand of intellectual snobbery. A brand that says those outside of his rarefied pale, need to be told sweet little lies in order to stop them asking questions that are inconvenient for the elite to bother answering.

My response to that, would be to say that it's far preferable to demonstrate to those who genuinely lack the ability to understand critical ideas, that those critical ideas work. That those critical ideas are in place because they have survived ruthless tests intended to break them, and have not only survived said test, but have emerged from said test with demonstrable utility value, with respect to our understanding of the universe and its contents, and have enabled us to make progress toward leaving the world behind us a better place than we found it.

I came across someone just this week who doesn't have a clue about the most basic scientific concepts. She gave up religion because of seeing how hypocritical her closest family members were with their religion, but without making an effort to learn other ways of dealing with moral issues. As a result of this, she is floundering in a world of knowledge and even though she knows how to find answers outside of religion, she has turned instead to nonsense beliefs, like "fate" and being able to "foresee" events etc. When I say she doesn't understand basic concepts in science, she asked me this week if it was possible for a single child to have two biological fathers. She finds comfort in believing in nonsense pseudoscience, and rejects ideas about psychology for example. She is someone who would really benefit from a friendly priest listening to her problems, and from the platitudes of Sunday services. Also her moral compass is way off. I sometimes a little shocked at the things she thinks are completely acceptable and that she can't see the immorality of the things she does. Having a priest tell her that "God" is watching and judging would probably help her be a little less casual with the laws of what is right and what is wrong.

That was exactly my point Aggie. Although "technically" atheism is a mere lack of belief in gods, the real or stable form is based on reason and evidence. Such people just give up woo [religious variety] and immerse themselves in other types of woo.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:You seem to be saying above, that Gray is, in effect, espousing a particularly pernicious brand of intellectual snobbery. A brand that says those outside of his rarefied pale, need to be told sweet little lies in order to stop them asking questions that are inconvenient for the elite to bother answering.

My response to that, would be to say that it's far preferable to demonstrate to those who genuinely lack the ability to understand critical ideas, that those critical ideas work. That those critical ideas are in place because they have survived ruthless tests intended to break them, and have not only survived said test, but have emerged from said test with demonstrable utility value, with respect to our understanding of the universe and its contents, and have enabled us to make progress toward leaving the world behind us a better place than we found it.

I came across someone just this week who doesn't have a clue about the most basic scientific concepts. She gave up religion because of seeing how hypocritical her closest family members were with their religion, but without making an effort to learn other ways of dealing with moral issues. As a result of this, she is floundering in a world of knowledge and even though she knows how to find answers outside of religion, she has turned instead to nonsense beliefs, like "fate" and being able to "foresee" events etc. When I say she doesn't understand basic concepts in science, she asked me this week if it was possible for a single child to have two biological fathers. She finds comfort in believing in nonsense pseudoscience, and rejects ideas about psychology for example. She is someone who would really benefit from a friendly priest listening to her problems, and from the platitudes of Sunday services. Also her moral compass is way off. I sometimes a little shocked at the things she thinks are completely acceptable and that she can't see the immorality of the things she does. Having a priest tell her that "God" is watching and judging would probably help her be a little less casual with the laws of what is right and what is wrong.

That was exactly my point Aggie. Although "technically" atheism is a mere lack of belief in gods, the real or stable form is based on reason and evidence. Such people just give up woo [religious variety] and immerse themselves in other types of woo.

Yes indeed. I see this all the time. People who say "God doesn't exist" and "religious is superstition" then go on to tell me about how I'm a typical Aries, or how it's obvious how zodiac characters are "so much alike" or that I should take a dose of some or other herbal thing for a cold, or that they firmly believe in chiropractic.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
That was exactly my point Aggie. Although "technically" atheism is a mere lack of belief in gods, the real or stable form is based on reason and evidence. Such people just give up woo [religious variety] and immerse themselves in other types of woo.

Imagine a topology with grooves on it. There is a groove higher than the others. The height of the groove is not a value judgement- just an assessment of relative potential energy and/or state stability. We can roll balls across the topology. Some balls will wind up in the higher groove. Most balls which wind up in the higher groove have too much momentum to remain and roll back down into lower grooves. Some balls have the right trajectory and momentum to remain in the higher groove.

My point is that the trajectory is not the groove. Mapping to the topic: The necessary prerequisites to be a stable atheist are not atheism.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
That was exactly my point Aggie. Although "technically" atheism is a mere lack of belief in gods, the real or stable form is based on reason and evidence. Such people just give up woo [religious variety] and immerse themselves in other types of woo.

Imagine a topology with grooves on it. There is a groove higher than the others. The height of the groove is not a value judgement- just an assessment of relative potential energy and/or state stability. We can roll balls across the topology. Some balls will wind up in the higher groove. Most balls which wind up in the higher groove have too much momentum to remain and roll back down into lower grooves. Some balls have the right trajectory and momentum to remain in the higher groove.

My point is that the trajectory is not the groove. Mapping to the topic: The necessary prerequisites to be a stable atheist are not atheism.

I didn't say they were. The folks who reject the religion of their birth, and then go read Tarot cards or whatever still believe in a magical world. Those who exercise reason and respect evidence will become atheist.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
I didn't say they were. The folks who reject the religion of their birth, and then go read Tarot cards or whatever still believe in a magical world. Those who exercise reason and respect evidence will become atheist.

You can read Tarot and believe in a magical world and still be an atheist.

Lots of atheists are dumb as shit and believe in all kinds of stupid nonsense. Doesn't make them any less atheist.