Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Athiest Manifesto
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 10 of 54 (657171)
03-26-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Heathen
03-26-2012 8:12 AM


heathen manifesto
Interesting piece (I thought)...
Main points:
1. Athiests are naturalists
Your summary is problematic. First you list the main points, but then list 10 out 12 of the points. You may as well have listed the other two
The first point you missed was actually the rejection of the term 'atheist' and the adoption of the term 'heathen'. He does not call it the atheist manifesto but the heathen manifesto - I would have thought you'd have liked this given your screen-name.
quote:
It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for...
If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves...
"Heathen" fulfils this ambition.
Furthermore, you managed to spell 'atheists' wrong every time.
8. Athiests can be religious(?)
Well atheists can obviously be religious. Not all religious beliefs are about gods. Baggini wants to have us believe that there could be a religion that has no supernatural component. I suppose that might be true, but a loosening of the definition of religion sometimes ends us with including things that are not regarded as religion such as fandom.
quote:
There are a small minority of forms of religion that are entirely compatible with the heathen position. These are forms of religion that reject the real existence of supernatural entities and divinely authored texts, accept that science trumps dogma, and who see the essential core of religion in its values and practices. We have very little evidence that anything more than a small fraction of actual existent religion is like this, but when it does conform to this description, heathens have no reason to dismiss it as false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Heathen, posted 03-26-2012 8:12 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Heathen, posted 03-27-2012 2:28 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 54 (657307)
03-27-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rahvin
03-27-2012 12:42 PM


There's certainly value in recognizing that a subset of the population does not believe what the rest of the population believes.
But this "manifesto" attempts to define a broadly general term with specifics that, frankly, just don't always apply.
The manifesto isn't about a group of people that do not believe what the rest of the population believes. It's about a group of people that share a common set of beliefs that together the rest of the population does not believe.
There are a allegedly a group of people who think that the term atheist has 'has unhelpful connotations' and who want label that defines them in terms of what they are rather than what the are not. They are naturalists rather than just anti-supernaturalists. They have a commitment to the truth of things, while retaining tentativity of their conclusions. They have a respect of science but do not believe that science is the only tool for uncovering truths. They believe in the power of reason, but also believe in the fallibility of human reasoning. They are sure of many of their conclusions, but are not dogmatic. They believe that religion and politics should not mix. They believe it is possible to be 'one of them' while also being religious for certain understandings of the word religious. They believe that religious values can coincide with their own, but they believe it is right to criticize religion in some situations.
Baggini believes that there is such a group of people, more or less. He proposes the term 'heathen' to classify this group.
The "manifesto" bears the hallmark of an attempt to add filler to a definition that can be encompassed by a single line, merely four words. The author has sought to project his own brand of Atheism onto all Atheists, and in so doing has inaccurately described a large subset of non-believers.
quote:
It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. "Humanist" is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, "rationalist" and "bright" both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.
I agree that he is in a sense, projecting his own views of atheism into his manifesto. But then, if I were to try and create a document that portrays the modern atheism movement, which does not represent all atheists, it would involve my projecting my own views of atheism...it's kind of a necessary step. There is, a noticeable movement of people brewing. They are almost all atheists. But not all atheists are part of the movement. The term that was in use was 'new atheism' but, 'heathen' is an acceptable term, I think.
I don't think what I would write in that circumstance, would be a close match with Baggini's. But Baggini gives his reason for making the manifesto:
quote:
Our commitment to independent thought and the provisionality of belief means that few heathens are likely to agree completely with this manifesto. It is therefore almost a precondition of supporting it that you do not entirely support it. At the same time, although very few people of faith can be heathens, many will find themselves in agreement with much of what heathens belief {sic}. This is what provides the common ground to make fruitful dialogue possible: we need to accept what we share in order to accept with civility and understanding what we most certainly do not. This is what the heathen manifesto is really about.
Putting on my confrontationalist hat:- It looks like an accomodationist mind trap!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2012 12:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rahvin, posted 03-27-2012 3:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 53 of 54 (657598)
03-29-2012 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Heathen
03-26-2012 8:12 AM


Why we are heathens
Heathens is a fair enough term, and I've used it to describe myself on a number of occasions. Skeptics and unbelievers works too. Atheist has its uses. The term 'bright' and 'rationalist' bother me for some of the same reasons Baggini mentions.
Additionally, 'rationalist' means something else, and I am not one of them
quote:
in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive
I would regard myself as something more akin to a rational empiricist - but that's a little clumsy.
'Bright' has the 'dim' problem. Dennett thinks we can avoid this by referring to non-brights as 'supers' or some other positive term, but I don't think that's going to work.
Heathens are naturalists
I'm happy with this. I am, and I think the kind of people Baggini is trying to draw in are also, naturalists. We are metaphysical monists.
Our first commitment is to the truth
This simply does not help. Just about everyone believes they are committed to the truth in some fashion or another.
We respect science, not scientism
A lot of people that call themselves atheists now are often accused of scientism. The fact is, it is the best method for learning about the raw facts about the world. Science is however, constrained by ethics so there are some things we simply cannot study the way we would other things. So as a fact of life, we have to use less reliable means of determining truth.
We value reason as precious but fragile
Humans are imperfect reasoners. I'm cool with that.
We are convinced, not dogmatic
We are as certain as we can be, but even then our knowledge is forever tentative.
We have no illusions about life as a heathen
I'm sure that's just wishful thinking.
We are secularists
Sounds good to me.
Heathens can be religious
I'm not so sure about that. If you strip away all the supernatural, the dogma and the irrational from a religion you are just left with philosophy.
Religion is often our friend
Religion is a friend that gives food to the homeless while talking about itself all the time. It's the friend that can drive you to believe killing someone is not only good, but morally imperative. Religion is a friend that often discourages you to have other friends who are not also friends with that religion.
To be honest, it's a friend we could do without.
We are critical of religion when necessary
Which is often. At least at the moment. Maybe one day it will be less necessary to criticize it.
This manifesto is less concerned with distinguishing heathens from others than forging links between us and others
That might work, but I suspect it won't. After all, the word 'Atheists.' is considered to be controversial by at least one American company. I don't think a rebrand is going to be sufficient to overcome that kind of crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Heathen, posted 03-26-2012 8:12 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024