Anti-theistic strawmen?

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were not leaders of 'religious movments.' They were Marxists. Marxism is a philosophy, not a religion.You are stretching the word 'religion' far beyond its dictionary definition. Defining religion as 'a bad way of thinking' forces the conclusion you are supposed to be demonstrating: that religion is. By asking your readers to assume with you that all bad things that happen are 'religious' (if not, in fact, religious) you guarantee a happy result for atheism. Atheism, by virtue of not being a religion, walks away clean.You're equivocating between two definitions of religion. One is belief in God and in worship of that God. This is the definition you use when you say atheism is not a religion. The other is 'a bad way of thinking' that can be anything whatever so long as it brings unsavory people to power like Stalin and Mao.Logically you'll have to pick a definition and stick with it, then apply it both to your own belief and to others. I recommend the dictionary. It's something you and NJ can agree on. And you're stretching guilt-by-associations to the breaking point when you use the other one (stretch marks shown in italics): It is true that the manifestations of political and personality cults often find quasi-religious expression--especially in environments like Stalin's Russian and Mao's China where other forms of religious expression have been outlawed. This happens in the case of any ideology--even atheistic ones like those of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, the three you mention. Human beings have their rituals. Theism or atheism does not change the fact that they do. They always will.Your definition of atheism is far less creative and broad. You define it very closely as a personal belief, unconnected with actions, and allow no one to stretch that definition anywhere. You then say personal beliefs of this sort 'never hurt anybody.'But all personal beliefs, so strictly defined, are just as harmless. Actions kill people. Not beliefs.You're tilting the scales. If you are going to be strict in your definition of your favourite idea, defining it as a personal belief removed from all concern with political affairs, it is only fair to be equally strict in your definition of other ideas.Personally, I think that when it comes to understanding sociopathic regimes and the megalomaniacs who run them, blaming religion or non-religion gets you nowhere. Genocide is a disease of power structures, not the inescapable result of making this or that speculation about epistomology and ontology. The emergence of dictators is a consequence of individuals and their actions.Any ideology serves a person like Stalin, including none. If Crash magically made everyone in the world an atheist, or NJ made everyone in the world a devout Bible thumper, neither would rid humanity of dictators who order executions by the truckload and love to see their faces covering every wall. These people would still happen. They are slimy, undead creatures from the bottom of the human gene pool that rise to the surface now and then when the water grows muddy. Religion or non-religion has nothing to do with it._____

Not relevant at all to point out. On the following grounds.

Rabid: False. People with rabies are in no condition to type at length.

​

Atheist: True, but superfluous. Everyone knows this.

Hitler's belief system was a complex personal mishmash of misunderstood philosophy, rampant paranoia, outsize ambition, pagan imagery, toxic resentments, political opportunism, xenophobic projections, personal self-loathing and a hundred other things. He was also a compulsive liar who exhibited wildly delusional thinking under stress. Hanging any label on him such as 'Christian' or 'atheist' and thinking you've summed it up is colossally ignorant. (Which is not to deny that Hitler's alchemy of ideas wasn't itself colossally ignorant.)Labels are not thinking. And this tired argument is a fallacy anyway. 'Because some atheists have done bad things, atheism is bad' holds as much water as saying 'Because some Christians have done bad things, Christianity is bad.' How convincing do you find that as an argument when it is applied to you?It's a smear. It convinces only those wishing to feel superior as a result of the smear. Nothing more. The fallacy says nothing about either religion or non-religion. And it misses by a mile saying anything meaningful about the Ozymandias characters that have been the scourge of humankind since time immemorial.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for literary perfection.

Thanks for the clarification. I was having a tough time telling if the thread was about anything at all. (You know a discussion is sinking fast when you're obliged to talk about Hitler after the first two dozen posts.) Let's see if we can get this bark on a more even keel.Here's my nomination for an 'anti-theistic strawman':

Critics of theism often compare a childish idea of theistic belief with an adult idea of its rejection.

Take as an example the personal stories shared on the recent thread 'I was a Christian'. (Before that thread also tanked, I mean.) I appreciated the willingness of so many to share their personal histories so candidly. They invested a lot of time and I think those stories deserve a lot of attention.Still, it's interesting how many of the stories describe rejection as a young adult of theistic ideas the speaker held as a child. Never discussed is whether the person's understanding of theism at age 10 might not be as every bit as rudimentary as the same person's understanding of, say, natural science at that same age.Looks to me like many theists have a legitimate gripe here._______Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

I was thinking of message-board debate, mainly. I haven't read enough of our contemporary public 'anti-theistic' voices to comment broadly about them. But I have seen excerpts from Dawkins that show him taking the most childish forms of religion as the best theistic belief has to offer. (As when he dumps on the book of Genesis for describing sordid behaviour by Lot--and assumes the whole time that those who revere the text as a sacred have never, in all the centuries they've read and discussed the stories, taken account of the same thing.) He's obviously not boxing in the same heavyweight category as David Hume and Bertrand Russell, who really know how to land a punch.On the subject of message-board debate, I just often see people beating up on Santa Claus for the umpteenth time even as they take a pass on, say, the theism of Arjuna or Maimonides or John of the Cross or TS Eliot. And that's a loss, because that's where to go for a marquee fight. Arjuna and John knew as well as any Hume or Russell that Santa Claus was for the kiddies.Granted, fundies typically espouse a childish idea of theism. Their eagerness to rush chin-forward into the ring often places their view in the spotlight. That is the view we most often encounter on an 'evo' board. But dropping a chump fundy platitude to the mat doesn't deal any body blows to theism. That contest is far from over. Fundy ideas represent just a fragment of all the forms of theism that exist, and hardly the most fully considered and realized forms of it.

It's a strawman if one takes a childish version of an idea as the definitive and comprehensive representation of an idea that includes far more than this--and, beating the childish version, assumes that the larger idea has been invalidated.The same thing is at work when creos attack a scientific idea as misunderstood or misrepresented by popular journalists rather than as defined by scientists.

Some context would be welcome. Dawkins's Lot discussion appears in a later chapter (7 or 8?) of The God Delusion that was posted on the Net a few months ago. I'm not finding that chapter out there now, though the first is still online. Anyone who has the book on a shelf at home could probably tell us which chapter it is. Take that, Mr Buddha.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

That's one possibility.Another is that it is very well developed--but not as a syllogistic structure that lends itself to disputation.A painting by Marc Chagall is very well developed. But if your idea of 'development' is a mathematical proof, you're going to walk up the painting with your calculator in your hand and find yourself rather vexed about how to use it. The painting and the calculator operate by different systems of value. Each object is incongruous in the world of the other.If you remain determined to measure all values in the world by the calculator you carry around, you will pronounce the art to be nonsense and walk away.But the fact remains that a painting by Marc Chagall is very much worth something.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You tell us what Dawkins's point is not. But what is it?I ask because I don't know. He starts off talking about Pat Robertson, then segues with no explanation (in the excerpt we have) into a discussion of Lot and what a funny and sordid story it is. Is he saying Pat Roberson is like Lot? If so... well, let's just say that if so, the nature of the comparison is not obvious. And if I were Lot I would sue.More to the point for our discussion is that Dawkins invokes a clown like Pat Robertson by name but utters not a peep about all the people who have read and discussed this narrative throughout history, who are as aware as Dawkins of its funny and sordid elements, and yet who see no rational conflict between recognizing this and holding theistic beliefs. If Dawkins intends to make a case that all theism is 'delusion,' those are the people he needs to be talking about. That's where the fight is.So why isn't he there?_____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

The point of my wisecrack was not about Buddhism. It was about the obvious prejudice in the statement.Your comment, explaining Dawkins, assumed 'wishy-washiness' as an inherent characteristic of metaphors--and thus grounds for immediate dismissal of anything metaphorical from the world of ideas.The terms 'wishy-washy' and 'theobabble' are pejorative terms that were introduced without any reasonable grounds provided for doing so. The reader was expected to act as if an argument had already been made. None was.A sweeping dismissal on no grounds other than prejudice is not a refutation. It is just prejudice.There is thus no reason why the theists of the world (including Mr Buddha) should take much notice.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Jeez. You walk away for day...I know one thing I believe in. Thread devolution.It's REAL! It's REAL! I BELIEVE!!!______Edited by Archer Opterix, : added drama.

Thank you for your entertaining illustration of my point. Odd that you should have to ask. I mentioned Arjuna, Buddha, John of the Cross, Maimonides, Thomas Merton and TS Eliot, and said there were others. Feel free to address their ideas in a reasonable way at any time.Nothing was said about anyone's ideas being 'intellectually bulletproof.' That is a straw man of your own making. I mentioned Arjuna, Buddha, John of the Cross, Maimonides, Thomas Merton and TS Eliot, and said there were others. Feel free to address their ideas in a reasonable way at any time.Nothing was said about eating chocolate and smoking pot. Those are straw men of your own making. I mentioned Arjuna, Buddha, John of the Cross, Maimonides, Thomas Merton and TS Eliot, and said there were others. Feel free to address their ideas in a reasonable way at any time.No one told atheists to shut up. That's a straw man of your own making. A forfeit is a forfeit, not a victory. If Dawkins intends to prove that all theistic beliefs are 'delusion' he has to do better than score easy points on homecoming cupcakes like Pat Robertson.I mentioned Arjuna, Buddha, John of the Cross, Maimonides, Thomas Merton and TS Eliot, and said there were others. Dawkins is free to to address their ideas in a reasonable way at any time.No one mentioned granola. That's a straw man of your own making. It comes as news indeed that 'nobody believes' Buddha or Arjuna. Please show your math. So you wave your hand. But all you show is that no substance has been addressed.One inhibiting factor appears to be the amnesia that results when the material to be addressed is mentioned.I mentioned Arjuna, Buddha, John of the Cross, Maimonides, Thomas Merton and TS Eliot, and said there were others. Feel free to address their ideas in a reasonable way at any time. Eliot's theism is anything but 'warm and fuzzy.' As you know. You did say that by age 20 you had encountered every idea.The warm fuzzies are a straw man of your own making. You will find that the ideas 'actually practised' in a culture are influenced by the ideas of influential figures. This is true by definition. (See dictionary.)The fact that these ideas are often watered down or misunderstood as they are disseminated only makes it that much more important to address them at their source.I mentioned Arjuna, Buddha, John of the Cross, Maimonides, Thomas Merton and TS Eliot, and said there were others. Feel free to address their ideas in a reasonable way at any time.The 'sophist' is a straw man of your own making.I look forward to your reasoned discussion of these ideas. Until then, thank you for your entertaining illustration of my point.Anti-theistic straw men do exist._______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html, clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Thanks to JavaMan and Modulous for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you, but would add that if sophistication provides no guarantee of truth, it likewise provides no guarantee of falsehood. The question, being open, deserves recognition as such.Where one places one's own personal bets does not affect this. My own take on the literature is probably similar to yours.I do believe Krishna to be real. I do not believe Krishna to be literal. Krishna is a picture (limited) of a reality (vast).A limited picture of a vast reality will always be false to the extent that it cannot do justice to the whole. It will always be true to the extent that what it does convey is, after all, reality.That's my view, but more relevant to our discussion is who agrees with me. Krishna.Everything I just said about pictures and reality is what Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita. And a memorable job he does of it, as you know.Which is why I call attention to the literature when people ask me where to go for a 'mature theology.' That's where you find it. The influential theists of the world have much to tell us about how to approach theism in general. There is no need for naive literalism, either theistic or anti-theistic.The question we're left with now seems to be whether Dawkins is using such a straw man himself. I can't say for sure because I lack sufficient first-hand knowledge of his argument. I do know Dawkins attacks fundamentalism as pseudoscience. I also know he attacks theism as 'delusion' because that assertion provides the title of his book.What I have yet to see is any indication that Dawkins recognizes the difference between arguing the first point and arguing the second. It's two different tasks. The difference is huge.

A child can tell you this picture is at odds with science. Human bodies do not fly. There is this thing called gravity. The picture is not science.It does not follow that Chagall was mentally deficient, that his picture is meaningless, that its admirers are deluded, and that the person who sees nothing here but paint is the only sane person in the gallery.One can argue that case, naturally, if one wants. But the task will keep one busy for a while. Saying 'Art is Not Science' is one thing; saying 'Art is Not Valid' is another. To prove that all artists and all art appreciators are deluded will demand much more than simply pointing out a couple of obvious facts about gravity. ___Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It can be difficult, yes. One reason is that many theologies are expressed in literary forms other than logical argument. In the case of influential figures we also have the situation that more than one theology has emerged from the person's thought.Metaphorical expression, too, often counts as much as literal forms of expression. Metaphors are necessary, in fact.The strength of symbolic expression is that it carries multiple layers of meaning simultaneously. The message is more likely to reach multiple audiences, transcend the historical moment, and find useful adaptations. The weakness of metaphorical expression is that it invites misunderstanding and frustration on the part of those whose tastes run toward more literal forms of expression. That's often the case with theology--or philosophy of any kind, theistic or non-theistic. If a system of thought is internally consistent and reasonable (logic and reason do still apply), and if the ideas take account of known facts (or at least do not contradict them), the ideas are considered valid.Here we see a difference between philosophy and science. The difference lies not in the use of reason and logic. It lies primarily in (1) mode of expression, (2) standards of evidence and (3) questions asked. The three are necessarily related.Which bring us again to Dawkins. If he's arguing that theology is not science, he is right. He is also arguing a point long established. It is all to the good if he wants to go over this ground again for fundies like Pat Robertson who didn't get the memo the first time around. Dawkins is certainly qualified for the task.But showing theism to be 'not science' is one thing. Showing it to be 'delusion' is another.A belief is not delusional if it accommodates known facts and the arrival of new information. Given that, it remains as reasonable a personal working theory of how life is to be lived and choices are to be made as any other. We have to assess its merit on its own terms. What questions are being addressed by the system of thought? How well do the solutions work for the purposes they are intended?Philosophy exists because human beings have to answer the question 'What is the best way to live my life?' and 'Which priorities matter most?' As we know, science is not in the business of answering these questions. They fall into the realm of Those Things That Science Provisionally Sets Aside. It does this so that its method can go to work on those matters that its method excels at elucidating. Philosophy, both theistic and atheistic, has never been science.Framing a personal philosophy (all philosophies are ultimately personal) is as much art as science. It accommodates facts but looks for overarching and underlying themes to tie them together. Ideally the picture that results displays internal coherence, logic, structure, and meaning. But you can't test the sum on a calculator.But science too has much in common with art and philosophy--more than many scientists seem to know.Professional habit leads many scientists to take Those Things That Science Provisionally Sets Aside and ascribe to them the quality of Absolute Irrelevance. The conclusion is not rational. It is an understandable if careless prejudice that arises from habit. The ideas in question are not scientifically relevant. When science is the realm where one earns one's bread and butter, it is easy to overlook the validity ideas do possess. One is not often obliged to consider them in one's line of work. It becomes easy then to confuse scientific validity with truth itself.But it isn't.Art, philosophy and science are ways human beings apply their minds to the task of understanding reality. As systems of human thought all three have more in common with each other than any of the three has with Reality itself.If human thought vanished tomorrow, reality would still be. But art and philosophy would vanish, and so would science.Science is not Reality itself. Like art and philosophy, it requires the presence of a human consciousness. Take away that natural operating venue--which is not 'reality' or 'truth' itself but human thought--and science ceases to exist as surely as art and philosophy do.All three systems of thought, then, are human. All three work with mental constructs. All three draw provisional conclusions. All three have been found useful. None of the three is synonymous with Reality itself.It's interesting to note that none of this would surprise Buddha. The provisional nature of human thought has long been accounted for by influential thinkers, theist and non-theist alike, in human history. No need exists for a modern writer to be naive on this point. Interesting to see the word just appear when the idea of metaphor is introduced. The word is not required grammatically.Its appearance implies a premise: that a hierarchy of value exists, with literal descriptions taking pride of place and metaphorical descriptions representing something 'less than' literal, something 'mere.'If you don't mind my asking: whence the implied hierarchy that puts literal modes of expression on top?________Edited by Archer Opterix, : html, subheading.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Why model yourself with a picture of a frog when you could as easily have used a photograph?Different pictures have their uses. Literal isn't the best choice for everything. Odd that you call the assertion a 'sentiment.' It's hardly sentimental.Could it be that you call it 'sentiment' because you assume fact to be the exclusive property of science? Because you assume 'the Buddhas' to be jolly, warm-fuzzy folk who preach your feel-good straw-man religion of sunsets and blowjobs?Well, whatever. The statement is Taoist.You accused me earlier of playing a 'shell game' by 'dropping names' while keeping the world's great literature a 'secret' from you. So I may as well tell you that the statement you like so much appears in the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tze, page 1. Get a library card. You can probably still find a copy or two that I haven't managed to smuggle out in my ongoing effort to keep you ill-informed.

Who said all models are arbitrary? Why not use a photo, which predicts your real appearance, rather than the useless image called Road-Frog?Because the frog image is not useless. Different pictures serve for different things.This question hinges on the zero-sum fallacy: that any value science possesses is necessarily subtracted from the value of other models, and vice versa. Not so. I'm with you here if you say provisional instead of arbitrary.About my personal views you say: Our personal views, theistic or otherwise, are not the topic.The task was to identify an 'anti-theistic straw man.' I obliged by identifying one. You kindly provided Exhibit A. That on-topic point made, the discussion has moved on.We are now exploring the implications. My identification took it as a given that some forms of theism are more 'rudimentary' and some more 'developed.' We are now discussing what features may be found in 'adult theism.' How does one identify a developed philosophy in the absence of a scientific standard of measurement? It's an interesting question.You have seized on a statement I made about symbols in a reply to JavaMan. In your eagerness to 'smoke out' my personal beliefs you overlooked the crucial point: this view is the same one ascribed to the god Krishna in the Gita.You label that view 'atheistic': If this is true, Krishna is an atheist, and the Gita is one of the founding texts of atheism.But Krishna is a god. The Gita describes the god. And you have also told us this: Krishna is thus a god who espouses atheism. The Gita is a theological text that espouses atheism.It's hard to be sure where that leaves us. Maybe it's best to be slower with the labels and faster with reading the books.My point is this: the phenomena we call 'theism' incorporate a number of ideas. These ideas are widely documented. Many of these ideas retain validity for theists and atheists alike.No good reason exists for a modern writer, regardless of personal belief, to be naive about this._____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Thanks for taking the time, Modulous. Very interesting. I have a better idea of the content of Dawkins now and for the most part agree on points.Dawkins still strikes me as reductionist, if entertainingly so. It's not really doing justice to Spinoza's deistic thought to call it 'watered-down theism,' funny as the label is. No case has been made for 'delusion' which is--let's face it--an accusation of insanity directed at theists for no reason other than that they are theists. A bit much, obviously. I can write it off as hyperbole on the grounds that this is popular literature, not a serious philosophical discussion. It appears to be a title chosen with an eye on those talk shows you mention. Writers get more TV time playing provocateur than with care about terms. Dawkins knows the game and is not shy about playing it. In general you describe a person who is making a good faith effort to address views I was led to believe he had dismissed out of hand. The points he has to make deserve consideration, which is more than be said of a lot of books out there. And Taoism is damn good-looking agnosticism. Agreed. The fundamentalist mistake is to compel art to do the work of science and science to conform itself to art. I understand. How about this?We decide economic policy based on how we answer this question: What kind of society do we want?The question itself is neither scientific nor theistic. It is an artist's question. It is creative.We start with lump-of-clay butt-ugly reality. We imagine the reality (not yet physically real) that we want. We then use the artistic method to bring those two pictures together.Science is an important tool in the workshop, of course. Research tells us about the medium. In this case the medium is the economy. Like all artistic media, it has enormous potential and maddening limitations. We have to consider both if our project is to succeed. Research helps us do this. Research also tells us which tools are most likely to be effective in working the material. But it doesn't tell us what to create. Science doesn't require that we create anything at all. That imperative comes from another place in us. That is the creative impulse.So no, we do not refer to a work of art. The artistic task is more demanding (if a bit less literal) than that. We have to be the artist.Your discussion here, as I see it, concerns the best way to decide our collective creative goals. How to answer the question: What kind of reality do we want?The founding premise of all democracies is that we decide this on the basis of reason, discussion and consensus. That's the social contract. In supporting this contract you show yourself to be a true democrat. (Small d. The most important kind to be.) I'm a big believer in that as well.Faith, at least of the very religious kind, has always been ill at ease in democratic societies. The rationalism of democracy's social contract doesn't quite fit religion around the shoulders. Yet the freedom of worship is a good thing to have, so religions generally try to play along. The result is that tension that you describe.I saw an article in the BBC a while back that noted an irony. In the UK, where a state religion exists, political figures are under pressure to declare how religious they are not. In the US, where the Constitution mandates separation of church and state, political figures find it necessary to say how religious they are. It's as if the voters sought a kind of balance.But that's an off-topic ramble. A whopper of a typhoon has me housebound today. Thanks for sharing, Modulous. I've enjoyed the conversation.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity, brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity, paragraph 2.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.