Let’s get this off on the right and clear foot – I am a pagan. I am defending and talking about being open minded, not a specific religion. This is very anti-atheists but christians and other major religions are just as guilty.
To be perfectly blunt I’m getting pretty damn peeved with the attitude that seems to be mainstream within the atheist groups etc as of late. They think themselves far superior to the poor, feeble minded little theists who’re blind and must depend on an imaginary friend to get them through life. Remind me, how exactly are they supposed to be any better? I never used to have any issues with atheists but they are now proving themselves to be just as bitter, closed minded, arrogant and downright condescending as those heavy, closed minded christians they despise!
When confronted with a thought, theory or concept they don’t like or agree with, i.e magick or a god, they shut down and bleat out the same old crap. Again, how is this any different to how a theist reacts when confronted with the same? Atheists will go round and talk about double blinds, it’s not scientific there’s no evidence etc etc. A christian will tell you that the bible says it’s true therefore it is, Jesus died for your sins, blah blah. It’s the same old tripe from both sides.
I was even told that because I’m a theist I can’t be a scientist! Why not? If all scientists were as damn arrogant and closed minded as those atheists I have come across recently then science would rapidly grind to a halt. Science is based around pushing into the unknown, learning, finding and explaining those things which seem completely absurd. Look back at the medieval period, they’d have died from a heart attack at the things we do now. What is to seriously say that in 3 centuries time the same won’t be said for energy manipulation? Magick is just science which hasn’t been explained yet.
Hell, the relatively young sphere of quantum physics even works with and gives a base of understanding for magick/energy manipulation so we’re already starting down that path! Do atheists even realise that realistically they’re no better than those theists they take so much pleasure in putting down? They sit up there on their self made pedestal, looking down on us mere believers because we’re so pathetic we have to believe in archaic, stupid, things such as gods.
It’s about time people started being genuinely open minded. I find it interesting learning what people do and don’t believe. I’m a pagan and a scientist, the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive! I am not going to, nor have I judged someone based on what they do or don’t believe. Yes, I have used christians as an example because they’re the most commonly used example. Yes, this is very anti-atheist but it isn’t about the fact they don’t have a belief in any higher power, that is entirely their choice and I support that. My issue is that sickening, condescending tone.
Get over yourselves, get your head out your asses, stop acting like those people you consider yourselves so superior to and focus on being good people!!
I take it these points are rhetorical and you’re not actually after a reply, but…
Remember, atheism is just ‘I don’t believe in god’. What you seem to be taking issue with, peculiarly, is the simple logical principle of The Burden of Proof. That we should not believe something without evidence for it. That’s what lies at the heart of the criticism of theistic scientists (they’re not being consistent in their application of rational thinking).
There’s a WORLD of difference between being closed-minded and requiring evidence to support a conclusion.
You want to prove magick exists, get some evidence. Don’t expect anyone to give you the benefit of the doubt or to treat that claim any differently than they would any other, equally ridiculous, equally unevidenced claim.
Despite the insistence of Deepak Chopra, quantum physics and quantum mechanics lend no more credence to magick, or the horribly vague ‘energy manipulation’ than any other area of science has. QP is just hard to understand and counterintuitive to our macro-scale sense, something charlatans use to their advantage by peppering their claims with the word like hundreds-and-thousands on a cupcake.
Sure you can be a scientist and a pagan (or a Christian or whatever) but there is a bit of obvious hypocrisy in not applying that scientific, rational mode of thought to those religious convictions. It’s obvious compartmentalisation.
I’ve tried to be explanatory rather than confrontational and probably failed, but QualiaSoup covers the ‘open minded’ thing pretty well here. So please watch this if nothing else:
My problem is with the arrogance of it all. Yes, I understand why atheists are atheists and why they don’t believe in a god. What irritates the hell out of me is that damn condescending attitude and the way they look down on theists.
I think there are good reasons to look down on non-rational thinking. The sheer amount of harm it causes and has caused for one. It is, somewhat, childish to believe in these things. Is it not?
What bothers me even more than that is that they use their atheism as an excuse to be vulgar and insulting to Christians. If you dont believe as I do, I dont really care and I can still get along with you just fine. If, however, you are vulgar and insulting to my beliefs just because you dont believe, now we have a problem.
Thank you! That is exactly my point and the reason for this post – I have no issues with what people do or don’t believe. I have the issue when people try to shove their beliefs/lack of down my throat.
No, it is not. Rational thinking is a very good tool for certain kinds of problems – and it gets you in a lot of trouble dealing with other kinds of problems. Ethics in the real world actually respond VERY poorly to strict rational thinking – or rather, ethics which depend wholly on rational thinking are poorly adapted to deal with actual human beings, who are only semi-rational.
Rationality is a screwdriver. It’s a very versatile tool, but worse than useless at some jobs. Ever try pounding nails with a screwdriver?
“Sure you can be a scientist and a pagan (or a Christian or whatever) but there is a bit of obvious hypocrisy in not applying that scientific, rational mode of thought to those religious convictions. It’s obvious compartmentalisation.”
Is there also “obvious hypocrisy” in not applying scientific rationality to art?
Wrong tool, wrong context.
We can understand art in a scientific context. Unweaving the rainbow doesn’t diminish its beauty.
Religion makes reality claims. The only tool humanity has ever developed that works in that context is logical, scientific and rational thought.
We can understand art in a scientific context. Unweaving the rainbow doesn’t diminish its beauty.
Religion makes reality claims. The only tool humanity has ever developed that works in that context is logical, scientific and rational thought.
Sure, religion makes reality claims —but those claims, even in ancient times, were understood to be allegory for truths not yet understood. If you read Hesiod, you get a creative cosmogony that’s very compatible with Big Bang Theory, and you even have an explicity statement that it is allegorical poetry: This is written as the whisperings of a Muse (one of the Goddesses of art and the artistic process) who even warns that She only speaks truths, and if She must speak a lie, it will sound like truth. This is clearly not meant to be taken 100% literally, but to be taken as a philosophical interpretation of the origin of life on Earth.
That’s the folly of most Western Atheists: They assume all religion is intended to be taken as literally as fundamental Evangelical Christians take theirs, which is just untrue. Even priests in the Vatican admit that the Bible is at least 85% allegory, moreso in the Old Testament. Depending on the religion, it can be highly compatible with science.
Well, the heart of the matter, like you said, is Burden of Proof –but proof isn’t always empirical, easy to demonstrate to others. The only proof necessary for belief that most theists require is personal, this isn’t something that can easily be shared and by that isn’t (at this time, at least) scientific proof, but it’s still proof, so there’s no need to call people hypocrites.
Now, most of the pagans and polytheists whom I know personally are satisfied with this internal proof, this personal gnosis of Deity, and don’t feel the need to try and prove it to others. And sure, scientific and technological advances can offer empirical proof of the neurochemical processes during religious ecstasy, but it still cannot offer a concrete explanation for all instances what drives one to seek that state. Science and technology can offer explanations on what happenes to the body and brain in meditation, even offer up theories of self-hypnosis, and the empirical is accepted by a majority of pagans and polytheists, even the self-hypnosis theory is accepted as another name for the psychological tool used to induce meditation, but the experience of deity is still a scientific unknown and inexplicable.
And a lot of mystical polytheists do rule out possibilities of certain experiences scientifically before assuming it’s an experience of deity –are there a lot of kids (some even in their forties) who really want that experience of deity, and so will assume anything and everything to be a sign of contact, and will assume any dream is a vision, maybe even make some stuff up in hopes of getting a seat at The Cool Kids’ Table, and sure, they tend to outnumber the more sensible people, but it’s like how Carl Sagan said “Just because some geniuses are laughed at does not mean that all who are laughed at are genius”, well, not everybody who claims a certain kind of experience of deity is a kook reading too much into everything and crying for attention. Actually, in my experiences, it’s those who are not apparently parading around their experiences who tend to be the most-rational among pagans and polytheists, and the most-willing to accept the science behind the “How?”, and just use religion to fill in the “Why?” behind these experiences.
Why exactly is it childish? Oh and yes, you’re displaying exactly the attitude I was talking about, well done.
I’m not going to defend all christians, muslims etc. Yes, we had crusades and gods knows how many wars. That, again, is not what I’m arguing about but you’re rather incapable of sticking to actual point aren’t you?
As I said at the beginning and will re-state – I am against the closed minded attitude and arrogant, condescending tones. People have a right to believe or not believe what they want, what suits and works for them. I am against any and all people trying to preach, shove their beliefs (or lack of) down other people’s throats. As of late, atheists have been very guilty of this.
Hopefully you would not argue that a belief in father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy or the Bogeyman is childish, right? So, really, what is the difference between these and belief in a god, or magick?
Again, you’re mistaking closed-mindedness with a requirement for evidence.
I would also argue that harmful beliefs should not be indulged. Racism, ageism, sexism, these are also matters of belief and faith.
You can’t shove a lack of belief down someone’s throat, you can only point out the problems and inconsistencies in what they do believe.
There’s a lot at stake.
“You can’t shove a lack of belief down someone’s throat”
Actually yes you can. Having been on the receiving end of “you’re an IDIOT for believing in God” more than once, I’d say that qualifies.
Now then let’s be clear here – to be open minded does not mean believing in something because everyone else does. It means being of a state of mind where by you accept that others believe (or don’t believe) that thing, and that’s ok.
I’m bored of you. Come back when you actually listen and can make a proper argument for your case.
This is one of the most irritatingly insulting comparisons. Fortunately, sociologically it’s also the easiest to counter.
(in this post I use the word “cult” in its sense of “a group of people with a common cultural and religious identity,” not in the pejorative sense of “a small and marginalized religion that we think is scary”)
Father Christmas/Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Bogeyman are one-dimensional bribes/threats for good behavior from children. There is literally nothing to them other than “be good and you will get toys/money” or “be bad and you will be hurt.”
Stripping away for the moment divinity and metaphysics, a god is fundamentally a personification of one or more social mores. The gods whose cults are older and more established tend to take on more of society’s mores as they go along, and then fission those into different aspects.
If I say “Zeus is the god of kings and lightning,” I have made a true statement; but in doing so I have elided a great deal about him: His cultus, his historical and modern context, the attributes which are assigned to him, his doctrine and the beliefs and actions associated with him, etc. etc.
If I say “Santa Claus is a fat man in a red suit who gives presents and candy to children,” that’s pretty much all he is.
So no, the gods are NOT the same thing as Santa Claus, and the idea that they are is a complete and deliberate failure of the sociological imagination.
Hopefully you would not argue that a belief in father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy or the Bogeyman is childish, right? So, really, what is the difference between these and belief in a god, or magick?
Apples and Oranges; yes, both are fruit, but the experience of each is very different. The experience of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are created by mum and da, and are not things we’d've experienced on our own without that manipulation. The experience, on the other hand, of deity or magic(k) is personal, and cannot be manipulated by outside persons the same ways that the experience of Father Christmas can be manipulated into the beliefs of a small child.
I would also argue that harmful beliefs should not be indulged. Racism, ageism, sexism, these are also matters of belief and faith.
So the fact that some beliefs of faith are harmful, thus all are? You’re a very strange person. Love is also a belief of faith. As is trust –in fact, the root of the word “faith” basically means “trust”. If I were to trust that you were right, I’d be taking a leap of faith, but I also imagine you’d think that a good thing, assuming I was taking that leap of my own judgement and on thinking about it for myself. It’s still a leap of faith, though, because then I’d be putting my trust in the notion that nothing is there —but at the same time, it’s arguably harmful, for it would no longer be a justified true belief, in that I’d be denying my accumulated knowledge of deity to put my faith in nothing.
I think you misunderstand the words you use, and it just makes your argument poor. Sure, we can say that racism is harmful because it’s based on trusting a certain propaganda that makes all sorts of claims about people of certain race(s), none of these claims having much, if anything, in the way of empirical evidence, and even those claims which are of empirical facts and statistics have complexities behind them, rendering those facts neutral or evidence of the ills of a racist society. But it was a religious society that created algebra, medicine, libraries, the scientific method –it simply wasn’t a Christian society, so clearly the evidence for the potential good of a religious society is great, and there for the potential good of a religion must lie in the sorts of societies that certain religions produce.
No, that’s tolerance. Not open-mindedness.
Being open-minded means being willing to consider the points and ideas of others. Though you may still reject them.
Discussion requires both sides to listen.
Tramp, that’s not shoving it down your throat and frankly I would say it is no less (or more) idiotic than thinking vaccinations cause autism, or that homeopathy works, or that black people are inferior. They’re all equally nonsensical and all potentially very harmful things to believe, which are all believed for no good reason.
grimachu, from reading the posts that you have written on this topic, you seem to be the epitome of what this article is about. You have no respect for anyone that does not hold your beliefs and look down on them.
You are proving to be a perfect specimen of a bad example. If you are good for only one thing, it seems to be how not to treat other people.
I have no respect for the beliefs. Respect for the people is another matter.
Why would you even think that such beliefs require this special extension of respect anyway?
This ‘hands off’ attitude isn’t extended to political, scientific, musical or any other similar area so why religion?
It’s a very peculiar case of special pleading.
The real point, in my experience, is not that atheists aren’t “open-minded,” but that a particular subgroup of atheists have rejected religious pluralism and freedom of religion in exactly the same way as fundamentalist Christians have done. And for exactly the same sociological reasons – desiring domination, rather than coexistence.
Tramp, that’s not shoving it down your throat[; ?] and frankly I would say it is no less (or more) idiotic than thinking vaccinations cause autism, or that homeopathy works, or that black people are inferior.
Oh really? Pray tell, how is emotional manipulation in hopes of getting people to give up theistic beliefs different from the emotional manipulation that Evangelical Christians use in hopes of getting people to believe in Jesus? Are you trying to imply that Richard Dawkins isn’t making money off his books? Again, I say, you’re rather odd.
And I really have no idea what you’re going on about in the second part of your statement. Fortunately for other Atheists, I know that there are Atheists who can argue better than you do. Hell, Dawkins is hyperbolic and ad hominem-eriffic as all of Tartaros, and he argues better than you.
I had to come and say, title of all titles! It caught me pleasantly on every level! Dawny
So I sit back and have to wonder why what someone else believes is so troublesome, or lets it bother them that there are those who believe something which differs from themselves … People need to stop worrying about what others believe and worry about themselves…I think the key is just allow people the same rights we all want, which is to worship or not worship what ever you want or don’t want. Come on people, Why does it bother you? Acceptance, allow other the same as you wish to have…
See that’s my point here – They’re all for having a go, calling me a fool, harping on about sociological, psychological etc. Simple fact, I have the damn right to believe as I see fit without someone being a condescending prick about it.
No, people are not entitled to hold harmful beliefs. Again, reference racism, sexism, ageism. You also don’t have some inherent right to some special protection just because you believes something really really hard or hold it very dear. I’m sure some people felt that way about luminiferous ether.
No, people are not entitled to hold harmful beliefs. Again, reference racism, sexism, ageism.
Maybe people aren’t entitled to those beliefs, but in the United $tates, hell, anywhere in the Anglosphere, people still have the legal right to hold them, even if their legal right to express those beliefs is wrangled in by guidelines designed to prevent potential hard to others. There are no Secret Police arresting people for Double-Plus Ungood Think, no matter what despicable things they might believe.
I’m pretty sure I see the logic you’re trying to draw here, but it’s not very good if it can be so easily be betrayed by basic reality. In the end, you’ve really said nothing that can adequately argue against religious beliefs, in whole or in part –which sure looks like what you want to do.
You follow the Phelps clan issues?
Maybe the recent Planned Parenthood hoo-hah?
Prop 8 in California?
Attempts to get Creationism taught in science classes?
Religious violence, terrorism? Catholics and protestants? Sunni and Shia?
Still wondering why it’s troublesome?
When you see pluralism as less valuable than ideological purity, it doesn’t really matter whether you call yourself a Christian or an atheist – you’re still practicing the same domination-based interpersonal politics.
So…. Abrahamic religion is the only religion, in your world view?
Yours sounds like a sad world to live in.
Kate, you find the comparison insulting, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid and, indeed, you proceed to make my point for me.
Santa gives presents to good kids, doesn’t to bad kids (in some cultures they get coal or a slap from his horribly racist assistant figure instead). Social mores enforced by a fiction. ‘Be good and you get a reward’.
So, again, how is this any different to theistic concepts? It isn’t, other than that through tradition and enforcement ‘religious’ beliefs have more cachet despite being just as silly.
No, I don’t make your point for you – you simply ignore that I have a countering point and continue with your original discredited belief.
In other words, welcome to the fundiezone.
I’m afraid you do, there’s no counter argument there much as you may wish there was. The constructs are the same. Imaginary threat/promise as an enforcement. The cultural accretion is irrelevant to the basic nature of the thing proposed.
History doesn’t make it more real (fallacy of argument from antiquity).
Popularity doesn’t make it more (argumentum ad populum).
Reduce it down to the basic idea and that’s all it is. A comforting (or discomforting) fiction, each as simplistic as the other.
Yes, your ideological purism and false reductivism are wholly convincing.
Oh wait, they aren’t.
Ignoring things that harm you is hardly an excellent survival tactic.
Fire hot.
And here is where you prove that the only Theism you have any experience with is Christianity, maybe even a little bit of Islam, at best. Unfortunately, for you, there is more than one religion, and many religions have far more complex morality and ethics than the basic “punishment and reward” system of Christianity. You’re not as well-educated on this topic as you think you are, even if you’re able to put a hole or two into the occasional argument with pagan theists –all that proves is that you found a bad argument and exploited it hoping it would prove you right. You want a cookie for that?
Sigh. It would make the discussion a lot more productive if someone would point to an actual instance or example of what he or she is actually objecting to, and talk about what specifically about that example they find objectionable. Without an actual example of what precisely you are objecting to, you risk having a rant like this taken as exactly the sort of prejudice and closed-mindedness you object to in others.
Of course, atheism (like any other group, including pagans) attracts its share of assholes and idiots; the attitude you speak of might just be general human assholery and not anything specifically to do with atheists or atheism. It would be helpful to show that objectionable assholery is being actively promoted, especially by prominent or eminent atheists.
For example, if you want an example of someone who is very strongly critical of religion (and “woo”), read PZ Myers’ blog, Pharyngula. He is certainly a prominent atheist (not because he is any kind of authority, but because he’s well-informed, eloquent, and prolific and a lot of atheists strongly agree with him). Might I suggest that you find an article that sounds objectionable, and actually analyze what he says, what reasons he gives, and why you disagree with his conclusions and reasoning.