Is there an atheist agenda?

[David 2.0]

Authors note: I would like to thank McCulloch for his time and input into the phrasing of this question. Credit is due. Thankyou!

Questions for debate.

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

2.What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?

3.Should atheism promote religious evolution? Or is it all or nothing? How does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?

4.Do world views have a hidden or unintended agenda? Must they propagate to survive?

Feel free to answer one or all.

[EduChris]

Quantum theory is our attempt to model how our universe operates. As such, it is a scientific theory of great utility. However, the sudden switch from a useful theory to a supra-universal claim is a philosophical move, not a scientific one.

Does our modern technology actually work...

Yes, Quantum theory does work, and that is precisely why I said it is "a scientific theory of great utility."

...or when we use it is that merely a "philosophical move, not a scientific one" on our part?...

Scientific theories have a lifespan--every scientific theory becomes outmoded over time, as new discoveries are made which call into question prior understandings. Newton's physics "worked," but Einstein showed it's inadequacies. Einstein's physics "worked," but if it had been perfect we wouldn't have moved on to Quantum theory. And Quantum theory will, if the unbroken trend continues, eventually be replaced by something else. This is why scientific theories cannot be regarded as "ultimate" in any sense. Scientific theories are nothing more than currently useful building blocks for understanding our observable universe. Eventually these building blocks wear out and need to be replaced.

...Are we really so deluded?...

Delusions come whenever science is equated with philosophy. The two are not the same; philosophy is much larger than science.

...The entire basis for Christianity is founded on the truth of the resurrection...by all means, show me that "Virtually every modern Christian theologian" denies the truth of the resurrection...

Neither I nor the majority of Christian theologians deny the truth of the resurrection. What we deny is your entirely inadequate characterization of what "resurrection" entails.

...it is impossible for a person to throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth...

According to Richard Dawkins, "...it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen...It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon..." (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 160).

...While I will grant you that it impossible for fallible humans to know things to an absolute degree of certainty, it is certainly possible to know things to an "undeniable" degree of certainty. One could scarcely make it through a single day alive were this not true...

I agree with you on this point. No matter how much we try to claim that we base our conclusions on "evidence" and "logic," the hard, cold reality is that most of our understanding of the world comes as a result not of logic and/or evidence, but rather on simple pragmatics--our need to "make it through a single day alive," our need for coherence and community and purpose.

[EduChris]

...Couldn't the discussion of purpose apply to standard reality or do you think this discussion should remain tied to the belief's regarding the universe's origins...

What you refer to as "standard reality" is not really up for debate as far as I am concerned. Science does an fairly good job with this, and I don't see where or why a theist or a non-theist would necessarily disagree on scientific matters. The disagreements are not about science, not about "standard reality," but instead involve matters of philosophy--and for that we do need to talk about Ultimate Reality.

...I'm questioning your notion that non-theism necessarily rejects the notion of universal purpose. Or if you prefer, a purposeful ultimate reality...Can you show that a non-theist must necessarily reject the entire notion of theism in general...

The non-theist must reject the essence of theism, for if she did not reject the essense of theism, the non-theist would in fact be a theist.

...Can you show that a non-theist must necessarily reject the notion of purposeful ultimate reality along with whatever deity they would care to acknowledge?...

Every major world theism would acknowledge that whatever else God is, God is "purposeful Ultimate Reality." This is the one common thread that runs through all of the major world theisms. Given this, it follows that if a person wants to be regarded as a non-theist, that person must reject the notion of purposeful Ultimate Reality--for if she does not reject this notion, she will be regarded as a theist by theologians of all the major world theisms.

...I don't need to provide a counter example, you have not supported your claim, only made it...

I have supported my claim. On the positive side, all major world theisms accept the notion of purposeful Ultimate Reality. On the negative side, I do not know of any non-theists who accept such notion, nor do I believe a non-theist can logically accept such notion without thereby falling into theism, intentionally or not. The burden is now on you to provide a counterexample, if you can.

...This thread is discussion the possibility and the presence of an "atheist agenda". How is the discussion of a purposeful(or non-purposeful) ultimate reality relevant?...

Being human, non-theists tend to want to be in community--they want others to understand their views and accept or at least respect their views. The sin-qua-non of non-theism can only be the rejection of the essence of theism, and the essence of theism is "purposeful Ultimate Reality."

...http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/artic ... leID=99454
I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to link me to originally, I'm asking you.

Yes indeed, that is one of the links I provided to you, in response to your request for substantiating my claim that humans are hardwired to believe in some sort of spiritual component to reality (or, as the article phrases it, "the neural basis of the spiritual nature of humanity").

[Filthy Tugboat]

...Couldn't the discussion of purpose apply to standard reality or do you think this discussion should remain tied to the belief's regarding the universe's origins...

What you refer to as "standard reality" is not really up for debate as far as I am concerned. Science does an fairly good job with this, and I don't see where or why a theist or a non-theist would necessarily disagree on scientific matters.

I am unaware of any scientific notions of purpose regarding reality.

The disagreements are not about science, not about "standard reality," but instead involve matters of philosophy--and for that we do need to talk about Ultimate Reality.

Why?

...I'm questioning your notion that non-theism necessarily rejects the notion of universal purpose. Or if you prefer, a purposeful ultimate reality...Can you show that a non-theist must necessarily reject the entire notion of theism in general...

The non-theist must reject the essence of theism, for if she did not reject the essense of theism, the non-theist would in fact be a theist.

You have said this, I am waiting for substantiation of the claim.

...Can you show that a non-theist must necessarily reject the notion of purposeful ultimate reality along with whatever deity they would care to acknowledge?...

Every major world theism would acknowledge that whatever else God is, God is "purposeful Ultimate Reality."

Granted.

This is the one common thread that runs through all of the major world theisms.

Sure.

Given this, it follows that if a person wants to be regarded as a non-theist, that person must reject the notion of purposeful Ultimate Reality--for if she does not reject this notion, she will be regarded as a theist by theologians of all the major world theisms.

Here is where we differ, I don't see how you get from, "this group of people all agree to this." To, "any group of people that are not the first group of people must reject this". One other thing that all theists necessarily agree on is that they individually exist in some form or another. Does that mean that all atheists reject that notion?

...I don't need to provide a counter example, you have not supported your claim, only made it...

I have supported my claim.

Far from it, you have suggested that a belief that exists in all theists must necessarily be rejected by all atheists. You have not provided any support for this notion, merely rephrased yourself.

On the positive side, all major world theisms accept the notion of purposeful Ultimate Reality. On the negative side, I do not know of any non-theists who accept such notion, nor do I believe a non-theist can logically accept such notion without thereby falling into theism, intentionally or not. The burden is now on you to provide a counterexample, if you can.

Hardly, if you want to make a claim, you are the one required to back up that claim. I have no idea if any atheists support the notion of purposeful ultimate reality, I'm not saying that they do or can, I am questioning your notion that they can't.

...This thread is discussion the possibility and the presence of an "atheist agenda". How is the discussion of a purposeful(or non-purposeful) ultimate reality relevant?...

Being human, non-theists tend to want to be in community--they want others to understand their views and accept or at least respect their views. The sin-qua-non of non-theism can only be the rejection of the essence of theism, and the essence of theism is "purposeful Ultimate Reality."

What you have labelled, "the essence of theism", may or may not be incompatible with non-theism, I am waiting for some support for the notion that it is. I still don't see how this is relevant to the debate on an atheist agenda. The views of purposeful or non-purposeful ultimate reality don't seem to have any connection to an agenda within atheism. Whether or not atheists reject the notion of purposeful ultimate reality doesn't seem to have any bearing on the agenda itself. A group of people wanting to share a community with those of similar beliefs is not unique to atheists and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the question of purposeful or non-purposeful ultimate reality.

...http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/artic ... leID=99454
I'm not sure if this is what you were trying to link me to originally, I'm asking you.

Yes indeed, that is one of the links I provided to you, in response to your request for substantiating my claim that humans are hardwired to believe in some sort of spiritual component to reality (or, as the article phrases it, "the neural basis of the spiritual nature of humanity").

Where in the link does it suggest that humans are hardwired to believe in some sort od spiritual component to reality?

Religious experience is brain-based, like all human experience. Clues to the neural substrates of religious-numinous experience may be gleaned from temporolimbic epilepsy, near-death experiences, and hallucinogen ingestion. These brain disorders and conditions may produce depersonalization, derealization, ecstasy, a sense of timelessness and spacelessness, and other experiences that foster religious-numinous interpretation. Religious delusions are an important subtype of delusional experience in schizophrenia, and mood-congruent religious delusions are a feature of mania and depression. The authors suggest a limbic marker hypothesis for religious-mystical experience. The temporolimbic system tags certain encounters with external or internal stimuli as depersonalized, derealized, crucially important, harmonious, and/or joyous, prompting comprehension of these experiences within a religious framework.

In here it certainly says that religious belief is based in the brain, it also says that religious delusions and schizophrenia are based in the brain? Does that mean humans are hardwired for those? No, it states that religious belief, and religious delusion are a potential by-product of the way the brain functions. There is a big difference.

[Janx]

...What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?...

The goal of atheism is to convince themselves and others that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose. This is their grand, overarching assumption--and insofar as they are human, they seek to justify their grand assumption and to draw others into their way of thinking.

Our experience of "thoughts being experienced" leads us to surmise that existence is possible, and that there actually exists an entity to whom we refer as "I" or "me" or "myself" who is truly experiencing these thoughts. We then surmise that other persons like us also exist in reality (as opposed to being merely figments of our imagination). And so on.

From this, there follows a long chain of "cause-and-effect" wherein we assume that I am here because I have parents who truly exist, and they are here because they had parents who truly existed, ..., who existed because there is a planet known as "earth" which somehow came to produce conditions necessary and sufficient for life, and so on. We assume that knowledge is possible, and that our memories are sufficiently reliable. We assume that the rules of logic are an aid rather than an obstacle to true understanding. We keep pushing our explanations farther and farther back, accumulating and encompassing more and more assumptions and a larger scope or panorama of what we take to be "reality."

So finally there are two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain or circle of causal regression, in which case the infinite regression itself constitutes "Ultimate Reality," or else there is some "first cause" which gave rise to all subsequent causal chains, and this "first cause" constitutes "Ultimate Reality." Either way, we as human beings cannot possibly know everything about this "Ultimate Reality." Whatever it is, it lies beyond our finite limitations, beyond science, beyond logic--yet we surmise that it is out there even though, by its very nature, we cannot explain it even in principle.

This, then, is what I mean by "Ultimate Reality," as opposed to the more "mundane reality" which we (presumably) encounter directly in our day-to-day living.

Hi EduChris,

Atheism is a claim that God is not an acceptable explanation to what lies further down the causal chain of our ultimate reality. Atheism does not offer an opposing claim because it is a non-position.

Causality as an idea only works to describe what you call "mundane reality"; it cannot be applied as an ultimate explanation because both infinite regression and first cause are nonsensical concepts. Infinite regression introduces an incomprehensible attribute. First cause introduces a contradiction to the definition - like saying "square circle" - possible semantically but not practically.

Purpose is defined as the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Christians (as an example) claim that our purpose is to be loved and love God. Yet this is not an Ultimate (infinite/first) Purpose because, by the nature of causality we can always ask, "what is the purpose of God"? Theists cannot answer this question. The only thing they can do is stop themselves from asking it.

Theism leave the causal chain of purpose incomplete. This means that theistic purpose is no more special than atheistic (naturalistic) purpose. The only difference is that theists tack on a few supernatural links to their causal chain which atheists reject because they are fantasy and unnecessary.

Cheers good sir.

[EduChris]

...I am unaware of any scientific notions of purpose regarding reality...

Precisely. Science does not attempt to address such matters. The instant some scientist does attempt to address such matters, that scientist has strayed away from science and moved into the realm of philosophy.

...Why?...

Because.

...I don't see how you get from, "this group of people all agree to this." To, "any group of people that are not the first group of people must reject this". One other thing that all theists necessarily agree on is that they individually exist in some form or another. Does that mean that all atheists reject that notion?...

The belief that people "individually exist in some form or another" hardly constitutes the essence of theism; therefore, rejection or acceptance of such belief has no bearing on one's status as a theist or a non-theist. However, if a "pickle lover" is someone who loves pickles (of whatever variety) then if someone loves dill pickles they are a "pickle lover." Same for those who love Gherkin pickles, or kosher pickles, or Swedish pickles, and so on. If a person claims to be a non-pickle-lover, then by logic that person must reject the very essence of pickle-loving, which is the love of one or more types of pickles.

...you have suggested that a belief that exists in all theists must necessarily be rejected by all atheists...

I have not brought forward merely "a belief" that theists share; I have adduced the very essence of theism. If you want to say that you are a non-theist while simultaneously claiming to accept the essence of theism, then you are simply speaking nonsense from the standpoint of logic and clarity and coherence.

...The views of purposeful or non-purposeful ultimate reality don't seem to have any connection to an agenda within atheism...

That might be true if the non-theist's agenda were to avoid by all means possible the logical implications of their rejection of theism.

...Where in the link does it suggest that humans are hardwired to believe in some sort od spiritual component to reality?...

"The cross-cultural ubiquity of numinous experiences and the heritability of religious dispositions argue strongly for a biologic basis" (p. 499).

[EduChris]

...Causality as an idea only works to describe what you call "mundane reality"; it cannot be applied as an ultimate explanation because both infinite regression and first cause are nonsensical concepts. Infinite regression introduces an incomprehensible attribute. First cause introduces a contradiction to the definition - like saying "square circle" - possible semantically but not practically...

We do not need to use the term "causation" if it raises too many issues for you. Instead, we can speak of "explanation." We humans almost certainly do lack the cognitive and linguistic tools to fully capture any explanation of all reality. Nevertheless, we do what we can with the tools that we have, and so we can at least say that there is some logically foundational explanation of all reality.

Now, at this point we haven't even begun to try to determine what this foundational explanation might be. All I have done is give it a label--I call it, "Ultimate Reality." By the very nature of the case, we cannot even in principle provide any deeper explanation for this "Ultimate Reality," since we have already defined it as the brute foundational explanation of all reality.

...by the nature of causality we can always ask, "what is the purpose of God"? Theists cannot answer this question. The only thing they can do is stop themselves from asking it...

Note that "Ultimate Reality" is defined as the final, rock-bottom, unexplainable explanation of reality. "Ultimate Reality" is the ultimate brute fact about reality. It is simply incoherent to define "Ultimate Reality" as such, and then go on to ask for an explanation of "Ultimate Reality."

What I am calling "Ultimate Reality" is just a placeholder for "whatever it is that explains all of reality"; it is like the variable placeholder, "x," in a mathematical formula. It is like the imaginary number i which acts as a placeholder for the otherwise (seemingly) incoherent concept of the square root of minus-1.

...Theism leave the causal chain of purpose incomplete...

Whether you talk about causal chains or explanatory chains, the end result is still the same: either the chain stops somewhere or else there is an infinite regression. Whatever the end result turns out to be, we refer to it as "Ultimate Reality," and this applies as much for the non-theist as to the theist.

...This means that theistic purpose is no more special than atheistic (naturalistic) purpose...

Naturalistic "purpose" is a misnomer according to the terms I have used. I have argued that humans understand three types of causation (or explanation): a) chance, b) necessity, and c) purpose. Naturalism consists of only chance & necessity. Theism, by contrast, posits some element of purposeful intention.

...The only difference is that theists tack on a few supernatural links to their causal chain which atheists reject because they are fantasy and unnecessary...

Actually, this is a common (but badly mistaken) claim of non-theism. The real "difference" is that theists posit some purpose within "Ultimate Reality" (whatever it is) whereas non-theists rule out purpose in favor of some admixture of chance & necessity only.

[Ragna]

Actually, this is a common (but badly mistaken) claim of non-theism. The real "difference" is that theists posit some purpose within "Ultimate Reality" (whatever it is) whereas non-theists rule out purpose in favor of some admixture of chance & necessity only.

Purpose itself demands an explanation, whereas necessity doesn't. Chance is a different topic. Since UR cannot be explainable, by definition, any purpose tried to be placed there must have an underlying necessity. The real question is, then, is there any way purpose can be itself an unexplained necessity?

Not to mention your terminology is not really the best one, since if you call people who deny theism non-theists (who are strong atheists), how will you call people who merely don't subscribe to theism? A distinction needs to be drawn between positions which are described by belief and those which are by disbelief. Unclear language leads to unclear thinking.

[Janx]

We do not need to use the term "causation" if it raises too many issues for you. Instead, we can speak of "explanation." We humans almost certainly do lack the cognitive and linguistic tools to fully capture any explanation of all reality. Nevertheless, we do what we can with the tools that we have, and so we can at least say that there is some logically foundational explanation of all reality.

Now, at this point we haven't even begun to try to determine what this foundational explanation might be. All I have done is give it a label--I call it, "Ultimate Reality." By the very nature of the case, we cannot even in principle provide any deeper explanation for this "Ultimate Reality," since we have already defined it as the brute foundational explanation of all reality.

If you want to use the term explanatory chain I'm fine with this. However please note that by this re-definition Ultimate Reality will still require an explanation in order to be a valid concept.

Note that "Ultimate Reality" is defined as the final, rock-bottom, unexplainable explanation of reality. "Ultimate Reality" is the ultimate brute fact about reality. It is simply incoherent to define "Ultimate Reality" as such, and then go on to ask for an explanation of "Ultimate Reality."

What I am calling "Ultimate Reality" is just a placeholder for "whatever it is that explains all of reality"; it is like the variable placeholder, "x," in a mathematical formula. It is like the imaginary number i which acts as a placeholder for the otherwise (seemingly) incoherent concept of the square root of minus-1.

This is contradicted by your next statement:

Whether you talk about causal chains or explanatory chains, the end result is still the same: either the chain stops somewhere or else there is an infinite regression. Whatever the end result turns out to be, we refer to it as "Ultimate Reality," and this applies as much for the non-theist as to the theist.

You are making a knowledge claims on something that you have defined as ...unexplainable explanation of reality. Yet this knowledge claim is false because the chain stopping and infinite regression are both nonsensical concepts.

Naturalistic "purpose" is a misnomer according to the terms I have used.

Agreed. Everything and anything is a misnomer for your Ultimate Reality concept because it is nothing. It is empty space. For there to be purpose we must first have a thing to give it too. Therefore theism and naturalism flails to give purpose to your ultimate reality.

I have argued that humans understand three types of causation (or explanation): a) chance, b) necessity, and c) purpose. Naturalism consists of only chance & necessity. Theism, by contrast, posits some element of purposeful intention.

Purpose is an answer to questions such as, who/what made this and why does this exist? Naturalism is perfectly compatible of answering such questions therefore it can provide purpose.



You made a claim that:

The goal of atheism is to convince themselves and others that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose. This is their grand, overarching assumption--and insofar as they are human, they seek to justify their grand assumption and to draw others into their way of thinking.

I now see that you statement is true.

Atheism is non-position that claims, God is not a valid concept. As a consequence God becomes invalid for providing purpose to anything. This does not prevent atheists from using other concepts to define purpose.

Your Ultimate Reality really doesn't involve purpose because it's a non-concept, it's nothing, empty space and therefore cannot have purpose because we must first have a thing to give purpose. Atheism in no way hinders a person from filling that knowledge gap with something and finding it's purpose.

Ironically, theism is also completely incompatible with your Ultimate Reality concept. A God concept cannot give something purpose which is not there. So this goal of proving that Ultimate Reality does not involve purpose is something we are untied on.

Cheers good sir

[Filthy Tugboat]

...I am unaware of any scientific notions of purpose regarding reality...

Precisely. Science does not attempt to address such matters. The instant some scientist does attempt to address such matters, that scientist has strayed away from science and moved into the realm of philosophy.

Irrelevant, you claimed that the reason we must talk about purposeful ultimate reality is because science already has reality pretty down pat. So if science has nothing to do with purposeful reality, why can't we talk about that?

...Why?...

Because.

OK.

...I don't see how you get from, "this group of people all agree to this." To, "any group of people that are not the first group of people must reject this". One other thing that all theists necessarily agree on is that they individually exist in some form or another. Does that mean that all atheists reject that notion?...

The belief that people "individually exist in some form or another" hardly constitutes the essence of theism; therefore, rejection or acceptance of such belief has no bearing on one's status as a theist or a non-theist.

You can label whatever belief you want as "the essence of theism" it does not necessarily mean that that belief is "the essence of theism". Please demonstrate that non-theism and the belief in purposeful ultimate reality (or purposeful reality) are incompatible beyond your attempt at semantics.

However, if a "pickle lover" is someone who loves pickles (of whatever variety) then if someone loves dill pickles they are a "pickle lover." Same for those who love Gherkin pickles, or kosher pickles, or Swedish pickles, and so on. If a person claims to be a non-pickle-lover, then by logic that person must reject the very essence of pickle-loving, which is the love of one or more types of pickles.

This is different, because you have tried to put it in the same boat by calling it "the essence of pickle loving" but that again is just a title you made up and put on whatever action, emotion or belief you want. Non-pickle lovers by definition do not love pickles, pickle lovers by definition do love pickles. You cannot be a non-pickle lover and love pickles as it is a contradiction, not because of some arbitrary action/emotion/belief that you have labelled "the essence of this".

...you have suggested that a belief that exists in all theists must necessarily be rejected by all atheists...

I have not brought forward merely "a belief" that theists share; I have adduced the very essence of theism.

I disagree, you have labeled a common belief among theists "the essence of theism" and then essentially claimed that only theists are allowed the belief. This isn't dibs.

If you want to say that you are a non-theist while simultaneously claiming to accept the essence of theism, then you are simply speaking nonsense from the standpoint of logic and clarity and coherence.

Unless what you have labelled as "the essence of theism" is not only present in theism, that is what I'm trying to find out.

...The views of purposeful or non-purposeful ultimate reality don't seem to have any connection to an agenda within atheism...

That might be true if the non-theist's agenda were to avoid by all means possible the logical implications of their rejection of theism.

So if non-theist's don't avoid by all means possible the logical implications of their rejection of theism, what does that mean for the atheist agenda?

...Where in the link does it suggest that humans are hardwired to believe in some sort od spiritual component to reality?...

"The cross-cultural ubiquity of numinous experiences and the heritability of religious dispositions argue strongly for a biologic basis" (p. 499).

Biological basis for religious belief is far different from, "humans are hardwired to believe in some sort of spiritual component to reality." If something is a result of the human body and it's operations, could you show that all of those things are hardwired into us? Or perhaps you want to stick to just the religious belief part? Could you show that religious belief is hardwired into the human condition rather than just showing that it is born in the brain?

[dianaiad]

Authors note: I would like to thank McCulloch for his time and input into the phrasing of this question. Credit is due. Thankyou!

Questions for debate.

1. Is there an atheist agenda?

Depends on the atheists. Some of them have agendas. Some of those agendas hang on the idea that religion and theism are bad things...and since only atheists CAN believe that religion and theism are bad things, that is an 'atheist' agenda.

2.What is the end result of atheism? Is there an end game? A goal? Can it be satisfied, if so how?

Depends on the atheist. Those who DO have an agenda tied to their atheism tend to want to either get rid of theism/religion, or at least drive it so far underground as to be invisible to the atheist, no matter where s/he may be.

3.Should atheism promote religious evolution? Or is it all or nothing? How does atheism fit in the spectrum of religious toleration?

Is there a formal 'atheism' to promote, or not promote, such a thing? Careful here...

4.Do world views have a hidden or unintended agenda? Must they propagate to survive?

Of course. At least by teaching the kids.

Feel free to answer one or all.

OK.