Can Atheists & Agnostics be objective about spirituality

[Bro Dave]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

Bro Dave

(I just realized I accidently put this in the wrong area... I think it belongs under philosophy, if so feel free to move it)

[sin_is_fun]

Believers seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything scientific. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not spiritually measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of science?

sin is fun

[Bro Dave]

Believers seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything scientific. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not spiritually measureable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of science?

sin is fun

Cute, but really is not a parallel. Most "Believers" don't reject anything "scientific" on principle. They may challenge evolution, but the rest pretty much gets a pass. As for anything being "spiritually measureable", I can't think of anything in this catagory! And, while they may indeed be suffering from having commited to an idealogy, they do not see it as "suffering", where from my own experience, there was a time when I was embarassed to have swallowed all the nonsense, guilt and fear.

Bro Dave

[ST88]

(I just realized I accidently put this in the wrong area... I think it belongs under philosophy, if so feel free to move it)

So moved.

[QED]

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual.

Here's our first clue... nobody is reading from a script. If I ask you to go on stage and act out a scene from your own life, you don't need a script. But you would if your character was fictional.

Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable.

There are plenty of things that would appear to be physically unmeasurable, but ultimately anything which can be expressed by a human can be measured in some way. So we must be clear about what you mean by spirituality.

Unless you were attempting to stuff something with straw, I think you must be referring to the supernatural. This by definition has and always will be unmeasurable. Once it is measured, it passes into the realm of the natural. The question is, have we made any such measurements and found a result that we can't explain? So far it seems fair to say no. If we ever run out of explanatory theories then we might have to concede to there being a supernatural realm which exists side-by-side with the natural, but as of now there is no evidence for such a realm that can stand up to critical analysis.

Are they suffering an over reaction to having commited to an idealogy that later embarassed them, leaving them incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

This attempt at a generalization is obviously doomed. An objective assessment of spirituality, as I have pointed out above, is just as straightforward as any other assessment of human emotion. I simply don't see people failing to be objective in this arena. The only people I see exhibiting a lack of objectivity is in the realm of the supernatural.

I often say that if there was anything to it, then the Pentagon would have militarized it by now. This catch-all can be applied to any hocus-pocus that people come up with. This is a serious demonstration of the fact that there is a significant and dedicated percentage of the population continually on the lookout for any evidence of the paranormal. It's not for the want of looking that we never find anything.

[Dilettante]

Bro Dave wrote:

Atheists & Agnostics seem to have an unwriten dogma about anything spiritual. Most,(but not all) seem to have a negative emotional reaction to anything not physically measureable.

If it's really a dogma or a negative emotional reaction, they should get over it. But I find it odd: emotionally, the existence of the spiritual would be enormously consoling, to me at least. Unfortunately reason and logic stand in the way. So I suspect most of the time it's a rational (not emotional) reaction, and I see nothing wrong with that. Let each side present their rational (not emotional) arguments and let the truth win, whether it's emotionally rewarding or not.

Bro Dave wrote:

Most "Believers" don't reject anything "scientific" on principle. They may challenge evolution, but the rest pretty much gets a pass.

This is very true. Am I the only one who finds this strange? If one is going to challenge science, why stop at evolution and biology? Why not challenge chemical periodicity, electromagnetism, gravitational theory (after all, it's "just a theory"), relativity, and countless other scientific "paradigms"?

[McCulloch]

Believers in spirituality seem to have an unwritten dogma about anything spiritual. All seem to have a positive emotional reaction to anything not physically measurable. Are they suffering an over reaction to having committed to an idealogy and to avoid later embarrassment they are incapable of objectivity in the arena of spirituality?

McCulloch

[McCulloch]

To all,
My last post in this topic was childish and impulsive. I regret having made it. If any of you have taken offense, please forgive me.

Bro Dave,
Why even have the pretext of debate when you can launch straight into an argumentum ad hominem?

Moderators,

This topic does not belong in Philosophy since it is not addressing the love of knowledge but the ability of persons holding a particular position to be objective about an issue. Nor does it belong in the Debates section since it is simply a personal attack on the integrity of a defined group of people.

I believe that Bro Dave's post breaks the following rules:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
2. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
3. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

[ST88]

Moderators,

This topic does not belong in Philosophy since it is not addressing the love of knowledge but the ability of persons holding a particular position to be objective about an issue. Nor does it belong in the Debates section since it is simply a personal attack on the integrity of a defined group of people.

I believe that Bro Dave's post breaks the following rules:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
2. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
3. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

McCulloch:

I don't like to debate the merits of questions in their own threads, but since you chose to challenge the decision of allowing this question for debate publicly, I will answer you publicly.

I disagree with you. I think BroDave's question is a valid one. I see no personal attacks in his post, and I believe the issue is philosophical. Essentially, BroDave is asking whether or not A/A's are prejudiced against spirituality, and if so, why? This goes to the heart of the question of why people are A/A's, why they have become "unbelievers". I don't think that calling someone "unobjective" constitutes an attack, nor do I believe he meant "embarrassment" with any particular malice -- a bit of mischief maybe.

I believe it is a philosophical question because the issue is one of personal world view and how it came about. You can't get much more philosophical than that. If you would like to discuss this further, please PM me or another moderator.

[dangerdan]

Hey, ya’ll.

I haven’t had a poke around here for a while so I thought I’d have a go.

I, as an atheist, can’t say that I have an instant negative emotional response to religion that I’m rationalizing into atheistic arguments. For me it was quite the opposite. I have many fond memories of going to church. I loved the social element, I loved playing bass in the band, I loved the sense of community, I loved the feeling that I was trying to improve myself and be a better person. However, as I started to think about themes in the bible and how they seemed inconsistent, I felt the apologetic arguments where unconvincing. And after much thinking and reading both sides of the fence I found my belief systems had become basically atheistic. So for me it was about being honest. I had to reluctantly stop playing bass for the church band because of principals (I don’t imagine the congregation would like an atheistic bass player in worship time ).

So yeah, in some ways it would be cool if there was a God watching over your shoulder and doing all sorts of stuff (it would be flattering to the ego, that’s for sure), but to me, it just doesn’t add up. So far from me rationalizing a negative emotional response to religion or Christianity or church, I’m actually the opposite.

Though I can’t speak for other atheists obviously.