On the "Prophecies" of Atheists, and Other Topics

On the Triablogue post Atheist Eschatology and the False Prophets, Paul Manata criticizes those who have made "prophetic" remarks about the future of religion. Paul is especially concerned with those whose predictions declared a near and present end to religion -- crushed and killed by the power of scientific progress. I actually agree with him on some points. Our comments on that post run over into Dusman's combox. I've pasted the exchanges below.

I initially replied at Tblog (1/12/07, 7AM):

Anyone who claims to have prescience regarding the future state of man, or the overall effect of religion upon man, would have a heavy burden of evidence to bear.

I have long wrestled with the idea that religion is entirely bad for mankind. I am not sure that this proposition is true.

I am sure that fundamentalist dogmatism, and especially that which conflicts with scientific knowledge, is dangerous for the progress of mankind. However, part of that very progress is the peaceful spreading of knowledge through education, and not forcing "conversions" or "deconversions" upon people, or ever erecting a state which enforces any sort of religion or irreligion. Freedom of religion is part of our progress. States like the USSR, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., etc., show us the danger of [tyrannical] fascism that attempts to strip from [by force] people the freedom to express and practice religion.

I've commented more on this at length. I have begun to consider that some sorts of religion, and some of its rituals and beliefs, may serve as a sort of "placeholder" for many people who do not have the interest or rigor to critically and seriously examine (exhaustively) philosophical arguments. At some point, the placeholder may be rightfully usurped by the person's own acquisition of beliefs -- rather than inheriting and swallowing wholesale the prepackaged orthodoxy. However, people must have beliefs about morality, and value. If they cannot be bothered to consider, as one alternative, the existential arguments concerning man's freedom to transcend and determine value, or the arguments of virtue theories of ethics, or of utilitarianism...then what will they consider? Is it possible for humans to exist in a sort of vacuum of beliefs? No.

From whence cometh their beliefs? Parents. Schools. Experience.

Some religions would provide a better set of beliefs than some of these 3 sources. For instance, I think that Buddhism would confer and prescribe a better way to live than a child reared in North Korea and educated (indoctrinated) by its schools and their "Great Leader". Ditto with some religious fundamentalism.

Religions have, by time and necessity, evolved. They have dropped off the more primitive aspects (ie blood sacrifices) and adopted humanistic aspects (ie altruism and charity). Therefore, much good comes in the package. Much that intersects with rational thinking can be found in the box that is orthodox religion.

And therefore, I have a hard time feeling the same sort of impetus to deconvert the masses that, say, Sam Harris or Dawkins do. I find myself too skeptical to paint with so wide a brush. However, I do wish that those persons who hold specific religious beliefs that I consider detrimental to progress [and to the person's own mental health] would give an ear and some credence to the arguments against those beliefs. I am frightened by anti-intellectualism, which runs rampant in some religious circles. And that is what compels me to argue against those topics that I do.

wlotter thoughtfully responded (1/12, 12:25 PM):

nsfl,

You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).

Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)

I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?

And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.

I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?

To which I retorted (as Nelly Furtado, 1/12, 4:21 PM):

You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).

I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant.

I have no vision of utopia. Progress may be an end in itself.

Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)

My meaning can be derived from whatever I find valuable -- from the happiness of my spouse to the rolling of my rock up a hill.

I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?

Perhaps not, in the ultimate sense. Perhaps we are all just shadows and dust, in the cosmic sense, striving against the unstoppable wind which scatters us abroad. But what ought we do? Find no beauty? Find no meaning? Have no values? It is impossible to do otherwise.

And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.

Some. Most of a Christian's meaning is derived from their sense of self and family, much of which is based on experience and reality. So long as the believer thinks that God is happy with them, this equates to their being a good person, and being "on the right path". This gives them the same sort of tranquility that I have in being on that same "right path" and in being "a good person". Myths are not necessarily false, as they can illustrate truths.

I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?

Death is too much for our self-awareness to bear. Futility leads to despair. And that is why every culture throughout history invented religions and religious myths. Neandertals have even been found with the evidence of death rites and rituals at their gravesites.

I have more thoughts along those lines, and some very general ideas on existentialism, and Sisyphus, in this post.

Paul then replied, but obfuscated my words (1/12, 5:24 PM):

"I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant."

So you subjectively assign value to your life, even though there objectively is none.

Thanks for the admission.

Atheists choose to ignore reality and invent stories for themselves.

But then they complain that Christians invent religion and ignore the scientific finding of "the real world."

At any rate, since it's subjective then there's nothing objectively wrong with the child molester who subjectively assigns his life the value and purpose of "lover of children."

I called him on it (as Boy George, 1/12, 6:53 PM):

Paul,

As usual, you commit a non sequitur as you leap from ones sense of self-purpose to the issues surrounding moral duties, obligations, and properties.

I don't feel like chasing off after that red herring. I've had my say.

Paul (1/12, 8:18 PM):

Boy George,

No, I simply said that a child molester could assign the subjective value to his life that he chose to.

You'll note that I said there was nothing objectively wrong with him assigning subjective value to his life.

I never said that the act itself wasn't wrong, just the assignment of value, which the above commenter said in his post.

So, as usual, you forget to even apply critical reading skills to just a few sentences a theist writes, let alone an entire book.

But, to take it further, given the atheist that I responded to, I don't see how any "objective morals" could exist. Remember, he said,

"no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance"

And given this outlook, one would have a defeater for all his beliefs, including his ethical ones. So, even though I'm not guilty if the crime yoiu accuse me of, I wouldn't have been even if I did what you said.

Now, I could go off on a tangent about how careless internet atheists seem to be these days, but I don't feel like chasing that.

I've had my say.

best,

~PM

Me again (as Boy George, 1/13, 3:55 AM)

Paul,

Actually, she said:

"...even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance..."

Very convenient of you to have left off the boldened part.

1/13/2007 3:55 AM

Paul's last response at the Tblog (1/13, 8:47 AM)

I didn't need that part in ther Boy George because my point has to do with there actually being no cosmic value and meaning.

My point was, *given the view* that meaning and value is subjectively assigned, then what's the problem wioth a molester assigning himself the value of "lover of children?"

So, the "even if" did not affect my point.

Now, if you want to say that there possibily *is* cosmic value and meaning, that is objective, well now we're back to the other problem.

Or, if you just want to remain *agnostic* about our origens, our purpose, etc., then as I said above, you have a defeater for all your beliefs.

glad I could help,

~PM

Then things move to Dusman's blog, following his reply to Paul's post, I wrote:

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the two "camps", since one claims supernatural powers of prescience and the other doesn't?

Dusman responded (4:24 PM):

Greetings to our church blog Mr. Morgan!

Now, to answer your question, I'd say no. This is because (1) Paul Manata never claimed to have supernatural powers of prescience, and (2) since he wrote the article with a different intention than that which you've seemingly superimposed upon it, your above comment which was obviously designed to show that he is making a category error is simply unsubstantiated. Take care and I appreciate you taking the time to post.

And Paul rejoined (7:21 PM):

nsfl,

Isn't it a bit silly to be a member of a camp that doesn't claim supernatural powers of prescience, uet still make prophetic predictions? If you have no business predicting future events, then don't do it! So, your post serves to undermine the friends in your "camp."

Anyway, you missed the relevant point of comparison, as Dusman points (literally as well, look at his picture!) out.

I find it odd that you'd be sticking up for a "camp" that has made the predictions I docummented for hundreds of years. I mean, since when does being an atheist give you freedom to just wildly assert things about the future, especially when the assertions consistently fail to come true.

Now, you can think in agreement with the atheists prophets of doom, and predict that Christianity will end once people read a few more science books, but, using induction, it appears that those claims won't be coming true.

To which I replied (6:45 AM):

Dusman,

(1) No, he didn't, but the belief system of Christianity holds within it the intrinsic capability to interpret prophetic, divine, and therefore true accounts of the future. Atheists have no parallel source to go to in order to try to fit the vision of prophecy over the picture of present events.

(2) Paul wanted to point out that people have been wrong about the demise of religion. He's right. It's just silly, though, to compare Christian eschatology [claimed as divinely inspired] to atheist eschatology [admittedly fallible].

Paul,

Every human being bets on the future with each decision they make: you call football games before they're played, you don't enroll in college without the belief that you will complete it, etc., etc. We humans have the capacity to imagine the future, and therefore, we often make predictions.

I mean, since when does being an atheist give you freedom to just wildly assert things about the future, especially when the assertions consistently fail to come true.

I don't quite understand this. Are you claiming that we are not all free to make predictions, if we so choose? Now, the question of taking our predictions seriously, or gaining prestige and authority in the area, is another matter entirely. However, stock market gurus do exist. Certain people seem to be very good at predicting the future (in limited respects). Are you saying that they shouldn't attempt to do so, for their own benefit (and that of others)?

I don't claim to belong to a "camp" of any sort. I certainly share beliefs with other people, just as you do with other people. But I think just as you would distance yourself from, say, the Catholic view of birth control [perhaps], so I would separate myself from anyone who claims to know the future with any degree of certainty.

Was or was not your intent to show that people were wrong in predicting the demise of religion? If so, then you accomplished that, and I agree with you on it. Which leads to the next point:

Now, you can think in agreement with the atheists prophets of doom, and predict that Christianity will end once people read a few more science books, but, using induction, it appears that those claims won't be coming true.

I wrote:
"If people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of."

Do you agree or disagree that the establishment of knowledge via science (or at least, the belief in this knowledge) has diminished, in some respects, people's reliance upon the Bible? I'm not claiming here that some people don't take the Bible's authority (or belief thereof) over that of scientific evidence. But you must admit that science has forever changed the landscape of Christianity.

I don't think Christianity will die off from science. I think it will continue to evolve. Just as it has for thousands of years.

Around 1 billion (or more) Christians accept many scientific theories that you (and many others) reject, for example. That is a huge impact on the body, is it not?

And, the secularization of Europe is something the Pope has candidly admitted as of late. The global trend of secularization is that modern, technologically-advanced societies are trending that way (with the USA as a stubborn slow holdout), while the 3rd world is expanding in religious belief as Communism fell and missionary efforts have redoubled there: esp. Africa and India.

I think modernization and science don't spell "doom" for Xians or religion in general, but spell "change".

Paul shot back (2:57 PM):

Hi nsfl,

So when Bertrand Russell, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, et al. predict the end of faith they're just doing the philosophers equivalent of "calling football" games?

Couldn't have said it better myself. And here we thought the atheological minds that the public hears the most from were actually trying to use reason.

Bottom line: My post pointed out that atheists have their own embarrassing prophets to silence. Before you go picking on Christians, clean up your own back yard. from my perspective, it's pretty messy.

My last comment (written 1/17/07, don't know when Dusman will allow it to be posted); Paul words in italics:

So when Bertrand Russell, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, et al. predict the end of faith they're just doing the philosophers equivalent of "calling football" games?

Yes, basically.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And here we thought the atheological minds that the public hears the most from were actually trying to use reason.

They are. Just like you do when you call a football game. And my analogy may be a little better than I thought: when you use your brain to calculate probabilities and compare stats, you use reason in calling the game; but, your evaluation will always be a little skewed towards the team you (identify with) like the most. It's hard to be impartial in matters of football or religion, isn't it?

Bottom line: My post pointed out that atheists have their own embarrassing prophets to silence.

I disagree with the concept of silencing people. I disagree with the concept that people aren't free to predict the future all they want. If they garner support for their "prophecies", I think it's absurd. But, just as they are free to do this, so people are free to take their prescient powers seriously. I do not.

Before you go picking on Christians, clean up your own back yard. from my perspective, it's pretty messy.

Perhaps the better way to put it is to say: "If you're really freethinkers, do you need a shepherd around to tell you what the future will be like, or can you judge her/his words and think for yourselves?" I don't have the right or obligation to "silence" anyone, but I could try to persuade persons whom I think put way way way too much stock in, say, Dawkins.

Anyway, I understand your point, but I still think you're trying to parallel two orthogonal lines: you can't compare religion with non-religion in this way, when there is no meaningful basis for comparison of the two camps' self-styled "prophets". People [stupid ones] really believe that Pat Robertson hears from God; no one thinks that of Dennett. Therefore, no one thinks that Dennett has to be right...contrariwise...

Thanks for the civil exchange.

I thought the conversation worth sharing. I hope you agree. Please feel free to comment if you agree, disagree, or anything in between!

**UPDATE: Paul wanted me to include a comment he left after I had written this post. So let it be done:

Paul's last comment at Dusman's place, 8:49 PM --

Well, nsfl, people's hearts get the best of them when they "call" football games. I still like the analogy. In fact, it's even closer than we thought. Here we have a bunch of emotional atheists rooting with their heart and not their head. I did that, but the Chargers still lost! I mean, you may think they're applying reason, but if I picked the wrong team for the past few hundred years, I think you'd say that my emotions are getting the best of me. I mean, would you listen to a Vegas Line on the odds is they had been wrong for hundreds of years. No, he'd get fired. And so ther best thing for you guys to do is fire the emotion driven atheists (Dennett, Bawkins, Harris, et al)., and find a new odds maker.

I can parallel the two because I think atheism is just as religiously driven and motivated as Christianity is. And, two, I'm comparing the goofballs in our camp with the goofballs in your camp. A wrong prediction is a wrong prediction, no matter which way you slice it. If we're getting mocked, you're getting mocked.

Paul basically repeated what I said in a much earlier comment -- that I laugh at people who take anyone's claims to prescience seriously. Thus I can't/don't have to "fire" anyone, since I never employed them to do my thinking or analysis for me. And I'll admit that when it comes to being in a "camp" with others of like mind, it is quite possible to be driven by emotion to defend a fellow camper's position before thinking it through clearly. Thus, I'll admit that many people, me included, may rush to propose something, or defend something, on the basis of emotion alone without considering the merits of the argument. In the case of "predictions/prophecies", this is clearly often the case. But, since I don't typically refer to any of these fellows as idols of mine, and since I have actually distanced myself from two of them (esp. Dawkins), you may not be able to paint me with this broad brush.

If you notice, when I mock Pat Robertson, I don't claim that all Christians are being mocked. When I mock Jerry Falwell, I don't claim all Christians are also theocratic loons. I even specify from time to time that not all are. You ought to consider the same application of selectivity: not all atheists make dumb predictions. Furthermore, some atheists post scientific polling to support their predictions. **END UPDATE**
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy