The valuing of science shouldn't overlook it's shortcomings and lack of certainty. If science is a means of trust, or faith, the object of that trust is the institution of being challenged by others doubts. The most unscientific thing you can be is absolutely certain, of anything. We should all approach even our own views with skepticism and inquiry. And since, as humans, we can't fully trust ourselves to doubt ourselves, scientists can rely on being systematically challenged.Those checks and balances aren't as easily implemented outside of that institution.
That being said, the other day I was accused of belaboring religious faith via my own kind of fundamentalist thinking. Although it was the case of a straw-man attack, I care less about defending myself and more about exploring the idea.
"Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
- David Hume
We aren't rational robots. As a tribal animal, you're inclined toward getting arguments to justify and back up your already present feelings. Generally, when emotions are involved, they're primary. Rather than strictly finding out what's true, our reasoning is informed by our feelings to go find evidence for what we want to believe. And usually no matter the position, you can find something to satisfy those feelings, especially on an online niche that only echoes your views. www.yourviewsareallcorrect.com (Good idea for an aggregate site for similarly opinionated content)
Our hearts aren't proof machines. This is why we should watch our emotions and approach our own reasoning with skepticism. Now to the point...
This tribal instinct appears to manifest in many anti-theists as a kind of moral crusade, operating just like religious psychology. This should be glaringly obvious in the case of Atheism+ and other secular groups but less obvious in some individual anti-theists. Note that the comparison is not of belief content, but of moral attitude. The metaphor would be that science is the savior and religion is the devil, and we must save souls for the greater good of the truth purifying them. There is a moral conviction in this "us-them" resolve which can quickly turn into fundamentalist thinking, especially with a cohesive tribal morality that satiates the urge to be a part of something bigger than yourself.
Then there's the vanity aspect. Like the religious can just pray and feel they've done something or tell someone they're a sinner, you can just call anyone you disagree with ignorant, bigoted, sexist, a rape-apologist, a whateverphobe and pat yourself on the back as your benevolent moral pride swells. Regardless of how accurate it may or may not be, it should be understood that intent isn't equivalent to a deed. Bigots aren't out lynching negroes and stoning gays. Trying to show how accepting you are compared to others is just self-important noise. It's really tantamount to telling them "Me good, you mean, dickhead jerk asshole!"
I think any serious anti-theist agenda would be directed at Islamic countries, and even then it would be about as effective as offering them classical feminism(surely they'd have absolutely no use for the entitled whining of modern feminism). What is the proposed way that any of this will actually solve anything serious? Also, even if we did magically actualize the death of faith, it would be great and solve many issues, but it's not everything. It's not some end all utopian solution.
For me, my anti-theism is a philosophical stance, not a group stance, not a cause, just a personal disgust for an idea. Although minds do change, I don't care what will "work best" to deconvert or "give atheism a good rep." I never even consider it. I'm not on team atheism, I just happen to be an atheist, who's kind of a misanthropic asshole. To be completely honest, I don't worry about humanity and where it's going at all. I can dream, but at the end of the day, I'm just trying to get by as it is. I think Jonathan Haidt paints the best picture we can hope for:
When I was a teenager I wished for world peace, but now I yearn for a world in which competing ideologies are kept in balance, systems of accountability keep us all from getting away with too much, and fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means. Not a very romantic wish, but one that we might actually achieve.
Even that may be too romantic for this cynic. But the important thing to take away is that the diversity of ideas is a good thing, and the pure and correct ideology doesn't exist. All ideologies should be criticized and called out. Appointing yourself as a righteous member of the in-group with the solution... is a problem. And why bother with an ideology anyway? I say fuck organizations, fuck ideologies, fuck a group agenda. Be your own cause. Be your own group. Or don't listen to me, do what you want.
"Socrates was reported to have said 'The unexamined life is not worth living.' Well that's great, if you're a philosopher and you're gonna say, 'Everybody should live like we philosophers, and if you don't live like a philosopher you might as well kill yourself, cause what good are you?' But the man of action would say, 'Well, the unlived life isn't worth examining. And you eggheads up on the acropolis, why don't you go do something?'"
- Jonathan Haidt
No comments:
Post a Comment