[extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

[Technotranscendence]

On Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:02 PM Damien Broderick
thespike at satx.rr.com wrote:
>> it can credibly be said that atheists actions
>> against science in the 20th century have at
>> least equalled or exceeded the actions by
>> the faithful against science in previous
>> centuries.
>
> The assertion might be true (or might not),
> but so what?

I agree with your "so what" stance.:)

> Leaving that aside, I am struck by this quaint
> phrase "the faithful", in this forum of all places,
> as a synonym for "theist". The contrary of an
> atheist, by definition, is a theist. The contrary
> of someone who is faithful is someone who
> is faith*less*, and hence by implication
> untrustworthy, devious, two-faced and
> generally not nice to have around.

Well, you're playing on the variant meanings of faith.  I believe most
people ordinarily use it in non-religious contexts to mean "trust" or
"confidence."  E.g., if Joe says he has faith in Fred to complete the
job properly, he means he confidence Fred will do it properly.
Typically, such faith is based on actual experience.  I mean Joe
wouldn't say it if he knew Fred was a slacker and incompetent.  Then he
might tell us he had faith that Fred would not do the job properly -- 
or, more likely, that he lacked faith in Fred.

The other way of using it is to mean religious faith of the Tertullian
sort -- believe something without and, especially, against evidence.

Of course, many theists like to equivocate with both meanings of the
term.  The "faithful" as a euphemism for "theist" pays off in this
respect: it allows those using it to sneak in the religious aspects with
a general feeling that the faithful are better than the irreligious.

BTW, did you happen to read D. J. Hosken's missive in the 2005/02/10
edition of _Nature_?  He was reacting to an editorial with the telling
title:  "Where theology matters."  He attacked -- rightfully so, IMHO -- 
the notion that religious people somehow have special moral insights.
It's worth quoting at length:

"This view is reflected in many public discussions, where the obligatory
priest or rabbi is wheeled out to comment on some topic, in spite of
their utter lack of qualification other than a belief in a paranormal
entity that created the Universe and all it contains.  Would you be
prepared to accept fundamental advice from someone who insisted Father
Christmas was [sic] real?"

Of course, this doesn't mean that religious types are always unqualified
to comment.  I prefer Pericles here: few can originate policy, but all
are fit to judge it.  Yet that doesn't contradict Hosken.  He's only
blasting the view that theists have some sort of gnosis because of their
theism.  (I'd actually expect the average preacher to have a bit more
than belief in God in his qualifications.)

> Some of
> my best friends are atheists; deluded or
> otherwise, they are certainly not faithless
> wretches.

I guess I have to point out that I have friends who are atheists who are
of good character quality and I also have friends who are theists of
ditto.  Yet I also know both theists and atheists who are below that
level -- as I bet we all do.

> But I don't think that implication
> was Mike's contention, just a rather touching
> hangover from parochial school days.

One would hope.

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/