Dawkins' Atheist Bus

[vimothy]

My own parents are basically born-again "US-style" Christians, although as generic emotion-less Brits you might never know it. At my sister's (also an evangelical) wedding recently my Granny (Northern Irish Catholic from West Belfast) remarked to me how strange the ceremony was (cringe-inducing Christian rock; laying on of hands; overt religiosity, etc). She whispered, "you don't believe any of that, do you?" "Er, no, don't be daft, Granny. I'm an atheist." "Oh, how terrrible. But thank god!"

But she's not really a Christian either, at least in the modern sense. She goes to church for cultural rather than religious reasons, and Belfast is maybe one of the last places in the UK where that happens.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I said "nihilism" because waffle's stance seemed to me to be markedly anti-human. He said:

The belief that humans are at the libidinal centre of the universe and that it is there primarily if not exclusively for their narcissistic 'enjoyment' is equally irrational to the belief that some (personal, supernatural) God has a plan for them.

Is this an accurate summary of what Dawkins thinks? If anything, it seems much closer to the traditional Christian view (that man is the master of the Earth and everything in it) which Dawkins so vociferously attacks. Waffle then brought up that old chestnut, consumerism, because obviously anyone who's anti-religion must be fervently in favour of consumerism, right? Oh, and we mustn't enjoy ourselves, because the hippies were into enjoying themselves and LOOK WHERE THEY ENDED UP!!!

 

[nomadthethird]

I've noticed that there's a strange disconnect between my grandparents and my parents generation over here. The grandparents all sort of go (or went, when they were alive) to church somewhere, but it's just because people are supposed to go to church, or for social activities, or bingo or whatever. My parents are kind of like former hippies who got jesusfreaky after they realized sex drugs and rock n roll wasn't all that fulfilling. Weirdly enough it seems like the boomers (a lot of them) grew up and got way more sincere about religion than their parents were. The neocons a lot of them are boomers after all.

Not a huge leap from hippie communes to radical Christianity, I suppose. What's interesting is the political turn toward neoconservatism the boomers made circa 1980.

 

[nomadthethird]

I said "nihilism" because waffle's stance seemed to me to be markedly anti-human. He said:



Is this an accurate summary of what Dawkins thinks? If anything, it seems much closer to the traditional Christian view (that man is the master of the Earth and everything in it) which Dawkins so vociferously attacks. Waffle then brought up that old chestnut, consumerism, because obviously anyone who's anti-religion must be fervently in favour of consumerism, right? Oh, and we mustn't enjoy ourselves, because the hippies were into enjoying themselves and LOOK WHERE THEY ENDED UP!!!

I see what you mean...no, I don't think that's what Dawkins THINKS that he thinks, but in joining the fray of "advertise on buses that life is more enjoyable if you believe like me" he's basically lost any claim to the rational high ground he may have had. And I don't think Waffle was trying to say that atheism is bad, just that Darwinism is sufficiently rational to win out against Creationism, but only insofar as Darwinism is not understood as some sort of theory that runs according to an imperative to believe irrationally in Nature-as-a principle-that-has-intentions, ie. to continue humanity against the forces of chaos, whatever, over against some kind of God-as-Creator.

 

[Mr. Tea]

And we're off--patly dismissing any idea we do not understand! Classic move on Dissensus.

Do I know as much about physics as you do? No. Because I am not in graduate school for physics. Chances are similar that I, because I spent 8 years studying it, know more about 20th century theory and philosophy than you do. This doesn't make me "better" than you, it simply makes me more informed about a certain topic. If you feel insulted by that, I can't possibly understand why.

Also, post-modernism is not a "philosophical" point-of-view, it's a theoretical one. And, as has been pointed out before on here in discussions you participated in, almost no one identifies as a "post-modernist"--it is mostly a derogatory and dismissive term used by opponents of moral relativism.

Would it not be more productive to try to understand what Waffle is saying before people fly off the handle about it? I mean come on we all know that willfully ignoring what someone's actually saying because it's outside your personal area of expertise is not a great intellectual strategy.

Can't we let Dissensus be somewhat more rational than most places? I think so...

Yes, nearly as well-established a practice as declaring that someone obviously doesn't understand someone else's statements because they disagree with them. I think I've got a fair idea of where waffle is coming from ideologically, because I've seen in many others before: a sort of gleeful negativity, a desire to see humanity (and especially Western humanity, of course) punished for its terrible hubris, such as the hubris innate in something so shocking as throwing off the shackles of religion. Though of course it's much more amusing to (*giggles*) imply that these silly atheists/rationalists/empiricists are in fact somehow practising a religion of their own, even though they don't know it! This is why I called him post-modernist - maybe anti-modernist would have been nearer the mark.

 

[Mr. Tea]

For what it's worth, I don't really think this bus campaign is going to do a huge amount of good, because people who agree with it will be atheists already while people who follow one religion or another are probably just going to feel embattled and defensive. It might convince some 'floating voter'-type agnostics, but they're not the ones putting their kids in faith schools, campaigning against step cell research and all the rest of it.

This idea that Dawkins is promoting a 'teleological' reading of Darwinism is interesting, and would certainly undermine his status as an atheist in the literal sense if true - can anyone post a link to something he's written or said that supports this? Or is just his dedication to challenging religion that seems paradoxically 'evangelical' and makes sceptics want to think he 'worships' nature/evolution/science instead?

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes, nearly as well-established a practice as declaring that someone obviously doesn't understand someone else's statements because they disagree with them. I think I've got a fair idea of where waffle is coming from ideologically, because I've seen in many others before: a sort of gleeful negativity, a desire to see humanity (and especially Western humanity, of course) punished for its terrible hubris, such as the hubris innate in something so shocking as throwing off the shackles of religion. Though of course it's much more amusing to (*giggles*) imply that these silly atheists/rationalists/empiricists are in fact somehow practising a religion of their own, even though they don't know it! This is why I called him post-modernist - maybe anti-modernist would have been nearer the mark.

What are you talking about? When did Waffles say that religion was good and atheism is bad?

No one is saying that Dawkins is practicing religion! They're saying that advertising on the side of a bus that you will "enjoy your life more" if you stop believing in god is ridiculous, and ruins the obvious discursive rational advantage that Darwinists have over the religious stories about origins because it reduces Darwinism to a "BELIEF" rather than a "SCIENTIFIC FACT".

That's all.

You never said you disagreed with what Waffles *actually said*, you just keep adding on all these value judgments that don't exist in Waffles posts. I think you're assuming Waffles is coming from a perspective that s/he isn't coming from.

 

[nomadthethird]

For what it's worth, I don't really think this bus campaign is going to do a huge amount of good, because people who agree with it will be atheists already while people who follow one religion or another are probably just going to feel embattled and defensive. It might convince some 'floating voter'-type agnostics, but they're not the ones putting their kids in faith schools, campaigning against step cell research and all the rest of it.

This idea that Dawkins is promoting a 'teleological' reading of Darwinism is interesting, and would certainly undermine his status as an atheist in the literal sense if true - can anyone post a link to something he's written or said that supports this? Or is just his dedication to challenging religion that seems paradoxically 'evangelical' and makes sceptics want to think he 'worships' nature/evolution/science instead?

Can you imagine what will happen to stem cell research if Palin gets voted in? I shudder to think what she'll try to do.

I don't think people think Dawkins worships nature, evolution, whatever. It is, however, evident in the fact that he can't stop baiting religious people into some sort of "debate" about the validity of scientific inquiries and theories that are nearly universally accepted in the scientific community that Dawkins fails to recognize Darwinism as anything other than a belief rather than a fact.

If there's no God, there's no imperative to evangelize using Darwinism, as if Darwinism is some sort of belief just like, say, the triune nature of God in Christianity? Is there?

 

[Mr. Tea]

No one is saying that Dawkins is practicing religion!

From the wafflemeister:

"the ad is shamelessly ideological, substituting a humanistic theism"

"Dawkins is not an 'atheist' (at least not in any serious or convincing way). On the contrary, he believes evolution has a purpose"

"We were talking about beliefs (humanistic vs divine theistic fetishes)"

Sounds to me like accusations of theism - OK, so religion is more than just theism, but theism is usually considered a vital pre-requisite for (most) religions, isn't it?

 

[nomadthethird]

From the wafflemeister:

"the ad is shamelessly ideological, substituting a humanistic theism"

"Dawkins is not an 'atheist' (at least not in any serious or convincing way). On the contrary, he believes evolution has a purpose"

"We were talking about beliefs (humanistic vs divine theistic fetishes)"

Sounds to me like accusations of theism - OK, so religion is more than just theism, but it's pretty close!

Ok, but Mr. Tea, if Darwinism is a scientific fact (and I believe it is), and natural selection is a blind process where complete accidents in the form of genetic mutations within species (as these mutations interact with the environment of species) have an effect on subsequent generations of these species, then there is NO AGENCY in Darwinism. Blind accidents cause human evolution, right? Atheism is not a necessary conclusion to be drawn from the theories of Darwin. There could very well be some God in the sky (like Aristotle's) who doesn't touch the material universe after he sets it in motion.

Trying to act as if a belief in the LACK OF GOD is a necessary precondition for the SCIENTIFIC FACT of Darwinism/natural selection, seems like a kind of inverse theism that destroys the rationality of evolutionary theories. To then add to this mess the idea that the only way to enjoy your life is by believing in Atheism-as-Darwinism is just adding insult to ideological injury.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Can you imagine what will happen to stem cell research if Palin gets voted in? I shudder to think what she'll try to do.

I don't think people think Dawkins worships nature, evolution, whatever. It is, however, evident in the fact that he can't stop baiting religious people into some sort of "debate" about the validity of scientific inquiries and theories that are nearly universally accepted in the scientific community that Dawkins fails to recognize Darwinism as anything other than a belief rather than a fact.

If there's no God, there's no imperative to evangelize using Darwinism, as if Darwinism is some sort of belief just like, say, the triune nature of God in Christianity? Is there?

Yes, this is just my point: Dawkins is so bullish and dogmatic that he runs the risk of putting religious people (further) on the defensive, convincing them their whole world is under attack by godless scientists, and inadvertently furthering their cause.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes, this is just my point: Dawkins is so bullish and dogmatic that he runs the risk of putting religious people (further) on the defensive, convincing them their whole world is under attack by godless scientists, and inadvertently furthering their cause.

 

[Slothrop]

For what it's worth, I don't really think this bus campaign is going to do a huge amount of good, because people who agree with it will be atheists already while people who follow one religion or another are probably just going to feel embattled and defensive. It might convince some 'floating voter'-type agnostics, but they're not the ones putting their kids in faith schools, campaigning against step cell research and all the rest of it.

That's another reason that I don't really see it as an 'advert' for atheism so much as a slightly reassuring reminder to existing atheists that there are other people in the world who don't think the opinions of invisible superheroes should play a key part in their daily lives.

You could probably come up with a more 'useful' message that focusses on multicultural secularism rather than atheism, but you get the impression that this has more to do with a couple of people seeing a christian advert on a bus and thinking "wouldn't it be funny if we had something like that" than with a serious effort to advance an agenda...

 

[Mr. Tea]

That's another reason that I don't really see it as an 'advert' for atheism so much as a slightly reassuring reminder to existing atheists that there are other people in the world who don't think the opinions of invisible superheroes should play a key part in their daily lives.

Well when I want to feel reassured about this I can talk to...ooh, probably about 97% if the people I know. Out of people I know well, I'd guess only my grandmother and maybe my girlfriend's dad (who's pretty old) actually believe in God.

You could probably come up with a more 'useful' message that focusses on multicultural secularism rather than atheism, but you get the impression that this has more to do with a couple of people seeing a christian advert on a bus and thinking "wouldn't it be funny if we had something like that" than with a serious effort to advance an agenda...

Yeah, that could well be it.

 

[bassnation]

Can you imagine what will happen to stem cell research if Palin gets voted in? I shudder to think what she'll try to do.

funny you should mention that. its not just stem cell research that is at stake here:

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."

http://www.slate.com/id/2203120

I don't think people think Dawkins worships nature, evolution, whatever. It is, however, evident in the fact that he can't stop baiting religious people into some sort of "debate" about the validity of scientific inquiries and theories that are nearly universally accepted in the scientific community that Dawkins fails to recognize Darwinism as anything other than a belief rather than a fact.

i don't agree. we are coming to a dark place where the gains of the enlightenment could be reversed. of course these things are universally accepted in the scientific community, but it seems like they aren't in the midwest. this is precisely the reason why it needs to be evangelised. there is now too much at stake.
.

as an aside, i'm glad to see you back nomad!

 

[bassnation]

Trying to act as if a belief in the LACK OF GOD is a necessary precondition for the SCIENTIFIC FACT of Darwinism/natural selection, seems like a kind of inverse theism that destroys the rationality of evolutionary theories. To then add to this mess the idea that the only way to enjoy your life is by believing in Atheism-as-Darwinism is just adding insult to ideological injury.

but that's a misreading of what atheism means. its a lack of belief. the onus is not on the atheist to prove their position. but i agree on the destruction of rationality. really agnosticism is the only honest position.

 

[Mr. Tea]

but that's a misreading of what atheism means. its a lack of belief. the onus is not on the atheist to prove their position.

Yes, absolutely.

but i agree on the destruction of rationality. really agnosticism is the only honest position.

To be fair to the people running this campaign, they have used the word "probably" in their ad - apparently they wanted to use "almost certainly" but thought it wasn't snappy enough, heh - which acknowledges that saying "there definitely isn't a God" would be unscientific, since it makes a claim that cannot be tested/falsified.

Another good position on this topic is ignosticism, which holds that since there isn't even a coherent description of the concept of 'God', the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless. Or, less dogmatically, it waits for its interlocutor to adequately define God before deciding what it thinks about it. (Maybe it's significant at this point to mention that in many spiritual traditions, from Christianity to Taoism, the divine Absolute is called fundamentally unknowable or indescribable, so from an ignostic POV its existence is not a suitable topic for debate because we can't even decide on what we're talking about.)

Another good one is apatheism, whereby you simply don't care whether God exists.

 

[IdleRich]

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Dawkins in the title to this thread as I think that he is a fairly peripheral (yet controversial) figure for this campaign.
Anyway, haven't got time to write too much here but a few thoughts.
My guess is that when they say "stop worrying and enjoy your life", or whatever it is, that it is not a command as such, nor is it intended to imply that you cannot be happy if you do believe in God, I simply think that it is predicated on the idea that not needing to satisfy a possibly capricious and certainly unknowable God is one fewer thing to worry about and will be a small step towards increasing individual human happiness. Of course, the believer (or anyone for that matter) might counter that that reduction in worry is balanced by the lack of comfort that arises from the idea that there is no God, no grand plan etc but I'm fairly certain that that is the intent rather than some sinister enjoinder to be happy in a Godless consumerist dystopia.
I think that overall the campaign should not be seen as advertising an atheist position but pretending to do so as an excuse to both attack the perceived right of religions to not be offended and to reassure the non-religious that they do indeed have this right. I'm quite happy for both of these things to happen, even if they do represent a rather childish tactic I'm quite happy for this balance to be restored in this way. Not that I've given any money though.... has anyone here?

 

[nomadthethird]

Yeah, I know, I wish there were more of an atheist presence in U.S. politics. As it is we're all forced to feign deference to religious nutcases because politicians are too scared that they'll lose votes if they speak up about this. But as far as enjoyment goes, seems like a lot of people use God as a weapon, for them God is a source of all their self-righteous enjoyment of looking down on others who aren't as "holy" as they are.

I'm having a hard time focusing because John McCain's rally is on...Bassnation, I did see the fruit fly thing, and it made my really angry. I know Obama's going to win but the fact that McCain's doing ok at all, as one of his former advisors pointed out yesterday on the Rachel Maddow Show, is what's surprising--given that the republican party is in utter disarray they should be doing a lot worse.

It's the stupidity and ignorance of Americans that's keeping his campaign "competitive"...

 

[nomadthethird]

Happy Halloween

I have to say, the more I watch Dawkins on Youtube, the more I like him.

The "Virus of Faith" series is pretty good, here's a clip:


This is mostly just good because what they're doing is so obviously insane, but there are good Dawkins lectures and such up too.

I like this one too: