(Ir)relevance of atheism per se ?

[Gurdur]

a) Topic:
Proposition 1: That atheism per se is irrelevant as a social answer (as opposed to a personal answer; see this thread as an introduction (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=103974)

Corollary propositions:

2) That advocating atheism per se as a social answer is therefore both irrelevant and misguided.

3) That atheism does not necessarily lead to more beneficial results than the situation as it obtains today throughout most of the Western world and Japan.

4) That promoting humanism as a social answer, or under certain condions church-state seperation, is much more important than promoting atheism per se as a social answer

5) That humanism can encompass both secular and religious humanist elements.

b)The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

I will be arguing for the affirmative, and whoever argues for the negative gets to make first statement.

c) The scope of the debate:
Generally outlined already in the propositions. Open to discussion on format.
Not all corollary propositions have to be debated, if the other debator agrees to them as put, though I would prefer to; the first four propositions are the most important, though I find (5) to be important too, and will only not debate it if the other debator grants it as put.

d) Length of the debate in rounds, statements, maximum length of posts, maximum duration between posts:
Open to discussion; say 5 rounds
Statements to be made in turns, with whoever gets to argue the negative having first statement
Posts to be 800 (eight hundred) words or less each (open to discussion)
Say 4 days between each post.

e) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed:
Unlimited, but participants including me should make their own words the backbone of the debate; that is, posts can use quotes, but not rely on only using them as argument.

f) The starting date of the debate: As soon as possible when everything is settled.

I will wait to see who is interested in arguing the negative against me. It's an open invitation.

[Jim Lazarus]

I'm not sure I understand how one can really argue against you. I'm reading the other thread now, but still. Humanism is a constructive philosophy - atheism is just a factor in constructive philosophies - it can be added into anything that doesn't embrace god-concepts (nihilism, objectivism, etc. etc.). So atheism isn't necessarily an improvement at all. It might be good that we move beyond the absurdity of god-belief, but there are many systems we can take up from there with our atheism that can be just as detrimental or absurd.

I'll be interested in reading this debate, nevertheless.

- Laz

[wiploc]

a) Topic:
Proposition 1: That atheism per se is irrelevant as a social answer (as opposed to a personal answer; see this thread as an introduction (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=103974)

Maybe I'm not clear on your point here. This strikes me as similar to saying, "Believing that 2+2=4 is socially irrelevant."




Corollary propositions:

2) That advocating atheism per se as a social answer is therefore both irrelevant and misguided.

Irrelevant to what? How can it be both irrelevant and misguided? Wouldn't it only be misguided if it was relevant enough to produce a bad result.




3) That atheism does not necessarily lead to more beneficial results than the situation as it obtains today throughout most of the Western world and Japan.

True, but this could be said of anything. Truth and food do not necessarily lead to more beneficial results.




4) That promoting humanism as a social answer, or under certain condions church-state seperation, is much more important than promoting atheism per se as a social answer

Possibly. I think of humanists as liberals. I may be coming to think of myself as a liberal too, though. On the other hand, maybe all you're doing is endorsing that line from Harvey, something like, "I've tried being nice, and I've tried being clever. I recommend nice." I think I'd have to agree with that. But I don't see any reason to cast aside logic. I don't know why we can't be both nice and smart, both humanist and atheist. Why should we be choosing between them?




5) That humanism can encompass both secular and religious humanist elements.

Certainly.


I'm not really sure what you're after, but perhaps my comments will help you clarify.

crc

[seebs]

I'm a little curious about this one. Is your position, then, essentially that atheism, in and of itself, is not necessarily an improvement over the current broad spectrum of religious beliefs?

I'm assuming you're basically proposing to argue against proselytizing atheism, which is sometimes offered as a cure for religious warfare, ill-considered religious policies, and the like, yes?

(FWIW, although I have obvious reasons to believe that atheism is not a cure-all belief system, there are probably varients on this debate I might be willing to take the atheist side on, just for the joy of a good debate on an interesting topic.)

[doubtingt]

You seem to be setting up a debate where the anti side must argue that
mere lack of theistic belief, divorced from its inherent ties to issues of epistemology, faith, authority, reason, evidence, etc., is entirely sufficient to bring about a complete and total solution to the social ills of today.

I've never heard anyone who thinks that theism is harmful to society take such a postion, nor do I think it could be reasonably defended.

More importantly, it is in no way neccessary to adopt such an untenable position in order to believe or argue that theistic belief, and the promotion of faith and authority and rejection of reason and evidence that entails, contributes to and faciliatates anti-humanistic political and cultural forces. In addition, the untenable position you set up is not also neccessary to argue that the promotion of atheism and the anti-authority, reasoned, evidence-based belief formation that fosters atheism would help create a cultural climate less conducive to and facilitating of authoritarian and anti-humanistic forces. This, of course, does not "guarantee" success, but importantly reduces some influences that generally work against such success.

[seebs]

I think the argument would have to be that atheism necessarily implies improved behavior. So, you don't have to argue it without those ties; you have to prove that atheism is, at least partially, necessary and sufficient for them.

So, basically, if you could do a good job of arguing that fighting between religions was inherent to religion, but that, in the absence of religion, people wouldn't find anything else to fight about, you'd be able to show that atheism would improve that aspect of society.

... BTW, if you'd like to do a debate on whether theistic belief necessarily entails "rejection of reason and evidence", I might be up for taking that. :P

[doubtingt]

I think the argument would have to be that atheism necessarily implies improved behavior. So, you don't have to argue it without those ties; you have to prove that atheism is, at least partially, necessary and sufficient for them.

So, basically, if you could do a good job of arguing that fighting between religions was inherent to religion, but that, in the absence of religion, people wouldn't find anything else to fight about, you'd be able to show that atheism would improve that aspect of society.

... BTW, if you'd like to do a debate on whether theistic belief necessarily entails "rejection of reason and evidence", I might be up for taking that. :P

Hi Seebs,

I assume you are addressing me here?
You'll notice in my post, the positions I suggested that were tenable and defensible do not assert either a neccessary or sufficient causal relationship between atheism/theism and social ills or reason and evidence.
This was quite deliberate, because the vast majority of factors that impacts the behavior of both individuals and societies, are neither neccessary nor sufficient to produce their outcomes, yet they do influence this behavior.

My problem with Gurdur's proposal and your response to me is that they both fall into an unproductive trap of talking about explanations for social science phenomenon in terms of neccessary and/or sufficient causality.
As is often true of other complex systems, any particular human behavior (either group or individual) is a result of multiple influences, each of which affects the probability of a certain outcome, but no one of which on its own is either neccessary or sufficient to produce the outcome.

This is often true outside of social science as well.
Look at smoking. Not every smoker dies as a result of smoking effects, and obviously many people die without smoking. So, smoking is neither neccessary nor sufficient to produce death. Yet smoking is a contributing factor to death and if it were eliminated and other influences on death remained as they are, then death rates would decrease and life expectancy would increase.
That is actually a mild example, because of the numerous and greater influences on death other than smoking. It is quite possible for some factor to be the overwhelmingly greatest influence on some outcome and yet not be either neccessary or sufficient.

Put in the present context, this means that theism could be a major factor in increasing authoritarianism, unreason, decreasing appreciation for evidence evaluation, and social ills that arise from these effects, and the reduction or elimination of theism would reduce these outcomes compared to identical circumstances where theism is high. Yet, even if all the abover were true, the presence or absence of theism would not be a neccessary or sufficient condition for the outcomes.

[seebs]

Good point. I think the goal would be to make the argument at a social level; that theism is sufficient to cause certain harms without balancing positive outcomes. So, not that it's sufficient to cause these things in any given person, but that it will tend to.

I think the big problem would be the question of whether theism "causes" these things, or whether these things cause people to adopt certain attitudes towards beliefs that may incline them towards religious approaches to the world.

[Gurdur]

Note: If people want an answer from me, it's best to PM me.You seem to be setting up a debate where the anti side must argue that mere lack of theistic belief, divorced from its inherent ties to issues of epistemology, faith, authority, reason, evidence, etc., is entirely sufficient to bring about a complete and total solution to the social ills of today.
Since that is what several proponents on this board like to claim, expressly or implicitly, yes.
I've never heard anyone who thinks that theism is harmful to society take such a postion,
uh huh. Lots of similar claims being made all over this board, though I notice at least one proponent backed hurriedly off after I opened this debate suggestion thread.
nor do I think it could be reasonably defended.
That would be my point in the debate. :)
.... In addition, the untenable position you set up is not also neccessary to argue that the promotion of atheism and the anti-authority, reasoned, evidence-based belief formation that fosters atheism would help create a cultural climate less conducive to and facilitating of authoritarian and anti-humanistic forces. This, of course, does not "guarantee" success, but importantly reduces some influences that generally work against such success. eh ?
Since when is atheism necessarily anti-authoritarian, as you imply ? Already you grant me my central point of admitting that atheism on its own is rather useless --- you've just added antiauthoritarianism as a necessity --- and there are plenty of examples of authoritarian atheism /atheists, in real life as on this board (granted, wannabe authoritarians on this board, posters who want the banning of religion etc.).

[Gurdur]

Maybe I'm not clear on your point here. This strikes me as similar to saying, "Believing that 2+2=4 is socially irrelevant."
*shrug*
I don't think your vague metaphor brings much.
Irrelevant to what? How can it be both irrelevant and misguided? Wouldn't it only be misguided if it was relevant enough to produce a bad result.
Irrelevant both to the social ills that atheism alone is supposed to cure, and misguided in that it potentially brings in new ones.
I do believe the cited thread is more than enough explanation.
But I don't see any reason to cast aside logic.
eh ? Non sequitur.
I don't know why we can't be both nice and smart, both humanist and atheist. Why should we be choosing between them?
Good question --- it's the question I often pose to posters here. But you ask the wrong person when you ask me, and you implicity grant my point already,
Now: back to the debate suggestion:
I'm saying atheism alone per se doesn't do much. Care to argue against ?

[Gurdur]

I'm a little curious about this one. Is your position, then, essentially that atheism, in and of itself, is not necessarily an improvement over the current broad spectrum of religious beliefs?
Almost correct, wrong on two points:
atheism, in and of itself, as promulgated as a public/social answer, is not necessarily an improvement over the current broad spectrum of religious and secular stances.
Interestingly, perhaps a far better social answer is a constant social pluralist debate, a constant tension in society, combined witgh a humanist playing field.
I'm assuming you're basically proposing to argue against proselytizing atheism, which is sometimes offered as a cure for religious warfare, ill-considered religious policies, and the like, yes?
On its own, on its own, on its own.
Atheism without humanism is fairly worthless.
And humanism doesn't necessarily need to be atheist.
....there are probably varients on this debate I might be willing to take the atheist side on,....
heh, heh, interesting offer, but I don't think it really fits, not being something you really hold.

[Gurdur]

.....Put in the present context, this means that theism could be a major factor in increasing authoritarianism, unreason, decreasing appreciation for evidence evaluation, and social ills that arise from these effects, and the reduction or elimination of theism would reduce these outcomes compared to identical circumstances where theism is high. Yet, even if all the abover were true, the presence or absence of theism would not be a neccessary or sufficient condition for the outcomes.
I'ld be happy to argue against someone who wanted to make the revised claim that the absence of theism per se necessarily removes a amplificational factor to social ills.

Or, to use your smoking analogy, I'm saying that theism is not ncessarily per se such an amplificational factor in " increasing authoritarianism, unreason, decreasing appreciation for evidence evaluation, and social ills etc.".

[Gurdur]

And while I note that no actual proponent of the claims as set out seems to want to debate, someone eventually might like to, so PM or email me, since I might not see posts here, being concerned with more real-life and relevant things ;); one thing to keep in mind is if someone wants a more free-wheeling discussion that includes more than two debators, then a good place to discuss the whole issue would be over here, (http://www.hyperboreans.com/forums/) rather than in the Formal Debates forum.

[Heurismus]

Seriously mate, I think we are both of the same conclusion in many ways. In order to respond I would have to argue counter my adopted position. But would you like an opponant who for the sake of disputation would quite simply be lying through his teeth? That I'm afraid is a politician's mettier and it would be unethical for me to support something that others could misinterpret for their own benefit.