The paradox of atheism

[BDS]

The paradoxes of Christianity are often ridiculed (sometimes on these very boards). Less is said (here, at least) about the paradoxes of atheism – that is, about how religion is criticized paradoxically on these boards. A number of these paradoxical critiques are popular -- I mention them not as an accusation against atheists, nor to defend Christianity, but hoping to provoke discussion. Here's one:

Christianity is accused of being an opiate, that gives people a false sense of well-being and makes them feel safe and good falsely. It is a feel-good "meme" that spreads like an addiction.

Then Christianity is criticized for preaching hellfire and brimstone (which makes people feel bad); for repressing natural sexual urges (which makes people feel bad); for preaching that we are all sinful (which makes people feel bad); and for forcing small children to wear neckties on Sunday morning (which makes them feel bad).

Thus Christianity is criticized for being too dreary, and too ecstatic. On the one hand, Swinburne can write:

"Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilaean, the world has grown gray with Thy breath."

On the other hand, Marx calls it an opiate.

Perhaps it’s just me, but isn’t this strange? It’s like complaining that the Monk’s diet of rice is too plain, but his Cathedrals are too opulent. Which (if either) is the problem with the Monk? Which is the problem with the Christian? Does he feel too good, or too bad?

(OK, I concede on the neckties. That is cruel torture indeed, and unforgiveable.)

[King Rat]

False dichotomy.

[kas]

It just illustrates that there are lots of things to criticise about religion. Mainly, it's the irrational belief in gods, but how this belief is manifested is also fair game for criticism. There is nothing paradoxical about criticising two (apparently opposite) aspects of a belief system, if both of them warrant criticism. Christianity is so diverse (after all, you can make the bible say anything) that it is not surprising that it has numerous bad points.

[BDS]

False dichotomy.

Recognizing the infatuation with logic prevalent on II, I knew someone would say that. However, I chose my words carefully. I didn't say that complaints about Chrsitianity being both too dreary and too ecstatic were "contradictory"; I said they were "paradoxical". A paradox is a statement that SEEMS to be absurd or contradictory, but is in fact true.

I was hoping we could discuss how to reconcile these SEEMINGLY contradictory complaints.

[Enlighten Me]

I would say that the Christian, generally, feels "too good"---smug, in fact, as one who has all the answers (or "The Answer", as a well-trained Christian will assert) and who knows his destination is heaven because of his special understanding of God....

[King Rat]

I was hoping we could discuss how to reconcile these SEEMINGLY contradictory complaints.

Okay, religion can both be the opiate of the masses and also preach hellfire and damnation. The faithful do not believe that they are hellbound, that helps feed that feeling of well-being. I'm happy that you have found yet another contradiction inherent in religion.

*wipes hands* :)

[TomboyMom]

Actually to the extent it is a paradox, or set of apparently paradoxical criticisms, it is nonetheless not a feature of atheism, the lack of belief in God. It is a feature of anti-Christianity, which could be atheist or from a different religion.

[BDS]

Actually to the extent it is a paradox, or set of apparently paradoxical criticisms, it is nonetheless not a feature of atheism, the lack of belief in God. It is a feature of anti-Christianity, which could be atheist or from a different religion.

Well, of course it is not a criticism of atheism per se. Not all atheists have the same criticisms of Chrstianity.

However, it's interesting to think about -- does Christianity increase happiness, or decrease it?

Is it like taking a drug that increases ecstacy, or like taking a drug that represses it? Is it joyless and puritanical, or charismatic and emotional?

Do we atheists object to both the joyless and the joyful, or to the one more than they other?

[Lilyofthevalley]

I think you've expressed the paradoxes of both 'sides' very well.

In my opinion, Christianity - and several other religions I've looked into - are indeed very attractive, aesthetic and to some degree comforting: the 'opiate' effect. But get into them too closely and they are controlling, authoritarian and restrictive: the 'world has grown grey' effect. It really is too bad... I can only conclude that religions are at their best kept at arms' length. Then the beauty and HINT of God is still there.

Likewise atheism has seemed, to me, at once liberating and attractive - it offers the opiate of being FREE from one's religious chains. And who wouldn't wish to be free?! That's what we all want, surely?! So atheism is truly enticing. But then on examination, it turns the world grey: its followers appear to me sometimes overly left-brained, unimaginative. Their view of life to me is unaesthetic and - the main thing - restrictive of free thought.

So I've found by repeated experience, that, for me, keeping an ever-open mind is the only way I feel comfortable. :)

[Hedshaker]

So I've found by repeated experience, that, for me, keeping an ever-open mind is the only way I feel comfortable. :)

By, "keeping an ever-open mind" do you mean, believing anything you're told? Or do you mean skeptically examining what you are told?

How do you define open mindedness?

Orbit

[JamesBannon]

The real force behind Marx's description of religion as an "opiate for the masses" was not for its euphoric effects but because it dulls the senses (i.e., it prevents the emergence of class consciousness).

[BDS]

By, "keeping an ever-open mind" do you mean, believing anything you're told? Or do you mean skeptically examining what you are told?

How do you define open mindedness?

Orbit

It seems to me that we can know nothing with certainty. Our perceptions, our scientists, our very consciousness can trick and befuddle us.

Thus it is dogmatic to have perfect faith in anything -- whether religious or atheistic. Nonetheless, it is cowardly not to act as if our faith is more perfect than it may in fact be. We must decide on what to believe, but remain open-minded in thinking that we are likely to be wrong. Reason suggests that we are often wrong; courage suggests that we must ACT as if we were right.

Thus is skepticism a defense against pride, and pride a defense against skepticism.

[lpetrich]

Something can be both addictive and nasty -- there is no necessary contradiction.

Consider the "Battered Wife Syndrome".

[David B]

[QUOTE=BDS]It seems to me that we can know nothing with certainty.
QUOTE]

Perhaps logically we can't know anything with certainty, if you take the absolute meaning of the word.

That's my view - I don't think solipsism disprovable, for all that it is very, very, silly.

Actually, if you actually acted on the principle that you weren't certain of anything, wouldn't you be afraid to walk down the street for fearing that your next step lead you into disappearing into the ground? And then you might worry about staying were you were, in case the ground fell away under your feet?

Some things we know well enough for all practical purposes, and, apart from math/logic, that is all the certainty you are ever going to get. And it's enough.

David B (has certainly just typed this message on a keyboard)

[Matt the Medic]

I've always understood that this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?u=14891) is the Paradox of atheism.

/corny

Good post.

[ManM]

I thought this might be appropriate:

This odd effect of the great agnostics in arousing doubts deeper than their own might be illustrated in many ways. I take only one. As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith, from Huxley to Bradlaugh, a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind—the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness. In case any reader has not come across the thing I mean, I will give such instances as I remember at random of this self-contradiction in the sceptical attack. I give four or five of them; there are fifty more.

Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul’s Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, “the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands,� hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool’s paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it. If it falsified human vision it must falsify it one way or another; it could not wear both green and rose-coloured spectacles. I rolled on my tongue with a terrible joy, as did all young men of that time, the taunts which Swinburne hurled at the dreariness of the creed—

“Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilaean, the world has grown gray with Thy breath.�

But when I read the same poet’s accounts of paganism (as in “Atalanta�), I gathered that the world was, if possible, more gray before the Galilean breathed on it than afterwards. The poet maintained, indeed, in the abstract, that life itself was pitch dark. And yet, somehow, Christianity had darkened it. The very man who denounced Christianity for pessimism was himself a pessimist. I thought there must be something wrong. And it did for one wild moment cross my mind that, perhaps, those might not be the very best judges of the relation of religion to happiness who, by their own account, had neither one nor the other.

It must be understood that I did not conclude hastily that the accusations were false or the accusers fools. I simply deduced that Christianity must be something even weirder and wickeder than they made out. A thing might have these two opposite vices; but it must be a rather queer thing if it did. A man might be too fat in one place and too thin in another; but he would be an odd shape. At this point my thoughts were only of the odd shape of the Christian religion; I did not allege any odd shape in the rationalistic mind.

[BDS]

Thanks, ManM. I've read "Orthodoxy" and I was remembering Chesterton when I made my post (as the quote from Swinburne indicates).

By the way, I love Chesterton's writing style, and the way he is ALWAYS positing paradoxes.

[BDS]

One more thing: earlier in "Orthodoxy" Chesterton has a chapter about "The Ethics of Elfland". He discusses cause and effect -- and how in fairyland they differ from in scienceland.

Without looking it up, he shows how the cause and effect of, "If we cut the apple stem, the apple will fall" (scienceland) is not much different from that of "If we blow the horn, the walls of the castle will fall" (fairyland).

Of couse one refers to our world, the other to another, but both work according to the rules.

[IanC]

Thus Christianity is criticized for being too dreary, and too ecstatic.

But surely a religion that offers either eternal damnation or everlasting joy could be thought of as such. Why the problem?

My point is that christianity offers 2 positions, one very bad and the other very good. Therefore, if one believes both these positions to be invalid, one would be perfectly reasonable in saying either it is "too dreary" as you put it, or "too ecstatic".

Quite apart from this is the fact that christianity does not deliver a single message, rather many in different forms depending on the deliverers own belief.

So, why the problem?
Ian

[Paradox]

I've always understood that this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?u=14891) is the Paradox of atheism.

/corny

Good post.

I wondered why I felt strangely drawn to this thread. :D

So far though, this thread looks more like an examination of Christian paradoxes (or is that paradoxi? - what's the plural?). I can think of many of those, but I can't (for the moment) think of any in atheism. Wasn't that what the title of this thread asking about?

[Lilyofthevalley]

open-minded in thinking that we are likely to be wrong.

That is a rather good summation of open-mindedness, I feel. To truly experience a certain point of view you have to give it credence - truly join the ranks of those who believe it: that way you can really taste it, and see if it seems to accord with the world as you see it, but at the same time of course you must be sceptical. One's mind is an open door but there's a back door to throw stuff out...

Being the fallible creatures that we are, we are quite likely to be wrong about many things, but at the same time we're not a stupid species and never have been - so we may have been right about a lot of stuff that humans have attested to for aeons eg. an afterlife.

[Hedshaker]

It seems to me that we can know nothing with certainty. Our perceptions, our scientists, our very consciousness can trick and befuddle us.

Which is why we should employ healthy skepticism if we are to to keep an open mind. Science is about testing ideas, re-testing them, blind testing them, asking other scientists to falsify our findings. It's through skepticism we make progress. If you seek truth I doubt you will find it by believing blindly.

Thus it is dogmatic to have perfect faith in anything --

I agree entirely.

whether religious or atheistic.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith, as in religious faith.

Nonetheless, it is cowardly not to act as if our faith is more perfect than it may in fact be. We must decide on what to believe, but remain open-minded in thinking that we are likely to be wrong. Reason suggests that we are often wrong; courage suggests that we must ACT as if we were right.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In order for me to consider atheism wrong I would have to put aside my "open-minded" skepticism, ignor critical thinking, give up freedom of thought and blindly embrace other peoples fantastic absurdities and superstitions with not one whit of evidence. My mind isn't so open that it can easily be filled with garbage. Although, I will always examine evidence and sound reasoning.

Thus is skepticism a defense against pride, and pride a defense against skepticism.

I see nothing wrong with healthy skepticism or pride.

Orbit

[ManM]

Thanks, ManM. I've read "Orthodoxy" and I was remembering Chesterton when I made my post (as the quote from Swinburne indicates).

By the way, I love Chesterton's writing style, and the way he is ALWAYS positing paradoxes.

One more thing: earlier in "Orthodoxy" Chesterton has a chapter about "The Ethics of Elfland". He discusses cause and effect -- and how in fairyland they differ from in scienceland.

Without looking it up, he shows how the cause and effect of, "If we cut the apple stem, the apple will fall" (scienceland) is not much different from that of "If we blow the horn, the walls of the castle will fall" (fairyland).

Of couse one refers to our world, the other to another, but both work according to the rules.
Yes, I'm working through the book now, and so far I've enjoyed every bit of it. I believe his point about fairyland was to show that our world isn't much different. Looking at the world with his sort of innocence and wonder is quite refreshing. :)

[Godless Dave]

Recognizing the infatuation with logic prevalent on II, I knew someone would say that. However, I chose my words carefully. I didn't say that complaints about Chrsitianity being both too dreary and too ecstatic were "contradictory"; I said they were "paradoxical". A paradox is a statement that SEEMS to be absurd or contradictory, but is in fact true.

I was hoping we could discuss how to reconcile these SEEMINGLY contradictory complaints.

Easy. There are many different versions of Christianity. Although I don't recall seeing dreariness as a criticism of Christianity anywhere.

[trendkill]

Godless Dave beat me to it. There are different aspects of Christianity, and different critics have different points of view. Also, there's a "throw everything to the wall and see if it sticks" quality about the memeplex view of Christianity. There's a Christianity for (almost) everyone; hateful and loving, legalistic and tolerant, etc. It's all there.

Although I don't recall seeing dreariness as a criticism of Christianity anywhere.You haven't read enough of my posts then. :P

FWIW, there are similar "paradoxes" in criticisms of atheism. If you listen to all of its critics, it is the most hopeless worldview, and somehow also the one that's most driven by human desire. It takes the value out of human life, yet is preposterously optimistic about the virtues of humanity. It leaves no room for faith, yet takes more faith to believe in than religion.

[Godless Dave]

A violent hateful theology can easily be an opiate for what Jesse Ventura called "weak-minded people".

[screwtape]

The paradoxes of Christianity are often ridiculed (sometimes on these very boards). Less is said (here, at least) about the paradoxes of atheism – that is, about how religion is criticized paradoxically on these boards. A number of these paradoxical critiques are popular -- I mention them not as an accusation against atheists, nor to defend Christianity, but hoping to provoke discussion. Here's one:

Christianity is accused of being an opiate, that gives people a false sense of well-being and makes them feel safe and good falsely. It is a feel-good "meme" that spreads like an addiction.

Then Christianity is criticized for preaching hellfire and brimstone (which makes people feel bad); for repressing natural sexual urges (which makes people feel bad); for preaching that we are all sinful (which makes people feel bad); and for forcing small children to wear neckties on Sunday morning (which makes them feel bad).

Thus Christianity is criticized for being too dreary, and too ecstatic. On the one hand, Swinburne can write:



On the other hand, Marx calls it an opiate.

Perhaps it’s just me, but isn’t this strange? It’s like complaining that the Monk’s diet of rice is too plain, but his Cathedrals are too opulent. Which (if either) is the problem with the Monk? Which is the problem with the Christian? Does he feel too good, or too bad?

(OK, I concede on the neckties. That is cruel torture indeed, and unforgiveable.)

What is strange about calling a paradox a paradox, and why does that make calling it a paradox a paradox? Christianity is much like an abusive husband. He slaps his wife to the ground because she was out with friends and he became jealous, but then apologizes and tells her how much he really loves her and he begs for her forgiveness. Next week, he repeats his conduct.

[EricK]

A large number of people can not (or think they can not) bear the thought of there being nothing more than this life. So they are drawn to beliefs which say that there is an afterlife.

They also can not stand the obvious fact that there is no justice in the world (good people suffer, bad people profit, people born with severe handicaps etc etc). So they are drawn to beliefs which say that we will get our just deserts in the afterlife.

These are rather harmless (and even helpful) beliefs if all they do is allow people to get through the day. However, religious establishments can and do use them to exert and maintain power over their flock. In other words, they take the belief in Heaven and Hell which exists in the minds of people and convince the believers of which behaviours will send them to Heaven and which to Hell.

It is this latter point which is the basis for much criticism of religion. I don't mind people believing anything they want if it helps them get through the day as long as they show me the same courtesy.

Eric

[His Noodly Appendage]

Design a meme yourself, and you'll see how the harshness fits in. I *still* think this would make an excellent highschool project.

It's not enough to give people sappiness. It's good bait, but carrot AND stick make a far more effective combination.

Fear is important - people will be more inclined to stay at the honeypot if you beat them for walking away, and show the determined stragglers getting shot. This also invokes their humanity to ensure the compliance of their peers. If they see someone else start to walk away, they'll grab on and drag them back to spare them the beating. If they see a complete stranger, they'll drag even harder to stop them from getting shot.

Sexual repression is great - you can't have other honeypots competing for business. If people have somewhere else to get their happiness, you risk losing business. But of course, it would be foolish to try and shut it down altogether - by its very nature, it will never go away. So what you do instead is stamp a really restrictive EULA on it. If they want milk to go with their honey, they can have it - but only if they buy it from you. It's just like the Company Store. The only food in town comes from there, and you can only buy it with company scrip. Guaranteed lock-in. You channel all that sociodynamic power right through the meme.

Then there's sacrifice: people value rewards more highly when they have to suffer for them.

Then there's catharsis/atonement - people want to be able to escape guilt, which for most people involves paying for it with their own suffering. (often in a reduced scale... shades of sympathetic magic)

Just imagine you're a completely utterly fucking amoral giant multinational corporation, that somehow makes money every second people think your copyrighted thoughts. (the DMCA Mk II...). Pull in a team of disaffected lawyers and sociopathic ad execs, and see what dirty tricks you can engineer, given that you have exactly zero regard for the welfare of your audience.

Ten bucks says you can't do any better than any given religion. They've had a LOT more practice.

(and remember, truth is irrelevant. All but at most one of the mutually-exclusive religions out there flourish with no truth behind them - by definition)

Paradox?

Oh, I think not.

[His Noodly Appendage]

And yeah - the battered spouse syndrome is a good analogy. It's a weird quirk of human behaviour that abuse can actually lock people into relationships.

[WilliamB]

*Had a post. Edited. Wound up in a botch.*

[Will I Am]

BDS

A nicely elucidated initial point.

As an atheist, whos’ taken both the opposing lines you’ve… opposed… I shall think ‘twice’ about doing so, in future.

[Plognark]

I don't have a problem with either line of argumentation. I think it appears apradoxical at first glance, but it's not that simple. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

It depends on each religious individual. Different people latch on to different aspects of it, and the entire religion can be interpretted in many different ways.

One person could very easily latch onto it for fear of death and eternal punishment.

Another could get into it because of a sense of community and belonging.

And most people are probably a blend of the two or have other motivations not covered by the opiate/repressive descriptors.


I don't see the problem in it being both addictive and oppressive at the same time. Most of this just depends on the individual and how they view it. :huh:

[His Noodly Appendage]

"In one breath, you say that cigarettes feel so good, and that people just can't give them up, and then right afterwards, you say that they cause all these horrible diseases and lead to a painful death..."

[epepke]

Well, of course it is not a criticism of atheism per se. Not all atheists have the same criticisms of Chrstianity.

However, it's interesting to think about -- does Christianity increase happiness, or decrease it?

I don't know. Do opiates?

Are heroin addicts the happy happy joy joy people of the universe?

Have you ever experienced opiates? I have. I had morphine when I had pancreatitis, and when I was recovering from a cholycstectomy. On the one hand, I was glad that it took the edge off the pain. On the other, I didn't like what it did to my brain.

[JGL53]

Then, of course, we can have an atheist who rejects religion as being an irrational, mentally unhealthy, dogmatic non-scientific creed that is in denial of the obvious facts of reality, but then turn around and embrace a secular irrational, mentally unhealthy, dogmatic non-scientific creed that's in denial of the obvious facts of reality, e.g. Marxism, Objectivism, anarchism, nihilism, etc. :D

[Alethias]

Then, of course, we can have an atheist who rejects religion as being an irrational, mentally unhealthy, dogmatic non-scientific creed that is in denial of the obvious facts of reality, but then turn around and embrace a secular irrational, mentally unhealthy, dogmatic non-scientific creed that's in denial of the obvious facts of reality, e.g. Marxism, Objectivism, anarchism, nihilism, etc. :D

Does this post represent an official Taoist viewpoint that is binding to Taoists everywhere?

Or are you making an irrational criticism of irrational criticism of irrational people? :Cheeky:

[JGL53]

Does this post represent an official Taoist viewpoint that is binding to Taoists everywhere?

Or are you making an irrational criticism of irrational criticism of irrational people? :Cheeky:

I am not an "official" anything. But I don't think it necessary to be Taoist to realize that averring that A = A is either an expression of non-profound tautology or of child-like naiveté. :D

[lpetrich]

I am not an "official" anything. But I don't think it necessary to be Taoist to realize that averring that A = A is either an expression of non-profound tautology or of child-like naiveté. :D
I'm not sure what that is referring to, but it reminds me of how Objectivists claim that "A = A" is the foundation of their beliefs. However, I've yet to find out how one gets Objectivism from "A = A".

Back to the original subject, I think that a good resource to consult is The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html), developed by neopagan Isaac Bonewits as a guide to what to watch out for. I had discussed it in an earlier thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=100320); I had concluded that the IIDB community has little evidence of cultishness, while conservative and fundamentalist versions of Xianity score high in cultishness.

And I agree with others here that criticisms of a self-contradictory religion are bound to seem self-contradictory.

[BDS]

I don't know. Do opiates?

Are heroin addicts the happy happy joy joy people of the universe?

Have you ever experienced opiates? I have. I had morphine when I had pancreatitis, and when I was recovering from a cholycstectomy. On the one hand, I was glad that it took the edge off the pain. On the other, I didn't like what it did to my brain.

I have taken morphine also, in the hospital, when I had a knee operation. On the one hand, I got high as a kite, on the other I had a great time. I remember calling my friends an family in the wee hours, babbling endlessly (although I don't believe I tried to convert them all into dope heads).

Would I like to be high all the time? Probably not. But, after all, the "opiate" bit is just an analogy, and religion is LIKE an opiate in some ways -- but not in others.

[JGL53]

...I think that a good resource to consult is The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html), developed by neopagan Isaac Bonewits as a guide to what to watch out for...conservative and fundamentalist versions of Xianity score high in cultishness...

Or you could consult the guide to cults at this site:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0805/cults.html