↪intrapersona
Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. In fact, opium is also medicine. Anesthesia can debilitate, but it can also return function to a person who would be curled up in a ball on the floor otherwise.
The reason educated people are freed from the need for this anesthesia is that they're more like to be insulated from the things in life that cause pain. They have health care. Their children have access to antibiotics. They don't live where drive-by shootings happen regularly. They don't fear that attention from the police will lead to a catastrophe. They believe they can contribute meaningfully to their community.
Uneducated people are more likely to be poor and disenfranchised. I'm not saying rich educated people don't feel pain, I'm just saying they receive it at a lower dose. So if you consider the options for a poor person who becomes overwhelmed by death and disease: which would you choose for them? Real opium? Or religion, which comes with a supportive community?
I think if you look at it this way, you'll see that rational argumentation is going to be fairly impotent in regard to refuting religion. Spend your free time working to help poor families with sickness, community disintegration, and economic instability. That will actually advance atheism. — frank
What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa
I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."
One Frank to another...where does that come from? — Frank Apisa
I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. — intrapersona
So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination. — intrapersona
So they admit it's irrational? Good. Discussion over. — NKBJ
What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa
My intention was to be on the same page as the OP. If I failed, that can be worked out in conversation. — frank
I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."
One Frank to another...where does that come from? — Frank Apisa
This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong?
Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life. — intrapersona
so I am still not sure what YOU mean when you use those words. — Frank Apisa
For example, we don't need rationality to love. — intrapersona
— Frank Apisa
I think there are some areas of philosophy where we do act as though we're on the autistic spectrum and we don't quite know what to do with words, and there is value in that. I'm also a big fan of clarification.
But there are other domains in which there is no merit in acting like there is some unsolvable mystery bound up in a word so that it's practically useless, when all you have to do is look at how it's being used. — frank
They'd probably say arational, not irrational. — Terrapin Station
As of the moment, when you use the word "atheist"...I do not know if you are denoting someone who asserts "there are no gods"...or if you are denoting someone who asserts, "I do not have a 'belief' in any gods."
. — Frank Apisa
The former is called positive atheism. Never argue with a positive atheist because they're usually emotionally unstable. This is a famous little blerb that should help you to put the matter to rest.
If the OP asks me to clarify what I meant by "atheist," I will. — frank
So I thought i could use some help on this from you guys. I had a chat with my professor about this in relation to refuting religion and his view is that it is through the encompassing range of the inexpressible that we are moved by to do things and that I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. My point to him was that while that is true, you still need rationality and in his example you would need it to fall in love with the right woman/man lest you make some mistake and live in regret/sorrow. So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination.
Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life. — intrapersona
Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. — frank
"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."
What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa
I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa
Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic. — Frank Apisa
"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."
What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa
The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. Atheism is a broad position which covers both strong and weak versions. — S
I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa
I recall seeing this statistic before.
This is an important point. Our choices are not between rational and irrational. Many things, I could make the case for most things, I could even make the case for almost all things, involved with human interactions with the world are non-rational. Certain neurological disorders involving damage to areas of the brain that involve emotion make it so that the afflicted person is unable to make decisions of any sort. — T Clark
S
8.7k
Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic. — Frank Apisa
If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction is a distinction without a difference. It is trivial. So in such cases, it wouldn't matter whether they used "agnostic" or "atheist". — S
Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary. — Frank Apisa
I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism. — Frank Apisa
I don't. — Frank Apisa
People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.
Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists. — Frank Apisa
Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.
There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as unintellectual as THEIST.
Anyone using "atheist" as a discriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."
That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."
I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.
IT IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa
S
8.7k
Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary. — Frank Apisa
No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case. — S
I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism. — Frank Apisa
This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer your question, so long as you're capable of reading between the lines. I told you what the term means, which is obviously how I use it. When I say that I'm an atheist, I'm saying that I'm an atheist of either the strong or weak variety. And I can further clarify if need be, but that's not always necessary. — S
I don't. — Frank Apisa
Well, have you bothered to look into it? — S
People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.
Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists. — Frank Apisa
That ignores my point entirely. — S
Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.
There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as nonintellectual as THEIST.
Anyone using "atheist" as a descriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."
That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."
I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.
IT IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa
The distinction I pointed out is indeed trivial, and your angry semantic rant which misses the point doesn't change that.
I don't care if you'd rather use the terms more narrowly, less usefully, less representative of how they're actually used. You aren't dictator of language use. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.