I think you have a point. From a broader perspective though the way I see the process is that Religion was culture; then it became politics; then it became science. Culture itself was fundamentalist in isolated groups and Religion couldn't be separated from it. In order to have a Self at all, you believed and your belief was your Self. There was no other option or reality.

When groups became larger and encountered cultural difference and the potentials of war and trade, religion became about unification and inspiration as a means to maintain the power of the community against external threats. Religions adept at this spread and became dominant. There were other options then--though most people still lived and died under one ideology, there were conversions (even if more often coerced than voluntary). And so some fluidity was introduced into the notion of self.

When technology became a clear edge in war and trade, the scientific and rational thinking it implied gained hegemony, and so now there was a universal "religion" that was a practical reality of everyday life and this implied potentially no religion or every religion. It was up to the philosophers/scientists to sort it out. But of course they could never agree and "selves" were left to pick up the pieces.

The basic movement then would be from Religion/culture to science (as "religion") + religion + "culture". And from Selves to "selves". But "selves" always long to be Selves and in order to do that there must be a movement back to Religion/culture (fundamentalism).

It is more for me than just atheist dogma though, it's cultural fragmentation and the individual fragmentation that that implies.

Yes, agreed.

We are cultural beings. In homo sapiens, evolution has offloaded part of the process that determines how we act from instinctual algorithms (fixed outside of gene-evolution) to knowledge that can be transmitted via language over generations (adaptable via meme-evolution). Because evolution has offloaded a part of our survival-strategy to culture, we are incomplete without it.

The point of a culture however is not only to know precisely what things are, but more importantly to know how we should act. In mytho-religious societies, however imperfect one may think that was, everything was fused into one overacting story... things made sense and actions had meaning in a larger whole.

Socrates thought he was smart to point out (over and over again) that no one could give a reason for why they believed such and such. No individual knows however, because it is a communal process that spans generations, and not a matter of dialectical reason only.

Dialectics are a dissolvent of tradition. In the west however we ran with that, and we (mis)took this purely critical, reductionist and predominately left-brained mode of thought as the only viable way to arrive at anything of value.

Fast forward a couple of millennia, and we more or less got there, we dissolved most of our traditions and also killed god in the process.... Hooray! The problem with this picture however is that we are cultural beings, incomplete without it, and so the void created by dialectics, has to be filled someway somehow. And what better to way to fill the void than with all things our hearts desires, provided in the most effective and efficient way possible, via the markets. Why determine what to value and where to go as a society, if we can just leave that to the invisible hand?

And what better to way to fill the void than with all things our hearts desires, provided in the most effective and efficient way possible, via the markets. Why determine what to value and where to go as a society, if we can just leave that to the invisible hand? — ChatteringMonkey

This is also key. We've outsourced most of the magic of reality into economic efficiency and the consumerism therein implied. Technology lends a hand through the manifestation of media that do what's left of this magic for us. Our function is reduced to survival and etiquette.

2. Establish the scientific method with truth as the only and unquestionable value. — unenlightened

I agree, with the caveat that ‘truth’ ought to be replaced with ‘objective fact’ or ‘measurable outcome’ as the sole arbiter of reality.

However I also think a case can be made that religious authoritarianism and sectarian conflict is what gave rise to the reaction against religion that characterised the Enlightenment. The Articles of the Royal Society, the first true scientific society, specifically prohibited fellows from involvement in questions of metaphysic which were the province of the religious. In part this was because making pronouncements on such matters could result in serious consequences. But these are all very complicated historical matters.

So, childish thinking on both sides. Oh well, lol.

(edited down, because my initial response was a bit too on fire)

“Too on fire”? As opposed to a completely useless comment that contributes absolute zero?
I think I prefer “too on fire”. Lets hear it.

This all seems plausible. Is there justification that it's true, or is it just a general sense of history, society, and culture?

I'll say to you what I said to @Baden - This all seems plausible. Is there justification that it's true, or is it just a general sense of history, society, and culture?

It's a summary of my understanding of longer and more justified material. I'm going to wait to see what @unenlightened says before going further into it. It's a very broad brush relative to the OP.

It's a very broad brush relative to the OP. — Baden

I have no problem with that. I was just curious.

:up:

Well, there is the problem of the title, for a start... After that, it's opinion.

↪ChatteringMonkey

I'll say to you what I said to Baden - This all seems plausible. Is there justification that it's true, or is it just a general sense of history, society, and culture? — T Clark

Yeah from me its the same T Clark. It comes from a broad understanding of history and philosophy... but mainly through a Nietzschian lens I suppose, because he was one of my earlier influences. And that made me look for other, specific things in later readings.

I used to ask myself the same question as you are posing me here now, but about Nietzsche views, about this broad historical arc he seems to be painting. He does seem kinda loose and poetic at times, which makes one wonder, is this just fiction or is this based in reality? But he did have a very deep understanding of history, especially the Greeks through his philology studies.

This question in particular was basically what his entire philosophy was focused on in its different aspects and implications (the value of truth, scientific and the ascetics values, the dead of God etc). From the beginning, even before his first books, in his courses in Basel on the pre-platonics, this was the question he was concerned with, as he uncovers the progression of pre-platonic philosophy becoming more and more materialist :

https://www.amazon.com/Pre-Platonic-Philosophers-International-Nietzsche-Studies/dp/0252074033

And then as you track back his sources, you come across all kinds of material you otherwise wouldn't have. For instance the work of relatively unknown and forgotten philosopher who was a direct predecessor and influence on Nietzsche, Friedrich Albert Lange who wrote a whole book on the history of materialism. This was the question, between Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer, where the whole of German philosophy was apparently revolving around at the time.

But you know, there's a lot to be said on this.... and you can't really paint with a broad brush and go into all the details at the same time.

It's interesting you choose to quote from John. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." 14.6. It strikes me there isn't much in the way of love to be focused on here, and it sounds very much like those who don't accept Jesus--who are not saved thereby--are condemned.

Like the Devil, we all can quote scripture for our own purposes. If that's the case, are we to focus only on the "good" parts, for fear of provoking fundamentalism?

I think religious fundamentalism has been around a very long time. I doubt atheism, however virulent, has been a significant cause of it. I think the exclusive nature of Christianity (as expressed in the quote from John above) and the resulting intolerance is the primary cause. What Scripture says, and its interpretation--the correct interpretation--has been the subject of dispute and violence for centuries, and not because atheists ridicule it, but rather because there were, and are, people who don't accept it or fail to accept it's "true" meaning.

I don't consider myself an atheist, virulent or otherwise, but if we focus on the love expressed in the Gospels or elsewhere, what I would find most offensive is the remarkable lack of it in those who profess to be Christians in the present and in the past.

Pretend not to notice that religious texts, although they do not clearly make the fact/value distinction, are primarily concerned with 'first philosophy' – how one should live, what virtues to cultivate and what vices to resist, and what values to hold to one's heart and live by. — unenlightened

I disagree with the OP. I think the writers of the Bible would have been able to make the distinction between fact and value. The question of whether these things "really happened" came up and was important to ancient people, and there was skepticism among them. That was around long before Hume. Religion wasn't only about the 'first philosophy' of how to live a good life, it was also making claims about reality and what happened. Ancient people were able to distinguish between parables, myths, or lies versus reality. Otherwise, you wouldn't have passages about the doubting Thomas or reassurances that Noah was a real person and the Flood really happened.

As modern atheists we are not being dogmatic in asking if the claims in the Bible are supported by facts and evidence. Modern theists should have the same attitude. We should all want to know the facts, whether or not they agree with a particular religious tradition.

We should all want to know the facts, whether or not they agree with a particular religious tradition. — GRWelsh

Why is that?

Why should we value facts, in other words? You could argue that without a baseline religion we don't have any justification to value anything -- including facts. The answer may devolve into subjectivity, and you may value, for example, comfort over facts. If so, you may not be that interested learning facts that conflict with your worldview. That might even be the default state for many humans. They have what they believe and dislike anything that conflicts with it -- including new facts. So they reject them. Learning new facts is often uncomfortable or even quite costly. My argument for why we should all want to know the facts is that in the long run it is almost always makes you more survivable and better able to compete against others. Also, if you do value comfort, knowing the facts of reality improves your chances of being able to maintain that comfort more effectively for a longer period of time. Finally, I would say that we should value fact simply because we all have a model of the world in our heads and the default assumption for all of us -- whether we articulate this or not -- is that we want to it match reality as closely as possible. No one models the world so they can be wrong about it.

1. Make a strong fact/value distinction, as per Hume.
2. Establish the scientific method with truth as the only and unquestionable value. — unenlightened

I might eliminate point one in favor of point two. Point one is where the philosophically interesting action is at, at least as I can tell, but I think point two is a far more common point of atheist dogma, and that it is frequently not even viewed as dogma -- making it behave more like an ideology and a dogma in that it's unquestioned by many. And the philosophy has already been written on the questions of science, at least at this level of comprehension -- 20th century analytic philosophy made some great inroads into understanding the beast that is science. But it doesn't look like the pure method of unquestionable truth and value when it comes out after the process of questioning.

Yet even theists will treat it like that.

So critical intelligence is the cause of literal-minded ignorance? Freethinking causes unthinking violence? Logical thinking causes magical thinking? The decentering Mediocrity Principle & Darwinian Evolution cause reactionary Manichaean conspiracies & "end of days" cults? "Atheism" has caused the Christian blood libel of Jews, the Crusades against Muslims, millennia of Hindu castes, well over a millennium of pogroms persecutions tortures and executions of indigenous heathens, "heretics", Jews, Gypsies, "witches", homosexuals, et al culminating in cyclical fraternal blood orgies aka "Wars of Religion" principly in Europe & the Middle East? then modern day Jihadi & Zionist terrorisms? and all In The Name Of God ... "because of the infidels"?! :eyes:

I'd say there's a fair pattern of thought in the OP. Not that this is a good way of thinking, but rather it is a dogmatic way of thinking.

No claims on causes -- but atheists create ideas, including ideas about fundamentalism. This is how I read the OP.

but atheists create ideas, including ideas about fundamentalism. — Moliere

So.... all the bad religious shit listed above is caused by ideas, and since ideas fall into the purview of atheists.... ? I'm not following.
Shouldn't chains of causation have a designated starting-point before they're given credence?

All the bad religious shit listed by may or may not be caused by ideas -- but the idea of the OP is a pattern of thought some atheists adopt.

The OP is strictly speaking about atheist dogma, rather than the other dogmas.

The OP is strictly speaking about atheist dogma — Moliere

Ah! Some atheists are said to adopt a certain pattern of thought, which renders that pattern of thought "atheist dogma" and that is the cause of religious fundamentalism. IOW, "atheist dogma" historically precedes religious dogma and atheists precede religionists, which would at least suggest that atheism caused religion.
I guess I'm still finding that line of thought hard to follow.

So critical intelligence is the cause of literal-minded ignorance? Freethinking causes unthinking violence? Logical thinking causes magical thinking? The decentering Mediocrity Principle & Darwinian Evolution cause reactionary Manichaean conspiracies & "end of days" cults? "Atheism" has caused the Christian blood libel of Jews, the Crusades against Muslims, millennia of Hindu castes, well over a millennium of pogroms persecutions tortures and executions of indigenous heathens, "heretics", Jews, Gypsies, "witches", homosexuals, et al culminating in cyclical fraternal blood orgies aka "Wars of Religion" principly in Europe & the Middle East? then modern day Jihadi & Zionist terrorisms? and all In The Name Of God ... "because of the infidels"?! :eyes: — 180 Proof

Nicely put. :clap: I suspect that religion has increasingly appeared more fundamentalist and inadequate as education and human knowledge have expanded, while the role of god has diminished. No doubt many practitioners of religion have had to double down, become louder and more truth denying in order to justify their unwarranted value systems and supernatural beliefs against reason and scepticism.

My grandma, who was born in the 1880's, was a typical European Christian of her time. In the 1970's she told me no one had ever gotten to the moon because God and heaven 'are in the sky and people can't get there until they die'. So much for post-Nietzschean, death-of-God nihilism. She was a sweet lady, but like most of her kind, celebrated ignorance because it glorified her scriptures and reinforced that faith alone was the right answer to every question. She got there without the help of any atheists.

Is X a dogma when X is demonstrably true? I don't think so.

:flower: Reminds of my Granny ...

The basic movement then would be from Religion/culture to science (as "religion") + religion + "culture". And from Selves to "selves". But "selves" always long to be Selves and in order to do that there must be a movement back to Religion/culture (fundamentalism). — Baden

I take this analysis as possibly descriptive of Western social secular evolution, but I don't know how applicable it is to Near East, Far East, African, South American, and maybe even some even European countries as well. I don't know if you meant it more generally, or whether you were trying to describe just one idiosyncratic system.

I also don't necessarily see religious thought as dominated by secular reasoning as you do, as if it became generally subservient to it, but I see an emergence of separate cultures (religion vs the state) to greater and lesser degrees at odds over time. I also think there have been religious cultures that never wavered and never embraced secular reasoning within this Western culture you describe.

I like the metaphor of the divergent roads of thoughts, one attributed to Athens and the other to Jerusalem. Philosophy versus faith.

I don't deny attempts at melding these positions over time, but I don't accept the notion that the roads ever fully merged but then later diverged again. I see two separate roads with the travellers of each having varying levels of political influence over one another over time, often imposing their values over the other.

My grandma, who was born in the 1880's, was a typical European Christian of her time. In the 1970's she told me no one had ever gotten to the moon because God and heaven 'are in the sky and people can't get there until they die' — Tom Storm

I don't place Granny outside the time period described by @unenlightened in his reference to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. It's dated to beginning in the late 1800s, so Granny doesn't serve as an example of more long standing fundamentalist tradition.

Wiki offers support for this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#:~:text=In%20its%20modern%20form%2C%20it,theological%20liberalism%20and%20cultural%20modernism.

The Christian fundamentalist movement, which is a naive literalism that tries to limit interpretation to the actual text, specifically denying that it requires special understanding, is a new idea.

Using Judaism as its ancient predecessor in interpreting religious text, even though they did believe the Torah the inerrant word of God, never took such a simplistic literalism for interpretation.

Midrashic interpretations are far (far far far) from literal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

Atheism created religious fundamentalism? One of the smells of a bad argument is blaming another side for the worst of people on your side. Stop that. People are good and bad everywhere. You have atheists who are saints and religious people who are sinners. Atheists did not cause you to have sinners.

I don't place Granny outside the time period described by unenlightened in his reference to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. — Hanover

Her chronological time is incidental, her faith came from a direct line going back to before the middle ages. :wink: Nevertheless she was unspoiled by media and modernism. And I wouldn't say she was a fundamentalist, more of a primitivist.

From a broader perspective though the way I see the process is that Religion was culture; then it became politics; then it became science. Culture itself was fundamentalist in isolated groups and Religion couldn't be separated from it. In order to have a Self at all, you believed and your belief was your Self. There was no other option or reality. — Baden

The way I would prefer to start is that religion was abstraction, where abstracts were personified as gods, - wisdom, war, sex, death, etc, because personhood is the natural explanation for everything. The river floods because it is angry, or because it is bountiful, depending on the circumstances. Motion is always the result of motivation. The tide is the slow breathing of the Sea...

Climate, for the ancients is the disposition of Gaia.

The idea of unmotivated motion - of things just rattling around for no reason is a peculiar modern perversion. No, this is nonsense, there is no difficulty about self, and no belief or establishment required. Quite the reverse, that difficulty is created as the result of the Cartesian depersonalisation of the world, that leaves one with thoughtless things, and thinking things, and seemingly no connection between them.

And so in the end there is no reason but my reason — Self has replaced the gods. The Nietzschian Abyss of Self become vacuous arbitrary god.