It depends on your god. — Ludwig V

That would make sense. But the cycle of humiliation and violence wears many different masks. Like the weird theological party within Billiards at Half Past Nine. You are what you eat.

I dunno, this whole idea, that religion is bad and that we therefor should just do away with it, seems rather shallow to me. — ChatteringMonkey

It doesn't matter. When we lose interest or belief in one kind of madness, we always find another to take its place.

You’re right to be scared of A.I.,
On Monday, researcher Geoffrey Hinton, known as “The Godfather of AI,” said he’d left his post at Google, citing concerns over potential threats from AI development. Google CEO Sundar Pichai talked last month about AI’s “black box” problem, where even its developers don’t always understand how the technology actually works.

Why These Scientists Fear Contact With Space Aliens: The more we learn about the cosmos, the more it seems possible that we are not alone. The entire galaxy is teeming with worlds, and we’re getting better at listening — so the question, “Is there anybody out there?” is one we may be able to answer soon.

I don't think it's about fear necessarily.

"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering (Nietzsche)"

I think we want to see our actions framed in a larger whole ideally, so they become infused with some kind of meaning.

"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering (Nietzsche)" — ChatteringMonkey

He was a poor, sick man. I wasn't. Different experiences lead to different conclusions.

I think we want to see our actions framed in a larger whole ideally, so they become infused with some kind of meaning. — ChatteringMonkey

Some do, some don't; some find it, some receive it, some invent it; some join organizations, armies, movements to be "part of something greater than themselves", some prefer interactions on a small scale, some are loners; some crave ideals, or truths or certitudes; some crave power, wealth or social status; some crave love but will take revenge instead; some cry, some laugh, some lie, some work, some pray, some fight; all die.

You ask me this because I attempted to confront the reality of the twentieth century? — Jamal

No , I commented earlier on a balanced viewpoint you posted. So, I am asking about YOUR interpretation, that YOU label 'confront the reality of the twentieth century.'
A lot of good work done by humans that improved the lives of many, happened in the 20th century, same with the 19th and 18th and hopefully it will be the same for the 21st.

Why should I be an optimist? Seriously, why? — Jamal

Wow! why the passion? It sounds like you give a f***! Maybe that's why we will, and can do better despite past failures such as the USSR and RED China, both now ruled by capitalist elites, and current failures such as the UK and the USA, who are also ran under uncontrolled/very poorly constrained capitalism. Why should you be an optimist? How about, to add to our chances of doing better.
Just another voice that says 'yes we can' as opposed to 'nah, were all doomed.' helps imo.

This is a venue for philosophical thinking and discussion, not for atheist proselytizing or rousing the masses into revolutionary fervour. — Jamal

Does philosophical thinking and discussion not include discussing atheism versus theism?
Anything that comes out of such discussion that some would label 'proselytizing' or 'rousing the masses,' others may interpret, as the welcome output/results of honest debate. I am personally with the latter group.

Optimism is often facile and banal. — Jamal

Is this your honest answer to my question 'are you another pessimist?'

The optimist cannot despair, but neither can he know genuine hope, since he disavows the conditions that make it essential.
— Terry Eagleton, Hope Without Optimism

The title is where I'm at: hope without optimism.

Or is it the other way around? — Jamal

I will leave you and Terry Eagleton to debate that one.
I am BOTH hopeful and optimistic, so I don't understand the use of a notion such as 'hope without optimism,' but perhaps you have read more on such philosophy than I.
It what way does a 'hopeful optimist' disavow the conditions that make such essential.
In what way do you assume that I personally disavow conditions that would help improve the human experience?

if the Nazis are Christian, then — unenlightened

1939 Germans were both, though not because one implies the other.
1929 Fascist Italy made Catholicism the State religion; in 1938 they made some moves against Jews, Evangelicals, Pentecostals.

"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering (Nietzsche)"
— ChatteringMonkey

He was a poor, sick man. I wasn't. Different experiences lead to different conclusions. — Vera Mont

I don't think so, It's probably as close to an universal human psychological truth you can come. Maybe you could say he probably saw it a bit more clearly because of his illness.

Some do, some don't; some find it, some receive it, some invent it; some join organizations, armies, movements to be "part of something greater than themselves", some prefer interactions on a small scale, some are loners; some crave ideals, or truths or certitudes; some crave power, wealth or social status; some crave love but will take revenge instead; some cry, some laugh, some lie, some work, some pray, some fight; all die. — Vera Mont

Sure, I'm an atheist and I don't have any particular need for religion, I just think a lot of people probably do.

Sure, I'm an atheist and I don't have any particular need for religion, I just think a lot of people probably do. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is fair to an extent. I would just change the need to want, meaning I could live without religion. I just don't want to.

Part of the assumption many make is that the religious irrationally rely upon the impossible in order to cope, as if they possess a fragility non-believers don't have. That's really not the case, and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful. I'm much opposed to proselytizing because I think it's annoying, condescending, and generally ineffective. I don't think people come to religion through badgering and I don't think it matches many people's personality types. If an atheist tells me they are fully happy without religion, I would have no reason to doubt that.

Optimism is often facile and banal. — Jamal

Yeah, well you know my views on this, which is radical optimism.

Part of the assumption many make is that the religious irrationally rely upon the impossible in order to cope, as if they possess a fragility non-believers don't have. That's really not the case...

It would be more accurate to say, "That's not always the case.", rather than, "That's not really the case."

My own mother has told me that she thinks she would go insane if she didn't have her (Christian) religious beliefs. Of course that's merely an anecdote, and I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to what percentage of Christians might think similarly, but there are certainly cases where inability to cope (or at least fear of inability to cope) plays a role.

I have a huge amount of experience over the past 15 years of engaging in what I'll call "long game internet forum dialog with Christian apologists". On the basis of that large amount of experience (but with a biased sample due to the fact that the Christians I was engaged in discussion with were particularly motivated to try to present effective apologetics for their beliefs) my impression is that that subpopulation of Christians sincerely believe that their Christianity was much more reasonable to believe than not believe.) There is a lot of unwillingness to question intuitions on the part of that set of Christians, but I don't see emotional fragility as playing any huge role in their thinking.

Another large group I would point out, is people whose beliefs are to a substantial degree tribal, and believing as they do is just part of what their tribe does. There is definitely an element of emotional vulnerability for that group, and while they may not fear for their sanity if they were to stop believing they do face a significant threat of loss of their support network if they were to stop believing.

Undoubtedly there are many other psychological factors that could be brought up, but I think that is a sufficient sample to show that your statement above is an overgeneralization.

...and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful.

In the case of Christianity, which is the religion I have by far the most experience with, there is the matter of the "great commission", or a moral obligation to try to save one's fellow man from going to hell. Not to say that believers don't tend to think non-believers are missing out, but that there are factors that vary from religion to religion. (And denomination to denomination.)

I'm much opposed to proselytizing because I think it's annoying, condescending, and generally ineffective. I don't think people come to religion through badgering and I don't think it matches many people's personality types. If an atheist tells me they are fully happy without religion, I would have no reason to doubt that.

I've heard a similar perspective from every Jew I can remember having a relevant discussion with, and it is certainly something I can appreciate, about discussing religion with Jews as compared to Christians. (Although I typically enjoy discussing religion with anyone if I am not feeling pressed for time, and I have the impression that the person I am engaged in discussion with can handle it if I don't 'pull my punches'.)

Again though, there is the matter of different religions motivating different attitudes to the issue of proselytization.

radical optimism — Hanover

Sounds all right. It’s the triumphal rhetorical banalities I don’t like.

That's really not the case, and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful. — Hanover

Why waste it on those who have lived in a religious environment and rejected it? Very few people have been complete strangers to religious ideas and need to be informed. Most unbelievers came to their unbelief through experience and do know exactly what they're missing - what they often feel they have escaped from. In many cases I know of, atheists had simply stopped believing over time because they found the doctrine unconvincing. None of these people will be lured back into the fold by someone saying, "But it works for me."

I'm sooooooooooo not interested in the scoreline.

But there is a story, sometimes called "The Greatest Story Ever Told", of a unique moment - but every moment is unique - yes but this was different - an injection into history of a new factor, a new start that made every moment thereafter also potentially a new start. Like the way no one can run a mile in under 4 minutes, everyone knew that, until Roger Bannister did, and thereafter, it became possible. Like the way society was caught in an eye for an eye mutual blindness, until someone invented forgiveness.

And the question that interests me is not whether the story is true; the story reverberates through history for 2,000 years, and that a made up story can have such power is more miraculous than the miracles it recounts. that it can change a life at this great a remove is utterly fantastic, and an everyday occurrence.

History is broken and remade by - fiction? That much is undeniable. And that is worth consideration by any philosopher.

Your post is mostly misguided, but I will say that the point of “hope without optimism” is that optimism in effect dismisses the horrors that people have experienced, because it is a temperamental and unearned turning away from reality in favour of an imagined great future; and without knowing and feeling the horror, it negates hope in the most meaningful sense, namely the yearning for a better world in the midst of the lived and felt reality of hell on Earth.

The optimist thinks it will happen, come what may, thus nothing already experienced matters at all. In contrast, the hoper wants it to happen, despite everything.

It was partly your posts that prompted me to write this hammily rhetorical stuff a few months ago:

The idea of general progress is necessarily one of forgetting. It sits alongside a dismissive attitude to suffering, a callous and shallow triumphalism (I know because I was guilty of this myself). Not only that, but the narrative offers either the present day or a future utopia as a stand-in for the Day of Judgement, or perhaps for heaven, and it begins to look like a matter of faith. Faith that progress can redeem humanity, that everything will be worth it in the end.

The truth is that nothing can absolve humanity of its crimes and nothing can make up for the suffering of the past, ever. Nothing and nobody will redeem humanity. Nothing will make it okay, and we will never be morally cleansed. We certainly ought to strive for a good, free society, but it will never have been worth it. — Jamal

Why waste it on those who have lived in a religious environment and rejected it? Very few people have been complete strangers to religious ideas and need to be informed. Most unbelievers came to their unbelief through experience and do know exactly what they're missing - what they often feel they have escaped from. In many cases I know of, atheists had simply stopped believing over time because they found the doctrine unconvincing. None of these people will be lured back into the fold by someone saying, "But it works for me." — Vera Mont

I'm in favor of whatever reason proposed for not trying to proselytize, so if that's another reason, then that's good by me.

I've known people of all stripes: those that never considered religion, those that had it and left it, those that left it and returned, those that never left it, and those that weren't ever totally sure where they stood.

Like I said, it's really none of my concern to figure out where you are and to try to move you.

Like I said, it's really none of my concern to figure out where you are and to try to move you. — Hanover

Likewise! Now, if only we could translate that healthy attitude to the political arena....

The optimist thinks it will happen, come what may, thus nothing already experienced matters at all. In contrast, the hoper wants it to happen, despite everything. — Jamal

But who wouldn't be a hoper in your scenario? It would seem I could think the past has borne nothing of worth or value but stil hope tomorrow it will. Hoping is just wishing. I wish I would win the lottery, even though I never play it.

For hope to have any value, you must have the optimism it can happen. That is what causes you to act. The thought it can occur is what motivates you. Without it, you never ask that girl out, apply for that job, are do whatever you think is a risk taking venture that might pay dividends.

I realize it’s a fine distinction and I’m just trying it out.

For hope to have any value, you must have the optimism it can happen — Hanover

No, that’s still just hope. The way I’m using the terms right now, optimism is when you believe it will happen. When you believe it can happen, and you want it, that’s hope.

Hope’s value doesn’t come from some will to believe or some such personal courage, but from one’s experience of bad stuff.

Faith is hope accompanied by delusional optimism that good things will come to those who believe with all their heart, do not doubt regardless of the way things seem to be, and do what one should do... no matter what happens. "Walk by faith, not by sight" is a common characterization of such a mindset. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one who has faith is absolutely certain that good things will happen when they do what's right. That mindset is glorified in Christianity. It is something for everyone to aspire towards. It most often transforms into giving all glory to God. When something good does happen after all sorts of bad stuff, or anything at all deemed good or fortunate happens - regardless of the recent patterns of 'good and bad' stuff 'happening', the automated response is...

"Thank God!"

This sort of thinking completely neglects or completely misunderstands causality, and completely neglects to focus upon and consider the active everyday efficacious primary role that one plays in one's own life.

One silver lining of hope accompanied by unwavering optimism is that hopeful people do tend to be happier and more positive, generally speaking(whether delusional or not). Positive mindsets and positive thinking can be the crucial difference between recognizing potential opportunities or not. One drawback, is that when one does take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself, if they "walk by faith", that person will give all the glory to God and take no credit, thereby reducing their own ability to recognize how important their own role was in making it happen. It also further reinforces both, a misattribution of causality, and the tendency towards seeing oneself as an extra in their own life(God is in control after-all, and when unexpected bad stuff happens, it's all somehow a part of God's plan).

Understanding one's own role helps one to be more positive, hopeful(well-grounded), and most importantly... prepared. The last bit is the key often neglected by those who 'walk by faith', particularly if they do not have a decent grasp upon how the world works(causality).

Good luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

I'm with you on that, not being a believer myself. But I think it's fair to say that the majority of believers have never been asked to do those terrible things by their god.

I'm not defending the right of such aberrations to exist, but they will exist nonetheless, and all kinds of horrors driven by ideologies, not to mention horrors which have nothing necessarily to do with religion or any other ideology, such as serial killers and pedophiles.

I'm with you on that, not being a believer myself. But I think it's fair to say that the majority of believers have never been asked to do those terrible things by their god. — Janus

No... just to support their religious leaders' right to do those things. Much like the political extremists: most of us don't actually do it; all we do is vote for it, finance it and defend it.

To the OP...

Would Occam's razor be considered "atheist dogma"?

:brow:

No. I think I just used it in my last post.

Observation: there is a Story of a man who taught love and was killed and lived again. That story has permeated the culture of what its inhabitants like to call 'the civilised world', and transformed millions of lives.

Conclusion: it may not be true, but it certainly has huge significance. Use the razor to outline the significance, not to to chop away the fact of it.

In relation to the op then, can you put your finger on the "dogma" or even the ideology involved here, which could motivate this sort of atheist politicism. Surely the issue is more complex than the "fact/value" distinction of the op. It appears to me like the proper subject matter would be better described as the power/money relation. The relation of fact over value does not seem to have the same motivating force as the relation of power over money. "Value" and "money" are comparable, which would mean that the dogma which motivates such an atheist movement is power based rather than fact based. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don’t think they’re competing explanations. I’d say that the power/money ideologies build upon the fact/value separation, because the reduction of values to subjective preferences—this being the corollary of the triumphant objectivity of science and the profit-driven progress of technology—entails, through its removal of meaning from the social and natural whole, a norm of rational behaviour where the means are paramount, and the ends are the unexamined personal preferences conditioned by a socially stratified society, i.e., status, power, wealth.

Obviously this is not to say that power and wealth were not pursued in the era of enchantment.

No... just to support their religious leaders' right to do those things. Much like the political extremists: most of us don't actually do it; all we do is vote for it, finance it and defend it. — Vera Mont

Of course, you are right that this sometimes happens, and that some of us vote for, and defend military action and spending on "defense". But I think it should be acknowledged that some of those who vote for political leaders who opt for military involvements in other countries and promote massive defense budgets, may not have specifically voted for those things, but voted on the strength of agreeing with their favored party's policies on other issues that concern them more.

I realize that you've had a long dialogue about this already. Perhaps you're bored with it. But if I'm right that psychopathic behaviour is part of the human condition, removing religion may reduce the opportunities, but won't cure the problem. Those personalities will just find other ways to wreak havoc on the rest of us. I'm not saying there's nothing we can do about them, just that it's will be a continuous battle. Remember the slogan that freedom is not a place you arrive at and relax. It always needs defending. — Ludwig V

I think it's about reducing injustice and creating a more equitable and balanced experience for all humans from cradle to grave. For most or perhaps all of the last say, 10,000 years, the battle for fair and just treatment for all, has indeed been a continuous battle. But irrefutable improvements have been achieved. Life for most is not as bad as it was in say, the days of Spartacus imo.
I think the human experience will be much better in the future than it was in the past, because for many, its much better now than it was in the past. I don't think the 'continuous battle' you seem to be suggesting MUST be a permanent state of life for most humans due to some obscure dictate that humanity is too inherently flawed.

Your post is mostly misguided, but I will say that the point of “hope without optimism” is that optimism in effect dismisses the horrors that people have experienced, because it is a temperamental and unearned turning away from reality in favour of an imagined great future; and without knowing and feeling the horror, it negates hope in the most meaningful sense, namely the yearning for a better world in the midst of the lived and felt reality of hell on Earth.

The optimist thinks it will happen, come what may, thus nothing already experienced matters at all. In contrast, the hoper wants it to happen, despite everything. — Jamal

I don't value or garnish anything compelling from your depiction of optimism or hope in the way you present them in the above quote. This approximately 3 min offering from a holocaust survivor, talks a little about the future and he employs no religious doctrine, in doing so.
Do you think that I agree with what he says due to some 'temperamental,' 'unearned' notion of empathy?
I have never experienced anything like he did, but I think his optimism shows him to be someone who believes that humans can and WILL do better in the future by learning from the horrors he describes. He even says he wishes he had spoken about what he went through/witnessed, much earlier in his life. Optimism and hope feed determination to get more involved in the day to day fight to make things better for people in anyway you can. It is not some 'idealistic' and distant platitude that is ignorant and powerless "in the midst of the lived and felt reality of hell on Earth," that some people are experiencing as I type. It is the opposite of the pessimism that bystands at a distance and exclaims 'well, I am sorry, but that's just the way things are and will always be and there is nothing I can do about it!"
Which of these possible responses to "the horrors that people experience,' do you think is most likely to prevent such horror repeating and expanding to others?

I don’t think they’re competing explanations. I’d say that the power/money ideologies build upon the fact/value separation, because the reduction of values to subjective preferences—this being the corollary of the triumphant objectivity of science and the profit-driven progress of technology—entails, through its removal of meaning from the social and natural whole, a norm of rational behaviour where the means are paramount, and the ends are the unexamined personal preferences conditioned by a socially stratified society, i.e., status, power, wealth. — Jamal

Let me see if I unravel the mysteries of this brief, but extremely complex piece of writing. What I see here, is that you portray the fact/value separation as releasing value from the realm of fact, making values subjective rather than objective. So for example, religion would hold moral values as objectified by God (despite the Euthyphro problem), but the stated separation (apprehended as required by the Euthyphro problem) grounds values in the individual, therefore making them subjective. If we maintain objectivity as the defining feature of "fact", then we drive a wedge between fact and value.

This places the ends (which in Platonic terms would be the goods, as what is desired) firmly within the individuals as inherent within, and intrinsic to the individuals. You characterize them as "unexamined personal preferences", but allow me to qualify this by saying that the ends have varying degrees of having been examined. We might find that people with a lot of ambition, will and determination, practise some degree of self-examination to form and maintain those types of goals you speak of, "status, power, wealth". For these people, with strong will and determination, the ends may remain paramount.

On the other side, "the triumphant objectivity of science", "progress of technology", and the "removal of meaning from the social and natural whole" is accomplished by the very fact that "the means are paramount". By providing (i.e. providing the means) for the fulfillment of natural needs, wants, and desires of the people, the flock is satisfied, satiated, and very rulable. Only the relatively few who develop those higher goals through some degree of self-examination slip through the cracks of those provisions, because these personalized goals require strategy and specialized means.

I believe, this puts "the norm of rational behaviour" in limbo. The reason why I say this is that "rational behaviour", meaning the behaviour of the rational mind in the act of thinking, is an activity of the individual subject. And, rational thinking in its natural state is intentionally directed, directed toward ends. However, the described situation, where "the means are paramount", as the norm, directs the thinking toward the means rather than toward the ends. The result is that "the norm" for rational behaviour is to direct the thinking toward the means rather than the ends. So the type of self-examination, described above, which seeks the true ends (we could say subjective ends are true ends, therefore objective), is outside the norm of rational behaviour, though it is really the natural state of rational behaviour. This leaves a discrepancy in "rational behaviour".

Of course the ensuing issue is the matter of the objectivity of what is called "fact" in the first place. Maintaining that "fact" is objective while value is demonstrated as necessarily subjective, is what allows the wedge to be driven between fact and value in the first place. So to support this division, the objectivity of "fact" must be justified.

But I think it should be acknowledged that some of those who vote for political leaders who opt for military involvements in other countries and promote massive defense budgets, may not have specifically voted for those things, but voted on the strength of agreeing with their favored party's policies on other issues that concern them more. — Janus

Sure. They signed up for the tax cuts, but stayed for the invasions. Exactly like religion. They converted for the promise of eternal life, but stayed on for the witch-burning.