Jump to content






Photo

Nine Countries are on the Path to Atheism


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:16 AM

According to the study, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, have ever increasing levels of atheists. The Netherlands had the lowest population of atheists at 40%, and the Czech Republic was the highest at 60%.


In 100 years, are these countries going to have any people left?

http://en.wikipedia...._fertility_rate

Australia 1.79
Austria 1.42
Canada 1.53
Czech Republic 1.24
Finland 1.83
Ireland 1.96
Netherlands 1.72
New Zealand 1.99
Switzerland 1.42

Meanwhile, let's look at some religious countries
Afghanistan 7.07
Yemen 5.50
Mauritania 4.37
Iraq 4.26
Sudan 4.23
Haiti 3.54
Saudi Arabia 3.35


Are low birth rates causally connected to atheism?

Ba'al Chatzaf



אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#42 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 19 May 2011 - 07:46 AM

According to [Scott's misreading of] the study, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, have ever increasing levels of atheists 'unaffiliated'. The Netherlands had the lowest population of atheists 'unaffiliated'at 40%, and the Czech Republic was the highest at 60%.


In 100 years, are these countries going to have any people left?

Some of the currently low birth-rate countries have long been aware of demographic reality: well-educated Westerners and well-educated non-Westerners tend to have fewer children per capita, which can lead to population shrinkage and a reduction in the number of well-educated folks in the work force, which can perhaps lead to economic shrinkage.

The list of countries with high and growing proportions of people reporting no religious affiliation (not atheism) is useful; Chris cross-references this list with each country's native birth-rate (fertility) -- also useful. But to answer the question above, the list needs to be further cross-referenced with two other statistical summaries: net population growth and net in-migration.

http://en.wikipedia...._fertility_rate

Australia 1.79
Austria 1.42
Canada 1.53
Czech Republic 1.24
Finland 1.83
Ireland 1.96
Netherlands 1.72
New Zealand 1.99
Switzerland 1.42


Are low birth rates causally connected to atheism?

No.

First, please correct your misapprehension. The studies adduced by the originating poster do not measure atheism (or agnosticism) at all. He made a category error, and has since not corrected the error despite repeated notices.

Secondly, consider that education (particularly female education) may be related to fertility in a way that Atheism religious non-affiliation is not.

Thirdly, consider that fertility rates by nation are not stable. They move up and down, and so a particular forecast made on the basis of fertility rates (as with Mark Steyn's stupid population thesis for 'Eurabia') can be based on naive assumptions.

Fourthly, consider immigration and naturalization. Consider, perhaps, a country like mine, where policies to encourage and deepen naturalization processes welcome each immigrant and enfold them in cultural expectations. Contrast the US and Canada, where quite similar aggregate demographics are found: Canada assimilates a far higher percentage of immigrants. Canadian indices of economic and social integration are higher. Education and successful common language acquisition are higher.

The bottom line shows both Canada and the USA forecast no decline in population growth in the next fifty years: our two countries (especially Canada) will experience annual growth rates around 1% for the foreseeable future, as will the other countries on Chris's fertility list, Bob. A combination of immigration/integration policy obtains in each of those, with varying outcomes expected of course.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#43 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 19 May 2011 - 08:46 AM


The myth function of religion might be one of the reasons Objectivism is easily seen by many as a religion with Atlas Shrugged as the Objectivist Bible.

So, if Objectivism is to serve as a mythological system, what else is missing from it? Which other important transitions does it not supply metaphors for?

Great suite of questions and interesting sidelights on Campbell's attempts at demystifying mythic cultures and trends. Personally, I find Campbell's work to be interesting but, as the Scottish say, 'not proven.'

I would agree with a thesis that suggests Objectivism provides a framework or skeleton of myth (or, pace Ellen Stuttle, a mythos) in the sense of a powerful and emotionally satisfying story of life and its meaning, of humankind's purpose and of humankind's qualities and drive. But of course, the framework is newish and mostly unelaborated in comparison to other frames that have grown institutions and mass followings or 'cults' . . . it is akin to a/the Myth of America (and even has some of the same cast) as a founding/genesis story, yet as with the Myth Of America, it is contested and reclad in myriad interpretions. The power is rather diffuse and held in common with other mythic traditions. It is non-sectarian -- a strength, and non-sectarian -- a weakness. Someone like me, who contests much of the Randian personal myth, can go along with the skeleton (Reason, Freedom, Justice) but be appalled at its crusts and cladding. For me personally, there is a hole in Objectivism as Myth -- it does not satisfy me emotionally in my understanding of human nature. It does not speak to me or resonate with me in its various applications to date. It has not built a unity or capitalized its universalism effectively.

I love the Myth of America (Reason, Freedom, Justice) in its universalism and its ecumenicalism, but do not similarly live by any Myth Of America (Rand) . . . if you can see the difference.

As you allude to, Ninth, Objectivism has little ritual besides self-aware identification and value-reinforcement (or even a type of psychological visibility) to accompany life passages, though Rand's fiction can offer balm and identification to a youngster navigating adolescence.

To someone navigating other life crises or communal/familial passages, it offers not so much, and compared to other existing systems of myth, it seems to offer nothing of the same order -- no communal precincts, supplications, celebrations and rites of passage. So, on the face of it, Objectivism can never provide a mythic system that approaches the power and institutional depth of its 'competitors.' It simply was not built as any kind of Total System Of Thought And Behaviour And Guide To Living -- though some Objectivish folk try to use it as such. There is no uniting ritual that could ever collect its adherents and believers to assemble under one tent. Fisticuffs would erupt at the first ecumenical blessing, as High Priestess Diana Hsieh can attest . . .

But, and more interestingly, further Objectivish/Objectivist myths have grown, like a million mini-myth polyps on a coral reef.

Mini-mythic guides to good living: Objectivish parenting, Objectivish eating, Objectivish sharia and fatwa, Objectivish exercise, Objectivish gardening, Objectivish marriage, Objectivish death rites, Objectivish communal rites.

Edited by william.scherk, 19 May 2011 - 08:51 AM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#44 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 19 May 2011 - 12:39 PM

Someone like me, who contests much of the Randian personal myth, can go along with the skeleton (Reason, Freedom, Justice) but be appalled at its crusts and cladding. For me personally, there is a hole in Objectivism as Myth -- it does not satisfy me emotionally in my understanding of human nature. It does not speak to me or resonate with me in its various applications to date. It has not built a unity or capitalized its universalism effectively.

I love the Myth of America (Reason, Freedom, Justice) in its universalism ...

Mini-mythic guides to good living: Objectivish parenting, Objectivish eating, Objectivish sharia and fatwa, Objectivish exercise, Objectivish gardening, Objectivish marriage, Objectivish death rites, Objectivish communal rites.


William,

Despite what I've read of yours in the past, what makes me strongly believe that you already are a de facto Objectivist? "Reason, Freedom, Justice" - and (I notice) a strong independence of mind - is all it takes... well, for me.
Where did all the "crusts and cladding" come from, if not from those who cynically want a power-base, or, innocently, desire to create a 'mythos' for Objectivism?
In contradiction to Rand's independence credo.

I'm fond of applying 'imagination tests', and here's an simple one: imagine that the Ayn Rand Scrolls had only been unearthed to the light of day, now, 500 years after being written.
No hoopla, no fuss, no personalities, and no organized orthodoxies or schisms. Would her fundamental message 'carry' to me?
Hell, yes, I'd say.
To you?

Objectivism starts and ends with the individual, and protesteth all you wish, I view you as pretty much Objectivish.


Tony
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#45 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 19 May 2011 - 01:21 PM

That is why Rand went too far with man-as-God or man as a god or godlike man or even man as a heroic being.

The idea of "man-as-God" could indicate that that the god principle has not really been abandoned.
Interesting in this context is an article by Murray Rothbard wrote in 1972: http://www.lewrockwe...rothbard23.html

[M. Rothbard]:
Just as every Christian is supposed to aim at the imitation of Christ in his own daily life, so every Randian was supposed to aim at the imitation of John Galt (Rand’s hero of heroes in Atlas.) He was always supposed to ask himself in every situation "What would John Galt have done?" When we remind ourselves that Jesus, after all, was an actual historical figure whereas Galt was not, the bizarrerie of this injunction can be readily grasped. (Although from the awed way Randians spoke of John Galt, one often got the impression that, for them, the line between fiction and reality was very thin indeed.)


Whether atheism grows or not, I believe myths are going to be with mankind for a long time to come. (Hell, even Atlas Shrugged is full of myths, both antique historical ones and and new modern ones Rand created).

The myth function of religion might be one of the reasons Objectivism is easily seen by many as a religion with Atlas Shrugged as the Objectivist Bible.

From Rothbard's article: http://www.lewrockwe...rothbard23.html

[M. Rothbard]:
The Biblical nature of Atlas for many Randians is illustrated by the wedding of a Randian couple that took place in New York. At the ceremony, the couple pledged their joint devotion and fealty to Ayn Rand, and then supplemented it by opening Atlas – perhaps at random – to read aloud a passage from the sacred text.


Edited by Xray, 19 May 2011 - 01:48 PM.


#46 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 19 May 2011 - 03:55 PM

Only a woman could have written Atlas Shrugged. Only an adolescent could have imagined the major heroic characters' psychological essentialities cutting out many of humanity's necessities.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#47 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 19 May 2011 - 06:02 PM

I don't suppose there is a snowball's chance in hell that one of those nations would be Israel?

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#48 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 19 May 2011 - 06:05 PM

Only an adolescent could have imagined the major heroic characters' psychological essentialities cutting out many of humanity's necessities.

--Brant


No assumptions. No history. Before Atlas, my utopia was Brave New World/ No parents. Drugs. Sex. Never understood why Savage killed himself.

But Atlas as OK. Funny thing, as I got older, the characters got deeper. Finally, Dagny seemed way too young to be running a railroad.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#49 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:58 AM


So, if Objectivism is to serve as a mythological system, what else is missing from it? Which other important transitions does it not supply metaphors for?

I was thinking some more about this, and thought of the example of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote a very influential book on education, called Émile. But in life, Rousseau never raised any children, by his own report having delivered all of his to a foundling’s home. So, he was writing about something he didn’t know much about, certainly not from experience. I guess my point is maybe it’s a good thing Rand didn’t write about her heroes taking on the challenge of bearing and raising children, since that wasn’t something she did, or wanted to do.

http://en.wikipedia....r,_On_Education

When scientists present their experiments and theories, the scientific community will scrutinize them, detecting possible errors, etc.
But who does the reality litmus test of ideas provided by philosophers? Again, it is often science which exposes philosophers' premises as false.

But which philosopher has actively invited the public to test his/her theories?
Which philosopher has had the courage, in case his/her theory turned out be wrong (and its wrongness has been discovered during the philosopher's lifetime) to admit: "I was in error?"

Edited by Xray, 20 May 2011 - 11:25 AM.


#50 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 20 May 2011 - 11:44 AM



So, if Objectivism is to serve as a mythological system, what else is missing from it? Which other important transitions does it not supply metaphors for?

I was thinking some more about this, and thought of the example of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote a very influential book on education, called Émile. But in life, Rousseau never raised any children, by his own report having delivered all of his to a foundling's home. So, he was writing about something he didn't know much about, certainly not from experience. I guess my point is maybe it's a good thing Rand didn't write about her heroes taking on the challenge of bearing and raising children, since that wasn't something she did, or wanted to do.

http://en.wikipedia....r,_On_Education

When scientists present their experiments and theories, the scientific community will scrutinize them, detecting possible errors, etc.
But who does the reality litmus test of ideas provided by philosophers? Again, it is often science which exposes philosophers' premises as false.

But which philosopher has actively invited the public to test his/her theories?
Which philosopher has had the courage, in case his/her theory turned out be wrong (and its wrongness has been discovered during the philosopher's lifetime) to admit: "I was in error?"

Theories can't be right qua theories unless they are falsifiable. Two of the four basic principles of Objectivism, metaphysics and epistemology or reality and reason, are basically axiomatic, therefore legitimately not falsifiable, and are both common to it and science and the notion of falsifiability itself. The third and fourth basic principles of the philosophy are logically derived from the first two and are essentially individualistic. But this doesn't tell us how the flowers will or must grow off these principles. Rand told us, however, with a very constricted view of human nature controversial in itself. What is needed is a better, deeper and broader understanding of actual human nature than "selfishness" or "rational self interest" and caution with the idea of the radical political transmogrification of society into pure capitalism.

--Brant
my philosophy, your philosophy, we've all got unfalsifiable philosophies, the operating software of human consciousness
edit: Objectivism seems to be more man than woman oriented and I think men are more easily dealt with philosophically if women are mostly ignored

Edited by Brant Gaede, 20 May 2011 - 11:47 AM.

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#51 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 May 2011 - 01:37 PM

Only a woman could have written Atlas Shrugged.


In large parts, yes. Imo no male writer would e. g. have portrayed the three male heroes as a-sexual when it comes to their desire for other women aside from Dagny.

Young Galt merely 'watches' Dagny for about twelve (!) years,
As for D'Anconia, he has no sexual relationship with any other woman during all his years as a 'playboy'.
Rearden loses sexual interest for Lilian after only one(!) week, but seems to have no desire to sexually replace Lilian with other female company instead. Not a very plausible situation for a young man like Rearden, is it.

Only an adolescent could have imagined the major heroic characters' psychological essentialities cutting out many of humanity's necessities.

Ayn Rand never stopped loving Cyrus, the hero of the stories she read as a nine-year-old.
This seems to be another almost exclusively female phenomenon: girls having idolizing 'crushes' on fictional characters on whom they don't have to do a reality test.

Edited by Xray, 21 May 2011 - 02:09 AM.


#52 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 May 2011 - 02:19 PM

What is needed is a better, deeper and broader understanding of actual human nature than "selfishness" or "rational self interest" and caution with the idea of the radical political transmogrification of society into pure capitalism.

These are THE key issues when it comes to scrutinizing Objectivism.
What exactly IS "selfishness"?
Is it a "virtue"? A virtue one has to struggle to attain?
Or is selfishness something else altogether: A biological drive? A drive which we all possess, without exception, the reason being that this drive is essential for our survival?

Edited by Xray, 20 May 2011 - 03:18 PM.


#53 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 20 May 2011 - 03:02 PM


What is needed is a better, deeper and broader understanding of actual human nature than "selfishness" or "rational self interest" and caution with the idea of the radical political transmogrification of society into pure capitalism.

[subsequently edited by Xray--see original] These are THE key issues when it comes to scrutinizing Objectivism.
What exactly IS "selfishness"?
Is it a "virtue"? A virtue one has to struggle to attain?
Or is selfishness something else altogether: A biological drive? A drive which we all possess, without exception, the reason being that this drive is essential for our survival?

Of course selfishness is a biological drive and it's common to all organisms. It's why they exist. Plants are selfish plants and animals are selfish animals.

--Brant
you take this discussion from there, not before there--why?--it saves mucho time

Edited by Brant Gaede, 20 May 2011 - 03:24 PM.

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#54 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 20 May 2011 - 03:09 PM

Now, is selfishness a virtue? Basic selfishness simply is. The virtue is understanding you have the right to your own life and happiness--their pursuit--and what you give and extend to others redounds to that and comes from the psychological and material surplus one acquires in life and is in itself no moral obligation whatsoever for obligations do not rule you, you rule you. But the moral factor is still incomplete which brings in the matter of individual rights and social existence beyond mere family or tribal existence--civilization itself, if you will.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#55 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 20 May 2011 - 03:16 PM

The quickest, most moral way to transform society for the better is simply to focus on individual rights and their essentially moral nature and not on the practicality of economics or to be champions of capitalism, for the last has too much negative mixed-economy, cultural ballast. When we think of capitalism today we end to see giant corporate state-sanctioned entities feeding at the public trough of special legislation and subsidy at the expense of the rest of us.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#56 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 May 2011 - 03:31 PM

You quoted three lines of me but the garbled first line isn't mine.

Sorry about my sloppy typing. I have corrected it.

Of course selfishness is a biological drive and it's common to all organisms. It's why they exist. Plants are selfish plants and animals are selfish animals.

--Brant
you take this discussion from there, not before there--why?--it saves mucho time

I just wanted to make sure to establish a common ground we all can agree on (including Objectivists): selfishness is a biological drive.
In case there are no objections, we'll take it from there.

Edited by Xray, 20 May 2011 - 03:31 PM.


#57 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 20 May 2011 - 05:24 PM



Of course selfishness is a biological drive and it's common to all organisms. It's why they exist. Plants are selfish plants and animals are selfish animals.

--Brant
you take this discussion from there, not before there--why?--it saves mucho time

I just wanted to make sure to establish a common ground we all can agree on (including Objectivists): selfishness is a biological drive.
In case there are no objections, we'll take it from there.


Yeah, shell-fish are selfish, too, you know...

All organisms are selfish to the limit of their nature. Automatically.

Only Man has to make the conscious choice to be rationally selfish.
As the only self-directed and self-generating animal - he has to apply his mind deliberately.
Secondly, and especially, is his endeavor towards rational selfishness critical, given the background of a culture that preaches it to be the nearest thing to a sin.

Your regular arguments that a. all animals have the instinct to survive, and are 'selfish' as well; b. all men are 'selfish', anyway - ignore and undermine Man's specific volitional nature, by trying to make it a "biological drive." Or, an explicit morality of selishness, redundant. You can't have it both ways.
If a man wants to only survive, he can do only that, semi-consciously.
But if he wants to survive, AND also live to the limits of his nature and personal potential, more effort is needed, with an ethical base of rational egoism.

In case there are no objections, we'll take it from there.


Tony
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#58 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 May 2011 - 08:11 AM

The problem Myers has with so-called dictionary atheists is that this rough grouping of opinion seems (to him) to have no agenda or rather disdains any agenda such as the ones he operates under; his dictionary atheists sometimes want to trump all other non-believers and pretend that ALL non-believers should simply say they 'have no faith in god[s]' -- and leave it at that -- as if there were no other useful arguments or actions to bring against religionauts.

I understand his being irked at the generality some of his targets use, which is something like this: "ALL atheism is simply a lack of faith in god[s] and to do anything with a lack of faith besides shut up is WRONG and Not Helpful."

-- you may or may not be familiar with a few notable science-promoting opinion-makers like (acknowledged atheists) Chris Mooney or (agnostic) Michael Ruse who quite fiercely attack fellow non-believers for Not Being Nice.

The targets of Mooney and Ruse and similar are Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris, who are characterized as The New Atheists. For Mooney/Ruse-ish folks, the basic problem is tactics -- they believe or seem to believe that attacking odious religion is Not Nice and will tend to drive away middle-of-the-roaders who would otherwise accept the need for a separation between science and state, or who would otherwise support teaching evolution in the schools, or who would join with atheist/agnostics in working against some of the pernicious effects of religious nutcases, laws, prejudices, etcetera.

I think it is fair to say that non-believers come from every background and demographic. I find it a little bit depressing that Mooney, Ruse et al use unfair arguments, hyperbole, derision and other unreasonable rhetorical strategies to essentially curse the more activist atheists like PZ. One of the most interesting critics of the Mooney/Ruse cohort is the wonderful Ophelia Benson (who writes at the talkshop Butterfies and Wheels and its challenging blog Notes and Comment**).

There is a good take on 'dictionary atheists' at the Urban Dictionary.

You might also get a sense of a certain disdain some Objectivists have for 'militant atheists' or 'rabid atheists' in an exchange between Barbara Branden and Roger Bissell.

I often sigh inwardly that the central, supreme, most important value of Ayn Rand (which I share), Reason, is in all its difficult operation and multiple methodologies simply a badge a few Objectivish folk stick on their breast, rather than an active, constant, challenging and central driving force in their mental lives. Coupled with ignorance and emotion, the Badge of Reason all too often tells you zero nada squat diddly bupkes jack about the actual intellectual integrity of its wearer.


** the mission of B&W: [indent=1][i]Butterflies and Wheels was established in 2002 and has (not surprisingly) evolved since then. At the beginning it focused mainly on various kinds of pseudoscience and epistemic relativism, aka postmodernism. The latter prompted an increasing focus on moral or cultural relativism and a defense of universalism and human rights. This in turn led to concern with the chief opponent of universalism and human rights, which is religion. This then led to interest in the backlash against overt atheism.


Thanks so much much again Wiliam for directing me to some other great links and crucial debates on the subject.

I often sigh inwardly that the central, supreme, most important value of Ayn Rand (which I share), Reason, is in all its difficult operation and multiple methodologies simply a badge a few Objectivish folk stick on their breast, rather than an active, constant, challenging and central driving force in their mental lives. Coupled with ignorance and emotion, the Badge of Reason all too often tells you zero nada squat diddly bupkes jack about the actual intellectual integrity of its wearer.

Nor can a mere 'Badge of Reason' provide any proof whether what these people claim to be reason IS is actually reason, or whether their "rational" decisions are really that rational.
It can happen that mere personal preferences are then erroneously presented as 'rational' choices.

Edited by Xray, 21 May 2011 - 08:38 AM.


#59 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 May 2011 - 08:36 AM


The myth function of religion might be one of the reasons Objectivism is easily seen by many as a religion with Atlas Shrugged as the Objectivist Bible.

Here’s an interesting thought, Campbell discusses how a mythological system serves to help people with the difficult transitions we all have to go through in the different stages of life. The earliest, thus most important, is that of moving from the dependency of childhood into independent adulthood. I think this is where Rand’s fiction works best, I’m thinking particularly of the contrast between Peter Keating and Howard Roark. Keating is still ruled by his mother when he needs to be making his own decisions about what he wants to do with his life. Somewhat problematic is the contrasting portrayal of Roark, who isn’t shown to have ever needed individuation, or rather, to have in any way struggled with it. But, it still works just by portraying the sharp contrast.

I think this is why Rand appeals so much to people in their late teens and early twenties, her work resonates with the struggles we all go through then.

From Nathaniel Branden's The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: http://nathanielbran...nd_hazards.html

NB: In preparation for this presentation, I re-read the opening chapter of “The Fountainhead.” It really is a great book. I noticed something in the first chapter I never noticed before. Consider these facts: The hero has just been expelled from school, he is the victim of injustice, he is misunderstood by virtually everyone, and he himself tends to find other people puzzling and incomprehensible. He is alone; he has no friends. There is no one with whom he can share his inner life or values. So far, with the possible exception of being expelled from school, this could be a fairly accurate description of the state of the overwhelming majority of adolescents. There is one big difference: Howard Roark gives no indication of being bothered by any of it. He is serenely happy within himself. For average teenagers, this condition is agony. They read “The Fountainhead” and see this condition, not as a problem to be solved, but as a condition they must learn to be happy about—as Roark is. All done without drugs! What a wish-fulfillment that would be! What a dream come true! Don’t bother learning to understand anyone. Don’t bother working at making yourself better understood. Don’t try to see whether you can close the gap of your alienation from others, at least from some others, just struggle for Roark’s serenity—which Rand never tells you how to achieve. This is an example of how “The Fountainhead” could be at once a source of great inspiration and a source of great guilt, for all those who do not know how to reach Roark’s state.

I can imagine that youngsters (who are naturaly often tormented by self-consciousness) who read Roark's "I'm not not thinking of you" are far more susceptible to this statement than adults with more life experience.
Imo Roark is Rand's most problematic character, having some personality traits which one can only hope no reader was trying to emulate in real life.

Edited by Xray, 21 May 2011 - 08:38 AM.


#60 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 21 May 2011 - 08:54 AM

It can happen that mere personal preferences are then erroneously presented as 'rational' choices.

Yes, of course, they are "mere" because they are "personal preferences" and therefore(?) irrational(?) and, of course, the volk is a higher level of rationality and morality!

--Brant
a distant mirror--that's me

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users