Non contextual psycho-epistemology

[samr]

I think that religious hatred of atheists as such, and denounciations of atheists as "moral monsters" comes from a very specific logic.

They believe that god is the source of morality, and therefore whoever doesn't believe in god, is immoral. The only problem in belief in god as being a source of morality, is non-contextual.

Suppose that god was real.

Then, every person would come to his knowledge via a difficult road of thinking. And, each would come to it, in his own special way. (If god would really exist). The way one comes to believing in real things is not via hearing a lecturer, or suddenly, but after a long process of thinking.

In a sense, belief is non-contextual. Somebody tells you that the earth is round, and you believe it. You don't need to pass through a way in order to cognize it. To have knowledge, contrary to belief, *you* personally have to make an excruciating process of thinking. A person needs to look at atlases, look at pictures of the earth, know some data, think and reject some hypothesis. (Maybe they all are lying? No, it can't be... - this is actually a hypothesis that a person needs to make and reject in order to gain real knowledge).

So, real knowledge, contrary to belief, cannot be achieved by mere hearing someone and believing him.

The logic of religious persons

1) Belief in god is the source of all morality

2) Atheists are immoral.

(2) does follow from (1).

(1) is probably wrong, but the cause of cultic thinking is not that it is wrong, but that this is non-contextual. If a person would realize that (1) is gained in a personal, contextual way, and not via believing an authority, then even if (1) would be right, then this person would be tolerant, realizing that truth is discovered in a contextual way.

[john42t]

I think that religious hatred of atheists as such, and denounciations of atheists as "moral monsters" comes from a very specific logic.

I think most of it simply comes from experience.

There's rather few atheists that are not at least mildly anti-American welfare-statists.

Those that are strongly atheist in the sense that they talk about it a lot or even attack Christians in debates are virtually all anti-American welfare-statists, if not marxists/feminists or outright Communists. And then there was actually Communism (and Nazism) that Americans fought against.

There is no visible group of atheists who are at least benevolently neutral to American Christians to make up for that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

samr,

There is no logic to most hatred I have seen. It works more or less like this.

1. A person starts by feeling fear, then
   
2. Identifies a threat (often by irrational means) for that fear,
   
3. Scapegoats it (which is usually a group of people) as the source of dirty rotten evil,
   
4. Has this position reinforced by people he feels safe to be around, and
   
5. Repeats this manner of thinking and feeling over and over in his mind until the hatred grows and becomes such an automatic reaction he cannot even tolerate a different opinion from a neutral onlooker.
   

That's for adults.

For a child, it's a little different. He starts by imitating the adults around him. As the adults keep providing examples of their own hatred over and over, and rewarding the child for agreeing, this reinforces his feelings over and over, and his hatred grows as he does.

Either way, it takes a heroic person to break out of that cycle and try to zero his emotions so he can analyze things rationally.

As to religious folks hating atheists, I believe this follows my observations above. Ditto for atheists hating religious folks. And ditto again for one set of religious folks hating another.

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

samr --

"I think that religious hatred of atheists as such, and denounciations of atheists as "moral monsters" comes from a very specific logic."

Michael questions your presumptions regarding the etiology of what you both consider a known hatred. I question whether you are identifying the entity "religious hatred" correctly.

I am a theist, a convert to Roman Catholocism, and I bear no ill will toward atheists. In fact, I prefer dealing with an open-minded, honest atheist, over a closed-minded, dishonest believer. So there is no "religious hatred" here.

[Please understand that if I plagiarize from the Bible below, I am not trying to browbeat you with some stupid argument from authority. The language of Christianity is that: a language, as well as a collected mythos which carries layers of meaning as an entity. Just as you cannot drive a car if you have deconstructed the tires or engine into their component parts, neither can you understand a mythos by deconstructing it. So if I do copy from the Bible, it is only because it says better, in a recognizable form, what I am already trying to say myself.]

According to the Bible *I* read, although it does not preclude the existence or the plenipotentiality of the supernatural, it states that all that can be known about nature and the natural world, including the realm of morality, is open to be discovered in the natural realm, by our natural senses, without the necessity of supernatural interference. Thus I cannot consider verified science and logic as my enemies. But rather I consider the unnatural faith in the second-hand science and logic of others, and its deliberate misapplication to morality, known as scientism, to be anathema. The distinction is not well-understood in popular culture, nor amongst apologists of any persuasion.

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.

As the heavens for height, and the earth for depth, so the mind of kings is unsearchable.

Take away the dross from the silver, and the smith has material for a vessel;

take away the wicked from the presence of the king,

and his throne will be established in righteousness." (Psalm 25:2-5, RSV)

"But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you;

or the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.

Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.

Does not the ear try words as the palate tastes food? (Job 12:7-11, RSV)

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity,

has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse;

for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,

but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God

for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles". (Romans 1:19-23, RSV)

So there is no reason for a believer to "hate" anyone that states that morality is an objective necessity of survival, and is discoverable in reality, nor for the believer to call such a person a "moral monster". But there are those who deny even those objectivist tenets, and choose to use atheism as a smoke screen, to deflect from and to hide their own narcissism and solipsism. The fact is that these latter people are not true atheists, for they do have a God -- themselves -- which they erroneously believe to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Their self-made Gods are usually created in reaction to some untenable experience, entailing an abandonment by, or a violation of trust by, some authority figure earlier in their lives. These are the "moral monsters" who choose to make others live for them, but this is a psychological problem which does not admit of serious philosophical treatment. The reaction to these people by the believer is not hatred, but extreme pity bordering on disgust. Their hell may not be "chosen" in any popular sense of the word, but it is self-imposed.

As far as the honest atheists go, their lack of "faith" for want of a better word, comes down to lack of evidence. I have no need to treat of this here, as when I received the evidence I needed in order to believe, I asked for it for me, not for you. I can't be convinced for you, nor you for me. You can't count on anyone else to figure out for you what and who you believe. Your own personal spiritual journey is your own, it's your own responsibility, and as a wise woman once wrote, "In the Temple of the Spirit, each man stands alone."

But of course, you, being honest, had no intent in confounding the interactions of famous talking heads of the last several hundred years, be they religionists or anti-religionists, with the actions of assorted groups through history. That may be addressed as a question of scale.

The standing-on-one-foot explanation of history:

In at least 5 of the last 6 thousand-odd years of written human history, there has been a global climate shift roughly every 650 years (+/-), resulting in changes of agriculture, food, and wealth-building for various populations. These have resulted in various migrations, both big & small, resulting in conflicts between established populations and new arrivals in assorted areas. Of course these are battles over resources, over who has a stronger population, and who can take what they want. The victors are the ones who write the historical accounts, therefore the vanquished are generally portrayed as having "deserved" what they got, including what Michael identified as "scapegoating" (which, by the way, is a Biblical term). The labels are unimportant; what is important is whatever population (or gang) is ascendent at that time and place. This doesn't matter if we're talkins Rome and Carthage, Moors and Christians, Yorubans and Ibos, Scots and Irish, Serbs and Croats, Russian pograms, or whatever, they ALL follow the same motif: "GIMME !!!" "NO, YOU LEAVE ME & MY STUFF ALONE" And then the biggest badass wins. THE END.

IOW, there's no such thing as religious hatred per se, just variants in gang warfare. The labels don't matter, except to gossips not interested in the truth. Positing a "religious hatred" toward atheists is an unnecessary construct.

steve

p.s. The word is "denunciations". No "o" in it.

[Xray]

I am a theist, a convert to Roman Catholocism, and I bear no ill will toward atheists.

I'm an ex-Roman Catholic turned agnostic (leaning, over the past few years, more and more to the atheist side of the fence).

Just curious: Do you believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine that sees atheists roasting in hell?

http://richarddawkin...l-says-cardinal

[Steve Gagne]

I think we are all amused at stories about superstition, and "how could he possibly believe THAT????"

As far any "doctrine" about atheists roasting in hell goes, some big mouth cardinal shooting from the lip does not constitute doctrine, and his proclamations are probably indicative of where he expects to end up himself. The fullness of Catholic doctrine is found in the Catholic Catechism. Could you, in your righteous erudition, possibly spare a mere uneducated mortal like me the time to find where it states that in the Catechism?

[Xray]

I think we are all amused at stories about superstition, and "how could he possibly believe THAT????"

As far any "doctrine" about atheists roasting in hell goes, some big mouth cardinal shooting from the lip does not constitute doctrine, and his proclamations are probably indicative of where he expects to end up himself. The fullness of Catholic doctrine is found in the Catholic Catechism. Could you, in your righteous erudition, possibly spare a mere uneducated mortal like me the time to find where it states that in the Catechism?

Glad to be of service. In article 1034 from the Catholic Catechism, it says verbatim:

http://www.vatican.v...ism/p123a12.htm

Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.⁶¹⁴ Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"⁶¹⁵ and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"⁶¹⁶

Looks pretty much like a religion based on primitive feelings of revenge, doesn't it. Hardly surprising, when you consider the primitive times when it was founded.

Regardless of the efforts the Catholic Church puts into preserving its irrational dogmatism, individuals using their rational mind just won't believe this anymore.

For correlated to the rise of reason is the dying-out of irrational dogmatism.