I've recently converted to Poetic Naturalism as defined by Sean Carroll in his book The Big Picture. If you want to know what my approach to the problems conscientious atheists must consider, you can read my review of his book here: http://www.rowlandcjohnston.com/
I am wondering how many readers in these forums have considered the importance of appropriating metaphors that accurately and usefully describe the human experience and at the same time express a deeper understanding of the universe.
We need persuasive approaches that educate without offending or upsetting many cherished, deeply held theist beliefs.
The urgency of this problem takes many forms; Carroll offers one particularly striking example: the NABT being forced to back down on its claim that the natural processes of our universe are "unsupervised." (1995)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Why do I need to not upset or offend theist notions ? Why do I need to educate theists?
In my view, educating theists is not an academic exercise. The conjunction of the ascendancy of theism (in sheer numbers of believers) and of access to portable WMDs presents a clear threat to the advancement of our species.
The best way to change deeply held beliefs is first to identify with them.
@Rowland:
"The best way to change deeply held beliefs is first to identify with them."
How does that work? Do I have to become a neo-nazi or white supremacist in order to persuade people to abandon those crackpot ideas? Your comment about theists with WMDs suggests that religions are few rungs below nazis on the moral evolutionary ladder.
Empathy is a deep subject, Algebe, and I mean that in as many ways as you can possibly interpret it, far beyond what I'm imagining now.
I have not yet explored the ontology of memes, but there is certainly nothing about them that can violate the laws of physics.
How coherently can a poetic naturalist talk about "spirituality," in the sense that our species experiences a oneness-by-identification?
(O.K, that's going to need a lot of work. But we don't have to get all mystical here to explain the efficacy of Rogerian Argument.)
As for the threat, perhaps I exaggerate the existential dangers, but facts remain facts and ignoring the seriousness of noxious memes may turn out to be humankind's cosmic mistake.
I offer another confession of cognitive bias: I really am scared, really, of theists.
@Rowland
As a libertarian I can find common ground with socialists, despite our differences on economic policy. For example, we both dislike vested interests and entrenched privilege. I'm just afraid that their approach to getting rid of them ends up creating more. But a Rogerian discussion with theists is all give and take. They take and everyone else gives, including money, freedom, progress....And then they whine that they are being persecuted because we didn't give them everything.
As you say, empathy is a deep subject, and religion is far too shallow and perverse to encompass it. I'm not sure what you mean by "ontology of memes", but I wish you luck in exploring it. Memes can't violate the laws of physics, but on wireless networks they move pretty close to the speed of light. Fear of theists is not cognitive bias. It's a survival instinct. Make no mistake. Some of them want to kill your body, and all of them want to kill your mind. However, the moment that you feel that fear, they have won. Fear is their weapon and their food. To fight the noxious memes, we need satire, humor and ridicule. Je suis Charlie.
I appreciate your comments, Algebe. I ought to add that, as an aspiring poetic naturalist, I also fear all views that have an absolutist quality.
I have monitored discussions in chatrooms where theists and atheists square off against one another. Productive conversations are scarce.
The Rogerian approach is useless in such combative environments. It becomes important, however, when parents need to explain to the school board that the teaching of evolution entails the expression that our universe's unfolding is unsupervised and impersonal. It's not religion, it's just the closest thing we have to the truth.
What concerns me now is the problem of changing our language so that it reflects this deeper understanding of reality. Sort of like finding "politically correct" terms that describe important aspects of our experience in ways that reflect our deeper understanding.
"What concerns me now is the problem of changing our language so that it reflects this deeper understanding of reality."
What makes you think you or anyone can change language? You might just as well try to change the weather or economic trends. Deliberate attempts to modify language, such as political correctness, simply result in a cowardly retreat into euphemism. Nobody is really fooled, and we all walk away from the discussion feeling cheated. Just as your rather transparent attempts to humor and conciliate with "rogerian" discussion leave me feeling a little rogered.
"Productive conversations are scarce."
How do you know? The atheists may have learned something new while refuting theist arguments, and the theists may go away with seeds of doubt germinating in their minds. Were you expecting eureka moments or Pauline conversions?
Thank you, Algebe for your comments. Seen from this perspective, my desire to alter consciousness by manipulating language appears naive. And yet, today we use the word actor to refer to both actors and actresses. Are the social ills of racism and sexism immune to artificial attempts to change the way we talk? I will have to think more about this.
As for the combative arguments in chatrooms, I believe I have underestimated their value in my last post. Perhaps I simply must accept the whole disordered mess as necessary as hurricane Matthew. More to think about.
"today we use the word actor to refer to both actors and actresses."
And we've moved from the n word to colored to black to Afro-American, but how much has the reality of the world and our perceptions changed? Has changing the words simply allowed us to plaster over the unpleasant reality instead of really changing it? Orwell seemed to think that the words shape our world, so you could eliminate a person or an idea simply by getting rid of the names and words. I tend to favor the Whorfian hypothesis that the world we live in shapes our perceptions and hence our language. Have we really lost the collection of images associated with the word "actress"?
I hear theists talking about a supreme being, a universal mind, and intelligent designer. These are obviously euphemisms for god. What I don't understand is why they need euphemisms. Is god embarassing for them? Perhaps they should call god number one and Jesus number two.
1. If cherished, deeply held beliefs are silly, what is wrong with saying so? The kkk has deeply held beliefs. Isis has deeply held beliefs. Anti-vaxers have deeply held beliefs. Scientologists have deeply held beliefs.
2. Why do I need metaphor to describe my 'human condition'?
3. What constitutes a 'deeper' understanding of the universe?
4. What, specifically, makes this 'problem' so 'urgent'?
5. Why do you think you set the bar for what a 'conscientious atheist' 'must' consider?
Let me see if I can answer:
1) Engagement requires empathy. If one cannot know what it feels like for others to loose their gods, cultures, all ontological grounding, then one's chances of success are much lower.
2) All language, in a sense, is metaphor. As an aspiring poetic naturalist, I seek the best descriptions of reality for any given domain.
3) The path-integral quantum equation is a pretty damn good description.
4) Theism is in ascendance. With the advance of technology and portable WMDs, theists will become a threat to the advancement of our species.
5) At the moment, my use of conscientious is only an innocent term to signify an atheist who cares about the human condition.
@Rowand: ......then ones chances of success are much lower."
Chances for what? Perhaps you assume we have similar goals?
An excellent question, chimp 3! (I'm not going to ask about chimps two and one just yet.)
I want to thank everyone who is showing an interest in exploring this particular cluster (a candidate metaphor?) of lines of thinking.
I confess I've been bearing an undisclosed moral imperative, like a magician's misdirection, or an ardent youth, perhaps, who has just discovered the reality of the human ethical dimension, but lacks knowledge and discipline to construct coherent "planets of belief" (an almost certain candidate for transformational metaphor).
And here is the (undefended) premise I am asking everyone in this forum to accept: It is right to care about the flourishing of humankind.
@Rowland : I ask you to clarify a statement. You respond - "An excellent question, chimp 3!" and then proceed to make even more vague comments. You are not talking above my head. You are simply not making sense.
And of course it is right to give a shit about people. Is that all you are asking?
I apologize, chimp 3, for the confusion. I read two quesions in your comment, and I made a poor attempt at answering the second.
Right now, I perceive the two of us as engaged in finding the proper domain for a productive discussion. I began with a basic proposition that is not as self-evident as you imply. I wasted several years of my life as a nihilist, living on an entirely coherent planet of belief, one of many planets of belief in the atheistic orbit. In that time of my life I would not have accepted the proposition that it is right to care about people because the concept of right is nonsense.
But this is old and uninteresting ground for me.
My real questions have to do with whether anyone has given thought to the importance of inventing and infusing transformative metaphors into the consciousness of our societies? What metaphors should we suggest? How to disseminate them?
When you inquired about my goals, chimp 3, I responded with an apparently needless axiom. The obvious question for those who have reached this stage is: How shall I act?
I hope this begins to clarify things.
@Rowland
"We need persuasive approaches that educate without offending or upsetting many cherished, deeply held theist beliefs."
Horseshit. I'll say what I want, to whom I want, when I want, and where I want. I don't give a rats ass if it offends the myth believers or not.
I am offended everyday by christian bullshit that is FORCED upon me daily!
I get that you feel offended. I've lived in fear and hiding most of my adult life because of my beliefs.
Of course you are free to lash out, and I envy you your courage.
But at this stage, I am looking for more meaning.
@Rowland
Meaning? I live threatened. I have always lived threatened. I don't fear anything. It's not courage. It is just being honest. Yes, I am offended. The thing is that believers DEMAND respect for their beliefs, but don't respect anyone that doesn't agree with them. That is offensive, to say the least. Lash out? No, just being blunt, and brutally honest.
I admire your honesty, mykcob4. I would add that theists often demand more than just respect; they sometimes demand capitulation and conversion.
@Rowland ...
People have the right to freedom of conscience ....
People have the right to freedom of thought....
People have the right to freedom of ideas.....
However....
NO-ONE has the right to not be offended....
NO-ONE has the right to not be upset...
We must tell the truth as we see it ,when we deem it is appropriate ,in a manner that we feel is justified , without fear or favour ....
This bloody nonsense has gone on for over 2000 years....destroying lives ,manipulating minds ,distorting families/societies .....
its time it was stopped.
Yes, my righteous friend, but how to stop it?
I am open to ideas and strategies.
@Rowland....
"I am open to ideas and strategies."
No you are not.....
You have already decided ,
"We need persuasive approaches that educate without offending or upsetting many cherished, deeply held theist beliefs."
"educate without offending or upsetting many cherished, deeply held theist beliefs"
No ....each and every time we encounter a theist ,of any stripe, pushing their own particular brand of lies it is down to us to hold up a hand and tell them they are talking rot. We must challenge them each and every time we encounter them.....we all know that they will take any toleration of their views as a free pass to continue in the same old way...proselytising , falsely claiming the moral high ground...insinuating their creatures into the education systems ,into government ,into the courts and medical administrations.
Answer their lies with facts....have the sources ready for them...make them doubt....demonstrate to on-lookers and followers alike the holes in their fables.
If they have a problem with their beliefs being ridiculed...then the solution is in their own hands....
.DO NOT BELIEVE RIDICULOUS THINGS
Oh...by the way....I'm certainly not "righteous"......and I'm probably not your friend...
PS....
There are people who come to this site who dare not speak their mind openly.....from Pakistan & Bangladesh , from Saudi and Kuwait.....even from the Bible belt towns in the US....
and your message to these "prisoners" is to ," educate without offending or upsetting many cherished, deeply held theist beliefs"...
(Addition for clarity)....Because these silent atheists CANNOT speak...those of us who can MUST speak.....
I think your intentions are probably virtuous but I don't think you quite grasp the reality of the situation.
I suggest you reread my comments, watchman. Your assumptions about me reveal your own cognitive biases.
Let us do without the rhetoric, and reason together.
@Rowland......
I'll be back tonight.....(UK time)
I understand where you are coming from but using metaphors to explain application of basic deductions skills seems like a lost cause. Most people who are religious reject logic when referring to their religion which is what makes it possible for them to believe. The only people you might be able to educate in this manner are the colossally stupid who have never considered life or done any introspection. Perhaps you might be able to convince the youth this way. If it is your goal to convince the youth then have at thee. Just remember their parents won't thank you and may even go so far as to come after you in some way(not necessarily physically but possibly that too).
It is overwhelming to contemplate changing attitudes by conscientiously inventing and promoting language that describes radically different social worldviews. To think of my project in these terms leads to despair.
Einstein's work eventually influenced our culture, culminating in the famous, "Hey, man, it's all relative!"
I comfort myself with this: progress is usually incremental, and in the instance of changing societal values, doubly so.
@ Rowland
To quote from Watchman:
"People have the right to freedom of ideas....."
Exactly.
The mistake often made, is to confuse people with their ideas or beliefs. Ideas do not have rights. Ideas can and should be criticized. Anyone who makes a claim, should be prepared to have that claim be scrutinized, criticized.
Way too many theists immediately play the victim card, even if it's only their ideas or claims that are criticized.
Instead of as you say "The best way to change deeply held beliefs is first to identify with them", I would say that there is no one answer to this. Some need to read their scriptures, some need to hear their beliefs criticized and picked apart, some may need for others to understand them first.
But I think the best approach is simply to try to remain respectful and ask questions about how they know what they think they know. The Socratic approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSSQW_xBLVg
Some simply can't be reasoned with no matter how much effort people put into it. But I try to not sink to the level of anger and insults.
I agree that the idea and wording of "identifying with them" proposes needlessly rigorous acts of empathy. Your suggestion that respect is a sufficient requirement is well-taken. I would add that good listening skills and self-awareness of cognitive biases add to the success of a productive discussion.
My goal is not to convince theists of their delusion; it is to alter the way we think about what roles religion ought to play in society by inventing and infusing transformative language into our conversations. This offers the best chances of altering our school curricula. I also agree with Neil Tyson Degrasse who says that education is the answer.
It seems like a hopeless task to me: you are talking about a group of people who at least a large subset of is offended by the fact that you even exist (offended that atheists exist). But I wish you the best of luck!
@Rowland....
"changing attitudes by conscientiously inventing and promoting language "
"the importance of inventing and infusing transformative metaphors into the consciousness of our societies? "
" the problem of changing our language so that it reflects this deeper understanding of reality."
" appropriating metaphors that accurately and usefully describe the human experience and at the same time express a deeper understanding of the universe."
"Or shall we sparingly show you far off
The Dauphin’s meaning and our embassy?"
"Answering lies with dissembling and disguises ?
Is this your proposition.?....
you want to confront the solid walls of faith with the smoke and mirrors of convoluted verbosity..?
Pages