Atheism And Snobbery: Your Reactions Please

[older]

Below is a link to an article in The Atlantic. The article’s author, Emma Green, reviews a book by Peter Watson titled The Age of Atheists, and takes Watson to the woodshed over, as the article’s title says, “the false equation of atheism and intellectual sophistication.” Green makes the charge that atheists are guilty of “intellectual snobbery.”

Green writes, “[T]he average believer’s search for meaning and understanding is [not] any less rigorous or valuable -- it just ends with a different conclusion: that God exists.” Green concludes that believers are no less thoughtful than non-believers.

I will grant that some atheists are snobs and that some religionists are thoughtful, but which is more honest: a world view based on fact or one based on fantasy? And when important decisions, some involving life and death, are involved, being fully human is far more than differing ways to conceputalize the world. It is to recognize and acknowledge fact and truth and not make decisions based on erroneous conclusions.

I’d be interested in your reactions to this piece.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-false-equation-of-atheism-and-intellectual-sophistication/284406/

[Vigile]

Well, FWIW, I've never seen a religious argument that didn't rest in logical fallacy of one sort or another.  It's one thing to not have all the answers and quite another to postulate an answer based entirely on incredible (literally) reasoning. 

[Guest MadameX]

Have seen this complaint many times. Don't get it. Why are we supposed to treat with respect views that are contrary to the facts of the world, that are skewed toward human's preferences for a version of reality that does not exist, and that reflect the parochial prejudices of the complainers' culture? 

 

Sure people should be nice about it, and I do not care for the screeds of Hitchens or the disdain from Dawkins. People are going to believe what they do because of many circumstances beyond their control - such as where they were born and to whom, and what education they got. From what I have read belief in something supernatural is a default in humans. With education, (and sometimes this can be done in a not formal education setting, on one's own), this instinct can be realized for what it is.

 

I do wish some 'snobby atheists' were a little kinder and took psychology onto consideration, yes. However her gripe sounds a lot like Christian privilege (or religionist privilege).

 

Edit to add:

And why should atheists care about people believing in God or Allah or Zeus or Angel Spirits or The Universe Will Provide or whatever? Because those who live in a world of magic leave the rest of us to deal with reality! It is an abdication of responsibility to let "Jesus take the wheel."

 

</rant>

[florduh]

I guess everybody's forgotten Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Now there was an obnoxious atheist!

 

People have differing personalities, be they atheist, Christian, Buddhist or Scientologist. Some people are kinder and gentler while others are no holds barred. Style of presentation doesn't reflect on the validity of the message. It's popular even among atheists to hate on Dawkins and other speakers who are forthright in their speech. I guess atheists are held to a higher standard.

 

That said, there are many studies that show atheists generally do have a bit more native intelligence than the typical religious believer. They certainly are better educated as a whole. Religion thrives among the poor, stupid and uneducated while atheism is more the rule when you look at the fields of science and higher education. Coincidence? I doubt it. Obviously there are intelligent, educated theists and some damn stupid atheists, but they appear to be somewhat the exception.

[Blood]

Not to pull a "no true Scotsman" type argument, but an atheist should be a person who recognizes how little they actually do know, and therefore not be proud of his ignorance. 

 

I've been highly skeptical of measuring of intelligence since I was given an IQ test as a teenager. Most of it had nothing to do with intelligence, just memorization. Because I had spent more time than your average teenager reading random bits from encyclopedias, and memorizing some of it, I was judged to have a higher than average IQ. Which was bullshit. A kid my age who had figured out how to fix a car had accomplished something of more intelligence than I had, yet because auto mechanics was not addressed on an IQ test, he would have scored lower than me. 

 

It occurred to me at the time that this was how authoritarian systems worked: through the administration of nonsense like IQ tests, whereby memorization and internalization of important political figures and ideas of the past are privileged and rewarded, giving the young person a false sense of confidence in his own intelligence, therefore encouraging the perpetuation and survival of the system. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'd respond, but it would be beneath me to do so.

[MerryG]

I'm sure a lot of christians do see atheists as snobs -- both because we often do take an intellectual approach and because they've been taught that, merely by existing, we're horrible people (and adding "snob" to our already-unsavory profile doesn't require much of a leap).

 

And of course, some prominent atheists do come across as snobs as others already jumped in to note.

 

If only christians could see what snobs they appear to be when they approach us with their attitudes of "I know the Truth and you're automatically wrong"; "I have a personal relationship with the Lord and you don't"; and "You're going to burn in hell for all eternity if you disagree with me."

 

Man, talk about snobbery!

[Roz]

What Merry said.

 

One of the hardest things to come to grips with is the notion of "I don't know." 

I've come to the default atheistic position based on what I've learned thus far, but "knowing" with a 100% conviction is something religionists have.

See the 40k+ denominations of christianity alone.  Hell, just go to the lion's den, we have christians calling out other christians with "that's what they do, they're taking christ's teachings wrong.  This is how you interpret this."

 

It's comical once I can see it from the default position, but while I was believing in one of the particular flavors (SDA), the first thing that comes up when studying about hard subjects is "only study what we give you, lest you be led astray and lost"

[RipVanWinkle]

Atheists and agnostics use reason and facts to arrive at their conclusions. Xtians, for the most part, do not use reason to become a Xtian. However they do use reasoning, as apposed to reason, to defend their belief once they become Xtians. But every fundamentalist makes at least one fatal error: They start off with a presumption that the god of the bible exists and that he inspired the bible. So there's is a dishonest use of reasoning to defend their claim, no matter how far out their thinking has to be. 

 

Other Xtians simply create a god of their own making to fit how they think the world should be. 

 

Atheists use reason, not just their own reasoning, to try to find the truth and refuse to buy into guesses and preferences.  Agnostics

use reason as far as it goes and when it goes no farther, they say: "Shit, I don't know."   I'm an agnostic.    

 

Atheists and agnostics have no more right to feel superior to Xtions than rocket scientists have a right to feel  superior to everyone else because of their specialized knowledge. But agnostics and theists sometimes forget that Xtians can be and many are smarter than many atheists in different fields of kowledge. bill

[Blood]

What Merry said.

 

One of the hardest things to come to grips with is the notion of "I don't know." 

 

According to Socrates, true wisdom actually begins when you reach the state where you can acknowledge how much you don't know. Which is nearly everything. Do we even know ourselves that well? 

 

I love acknowledging my state of ignorance. It won't get me into management positions, but it makes me eager to learn and grow. 

[Bhim]

I've only skimmed this article and will have to read it in more detail later, but let me make an ass of myself and comment anyway...

 

While I'm not an atheist myself, I do believe that atheism is a very rational and logical choice, and in general I find a lot of common ground with atheists on this forum (e.g. we both hate Christianity!).  But let's make sure we have a proper definition of an atheist.  The base definition that everyone can agree on is that an atheist is someone who does not believe in any deities.  Blood stated that " an atheist should be a person who recognizes how little they actually do know, and therefore not be proud of his ignorance."  This is perhaps what people envision when in the company of fellow freethinkers who are gathering specifically because they identify with their lack of belief in a deity.  But plenty of others are atheists out of intellectual laziness or because they were raised that way.  If you think of an atheist as any person who lacks theism, then no intellectual snobbery is implied.  Indeed, no intellectual anything is implied.  A person can be an atheist due to years of introspection, or "just because."  For most atheists on this forum, I think the former is true since you're all here discussing and debating your atheism instead of being intellectually disengaged.  But then I think we can all agree that this place is not a random sample of the American public.

 

I think the charge of snobbery stems from a segment of atheists who believes that their atheism imparts to them some technical skill, usually in the sciences.  We all know that most scientists are atheists.  But some people confuse this with the (incorrect) statement that "most atheists are scientists."  Without even looking up the statistics, I know that given the small number of scientists in America and the comparatively larger number of atheists, such a claim is mathematically untenable.  Now I'm one of those weird people whose scientific education has not swayed me into atheism.  I was a theist before I became a Christian, and I still am one now.  Back when I was a Christian I of course used to debate atheists, and once in awhile people would make ridiculous claims.  One person told me that atheism is a prerequisite for being a scientist.  Another told me that any sort of theist cannot (I think he meant "may not") be a scientist.  Now these claims are based on the idea that the theistic scientist is experiencing a cognitive dissonance and must engage in intellectual compartmentalization.  I don't want to debate whether science allows for (notice I said "allows for," not "supports") the existence of God.  But at least here the Christian or other theist can see the atheist's point, even if he doesn't agree with it.

 

Once in awhile though, I would encounter what can rightly be called snobbery.  Some atheists actually claimed that they possessed a superior scientific understanding to me by virtue of their atheism.  It's one thing to say that a person can't practice a discipline if they must practice intellectual compartmentalization (not right, but at least understandable).  It's flat out wrong to claim that intellectual assent to the supposition that there are no gods is the equivalent of an undergraduate education in physics.  Being an atheist means you've made one rational decision in your life.  It doesn't necessitate that this is your general practice or that you are a particularly rational human being.  It certainly doesn't imply that you possess specialized knowledge, and it makes it easy for assholes like my formerly Christian self to retort with comments like "dude, if you don't know what an eigenvalue is, you really have no business claiming that quantum mechanics precludes the existence of absolute truth" (hopefully that gives you a window into what sort of debate I was engaged in).  I guess snobbery and assholery are made for each other...

 

Again, most atheists I know, both on this board and elsewhere, are well aware of everything I've said.  But when a Christian sees a few atheists speaking on topics that they are not qualified to speak authoritatively on, then that person will do what Christians do best: propagate a stereotype about the entire group.

[midniterider]

Below is a link to an article in The Atlantic. The article’s author, Emma Green, reviews a book by Peter Watson titled The Age of Atheists, and takes Watson to the woodshed over, as the article’s title says, “the false equation of atheism and intellectual sophistication.” Green makes the charge that atheists are guilty of “intellectual snobbery.”

 

Green writes, “[T]he average believer’s search for meaning and understanding is [not] any less rigorous or valuable -- it just ends with a different conclusion: that God exists.” Green concludes that believers are no less thoughtful than non-believers.

 

I will grant that some atheists are snobs and that some religionists are thoughtful, but which is more honest: a world view based on fact or one based on fantasy? And when important decisions, some involving life and death, are involved, being fully human is far more than differing ways to conceputalize the world. It is to recognize and acknowledge fact and truth and not make decisions based on erroneous conclusions.

 

I’d be interested in your reactions to this piece.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-false-equation-of-atheism-and-intellectual-sophistication/284406/

 

It's probably not snobbery, per se.

 

Christians use critical thinking (they have to in order to survive on earth) and also use emotional religious thinking.

Atheists use critical thinking but do not use (or avoid anyway) emotional religious thinking, which probably irritates the Christian. Not wasting time praying, worshiping, or praising Jebus allows non-theists more time for other things, such as intellectual pursuits. This probably also pisses off Christians.

 

"Which is more honest: a world view based on fact or one based on fantasy?" - LIfe is a mishmash of honesty, lies and embellishment. Religion is just one of many lies or embellishments people live with to make life more bearable. Other lies might be "My sibiling is not an idiot" or "I love my job." We all have to create a little fantasy in our lives because the truth is sometimes unpalatable.

 

Honesty is a good thing. But total honesty? Not so much.

[Blood]

To see what this attitude looks like in practice, it’s helpful to check out a new book, The Age of Atheists, by the British historian Peter Watson. The book interprets Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous 1882 declaration “God is dead” as a turning point in intellectual history: These words were a call to action for all the artists, writers, philosophers, and poets who tried to understand the world thereafter.

 

 

That's quoted from the article. 

 

If the author really thinks that Nietzsche's "God is dead" was some kind of turning point or call to arms, he is guilty of as much romanticizing as any Christian writer is apt to do. Atheism was already prevalent in elite circles in Europe and England in the 1500s, hence the need for Sir John Cheke to introduce the word into English in the 1540s, and Francis Bacon's need to write an essay attacking it in the 1590s.

 

Very few people have read Nietzsche, or care who he was. If he had never lived or written, secularization in the West would have continued unabated. 

[Sybaris]

When a Christian points at a tree and says it is evidence for their God then to me it is no different than if they had said 2+2=Fish. If correcting the err in their use of corroborative evidence is akin to snobbery then I guess I am all day.

[Guest MadameX]

Quit being all uppity.

[mymistake]

Did the meaning of "rigorous" change?  How can a religious search be rigorous?

 

As for the other point of course there are some atheists who are snobs.  As a group atheists are defined simply because we all don't have one thing.  Naturally we will be diverse in every other measurement.