Groupthink

[trophonius]

Is it merely human that people, regardless of their religious beliefs, accept without question statements which affirm their beliefs

Comments

[pastorlenny]

The culture of new-atheism teaches its adherents that they are special, clear-thinking, and more rational than people who disagree with them.

Yes, I find this fascinating -- especially when it is rather demonstrably not the case.

[trophonius]

Grudgewank?

[pastorlenny]

I dunno. I just asked a simple question about this so-called "god handicap" -- and the result was something quite other than a coherent explanation.

[trophonius]

You have to add a few points to your golf score?

[essentialsaltes]

Is it merely human that people, regardless of their religious beliefs, accept without question statements which affirm their beliefs?

Yes.

One of the problems I have with atheists is their inability to critique arguments in favour of atheism. I was recently in a discussion where somebody...

That's funny... I was recently in a discussion where somebody said that bananas are proof of their god's existence.

I guess theists and atheists, being human, have something in common.

[trophonius]

What was the reasoning behind the banana being proof?

[asylum_at_sea]

If it was anything like this, it was pretty freaking stupid:

[trophonius]

That says nothing about the rationality behind the thinking. How did they respond to people being allergic to bananas?

[trophonius]

US Protestant?

[trophonius]

I'm not a theist.

[samus_aran]

I think you're fully aware that atheism doesn't magically make people perfect, rational creatures. They're still human, and while they may theoretically recognize the value of rationality, rational thought and behavior takes constant vigilance and practice, and humans are more prone being lazy than rational, on the whole. ...at least according to my experience.

Admittedly, I think agnostic (and a subtype of gnostic) atheism takes important steps to encourage rationality in its followers that many other belief systems may not by placing responsibility for the future squarely on the shoulders of the people of the present, but for a large part, whether the individuals are being fully rational and consistently working past the normal human pitfalls is independent of what their beliefs on god are.

I have found it to be a source of frustration, but there are a lot of reasons to hope that our kind is shifting towards better standards.

[trophonius]

I think I'm saying more than that. I think new-atheism makes its adherents dumber.

[samus_aran]

Yeah, that sounds more like bitterness than a fair observation. Are you sure you're not falling into some traps of your own here?

[trophonius]

I'm pretty sure. New-atheism promotes as a virtue ignorance of arguments which disagree with it. Consider, for example, PZ Myer's 'Courtier's Reply'.

[compulsivelyme]

"I can get theist friends to admit they don't know the complexities of their faith."

My experience with Christianity, at least, is that accepting the unknowable and the mystery is preached to be an integral part of the faith. Therefore I don't think you can say that religious Christians admitting that they don't know all the complexities of their faith really is a product of self-reflection or admission of ignorance. "Gosh, I don't know everything, but I do know that Jesus Saves" is not a conclusion that most people come to after hard self questioning.

I think all humans tend to believe things that sound good and things that they want to believe. And confirmation bias is definitely real.

I feel I would also be remiss if I did not say that the arguments that most theists use to support their faiths really aren't as logical as they believe them to be. I contend it would be incorrect to say that atheists aren't considering these arguments seriously because of "groupthink" or closemindedness, if that's in fact what you're getting at

[trophonius]

'Gosh, I don't know everything but I do know that epistemology and metaphysics are identical' is also not something one comes to after hard self-questioning.

New-atheism is philosophically similar to Objectivism (Ayn Rand's creation). It asserts A = A, then undertakes massively contorted logic while dismissing the philosophical and theological traditions which it is both trying to situate itself in and replace.

The arguments most atheists use to support their faith really aren't as logical as they believe them to be.

[compulsivelyme]

I'm not familiar with the contorted logic that you refer to, nor do I understand what the A in your equation above refers to. (Although it doesn't matter, I suppose, since you believe atheism is a pathology below). I think some, maybe many atheists would agree with some tenets of Objectivism but naturally not all. I believe Ayn Rand was a nutcase but I don't think that having overlapping philosophy with her is necessarily an insult as you are trying to use it here

[renovati]

I'm perfectly happy being left alone, which means religion out of public life, and letting everyone else do what they want with their private time and space (including religious practice if they wish