Should atheism be considered a movement?

[Meadmaker]

meadmaker, I'd be interested in your argument. I certainly think that there is a role for religious schools insofar as they can be regulated by the state and provide a place where children of religious parents can at least receive some regulated imput distinct from their parents' dogma.

The question is whether religious education, and by that I mean the indoctrinating sort that goes on in religious schools, can enhance critical thinking ability.

To answer that, first let us pose a thought experiment. Suppose I, as a teacher, stand in front of a classroom and, with all sincerity, say, "The Earth is flat." Being a trusted authority figure, the students all believe me.

A different teacher says, also in all sincerity, "The Earth is round." Again, all students believer the other teacher. Now we have two classrooms of students. One set of students believes "round", and the other believes "flat".

Can we conclude anything about the critical thinking skills of either set of students? I'll answer that for you. Of course not. In other words, critical thinking doesn't have anything to do with the content of what is being taught.

Let's go back to the OP for a moment. There are lots more atheists today than there were a decade ago in the United States. Can we conclude that the critical thinking skills in our country have suddenly improved dramatically? Sadly, no. What has happened is that a movement has emerged, complete with leaders, and those leaders have attracted followers. While some people have analyzed and continue to analyze evidence, and ponder philosophical questions critically, and have reached the conclusion that there is no God, others have heard people say, "I don't believe in God," and they have used all their critical thinking skills to say, "Me neither."

Again, the fact that they happen to be saying something we agree with is not evidence of critical thinking skills.

To develop critical thinking skills, the most important part of any exercise is not the content of the lesson, but the process. A student must be taught to look at a text, any text, examine what it really means, and question it, digest it, place it in context of when it was written. He must get behind a superficial gloss of the text and really understand what it says at a deeper level.

Religious education, at its best, encourages exactly that. No particular religion or denomination has a monopoly on this, but some are better at it than others. In particular, I like what goes on at my son's school. They read the Torah in depth. They learn the language, and then compare the English translation to the Hebrew original. (Should I have put "original" in quotes? Oldest surviving copy.) They are not taught to question the Torah, but they are taught how to question, and they are taught that the answers matter. As it turns out, being bright kids, they end up questioning Torah anyway. Once you teach someone how to think, it's hard to limit what they think about. I think religious education can teach someone how to think, and teach them that thinking matters. After that, the student's own mind is completely free to turn a critical eye on whatever claims he chooses.

Contrast that to the American public school system. Being totally afraid of controversy, on any subject where there isn't a clear cut yes or no answer, a typical public school student is told, "That's a matter of opinion. You should decide what you think for yourself." This somehow passes for critical thinking. They are told they should decide, but they aren't given the tools to decide. Doing so would open up the school to controversy. The result is that an awful lot of people have grown up believing that they should base their beliefs on whatever feels right to them. They are skeptical, but they are not critical thinkers.

In order to develop critical thinking, there has to be something to think about. Also, that thing has to matter, because otherwise there is no reason to think about something critically. Religious education can force someone to think about a topic that matters. I know, for example, that my son will spend a significant amount of time thinking about ethics during the eight years he attends this school. (There's no High School there.) Of course, it will all be from a Jewish perspective, but as it turns out, that's really close to all the other religious perspectives in the world, and he'll know that. A public school student might not get that sort of training, because the teachers would be afraid of the controversy.

 

[Beth]

What choice does the child have in this? Here's a moral question : do parents have the right to mould their offspring in ways peculiar to their own beliefs,

Yes -In fact, it's not possible to do otherwise

leaving no choice to the child?

No - In fact, it's not possible even if they want to

Here's another one : is a child merely a chattel of its parents?

No

 

[Meadmaker]

As for this merely describes retaining cultural traditions but rejecting the religion. You can label that religion if you want to. That doesn't make it some concept I don't understand or get. Culture and tradition is not religion.

Christmas, Halloween and Easter are my favorite holidays. Big deal, I'm certainly not an atheist Christian or atheist Pagan because I like candy and gift giving traditions complete with lots of fun decorating.

There is a concept about religion that you don't get. Yes, there are Jews who celebrate Passover and Purim, and don't believe in God, and aren't religious. These are the people you are talking about. They keep the form of the traditions, but not the religion.

There are also genuinely religious people, some of them Jewish, who are agnostic. If you don't think that's possible, then there is a concept that you don't get.

 

[andyandy]

The question is whether religious education, and by that I mean the indoctrinating sort that goes on in religious schools, can enhance critical thinking ability.

To answer that, first let us pose a thought experiment. Suppose I, as a teacher, stand in front of a classroom and, with all sincerity, say, "The Earth is flat." Being a trusted authority figure, the students all believe me.

A different teacher says, also in all sincerity, "The Earth is round." Again, all students believer the other teacher. Now we have two classrooms of students. One set of students believes "round", and the other believes "flat".

Can we conclude anything about the critical thinking skills of either set of students? I'll answer that for you. Of course not. In other words, critical thinking doesn't have anything to do with the content of what is being taught.

Let's go back to the OP for a moment. There are lots more atheists today than there were a decade ago in the United States. Can we conclude that the critical thinking skills in our country have suddenly improved dramatically? Sadly, no. What has happened is that a movement has emerged, complete with leaders, and those leaders have attracted followers. While some people have analyzed and continue to analyze evidence, and ponder philosophical questions critically, and have reached the conclusion that there is no God, others have heard people say, "I don't believe in God," and they have used all their critical thinking skills to say, "Me neither."

Again, the fact that they happen to be saying something we agree with is not evidence of critical thinking skills.

To develop critical thinking skills, the most important part of any exercise is not the content of the lesson, but the process. A student must be taught to look at a text, any text, examine what it really means, and question it, digest it, place it in context of when it was written. He must get behind a superficial gloss of the text and really understand what it says at a deeper level.

Religious education, at its best, encourages exactly that. No particular religion or denomination has a monopoly on this, but some are better at it than others. In particular, I like what goes on at my son's school. They read the Torah in depth. They learn the language, and then compare the English translation to the Hebrew original. (Should I have put "original" in quotes? Oldest surviving copy.) They are not taught to question the Torah, but they are taught how to question, and they are taught that the answers matter. As it turns out, being bright kids, they end up questioning Torah anyway. Once you teach someone how to think, it's hard to limit what they think about. I think religious education can teach someone how to think, and teach them that thinking matters. After that, the student's own mind is completely free to turn a critical eye on whatever claims he chooses.

Contrast that to the American public school system. Being totally afraid of controversy, on any subject where there isn't a clear cut yes or no answer, a typical public school student is told, "That's a matter of opinion. You should decide what you think for yourself." This somehow passes for critical thinking. They are told they should decide, but they aren't given the tools to decide. Doing so would open up the school to controversy. The result is that an awful lot of people have grown up believing that they should base their beliefs on whatever feels right to them. They are skeptical, but they are not critical thinkers.

In order to develop critical thinking, there has to be something to think about. Also, that thing has to matter, because otherwise there is no reason to think about something critically. Religious education can force someone to think about a topic that matters. I know, for example, that my son will spend a significant amount of time thinking about ethics during the eight years he attends this school. (There's no High School there.) Of course, it will all be from a Jewish perspective, but as it turns out, that's really close to all the other religious perspectives in the world, and he'll know that. A public school student might not get that sort of training, because the teachers would be afraid of the controversy.

That's an interesting take on things

do public high schools in America have a PSHE element to the curriculum? Generally discussion of controversial issues and development of critical thinking would take place in either RE classes or PSHE classes. Things such as abortion, sexual health, popularity, drugs, etc etc would be covered. Personally I would like to see more emphasis given to this sort of education, because it currently takes place on a somewhat ad hoc basis, varying from school to school.

But I think that it's best to give students the facts rather than teach to any specific viewpoint - a good example of this is how our education policy with regards to drugs has evolved.... in the 1980s it was very much a "just say no" blanket approach which treated cannabis and crack as the same, students now get a much more nuanced approach to the topic...

Though I think sometimes that the role of schools is overplayed a little with regards to religious and societal influence upon children. If children have parents of a nonreligious nature and children receive a religious education, I do think that they will develop critical thinking simply because they are exposed to two contrasting arguments or influences. If children have religious parents and go to a religious school then their religious beliefs will likely just be continued. Therefore it is fundamentally the parents who are at the crux of their children's beliefs.

 

[andyandy]

What choice does the child have in this? Here's a moral question : do parents have the right to mould their offspring in ways peculiar to their own beliefs, leaving no choice to the child? Here's another one : is a child merely a chattel of its parents?

The only thing a parent has proved is that they're not the end of their blood-line, and that's no basis for a moral right to indoctrination.

The trouble is we're now talking about the morality of a parent passing on what he believes is right to his child. Where one can draw the line with this is nebulous at best. Some people may believe that capitalism is morally abhorrent and that any parent who passes on such ideology is morally bankrupt. Should they have the potential to stop that message being passed to the child? Everything that a parent does results in some passing of beliefs to their child whether conscious or not - whether it is right to eat meat, whether capitalism is acceptable, their opinions on materialism, how to conduct relationships, etc etc

 

[articulett]

You made a the negative claim and said there was evidence to back up that claim. Is there some reason I shouldn't be skeptical of such a claim? The way you spoke about it made me think that you'd already laid out the argument somewhere and I was interested to read it. I wasn't expecting any particular evidence.

I do understand what you're saying. It's a process of inductive reasoning based on evidence from multiple sources and disciplines. I think to say that such evidence is "overwhelming" in that case is to be speaking subjectively (as in "I find it overwhelming"). There's nothing to suggest another person might find it so. In fact, some (certain deists for example) use the same kind of methods of taking evidence from different disciplines and reach the opposite conclusion. Your first sentence in this post could also be a reply to your "zero evidence" for God assertion.

No, no believer uses any kind of evidence because there is no evidence of any sort to support the notion that invisible immaterial immeasurable entities exist just as there is no evidence that invisible magical clothing exists that only the worthy can see.

The evidence is the exact same evidence that shows that demons, fairies, imaginary friends, etc. are products of the human mind and not actual entities that exist absent of belief.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a concept about religion that you don't get. Yes, there are Jews who celebrate Passover and Purim, and don't believe in God, and aren't religious. These are the people you are talking about. They keep the form of the traditions, but not the religion.

There are also genuinely religious people, some of them Jewish, who are agnostic. If you don't think that's possible, then there is a concept that you don't get.

Or a fine line between what you are defining as religion and what I define as culture.

Care to elaborate on how you distinguish between the two terms? I distinguish the difference by the belief system that goes along with religion which is qualitatively different from the identity and beliefs one has belonging to a group which is culture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You made a the negative claim and said there was evidence to back up that claim. Is there some reason I shouldn't be skeptical of such a claim? The way you spoke about it made me think that you'd already laid out the argument somewhere and I was interested to read it. I wasn't expecting any particular evidence.

I do understand what you're saying. It's a process of inductive reasoning based on evidence from multiple sources and disciplines. I think to say that such evidence is "overwhelming" in that case is to be speaking subjectively (as in "I find it overwhelming"). There's nothing to suggest another person might find it so. In fact, some (certain deists for example) use the same kind of methods of taking evidence from different disciplines and reach the opposite conclusion. Your first sentence in this post could also be a reply to your "zero evidence" for God assertion.

I've addressed the issue of not proving the negative ad nauseum. It is an inappropriate use of the scientific principle of not being able to prove the negative to assert this has any evidentiary weight whatsoever toward the existence of real gods.

So let me summarize again what I said.

There is zero evidence for the existence of gods.
There is overwhelming evidence that god beliefs arose as humans imagined magical causes for observed events, not because humans had real encounters with actual gods.

Combined, that is evidence there are no real gods.

Believers like to use the "you can't prove it" mantra as if that means we should all consider gods possible. They are as possible as the CERN experiments producing dragons from particle collisions. They are as possible as there being invisible pink unicorns in my back yard.

If you agree with those two statements, you are merely arguing the semantics of the scientific principle that one cannot prove the negative. I have no issue with that scientific principle.

My issue is when that principle is used as some kind of defense for consideration of the possibility gods exist. The evidence if you follow it, (also a scientific principle), is overwhelming that all god beliefs are myths. One need not test every single god belief in order to draw that conclusion any more than we need decipher every species' genomes to draw the conclusion the pattern supporting evolution theory is going to hold in all those species.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's an interesting take on things

do public high schools in America have a PSHE element to the curriculum?

I don't recognize the acronym.

There are certain opportunities for discussion of controversial issues in American schools, especially at the high school level. However, teachers have to tread lightly. In America, anything can be lawsuit fodder if it comes anywhere near the subject of religion. You can read in this forum about a lawsuit that originated when a student put a Bible verse into an art assignment. There was one not long ago about an atheist teacher who mocked Christianity. Graduation day will be here soon. That means that there will be one or two lawsuits because a valedictorian will say "Jesus" in her speech, and somebody somewhere will proclaim their rights have been violated, either because the principal turns off the microphone, or because she does not.

If children have parents of a nonreligious nature and children receive a religious education, I do think that they will develop critical thinking simply because they are exposed to two contrasting arguments or influences.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[articulett]

Indeed, skepticgirl.

And I do get so sick of people using "agnostic" as some imagined middle ground between belief and non belief. Is there a middle ground between belief in psychics and non belief in them?

Agnosticism means that it can't be known. Nobody can know if there are invisible undetectable immeasurable entities that exist outside the human mind... because they are immeasurable... they are identical to delusions. Nobody CAN know there is a god, much less that what it does or wants or thinks or feels or any of those things. As far as we know, all the above attributes REQUIRE a living, material, brain.

All people must be agnostic about "unknowable" things. That does not mean you hold the door open for any version of some unknowable thing... or the the unknowable thing you want to be true. Humans have no method of determining immeasurable beings from delusions of immeasurable beings, and until or unless evidence become available, the most logical explanation is that they are ALL products of the human mind.,

 

[Meadmaker]

Or a fine line between what you are defining as religion and what I define as culture.

Care to elaborate on how you distinguish between the two terms? I distinguish the difference by the belief system that goes along with religion which is qualitatively different from the identity and beliefs one has belonging to a group which is culture.

There are people who believe that life has a purpose, that people have free will, and that good and evil are meaningful terms. Those are religious beliefs. They are incompatible with pure materialism.

Among those people, there are people who believe that the systems of religious practice, by which I mean the rituals, myths, and day to day activities associated with religious observance are powerful ways of helping people achieve that purpose, and move toward the good and away from evil. In other words, these people celebrate Christmas or Solstice or Passover not just because they are part of some cultural tradition, but because they believe it is the right thing for them to do. They believe that these rituals and traditions help them become better people. The specific choice of rituals is a matter of culture, but the idea that there is a need to participate in those rituals is religious.

These people do not know, and largely are not interested in whether or not there is a God who hears their prayers. That's not important. They know that they hear their own prayers, and that's enough.

Such people can be found in every religious tradition.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

They are as possible as the CERN experiments producing dragons from particle collisions.

Yeah, but that would be so cool. I almost hope it happens now that you mention it.

 

[articulett]

Or a fine line between what you are defining as religion and what I define as culture.

Care to elaborate on how you distinguish between the two terms? I distinguish the difference by the belief system that goes along with religion which is qualitatively different from the identity and beliefs one has belonging to a group which is culture.

He must define it as something YOU don't understand; otherwise he must realize he's just using semantics to protect some belief or opinion that you are a threat to --rendering himself incomprehensible.

When you can't find the point in someone's verbiage, suspect that you've already hit very close to a belief they don't to have questioned. When they tell you that you don't understand, suspect that you understand more than they are comfortable with--that you've said something, THEY don't want to understand-- for ego protecting reasons. They must see you as wrong to avoid seeing themselves as semantically vague as those they find woo-ish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, you did: You said that one requirement is that one has to be an atheist.

I am asking you what the other requirements are, if any.

Here is my feedback to you, take it or leave it, this is the last reply I have on this matter. I ask that you first read the entire post before replying to it. Trying to reply paragraph by paragraph rather than to the entire post only deepens the failure to communicate here.

You have a frequent tendency to interpret what is said in a unique way. That would not be so bad per se. But when you post your unique interpretation of what was said, and the person who wrote the post says to you, you are misinterpreting what was said, this is where communication breaks down with you. Instead of taking into consideration that you have indeed not understood the connotation of the post, you insist that your interpretation could not possibly have been incorrect and you proceed to badger people, insisting you know what they said despite their trying to correct your misinterpretation.

Even if a person wrote an unclear thought or made some literal error that could be argued on a pedantic basis, most people recognize that this is a common problem when trying to communicate. And it is made even worse when communicating on a forum where extra cues such as body language and intonation are absent, replaced by smilies sometimes added to overcome the limitation of communicating only verbally.

Most people understand this communication difficulty and when it occurs most people try to understand what the person was saying by the correction or clarification. In addition, we've probably 'all' been guilty of using absolute terms like "all" and "every" on occasions when such a term was inappropriately applied. When called on these kind of pedantic errors, it is duly noted but hardly ever would become some bone of contention in the post as opposed to being recognized as just a casual poor choice of words.

You seem unwilling to consider that what the person was trying to communicate is more important that what you at first concluded they were saying.

And I can even tell you what you are going to say to this post that is trying to help you communicate better with people. You are going to put up a mental block to the possibility you do not interpret posts as the message is written. You will not allow yourself to consider the possibility you don't get what people mean when you apply your unique interpretation to what they say. You will brush this off as some personal attack when in reality it is a sincere attempt to share with you an observation about the constant arguments you get into with people when a discussion would be so much more productive.

And then if you are true to form, you will repeat your question that is based on your unique interpretation of what I posted and ignore my attempt to clarify what I intended to communicate. Despite how what I posted may or may not have communicated that thought, it should be clear by my follow up reply to your misinterpretation what I intended to communicate. I'll repeat that again just for the record.

A movement as you are using the word implies organization, maybe plans, maybe rules, some structure. The OP used the language "a movement". I used the language, "a movement" because it was used in the OP. But I also used the language, "would like". "Would" in my sentence is a future subjunctive verb. A future subjunctive verb is used to communicate feelings such as wishfulness or imagination, not things that are currently real or true. "Like" obviously denotes a preference, again, it is not a statement declaring that a critical thinking movement exists or what the specifics of such a movement 'would' be.

And in addition, your question implies all sorts of things not communicated at all in my post. That is where you slip into straw men. You are attributing things to my statement based on your unique interpretation of what I said. Repeating what I said does not change the meaning of what I intended to communicate. It merely reflects on your inability or unwillingness to consider you are not interpreting the statement in a typical way.

You are adding things to my statement which are not there. You are ignoring the future subjunctive verb and interpreting only my use of the OP language in my post. But that future subjunctive verb, "would like", changes the meaning of the sentence. It negates the literal meaning of the language of the OP and instead changes the meaning of the sentence to one of imagining something more nebulous in this case.

 

[articulett]

And now he will badger you and stalk you with his straw man interpretation of what you said cornering you for an explanation that he has no capacity to grasp. He will bleat on and on to anyone who will listen how terrible you are because you said (insert whatever straw man he imagines your words mean). He imagines he's making points when while showing no capacity to recognize a point.

The more you try to explain things to some people, the more they find to misinterpret and use to prop up their imagine expertise and reasons for vilification.

Atheism can't be a movement... moving away from superstition toward more rational thought can be... critical thinking can be... most people who value those traits eventually become atheists... but that appears to scare some people so that they must mishear whatever any of those atheists are saying. They want it to be logical to believe in whatever belief they have--the one they avoid laying out for examination. So they attack the messenger to keep from having to consider the message. It's exactly what everyone who fails the MDC does... it's exactly what all woo do. They need to believe that their woo is the "true woo" and nothing like all that other woo that skeptics don't believe in. They're really mad because you don't believe their woo. You don't respect their opinion any more than they respect yours. They imagine themselves more worthy of such respect, apparently.

I believe Claus fights straw men, because he's afraid of understanding what people are actually communicating. Such people tend to want to hold onto the idea that "faith" is good or ennobling... at least their faith is... that it's open minded... but there is no way to distinguish it from belief in demons or psychic powers or all the stuff they don't believe in. So they attack the messenger and claim that atheists are strident and hear words that no one says and play semantic games to keep their belief in their "rightness" about some nebulous something alive. They don't like when people perceive religion as just another brand of woo or superstition--and often a very damaging one at that.

It's never ending. They must win in their head... to lose means admitting fault in their reasoning... and their egos could never handle that... Oddly enough, such people imagine themselves humble. I find the irony endlessly amusing. No matter how nice and careful you are in explaining, you just make them madder and madder because you threaten the view they want to have of themselves.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

SG,
I appreciate the meticulous detailed post you have crafted. I sincerely hope that it will penetrate the target to some degree.

With that being said, I'm also some-what of a realist.
Often times no matter how carefully one chooses their words or tries to clarify their position, it is simply taken as fuel to continue the harassment.

The words are read, but the pathology changes/distorts the meaning to the perpetrator.
Just so you know, you're clear in your writing, and I'm sure others find you so as well.

As a proponent of general safety, perhaps a peek at this web site would be prudent...

http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/howto.htm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I believe Claus fights straw men, because he's afraid of understanding what people are actually communicating. Such people tend to want to hold onto the idea that "faith" is good or ennobling... at least their faith is... that it's open minded...

While I do wonder what it is that makes Claus defend god beliefs, I don't think this accounts for how he misinterprets so many discussions. I think it is just how his brain filters things. I just wish he'd recognize he often doesn't understand the meaning of what people are saying.

 

[six7s]

...these people celebrate Christmas or Solstice or Passover not just because they are part of some cultural tradition, but because they believe it is the right thing for them to do. They believe that these rituals and traditions help them become better people. The specific choice of rituals is a matter of culture, but the idea that there is a need to participate in those rituals is religious.

Although I am not one of 'those people', I nevertheless celebrate and/or commemorate significant events (e.g. births, deaths, marriage, birthdays, etc.) in a traditional (if not ritual) manner

Are you implying that I am religious?

If not, why assert that the "need to participate in those rituals is religious"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG,
I appreciate the meticulous detailed post you have crafted. I sincerely hope that it will penetrate the target to some degree.

With that being said, I'm also some-what of a realist.
Often times no matter how carefully one chooses their words or tries to clarify their position, it is simply taken as fuel to continue the harassment.

The words are read, but the pathology changes/distorts the meaning to the perpetrator.
Just so you know, you're clear in your writing, and I'm sure others find you so as well.

As a proponent of general safety, perhaps a peek at this web site would be prudent...

http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/howto.htm

I don't feel stalked by Claus. I do think he has an invalid, fixed view of me that colors his interpretations of my posts. I also know I have repeated these same things to him before to no avail. But I'm a nurse. I am conditioned to counsel people even if it might not be effective.

And I debated posting that in a PM but decided that if other people see the communication deficit I observe articulated, maybe it will be useful. Claus is no stranger to public discourse about his personality. I am posting it without intent of malice.

 

[Meadmaker]

Although I am not one of 'those people', I nevertheless celebrate and/or commemorate significant events (e.g. births, deaths, marriage, birthdays, etc.) in a traditional (if not ritual) manner

Are you implying that I am religious?

If not, why assert that the "need to participate in those rituals is religious"?

No, I am not implying that you are religious.

My comment that the need to participate in those rituals is religious was meant to apply only to "those people".