It appears to me that there is a resentment among many here of the mere concept of faith, and when it's pointed out that they, too, exercise faith to one extent or another, they become very hostile.
Not that their hostility is a problem. But it's interesting, nonetheless.
This is part of why I have largely withdrawn from the forum: there is something wrong with some of the participants to the point where it's not quite like dealing with normal people. I know I'll be accused of analyzing from afar, but this is part of a trend I have observed over the last few decades, and I have met many people like this in person, too.
Essentially, I think there is a personality type that deals poorly with uncertainty. This may be an attribute of a disorder such as OCPD, or just an exaggerated individual personality axis. Regardless, this type of person seeks certainty and metaphilosophical closure, and is anxious without it. I think it's a toss-up as to whether this person becomes a religious, political, or naturalistic extremist, and each finds a unique path to one of these destinations.
Often: I am intrigued by observing examples of somebody who was a door-knocking, foot-washing, bible-thumping, exorcism-seeker - then suddenly reads a bit of Dawkins and is railing against all religions as the crime of the century. The magnitude of obsession is identical - just a change of obsession.
My dad is like this: devout Catholic, turned devout atheist, now he's forgotten that and is ready to chain himself naked to the Legislature over a neighbour's eyesore street signage.
At the end of the day, the worst accusation would be that of 'waffler' (remember that one?) or that their conclusions are based on assumptions. It undermines the confidence of their doctrine... sets them adrift, if you will.
In the case of atheism, I've long argued that a person can be a skeptic and religious, or a skeptic and atheistic, or a skeptic and agnostic *and* an atheist (I put myself in this category - aka: "I doubt the claims of all participants, feel there is no way to test the claims, but based in the evidence and my chosen worldview of philosophical naturalism, I really don't think God exists, and will act accordingly.")
Bunge's article in Skeptical Inquirer V.30 No.4 is germaine. I quote:
Most scientists are unaware that they uphold any philosophical views. Moreover, they dislike being told that they do.
To some extent, philosophical naturalism - the underlying philosophy of science - has become detached from the operational segment of the profession. Consequently, most people filling scientific or technological roles today are unaware that some of their 'facts' are actually metaphysical axioms or assumptions.
Most importantly, some of these axioms (unprovable by definition) contradict those accepted by people in other worldviews. This thread has assumed, for example, that it is important to be logically consistent. That is not a 'fact' and it is not reliably shared by all religious philosophers. It explains why we reject religious views, but it doesn't explain why they are 'wrong'. Just that they're wrong given our established ontology. But the ontology is not independently verifiable, and can arguably be considered a 'belief system,' 'worldview,' or perhaps even a 'faith.'
I often ask skeptics who are so certain about these things to rewind a bit and explain to me why, for example, it's important to be correct rather than wrong, or to be skeptical rather than unquestioning. Why is it important to be alive rather than dead. Why is it important, if we are correct about something, to bring this view to others instead of keeping it to ourselves.
I think for a lot of people in this personality type I'm monitoring, these questions are uncomfortable in their subtlety, complexity, and uncertainty. After however many years of studying philosophy (I do not have a philosophy degree) and interacting with philosophy professors as colleagues and friends, I have concluded that there is no worldview that is satisfactorily complete or accurate. This bothers me, but not so much that I will adopt one as complete and accurate, and ignore all the criticisms. I attribute this to an intrinsic property.
!
).
.
