Atheism, cont'd, plus Materialism

Recently a person called Morsecode posted a couple of comments about what I wrote about atheism as a religion. I was ranting just a bit about some of the prominent self-described atheists who are now publishing a lot of books (with deliberately provocative titles such as: God is Not Great (cute, eh?!)). I find these folks annoying, partly because of their style: they adopt an air of superiority, and heap scorn upon people with religious faith. My own beliefs (or lack of beliefs), I hasten to add, about the ultimate nature and meaning of reality (whatever that is!) are probably not much in conformity with the (literal) doctrinal content of nearly any religion you might choose. I’m a skeptical person, by nature, and I reserve judgment about a lot of stuff. I can’t seem to make myself believe things just because I want to believe them, or because it would somehow seem advantageous to believe them. But I have the greatest respect (and affection) for the many highly intelligent people I know who do profess belief and faith in various religious doctrines. At the same time, I know that religious beliefs (or, more importantly I think, religious allegiances) have played a major role in no end of suffering and harm in our world. Yet I am not at all sure that the lack of religious adherence or beliefs would make the world a more peaceful and loving place. And I am quite sure that scorn, belittling, and ad hominem attacks are all indicative of essentially small minds and overall immaturity.

As to Morsecode’s primary complaint about my post, he points out that not all atheists profess a positive belief that there is no “god” or, I suppose, sentience/intelligence involved in the creation and sustaining of all that is. He is correct. Some who call themselves “atheists” are really what I would call “agnostics.” Here is a chunk I pulled off of Wikipedia about the more technical distinctions:

*******************************************************************************

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[32] and Michael Martin[21] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[33] Under “this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.

Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[40] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists."

****************************************************************************

So, as to atheism, I hope the record is corrected. I referred to some atheists (these would be anyone who adopts the “strong” form of atheism) as dogmatic, and Morsecode objected, with some justification. I tend to conflate the anti-theistic position of many dogmatic atheists with their frequently comorbid, or co-occurring, positions about radical monistic materialism, or reductionism. About that, there is (I believe) truly a tendency to be dogmatic.

This is what I find most disturbing, actually: that there are some among us who appear to take pleasure and pride in advancing the idea that there is no mind, no freedom, no beauty, and no meaning that is not ultimately “reducible” to and fully explainable by (for example) electrochemical activity in the human brain. This may, of course, in some sense be “true”; but, if so, then how do we live? If I truly believe that I am not in any sense genuinely free to choose my actions, and that, anyway, my actions and their results lack any genuine significance, and if I behave as if this is true, then my life (I believe) will be very different than it now is. Of course, that is what is called in science an “empirical question.” It would be interesting to see it tested, and such testing has actually begun. Not long ago a study was published in which two groups of people were observed at some sort of task (the typical psych study task). The people who were in the group that had been exposed to a lecture about the idea that humans truly lack any real free will tended to cheat at the task more often than the other group. Here is an excerpt from the “Science Daily” description of the study:

*************************************************************************

Prior to the [task, the scientists], used a well-established method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.

The results were clear: those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.

*************************************************************************

I suggest that those who promote ideas that there is no genuine freedom (meaning, etc.) do not, in fact live as if this is true; and this raises all sorts of other questions, as well. Long ago, I majored in philosophy, and I have some sense (and dread!) as to how deeply incomprehensible the philosophical arguments quickly become, when we go in this direction.

But I feel compelled to ask, anyway: If it is true that there is no genuine freedom (or meaning), how will humanity respond to this truth? Do we adopt (or try to impose), say, a set of (dare I say “religious”) beliefs, contrary to reality, declaring that we are free and responsible, etc., even though we secretly know otherwise? A sort of desperate, pragmatic, existentialism? I don’t know. Probably there are philosophers and ethicists who are already working on this problem. But I shudder to think of life in a world in which humans are convinced that they mean nothing. It might be even worse than a world in which humans believe that they mean everything.