Knee-Jerk Atheist?

In the God Revisited column, Cecil says:

Most of the atheists I know have a very considered opinion, and while they tend to be argumentative, they also tend to have well constructed arguments.

In short, calling someone a knee-jerk atheist seems a bit like saying someone has a knee-jerk PhD; the lazy way to go is to believe what you’re told to believe, not spending time, energy and thought considering the idea for yourself.

I agree that entertaining the idea that there could be a God can be a enlightening process, but many people accept that notion simply because they’re told to. Knee-jerk Christians are more common the any brand of atheist.

If you tell someone you are an atheist you’re likely to get a lot of flak and argumentation. How much easier to simply go with the flow or simply not talk about your beliefs. Since a lot of atheists choose the latter, there isn’t a lot of discussion about it in mainstream society, so one has to seek out information and discussion on the subject.

For the most part, atheism is a thoughtful pursuit, not a lazy, brain-dead reaction to commonly held explanations for why life is the way it is.

I don’t think he meant it quite that way. I think he just meant rather than reject the God premise on whatever grounds, let us try to accept the premise and see where it leads. Which he then leads to a non-God.

First, there’s a significant difference between using the phrase “knee-jerk atheism” and calling someone a knee-jerk atheist.

Second, using the phrase “knee-jerk atheism” in no way implies that that’s the only kind of atheism there is.

Third, I’m trying to decide whether it’s appropriate to point to the picture accompanying this column, or whether I should just say “Hi, Opal” instead.

I can see how you might read it that way, but given the tone:

…Cecil seems to be saying that atheism is based on some simplistic concept like: “If there’s a God, why doesn’t he give me a pony.”

Atheists are a pretty diverse group, so I’m sure there are many who would have a hard time debating the subject and they may even trot out lame arguments.

But I don’t buy that Cecil was just saying that instead of coming to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist based on “well-worn arguments” one should instead come to the same conclusion by entertaining the idea that God does exit.

That’s true, and it might just be the way I’m reading it. Likewise, that the atheists I know have thought about their position does not mean that some people don’t just decide there’s no God based on an unanswered prayer.

This whole discussion got me to thinking about what if the writer had asked whether Santa existed instead of whether God existed, and whether Cecil have (non-) answered, “To put it another way, the more closely we examine arguments for the existence of Santa, the more surely traditional belief in the jolly elf slips from our grasp.”

Then I remembered Cecil actually did answer that question here.

I find the Santa answer much more satisfying.

I wonder if he would have claimed that someone could be a knee-jerk Santa denier.

If you have only ever run across atheists who have entirely open minds and are thoroughly rational, then you are very lucky; or perhaps you are simply taken in by the fact that their views happen to match yours, so that you have not bothered very much to probe the reasons they may have (which just might not be so good as yours) for holding those views.

It may be true that a higher proportion of atheists than of believers are open minded, critical thinkers, but the knee-jerk kind who are quite incapable of understanding how any rational person could be a believer (despite the fact that the most of history’s greatest thinkers, including nearly all of the greatest scientists, have been firm believers) most certainly do exist, and indeed, are all over atheist message boards on the net (which I do frequent sometimes, because, you know, I am an atheist) congratulating each other on their superior rationality and open mindedness, and sneering at anyone who does not share their levels of hostility to believers. I even came across a regular poster on the Dope recently (where I think open-mindedness is a good deal more prevalent) who seemed to be so blinded by his certainty that there is no God that he was quite quite unable to understand the simple logical distinction between the question of whether there is any actual evidence of the existence of God and the question of whether somebody might understandably (even if perhaps mistakenly) take certain facts to be evidence of the existence of God.

It was quite a lame article, but TBH it’s what I expected given the history of this question, the continuing religiosity of the US, and the fact these columns are meant to be light-hearted.

I mean, if you’re gonna take it at face value it’s pretty obvious the logic doesn’t work:

  • Suppose God exists
  • Some people define God as being the First Cause
  • Some physicists think there must be a First Cause too. But they think it will be some kind of mechanical, impersonal process
  • Therefore God (First Cause) exists, but he/it doesn’t have many of the properties some ascribe to God (like listening to prayers)

It’s the kind of nonsense word game that has infused theology / philosophy of religion from day one.

I don’t think there’s much controversy here really.

There is a minimum level of awareness to be a theist. One doesn’t observe religious behaviour in feral children or non-human animals for example (non-human animals may develop superstitions, but I’d call that categorically different). There is also a level of awareness required to challenge beliefs that may have either or both qualities of being indoctrinated into one from a young age or being quite appealing to the individual. I don’t know which of those would require more awareness and I don’t think it’s of particular importance.

There are poor reasons to believe in things and poor reasons to disbelieve in things. For example, it would be illogical to disbelieve in God because the idea of an omniscient God seems scary (appeal to emotion). It’d be equaly illogcal to believe in God because the majority of people in the world do so (appeal to popularity).

The issue njtt brings up is somewhere along the lines of intergoup discrimination. Of course atheists can form cliques (even though organising atheists has been likened to herding cats - sharing a disbelief in something doesn’t entail much about what one believes) - that’s human behaviour. In fact, I try to guard against that to an extent myself. The last time I assumed I was about to watch a reasoned approach to the matter of feminism, “TheAmazingAtheist” opened a video with a slew of epithets against women. Well, there went my schema. That said, Richard Dawkins devised a scale that tracks religiosity and dogmatism, with 7 points (a nice Biblical number), where 4 is stark agnosticism (either position equaly likely, or knowledge impossible), 1 is complete theism, 7 complete atheism. He said he’d never met a dogmatic atheist at point 7 and was only a 6.8 himself. On his forum a poll showed a sizeable minority of respondents (say of 80% that chose a position from 5-7, perhaps 35% chose 7 and 50% 6) self-identified as 7, but a subsequent poll I did showed an even split between those that self-identified as 7 that would consider adopting a theistic position in the light of new evidence and those that believed that such evidence wouldn’t be possible. So, even on the Richard Dawkins forum, only about 14% of respondents would not be receptive to evidence for the existence of God.

Then the seperate contention that hasn’t been raised is whether atheists are reasonable policy makers arises, with frequent references to Lenin and whatnot. Which I probably shouldn’t have even brought up since its irrelevant to the existence of God.

I don’t believe I’ve ever run into anyone of any faith who had an entirely open mind and was thoroughly rational. And I haven’t met atheists whose views match mine. In fact, I have had more arguments with non-believers than with believers.

And while I do believe that atheists tend to have considered opinions on the idea of God, I have put some more thought into it and I have to admit I know people whose opinions seem to be geared more toward going along with the gang rather than trying to understand for themselves. I guess I could call that “knee-jerk.”

I do not believe that adamant and outspoken atheists are necessarily of the knee-jerk variety though. It would seem to be exactly the opposite. People whose opinions and views are based on very little often sway in the breeze and can’t stand up to challenges. Arrogance and condescension might be a cover for a weak position, but having a firm, unapologetic stance that belief in God is irrational, even in a society that grants most religious belief a special dispensation, is not the kind of attitude that pops up overnight.

Many of the atheists on this board are incredibly well versed in the bible and theological study. I talked with others who have strong philosophical and rhetorical skills. Many have struggled with psychological issues and done penetrating personal work to better understand themselves. The term knee-jerk simply does not apply and it is dismissive to the point of insult.

Yet, many people accept the concept of God because they were raised that way, or because non-believers are often demonized or cast as Satan worshipers.

I’ve reread Cecil’s words and it might be that he was going for something like: unlike a certain brand of atheism which refuses to consider that there might be something worth calling God in a First Cause…

In calling those who argue that there is no God, knuckleheads (which would get him booted from this forum as being incapable of making his case without hurling insults) and saying that those arguments are easy, I think he is setting the tone. That tone leads me to read the sentence “unlike knee-jerk atheism, accepting that there could be a God provides us with an opportunity for an instructive exercise” as meaning that atheists in general are facile dimwits whose views are frail and poorly conceived.

That has not been my own personal experience with atheists. They tend to be argumentative, sure enough, but they tend to go from the assumption that there is no God/gods and are on some sort of holy (snort) crusade to convert the ignorant to the right way of thinking…and all of their arguments revolve around that sort of thinking. A lot of atheists remind me of a lot of over the top theist types in fact, except for the whole belief in God part.

'Cept that’s not exactly what he did there.

Christians of any stripe are more common than atheists of any brand, so that’s sort of a no brainer there. There just aren’t as many atheists (even if you count agnostics like me) are there are theists.

But most of the atheists I know who wear their atheism on their sleeves and there own version of a crown of thorns make up in volume what they lack in numbers.

:stuck_out_tongue: Basically, the short answer here is that he didn’t give you and some others the answer you wanted to hear, which is that of course there is no God/gods or supernatural beings of any sort, and all of this is so obvious that you have to be an ignorant savage to believe any such drivel. Of course, that IS sort of what he was saying, but he didn’t say it the way you wanted to hear it, so now you are a bit hurt by his obvious betrayal…though he didn’t, of course, betray anything.

-XT

Does agnosticism come with mind-reading super powers?

I thought it was a rather good article although the first cause stuff is a little boring. Before Cece took on the first article, I was in the camp that thought it was possible to write a decent column on the subject without getting bogged down in the deep philosophical morass that so often accompanies such discussions.

I don’t take issue with the answer, just the tone and the implication that dismissing the idea that a first cause could appropriately be called God is a simplistic, reactionary position.

Why yes, as a matter of fact, it does. AND we all get a handy dandy decoder ring, plus a bullshit detection kit…all for one very low price!

I thought it was a thought provoking article, and the first cause angle interesting, though obviously it’s not ground breaking. But it’s interesting for what it is…a newspaper article. To me, the meaning of the article was best summed up by Slug’s picture of ‘God’ reaching down to push over the first domino. THAT was the core of what he was getting at, and it was interesting enough, again, for what this is…a newspaper article intended for a mass market reader.

He was dismissive of the POST and poster and the tone of said post. I’m surprised Cecil didn’t cut him off at the knees, frankly…I would have, had that been aimed at me.

-XT

And what happens when you point that bullshit detector at the idea that you know what answer I was expecting? Or that I believe one would have to be an ignorant savage to believe such drivel?

You can try to cram all the words into my mouth you want, but if that’s the only approach you have, I don’t believe you’d be able to cut anyone off at knees. Please try to address the issue at hand which is not the article itself so much as the idea that finding fault with the approach of calling a first cause God is a knee-jerk reaction.

The bullshit detector or the mind-reader attachment? The BS detector says that you aren’t trying to BS anyone here and are sincere. The mind-detector says that…smack smack…well, it says ‘Reply hazy, try again’ when I shake it the first time, then ‘Outlook not so good’ and ‘Ask again later’, so I’ll have to get back to you on that.

(I never said it WORKED…just that we all got one)

I think the issue at hand here is best seen in the second Slug drawing…which is the core of what Cecil’s second article was addressing. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the post he was responding to, in order to put all this into some sort of context. I really think it might be profitable for you. Really really…

-XT

I just want to hijack the current flow of conversation to boastfully point out that I am the Great Knee-Jerking Knucklehead whose comment provoked a revisit of the original article. I’m genuinely far more excited and proud of that, than I am, that I missed the point* of the first go-round. :D:D:D

  • And I gotta admit, I did miss the point. That’s what I get for not reading The Master as carefully as I should. D’oh!

I bow before your reflected greatness, C. :slight_smile:

Given the tone of the paragraph in question – which contains words like “entertainment” and “knuckleheads” – I actually took it to be a subtle mocking of the knee-jerk attitude so pervasive in THEISM. That is, one could read that paragraph as using words to describe one group (atheists) that, given the overall message of the columns, are actually playing lightheartedly (one might also say ironically) with what’s really a description of their opposite.

I’m not expressing this well, but perhaps you all can see how it could be read this way. And even if I’m wrong about this, one thing is certain: the tone of that paragraph is lighthearted, so there’s no reason for anyone to feel insulted or slighted.

So, it’s less like a super power and more like a super ball? :wink:

I do see your point, and the point that it was meant to be lighthearted. I also recognize that the column isn’t the same as the message board. But Cece’s response would never fly on the boards, despite the horseshit provocation.

It’s no so much that I feel slighted or insulted, exactly. It’s more that at a crucial step in his reasoning, he simply dismisses his critics with an insult and handwavingly brushes aside a substantive point by implying that it is thin and poorly conceived.

A good definition should both include everything it’s meant to include and exclude everything it’s meant to exclude.

By assigning the term God to a first cause–which is conceptually on shaky ground to start with–we bring in all the baggage associated with the term God, and do nothing to help consolidate the idea of a first cause. In fact, the first cause idea becomes more tenuous and has to be replaced by the term sustaining cause.

Considering that we started out looking at God, we have now defined God as this sustaining cause which is part of the baggage we had going in. As has been pointed out in the past, saying that a necessary being necessarily exists doesn’t add anything to the definition. Saying that without God we wouldn’t be here to ask if there was a God doesn’t help.

So, the question: “why call it God at all?” does not strike me as knee-jerk atheism. On the other hand, carrying around the term God looking for a place to hang it and, having cobbled together some philosophy 101 hat rack and calling that good enough, that does seem like calling the whole issue settled just because one stopped writing.

The term knee-jerk simply does not fit. And as far as the entertainment value and the post being replied to: Cecil obviously gets to choose which post becomes the jumping off point for his response. As others have pointed out in the Is There A God thread, the horseshit post wasn’t necessarily the best summation of the argument that Cecil’s first column might have been lacking. (No offense intended, Cyningablod, you have indeed entered the pantheon of the mighty!)

Many of the atheists I know, perhaps even most of them, merely lost their faith in what they were raised in (or never were raised in one), and have never been presented with any alternative that was at all appealing, since that loss of faith. Hardly a “lazy, brain-dead reaction”, but not exactly a “thoughtful pursuit”, either.

Most of the outspoken “Preach it, Brother” type atheists I’ve encountered, on the other hand, fall well into the “lazy, brain-dead reaction” camp, and insist “There ain’t no fucking GOD, dammit, and that’s a FACT”, and if you tell them that the burden of proof lies on those who make factual assertions, they immediately insist that I (who have not made any assertion of fact) have the burden of proving some sort of god exists, or else their bald assertion “must” be taken as proven fact. They can’t even present a good argument as to why atheism is a reasonable default belief. They refuse to accept that it is a belief (although a negative, and reasonable one). They insist that it must be considered a proven fact, unless someone disproves it.

That’s a “knee-jerk atheist”. And I’ve encountered plenty of them. And they are even more annoying (if that’s possible) than my fundy christian relatives. And they post regularly on this board.