evaluating biases

[flipside]

To what extent do you think an individual`s preference that there not to be a God, influences his or her atheism. Is there a conflict of interest here?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Define God in this context. I can think of many conceivable types of gods that I'd like to have; I can think of many that I'd abhor. Then there are the rest, on which I'm ambivalent.

I disbelieve in all of them, despite my preference, for want of evidence.

 

[drkitten]

To what extent do you think an individual`s preference that there not to be a God, influences his or her atheism. Is there a conflict of interest here?

No more so than on any other question of factual belief. Yes, it's possible (and indeed well-documented) that individual people will hold a factually incorrect belief on the basis of a desire that their belief be true. They will many times hold onto this belief in the teeth of empirical evidence that their belief is true. But there's nothing here special about beliefs in God.

What I would like to know is why this question comes up so often specifically in the discussion of atheism. Although it's well-documented that individual people can hold onto beliefs in the teeth of the evidence, it's also well-documented that people can also abandon beliefs when presented with evidence against the belief.

If you want to persuade someone to believe in God, tell him why. Show him the evidence. Don't just psychoanalyze him -- it demeans him and makes you look like a fool.

 

[Piscivore]

To what extent do you think an individual`s preference that there not to be a God, influences his or her atheism. Is there a conflict of interest here?

What the Dr. said, plus:

As has been repeated ad Nauseum, atheists are rarely atheist because they don't want god to be real. This is an idea almost wholly created and perpetuated by theists, because then the atheist fits neatly into the box marked "tricked by or serving Satan". It is a strawman that gets erected every few weeks.

Most atheists have come to their position after years, sometimes decades, of fervently trying to communicate with some deity or another. After long, earnest effort at faith and belief.

Most atheists even now would probably prefer there were a kind an benevolent diety to watch over us and to correct the unfortunate errors we humans are all to prone to make. Someone or something that could pull us back from the deppening abyss. The atheist just isn't willing to let these preferences cloud his thinking.

To what extent do you think an individual`s preference that there be a God, influences his or her theism?

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: evaluating biases

What the Dr. said, plus:

As has been repeated ad Nauseum, atheists are rarely atheist because they don't want god to be real. This is an idea almost wholly created and perpetuated by theists, because then the atheist fits neatly into the box marked "tricked by or serving Satan". It is a strawman that gets erected every few weeks.

Most atheists have come to their position after years, sometimes decades, of fervently trying to communicate with some deity or another. After long, earnest effort at faith and belief.

Most atheists even now would probably prefer there were a kind an benevolent diety to watch over us and to correct the unfortunate errors we humans are all to prone to make. Someone or something that could pull us back from the deppening abyss. The atheist just isn't willing to let these preferences cloud his thinking.

This post is so lucid that it bears repeating. It really comes down to, what makes you think atheists _don't_ want there to be a god?

I know that doesn't apply in my case, that's for sure.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: evaluating biases

This post is so lucid that it bears repeating. It really comes down to, what makes you think atheists _don't_ want there to be a god?

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to believe that some atheists don't want there to be a god. I'm also perfectly willing to believe that some atheists do want there to be a god, and that for the atheists that do want there to be a god, they disagree over exactly what sort of god they would like there to be.

Part of what I find so disconcerting about this "atheism is simply a widespread psychological disorder" strawman is not only that it implies that all atheists are poor, deluded, dupes, but that they're all identically deluded dupes. The only time we ever see these kinds of identical delusions is in something like a cult/brainwashing situation, where a small group of people or a single charismatic individual has managed to obtain more or less total control over a small group of followers.

Which, I suppose, leads to the "Cult of Atheism" that gets brought up every once in a while. Atheism obviously can't be a conventional religon, because conventional mainstream religions are continuously wracked by sectarian tendencies and internal dissention -- while atheism seems to have no such difficulties. The possibility that someone might genuinely disbelieve on the basis of evidence doesn't occur to them, despite the fact that the only other fields in which we've got this degree of substantial concurrence of opinion, such as science and engineering, are based exactly and almost exclusively on evidence and reason. Rarely will you find a group of people as uniform in their beliefs as scientists within their areas of expertise. Ask any physicist across the world how fast a stone will hit the ground when dropped from a thirty-meter height, and you'll get the same answer.

But, then, science is also accused of being a cult as well.....

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: evaluating biases

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to believe that some atheists don't want there to be a god.

Some atheists? Sure, but a) I don't know that I've ever encountered them, and b) "some atheists" =/= "atheists"

OTOH, the original question is worded very strangely. I guess if you look at it right, it is asking "If someone doesn't want there to be a god, then how does that influence their atheism?" Thus, it only applies to those who don't want their to be a god.

To this, I would say, I really haven't encountered anyone who doesn't want there to be a god, so I can't really say if they are atheist or not.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

To what extent do you think an individual`s preference that there not to be a God, influences his or her atheism. Is there a conflict of interest here?

To what extent do you think an individual`s preference that there not to be a God, influences the existance of a God?

It doesn't seem to matter in any other arena ( execept where one destroys an object in order to end it's existance )...

It would be an easy matter to render the preferances of Atheists irrelevant by simply producing a God...

----------------------------------------------------------

Your turn, or are you just marking the territory?

 

[Piscivore]

Looks like we have another troll-and-runner. I wonder if he goes to church with 1inCh?

 

[farmermike]

The question is genuine. From personal experience I would have to say that my rejection of God, initially sprang from a desire to act at will, making any conclusions about his existence that I may have subsequently formulated, suspect at best. Should we not be suspicious when our paradigm is too comfortable a fit for our motives?

 

[farmermike]

Darn! Thought I could use "flipside" from home. Oh well. Here we go again. I am Karen/flipside/farmermike's wife. I'll check into how to resolve the multiple personalities.

 

[Piscivore]

The question is genuine. From personal experience I would have to say that my rejection of God, initially sprang from a desire to act at will, making any conclusions about his existence that I may have subsequently formulated, suspect at best.

That's not atheism. It wasn't atheism when Flannery O'Connor tried to paint it this way either.

 

[farmermike]

That's not atheism. It wasn't atheism when Flannery O'Connor tried to paint it this way either.

Karen
Whether it was or wasn't, is not atheism self-serving in many respects? And as such can anyone objectively weigh its merits and believe that they have reached their conclusions, based solely on the facts, not the wishes? There's a lot to gained in this life by believing that you're a free agent.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Karen
Whether it was or wasn't, is not atheism self-serving in many respects? And as such can anyone objectively weigh its merits and believe that they have reached their conclusions, based solely on the facts, not the wishes? There's a lot to gained in this life by believing that you're a free agent.

Whether it was or wasn't, is not Christianity self-serving in many respects? And as such can anyone objectively weigh its merits and believe that they have reached their conclusions, based solely on the facts, not the wishes? There's a lot to be gained in this life by believing that " the Devil made you do it ".

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

All my decisions are self-serving. If they weren't, I wouldn't make them. I utterly fail to see what this has to do with anything.

There are tons of things I'd like to believe that I don't...

Telepathy.
The Loch Ness Monster.
That my Madden skills were irresistibly attractive to the opposite sex.
A loving God.

 

[Piscivore]

Karen
Whether it was or wasn't, is not atheism self-serving in many respects? And as such can anyone objectively weigh its merits and believe that they have reached their conclusions, based solely on the facts, not the wishes? There's a lot to gained in this life by believing that you're a free agent.

Yeah, like having to assume responsibility for your own actions. Relying on your own best judgement, flawed as you know it is, to make decisions. Having the burden of making your own decisions, without a church, priest, or holy book to give you the answers.

Not to mention giving up the consolation that there is some force for justice that will balance out the bad things that happen to you. That will forgive your every mistake. That will punish those that wrong you and reward you for your suffering. That will take care of you and those you love no matter what horrors the scary, scary world presents.

Yeah, there's a whole lot to be gained.

Besides, even if god did exist, there is nothing at all preventing one from acting as one pleases. One need not declare disbelief in the laws of the country in which one resides to be able to break those laws, must one? One just has to be prepared to accept the consequenses- and since, according to the bible, there is only one "sin" that is "unforgivable" there aren't any real consequenses, are there? One may do as one pleases, commit any sin or atrocity, indulge any whim or impulse- one must only repent of it and the slate is again clean. Seems to be a popular course of action amongst the faithful, in any case. It makes much more logical sense to remain a theist if one wishes to embrace this impulse to liberty of which you speak. And indeed- as I've pointed out- if one is worried about the consequenses of violating divine law, one obviously still believes in the source of those laws. Thus, one is not an atheist.

An atheist, a real atheist, has no need to "free" himself from god's law. Do you feel you must agressively disbelieve in Santa to make sure you are not on the "naughty" list? Do you feel it is necessary to decide that Big Brother does not exist in order to liberate yourself from his spies? Must you publicly declare your "a-voldemortism" to keep the Deatheaters at bay?

Of course not. But you knew this when you erected this tired old scarecrow.

Is atheism "self-serving"? Well, yes, in a way. But not how you mean. An atheist is "self-serving" in that he acts according to the dictates of his reason and his conscience, without appeal to either spiritual or fictional authority. Almost all atheists obey the laws of the temporal authorites, however- where does this leave your theory about the "will to freedom" being the primary impetus to atheism? Is it somehow more free to choose to follow man's laws, but not god's?

To reiterate; atheism is not chosen in order to "free" the atheist from the strictures of god's law, whatever that is. That freedom exists already, in greater measure, to the devout theist. Atheism is a conclusion one comes to when one examines the evidence, or lack thereof, and determines that all human ideas of deity thusfar proposed are either impossible or irrelevant.

Anything else? Wanna throw down the "deluded by Satan" card now?

 

[farmermike]

.

There are tons of things I'd like to believe that I don't...

Telepathy.
The Loch Ness Monster.
That my Madden skills were irresistibly attractive to the opposite sex.
A loving God.

Karen
But are you convinced of anything (about which there is some degree of debate) that you wish you weren't?

 

[Piscivore]

Karen
But are you convinced of anything (about which there is some degree of debate) that you wish you weren't?

That my daughter is dead, and that means dead. Gone. Adios. No resurrection, no reincarnation, no reunion at the feet of some warm and fuzzy sky daddy at Big Rock-candy Mountain.

Because, you know, I don't want there to be a God.

Apologies, Marquis.

 

[farmermike]

Anything else? Wanna throw down the "deluded by Satan" card now?

Karen
Nah, only you present the dime store version of Christianity. God judges the attitude of the heart. He forgives when we repent, which implies genuine sorrow for the offence.
Christianity really isn't the "fairyland" you portray. Being in the world but not of it, is often rather lonely. Love your neighbour as yourself, pick up your cross and follow me etc., are ideals I could conveniently do without, and yet I know they hold the key to contentment, however infrequently I invoke them. My faith is at once, deeply satisfying and constantly challenging. It's not the anesthetic you seem to think.

At any rate, I guess the answer to my original question, is no. The true atheist, it turns out, often wishes there were a God but is bound by his analytical mind to dismiss that hope.

 

[H3LL]

As has been so well said, very few atheists have always been so.

What seems to be missing here, and in other similar threads is the target is wrong.

In my experience, very few atheists arrive there by directly questioning the existence of a supreme being.

It tends to follow a path through a religious dogma. Initially there is the belief of something guiding, loving, creating, caring...whatever.

Then comes questioning of a particular faith that is close to life experiences. Whatever is dominant among your peers and/or family.

As knowledge increases, it becomes apparent how hypocritical, power hungry and control oriented these faiths are.

Next is looking for reasons why they are such vile organisations in holy texts. The answers are not there either.

Disillusion in the current faith often leads to looking at other, similar, faiths that must be better than the one you have. This also fails to provide satisfactory answers to match your perception of your supreme being and how one should act.

The existing collections of one faith are written off as a bad bunch, so other faiths are looked at. Unfortunately, all with similar results.

In time, all faiths present similar ideas in a similar manner with equal cavalier attitudes to their own holy writings and disrespect to their own deity.

Now that the conclusion that all faiths are suspect, attention turns to the source of those faiths, The supreme being, in whatever form it may take.

As the supreme being has no impact on its own faiths and is incapable of simple tasks such as communicating its existence in a coherent and universal form, the questioning of that being or beings begins.

No deity can stand up to critical analysis or provide any plausible evidence of its existence, and agnosticism blends, almost seamlessly, into atheism.

The supreme being no longer has any relevance to life and is, often with some sadness, finally discarded as useless.

IMHO much of this path corresponds to the path taken by many atheists, and has been shown to be so on these boards. Most atheists here will probably have some part of it that is familiar.

The best route to atheism is through established faiths.

Question the faiths, not the atheists.