The new atheist commandments: Science, philosophy and principles to replace religion

[rug]

Atheism need not be reactionary -- it can offer constructive rules to live by. Stand back, Moses: Here's our shot

Sunday, Nov 9, 2014 11:30 AM EST
Lex Bayer and John Figdor

Excerpted from "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart"

“Begin at the beginning,” the King said, very gravely, “and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”— Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

*

We begin by suggesting a framework of secular belief. It begins with the simple question, How can I justify any of my beliefs?

When thinking about why we believe in anything, we quickly realize that every belief is based on other preexisting beliefs. Consider, for example, the belief that brushing our teeth keeps them healthy. Why do we believe this? Because brushing helps removes plaque buildup that causes teeth to decay.

But why do we believe plaque causes decay? Because our dentists, teachers, and parents told us so. Why do we trust what our dentist says? Because other dentists and articles and books we’ve read confirmed it. Why do we believe those accounts? Because they presented many more pieces of information confirming the link between plaque, bacterial growth, and tooth decay. And why do we believe those pieces of information?

There seems to be no end. It’s like the old story of a learned man giving a public lecture in which he mentions that the earth orbits the sun. At the end of the lecture an elderly lady approaches the lectern and sternly informs him that he is wrong: The world, she says, is actually resting on the back of a giant turtle. The learned man smiles and asks, “What is the turtle standing on?” The old lady doesn’t even blink and replies, “Another turtle, of course!” When the learned man starts to respond, “And what is that turtle—” she interrupts him: “You’re very clever, young man . . . but it’s turtles all the way down!”

Just like that cosmic stack of turtles, the process of justifying beliefs based on other beliefs never ends—unless at some point we manage to arrive at a belief that doesn’t rely on justification from any prior belief. That would be a foundational source of belief.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/09/the_new_atheist_commandments_science_philosophy_and_principles_to_replace_religion/



http://www.amazon.com/dp/1442236795/?tag=saloncom08-20

[cbayer]

1. This is way to long and complex for my current state of mind, but ...

I wonder if I'm related to this guy?

[rug]

4. They're on it!

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Oh i'm sure it sounds great to you, with it enthusiastically horking down the poison pill of accepti

ng atheism as a belief system

Simultaneously accepting the burden of proof of supporting those beliefs.
I sure wish someone around here could tell the difference between a belief system like Humanism, and a state without belief like atheism.

[Jim__]

10. The Introduction to the book is available on Amazon.

It is by Lex Bayer. According to him, he was a South African secular Jew - was because I'm not sure if he still identifies as Jewish. Hope that helps.

[cbayer]

11. Thanks Jim. I'll take a look at it.

Bayer is a very, very common name in Germany, but not so much in the US. Not sure about S. Africa.

I doubt we are related.

[MisterP]

2. isn't this from Comte?

next they'll be filling Guatemala with temples to Athena to supplant Christi--oh, wait ...

[Humanist_Activist]

3. "Atheism need not be reactionary -- it can offer constructive rules to live by." No it can't...

Atheism also isn't reactionary except in the context of a world where theism is considered default.

But Atheism provides for absolutely no guidance in any rules to live by, either ethical or moral, that's something you are supposed to figure out on your own. That means that any ethics or morals you come up with or follow are less likely to use pronouncements from deities as their base(e.g. divine command theory), but other than that, atheism is a position on one issue whether god(s) exist or not.

What's hilarious is that the first sentence of the next excerpt pretty much contradicts the premise of the book.

ON EDIT: In addition, in the excerpt, they seem to erroneously equate evidence with belief, not sure how such ignorance is supposed to prove anything. Yes beliefs for some things are unsupported by evidence, and could suffer from infinite regression, but many other beliefs are not.

[rug]

5. Are you familiar with the Re Think Prize?

http://www.atheistmindhumanistheart.com/

The authors are behind that and it is supported by The Richard Dawkins Foundation.

http://www.atheistmindhumanistheart.com/

You may disagree but I would not be cavalierly dismissive.

[Humanist_Activist]

6. I don't see what is useful about a "secular ten commandments" so have no interest in that...

The term "commandment" shows a lack of flexibility in forming consciences, not to mention a false framing and appeal to a non-existent authority. Ethical and moral codes should be subject to revision and scrutiny at all times when new information becomes available.

I'm cavalierly dismissive because the premise is rather ridiculous.

Being an atheist is, in many cases, a result, not a premise, it doesn't even help to frame an argument for how we are to conduct ourselves, either in society or personally. How does being an atheist lead someone to secular humanism, for example? Can anyone make a reasonable argument here?

Hell, you can't even make the leap from atheism to secularism, the two aren't synonymous, and there are plenty of atheists in the world who follow non-theistic religions, which are, by definition, not secular.

[rug]

7. I don't particularly disagree but there are different schools of thought forming about this.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Dafuq?

"But why do we believe plaque causes decay? Because our dentists, teachers, and parents told us so. Why do we trust what our dentist says? Because other dentists and articles and books we’ve read confirmed it. Why do we believe those accounts? Because they presented many more pieces of information confirming the link between plaque, bacterial growth, and tooth decay. And why do we believe those pieces of information?"

Because independent accounts test and verify it, AND you yourself can test it, if so motivated.

It's like these two are utterly ignorant of peer review.