Arrogant Atheists? Arrogant Allegations of Arrogance
Krss created an excellent example of this phenomenon when commenting on something from this site about the origin of life (though the post seems to have disappeared now):
"It seems clear"? "Rather commonplace in the universe"? "There is no "vital force"" etc. Sheesh, can you tell this person is sure of themselves?
Actually, the use of words like “seems” and “rather” are used to communicate the tentative nature of such assertions, but let’s not allow little facts like that to interfere...
The article continues with expressing some case in which entropy decreases in an open system, or something like that. What does it prove? ... Maybe I didn't understand the point, I don't know. But the article annoys me.
So, Krss doesn’t understand the article, doesn’t understand what is said, but it still annoyed by it. Perhaps the annoyance would go away with some education about physics? If Krss did spend a little time learning about physics, they'd understand why and how entropy can decrease in an open system and thus why entropy isn't a valid reason for denying either evolution or abiogenesis.
Plus I don't care about atheism. I think it's a very limited way of viewing life and it gives the atheist a dangerous arrogance- after all, if there are no gods doesn't it mean that we humans are the coolest stuff ever?
This is just so far wrong that it’s mind-boggling. Consider, just for example, the rather common theistic belief (common among western theistic religions, at least) that we humans are specific and deliberate creations by God — often, in fact, created in this god’s image. This, evidently, isn’t all that arrogant — but atheists who believe that the human species evolved from other life forms and don’t possess anything that isn’t at least hinted at in other species are arrogant. Talk about projection.
With just a little research, Krss would have discovered that atheism isn’t a “way of viewing life,” that atheism isn’t “limited” in the manner described and that atheism doesn’t lead to the view that “humans are the coolest stuff ever.” Some atheists believe this, it is true — but quite a few theists believe it as well and they think that they have divine sanction for their belief. Comparing such an atheist and such a theist, which of the two arrogant positions do you suppose is the most arrogant?
This ignorance was reinforced by one of the comments there:
The problem with atheism is that without any higher power, it's easy to get too arrogant.
Right. On the other hand, believing in a higher power that created in you in its image and whose Will you know very well is a great way to avoid being arrogant.
As I noted above, it’s supremely ironic to witness such unfounded arrogance being used to accuse atheists of arrogance. It does not seem that either of these people knows the least little thing about atheism or atheists, but that doesn’t prevent them form pontificating about atheism and atheists — judging atheists in a manner which, coincidentally, allows them to feel smug and superior. That, by the way, is a nice definition of arrogance.
I may be accused of many things, but not of placing high value on humanity.
How about a high value on science and reason? They’re often good places to start. Neither religion nor belief in a “higher power” keep one from getting too arrogant; a good education, however, can. When you learn enough and learn how to reason well, it can help reinforce just how little we really do know. That can prevent one from being so pompous as to assume they know it all.
Comments
what’s that old saying? “Arrogance is next to Godliness?”
something like that….
I know the mind and intentions of the all-powerful creator of the Universe who, despite having to oversee every event that ever happens, including celestial occurrences of unimaginable beauty, power and complexity cares about nothing more than the intimate details of MY personal life!
And if you doubt this, YOU’RE ARROGANT!!!!
Hi all,
I’m just back from a discussion with a dear friend who used against me not only the “atheists are arrogant” argument, but even the “Einstein was smart, and in the end he chose to believe in God” one (which, when I read it ten years ago in the alt.atheism FAQ, made me think it was just made up to make believers look dumb).
Anyway, I’d like to comment on this “arrogance” thing, and not to join the choir “oh we atheists are sooo humble; it’s THEM the arrogant ones”.
We must avoid the straw man fallacy, in my opinion, and avoid depicting believers as too close minded. Let’s rather assume that we want to justify the hypothesis that atheists are indeed arrogant: what are the best supporting arguments? I mean, the soundest ones.
I find two major ones:
1. Over-extension of the science scope and method. For many among us, science is the only thought method we saw actually working. In the lack of some decent philosophical background (epistemology comes to mind), we are tempted to apply words like “truth”, “proof”, “hypothesis” in extra-scientific domains without reconsidering their definition and properties. And quite frankly, expecting others to accept and use our perfectly good scientific hammer to beat on the head of religious screws is rather arrogant.
2. The Laplace statement. This is, I think, one of the major original misunderstandings; when Laplace said that God was “an unnecessary hypothesis”, he didn’t mean that God was ontologically unnecessary (the Universe does not need God), but that God was an unnecessary scientific hypothesis in his theory. Actually, with Popper we can even say that God is an invalid scientific hypothesis because it’s not a falsifiable one. So, in my opinion, this one is a misattributed case of point 1 above.
So, what is the point here? I think that, in light of the two arguments above, what an atheist should try to do is not to use science as a kind of totem, but just as the tool that it is.
This means, it’s all good and well when we debunk some believer’s misunderstanding of entropy on scientific grounds. But, I see some arrogance danger in reading a sentence like “How about a high value on science and reason?”: much better would be “How about a high value on reason?” (at least we aren’t saying according to which philosophical school or movement, and we keep some freedom for the later debate). But still, reason is so much more than science and yet it seems unlikely that reason can prove that God exists or that God does not.
Any thoughts?
As a final remark, I’d like to explicitly state that my opinion is (surprise, surprise) that some atheists are arrogant, and others are not. Some of the arrogant ones are like that because of one of the two reasons I wrote, others are arrogant for the (in my opinion less sensible) reasons mentioned in the article as accusations.
Hi all,
I’m just back from a discussion with a dear friend who used against me not only the “atheists are arrogant” argument, but even the “Einstein was smart, and in the end he chose to believe in God” one (which, when I read it ten years ago in the alt.atheism FAQ, made me think it was just made up to make believers look dumb).
Anyway, I’d like to comment on this “arrogance” thing, and not to join the choir “oh we atheists are sooo humble; it’s THEM the arrogant ones”.
We must avoid the straw man fallacy, in my opinion, and avoid depicting believers as too close minded. Let’s rather assume that we want to justify the hypothesis that atheists are indeed arrogant: what are the best supporting arguments? I mean, the soundest ones.
I find two major ones:
1. Over-extension of the science scope and method. For many among us, science is the only thought method we saw actually working. In the lack of some decent philosophical background (epistemology comes to mind), we are tempted to apply words like “truth”, “proof”, “hypothesis” in extra-scientific domains without reconsidering their definition and properties. And quite frankly, expecting others to accept and use our perfectly good scientific hammer to beat on the head of religious screws is rather arrogant.
2. The Laplace statement. This is, I think, one of the major original misunderstandings; when Laplace said that God was “an unnecessary hypothesis”, he didn’t mean that God was ontologically unnecessary (the Universe does not need God), but that God was an unnecessary scientific hypothesis in his theory. Actually, with Popper we can even say that God is an invalid scientific hypothesis because it’s not a falsifiable one. So, in my opinion, this one is a misattributed case of point 1 above.
So, what is the point here? I think that, in light of the two arguments above, what an atheist should try to do is not to use science as a kind of totem, but just as the tool that it is.
This means, it’s all good and well when we debunk some believer’s misunderstanding of entropy on scientific grounds. But, I see some arrogance danger in reading a sentence like “How about a high value on science and reason?”: much better would be “How about a high value on reason?” (at least we aren’t saying according to which philosophical school or movement, and we keep some freedom for the later debate). But still, reason is so much more than science and yet it seems unlikely that reason can prove that God exists or that God does not.
Any thoughts?
I’m sorry I still don’t understand. Could you say that one more time?
Giovanni Rimassa says: (But still, reason is so much more than science and yet it seems unlikely that reason can prove that God exists or that God does not.)
200 years ago, A revolutionary, Thomas Paine, Said: The creator gave us the power to reason, so, why would it not be reasonable to assume that he would expect us to use it? Plus, I think I have a cure for arrogance for people of all minds. Simply go outside on a clear night, raise your eyes and stare out into the universe. If that doesn’t do it, nothing will!
Looking back on my time as an incontrovertible theist, I recall having a n unvoiced opinion of science and evolution in general. I had the impression that evolution was part of a revolution (undoubtably brought about by Satan starting a battle) where those who didn’t believe in god, or were in the clutches of Satan, were trying to force the rest of us into a world without god, thereby damaging my chances for eternal life.
Now that I actually read layman-scientific information, I realize it’s just masses of scientists who are looking at things objectively and noticing absolutely fascinating ideas about the world around us.
It’s not a conspiracy to bring about the downfall of religion. It’s an honest search (minimal falsification of scientific data aside) for answers, conducted in a manner that can be replicated.
What I didn’t know was that I was being told skewed half-truths about science. Being told only of failures that proved points rather than expanding my vision widely and seeing ALL the evidence.
Looking at something like “entropy” with an open mind (instead of reading the article already assuming that someone is trying to trick you, or destroy your salvation with god, leads to realizing that entropy is an incredibly interesting concept that leaves you awash with so many questions about life in general and having a tremendously deep respect for it.
I don’t understand how looking at things logically, uncovering new and awe-inspiring phenomena, or learning from research that can replicate findings again and again is arrogant.
Does this incredible creature called god not want humans to be the best they can be? Does it not want humans to gain insight and wisdom so they can keep bettering themselves?
You can’t tell people that they are arrogant and yet use all the technology and advancements that such “arrogance” brought about. Be a purist and go back to the ancient religions then. Rip out the heart of the nearest virgin and sacrifice it. If you aren’t going to move forward and search for the “truth”, you may as well.