Chatting Atheism

I took part in a conversation about contemporary atheism, which appeared on The Point, which is a web series spin-off of The Young Turks, which itself is both a web series and a show broadcast on Current TV. (Got all that?) My co-panelists were Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society and Edward Falzon, author of the (satirical!) book Being Gay is Disgusting, and it was hosted by Cara Santa Maria, science correspondent for the Huffington Post.

Atheists On Religion, Science, And Morality (The Point)

The format of the show is that we hear three very brief pre-recorded “points,” to which the panelists then respond. In this case, all the points and all the panelists were already confirmed atheists, so we could put aside for the moment the endless arguments about whether God exists and focus on the very interesting questions of what to do about the fact that he doesn’t. The points we heard were from James Randi, PZ Myers, and AJ Johnson of American Atheists. I wasn’t familiar with AJ before this event, but her video was very strong; I think (hope) we’ll be hearing a lot more from her in the future.

It was a great talk, although it did reinforce my conviction that while we atheists are mostly right on the metaphysics, we need to really raise our game when it comes to epistemology and metaethics.

65 Comments

65 thoughts on “Chatting Atheism”

  1. Walter, if you can’t be a happy atheist, perhaps you could try being a happy agnostic and think, gee, maybe there is a heaven (even if on a plausibility scale from 0 to 10 it’s about a 0.000001). Or alternatively you could believe in the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in which on at least one of those worlds your dead dad (and my dead wife) are still alive. Regarding autism, I know it’s a spectrum, but if the panel in the video and moderator, Cara, are on that spectrum, they’re pretty far out there.

  2. While I greatly sympathize with what Walter is saying, from my experience I would say that it is possible to experience the world in some kind of mystical, transcendent way from an atheist or agnostic worldview. I mean, to encounter some numinous aspect of reality that is inexplicably ennobling and fulfilling, and yet not coupled to mythologies and religious culture.
    I once genuinely believed in conventional religion and I think there are times when it hurts and is frustrating that we evidently do not become immortal superheroes in an eternal paradise when we die. I find myself making a pouty face and lashing out at reality for being so ’empty,’ unsatisfying, and cruel. I find another route is to embrace the beauty of contingency, and the coincidence of immanence and transcendence in ourselves and in the cosmos as a whole… Apologies for not making much sense. Articulating what I’d like to say is proving difficult.

  3. @Sean Carroll: The follow-up video was pretty decent and I’m surprised you haven’t updated this post to include it. –All the best.

  4. Sjn at 51. Are you suggesting possibilianism? I thought it was derided more than theism. The many world hypotheses? I don’t know. I would have to contemplate a version of me voting Romney, too horrible, I rather take nihilism.

  5. I just watched the show and found all of it terrific. Have long admired Sean’ talks on physics and cosmology, but I wondered about the comment he made to the effect that he knows what happens when we die. I heartily applaud this and BEG, please do elaborate. I aruge with people all the time about this, and say, “How could any reasonable person possible NOT know what happens when we died?” It’s such a basic truth about life. When the brain stops functioning and producing consciousness, we (as conscious entities) cease to exist. What’s hard about that?

  6. Walter at 54: “The many world hypotheses? I don’t know. I would have to contemplate a version of me voting Romney, too horrible, I rather take nihilism.” I’ve got to agree.

  7. Blake, I agree that an argument about obeying the OT laws displays a regrettable ignorance of the history of religion. A much better argument about the hypocrisy of modern Christianity is that virtually all modern Christians do not observe the teachings of their professed god, e.g. “if you do it to one of the least of these you do it to me.” Another example is the very popular Christian financial advisor Dave Ramsey. A quick skim of the NT yields Jesus’s spiritual/financial advice to a rich man: give away everything you have and come follow me. I don’t hear Dave offering that advice, much less following it.

  8. When, we compare an atom with universe,it is negligible.But, the whole universe is made up of atoms.so,if atoms not exist universe won’t exist.
    Like that, every human being is very very important for success of mankind.And, Mankind is equally important for universe, because he has the capability to change the flow of universe as he likes.so, much more intelligent person much more intelligent mankind.
    So,Instead of fear to die let us cheer our life.

  9. Replying to a previous comment, I define a theist as one who believes in a god, and an a-theist as one who is not a theist, i.e., one who lacks a belief in gods. This is consistent with symmetry and asymmetry, among other examples. (To say something has asymmetry does not mean it believes that symmetry does not exist.) If philosophers in their mithril towers disagree with me, that’s too bad, but in any case that is how I define my brand of atheism and know of many who feel the same way. Perhaps the word police can give me another word to use. It won’t be agnostic – most atheists, including Richard Dawkings, have some degree of agnosticism, along with their lack of belief in any of the gods which humans have invented so far.

    I am pretty darn sure that conscious is a brain function and therefore that when my brain ceases to function so will my consciousness. That doesn’t bother me (although the thought that probably my death will involve pain and unpleasantness does). The older I get, the more tired I get of the rat race and the thought of having to spend an eternity in it is more frightening to contemplate than simply ending. If I did find out I had to exist in some way forever and somebody asked me what I would do with all that time, I would answer as Jose Jimenez did, “Well, I plan to cry a lot.”

    Some naturalist said, “The male primate becomes morose and savage with age.” True, but there is a lot to be morose and savage about.

  10. Bah. Life has no meaning. *Your* life has all the meaning you can shoehorn into it. Do a good job and your life will have (had) meaning to others as well.
    Don’t anthropomorphise the universe; it hates that.

  11. Liked the show, it’s hers, but did she talk too much ? More than all three panelists put together. Prefer to hear more from the elders.

  12. This pretty much devolved into an insipid discussion of biased politics. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. None of the panelists addressed the real cognitive behavioral basis of religion, and how atheism changes it, or relies on it. To think believers can’t act scientifically is just plain wrong.. Just ask any astronaut. It is also wrong to think that atheists’ brains and cognitive behavioral traits do not depend on the cultural religious traditions that imbue humanity. Humanistic beliefs, however informed, fly in the face of true evolution. Evolution does not care about what happens to us. What survives, survives. Analyze atheism with the same skepticism that you face other people’s religion with.

  13. I am not worried about ill considered metaethics. Metaethics more often than not tend to be post hoc justifications for applied ethics that are developed and absorbed holistically by example in social context before we even know what we are doing.

    Likewise, the questions that philosophers talk about when the discuss epistemology often seem far removed from the practical issues that arise when one is conducting scientific research, formulating rules of evidence, or even addressing foundational questions of what is knowable in quantum physics.

    When I read modern academic papers by philosophy academics my reaction is mostly disgust at the thought that they so profoundly waste their talents obsfurcating and missing the point.

    Philosophers, generally, seem utterly incapable of figuring out what questions and level of analysis matter and make sense. The challenges involved in living life simply aren’t posed or resolved at that level of logical but sterile rigor. Put another way, mostly, philosophers (and the “points” to which the panelists reacted) are mostly cases of asking the wrong questions and therefore getting answers that aren’t helpful even when they are right.

    This is a damn shame because I don’t think that the discipline needs to be this way. There are all sorts of big picture fundamental questions that are relevant and worth thinking about, and instead academic philosophers are obsessed with retreading obsolete intellectual history without acknowledging that the are basically historians and not innovative thinkers.

    One of the reasons that I tend to prefer the moniker “secular humanism” to “atheism” is also that the term “secular humanism” makes more clear the notion that non-belief in god is not the foundhead of the overall worldview, ethics and life script that a typical American (or European) who doesn’t believe in god lives. One shouldn’t feel inadequate if the principles one lives one’s life based upon can’t be derived from first principles and philosophical logic alone. Meaning in life and morality and gathering knowledge to form a bigger picture aren’t top down enterprises.

  14. JimmyDean Breakfastsausage

    “27. AI Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 12:18 am

    Jay: “What are the non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage?”

    No offspring.

    It can be argued that the sole purpose of marriage is to provide for pregnant female and offspring.

    Actually with modern technology offspring is possible for both men and women. Even without modern technology, it’s easily possible for lesbians to get pregnant. Men just need to find a woman willing to give up their child.

    Many say the purpose of marriage is mutual support. Catholic church teaches no divorce, but baby making years is only a small part of the possible longevity of marriage.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top