As with many rationalists, I’ve always assumed that Atheism and Rationalism were intertwined. But recently I conversed with an ardent atheist who believes in reincarnation.
Suddenly I realized that Atheism is not commutative: Rationalism generally leads to atheism, but not vice-versa. One can deeply believe that there is no sky-daddy, no invisible overlord, no disembodied afterlife, and no divine plan, but still follow paths of woo. Visualize atheistic ufologists, for example. Perpetual-motionists and homeopaths can also live completely God-free lives.
Conversely (and here is where I differ from Dawkinsians), perfectly good scientists can cling to the gods of their upbringing, as long as their particular temple doesn’t require obeisance to rationally disproved ideas. This example of compartmentalized rationalism is very common. Most people apply their learning of rational process only to the particular field in which they were explicitly taught to apply it. It takes particular training to understand that all aspects of experience can be approached rationally. Churches seem to do all they can to prevent this idea from spreading.
In conclusion: An atheist bumper sticker or t-shirt is not a certain indication that a rationalist is inside.
I don't know if anyone here is a reader of Greta Christina's blog, but she has mentioned in many of her posts about the co-existence of belief in woo and unbelief in god(s). I can relate as well, because I went through a great deal of belief-testing in search of something that worked. It all comes from the same place – the fear of the unknown, the wish for there to be something beyond and/or after life, the desire to be somehow more important than just another human being. We follow existing beliefs, mix and match from several we like, sometimes even create our own, to protect ourselves from these fears and desires. Some people find it easier to let go of the promises of organized religions if they have a backup set of promises. They may or may not transition later to rationalism, because their rejection of theistic belief might not have been based on rationalism.
This has been pretty obvious to most people- the communists are the Ur-example.
As it is, I don't see how you can say "they are rational but". Rational is a specific way of thinking- if they make exceptions than they AREN'T rational.
They may use reason, but that isn't saying much- everyone does.
I believe in woohoo. 😀
Recently I told a friend of mine that I'm starting to have doubt about the non-existence of a higher being, since my bad luck, when it comes to merely getting a date with someone, is just beyond bad. It can't be just bad luck, there is a system behind it. I'm conducting a trial now and if I found out there is someone who is playing games with me, I'm going to seduce one of his monks (my inspiration is The Thornbirds). An eye for an eye, etc., etc.
I'm with you all the way. I wrote why atheism doesn't matter, but skepticism does for the same reason. I've met scores of quick-witted critical thinkers who held on to the god notion, compartmentalized it, and carried on with their lives. I've also met atheists who believe in spirits, alternative medicines, and various prejudices unsupported by evidence.
I think it is important as atheists to remind ourselves that atheism is not the only marker of intelligence and rationality. Otherwise, we risk a very prejudiced understanding of the world that only further cleaves us from society. And since a theist can- gasp!- be intelligent, we should not alienate ourselves.
Thanks again for reminding us that even in our high horse of heathendom, we are not immune to silliness.
The problem with rationalizing everything is that one expects a reason for every event. Part of the way we learn is based on recognizing patterns in all we observe. We seek patterns in the chaos, and on occasion when a pattern appears randomly we will file it away and it becomes part of our experience. This is why we can see animal shapes in the clouds.
A mathmetician friend of mine used to argue that nothing is truly random, but simply the outcome of so many independent variables that we cannot understand the causes. Unless you can admit that you can't know the reason for something, it becomes enticing to assume that there is a hidden reason for it, and that path leads to faith and religion and superstition. The catch is that a lack of proof of the existance of supernatural beings is not absolute proof that such beings do not exist. It simply indicates insufficient data to support either side.
To say that you know there is no god is a statement of faith in the belief that no god exists. An agnostic will not believe in god, but won't honestly profess a belief in the non-existence of god since neither side has supporting proof.
Atheists often have faith and fail to recognize it. Many atheists I've met over the years are selectively skeptical, for example, they don't belief in supernatural entities, but they are not critical at all on subjects they believe in but don't fully understand.
Who ever "fully understands" anything? I was raised with quantum theory, quark stories, and cosmic ray related family trips. I absorbed the Mr Tompkins books before I even had a formal algebra class. But I only took one class in explicitly in quantum mechanics (after the prerequisite two years of calculus). I've met more experts in that field than the average bear, but have not met anyone who would say they fully understand it.
But I have faith that when a down quark rotates up, a negative beta particle emits so the atom increases its atomic number by one. In other words, a neutron becomes a proton. That's how an atom of heavy Carbon 14 becomes stable Nitrogen 14.
"To say that you know there is no god is a statement of faith in the belief that no god exists. An agnostic will not believe in god, but won’t honestly profess a belief in the non-existence of god since neither side has supporting proof."
That opens a big ol' con of worms there, you know. It puts the christian god right at the same level as all the other gods ever worshiped, fairies, leprechauns, martians, UFO abductions, the accuracy of astrology, and the effectiveness of homeopathy. The side that needs supporting proof is the side that asserts that something can exist despite a lack of proof.
What if someone were to tell you that there's a second race of intelligent beings that inhabit the earth with us, and have their own culture and technology, but whom we can't see or touch or communicate with because they vibrate at a different frequency than we do, and that the proof that they exist is shifting tectonic plates, hurricanes, and spontaneous human combustion caused by the occasional crossing of vibrational energy paths? If you were to say that this did not have supporting proof, would you consider the lack of supporting proof that this parallel world did >not< exist sufficient to support the idea that it did? If not, would you be making a faith-based statement of belief when you said there was no such thing?
Believing in things that cannot be supported by concrete evidence (or despite contrary evidence) qualify as "faith". Believing only in things that are supported by evidence that is observable, predictable, repeatable, and disbelieving in anything that cannot stand up to scrutiny is not faith at all.
The type of atheist Dan was talking about, the one who rejects the idea of a god or gods, but persists in believing that things like crystal healing or communicating psychically with extraterrestrials or being able to levitate, is indeed an atheist with faith. This kind of faith, though, is probably not the kind that most people in America would think of when they hear or say that word. That's what it is, though. They have faith that if they say the right words, do the right rituals, follow the right leader, the desired results will be attained – regardless of whether they actually do or not (or if they have to wait until they're dead to find out.)
The rationalist, though, sees no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, or observes that there is voluminous evidence to contradict a faith-based belief, and concludes that it is false. This observation, applied to a religion, is no more "faith" than when it is applied to medicine, or physics, or mathematics. Clearly, these non-rationalist atheists Dan was writing about are making statements based on faith, but the statement "I know there is no god" is faith-based only if it's followed by "because I don't feel anything like a god even though I've tried really, really hard!"
"Friendly Atheist" recently made a similar discovery, discussed here: When Are Atheists Irrational?
Samuel Skinner:
Such a narrow-minded absolutist view would make the word 'rational' useless for describing humans. The perfectly rational beings your definition requires are impossible; for starters, no computational mechanism, be it a neuron, a transistor, a relay, a valve, or some clockwork doohicky, is perfectly reliable. The scope of problems soluble by rational methods is limited by available time and computing power. No human has infinite time or infinite computing power. Fundamental limitations of computing – such as the halting problem – also limit what kinds of problems can be solved. I could go on – but that should be plenty.