Varieties of atheism explained

I don't wish to be offensive, but I've always wondered why so many African-Americans embraced the religion of their former slavemasters. Years ago I was watching a report on CNN of a protest by American Atheists against some public school being used for religious indoctrination. Two gorgeous African-American girls held up a banner reading "Schools for education, not superstition." The first thing I thought was, they're hot, then I thought, wait a minute, why are theirs the only black faces there?

I think I'm the garden variety.

Mr. Nice Guy: People tend to reflect the culture in which they were raised. Many (most?) African slaves were located in the South and that is where, for better or worse, these people recieved much cultural identity. Plus, I can see how leading an opressed life with little hope for improvement, one might dearly yearn for a better afterlife. Wish-thinking is seductive that way.

I only know of one variety of atheist - the kind that does not have a god belief. Beyond that it only gets into goals and methods.

True Bob,

I'd say there's a range. While I disagree with their point, many Spinozians (Spinozaists?) consider themselves atheists, yet still hold on to some metaphysical beliefs about the nature of the universe.

I guess the best question is, how much metaphysics is too much metaphysics?

Atheistus agnosteus subsp. contradeus?

And do pardon the horrible misuse of Greek.

atheist means "godless". Weak, strong, militant, "new", implicit, explicit, cranky share one common trait, regardless of their thoughts about spirits and mysticism. And that is membership in the EAC. ;)

I'd kind of agree with True Bob. At the basis of the various types it's all about a disbelief or skepticism. Beyond that, it's more about whether you're Militant a la PZ, or whether you're apologetic for religions (something which I can't understand), and all the space in between. I for one don't go out of my way to ridicule my friends and family for their faith, but I am openly atheist. I suppose this would be a reserved atheist or something. I don't really care too much for labels, and I think if the atheist movement starts caring about labels (denominations) it would only lose some of its steam.

We're united in our common skepticism of ancient texts and sky fairies. I think if we start labeling each other it would only lead to finger-pointing. "It's the militant atheists that give us a bad rep" or "It's those damn on the fencers that hold us back" etc. In the end it would do more good to embrace the entire spectrum, not to divide and quantify groups.

"I don't wish to be offensive, but I've always wondered why so many African-Americans embraced the religion of their former slavemasters."

I think of that part in Roots, when Kunte Kinte tells Belle, "I ain't never going to be a Christian man. And I will never eat pig's meat."

Then again, Kunte Kinte was African, so Jen's point about people following the culture in which they grew up is probably appropriate.

Of course, that line was probably fiction created by the miniseries writer (I don't Haley wrote it - I don't remember it in the book).

BTW, if any of you see my wife, drop the hint that I would really like Roots on DVD for Christmas.

G: I guess the best question is, how much metaphysics is too much metaphysics?
How about any?

Alan,

I find myself in complete agreement with you, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Also, please check out mine.

#1 No More Mr Nice Guy-

I could be way off here, but I will take a stab at why so many African Americans are Xians.

I think it has to do with the fact that even after slavery was abolished, the church was the only place African American communities could gather without drawing the wrath of bigots. The church was more than just a religious center, it was the community center. You still see the remnants today with people like Sharpton and Jackson being African American political leaders.

To add a little to what Dirk wrote: One of the most common themes in early African American culture was the fight against injustice - but the only way that it could be safely channeled is through religion. This is especially seen in the affinity for the story of Moses and the Israelites held captive in Egypt.

Since some churches exploited indigenous religions*, I wonder how much of their previous practices slaves were allowed to practice, and how that fed into their becoming christy.

*and here I'm thinking of catlicks and all their saints. e.g. Mayans and Incans could get into a new blood cult, mostly same as the old blood cult.

A discussion by atheists about varieties of atheism would be a nice change from the usual discussion. Googling on the subject so far turns up mostly lists made by religious people, in the interests of tailoring conversion arguments to them depending on what type of atheist they are. Some of them are a real scream. My favorite quote so far: 'The "hard" atheist not only denies the existence or reality of the God of the Bible, but sometimes goes so far as to deny the possibility of the existence of any god.' Methinks they need to recheck their definitions of atheism a little.

True Bob #4
"Beyond that it only gets into goals and methods."

ah, the innocent little "only" word....

I've met an atheist who said that she believed in ghosts. Other atheists I've met are open to things like ESP. Surely, "atheist" is not synonymous with materialist or skeptic.

How's this for a category: Hardline atheist.

1. No psi phenomena, panpsychism, quantum consiousness, New Mysterianism, telic principles, orthogenesis, fine tuning. The anthropic principle is a trivial tautology. (Even multiverse weirdness is suspect.)

2. The methodological/metaphysical distinction is meaningless, therefore naturalism is the only valid metaphysics. God, the soul, and the afterlife are scientifically invalidated, and hence philosophically invalidated. All theists, no matter their views on evolution, are really creationists by definition. Deists and agnostics are noncommittal theists or atheists.

3. The only basis for opposition to transhumanist modification of the human germline is a primitive, superstitious notion of human specialness.

This would eliminate "New Atheist" Sam Harris, as well as atheists who provide intellectual cover for theists with the methodological/metaphysical distinction (e.g. Eugenie Scott). I would go along with most of 1) (except for AP/fine tuning) but not the rest.

And what about those who don't believe in God(s) or the supernatural but recognize the importance of religions as a necessary superstructure.

Are they Atheist ?

#11: G: I guess the best question is, how much metaphysics is too much metaphysics?
How about any?

Posted by: AlanWCan | December 10, 2007 1:12 PM

Argument from ignorance. Science itself is not possible without metaphysics. Suggest you read about it in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

DR

Do you literally mean that science is not possible without metaphysics, or that science developed in the western world from metaphysics?

And what about those who don't believe in God(s) or the supernatural but recognize the importance of religions as a necessary superstructure.

I intended my statement about apologetic atheists to be this very idea. I don't particularly see the point disbelieving in something but then saying it is important. I especially abhor those that seem to think religion is somehow a moral driving force, when time and time again we see some of the most repugnant acts being carried out by Priests. It simply isn't true. There's no sense in defending something that you don't believe in because some people find it comforting.

When a kid looses a tooth, and it hurts, you take their mind off it by telling them the story of the tooth fairy. While they're too busy lost in imagination they don't really notice the pain too much. In the end, no matter how comforting it is, it doesn't exist.

When a kid looses a loved one, and it hurts, you take their mind off by telling them the story of Heaven. While they're too busy lost in imagination they don't really notice the pain too much. In the end, no matter how comforting it is, it doesn't exist.

So where's all the atheists defending the tooth fairy as a societal benefit? See what I did thar?

I'm an orthodox fundamentalist atheist. I hope I get classified.

Doug,

You must be kidding. I grant that maybe science developed from metaphysics, as Ann suggests. Still you've got to be joking if you think science is impossible without metaphysics.

More to the point, look up 'Logical Positivist' in your encyclopedia. Followed shortly after by The Vienna Circle, Ayer, Carnap, and (maybe) Quine.

Colugo, that other superstitious stuff has nothing to do with atheism; belief or disbelief in any of it is irrelevant to the question at hand. Either way, Sam Harris is not disqualified by your criteria; to my knowledge, he simply believes that there is some transformative effect achievable through meditation as practiced in certain eastern traditions. Nothing "dualistic "or "transcendent"; simply a natural, empirically reproducible result. Whether that is true or not is one matter; it certainly isn't in any way superstitious. I'm pretty sure that the rumors of his inclination toward woo-variety "mysticism" are courtesy of the theists who wish to discredit him (unless anyone else is aware of some instance where he claims such an inclination himself; I've read just about everything he's written and watched numerous videos of his debates/speaking engagements, and I've never seen him do so).

Also, the AP is not a tautology; as I previous explained in some detail in another thread, it is a refutation of the fine tuning argument, though confusion about what exactly the AP is has resulted from the theist co-option of the name for the fine-tuning argument itself (likely in effort to have something vaguely scientific-sounding to claim as their own). The weak AP states that we observe the universe the way it is because if it were different, we wouldn't be here to see it. That is not to say that the universe couldn't have been different (though perhaps that is the case; we don't know, and that's another matter altogether), but that it obviously didn't work out that way, because here we are. In other words, it is silly to speculate about the a priori probability that a certain event might occur when we already know that the event did occur.

I thank I'm one d'em like Runningman. D'em nonorthodox atheists affend me.

You really can't make assumptions on where Michael Lackey is going just from the title Varieties of Atheism. There are a lot of different ways to divide a group as open and diverse as "those who lack a belief in God." Or maybe "those who don't believe in God." Or "those who deny there is a God." Or, or, or -- and that's just the definition of atheism.

As Colugo points out in #17, there are plenty of atheists who are into the paranormal, or pseudoscience, or conspiracy theories. I sometimes run into them at atheist conventions (though not at secular humanist ones.)

I like this article by Lucy Hall at
http://www.godless.org/hasd/hnl10.html#TAXONOMY

She divides atheists into 5 categories, with sub-types:

1.) Nihilistis atheists
a.) never thought about it, just follow along
b.) apatheists and relativists -- don't care
c.) focused on another agenda

2.) "Mad at God" atheists

3.) Philosophical atheists
a.) logical -- reason over faith
b.) emotional, convinced by Problem of Evil

4.) Scientific atheists

5.) Reared atheists

She puts herself in the 4th category, and admits that it overlaps with the Philosophical atheists. Her definition is a bit odd, though, based on her own arguments. I'd probably define it as "considers God as one would a poorly-supported science hypothesis, and therefore rejects it. Which I suppose it also where I'd put Dawkins and PZ. And me.

Anyone can come up with their own categories. I'd be interested in having PZ give a rundown of Lackey's after the talk is over...

and here I'm thinking of catlicks and all their saints. e.g. Mayans and Incans could get into a new blood cult, mostly same as the old blood cult.

It's not that simple. The Aztec religion was pretty bipolar -- blood and flowers. St Mary of Guadalupe is awash in flowers, like Tonantzin... The guy to whom she appeared has recently been canonized, BTW.

#17: I agree with those 3 points wholeheartedly. Guess I'm a hardline atheist then... Fine by me!

G: Just enough metaphysics to support and be consistent with science and technology is enough.

P.Z.: Did "the Richard Dawkins of UMM's biology faculty" attend?   ;)

Colugo @ 17: I suspect that some closer words to the meanings you want to express might be "materialist" and "rationalist".

The word "atheist" by itself only means "godless", not worshiping or not believing in any god.

One might believe in a world teeming with spirits; for instance, one might be an animist or a Buddhist; and still be an atheist.

One might have no grasp whatsoever of logic or science; for instance one might believe in many superstitious ways to repel "bad luck" and attract "good luck"; and still be an atheist.

Please don't try to load one word with more meaning than it will bear. It would be better to use several words when you want to convey several independent concepts.

and here I'm thinking of catlicks and all their saints. e.g. Mayans and Incans could get into a new blood cult, mostly same as the old blood cult.

It's not that simple. The Aztec religion was pretty bipolar -- blood and flowers. St Mary of Guadalupe is awash in flowers, like Tonantzin... The guy to whom she appeared has recently been canonized, BTW.