An atheist's question for other atheists

So, let's suppose science and rationality win out. Let's suppose secular humanism becomes the dominant philosophy, and laws based in religion are no longer passed.

Do you think that atheist leaders would be any less dogmatic than religious ones, or any more willing to change their minds in the face of evidence that they were wrong about something?

(This is specifically about the sort of people who choose to become leaders, so if you're the follower type, don't take this as a personal challenge.)

edited 5th Sep '11 3:08:54 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Nope. Doesn't matter what you believe in, Human nature won't change. There will be good people and bad people no matter what the belief of the day is.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

Well, in France, they are explicitly secular and they still come across as dogmatic to a degree but the law of the land changes though.

Dutch Lesbian

@Feo: Depends?

If you're talking about moralistic things that we're struggling with today (abortion, for example), I don't think that will change much since the debate itself is dogmatic by nature.

If you're talking about things that are more grounded in science (for example, global warming), then sufficient evidence should be enough to change their minds.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

What would have humanists have against anything?

They naturally listen to new knowledge, so they would change their mind.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

^ Secular humanism is an ideology like any other. There are plenty of things that run contrary to secular humanist philosophy.

(Not an atheist, just saying.)

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Not sure. In the end, religious leaders have shown to be flexible about scripture when social pressure showes it along; after all, the bible says nothing about democracy or republics, but most western republics are nominally Christian.

Would atheism become the dominant philosophy, there'd probably be those who still have non-rational views *

, and cognitive biases people have will still play a role.

However, I think the world would be a better place, if bad decisions were based on misguided idealism, than on claims of divine revelation. Because at least then we can call people out on their bullshit.

the statement above is false

But, I'm still wondering, how are humanists not already dominant in most places?

Atheism, combined with not-giving-a-shitism is the majority in most of the developed world.

edited 5th Sep '11 3:22:26 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

There would be little difference. Every ideology breeds fundamentalists, no matter what the message.

^^ "Most of the developed world" is a very important qualification, there. Plus there's always, you know, America, which remains pretty important.

Atheism/agnosticism/apatheism is dominant in some circles, sure.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I don't know, haven't met any Pacifist Extremists. "I'm going to civil disobey the SHIT out of you"

the statement above is false

Religious authoritarianism is but one type of authoritarianism. As someone pointed out, atheistic ideologies such as Jacobinism can be just as oppressive as theocracies (the whole Muslim headwear ban springs to mind).

Enjoy the Inferno...

@Jethro: Well, you do get people that petition to disarm the government, and that's considered "extremist" by the right over here.

Edit: Derp, wrong word.

edited 5th Sep '11 3:29:07 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Presumably a dogmatic pacifist would oppose acts of violence even (in a hypothetical situation) where no better solution was available.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Because people won't be attracted to pacifism on a large scale, unless they believe they are doing it as part of a higher ideological struggle. Feeling as though they are part of a higher conflict and drama are what draw people's hearts into following any ideology.

A dogmatic pacifist would probably cross over into Suicidal Pacifism.

edited 5th Sep '11 3:31:23 PM by tropetown

Religious (or in this case, anti-religious) ideology comes in waves. At first it is the minority against the majority, and so it is small and inclusive, because the oppressed naturally gravitate toward one another. As it becomes the majority, however, it soon solidifies and galvanizes, and then the oppressed become the oppressors. Then, as people fight against the corruption of the original ideals (or, alternatively, a new religion comes about with less abhorrent ideals), the old order crumbles, diluting itself into less extreme practitioners and crazed fundamentalists, until it either repeats the process or dies.

Atheism may or may not follow this pattern; it is not united as the other religions of history generally were, and it is born more of intellectuals more than the poor and oppressed. One thing is for certain, however: human nature never changes. The ideals can change; the society can change; but the people?

There are four known factors in life: death, taxes, war, and people.

I am now known as Flyboy.

For the most part, religion/mythology are cases of Right for the Wrong Reasons. Not for nothing do laws like Thou Shalt Not Kill/Steal exist. The problem, though, is when the reasoning/stories behind these laws get in the way of the reality. Or, when a certain tenet is invalidated and people refuse to believe otherwise.

The point I'm making is that, as long as people are Right for the Wrong Reasons about anything (an Urban Myth is still a myth), they will resist change.

edited 5th Sep '11 3:42:18 PM by KingZeal

This itself is a humanist assertion.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

~shrug~

According to the faith test I am a de facto Secular Humanist, so...

Either way, I don't feel like debating complex meta-ethical moral relativism and sociological history with you, so... not to mention that's off-topic anyhow.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Sure. The way I see it, the only way science and rationality can win out is for human nature itself to change on a biological level. So I figure that if this hypothetical world came about, leaders would be genetically, surgically, or chemically engineered for low dogmatism and high openness to evidence.

@ USAF: I took that test too, and I haven't taken up Paganism.

Sorry if I came off as confrontational there; wasn't my intention. I just wanted to draw attention to a value that one could easily be dogmatic about.

@ Tongpu: I cannot think of a surer way to guarantee dogmatism than to engineer people at a genetic level in such a way that they will definitely adhere to an ideology.

edited 5th Sep '11 4:02:21 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Everything's an assertion of something, Bobby.

Labeling where the assertion comes from doesn't provide much in the way of discussion.

@OP: No. Unfortunately, the type of people who become leaders are good at attracting followers, and the behaviors that tend to attract followers is dogmatism- it makes things simple for people. Dogmatism is easy. Nuanced positions are hard.

edited 5th Sep '11 4:08:01 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Well, Bobby, to say that human nature never changes is a true statement. Unless we go and redefine what is human with advanced genetic engineering and cybernetics. Anyhow, point is, what's up for debate is not whether or not human nature changes, but whether human nature is good or bad. Were Rousseau and Locke right, or Hobbes and Machiavelli? That's a subjective thing, and what one can be dogmatic about...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Human nature is neither. It simply is. The best thing to do, instead of trying to change human nature (which is impossible) is to channel it for the greater good, or, more likely, your own good.

edited 5th Sep '11 4:09:45 PM by tropetown

This strikes me as kind a Fallacy Fallacy statement.

While human nature is very, very much imprecise (tending to paint in broad strokes rather than narrow ones), it is not always wrong. For example, a person's intuition that something which seems logically sound might be wrong may end up being totally correct, even if he can't put his finger on why or even if his reasons for it are unsound. Even if you were to alter humanity at a genetic level to change what is our inherent nature, that would be assuming that said nature was worth being rid of.

As an example, if a caveman saw a bush moving on its own, his superstitious nature might tell him that the bush is possessed by a wicked spirit and avoid it. As it turns out, there was a man-eating tiger in the bush and his correct intuition but false pretenses saved his life. The human mind is programmed to make those sort of blind associations and generalizations for lack of better evidence because being right about it means our species survives and being wrong about it means we're tiger food.

edited 5th Sep '11 4:17:44 PM by KingZeal