Dawkins on Dawkins
I was reading Aaron’s blog today and found one of the comments rather strange. The person basically says “I don’t believe in God, but I’m not an atheist, because an atheist would never change their mind, even if there was evidence for it”.
It’s sad, because this person, who *is* an atheist (-> doesn’t believe in god) does not want to be associated with atheists, because “atheists are fundamentalists who would never change their mind given the evidence”.
How interesting. I’ve been accused of being a fundamentalist-atheist myself, but never by an atheist :-) [yes, I take that accusation as directed to me, even if it wasn't...this is my blog]
I’m reading Dawkins’ God Delusion, which I find fascinating. Since the book came out, I’ve read reviews/blogs about how Dawkins is being too hostile, too extremist, a mean person, blindly attacking religion. Basically, he’s as bad as the fundamentalists he denounces.
Fundamemtalist-atheist makes as much sense to me as “four-sided triangle”. Strongly not believing because there’s no evidence, cannot be the same as strongly believing despite the evidence - one sounds reasonable the other a little bit less so.
I’m often left speechless when I hear that expression “fundamentalist-atheist” and though I’m sad that it seems more common than I would have hoped, I’m in a way glad it happens to Dawkins as well. Dawkins writes much better than I do, and I’ll let him explain the difference between fundamentalism and passion.
I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.
That’s pretty much the essence of it.
Kevin said,
November 20, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
+1 for fundamentalist atheist makes no sense.
I strongly don’t believe because there is no evidence. If there any evidence at all, I would believe.
DP said,
November 22, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
This post pretty much explains everything on its own; however, if you leave ANY room for interpretation, the religious tend to manipulate obvious intended meaning.
Fundamentalism has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, but the religious continuously fabricate such things to try and benefit their cause (there’s never any rational thought involved).
It’s a feeble attempt to equate disbelief in god based on a lack of proof to firmly believing in that same god. (That sentence just slightly rephrased from your post.)
Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief, because there is no evidence for the existence of a god.
All atheists would instantly change their minds if unequivocal evidence of a god is discovered. (Like that’s going to happen.)
If there was proof of a god, atheism would cease to exist.
Matt said,
November 22, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
I think someone who subscribes to notion x and gets upset when the validity of x is criticized, and is hostile towards !x can be seen by many as fundamentalist x’er. As opposed to other sub-types like live-and-let-live x’er, casual x’er, etc. Though that’s not literally accurate use of the f word, and I think I’m employing some dodgy logical device with my “many people would think” usage. I think some of you may be getting hung up on the literal use of the f-word - something I can sympathize with …ziggbert… (addition of gratuitous word “…zigbert…” ’cause I don’t want to end with a preposition).
I’m not trying to to argue that anyone is a fundamentalist anything in a literal sense, just clarifying what might be meant.
Julio Santos said,
November 22, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist
Other than the religious definition, the only other definition I think is relevant to the matter, is:
“strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles”
If we make “fundamentalist” mean something else, then I’m okay with it, as long as it’s explained to me beforehand, that we don’t really mean what I think we mean by fundamentalist. Maybe it helps if we either make up new words and their definition, or stick the definition of already existing words. Helps communication I think.
However, if we redefine “fundamentalist” to mean someone who won’t budge from the belief that New Zealand is indeed in the Southern Hemisphere unless proven otherwise, then I think “fundamentalist” starts having a meaning a little bit too wide, one that I think is not very mainstream.
DP said,
November 24, 2006 @ 7:27 am
I’ve been discussing atheism with several individuals and reading Wikipedia’s definitions of the specific labels related to atheism, and this is what I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism
It appears that ’strong atheism’ is a belief that no deities exist.
‘Weak atheism’ or in the past referred to as ‘negative atheism’ is a lack of belief in the existence of deities, while not rejecting the very small possibility that there is a deity.
Note that Richard Dawkins acknowledges there’s a very unlikely chance that a god does exist.
To me, the important difference between the two terms is that strong atheism is a belief, while weak atheism is not. Thus, barring these definitions and terms are valid, it would appear that there is some basis to the original argument concerning fundamentalism and atheism. That said, I know that such a comparison does not apply to myself as I am specifically a weak atheist, as is Richard Dawkins according to the definitions.
Also note: acknowledging the unlikely existence of a diety is not much of a concession, because I also acknowledge the unlikely existence of an invisible unicorn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn)
Julio Santos said,
November 25, 2006 @ 10:35 am
In my opinion strong vs weak atheism is really just semantics, at least when it comes to you, Dawkins, and most atheists I know. “weak” is not the right term I don’t think. Maybe better terms would “amazingly strong atheism” and “very strong atheism” :-)
Because let’s face it, when Dawkins says he’s a 6-leaning-to-7 on the 1-to-7 atheist scale, he’s not really saying that he has doubts.
DP said,
November 27, 2006 @ 9:41 am
I agree — it’s just semantics. Who made those definitions anyway?
There’s nothing weak about my views, hah.