Every idea comes from somewhere, is fruit of a given context and can only be formulated using a repertoire of previous ideas. Every idea must carry the burden of its assumptions.
This is why it makes good policy to suspect every idea that promotes itself as neutral: They are compromised by their context just like all others but are trying to hide the fact.
Militant atheism too.
The Hitchens-Dawkins Hitchins kind of Militant Atheism is a direct child of Catholic thought, preserving both the worldview and the morality and the argumentation techniques. They can only hope to present a façade of respectability comparing themselves to the childish absurdity of Creationism. Read More »
The recent breed of “Militant Atheism” is (to be clear) a movement clearly distinct from previous atheism(s) displaying very different goals. One of these goals is to free society from the evil of religion, which they try to define as dogma, superstition and anything dealing with supernatural reality.
But also, Militant Atheists try to self-define in a somewhat negative way, in that they propose that their beliefs are a lack of belief. So, OK, “i do believe there is no god” and “i don’t believe in god” can be deceptively similar ideas. But the sly thing is that this way of putting makes it seem like the set of ideas embraced by militant atheist is natural, springing spontaneously from universal human experience.
Of course militant atheism is a product of contemporary culture, and in different contexts it would appear in a very very different light — so it’d be better not to take it at face value. Read More »
Having to choose between freedom or a yoke, the untrained person will choose the yoke, every single time.
Usually, the brain will not recognize that the world is the same, with or without a restraint. It will treat the option as two different, unrelated, places. Thus the option for the yoke is the triggering of squiggle in the brain in charge of searching for caves.
Incidentally, that’s why often people will claim to believe in ideas that they continuously act in opposition to: Understanding has not kicked in, just pathfinding.
The risk of that is that every regularity can be exploited.
That the current answer is wrong does not mean that some other contrary is right.
If you pay enough attention to the world, you’ll see all kinds of action and discourse that purport to be self-motivated and critical, but are actually just driven by a gut feeling that «this is wrong!». Read More »