Atheism and Agnosticism's Role in Western Intellectualism

Post Reply New Topic

In the modern Western intellectual, is atheism, agnosticism, or some other skepticism towards established Christian churches socially normative? That is, is being a Christian intellectual marked (or "deviant")? If some belief in a god remains, it is attenuated in comparison to the fiery evangelical Christianity of the masses; they may express a reverence for an abstract divine Creator or Providence while withholding the dogma and hierarchy of the established churches.

It seems to be a part of the intellectual's social identity: an assertion of the intellect's ability to reason freely over the community's conventional beliefs (and what is religion but an internalization of these conventions?). During the Enlightenment, being an atheist was a risky thing. Although it's less risky in the West today, it seems intellectuals are loathe to abandon this symbol of freedom of thought.

Atheism generally asserts the evidence of religion being false. Through a metaphysical perspective that does not allow the religious belief to be "true". Religions generally tend to be more dualistic philosophically.

I somewhat agree with you. I think that you underestimate the number of liberal Christians.

Part of the reason this exists is out of a rejection of the masses, but the largest reason is that conservative Christianity is a load of nonsense, a statement that anybody should be able to say STRIDENTLY. It has become clear that conservative Christianity really is intellectual suicide among most academics, and many subject areas will have an area in which their teachings will conflict with this kind of belief.

As a critical force though, these intellectuals have likely shaped our intellectual world greatly. If we were shackled to dogma, we could not have a fraction of the progress we do have, so we should be thankful for our agnostics, and for our strident atheists!

(vote for me...)

Belonging to a right-wing church is somewhat "deviant" among intellectuals. As far as I know, there is no general objection to more sensible Christians.

Also, what do you mean "hierarchy of the established churches?" The Catholic Church, maybe, but my own denomination (PCUSA) is thoroughly egalitarian and democratic in its system of governance.

What's a load of nonsense is fundamentalist Christianity. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

Conservative and fundamentalist are often taken to be synonyms in religions. Fundamentalist perhaps meaning REALLY conservative in religious outlook, but not too different. Certainly the term I am using has nothing to do with politics.

Some of the more fuzzy, biologically ignorant thinkers on the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada have even implied that IDiocy is on par with evolutionary biology (Brian Alters affair).

http://ncse.com/news/2006/04/canadian-c ... nism-00793

Right, this kind of idiocy comes up with a lot of accomodationist intellects. They remove the teeth in order to avoid stepping on toes. I think PZ had some problems with some earlier.

No, it doesn't. Strong atheists postulate that there is no God (though this doesn't even mean that they claim to have evidence). However, weak atheists merely would not postulate that God exists. Even Dawkins stopped short of saying that he had evidence that "religion is false"; he merely argued that the existence of God is very unlikely. I'm more of an out-and-out weak atheist and I wouldn't even commit myself to that much.

Skepticism in the form of critical thinking is a manifestation of the brain at work. The emergence of science as the dominant mode of understanding world is a continuation of the "revolution" that was started in Ionian Greece around 600 b.c.e.. It is the liberation of of mankind from superstitious fear. We no longer live in a demon haunted world. We live in a world governed by physical laws. In rejecting the doings of the world as the whim of the gods, we have also rejected the gods.

ruveyn

I am using the terms marked and deviant in a sociological sense here. I am not trying to imply value judgment here, but rather I am saying at least in the social group that is modern Western intellectuals, atheism, agnosticism, or at least a skepticism to mainstream religion is normative whereas holding a more mainline Christian worldview is marked (being a Fundamentalist Christian would be especially marked and may even disqualify a person from consideration as an intellectual in many cases). A marked identity is simply a feature of an individual's identity that stands out against the norm; in a majority-white society, for example, being black, Asian, etc. is marked (whiteness being the generic default).

Of course, liberal and more moderate Christians exist—their voices too often drowned out by Fundamentalist Christians who claim to hold the one true definition of Christianity. I am speaking specifically of intellectuals, though—those who engage with the world of ideas either professionally or as amateurs (i.e., as with most of us on this forum). Many liberal Christians are more likely not to let their religious beliefs subsume all other aspects of their intellectual inquiry, so they can still engage in the contemporary Western intellectual world.

Fundamentalist Christian "intellectuals," on the other hand, quite often reject the ideas and culture of "mainstream" Western intellectuals, mostly engaging it only through polemics. They form a counterculture to the intellectual culture. Between the Fundamentalist subculture and the intellectual mainstream, I'd put the somewhat conservatively inclined Christian intellectuals (I'd imagine a somewhat stuffy Oxford Anglican philosopher, for example), who may reject secularism, wishing to reveal religion's role, while still being able to engage the wider intellectual world (they may hold professorships at prestigious Western universities rather than at bible colleges and conservative think-tanks).

I am using the terms marked and deviant in a sociological sense here. I am not trying to imply value judgment here, but rather I am saying at least in the social group that is modern Western intellectuals, atheism, agnosticism, or at least a skepticism to mainstream religion is normative whereas holding a more mainline Christian worldview is marked (being a Fundamentalist Christian would be especially marked and may even disqualify a person from consideration as an intellectual in many cases). A marked identity is simply a feature of an individual's identity that stands out against the norm; in a majority-white society, for example, being black, Asian, etc. is marked (whiteness being the generic default).

Of course, liberal and more moderate Christians exist—their voices too often drowned out by Fundamentalist Christians who claim to hold the one true definition of Christianity. I am speaking specifically of intellectuals, though—those who engage with the world of ideas either professionally or as amateurs (i.e., as with most of us on this forum). Many liberal Christians are more likely not to let their religious beliefs subsume all other aspects of their intellectual inquiry, so they can still engage in the contemporary Western intellectual world.

Fundamentalist Christian "intellectuals," on the other hand, quite often reject the ideas and culture of "mainstream" Western intellectuals, mostly engaging it only through polemics. They form a counterculture to the intellectual culture. Between the Fundamentalist subculture and the intellectual mainstream, I'd put the somewhat conservatively inclined Christian intellectuals (I'd imagine a somewhat stuffy Oxford Anglican philosopher, for example), who may reject secularism, wishing to reveal religion's role, while still being able to engage the wider intellectual world (they may hold professorships at prestigious Western universities rather than at bible colleges and conservative think-tanks).

Apparently there's less interest in sociology here than philosophy, religion, or politics (I would think of sociology as related enough to these topics).

I wouldn't know. I would doubt that one topic would be enough to prove anything, but who knows?

I see agnostics as generally being more intellectually minded and atheists as generally feeling as though they were.

Where do you put ignostics?