Philosoft

The theist habit of labeling as arrogant the freethinker who maintains that science and reason are superior is a maddening bit of selective thinking. Considering that all humans, theist or not, employ science and reason in 99% of their daily activities, without conscious reference to God allowing the car to start or making those french fries taste good, it renders that position absurd. And what do they do for the other 1%? Pray to a god who, by their own admissions, answers prayers at something approaching chance levels.

sighhswolf

George's take on prayer.
"I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same fifty percent rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't...Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe...same as the voodoo lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles. It's all the same...so just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself..." -George Carlin

Wolf

seebs

There are several reasons for which I might believe some specific atheists to be "arrogant". Not all of these refer to the same sense of the word, or the same context.

The one you'll like least, but in another way, the most important one, is that, if you don't believe in God, it's very likely that you overrate the importance of your personal will and underrate the importance of the tools you're given. This is, in many ways, the core of the theological concept of "pride"; it's the belief that it's the *YOU* part that's important, and that other people, context, and things are less important.

That's theologically interesting, but it's almost never actually relevant to conversation. In practice, the thing that most often strikes me as arrogant in atheists is the assumption that any belief system that they don't feel is "adquately" supported is clearly "irrational".

In the end, it's the same game as the fundy Christians saying everyone who disagrees go to hell; you pick the worst outcome ("going to hell", or "being irrational") and condemn those who disagree to it.

A friend of mine was legally dead for 12 minutes, and woke up with a toe tag. They'd stopped trying to bring her back. She had experiences during this time, which she remembers. She believes she met God. While I certainly grant that it's *possible* that her experience was mere hallucination, it seems to me to be fairly arrogant to expect her to deny an experience she had and not believe anything based on it.

Likewise, I know a number of theists who are quite clearly competent rational thinkers. I like to include myself in this list. Asserting that I'm obviously foolish is, indeed, arrogant; it's rarely if ever genuinely obvious that someone is foolish.

I grant that Christians are often arrogant in their assertions that "of course" people should believe. While I think the evidence is good enough, I don't have any problem with people who disagree; I don't see any grounds for assuming that such people are foolish, or willfully avoiding truth.

Indeed, I have had a lot of trouble with arrogant Christians who are *TOTALLY* sure that their interpretation of the Bible is the one, only, true revealed Word of God. They can drive me nuts.

LordMoneyG

I also think that many atheists will be the first to admit that some things are simply unexplainable, while theists will be the first to chalk anything that goes beyond the confines of reason up to "god."

I don't think either viewpoint is more arrogant...But it seems to me that the theist answer is simply more comforting, more reassuring. Just another facet of human nature - The need to find comfort in the unknown by applying any available explanation, no matter how unlikely it may be. Atheists, on the other hand, are often more "comfortable being uncomfortable" than theists, it seems.

Bible Humper

I am one atheist who doesn't think that it is irrational. Personally, I have yet to meet a theist versed in the arguments for/against the existence of God who was not either brought up a theist, converted from a different flavor of religious belief, or "saved" during some sort of emotional upheaval. Thus, "adequate support" for supernaturalism in general, and the specific belief system in particular were never an issue.

I would put you and Reverend Joshua near the top of that list

The "fire and brimstone" fundamentalist breed of believer, literalist and inerrantist, do much to earn the title "irrational", but not merely because they are believers.

A benevolent God would not fool us with evidence that contradicts a literal reading of the bible and then toss us all in Hell for being suckered. He would also, IMHO, have the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" type of attitude towards the hatred and bigotry towards beliefs and lifestyles that goes on in his name.

Like you and Reverend Joshua

My position is that we are both rational, but that you are wrong

sullster

I vote that theists are more arrogant than atheists because of the of the need to proselytise and no be challenged.

My experience is that athiests have to defer to the theists in many social encounters and let them say theist comments without challenge because it would cause a tense situation where there should not be one. Theists arrogantly take advantage of a social situation to say some religious nonsense which they know will not be challenged in this social context.

In a social situation it has been very rare in my experience that an atheist has said some remark of an atheist nature similar to what theists do all the time.

Thus, because theists take advantage of the social stage most of time, I see them them as inherently more arrogant than most atheists. The term "jerks", comes to mind.

katellagen

Being new here and having scanned only a few threads, I'm not sure I have a great feel for the tone of discussion on this board or the spirit in which this invitation is put forth. Being relatively uneducated ("formally"; i.e. no degree), I'm sure there are many questions and challenges I will be unable to adequately respond to. Being a Christian, I'm sure my presence here is immediately suspect and my perspective and responses will be deemed foolish and naive by many. (Admittedly, a generalized perception based on some of what I've seen written about Christians here.) Being unable to recall a single incident of angry argumentation between an atheist and me, or a specific case of extreme arrogance displayed by an atheist (though I'm sure there are many incidents on both sides, for those who are looking), and having no animosity toward atheists per se or anyone on this board, I'll start where this thread started, and speak in terms of the relative positions as set forth in the original post. (Forgive the lengthy introduction, I didn't want to just barge in.)

I have often thought predicating (or arrogating)humility to oneself to be a prima facie self defeating position. "I'm more humble than you are." is really not very convincing.

Christians too admit there is much we don't know. In fact, we would say that there is much that we would have absolutely no chance of knowing apart from Special Revelation. Further, we would assert that ultimately all of our knowledge is dependant upon the grace of God.

On the other hand, atheists believe that all that we know, we know because our superior intellects and brilliant methodologies in themselves are sufficient to attain such knowledge.

Again, for the Christian any knowledge of ultimate meanings is not self-attained but God-given. How can this be labled arrogant?

Understood. We are comfortable saying this (as you are) because we believe our worldview is coherent and that it adequately accounts for the existence of such beleifs as well as unbelief. But if to believe this is arrogant than you would have to apply this lable to yourself as well.

The Christian can agree with this statement without qualification. Of course we could also add to it (as "Xian" does below).

But the atheist would also add that humans have demonstrated their vast superiority over all other known species through the evolutionary process by which they have been shown to be most fit to rule and dominate, and thus have gained supremacy and have collectively become the king of the world, and each, the master of his destiny.

...creations...made...imbued (endued?).

This is all the work of someone other than ourselves.

the Christian would also add that even given such benefits and privilege, we have failed to fulfill our highest calling of truly and consistantly reflecting the glory of the One whose image we bear, bringing shame on ourselves because of and by our failure. And yet, being the objects of the love of the Creator, we have been redeemed and sustained in spite of - NOT because of ourselves. How is this arrogant?

I think we might do better to ask: "which view is more consistant with an attitude of arrogance?", and to realize that the attitude and display of arrogance is really an individual matter. As I view it, and like others have said there is no shortage of arrogance on either side. I think it's better to think of a position as being right or wrong, and to deal with people with respect. This tends to keep the display of arrogance at a minimum.

Rick

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: katellagen ]</p>

yahwehyadayada

"My experience is that athiests have to defer to the theists in many social encounters and let them say theist comments without challenge because it would cause a tense situation where there should not be one. Theists arrogantly take advantage of a social situation to say some religious nonsense which they know will not be challenged in this social context." (Quote from sullster--sorry, but I can't figure out how to get the quote UBB code to work. Can someone please explain it to me? Normally I'm not THIS much of a simpleton.)
I agree with the above quote 100%. I've noticed this repeatedly, & it really pisses me off. Theists seem to feel that believing in something for which there is no proof is a sign of virtue, & they automatically assume everyone else feels the same. That to me is arrogant.

Tercel

I would distinguish between two types of arrogance I observe here. The first is the standard "I'm right your wrong, anyone who disagrees with me is stupid" kind of dogmatism which seems to certainly be held in ample supply by both atheists and theists alike.

The second type of arrogance, which tends to be more commonly displayed by atheists than theists is a lack of skepticism insofar as the limits of our knowledge goes. Like Celsus who proclaimed "I know all", I see many supposed skeptics posting here who seem to think their knowledge has no limits. That is to say, they seem to think that their understanding is capable of pentrating the deepest mysteries of the universe. If they can't understand God, well then it's clear that he doesn't exist. In their arrogance they believe that if they cannot fully comprehend something with their minds then it is absurd and illogical. Hume expresses perfectly my complaint about such people in his Dialogues on Natural Religion when he has Philo complain of those who "think nothing too difficult for human reason; and, presumptuously breaking through all fences, profane the inmost sanctuaries of the temple."
The proposed answer is:
"Let us become thoroughly sensible of the weakness, blindness, and narrow limits of human reason: Let us duly consider its uncertainty and endless contrarieties, even in subjects of common life and practice: Let the errors and deceits of our very senses be set before us; the insuperable difficulties which attend first principles in all systems; the contradictions which adhere to the very ideas of matter, cause and effect, extension, space, time, motion; and in a word, quantity of all kinds, the object of the only science that can fairly pretend to any certainty or evidence. When these topics are displayed in their full light, as they are by some philosophers and almost all divines; who can retain such confidence in this frail faculty of reason as to pay any regard to its determinations in points so sublime, so abstruse, so remote from common life and experience? When the coherence of the parts of a stone, or even that composition of parts which renders it extended; whn these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant and contradictory; with what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from eternity to eternity?"

Wise advice indeed IMO. Yet in an age where the limits of human reason have been shown more than ever beyond even what Hume outlined above (eg we have had Godel, Russell, the Axiom of Choice etc), I see many posters here who think their intellect sufficient to discern even the depths of God, and finding they cannot then conclude that he does not exist. Calling themselves skeptics and freethinkers, they themselves lack skepticism as to the ability of their thinking and believe themselves capable of intellectual discernment beyond that of all humans. And so it seems to me their true arrogance is shown.

seebs

Likewise.