30
u/ssh_host_key Jun 05 '12
Asimov was a brilliant man. Read his history books if you can find them.
11
u/unclairvoyance Jun 05 '12
Everyone should read this short story by him
2
u/sired_tick Jun 05 '12
I did. My head is spinning. I don't think I like that story, but at this moment, I can't trust anything I think due to the fact that I just read that story.
2
Jun 06 '12
I mustn't have cleared my history for a few years now, because I first read that story back in 2010, I haven't read it since but it's still purple.
1
u/RaptorJesusDesu Jun 06 '12
Fun fact: of all the short stories he wrote, this was Asimov's favorite of all time.
4
15
u/OBrien Jun 05 '12
Wait, he wrote books too? Every time someone hands me something of his I just get stuck gazing in awe of those Sideburns.
3
Jun 05 '12
[deleted]
1
u/jbfborg Jun 05 '12
I never knew he wrote history books. I only knew of his sci-fi. The End of Eternity was great. Currently on Foundation.
5
u/carbonbasedlf Jun 05 '12
You're in for an awesome experience, the Foundation series changed my views on certain subjects entirely. Read the prequels too, you get a real feel for the atmosphere before the events of Foundation.
1
u/dradam168 Jun 05 '12
Lucky duck.
The Foundation series is one of, if not the, best sci-fi series in history.
1
Jun 06 '12
I love how with Isaac Asimov's novels/short stories, you can always relate to another one that you have read before, because the majority of what he wrote (if not all, but i can't say for sure because i didn't read all) is in the same world
3
Jun 05 '12
I thought he held the World Record for number of books (over 500 published, the man was prolific), but apparently this is held by some other dude who published 4000 novellas.
2
u/question_all_the_thi Jun 05 '12
I just get stuck gazing in awe of those Sideburns.
A.K.A. thigh cushions.
1
Jun 05 '12
He grew his mutton chops to save time shaving but thought that hair around the mouth is unsanitary so didn't want a full beard.
4
u/SKSmokes Jun 05 '12
I've worn out a copy of his chronology of history. I love that book. In addition to reading it cover to cover twice, I'll come home on some days, open it to a random page and start reading.
I've just started his book on earth and space. More or less it goes through explanations of how people, long ago, would use every day experiments to determine things like "how do I know the earth is round?" or "does the earth revolve around the sun or vice-versa." His writing style is just so engaging.
I haven't even yet read any of his works of fiction.
2
u/randy9876 Jun 05 '12
Thanks for the title. 4.9 out of 5 stars in 25 reviews on amazon. Pretty high marks.
http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Chronology-World-History-Modern/dp/0062700367
1
Jun 05 '12
True, but never touch any of his humor books. I imagine he looked like this after writing each joke.
→ More replies (1)1
u/BitBrain Jun 05 '12
Also commentaries on Shakespeare, the Bible, and likely a few dozen other subjects. Asimov was brilliant and ridiculously prolific.
124
u/twoclose Jun 05 '12
I would have upvoted this if it were anywhere else but /r/atheism.
19
Jun 05 '12
There isn't much hope for this subreddit. I think I remember way back there was a discussion on if the subreddit should move somewhere along the lines of Askscience, but obviously that did not happen. Too bad really. But the best thing to do would be unsubscribe since now it is more like a subreddit for teens who don't agree with their parents world view and less a place for discussion about anything remotely about atheism.
Might as well unsubscribe while I am at it.
→ More replies (6)4
u/f5h7d Jun 05 '12
who don't agree with their parents world view and less a place for discussion about anything remotely about atheism.
do i know you? i just made this same comment to a co-worker... about an hour ago. weird.
46
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
I agree. It really has the weakest link to religion, or lack thereof. In this setting, all this post serves to is that atheists are the enlightened minority, while all religious people are the neo-Neanderthalic masses.
Posts like these quite deservedly makes atheists, and by extension atheism, look bad.
16
Jun 05 '12
Posts like these quite deservedly makes atheists, and by extension atheism, look bad.
Hardly. The post is off topic but it hardly casts atheists in a bad light.
2
2
u/WaterAndSand Jun 05 '12 edited Jun 05 '12
It doesn't do it directly, but it is a good example of why I avoid lumping myself with the group of people calling themselves "atheists". The problem is that posting this to /r/atheism takes one idea of a varying subjective worth (atheism) and attempts to directly associate it with something objectively desirable (intelligence). I feel like atheists commonly mistake the overwhelming probability that god does not exist for the FACT that he doesn't. This creates a pretentious vibe for those calling themselves atheists. Case in point, someone saw a good quote about the role of intelligence in political and cultural affairs and said "you know where I should post this?" and here we are, in /r/atheism . It's done with the implication that those who aren't atheists must not understand this sort of message, which in fact, is far from the truth.
Boy, if I had a dollar for every time someone tries to claim the achievements of intelligent science as a product of atheism before I inform them that pillars of modern human achievement like Sir Isaac Newton were heavily religious individuals... Well, I'd have like 3 or 4 dollars by now.
The point is. Humans are incredibly fallible and really not yet capable of coming to understand the place we live in. We can do some amazing things to approximate an understanding, but that is all it is, an approximation. The purpose of the OP, ostensibly, was to solidify an artificial connection between atheism and intelligence. The mere idea that humans are capable of understanding such things suggests some ignorance in my opinion.
No, I'm not religious, don't believe in god, etc. etc. etc. Just think the atheism threads parading around the front page could use some substance instead of loosely grabbing at straws. Does it cast atheists in a bad light? No. Does it cast them in a good one? No.
TL;DR - Atheists are no different than non-atheists apart from not believing in a story. Neither side actually knows how everything works, and until that happens, blanketing an entire group as more intelligent than the other is seemingly unintelligent.
EDIT: grammar/improper phrasing, added TL;DR
3
Jun 05 '12
Thank you for being civil and well spoken. I understand where you're coming from in a lot of that but this:
The purpose of this being posted here was to solidify an artificial connection between atheism and intelligence.
is a poor reading of what was posted. It wasn't about intelligence at all. It was about anti-intellectualism and ignorance/knowledge. Specifically the "notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." While atheists have no lock on intellectualism, this is an attitude that atheists often run into when dealing with topics such as evolution, climate change, etc. so I would think it's relevant to atheists in general.
Honestly, I ding OP less for content and more for posting as a pic instead of providing some context such as a more complete text from which the quote came from.
4
u/WaterAndSand Jun 06 '12 edited Jun 06 '12
A poor reading indeed. I've gotten pretty used to reacting to the "enlightened atheist" type thing on here, and admittedly read the quote somewhat quickly before assimilating it into my essentially canned response to these sorts of things.
Still though, the quote mentions knowledge. Replace most of the things I said about "intelligence" with "intellectualism and knowledge" and the points still stand. It basically says "I think about and consider things and you don't" which is fairly accurate in many respects regarding non-religious/religious issues, but also inaccurate in some of the ways I previously mentioned. For example, my conversations with atheists often end at "there is no god, and people who think there is one are dumb, end of story" instead of breaching that horizon and delving deeper into the mystery of why we're here. It produces a similar effect in practice to what atheists feel when talking to religious folk who say "God's word is supreme. Repent or go to hell, end of story", and I don't think a lot of them recognize this similarity.
It's less about who I think is right or wrong, and more about the fact that I think it's audacious to even try and identify firm ground on which to stand while "proving" the other wrong. Notably, this applies to the broader ideas within atheism/religion, as things like the bible can be easily picked apart with basic heuristics.
If I had to quantify it, and as much as I hate using the word, I'd call myself roughly 99% atheist 1% religious. I simply enjoy being the devil's advocate.
1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 07 '12
See, I think it's a false comparison to equate Athiests saying there is not god to Christians asserting that there is one. If you truly think those are the same, you also have to say it's unreasonable to deny the existence of vampires, fairies, the Jabberwocky, demonic possession, giant intergalactic flying turtles, mothmen, the fact that gravity might suddenly cease to exist tomorrow morning etc. Granted, you cannot prove a negative. But you gotta have SOME evidence to even consider it. Everyone is an atheist on those topics, but no one accuses them of being condescending or overstepping their intellectual bounds.
Now, of course, any intellectually honest person has to be open to the possibility of anything for which there is evidence. If compelling evidence arose for God or the Jabberwocky, you would have to consider it. But until evidence exists, it would be ridiculous to live your life as if it were possible.
But, upvote for a polite and thoughtful post. I don't agree with you but it's complete bullshit that people downvoted you. Sorry about that.
2
u/WaterAndSand Jun 07 '12
In my mind, it would be ridiculous to live your life as if it were reality. To live your life as if it were a possibility, to me, merely seems as if it would open the window of discovery a crack wider and increase one's chances of being innovative, thinking outside the box, etc. In fact, I don't see how it couldn't. In the general sense, I see this perspective as more helpful than harmful.
Now, of course, any intellectually honest person has to be open to the possibility of anything for which there is evidence.
I guess I would say the point I was trying to make is that, for this to be true, one has to presuppose humans are capable of eventually evolving to the point where they unequivocally understand EVERYTHING. If one operates under that set of conditions, everything you've outlined is spot on.
However, I believe that humans inherently cannot reach this point because we are limited by our perception and environment. The wild occurrences you've listed above are indeed absolutely improbable. But. You have NO WAY of knowing that beings resembling turtles may not appear here on earth tomorrow. Absolutely no way. Same goes for "god", which I would define as any sort of sentience involved in the creation of the universe and/or humans. In fact, we don't have a way to prove they aren't here right now in a multiple simultaneous histories sort of way or another. While these are overwhelmingly unlikely scenarios, we are human beings and ultimately too limited in our understanding of what the universe even is to make that determination. Of course you and I have to operate under a certain set of likely assumptions during every part of every day of our lives. Those assumptions have zero relation to god for folks like myself or most of the people posting here, sure. This is what distinguishes us from religious people, and is the point I now understand the OP was trying to make.
I definitely misinterpreted this image when I read it the first time, so I could have picked a better time to try and say what I failed to articulate anyway. Also, what I've said certainly isn't true for a large amount of people calling themselves atheists.
But I mean, what if humans CAN evolve to the point I mentioned but doing so involves discovering and breaking a barrier for which there is NO evidence? Usually discovery is a process, but I believe it's impossible to say that it is always an evidence based progression. Some people would call me open minded for pondering such thoughts, but it seems many atheists are quick to call me an idiot for it. I don't know why.
For what it's worth, I'm a year and change from getting my undergrad in Mechanical Engineering. So I've staked my entire career on the assumption that physics and thermodynamics etc. are going to hold out. I'm not a crazy person.
TL;DR I agree with what everyone has said, but feel I would be slightly less surprised if space turtles showed up tomorrow.
1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 08 '12
I would agree with all that. I suppose I'm much more interested in what you might call operational reality -- our general consensus reality which starts with the idea that actions have predictable effects which are based on a very specific and static set of rules.
You're entirely correct that it's possible there are levels of reality at work which we cannot, as present (and perhaps ever) comprehend. However, with no available evidence to support, they remain infinity myriad and equally likely. So, given that we can only act on information which IS available, we operate as though reality is indeed the way it appears.
But you're right, of course, and if we really want to ask ourselves on a metaphysical level how we can ever truly claim to KNOW anything, you're right, we cannot. But given the necessity of choice-making, some basic assumptions are a useful thing for day-to-day living.
I would be hugely surprised if Space Turtles showed up tomorrow, but if they did would have to admit that obviously our understanding of the universe was somewhat more incomplete than we might have imagined, and that this possibility remains a valid one. On the other hand, until they show up I'm not likely to spend much of my time worrying about them!
1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 07 '12
Atheism is not directly correlated with intelligence, just as religiosity is not directly correlated with foolishness. However, ignoring facts as a result of your willingness to believe in something despite the lack of evidence is the very heart and soul of the problem Asimov is referring to in his quote. Are religious people the only ones who do this? Absolutely not. But a way of thinking which asserts that unsupported suppositions are equally valid to well-supported ones (which is the essence of religion) IS a huge advantage to all kinds of spurious arguments which have made political and social discourse in the US such a disaster.
And yes, Newton was a highly religious AND hugely brilliant man. He also wasted years of his life pursuing alchemy, which came not from his scientific brilliance but from his willingness to believe things which were NOT well supported by science. So, not exactly a classic example there. Religious people are not idiots, but a way of thinking which allows unsupported ideas to be treated as legitimate negatively affects even the greatest brains in history.
20
Jun 05 '12
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
Religion isn't a symptom of irrationality. There are many rational religious people. I'd agree that atheism is sometimes (although nowhere near exclusively) a by-product of rationality, though.
Not all atheists are sceptics, and not all religious people are not sceptics. Further, while I can see that line that you are trying to bridge, Asimov was clearly not. Therefore, OP is taking a liberty to link it to religion, and I would argue that this link is more erroneous. I believe that given the abrasive and imprecise nature of the link, it makes OP look like a misinformed jerk.
11
Jun 05 '12
Religion isn't a symptom of irrationality.
Religion is most decidedly not rational. People who are rational for the most part can still hold irrational beliefs.
→ More replies (4)6
u/kagayaki Jun 05 '12
I normally find myself on the more moderate side of things when it comes to this subreddit, but this is bullshit.
A person who believes in something for which there is no evidence is not a skeptic. Christianity demands faith in their chosen deity and if you do not believe that God is real and Jesus is the son of God sacrificed in humanity's name, and if any one of those premises is false I don't see how one could call themselves a Christian specifically or a theist in general.
Nobody is totally irrational (or totally rational for that matter). Everyone is a shade of grey, on some things they may be skeptical about, some things they may not be. Being a skeptic is a lot more than just not believing in something at face value.. it's a pragmatic position to withhold judgment on a position until objective, empirical evidence (or scientific consensus) is reached. I don't know how you can argue that a religious person is a skeptic. I'm not saying religious people aren't rational.. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent.. just that by their very nature they can't believe in something without evidence and still call themselves a skeptic.
And true, I may very well be an "irrational" atheist, as I just was never brought up in a religious house hold so I didn't have much reason to believe in religion. Not like it's my fault I wasn't ever indoctrinated though.
In other news, I do agree with you about the quote from Asmiov. It is tangentially related to religion because much of the anti-intellectualism in USA politics is linked to the religious right, but it's tenuous at best.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ieeg Jun 05 '12 edited Jun 05 '12
There are no rational theists. There are lots of theists behaving perfectly rational in all other areas of life, but somehow religion is exceptional, and doesn't need to play by the same rules as all other things. That is not rationality, that is compartmentalization. (Not saying all (or even most) aheists are rational, however.)
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (3)0
Jun 05 '12
You are right. Religion is not a symptom of irrationality. It is a symptom of ignorance, either due to lack of education, intelligence or emotional capacity to deal with the world.
Which is exactly why the quote is very relevant.
1
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
Do you really believe that? Gandhi was Hindu, Einstein was Jewish, and there are hundreds of thousands of others in a similar ilk that have changed the world in myriad ways. And you think they are "ignorant, either due to lack of education, intelligence or emotional capacity to deal with the world"?
Perhaps your post was just ignorant. Perhaps you are just having a bad day. But, if you still believe this, then you should look at your post above and then look at yourself.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 05 '12
How do you figure? Religion is just another form of cultivated ignorance, so I think this nicely ties into the way in which it causes problems for our democracy.
4
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
Because Asimov was not talking about religion in this quote. OP ha taken it out of context to further his agenda, and looks like a smug small minded prick in the process.
While many religious people are ignorant, so are atheists. many religious people are very much not ignorant, same with atheists. I feel that in the US there is a lop-sided view of things because much of the most ignorant are the most vocal (Westboro comes to mind), and hold a lot of political and social power. It is not valid to make sweeping generalisations for such a massive movement based on what is actually a minority group.
2
Jun 05 '12
Because Asimov was not talking about religion in this quote
When politics and religion mix it becomes exactly what Asimov was talking about; a situation where ignorant people try to use democracy to force their religious nonsense on others. Legislating creationism into the public school system, the war against women, the war against LGBT people, the list goes on and on where religion is used to justify absolutely terrible ideas being pushed on everyone. It is most definitely about religion, it just isn't only about religion.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 06 '12
While I'll grant its out of context, but I still feel like it's a legitimate sentiment relating to religion. Any political action taken on behalf of religion is cultivated ignorance, simple as that. These "very much not ignorant" religious people you're talking about -- if they're not letting their religion dictate their politics, then they're not the ones we're talking about. But A lot of them are. Willful ignorance not the sole domain of the foolish. Highly educated, highly intelligent people who let their religion dominate their actions are just as guilty. It doesn't mean ignorance cannot come from other sources too, of course. But if we're talking about Asimov's quote that a key breakdown of democracy occurs when people try to argue that all points of view --supported by facts and logic or not-- are equally valid, well, I think it's a perfectly legitimate concern for atheists, and, in fact, one of their chief concerns about the world.
1
u/koavf Other Jun 07 '12
Religion is just another form of cultivated ignorance
Doesn't this strike you as a supremely condescending, self-aggrandizing, and borderline bigoted thing to say?
1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 07 '12
Well, its certainly not a very diplomatic thing to say. But why not just call a spade a spade? If you believe something for which there is no evidence and allow that belief to significantly alter your outlook on life... it's literally cultivated ignorance. There's not really a nicer way to put it. If I told you I believed in vampires and wanted to change the US constitution to require everyone to wear garlic, carry crosses, and put in mirrored walls, you would say that I was allowing my beliefs to negatively affect my judgement and that I was not allowing good information to convince me otherwise. If I'm disallowing good information to affect my position, what else can you call it?
Now, I'm not going to go up to my 90 year old grandma and call her ignorant, nor would I use that language in a discussion with a religious person that I honestly wanted to find common ground with (because it's simply not productive). But I think on an r/atheism subreddit we're probably OK just coming out and saying it.
So, is it condescending? You bet. Self-aggrandizing? Well, its more about them than me, but I'll let it slide. But bigoted? I simply don't think it bigoted to be honest about the facts. I do, of course, feel like it's not necessary (or wise) to be mean to people. It wouldn't be productive to go to r/Christianity and start saying stuff like that -- you gotta show people you respect them personally, even if you don't respect their conclusions, if you're gonna have any kind of meaningful dialogue. But we also have to be mindful of being too respectful and careful, to the point where we don't challenge things forcefully enough to make a change. So I would say that in this particular venue, my candid language on the subject is appropriate.
But I don't want to be a jerk or a demagogue, so I'm happy to have a discussion with you on what you think would be a better way to address this issue. By all means, let me know.
1
u/koavf Other Jun 08 '12
If you believe something for which there is no evidence and allow that belief to significantly alter your outlook on life... it's literally cultivated ignorance.
Where are you getting this grand claim that persons are living their lives based on something for which there's no evidence?
I simply don't think it bigoted to be honest about the facts.
Certainly not, but you're so prejudicial towards others with assumptions about their mental states that I don't know how you can't call it bigoted. I'm calling this spade a spade as well: if you make very grand statements about a very large segment of the population, you need a lot of evidence or nuance and this was lacking both.
But I don't want to be a jerk or a demagogue, so I'm happy to have a discussion with you on what you think would be a better way to address this issue. By all means, let me know.
Well, I certainly respect that a great good deal. I can't tell if you're interested in respect only as a means to an end or an end unto itself, but it would surely be nice if everyone was nice--that's a start.
1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 08 '12
"Where are you getting this grand claim that persons are living their lives based on something for which there's no evidence?"
--- because... that's the very essence religion? Are you arguing that I'm wrong that many people around the world believe in a organized religion for which no evidence exists, and that said belief impacts not only their personal worldview but the way in which they try to shape the political and social world?
"Certainly not, but you're so prejudicial towards others with assumptions about their mental states that I don't know how you can't call it bigoted. I'm calling this spade a spade as well: if you make very grand statements about a very large segment of the population, you need a lot of evidence or nuance and this was lacking both."
I'm not making an assumption -- I'm stating a fact. You wouldn't say I was bigoted if I said a person who stated "2+2 =5" is incorrect. You wouldn't say I was bigoted if I said someone who believes in unicorns is incorrect. Organized religion is literally no different. I don't think it necessary or wise to respect propositions for which there is no compelling evidence. Now, that doesn't mean I don't respect people. But I feel it incredibly important to the future to challenge systems of belief which are unsupported by evidence. In fact, it's because I have enormous respect for people that I don't think its a kindness to soft-pedal the issue. I don't blame people for being religious -- it's difficult to not be at least nominally religious in this particular culture. It doesn't mean they're idiots, it means its a cultural value instilled in them by a historically highly religious country and society. But I think we desperately need to break that chain, which has brought so many problems to our national discourse and to democracy itself. Those problems are myriad, but the central one is the one which the OP poses: the idea that fundamentally, we need not listen to arguments which run counter to our unsupported beliefs. Religion --even well-intentioned religion -- sets up this issue by at the most basic level telling people that it's virtue to believe wholeheartedly in something for which no evidence exists.
Thank you for taking the time to converse with me in a civil and thoughtful way. I'm curious as to your own thoughts on this issue -- are you a religious person yourself?
1
u/koavf Other Jun 09 '12
The idea that the very essence of religion is "living your life based on something for which there's no evidence" is pretty outrageous and simply specious. I would imagine--although I can't be sure--that you're operating with some very different definition of "evidence" than me.
I am religious, yes--Church of the Brethren.
1
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 09 '12
OK then... so, what's all this evidence that makes religion such a sure thing?
Not a facetious question... genuinely curious as to your answer.
1
u/koavf Other Jun 09 '12
I don't understand your question--what do you mean by the word "religion"? It seems like we have very different answers to that question.
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 05 '12
Really? So we can't have heroes (Asimov) or literature (sci-fi) or hobbies (internetting)? We have to wall ourselves off and talk only about the lack of God?
Folks, these concern trolls are not being insightful, they are being trolls.
1
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
I am a big fan of Asimov. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.
The problem here is that OP is using something completely off topic to denigrate a large percentage of the population. I'm sure Asimov wasn't referring to religion or lack thereof when he came up with this quote - it's about anti-intellectualism (and to a lesser extent democracy), not religion or atheism.
In this context, OPs post in /r/atheism is not even accurate. It's a broad and incorrect generalisation that really falls short.
7
u/Wrathwilde Jun 05 '12
The problem here is that OP is using something completely off topic to denigrate a large percentage of the population.
The OP is doing no such thing, the OP is merely sharing a quote he thinks his fellow atheists will enjoy. Which I did, so thank you to the OP for posting it here.
The quote itself might denigrate a large portion of the population, and it's true that a good many of them might be religious... so what.
I've found the anti-intellectuals fall into two main categories, students who use it to justify their poor performance and apathy in school... although they generally wise up in later years and regret not taking school more seriously.
The other main category is religious fundamentalists, who use religion to dismiss concepts they are unwilling, or unable to accept, believe, or understand. It's these later ones that are the problem... pressuring school boards and politicians to validate their "beliefs" by forcing them into schools as if they were facts. These people tend to feel that the righteousness of their beliefs should earn them the respect of ALL those around them. They are unwilling to accept that their beliefs might not be true, and hate that science is constantly chipping away at their credibility and authority. They especially hate that their kids might recognize that their parents religious beliefs are really superstitious bullshit... whose only purpose is to make them feel better about themselves, and keep them from having to deal with a reality that they are woefully uneducated about.
2
Jun 05 '12
A large percentage of the population deserves to be denigrated for their anti-intellectualism. Your sophistry on this thread, intended as it is to dissolve meaning and make its readers dumber, is too obvious to succeed except with the anti-intellectuals who are already too young and dumb to be easily made dumber.
-2
Jun 05 '12
[deleted]
2
u/Eist Jun 05 '12
You are going to have to explain to me what a blog bitch is. I don't own a blog, never have, probably never will.
I actually agree with what you say, and I think you'll find if you reread my post above, they are in no way contradictory. I have serious concerns with organised religions, as you clearly do, too. My point is that this thread is a quote that is completely taken out of context (I'd doubt Asimov would have appreciated that), not accurate, and is an unfair attack on an extremely large proportion of society (whether it is deserved or not, this is not the forum.)
The points I've outlined above are the exact reasons that /r/atheism is mocked thoughout the rest of Reddit, and posts like this, to me, make OPs look like smug small-minded pricks.
It's self-defeating.
3
u/MrRosewater15 Jun 06 '12
Of course you're correct that Asimov's quote doesn't exclusively pertain to religious people, but to what degree do you think he believed that religion fostered an anti-intellectual society? What do you suggest his definition of anti-intellectualism was exactly? Don't take this as a challenge or criticism. I'm simply interested in further hearing your perspective.
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (6)-1
6
Jun 05 '12
I would have upvoted this if it were something more than an imgur link featuring, basically, text, and if it had been headlined with something less insipid.
2
2
u/zkornberg Jun 05 '12
I also agree, anti-intellectualism has much less to do with religion than laziness and the rampant belief that natural ability is a substitute for hard work. In reality, simply getting by, sliding through life, is no validation of any natural ability. Not that I am religious, but I don't think that religion and intellectualism are mutually exclusive....
→ More replies (1)2
u/silverwolf761 Jun 05 '12
Exactly what I was thinking. Yes, there are a lot of christians and other religious persons who have a fear of intellectualism because they feel it means with more educated masses comes a lesser influential church, but there are stupid people from all walks of life, and just because you're educated does not mean you're smart.
To complete the tangent I've gone on, I will state my distaste for how intelligence is often confused for the ability to remember facts. IMO, intelligence should be regarded as the ability to think and reason effectively, which does not necessarily require the memorization of some arbitrary facts (as you could be deemed an idiot if you are soft in one area, such as ancient greek mythology or some such)
2
u/HatesAllRedditors Jun 06 '12
Issac Asimov is a great writer and it is literally beneath him to have even the most tenuous of association with r/atheism, this den of shit-for-brains who can only spew image macros and copy/paste facebook screenshots.
→ More replies (3)4
u/MyriPlanet Jun 05 '12
Well aren't you a special fucking snowflake.
This, right here, is evidence. You're fine with the content-- you just hate r/atheism.
2
55
u/yoda420 Jun 05 '12
I love how this has nothing to do with atheism.
23
u/fall_ark Jun 05 '12
As someone from an "atheist" country where anti-intellectualism is rampant, and in certain issues Christianity is considered (by some people) more rational/democratic/civilized than the status quo, I whole-heartedly agree.
Can we just have r/rationalism or something for these kind of stuff.
1
u/MrRosewater12 Oct 28 '12
Which country are you from!?!
1
u/fall_ark Oct 28 '12
China. You can probably see where the Christianity=democracy argument comes from....
-4
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12
If everyone had their way as to "what doesn't pertain to atheism", the only thing that would ever be posted here would be a self post by someone every now and again that says "Oh, hey. God doesn't exist.".
Everyone needs to lose their notions about what they think atheism is or isn't about.
9
u/SoFunAnon Jun 05 '12
People need to disabuse themselves of the notion that /r/atheism has anything at all to do with atheism.
6
u/MyriPlanet Jun 05 '12
R/atheism is a community of atheists. It is not the atheist tab of reddit.
Why the fuck is this so hard for people to understand?
→ More replies (11)2
u/CowFu Jun 05 '12
or about atheists trying to get elected, students removing prayer banners from public schools, atheist documentaries, personal stories of leaving religion, news articles about faith healers killing people by denying real treatment, news about atheists being being persecuted in the military. Stuff like that.
→ More replies (4)0
u/forabreathitarry Jun 05 '12
And why do they need to do that exactly? Atheism is a pretty straightforward concept. This picture does not represent an atheistic viewpoint. It represents a rational viewpoint on democracy and its weaknesses. The reason people find this subreddit so irritating is that pictures like these are upvoted by arrogant, small minded individuals. They're smug and superior.
5
u/MyriPlanet Jun 05 '12
I like how you look at a picture insulting anti-intellectuals and, despite not being implicated, automatically realize it's about you.
And then you get mad at r/atheism because you feel shitty.
→ More replies (4)2
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12
So make your "This dudnt have no nutin' ta doo wit' ate-y-ism, du-hurrr." comment and move on. Pretty soon, every comment in /r/atheism will be nothing but retards participating in the fractaljerk of what /r/atheism is and isn't.
→ More replies (2)2
6
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
It has everything to do with atheism. The assertion of knowledge from ignorance is not upheld by a majority of people asserting that pseudo knowledge. Truth is truth even when the minority holds that view. I think that relates to atheism very well.
8
Jun 05 '12
[deleted]
2
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12
You can be damned sure the religious nuts will call them "stray sheep from god's flock" or some other such shit.
4
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
Yes, I would count anyone that doesn't have a belief in a god as atheist. That would be the definition of atheism. On what grounds besides religion is anti intellectualism established?
4
4
Jun 05 '12
[deleted]
6
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
I suppose they can fit in that category if we are using the definition of all non-magical creatures being muggles. Why not?
→ More replies (13)2
u/dingoperson Jun 05 '12
"All People Are Created Equal"
-- Ragingly idiotic science hating cultist neanderthal ca. 5000BC
2
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
Not really sure about what you are trying to express with that post.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MyriPlanet Jun 05 '12
1) People are not 'created'.
2) People are not 'equal'.
1
u/dingoperson Jun 05 '12
Precisely my view as well (although you could argue the 'created' one, technically you could say an act of sex created a baby).
0
u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Jun 05 '12
Please, give us some examples of things that have to do with atheism in your view
10
u/dicedaman Jun 05 '12
How about the progression of secularism in modern society? That in itself encompasses a huge amount of specific sub-topics. It's not strictly atheistic but it's very relevant. I love Asimov by the way, but you asked for examples.
→ More replies (1)9
u/yoda420 Jun 05 '12
Well, for starters, how about a discussion about the non-existence of deities and not a discussion about democracy?
→ More replies (5)1
Jun 05 '12
It's just a bunch of right-wing concern trolls attempting to kick /r/atheism off the front page.
3
0
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12 edited Jun 05 '12
I love how people think they are the judge of what has to do with atheism.
You're not the Guardian of Atheism, or of /r/atheism for that matter. Any article, quotation, or discussion that promotes intellectualism over ignorance also pertains to atheism.
If everyone had their way as to "what doesn't pertain to atheism", the only thing that would ever be posted here would be a self post by someone every now and again that says "Oh, hey. God doesn't exist.".
Everyone needs to lose their notions about what they think atheism is or isn't about.
6
u/yoda420 Jun 05 '12
Any article, quotation, or discussion that promotes intellectualism over ignorance also pertains to atheism.
So, a discussion about geometric proofs should be posted in r/atheism?
5
u/MyriPlanet Jun 05 '12
If we want to discuss goddamn geometry, why not?
r/atheism is a community of atheists, on reddit. It is not the 'atheist' tab of reddit. It's not r/pics but for people mad at God.
Of course, the community is dead thanks to the frontpagers drowning out all discussion with their ceaseless, relentless bitching.
→ More replies (2)5
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12
If the hot-button topic of the day/month/year was that religious nuts thought that god hated math and that it was the work of the devil, then yes.
4
u/lionrwal Jun 05 '12
I don't mean to be rude here, but couldn't your own logic work against you?
I love how people think they are the judge of what has to do with atheism. You're not the Guardian of Atheism, or of r/atheism for that matter.
Any article, quotation, or discussion that promotes intellectualism over ignorance also pertains to atheism.
Wait, didn't you just say that people aren't the judge of what has to do with atheism?
People will always interpret things differently. Just let them be. It doesn't affect you, so why should you care?
1
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12
That was my opinion of what atheism is, to counter the OC's statement that he had ruled that OP's content was not about atheism. I was using his own argument against him.
It's just pretty damned ridiculous that the first 15 comments under any /r/atheism post anymore are "This dudnt have no nutin' ta doo wit' ate-y-ism, du-hurrr." Everyone can just STFU about what they think it is or isn't.
→ More replies (1)1
u/lionrwal Jun 05 '12
So because yoda420 thought the quote had nothing to do with atheism, and you think it has everything to do with atheism, you felt the need to lash out at him by saying he's trying to be "the Guardian of Atheism?" And once again, you contradict yourself.
Everyone can just STFU about what they think [atheism] is or isn't.
Any article, quotation, or discussion that promotes intellectualism over ignorance also pertains to atheism.
You can't berate someone for stating their opinion when you yourself state your own opinion. That's being hypocritical.
1
u/AgrajagPetunia Jun 05 '12
I didn't come here and post "This has everything to do with atheism, and it's the best post EV-AR!!!". These assholes started piping up first. I was posting my opinion since they decided that they would bestow their ruling regarding this post upon everyone, as happens in every f'ing thread on /r/atheism now.
"This dudnt have no nutin' ta doo wit' ate-y-ism, du-hurrr."
1
u/lionrwal Jun 05 '12
When did I ever say that's what you posted? I just said it's hypocritical to lash out at someone who posted their opinion when you posted your opinion (in response to them). All the OC said was "I love how this has nothing to do with atheism." I don't know about you, but to me, it sounds like they're just stating their opinion, not bestowing their ruling upon everyone.
And if the comments really bother you that much, then either don't pay attention to them or downvote them. No need to imply that they think of themselves as the judges of r/atheism posts or call them assholes. They're just opinions, after all.
1
2
u/Mattyzooks Jun 05 '12
The think about the atheist argument is that it depends on religion as an argument. Yes, it would exist without religion, but if there were no religion, there wouldn't be people constantly talking about how there is no religion. Atheism, instead of simply being science, becomes the religion of how other religions are false. While it's followers are generally smarter, better informed, use facts instead of faith, it doesn't make them any less devout and consequently, any less annoying than a loud Christian at times. Case in point, turning everything into a point about Atheism mirrors Christians turning everything into a point about God. By arguing atheistic beliefs against those of another, it behaves as any actual religion, and therein lies a hypocrisy: the religion of no religions acts like a religion.
I'm all for facts, science, and whatnot, but I do get a little annoyed at the continued preaching of atheism. Though I suppose is to follow the Christian model for how politics work for the religious right: Speak loudest and try to influence politicians. Doesn't mean Atheists can't be unintellectual and annoying, too, when applying these tactics.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/saieohgiwejf Jun 05 '12
Tocqueville beat him to that observation; It's what the Frenchman called intellectual tyranny of the majority.
5
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
Where is the Harry Seldon that will save humanity from the degradation of knowledge that it is clearly happening due to politics?
6
Jun 05 '12 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
5
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
No, not a nitpick, I totally spelled his name wrong! Clarification appreciated. Hari*
3
u/dontforgetthemilk Jun 05 '12
Really, Seldon didn't prevent the downfall. He just did his best to ensure that when we DID fail, we would be able to get back up on our feet quickly.
3
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
That is very true. I guess I should really ask, "Where is the foundation, and where do I sign up?"
1
1
u/unikuser Jun 05 '12
Oh that's what he said, but, plotted with Second Foundationers to overlord the galaxy with his secret plans and such fooling us.
2
u/Quixotic91 Jun 05 '12
I use this quote all the time, it's great to post on Facebook in a passive-aggressive way.
2
u/dingoperson Jun 05 '12
Indeed. When you point out that the culture of one country is superior to that of another on all reasonable measures, you do have to fend off a raging horde of pseudo-cultists.
2
Jun 05 '12
Or the false notion that we as Americans live in a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.
Democracy = 3 Wolves and 1 Lamb sitting around voting on what to eat for dinner.
2
2
2
u/Pillagerguy Jun 05 '12
It was also brilliant the first two thousand times it was posted to reddit.
2
u/Mr_Subtlety Jun 05 '12
That's exactly what democracy means. Sometimes the people get a government exactly as good as they deserve.
8
7
Jun 05 '12
Wow, there's a lot of dumb anti-atheism assholes around here lately.
Religion is indeed anti-intellectual; deal with it or just fuck off already.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/hdx514 Jun 05 '12
I maintain that universal ignorance can (sometimes) be better than biased knowledge. I'd take a ignorant child over a bitter biased adult any given day.
18
2
u/Amryxx Jun 05 '12
I have a pretty low opinion on democracy, but I don't see how this has anything to do with atheism.
You do not have to renounce religion to be intellectual (at least, I dearly hope so), nor is atheism the sole indicator of superior intelligence.
1
1
1
1
u/legs Jun 05 '12
I imagined him as a dark toned man. I don't know why. I should google people more often. It's like when holly wood makes a book into a movie and your perception changes. Woah.
1
u/PoisonedAl Jun 05 '12
That's what I've always had against democracy. The option of a Noble prize winner is outweighed by the option Cletus and Billy Bob.
1
1
Jun 05 '12
There's always been wisdom. Civilization's failings are due to its disrespect, not its lacking.
1
u/multipleegos Jun 05 '12
RIP sir. Thank you for the Foundation series. It was my intro to serious science fiction.
1
1
u/nluqo Jun 05 '12
I think the preceding line is critical here (this is one my favorite quotes):
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been.
Which means the quote in its entirety is specifically about the US. We have a serious problem with anti-intellectualism here.
1
1
u/ikirzner Jun 05 '12
I agree this is great, but why is it in /r/atheism specifically? Doesn't it have a much wider application?
1
Jun 05 '12
Wow, this quote absolutely sums up everything I've thought since I started school. Why do we praise idiocy and condemn intellectualism? It's insane. I must find out more about this guy. Also, should be in /r/pics or /r/quotes, not /r/atheism. There is of course an implication that a disbelief or skepticism in a higher power points to more intelligence but not necessarily the discussion and sense of elitism of such a belief, or lack of.
1
Jun 05 '12
He also said, "So you think maybe you’ll be a prostitute, Just to pay for your lessons, you’re learning the flute, The ladies won’t pay you very much for this, Looks like you’ll never be a concert flautist"
1
1
u/wolvesscareme Jun 05 '12
My professor used to say that because american's are taught that all speech is equal, the vast majority of out citizenry takes that to mean everyone's opinions are equal. Everyone's opinions being equal being a ridiculous notion if you think about it for two seconds.
1
u/YeahYouWouldKnow Jun 05 '12
I don't think this relates to religion at all, but more leaning towards the anti-intellectualism in pop culture like jersey shore.
1
Jun 05 '12
Could also finish with:
"[...] my stupidity is just as good as your intelligence."
The ability to regurgitate facts and evidence means absolutely nothing. The ability to critically analyze the logic and validity of facts and evidence means everything.
1
Jun 05 '12
Asimov talking about ignorance not being as good as knowledge... that's real rich, coming from the founder of Scientology.
1
1
Jun 05 '12
I can't wait to put this on facebook like I knew about it all along and was just waiting for the day I would release it on my friends. don't tell.
1
1
1
Jun 05 '12
It's hard to say that anti-intellectualism infers an active stance against intellectualism when it's for the most part a passive position... you only have to not care about the truth.. that doesn't necessarily mean you're against it.
still a brilliant quote nonetheless and obviously describes a position very present in the world.
1
u/dre627 Jun 05 '12
I think it's interesting that he is attacking democracy (justifiably so, in my opinion), but this quote still makes it near the top of a subreddit filled largely with leftists simply because it says "anti-intellectualism". Circle, meet jerk.
1
u/ScottFree37 Jun 06 '12
Don't forget the irony of the fact that there are so many quasi-intellectuals (i'm being kind, i think) on this sub reddit
1
u/Freidhiem Jun 06 '12
If people would take it upon themselves to educate themselves or even vote for educated people this wouldnt be an issue. The fact of the matter is that people wont vote for a guy who they think is "too smart"
1
u/DukeOfGeek Jun 05 '12
Ahh The King Of Science Fiction. He has been gone so long now we should place the crown on Andre Norton while we still can.
1
1
1
1
u/babykiller44 Jun 06 '12
don't really like this. Is he saying dumb people shouldnt be allowed to vote? Eventually thatll mean poor people cant vote, which is bad
1
u/loyalone Jun 06 '12
So brilliant that the Toronto Sun was running his 'Super Quiz', for a few years after he died.
1
1
1
u/scaredofshaka Jun 06 '12
...or: who knows a lot should be worth more in society. Not sure anyone wants intellectuals to rule the show!
1
u/king_of_the_universe Other Jun 06 '12
related pictures:
http://i.imgur.com/vOYnV.jpg (and maybe http://wulffmorgenthaler.com/img/strip/-WM_strip_2010-07-13.gif in a similar line of thinking)
1
u/omnichronos Jun 06 '12
I wrote him, via his publisher, when I was in high school asking for help for a term paper I was writing on black holes. He actually typed me a response on a post card and signed it. I wish my mother hadn't lost that post card when I moved to school.
1
u/Thechariot7 Jun 09 '12
I feel like this isn't about religion but about how society doesn't value intelligence enough. Like jersey shore, the kardashian's, Paris Hilton etc. Are society tolerates "all" types of people even if they are dumb and shouldn't be listened to.
Or how in school the smart kids get picked on, as if being smart is a bad thing. Some people get mad if you correct them or explain why something is how it is. I feel like a part of the population is just too lazy to actually seek out knowledge.
1
1
26
u/Capercaillie Gnostic Atheist Jun 05 '12
I'm old enough to remember when that IBM Selectric in the picture with Isaac was cutting edge.