In a continuation of Dmitry's last piece, he argues that at the center of the theism vs atheism debate lies a power struggle. I don't completely agree — I believe that, in many instances, the discussion is truly about the betterment of mankind — but on some level, I fear he's right.

He also touches on a point that has been the source of internal struggle for me: the atheism movement (yes, it is a movement) can only succeed, though I hate to use that word, if it can replace the meaning and direction that faith provides. Without a sufficient replacement, theism will linger. For me, the very randomness and finite nature that a rational perspective brings, and that theism fears, instills a sense of wonder and awe that has become a sufficient, even superior replacement for the guidance of theism. Ironically, that's an impossible thing to rationally argue for. It only comes with the shedding of fear and preconceived notions.

Is it necessary to find this replacement? Or will the trend continue towards rationality as science furthers itself, eliminating the need for the replacement and weeding out religion naturally?

First of all, my post is really about anything, not just mysticism vs rationalism (theism vs atheism being an outward representation of that clash). In questions of any discipline -- politics, science, art -- it is easy to find people who you may consider ignorant or conformist. If you care about the topic they will make you angry. My point is not to give in to emotion but instead try to recognize why that person has the point of view they do. It's not that they followed out the argument with cold logic, but rather, their inner needs and desires are outwardly expressing them through those opinions because they believe that those opinions facilitate a world in which they hold more power, a world of order and sense -- to them.

Choosing to focus on cold logic and rationality is yet another manifestation of the same principle. Who benefits? The most intelligent do for they hold the upper ground here. That's not to say others don't benefit from reason -- they always do in the long run -- but they may hold on to irrational beliefs for the short term power that they give them. Delusion is one example: a short term easing of the mind before the long term collapse.

To the question of faith: atheists like to point out that the smarter the person, the more likely they are to be atheist. They do not consider that they smarter the person, the likely more better off they are, and that these are people who lead better and safer lives. The poor and the miserable on the other hand actually need faith because it acts as a beacon that guides their life, as a fire that gives them strength. The irrational mysticism, irrespective of its validity, acts as a tool to give them the strength to live.

If we take issue with mysticism -- and I am not certain that we even should -- we can only replace its irrationality by putting in its place a rational philosophical framework that fulfills the same function. This means: not a philosophical treaty, but something that helps people live their everyday life, and especially cope with loss and suffering. Stoicism is a good example of a philosophy that can do that, which, to some extent, manifests itself in Christianity.

A further point: I focused on faith as a tool that fulfills the need to relieve misery and a way to strengthen the will. In this way it acts like water to a man dying of thirst -- something that nourishes, that keeps them going. On contrast: when the misery is taken away, the irrational mind can, in its idleness, begin to wander aimlessly, or even destructively. We can see the manifestations of this in American fundamentalism -- religion beginning to creep into fields where it has no relevance, e.g. creationism, and retarding the progress of science.

To your point about the role of rationalism, one example comes to mind: Mother Teresa. Well-intentioned as she was, she spent her life spreading her beliefs, including the "sin" of contraception. Data has shown that giving women access to contraception is the most effective method of bringing a society out of poverty: when the women of a tribe can choose to put off having children, they can more readily contribute to the societal good, so the introduction of contraception greatly contributes to the betterment of the community. Here, faith does not just provide guidance; it hinders progress.

Again, it seems easy to see the benefits on a communal level, but the individual level is less straightforward. I see your point as to the irrationality of all arguments as a power struggle, but the "correct" course becomes less clear when we talk of an individual's faith (in any system, be it religion, capitalism, veganism, whatever). I have no answer for this- hence the personal tug of war. Evidence only works on a societal level because, you're right, individuals don't argue from a point of rationality, and so often argue against their own best interests.

So what is the correct course? Do we let the mounting data slowly weed out the irrationality by letting societal implementations (policies, laws) seep down to the individual level over generations? Or do we find a better way to argue points to individuals by appealing to emotion, fears, etc. to try to enact change *now* if we have evidence that changing certain policies or traditions would be in that individual's best interest?

Progress is a linear path towards a specified goal -- what is that goal? Your idea of progress may be Mother Teresa's idea of regress. Additionally, she could not accept contraception anything other than "sin" and retain her faith, which she built on top of her religious beliefs. If you wanted her to give way on that issue you would have to restructure the underlying base.

newyorker.tumblr.com

This seems like a good example of the irrationality that seems to be prevailing in most modes of current culture.

The data, in so many cases, shows paths towards progress (fewer guns equals less violence, fewer chemicals in our food makes us healthier, education needs to be reformed, etc). Religion, of course, just seems like the most poignant example, but everywhere, rationality seems to be losing. How do we combat that? Do we redefine the goals that the data leads us to? Or do we simply, as you say, restructure the base of our argument? How do we begin to convince individuals of the need for rationality in the first place?

Do we pick the fight in the first place? Or let the trend towards reason go its own pace?

If you want to change a person's mind you must appeal to self interest (which is easy unless your proposed position actually harms them rather than does them good). Atheism by itself doesn't come with a philosophy, it merely takes away, leaving a large hole in its place. That hole must be filled with a philosophy, with an ideology. Science doesn't provide guidance, it brings us closer to reality and helps us manipulate it. To "progress" you must have a framework that sets goals, that gives a direction.

So, to progress towards a rational society, you must 1) reframe the benefits to society as individual benefits and 2) get to something resembling an absolute moral framework.

1 is a valuable tool, and a technique I think we would all do well to keep in mind. 2 seems quite daunting, to say the least.

Modern Western liberal democracy doesn't have much to offer in terms of guidance. The only thing they care about is "growth". Why growth? When will we have enough? It's a basic animalistic instinct to acquire more and more, and it has become synonymous with the idea of "progress". Religion fills a need in people's lives by 1) giving them a sense of purpose, that they must keep living for something and 2) telling them how to behave and how to live. Unless you provide a better alternative, which is accessible to the wide public, people will cling to religion.

1) Benefits to society are individual benefits -- if they harm individuals they're no longer benefits. If they harm some individuals for the benefit of others? Then, depending on your outlook, they're other immoral "benefits" or those people they harm are enemies of the state. There has to be a sense of direction that is coupled with a sense of awe and greatness. People must want to give up their current state for what you have to offer. Most religions provide this as Heaven. Communism gave a mirage of the land of plenty. Empires had their own sense of grandeur.

I can't help but be pessimistic about that diagnosis (which I think is entirely correct, by the way). Democracy is a perfect example- as Churchill said, it sucks, but it's the best we've got. Will we ever be able to create a perfect replacement- for religion, for capitalism, for anything?

And I agree wholeheartedly with the growth obsession; I think it's that very attitude which is distracting us from true progress (whatever that may be). I tend to think of Apple: the richest company in the world, and yet, because they have shareholders to answer to, even that's not enough. There must always be more.

2) This is a must. A moral framework is a set of principles that aim to promote your values. It's a value system. The values are related to the previous point -- this is the world in which we want to live. The principles, and thus, morals, are modes of behavior that will get us there. We follow a moral framework because it directly benefits us -- i.e. a "good" action is good in sense of being of value to us, not just because we're told to do it.

Brings to mind Sam Harris's 'The Moral Landscape.' I'm not convinced that science can provide a basis for morality... yet. I'm afraid that, until we get there, reason will play second fiddle in our culture.

I think your issue is with a state ideology. Communism was not without its merits but it ruined countries, economies and countless lives. A more free democracy like that in the West gives us individual freedoms to realize ourselves, though it's not without its faults (i.e. letting the populace vote reverts us to dumber and more sensationalist politics every day). I think the key is actually in a separation of philosophy and state. The state should work something like our current democracy -- to keep things civil yet provide enough room to change. Individuals then provide a philosophy that teaches the public and guides them, guides everyday issues and opinions.

Heck, religion is actually an example of this. The state doesn't set religion, individuals do (or did, at least, now its institutions). Priests guide people, help them cope with loss and tell them how best to live, the state facilitates the infrastructure for those lives. You're free to choose your religion, it is not state enforced (in a free democracy). Religions are very dogmatic, so there is little competition, but if people followed rational philosophies there would be more flexibility here.

I would agree with that, and that's a perspective which hadn't occurred to me. I think that begs another conversation, though: the state, right now, seems to be too "big" to enact any sort of change. The stalemate in the Senate is a perfect microcosm. The interplay of education, economics, politics... everything, really... is too intricate to change any moving parts without upsetting all the others. There's no agility anymore. But I digress.

Individual philosophers can have massive impact here. Most write for an academic audience and thus make their works inaccessible to the wider public. Very few, however, write for the public. Take Ayn Rand for example. She wrote novels to share her own sense of life, her metaphysic, with the world, and has been very successful with that (though I'd say her work is generally misunderstood). She also wrote non-fiction philosophical works that provided all the details and structure of her philosophy. Unfortunately those works are a lot less accessible, which leaves many being guided by fiction novels alone, which is not right, but nevertheless, it shows how much impact one person can have.

That is an area which brings out the techno-optimist in me. There are those that argue, and I would tend to agree, that curators will play a massive role in the future of the web, distilling lofty academic topics to their essence and conveying them in an engaging way to the public. That would seem to be a major benefit to, for lack of a better term, educating the masses. Even now, what I think the web does best is discussion (such as this one), and opening the discussion usually the gateway to progress.

Nietzsche's Overman is exceptionally compelling as a philosophy, but it is presented in such cryptic manner in Zarathustra that nobody can understand two sentences of it without countless re-reads and reflections. In this way, it's a powerful work of writing but completely useless for changing the mind of the public.

Hugo's Les Miserables on the other hand is both powerful and readable at once (though it's length may pose an issue for the modern audience). Fiction lets the reader "feel" values, feel what's right and what's wrong. Commentaries on top of that, as is provided by Hugo, or Rand's John Galt, provide a little more structure to what the reader has just experienced, and act as a sort of philosophical foundation.

Perhaps we're looking in the wrong place for our moral foundation: instead of turning to science, maybe we just read more great literature. I think I'd be okay with that.

Non-fiction can work, though again, most philosopher's don't write for the public. Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations for himself. It's short and easy to follow, though the shortness of the chapters is transposed into their depth. As a Stoic writing it is very good and I'd say most people could read it and get exceptional gains from it. I don't recall any modern book like that.

Yeah, I think literature is the way to go. Make people feel an injustice, and then show them how to set it right (either in that book or with additional work).

Now, how to expose the public to the Stoics and Hugo? It all seems to come down to education.

Not even necessarily an injustice, but any problem that you feel with the world -- e.g. Huxley's Brave New World as commentary on the shallowness of modern culture.

How to make people read? That's a tough one. I agree that education is most important. Show people the value of great books at an early age.

Books, then, are the answer. Wonderful discussing with you, Dmitry: a pleasure, as always... and 'Terrain' is a great piece of writing. Thank you.

Thanks for the great discussion.