Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on July 05, 2013, 09:36:22 am
-
So the other thread went utterly downhill while I was sleeping. I wonder if it's possible to continue the discussion in a more civil manner, because I was still interested in the many diverging viewpoints, namely:
- Whether if the Schrodinger position about God is tenable or not;
- Whether if Agnosticism can ever be reduced to Atheism or not;
- Whether if Vinn diagrams are enough to make points clear or not :D
My two cents so far: I understand MP's (and others) Schrodinger reasoning about the issue. I really do. Technically I see it. However, I also see practical problems with it:
- It appears to give both answers equal weight, when OTOH it's patently clear by the not following the rites, traditions and religious observations that agnostics are behaving exactly as if God does not exist (IOW, agnostics are mostly atheists by behavioralistic criteria);
- Agnosticism seems to ignore the wealth of positive evidence we have gathered that these beliefs are local, cultural, they are about establishing morality and social norms, about psychological comforts and never taken seriously or literally by even the "true" believers (or else why would anyone cry and suffer so much at anyone's funeral? Think about that one);
- Agnosticism seems to propose a complete surrender to any unfalsifiable proposition that anyone comes up to.
So can we discuss this like the adults we all are? Pretty please?
-
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist
That's the first line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism. I think the problem is that most atheists tend to actually agree with the more inclusive definition of what atheism is. Where as most of the people having an issue on the other thread were trying to claim it was the more narrow definition. But the most inclusivedefinition also includes implicit atheism.
Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subsets of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.
From this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism) entry.
For those who really think that atheism is about the disbelief of the existence of gods, what is an implicit atheist then?
-
To answer kara's question to me from the locked thread (are you an atheist). We'll use kara's atheist definition:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
Do I reject belief in the existence of deities? No. Similarly, do I support belief in the existence of deities? Also no. I am neither an atheist nor a theist. There's a third option: I'm someone who's fond of unobserved cats-in-boxes. This is purely on a philosophical level. Smith's "implicit atheism" also captures half of this equation.
On a more practical level, do I accept the notion of a Christian God who created the Earth is seven days? Of course not. But rejecting specific religious positions, myths, or beliefs does not mean I reject the fundamental premise that deities exist, because I cannot substantiate that claim, nor can I substantiate the opposite claim. Furthermore, I also sit in the camp that says we probably won't ever be able to substantiate that claim because whenever we measure something, we change it, meaning that the question of the existence of deities' existence is not only unknown, it is unmeasurable and therefore unknowable to boot...
...which is why I concern myself with more practical matters, like invalidating irrational belief systems that prevent people from accepting empirically-testable science (like gravity, evolution, pork and cows being delicious (:P), etc etc etc).
-
That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).
-
I don't think the God question is "unanswerable" due to the Heisenberg Principle. As far as I have thought about that one, I also have the suspicion that the question is unanswerable, but due to Humean principles. I think Hume here is still applicable in some corrected form. Take this rationale:
Hume's main argument concerning miracles is the following. Miracles by definition are singular events that differ from the established Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature are codified as a result of past experiences. Therefore a miracle is a violation of all prior experience and thus incapable on this basis of reasonable belief. However the probability that something has occurred in contradiction of all past experience should always be judged to be less than the probability that either my senses have deceived me or the person recounting the miraculous occurrence is lying or mistaken, all of which I have past experience of.
This has some problems. For instance, my past experience may be lacking (obviously it is), or some events might be just unique but true.
However, what counts is the attitude, which I think is what works. While the Agnostic may be well too worried about the problems I've enunciated, in sheer practical matter, both would agree whenever anyone presented evidence of a God that it is much more probable for it to be either an empirical error, an hallucination, bad interpretation of natural phenomena, or just a state of mental lunacy. Behaviorally speaking, both would never accept any concrete evidence of a God, rendering the question unanswerable.
But you see, there's always this nagging thought occurring in my head that I should just flatly deny / reject any unfalsifiable / unanswerable question. So perhaps to me the agnostic / atheist issue is not one of "technicalities" but of social forms. I argue that we (4 so far) are all atheists in that sense.
-
There are different kinds of Agnostics even. First is that they don't care if God or any other deities exist. Unlike Atheist, they don't deny the possibility of a higher being or a creator or some sort. Another is the more active kind, they probably have studied different religions but in the end, they can't decide for themselves and 'take the third option' but they somehow try to follow what they accept from each religion they know instead of becoming atheist.
Take note that those so-called 'Free Thinkers' can be Agnostics, but can also be Deists. Deists believe that God created the universe, but has abandoned what was created or otherwise dead in that sense. Afterall, Agnosticism are even more widely varied than Atheism is.
-
The earlier debate turned sower when people started naming things differently.
To me* agnosticism and atheism respond different questions:
1) Is there enough data to have a saying?
N: Agnostic
Y: The rest (theists and antitheists)
2) Are you sure that God exists?
Y: Theist
N: Atheist (and agnostics)
3) Are you sure that God doesn't exist?
Y: Explicit atheist (antitheist).
N: Implicit atheist (and agnostics)
*If you don't agree, fine, I won't impose my definitions nor change them unless there's a very good reason so let's no make a big issue of it
Although, I do agree that the behavioural difference between implicit and explicit atheist and agnostics is minimal.
Now, answering your questions, by definition God is transcendent and hence empirically unprovable. You don't even need Schrödinger's principle for that.
Also, making a philosophical interpretation of a physical principle is something I particularly don't like. People may say that Heissenberg's principle shows that there is no external reality, but I see it more like "You can't use the wave function of a particle to determine the position and momentum of a wave-particle with a precision over this limit." As stated, the principle may be the reflection of a deeper truth of existence (that nothing is certain) but I may also be that the probabilistic approach used by Schrödinger is limited.
And I still disagree with positive evidence. The only thing that can be proven is that something is false and everything is open to debate until then.
Finally it all comes down to what Asimov said, you have to make a choice (a leap of faith if you will). I see no difference between any of the options in that regard.
-
I disagree with your definition of anti-theist. To me, an AT is someone that rails against theism, someone who considers theism to be an evil belief, someone who thinks theism is "bad for everyone and anyone".
-
That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).
QFT. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but what are the criteria for godhood here? Is it just creating our universe? God/s can start looking perfectly plausible and even likely to appear if you don't insist that they be invisible omnipotent omnipresent etc.
-
That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).
QFT. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but what are the criteria for godhood here? Is it just creating our universe? God/s can start looking perfectly plausible and even likely to appear if you don't insist that they be invisible omnipotent omnipresent etc.
I've stated in the other thread the following rationale: I'm using mostly something akin to the Christian God. I could be using other kinds of "Gods", but this begins the ignosticism problem: we begin having a problem of semantics itself. "God" can be defined pretty much as anything and nothing, with an infinite set of combined characteristics.
That is by itself an interesting philosophical (logical, etc.) debate, but one which I've skipped here. When people call themselves atheists they are not doing in defiance of a God that some lone philosopher has figured out in his bed, but whithin the context of a world dominated by the three big monotheistic religions (and some polytheistic ones too). When I say I'm an atheist in my world, everyone understands I'm not denying the Spaghetti Monster, but rather Yaweh and Allah primarily.
So I understand these concerns, but I regard them ultimately as the philosophical equivalent to "concern trolling". I know you didn't mean it this way, but can you see where I am going at?
-
Honestly I think MP-Ryan's view of agnosticism can be summed up rather succinctly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpaQpyU_QiM).
-
I did compare him to the president of the Hitchhiker's Guide universe, that's a close enough clone :).
ZAPHOD BEEBLEBROX: Er, man, like what's your name?
MAN: I don't know. Why, do you think I ought to have one? It seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name.
ZARNIWOOP: Listen. We must ask you some questions.
MAN: All right. You can sing to my cat if you like.
ARTHUR DENT: Would he like that?
MAN: You'd better ask him that.
ZARNIWOOP: How long have you been ruling the Universe?
MAN: Ah, this is a question about the past is it?
ZARNIWOOP: Yes.
MAN: How can I tell that the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?
ZARNIWOOP: Do you answer all questions like this?
MAN: I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More I cannot say.
. . . .
ZARNIWOOP: No. Listen. People come to you, yes?
MAN: I think so.
ZARNIWOOP: And they ask you to take decisions—about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?
MAN: I only decide about my Universe. My Universe is what happens to my eyes and ears. Anything else is surmise and hearsay. For all I know, these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.
ZARNIWOOP: But don't you see? What you decide affects the fate of millions of people.
MAN: I don't know them, I've never met them. They only exist in words I think I hear. The men who come say to me, say, so and so wants to declare what we call a war. These are the facts, what do you think? And I say. Sometimes it's a smaller thing. . . .
. . . .
MAN: But it's folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know. If they exist.
ZARNIWOOP: Do you think they do?
MAN: I have no opinion. How can I have?
ZARNIWOOP: I have.
MAN: So you say—or so I hear you say.
. . . .
ZARNIWOOP: But don't you see that people live or die on your word?
MAN: It's nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.
ZARNIWOOP: Ah! You say . . . the Lord! You believe in . . .
MAN: My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.
ZARNIWOOP: All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?
MAN: I don't. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do? Please I am tired.
-
On a more practical level, do I accept the notion of a Christian God who created the Earth is seven days? Of course not. But rejecting specific religious positions, myths, or beliefs does not mean I reject the fundamental premise that deities exist, because I cannot substantiate that claim, nor can I substantiate the opposite claim.
rejection of a position is not equivelent to acceptance of it's opposite. rejecting beleife in the exsistance of deities does not automatically result in beleife in the non-exsistence of deities.
further as i mentioned before it is not a two or three or n group distinction, it is a one group distinction. the question is, are you in that one group or not? not are you in some other group that is the polar opposite.
-
The earlier debate turned sower when people started naming things differently.
To me* agnosticism and atheism respond different questions:
1) Is there enough data to have a saying?
N: Agnostic
Y: The rest (theists and antitheists)
2) Are you sure that God exists?
Y: Theist
N: Atheist (and agnostics)
3) Are you sure that God doesn't exist?
Y: Explicit atheist (antitheist).
N: Implicit atheist (and agnostics)
*If you don't agree, fine, I won't impose my definitions nor change them unless there's a very good reason so let's no make a big issue of it
Although, I do agree that the behavioural difference between implicit and explicit atheist and agnostics is minimal.
Now, answering your questions, by definition God is transcendent and hence empirically unprovable. You don't even need Schrödinger's principle for that.
Also, making a philosophical interpretation of a physical principle is something I particularly don't like. People may say that Heissenberg's principle shows that there is no external reality, but I see it more like "You can't use the wave function of a particle to determine the position and momentum of a wave-particle with a precision over this limit." As stated, the principle may be the reflection of a deeper truth of existence (that nothing is certain) but I may also be that the probabilistic approach used by Schrödinger is limited.
And I still disagree with positive evidence. The only thing that can be proven is that something is false and everything is open to debate until then.
Finally it all comes down to what Asimov said, you have to make a choice (a leap of faith if you will). I see no difference between any of the options in that regard.
Same stuff I used to ramble about: but it comes down to this: vagueness and paradoxes. Positivist thinkers attempted to argue that everything could be broken down into black and white values (truthfully this actually a shallow interpretation, but I relent from messing it up so peeps can Wikipedia it). Godel shattered this attempt at breaking down information by showing math inherited the problem of vagueness by operating as a language. Language is intrinsically vague, and uses a meta-language to confirm itself, ie Truth. Math, though operating by Logic (ie Complete and Sound), is still a language and inherits linguist vagueness.
Any discussions on whether pink unicorns exist or not falls into a similar rut: truthfulness is a vicious infinite circle, what got me interested is "why" we believe, and "what'" mechanisms were employed. Then my personal rationalization of Atheism exploded when I hit the conclusion that arguing about belief is squarely a philosophical matter. Not to say science doesn't have a part, but science in itself is a tool and not belief and philosophy is the better tool than science to discuss these issues. Henceforth why I've sided with many of the agnostics and detractors of certain strains of Atheism: we fail to discuss the underpinnings of what constitutes belief, and it is actively discouraged because many atheists don't have a good grasp of linguistics and paradoxical studies especially when much of it can only ride upon a framework built of contextual understanding.
-
rejection of a position is not equivelent to acceptance of it's opposite. rejecting beleife in the exsistance of deities does not automatically result in beleife in the non-exsistence of deities.
Correct; however, few self-described atheists will say that they reject belief in the existence belief in deities, yet simultaneously accept belief in the existence of deities. Atheists always lean one way: there are no gods. Theists always lean one way: there are gods. Agnostics don't lean in any direction: there may be gods and there simultaneously may not be gods.
I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.
further as i mentioned before it is not a two or three or n group distinction, it is a one group distinction. the question is, are you in that one group or not? not are you in some other group that is the polar opposite.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
-
Henceforth why I've sided with many of the agnostics and detractors of certain strains of Atheism: we fail to discuss the underpinnings of what constitutes belief, and it is actively discouraged because many atheists don't have a good grasp of linguistics and paradoxical studies especially when much of it can only ride upon a framework built of contextual understanding.
Yeah but that's quite the perpendicular to the point we were discussing. No doubt some people will have a more narrow view of any given subject. If that's an argument, it's an argument for anything, which is to say for nothing at all.
-
I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.
So contrary to the odds posted back in the other thread (most probably not by you), you do then view the answer to that question as a 50/50 split? Before you say you don't know the odds, you can't possibly know the odds, notice how you yourself said the opposite so I hope you don't say that. Think Bayesian on this one, think how would you gamble. You sayin' you bet 50/50?
-
That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).
QFT. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but what are the criteria for godhood here? Is it just creating our universe? God/s can start looking perfectly plausible and even likely to appear if you don't insist that they be invisible omnipotent omnipresent etc.
I've stated in the other thread the following rationale: I'm using mostly something akin to the Christian God. I could be using other kinds of "Gods", but this begins the ignosticism problem: we begin having a problem of semantics itself. "God" can be defined pretty much as anything and nothing, with an infinite set of combined characteristics.
That is by itself an interesting philosophical (logical, etc.) debate, but one which I've skipped here. When people call themselves atheists they are not doing in defiance of a God that some lone philosopher has figured out in his bed, but whithin the context of a world dominated by the three big monotheistic religions (and some polytheistic ones too). When I say I'm an atheist in my world, everyone understands I'm not denying the Spaghetti Monster, but rather Yaweh and Allah primarily.
So I understand these concerns, but I regard them ultimately as the philosophical equivalent to "concern trolling". I know you didn't mean it this way, but can you see where I am going at?
So you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that you disagree with all of the specific religions that Humanity has come up with, but agree that something that for all intents and purposes is a god to us really might exist and have created the universe, though you assign it a low probability? That is not the position I normally associate with atheism, but hell if I'm gonna tell someone else what they can or can't call themselves :)
-
You might not associate it with atheism, but that's pretty much what atheism is in practice. Read the hard strident voices about it. If you ask them in this a lot more "open" philosophical sense, they will pretty much admit quite a lot of possibilities. The problems arise then that these possibilities are just unpreachable by men, and that's the main point.
Watch this from 18:18 for instance (just for a few minutes, dontcha worry):
e: Specially Hitchens on 46:20 to 49:00. Now don't go confusing Hitchens for an "agnostic" there.
-
I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.
So contrary to the odds posted back in the other thread (most probably not by you), you do then view the answer to that question as a 50/50 split? Before you say you don't know the odds, you can't possibly know the odds, notice how you yourself said the opposite so I hope you don't say that. Think Bayesian on this one, think how would you gamble. You sayin' you bet 50/50?
No. I don't bet at all. You'll note I said "afford it equal status" and not "afford it equal probability." The wording choice is intentional.
I'm curious why you fellows seem to all want to lump my position with yours. Trust me, I am neither rich, nor famous, nor particularly above-average in looks, and while my wife seems to enjoy it I don't know that I'm particularly more skilled in the bedroom than the average man.... WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME! =)
-
Your unconditional slavery. It is the human thing to want.
I wonder in how many ways will this post be interpreted?
-
Henceforth why I've sided with many of the agnostics and detractors of certain strains of Atheism: we fail to discuss the underpinnings of what constitutes belief, and it is actively discouraged because many atheists don't have a good grasp of linguistics and paradoxical studies especially when much of it can only ride upon a framework built of contextual understanding.
Yeah but that's quite the perpendicular to the point we were discussing. No doubt some people will have a more narrow view of any given subject. If that's an argument, it's an argument for anything, which is to say for nothing at all.
Simply put, even the science, math and logic at the end of the day cannot prove whether a deity exists or not: but it raises the problem of how we confirm our beliefs every day. Tarski and Godel found similar results in two separate fields, and we use a meta-referential force to confirm out beliefs. And I discovered the magic: us. We are the magic, the gods, the belief. We manufacture it all in our heads. It's sounds completely asinine, stupid, and childish, but I think that's the beauty of it. Despite what science says and does, it is nothing more than a collection of tools to confirm what we hold to be true: what we hold to be true actually exists in a precarious state. So therefore, I concluded that it's not so much whether deities exist or not: but it is the matter of how we continue to fabricate our every day existence.
Science cannot do that, we do. Gods don't do it, we do. The problem is it replaces an answer with a question. Agnosticism to an extent answers that being sitting on the fence, and to my chagrin, is actually a more valid and logical answer when we discuss the philosophy and logical arguments of belief. I don't buy positivism one bit, simply because you encounter problems and situations that are not resolved in a yes or no fashion.
-
No. I don't bet at all. You'll note I said "afford it equal status" and not "afford it equal probability." The wording choice is intentional.
I don't think it is equal status by merely being able to make an apparent semantical and logical equality. If you are going to say it's "equal status" then every single unfalsifiable silly question phrased in the same manner will have to have "equal status".
I'm curious why you fellows seem to all want to lump my position with yours. Trust me, I am neither rich, nor famous, nor particularly above-average in looks, and while my wife seems to enjoy it I don't know that I'm particularly more skilled in the bedroom than the average man.... WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME! =)
Don't get it personally! I'm really trying to check if my way of seeing atheism and agnosticism is really able to survive your attacks or not. By far you have presented the clearest case why agnosticism is better than atheism, and I couldn't disagree more with it. That is all.
Also, see that video I posted up here from 46:20 to 49:00. Less than 3 minutes. If after watching that you reach the conclusion that Hitchens is an agnostic, slap yourself!
-
Also, see that video I posted up here from 46:20 to 49:00. Less than 3 minutes. If after watching that you reach the conclusion that Hitchens is an agnostic, slap yourself!
Ah, that thing. Hitchens was unique, but I've always wanted to see him take on the Liar Paradox and come out a sane man at the end of the day. Pity the fact he's not with us anymore.
-
He had a knack for irony so I suspect he would be just really amused by that question.
-
You might not associate it with atheism, but that's pretty much what atheism is in practice. Read the hard strident voices about it. If you ask them in this a lot more "open" philosophical sense, they will pretty much admit quite a lot of possibilities. The problems arise then that these possibilities are just unpreachable by men, and that's the main point.
Hehe, atheism in practice.
As I said before, I'm not gonna harp on people for what they choose to call themselves, but I will point out that the divide between someone who unequivocally asserts that there can be no gods and someone who will admit quite a lot of possibilities if pressed looks pretty wide from over here. A gnostic divide, you might call it.
Perhaps we need a new word for agnostics who lean heavily and enjoy sticking it to theists? :D
Also, lol at the MP-Ryan peer pressure subplot. Good stuff.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
-
Perhaps we need a new word for agnostics who lean heavily and enjoy sticking it to theists? :D
No we don't. Those are called "atheists" (or just antitheists like an4 rightfully says). Pay attention.
-
Perhaps we need a new word for agnostics who lean heavily and enjoy sticking it to theists? :D
Antaganostics? :)
-
Here is another thing I found about that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltheism
-
Antaganostics? :)
Nailed it.
Seriously though, if atheists get to acknowledge the plausibility of beings that are functionally the same as God and still be called atheist, then we should have a fundamentalist subcategory or something like that for people who are actually willing to assert that no such thing exists. Those guys are the real badasses.
-
No those are just dumb nitwits. I know no one like that anyway.
-
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
seeing as I had it ready to go when the first thread was locked...
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
I think the problem here is the use of the words belief and god. Especially the former. I'm pretty much of the opinion that the word itself is toxic to this sort of discussion as it has way too many meanings. So I'm not going to use it. I'm going to use a synonym instead.
Faith.
Stop me if I'm being unfair but I don't think any religious person is going to have a problem with me describing them as someone who has faith in a higher power. This makes the definitions much easier to understand. A theist is someone who has faith in a higher power. I think I can use this definition for theism and probably not move anybody who would be a theist under the old definition outside of the group. So it's a reasonably fair definition.
As I pointed out earlier, amoral means a lack of morality, asexual means a lack of sexuality, astigmatism means a lack of focus, asymptomatic means a lack of symptoms. All these words mean a lack of something. So why should our definition for atheist mean a rejection of something? Why shouldn't it just mean a lack of something? So by definition an atheist becomes someone who lacks faith in a higher power. This fits the most inclusive definition for atheism I posted earlier.
Now ironically the argument I'm about to give is the same one that MP-Ryan had on the political compass thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84394.msg1686751#msg1686751). One of people insisting on defining themselves on an inadequate one axis scale when a two axis one has been provided. Given the above, the second thing that defines peoples belief in a higher power is how certain they are of the evidence. This forms the second axis and is a scale with absolute certainty that the evidence proves the existence/non-existence of a higher power at the left extreme, and absolute certainty that the evidence can never prove it at the right extreme. The middle is what MP-Ryan and others have been describing as agnosticism and also is the position of anyone who has never thought about whether there is a higher power (If you've never thought about it, you have no certainty).
Doing that, you end up with definitions like this.
Theist + Left on second axis = Religious = Pretty much any of the major religions.
Theist + Middle = Weakly Agnostic Theist = Deist / Believer in higher powers but not in religion. / There is a higher power, but none of the religions have got it right.
Theist + Right = Strongly Agnostic Theist = Anyone who has faith that there is a god, but we'll never know who or what it is.
Atheist + Left = Very Strong Atheist = There is no god.
Atheist + Leftish = Strong Atheist = There probably is no god / There may or may not be a god, we should act as if there isn't one until proof is found.
Atheist + Middle = Weak Atheist, Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic, Implicit Atheist = There may or may not be a higher power, but I have no faith. / I'm a baby and thus have never thought about it.
Atheist + Right = Strongly Agnostic Atheist = I have no faith in God cause we'll never know what God is.
The position between theist and atheist are basically transitional. It's not possible to remain there. You only end up there during a crisis of faith. Note that every crisis of faith doesn't result in a transition though. Someone losing faith in their Christianity may transition from religious to weakly agnostic theist.
I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.
Actually I'm quite inclined to give the whole life is a computer simulation theory quite a bit of credence. It quite neatly answers why I bump into people I know thousands of miles away from my home. What I lack is faith that it is correct. So there you go, an atheist giving the possibility of a higher power equal status. I can give other examples if you need them.
I'm curious why you fellows seem to all want to lump my position with yours. Trust me, I am neither rich, nor famous, nor particularly above-average in looks, and while my wife seems to enjoy it I don't know that I'm particularly more skilled in the bedroom than the average man.... WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME! =)
It's not that we want you. It's that you do atheism a disservice. You keep claiming that your view is more scientific than atheism despite your view actually being largely the same thing as atheism. If you were claiming your view was less scientific than atheism, no one would have given a ****. But by elevating your position above that of atheism, you're going to get right up the nose of anyone who is an atheist and considers their position to also be the most scientific. Especially when you've continually misrepresented what atheism actually is.
That's why I spent a lot of time explaining above what atheism is. Cause you kept taking a fairly warped definition of strong atheism and insisting that was the correct one. It's not. And that's why you've got all the atheists upset at you. Your view sounds pretty much the same as mine but expressed differently. But even if I'm wrong about that, I take great exception to you claiming your view is more scientific than mine. I'm an agnostic atheist and as far as I'm concerned, you don't get more scientific than that.
I'm not picking on you. I see a discussion with Luis where I'm on the same side as you winging it's way towards me. :p
-
I don't think it is equal status by merely being able to make an apparent semantical and logical equality. If you are going to say it's "equal status" then every single unfalsifiable silly question phrased in the same manner will have to have "equal status".
The repeated use of this conceit fascinates me, because it really makes no sense. You've phrased it as "surrender" before, too, and now you're using "equal status" as though we must give it ~serious consideration~ and form our opinions respectfully towards it.
The problem is it doesn't do that. Equal status in this case is "equal status with the null thesis", and by omitting those words you're radically twisting the meaning of the phrase from "this is possible but as a condition that cannot be experimentally tested for it has no detectable impact on the observable world either way thus I am effectively ignoring it" to "we must respect unfalsifiable beliefs". That's more than a little dishonest of you.
-
Given that quite a few of us feel that the other side is twisting what they say, let's not start accusing anyone of dishonesty or the thread will get closed again.
-
More than a little dishonest from me? Really. I appeal to the audience here. Already in the other thread we were told by MP-Ryan that agnosticism is the superior position because it does not attempt to answer something unanswerable, and now you are saying that Agnosticism concludes we should just "ignore" it altogether. MP talked about the great mindset that could make some atheists crawl up the walls in insanity which is this Schrodinger's position of both being and not being true, and you now summarize it as "ignore it". Who's being "more than dishonest" here.
I'd rather have you not produce these kinds of accusations from nowhere. I'd admit that I could have made (and still might have made) some interpretational error. This subject is subtle after all and I might misread here and there. But nowhere did I accuse anyone here of bad faith.
Further, I was precisely trying to hammer down your own point, namely that because the question is unfalsifiable, then we should not give it the respect it tries to assert, and downright deny it. Just like we deny the existence of Goblins, Fairies, Fire Dragons, Demons, etc., etc. Because, this is ****ing obvious, should we be "agnostics" on those idiocies as well? Should we go all "Well, technically, we should all be Schrodingers about Angels and magical dwarves"? The answer is an obvious ****ing No.
All truth is temporary and tentative, even this last one, but we cannot go on lingering in Schrodinger's terms in everything. We do have an arbitrary point of certainty to which we do say "This is enough for me, I take it to be true with this finite set of evidences", and when we ask ourselves if unobserved things exist, we say "No they don't, until we have evidence of them existing". That's the most correct, Ockhamzian, efficient and dare I say sufficient way to deal with the truths and problems of the world.
-
Since you're here Luis, and obviously an atheist. I'd like to ask if you have any issues with my definitions above.
-
So I didn't get what was the use of the vertical axis in your graph, since you even state that there is no middle ground between those states.
But if that's true, then why couldn't it be rendered as a one dimensional axis where both sides would be joined in the most agnostic parts? It would be pretty much akin to the Dawkin's own graph.
I envision something more like a grid, not a graph, consisting of four squares. Something really really similar to your graph:
AGNOSTIC GNOSTIC
-------------------------------
ATHEIST agnostic atheist gnostic atheist
THEIST agnostic theist gnostic theist
The first one (aa) is someone who does not believe in the religions nor in any portrayed gods. An atheist out and out, maybe even an anti-theist, always ranting about the stupidity of it, etc. However, he won't ever say there are no Gods, absolutely. No, just against any mammal referencing, representing such a creature;
The second one (ga) is someone that not only does not believe, but actively believes this to not be the case. He will affirm that he knows this to be absolutely true, due to several pieces of argumentation (for instance, logical or mathematical, even metaphysical, etc);
The third one (at) is someone who does not know if God exists, and may well agree that the question is unanswerable philosophically, but he holds faith that he does and believes;
The fourth (gt) is someone who knows that God exists. Perhaps by mathematical proof. Perhaps by sheer conviction, he just knows it.
Most religious people are of the (at) kind, but I do know very smart (gt) types of people. I have yet to meet gnostic atheists myself.
-
Further, I was precisely trying to hammer down your own point, namely that because the question is unfalsifiable, then we should not give it the respect it tries to assert, and downright deny it.
Because denial is missing the point.
It's not about denial. Making a denial of an unfalsifiable claim is, in itself, intellectually dishonest of the denier in the purest possible sense. You cannot provide evidence of why it should be openly denied because you cannot prove either the positive or the null. That's what unfalsifiable means. You cannot honestly assert or deny the claim on intellectual grounds.
"I am ignoring your claim on the basis it is unfalsifiable" is different from "I am denying your claim on the basis it is unfalsifiable". One of them does not engage; the other one engages directly in a meaningless battle because it acknowledges, in itself, that there is no win condition. The distinction is important because it leads directly to behavior like yours here, where you've engaged in a discussion that is by your own admission probably one of non-opposing viewpoints seeking some kind of victory that can't be won. You want to waste your time and energy in this fight making claims that we should deny things when you have openly admitted you can't prove those claims and provoking people who might otherwise be your allies, because you want to deny rather than ignore.
That's why MP-Ryan has made the claim his position is superior: it does not lead to this kind of nearly-fratricidal bloodshed and the assertion we should do things for which evidence cannot be provided. The more you choose to argue this point, the more he's proving correct.
-
So I didn't get what was the use of the vertical axis in your graph, since you even state that there is no middle ground between those states.
But if that's true, then why couldn't it be rendered as a one dimensional axis where both sides would be joined in the most agnostic parts? It would be pretty much akin to the Dawkin's own graph.
I envision something more like a grid, not a graph, consisting of four squares. Something really really similar to your graph:
AGNOSTIC GNOSTIC
-------------------------------
ATHEIST agnostic atheist gnostic atheist
THEIST agnostic theist gnostic theist
The first one (aa) is someone who does not believe in the religions nor in any portrayed gods. An atheist out and out, maybe even an anti-theist, always ranting about the stupidity of it, etc. However, he won't ever say there are no Gods, absolutely. No, just against any mammal referencing, representing such a creature;
The second one (ga) is someone that not only does not believe, but actively believes this to not be the case. He will affirm that he knows this to be absolutely true, due to several pieces of argumentation (for instance, logical or mathematical, even metaphysical, etc);
The third one (at) is someone who does not know if God exists, and may well agree that the question is unanswerable philosophically, but he holds faith that he does and believes;
The fourth (gt) is someone who knows that God exists. Perhaps by mathematical proof. Perhaps by sheer conviction, he just knows it.
Most religious people are of the (at) kind, but I do know very smart (gt) types of people. I have yet to meet gnostic atheists myself.
The reason I chose a graph not a grid are
1) You do occasionally get people who are having a crisis of faith and slide between the theist and atheist sides before picking one. There is a middle ground, it's just that people don't spend much time there.
2) There are several positions along the horizontal axis. From people who assert there is no god to people like yourself who are mid-way between that and the middle (i.e state that the evidence points to the non-existence of a higher power) to weak atheists in the middle. A grid doesn't really show all those differences.
I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.
-
I am ignoring your claim on the basis it is unfalsifiable" is different from "I am denying your claim on the basis it is unfalsifiable".
You are correct in the sense that the latter engages actively, but the battle is not "meaningless". If anything, it has been the atheist who has been pounding and pounding criticisms to the belief and point its problems, while the non-atheist and non-theist agnostic refuses to engage in anything really, so worried is he with being so Quantum Mechanical about it.
Perhaps we have different definitions of "ignoring" and "denying". When I say deny, take this example:
- ... And then Jesus walked on water!
- That's rubbish. How the hell you know that.
Notice how that's not ignoring the issue. That's engaging. But it's also "agnostic", for it places the question in the correct sense: how do you know that to be true? If the answer to that one is unsatisfactory, I won't engage in philosophical shenanigans, I'll say it's rubbish. It *might* be true, it *could* be true, but then again everything is possible.
The real reasoning that goes through my head is: What is more likely? That someone walked over water or that someone wrote a myth?
One of them does not engage; the other one engages directly in a meaningless battle because it acknowledges, in itself, that there is no win condition.
To engage is to concede? No. Denying unfalsifiable propositions might not be the most rigorous deductive action, but it is, I argue, the best course of action within a larger algorithm of searching for the truth.
The distinction is important because it leads directly to behavior like yours here, where you've engaged in a discussion that is by your own admission probably one of non-opposing viewpoints seeking some kind of victory that can't be won. You want to waste your time and energy in this fight making claims that we should deny things when you have openly admitted you can't prove those claims and provoking people who might otherwise be your allies, because you want to deny rather than ignore.
Provoke a discussion yes, "might otherwise be your allies" I don't get it. Will they turn into Al Quaeda because I am challenging their views?
That's why MP-Ryan has made the claim his position is superior: it does not lead to this kind of nearly-fratricidal bloodshed and the assertion we should do things for which evidence cannot be provided. The more you choose to argue this point, the more he's proving correct.
I fail at seeing what is this thing we "should" do for which evidence "cannot be provided". I also fail to see any "nearly-fraticidal" behavior other than the uncivil behavior happening between other posters in the other thread and your arrival with the guns blazing telling me I'm being more than dishonest.
-
I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.
Faith is a rather broad term and covers a multitude of things that are themselves arguably not theistic, but are religious or treated as religion. (Cult followers who believe fervently their leader can perform miracles for example; faith without the need for gods. Depending on who you ask, Confucian thought is an entire non-theistic religion and has been treated as an object of faith.)
-
You are correct in the sense that the latter engages actively, but the battle is not "meaningless". If anything, it has been the atheist who has been pounding and pounding criticisms to the belief and point its problems, while the non-atheist and non-theist agnostic refuses to engage in anything really, so worried is he with being so Quantum Mechanical about it.
A battle without a win condition is always meaningless. There is no objective you can accomplish here. You've admitted that.
Also, if you've ever seen MP-Ryan in a religious discussion on these boards (or myself), you'd know you're utterly wrong and that your last sentence is being merely insulting to your opponents rather than having any basis in fact. We have no problem attacking the idea you can prove that god(s)(ess)(es) exist, or with attacking the tenants of a particular belief system. (c.f. this argument right now).
To engage is to concede? No. Denying unfalsifiable propositions might not be the most rigorous deductive action, but it is, I argue, the best course of action within a larger algorithm of searching for the truth.
Although apparently concession is a possible outcome given that a battle with no win condition continues until one side gives up and walks away making the other winner by default, you are once again missing the point.
To engage is to waste.
Provoke a discussion yes, "might otherwise be your allies" I don't get it. Will they turn into Al Quaeda because I am challenging their views?
The Kazan Lesson. You probably don't remember him (Karaj would), but wherein if you are annoying enough/eager enough to pick a fight with a viewpoint not actually in opposition to your own people will not support you, or pick fights with you, solely because they don't want to be on the same side of an argument with you.
Yes, this has happened before enough on this forum we can even name it after a former user.
-
I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.
Faith is a rather broad term and covers a multitude of things that are themselves arguably not theistic, but are religious or treated as religion. (Cult followers who believe fervently their leader can perform miracles for example; faith without the need for gods. Depending on who you ask, Confucian thought is an entire non-theistic religion and has been treated as an object of faith.)
My coffee drinking and consumption would fall into such. Deny my brew in the morning, and I'll strike down the false believers with an agitated fist of the wrathful zealot!
That and I have faith for coffee beans in my pantry every morning, until it's gone, then I know the coffee god has cursed me for partaking too much of the forbidden bean XD.
-
Faith is a rather broad term and covers a multitude of things that are themselves arguably not theistic, but are religious or treated as religion. (Cult followers who believe fervently their leader can perform miracles for example; faith without the need for gods. Depending on who you ask, Confucian thought is an entire non-theistic religion and has been treated as an object of faith.)
Which is why I specifically said faith in a higher power.
It's still a better word than belief anyway.
The Kazan Lesson. You probably don't remember him (Karaj would), but wherein if you are annoying enough/eager enough to pick a fight with a viewpoint not actually in opposition to your own people will not support you, or pick fights with you, solely because they don't want to be on the same side of an argument with you.
Yes, this has happened before enough on this forum we can even name it after a former user.
The argument could also be made that both you and MP-Ryan have been doing exactly that though. It's not like I haven't posted a definition of what atheism is only to have you refute it and use a different one. Mp-Ryan used a narrow definition for atheism on his first post in this thread even after I flat out stated that the issue the atheists had was that he wasn't using the most inclusive one.
-
Which is why I specifically said faith in a higher power.
Still leaves the cult loophole, though it may eliminate the one for Confucians.
-
I've said in the other thread that MP (for example) is an atheist out and out behavioristically, so that comment is to the "general" agnostic, not to him. Engaging is a waste? According to what metric? Yours? Not to mine.
And now I got NG telling me I should be more mild-mannered or otherwise I'll be left without friends. Reality is sometimes surreal.
-
The position between theist and atheist are basically transitional. It's not possible to remain there. You only end up there during a crisis of faith.
I was following you until this line. You haven't given any indication as to why this state cannot be permanent.
Especially when you've continually misrepresented what atheism actually is.
Whoa, hoss. I used the definition you provided.
That's why I spent a lot of time explaining above what atheism is. Cause you kept taking a fairly warped definition of strong atheism and insisting that was the correct one. It's not. And that's why you've got all the atheists upset at you. Your view sounds pretty much the same as mine but expressed differently. But even if I'm wrong about that, I take great exception to you claiming your view is more scientific than mine. I'm an agnostic atheist and as far as I'm concerned, you don't get more scientific than that.
I'm not picking on you. I see a discussion with Luis where I'm on the same side as you winging it's way towards me. :p
I will grant that you and I seem to be philosophically closer than perhaps Luis and I, but I still see you skipping over the crux of the point - that agnostics really haven't made a decision and that atheists have - all the definitions you've provided of atheists to this post have a lack of belief in deities, but not the converse caveat of equal lack of belief that there aren't deities (terrible double negative, I know). In some of your posts, you seem to have made a decision, whereas in others you're with those of us who haven't peeked in the box and checked on the cat. That has me somewhat confused.
As for claiming my position is more scientifically valid - the most scientifically valid position on the philosophical question of deities is one which says the following:
1. We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities exist.
2. We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities do not exist.
3. The question therefore cannot be answered using the scientific method at present.
4. Probability and uncertainty suggest that even if we attempted to empirically measure or test deities, our results would not be true results.
5. The question itself is therefore currently unanswerable and may continue to be so.
I'd argue that my philosophical belief sets aligns perfectly with those tenets. Does yours?
I'm more interested though in if anyone has an objection to me using faith rather than belief as the yardstick for whether someone is an atheist or not.
I don't see it as all that significant, to be honest. Faith, belief - in the absence of direct testable evidence, it's all the same thing. Philosophically, "faith" tends to be a religious term, and a stronger one that belief but they basically have the same meaning.
-
decision
I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.
For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".
I think the point is very interesting.
-
Please don't take this as hostile; I'm glad - after pages of fences, coin tosses, cats, and uncertainty - that the word decision finally made my point.
I wish I'd thought to use it MUCH EARLIER! :D
-
decision
I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.
For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".
I think the point is very interesting.
I just wonder what mechanisms dictated this decision?
Because while I went through my own personal faith rut, I became less obsessed over the problem of decision: it became a matter who or what was dictating it for me. But as a question, do you believe that absolutes truly hold sway on logical premises?
-
The position between theist and atheist are basically transitional. It's not possible to remain there. You only end up there during a crisis of faith.
I was following you until this line. You haven't given any indication as to why this state cannot be permanent.
How can you permanently have faith in something and not have faith in it? I can see how someone can start to lose their faith in god but sooner or later you have to pick a side. Even if at the end you only have a little bit of faith in god, you still have faith. So you're still not an atheist.
Whoa, hoss. I used the definition you provided.
As I pointed out in my last post, most atheists agree with the most inclusive definition. Lack of belief/faith in god makes you an atheist. You have continually used the narrower version that states an atheist is someone who has rejected belief/faith in god.
I will grant that you and I seem to be philosophically closer than perhaps Luis and I, but I still see you skipping over the crux of the point - that agnostics really haven't made a decision and that atheists have - all the definitions you've provided of atheists to this post have a lack of belief in deities, but not the converse caveat of equal lack of belief that there aren't deities (terrible double negative, I know).
Because that belief is not connected to atheism. Atheism is the y-axis. Whether there aren't deities is the x-axis.
In some of your posts, you seem to have made a decision, whereas in others you're with those of us who haven't peeked in the box and checked on the cat. That has me somewhat confused.
As for claiming my position is more scientifically valid - the most scientifically valid position on the philosophical question of deities is one which says the following:
1. We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities exist.
2. We cannot reject a null hypothesis that deities do not exist.
3. The question therefore cannot be answered using the scientific method at present.
4. Probability and uncertainty suggest that even if we attempted to empirically measure or test deities, our results would not be true results.
5. The question itself is therefore currently unanswerable and may continue to be so.
I'd argue that my philosophical belief sets aligns perfectly with those tenets. Does yours?
Pretty much. Those are all x-axis tenets though. If you look at my definition above they all have to do with the evidence of the existence of a higher power, not whether the person has faith in a higher power. So given that, let me ask you the same question I did earlier in a different way. Do you have faith in a higher power? I don't, Bobboau doesn't, Luis doesn't. And that's why all three of us regard ourselves as being atheists. We may differ as to our position on the x-axis but we're all at the same place on the y.
-
Ok, MP, late is better than never! However, I am a romantic. I have trouble fencing my actions and beliefs inside a purely scientific approach. I am human, and that means I live within a spatial and temporal, as well as an emotional place. There is a moment where I *do* have to decide.
Let me take this approach somewhere else, just for a moment. I do remember the saying that if, if, Christ is indeed the saviour of the Universe, if indeed he is the only path to Heaven and so on, then this is a decision we must make ourselves if we follow this or not. This decision might precede our complete conclusion on the matter (according to you, necessarily so), but it must happen if we are to be saved. I do not think this is a totally incorrect position. We are mortals and finite, we do not have the infinite time to assess endless possibilities and await forever for any empirical breakthrough, etc.
We should therefore cut all those methodologies of life and thought that are inferior and lacking. And that (to me) includes the belief of God and Christianity, whereas I do not take the teachings of the Bible seriously and take the methods of reason and science a lot more seriously. All these actions are choices, decisions, and they are not entirely separated. If we decide to think and act "as if" God does not exist, then we have also have made a decision. This decision might have preceded our complete faith (or lack thereof), but it is a decision that was clearly made and cannot be denied as such.
-
I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.
I think this word though is determining your position on the x-axis. Not the y.
-
All these actions are choices, decisions, and they are not entirely separated. If we decide to think and act "as if" God does not exist, then we have also have made a decision. This decision might have preceded our complete faith (or lack thereof), but it is a decision that was clearly made and cannot be denied as such.
But my problem with the dictation of the choice, and not with gods and even science: what level of personal confirmation do we put on it? IE do we take all of the information we receive from science or a flying unicorn as absolute values, or do we actively filter it through a set of assumptions?
-
I just wonder what mechanisms dictated this decision?
I wonder it too! It wasn't a moment that is defined by one second or not. I could perhaps say that it spanned over years, until some drops of water were enough to make me realise I was on the other side completely.
But as a question, do you believe that absolutes truly hold sway on logical premises?
What do you mean? I'm a relativist, if that's what you are asking me. I don't like the idea of absolutes too much.
But my problem with the dictation of the choice, and not with gods and even science: what level of personal confirmation do we put on it? IE do we take all of the information we receive from science or a flying unicorn as absolute values, or do we actively filter it through a set of assumptions?
Even science has a set of unproven assumptions that we just take for granted.... I see it like a web of linked thoughts, ideas and emotions that form a set of belief. These things may be more or less rational. The dismantling of this web is not abrupt, but there are moments of deeper revolution. How exactly it happens? It's strange, because it feels like reprogramming your own self, so it's like a boat that is building itself in the sea (while navigating) with new materials the crew can find and so on.
I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.
I think this word though is determining your position on the x-axis. Not the y.
There was a point where I couldn't call myself an atheist at all. And then there was one where I could. Perhaps in your scheme this delta would be rendered in the x-axis, but I never saw my convictions changing directions (now y axis, now x axis), it all seemed a one directional river from vague theism to deism to I'm not so sure what it was that I called agnosticism to atheism.
-
"Warning - while you were reading 14 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post." lol
Kara: A two axis implies two continuous variables, but you're saying that the horizontal (atheist-theist) is discrete.
-
Well, the only sense I'll make for tonight is that I don't deal with absolutes: when we attempt to deal with stimuli that don't exist, we can either a) choose to ignore, b) obsess over it, or c) acknowledge we don't know and probably don't give a damn.
I choose option C because our set of assumptions are based on a personal filter and level of truth confirmation, that applies to both pink unicorns and test tube fairies. We operate, and take for granted, the notion of truth regarding the information we take into our heads. What's creepy is that we can't truly confirm in our head whether it's "true," and take a leap of faith on that assumption. That mechanism is self-referential, but is meta-language used for that leap of faith. And the fun part is philosophers have taken stabs it and managed show there's some evidence to its existence, but what it is remains a mystery. When we attempt to "meta" that meta language with more self-reference, we make another leap of faith. Rinse and repeat. We use artificial logic to bridge the meta-gap to confirm our set of assumptions as being true.
Data from science and ramblings of self-appointed madmen are the same: we confirm whether we hold that information to be true or not upon a giant leap of meta faith. That's one of the dirty secrets of the Liar Paradox.
So how does this apply to Agnostics?
Well, I'd argue from a philosophical point of view that we are really Agnostics to begin with, but that's a matter of debate and I'll let other forumites duke that out.
-
- It appears to give both answers equal weight, when OTOH it's patently clear by the not following the rites, traditions and religious observations that agnostics are behaving exactly as if God does not exist (IOW, agnostics are mostly atheists by behavioralistic criteria);
Just because I'm an agnostic doesn't mean I'm going to live my life in constant fear of divine retribution from multiple possible religions. It merely means that I'm open to any possibility, because I cannot know whether a god/gods/reincarnation/etc exists or not, and likely never will until the day I die.
- Agnosticism seems to ignore the wealth of positive evidence we have gathered that these beliefs are local, cultural, they are about establishing morality and social norms, about psychological comforts and never taken seriously or literally by even the "true" believers (or else why would anyone cry and suffer so much at anyone's funeral? Think about that one);
Nah, I don't ignore this point at all. On the contrary I'm a firm believer of it. All moral and social expectations aside however, I simply cannot know for certain whether their core divine being/afterlife beliefs are true or not. As for people crying at funerals, that's an exceptionally cold outlook on it. Whether their loved ones are going to a better place or not, they're going to miss them until they can see them again. (provided this is the case in their religion)
- Agnosticism seems to propose a complete surrender to any unfalsifiable proposition that anyone comes up to.
Well.. yes, that's the entire point of Agnosticism, and is the wisest course of action to take.
-
How can you permanently have faith in something and not have faith in it? I can see how someone can start to lose their faith in god but sooner or later you have to pick a side. Even if at the end you only have a little bit of faith in god, you still have faith. So you're still not an atheist.
You can permanently not make a decision. If you don't think that's possible, then I see where the trouble is coming from, because I do.
As I pointed out in my last post, most atheists agree with the most inclusive definition. Lack of belief/faith in god makes you an atheist. You have continually used the narrower version that states an atheist is someone who has rejected belief/faith in god.
Actually, I've tended toward lack of belief in gods make you an atheist, belief in gods make you theist, and accepting that both/neither are equally valid makes you agnostic.
Because that belief is not connected to atheism. Atheism is the y-axis. Whether there aren't deities is the x-axis.
I thought I had your graph visualized but obviously not. I think you need to draw it.
Do you have faith in a higher power?
...and unlike the others you named, my answer is "maybe." I haven't decided, which means that I both do and don't at exactly the same time. This is why I keep invoking fences, cats, coins, indecisiveness, etc. I cannot answer that question in a scientifically valid manner, so I don't even attempt to. Does that make more sense to you now?
EDIT: It is now 1:06 AM and I am going to bed, which is an empirically-testable object that I plan to empirically test about 30 seconds from now. Goodnight! =)
-
so, "not yes" would constitute a subset of your position?
-
so, "not yes" would constitute a subset of your position?
We went over this at great length last night. So great a length, in fact, that the thread got locked.
No, it does not
Or, more accurately, yes it does, but simultaneously co-exists with the "not no", making your attempt to fish at a way to put MP-Ryan in a nice little label box to make you feel better doomed to fail.
-
...and unlike the others you named, my answer is "maybe." I haven't decided, which means that I both do and don't at exactly the same time. This is why I keep invoking fences, cats, coins, indecisiveness, etc. I cannot answer that question in a scientifically valid manner, so I don't even attempt to. Does that make more sense to you now?
And these are things that go squarely with philosophical inquiries: science is not the appropriate tool to examine such problems. Science was in many ways, not really meant to do so.
Edit: I'll rephrase that. He'll decide when, where, and how what sort of hat for a label he wants.
-
simultaneously co-exists with the "not no"
irrelevant.
once you understand why that is irrelevant, then at least you will have understood our position, if not accepted it.
let me give you a chart
answers to the following questions may be true or false, if the statement is not perfectly accurate then it is false, otherwise true.
A) I believe in the existence of god(s)
B) I believe in the non-existence of god(s)
| | A | |
| | T | F |
| T | Contradiction | Atheist |
| B | F | Theist | Atheist |
the agnostic position is A=F,B=F, the atheist position is A=F (the atheist position is not B=T). agnostic is a subset of atheist.
your efforts to escape my comfy box of doom have failed.
-
Someone should attach a generator to Francis Bacon. It'd solve all of our energy problems.
-
simultaneously co-exists with the "not no"
let me give you a chart
answers to the following questions may be true or false, if the statement is not perfectly accurate then it is false, otherwise true.
A) I believe in the existence of god(s)
B) I believe in the non-existence of god(s)
And right here is where you fail to grasp the problem, and why MP-Ryan (and to no small extent, myself) refuses to be classified as such. At this point I obviously can't say I speak for MP-Ryan and his personal set of beliefs, but I can see a likely point of disconnect.
You have termed these two entires for the binary option for your own classification. I'm going to offer a minor edit, and I want to see if you understand the implications behind it. The options, as I understand MP-Ryan sees it:
A) I believe in the existence of god(s)
B) I do not believe in the existence of god(s)
Do you see it? Just in case, lemme give you a hint: one of these sets of options presents a null hypothesis, that one believes in the explicit non-existence of god(s) rather than the implicit disbelief in the existence of god(s).
The biggest difference between these two sets of options is that the second set is not mutually exclusive, and is not designed to be. Anything else is not MP-Ryan's position, it is your own that you are trying to project and classify, for reasons that I can't begin to fathom except "You either agree with me or don't" in the worst kind of petty displays of baser human argumentative instinct.
-
Kara: A two axis implies two continuous variables, but you're saying that the horizontal (atheist-theist) is discrete.
I have no idea what to call a graph where an axis only has two possible values. :p The problem is that there isn't really a continuum. Atheism is the absence of faith. And you either have or don't have faith. That's why I compared it to pregnancy on the other thread. You're either pregnant or not pregnant.
But I don't see the point in arguing semantics as long as everyone understands that atheism/theism is orthogonal to agnosticism, there isn't much of an issue. My point can still be understood.
Still leaves the cult loophole, though it may eliminate the one for Confucians.
I tend to believe cults usually have more to do with theists than atheists anyway. But aliens or cult leaders do not really count as god / a higher power unless the cult believe they do have divine powers. In which case they really are theists.
You can permanently not make a decision. If you don't think that's possible, then I see where the trouble is coming from, because I do.
Shall I go out today? I won't make a decision yet. It's 2 O'clock. I'll prevaricate some more. It's 9pm. Nope still not going to make a decision. Oh! It's midnight! While you're deciding the decision is being made for you.
Faith requires a concious decision to have it. This seems to be the major issue you and I differ on.
Yes you can make a decision to leave it as an open question whether or not you will have faith, but until you actually do make that decision, you don't have faith. You can't permanently make a decision not to have faith and stay in the middle. Faith isn't analogous to Schroedinger's cat. Every second you wait is one more second the decision is being made for you.
I think you'll find that the religious actually agree with me on this point. You can't say "I can permanently not make a decision whether I'm a Christian or not." If you don't have faith in Christ, you're not a Christian. You can't both be a Christian and not be a Christian. Maybe one day you'll become one. But at this point in time, you are not one. If on top of that, if you also don't have faith in Allah, you're also not a Muslim. And so on. Until we've gone through every single religion in existence and you've said you don't have faith in that particular religion. At which point you're an atheist. Because you don't have faith. There is no middle ground.
I thought I had your graph visualized but obviously not. I think you need to draw it.
I'll attach it. Excuse the crudity. I only have MS Paint here.
...and unlike the others you named, my answer is "maybe." I haven't decided, which means that I both do and don't at exactly the same time. This is why I keep invoking fences, cats, coins, indecisiveness, etc. I cannot answer that question in a scientifically valid manner, so I don't even attempt to. Does that make more sense to you now?
See above. I can't decide = no. Maybe I will one day but at the moment, no.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
You have termed these two entires for the binary option for your own classification. I'm going to offer a minor edit, and I want to see if you understand the implications behind it. The options, as I understand MP-Ryan sees it:
A) I believe in the existence of god(s)
B) I do not believe in the existence of god(s)
Do you see it? Just in case, lemme give you a hint: one of these sets of options presents a null hypothesis, that one believes in the explicit non-existence of god(s) rather than the implicit disbelief in the existence of god(s).
The biggest difference between these two sets of options is that the second set is not mutually exclusive, and is not designed to be.
yes, I do understand the implications and that is why I very carefully and explicitly chose not to word it that way because that distinction is obvious and not a point of contention.
and, how is that not mutually exclusive? one of those is the logical negation of the other, it's both mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive.
if you want the full list of options it's.
A) I believe in the existence of god(s)
B) I believe in the non-existence of god(s)
C) I do not believe in the existence of god(s)
D) I do not believe in the non-existence of god(s)
but A = -C and B = -D so they are basically redundant, but there is no direct mapping between A and B other than they are mutually exclusive.
it is important to note that -A != B
and MP's position is he doesn't believe either, both A and B basically make knowledge claims and are therefore to him false.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Hn4p20t.png)
-
Not sure I like any of those better than mine. Quite a few of them make the mistake of placing Agnostic between Atheist and Theist. I've been saying that's wrong since my first post.
-
mostly like, the "certainty of evidence" part I think is a bit unintuitively laid out, but I get it.
It sort of looks like you might have theist as a subset of atheist, but I think that is supposed to show the binary relationship between them with the rectangle being the universe of discourse.
It is sort of inconsistent with some figures showing (a)gnosticism as orthogonal to theism/atheism, and others showing it as a third pole/middle ground.
is this your position or a summary of the argument so far?
-
Some examples of what people may think/have thought.
My position? That changes as the topic progresses.
-
So where is option C? I really do not care as long as people are not d*** about their own belief?
Or the long version: I really don't care one way or the other as long as no one tries to push their beliefs on me - but yes if the existence of a higher being could be rationally and factually proven without doubt of course I would accept it, although I believe that to be highly unlikely. In short: Just let me live my own life and stop bothering me with your stories of imaginary beings unless you can actually prove anything. Thank you very very much. lol.
Go ahead. Put me in a box as well :P
-
So where is option C? I really do not care as long as people are not d*** about their own belief?
That's the "I'm not posting on this thread option" :p
-
That's the "I'm not posting on this thread option" :p
In that case you would be discussing a false dichotomy. ;)
-
Here's a question:
Does a God require a Religion in order to be considered as such?
That's the part that confuses me, Gods are always defined from a very human viewpoint, and it's got to the point that, even if there is some kind of 'Creator entity', I'm pretty sure the religions that have formed around the concept are not representations of It in any way.
-
Here's a question:
Does a God require a Religion in order to be considered as such?
That's the part that confuses me, Gods are always defined from a very human viewpoint, and it's got to the point that, even if there is some kind of 'Creator entity', I'm pretty sure the religions that have formed around the concept are not representations of It in any way.
Even if there was a creator entity, would it be one that humans would recognize as an entity? We're rather limited as to what we can perceive as being an intelligent actor, so that even relatively intelligent mammals other than ourselves seem to be non-sentient actors, could we really look at - say, for example - the hyper-intelligent black hole that spawned the universe and recognize it as such? If a 'god' object wasn't anthropomorphic, could it be a god object?
-
... even if there is some kind of 'Creator entity', I'm pretty sure the religions that have formed around the concept are not representations of It in any way.
Being a christian, that is hilarious.
-
If a 'god' object wasn't anthropomorphic, could it be a god object?
If you can interact with it in a way that produces consistent responses, probably.
-
... even if there is some kind of 'Creator entity', I'm pretty sure the religions that have formed around the concept are not representations of It in any way.
Being a christian, that is hilarious.
But the thing is, almost all major religions are based on a Book, and the Book is always human-centric in nature.
We live in a Universe with radioactive rays shooting everywhere, exploding stars that can rip apart entire solar systems and black holes that can do the same. Every solar system is like a pinball machine of death with comets and asteroids bouncing everywhere. Any God who thinks that one of the worst Ten things I can do as a person is be jealous of my neighbour has gone through some serious editing from my perspective. ;)
Edit : It would, however, be mildly amusing if the Universe was made in a similar fashion to how white-sand islands are made...
-
Using definitions that are currently in Wikipedia:
Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية al-ġnūṣīh) is the belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced (God's world)
Gnosticism states that spiritual world is more important than material world, and that we should embrace the spiritual world and pay less attention to material world.
However the "spiritual world" is defined is another matter, but it does take a stance that there IS a division between "spiritual" world and "material" world, and specifically that the material world was created by an entity from spritual world.
Since Gnosticism has more than one claim they make, it's hard to nail down what its opposite - Agnosticism should be.
One possibility is that Agnosticism would, in opposition of Gnosticism, state that we should NOT embrace "spiritual world" at the cost of losing focus on the "material world".
Or, it could be a stance that material world was NOT created by spiritual world, but this alone could have several subtypes (such as maybe the spiritual world was created by material world and not the other way round).
Or, it could be a claim that there IS no division between "spiritual" and "material" world.
However, none of these seem to clearly coincide with the "popular" definition of Agnosticism, which is typically the view that there can be no certainty about anything spiritual. However, this popular view inherently acknowledges the possibility of the existence of spiritual world.
Gnosticism-Agnosticism axis is not a simple "yes - maybe - no" axis of position, but rather something that contains both a view on what the relationship of "spiritual" and "material" world IS, and also a view on what our relationship to spiritual world should be.
Theism and Atheism are easier to define; Theism is belief in at least one deity, while Atheism is defined as no belief in any deity.
Even so, though, Atheism can be divided into Weak and Strong Atheism*, which also can have sub-divisions, but the gist of it is that Weak Atheism is simple lack of belief, while Strong Atheism takes a stance that no deities CAN exist; that it is impossible by definition. Weak Atheism doesn't take any particular stance on whether it's possible for divine entities to exist - there's just no belief in any of them.
This is typically an example of materialism or physicalism, which are basically philosophical views that claim there is no division between "material" and "spiritual", or "mundane" and "divine", as the theistic point of view would call them. In a materialistic point of view, anything that exists is by definition part of the "natural" or "material" world; therefore even if an entity with "god-like" properties would be proven to exist, it would still - by definition - be a natural entity and thus, there would be nothing "divine" in it.
Interestingly, there is another end of theistic spectrum which also denies the division between material and spiritual world. Pantheistic world view, however, takes an opposite stance than Materialist/Physicalist world view, and states that instead of everything being material, everything is divine!
However, the Pantheism - Theism - Weak Atheism - Strong Atheism axis has only one correlation with Gnosticism - Agnosticism axis:
Pantheists and Strong Atheists can be neither Gnostics or Agnostics. This is because both Gnostic and Agnostic positions acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that there is both material and spiritual world, while Pantheist view takes the stance that everything is Divine (spiritual) and Strong Atheist view takes the stance that everything is material (or mundane); therefore making it impossible to be either certain that material and spiritual world exist (gnosticism) or uncertain about it (agnosticism).
Interestingly, as far as everyday life and relationship to the world and people around you goes, Pantheism and Strong Atheism are remarkably similar in many cases - probably because both of these world views remove any basis for treating other people differently based on their religion. That is not to say there can't be other reasons for discrimination...
Theists can be both Gnostic or Agnostic in their views, particularly regarding their everyday behaviour and their personal relationship between the Divine or Spiritual world they believe in.
Some Theists are Gnostic in the sense that they concentrate on the spiritual world, with less importance on the material world. In the same sense, some Theists are agnostics in that they don't think it makes sense to ignore the material world in favour of spiritual. Different religions have different stances on this, too. Christianity as a whole emphasizes the importance of Spiritual world, but most sects still think it's important to live your life in the material world as well as you can. Depending on the particular sect of Christianity, some think that your actions in material world affect your fate in the spiritual world, while some think your actions are irrelevant and only your belief and faith and way of thinking matter, regarding the salvation of your soul.
Judaism, on the other hand, is much more concentrated on the material world. They do not put the same importance on "afterlife" as most Christian sects do; instead their concept of "afterlife" is more about the memory of your actions in the material world. If you lived your life good, you leave a good memory of yourself... but I don't think they even have a concept of personal afterlife the same way Christianity does.
Islam does, of course, have a concept of afterlife. Their view on the relationship between life and afterlife (or material and spiritual world) is curiously schizophrenic, though. Not only do they put an inordinate amount of rules and restrictions on how a good muslim is supposed to live, many of the muslim sects seem to emphasize the importance of spiritual world (afterlife) to the material world (life), which is definitely a Gnostic point of view and one of the most important suicide bomber recruiting arguments used by terrorist organizations.
So there's some examples of both Gnostic and Agnostic world religions.
Hinduism, I believe, is another example of very much Agnostic Theistic religion - there's not so much a difference between "divine" and "mundane" worlds, but there definitely are deities in Hinduism.
Gnostic Atheists are much less common. However, Buddhist philosophies (at least some of them) commonly use spiritual symbolism, and that would make it a Gnostic Weak Atheistic world view. However, on the other hand some directions of Buddhism are closer to Pantheism than anything else, which leaves them indifferent about Gnosticism or Agnosticism.
In a way, I suppose some of the "new-age" cults/sects/religions could also be classified as Gnostic Weak Atheism, with focus on "spiritual world" but not particularly Theistic. At the same time some of them, of course, are very much Theistic, so there you go.
I myself would classify myself as Physicalist type Strong Atheist, and neither Gnostic or Agnostic, because by my definitions there is no division between Material and Spiritual that I could be either certain (Gnosticism) or uncertain about (Agnosticism).
*I'm just calling them Weak and Strong Atheism because that's the most convenient way for me to label them. No offense meant for anyone who recognizes themselves as "Weak" Atheist as defined here.
-
Not sure I like any of those better than mine. Quite a few of them make the mistake of placing Agnostic between Atheist and Theist. I've been saying that's wrong since my first post.
That probably addresses some of my confusion. Cause as I see it, the more agnostic you are, the less important it becomes of whether you're theist or atheist. So you can draw an ugly line on your graph, like so:
(http://i.imgur.com/JFRJYtu.png)
And get a continuum with agnostic between atheism and theism. Thus satisfying my personal desire for continuous graphs without actually getting closer to a solution.
What it seems to me is that we have a population of data, made of billions of unique individuals, and we as humans, the great pattern makers, look for the pattern which seems to most fit the data and most likely to be the "true" way of organising it. Often, it's simple enough to separate data into discrete categories: poor/middle class/upper class, white/coloured, male/female, theist/atheist. But those aren't the reality of the case, and don't represent the complexity (http://xkcd.com/1095/) of the issues. Gender (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI), for example, can be thought of as binary. But very quickly you start seeing variations from the norm. You could call them outliers (Burn them to hell! ... for more burning!), but with a more accepting culture you see that the issue becomes better to describe with multiple different variables.
Does that mean you can't organise an infinite (well... indefinitely large) population? Heck no, taxonomy did it just fine. It just means that rather than fitting all new data into your cosy boxes, sometimes you just need more boxes.
-
how about this, do a google search for the following terms:
shockofgod question
this is an extremely classical example of how atheists are misrepresented.
-
Shall I go out today? I won't make a decision yet. It's 2 O'clock. I'll prevaricate some more. It's 9pm. Nope still not going to make a decision. Oh! It's midnight! While you're deciding the decision is being made for you.
Faith requires a concious decision to have it. This seems to be the major issue you and I differ on.
Yes you can make a decision to leave it as an open question whether or not you will have faith, but until you actually do make that decision, you don't have faith. You can't permanently make a decision not to have faith and stay in the middle. Faith isn't analogous to Schroedinger's cat. Every second you wait is one more second the decision is being made for you.
I think you'll find that the religious actually agree with me on this point. You can't say "I can permanently not make a decision whether I'm a Christian or not." If you don't have faith in Christ, you're not a Christian. You can't both be a Christian and not be a Christian. Maybe one day you'll become one. But at this point in time, you are not one. If on top of that, if you also don't have faith in Allah, you're also not a Muslim. And so on. Until we've gone through every single religion in existence and you've said you don't have faith in that particular religion. At which point you're an atheist. Because you don't have faith. There is no middle ground.
"I can't decide" != no. Because there are TWO statements you can't decide on:
1. I can't decide if gods exist.
2. I can't decide if gods do not exist.
Now, your temporal point assumes these question can ever be answered (whereas I argue that is unlikely), so no, time does not make me more and more atheist.
The trouble that you, Luis, and bobb appears to be having is that you think the two statements I just pointed out are mutually-exclusive opposites, which, as I pointed out in the original thread and briefly repeated here, they are not. There are TWO experimental hypotheses that must be rejected, and two paradoxical nulls that must therefore be accepted, meaning that no decision is ever made without more data.
So I reject your premise that a decision is being made for me (or anyone who shares this philosophical belief set). As I keep repeating, this is what separate agnostics from atheists - much as you all say you see both nulls, none of your reasoning takes them into account. I have no doubt theists also take issue with this position as they'd no doubt like to see a decision rendered as well - point is, I don't have to. If you'd like to plot this belief set on your graph, it is the exact central intersection.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. While I have no faith that gods exist, I simultaneously have no faith that gods do not exist. While I have no evidence that gods exist, I simultaneously have no evidence that gods do not exist. It's a completely blank position that makes no judgement on the philosophical nature of god(s) other than to predict the questions are not answerable.
-
"I can't decide" != no. Because there are TWO statements you can't decide on:
1. I can't decide if gods exist.
2. I can't decide if gods do not exist.
Only the first of those statements is actually relevant to whether you are a theist or atheist though. This is the point you do not seem to understand.
A theist is not someone who has no faith in there being no higher power. A theist is someone who does have faith in there being a higher power. An atheist is anyone else.
Now, your temporal point assumes these question can ever be answered (whereas I argue that is unlikely), so no, time does not make me more and more atheist.
No it doesn't at all. Perhaps giving an analogy involving time was a mistake cause you then assumed that my point had something to do with time. If I don't decide whether or not to help a dying man, I'm not helping him. If I don't decide to step out of the way of a speeding car, I'm not stepping out of the way of a speeding car. If I don't decide whether or not I want to be a Christian, I'm not a Christian. Prevarication is, in and of itself an action.
Schroedinger only remains undecided until there is a observer. But in the question of faith there is an observer. You. You can say that the question of whether a higher power exists or not is unanswerable at this time, hell I agree with you on that. But by not answering the question you are making an observation. You are making a decision. You have chosen not to have faith until the question is answered.
Faith is the belief in something without proof. Can you not see the lunacy involved in insisting that you can't make a decision about whether to believe in something without proof until after you have proof?
The trouble that you, Luis, and bobb appears to be having is that you think the two statements I just pointed out are mutually-exclusive opposites, which, as I pointed out in the original thread and briefly repeated here, they are not. There are TWO experimental hypotheses that must be rejected, and two paradoxical nulls that must therefore be accepted, meaning that no decision is ever made without more data.
No the trouble is that you are insisting we think that and refusing to listen to what we are actually saying. I understand your point. I just disagree with it actually syncing with the rest of your argument. It syncs just as well with mine but you don't seem to understand that.
Remember that Luis and I are not the same kind of atheist, so we might not say the same things but the fundamentals are the same. We both have a lack of faith in a higher power. That's it. That's all that makes us atheists. Nothing else. Not a disbelief in a higher power. This is why your second statement is completely irrelevant as to whether we are atheists. It has relevance as to whether or not we are strong or weak atheists but not to whether we are atheists in the first place. Insisting that it's important is like insisting that a protestant isn't a Christian because he doesn't take communion. It's an error based on a huge misunderstanding of what the subject at hand is.
So I reject your premise that a decision is being made for me (or anyone who shares this philosophical belief set). As I keep repeating, this is what separate agnostics from atheists - much as you all say you see both nulls, none of your reasoning takes them into account. I have no doubt theists also take issue with this position as they'd no doubt like to see a decision rendered as well - point is, I don't have to. If you'd like to plot this belief set on your graph, it is the exact central intersection.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. While I have no faith that gods exist, I simultaneously have no faith that gods do not exist. While I have no evidence that gods exist, I simultaneously have no evidence that gods do not exist. It's a completely blank position that makes no judgement on the philosophical nature of god(s) other than to predict the questions are not answerable.
I'm really at a loss how to make myself any clearer. To be honest I'm just tempted to tell you to not repeat that nonsense about your position being more scientific (since it's derived from a fundamental misunderstanding of what an atheist is) and leave it at that.
But there's one question left I'd like to ask. If you're so certain you're correct. What is an Agnostic Atheist? My definition explains what one is. I'd love to hear you explain based on your definition what one is cause as far as I can figure out your definitions leave you defining it as someone who has both decided that god doesn't exist and hasn't decided whether or not god exists.
-
"I can't decide" != no. Because there are TWO statements you can't decide on:
1. I can't decide if gods exist.
2. I can't decide if gods do not exist.
but it isn't yes either, so if there was a word for people who said yes, and a word for people who were not covered by the first word, then saying "I don't know" would put you under the second word.
-
Except he isn't saying yes and he isn't saying no. He's saying them both at the same time and also not saying either. The uncertainty of his statement precludes establishing a binary yes/no state to it.
-
no, he isn't saying yes to both, he isn't saying no to both, he is saying "I don't know". he is an agnostic, that means he is of the opinion that no answer can (ever/yet) be come to. that means he is not a person who advocates that gods exist. which mean's he is not a theist. which means he is atheist. atheist means not theist, it does not mean that you believe there is no god.
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
do I need to repeat it again? are we going to stop with the "but he didn't say no" yet?
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
it is a lack of belief. believing there is no god is a belief. atheists LACK a belief in god, NOT posses a belief in no god.
so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
I am seriously starting to think I am being trolled here.
-
In my view, belief that deities exist makes one a theist. Not having the aforementioned belief makes one an atheist according to the linguistics of the term (I don't think this requires further elaboration; Kara's explained it already). Whether one is a strong or weak atheist (the latter also being called agnostic, though Herra pointed out some interesting stuff on that note) depends on if they believe that deities do not exist, or do not hold such a belief, respectively. Not having belief either way puts them in the middle of most (all?) of the graphs provided thus far, and is the position that MP-Ryan says he holds. It is the position that I hold, as well.
Actually, to be more precise, I am a strong atheist with regard to the existence of any deities described by religion so far -- and that's not because of evidence that they don't exist (there is none and can never be) but rather that I believe (and I use this word deliberately) that they are human constructions and implausible to exist in reality, no insult meant to religious forum users amongst us -- but I am weak atheist / agnostic with regard to the notion of there being some sort of divine/intelligent entity beyond our present understanding. I could easily become a theist if compelling evidence came forward, but it is unlikely that I will become an outright strong atheist because the existence of an all-powerful being beyond our ability to observe can never be disproved by definition.
That these classifications have caused such an intensive debate is simply stunning to me; I don't understand it and I wonder if all the theists are simply laughing at us. ;)
-
I don't get it either. I really thought this was done when I explained it the first time as "atheist means literally 'not theist'".
and then there was 7 pages of:
"but he didn't say no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
"but not yes isn't no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
"but he didn't say no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
"but not yes isn't no"
"he doesn't need to say no, only not yes"
...
-
Say you have three sticks behind an impenetrable, invisible barrier that prevents any sort of analysis other than direct visual observation via the naked eye. The stick on the left is red, the stick on the right is blue, and the stick in the middle is covered by an opaque sheet that no one can see through.
Group A claims that the stick in the middle is yellow. Group A claims that, since the sticks exist, obviously the middle one has to be yellow.
Group B claims that the stick in the middle is green. Group B claims that, since Group A's claims are complete bull**** with no empirical founding, the stick is obviously green.
Group C claims that, since no one can actually see the stick, they're not going to choose to believe either possibility until the sheet falls off (or something) and everyone can see what color the stick actually is.
Group B claims that green is not yellow. Group B claims that, by Group C not choosing to believe that the stick is either yellow or green, that Group C believes that the stick is not yellow, and therefore Group C obviously believes the stick to be green.
Group C claims that Group B is mistaken in its argument that Group C has already decided. Group C cites experiments relating to quantum uncertainty and how it relates to the basic principles of empiricism.
Group A and Group B are arguing philosophy and/or semantics as if they were science. Group C is arguing science and science as if it was philosophy.
Philosophy and science are like matter and anti-matter (or vice versa). Do not mix them. They will explode.
-
that is a fun story. completely unrelated to the discussion at hand other than it seems to be the flawed model of reality some participants seem to be going by.
-
[dismissive attempt at humor]
:no:
-
I am not dismissing you, you have crystallized the misunderstanding at the heart of this discussion.
-
Seeing as the sub-set of users that applies to tend to think the exact same thing about the other set, and that the definition of atheism is literally: "The doctrine that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster), "The doctrine or belief there is no god" (Dictionary.com), "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" (Thefreedictionary.com), I'd say that the flawed model of reality is in use by a different party.
EDIT: Whatever personal definition you might have for atheism notwithstanding of course. But don't try to paint the entire group with your personal definition because you will it to be true.
-
we are talking about groups of people, not doctrines. so the definitions relating to that can be dismissed, especially because virtually all of the definitions you posted the first time had a variation relating to a person, which is what we are talking about.
IIRC the first time you posted, there were more of the nature of "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". "disbelieves or denies" this is an inclusive clause, it is an 'or' which means it applies to both articles. So "One who disbelieves the existence of God or gods" is a proper subset of atheist, that is to say if you fit this definition, you are an atheist.
"disbelieves"
dis·be·lieve (dsb-lv)
v. dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing, dis·be·lieves
v.tr.
To refuse to believe in; reject.
v.intr.
To withhold or reject belief.
-------------------------------------------------
dis·be·lieve
[dis-bi-leev] Show IPA verb, dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief
-------------------------------------------------
dis·be·lief Listen to audio/ˌdɪsbəˈli:f/ noun
[noncount] : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
which of these definitions of disbelieves says "to actively believe in the opposite of"
BTW, "disbelieves or denies" very much maps to that venn diagram I posted
your original post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698216#msg1698216) I see you have done a better job of cherry-picking your definitions.
disbelieving in the existence of a god is precisely what an agnostic does. not believe. making no knowledge claim.
-
Scotty, read the wikipedia explanation for atheism and then explain to me what an implicit atheist is.
You won't be able to do it because the definition you think is right precludes the existence of implicit atheists.
-
and is in opposition to most of the definitions he himself posted.
-
I'm going to post Bertrand Russell's argument here to see if it clears things up.
Suppose I claim that there is a teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars there is a teapot. It's too small to be picked up with telescopes and no one has yet been out there to look at it. Pretty much everyone on this forum is going to say I'm almost certainly wrong. They don't believe that there is a teapot. This makes them ateapotist. However the existence of such a teapot is possible. It could have been dropped off by a space probe or something. So even though there is no evidence either way the possibility exists that it's there. So we have to be agnostic about the existence of the teapot. So pretty much everyone on this forum is an agnostic ateapotist.
That these classifications have caused such an intensive debate is simply stunning to me; I don't understand it and I wonder if all the theists are simply laughing at us. ;)
What I don't get is why they aren't more up in arms about the claim from the agnostic side that you can both have and not have faith in something. If I was religious I'd be spitting nails over that one.
-
What I don't get is why they aren't more up in arms about the claim from the agnostic side that you can both have and not have faith in something. If I was religious I'd be spitting nails over that one.
Huh?
While I have no faith that gods exist, I simultaneously have no faith that gods do not exist. While I have no evidence that gods exist, I simultaneously have no evidence that gods do not exist.
There is a lack of faith either way.
-
Religious people have the same binary definition as theist/atheist. It's just that they call them believer/unbeliever.
If you're a Christian you believe that you need to believe in God. Unbelievers get some sort of punishment. You could read MP-Ryan's posts as him claiming to have found a cheat code where he's not an unbeliever but doesn't need to bother believing in god. All that stuff that the bible says won't happen to unbelievers supposedly won't happen to him since he's not one. :p
-
What's beginning to annoy me is the perpetually moving goalposts on what is being defined as an atheist. On page 1, we had this broad definition:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Since then, the goalposts have been moved all over. The latest version (I think) is that if you are not someone who explicitly believes in a god or gods, then you are an atheist (juxtaposed with "rejection of belief" or "lack of belief") - which has the problematic effect of linking anyone with spiritual/supernatural beliefs in with atheists. That makes that first definition, sourced from Wikipedia by kara, the more correct one. Now, if every atheist on the planet is operating on this second one (which I'm going out on a limb and going to doubt right now, given the beliefs usually bandied about by atheists of one type or another) then yes, that makes all agnostics a subset of atheists. I'm going to hazard a guess that there are quite a number of self-described atheists AND agnostics that take issue with this version of the definition. The discussion is further complicated by a variety of atheist subset definitions like agnostic atheist, implicit atheist, explicit atheist, etc.
Semantics are a *****.
The prefix "a" means "without." "Theist" means one who believes in god or gods. The literal definition of someone who is an atheist is a person without belief in god or gods. This is a positive affirmation - "I lack belief in a god or gods" or "I don't believe in god or gods." An atheist is making a finite statement.
The literal definition of agnostic, on the other hand, is a person without belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced. An agnostic is also making a finite statement, but it's not about the existence of god or gods either way - it's a statement that they don't want to be bothered about unanswerable spiritual questions and focus instead on the material world.
By root form definitions, we have three possibilities when it comes to the existence of god/gods:
1. Theist - "I believe in a god or gods."
2. Atheist - "I lack belief in a god or gods."
3. Agnostic - "I don't know what you two are on about and I'm more interested in talking about things where we can find answers."
The various subtypes of atheism previously described are more or less attempts to take the group 3 and stuff them into group 2. After all, they're philosophical allies on most matters and - as this thread demonstrates - a number of atheists really don't seen any difference between a lack of belief in god/gods, and a simple desire not to even talk about the subject. They implicitly view group 3 as basically a slightly-eccentric version of 2.
The problem with that is that agnostics include agnostic atheists (which kara dug up) - those who lack belief in god(s) but acknowledge the possibility exists - along with agnostic theists - those who do have some belief in god(s) but acknowledge the possibility does not exist. Agnostics can be a subset of both group 1 and group 2. They're linked not by their belief or lack thereof in god, but by their point that there's no use talking about it. Atheists, by definition, want to talk about it. So do theists. Agnostics make no claims at all except to say "we don't know and probably can't know, let's talk about something else."
Do agnostics take flak from both of the other groups? Absolutely. Are some agnostics also theists? You bet. Are some agnostics also atheists? Indeed. Do either identify as such? No - because that's not the debate they want to engage in.
To say one is agnostic is to say debate over the existence of god(s) is pointless. Atheists do not make the same claim - by their very statement that they are atheist, they choose a side in the debate. This is why I maintain that agnosticism better fits the principles of science - if we can't reject either null, then we can't make a reasoned guess, and the scientific method falls apart until we can.
Invoking the teapot, the agnostic is someone who looks at Russell's premise, looks at the crowd claiming the teapot might exist, looks at the crowd claiming the teapot might not exist, and says "**** it, I don't like tea anyway."
So, karajorma, an agnostic atheist is an agnostic who has entered the debate - they state a lack of belief in god or gods, they then merely add the caveat that they don't really want to enter that debate and wouldn't it be much better to talk about real world implications anyway?
Perhaps I should not have focused on the 'decision' aspect of agnosticism earlier, but focused instead on why the decision is not made - it's not because the merits of one side or the other are being pondered, it's because the debate is basically thrown out as pointless. If the result of the choice makes no change, why bother even trying to make one?
-
If the result of the choice makes no change, why bother even trying to make one?
It's as I said a few days ago:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698055#msg1698055
"But keep in mind, he's not going to change unless you give him a reason to change which benefits him. He is clearly very comfortable with identifying as agnostic, and honestly I don't think you'll be able to move him. I'd suggest just letting it go."
You need to give him an incentive.
-
What's beginning to annoy me is the perpetually moving goalposts on what is being defined as an atheist. On page 1, we had this broad definition:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
This is a bad faith argument. I'm out.
Here is the actual quote. Emphasis added.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist
That's the first line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism. I think the problem is that most atheists tend to actually agree with the more inclusive definition of what atheism is. Where as most of the people having an issue on the other thread were trying to claim it was the more narrow definition. But the most inclusivedefinition also includes implicit atheism.
-
I took your bolded statement to me you agreed with the broad-sense definition, rather than the second sentence from the Wikipedia quote you posted on page one. If that is not the case, I apologize. None of this is intended to be an argument in bad faith in order to "win" - the intention is to demonstrate that most agnostics really think they are different than atheists and have a very good reason for doing so, which is well-grounded in the rationalist philosophy of the scientific method.
That said, I did aim the last half of my last post to address this argument:
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist
Agnostics may have an absence of belief that any deities exist; that is not what makes them agnostic, as they also may positively believe that deities exist (at the same time - yes, paradox). What makes them agnostic is that they hold that arguments on the belief of the [non]/existence of deities is pointless, for very scientific reasons.
Where I am getting frustrated is in the constant changes to the definitions of what constitutes an atheist that have been exhibited across two threads. A number of self-professed atheists cannot agree on what makes them atheist, so it's hardly surprising that there is dissent on the inclusion of agnostics in that group. It's also pretty disingenuous to dismiss a nuanced explanation of the differences between agnostics, atheists, and theists on the basis of an example quote in the introductory line.
-
decision
I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.
For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".
I think the point is very interesting.
As the guy who once spent 20 pages in a shouting match with you over this stuff, all I want to know is are you going to let a Cartesian rationalist like myself into this debate? Or is accepting Hume's radical empirical skepticism as dogma going to be a requisite for being treated like a first-class citizen by you?
For that matter, what's your take on a non-personal God, like Spinoza's or Einstein's God?
-
I took your bolded statement to me you agreed with the broad-sense definition, rather than the second sentence from the Wikipedia quote you posted on page one. If that is not the case, I apologize.
If it's not bad faith then there's a lack of understanding on your part which I'm not willing to bother with any more. The simple fact is that there isn't any disagreement over what makes people atheists. Bobboau has pretty much agreed with everything I've said and if you really think Luis wouldn't have complained about my definitions if they were wrong, you don't know him very well.
If it's really taken you this long to understand that atheists define themselves as people who have a lack of belief/faith in god/a higher power, there's really not much point in continuing.
-
I understand where MP's frustrations come from, but I wonder if he understands mine or Kara's.
I've said this before and I'm continuously forced to say it again: Atheists *are* mostly agnostics. All the best atheists are agnostics as well. Russell, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, etc.,etc. will all agree that they cannot know the unknowable, and so on. Therefore, this idea that "agnosticism" is somehow the superior mindset fails to account on why atheism embraces agnosticism as it does.
The problem arises when one leaves the ivory towers of pure thougth and tries to have a conversation in the real world. In this world, people do believe in nonsense (I include myself in that category, I've watched myself believing in nonsense before, there's no reason to think I am a perfect being of thought right now), and when they ask if I believe in God, they are not asking this philosophical question. In that space, I'm an atheist. I'll say, "well that's pretty much as possible as the Santa Claus", which is, mind you, a completely agnostic and atheist thought at the same time.
A last thought before I engage mr Vega is this:
Let us imagine that we state that things that are beyond a certain criteria of "unbelievability" we stop being Schrodinger about it and call it resolved. Now, in this state, we never abandon the thought that the possibilities exist. What we do, otoh, is speak of terms like "certainty" not as if we are 100% sure of them, but 99% (for instance) and above. In this sense, when I am asked whether if Yaweh exists, I'll remember the overwhelming evidence against this particular deity: The fact that people invent deities every day; the fact that millions of different deities existed and exist; the fact that the originally polytheistic Bible was rewritten (by forgeries) through the ages until we got this Yaweh "only" god; the fact we don't have any material evidence for it; the fact that every previous evidence for it has been shown to be an illusion or better explained materially, etc.., and I'll place his existence beyond the "certainty" criteria that he just doesn't.
This is simple. Just imagine the following question: are you or are you not an atheist regarding Zeus?
So what I think really frustrates me and Kara is that obviously MP is an atheist by mine and his definition. I'm willing to bet he doesn't lose time by thinking "perhaps", and then follows it with some "what if" prayers to this deity. He doesn't lose time thinking whether if he is going to hell or not. He doesn't even lose time with the god question at all, only to acknowledge he hasn't the faintest idea on how we would go solve it.
Those are all atheistic themes. Go listen to Hitchens, his most continuous catching questions in the debates were of those sort "How you know this and that to be true is beyond me, how come you claim you can know the mind of God?" and so on.
Most atheists are atheists because they are agnostics, not the other way around. The question is rather political, ideological, social. The question is one of confrontation and thought-provocation. The question is that there are a whole bunch of clever and intelligent theists out there giving theological explanations for this and that, polluting every thought, idea and political situations with this God stuff. So it is good that we don't label ourselves as "open minded about every question", but rather as someone who clearly doesn't take bull****. I see "atheism" as a label that basically is saying "Yeah, I don't buy that ****".
... if you really think Luis wouldn't have complained about my definitions if they were wrong, you don't know him very well.
I thought I was clear in my statements, but apparently not (I even made a schematic very similar to your graph about this stuff): I completely agree with your definition. (and yes you do seem to know me very well :D)
-
decision
I think you managed to narrow down the precise word that is the main driver of difference.
For I do agree with all your bulleted points. However, I no longer have in my mind this ambivalence, this ambiguity of uncertainty. It's not a downright certainty, but I do feel the absence of the divine presence. This is purely psychological. I was once a mild believer (many eons ago, before university, and mostly a deist at that), and I did feel the possibility of this presence. But there was a moment where this is true, there was a decision happening in my head. "No more of this".
I think the point is very interesting.
As the guy who once spent 20 pages in a shouting match with you over this stuff, all I want to know is are you going to let a Cartesian rationalist like myself into this debate? Or is accepting Hume's radical empirical skepticism as dogma going to be a requisite for being treated like a first-class citizen by you?
My thoughts are always evolving.... perhaps not always in the best direction but still. Now, while I really I mean really doubt Cartesian thought is still a useful tool in the 21st century, I am no dogmatist. Also, I do think this conversation is also slightly cartesian, because I think there's a slight confusion between what is scientifically possible to say about stuff and what we actually say about stuff. I wonder if my troubles with agnostics like MP do not arise precisely due to the inherent cartesian thought behind their words and my own "Humeism".
For that matter, what's your take on a non-personal God, like Spinoza's or Einstein's God?
A good question. I am not as atheistic regarding that God like I am regarding Yaweh, but I am still very skeptical of such a thing due to some reasons. First I fail to see the point of such kind of patheism or panentheism or whatever you want to call it. If God is Nature, then what is the meaning, what is it that we gain by adding this surplus? It feels something like Star Wars' "The Force" before they went all midichlorians about it. I did once think like this too. I do remember my teen days where I dwelled in my mind over the possibilities of even atoms shining with this superior force.
Curiously, the guy was deemed a complete atheist at his own time. And I don't exactly disagree with that assessment. His ideas made him basically a determinist and a materialist.
-
I've said this before and I'm continuously forced to say it again: Atheists *are* mostly agnostics. All the best atheists are agnostics as well. Russell, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, etc.,etc. will all agree that they cannot know the unknowable, and so on. Therefore, this idea that "agnosticism" is somehow the superior mindset fails to account on why atheism embraces agnosticism as it does.
The problem arises when one leaves the ivory towers of pure thougth and tries to have a conversation in the real world. In this world, people do believe in nonsense (I include myself in that category, I've watched myself believing in nonsense before, there's no reason to think I am a perfect being of thought right now), and when they ask if I believe in God, they are not asking this philosophical question. In that space, I'm an atheist. I'll say, "well that's pretty much as possible as the Santa Claus", which is, mind you, a completely agnostic and atheist thought at the same time.
Most atheists are atheists because they are agnostics, not the other way around. The question is rather political, ideological, social. The question is one of confrontation and thought-provocation. The question is that there are a whole bunch of clever and intelligent theists out there giving theological explanations for this and that, polluting every thought, idea and political situations with this God stuff. So it is good that we don't label ourselves as "open minded about every question", but rather as someone who clearly doesn't take bull****. I see "atheism" as a label that basically is saying "Yeah, I don't buy that ****".
So those who self-identify as agnostics have zero confidence in any assertion regarding the supernatural, while those who self-identify as atheists hold pretty much all of the same things to be true, but are willing to round their confidence up to "good enough" in order to not look feeble next to theists?
-
I'm just gonna reiterate my last post in a TL;DR form here, since no one seemed inclined to comment on it very much.
Gnosticism is the belief that
a. there is a division between spiritual world and material world, and
b. the spiritual world should be embraced, even at the cost of losing sight of the material world.
Agnosticism, then, is the antithesis of Gnosticism in a similar way that Atheism is the antithesis of Theism.
Agnosticism is a world view that
a. is not certain whether there is a division between spiritual and material world, but acknowledges it is a possibility, but
b. it is not worthwhile to concentrate on the spiritual world at the cost of material world since we have no reliable information on it.
These terms do not fit on the same axis as Theism - Atheism (and different variations of them such as Pantheism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Antitheism, Materialism, Physicalism, etc.).
Gnosticism/Agnosticism axis describes the general opinion on how important is it to focus on the spiritual world, regardless of what a person's particular beliefs on that spiritual world may be.
As an interesting curiosity, the ancient Greeks had a very fascinating view that everything in the unicerse, or cosmos, was governed by the same set of rules (with exception of Chaos, of course). In fact, the world cosmos means...
...orderly or harmonious system. The word derives from the Greek term κόσμος (kosmos), literally meaning "order" or "ornament" and metaphorically "world",[1] and is antithetical to the concept of chaos. Today, the word is generally used as a synonym of the Latin loanword "Universe" (considered in its orderly aspect).
What the Greeks believed was that their "Deities" were governed by the exact same cosmological rules as humans, animals, and other mundane things. The only difference between the Greek gods and humans, then, was basically the level of ability and power to do things that normal humans could not. And the scale from "mundane" to "divine" was a continuous spectrum, rather than a clearly-defined limit somewhere.
Similarly, for the original hunter-gatherer peoples, it seems that their religion was concentrated on natural spirits and totems rather than omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent divine figures. These things were part of the natural world for them.
In fact, I would argue that the aforementioned definition of "God" popular particularly with the monotheistic religions is a fairly new invention and likely coincided with the formation of organized religions - possibly influenced by the birth of cities, where the rulers occasionally would claim their authority to be divine, elevating themselves to divine status (Pharaohs of Egypt, Kings of Uruk/Sumeria/Persia, Emperors of China and Japan etc.).
My rejection of theism is more of a conceptual than ideological. It stems from my basic world view which basically says that whether or not we can explain some thing, by existing it is still a natural part of the universe, and as such it is impossible for me to classify anything as "divine". That's why, should any entity make its existence known to us that would seem "divine" or even claim itself to be of divine origins... quite frankly, I would still not accept them to be "divine" by the virtue that they would exist in the natural universe.
That's why I can't describe myself as either gnostic or agnostic, since both of those require at least acknowledgement of a possibility that a "spiritual world" exists. I do not acknowledge that possibility.
In the same vein, I would describe myself as an Atheist, and specifically Materialist, Physicalist, and probably Antitheist as well.
-
Atheists are those agnostics who manage to refuse the beliefs that otherwise agnostic theists have. The latter will acknowledge there's an unsurmountable gap between the mortals and the supernatural, but they believe in belief itself. This is a very different but interesting phenomena. These people constitute the majority of believers, they mostly "trust" that there are some blokes out there that probably know and experience about this stuff, but they never had. They take this "big other" out there to be absolutely necessary for the structure of their lives and morality, but they don't like to be bossed around by absolutists who say the Lord absolutely this or absolutely that. These believers will always regard what the Pope says not as the word of God but as the word of a man.
However they do have faith. They do not know what really happens, but they believe.
This is nothing like being an atheist.
-
where did I move the goalpost?
the following is every relevant post I have made in both threads:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698183#msg1698183
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698196#msg1698196
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698199#msg1698199
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698200#msg1698200
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698202#msg1698202
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698203#msg1698203
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698206#msg1698206
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1698211#msg1698211
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698295#msg1698295
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698364#msg1698364
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698405#msg1698405
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698411#msg1698411
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698418#msg1698418
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698576#msg1698576
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698589#msg1698589
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698601#msg1698601
in which of them did I ever say anything other than some variation of "atheist is someone who lacks belief" or "atheist is the set theory absolute complement of theist" which is a logical conclusion of the first point.
(feel free to look for posts I consider irrelevant too, just trying to make this easier on you here but I understand if you don't trust me here)
I have been trying (and failing) to get across one point this entire time, and that is that atheists are not people who believe there is no god, but rather people who lack a belief in god. it is a common mischaracterization that I have been trying to correct. every time I said "atheists are people who don't believe in god" I'd have someone immediately come back with "atheists believe there is no god" over and over again. this goal post has been firmly planted here this entire time, and the reason we have been frustrated is that no matter what we say no one on the other side of this discussion has been willing to acknowledge that until now.
maybe someone else on my side ****ed up and I didn't notice it, but I at least have been consistent about this.
reviewing my previous comments the only thing I notice that I did wrong was, in my zeal to communicate the atheist/theist divide, I did mischaracterize agnostic as a proper subset of atheist, when it is in fact an improper subset. my bad. I wasn't focusing on that relationship and didn't think it through fully, sorry.
I am sort of dismayed that no one called me out on this error, because that just means no one was reading my posts, but I already knew that. though MP did address the issue, in one of his more recent posts which is why I noticed my error.
-
If it's really taken you this long to understand that atheists define themselves as people who have a lack of belief/faith in god/a higher power, there's really not much point in continuing.
And yet that is precisely the definition of atheist I have been working from since the original thread, and addressed in depth in my most recent lengthy post as well.
There is obviously a fundamental disconnect in communication going on here. Funnily enough, Herra has hit on the point, and yet pretty much everyone ignored him. I find that I agree with most of what he's written, with the exception of his last two sentences.
-
where did I move the goalpost?
I don't think you did. However, we've had various forms of the following presented as "atheism" (and not by me) from the first thread until now:
-Atheists lack belief in god(s).
-Atheists reject belief in god(s).
-Atheists do not believe in god(s).
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s).
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god(s) is an atheist.
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). (Though, being fair to Luis he pretty quickly abandoned that argument, which I suspect is because it's not where he meant to go anyway).
The first five have subtly nuanced but different meanings (lack belief is passive, reject belief is active, do not believe can be active or passive, and have no evidence is generally passive), but I have addressed all of them at one point or another and indicated how agnostics differ in regard to each of those statements.
Like I said earlier on this page (with admittedly a lot more clarity than I've said earlier): agnostics can share believe of atheists or theists; what makes them agnostic is that they think its a pointless discussion and ignore the debate altogether. In my case, I can't claim to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, because I really do maintain that I lack the data (based on the point about null hypotheses made earlier) to lean in either direction, so I can't be bothered to even deal with the notion of god(s) in general, except to try (and apparently fail) to explain my position to others.
-
-Atheists lack belief in god(s).
-Atheists reject belief in god(s).
-Atheists do not believe in god(s).
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s).
These are mostly the same stuff.
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god is an atheist.
explicitly, implicitly, where did this come from.
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). (Though, being fair to Luis he pretty quickly abandoned that argument, which I suspect is because it's not where he meant to go anyway).
This is a misreading of what I said. I was saying we have a real big collection of evidence that Yaweh is a man made invention, not something that exists. I have resaid this earlier in this very page, and here you are saying that I "abandoned that argument". It's hard to talk when one is constantly being misrepresented in this fashion.
-
-Atheists lack belief in god(s). the correct definition
-Atheists reject belief in god(s). reject can be a fuzzy word, can mean "not accept" or "actively claim to be wrong"
-Atheists do not believe in god(s). do not see a difference between this and the first definition
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s). technically true, but this is more one of many justifications for atheism, rather than defining what an atheist is
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god(s) is an atheist. a consequence of a lack of belief, though I suppose there is wiggle room for undefined gods in which case this would be incorrect
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). totally wrong
I do not see any important difference between the first three (other than my notes on the word reject), the rest are at best unclear and incomplete and at worst wrong.
an important thing to note is that all of them deal with belief, and not knowledge.
and of course the fact that atheists are those who do not have an affirmative belief, making them the set theory complement to theists (those who do have an affirmative belief).
-
-Atheists lack belief in god(s).
-Atheists reject belief in god(s).
-Atheists do not believe in god(s).
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s).
These are mostly the same stuff.
Indeed; there are, however, subtle differences in active or passive voice. Bobb's bolded part pretty much sums up the differences.
explicitly, implicitly, where did this come from.
Not to be confused with the terms used earlier, it was merely the way I captured this statement:
so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
This is a misreading of what I said. I was saying we have a real big collection of evidence that Yaweh is a man made invention, not something that exists. I have resaid this earlier in this very page, and here you are saying that I "abandoned that argument". It's hard to talk when one is constantly being misrepresented in this fashion.
If you claim there is a large collection of evidence that shows "God" is man-made, then you are saying there is evidence that "God" does not exist except as a man-made construct. I fail to see how that is misrepresentation.
-Atheists lack belief in god(s). the correct definition
-Atheists reject belief in god(s). reject can be a fuzzy word, can mean "not accept" or "actively claim to be wrong"
-Atheists do not believe in god(s). do not see a difference between this and the first definition
-Atheists have no evidence of god(s). technically true, but this is more one of many justifications for atheism, rather than defining what an atheist is
-Anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in [a] god(s) is an atheist. a consequence of a lack of belief, though I suppose there is wiggle room for undefined gods in which case this would be incorrect
-Atheists have evidence that there are no god(s). totally wrong
I do not see any important difference between the first three (other than my notes on the word reject), the rest are at best unclear and incomplete and at worst wrong.
an important thing to note is that all of them deal with belief, and not knowledge.
and of course the fact that atheists are those who do not have an affirmative belief, making them the set theory complement to theists (those who do have an affirmative belief).
Good, we mostly agree. Now that we've cleared up definitions, read this again, starting at the line "Semantics are a *****" (ignore everything before that line): http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698629#msg1698629
-
If you claim there is a large collection of evidence that shows "God" is man-made, then you are saying there is evidence that "God" does not exist except as a man-made construct. I fail to see how that is misrepresentation.
First it is a misrepresentation to say that I abandoned the idea when I restated the same this very page. It is also slightly bad faith in the sense that it portrays a smug kind of rethorics (ah! he already sees how dumb the argument was he even abandoned it!).
Second, it is a misrepresentation in the sense that you are equating the word "Yaweh" with "God". It is not the same word or concept. Of course, for Christians, Yaweh is God, God is Yaweh, but the concept of God is extremely more vague, encompassing and inclusive than the specificity of Yaweh. I state that I have evidence that Yaweh is man-made, his attributes clearly devised by human design, for all too human reasons. I have stated that I have evidence and arguments to claim that this God is surely non-existent (given a good sigma-level of certainty of course).
This is not the same as saying I have evidence God does not exist, for God can be all sorts of a different entity, that may even have some similarities with Yaweh. Or not. Hell can exist. Hell can be the place where Gods (why just a single one?) have reserved for Christians. Why not? Why yes? Everything is possible in those scenarios, and I have also said that I'm quite the Ignostic when we start talking about these possibilities.
-
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
no I don't. I have explicitly said that is not my position a number of times. in fact you quoted right there
"atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."
atheist is not "answering no to the question of god" it is "not answering yes". I would not be making this distinction at all, let alone in every other post in these threads if my position was 'anything other than "yes" was a "no"'.
constantly coming back to this mischaracterization is what is more and more making me think I am being trolled here.
not answering "yes" is not necessarily answering "no".
I am saying this my self, this is my position.
with this in mind, knowing that I do know this consider the following:
atheist means: not believing in god. (if you see a distinction between "not believe" and "lack a belief" other than one is an action and the other a state please tell me, because I do not and perhaps this is where our problem lies)
it does not mean: believing there is no god.
I do believe the distinction between these two positions is obvious. if it is not please tell me because that is where our problem lies.
even if someone answers "no" to the question "do you believe there is no god" how can they possibly not be an atheist if they do not answer "yes" to "do you believe there is a god"?
how does answering "no" to "do you believe there is no god" in any way tells you anything about if a person is or is not an atheist?
for clarity:
my position IS NOT anything other than "yes" is a "no".
atheist does NOT mean that you believe there is no god.
-
(http://www.quotesworthrepeating.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Vizzini.jpg)
-
Can I take a moment to observe from a mostly-outside perspective that you guys have now spent more than a dozen pages arguing about nothing, in both the literal and figurative senses?
-
my position IS NOT anything other than "yes" is a "no".
That's not entirely consistent with your postings on page 4, but then that's also an argument no one's made. (What MP-Ryan was discussing was your desire to consider him an atheist when he does not reject the possibility of a god-figure or the plural of them.)
-
Standing on the outside of this argument, I've noticed a possible miscommunication between bob and MP.
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
Bob is saying that anything other than an explicit "I have faith in god" means someone is an atheist. It doesn't mean that the person doesn't acknowledge the possibility of the existence of god. Merely that they have a lack of faith in them.
I'm just gonna reiterate my last post in a TL;DR form here, since no one seemed inclined to comment on it very much.
Gnosticism is the belief that
a. there is a division between spiritual world and material world, and
b. the spiritual world should be embraced, even at the cost of losing sight of the material world.
Agnosticism, then, is the antithesis of Gnosticism in a similar way that Atheism is the antithesis of Theism.
Agnosticism is a world view that
a. is not certain whether there is a division between spiritual and material world, but acknowledges it is a possibility, but
b. it is not worthwhile to concentrate on the spiritual world at the cost of material world since we have no reliable information on it.
These terms do not fit on the same axis as Theism - Atheism (and different variations of them such as Pantheism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Antitheism, Materialism, Physicalism, etc.).
That's probably a better definition for agnosticism than the one I've been working with. :yes:
-
That's not entirely consistent with your postings on page 4, but then that's also an argument no one's made. (What MP-Ryan was discussing was your desire to consider him an atheist when he does not reject the possibility of a god-figure or the plural of them.)
rejecting the possibility of a god or gods is not a requirement of being an atheist, only a lack of belief is required.
in what way does anything I say on page four make my position "anything other than 'yes' is a 'no'".
I made three potentially relevant posts on that page.
* The first was me asking for clarification that he would not answer in the affirmative that he believed gods existed. once again I will point out answering this question 'not in the affirmative' (as OPPOSED TO 'in the negative') is the one requirement to being classified as being an atheist.
* the second post was me making this same clarification to someone else who had ignored it the previous n times I had such a clarification. my point in this post was that option B was irrelevant. not that A and B were mutually exhaustive
* the fourth was me listing the four options for the two separate questions
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
please check the above sentence before telling me again that he is not an atheist because he doesn't believe there is no god again
-
Bob is saying that anything other than an explicit "I have faith in god" means someone is an atheist. It doesn't mean that the person doesn't acknowledge the possibility of the existence of god. Merely that they have a lack of faith in them.
Is that not what I just said and bobb disagreed with? Again, quoting the whole mess [underlined emphasis mine]:
so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
And then Bobb countered with:
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
no I don't. I have explicitly said that is not my position a number of times. in fact you quoted right there
"atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."
atheist is not "answering no to the question of god" it is "not answering yes". I would not be making this distinction at all, let alone in every other post in these threads if my position was 'anything other than "yes" was a "no"'.
constantly coming back to this mischaracterization is what is more and more making me think I am being trolled here.
not answering "yes" is not necessarily answering "no".
I am saying this my self, this is my position.
with this in mind, knowing that I do know this consider the following:
atheist means: not believing in god. (if you see a distinction between "not believe" and "lack a belief" other than one is an action and the other a state please tell me, because I do not and perhaps this is where our problem lies)
it does not mean: believing there is no god.
I do believe the distinction between these two positions is obvious. if it is not please tell me because that is where our problem lies.
even if someone answers "no" to the question "do you believe there is no god" how can they possibly not be an atheist if they do not answer "yes" to "do you believe there is a god"?
how does answering "no" to "do you believe there is no god" in any way tells you anything about if a person is or is not an atheist?
for clarity:
my position IS NOT anything other than "yes" is a "no".
atheist does NOT mean that you believe there is no god.
And then I was confused, because bobb has just said that if you don't answer yes to the statement "Do you believe in god(s)?" then you are an atheist... and now both I and kara have read it that way... and bobb has turned around and said that is not what he's saying, though he keeps reiterating that a lack of belief in god(s) is the definition of atheist... which in turn means that you will not answer yes to that question...
There are two underlined statements where he claims anything other than "yes" is "no," and then two where he disavows that claim. I have no idea what to make of this at this point.
/me throws up his hands in exasperation.
My dear atheist friends, this discussion would be much less painful if all of your arguments were internally-consistent. No offense, bobb, I know this is going on forever but I seriously have no idea what to make of this when you state something and then immediately state the opposite in the same post.
-
Can I take a moment to observe from a mostly-outside perspective that you guys have now spent more than a dozen pages arguing about nothing, in both the literal and figurative senses?
Don't you find it a welcome break from arguing about tangible things that require sourcing? Here we all get to demonstrate how a bunch of rational, reasonably intellectual people with sound reasoning skills can act like complete and utter idiots when philosophy rears its ugly equivocating head.
Like I said somewhere in the two-thread mess: when philosophy is the discussion, everyone loses.
-
I haven't been on HLP for two days, so I apologize for not chiming in any sooner. I think the graph karajorma is beautifully made. It explains my beliefs on what atheism, theism, and agnosticism is.
The misunderstandings seem to be clearing up at this point as well. I hope that the misunderstandings can be resolved. MP-Ryan, Bob is still saying the same thing. "Lack of faith = atheist". Contrast with "No god = atheism". The former means that anyone who is nonreligious is atheist, even some categories of agnosticism (see kara's graph). The latter defines a narrow subset of atheism.
Can I take a moment to observe from a mostly-outside perspective that you guys have now spent more than a dozen pages arguing about nothing, in both the literal and figurative senses?
You mean like Socrates? It's fun. :p
-
MP-Ryan, Bob is still saying the same thing. "Lack of faith = atheist". Contrast with "No god = atheism". The former means that anyone who is nonreligious is atheist, even some categories of agnosticism (see kara's graph). The latter defines a narrow subset of atheism.
Believe me, I get that. What has thrown me here is that he actually did say that if you can't answer "yes" when someone poses the question "Is there (a) god(s)?" then you are an atheist, which is not true at all.
The notion that atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) is one I am completely on board with. It's the earlier statement that I take issue with, because it automatically lumps all agnostics into atheism, whereas the lack of belief in god(s) does not. In point of fact, it's the earlier statement that I've taken issue with all along. I've repeatedly said or given examples to illustrate that agnostics generally have neither lack of belief in god(s) nor belief in god(s).
-
There are two underlined statements where he claims anything other than "yes" is "no," and then two where he disavows that claim. I have no idea what to make of this at this point.
That you misread what he said?
He didn't say "anything other than a 'yes' is a 'no'", he said "anything other than a 'yes' makes you an atheist". If you're saying "being an atheist means saying 'no' to the question of whether or not gods exist", that means you're still using the incorrect definition of atheism Bobb has complained about in his past... three? posts now.
To make it absolutely explicit, you have admitted to not being a theist. By definition, this makes you an atheist. Please stop arguing about it, kthx.
-
For the interests of this thread, are the following definitions agreeable? These are the definitions I've been using for some time now, so
All theists believe in at least one god.
All atheists have no belief in any god.
Some atheists believe it might still be possible for there to be gods, but they have no active belief in any particular god. [weak atheism]
Some atheists believe it is impossible for there to be gods. [strong atheism]
Reasoning for either sub-type of atheists can vary.
Gnostics believe there's a spiritual world that is more important than material world.
Agnostics acknowledge there is at least a possibility that a spiritual world exists, but tend to think that material world is more important than something we have no reliable information on.
If some formulation of grammatical details is disagreeable, I can maybe work on it, but for now I really must sleep. :p
-
There are two underlined statements where he claims anything other than "yes" is "no," and then two where he disavows that claim. I have no idea what to make of this at this point.
That you misread what he said?
He didn't say "anything other than a 'yes' is a 'no'", he said "anything other than a 'yes' makes you an atheist". If you're saying "being an atheist means saying 'no' to the question of whether or not gods exist", that means you're still using the incorrect definition of atheism Bobb has complained about in his past... three? posts now.
Maybe that's my bad for using yes and no without further clarification, but I meant precisely that he was saying anything other than a "yes" to the question "Is there a god(s)?" makes one an atheist...
To make it absolutely explicit, you have admitted to not being a theist. By definition, this makes you an atheist. Please stop arguing about it, kthx.
No, it doesn't - which is what - what, 15 pages? - of discussion are about in the first place. This is not a case where there are only two mutually-exclusive options. In saying this you either haven't been paying attention or you are deliberately ignoring the context of the discussion. In either case, either read the thread and follow the discussion or stay out of it, but condescending **** like 'kthx' has no place in this discussion.
-
so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
you said that I said "anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no". which was not my position.
what i said that had anything like the phrase "anything other than an explicit "yes" is..." was that anything other than a yes means you are an atheist, because "atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god." atheists do not necessarily answer "no", they just don't answer yes, much like what you do.
how do you read this:
"not answering "yes" is not necessarily answering "no"."
and then pull from that the meaning:
"anything other than "yes" is "no,""
?
I'm not even going to try to touch the first one until I understand this. because in my mind the first part is a direct refutation of the second, maybe I'm just high or something and don't know it.
-
For the interests of this thread, are the following definitions agreeable? These are the definitions I've been using for some time now, so
All theists believe in at least one god.
All atheists have no belief in any god.
Some atheists believe it might still be possible for there to be gods, but they have no active belief in any particular god. [weak atheism]
Some atheists believe it is impossible for there to be gods. [strong atheism]
Reasoning for either sub-type of atheists can vary.
Gnostics believe there's a spiritual world that is more important than material world.
Agnostics acknowledge there is at least a possibility that a spiritual world exists, but tend to think that material world is more important than something we have no reliable information on.
If some formulation of grammatical details is disagreeable, I can maybe work on it, but for now I really must sleep. :p
If you change "All atheists have no belief in any god" and replace the words "have no" with "lack," that captures what the atheist crowd has generally maintained.
So hell yes I agree with these definitions.
-
so all one needs in order to be classified as an atheist is to not answer in the affirmative to the question "do you believe there is a god". If you answer " not sure" then you clearly do not posses a belief in it, you don't know, you are agnostic, but as a necessary condition you also do not have belief in it you are therefore an atheist. the fact that you don't believe there is no god is irrelevant because... say it with me...
atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god.
Here, bobb says anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no. Which is what this whole argument is about - I'm saying there is a position between yes and no that is basically "don't care, let's talk about something else."
you said that I said "anything other than an explicit "yes" is a no". which was not my position.
It's what you implied in the originally-quoted post. You created two categories: yes, and anything other than yes (which is the implied 'no'). Part of this is my fault because that's what I should have captured my critique of it as, rather than using the word 'no' which has created all kinds of confusion on this page.
-
I was very specifically NOT implying 'no'.
I went so far out of my way to say 'not yes' as opposed to 'no' why wouldn't I have just said yes and no if that was my intention? am I intentionally obfuscating?
-
f you change "All atheists have no belief in any god" and replace the words "have no" with "lack," that captures what the atheist crowd has generally maintained.
To be honest that makes it sound like atheists are lacking something [that they should have].
I do not lack belief - I just never acquired it...
So, if only for the negative connotations, I'm feeling disinclined to change the wording with the given reasoning. If you can give a better reason, I'll reconsider it. Functionally, though, I think it's the same thing.
One thing I'm not certain about is whether a form of agnosticism could be so opposed to gnosticism that it would outright reject even the possibility of a "spiritual world" from existing. That would, of course, make it synonymous with strong atheism, and is in fact included in the premises for strong atheism, but it might simply not make sense to expand the definition there.
-
No, it doesn't - which is what - what, 15 pages? - of discussion are about in the first place. This is not a case where there are only two mutually-exclusive options.
And having read all of those pages as you repeatedly ignored what your interlocutors were actually saying, trust me, in this case, there are two mutually-exclusive options. An "atheist" is "anyone who is not a theist", and since you are in that category, you are an atheist. Congratulations.
In saying this you either haven't been paying attention or you are deliberately ignoring the context of the discussion. In either case, either read the thread and follow the discussion or stay out of it, but condescending **** like 'kthx' has no place in this discussion.
Ha ha, yes, clearly I have been ignoring the context of this discussion, which is why I read every single page and finally got so aggravated with your (hopefully unintentional) missing the point so completely that I had to say what Bobboau has been inartfully trying to say from the very beginning: It is not possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist; this isn't a "Schrodinger's cat" scenario, this is basic set theory; are you in the set of people that are theists? No? Congratulations, that makes you an atheist. Why you spent so long arguing against this simple point (and in an extremely patronizing manner, I might add, what with your claiming the "scientific high ground") is beyond me, but there you go.
-
I was very specifically NOT implying 'no'.
OK, then kindly reconcile that with the following (which I understand to be your position):
"Is there (a) god(s)?" -> "Yes" -> theist.
"Is there (a) god(s)?" -> Anything other than "yes" -> atheist.
You - not me - maintained earlier that this is a two option state: either theist or atheist. If "yes" means theist and "anything other than yes" means atheist - in your view - then "anything other than yes" is an implied no because you're framing this as a binary choice.
Now, if you are not framing this as a binary choice and recognize that there is an option where "anything other than yes" can place a person into categories other than atheist, then I agree that there is not an implied "no." However, if you're still framing this as a binary choice, you're going to have to give a better explanation of how the no is not implied (realizing that I understand the premise that a lack of belief in god is not the same as saying there is no god and have since it was first mentioned).
If it's unclear above, I'm trying to get you to reconcile how you can believe there are more than two types of answer to the question, yet only two possible camps people can be lumped into. Herra gets this. I'm not sure that you and possibly kara do. This whole debate is between people saying there are three (or more) philosophical camps, and people saying there are only two which are mutually-exclusive.
-
No, it doesn't - which is what - what, 15 pages? - of discussion are about in the first place. This is not a case where there are only two mutually-exclusive options.
And having read all of those pages as you repeatedly ignored what your interlocutors were actually saying, trust me, in this case, there are two mutually-exclusive options. An "atheist" is "anyone who is not a theist", and since you are in that category, you are an atheist. Congratulations.
In saying this you either haven't been paying attention or you are deliberately ignoring the context of the discussion. In either case, either read the thread and follow the discussion or stay out of it, but condescending **** like 'kthx' has no place in this discussion.
Ha ha, yes, clearly I have been ignoring the context of this discussion, which is why I read every single page and finally got so aggravated with your (hopefully unintentional) missing the point so completely that I had to say what Bobboau has been inartfully trying to say from the very beginning: It is not possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist; this isn't a "Schrodinger's cat" scenario, this is basic set theory; are you in the set of people that are theists? No? Congratulations, that makes you an atheist. Why you spent so long arguing against this simple point (and in an extremely patronizing manner, I might add, what with your claiming the "scientific high ground") is beyond me, but there you go.
And yet several people have provided very good reason why this is not a binary scenario, which you seem to have missed completely or dismissed outright. At any rate, I'm not arguing with someone who wants to simply assert how things are without any reasoning to explain that.
It is perfectly possible to be neither theist nor atheist, as has been argued for pages upon pages. If you disagree with that, then join the debate, don't issue decrees.
-
this isn't a "Schrodinger's cat" scenario, this is basic set theory
It still has not been established that this is the case. That's why this discussion continues. You're not establishing it either.
-
This whole debate is between people saying there are three (or more) philosophical camps, and people saying there are only two which are mutually-exclusive.
Nooooo, no no no no no no no.
People aren't saying there are only two philosophical camps, they've been saying (you know, repeatedly) that the "theist/atheist" and the "gnostic/agnostic" questions are entirely separate.
And yet several people have provided very good reason why this is not a binary scenario, which you seem to have missed completely or dismissed outright.
So tell me, in what way are you not part of the set of people who are not theists?
-
f you change "All atheists have no belief in any god" and replace the words "have no" with "lack," that captures what the atheist crowd has generally maintained.
To be honest that makes it sound like atheists are lacking something [that they should have].
I do not lack belief - I just never acquired it...
So, if only for the negative connotations, I'm feeling disinclined to change the wording with the given reasoning. If you can give a better reason, I'll reconsider it. Functionally, though, I think it's the same thing.
It's not me you have to answer to, it's bobb at this point :P I was just going with the definition he and kara have been most inclined to use.
One thing I'm not certain about is whether a form of agnosticism could be so opposed to gnosticism that it would outright reject even the possibility of a "spiritual world" from existing. That would, of course, make it synonymous with strong atheism, and is in fact included in the premises for strong atheism, but it might simply not make sense to expand the definition there.
I have never met a self-described agnostic that outright rejected existence of the spiritual world, probably because - as you said - that generally makes a person jump off the gnostic-agnostic scale and fall into the atheist category on the atheism-theism scale.
-
This whole debate is between people saying there are three (or more) philosophical camps, and people saying there are only two which are mutually-exclusive.
Nooooo, no no no no no no no.
People aren't saying there are only two philosophical camps, they've been saying (you know, repeatedly) that the "theist/atheist" and the "gnostic/agnostic" questions are entirely separate.
Actually, that only came up fairly recently with Herra's posts.
That said, even if the scales are separate that does not mean there isn't a position between atheist and theist.
And yet several people have provided very good reason why this is not a binary scenario, which you seem to have missed completely or dismissed outright.
So tell me, in what way are you not part of the set of people who are not theists?
Awful double negatives aside, I don't have a lack of belief in god(s) any more than I have a belief in god(s). The premise of the theist/atheist debate is one I rejected entirely because I believe it to be utterly pointless because it cannot be scientifically tested and probably will never be. Which is what I've been saying - cats, coins, and all the rest - since page bloody one.
I'm agnostic. You guys are arguing about the existence of teapots; I don't even drink tea and don't give a **** about tea, pots, or anything related to them other than how the people arguing about them want to impose those belief sets on reality.
-
"anything other than yes" is an implied no because you're framing this as a binary choice.
you had me until this. 'anything other than yes' is 'anything other than yes'
it is binary, it is 'yes' and 'not yes', NOT 'yes' and 'no'.
There are 'not yes' options that also also be 'not no', this would be options such as but not limited to 'I don't know' or 'have not decided', or 'it's possible'.
These options are what the vast majority of atheists actual hold.
Mine is 'do not know', that is my knowledge statement on the issue.
I (do not have/lack) an affirmative belief in god(s), therefore I am not a theist, therefore I am an atheist.
-
"anything other than yes" is an implied no because you're framing this as a binary choice.
you had me until this. 'anything other than yes' is 'anything other than yes'
it is binary, it is 'yes' and 'not yes', NOT 'yes' and 'no'.
There are 'not yes' options that also also be 'not no', this would be options such as but not limited to 'I don't know' or 'have not decided', or 'it's possible'.
These options are what the vast majority of atheists actual hold.
Mine is 'do not know', that is my knowledge statement on the issue.
I (do not have/lack) an affirmative belief in god(s), therefore I am not a theist, therefore I am an atheist.
I was completely on board with this post until your last line. I might still be on board with it if you're only claiming the last line is your interpretation and applies only to your particular rationale for calling yourself atheist. If you mean that as generally principle, then I obviously disagree because I maintain the atheist/theist scale is not a binary choice.
We're now 8 pages into thread #2, and no one has yet provided a convincing argument as to why a person can only be theist or atheist. kara attempted to several times, but then we got lost in semantics for a few pages. I still maintain that there is a space where a person can be neither theist nor atheist because they choose not to even enter that discussion. Are you arguing that anyone who chooses not to enter the debate is automatically atheist? Every child under 2 is automatically an atheist, as is every spiritual person whose beliefs don't include deities? That seems unfair both to actual atheists and all of the people I just mentioned who actively choose not to identify as atheist because it is not compatible with their beliefs.
-
It's not me you have to answer to, it's bobb at this point :P I was just going with the definition he and kara have been most inclined to use.
[/quote
"lack" and "have no" are logically equivalent as far as I know, he was only objecting to the subjective tone the word 'lack' has.
-
I was completely on board with this post until your last line. I might still be on board with it if you're only claiming the last line is your interpretation and applies only to your particular rationale for calling yourself atheist. If you mean that as generally principle, then I obviously disagree because I maintain the atheist/theist scale is not a binary choice.
ok, so this all boils down to us having different definitions of what the word atheist means?
-
Awful double negatives aside, I don't have a lack of belief in god(s) any more than I have a belief in god(s).
Not having a belief in god(s) is lacking a belief in god(s). Otherwise, please provide your definition of the word "lack".
The premise of the theist/atheist debate is one I rejected entirely because I believe it to be utterly pointless because it cannot be scientifically tested and probably will never be. Which is what I've been saying - cats, coins, and all the rest - since page bloody one.
Which... doesn't make you not an atheist.
-
I was completely on board with this post until your last line. I might still be on board with it if you're only claiming the last line is your interpretation and applies only to your particular rationale for calling yourself atheist. If you mean that as generally principle, then I obviously disagree because I maintain the atheist/theist scale is not a binary choice.
ok, so this all boils down to us having different definitions of what the word atheist means?
Perhaps? See here: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1698765#msg1698765
-
Not having a belief in god(s) is lacking a belief in god(s). Otherwise, please provide your definition of the word "lack".
Having a belief or not having a belief is a choice - one which agnostics haven't made. Insert cat.
The premise of the theist/atheist debate is one I rejected entirely because I believe it to be utterly pointless because it cannot be scientifically tested and probably will never be. Which is what I've been saying - cats, coins, and all the rest - since page bloody one.
Which... doesn't make you not an atheist.
It doesn't make me not a theist, either.
Again - there are not just two options, no matter how much some of you want it to be that way.
-
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist)
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist)
a disbelief in the existence of deity
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheist)
"disbelieves or denies"
basically this means the word can be used to refer to people who have an active belief that no god exists OR to people who simply passively lack belief.
The second meaning is the more common extant person going by the atheist label.
and if you have no belief it does not mean you chose not to...
-
"No belief in gods" is subtly different from "Belief that there are no gods".
I agree with Bobboau on the purely semantic definition that anyone not belonging to the category of "theist" is by process of elimination an atheist.
However, it does a disservice to atheism to forget that there are a multitude of variations to theism. There is pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, autotheism and what have you.
Why should atheism be a restrictive single-class descriptor? Clearly, there are people with different types of non-belief.
The biggest of those would be the difference between weak and strong atheism, which can be best demonstrated with scientific terminology.
Weak atheism considers the God-claim to be unproven, unverified, and usually unlikely claim, but proponents of weak atheism do not outright reject the possibility of a god existing.
Strong atheism, for whatever reason, considers God-claim to be a falsified claim, but in this case falsification is not done by empirical experimentation but rather the definition of "God" being shown to be in contradiction with some logical premises.*
Regardless, theists and weak atheists can be either gnostic or agnostic. If you say you're agnostic, that doesn't automatically mean that you're either atheist or theist.
An example of an agnostic theist would be a person that believes that there is a "spiritual world" in general sense, demonstrated by belief in a particular deity or more, but considers the material world more important than worrying over the spiritual world.
*In my case, the first premise of my thinking is that everything that exists is a natural part of the universe; ergo, supernatural things do not exist. All divine things would also be supernatural, therefore nothing that exists can be divine. Ergo, if gods exist, they can't be divine, but are instead a natural part of the universe.
And if a god is not divine, it's not a god. It might have powers and abilities beyond our understanding, but on fundamental level, it would still be a conscious entity existing in the universe, just as we do. If such an entity appeared I might be awed or dumbstruck by its intellect, power, and general abilities, but my way of thinking simply does not include a viable definition of "divine".
I would rather approach a being like this as a peer, rather than as a subservient creature offering meaningless worship. Not to insult any believers, but you'll probably understand why most religions make little sense to me.
-
Now we seem to have gotten to the bottom of the disagreement.
For many of us proclaimed atheists that have posted in this thread, atheism and theism is binary. Using the same terminology in the thread, theism is "yes" and atheism is "anything other than yes". That is our definition of atheism. It is a very broad definition of atheism that includes agnostics.
While the discussion on gnosticism is recent, karajorma already had a two axes graph that clearly distinguished between theism and atheism. In that graph, agnostics can be theistic or atheistic or neither. Points that karajorma did not plot are the points between strongly agnostic atheist, strongly agnostic theist, and agnostic atheist.
While I myself believe that not having faith is lacking faith, even if one hasn't made a choice about the existence of god, given the definition above, a person who chooses not to make the choice is an atheist because it is "anything other than yes". Again, that does not make you any less of an agnostic.
You can deny the definition, but then the discussion becomes pointless. Because then we are arguing different things. It comes down to:
If definition above is accepted, you are an atheist as well as an agnostic. Atheism is not necessarily "no god" but rather "lacking faith".
If definition above is not accepted, you are an agnostic. Atheism is "no god".
-
Not having a belief in god(s) is lacking a belief in god(s). Otherwise, please provide your definition of the word "lack".
Having a belief or not having a belief is a choice - one which agnostics haven't made. Insert cat.
Babies don't choose not to believe in god(s), but they're still atheists. Also, Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with choices at all. Remove cat.
-
To be honest that makes it sound like atheists are lacking something [that they should have].
I do not lack belief - I just never acquired it...
So, if only for the negative connotations, I'm feeling disinclined to change the wording with the given reasoning. If you can give a better reason, I'll reconsider it. Functionally, though, I think it's the same thing.
Functionally it's the same thing. But given the number of pages this discussion has run to. I really don't think people understand (or want to understand) that having no belief in god is not the same as saying that there is no god. So I tend to use the word lack because it's punchier. Same with faith instead of belief. Belief is a word used far too often in general conversation to work in a discussion like this one.
-
finally! we may yet know peace in our time!
-
Interesting.
So you all assert that atheism is the default position of all of humanity, an unconscious position with no choice made that we all implicitly share from birth, unless we choose theism at some point in our lives? Everyone is born an atheist whether they choose to identify as such or not?
I just want to be sure. I don't agree with this premise, and I'm not sure all of you have thought-through the implications of this premise, but this discussion is the first I've ever heard atheism actually described in this manner. Typically, atheism/theism is defined as a conscious choosing (even a lack of belief is a choice, given the reality of the prominence of religion in our world).
I have some more to add, but I'm curious to see if this premise is correct in your views.
-
I'd already said as much earlier in the discussion.
Also. The wikipedia page on Atheism you linked to (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1697775#msg1697775) says this.
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".
It's this kind of thing that has convinced me that this is a bad faith argument. You're clearly not even reading your own sources.
-
I had a post written, but karajorma said what I was going to say better.
-
I'd already said as much earlier in the discussion.
Also. The wikipedia page on Atheism you linked to (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1697775#msg1697775) says this.
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".
It's this kind of thing that has convinced me that this is a bad faith argument. You're clearly not even reading your own sources.
I didn't link to a page with that content, kara. I linked to an article on agnosticism. I just searched it in case I missed it, and the quoted section you just posted does not appear anywhere on that page. I'm not sure where you just pulled that quote from, but it wasn't my source in the post you just linked to. A quick Google search suggest it came from the wiki page on Atheism, which you linked to, not me. This is the second time you've accused me of an argument in bad faith where none exists. Please stop.
-
Ah, my bad. I thought you'd linked to atheism on that one too. Still, there's something going on here that I don't particularly want to be part of. It is clear you've not bothered to read the wikipedia definition of atheism and that really, really should have been required reading for this discussion.
-
It is clear you've not bothered to read the wikipedia definition of atheism and that really, really should have been required reading for this discussion.
For all that I love wikipedia, if you're considering their thoughts on philosophy binding upon the rest of us...
-
Wikipedia was necessary to establish the definition of atheism that some of us used. Any other sources could have been used as well, but we're all familiar with Wiki anyway to bother looking for something less familiar.
-
For all that I love wikipedia, if you're considering their thoughts on philosophy binding upon the rest of us...
Given that he posted the link on agnosticism as a good primer. I think it behoves him to at least read the article on atheism for the exact same reason
-
So you all assert that atheism is the default position of all of humanity, an unconscious position with no choice made that we all implicitly share from birth, unless we choose theism at some point in our lives? Everyone is born an atheist whether they choose to identify as such or not?
yes.
-
I'd already said as much earlier in the discussion.
Also. The wikipedia page on Atheism you linked to (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84955.msg1697775#msg1697775) says this.
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".
Alright, so to address the argument. First, relying on this paragraph from the Wikipedia page on atheism courtesy of kara, we have some opposing views already - we have one suggestion that breaks atheism down into subsets, while another contradicts that argument. Even the philosophers don't seem to agree what constitutes an atheist.
But let's roll with the notion that all people are atheists until they choose otherwise. Semantically, it's not a flawed position. Practically, it may be. It has the effect of including all kinds of people who don't want to refer to themselves as atheists, or who may shortly be theists. It waters down the atheist position by adding massive numbers of people into subsets of atheism who are only there by virtue of the fact that they exist. By this notion, to be human is to be atheist, unless you make a choice to add beliefs to your personal belief system. It makes the idea of being an atheist generally a worthless descriptor - now, in order to convey a point about your belief system, you're left explaining to other people what implicit versus explicit versus gnostic versus agnostic atheism is, then identifying where you fall (if them and not a myriad of other atheist descriptors).
On a philosophical level there is no obvious logical fault in this, dilution of the atheist pool of thought notwithstanding, although on a purely philosophical level I do find some objection to people who have not made a decision being lumped into a philosophical camp with people who have made a very clear decision without any conscious action on their part, especially given the reality of how atheism is typically viewed in society at large.
I don't know if setting the definition of atheism this wide helps or hurts atheism as a whole. I suspect hurts, which is where Nagel appears to be coming from too. Regardless, there seems to be dissent in this matter. Given the uncertainty even among atheist philosophers, it's not an expansion I'm comfortable with, particularly because I've made a conscious decision not to discuss the merits of atheism versus theism in wider debate, but to focus on material matters.
That said, I suppose if you folks want to use this definition of atheism then it probably includes me. Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment. A wide definition just confuses the matter more, I think.
-
atheism is a
religion philosophical position, like not collecting stamps is a hobby?
I'm guessing you've not heard that one either?
-
Given that he posted the link on agnosticism as a good primer. I think it behoves him to at least read the article on atheism for the exact same reason
And had you suggested that I may have done so, but as you quoted specific portions of it explicitly I relied on your references to discuss your points while skimming the actual article. I'm going to hazard a guess that you didn't read the entire agnosticism article word-by-word either, which is perfectly reasonable.
-
Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.
What is "an unconscious belief in god(s)"?
-
Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.
What is "an unconscious belief in god(s)"?
Good question. I can't answer it. Go sit by yourself on the edge of a mirror lake in the mountains at dusk sometime and you might experience it (typically its where I have). "Gut feeling" is probably the best descriptor I can put to it. And yeah, that's a complete anathema to my usually-rationalist approach - I'm well aware of what a contradiction this is. Regardless, it's an intensely personal experience that defies explanation.
-
For the interests of this thread, are the following definitions agreeable? These are the definitions I've been using for some time now, so
All theists believe in at least one god.
All atheists have no belief in any god.
Some atheists believe it might still be possible for there to be gods, but they have no active belief in any particular god. [weak atheism]
Some atheists believe it is impossible for there to be gods. [strong atheism]
Reasoning for either sub-type of atheists can vary.
Gnostics believe there's a spiritual world that is more important than material world.
Agnostics acknowledge there is at least a possibility that a spiritual world exists, but tend to think that material world is more important than something we have no reliable information on.
:yes:
-
Unfortunately, if you apply the same expansion to theism - theism is an unconscious belief in god(s) - then I may be theist depending on the moment.
What is "an unconscious belief in god(s)"?
Good question. I can't answer it. Go sit by yourself on the edge of a mirror lake in the mountains at dusk sometime and you might experience it (typically its where I have). "Gut feeling" is probably the best descriptor I can put to it. And yeah, that's a complete anathema to my usually-rationalist approach - I'm well aware of what a contradiction this is. Regardless, it's an intensely personal experience that defies explanation.
We're all human. :) I still can't imagine having an unconscious faith in god(s), but I can't deny it's impossible either.
When I do what you describe, I am awed at how great life is. It happens a lot for me.
-
And had you suggested that I may have done so, but as you quoted specific portions of it explicitly I relied on your references to discuss your points while skimming the actual article. I'm going to hazard a guess that you didn't read the entire agnosticism article word-by-word either, which is perfectly reasonable.
I skimmed it. But only cause I'd read the whole thing previously. Otherwise I'd have read it.
I'm not going to a discussion on agnosticism without having done my basic research.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism
you might be interested in that, MP-Ryan.
-
I had previously indicated that the difference may rest in psychological terms and not exactly in philosophical, rigorous terms. MP's latest commentary is, IMHO, a confirmation of this intuition:
Go sit by yourself on the edge of a mirror lake in the mountains at dusk sometime and you might experience it (typically its where I have). "Gut feeling" is probably the best descriptor I can put to it. And yeah, that's a complete anathema to my usually-rationalist approach - I'm well aware of what a contradiction this is. Regardless, it's an intensely personal experience that defies explanation.
I do not think it "defies explanation". I think that we are just having difficulties working it out in here, as the stupid mortals that we are (don't get insulted please, I am just being humble here).
So we have here two different sets of discussions. The first is more philosophical, the second emotional. I do tend to agree with Bob that we are all born atheists and I don't mind this dillution at all. For instance:
Semantically, it's not a flawed position. Practically, it may be. It has the effect of including all kinds of people who don't want to refer to themselves as atheists, or who may shortly be theists. It waters down the atheist position by adding massive numbers of people into subsets of atheism who are only there by virtue of the fact that they exist. By this notion, to be human is to be atheist, unless you make a choice to add beliefs to your personal belief system. It makes the idea of being an atheist generally a worthless descriptor - now, in order to convey a point about your belief system, you're left explaining to other people what implicit versus explicit versus gnostic versus agnostic atheism is, then identifying where you fall (if them and not a myriad of other atheist descriptors).
There is no watering down from the current definition that atheists do not harbor belief in God. Now, as you correctly put it, this is also (and probably mostly) an emotional state of mind, and for one I don't really think we can get much enlightment on this from the children, who are (again sorry if I am insulting anyone) pretty dumb at everything, even emotionally. But if a kid isn't emotionally bombarded with these feelings of divinity from the culture surrouding him/her, we can be pretty sure he/she is an atheist.
What I am really interested in, however, is what kind of conclusion one gets after experiencing both states of mind. That is, before a kid gets this emotional baggage being thrown at him/her, I'd equate such a state as being virginal of a sort. One must get into the real troubles of faith, experience that stuff and have the kind of emotional presence that MP talks about to know what the hell one is discussing, to understand the problem, to then rightfully consider oneself an atheist or a theist.
PS: The question of the numenous, the transcendant, it is very important to me. I have some problems when I suspect someone doesn't experience this vertigo of existence in certain moments of life, as if I'm dealing with a robot or something.
-
What I am really interested in, however, is what kind of conclusion one gets after experiencing both states of mind. That is, before a kid gets this emotional baggage being thrown at him/her, I'd equate such a state as being virginal of a sort. One must get into the real troubles of faith, experience that stuff and have the kind of emotional presence that MP talks about to know what the hell one is discussing, to understand the problem, to then rightfully consider oneself an atheist or a theist.
Precisely. Like I said, my inherent issue with looking at atheism in the unconscious sense is that it doesn't require a decision by a rational actor. I'm fond of Locke's tabula rasa, and given all the connotative baggage that the word "atheist" contains, it seems unfair to apply it to a state of non-decision.
I guess I just like Nagel's interpretation better, though Smith's isn't wrong :P
-
Thing is, there are whole societies where atheism is the norm and these high emotions don't even register with the inhabittants as slightly more than what they are, emotions, awe, vertigo, part of the human condition, and so on. These people do not seem to have the need to suffer through theism or deism or pantheism or panentheism (curiously that Spinoza was accused of atheism) or whatever to be atheists. That is why I rather prefer the more inclusive term, for it also points to a not-so utopia world where atheism is the norm (the agnostic kind, of course, not the stalinist kind) and we don't have to suffer these issues to become men and women.
Just like people nowadays don't need to suffer the state of mind where one believes in magic in order to leave that nonsense away.
-
So now my dog is an atheist too? How is she supposed to go to heaven then? There is a business opportunity here.
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmoo9sryJN1qdpigco1_400.jpg)
-
Sorry, I afraid it's purgatory on account of presumed atheism for all dogs, cats, protists, and the keyboard I'm typing this on.
-
I'm willing to abandon the belief that I have an eternal soul, but I refuse to accept that my dog's soul won't go to heaven when she dies. That is where I draw the line. Annabelle is going to heaven, and that's that.
-
So you all assert that atheism is the default position of all of humanity, an unconscious position with no choice made that we all implicitly share from birth, unless we choose theism at some point in our lives? Everyone is born an atheist whether they choose to identify as such or not?
yes.
I think this is dead wrong.
You are not born an atheist, because at that stage, we have no knowledge of what divinity is, even so, what is human. Newborns at that point have not developed a firm series of relationships we used to define and extrapolate meaning. This is a very flawed, dangerous question of knowledge pertaining to things the newborn has no scope of.
At that point, we have no real conception of advanced concepts of higher powers and even science. The problem is that from the atheistic standpoint, we trying to assign a state of meaning to a state of nothing, not even existing. You're trying to supply a solution at a point where no such question exists, nor matters from the viewpoint of newborn.
-
at that stage, we have no knowledge of what divinity is
...
At that point, we have no real conception of advanced concepts of higher powers
exactly.
-
at that stage, we have no knowledge of what divinity is
...
At that point, we have no real conception of advanced concepts of higher powers
exactly.
That's ignorance. You're equating it as the same as a choice you've made to not believe. The problem with this should be obvious.
-
If theists are sheeple and actual sheep are atheists, can man-sheep marriage equality be far behind?
-
Why is it that when a child not yet has comprehension of the concept of "divinity" that would make them neither atheist or theist...
...when older people who do have a concept of "divinity" seem to usually equate it to "incomprehensible" anyway?
This is not just a cute word game, but something I'm actually interested in. I have never yet met anyone who would explain "divinity" in terms that don't include some form of "we cannot understand it" or "it is beyond our comprehension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wisHcuBzTCM)".
There are a lot of things that children can't comprehend, it's a natural state of existence to them. There's nothing strange or supernatural about things they don't understand, because MOST things appear just as strange to them.
When we get older, we learn about some things, either exactly how they work, or we learn that there is an explanation for them but don't yet fully understand them (but are told that we will learn about that later), and some questions we don't get certain answers to because there are none.
In many cases, we then adopt someone else's speculations about what might be the answer to that particular question. And often we assign a new name to those things that we deem un-answerable.
After all, a brief look into the etymology of the word "divine" tells us that it is
"to conjure, to guess," originally "to make out by supernatural insight," mid-14c., from Old French deviner, from Vulgar Latin *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from Latin divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant "soothsayer."
In this regard, I'm pretty sure that the base state of humanity is indeed atheistic, because theism is a learned thing.
However, I agree with MP-Ryan in that it makes very little sense to classify small children by the same words we use of ourselves, because the words "atheist" and "theist" would mean absolutely nothing to those children until they themselves can understand the meaning of the words.
In the end, people are what they are, and it is the greatest of follies to assume that you can label everyone and expect them to be the same as others you've marked with the same label. In the end, all these terms are fairly meaningless outside academic discussion about our world views; at best, they're a shortcut to giving some sort of briefing to another person's world view, but more often than not it's not even that useful because - as we've demonstrated - many of the terms are used with wildly varying definitions.
-
The base state of humanity is an idiot in need of protection and comfort in the face of death.
The brain is a vector for disease of insecurity and the desperate need for guidance, due to the natural state of a human being that of a moron. There are endless cures for this affliction, though the three main ones which satisfy the prerequisites are well known to us, because of their evolution throughout the hundreds and in some cases, thousands of years of propagation (and they are all one and the same technically speaking, thus not even three, but one idea branching ever outwards to satisfy the morphology of the disease as it changes with the times).
There are those however that can overcome their natural afflicted state. It requires foundations to be laid during the formative years which would provide insight potent enough to pierce the snake oil cures mentioned above, or a string of experiences to trigger the defense mechanism which would deal with the disease. Just the same, foundations can be laid so as to accelerate the gestation of the disease, making its effects more potent as the subject reaches adulthood.
I'm willing to abandon the belief that I have an eternal soul, but I refuse to accept that my dog's soul won't go to heaven when she dies. That is where I draw the line. Annabelle is going to heaven, and that's that.
I regret to inform you that Annabelle does not meet the prerequisites Heaven requires for admittance of entry. By all the rules which are not founded on interpretations, Annabelle is destined only for hell eternal or purgatory, due to the technical nature of her existence. The source literature on the topic is unfortunately quite clear that strict guidelines must be obeyed for admittance into Paradise, and any and all attempts to get around these facts are unfortunately based off of interpretation alone.
Personally, I wish her the best of luck in that place of sorrow and torment, and I do hope that you yourself meet the guidelines and regulations, so that you may enter Paradise and exist in eternal bliss, happiness and joy. One only hopes Annabelle's absence and your own cognizance of her failure to be with you will not dent your serene everlasting existence.
-
That's ignorance. You're equating it as the same as a choice you've made to not believe. The problem with this should be obvious.
It's been explained about a dozen times that there is a difference between an implicit and an explicit atheist.
-
It's been explained about a dozen times that there is a difference between an implicit and an explicit atheist.
Yes, but it's never been explained why we should actually consider implicit atheism to be actually atheism, rather than merely ignorance of the question posed by atheism as it is commonly used. It seems more like trying to say "we've got lots of people like us, see!" rather than an actual reasoned approach to the question of what counts as atheism; a basic appeal to the crowd that lots of people totally believe this and so you should too.
-
because if you are ignorant to the concept of a god you cannot, and thus do not, have a belief in it. and as has been mentioned ad-nausium "atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."
it is lacking a belief, if it is from ignorance, inability to think, or a well thought out choice it does not matter. it is simply not believing in a god. it is literally not-a-theist.
why is this so hard for people to comprehend?
-
because if you are ignorant to the concept of a god you cannot, and thus do not, have a belief in it. and as has been mentioned ad-nausium "atheist does not mean that you believe there is no god."
It is, in the same token, ignorance of the concept of not believing in a god, because you have no concept of what not believing in a god is. (Because you have no concept of what a god is. Or what believing is.)
Why is that a hard concept for you?
-
yes. it is also that. I do not see how that effects anything. atheism is not defined by any belief you do have or are capable of having, or beliefs you did or did not choose to believe or not belief, but rather simply by the beliefs (well, belief, there is only one that matters) you do not have. it is simply a word that describes your present status in regards to possessing that belief, how that status came about or if has been like that the whole time is not factored in.
-
So basically your argument is that someone who is incapable of any form of belief should be lumped into the category of something that is also a personal belief of your own. Because you have chosen to define your personal belief as a lack of belief.
And incapability is different from lack, by the way, this seems to be hard concept for you. You can be charged with a crime and get off because of a lack of criminal intent (usually involving an insanity defense, but not always), and you can be charged with a crime and get off because you are unable to commit it. These are very different things. So it is here, and you seem oddly eager to ignore that.
You can see why this is problematic, right? I'm not talking to a wall here? This argument isn't just suspect in that it rejects an non-involved position for someone who is utterly incapable of being involved in this discussion, it also comes across as ultimately self-serving by so doing.
-
Why is the simple fact that the word atheist by definition means someone without faith so hard for some people to grasp?
-
one who is incapable of having any belief, yes, should be put into the category of people who do not have some specific belief.
it is not a personal belief of my own. it is a category I fit into.
how can a belief be a lack of belief? that doesn't even make sense.
I do not see what your criminal analogy is trying to convey, people also get acquitted from crimes because they didn't do the crime (they lack a history of having committed it I guess is how I can try to map your metaphor to the topic at hand), being unable to do the crime is one way to prove this.
there are other categories of people, for instance alive and dead, these are two mutually exhaustive groups of people and you don't become alive out of a choice (though there are steps one can take to change one's status if they so choose).
atheism is not a belief.
-
The aquittal thing is also strange cause in both cases you'd say they were acquitted. The reasons might be different but you'd use the same word.
-
Why is it that when a child not yet has comprehension of the concept of "divinity" that would make them neither atheist or theist...
...when older people who do have a concept of "divinity" seem to usually equate it to "incomprehensible" anyway?
This is not just a cute word game, but something I'm actually interested in. I have never yet met anyone who would explain "divinity" in terms that don't include some form of "we cannot understand it" or "it is beyond our comprehension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wisHcuBzTCM)".
There are a lot of things that children can't comprehend, it's a natural state of existence to them. There's nothing strange or supernatural about things they don't understand, because MOST things appear just as strange to them.
When we get older, we learn about some things, either exactly how they work, or we learn that there is an explanation for them but don't yet fully understand them (but are told that we will learn about that later), and some questions we don't get certain answers to because there are none.
In many cases, we then adopt someone else's speculations about what might be the answer to that particular question. And often we assign a new name to those things that we deem un-answerable.
After all, a brief look into the etymology of the word "divine" tells us that it is
"to conjure, to guess," originally "to make out by supernatural insight," mid-14c., from Old French deviner, from Vulgar Latin *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from Latin divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant "soothsayer."
In this regard, I'm pretty sure that the base state of humanity is indeed atheistic, because theism is a learned thing.
However, I agree with MP-Ryan in that it makes very little sense to classify small children by the same words we use of ourselves, because the words "atheist" and "theist" would mean absolutely nothing to those children until they themselves can understand the meaning of the words.
In the end, people are what they are, and it is the greatest of follies to assume that you can label everyone and expect them to be the same as others you've marked with the same label. In the end, all these terms are fairly meaningless outside academic discussion about our world views; at best, they're a shortcut to giving some sort of briefing to another person's world view, but more often than not it's not even that useful because - as we've demonstrated - many of the terms are used with wildly varying definitions.
Atheism and Theism are learned positions through either personal curiosity, external sources or indoctrination. Newborns have no concept of either of these from their own periphery: it is not simply ignorance, they haven't developed long enough to build a vocabulary of language and interpretation. The natural atheism often deployed upon the beginning human state is not only a bad attempt at hindsight, but it is an attempt at assigning prior meaning and knowledge. The closest I dare to argue is an agnostic position, but based on the simplicity that no decisions and attempt to learn said positions has been made, but agnosticism isn't the appropriate state as well, in the newborn's POV, none of these positions exist. They exist solely within the realm of human consciousness after we learn to build a vocabulary of language and meaning. To crack a terrible joke on my own rantings: a newborn exists in a meta-state free of standard learned conventions, and knows nothing of atheism, agnosticism, and theism until exposed to external influences.
The point is that state can be described no less as a blank slate.
@Bobbau: I don't believe in classification based on boxes, we have these nifty things called tags, and they fit nicely into Venn diagrams. It is of my own opinion, but "boxes" is actually a terribly old fashioned idea to filter and sort information, where as "tags" while a larger threshold of connected ideas and more obtuse, are not only more specific, but chain information together in new ways that merely sorting in boxes.
-
Ateapotism and Teapotism are learned positions through either personal curiosity, external sources or indoctrination. Newborns have no concept of either of these from their own periphery: it is not simply ignorance, they haven't developed long enough to build a vocabulary of language and interpretation. The natural ateapotism often deployed upon the beginning human state is not only a bad attempt at hindsight, but it is an attempt at assigning prior meaning and knowledge. The closest I dare to argue is an teapot-agnostic position, but based on the simplicity that no decisions and attempt to learn said positions has been made, but teapot-agnosticism isn't the appropriate state as well, in the newborn's POV, none of these positions exist. They exist solely within the realm of human consciousness after we learn to build a vocabulary of language and meaning. To crack a terrible joke on my own rantings: a newborn exists in a meta-state free of standard learned conventions, and knows nothing of atheism, agnosticism, and theism until exposed to external influences.
The point is that state can be described no less as a blank slate.
-
@Mars: Shhh... don't tell them that everything is a teapot replete with spout and handles.
-
well, given that atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, that is to say the word for people who are not theists it is not a learned anything let alone position. now learning can cause one to become an atheist, but that is by no means a requirement, the only thing you need to be an atheist is an absence of a belief in god, how that state came to be does not figure into the situation.
now as for newborn you are absolutely correct as far as I can tell in saying that they are physically incapable of understanding what a god is let alone holding a belief in it or anything really. it is because of this that they have no belief in any sort of god and are therefore atheist. theist again means that you do not have a belief in any god, not that you know of belief in god and do not subscribe. it is simply you do not believe. and being incapable of belief means you don't hold a particular belief obviously, this would include a belief in god, and would make such people atheists, because again, atheist means you lack a belief in god.
decisions or choices do not factor into it so being incapable of making them has no effect.
there is no projection or assignment of meaning (other than perhaps your own), it is simply a statement of fact that they do not have a belief.
capability or attempts to learn to not change the fact of what a one's state of belief is, that would be none in this case.
a blank slate is one with no belief in god and therefore is atheist.
-
actually let me put it a different way, I am assuming you do not believe in Tlaloc, the Aztec god of thunder, you are atheist in regards to Tlaloc, when did you learn your atheism of Tlaloc?
not when did you learn of it.
-
@Mars: Shhh... don't tell them that everything is a teapot replete with spout and handles.
It's a serious point. Babies are born atheist, agermist and afairist - they simply have no belief in gods, germs, or fairies. That doesn't mean - for the purposes of what I'm trying to point out, that one or all of these things can't exist! But the initial state is an absence of belief. Wall-boards are atheistic, as are, presumably goldfish.
EDIT: Bob already said everything I was trying to say, but I'm hoping that something someone says makes sense - so I post at the risk of redundancy.
-
well, given that atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, that is to say the word for people who are not theists it is not a learned anything let alone position. now learning can cause one to become an atheist, but that is by no means a requirement, the only thing you need to be an atheist is an absence of a belief in god, how that state came to be does not figure into the situation.
now as for newborn you are absolutely correct as far as I can tell in saying that they are physically incapable of understanding what a god is let alone holding a belief in it or anything really. it is because of this that they have no belief in any sort of god and are therefore atheist. theist again means that you do not have a belief in any god, not that you know of belief in god and do not subscribe. it is simply you do not believe. and being incapable of belief means you don't hold a particular belief obviously, this would include a belief in god, and would make such people atheists, because again, atheist means you lack a belief in god.
decisions or choices do not factor into it so being incapable of making them has no effect.
there is no projection or assignment of meaning (other than perhaps your own), it is simply a statement of fact that they do not have a belief.
capability or attempts to learn to not change the fact of what a one's state of belief is, that would be none in this case.
a blank slate is one with no belief in god and therefore is atheist.
That's according to your definition, but I say the problem with that is *we* are making that call, not them. The problem lies within us attempting to assign meaning upon a circumstance that should, theoretically be intrinsically motivated. But they have no intrinsic motivation to do so: belief or not it doesn't matter to them, and actually falls into a classification outside our normal bounds. The problem is that atheist is deluded into a vague concept, but what happens we is applied to a situation where "belief" isn't a part of the equation, and therefor doesn't exist. To an infant, there is no such thing "Atheist" and "Theist", it's us trying to put a convenient label on that state using per-existing concepts without their intrinsic motivation. Call it stupid, but it's like calling primordial soup "aware" when self-awareness isn't developed. Problem is, who's calling the soup aware when there's no narrator?
The point is I'm arguing it's perhaps a mistake for us to assume the role of a narrator?
Falling back to this question as well? Is the definition made by an internal or external, and who is doing it?
Edit: @Mars: Wall-boards and goldfish don't have a concept of Atheism, we label them as Atheists because we place that meaning on an external object: the object itself doesn't acknowledge any of it. Therefor, atheism, theism, clucker-a-hoody-hoo is nonsense. Arguing that the objects are "atheistic" is us projecting a view they are atheistic: the reality I argue is they aren't, because the objects cannot acknowledge that state. The problem of definition then falls back on our shoulders. Merely defining an object has no belief in gods in a flawed statement: can the object at hand acknowledge this? We don't know. Prove to me a chair believes itself to be an atheist... and you can't, it has no concept of self, and therefor no atheism or theism. It's a chair.
-
Its not anybody's "call" it is for lack of a better word an objective property.
Atheism requires no motivation, only that you do not believe.
It does not matter if it maters to them, only that they do not believe.
What happens when belief isn't part of the equals ion and does not exsist is you are an atheist, because you have no belief.
Are you noticing the pattern yet?
To a tree there are no such things as trees and yet they are still trees.
No its like calling primortial soup unaware when awareness doesn't exist yet.
The definition is made by humans who wanted a word to describe the people who were not theists. The word exists and some people meet up with its criteria, no decision is made by anyone. Its like asking "who said 3 is greater than 2"
-
Its not anybody's "call" it is for lack of a better word an objective property.
Atheism requires no motivation, only that you do not believe.
It does not matter if it maters to them, only that they do not believe.
What happens when belief isn't part of the equals ion and does not exsist is you are an atheist, because you have no belief.
Are you noticing the pattern yet?
To a tree there are no such things as trees and yet they are still trees.
No its like calling primortial soup unaware when awareness doesn't exist yet.
The definition is made by humans who wanted a word to describe the people who were not theists. The word exists and some people meet up with its criteria, no decision is made by anyone. Its like asking "who said 3 is greater than 2"
I'm telling you its an issue of meaning: it only works when a human acts upon the role of meta-narrator. It's folly to attempt to argue that everything has an inherently atheistic value when the value is only tied to human designed and desired meaning.
Unless you can prove the object can make a self-referential statement to it being atheistic, therein lies the problem. You can't. You assume the role of the meta-narrative and to extent, play the part of a god.
So you can't merely call a goldfish an atheist: does it acknowledge itself? How do we know? Then the answer is that we a) either ignore, or b) create artificial logic and bridge the meaning gap and declare it atheistic by our definition. And lies the self-referential mess all over again.
-
Yes, it is an issue of meaning, and the meaning of atheist is "doesn't have a belief in gods" not "can but doesn't", not "chose not to", but "does not". There may be many contexts in which there is little value, but that doesn't change the meaning.
-
Yes, it is an issue of meaning, and the meaning of atheist is "doesn't have a belief in gods" not "can but doesn't", not "chose not to", but "does not". There may be many contexts in which there is little value, but that doesn't change the meaning.
And the problem lies within its meaning. Is it an internal or external application? A tree is a tree, but it is not a tree. So how do we know this statement is valid?
A goldfish is an atheist. Or is the human calling the goldfish an atheist the problem, who assigns an external value on an object who carries no intrinsic value of an atheist because it cannot distinguish said concept?
So I would argue the goldfish is not an atheist: we call it so because it's convenient, and easy to assign external values. It, in my opinion, is almost cheating our own methods of verification in the process.
Edit: We can spend all night arguing whether a fish is an atheist or not, but I feel it's better to cut our debate short here. I argue we can correctly use "Atheist," "Agnostic," and "Theist" if there's an element of self-reference and confirmation with the object, but we run full tilt into a paradoxical problem of meaning when dealing with objects that actually have no concept of it themselves. You reply by saying "it's an atheist by definition" I hold this is a dangerous resuscitation of Logical Positivism, which tenets held that statements could be verified in a black and white manner: it works until confronted by vagueness, which is naturally rooted in language. Verification by mathematical and linguistic means were undermined by both philosophers and logicians, whom Godel played an important part in terminating it. The problem with calling goldfish an atheist is there's no verification that the fish is indeed an atheist, we simply have no mechanism to solve this problem short of deliberate ignorance.
The problem is a lot of Materialism and Physicalism relies on the trends established by Logical Positivism, which runs counter to metaphysics and ontology.
-
The funny thing is that again this is something the theists shouldn't have a problem with. Pretty much any religious person knows you have to raise your children with knowledge of God or else they'll never be good Christians/Muslims/whatever. Even if they never put it that way, it's fairly obvious that most religious people understand that children have no faith unless you've raised them to have it.
-
Either way, Atomic makes some good metaphysical points that shouldn't be unadressed, and a good argument against this "atheist until otherwise". I do agree with Kara here, for with the religious it is quite common for one person either be a believer or not. Such a person (or a fish) is either part of the group or he is outside. If outside, then that person is often characterized as an unbeliever, an atheist, etc. There is a necessary effort from the part of the person to be included into the believer camp.
But this does not solve the entire issue. People might not be included in any particular "camp" and still would find it silly and stupid to be called an atheist. I see people like MP, who will "feel" something divine about the universe as being out there, (I've witnessed lots of people arguing that they do believe in a sort of "energy" that they cannot explain but wouldn't ever trust any preacher or church), who have doubts about this kind of emotions but never ascribe them to a sort of a bland crude materialist atoms and fields sort of explanation (a kind of a desert of the real). It is quite clear by now that such people are always doomed from the christian or muslim POV, but they are not to be called atheists.
The discussion has suffered from our inability to distinguish this fence-sitting group and Agnosticism as a philosophical conclusion about epistemology. They are not the same, but we call them the same. Thus all the ****storm. Now I think I get the picture a little better :).
-
What he is saying is that because you cannon believed something then you believe it. He is saying if you cannot believe something then you can not not believe it, which is a double negation (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negation)
being incapable of believing means you do not believe.
Not believing in god means atheist.
-
Edit: @Mars: Wall-boards and goldfish don't have a concept of Atheism, we label them as Atheists because we place that meaning on an external object: the object itself doesn't acknowledge any of it. Therefor, atheism, theism, clucker-a-hoody-hoo is nonsense. Arguing that the objects are "atheistic" is us projecting a view they are atheistic: the reality I argue is they aren't, because the objects cannot acknowledge that state. The problem of definition then falls back on our shoulders. Merely defining an object has no belief in gods in a flawed statement: can the object at hand acknowledge this? We don't know. Prove to me a chair believes itself to be an atheist... and you can't, it has no concept of self, and therefor no atheism or theism. It's a chair.
No acknowledgement is necessary. Atheism follows from unawareness. Unless it turns out that goldfish worship Shiva or follow The Prophet, for example, they are "ahindi" and and "amusilim." Since we know goldfish haven't the cognizance to "believe" in any such thing, they are default atheists. This is because atheism is the lack of a belief.
Atheism is not a belief that requires logical thinking, it is the lack of a belief.
EDIT: I actually read on BBC that pidgins can actually end up doing some very religious-like rituals. This would suggest that they cannot simply be considered default atheists - for example.
-
And I thought we had this sorted out so neatly two pages ago.
There are two different things being argues now:
1. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
2. It's idiotic to use that definition of atheism because it captures unintentional atheists.
Bobb and kara: It is not that people are arguing that atheism defined as a lack of belief in god(s) is fundamentally correct on a semantic level. We're arguing that it's an idiotic way of defining atheism, which is why I railed against it for so bloody long.
You guys are saying lack of belief can be an unconscious act. A number of the rest of us (which seem to include Herra now?) are saying that only conscious lack of belief should count as atheism, because otherwise you're including all kinds of other people in your definition that really shouldn't be there - for reasons that include the political connotations of atheism generally. Otherwise, you have to deal with notions like unconscious belief in god(s) or supernatural powers, which should remove people from the atheist camp, yet doesn't under your wide definition.
Since Wikipedia indicates that two prominent thinkers have debated this previously, for the purposes of further discussion I would suggest people refer to the unconscious atheism paradigm as "Smith" and the conscious as "Nagel," since its a convenient shorthand that avoids words like implicit/explicit that have their own connotations which will likely wreak further semantic havoc.
-
But it doesn't matter that you think it's idiotic. That's what it is.
-
Yes, I agree with MP's and with Atomic's criticism. The trouble is that if we are going to attribute this kind of semantics, then all sorts of ridiculous questions seem unavoidable:
- If I label myself as a theist but I am not thinking about God this precise moment, where my thought processes could be labeled as absolute materialist, am I being a theist or an atheist right now?
- If I am unsure what or if to believe, even despite the fact that I go to Church and pray and what not am I being an atheist or a theist?
- If I really have a crisis of faith right now and can't bring myself to believe, but I do pray, go to church and desperately want to believe, am I an atheist or not?
Notice that these can change throughout the day, the hour, the second. This is a metaphysical problem: how will we "define people" if we are so worried about their "true feelings" and so on? And is there even such a thing? Or is it even plausible to place these questions in the first place?
Notice too that the last point on my list describes perfectly what was happening to Mother Theresa in her later years. Should we call MT an atheist then?
There's also the added problem of "belief" being somewhat undefined. What if belief is a psychological state of mind that is independent of any theological teachings one might glue them or not? If this is so, even if one person could be called an atheist for what he rationally tells you, he would be in a certain state of mind that one should call "believer". Perhaps this is easier to do than what I think (we do have words to describe this, the numenous, the transcendent, the poetic, the human condition, irony, and so on and so on), or perhaps it is not.
If it is a psychological condition, then animals could be downright theists and we don't even know it.
Lots of issues here.
-
Yes, I agree with MP's and with Atomic's criticism. The trouble is that if we are going to attribute this kind of semantics, then all sorts of ridiculous questions seem unavoidable:
- If I label myself as a theist but I am not thinking about God this precise moment, where my thought processes could be labeled as absolute materialist, am I being a theist or an atheist right now?
- If I am unsure what or if to believe, even despite the fact that I go to Church and pray and what not am I being an atheist or a theist?
- If I really have a crisis of faith right now and can't bring myself to believe, but I do pray, go to church and desperately want to believe, am I an atheist or not?
Notice that these can change throughout the day, the hour, the second. This is a metaphysical problem: how will we "define people" if we are so worried about their "true feelings" and so on? And is there even such a thing? Or is it even plausible to place these questions in the first place?
Notice too that the last point on my list describes perfectly what was happening to Mother Theresa in her later years. Should we call MT an atheist then?
There's also the added problem of "belief" being somewhat undefined. What if belief is a psychological state of mind that is independent of any theological teachings one might glue them or not? If this is so, even if one person could be called an atheist for what he rationally tells you, he would be in a certain state of mind that one should call "believer". Perhaps this is easier to do than what I think (we do have words to describe this, the numenous, the transcendent, the poetic, the human condition, irony, and so on and so on), or perhaps it is not.
If it is a psychological condition, then animals could be downright theists and we don't even know it.
Lots of issues here.
None at least in my point of view. The first one, definitely not. Even among 'believers' there are times people fall. That doesn't mean Christians tolerate sins, but then the nature of sins in man is still present when people still live. As long as you still hold on to your faith afterwards, you are still a Theist.
Second one, you are not sure which faith to believe in. For example you pray both in a church and some other place (like Buddhist temple). Then you are still not, you are an Agnostic. Atheist probably would just say 'I don't have time for any of these religious nonsense'.
The third one is similar, you looks like you are trying to make God 'prove' His existence. I am not very sure what to say here, afterall, many people go to church these days for the same reason they get drunk in night clubs, I mean to relieve stress or temporary forget their life burden. Even if you go to church for that reason, you still have to believe in some way, even though I wouldn't say that would be a true believer.
-
But it doesn't matter that you think it's idiotic. That's what it is.
And yet there is disagreement among atheists on this point. Re-quoted for great justice:
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[41] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[42] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[43]
The connotative definition of atheism and the denotative definition of atheism have two separate meanings, and the denotative is also completely unsettled. I think criticism of the Smith paradigm is perfectly reasonable.
-
For me, the useful meanings of the words theist and atheist are derived from the fact that people self-declare as such. Unless you are telepathic (or God), you have no way to knowing whether someone is lying to you about their beliefs (knowingly or unknowingly), whether they actually understand the issue, etc. All you have to go by is their word.
If you are willing to unilaterally name all undeclared persons (as well as animals, inanimate objects, whatever) atheists without knowledge of what is going on in their heads, I'd argue that you're doing as much damage to the word as a theist would be if he claimed them all as theists, just with varying levels of ignorance regarding God's truth. It's kinda presumptuous where it isn't totally ridiculous (as in the case of the atheist sea slug), and it dilutes the meaning of the word.
-
What he is saying is that because you cannon believed something then you believe it. He is saying if you cannot believe something then you can not not believe it, which is a double negation (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negation)
being incapable of believing means you do not believe.
Not believing in god means atheist.
I'm implying were giving a solution to a problem that doesn't exist or have any bearing on a goldfish. I.E. where we put semantics out of context. We have the problem, the goldfish doesn't. The goldfish doesn't even engage in that issue we have.
-
Y'know, I agree that it's possible to extend the term "atheist" to infants based on the basic definition of the word itself, but doesn't that wind up making it essentially useless as a functional term? Expanding it in that sense has almost the same result as saying, "All humans start out as humans." You're then forced to add the "implicit/explicit" modifier to specify whether you're talking about the usual sense of the term we use in daily conversation, or the term encompassing anyone/thing who hasn't thought about deities at all, which doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.
-
Y'know, I agree that it's possible to extend the term "atheist" to infants based on the basic definition of the word itself, but doesn't that wind up making it essentially useless as a functional term? Expanding it in that sense has almost the same result as saying, "All humans start out as humans." You're then forced to add the "implicit/explicit" modifier to specify whether you're talking about the usual sense of the term we use in daily conversation, or the term encompassing anyone/thing who hasn't thought about deities at all, which doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.
For me, the useful meanings of the words theist and atheist are derived from the fact that people self-declare as such. Unless you are telepathic (or God), you have no way to knowing whether someone is lying to you about their beliefs (knowingly or unknowingly), whether they actually understand the issue, etc. All you have to go by is their word.
If you are willing to unilaterally name all undeclared persons (as well as animals, inanimate objects, whatever) atheists without knowledge of what is going on in their heads, I'd argue that you're doing as much damage to the word as a theist would be if he claimed them all as theists, just with varying levels of ignorance regarding God's truth. It's kinda presumptuous where it isn't totally ridiculous (as in the case of the atheist sea slug), and it dilutes the meaning of the word.
I agree wholeheartedly with both of you.
-
There's one thing all the people on this thread are forgetting. The second you say "I'm an atheist" you're obviously an explicit atheist.
So in practical terms there's actually very little dilution of the word. Pretty much every time you're talking about atheism, or dealing with atheist issues, you'll be talking about explicit atheism.
Implicit atheism only really is an issue when you're dealing with definitions. The rest of the time, it's there, but you don't particularly need to worry about it. We only need to worry about goldfish atheists once Christian goldfish start turning up.
However saying "I'm an agnostic" is not as simple. It doesn't resolve the question of whether or not you have faith in anything since you could be a theist agnostic or atheist agnostic (if you agree with MP-Ryan's definition you might even be a haven't decided agnostic).
If I label myself as a theist but I am not thinking about God this precise moment, where my thought processes could be labeled as absolute materialist, am I being a theist or an atheist right now?
If I label myself a conservative but right now I'm thinking about hamburgers. Am I still a conservative? :p
This is really a philosophical question with roots much deeper than the mere theist/atheist debate. As I pointed out above, the second you try to debate the issue, it goes away. If I ask you if you are a conservative or an atheist, you'll immediately start thinking about it again.
If I am unsure what or if to believe, even despite the fact that I go to Church and pray and what not am I being an atheist or a theist?
Depends on whether you're switching faiths or switching from having faith to not having it. Quite a few people lose faith in there being a God without losing faith that there is a higher power. I'm assuming you mean someone who doesn't believe in God any more but still goes to Church, etc. At that point you're probably an atheist pretending to be a theist. Most theists will agree that the rituals are fundamentally unimportant as to whether or not you have faith.
You're going to have similar problems no matter what definition you use for atheism. Even if you use the most narrow definition for atheist. What if I'm someone who says I'm an atheist but prays for my family's health every night? I've rejected the existence of God so I'm an atheist (by either definition), but I have made a decision that a higher power must exist if I'm praying to one so I'm obviously not agnostic (by MP-Ryan's definition or mine).
The problems with definitions is that humans are capable of strongly professing one belief and then acting completely out of sync with it. Are you going to say that a Christian that murders someone stopped being a Christian because they broke a fundamental rule of Christianity? What about someone who takes the Lord's name in vain and then repents? Did he stop being a Christian for the moments he was cursing God and saying he didn't believe in him? Definitions are black and white because they have to be. Trying to make definitions that fit actual human experience is a path to madness.
Take the average and call it good enough.
-
Karajorma, I was railing against this "implicit atheism" concept, and pointing out the issues one comes up with if one thinks there's a hidden objective reality that is absolutely true and within which one is an atheist or a theist, irrespectively of one's actions and words.
If one dismisses this notion not as untrue but as impractical, then my points are irrelevant.
I also think that there's an assumption that is unjustified when one says that the "standard" position is being an atheist. I don't know if this is true. If one could reach a complete description of the brain of people and animals, I don't see as implausible the idea that what we call being a "believer" is something traceable to a specific state of mind, and that such a state of mind was actually the common state shared by animals and human beings, and atheism was precisely the exception, not the rule. I am not saying this is the case, just that I don't really believe the opposite case to be sufficiently justified and proven.
Finally, the whole shebang that came about between agnosticism and atheism I think it sums up as this:
- Atheism and Theism is the lack of belief and belief of God respectively;
- There's a multitude of different states of belief between atheism and theism (deism, pantheism, panantheism, etc.);
- Agnosticism is the epistemological conclusion one must arrive scientifically;
The first and second points are in a different state than the third one. The third one is the objective scientific point of view, but we do not function like a machine, we are humans, and so we do *decide* (even if unconsciously) with our emotions which metaphysical truth we think corresponds to the world we inhabit. In this sense, it is *wholly* different one person having spiritual vague beliefs and being unsure about it all emotionally, and the scientific rigorous agnosticist position. I argue they should even be named differently and that this difference is what sparked this heated discussion until now.
-
I tend to agree with you that it is rather silly to call someone who believes in God but doesn't know what it is, and someone who doesn't believe in God and thinks we'll never know what God is by the same name. But that's the definition we've been given so we're stuck with it.
As for the problems with implicit atheism, it goes both ways. Take a baby who was born to a pair of atheists and raised without hearing about God much if at all. At what point do you call the kid an atheist? If this happened in a country where atheists were heavily in the majority the kid could be pretty old before he hears enough about God to be an explicit atheist. Hell, he might even be a Asanta clausist first. :p
-
Agnosticism is the epistemological conclusion one must arrive scientifically;
No! Agnosticism has nothing to do with science. It's a position that opposes gnosticism, mainly in that it acknowledges that there MAY be something supernatural/divine, but that we cannot get information out of it, and thus it is not greatly relevant for our mundane lives.
In other words agnosticism makes a statement that there may be something that is beyond the reach of science; whether you call it supernatural, divine, god, heaven, afterlife - up to you.
One of the key definitions of "divine" is that it is something "outside" nature, or not governed by the laws of nature; ie. supernatural. And when we label something as "supernatural", we put it in a box that says on it "we cannot know how, why, or even what is happening here". To call something "supernatural" is to give up finding an explanation, or to find out the rules that make it tick.
The scientific method does not acknowledge that there may be some things that could not be experimented and explained. If you can observe it, you can do science about it.
Hence, by definition, science does not acknowledge the possibility of supernatural things. In the scientific view point, everything is a part of natural world; therefore is some apparently divine entity were to be encountered, science would attempt to research and analyze it, rather than giving up.
In short: For scientists, there is no division between "natural" and "supernatural". There is a division between "known" and "unknown".
On a conceptual level, a scientific position would be to say that we have no evidence of god-like, powerful entitites existing, but it would be unscientific to categorically deny their existence because clearly, we don't know everything that exist in the universe(s).
However, again on conceptual level, a scientific position regarding apparently supernatural or apparently divine phenomena is that they are all natural processes that we simply don't know enough to make educated statements about.
So, on a conceptual level, everyone who subscribes to the scientific method is by definition at least an a-supernaturalist.
Agnosticism, by definition, says that we cannot acquire information of the divine / supernatural. This makes it a thoroughly un-scientific point of view.
Now, if there's some definition of "divine" in which it doesn't have any supernatural characteristics, then I guess it would be possible for a scientist to acknowledge a possibility of "divine" things existing.
However, personally I think if you remove the "supernatural" from "divine" you just end up with a really powerful, possibly intelligent entity that exists as a part of natural order.
This applies whether said entity created the rest of existence, or if said entity exists as part of rest of the universe.
NB: As an example that I'm sure will pop up: An afterlife that you can only observe after you have died is an unscientific hypothesis. It is a claim that cannot be falsified. Technically, science cannot disprove it either, so completely denying the possibility entirely.
However, a scientific viewpoint would also declare that if such a thing exists, there's nothing supernatural about it...
Hence, we will simply postpone our research until such time that we can gain information on it. We should have ample time after we are dead.
-
Agnosticism is the epistemological conclusion one must arrive scientifically;
No! Agnosticism has nothing to do with science. It's a position that opposes gnosticism, mainly in that it acknowledges that there MAY be something supernatural/divine, but that we cannot get information out of it, and thus it is not greatly relevant for our mundane lives.
The bit where you say "cannot get information out of it" pressuposes quite a lot, and is basically a derivation from scientific empiricism epistemology. IOW, Agnosticism is the end result of metaphysics once you assume the scientific method and put Empiricism as the biggest source of knowledge.
So, on a conceptual level, everyone who subscribes to the scientific method is by definition at least an a-supernaturalist.
Agnosticism, by definition, says that we cannot acquire information of the divine / supernatural. This makes it a thoroughly un-scientific point of view.
These sentences contradict each other. Let's be clear here, the scientific method does not deal with these supranatural things, thus it is agnostic about it. It is agnostic in the sense that it precludes the existence of non-natural things by its very nature (we agree here). However, it cannot deny its Truth in an absolute sense, for if science cannot study this "field" it does not mean that this field does not objectively exist, just that the scientific method is incapable of dealing with it.
Now, we can be full-blown scientists and say "if science cannot deal with it, it does not exist or it does not matter", etc. Or not. But that's a different question.
However, a scientific viewpoint would also declare that if such a thing exists, there's nothing supernatural about it...
It seems to me that there's here a fundamental equivocation of what "supernatural" means. I do not resent the word, but apparently you do. You seem to say that supernatural never exists, even if it does, for if it does it becomes natural at the spot. I think this is a simplistic take on the word and its meaning.
-
TL;DR version:
NIHIL SUPERNUM
...and then the proper response.
It's a conceptual thing. "Supernatural" is a bad term because it implies something happens "beyond nature" or "over nature", meaning it's not suspect to same laws of nature as "natural" things are.
But here's the logical disconnect. If we assume that a supernatural thing exists, it becomes observable, it influences nature, and it changes the rules of nature to include said "supernatural" phenomenon. Because, if we can observe something happening, clearly it is possible for it to happen, ergo; it is a natural part of the universe.
I don't see any obvious way how this thinking is flawed. Please demonstrate it to me if you do. Maybe my definition of "natural" is wider than yours, but here's the logical equation I'm working with:
1. Universe == nature
2. All that exists == universe (see etymology of the word)
3. All that exists == nature
Note that this does not exclude the possibility of things existing outside universe and being supernatural in that sense. It does, however, prevent these things from interacting with OUR universe in any meaningful way, because that interaction would instantly meld ours and their universes together as a wider entity... and then all things that exists in both parts of the universe are again natural.
These sentences contradict each other. Let's be clear here, the scientific method does not deal with these supranatural things, thus it is agnostic about it. It is agnostic in the sense that it precludes the existence of non-natural things by its very nature (we agree here). However, it cannot deny its Truth in an absolute sense, for if science cannot study this "field" it does not mean that this field does not objectively exist, just that the scientific method is incapable of dealing with it.
No. Scientific method is not agnostic. And you can't "be agnostic" relative to something specific.
As we've discussed, agnosticism is antithesis of gnosticism. Gnostics believe that a "spiritual" or supernatural world exists and that it is more important than natural world.
Agnostics, at the very least, acknowledge that there is a possibility of such a "spiritual world" existing. Contrary to the Gnostic position, however, Agnostics take the stance that the natural world is more important to concentrate on than spiritual world, because we can't acquire reliable information about said spiritual world.
This is incompatible with scientific method in two ways. First, the acknowledgement of "spiritual", or supernatural things (as opposed to all things being part of nature), and secondly, by the view that this supernatural world is something that is impossible to acquire information of.
And no, insides of black holes are not supernatural. Acquiring information from inside an event horizon is impossible, but caused by natural processes we actually have fairly good understanding of. We don't exactly know if our hypotheses for what is inside event horizon are right, but they're not called bubbles of supernatural - it's just something we do not know.
The whole basis of my argument against Gods and Theism is that if there are gods, there's nothing divine in them simply by virtue of their existense.
After all, what basis is there to assume the universe would consist of natural things and supernatural things, and that these two types of things would be somehow fundamentally different? And, on conceptual level, wouldn't both of them still exist as part of the same universe?
There's a difference between "supernatural" and "unknown". Calling something "supernatural" is saying that we don't know what it is, AND that we either cannot or shouldn't research it for various reasons.
Calling something unknown is just saying we don't know what it is.
And what happens when scientists notice a phenomenon they don't quite know what to make out of? They observe it, document it, experiment with it, until they get an idea about how it works, and then start formulating hypotheses to form theories about what's going on. Hence the inverse of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.
I don't resent the term "supernatural". I reject it as a logical impossibility.
Note that I'm not rejecting any particular, specific things that are branded with the logo "supernatural". Ghosts, afterlife, gods, angels, demons, afterlife... I'm not categorically saying none of these exist, despite having very little reason to believe in them, due to lack of evidence.
I'm saying, if they do exist, that makes them part of the natural order of things in universe.
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot in this post. I should pay more attention to grouping my thoughts before posting, but this will do for now.
-
TL;DR version:
NIHIL SUPERNUM
That troll didn't know what hit it. :nervous:
-
TL;DR version:
NIHIL SUPERNUM
I googled this. Still don't know what to do with it, something about Harry Potter? Or just a general statement about heavens and all?
Anyways.
It's a conceptual thing. "Supernatural" is a bad term because it implies something happens "beyond nature" or "over nature", meaning it's not suspect to same laws of nature as "natural" things are.
But here's the logical disconnect. If we assume that a supernatural thing exists, it becomes observable, it influences nature, and it changes the rules of nature to include said "supernatural" phenomenon. Because, if we can observe something happening, clearly it is possible for it to happen, ergo; it is a natural part of the universe.
I don't see any obvious way how this thinking is flawed. Please demonstrate it to me if you do. Maybe my definition of "natural" is wider than yours, but here's the logical equation I'm working with:
1. Universe == nature
2. All that exists == universe (see etymology of the word)
3. All that exists == nature
Note that this does not exclude the possibility of things existing outside universe and being supernatural in that sense. It does, however, prevent these things from interacting with OUR universe in any meaningful way, because that interaction would instantly meld ours and their universes together as a wider entity... and then all things that exists in both parts of the universe are again natural.
You don't get to say that a metaphysical term is a "bad term" because its concept doesn't behave accordingly to a specific metaphysics, namely, the materialistic line of reasoning you just outpoured above. Now, you might disagree that "Supernaturalness" as defined does not properly exist, that you do not believe in such things, etc. However, that is amazingly different than saying that the concept itself is a bad one. I get it, it does not mesh well with the rest of your own philosophy, but then again, it doesn't have to mesh with your philosophy because it wasn't created with your particular philosophy in mind.
With this very important caveat in mind, we should therefore state that a scientific philosophy *must* then be completely agnostic about a kind of a "Order" where its methods are absolutely worthless. This is not a philosophical strenght of "Supernatural" itself, this is precisely one of the biggest criticisms one can inflict on the religious mode of thought, however, the points I made stand.
As we've discussed, agnosticism is antithesis of gnosticism. Gnostics believe that a "spiritual" or supernatural world exists and that it is more important than natural world.
That's somewhat not very rigorous. What Huxley meant was more about the lack of certainty of the gnosis of the world, that is, that we do not really know what is the absolute truth, and that such problem seems "insoluble" (by his words). It's not just that they don't "believe in it", they just think the problem is insoluble, in the good tradition of Hume and Kant.
This is incompatible with scientific method in two ways. First, the acknowledgement of "spiritual", or supernatural things (as opposed to all things being part of nature), and secondly, by the view that this supernatural world is something that is impossible to acquire information of.
Yeah, that's what happens when you substitute actual historical sources for the origin of words and their actual meanings for your own personal dictionaries. Of course that if you misdefine something then you'll find lots of errors in the connections other people make with those same words. However, I am afraid to tell you that you got your own definitions wrong. Agnosticism is not just about "being uncertain", it's about judging the problem insoluble. Read Hume on this, he's actually very very good at this point (especially about miracles and so on).
IOW, "Agnosticism" is a manifesto about Relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism) wrt to the questions of God and the spiritual world. And this is absolutely aligned with the scientific position. Science cannot deny the possibility of God. It doesn't even have the capability of denying the existence of Realms that are just beyond its means of probing. Science *is* relativistic in this sense (always tentative, never absolute, always contingent on assumptions and data, etc.,etc.).
The whole basis of my argument against Gods and Theism is that if there are gods, there's nothing divine in them simply by virtue of their existense.
Again, easy thing to do when one just changes words to fit your attacks... A God by definition *is* divine. Look I can see you are having deep troubles with words here.
After all, what basis is there to assume the universe would consist of natural things and supernatural things, and that these two types of things would be somehow fundamentally different? And, on conceptual level, wouldn't both of them still exist as part of the same universe?
It depends on what you mean by the words you are using I guess, I can't trust you anymore on semantics, you keep making words up.
Less jokingly, you are either being trollish or just blissfully ignorant of the history of philosophy. These troubles you outlined are aligned with the very big problems of Free Will, of the Descartian duality (which is the basis of the scientific method, how about that one to mind blow you?), of determinism, etc.,etc. This is a very deep philosophical issue since Plato, and to just dismiss it as a "non-problem" is not enough.
There's a difference between "supernatural" and "unknown". Calling something "supernatural" is saying that we don't know what it is, AND that we either cannot or shouldn't research it for various reasons.
Calling something unknown is just saying we don't know what it is.
Sorry to make these random comments, but then again I'm just responding to your random comments :).
There is no equivocation between supernatural and unknown. You are here trying to state that the problem is one of such equivocations. Well then, if you want to develop this thought a bit further, then I advise you to read Kant on this thing. He dwelled on this particular problem some 200 years ago.
And what happens when scientists notice a phenomenon they don't quite know what to make out of? They observe it, document it, experiment with it, until they get an idea about how it works, and then start formulating hypotheses to form theories about what's going on. Hence the inverse of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.
This is abductive induction. You cannot make this induction. Yes, any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, but the reverse does not follow from that same sentence. It does not matter how amazing the scientific method is, it can never even state anything about any *thing* that falls beyond its probing capabilties (either technical or theoretical). So you cannot ever say it is a "logical impossibility". That's just pure nonsense.
What you can do is just disbelieve in it, trust no one who talks about it, etc.,etc. That's what I just do. I am a total atheist here. I don't buy any of that crap. However, I am also pretty aware of the metaphysical limits that the human condition seem to impose me. And they tell me that the things you are saying are just way beyond what we can say.
IOW, you are uttering more metaphysics that you can possibly do.
-
You don't get to say that a metaphysical term is a "bad term" because its concept doesn't behave accordingly to a specific metaphysics, namely, the materialistic line of reasoning you just outpoured above.
I don't think I ever said I was treating supernatural as a metaphysical concept. I was treating it as a physical attribute of things that hypothetically influence the cosmos (like gods).
In that context, I just think "supernatural" is a needless complexion and, divine being a subtype of supernatural, that falls into same category.
The whole basis of my argument against Gods and Theism is that if there are gods, there's nothing divine in them simply by virtue of their existense.
Again, easy thing to do when one just changes words to fit your attacks... A God by definition *is* divine. Look I can see you are having deep troubles with words here.
You have, correctly understood my point that gods can not exist when you reject the concept of divinity (along with supernatural) because then the god-entity stops being divine, which is what is supposed to make it god.
It's then just an entity. Ergo, no gods can possibly exist.
Whether people choose to address such an entity as a god is a completely different thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shermer%27s_last_law)
My problem with the concept of "supernatural" is that most everyone has their own idea of what it's supposed to mean, and furthermore as an adjective I seriously assert that nothing in existence can be supernatural, by virtue of existing, since existence is synonymous to universe and that makes them part of the universe - and that makes the rules governing the "supernatural" thing part of the universe as well.
Of course that if you misdefine something then you'll find lots of errors in the connections other people make with those same words. However, I am afraid to tell you that you got your own definitions wrong. Agnosticism is not just about "being uncertain", it's about judging the problem insoluble. Read Hume on this, he's actually very very good at this point (especially about miracles and so on).
Thank you for making the point for me.
Agnosticism can not be compatible with scientific method, because scientific method does not accept judging a problem "insoluble".
In science, that is called "giving up". There are no fundamentally insoluble problems, just problems that have not been solved for now.
As for reading Hume, to be brutally honest I have better things to do with my time than read about how some individual person thought a long time ago. I prefer to do my thinking mostly myself, for better or for worse.
I can freely disagree even with the original meanings of words. Everyone else seems to have no problem having their own definitions to choose from, why should I refrain from this wonderfully vitalizing conversational tactic?
This is abductive induction. You cannot make this induction. Yes, any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, but the reverse does not follow from that same sentence. It does not matter how amazing the scientific method is, it can never even state anything about any *thing* that falls beyond its probing capabilties (either technical or theoretical). So you cannot ever say it is a "logical impossibility". That's just pure nonsense.
That's why science doesn't make statements that are beyond the probing capabilities (technical or theoretical).
You don't seem to be understanding the core of my argument. If something claimed to be supernatural (or divine or demonic or whatever you pick) exists, it is already within technical probing capacities of scientific method. You can look at it, you can record what it's doing, you can poke it with a stick and see what happens. You can measure it. In other words, by existing, supernatural thing has become a natural thing that can be analyzed.
It might not be understood, but your argument would require it to be beyond the probing capabilities of science to remain supernatural.
Which means it does not exist. A thing separate from universe functionally does not exist; it is irrelevant to us. On the other hand, if it interacts with universe in some way, then it exists and the universe is that much bigger place.
Hence: If a thing exists, science can analyze it.
If it's still being called magic, science has not sufficiently analyzed it YET.
This is related to the God of Gaps. The fact that we don't understand something now doesn't make it supernatural.
Even if we currently have no way of probing it with science, that doesn't mean it's a fundamental property of the thing to be un-probeable. At some point it may become a viable science. There are several examples of this, and I'm sure you're aware of at least a few of them.
In other words, it's not a very safe place for supernatural things to hide in the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge. Ignorance does not make things supernatural, and I fundamentally disagree with any assertion that some things could possibly be beyond any kind of scientific analysis, or as you said, "unsolvable problems".
Nihil Supernum is a quotation from a work of fiction that uses elements from the Harry Potter canon. It means, roughly translated, "Nothing Supernatural".
It makes more sense in the context. If you have the time, go read it.
-
You don't get to say that a metaphysical term is a "bad term" because its concept doesn't behave accordingly to a specific metaphysics, namely, the materialistic line of reasoning you just outpoured above.
I don't think I ever said I was treating supernatural as a metaphysical concept.
Well there's your problem then. You keep doing this: you mistreat words and concepts, distort their contextual references, etc., and then proudly proclaim they don't work. Well yeah.
You have, correctly understood my point that gods can not exist when you reject the concept of divinity (along with supernatural) because then the god-entity stops being divine, which is what is supposed to make it god.
It's then just an entity. Ergo, no gods can possibly exist.
Whether people choose to address such an entity as a god is a completely different thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shermer%27s_last_law)
Stop throwing that thing to me, and especially don't quote Shermer on a philosophical discussion about metaphysics, epistemology and so on.
My problem with the concept of "supernatural" is that most everyone has their own idea of what it's supposed to mean, and furthermore as an adjective I seriously assert that nothing in existence can be supernatural, by virtue of existing, since existence is synonymous to universe and that makes them part of the universe - and that makes the rules governing the "supernatural" thing part of the universe as well.
Again, mistreating words. No, you don't get to play the relativistic card of "this is just a word people use" in this particular case, because this word isn't that badly defined at all. You misuse it, but that's all it is. You are not even, I think, making any effort to discuss these ideas, you are only trying to shovel your own particular philosophy and dictionary where these words have no place. If you deem these words to be useless, it's because you yourself made them behave in this particular fashion. It's not how they are properly used in philosophy.
Thank you for making the point for me.
Agnosticism can not be compatible with scientific method, because scientific method does not accept judging a problem "insoluble".
In science, that is called "giving up". There are no fundamentally insoluble problems, just problems that have not been solved for now.
You didn't get it, but I understand your problem. For you, there's nothing else but scientifically verifiable truths. If something hasn't been solved, it is bound to be so, or at least, it is possible for it to be so. What you do not understand is that this is a statement that is inherently Absolutist, and thus inherently anti-scientific! (science is not absolutist in any philosophical sense. It is relativistic, a point that you, because you apparently don't care about history of philosophy do not grasp at all)
You cannot possibly deny the possibility of actual things actually existing but being beyond any scientific method of probing. This is a logical argument that is just not up to debate. Now, given this brute true fact, you can do two things: either accept the contingency of science and turn yourself humble at the human condition of not ever knowing the "Absolute Truth" of the cosmos, or just stop caring about the "Absolute Truth" in the first place and become a Relativist (which is what I do). However, nowhere you are allowed to speak for this numenous state of affairs of the "Real" universe. You can only speak about the apparent world, the world of phenomena, of events.
As for reading Hume, to be brutally honest I have better things to do with my time than read about how some individual person thought a long time ago. I prefer to do my thinking mostly myself, for better or for worse.
It's very hard to discuss philosophy with people who think they have sussed out everything but are merely making very basic semantical errors, and dwelling in philosophical mistakes that have been solved for two hundreds or more years ago, and further that they think they outsmart people like Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, etc. Really.
I can freely disagree even with the original meanings of words. Everyone else seems to have no problem having their own definitions to choose from, why should I refrain from this wonderfully vitalizing conversational tactic?
You can argue that Agnosticism should be something it is not, but then do not pretend that it has always been so, etc. As far as I know, Huxley didn't mean it the way you wrote it, and you were just being all original about it. We discussed the meaning of the word "Atheist" between two different definitions that were not only both present in every dictionary, but also present in our cultural awareness of the world. You, OTOH, just made that up because it sounded smart. Not problematic in itself, but then you cannot criticize my text because my "agnostics" do things that your "agnostics" don't. To do this, you have to make me agree with your definition first, which is something you clearly haven't.
That's why science doesn't make statements that are beyond the probing capabilities (technical or theoretical).
Exact-the-****in-ly. Precisely.
You don't seem to be understanding the core of my argument. If something claimed to be supernatural (or divine or demonic or whatever you pick) exists, it is already within technical probing capacities of scientific method. You can look at it, you can record what it's doing, you can poke it with a stick and see what happens. You can measure it. In other words, by existing, supernatural thing has become a natural thing that can be analyzed.
Not at all, it is you that are just rehashing very basic arguments without any serious attempt to understand what I am trying to get through to you. You are speaking here about phenomena, events, empirical observations, etc. Of course you can do whatever you feel like to with all those things. Those phenomena are not supernatural. What is supernatural is always what is beyond the scope of scientific understanding.
Even basic "supernatural events" that are thought by many people to happen do not happen without material contingencies and scientific study, however, the point is that there's something that is by definition unstudiable in such an event, even if just partially. It's this surplus that is beyond scientific means.
I am not saying I believe in any of this. What I am telling you is that these concepts are not a contradiction and they *do* work.
It might not be understood, but your argument would require it to be beyond the probing capabilities of science to remain supernatural.
Which means it does not exist. A thing separate from universe functionally does not exist; it is irrelevant to us. On the other hand, if it interacts with universe in some way, then it exists and the universe is that much bigger place.
Again, making the wrong invalid induction. You cannot ever say that because you cannot "probe it", it does not exist. In a sense, it does not. For instance, in the scientific sense, it does not. But unless you are going to equate Reality with the big R with "scientific truth", with all its contigencies and conceptual limitations (which would be a terrible mistake on your part), it's simply an incorrect logical step.
Hence: If a thing exists, science can analyze it.
It's so easy to demonstrate this is even untrue today. I mean, you can say that those unstudiable things now will be studiable tomorrow, but that's hilariously confusing the contingent with the necessary, the temporal with the eternal, the absolute with the relative.
This is related to the God of Gaps. The fact that we don't understand something now doesn't make it supernatural.
This has nothing to do with the "God of Gaps". Nothing. This has nothing to do with the obvious fact that "if we don't understand something now doesn't make it supernatural". Nothing. It has to do with the abductive reasoning you are making, an invalid induction.
That is all. And that's enough.
Even if we currently have no way of probing it with science, that doesn't mean it's a fundamental property of the thing to be un-probeable. At some point it may become a viable science. There are several examples of this, and I'm sure you're aware of at least a few of them.
Again, you make the same mistake on and on and on. Here's a clue. If you say "A does not mean B", it does not follow that "if A, then not B". Your reasoning is insufficient. Of course, if you have no way to probe it, it does not follow it's magic. But you cannot do the reverse, which is to say that because of that last sentence, then magic does not exist.
In other words, it's not a very safe place for supernatural things to hide in the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge. Ignorance does not make things supernatural, and I fundamentally disagree with any assertion that some things could possibly be beyond any kind of scientific analysis, or as you said, "unsolvable problems".
That's fine, but that's just faith on your part. Many scientists would even disagree, they do worry that there are many things that may prove impossible to solve.
And no, I won't read Harry Potter. Perhaps it's just me, but I rather spend my reading time with actual literature. Like IDK, Hume, Nietzsche, etc.
-
Luis, we're arguing from different directions.
I see the universe in a holistic way. It does not make any sense for me to artificially divide it in "natural" and "supernatural" (or mundane and divine). That's what I've been saying here.
The concept of supernatural is not relevant in this reference frame. In fact it's incompatible term and you saying that it makes sense in your reference frame doesn't make it so in mine.
Regarding absolutist statements: You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that science will always find a way to solve a problem, or that it will eventually arrive to "absolute truth" about anything. What I'm saying is that if something is fundamentally observable, then science can make statements of it. It can make measurements and hypotheses and theories; how well these actually work to describe the phenomenon is subject to incremental improvements, and like you said, scientific knowledge is never absolute but relative.
What I was trying to point at is that if something physically exists and influences the world as we know it, then we can obviously make scientific statements out of it. Even if it's just "this happened and I have no idea why".
For things to be truly, fundamentally beyond any scientific understanding, they would have to be un-observable, and that means they can not influence our reality in any measurable way with current or any future measurement techniques. To me, this suggests something that does nothing. And something doing nothing strikes me as very irrelevant.
This is the basic reason why I don't think supernatural things exist. And yes, as I am a physicalist, my position is that no thing is more than the sum of its physical characteristics.
Even if we suppose a one-way interaction where supernatural spirits can observe our universe but not influence it in any way (and quantum mechanics would like to have a word with these spirits), they would still fundamentally be part of everything that exists, and they would have some sort of rules governing their existence.
Please stop talking about metaphysics and stop your condescension about reading philosophy. I don't presume to be smarter or dumber than any person in the history of the world who wrote something, and in some cases I do find it helpful to look how other people have thought of something relevant to me. But I honestly prefer to do my own thought work about certain things, and I don't see what relevance other peoples' thoughts have when we're discussing our opinions.
If there has been some misuse of words, then that would be a failure in communication. But that's why we're having this discussion - to share our perspectives, what our thoughts of these concepts are, and how we define them. If I have not been clear enough in my posting, I suppose I will have to use less words that you already have a prescribed definition for.
We can discuss to the end of the world what Hume said and what Locke thought and who does passive-aggressive condescension best but I really think there are better ways to use our time.
-
About condescendence, you are the one being absolutely condescending towards the use of words, their meanings and the philosophical backgrounds I have brought here as arguments against your view that everything can be summarized the way you are doing here. Again, you present your views without confronting them against what I said. Did you even register what I tried to tell you about induction here? I think not.
For instance, when you say "stop talking about metaphysics" I really think you have no idea what you are talking about, because this is what you have been doing here for too damn long now, perhaps without conscience of it. If you are a physicalist, then that's your metaphysical position. You can't both try to shove your metaphysics down this thread's throat and demand others stop talking about it.
Thing is, such a belief isn't exactly grounded in the most rational approach to the universe. It's basically saying "All that exists is what I see and nothing more". Which is an obvious fallacy. Now, one should also be careful not to open up our minds to crazy woo, and so on. The correct path here is to forgo the notion of an objective reality and stop trying to speak for the entire universe what it can and what it cannot do. Agnostics are "positivists" (in the Stephen Hawking sense), in the way that we use terms and concepts in science that do not explain the objects in themselves, but rather patterns and symmetries that we detect, where what matters is how predictive we are and not the final words about what things like "Time" really are or not.
This means forgoing any claims about the Real World, and that includes the supernatural. We cannot say whether really magical realms exist or not. The best we can say about the subject is that we have no means to discuss it other than a scientific, rational way, and that if such realms escape this kind of description, then we should just better not talk about them at all. This fundamental gap between the supernatural and the natural is not something that I invented. Again, if you had read any material about the subject, you'd see that this gap is pretty much established as such by most theologians through time. (What christians did regarding this subject is a wholly different beast, that we could eventually discuss in other venues).
Regarding absolutist statements: You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that science will always find a way to solve a problem, or that it will eventually arrive to "absolute truth" about anything. What I'm saying is that if something is fundamentally observable, then science can make statements of it. It can make measurements and hypotheses and theories; how well these actually work to describe the phenomenon is subject to incremental improvements, and like you said, scientific knowledge is never absolute but relative.
I am really frustrated at this conversation. I have said again and again that supernaturality is something that is just beyond the scientific method. Of course that if this is the case, then you cannot just "observe it". And of course that the parts of it that you can, then we will deal with them "scientifically". However, the idea that science can "make statements about it" is somewhat vague and really not promising. Everyone can make statements!
What I was trying to point at is that if something physically exists and influences the world as we know it, then we can obviously make scientific statements out of it. Even if it's just "this happened and I have no idea why".
Hardly a scientific statement. It is barely scientific in the sense that it merely does what it can against the impossible, which is nothing.
Even if we suppose a one-way interaction where supernatural spirits can observe our universe but not influence it in any way (and quantum mechanics would like to have a word with these spirits), they would still fundamentally be part of everything that exists, and they would have some sort of rules governing their existence.
Says who? You? Who are you to demand such things? Don't you see the arrogance of these statements? And what "rules" are these, why are we even calling them "rules", etc.? The thing is, you imagine that any other realm that exists is just barely similar to ours and it follows "rules" that are just as logical as ours, and thus potentially understandable, and so on. It never even crosses your mind that it is indeed possible that such realms follow a completely different way, and that such "way" may well be indeed beyond any scientific reasoning.
This is about unintelligibility. We should admit that science might indeed be barred from understanding certain things about the cosmos, and perhaps even definitionally.
The whole religious discussion about the divine and the supernatural is of course something much more subtle, more intelligent and rich than the discussion we are having, but going to those more interesting places is just impossible since you just dismiss the whole notions from the outset. What it really has to do is with the Human being, what is special (or not) about us, what is Conscience, what is Free Will (and do we have it or not), what it means to be within a stream of consciousness and how necessary it is (from the logical standpoint) that science outright fails us when we reach this conscience question. The basic reason is, of course, that it is founded under Descartian principles, and one of those principles, the division between the subject and the object, now comes to bite everyone back.
-
Herra, while I fully understand where you're coming from, I don't think you're in the right about this. I think a good way to show why is rather than arguing definitions and philosophy, to give you an example that doesn't fit with your reasoning.
Right now, computing is still in its infancy. As computers become more powerful the simulations we can run on them will become more and more powerful. It's even possible that one day we may be able to create a simulation that is self aware. Where this becomes interesting is that there is a possibility that this has already happened and we're living in it.
Let's suppose a scientist in the future wants to study the effects of global warming in his planet distant past. He programs a simulation of a planet called 21st century Earth and makes it as detailed as he possibly can in order to get the best simulation of what Earth would have been like*. The simulation is good enough that some of the objects created by the code become self aware (i.e us).
Basically at this point the scientist is a supernatural entity. He obviously exists but he is completely outside of our universe and science. It's possible that he can update the simulation while it's running, ask it to change variables, etc. but if there are no functions allowing things inside the simulation to interact with his world, and no functions that allow us to hit the hardware directly, science in the simulation has no possible way to interact with his world. In fact it's probably not possible to even know that his world exists. Depending on what is being reported back to him, there might not even be any way for him to realise the simulation is self aware. All he might see on his screen are temperatures and CO2 levels.
Now bare in mind that I've told a story about a creator who exists in a universe that is basically the same as ours, and has made a simulation of his own universe. There is no reason to believe that this is true. Since the laws of physics we know belong to the simulated universe we live in, it's an enormous and incorrect assumption that they have to be the same in whatever universe the computer exists in. They could be completely different. Calling the Real Universe supernatural is therefore perfectly valid. There's no way to reach it and study it. And even if we could break the barrier between the simulation and the Real Universe, there's no reason to assume our rules would work in that universe.
*there is however a rather large bug in the Socks.wash() function that leads to the pointer to the object being randomly overwritten. :p
-
About condescendence, you are the one being absolutely condescending towards the use of words, their meanings and the philosophical backgrounds I have brought here as arguments against your view that everything can be summarized the way you are doing here. Again, you present your views without confronting them against what I said. Did you even register what I tried to tell you about induction here? I think not.
You're posting so many things I disagree with that I have to pick the parts I disagree with most, otherwise my posts will end up looking like a demented quote ladder.
But I'll bite. For now.
And what happens when scientists notice a phenomenon they don't quite know what to make out of? They observe it, document it, experiment with it, until they get an idea about how it works, and then start formulating hypotheses to form theories about what's going on. Hence the inverse of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science.
This is abductive induction. You cannot make this induction. Yes, any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, but the reverse does not follow from that same sentence. It does not matter how amazing the scientific method is, it can never even state anything about any *thing* that falls beyond its probing capabilties (either technical or theoretical). So you cannot ever say it is a "logical impossibility". That's just pure nonsense.
It's not abductive (in that it doesn't involve guessing). Here's the logical chain:
-let us assume that Magic can be observed
-observed things can be scientifically analyzed
-Magic can be scientifically analyzed
In the last line you have something that contradicts with the classical definition of magic, which implies it being something supernatural.
Excluding pure chaos, there is always some kind of underlying ruleset behind things, and scientific analysis is the best utility to uncover said rules.
Hence, after sufficient analysis, magic loses its supernatural apperance, and becomes an applied science - although it probably still would be referred to as magic, due to legacy reasons.
The stage at which this transition can be said to happen depends on what this particular species of magic can do and how easy it is to analyze and predict.
I truly don't see what's so complicated about this.
For instance, when you say "stop talking about metaphysics" I really think you have no idea what you are talking about, because this is what you have been doing here for too damn long now, perhaps without conscience of it. If you are a physicalist, then that's your metaphysical position. You can't both try to shove your metaphysics down this thread's throat and demand others stop talking about it.
No, it's my physical world view. Hence my arguing from it to show that in my view, agnosticism is not a scientific world view and DEFINITELY not a "natural result" of scientific method. I'm less interested in discussing the actual metaphysics than the consequences of a metaphysical position that I think best adheres to scientific method.
See, the consideration of metaphysics as an actual thing is fully dependant on your view on physics. It's in the etymology of the word - metaphysics means, approximately, "after physics".
If, like I, one considers everything that exists to be firmly in the realm of physics, there is simply no relevance in discussing metaphysics.
Thing is, such a belief isn't exactly grounded in the most rational approach to the universe. It's basically saying "All that exists is what I see and nothing more". Which is an obvious fallacy.
It's also incorrect definition of physicalism. Physicalism has nothing to do with "what I see and nothing more".
It merely states that, to quote wikipedia, "everything that exists is physical, that is, that there are no things other than physical things." Or in my words earlier in the thread, everything is no more than sum of its physical characteristics. There's nothing about subjective observability in physicalism - perhaps you mixed it up with something else?
Now, one should also be careful not to open up our minds to crazy woo, and so on. The correct path here is to forgo the notion of an objective reality and stop trying to speak for the entire universe what it can and what it cannot do. Agnostics are "positivists" (in the Stephen Hawking sense), in the way that we use terms and concepts in science that do not explain the objects in themselves, but rather patterns and symmetries that we detect, where what matters is how predictive we are and not the final words about what things like "Time" really are or not.
This means forgoing any claims about the Real World, and that includes the supernatural. We cannot say whether really magical realms exist or not.
Sure we can. Easiest way to do so is simply state that if the supposed magical realms exist, then their magicality is a perfectly natural part of universe (ie. not so magical after all).
Nihil supernum.
The realms may exist - of THAT we can have no opinion for or against without information - but they are not magical.
Or, the whole universe is magical. Take your pick.
Otherwise you'll have to create all sorts of definitions that specify which things are mundane and which things are magical...
The best we can say about the subject is that we have no means to discuss it other than a scientific, rational way, and that if such realms escape this kind of description, then we should just better not talk about them at all. This fundamental gap between the supernatural and the natural is not something that I invented. Again, if you had read any material about the subject, you'd see that this gap is pretty much established as such by most theologians through time. (What christians did regarding this subject is a wholly different beast, that we could eventually discuss in other venues).
Theology is another topic I really have very little interest in.
Regarding absolutist statements: You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that science will always find a way to solve a problem, or that it will eventually arrive to "absolute truth" about anything. What I'm saying is that if something is fundamentally observable, then science can make statements of it. It can make measurements and hypotheses and theories; how well these actually work to describe the phenomenon is subject to incremental improvements, and like you said, scientific knowledge is never absolute but relative.
I am really frustrated at this conversation. I have said again and again that supernaturality is something that is just beyond the scientific method. Of course that if this is the case, then you cannot just "observe it". And of course that the parts of it that you can, then we will deal with them "scientifically". However, the idea that science can "make statements about it" is somewhat vague and really not promising. Everyone can make statements!
Yes. What makes a statement scientific is that it includes some empirical data.
If you think you're frustrated, try me. I have been saying the whole conversation that it is impossible for something to exist without being subject to measurements and other tools of scientific method, and that's my main argument as to why I think supernatural is, in itself, a contradiction.
The quality of observations usually determines how accurate the hypotheses made from them are.
What I was trying to point at is that if something physically exists and influences the world as we know it, then we can obviously make scientific statements out of it. Even if it's just "this happened and I have no idea why".
Hardly a scientific statement. It is barely scientific in the sense that it merely does what it can against the impossible, which is nothing.
It's certainly more scientific than saying "this happened, and no one can ever know why because it's supernatural".
And it's infinitely more scientific than saying "ok, this thing exists, but it cannot be observed, and it cannot ever be understood by science"... which is, of course, much more common approach to claims of supernatural things existing. It is the core argument of both gnosticism and theism.
Even if we suppose a one-way interaction where supernatural spirits can observe our universe but not influence it in any way (and quantum mechanics would like to have a word with these spirits), they would still fundamentally be part of everything that exists, and they would have some sort of rules governing their existence.
Says who? You? Who are you to demand such things? Don't you see the arrogance of these statements?
Yes, I say so. It's not a demand, it's a logical conclusion of the premises I'm working with.
The simplest definition of universe (or cosmos) is that it includes everything that exists.
And, since I'm arguing from physicalist point of view, to me existence is something physical; an interaction or substance. This means, again from physicalist point of view, that if we imagine an entity "outside" universe suddenly starting to interact with our universe, then suddenly you can draw a bigger Venn diagram circle around the universe AND that entity, and re-label that as "the universe".
By interacting with the universe, hypothetical extra-universal beings would incorporate themselves into our definition of existence.
And no, I don't really see what's arrogant about that.
And what "rules" are these, why are we even calling them "rules", etc.? The thing is, you imagine that any other realm that exists is just barely similar to ours and it follows "rules" that are just as logical as ours, and thus potentially understandable, and so on. It never even crosses your mind that it is indeed possible that such realms follow a completely different way, and that such "way" may well be indeed beyond any scientific reasoning.
It truly doesn't matter whether we are or aren't capable of comprehending the rules of potential other "realms", or, in case of nested universe, "levels of existence". It doesn't even make a difference whether or not we're capable of understanding the rules of our own observable universe. Being unable to understand something doesn't make it fundamentally impossible to understand.
But what you're saying is pretty close to another description of God that was used in a thread on this very forum years ago - I forgot exactly who it was, but I think they described God as being "outside logic".
It made no sense then and your argument that something could be fundamentally beyond any scientific reasoning makes no more sense now.
Your argument seems to be tied to human ability to perceive reality.
However, no one ever said that humans had a monopoly on practicing the scientific method.
What prevents gods from being scientists?
This is about unintelligibility. We should admit that science might indeed be barred from understanding certain things about the cosmos, and perhaps even definitionally.
Never. Never, never, never ever should we admit that. It's the end of the road for scientific development, and it will never happen in science. If you label something as impossible to know, you are giving up. The answers may never come, but you can not know that.
The whole religious discussion about the divine and the supernatural is of course something much more subtle, more intelligent and rich than the discussion we are having, but going to those more interesting places is just impossible since you just dismiss the whole notions from the outset.
I disagree. Religions are fundamentally uninteresting to me, and claims of supernatural equally so.
What it really has to do is with the Human being, what is special (or not) about us, what is Conscience, what is Free Will (and do we have it or not), what it means to be within a stream of consciousness and how necessary it is (from the logical standpoint) that science outright fails us when we reach this conscience question.
I find those questions discussed from physical standpoint infinitely more interesting than saying that there are spirits, supernaturalness, divine influences or other such goddidit arguments involved.
We do not yet understand how consciousness becomes a thing. However, we have a fairly good idea where to start (hint: it's the brain), and that start is not to say "it's forever beyond our understanding" or invoke the existence of spirits (souls, in this example) to explain something. It is exactly the God of the Gaps argument, with slightly different formulation.
Personally, I'm fairly sure we will start to understand consciousness more as we start engineering conscious entities ourselves - AI's. Ethical or not, we can then actually research on what makes an AI conscious or sentient being, and even if we don't use our own brain structures as a template, it will certainly help on the abstract understanding of what is required for consciousness to form.
karajorma:
The example of a simulation and an Admin entity was discussed some days ago at #hard-light, and there's nothing fundamentally divine about such an Admin entity.
The interesting thing here is that it's a (very strange and particular) example of a nested universe, in which an universe (simulation) exists within a bigger whole. But of course, the actual universe (etymologically, everything-that-exists) includes both the parent and child realms.
At this point, same simple premise can be applied to both the parent and child realms: Everything that exists is, obviously, a natural phenomenon (meaning, it's possible for it to exist in that universe).
For the parent universe, we can make a statement that clearly in that universe, laws of nature allow for running a simulation that is in fact our world. The same laws of nature in that universe also clearly allow for the existence of the Admin entity, and the server infrastructure, and what have you.
This doesn't make the parent universe in any way fundamentally supernatural in my view. And it certainly doesn't make the Admin entity "divine". This, regardless of the level of interaction between the running simulation and admin personnel.
But, of course, nested universes tends to be another iteration of turtle on top of elephants on top of elephants... it's elephants all the way down. And then more elephants. It's a rabbit hole I don't feel particularly inclined to jump in. And particularly a nested simulation type scenario has several issues which are problematic in the view of our current knowledge of physics - such as theory of relativity, particularly the concept of simultaneity and universal reference frame (what kind of in-game coordinate system could produce all the effects of special and general relativity...). On the other hand, some parts of physics are eerily reminiscent of digital computation anomalies (quantum mechanics) and mathematical abstractions like singularities, so who knows.
-
It's not abductive (in that it doesn't involve guessing). Here's the logical chain:
-let us assume that Magic can be observed
-observed things can be scientifically analyzed
-Magic can be scientifically analyzed
In the last line you have something that contradicts with the classical definition of magic, which implies it being something supernatural.
Excluding pure chaos, there is always some kind of underlying ruleset behind things, and scientific analysis is the best utility to uncover said rules.
Two big mistakes here. First you assume that Magic can be observed. This is gruesome, especially since I have already stated that the supernatural part of any magic is precisely the one that escapes scientific methodologies, ergo, it is unobservable, etc. Multiple times. Yet, you keep on pounding here, dunno why.
Second, for you either something is "pure chaos" or it has some "underlying rulesets" behind them. This is a metaphysical belief, pure and simple. This idea that there is something "orderly" and then something "chaotic" and the world is perfectly divided between these two is just a metaphysical statement proclaimed by faith. I have a completely different meaning of "chaos" and "order". To me, order is everything we understand, while chaos is everything we don't. Everything that we fail to understand seems utterly chaotic to us.
However, this does not mean that everything that we fail to understand (or even that the scientific method fails to understand) is "pure chaos", whatever that can mean. Such a state of affairs is possible, but it is not necessary. You have failed to prove this point.
I truly don't see what's so complicated about this.
I'm less interested in discussing the actual metaphysics than the consequences of a metaphysical position that I think best adheres to scientific method.
Of course you are. I mean, you would just love for everyone to just accept your metaphysics without discussion. Wouldn't that be easier? However, you are absolutely wrong here. Physicalism may well prove to be the correct metaphysics, but you simply do not know enough to make that conclusion.
See, the consideration of metaphysics as an actual thing is fully dependant on your view on physics. It's in the etymology of the word - metaphysics means, approximately, "after physics".
If, like I, one considers everything that exists to be firmly in the realm of physics, there is simply no relevance in discussing metaphysics.
If you continue to make **** up like this I will just stop replying to you. YES, Metaphysics means "after physics". Do you even know why? Do you even know the meaning of the words we are using in this discussion at all? "Metaphysics" was the name of the writings that Aristotle wrote after his teatrises on Physics (thus its name). Thus why it is called like this. HOWEVER, you cannot "derive" its meaning in that way, just like you cannot derive the meaning from Agnosticism from the historically ignorant manner that you pulled some comments ago.
BACK to the discussion (sigh). If you state something like "Everything that exists is in the realm of physics", then this is Physicalism. This is a metaphysical position. To say "IF I believe X, then there's no point in discussing beliefs", you are either not understanding your own words or you are just bullying me into accepting your metaphysics by fiat. That's not how I roll, sorry.
It's also incorrect definition of physicalism. Physicalism has nothing to do with "what I see and nothing more".
It merely states that, to quote wikipedia, "everything that exists is physical, that is, that there are no things other than physical things." Or in my words earlier in the thread, everything is no more than sum of its physical characteristics. There's nothing about subjective observability in physicalism - perhaps you mixed it up with something else?
No, I was making a general commentary about your limited metaphysics. You only see physical things, therefore the cosmos is only about physical things. I was commenting on the attitude that concludes Physicalism, not physicalism itself.
Sure we can. Easiest way to do so is simply state that if the supposed magical realms exist, then their magicality is a perfectly natural part of universe (ie. not so magical after all).
That's absurd and contradictory. "If magical things exist, they aren't magical". If X then X <> X.
Yes. What makes a statement scientific is that it includes some empirical data.
If you think you're frustrated, try me. I have been saying the whole conversation that it is impossible for something to exist without being subject to measurements and other tools of scientific method, and that's my main argument as to why I think supernatural is, in itself, a contradiction.
Again, two very wrong things. No, a scientific statement needs more than "include some empirical data". Science is not only about "empirical" stuff. The other very wrong thing you said is that something cannot exist without being "subject" to measurements. If such were true, then singularities (a quite physical thing, not even in the supernatural realm) and other kinds of "unmeasurable" objects wouldn't exist. But that's obviously absurd. The reductio is flawless here.
It's certainly more scientific than saying "this happened, and no one can ever know why because it's supernatural".
Tu Quoque is not an argument. I agree that what you just wrote is silly, however the original "scientific statement" makes it abundantly clear that it is quite possible for there being limits to the scientific method. Just the fact that they are contingent on so many levels, how accidental the method is, etc., should give you the clue.
And it's infinitely more scientific than saying "ok, this thing exists, but it cannot be observed, and it cannot ever be understood by science"... which is, of course, much more common approach to claims of supernatural things existing. It is the core argument of both gnosticism and theism.
And this is a bad argument. What this quoted paragraph says is basically that "Sciency stuff is more sciency than non-sciency stuff". That wasn't the point.
Yes, I say so. It's not a demand, it's a logical conclusion of the premises I'm working with.
The simplest definition of universe (or cosmos) is that it includes everything that exists.
And, since I'm arguing from physicalist point of view, to me existence is something physical; an interaction or substance. This means, again from physicalist point of view, that if we imagine an entity "outside" universe suddenly starting to interact with our universe, then suddenly you can draw a bigger Venn diagram circle around the universe AND that entity, and re-label that as "the universe".
"from physicalist point of view" you conclude that the world is physical and nothing non-physical exists. How's that for an argument. It's brilliant. Wait. No, no it's not, it's just concluding what you assume. The arrogance is saying that nothing that you do not assume exists exists. As if your assumptions had the seal of God printed on them. No, they just haven't.
But what you're saying is pretty close to another description of God that was used in a thread on this very forum years ago - I forgot exactly who it was, but I think they described God as being "outside logic".
It made no sense then and your argument that something could be fundamentally beyond any scientific reasoning makes no more sense now.
Again, let's deconstruct this idea. There's this God as being "outside logic". And then you say that it makes no sense. What kind of sense? The logical one of course. But wait, hadn't we assumed that God was "outside logic"? So what is really here the controversy when we reach the conclusion that "it makes no sense"? That should have been obvious from the get go. Now here's the bottom line: it may make "no sense" (to us or to anyone but god), it may not follow logic, and still exist.
You haven't shown *anything* against this idea other than stating the opposite case as a brute fact. That's the arrogance.
Never. Never, never, never ever should we admit that. It's the end of the road for scientific development, and it will never happen in science. If you label something as impossible to know, you are giving up. The answers may never come, but you can not know that.
What the hell are you on about? How is it the "end of the road for scientific development" to have the insight that some things might be completely outside even our senses of "blind spots"? Your ideas are all over the place and utterly confused. No, humbleness is not "the end of science", it might be precisely its beggining. Nowhere did I write that we should "give up", where did that even come from? Jesus.
I disagree. Religions are fundamentally uninteresting to me, and claims of supernatural equally so.
I won't ever force anyone to have a clue about anything really, so don't worry too much. Being ignorant is sometimes useful I guess.
-
The example of a simulation and an Admin entity was discussed some days ago at #hard-light, and there's nothing fundamentally divine about such an Admin entity.
The interesting thing here is that it's a (very strange and particular) example of a nested universe, in which an universe (simulation) exists within a bigger whole. But of course, the actual universe (etymologically, everything-that-exists) includes both the parent and child realms.
From the point of view of the parent universe, yes. But from the point of view of the simulation, no. The parent universe is completely closed off to us. There might be no way to even know it exists. As far as the simulation is concerned, the simulation is the entire universe because there is nothing else that can be observed.
For the parent universe, we can make a statement that clearly in that universe, laws of nature allow for running a simulation that is in fact our world. The same laws of nature in that universe also clearly allow for the existence of the Admin entity, and the server infrastructure, and what have you.
This doesn't make the parent universe in any way fundamentally supernatural in my view. And it certainly doesn't make the Admin entity "divine". This, regardless of the level of interaction between the running simulation and admin personnel.
What makes them supernatural and divine is the fact that
a) The parent universe is unobservable from the point of view of the simulation.
b) The scientist can affect the simulation without leaving any trace of how it was done. To all intents and purposes, a miracle.
You've claimed that since any deity/supernatural entity's effects on the natural world can be studied with science. I pointed out the nested universe as an example of a time when it can't. It's not simply that we can't understand the results of trying to do science on the parent universe, it's that we physically can't do science on it.
If you say science can measure everything, you're obviously incorrect. So the only scientific possibility is to say that "Maybe there are some things which science can't measure" which is pretty much what everyone but you has defined as agnosticism.
-
Two big mistakes here. First you assume that Magic can be observed. This is gruesome, especially since I have already stated that the supernatural part of any magic is precisely the one that escapes scientific methodologies, ergo, it is unobservable, etc. Multiple times. Yet, you keep on pounding here, dunno why.
For things to be truly, fundamentally beyond any scientific understanding, they would have to be un-observable, and that means they can not influence our reality in any measurable way with current or any future measurement techniques. To me, this suggests something that does nothing. And something doing nothing strikes me as very irrelevant.
-
"Irrelevant" is something that does not equate to "unreal". It's also a bizarre qualification, since I did not say that the entirety of "miracles" would occur in a non-observable way. I did take my time explaining how the supernatural portion of a miracle is precisely the surplus that goes beyond material explanations, or scientific probing. It does not mean that the entirety of such miracles must be unobservable.
I can really easily imagine a miracle that just goes against any fundamental law of the universe, its fundamental properties unavailable to any observer, however they give rise to really big observable phenomena. Kara's analogy is perfect as an illustration on how this is possible as a proof of concept. The admin decides to change parts of a simulated world by his own whims, and to the conscious observers inside this simulation it appears as if things came out of nowhere without any intrinsic logic, going against any laws they were aware of that ruled their world.
-
If something is totally and fundamentally unobservable then science doesn't care. It might 'exist', but it has no influence on our universe, cannot be tested, and is irrelevant to us.
If the admin changes some part of our simulated world, even totally randomly, then we can still do science. If we can detect the changes then we can record them, study them, and at least attempt to figure out what is going on. If we simply said 'Huh, it looks random and contrary to logic, we can't ever hope to figure it out", then as Herra said that's simply us giving up.
-
"Doesn't care" is precisely the point. That's being agnostic. That's the scientific spirit.
Herra wasn't saying that. Herra was saying something like "anything that cannot be scientifically described in pricinple does not exist, period. Everything that exists is physical, period".
These are two very different things.
-
According to post #227 (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84974.msg1699689#msg1699689), his view is that there is nothing supernatural that both exists and influences our universe in any way. That's very different than saying that anything that cannot be scientifically described does not exist.
If people can't keep track of what other people are writing then we are going to have a challenging time.
-
The example of a simulation and an Admin entity was discussed some days ago at #hard-light, and there's nothing fundamentally divine about such an Admin entity.
The interesting thing here is that it's a (very strange and particular) example of a nested universe, in which an universe (simulation) exists within a bigger whole. But of course, the actual universe (etymologically, everything-that-exists) includes both the parent and child realms.
From the point of view of the parent universe, yes. But from the point of view of the simulation, no. The parent universe is completely closed off to us. There might be no way to even know it exists. As far as the simulation is concerned, the simulation is the entire universe because there is nothing else that can be observed.
But is supernatural and divinity truly a relative term?
In my view, the parent and child universes are not truly separate. The child universe is a virtualization running on parent universe's hardware, and yes - it is possible for the parent universe to be unobservable from the child universe.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make - even if something seemed supernatural or divine to us at first inspection, I truly don't think that kind of classification makes any sense.
Because in this kind of situation, the concept of "natural" simply expands to include the parent universe, admin-entity, and the simulation.
Meanwhile, in parent universe, the admin entities can argue about whether the simulation counts as part of "reality" or whether the simulated child universe is "real"...
For the parent universe, we can make a statement that clearly in that universe, laws of nature allow for running a simulation that is in fact our world. The same laws of nature in that universe also clearly allow for the existence of the Admin entity, and the server infrastructure, and what have you.
This doesn't make the parent universe in any way fundamentally supernatural in my view. And it certainly doesn't make the Admin entity "divine". This, regardless of the level of interaction between the running simulation and admin personnel.
What makes them supernatural and divine is the fact that
a) The parent universe is unobservable from the point of view of the simulation.
b) The scientist can affect the simulation without leaving any trace of how it was done. To all intents and purposes, a miracle.
Ah. Pardon me for moving the goalposts a little at this point.
There's been a little mix-up between being un-observable, and being "beyond scientific method".
There are things that are - to our best physical understanding - un-observable. These include event horizons - two main examples are the expansion event horizon of the universe, and of course the gravity event horizons of black holes - and certain quantum phenomena in which observing something changes end result, so we literally cannot observe how a photon or electron behaves as it travels through a double slit in an experiment.
But even though there are these un-observable things, they are not truly "beyond scientific method". We can make rational hypotheses about what happens beyond these limits of observability, and although these suggestions and guesses are not quite as valid from scientific perspective as empirically confirmed theories, it doesn't mean they can't be right.
For something to be truly beyond any means of scientific method, they would have to be not only un-observable (so that we can't make any measurements of them) but they should also be fundamentally incomprehensible, without any logic, and beyond any attempts to formalize a scientific hypothesis about it. And I'm seriously drawing a blank page trying to figure any example of what that could be.
You've claimed that since any deity/supernatural entity's effects on the natural world can be studied with science. I pointed out the nested universe as an example of a time when it can't. It's not simply that we can't understand the results of trying to do science on the parent universe, it's that we physically can't do science on it.
If you say science can measure everything, you're obviously incorrect. So the only scientific possibility is to say that "Maybe there are some things which science can't measure" which is pretty much what everyone but you has defined as agnosticism.
There are things that cannot be observed, but in my view there's a difference between rational hypothesis and supernatural hypothesis about these gaps.
Good examples of rational hypotheses are:
-Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
-Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
-Singularities as physical entities within event horizons of black holes
-Einstein-Rosen bridges
-Simulation hypothesis
-other nested universe hypotheses (such as black holes containing child universes)
These are all rationally describeable hypotheses. They can be understood, even if - at the moment - there's little in the ways of verifying or falsifying them. However, they are not fundamentally incomprehensible as supernatural should be.
Good examples of supernatural hypotheses:
-God did it (god remains an inexplicable primus motor)
-souls go to other realm after their physical host dies (never been any suggestion as to what is a soul, how it exists without physical hardware, etc.)
-miracles/magic (divine/arcane influence causing physically measurable events)
"Irrelevant" is something that does not equate to "unreal". It's also a bizarre qualification, since I did not say that the entirety of "miracles" would occur in a non-observable way. I did take my time explaining how the supernatural portion of a miracle is precisely the surplus that goes beyond material explanations, or scientific probing. It does not mean that the entirety of such miracles must be unobservable.
I completely disagree. If science witnesses a phenomenon which has a component that goes beyond material explanations or scientific probing, that doesn't mean it's supernatural or a miracle or any such thing.
I can think of several cases where exactly this happened, and now it's just part of science. How about observations of Moons of Jupiter, or more recent examples of Mercury's perihelion precession and photoelectric phenomenon?
The fact that we still don't clearly understand and can't explain gravity and quantum phenomena doesn't even mean they're supernatural. We've made tons of observations about them, and we have pretty good models about how they work, so we have reasonably good scientific understanding about them - but we can't claim to fully understand how they work, and therein come the different hypotheses for the deeper intricacies of the universe.
I can really easily imagine a miracle that just goes against any fundamental law of the universe, its fundamental properties unavailable to any observer, however they give rise to really big observable phenomena. Kara's analogy is perfect as an illustration on how this is possible as a proof of concept. The admin decides to change parts of a simulated world by his own whims, and to the conscious observers inside this simulation it appears as if things came out of nowhere without any intrinsic logic, going against any laws they were aware of that ruled their world.
If, using this example, we observe a phenomenon which seemingly has a "foreign influence" as its primus motor, it would certainly be an event of great interest, and we should hope that it would be repeatable. But as soon as it can be documented and accepted as a thing that happens, to me it simply stops being supernatural in any way.
If Admins can change properties of simulation, or add things, then yeah that can happen. Does that make it supernatural or miraculous?
In my view - no. If the admins start poking around the simulation, then at some point we can measure the changes, and at such point in time we can start hypothesizing about the origin of these changes.
And even if we may not come to the right conclusion about the nature of the admin-beings, we can make rational hypotheses about what is beyond these seemingly mysterious changes. A simulation-admin hypothesis is one such thing.
To call these "miracles" supernatural is to forgo any chance of even pondering what it's about, or a chance of guessing right.
A few more things about the simulation hypothesis, since I personally find it very fascinating.
It may be that the "parent universe" and its ruleset are beyond our means of measurement. However, the fact that we would be running in a simulation might, in some ways, be demonstrable. We could start looking for anomalies, floating point errors, signs of digital computation, bugs, glitches, div by zero, any seemingly strange thing that would make sense if we were in a simulation. It wouldn't PROVE that we are in a simulation, though.
Conversely, to falsify simulation hypothesis we would need to try to figure out something that would be fundamentally impossible to do in a simulated universe. However this is easier said than done, since arbitrarily powerful computational system running the simulation would in theory be capable of simulating anything. But we can try and look at some things that would, at least, be very difficult to do correctly in a simulation. Time dilation effects, for example, would require quite a bit of flexibility from the simulation - and other effects of relativity such as constant speed of light would likewise be challenging to simulate. Basically you would need the simulation to run every observer in its own inertial frame. Another curious effect would be simultaneity - there should in theory be a global reference timeframe in the simulation, and if admin were to make a global change in simulation - such as changing some natural constant - would it be instantaneous throughout the universe... or would it be applied on different observer frames depending on their individual timeframe?
By the way, there are some suggestions that some natural constants may not be quite constant. Fine structure constant in particular is of interest, because small changes in it can change other natural constants such as speed of light or gravitational constant. But whether the possible changes in it are simply results of universe's different stages of life, or result of "outside influences", I would still refuse to call the hypothetical "outside influence" divine or supernatural.
-
If people can't keep track of what other people are writing then we are going to have a challenging time.
Why don't you read a little more before being all condescending? My portrayal of his reasoning is 100% right. He described his views as physicalism. So either you bring up some substantial things to this discussion or just stop trolling my ass.
-
"Irrelevant" is something that does not equate to "unreal". It's also a bizarre qualification, since I did not say that the entirety of "miracles" would occur in a non-observable way. I did take my time explaining how the supernatural portion of a miracle is precisely the surplus that goes beyond material explanations, or scientific probing. It does not mean that the entirety of such miracles must be unobservable.
I completely disagree. If science witnesses a phenomenon which has a component that goes beyond material explanations or scientific probing, that doesn't mean it's supernatural or a miracle or any such thing.
Again, making the same mistake I told you not to do for the Nth time already? You really piss me off.
OF COURSE that if something goes beyond scientific explanations (THAT ARE ALWAYS contingent and tentative, NEVER direct descriptions of reality) it does NOT mean that it's supernatural or a miracle.
That's called a STRAWMAN. You are making a STRAWMAN.
The point is that you cannot DERIVE the following statement:
There are no miracles in the universe
FROM
Unknown things are not necessarily miracles
I will NOT tell you this again. If you do not understand how logic works, then go and learn before continuing this conversation. It's ****ing frustrating.
I can really easily imagine a miracle that just goes against any fundamental law of the universe, its fundamental properties unavailable to any observer, however they give rise to really big observable phenomena. Kara's analogy is perfect as an illustration on how this is possible as a proof of concept. The admin decides to change parts of a simulated world by his own whims, and to the conscious observers inside this simulation it appears as if things came out of nowhere without any intrinsic logic, going against any laws they were aware of that ruled their world.
If, using this example, we observe a phenomenon which seemingly has a "foreign influence" as its primus motor, it would certainly be an event of great interest, and we should hope that it would be repeatable. But as soon as it can be documented and accepted as a thing that happens, to me it simply stops being supernatural in any way.
If Admins can change properties of simulation, or add things, then yeah that can happen. Does that make it supernatural or miraculous?
In my view - no. If the admins start poking around the simulation, then at some point we can measure the changes, and at such point in time we can start hypothesizing about the origin of these changes.
And even if we may not come to the right conclusion about the nature of the admin-beings, we can make rational hypotheses about what is beyond these seemingly mysterious changes. A simulation-admin hypothesis is one such thing.
To call these "miracles" supernatural is to forgo any chance of even pondering what it's about, or a chance of guessing right.
Bull****. To call these things miracles is just the obvious first step. Then you can ponder what the heck you want to. People will do their science thing and it's good that it does. In no single point in this process it is supposed to be said the equivalent of "godidit therefore stop asking questions". People don't stop asking questions, so you are bringing another strawman to the case.
And it's not even a logical point. It's only about attitudes. And I am fine with attitudes. I think being scientific about it all is great. Just do not CONFUSE an attitude with a metaphysical position! Those things ARE different!
-
You're exceptionally angry. Please try calming down.
-
The point is that you cannot DERIVE the following statement:
There are no miracles in the universe
FROM
Unknown things are not necessarily miracles
Good thing I never did say that.
My statement is that there are no miracles in the universe, because anything that happens is part of the universe. And since the universe is the definition of "nature"*, anything that can possibly happen in universe is natural, rather than supernatural.
This is my reasoning for rejecting the attachement of "supernatural" to things that actually exist in the universe.
This, naturally, includes unknown things.
In other words: Reality consists of real things. It makes no sense to me to arbitrarily divide things into "natural" and "supernatural" based on some criteria that appeases some humans.
To call these "miracles" supernatural is to forgo any chance of even pondering what it's about, or a chance of guessing right.
Bull****. To call these things miracles is just the obvious first step. Then you can ponder what the heck you want to. People will do their science thing and it's good that it does. In no single point in this process it is supposed to be said the equivalent of "godidit therefore stop asking questions". People don't stop asking questions, so you are bringing another strawman to the case.
And it's not even a logical point. It's only about attitudes. And I am fine with attitudes. I think being scientific about it all is great. Just do not CONFUSE an attitude with a metaphysical position! Those things ARE different!
No. To call something a miracle is the end of the road in science. To call something miracle is to abandon the quest for further understanding about the thing.
Same applies to all supernatural things. And that brings us back to the current argument: Scientific method does not give up and call something supernatural, it will try to find out more about it until we gain better understanding of it.
Since agnosticism is a position that openly acknowledges that there may be a "spiritual world" that is fundamentally beyond scientific method to analyze (something existing that is impossible to get information from), it's in my view incompatible with scientific method itself.
Or maybe my definition of existence is different than yours.
*before you call my reasoning circular logic or some other error in argumentation, look up the definition of universe and nature.
-
Good thing I never did say that.
Then I am afraid we are speaking different languages. I am speaking english I don't know what the hell you are speaking.
Here, re read what I said and what you said:
"Irrelevant" is something that does not equate to "unreal". It's also a bizarre qualification, since I did not say that the entirety of "miracles" would occur in a non-observable way. I did take my time explaining how the supernatural portion of a miracle is precisely the surplus that goes beyond material explanations, or scientific probing. It does not mean that the entirety of such miracles must be unobservable.
I completely disagree. If science witnesses a phenomenon which has a component that goes beyond material explanations or scientific probing, that doesn't mean it's supernatural or a miracle or any such thing.
This was your *ARGUMENT*.
My statement is that there are no miracles in the universe, because anything that happens is part of the universe. And since the universe is the definition of "nature"*, anything that can possibly happen in universe is natural, rather than supernatural.
This is a *STATEMENT*. A metaphysical one. It's just what it is. It's like asking someone what the cosmos is like and he says "Well, there's this God guy up there and there's the rest of the universe and that's that".
In other words: Reality consists of real things. It makes no sense to me to arbitrarily divide things into "natural" and "supernatural" based on some criteria that appeases some humans.
So IOW, it makes no sense to you for people to categorize different things, concepts and notions as discriminate? This is beyond parody now.
No. To call something a miracle is the end of the road in science. To call something miracle is to abandon the quest for further understanding about the thing.
*facepalm*
I have yet to see any science being stopped because someone uttered the word "Miracle!". It is not. Pure and simple. The reason is obvious and you gave it yourself: just because something is currently unexplained doesn't mean it is necessarily a miracle.
Since agnosticism is a position that openly acknowledges that there may be a "spiritual world" that is fundamentally beyond scientific method to analyze (something existing that is impossible to get information from), it's in my view incompatible with scientific method itself.
Or maybe my definition of existence is different than yours.
Does not follow. Don't you see? It does not ****ing follow. Non sequitur. If agnosticism admits strange possibilities that we can't prove wrong how in the hell is that incompatible with a method of gathering knowledge? It just isn't.
-
"Irrelevant" is something that does not equate to "unreal". It's also a bizarre qualification, since I did not say that the entirety of "miracles" would occur in a non-observable way. I did take my time explaining how the supernatural portion of a miracle is precisely the surplus that goes beyond material explanations, or scientific probing. It does not mean that the entirety of such miracles must be unobservable.
I completely disagree. If science witnesses a phenomenon which has a component that goes beyond material explanations or scientific probing, that doesn't mean it's supernatural or a miracle or any such thing.
This was your *ARGUMENT*.
No it wasn't.
My statement is that there are no miracles in the universe, because anything that happens is part of the universe. And since the universe is the definition of "nature"*, anything that can possibly happen in universe is natural, rather than supernatural.
This is a *STATEMENT*. A metaphysical one. It's just what it is. It's like asking someone what the cosmos is like and he says "Well, there's this God guy up there and there's the rest of the universe and that's that".
It's not metaphysical statement, it's a statement about the physical universe.
Metaphysics isn't even a thing, it's just as useless as solipsism. Ditto with theology. If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
In other words: Reality consists of real things. It makes no sense to me to arbitrarily divide things into "natural" and "supernatural" based on some criteria that appeases some humans.
So IOW, it makes no sense to you for people to categorize different things, concepts and notions as discriminate? This is beyond parody now.
Why, yes, I object to people saying **** that doesn't make any sense.
Definitions of words including.
No. To call something a miracle is the end of the road in science. To call something miracle is to abandon the quest for further understanding about the thing.
*facepalm*
I have yet to see any science being stopped because someone uttered the word "Miracle!". It is not. Pure and simple. The reason is obvious and you gave it yourself: just because something is currently unexplained doesn't mean it is necessarily a miracle.
That's because it isn't the scientists that call things miracles.
It's not about someone calling something (falsely) a miracle. That obviously doesn't stop science because - thank you for making my point - science does not acknowledge miracles, and scientists don't call unexplained events or observations "miracles".
Since agnosticism is a position that openly acknowledges that there may be a "spiritual world" that is fundamentally beyond scientific method to analyze (something existing that is impossible to get information from), it's in my view incompatible with scientific method itself.
Or maybe my definition of existence is different than yours.
Does not follow. Don't you see? It does not ****ing follow. Non sequitur. If agnosticism admits strange possibilities that we can't prove wrong how in the hell is that incompatible with a method of gathering knowledge? It just isn't.
Does too.
If agnosticism acknowledges possibilities that are incompatible with scientific method, then agnosticism is incompatible with scientific method.
If A, then B.
Of course A needs to be proven, but if A is true, then B. So the question becomes, is the existence of unprobeable, incomprehensible, inexplicable spiritual world in contradiction with the scientific method?
In my view, it is. Feel free to disagree but please outline why scientific method could accept something being fundamentally inexplicable.
-
"Irrelevant" is something that does not equate to "unreal". It's also a bizarre qualification, since I did not say that the entirety of "miracles" would occur in a non-observable way. I did take my time explaining how the supernatural portion of a miracle is precisely the surplus that goes beyond material explanations, or scientific probing. It does not mean that the entirety of such miracles must be unobservable.
I completely disagree. If science witnesses a phenomenon which has a component that goes beyond material explanations or scientific probing, that doesn't mean it's supernatural or a miracle or any such thing.
This was your *ARGUMENT*.
No it wasn't.
Now you are denying your own words. I made that statement and you produced that answer. We clearly speak different languages. I knew you were trouble from the moment you started making your own definitions of well established words.
It's not metaphysical statement, it's a statement about the physical universe.
Metaphysics isn't even a thing, it's just as useless as solipsism
This is beyond ridiculous now. You just are as careless with semantics as with logic. Solipsism is a metaphysical position. So is physicalism (the one thing you adopt), materialism, theism, atheism, pantheism, deism, panentheism, relativism, absolutism, objectivism, etc.,etc.,etc.
When you just go on throwing metaphysical ideas and arguments while at the same time denying metaphysics is even a thing, I can see how ridiculous this conversation has got into.
But I *do* understand where you come from. You are utterly ignorant of these words and so you are just bluffing your way through the conversation as if these things don't matter because hell all that exists is physical and I am sure just gonna pile this truth until everyone agrees, the hell with any rigorous conversation, education or just the simplest respect of trying to understand what one is ****ing talking about.
Metaphysics isn't even a thing, it's just as useless as solipsism. Ditto with theology. If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Ah. You come from the Dawkins school of thought. I won't here defend theologians, you won't drag me into that. Dawkinian mode of thought is, however, amazingly dumb and simplistic. He just takes for granted his own metaphysics and then just goes on pretending that things like "philosophy" and "metaphysics" are non-things, despite the huge philosophical assumptions that he takes on board every single time he opens his mouth.
That's because it isn't the scientists that call things miracles.
Again, wrong. Scientists are people. Who are you to say that scientists don't go around claiming "this is a miracle!"? If OTOH, you say "science" does not talk about miracles, well yeah that was the ****ing point.
If agnosticism acknowledges possibilities that are incompatible with scientific method, then agnosticism is incompatible with scientific method.
If A, then B.
Of course A needs to be proven, but if A is true, then B. So the question becomes, is the existence of unprobeable, incomprehensible, inexplicable spiritual world in contradiction with the scientific method?
In my view, it is. Feel free to disagree but please outline why scientific method could accept something being fundamentally inexplicable.
"In my view"? Is this a ****ing argument now? "In my view"? I ask you for a reasoning on how agnosticism is incompatible with the scientific method and you just revert to basically assert your beliefs? Do you think this is proper discussion?
Does too.
Ah **** it you waste my time with your idiotic childish shenanigans for too damn long, I'm out.
-
This whole bloody conversation has been about trying to figure out what different words mean to different people, so I don't really see it as a great sin to disagree with someone else's definitions of words as long as one explains their position clearly enough otherwise.
If your mind lacks the flexibility to branch out from the established terminology that you seem so fond of, then so be it.
Physicalism is not a metaphysical position because it does not leave room for metaphysics. It's simple. Metaphysics is consideration of existence beyond physics. Physicalism refutes such a thing ever exists. So do several other branches of materialism, for that matter.
As far as Dawkins goes, I don't even particularly know what he thinks about things, but I'm pretty sure I don't belong to "his school of thought" if such a thing even is supposed to exist. If not for any other reason that the fact that I don't feel like subscribing to someone else's way of thinking.
If a scientists calls a phenomenone he or she is researching a miracle, then the research stops being science and becomes religion. And the scientist stops being a scientist and becomes a cleric or whatever.
Seriously, if scientists started calling things supernatural, they would stop researching them because it doesn't make sense to try to comprehend the incomprehensible (which, by definition, supernatural is).
My argument was that agnosticism is not a natural result of scientific method.
What you claimed to be my "argument" was an example to counter your nonsense about "supernatural component of miracles" being beyond the scientific method to analyze. It was never my argument, and while accusing me of strawmanning the discussion, you did just that yourself.
You have been trying to accuse me of thinking that "Because unknown things are not NECESSARILY supernatural", and therefore "No unknown thing is supernatural", when in fact it is the other way round. My insistence that nothing is supernatural comes from axiomatic definitions of universe, nature, and existence that simply defines everything that exist to be natural.
The simplest way to sum up my position is that reality doesn't concern itself with what some may consider "supernatural" or "natural". Real Things Are Real. Deal with it. If that happens to include something that is difficult to understand, there's two choices: Either label it as "supernatural" and therefore inexplicable, or do science about it and try to understand more about it.
This is exactly why acknowledgement of supernatural things even possibly existing (which is part of agnostic position) is contrary to the scientific method.
Finally, considering this whole conversation is about different world views - "in my view" is a statement of subjective fact, rather than argument. In my view, agnosticism is not a result of scientific method and is in some ways conflicting it.
I have provided you with my reasoning on how agnosticism conflicts scientific method (namely, the acknowledgement of things possibly existing beyond any scope of measurement or understanding through science). You have continually ignored them, and I can't fail to notice that you didn't even try to refute the final part of my post but rather claimed to leave the discussion (time will tell if you actually did so).