View Full Version : Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
Claudius the God
11-29-2006, 04:40
... from the thread: What if atheists went door-to-door talking to mormons?
I do hate to repeat myself...
If you want to discuss Atheïsm, religion, whatever topic which is not about this movie, start a new thread. Ignore this post again and :whip:.
so here's a new thread to discuss all things critical of organized religion and religious dogma...
firstly, a few definitions to get the ball rolling... (wikipedia is very useful...)
Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Antireligion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion
Freethought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought
Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Nontheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
Humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Secular Humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Common Sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Scientific Method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Evolutionary Sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Nihilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Irreligion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion
Antitheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Secularism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
Separation of Church and State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Discrimination against Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_atheists
A list of prominent Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
Demographics of Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Secular Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
How Atheists have been treated by different Religious groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion
Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Russel's Teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot
Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_non-existence_of_God
Criticism of Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion
Religious Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_wars
Arguments against the existance of god
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God
criticism of Intelligent design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Arguments_from_ignorance
criticism of creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Criticism_of_creationism
that should do for the moment...
and people, lets try to avoid the typical bashing and insults that frequently occur on the subject of religion and criticisms of religion... please lets have a civilized discussion...
CrossLOPER
11-29-2006, 07:19
No, no, no. That's not how you start a controversial religious thread. Declare yourself a god and inform everyone of the futility to resist you. Post pictures of you floating and speaking to animals. Make elaborate sayings tied to pointless meanings. Juggle mice with your mind before turning them into elephants.
...or you can just say that you denounce the flying spaghetti monster. That'll get people to entertain you with their rage brought on by something someone wrote on some internet forum.
...or you can just invite everyone to a mass suicide.
Have fun!!!!!!! ->_<-
You mock the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He'll thwap you with his Noodly Appendage and drown you in righteous Meatball Sauce.
I am a rationalist, empiricist, antitheist, antireligionist, secular humanist, skeptical, freethinking athiest and you can't prove otherwise. :wink:
Incongruous
11-29-2006, 15:06
I try very hard to be a humanist, it's the greatest level of intellect as far as I can see, you throw out all desriminations in order to respect the whole of humanity. In order to do this one must overcome hate in all it's forms. This is probably the hardest thing to achieve but probably the most fulfilling.
However when I attempt to understand the unhappiness of a people I end up hating the instigators of it, which basically just leads to the same bloody cycle over and over again.
You can be a humanist and still be religious obviuosly I just find it hard how people sometimes put a non-human god before living human beings.
Vladimir
11-29-2006, 16:45
Civilized?
:laugh4: Silly Cladius. Enjoy the Backroom.
~;)
o, no, no. That's not how you start a controversial religion. Declare yourself a god and inform everyone of the futility to resist you. Post pictures of you floating and speaking to animals. Make elaborate sayings tied to pointless meanings. Juggle mice with your mind before turning them into elephants.
Fixed.
CrossLOPER
11-29-2006, 23:32
Fixed.
No that's wrong. :wink:
Kralizec
11-30-2006, 00:22
No, no, no. That's not how you start a controversial religious thread. Declare yourself a god and inform everyone of the futility to resist you.
He already did, look at his name.
Claudius, you don't exist :P
Marshal Murat
11-30-2006, 00:36
Oh great, now people will know what they're talking about. Great way to ruin the backroom! Now we'll have intelligent, in-depth discussions of important issues.
Ah well, had to happen some time.
AntiochusIII
11-30-2006, 00:47
Oh great, now people will know what they're talking about. Great way to ruin the backroom! Now we'll have intelligent, in-depth discussions of important issues.Under all the tongue-in-teh-cheeks and sarcasms being flown around, I've yet to see one yet. :trytofly:
Claudius, how about introducing a theme for us to munch over? What angle of Humanism are you interested in reading about in terms of discussion here?
By AntiochusIII:
Under all the tongue-in-teh-cheeks and sarcasms being flown around, I've yet to see one yet.
Claudius, how about introducing a theme for us to munch over? What angle of Humanism are you interested in reading about in terms of discussion here?
Okay, I have something to argue about. How come there are proven facts and known truths that make every single religion wrong? You name a religion and give me a link to what it is about, I can find a fault or gap in the religion that can essentially prove it to be either impossible or having the wrong fundamentals. 'kay?
Claudius the God
11-30-2006, 02:17
on the subject of my user-name - 'Claudius the God' is the name of one of my favourite books - about the Roman Emperor Claudius - the bumbling fool with the stutter and the limp who managed to survive the deaths of most of the rest of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and who was officially deified (like Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Vespasian)... the books Claudius the God and I, Claudius were written by Robert Graves and are well worth the read - failing that one could find the DVDs or videos of the BBC TV series of I, Claudius from years ago...
on the subject of Atheism etc... I would describe myself as an Anti-Clerical Freethinking Secular Humanist.
I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." – Isaac Asimov
I can predict that this thread will be nice and peaceful and civilized until some religious fanatic comes along and starts insulting the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of us non-religious individuals...
I don'tr believe in Gods or devils or Heaven or Hell. I don't believe in fables such as noah's ark or the garden of Eden (though I did enjoy reading the Epic of Gilgamesh). I don't believe in the concept of Sin or divine forgiveness of Sins.
I can predict that this thread will be nice and peaceful and civilized until some religious fanatic comes along and starts insulting the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) of us non-religious individuals...
Oh a challenge - well you will have to wait for Navaros to get your fanatic to insult your unholy belief..... Oh wait did I just insult the lack of belief? :laugh4:
I don'tr believe in Gods or devils or Heaven or Hell. I don't believe in fables such as noah's ark or the garden of Eden (though I did enjoy reading the Epic of Gilgamesh). I don't believe in the concept of Sin or divine forgiveness of Sins.
I knew a guy like that once. He maintain that belief up to the time that the Battalion commander stated in formation that the expected causalities for us breaching the Iraqi defense during Desert Storm was going to be over 50% of us. He was right along with the rest of us Christians at the next few services held by the Chaplin.
Hell believe what you want - it frankly does not matter to me if you believe in a higher power or not.
Crazed Rabbit
11-30-2006, 03:06
What about Eartheist? One of the people I know from high school has that listed as her religion on facebook. :rolleyes:
Crazed Rabbit
Earthiest? Yikes. Maybe Gaiaist? Or is that too many vowels?
Hmm... ok, maybe Earthiest isn't so bad after all. Is that like a pagan thing? Wicca and all? I find Wiccans just about as silly as any other religion, except perhaps Satanists. Satanists really take the cake for inanity. They have a religion which while attempts to repudiate Judeo-Christian-Islamis beliefs by worshipping an essentially Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept - Satan. Too funny. It's rather like saying "I don't believe in orange trees, I believe in and worship oranges instead!" Dee dee dee.
Humans have reached an evolutionary plateau. We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.
Humans have reached an evolutionary plateau. We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.
Thats funny considering the progress that continues throughout history to include our times now. Science is not being held back by religion. Just check out the DAPRA website.
http://www.darpa.mil/
There is some things being researched that takes man well into the future of both progress and even evolution.
AntiochusIII
11-30-2006, 03:54
Hmm... I myself do not find discussions directly related to Humanism vs Religion in a direct antagonism to be all that interesting, which is where this potentially excellent thread seems to be heading. After all, the notion Humanism stands for a much larger and richer view on life than atheism alone, though obviously atheism can easily be a part of it.
Unlike my brethren, I do not find religion itself to be that much of a nuisance. I simply take the view that the great and endless masses would find another opium to be addicted to anyway if religion is somehow "defeated." Moreover, spirituality is very much human in its emotional impact and, in my opinion, its source, that I should just respect it as part of a circle of human experiences...
If that spirituality is exploited in the crowd mentality, however -- as is often the case -- then I do reserve a right to critique. That includes vicious and violently offensive assaults on the integrity of Everyone's Prophets and an incredibly condescending denouncement of all superstition...depending on my mood. ~;)
Hmm... ok, maybe Earthiest isn't so bad after all. Is that like a pagan thing? Wicca and all? I find Wiccans just about as silly as any other religion, except perhaps Satanists.
The only cool Wiccan I know is the leader singer for Godsmack. He has an amazing voice, for rock music anyway. I, personally, am whatever it is called where you believe in an higher power of some sort, but I don't need the word of men to tell me how to live my life. (i.e. priests, popes, caliphs, etc.)
EDIT: I think that that is Agnostic, right?
Reenk Roink
11-30-2006, 04:51
We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.
I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief? Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.
I like option three best. :wink: After all, I'm human. I'm irrational. Yes, I understand reason. I have studied basic logic, and think I have the capacity to understand more advanced forms of the stuff. It's a good tool this logic. But frankly, many of my decisions and beliefs are based on irrational impulse, instinct, and intuition and even though I am quite capable of examining them with reason and rational reflection, I will give way to the former because I feel it to be the better...
Anyway, back to the topic, personally, I remain firmly convinced of the existence of God. It is not due to any argument or evidence, as I have found all three arguments for God's existence to be lacking in someway and I don't like reformed epistemology. It's due to some undeniable...thing...I can't put my finger on. I don't want to say mystical experience, but it is certainly an extremely powerful intuitive phenomena. I find myself being able to deny the existence of material objects much easier than deny God (which is quite amazing, because I am barely able to do the former to begin with).
That being said, the biggest problem lies in which religion to choose...
Claudius the God
11-30-2006, 05:51
I knew a guy like that once. He maintain that belief up to the time that the Battalion commander stated in formation that the expected causalities for us breaching the Iraqi defense during Desert Storm was going to be over 50% of us. He was right along with the rest of us Christians at the next few services held by the Chaplin.
"Religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few." ~ Stendhal
"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." ~ Isaac Asimov
"If we look back at the begining we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom, respect and tyranny support them, in order to make the blindness of man serve their own interest. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to Gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them."
* Baron d'Holbach, France, 18th century.
"There are no atheists in foxholes."
Lt-Col. William J. Clear (1942)
"There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes.
James Morrow
Claudius the God
11-30-2006, 06:02
I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief?
because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense. This can be irrational, unethical, dangerous, counterproductive, and even exploitative and tyrannical...
the changes at the end of the middle ages with the renewal of the use of reason contributed the development of sciences, technology, and philosophy. the benefits of Reason are all around us today... at least in civilized areas...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Reason
(sorry about the double-post I don't know how to use multiple quotes)
I used to think 'let people believe what they want' - live and let live
but now I see that some peoples beliefs needs to involve the unacceptance of people not of that faith
from that perspective religion or organised religion has become a divider of peoples rather than a uniter
this is even excluding those who use it as a excuse to commit act which their own belief prohibits (hypocryts)
now I believe religion is something the world is better off without because its being used as a political tool to set people against each other - when essentially we are all brothers - we all share the same dreams and hopes
I now think that religion is for those of us 'sheep' who cannot think for themselves what they believe - hence they need to be told what to believe by some organisation/person/political group - and how to believe it and practice it
I dont need to be told what to believe - from my own experience I can figure out what I believe - and if I did happen to believe in a GOD or omnipotent being then no one is going to understand my relationship with that being or how best to worship/access it - than me
Given how individual human beings are I dont really understand how one person can think their beliefs are the same as anothers let alone associate their beliefs with those of goat herders 3000 years ago
I think of nations the same way as religions - they are increasingly irrelevent
If I have friends or family being bombed/killed/imprisoned/persecuted by my 'nation' in another country x - then who am I going to support - my friend/family or my nation
the sooner the human race can rid itself of these dividers the better off we and this planet will be
Crazed Rabbit
11-30-2006, 06:50
Humans have reached an evolutionary plateau. We can't evolve or progress further until we throw off the last vestiges of the mental chains of religion and other superstitions we thought up before we figured out how to reason.
Oh please. I doubt religious beliefs are holding people back from evolving. Nor is religion a 'mental chain'. Religion does not stop science.
To me, eartheism or gaiaism is weird - essentially, they seem to be atheists, who believe in the absense of God, but worship a big rock.
because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense. This can be irrational, unethical, dangerous, counterproductive, and even exploitative and tyrannical...
Ha! Deluded worship of 'reason' only removes the moral boundaries of religion and allows man to inflict real inhumanities upon man. It allows evil acts to be rationalized into acceptance, for what is despicable to be explained as the necessary, the just, the moral good, through the use of reason - a deluded worship of man as the ultimate abitrator.
now I believe religion is something the world is better off without because its being used as a political tool to set people against each other - when essentially we are all brothers - we all share the same dreams and hopes
So, because of tolerance, we can't tolerate Religions?
those who use it as a excuse to commit act which their own belief prohibits (hypocryts)
Huh.
Oh, and did you think up atheism all for yourself? Wake up one day without ever hearing of it and decide God doesn't exist? Or are you just listening to the opinions of other atheists?
Crazed Rabbit
Claudius the God
11-30-2006, 07:14
Ha! Deluded worship of 'reason' only removes the moral boundaries of religion and allows man to inflict real inhumanities upon man. It allows evil acts to be rationalized into acceptance, for what is despicable to be explained as the necessary, the just, the moral good, through the use of reason - a deluded worship of man as the ultimate abitrator.
Rubbish!
firstly, Reason is not worshiped (it is highly valued as a way of thinking and solving problems, but never worshipped).
Most Religions and scripture have numerous moral codes which are highly obsolete, and reduce morals and ethics so absurd things such as Sins...
Religious scripture and Religious Fanatics have been inflicting damage upon Humanity for millenia...
non-religious ethics don't allow evil acts to be rationalized or accepted, instead it allows people the right to think about important issues and make educated decisions without the limitations imposed by dogma and ancient traditions.
instead of stoning adulterers to death and killing anyone who doesn't listen to priests. Reason has given Humanity some level of dignity.
and Humanism is not in any way the 'worship' of mankind.
this is what Humanism is:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration
Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters. This declaration defends only that form of secular humanism which is explicitly committed to democracy. It is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship.
Democratic secular humanism has been a powerful force in world culture. Its ideals can be traced to the philosophers, scientists, and poets of classical Greece and Rome, to ancient Chinese Confucian society, to the Carvaka movement of India, and to other distinguished intellectual and moral traditions. Secularism and humanism were eclipsed in Europe during the Dark Ages, when religious piety eroded humankind's confidence in its own powers to solve human problems. They reappeared in force during the Renaissance with the reassertion of secular and humanist values in literature and the arts, again in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the development of modern science and a naturalistic view of the universe, and their influence can be found in the eighteenth century in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.
Democratic secular humanism has creatively flowered in modern times with the growth of freedom and democracy. Countless millions of thoughtful persons have espoused secular humanist ideals, have lived significant lives, and have contributed to the building of a more humane and democratic world. The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the improvement of the human condition. This has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communication, and in making the good life possible for more and more people. It has led to the emancipation of hundreds of millions of people from the exercise of blind faith and fears of superstition and has contributed to their education and the enrichment of their lives.
Secular humanism has provided an impetus for humans to solve their problems with intelligence and perseverance, to conquer geographic and social frontiers, and to extend the range of human exploration and adventure. Regrettably, we are today faced with a variety of antisecularist trends: the reappearance of dogmatic authoritarian religions; fundamentalist, literalist, and doctrinaire Christianity; a rapidly growing and uncompromising Moslem clericalism in the Middle East and Asia; the reassertion of orthodox authority by the Roman Catholic papal hierarchy; nationalistic religious Judaism; and the reversion to obscurantist religions in Asia.
New cults of unreason as well as bizarre paranormal and occult beliefs, such as belief in astrology, reincarnation, and the mysterious power of alleged psychics, are growing in many Western societies. These disturbing developments follow in the wake of the emergence in the earlier part of the twentieth century of intolerant messianic and totalitarian quasi religious movements, such as fascism and communism. These religious activists not only are responsible for much of the terror and violence in the world today but stand in the way of solutions to the world's most serious problems.
Paradoxically, some of the critics of secular humanism maintain that it is a dangerous philosophy. Some assert that it is "morally corrupting" because it is committed to individual freedom, others that it condones "injustice" because it defends democratic due process. We who support democratic secular humanism deny such charges, which are based upon misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and we seek to outline a set of principles that most of us share.
Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. There are wide differences of opinion among secular humanists on many issues. Nevertheless, there is a loose consensus with respect to several propositions. We are apprehensive that modern civilization is threatened by forces antithetical to reason, democracy, and freedom. Many religious believers will no doubt share with us a belief in many secular humanist and democratic values, and we welcome their joining with us in the defense of these ideals.
1.
Free Inquiry
The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. In the past, such tyrannies have been directed by churches and states attempting to enforce the edicts of religious bigots. In the long struggle in the history of ideas, established institutions, both public and private, have attempted to censor inquiry, to impose orthodoxy on beliefs and values, and to excommunicate heretics and extirpate unbelievers. Today, the struggle for free inquiry has assumed new forms. Sectarian ideologies have become the new theologies that use political parties and governments in their mission to crush dissident opinion. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2. Separation Of Church And State
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society. Nor should tax revenues be exacted for the benefit or support of sectarian religious institutions. Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to accept or not to accept any belief and to support these convictions with whatever resources they may have, without being compelled by taxation to contribute to those religious faiths with which they do not agree. Similarly, church properties should share in the burden of public revenues and should not be exempt from taxation. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3. The Ideal Of Freedom
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.
5. Moral Education
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
6. Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations. We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature. Religions are pervasive sociological phenomena, and religious myths have long persisted in human history. In spite of the fact that human beings have found religions to be uplifting and a source of solace, we do not find their theological claims to be true. Religions have made negative as well as positive contributions toward the development of human civilization. Although they have helped to build hospitals and schools and, at their best, have encouraged the spirit of love and charity, many have also caused human suffering by being intolerant of those who did not accept their dogmas or creeds. Some religions have been fanatical and repressive, narrowing human hopes, limiting aspirations, and precipitating religious wars and violence. While religions have no doubt offered comfort to the bereaved and dying by holding forth the promise of an immortal life, they have also aroused morbid fear and dread. We have found no convincing evidence that there is a separable "soul" or that it exists before birth or survives death. We must therefore conclude that the ethical life can be lived without the illusions of immortality or reincarnation. Human beings can develop the self confidence necessary to ameliorate the human condition and to lead meaningful, productive lives.
7. Reason
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
8. Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it. Modern astronomy and physics have opened up exciting new dimensions of the universe: they have enabled humankind to explore the universe by means of space travel. Biology and the social and behavioral sciences have expanded our understanding of human behavior. We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.
9. Evolution
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.
10. Education
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community. Unfortunately, the schools are today being increasingly replaced by the mass media as the primary institutions of public information and education. Although the electronic media provide unparalleled opportunities for extending cultural enrichment and enjoyment, and powerful learning opportunities, there has been a serious misdirection of their purposes. In totalitarian societies, the media serve as the vehicle of propaganda and indoctrination. In democratic societies television, radio, films, and mass publishing too often cater to the lowest common denominator and have become banal wastelands. There is a pressing need to elevate standards of taste and appreciation. Of special concern to secularists is the fact that the media (particularly in the United States) are inordinately dominated by a pro religious bias. The views of preachers, faith healers, and religious hucksters go largely unchallenged, and the secular outlook is not given an opportunity for a fair hearing. We believe that television directors and producers have an obligation to redress the balance and revise their programming. Indeed, there is a broader task that all those who believe in democratic secular humanist values will recognize, namely, the need to embark upon a long term program of public education and enlightenment concerning the relevance of the secular outlook to the human condition.
Conclusion
Democratic secular humanism is too important for human civilization to abandon. Reasonable persons will surely recognize its profound contributions to human welfare. We are nevertheless surrounded by doomsday prophets of disaster, always wishing to turn the clock back - they are anti science, anti freedom, anti human. In contrast, the secular humanistic outlook is basically melioristic, looking forward with hope rather than backward with despair. We are committed to extending the ideals of reason, freedom, individual and collective opportunity, and democracy throughout the world community. The problems that humankind will face in the future, as in the past, will no doubt be complex and difficult. However, if it is to prevail, it can only do so by enlisting resourcefulness and courage. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance. Skeptical of theories of redemption, damnation, and reincarnation, secular humanists attempt to approach the human situation in realistic terms: human beings are responsible for their own destinies. We believe that it is possible to bring about a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance, compromise, and the negotiations of difference.
We recognize the need for intellectual modesty and the willingness to revise beliefs in the light of criticism. Thus consensus is sometimes attainable. While emotions are important, we need not resort to the panaceas of salvation, to escape through illusion, or to some desperate leap toward passion and violence. We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred. In a world engulfed by obscurantism and irrationalism it is vital that the ideals of the secular city not be lost.
now I don't see any problems with this sort of perspective at all... it is both sensible and ethical. Why do even moderate religious people have problems with this sort of thing?
Rubbish!
firstly, Reason is not worshiped (it is highly valued as a way of thinking and solving problems, but never worshipped).
Most Religions and scripture have numerous moral codes which are highly obsolete, and reduce morals and ethics so absurd things such as Sins...
Religious scripture and Religious Fanatics have been inflicting damage upon Humanity for millenia...
non-religious ethics don't allow evil acts to be rationalized or accepted, instead it allows people the right to think about important issues and make educated decisions without the limitations imposed by dogma and ancient traditions.
instead of stoning adulterers to death and killing anyone who doesn't listen to priests. Reason has given Humanity some level of dignity.
and Humanism is not in any way the 'worship' of mankind.
this is what Humanism is:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration
now I don't see any problems with this sort of perspective at all... it is both sensible and ethical. Why do even moderate religious people have problems with this sort of thing?
Probably from the way it is presented - especially this little douzey of a comment.
I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes.
If one was to take the metraphorical lessons in the bible literally then you might have a point. But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."
I wonder why atheists think that I have to take the bible literally to be a believer in a higher power? That in itself is the fallacy in your initial comment.
When you begin by attacking an individuals ability to think and their intelligence the course of the discussion goes down hill quickly.
When you face your morality - and you maintain your humanist belief - it will make you a better individual then the many self-avowed atheists that I have seen take comfort in religion when they come face to face with the fact that man is not immortal. It leaves me more sceptal (SP) of atheists then of someone of limited belief or even my own moderate ways. Fanatics are the curse of not only religions - but even of those who claim not to believe.
Oh, and did you think up atheism all for yourself? Wake up one day without ever hearing of it and decide God doesn't exist? Or are you just listening to the opinions of other atheists?
Crazed Rabbit
maybe I watched all the people killing each other 'in the name of GOD' and decided GOD didnt exist :yes:
or maybe I woke up one day and actually thought about what I believed - and stopped believing what other people/organisations told me too :whip:
or maybe I just WOKE UP ! :idea2:
but I didnt say I was an athiest... I just said I didnt believe in religion - theres a difference if you must classify people by their beliefs .. something the religions like to do
On the subject ever notice how many references to sheep and goats there is in the bible.. this is for two reasons... so the sheep herders could relate to it, and its showing you how to believe in their religion ... by being a sheep and waiting for the good sheppard to show you the way to the promised land
Finally people that say they belong to a certain religion but dont follow all the practices of that religion - are not of that religion ie. 'casual' catholics who dont follow exactly what the POPE preaches to the letter - are not catholics. If I ask a religious person what they believe then they only need refer to their holy book or leader - because they themselves should have no individual beliefs of their own but only those of their religion - word for word
or they are not of that religion :smash:
maybe I watched all the people killing each other 'in the name of GOD' and decided GOD didnt exist :yes:
or maybe I woke up one day and actually thought about what I believed - and stopped believing what other people/organisations told me too :whip:
or maybe I just WOKE UP ! :idea2:
but I didnt say I was an athiest... I just said I didnt believe in religion - theres a difference if you must classify people by their beliefs .. something the religions like to do
On the subject ever notice how many references to sheep and goats there is in the bible.. this is for two reasons... so the sheep herders could relate to it, and its showing you how to believe in their religion ... by being a sheep and waiting for the good sheppard to show you the way to the promised land
Finally people that say they belong to a certain religion but dont follow all the practices of that religion - are not of that religion ie. 'casual' catholics who dont follow exactly what the POPE preaches to the letter - are not catholics. If I ask a religious person what they believe then they only need refer to their holy book or leader - because they themselves should have no individual beliefs of their own but only those of their religion - word for word
or they are not of that religion :smash:
When one believes in religion only - they begin to go down the path that you described here.
For instance I am a Christian but I don't believe in any of the doctrines of the organized churches that are out there. I have found that most "leaders" of the organized religion are hyocrites in thier own practice of relgion. I prefer the quiet reflection and mediation on the life lessons given in parable form in the New Testiment. Those parables contain lessons on how one can lead a better life, and it seems to me that most of the organized Christian Churches have lost that orginal meaning.
But that is only my opinion on it.
Claudius the God
11-30-2006, 08:06
Probably from the way it is presented - especially this little douzey of a comment.
I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes.
If one was to take the metraphorical lessons in the bible literally then you might have a point. But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."
well lets have a look at some of the nonsense in the Holy Bible...
The God of the Bible and the Bible itself promotes Ritual Human Sacrifice, Murder (including mass-murder), Rape, Slavery, and an incredible intollerance towards non-conformists - even with it's message of love and hope and acceptance...
The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
There are also over a hundred contradictions in the Bible. listing them all would make this post very very long, so I won't...
...but here is a website that helpfully highlights everything awful about the Holy Bible:
http://www.evilbible.com/
(NOTE Some may find this site offensive...)
Crazed Rabbit
11-30-2006, 08:06
non-religious ethics don't allow evil acts to be rationalized or accepted,
Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?
Reason is not worshiped (it is highly valued as a way of thinking and solving problems, but never worshipped).
Why call it reason? Why not merely logic or a way of thinking through things? Instead, it becomes a concept a way of thinking with more connotations than one would think.
What I see in this thread are some people holding up 'reason' as a process to be revered beyond its contributions. Worship may not have been the precisely correct word, but the meaning is similar.
but I didnt say I was an athiest... I just said I didnt believe in religion - theres a difference if you must classify people by their beliefs .. something the religions like to do
Put in 'intolerant agnostic' in place of atheist then.
Finally people that say they belong to a certain religion but dont follow all the practices of that religion - are not of that religion
Says who? Jesus said that we are all sinners - thus we all do not follow all of his teachings all the time - but Christians are still Christians.
Most Religions and scripture have numerous moral codes which are highly obsolete, and reduce morals and ethics so absurd things such as Sins
So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?
If I ask a religious person what they believe then they only need refer to their holy book or leader - because they themselves should have no individual beliefs of their own but only those of their religion
Funny that Cladius pointed to a website with a definition of humanism. An atheist (or agnostic) might simple call themselves an atheist (or agnostic); does that mean they have no individual beliefs, and thus no capacity for reason?
and stopped believing what other people/organisations told me too
And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?
I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.
CR
When one believes in religion only - they begin to go down the path that you described here.
For instance I am a Christian but I don't believe in any of the doctrines of the organized churches that are out there. I have found that most "leaders" of the organized religion are hyocrites in thier own practice of relgion. I prefer the quiet reflection and mediation on the life lessons given in parable form in the New Testiment. Those parables contain lessons on how one can lead a better life, and it seems to me that most of the organized Christian Churches have lost that orginal meaning.
But that is only my opinion on it.
I couldnt agree more Redleg - so my questions is - would you regard yourself as being one of a particular religion or something of your own design?
I think there is a big difference between a spiritual person and a religious person.
I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window. Circumstantial Christians (they are Christian when it suites them or the circumastances allow). In my book these people cannot be Christians - if you follow the teaching of Christ then killing or hurting another human should be aborhent - not something circumstantial. :no:
my 5c but Im willing to listen to alternates
well lets have a look at some of the nonsense in the Holy Bible...
The God of the Bible and the Bible itself promotes Ritual Human Sacrifice, Murder (including mass-murder), Rape, Slavery, and an incredible intollerance towards non-conformists - even with it's message of love and hope and acceptance...
The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
There are also over a hundred contradictions in the Bible. listing them all would make this post very very long, so I won't...
...but here is a website that helpfully highlights everything awful about the Holy Bible:
http://www.evilbible.com/
(NOTE Some may find this site offensive...)
Thanks for proving my point. LOL
But I will give you a question to ponder. If one believes the bible is an inaccurate history book with methraphorical lessons - does that equate to believing the bible is the literial truth?
Your approach here is that you want to force me to believe that the Bible is the literial truth - I must question your ability at reading - ie you just embrassed your own intelligence attempting this response when I clearly stated and you quoted the following comment.
But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."
Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?
CrossLOPER
11-30-2006, 08:16
Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?
We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.
And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?
I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.
CR
you may choose not to believe me - but I arrived at my beliefs all by myself
although I will admit to being heavily influenced by my study of Geology - and through that the study of life on this planet since there was life - and that takes a bit of the 'specialness' from mankind. Also studying history - there has been lots of religions on this earth all claiming to be the one true religion and representing the one or many true GODs, so which one is right, or are they all wrong.
Finally watching the actions of these religious people - who seem to me not to obey the rules of their own religion
I didnt say I was perfect
I couldnt agree more Redleg - so my questions is - would you regard yourself as being one of a particular religion or something of your own design?
Actually I like to think that I am following the Church that Jesus states in the New Testament. I believe that by reading and reflecting on the parables in the bible that I might learn how to be a more spiritual healthly person. Currently when I have time - I am finding and reading some of the texts that were not including in the New testiment. Someone provided a link in an earlier thread - can't remember which one now - but there is some good reading available in some of those texts
I think there is a big difference between a spiritual person and a religious person.
Some make religion infaliable forgetting that men are prone to errors. I lean more toward the spiritual aspects of Christianity.
I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window. Circumstantial Christians (they are Christian when it suites them or the circumastances allow). In my book these people cannot be Christians - if you follow the teaching of Christ then killing or hurting another human should be aborhent - not something circumstantial. :no:
my 5c but Im willing to listen to alternates
Killing is indeed against the basic teachings of Christ. Something that I have to reflect on because of my time in the military.
Thats funny considering the progress that continues throughout history to include our times now. Science is not being held back by religion. Just check out the DAPRA website.
http://www.darpa.mil/
There is some things being researched that takes man well into the future of both progress and even evolution.
Well, I hope you were being facetious. I certainly didn't mean scientific progress. That would be silly.
We're being held back in our progress as human beings, retarded if you will, by those clinging to the last vestiges of superstitious beliefs. Those beliefs developed from a time when humans looked at the world without knowledge and logic and attempted to explain the unknown by assuming "higher powers" and mystical wonders.
Such beliefs became so basic that they remained stuck in our human experience after reasoning provided more logical explanations. Intead of throwing off the old superstitions, we codified them and made them into dogma as we learned to write down our thoughts.
To me, it's obvious that current religious belief can be traced directly back to our first upright ancestors cowering from lightning on the savannah. One can even trace the advent of monotheism as it relates to sedentary homogenous societies as opposed to the polytheism prevalent in nomadic and fractured societies.
And, yes, religious superstition holds us back in our progress as humans. One need only look at the prevalence in the conserative evangelical community of the idea that cloning is somehow wrong because it is science altering "God's design" for humans. And yet, many of these same people have no qualms about getting facelifts and liposuction, getting their hair dyed, painting their lips and combing their hair over their bald spots. It's superstitious unreason which causes people to be so incredibly unable to see the silliness and hypocrisy of their own beliefs and actions.
It isn't just one religion, either. We have Scientologists like Tom Cruise proclaiming all psychiatry to be invalid. We have fundamentalist Islamic sects putting their own spin on the Quran and relegating women to near slave status. We have Raelians believing that aliens have come to save a select few. We have chiropractors and other faith healers deluding the faithful. They all think their own particular brand of superstition is reasonable and right, even when they can manage to see the silliness in other beliefs.
And in all of that, real progress, not just limited scientific progress which doesn't offend one or another relgious group but all progess whether in science or philosophy or society, can't happen. We stagnate in a fractured mess of conflicting superstitious beliefs that prevent us from working together to improve the lot of all of our fellows, not just those who believe as we do. Religion retards our ability to move beyond superstition to reasoned responses to problems. It divides us for reasons which should have lost their hold on our consciousness when we first realized that the lightning and thunder on the savannah weren't caused by the gods.
But that's just my take on it all. :wink:
Claudius the God
11-30-2006, 08:54
Oh really? And what of eugenics, totaltarianistic communism, Stalin's purges, Hitler's purges, the 'Reign of Terror' and others?
if you had read the Humanist Declaration I posted above, you would see that Humanism very much opposes these sorts of things. communism and totalitarian secular states have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Why call it reason? Why not merely logic or a way of thinking through things? Instead, it becomes a concept a way of thinking with more connotations than one would think.
What I see in this thread are some people holding up 'reason' as a process to be revered beyond its contributions. Worship may not have been the precisely correct word, but the meaning is similar.
well compare rational behaviour to irrational behaviour; or reasonable behaviour to unreasonable behaviour; or logical behaviour to illogical behaviour... I know which one is more beneficial...
So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?
No. but we don't need dogma of ancient scripture to know that. Heck, as I said before "The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered." as well as demanding that followers kill for all sorts of things...
Funny that Cladius pointed to a website with a definition of humanism. An atheist (or agnostic) might simple call themselves an atheist (or agnostic); does that mean they have no individual beliefs, and thus no capacity for reason?
firstly my user-name is CLAUDIUS...
I find that most Atheists and Agnostics already do have Humanist standards and perspectives. I've always had these standards and this perspective my whole life, but I didn't know what Humanism was until a year or two ago. This isn't something that is promoted in the media or in state education.
generally speaking, the few Atheists and Agnostics that do not agree with Humanist values are the minority in the non-religious population.
if you want more information on secular ethics, then this link is one I provided earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
Atheism and variants thereof generally do not have any sort of Dogma like organized religions do.
And started believing what other agnostics and agnostic organizations told you?
I still find it funny, Dogus, that your belief in free thought and tolerance has led you to intolerance of those who don't agree with you.
I have yet to meen an Atheist or an Agnostic who told me what to think or what to believe. there is a general ideological agreement that we should have the right to think for ourselves, observe the evidence ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, and not let tyrannical and exploitative groups such as some organized religions tell us what to believe.
should we tollerate people who try to enslave us, or degrade us, persecute us, or even kill us for thinking differently?
Thanks for proving my point. LOL
But I will give you a question to ponder. If one believes the bible is an inaccurate history book with methraphorical lessons - does that equate to believing the bible is the literial truth?
Your approach here is that you want to force me to believe that the Bible is the literial truth - I must question your ability at reading - ie you just embrassed your own intelligence attempting this response when I clearly stated and you quoted the following comment.
But when a moderate religious person who takes the bilble as a book that contains metraphorical lessons in which to enable a person to live a better life, such statements as yours is normally seen as an "oh Please, look at the rubbish being spouted once again because I believe in a higher power."
Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?
I originally said:
"I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes."
I realise that most moderate Christians see the Bible as largely metaphorical, but there are many who take it literally.
even taken as metaphorical, it still has quite a bit of material on persecution/discrimination against others, especially non-believers...
I'm responding to numerous posts right now so forgive me for going over your post too quickly.
Killing is indeed against the basic teachings of Christ. Something that I have to reflect on because of my time in the military.
Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9
Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Mark 11:13
Wathcing these little threads is like watching the Western Front of WWI, or two brick walls arguing. You just know neither side will give way.
Still, as a friend of mine pointed out, the purpose of debate is not in convincing another, but in forming proper arguements.
Personally, I'm atheist, in the manner of, I don't care who or what you woship, as long as you don't make it a public show. Yes, that means I'm opposed to all those organized religions, but not faith in particular. If you want to believe in God (or a rock, or whatever), or pray to him, then do it yourself ... why need agents to speak to him for you? After all, is not God everywhere, hears everything?
I'm with Aenlic on this one, until faith becomes a private, personal thing, we're going to stagnate. Sticking to old morality just doesn't work anymore, not with our current technological capabilites and, unless humanity, as a whole, actually adapts it's moral views to the current state of advancement, we're really going bye-bye.
Well, I hope you were being facetious. I certainly didn't mean scientific progress. That would be silly.
Only partly, since I find the orginal statement to be inaccurate about the Human Condition.
Your followup explanation is good - while there are some points I disagree with your conclusion - it is at least a rational discussion on the subject versus the normal dogmatic approach of other posters.
And in all of that, real progress, not just limited scientific progress which doesn't offend one or another relgious group but all progess whether in science or philosophy or society, can't happen. We stagnate in a fractured mess of conflicting superstitious beliefs that prevent us from working together to improve the lot of all of our fellows, not just those who believe as we do. Religion retards our ability to move beyond superstition to reasoned responses to problems. It divides us for reasons which should have lost their hold on our consciousness when we first realized that the lightning and thunder on the savannah weren't caused by the gods.
Your premise seems to be that religion holds back the ability to think beyond the human existance. Is this correct? Because if that is your premise - then there is several points we can discuss.
I originally said:
"I think that it is intellectually embarassing to believe some of the nonsense that scripture like the Holy Bible promotes."
I realise that most moderate Christians see the Bible as largely metaphorical, but there are many who take it literally.
even taken as metaphorical, it still has quite a bit of material on persecution/discrimination against others, especially non-believers...
I'm responding to numerous posts right now so forgive me for going over your post too quickly.
Nothing to forgive.
However it seems your still trying to forget one aspect of the discussion - I have already stated I look at the Bible as an inaccurate history text with metaphorical lessons. Because you see persecution/discrimination in the text does that discount it as a history? We can find persecution/discrimination in any history book - to include some from modern secular societies. Should I condemn all communist philisophy because of Stalin and Pol Pot? Should I point out the hypocrisy in your own statements just above this text?
Or as CrossLOPER pointed out earlier and Crazed Rabbit pointed out prior to this edit.
We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.
Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17
Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9
Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Mark 11:13
Pulling comments from the Skeptics Annotated Bible and using them as your own I see?
Rather disingenuous of you. But it definitely once again proves my point from earlier.
Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?
Reenk Roink
11-30-2006, 16:19
I don't want to get into the current debate about what is more evil, secularism or religion, but do want to point out this.
because not basing one's beliefs on Reason and Rationality allows the potential for the belief in nonsense.
Claudius, this was your response to my inquiry of "why should we base our beliefs on reason". I just wanted to let you know, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it later in my post.
Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.
I also want to know why you did not respond or even quote the second and most important part of my statement:
I've always wondered at the proposition that one should base their beliefs on reason. After all, this is a belief in itself. A meta-belief perhaps, but a belief nonetheless. How would one go justifying such a belief? Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.
Bolded part is the part I speak of.
Crazed Rabbit
11-30-2006, 17:21
if you had read the Humanist Declaration I posted above, you would see that Humanism very much opposes these sorts of things. communism and totalitarian secular states have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?
The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.
No. but we don't need dogma of ancient scripture to know that. Heck, as I said before "The Biblical God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered." as well as demanding that followers kill for all sorts of things...
Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?
firstly my user-name is CLAUDIUS...
My apologies.
Atheism and variants thereof generally do not have any sort of Dogma like organized religions do.
It seems that they do - 'there is no God', 'we all came from a single cell 4 billion years ago', 'all religions are wrong', etc.
I have yet to meen an Atheist or an Agnostic who told me what to think or what to believe.
Hmmm...
I find that most Atheists and Agnostics already do have Humanist standards and perspectives. I've always had these standards and this perspective my whole life, but I didn't know what Humanism was until a year or two ago. This isn't something that is promoted in the media or in state education.
generally speaking, the few Atheists and Agnostics that do not agree with Humanist values are the minority in the non-religious population.
if you want more information on secular ethics, then this link is one I provided earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
Sure they might now say 'believe this', but you seem to anyways.
there is a general ideological agreement that we should have the right to think for ourselves, observe the evidence ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, and not let tyrannical and exploitative groups such as some organized religions tell us what to believe.
And what if what we come to believe leads us to the tenets of an organized religion? What if they are not the evil you make them out to be but simple ways for similar thinking people to worship together? And how can you be against organized religion and for atheist and humanist organizations?
should we tollerate people who try to enslave us, or degrade us, persecute us, or even kill us for thinking differently?
Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.
I find it very interesting that many so called 'Christians' feel its ok to kill depending on the circumstances, despite both the ten commandments (old testament) and Jesus saying 'love thy neighbour" (new) - yet many are all to prepared to goto war for 'the right reasons' or keep a gun under the bed 'for home defence' - so they are planning for the moment when they wont be a Christian and kill someone coming in their window.
Life is a gift from God, we are obliged not to squander it, but cherish and protect it, and defend it.
We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.
I am inclined to agree, I am just trying to point that out to our reasonable friends here.
CrossLOPER
11-30-2006, 19:01
I am inclined to agree, I am just trying to point that out to our reasonable friends here.
What have I said about quote function rape? (!Response directly related!)
Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.
Christianity does a lot of that. Your faith has only a passing resemblence to what a lot of people view as Christianity.
Claudius the God
12-01-2006, 01:58
Nothing to forgive.
However it seems your still trying to forget one aspect of the discussion - I have already stated I look at the Bible as an inaccurate history text with metaphorical lessons. Because you see persecution/discrimination in the text does that discount it as a history? We can find persecution/discrimination in any history book - to include some from modern secular societies. Should I condemn all communist philisophy because of Stalin and Pol Pot? Should I point out the hypocrisy in your own statements just above this text?
Or as CrossLOPER pointed out earlier and Crazed Rabbit pointed out prior to this edit.
We've been over this stuff over and over. Those are not the result of reason or atheism or whatever. To argue that either religion or reason promotes or denounces violent acts is faulty in that people ultimately decide what reason or religion calls for. People have the capacity to misuse both.
I too see it as an inaccurate history text with some metaphorical lessons. I see a little bit of historical value in the text, and certainly see value in the text as a piece of important literature. What I question is why it should be taken as a moral absolute. the discrimination and horrors of the Bible don't discount it as a history text (there are different reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally as a historical text - namely considerable editing, omitting, etc.)
I'm not arguing that all Christians follow the more questionable ideas promoted in the Bible, but quite a few do - and get a lot of attention discriminating against one minority or another. I'm saying that for me personally, the Bible is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone as a guide to morals or ethics.
Whats wrong - are you one of those that are challenged when faced with moderate believers because they contradict your preconcieved notion about all Christians?
I don't see all Christians as discriminating against non-Christians/non-conformists or taking the lessons of the Bible literally. To moderate Christians who practice their beliefs privately (not preaching or judging others by purely Christian morals), I generally have no problem with them - even if our methods of understanding the universe are different.
Claudius, this was your response to my inquiry of "why should we base our beliefs on reason". I just wanted to let you know, that was a rhetorical question. I answered it later in my post.
right you are then. my apologies...
Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.
care to give an example? - I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?
I also want to know why you did not respond or even quote the second and most important part of my statement:
...
Well, we could use reason, but that would be circular and beg the question, wouldn't it? We could call reason a self-evident truth, reason is reasonable perhaps, if one likes tautologies. Or we could just assume reason without a reason. After all, an irrational acceptance of epistemically basic/foundational propositions is necessary for any rational colloquy and reflection. It's all built on irrational foundations.
...
Bolded part is the part I speak of.
put simply, it is better to base knowledge and theories on evidence than not.
And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?
well Catholocism is hardly democratic. the Papal clergy often claim intellectual superiority on matters of ethics. weather they deserve to claim intellectual or moral superiority on anything is debatable.
what evils have Reason or Atheism brought upon the world? and I mean Atheism and Reason as ideas of themselves...
The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.
The Reign of Terror had little to do with the principles (or lack thereof) of Atheism or of the use of Reason.
and that revolution with its anti-clerical side to it hardly represents what Reason or Atheism is. and as for the accusation that Atheism has no hard and fast moral boundaries - that is why there are ideas such as Humanism/Secular Humanism to state outright that even without a religiously inspired moral code - that non-religious people can have very reasonable and sensible ethical viewpoints. religious fanatics can't say that we have no morals because it is simply not true.
Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?
Christianity may have infused our culture with the notion that killing is wrong - but with the notable exceptions of heathens/heretics, homosexuals, non-christians, etc... heck, Christian fundamentalism was very much a contributing factor to the Jewish Holocaust...
Reason/Humanism/Secular Ethics today opposes all sorts murder and killing and tyrrany and persecution, etc.
there were already philosophies in classical times which opposed killing and murder outright - philosophies such as Stoicism... Christianity is not the sole contributor towards making people realise that killing is wrong...
if people are put in such a terrible situation that they need to consider killing others just to survive, then the entire situation is wrong. this is why Humanism etc. promotes Democracy, human rights, and education, freedom of speech, etc...
It seems that they do - 'there is no God', 'we all came from a single cell 4 billion years ago', 'all religions are wrong', etc.
we don't know these things as absolute facts. we follow the evidence, no matter what the evidence suggests... if the evidence pointed towards creationism then the creationists would be quite happy. unfortunately the evidence points to the wealth of information commonly known as Evolutionary Sciences...
Sure they might now say 'believe this', but you seem to anyways.
I find the Scientific Method far more accurate than 'divinely revealed knowledge'
And what if what we come to believe leads us to the tenets of an organized religion? What if they are not the evil you make them out to be but simple ways for similar thinking people to worship together? And how can you be against organized religion and for atheist and humanist organizations?
why should it lead to something resembling an organized religion? I'm not saying that all religions are bad, but that in some ways being non-religious can be better.
And as for Atheist or Humanist organizations, I'm not a member of any such organization. I read some of the literature and agree with most of the ideas promoted, but I'm not a member of anything. being a Humanist is largely private and only a few people know that I see myself as a Humanist.
Christianity does none of that. Yet I see here people degrading and wanting to persecuting me and my religion.
well many people claiming to be Christians have killed and violently discriminated against non-Christians for centuries...
has anyone here persecuted you or your religion yet? or have there simply been disagreements and criticisms?
and the degrading goes both ways...
Life is a gift from God, we are obliged not to squander it, but cherish and protect it, and defend it.
Defend it?
Defend life how?
by taking it?
dear me thats not a Christian ideal by anyones definition
didnt Jesus say "turn the other cheek" ... yes even when someone kills your friends and hangs you from a cross - arnt you sposed to forgive them? Jesus never talked about defending anything through use of arms only words and compassion
I too see it as an inaccurate history text with some metaphorical lessons. I see a little bit of historical value in the text, and certainly see value in the text as a piece of important literature. What I question is why it should be taken as a moral absolute. the discrimination and horrors of the Bible don't discount it as a history text (there are different reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally as a historical text - namely considerable editing, omitting, etc.)
I'm not arguing that all Christians follow the more questionable ideas promoted in the Bible, but quite a few do - and get a lot of attention discriminating against one minority or another. I'm saying that for me personally, the Bible is not something that I would ever recommend to anyone as a guide to morals or ethics.
If one wants to take the bible literially I would agree with you - however on the metaphorical level the bible has some very valid moral and ethicial guides to life. Its a philisophy of life that is no better nor is it worse then the humanist approach.
Do Fundmental fantics destroy the basic good of religion - yes indeed, however religion has had its benefits for society and man over time. You can attempt to argue that the bad aspects of religion now outweigh the good aspects of religion - but to discount the history and the progress of man because of religion does little to futher the arguement that religion is holding man's evolution back. Up until the last 50 years that postion would be inaccurate. Many of the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightment Era were indeed deists (SP) if not still theists.
Your premise seems to be that religion holds back the ability to think beyond the human existance. Is this correct? Because if that is your premise - then there is several points we can discuss.
Actually, no. My main premise is that true-believers of any religion have proven themselves to be unable to think critically and logically. I'm not blaming them, really. It's a product of the blatant brainwashing done to children by and for religion. I'm not saying it's impossible for some to oddly compartmentalize their faith on one hand and think critically about other issues. I'm saying it makes such more difficult and unlikely.
Religions promote a society in which people grow up believing nonsense and not bothering to question that nonsense in even the most basic way. They learn not to question. That's a very difficult lesson to overcome, having been ingrained since infancy by their religion. They lose the ability to think critically about other things than just their beliefs. At the far end of the spectrum, they end up following the likes of people like Ted Haggard or Meir Kahane or Osama bin Laden or Shoko Asahara or Jim Jones and many more. It is religion which makes people susceptible to believing nonsense.
Having already swallowed the biggest nonsense after being force fed it since infancy, religious people put "faith" before fact and end up swallowing all sorts of nonsense, especially if it's cloaked in a veneer of religion. You get people thinking it's OK to blow up abortion clinics and kill other people, all in the name of not killing babies. You get people thinking it's OK to fly planes into buildings full of innocent people. You get people willing to condemn millions of people to curable dieases because their god apparently doesn't like stem-cell research. You get people supposedly devoutly believing in supposedly peaceful religions cheerfully supporting wars of aggression and conquest, especially if the targets are believers in a different "truth" than their own. And worst of all, you get people who devoutly believe that other devout believers of other religions are the enemy or are somehow inferior, which leads to all of the above.
Aside from the irrational mind set which religions promote, it is religions, in the end, which prevent people - all of humanity - from coming together and working for the good of humanity as a whole, not just for their fellow believers. There are some ecumenical sects; but they are rare and deep down the true believers in them really do think that others would be better off believing as they do. But, on the whole, religions promote division instead of unity. And that, along with an ingrained tendency to believe the unbelievable, is what holds humanity back from progressing beyond mere technological innovation, holds humanity back from working together for our mutual benefit and ending the afflictions which result from irrational behavior.
Actually, no. My main premise is that true-believers of any religion have proven themselves to be unable to think critically and logically.
Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,
Aside from the irrational mind set which religions promote, it is religions, in the end, which prevent people - all of humanity - from coming together and working for the good of humanity as a whole, not just for their fellow believers. There are some ecumenical sects; but they are rare and deep down the true believers in them really do think that others would be better off believing as they do. But, on the whole, religions promote division instead of unity. And that, along with an ingrained tendency to believe the unbelievable, is what holds humanity back from progressing beyond mere technological innovation, holds humanity back from working together for our mutual benefit and ending the afflictions which result from irrational behavior.
Here is where I will have to disagree. What holds humanity back is our own human nature. Our cultural/ethnic prejudices and wanting to identify ourselves as different ethnic groups first and foremost.
You can blame religion for some of it, but that only touches the surface of the ingrained prejudice that is based solely upon a person's ethnic makeup. To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service. Have you not seen the prejudice faced by groups of the same religion because of what ethnic group an individual comes from. How can religion be the root cause of such a situation when both follow the exact same religion?
Man by his very nature is a competive species - a trait that we share with all predators on this planet. To claim religion is the root cause of this - negates the human condition and leaves man trapped in his own logical fallacies.
Claudius the God
12-01-2006, 03:14
If one wants to take the bible literially I would agree with you - however on the metaphorical level the bible has some very valid moral and ethicial guides to life. Its a philisophy of life that is no better nor is it worse then the humanist approach.
Do Fundmental fantics destroy the basic good of religion - yes indeed, however religion has had its benefits for society and man over time. You can attempt to argue that the bad aspects of religion now outweigh the good aspects of religion - but to discount the history and the progress of man because of religion does little to futher the arguement that religion is holding man's evolution back. Up until the last 50 years that postion would be inaccurate. Many of the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightment Era were indeed deists (SP) if not still theists.
I more or less agree...
I don't agree thar religion itself holds humanity back, I think it's the totalitarian and exploitative side of social control that some faiths are especially good at that does that...
also, the contribution of reason and science to humanity has been just as developmental - and perhaps moreso - than religious faith.
[edit]
Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,
well neither of these two were religious fanatics as far as I know - heck this is what Thomas Jefferson said about religion...
"Religions are all alike—founded upon fables and mythologies."
Thomas Jefferson
Reenk Roink
12-01-2006, 03:38
care to give an example?
We'll use a fairly standard rational argument that leads to a conclusion that most dismiss as nonsense.
The classic:
1) If determinism is true, then there is no moral responsibility.
2) If determinism is false, then there is no moral responsibility.
C) There is no moral responsibility.
Determinism is plausible, most would grant. But even holding it false runs you into problems...
Hard determinism is by far the strongest theory, as soft determinism or compatibilism must redefine the very notion of free will to be coherent, and libertarianism (complex theories of agency) are quite "mysterious" in the way they work.
I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?
Reason itself is not empirically based and cannot use reason to justify it.
Then how does one explain such men as Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr.,
The answer was in the rest of the paragraph which you didn't include in your quote of me.
I'm not saying it's impossible for some to oddly compartmentalize their faith on one hand and think critically about other issues. I'm saying it makes such more difficult and unlikely.
Thus, men like Jefferson and King are rare. :wink:
Here is where I will have to disagree. What holds humanity back is our own human nature. Our cultural/ethnic prejudices and wanting to identify ourselves as different ethnic groups first and foremost.
You can blame religion for some of it, but that only touches the surface of the ingrained prejudice that is based solely upon a person's ethnic makeup. To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service. Have you not seen the prejudice faced by groups of the same religion because of what ethnic group an individual comes from. How can religion be the root cause of such a situation when both follow the exact same religion?
Man by his very nature is a competive species - a trait that we share with all predators on this planet. To claim religion is the root cause of this - negates the human condition and leaves man trapped in his own logical fallacies.
First, let me separate out one statement above before proceeding:
To say religion is the only cause of this dilimenia (SP) does the actual reality of the problems facing man's ability to unite for our common good a major dis-service.
I agree. And you may have noticed that I didn't say that religion was the only cause of the dilemma. I hope, then we can dispense with an argument about something I didn't say in the first place. I went to great pains to explain what I think religion does cause, but at no point did I ever say or imply that religion was the only cause. I feel it is the main cause, however.
I must respectfully disagree, also, that humans are natural predators. We are omnivores. Do we engage in predation? Certainly. Is it instinctual? Interesting question. Are instinctual behaviors in humanity that prevalent? I haven't noticed anyone trying to pick nits out of my hair and engage in similar instinctual social grooming behaviors lately.
If humans are naturally and, more importantly permanently, competitive then doesn't that call into question certain religious doctrines which require humans not to be competitive; such as, for example, certain admonitions in the Sermon on the Mount? How can the meek inherit the Earth, assuming that the premise of competitiveness as a natural human condition is true, if the meek are unnatural? That argument leads down the slippery slope into religious arguments of the nature of humans as good or evil, doesn't it? The Randian/Objectivist idea of natural human competitiveness is directly at odds with most popular religions on that point. How is it possible to believe that the "human condition" is naturally competitive on one hand and on the other hand believe that humans were created in the image of a "god" at the same time? Doesn't that mean that the god is naturally competitive? Competition with whom or what?
To extricate oneself from such a logical conundrum requires leaps of illogic and finally just resorting to "faith" and the great logical fallacy to which religions eventually appeal, the "because I (god) said so" argument. However, if one discards the Objectivist view that humans must compete because it is natural, then what follows? Perhaps a view that the natural condition is actually mutual benefit and mutual aid? Careful now. The term "mutual aid" is a clue to where this discussion could lead. :wink:
Religion began as a tool of humans to provide answers to the unknown in the absence of a system of logical, rational inquiry based on observation of fact. It's continued influence is unnatural.
Is religion the only cause of human misery and suffering? Of course not. I never said it was. Is it one of the causes and does it prevent us from working together to eliminate the other causes? Yes.
The answer was in the rest of the paragraph which you didn't include in your quote of me.
Thus, men like Jefferson and King are rare. :wink:
Which is why I ask the direct question. Regardless of your attempt at poking fun.
I saw the contradiction between the two statement and wanted to validate something before I continued, to insure I understood exactly what you were saying.
My counter would be that what you to believe to be rare in the religious I find to be just as common as those who take the humanist approach in philisophy. I used two acknowledge men of faith that were seen by history as men of logic. Many others have existed and do exist. If an individual can think critically does it matter if he is religous? Is religious faith inheriently mean that a man can not think critically? I have to reject the generalization that men of religious faith are unable to think critically because history demonstrates that this is not accurate. Ancedotal evidence also demonstrates to me that his generalization is also not accurate.
For instance I am an individaul who believes in a higher power, am I therefore doomed to be unable to think logically and criticially of my surroundings? Am I unable to formulate rational thought to express my philisophy on life because it involves a belief in a higher being?
First, let me separate out one statement above before proceeding:
I agree. And you may have noticed that I didn't say that religion was the only cause of the dilemma. I hope, then we can dispense with an argument about something I didn't say in the first place. I went to great pains to explain what I think religion does cause, but at no point did I ever say or imply that religion was the only cause. I feel it is the main cause, however.
I took the statement to mean only because of the focus on religion hince the statement was based soley on my interpation of the focus. If that is incorrect then by all means inform, which you have and I wasn't going to focus on something that you obviousily correct in the follow-up to my comment.
You have made a request, and so I have one - reword the rest of your post to remove the sarcasm so that I don't focus on what I precieve the meaning to be, but what your actual statements are. Sarcasm ruins my ability to focus on what your actual statement is and will lead us down the path of the type of discussion that you have stated you rather avoid.
I await your response.
Claudius the God
12-01-2006, 04:39
We'll use a fairly standard rational argument that leads to a conclusion that most dismiss as nonsense.
The classic:
1) If determinism is true, then there is no moral responsibility.
2) If determinism is false, then there is no moral responsibility.
C) There is no moral responsibility.
Determinism is plausible, most would grant. But even holding it false runs you into problems...
Hard determinism is by far the strongest theory, as soft determinism or compatibilism must redefine the very notion of free will to be coherent, and libertarianism (complex theories of agency) are quite "mysterious" in the way they work.
this statement/problem is absurd. it appears entirely designed to be irrational and confusing. not only is the numbering wrong, but the options are nonsensical. how on Earth is this even remotely a rational argument?
so again i quote your point and ask you to elaborate...
Also, plenty of beliefs that you would call nonsense, can firmly be based on reason and empirical evidence.
care to give an example? - I find concepts such as Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Sin, and Divine Judgement to be nonsense. how can such things be based on reason or empirical evidence?
Reason itself is not empirically based and cannot use reason to justify it.
the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...
Reenk Roink
12-01-2006, 05:11
this statement/problem is absurd. it appears entirely designed to be irrational and confusing. not only is the numbering wrong, but the options are nonsensical. how on Earth is this even remotely a rational argument?
This is the classic "dilemma argument". It is a very reasonable argument (one can argue it presents a false dichotomy, but also has to appreciate the bite it has).
I don't know why you consider it absurd. Because it presents a dilemma? That does not make something absurd my friend.
The numbering is not wrong. The two premises are numbered, and the C is for the conclusion. There are implicit premises not present in my formulation ("determinism has to either be true or false").
the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...
Now this is an argument I'm having a hard time follow...
the use of Evidence is empirically based and justifies the use of Reason as a way of using evidence to approach problems/questions and find accurate information...
Reenk Roink, I wonder if is attempting to describe logic and reasoning based upon a sciencitific (SP) model?
Claudius the God
12-01-2006, 06:05
This is the classic "dilemma argument". It is a very reasonable argument (one can argue it presents a false dichotomy, but also has to appreciate the bite it has).
I don't know why you consider it absurd. Because it presents a dilemma? That does not make something absurd my friend.
The numbering is not wrong. The two premises are numbered, and the C is for the conclusion. There are implicit premises not present in my formulation ("determinism has to either be true or false").
regardless of weather determinism is true or false (personally I don't care one way or the other) - why does this mean that there is no moral responsibility?
I don't care at all about determinism. I think it's a poor way to approach ethics...
Now this is an argument I'm having a hard time follow...
Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?
the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".
why should non-religious people play into the manipulation and fears of the superstitious? why should non-religious people believe the often unrealistic things in religious scripture and teachings without any real evidence?
when we claim that we don't believe in this or that deity because of a lack of evidence, why are we attacked for our methods of understanding the universe and for approaching ethical matters?
why should we take the leap of faith and believe something unrealistic without evidence if we currently understand and use a method based on evidence which is obviously quite sensible?
there is this arrogance with numerous religions where it is assumed that converting to some faith will result in an ethical or intellectual improvement. While this may be somewhat practical for barbaric or uneducated populations, it doesn't work so well in civilized modern societies...
to put it simply... I would not consider it of any benefit to myself to convert to a religion in either ethical or intellectual terms. it would not be an improvement in my morals or intelligence to take religious dogma seriously.
why should we take important things on faith if we are unlikely to benefit from such a change?
now I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be insulting to religious people. I'm explaining why it is almost insulting and degrading when religious preachers think they are morally and intellectually superior to non-religious views...
I'm not saying that non-religious views are entirely superior either, but the arrogance of many religious individuals on this matter is almost institutional.
for example - in Christianity - these are ethical lessons...
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
these sorts of biblical statements (and others) are simply to promote the notion that Christians are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. it is disgusting.
Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?
I think the problem is not with the logic - but the wording of the sentence used in the initial post. It might be wise to review your post to insure your not assuming something not in evidence.
Claudius the God
12-01-2006, 06:41
I think the problem is not with the logic - but the wording of the sentence used in the initial post. It might be wise to review your post to insure your not assuming something not in evidence.
sorry, which sentence and post is this?
IF this is the supposition that there are no gods (typical Atheist absense of belief in deities) then I'm not saying there is decent evidence to suppose this, only socio-psychological theories...
one cannot even hope to prove or disprove the existence of deities with any conclusive evidence...
but that doesn't mean that the supposition that there are no deities is any sillier than the supposition that there are deities in existence.
sorry, which sentence and post is this?
Your last sentence post #54, his last statement was directed at that comment I believe.
IF this is the supposition that there are no gods (typical Atheist absense of belief in deities) then I'm not saying there is decent evidence to suppose this, only socio-psychological theories...
one cannot even hope to prove or disprove the existence of deities with any conclusive evidence...
but that doesn't mean that the supposition that there are no deities is any sillier than the supposition that there are deities in existence.
There was no statement toward the arguement - only the reaction from reading your post following Reenk Roink's last sentence in post #55,
In simple words your comments read like an over-reaction to his statement. A rant if you will. Rants are an emotional appeal form of logic - and are not condusive to reason and rational debate. A rant can be a relief value but it distracts from the course of the discussion. Which is why I am ignoring the majority of post #57
Claudius the God
12-01-2006, 07:23
Your last sentence post #54, his last statement was directed at that comment I believe.
oh that, admitedly it was not terribly coherent. my apologies.
it was about the use of evidence and Reason. I hope the questions and comments of mine since then have expressed my views a bit better. the philosophical reasoning for the use of Reason, Logic, and evidence is not one I can describe professionally, having never studied Philosophy itself... instead I'll give links again on these subjects.
Rationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
In simple words your comments read like an over-reaction to his statement. A rant if you will. Rants are an emotional appeal form of logic - and are not condusive to reason and rational debate. A rant can be a relief value but it distracts from the course of the discussion. Which is why I am ignoring the majority of post #57
Yes I probably was ranting (my bad...), but I would prefer it if post #57 with those various questions was taken seriously...
One of the reasons I stated this comment Reenk Roink, I wonder if is attempting to describe logic and reasoning based upon a sciencitific (SP) model? was because I gathered your intent was to point out logic and reason based on some type of model. I guessed a scientific type of model purely based upon the wording used.
Yes I probably was ranting (my bad...), but I would prefer it if post #57 with those various questions was taken seriously...
Then it shall have to wait until I get some rest so that I can focus on the comments to understand the meaning underneath the rant. Sarcasm and rants take time for me to sort out when I have been awake for over 20 hours. Damn sometime I just break down and let the doctor subscribe a sleep aid - but not yet.....
Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?
Only the fanatics have major problems with that. Now to the remaining population of faith, you can actually answer that yourself with a question that is viewed slightly different. Why does the individual who views the universe the way you do hav such a problem with understanding those who take things on faith?
Communication and its failures will tend to add enlightment to the problems posed by the question.
the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".
Most of this goes under the fallacy of logic of the religious that without religion one can not have morals. Morals are what many use to define ethics and what is right and wrong. The humanist philisophy is often seen as self-serving versus community by many religious people.
why should non-religious people play into the manipulation and fears of the superstitious? why should non-religious people believe the often unrealistic things in religious scripture and teachings without any real evidence?
Why should you? If you do not have faith you cannot believe - so why would I ask you to believe as I do?
Rethorical questions I know, but since I don't ask people to believe as I do - I really can't answer the question. Your desires and believes are yours not mine. If you chose to follow non-religous path that is your choice.
when we claim that we don't believe in this or that deity because of a lack of evidence, why are we attacked for our methods of understanding the universe and for approaching ethical matters?
Why do those that don't believe in this or that deity feel the need to attack those that believe in a deity? Since I don't attack science because of its desire to explain the universe, I can only ask the rethorical question that is the opposite of yours. Why attack me for my faith if I do not attack your lack of faith?
I believe that my faith in God is based solely upon my soul, attempts by others to explain the universe does not threaten my soul, so individuals who wish to find answers to the workings of the universe and the human dimension I don't have any issues with.
why should we take the leap of faith and believe something unrealistic without evidence if we currently understand and use a method based on evidence which is obviously quite sensible?
Faith is based upon belief. My ancedotal evidence would not meet the scientific criteria of evidence because it can not be repeated over and over again. So if I believe something because of my interpation of the event based upon my faith - does that necessarily make it wrong? I don't expect others to believe my evidence of faith because to simply put it, it was my experience - an event that you can not duplicate. Needless to say my ancedotal evidence of God's existance is the birth of my son. Seven weeks premature with no medical issues. This after doctors initially called the pregency tubal and required abortion to prevent my wife's death. But I don't expect you or anyone else to take my ancedotal evidence as proof. Hell I even suspect some will want to ridicule my faith because they could provide very plausible scienitific explantations for why the pregency was initially ruled as tubal but ended up not.
there is this arrogance with numerous religions where it is assumed that converting to some faith will result in an ethical or intellectual improvement. While this may be somewhat practical for barbaric or uneducated populations, it doesn't work so well in civilized modern societies...
I have never seen this claim when I was a organized church going christian - nor do I practice it.
to put it simply... I would not consider it of any benefit to myself to convert to a religion in either ethical or intellectual terms. it would not be an improvement in my morals or intelligence to take religious dogma seriously.
One should never take the dogma of man serisousily if its not one that he is willing to follow.
why should we take important things on faith if we are unlikely to benefit from such a change?
If it is no benefit - do you even know that it exists. If one does not directly benefit from something does one have to necessarily believe in its existance. I find this reasoning to be mote.
now I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to be insulting to religious people. I'm explaining why it is almost insulting and degrading when religious preachers think they are morally and intellectually superior to non-religious views...
They are often insulting to those of the faith also.
I'm not saying that non-religious views are entirely superior either, but the arrogance of many religious individuals on this matter is almost institutional.
I would disagree with this statement. I know many individuals of faith that are not arrogant toward individuals who hold non-religious views.
for example - in Christianity - these are ethical lessons...
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
these sorts of biblical statements (and others) are simply to promote the notion that Christians are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. it is disgusting.
All philisophies to this to varying degrees. Are you disgusted with all philisophies on life that are out there? Pointing out the contradictions in the religious text is useful - but when one takes a hard line stance - are you not doing the same thing your complaining about?
You have made a request, and so I have one - reword the rest of your post to remove the sarcasm so that I don't focus on what I precieve the meaning to be, but what your actual statements are. Sarcasm ruins my ability to focus on what your actual statement is and will lead us down the path of the type of discussion that you have stated you rather avoid.
I await your response.
:inquisitive:
There was no sarcasm in the rest of my post. I was somewhat light-hearted in my reference to mutual aid; but no sarcasm or personal negativity was intended. I think perhaps the subject matter is too close to the chest for you and you're misreading my post as some kind of attack. That isn't the case. But considering the sensitivity of the subject and your reaction, perhaps it would be best if we just agree to disagree at this point.
:inquisitive:
There was no sarcasm in the rest of my post. I was somewhat light-hearted in my reference to mutual aid; but no sarcasm or personal negativity was intended. I think perhaps the subject matter is too close to the chest for you and you're misreading my post as some kind of attack. That isn't the case. But considering the sensitivity of the subject and your reaction, perhaps it would be best if we just agree to disagree at this point.
Probably for the best.
Reenk Roink
12-01-2006, 16:10
regardless of weather determinism is true or false (personally I don't care one way or the other) - why does this mean that there is no moral responsibility?
I don't care at all about determinism. I think it's a poor way to approach ethics...
I just wanted to point out that determinism has much to do with the topic of free will (which in turn has much to do with ethics).
I will elaborate my post in great detail.
Determinism (simplified) claims that events are casually determined by chains of prior causes. Now, determinism can thought of as universal; every event is casually determined. But to argue for determinism for human actions, one only needs to hold determinism true for human actions.
Why is determinism even plausible? Well, many actions are predictable, and we can usually predict with accuracy what someone is going to do in a certain cirumstance. Of course, we can never predict all human actions, but is this because determinism is false, or is it because we simply do not possess complete knowledge of the casual chain?
Determinism does not equal fatalism by the way.
Now, for the implication of determinism on human free will, take this example:
Suppose we hold determinism true for human actions. A person commits a murder. Now, his murder is caused by something, caused by something before it, caused by something before it, etc...
This causal chain goes back at least before the person's birth.
Thus, given the present circumstances, laws of nature, etc... the person could not have but committed the murder.
After all, he had no control over events that occurred before his birth, and those very events were the direct causes of his action of murder. Any apparent choice he may have thought he had, was nothing more than an illusion, as given the past events, he could not but have chosen the action that he chose.
How can he be held morally responsible for what he did?
Ah, you may say, determinism must certainly not be true.
Then the dilemma argument's second horn kicks in.
Say his action of murder was uncaused. Well, the problem is that now the person is completely off the hook, because he didn't cause it.
Say his action of murder was caused by a angry desire which was uncaused. Well, now the problem is that the person can't be held responsible for suddenly having an uncaused desire pop up in his head.
One may keep extending the chain further back, but will run into the same problems, or revert back to full blown determinism. Thus the dilemma argument has its name.
Here is where arguments against this dilemma come in.
First is compatibilism. This holds that if determinism is true, there can still be moral responsibility.
Compatibilism does this by arguing that even if one's actions are causally determined, as long as that person is free from compulsion or coercion and sane, then he is responsible for his actions.
Another view is agent libertarianism. This holds that determinism is not true, and uses complex theories to get around the second horn of the dilemma argument. It holds that the person himself caused the murder, yet was uncaused to do so.
Both these theories have problems. I will simplify them for the sake of time.
Compatibilism (soft determinism) has to weaken the notion of free will quite a bit. It is only concerned about immediate compulsion and coercion, and one could argue that determinism is a form of compulsion, that while not immediate, is certainly present and important.
Agency libertarianism has the problem in which it has to explain how an agent caused the act. Proponents of this theory cannot use desires, emotions, or any other property of humans to explain human actions, because then they fall into the trap of the second horn of the dilemma argument. They must hold that the person committed the murder, but not because of his anger, passion, etc. This kind of position is comparable to saying that a rock broke a window, but not because of its mass, density, weight, velocity, etc...
Hard determinism is the most straightforward and strongest position. But its conclusion of there being no moral responsibility is one that most people would hold as nonsense.
You have quoted Holbach earlier in this thread. He is one of the proponents of hard determinism, in an essay "The Illusion of Free Will".
Here is a brief expose by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic:
Free will' is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are 'What is it to act (or choose) freely?', and 'What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?' These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient.
Philosophers give very different answers to these questions, hence also to two more specific questions about ourselves: (1) Are we free agents? and (2) Can we be morally responsible for what we do? Answers to (1) and (2) range from 'Yes, Yes' to 'No, No' - via 'Yes, No' and various degrees of 'Perhaps', 'Possibly', and 'In a sense'. (The fourth pair of outright answers, 'No, Yes', is rare, but appears to be accepted by some Protestants.) Prominent among the 'Yes, Yes' sayers are the compatibilists, who hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Briefly, determinism is the view that everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before, in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does. According to compatibilists, freedom is compatible with determinism because freedom is essentially just a matter of not being constrained or hindered in certain ways when one acts or chooses. Thus normal adult human beings in normal circumstances are able to act and choose freely. No one is holding a gun to their heads. They are not drugged, or in chains, or subject to a psychological compulsion. They are therefore wholly free to choose and act even if their whole physical and psychological make-up is entirely determined by things for which they are in no way ultimately responsible - starting with their genetic inheritance and early upbringing.
Incompatibilists hold that freedom is not compatible with determinism. They point out that if determinism is true, then every one of one's actions was determined to happen as it did before one was born. They hold that one cannot be held to be truly free and finally morally responsible for one's actions in this case. They think compatibilism is a 'wretched subterfuge..., a petty word-jugglery', as Kant put it (1788: 189-90 ). It entirely fails to satisfy our natural convictions about the nature of moral responsibility.
The incompatibilists have a good point, and may be divided into two groups. Libertarians answer 'Yes, Yes' to questions (1) and (2). They hold that we are indeed free and fully morally responsible agents, and that determinism must therefore be false. Their great difficulty is to explain why the falsity of determinism is any better than the truth of determinism when it comes to establishing our free agency and moral responsibility. For suppose that not every event is determined, and that some events occur randomly, or as a matter of chance. How can our claim to moral responsibility be improved by the supposition that it is partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are?
The second group of incompatibilists is less sanguine. They answer 'No, No' to questions (1) and (2). They agree with the libertarians that the truth of determinism rules out genuine moral responsibility, but argue that the falsity of determinism cannot help. Accordingly, they conclude that we are not genuinely free agents or genuinely morally responsible, whether determinism is true or false. One of their arguments can be summarized as follows. When one acts, one acts in the way one does because of the way one is. So to be truly morally responsible for one's actions, one would have to be truly responsible for the way one is: one would have to be causa sui, or the cause of oneself, at least in certain crucial mental respects. But nothing can be causa sui - nothing can be the ultimate cause of itself in any respect. So nothing can be truly morally responsible.
Suitably developed, this argument against moral responsibility seems very strong. But in many human beings, the experience of choice gives rise to a conviction of absolute responsibility that is untouched by philosophical arguments. This conviction is the deep and inexhaustible source of the free will problem: powerful arguments that seem to show that we cannot be morally responsible in the ultimate way that we suppose keep coming up against equally powerful psychological reasons why we continue to believe that we are ultimately morally responsible.
(One can see why the Reenkmeister abandons reason from time to time and embraces his human irrationality :wink:)
Why do many people who take things on faith - including religion and superstition - have such a problem with those of us who understand the universe based on the rational interpretation of evidence?
Well, I don't know the attitudes of every religious person, but while some religious people certainly do have a problem like you have stated, I am quite sure that it goes both ways...
the decision to use secular ethics and the scientific method and generally being non-religious is attacked by many religious people - including many 'religious moderates' as beeing unethical and short-sighted and generally stupid and "sinful".
Claudius, aside from "sinful", you have attacked religion/religious people/religious teachings in this thread as generally unethical, short-sighted, and stupid...
****************
This generalization (though it is a generalization, I think it is a fair one) may be a sort of answer to your further questions:
People hold their personal belief systems and ideologies to be superior to others.
Meneldil
12-01-2006, 21:50
And Catholicism today is against everything you use to condemn it- so how is it bad? How can you complain about religion using outdated examples and argue it shouldn't be followed, while ignoring the evils that the use of 'reason' has brought upon us and not condemn atheism and the reverance of reason?
Isn't Catholicism against the use of condoms, abortion, and a lot of other things ? Isn't Catholicism still regarding homosexuality as bad ?
Just a few days ago, we were told that religious service would be better if spoken in latin rather than french. And if the Opus Dei isn't the inquisition-like sect described in Da Vinci Code, it's an organisation that seems rather outdated nowadays.
AFAIK, the Church was still a "fairly conservative" (ie. against everything that was invented after the 18th century) institution 60 years ago.
The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.
How is that different from christians killing muslims because they thought it pleased their god ? Or from muslims killing christians ?
I could name hundreds of events that involved people from religion A killing people from religion B, although religion A moraly prohibit violence.
As a lot of people have said in this topic, genocides were committed in the name of religion as well as in the name of reason (the best example being the Holocaust, which was based both on religion and reason).
Yet, as Aenlic stated, I think religion, or more precisely organised religion is a slowdown to our "mental" evolution. As long as some people's lives are dictated by the local priest/imam, there's a serious issue.
If people want to do weird thing in private, that's up to them (as long as they don't get in the really weird and freaky things like killing animals, raping children and so on), but no religion should be allowed to trouble public order.
So 'Do Not Kill' is obsolete? Or are you refering to the old codes no longer held as guidance?
Do you speak Greek?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-01-2006, 22:52
The core problem with atheism and the like is that there are no hard and fast moral boundaries. Look at the 'Reign of Terror' during the French revolution - when tens of thousands were killed by the authorities and mobs. Why? Well due to simple reason; supporters of the revolution viewed it as a moral good that needed to succed, so they needed to remove obstacles to its success, and if that meant killing people, then killing those people was good because it supported the revolution.
Christianity has infused our culture to the point that people view killing as bad- what argument can there be made for not killing from a purely 'reasonable' view?
Say that I have a family and we are starving and cannot get food. If I have to kill a person and steal his property to eat, then is that not an overall benefit - I am saving more lives than I am taking, no?
People view killing as bad because it's human nature to consider killing bad. The only people who don't are psychopaths. You take any normal person, Christian or Atheist, raised in whatever society and they won't be just up and kill someone because they can, or because they can make a buck out of it. They have to work on soldiers to get them to the point where they are willing to kill.
It doesn't matter that Atheism has no moral code, people naturally create or adopt a moral code, there was one before Christianity you know that?
As for your examples, the Inquisition was made up of Christian as was the Donner party so I'm not sure what your point was.
Watchman
12-01-2006, 23:03
Not a few societies have gotten on right well without Christianity telling them it's not exactly productive to smash in your neighbour's skull over lawn ornaments. Well, more or less. Christians were happily killing each other off at, quite literally, the drop of the hat until the burgeoning states finally got something akin to a decent law-enforcement system working sometime after 1700 AD (YMMV by locale). Took even longer for the societies concerned to get to the point where the idea of killing other human beings was fundamentally and reflexively abhorrent to the average citizen.
Anyway, each and every one society, if they didn't quite regard killing people as a bad thing per ce - there's historically been no shortage of singlularly bloodthirty and/or war-fixated ones after all - nonetheless regulated fairly strictly when, where and who it was okay to whack, and came up with sanctions against people who broke those rules. It doesn't really have anything to do with religion; it's a question of pure societal functionalism to avoid stark bloody anarchy, which nobody is ever very happy with very long. That's why such chaos invariably spawns all manners of warlords who try to impose some vague semblance of (usually unpleasant) order within their sphere of influence, after all.
Claudius the God
12-02-2006, 01:36
Only the fanatics have major problems with that. Now to the remaining population of faith, you can actually answer that yourself with a question that is viewed slightly different. Why does the individual who views the universe the way you do hav such a problem with understanding those who take things on faith?
Communication and its failures will tend to add enlightment to the problems posed by the question.
because of the next question which is never answered satisfactorally - where/what is the evidence?
and often after deliberately questioning ideas that are based on faith rather than evidence - the skeptic is too often regarded as immoral or stubborn for taking this line and questioning doctrine and ideas. the fundamental difference is the leap of faith.
Most of this goes under the fallacy of logic of the religious that without religion one can not have morals. Morals are what many use to define ethics and what is right and wrong. The humanist philisophy is often seen as self-serving versus community by many religious people.
I understand this perspective and have thought about it a little in the past. religious faiths have a strong community element - they are mostly organized religions after all. Humanism and other non-religious groups are minorities in larger communities which are mostly faith-based. weather Humanism and other non-religious groups should have stronger social organization is not something i'm sure about, but the exclusiveness of many faith-based social groups presents a problem. the non-religious individual has to sacrifice their values and philosophy in order to become a part of the larger faith-based community. this is too much to ask. I would not describe Humanism as self-serving, but I agree that it doesn't as yet have a strong social organization (like a church or community groups or whatever) to be described as involvment in the wider community on many matters.
but even if the Humanists and non-religious groups were to have weekly community gatherings as a regular organized thing, would this help things between the faith based and non-faith based communities? - I'm not sure...
Why should you? If you do not have faith you cannot believe - so why would I ask you to believe as I do?
Rethorical questions I know, but since I don't ask people to believe as I do - I really can't answer the question. Your desires and believes are yours not mine. If you chose to follow non-religous path that is your choice.
fair enough, and thank you. There are many religious groups and individuals that will stop at almost nothing to get people to convert to one particular faith or another. it creates a lot of problems...
Why do those that don't believe in this or that deity feel the need to attack those that believe in a deity? Since I don't attack science because of its desire to explain the universe, I can only ask the rethorical question that is the opposite of yours. Why attack me for my faith if I do not attack your lack of faith?
I believe that my faith in God is based solely upon my soul, attempts by others to explain the universe does not threaten my soul, so individuals who wish to find answers to the workings of the universe and the human dimension I don't have any issues with.
I'm not sure about you, but from where I am it feels like self-defense. non-religious people are very much the minority and are sick of the persecution and discrimination - especially in places like the Bible Belt in the USA. You yourself may not have directly attacked non-religious views, but many of your religious peers have done so.
you don't seem to have any issues with information which many find undermines their faith - information and methods such as the use of Reason, Logic, the Scientific Method, Evolution, etc. have been seen to be directly threatening religious faith (at least in Western Civilization).
many people of religious faith find the very existence of Atheism, Humanism, etc to be offensive to their beliefs and do attack them directly.
is the rational interpretation of evidence an attack on faith? and does the promotion of faith undermine Reason and Science?
Faith is based upon belief. My ancedotal evidence would not meet the scientific criteria of evidence because it can not be repeated over and over again. So if I believe something because of my interpation of the event based upon my faith - does that necessarily make it wrong? I don't expect others to believe my evidence of faith because to simply put it, it was my experience - an event that you can not duplicate. Needless to say my ancedotal evidence of God's existance is the birth of my son. Seven weeks premature with no medical issues. This after doctors initially called the pregency tubal and required abortion to prevent my wife's death. But I don't expect you or anyone else to take my ancedotal evidence as proof. Hell I even suspect some will want to ridicule my faith because they could provide very plausible scienitific explantations for why the pregency was initially ruled as tubal but ended up not.
well congratulations anyway. I too was born several weeks premature...
Faith gives comfort to many. I have no desire to take this away from anybody, and I bet that most other Humanists would agree. But to deliberately try to undermine Science in the name of religious faith (like Intelligent Design being pushed into public education) is horribly disgusting, and even many people of faith - including numerous priests - have opposed the Intelligent Design movement.
I for one do not try to make people of faith 'convert' to Atheism or Humanism or whatever, I want everyone to be educated enough on all religious and non-religious philosophies to have a healthy respect for each other. Why? because too many people don't have any respect for the non-religious minority which often leads to conflict and persecution and so on...
I have never seen this claim when I was a organized church going christian - nor do I practice it.
many preachers of religious faiths generally have it, though some are skillful enough to hide it. It is less common in the average follower but it is still sometimes the case. The few religious preachers that are not so arrogant and "superior" are the most civilized. I generally have little problem with these guys, they tend to respect non-religious people more...
They are often insulting to those of the faith also.
good.
I would disagree with this statement. I know many individuals of faith that are not arrogant toward individuals who hold non-religious views.
indeed... though I've encountered plenty of arrogant Christians promoting Christianity on university Campus (students and non-stdents alike) - they are terribly arrogant and self-righteous...
All philisophies to this to varying degrees. Are you disgusted with all philisophies on life that are out there? Pointing out the contradictions in the religious text is useful - but when one takes a hard line stance - are you not doing the same thing your complaining about?
good point. I generally avoid taking a hard line stance, and I'm not a student of Philosophy so I don't know enough about many to have what I would call disgust.
I will point out though that I sometimes oppose hard line Atheism (some would call it anti-theism)... I saw a pamphlet advertising an Athist Society seminar about "should religions be tollerated?" and was rather uncomfortable with the argument. I refused to attend the seminar. I prefer promoting education about Humanist philosophy and secular ethics in 'Religious Education and Ethics' classes in schools rather than encouraging petty intollerance against religious groups.
I just wanted to point out that determinism has much to do with the topic of free will (which in turn has much to do with ethics).
I will elaborate my post in great detail.
...
wow, that certainly is complicated and full of hypotheticals about ethics. thanks for the explanation
I just try to use common sense, and don't see how a belief in sins or the divine or divine judgement helps to solve the problem of determinism and moral responsibility... it doesn't really solve such problems with what I would call sensible justice...
Well, I don't know the attitudes of every religious person, but while some religious people certainly do have a problem like you have stated, I am quite sure that it goes both ways...
true... each sees the potential for unethical behaviour in the other...
Claudius, aside from "sinful", you have attacked religion/religious people/religious teachings in this thread as generally unethical, short-sighted, and stupid...
perhaps this is so. we'll just have to agree to disagree. though I would not say that all religious teachings or people have these qualities, just a select few... the question is, what should be done about serious problems like religious intollerance or the lack of an organized community structure amongst non-religious communities? I think these two are the biggest criticisms for each side... would you agree?
This generalization (though it is a generalization, I think it is a fair one) may be a sort of answer to your further questions:
People hold their personal belief systems and ideologies to be superior to others.
agreed... and so the debate continues...
Hello Claudius the God (Good name! I'm a Graves fan myself.)
I'm confused by your thread. It seems all over the place. You've got several distinct ideas, conflated discussions and a general meandering of subject matter that makes things appear rather messy. Is there one issue you are more interested in over another? Do you have a distinct position you wanted to put forward?
Claudius the God
12-02-2006, 02:30
Hello Claudius the God (Good name! I'm a Graves fan myself.)
I'm confused by your thread. It seems all over the place. You've got several distinct ideas, conflated discussions and a general meandering of subject matter that makes things appear rather messy. Is there one issue you are more interested in over another? Do you have a distinct position you wanted to put forward?
thanks Pindar...
that's understandable, I'm trying to quickly respond back on several ongoing discussions...
perhaps it will help you to define my views...
I am a Secular Humanist, sometimes a Freethinker or an Atheist or simply anti-clerical (but not all the time). I strongly approve of the use of Rational skepticism and the Scientific method, and am generally distrustful of 'revealed knowledge' such as in dogma or scripture.
my main problems with organized religion is the conflict between religion and non-religion, the discrimination and lack of respect by religious fanatics primarily. I am skeptical of religious scripture, particularly the Holy Bible as Christians these days seem to get the most attention for their poor behaviour towards non-religious groups.
I don't like it when religious groups call non-religious people immoral or unethical for their lack of faith (it simply is not true, and Humanism is a good example of why it is not true)
I don't like it when faith-preachers preach their religion in public.
I am disgusted by the arrogance and hypocrisy of many Christians - the fanatics that is, and disagree on numerous subjects.
I find numerous organized religions to be corrupt and exploitative and sometimes even tyrannical and uncivilized - just look at the Moonies or Opus Dei or the Exclusive Brethren. - and to a lesser extent numerous other faiths...
some people of faith are genuinely decent, and I have no real problem with these people, just a different way of looking at things...
does that help?
thanks Pindar...
that's understandable, I'm trying to quickly respond back on several ongoing discussions...
perhaps it will help you to define my views...
I am a Secular Humanist, sometimes a Freethinker or an Atheist or simply anti-clerical (but not all the time).... does that help?
This tells me a lot about yourself, but what is it you wish to discuss? If you're looking to engage contrary views I think it would be best to choose a single issue or put forward a single simple theses. This will draw a clear line for a fruitful discussion that can escape emoting. I think that kind of stream lining or focus will be easier for would be participants to play off each other's ideas and certainly be easier on yourself (avoiding multiple disparate conversations at once). ~:)
Claudius the God
12-02-2006, 03:01
This tells me a lot about yourself, but what is it you wish to discuss? If you're looking to engage contrary views I think it would be best to choose a single issue or put forward a single simple theses so as to draw a clear line for a fruitful discussion that can escape emoting. I think that kind of stream lining or focus will be easier for would be participants to play off each other's ideas and certainly be easier on yourself (avoiding multiple disparate conversations at once). ~:)
fair enough...
okay then, perhaps without the back and forth criticisms and disagreements between the faith and non-faith sides, I should return slightly to the core subject once more...
Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?
I ask this because this is perhaps the main criticism of secularism, etc. that Religious voices give (besides the back and forth accusations of immorality). I also ask this because non-religionists seem to sometimes feel lonely and excluded from the larger religious communities to some extent.
should there be public gatherings and places of learning and discussion primarily about the concerns of the non-religious community? with activities and food and skeptical literature and the discussion and promotion of secular ethics?
and is there a general term we can use for groups of people who are simply not religious? ... 'non-religionists' sounds a little dull to me...
fair enough...
okay then, perhaps without the back and forth criticisms and disagreements between the faith and non-faith sides, I should return slightly to the core subject once more...
Do Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists, etc. need to have a more organized community structure?
I ask this because this is perhaps the main criticism of secularism, etc.
So you are actually wanting to just ask a question? OK, here is a reply: no there is no need.
Atheism and agnosticism are epistemic orientations regarding a metaphysical absolute and do not require anything further from the subject. Humanism refers to a rhetorical focus and/or line of inquiry that also is similarly self-enclosed (placing no further onus on the subject).
I don't think community or its lack is the main criticism of secularism.
(I)s there a general term we can use for groups of people who are simply not religious? ... 'non-religionists' sounds a little dull to me...
I think secular would seem to do.
Del Arroyo
12-02-2006, 03:40
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Atheists are hypocrites. They pretend superiority to those with irrational beliefs, based on their own irrational belief in the non-existence of a God.
Many self-proclaimed adherents of humanism are also hypocritical, claiming to be freed of the shackles of dogma, only to go on writing up tomes upon tomes of their own dogmatic points.
I think Reenk Doink got it right in noting that Reason itself must be accepted irrationally. I would caution all of my fellow Org-ahs to take care in selecting the principles by which to live their lives-- at their core, these principles cannot be rational. If you pretend that they are rational, you are fooling yourself, and may be in danger of basing your entire life on false, failed products of circular deception, far, far away from that which is Right and True.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-02-2006, 12:11
Atheism isn't irrational. Scientifically speaking, there is no need for a God to explain the universe, and so adding a god would make the explanation more complex.
Del Arroyo
12-02-2006, 15:28
Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.
You make reference to Occum's Razor, but this is merely a rule of thumb scientists use when trying to interpret data-- it is not a Law, not a Theory, not even a Hypothesis. It states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, and its biggest weakness is that it relies on a human judgement based on the information he has on hand. Based on the data available to most people in the ancient world, the explanation of a flat Earth would have almost certainly seemed like the simplest. Later investigation, of course, proved this to be untrue.
Furthermore, I feel from the way you talk that you must have a very restrictive concept of what God could be. You say you believe in science, but science is only an imperfect human art which attempts to methodically explain observable phenomena. By its own admission, it is plagued by flaws, inaccuracies, mistaken assumptions and downright falsehoods-- all part of the continuous, and interminable, process of investigation.
So, do you believe that if humans, using the Scientific Method, arrive at a certain conclusion, that it is always correct? What if it is later proven false-- was it correct before it was disproven and incorrect afterwards? Or is there a higher truth, something that rises above human perception and control, which is constant, always, forever?
And if so, why can we not call this truth, God?
If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Mithrandir
12-02-2006, 16:42
Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven,
I hope the police won't start working like that, sending fines to everyone because they can't prove that they didn't drive too fast.
If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Does it really fall, or does is it just on the ground the next time someone sees is. Are we really here or is the entire world but a fignant of your imagination ?
Once you leave a room, is it still there ?
...does it matter?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-02-2006, 16:52
Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.
You make reference to Occum's Razor, but this is merely a rule of thumb scientists use when trying to interpret data-- it is not a Law, not a Theory, not even a Hypothesis. It states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, and its biggest weakness is that it relies on a human judgement based on the information he has on hand. Based on the data available to most people in the ancient world, the explanation of a flat Earth would have almost certainly seemed like the simplest. Later investigation, of course, proved this to be untrue.
Furthermore, I feel from the way you talk that you must have a very restrictive concept of what God could be. You say you believe in science, but science is only an imperfect human art which attempts to methodically explain observable phenomena. By its own admission, it is plagued by flaws, inaccuracies, mistaken assumptions and downright falsehoods-- all part of the continuous, and interminable, process of investigation.
So, do you believe that if humans, using the Scientific Method, arrive at a certain conclusion, that it is always correct? What if it is later proven false-- was it correct before it was disproven and incorrect afterwards? Or is there a higher truth, something that rises above human perception and control, which is constant, always, forever?
And if so, why can we not call this truth, God?
If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
In science we seek to explain the world. We have a current best answer and it doesn't include god. Nothing irrational about that. It would be much easier to explain the world using god, in your example we could say the earth is flat because god made it so and leave it at that. But it wouldn't be true. Given the evidence we have for a round earth, surely you wouldn't still believe a "god made the earth flat" scenario?
Del Arroyo
12-02-2006, 20:19
In science we seek to explain the world. We have a current best answer and it doesn't include god. Nothing irrational about that. It would be much easier to explain the world using god, in your example we could say the earth is flat because god made it so and leave it at that. But it wouldn't be true. Given the evidence we have for a round earth, surely you wouldn't still believe a "god made the earth flat" scenario?
Well, why can't you believe a "God made the world round" scenario?
And again, I question the restrictions you seem to be placing on your concept of "God". How do you define God? I invite you to summarize your own concept here for us.
Mithrandir: Our system of justice assumes people are innocent until proven guilty because its goal is to keep social order, not determine truth. Just because you assume they are innocent, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. I mean, come on, that's elementary logic.
Mithrandir
12-02-2006, 20:20
Mithrandir: Our system of justice assumes people are innocent until proven guilty because its goal is to keep social order, not determine truth. Just because you assume they are innocent, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. I mean, come on, that's elementary logic.
Which is why evidence has to be presented to prove the opposite ~:).
Well, why can't you believe a "God made the world round" scenario?
My question would be why the need to postulate something which you can't prove, Del Arroyo? Of course you can believe it, if you so choose. The real question is why would you need to do so? Such a belief might have been needed before rational explanation was possible, at the dawn of human civilization, perhaps.
If an explanation exists which doesn't require a deity, why invent one, which just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. I submit that the reason belief in the mystical still exists is simply because it developed before humans had the critical skills and knowledge to explain the world without a need for such beliefs. The mystical explanation is an artifact of a time before rational thought. As such those beliefs can't be disproven. I don't feel any need to disprove them. They are no longer relevant.
Del Arroyo,
1) Name as many 'creatures' that do not exist.
2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.
3) What's the difference between these 'creatures' and God?
Del Arroyo
12-02-2006, 21:18
If an explanation
This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.
You have a rock. You can use science to determine how heavy it is. You can use science to determine its spacial dimensions. You can use science to determine its approximate mineral and then chemical composition, and its likely geological origins.
But what do you do with it? Science has no answer.
Do you throw the rock? Make it into a tool? Save it? Leave it? You could do any of those things, and science might possibly be a tool you use to help you make your decision-- depending on its size and composition, it might be better suited for one use than another, for example. You could even analyze yourself, your motives and needs, chart the probabilities of your different potential decisions, then, after the decision, repeat the analysis and provide a hypothesis as to why that particular decision was taken.
But the decision is still up to you. How will you be able to make that decision, if science can provide no clear answers?
You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.
Tell me, Aenlic, does your mother really love you, or does she merely act on the selfish biological instinct to protect her own genetic material? Try as you might, the scientific process cannot provide an answer to such a question. Assumptions and terms could be defined, and experiments designed, but in the end no matter what they resulted in it would be entirely irrelevant to a matter which depends wholly on your own heart, and your own soul.
Del Arroyo
12-02-2006, 21:21
Del Arroyo,
1) Name as many 'creatures' that do not exist.
2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.
3) What's the difference between these 'creatures' and God?
Who said God was a creature?
Who said God was a creature? LOL. Let me rephrase:
1) Name as many 'entities' that do not exist.
2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.
3) What's the difference between these 'entities' and God?
Del Arroyo
12-02-2006, 21:39
LOL. Let me rephrase:
1) Name as many 'entities' that do not exist.
2) Give as many reasons as to why they do not exist.
3) What's the difference between these 'entities' and God?
And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.
I invite you to please elaborate the definition of God which you are using.
Mithrandir
12-02-2006, 21:44
And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.
Those are not things you have to believe in.
They are biological processes.
And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.
I invite you to please elaborate the definition of God which you are using. I'm an atheist, I have no definition of God. I'm using theist's definition.
You're a theist. What's your definition of God?
InsaneApache
12-02-2006, 22:34
:elvis:
This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.
You have a rock. You can use science to determine how heavy it is. You can use science to determine its spacial dimensions. You can use science to determine its approximate mineral and then chemical composition, and its likely geological origins.
But what do you do with it? Science has no answer.
Do you throw the rock? Make it into a tool? Save it? Leave it? You could do any of those things, and science might possibly be a tool you use to help you make your decision-- depending on its size and composition, it might be better suited for one use than another, for example. You could even analyze yourself, your motives and needs, chart the probabilities of your different potential decisions, then, after the decision, repeat the analysis and provide a hypothesis as to why that particular decision was taken.
But the decision is still up to you. How will you be able to make that decision, if science can provide no clear answers?
You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.
Basically, Del Arroyo, your argument boils down to your concern for the soul of the rock, and mine basically states I don't care if the rock has a soul, it isn't something important.
You seem stuck on this idea of science. Perhaps you've confused my arguments with someone else's? I haven't said science, I believe. If I did, it was only in passing. I've very carefully used broader terms. You've chosen to deliberately misstate my position. As for ethics and morals, you are making broad and entirely baseless assumptions that they require religion to be valid. This is no more sensible than religion itself. The basis of all human interaction is self-interest and mutual benefit, the later because self-interest when thought through fully implies mutual benefit since no one can survive long alone. It's a function of society. You claim on the other hand that morals and ethics derive solely from some nebulous, immaterial and ultimately unverifiable source outside yourself. If that makes you feel more comfortable with your self-interest, then fine for you. I don't need that crutch. :beam:
Tell me, Aenlic, does your mother really love you, or does she merely act on the selfish biological instinct to protect her own genetic material? Try as you might, the scientific process cannot provide an answer to such a question. Assumptions and terms could be defined, and experiments designed, but in the end no matter what they resulted in it would be entirely irrelevant to a matter which depends wholly on your own heart, and your own soul.
Incorrect assumptions again. How do you know that love isn't exactly that - a selfish biological instinct? You don't. You make unprovable assumptions based on belief in an unprovable system. And yes, since you insist on making this a question of science versus mystical belief, science may one day very well be able to determine exactly what the biological basis is for emotions. Science is already close, in fact. Deny it all you like, it is coming. But it isn't just science which pushes that edge. It's rational thought and critical thinking. We don't need religion to be ethical, we don't need religion to feel emotion, we don't need religion to look at the stars and wonder how they were made. Well, many of us don't, I should say. Some still need that nightlight and favorite blankie to protect them from the unknown. :wink:
Del Arroyo
12-03-2006, 01:36
All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.
At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.
Kagemusha
12-03-2006, 02:16
Blah,Blah and blah. Believe in what you want and give others the same privledge.Sometimes i think there are atleast as many preachermen in atheist´s as there in religious persons.:laugh4:
Reenk Roink
12-03-2006, 05:06
Look people, depending on which epistemically basic assumptions you make, you are going to branch off into differing views, and even if two people share the same basic assumptions, they may have radically differing paradigms. People are apt to place their belief system higher than others, and that's how it is always going to be.
Let's all leave it at that, eat some ice cream, and celebrate Michigan's trip to the BCS Championship. :2thumbsup:
Claudius the God
12-03-2006, 10:37
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Atheists are hypocrites. They pretend superiority to those with irrational beliefs, based on their own irrational belief in the non-existence of a God.
Theists are just as hypocritical in their argument that this thing (whatever deity) exists without any evidence to support the notion.
Also, Atheist does not mean the belief in the non-existence of gods, it is the Absense of belief in the existence of gods. please note the difference.
Again it's about how you define god/deity. if you define it as an something as unsubstantial as an 'idea', then it exists because ideas exist, if you define a god/deity as something in the physical world or involved in the workings of the physical world, then it is unproven.
Many self-proclaimed adherents of humanism are also hypocritical, claiming to be freed of the shackles of dogma, only to go on writing up tomes upon tomes of their own dogmatic points.
Sumanist or secular ethics as put down on paper are answers to theistic accusations that non-religious people have no ethics or morals... and unlike dogma, Secular ethics can adapt and improve with time.
I think Reenk Doink got it right in noting that Reason itself must be accepted irrationally. I would caution all of my fellow Org-ahs to take care in selecting the principles by which to live their lives-- at their core, these principles cannot be rational. If you pretend that they are rational, you are fooling yourself, and may be in danger of basing your entire life on false, failed products of circular deception, far, far away from that which is Right and True.
fine, but so what? - even if Rationalism/secularism is somehow terribly flawed (I have yet to see any evidence of this), what alternative can said to be really better?
Why should we become theists? why should we change and adopt faith over reason? I have yet to see any good reason why... certainly no an ethical reasons and certainly no an intellectual reasons...
Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages. ~ Richard Lederer
Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.
God can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore Atheism is just as likely an answer to 'the question' as Theism.
This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.
that's assuming the 'soul' exists...
You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.
so you're saying that science is used to develop new ideas and understand things, while religion is used to control society...?
while I agree to some extent, I don't think that secular ethics are any less effective than religious ethics when it comes to improving social problems.
All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.
if science and logic and rationality are based on unprovable assumptions, then what does that say about faith and religion? - it certainly doesn't make faith or religion any more substantial or realistic...
-------------
there are some quite interresting quotes here (both for the theistic arguments and atheistic arguments)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religion
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Irreligious
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Agnosticism
-----------
A new question for the Secular people here: What religious faiths do you like or find interresting or amusing?
I like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (and it's offshoots), and Jediism, and Unitarian Universalism...
Mithrandir
12-03-2006, 13:26
What religious faiths do you like or find interresting or amusing?
I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.
Banquo's Ghost
12-03-2006, 13:47
I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.
Try starting here (http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/EN/links.htm).
Mankind finds a way, whatever their motivations or supposed beliefs. :shame:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2006, 14:07
I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.
Warrior monks! :stare:
Watchman
12-03-2006, 14:16
One world-religion overview book I read for an university exam seemed to almost delight in the interesting case of a Sri Lankan prince who pretty much stuck a Buddhist relic on his spear and went on what amounts to a crusade against his Hindu neighbours but a few centuries after old Gautama left this plane of existence. And the Japanese temples notoriously liked to settle their disputes with private armies, which were also employed to bully temporal authorities from time to time.
Not that the basically pacifistic undercurrents of Buddhism ever particularly kept its adherents from donning their war gear and ventilating their neighbours anyway. Sort of how Christians were awfully quick to forget the early "one cannot be both a soldier and a Soldier of God at once" idea right fast after the Roman Empire went officially Christian, I guess.
:juggle2:
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?
:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"
All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.
At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.
The reason why I'm asking you these questions:
1. Name any 'thing' that does not exist.
2. Why do you say it does not exist?
3. What's the difference between this 'thing' and God
is if you say X 'does not exist' and God 'exists', and at the same time cannot tell the difference between X and God, then:
You cannot tell the difference with 'what exists' and 'what do not exist' even from your very own account!
Mithrandir
12-03-2006, 16:41
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?
:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"
They just shout out my name.
ok, too easy
Del Arroyo
12-03-2006, 17:44
Theists are just as hypocritical in their argument that this thing (whatever deity) exists without any evidence to support the notion.
Theists do not suppose that proof is necessary. Therefore, while theists may be irrational, they are not hypocritical, at least in this sense. Atheists, however, do assume that proof is necessary, and are therefore both irrational and hypocritical.
Sumanist or secular ethics as put down on paper are answers to theistic accusations that non-religious people have no ethics or morals... and unlike dogma, Secular ethics can adapt and improve with time.
...
while I agree to some extent, I don't think that secular ethics are any less effective than religious ethics when it comes to improving social problems.
Secular ethics are religion. They just bow to a different God.
that's assuming the 'soul' exists...
"Soul" is useful shorthand used to refer to a complicated interaction of natural phenomena which most definitely do exist.
so you're saying that science is used to develop new ideas and understand things, while religion is used to control society...?
More like science provides the What and religion provides the Why. I also personally see a large distinction between "religion" and "organized religion".
if science and logic and rationality are based on unprovable assumptions, then what does that say about faith and religion? - it certainly doesn't make faith or religion any more substantial or realistic...
This is my point. Science and logic are tools. Theism is a faith. Atheism is also a faith. This is why I think it is so empty-- it claims to "free" one from "faith" and "God", but it is really no different from any other system of belief. Furthermore, it is completely missing the point with regards to the origin and the nature of religion of both religion and scientific investigation.
..
As a personal disclaimer, I do not have a particularly strong faith in anything, and, if pressed, I would probably term much of the story of Christ (for one example) and church rituals as "superstition". But I do know that there is something bigger than me, and I do take the time now and then to be quiet and listen. These, I think, are two of the important first lessons of religion-- humility, and patience.
"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-03-2006, 18:31
We aren't going to get anywhere like this. Your defining religion and science just the way you want to. Since when is religion the why? Your encapsulating too much with that word. You can follow a moral code without being religious, a moral code on it's own is not enough to qualify as a religion.
Rurik the Chieftain
12-03-2006, 20:13
All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.
At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.
Uh, I don't want to double attack you on this, but I felt I needed to get a word in edgewise.
Logic is based on unprovable assumptions. This is true. However, it is where these assumptions lead and how they relate to each other that is important. This is the only way we can "judge" which assumption is "better" and which can be discarded. Material results matter if you don't just care about an argument. As far as I can tell, not much modern progress has been created out of instinct.
Also, Atheist does not mean the belief in the non-existence of gods, it is the Absense of belief in the existence of gods. please note the difference.
Hi Claudius,
Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.
"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?
Who can argue with it? For several thousand years, most of the population of the world would argue with it, except for a very small group/cult of people living in relatively miniscule portion of the world.
Unless, of course, you believe that Jehovah announced his superiority to all the other peoples of the world as well, being all-powerful and such. So, without evidence, you'll claim that Jehovah made that announcement to more than just .001% of the world's population at the time? :inquisitive:
Papewaio
12-03-2006, 23:55
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?
:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"
Their partner(s) name obviously.
'Oh My Santa/Easter Bunny/Mummy/God' only one of which is testable, and that belongs to the serial killers school of thought.
Claudius the God
12-04-2006, 00:13
Theists do not suppose that proof is necessary. Therefore, while theists may be irrational, they are not hypocritical, at least in this sense. Atheists, however, do assume that proof is necessary, and are therefore both irrational and hypocritical.
proof isn't necessary, only evidence... the problem is that there isn't even any realistic evidence...
Secular ethics are religion. They just bow to a different God.
Secular society neither has religion, nor bows, nor has gods...
"Soul" is useful shorthand used to refer to a complicated interaction of natural phenomena which most definitely do exist.
the theistic idea of the 'Soul' has little evidence to support it.
This is my point. Science and logic are tools. Theism is a faith. Atheism is also a faith. This is why I think it is so empty-- it claims to "free" one from "faith" and "God", but it is really no different from any other system of belief. Furthermore, it is completely missing the point with regards to the origin and the nature of religion of both religion and scientific investigation.
nonsense... religion and faith claim intellectual superiority through 'divinely revealed knowledge', while Science is skeptical and works to become more accurate and is constantly improving itself in answering important questions.
"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?
I can argue with that... it gives no intellectual nor moral reason why we should have no other God, nor any God at all...
Hi Claudius,
Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.
Hi Pindar,
I agree with much of what you're saying... in context of the earlier argument, we were talking about the fundamental scientific interpretation on the question of the existence of God/s - about fundamental evidence and therefore the basic hypothesis. When it comes down to it, the lack of evidence leads to an absense in the belief in god rather than in the belief that there is no god. this reasoning is about what the fundamental evidence (that is, the lack of evidence) leads to. there would have to be evidence for the non-existence of god in order to scientifically justify 'strong' Atheism.
the scientific evidence that Gods and superstitions are artificial - constructed by humans - is still debatable - it goes into a great deal of psychology and social sciences and investigates why many people believe in God/s and the supernatural. psychological sciences, especially in the area of faith, is a difficult field to investigate scientifically...
Strong Atheism is justified by the lengthy arguments that Gods were invented by mankind for social control, comfort, and simple explanations of the unknown (how did the world come to be? what happens when we die? etc...)... and similar functions that superstitions and gods and religions occupied in the development of society...
I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?
:kiss2::wideeyed: "Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"
very funny... this I think is just an expression, not a way in which the atheist communicates with 'god'... I sometimes swear loudly: "God-damn-it" and other similar expressions that are used by many... wouldn't yelling out "Oh God!" during sex be just as "blasphemous" as saying "God=damn-it" when angry...??? - there is no real belief behind the saying, just a way to easily express anger, pain, frustration, and sexual ecstasy...
Hi Pindar,
I agree with much of what you're saying... in context of the earlier argument, we were talking about the fundamental scientific interpretation on the question of the existence of God/s - about fundamental evidence and therefore the basic hypothesis. When it comes down to it, the lack of evidence leads to an absense in the belief in god rather than in the belief that there is no god. this reasoning is about what the fundamental evidence (that is, the lack of evidence) leads to. there would have to be evidence for the non-existence of god in order to scientifically justify 'strong' Atheism.
Hi Claudius,
The problem with the above is in applying a scientific schema to a decidedly non-scientific object. To attempt to do so is to commit a category mistake. This is so regardless of any evidentiary (or its opposite) appeal.
the scientific evidence that Gods and superstitions are artificial - constructed by humans - is still debatable - it goes into a great deal of psychology and social sciences and investigates why many people believe in God/s and the supernatural. psychological sciences, especially in the area of faith, is a difficult field to investigate scientifically...
Strong Atheism is justified by the lengthy arguments that Gods were invented by mankind for social control, comfort, and simple explanations of the unknown (how did the world come to be? what happens when we die? etc...)... and similar functions that superstitions and gods and religions occupied in the development of society...
The issues with strong atheism I explained are not amenable to psychological, anthropological or any sociological context. The issue is formal: applying to the basic logical structure of the claim. If one posits "there is no god" under a deductive rubric then they beg the question. If one asserts "there is no god" under an inductive schema then they have committed a different fallacy in concluding a universal negative. The logical problems for strong atheism are severe.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2006, 01:56
Hi Claudius,
Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.
All strong positions on god are illogical. But when someone takes a strong position what can they mean but that they believe it to be true? There's no difference between your strong and weak atheism.
All strong positions on god are illogical.
No, they are not.
But when someone takes a strong position what can they mean but that they believe it to be true?
The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.
There's no difference between your strong and weak atheism.
Yes, there is: one is an absurdity, the other an irrelevancy.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2006, 02:40
No, they are not.
Name one then, don't make me post again :stare:
The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.
What? If I say I believe something how is that not a claim that it is true? No one goes around believing in things they think are false.
Yes, there is: one is an absurdity, the other an irrelevancy.
You should try doing something logically absurd sometime, it's fun. By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.
Papewaio
12-04-2006, 02:52
By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.
I think IMDHO by irrelevant Pindar-san means the same irrelevance as someones favourite colour, drink or food has to the universe at large. The question of 'is there a god?' is not answered by an individuals choices, but by a far more universal criteria.
CrossLOPER
12-04-2006, 04:44
Name one then, don't make me post again :stare:
Was that the reaction to that guy's miss? I would have :beam: 'd.
"Hard Atheism" is not illogical at all.
1) Not if you add it in your premise.
2) It's more of a rejection of a claim (everyone was born at point 0; i.e no belief). Without theists there would be no atheists.
It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all.
Pindar, I know you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way (i.e does not follow the laws of physics hence undetectable). Well, your brain is physical, it only responds to the laws of physics.
And you do not want to share what God is telling you since it is akin to casting "pearls before/unto swine" (I don't know what that means and I don't exactly remember the phrase).
Then, what language is God using (given you understood the message), since you're saying God communicates with you, and hence there's a metaphysical signal albeit is undetectable?
Lastly, there are only two Christians I know that that claim that God is sending signals straight to their head, that's you and Pat Robertson.
Am I right to be skeptical since the other Orgahs aren't receiving this signals and Pat Robertson is certainly sharing these personal messages to the world?
Don't worry, Pindar! It's still possible to protect yourself and rejoin rational humanity. It'll just take a little bit of effort. Like this:
http://www.serversunderthesun.com/tin/DCP_0536.jpg
Name one then, don't make me post again :stare:
Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
The above is a simple valid argument.
The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.
What? If I say I believe something how is that not a claim that it is true? No one goes around believing in things they think are false.
You do not understand. To say "I believe X" the predicate reflects back on the subject. The statement makes no demand that the X has existential standing.
By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.
See Papewaio's comment.
"Hard Atheism" is not illogical at all.
1) Not if you add it in your premise.
This is not correct. It begs the question.
Without theists there would be no atheists.
This doesn't follow. Atheism is not a parasitic position.
It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all.
This is a non sequitur.
Pindar, I know you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way...
I have not made the above claim. There is nothing personal in my above posts. The focus is the logical standing of atheism.
Don't worry, Pindar! It's still possible to protect yourself and rejoin rational humanity. It'll just take a little bit of effort. Like this:
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2006, 19:53
Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
The above is a simple valid argument.
It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?
You do not understand. To say "I believe X" the predicate reflects back on the subject. The statement makes no demand that the X has existential standing.
And when someone says "how about this weather" they want to talk about the weather :dizzy2:
See Papewaio's comment.
I didn't understand Pape's comment :embarassed:
It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?
What makes one a more valid claim if one can not chose between them logically?
It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god.
If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.
If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?
This moves beyond the base issue. We could explore this, but it moves beyond the focus: logical standing itself.
And when someone says "how about this weather" they want to talk about the weather :dizzy2:
"How about this weather" is either a question, serves as an introduction or acts as an interrogative phrase.
I didn't understand Pape's comment :embarassed:
OK, consider the difference between the following two statements:
1) Bob is a Martian.
2) I believe Bob is a Martian.
1) asserts a fact. 2) asserts only the belief of the subject. Belief alone, irrespective of intensity, does not make any claim on the larger universe. Further, its relevancy is determined by one's interest in the asserting subject only. In simple terms 2) is emotive.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2006, 20:29
If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.
Are saying first cause = god?
This moves beyond the base issue. We could explore this, but it moves beyond the focus: logical standing itself.
When faced with several illogical choices, if you choose one in a logical manner does not your choice become logical?
"How about this weather" is either a question, serves as an introduction or acts as an interrogative phrase.
OK, consider the difference between the following two statements:
1) Bob is a Martian.
2) I believe Bob is a Martian.
1) asserts a fact. 2) asserts only the belief of the subject. Belief alone, irrespective of intensity, does not make any claim on the larger universe. Further, its relevancy is determined by one's interest in the asserting subject only. In simple terms 2) is emotive.
You're being academic, not realistic. We're talking about people here.
What makes one a more valid claim if one can not chose between them logically?
Who says we can't?
If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.
Are saying first cause = god?
My above comment concerns validity. As far as the argument: yes.
When faced with several illogical choices, if you choose one in a logical manner does not your choice become logical?
?
You're being academic, not realistic. We're talking about people here.
The focus is the meaning of knowledge claims.
Reenk Roink
12-04-2006, 22:00
It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?
I don't understand what you meant by the last part of that snippet Sasaki, but yes, it is possible to have two differing but both reasonable beliefs about something:
As Ghazali put it (a simplification, but he is making a point):
All men can be divided into two classes
(i) the class of the people of the truth (i.e. theists and more specifically Muslims, but the argument can be extended for Judaism and Christianity of course). They hold that the world began in time; and they know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator. Therefore, their belief in the Creator is understandable.
(ii) the Materialists. They believe that the world, as it is, has always been. Therefore, they do not ascribe it to a creator. Their belief, too, is intelligible — although rational arguments may be advanced to refute it.
But the philosophers (i.e. al-Farabi and Avicena, whom Ghazali was attempting to refute) believe that the world is eternal. And still they would ascribe it to a creator. This theory is, therefore, even in its original formulation, self-contradictory. There is no need for a refutation of it.
Note: (parentheses mine)
Del Arroyo
12-04-2006, 22:48
Quietus and Aenlic: You may wish to ask yourselves exactly what has caused you to taunt Pindar in such a way. He is a very careful debater and has certainly done nothing to warrant such behavior, if indeed it can be warranted.
In my personal opinion, I think that Quietus and Aenlic have displayed exactly the sort of glib impudence which ends up giving all Liberals a bad name.
..
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?
As Ghazali put it (a simplification, but he is making a point):
Quote:
All men can be divided into two classes
(i) the class of the people of the truth (i.e. theists and more specifically Muslims, but the argument can be extended for Judaism and Christianity of course). They hold that the world began in time; and they know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator. Therefore, their belief in the Creator is understandable.
(ii) the Materialists. They believe that the world, as it is, has always been. Therefore, they do not ascribe it to a creator. Their belief, too, is intelligible — although rational arguments may be advanced to refute it.
But the philosophers (i.e. al-Farabi and Avicena, whom Ghazali was attempting to refute) believe that the world is eternal. And still they would ascribe it to a creator. This theory is, therefore, even in its original formulation, self-contradictory. There is no need for a refutation of it.
Very interesting, Reenk Roink, though I would argue as to whether a creator cannot exist in an eternal world. (It may depend on the sense of the word "creator".)
..
Sasaki Kojiro: I feel that the essential answer to all your many questions here is this-- Stuff is more complicated than you thought it was. Surprise surprise. You are young now, you'll keep on learning til you die.
It has also been said that some things are beyond human understanding.
Don Corleone
12-04-2006, 23:13
If pressed, I would have to take issue with Pindar's 7 statement proof at statement number 5, that a contingent being cannot be caused by another contingent being, because it leads to a infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. I disagree with this one point (the other 6 are bravo). Why would a continuous causal system, with no defined non-contingent originator necessarily be fallacious?
However, something else Pindar said struck me as much more profound.
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
I was thinking about this very issue in Church yesterday, and it made me a little sad. At the end of the day, those of you who have convinced yourself that it is not possible that God exists (Quietus, et. al) or thiat is not possible to logically fathom whether God exists or not (Sasaki, et. al.) have commited the same error of logic that you accuse believers in God of.... you have precluded the possiblity that you might be wrong. There is nothing, no evidence, no proof that I could provide to Quietus that would convince him that God's non-existence is in fact erroneous. Any evidence on the matter (and at the end of the day, faith is belief in the absence of empirical evidence) would be rejected through one interpretation of facts or another. I sadly suspect even an encounter with the Almighty Himself would be rejected. Likewise, Sasaki would sit, judgement neutral, refusing to commit, even under such circumstances.
I'm not picking you two out to embarrass you. I just find that you two make as glib arguments for your respective positions as anyone, so I'm making you symoblic figureheads of your respective camps.
To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?
I can in fact freely admit that it's very possible that I am wrong and God doesn't exist. For me, question 2 is more difficult to answer, but I suppose it would come down to an absence of the personal, anecdotal 'evidence' (and it's not empirical evidence, I just use that term for a lack of a better word). You see, I truly see prayers answered in my life. Sometimes I don't recognize them as such, but upon further reflection, I do. Were I to describe these events to you, I'm sure they would sound like campfire ghost stories, but there is a sense of authenticity, at a fundamental level, that I look for and recognize. It's not just random events, and it's not always a favorable outcome. Were these reinforcing, incredibly unlikely, meaningful 'coincidences' (I guess that's the best way to describe it to you) cease, I suppose my faith would falter and I would have to entertain the notion that I had previously been wrong and I had misinterpreted meaningful twists of fate.
How about you? Could you be wrong? When would you begin to suspect that you are?
Who says we can't?
Actually I thought you did in your statement of It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?
So what from re-reading the statement - and seeing my misread, the question should be.
Which logical claim is more valid?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-05-2006, 00:01
Actually I thought you did in your statement of It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?
So what from re-reading the statement - and seeing my misread, the question should be.
Which logical claim is more valid?
As I said earlier, I prefer the simpler explanation. If the universe can operate without a supernatural being, why introduce one? This is a matter of preference not validity.
God is logically possibly, but undefinable. You can argue for a creator of the universe but that is a small small part of god as religions have him. Theres no logical or rational argument for the Christian God, and when most atheists say they don't believe in god that is what they mean, creator is quite different from god. I think you can be an atheist and believe in a creator. Arguing that atheism is absurd because the creator isn't disprovable is a straw man really.
In the end you think god approves of certain things and approves of others based on what you were taught and what you've considered on your own, and I consider some things right and some things wrong based on what I was taught and what I've considered. The difference isn't that great.
I'm sure some things are beyond understanding Del Arroyo. Perhaps one of them is a universe operating without god?
And Don, I'm sure I could be convinced that there was a God. I'm convinced there's something in the dark after watching a scary movie ~D it's a natural human predilection.
I think you can be an atheist and believe in a creator.
A deist?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-05-2006, 00:10
A deist?
Deism is essentially atheism. How do you live your life differently if you believe there was a creator or if you believe there wasn't? Not in the slightest. Perhaps you wonder more.
As I said earlier, I prefer the simpler explanation. If the universe can operate without a supernatural being, why introduce one? This is a matter of preference not validity.
This was actually the type of answer I was looking for. Since belief requires a judgement concerning the preference.
Claudius the God
12-05-2006, 00:21
To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?
It is possible that the secular camp is wrong, and it is also possible that the theists are wrong...
personally I find it tedious and uninterresting after a while to ask the simple question of the existence or non-existence of deities. no one has reliable answers, just arguments...
personally, as an Atheist/Humanist, I find it more interresting to say for the sake of the argument that there is something in the universe that some would interpret as god/s... okay, assuming (without evidence of course) that there are deities and so on... what sort of deities would they logically be?
I find it more interresting to ask this question because many deities that are currently popular are incredibly absurd, even nonsensical... many of them make the Flying Spaghetti Monster look rational in comparison...
so instead of asking the basic question of weather deities do or do not exist, I ask theists - what rational argument can you give to say that YOUR God/s exists?
not even "Intelligent" Design could create a rational argument as to why there must be an intelligent designer...
Even if there is some force in the universe that some interpret as God/s, why should that mean that it operates on things such as Heaven, Hell, Sin, judgement and forgiveness of Sins, love, hate, and divine intervention?
why is this thing seen as the supernatural creator of everything?
why should it be assumed that this thing desires worship and sacrifices or demands that intelligent animals such as Humans live by various moral codes and laws?
I think that the basic argument over the existence vs non-existence of gods is a debate that can never be answered to any satisfaction... but the question of the existence of specific gods promoted in religion and scripture... that is an interresting question to me...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts
Del Arroyo
12-05-2006, 00:45
You can argue for a creator of the universe but that is a small small part of god as religions have him. Theres no logical or rational argument for the Christian God, and when most atheists say they don't believe in god that is what they mean, creator is quite different from god.
If that is really what they mean then I would not expect they would call themselves atheists... I would imagine they might prefer the label of "agnostic", if they would want a label at all.
I think you are quite right in stating that most atheists are reacting to popular concepts of God which they have been exposed to, and which to them seem absurd-- but they jump to the conclusion that there must be no higher power, while I would say that they simply have it all wrong about God.
Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.
So what? you may say. The Bible is only one book, and in these new times with so many books to draw on, it is one we can do without. But this is what the foolish would say. A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 00:50
A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.Eloquent and all, but how's that fit with the way the believers pretty much per definition have to declare Scriptures other than their own to be, uh, rubbish, to put it mildly ?
AntiochusIII
12-05-2006, 00:50
Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.What was the Book's point?
Claudius the God
12-05-2006, 01:14
If that is really what they mean then I would not expect they would call themselves atheists... I would imagine they might prefer the label of "agnostic", if they would want a label at all.
I think you are quite right in stating that most atheists are reacting to popular concepts of God which they have been exposed to, and which to them seem absurd-- but they jump to the conclusion that there must be no higher power, while I would say that they simply have it all wrong about God.
perhaps... the difference in my mind between atheism and agnosticism is the argument favoured by Atheists: that Deities are man-made ideas which helps to answer difficult questions, organize and bring order to sociey, and give some measure of comfort to people... the Atheist view is that God/s are entirely artificial.
though I think you are correct when saying that when looking at specific gods - ie the god of the Bible - that Atheists are quite firm in the belief that this or that specific god does not exist as theists would have it...
Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.
I'm sorry to say that I agree with you on this, many of us in the Secular camp (myself included) have been guilty of criticizing Christians based on the entirety of the Bible taken literally... it makes a better argument to highlight the horrors of Deuteronomy and so on...
still, even Jesus himself is not above strong criticism...
So what? you may say. The Bible is only one book, and in these new times with so many books to draw on, it is one we can do without. But this is what the foolish would say. A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...
This does not make logical sense.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 01:25
How so ? If you remove assumptions of divinity from the book - as for example a Christian interested in not letting his or her confessional affiliation get in the way of analysis might, and Atheists and Agnostics do more or less by default - it's 'just' a writing of considerable historical and social significance. But then, so is Das Kapital.
This is not correct. It begs the question. Then your logical reason for theism begs the same.
This doesn't follow. Atheism is not a parasitic position. Theism came first. We were labeled atheists. We didn't labeled ourselves atheist. I label myself neutral if it weren't confusing to popular language and discussion.
This is a non sequitur Not at all. Defining without knowledge is impossible. Hence it is just a fantasy.
I have not made the above claim. There is nothing personal in my above posts. The focus is the logical standing of atheism.You made the above claims. I clearly remember in at least one thread. :) With me, Hurin Rules ( I think) and Big John.
I just couldn't add those myself until now since you broke off discussion with me, remember?
Red Peasant
12-05-2006, 02:11
Arroyo.
Quote:
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?
Not classical, but medieval, possibly Aquinas IIRC. It's an old ontological argument developed by those devilishly clever monkish chaps many hundreds of years ago. They were very persuasive, but I think this type of argument is generally not accepted nowadays, although it still has some advocates. One problem for the faithful is that they quite naturally equate the necessary being with 'God', but that's fallacious. Pindar quite rightly doesn't make this connection, and he's showing his knowledge of medieval scholarship. :2thumbsup:
Just looking at it myself, I'd guess that this argument can also be attacked on grounds of circular reasoning/begging the question, and maybe on other points as well.
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
And the darkness surrounded the light and said, "Hey, look, a party! Where's the keg?"
All things considered, I'll just have to say no to the Holy Underwear, but thanks anyway! :wink:
Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?
Hi Del Arroyo,
Logic's formal start is Aristotle's Organon. This may be rather dry reading. Aristotle can be tedious for those not used to it.
As far as simple introductory textbook: Copi's Introduction to Logic (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-11th-Irving-Copi/dp/0130337358) is quite good.
If pressed, I would have to take issue with Pindar's 7 statement proof at statement number 5, that a contingent being cannot be caused by another contingent being, because it leads to a infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. I disagree with this one point (the other 6 are bravo). Why would a continuous causal system, with no defined non-contingent originator necessarily be fallacious?
A contingent being can be caused by another contingent being. The issue is if the entire line is only contingent. The problem that leads to the reductio ad absurdum is that there is no way to ultimately ground being. This is because any noted causative contingent agent is not self causative and is always already dependant on a prior cause. Thus, one asserts contingent being without explanation which then either begs the question or can no longer be considered a knowledge claim.
Deism is essentially atheism.
This is not correct. Deism is a theism. Divine interaction is a separate consideration.
Then your logical reason for theism begs the same.
No, it does not. You do not understand. The argument is valid.
Theism came first. We were labeled atheists. We didn't labeled ourselves atheist. I label myself neutral if it weren't confusing to popular language and discussion.
Chronology does not impact the meaning. Atheism is conceptually distinct. Atheism and neutrality regarding Deity are not the same.
Not at all. Defining without knowledge is impossible. Hence it is just a fantasy.
This comment: "It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all." is a non sequitur.
You made the above claims. I clearly remember in at least one thread. :) With me, Hurin Rules ( I think) and Big John.
I have never made this comment: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." neither does it relate to the topic.
Not classical, but medieval, possibly Aquinas IIRC. It's an old ontological argument developed by those devilishly clever monkish chaps many hundreds of years ago. They were very persuasive, but I think this type of argument is generally not accepted nowadays, although it still has some advocates. One problem for the faithful is that they quite naturally equate the necessary being with 'God', but that's fallacious. Pindar quite rightly doesn't make this connection, and he's showing his knowledge of medieval scholarship. :2thumbsup:
Hi Red Peasant,
Actually the argument finds reference in Plato. It was also used by Aristotle. St. Thomas picked up the idea from Aristotle's work via Maimonides.
There are no positions within the larger Western Tradition that define God as contingent as the notion would be an absurdity.
Quietus and Aenlic: You may wish to ask yourselves exactly what has caused you to taunt Pindar in such a way. He is a very careful debater and has certainly done nothing to warrant such behavior, if indeed it can be warranted.
In my personal opinion, I think that Quietus and Aenlic have displayed exactly the sort of glib impudence which ends up giving all Liberals a bad name.
I have to dig this since I've used nothing but memory. Just partial quotes: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50127&page=6
What compelled you to believe there is 'god' in the first place (that is if you wish to elucidate).
Nothing has compelled me to believe in God.
Ok, let me rephrase: at what point in your life did you start believing in 'god'? (doesn't have to be specific at all).
Does it matter?
To me yes. Because I have a follow up question: What caused you to be a believer at that point in time? (again, you do not have to answer this)~:)
You insist on personalizing I see. Alright. At what age: 19. Cause: revelation
Pindar, absolute not! ~:) You said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.
I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.
....
Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.
....
I don't know what ephenomenon means.
As I said, maybe.
As I also mentioned: there is no standard for examining one side of the dynamic: God, and given experience is relational this seems a problem. There doesn't seem to be a verification schema for the subject either, meaning: 1), if say a brain wave analysis was given at the time of a revelation and some spike registered, how does one guarantee that the spike equals a Divine communique? 2) if the experience is "metaphysically contained" then no physical register would occur. For example, in the Book of Acts, Stephen while standing before the Sanhedrin declares he can see God sitting on His throne with the Lord standing to His right. Now the Sanhedrin, who would moments later have him killed, could see nothing. This would suggest something 'not normal' occurred, if it occurred. If revelation is an opening of the soul to a higher order then standard empirical appeal is not helpful.
also, if you can share, what information did your revelation convey to you? or at least what sort of information?
No, I don't think so. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet. Matt. 7:6
Not that there is anything wrong with being swine mind you. ~:grouphug:
Well, the discussion is more or less at an end if you can't give us that. It is indeed the lynchpin of your entire belief in God and the basis of all the arguments you have presented here; if it is out of bounds, we can't reach any further conclusions regarding your ideas. It's your prerogative, of course, and I am not asking you to reveal it. Perhaps we should return the discussion to the Religion/Cult topic?
Where's the inaccuracy Del Arroyo?
Del Arroyo
12-05-2006, 04:21
Quietus: Nothing which you have posted here has any relevance to this topic. You only show your own weakness of spirit.
AntiochusIII
12-05-2006, 04:46
You only show your own weakness of spirit.:inquisitive:
CrossLOPER
12-05-2006, 06:18
:inquisitive:
*insert casting magika joke here*
Big_John
12-05-2006, 07:59
*insert casting magika joke here*:laugh4:
his resistance to magika is so low! cast magic missle!
I have to dig this since I've used nothing but memory. Just partial quotes: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=50127&page=6
This does not relate to the topic. Neither does it show me saying: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." Either your memory was poor or you did not understand. Given what you posted and the series of partial quotes my guess is you did not understand. For example your use of God sending signals that are "one way". Note my original post and what it was in response to:
"You have a multitude of 'holy texts' written by man from god yet the 'metaphysical world' is out of scientific reach?
Man is physical, so is Science. Man can get messages from 'god' but to science it is impossible.
Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.
Now, unless one wishes to argue science can and does breach the metaphysical barrier this seems a rather obvious point.
I provided a good number of posts in the thread you cited which should have been (and I think remain) useful. This was the last posted by me to yourself:
There is a reference in Brothers Karamazov where Russian students are considered unique in that they combine absolute arrogance with total ignorance. The example is then given: if an Astronomer handed a map of the solar system to a Russian student, the student would return the map with corrections on it.
You have continued to engage on a subject matter that you are clearly unfamiliar. Your comments on basic logic are incoherent. References to truth, superlatives, or universal agreement are not relevant. It isn't prudent to spar on subject matter you have never studied. It isn't prudent to refuse to recognize the meaning of a word in the face of direct evidence. Both approaches suggest an attitude that prohibits productive discussion which is unfortunate. I can do nothing further for you. I must leave you to your dogma. Alas.
I continue to insist you would be better served if you actually studied logic before making pronouncements about the discipline. It appears by your posts since that time, this has not occurred. It also appears you would rather pursue private agendas since none of your posts to me relate to the focus of the thread. This also is unfortunate.
Claudius the God
12-05-2006, 09:06
does anyone here read the Free Inquiry magazine?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index
there are links to some of the articles here for people interrested in this Humanist magazine...
back-issues are somewhat difficult to find...
and here is one more link about Humanism as a life stance which wasn't posted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29
Arguments for and against the existence of God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
Ethical Culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture
Kanamori
12-05-2006, 10:55
There are no positions within the larger Western Tradition that define God as contingent as the notion would be an absurdity.
For God to be, God must be?
Don Corleone
12-05-2006, 14:22
For God to be, God must be?
No. Contingent means dependent. A contingent being is one that owe's its existence to another being. Pindar is pointing out that the concept of an Almighty God that in fact owes his existence to another being is absurd.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 14:28
That line of reasoning struck me as being somewhat excessively stuck on the existence of "beings" (I would presume the term does not cover, say, rocks) you know. It seems vaguely narcissistic if not outright solipsistic to me to think that the existence of the universe were inherently dependent on there always existing "beings" in it to take note of the matter.
How so ? If you remove assumptions of divinity from the book - as for example a Christian interested in not letting his or her confessional affiliation get in the way of analysis might, and Atheists and Agnostics do more or less by default - it's 'just' a writing of considerable historical and social significance. But then, so is Das Kapital.
Now apply his statement to this analysis. If a writing of considerable historical and social significance is not to be taken seriousily - why study it?
Kanamori
12-05-2006, 15:12
No. Contingent means dependent. A contingent being is one that owe's its existence to another being. Pindar is pointing out that the concept of an Almighty God that in fact owes his existence to another being is absurd.
Actually looking at what Pindar's post was adressed to...
that'd be why I haven't seen 'contingent' used like that before.:beam:
Watchman
12-05-2006, 15:15
Now apply his statement to this analysis. If a writing of considerable historical and social significance is not to be taken seriousily - why study it?
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics --I do not see him denying its significance in itself or claiming it should not be taken seriously as a whole, here meaning its impact on people and so on.
All he is denying is it being God's Own Truth (:sweatdrop: ) as a primary historical source or the end-all be-all guide to How Thou Shalt Live Thy Life.
Studying the Bible - or rather its multitudous different versions, translations and interpretations - would strike me as rather useful for understanding all those often rather arcane and esoteric fights (that all too often got settled with armies, or at least tried to) that have happened over it. It was also a cornerstone of the worldview of very many people for a long time, which obviously makes it useful for trying to decipher how people back then thought.
I do not see him denying its significance in itself or claiming it should not be taken seriously as a whole, here meaning its impact on people and so on.
All he is denying is it being God's Own Truth (:sweatdrop: ) as a primary historical source or the end-all be-all guide to How Thou Shalt Live Thy Life.
Studying the Bible - or rather its multitudous different versions, translations and interpretations - would strike me as rather useful for understanding all those often rather arcane and esoteric fights (that all too often got settled with armies, or at least tried to) that have happened over it. It was also a cornerstone of the worldview of very many people for a long time, which obviously makes it useful for trying to decipher how people back then thought.
This makes logical sense - however that is not the same as his statement of
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...
Which does not. If one is to use it as an important piece for academic study one is taking the text seriousily for its historical impact on society. In itself the Bible is a source of historical information - some which is indeed accurate once the story is broken down to what is history, and what is methaphorical story telling for the moral and ehtical point of the religious text. In fact several historians have researched some of the historical tells of the Bible and have found a few to be accurate in the locations of events, and yes even outcomes of some of those events. If one removes the "diety" function from some of the historical text in the Bible - one can gain a picture of life during those times - that in itself is of some historical significance. As a universal guide to ethics the Holy Bible has been used by societies for many thousands of years. One can claim that they do not follow the text, but to discount the text because of a philisophy disagreement with it - does not consitute a logical denouncing of said text as a serious piece to be studied.
If one is attemptin to deny the impact of the holy bible on society - one is attempting to discount history. Which would make his statement rather illogical in itself from that viewpoint.
In fact I found your logical reasoning in response to my statement supporting my postion that his initial statement in itself was not logical. Your statement agrees with the premise that their is significant historical information in the Bible, and that should always be taken seriousily when studing history.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 18:39
For some reason I'm suspecting we have a little different idea as of what exactly "taking seriously" means here. Maybe I'm just giving too much benefit of doubt, but I interpret the never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics to mean more that it should not be taken at face value and as is.
As for the historical events recorded for example in the Old Testament, heck, many of them have been corroborated by for example Assyrian and Babylonian records of the same happenstances by what I've heard. Although unsurprisingly the Mesopotamians' view tends to be a tad more down to earth...
For some reason I'm suspecting we have a little different idea as of what exactly "taking seriously" means here. Maybe I'm just giving too much benefit of doubt, but I interpret the never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics to mean more that it should not be taken at face value and as is.
Yep I am thinking so also. To me in the context that he used the sentence is that the Bible should not be taken serious as a historical work. That I find illogical.
As for the historical events recorded for example in the Old Testament, heck, many of them have been corroborated by for example Assyrian and Babylonian records of the same happenstances by what I've heard. Although unsurprisingly the Mesopotamians' view tends to be a tad more down to earth...
Yes indeed that is why I found is statement illogical - many facts have corroboration from other records and research. Now should one take the moral lessons literally or methaphorical seriousily would be a logical arguement, but to deny the Bible as a historical reference in itself seems illogical given the evidence to date.
To me serious implies not only the religious aspects of the Bible - one that some could remove themselves from by not taking it serious, but the historical references should be taken serious with a juidance eye toward the religious aspects of the text to seperate the historical fact from the Religious dogma.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 19:00
You know, this seems to be turning into tiresomely nitpicky and semantical interpretation of the content of a somewhat vague sentence used by a third party. And I know I can't sustain the interest for that sort of word-mincing. Wouldn't it work rather better if we just waited until Claudius clarifies what he specifically meant ?
You know, this seems to be turning into tiresomely nitpicky and semantical interpretation of the content of a somewhat vague sentence used by a third party. And I know I can't sustain the interest for that sort of word-mincing. Wouldn't it work rather better if we just waited until Claudius clarifies what he specifically meant ?
Probably - since that was my initial point with the statement that the sentence did not make sense logically.
Watchman
12-05-2006, 19:18
It'd certainly be a more... logical... solution than guesswork.
:sweatdrop:
...I'll shut up now.
Kanamori
12-05-2006, 20:47
I won't.
postcount +1:2thumbsup:
Not really...
Anyway, suppose that, for some religion, it makes a claim that: If God exists then there is X. Would lack of X not show that God, as they concieve it, does not exist? That, for all practical purposes, is the position of most atheists. For, it shows that the God you are talking about does not exist, and I suppose that most atheists aren't really concerned w/ creating their own version of what "God" is, which would be like making any definition for some word that they made up and testing its reality. It very well could be that zark, and infinite other conceptions of deities, cannot be disproven, because we may not know of them, but once I have denied your God, I have gone far enough and I don't think it's worth my time considering zark, zank, timmy, and the flying spaghetti monster. In short, some unkown deity X which I still ought to believe in, would consume all of my time, and unless the trob deity shows that he will punish me for not considering -- I suppose as a form of worship -- zank, zark, timmy, et al, I won't concern myself, and I will live a life that is not all spent in consideration of the infinite forms X (not the same X as above, but some deity) may have.
Big_John
12-06-2006, 00:02
Anyway, suppose that, for some religion, it makes a claim that: If God exists then there is X. Would lack of X not show that God, as they concieve it, does not exist? That, for all practical purposes, is the position of most atheists. For, it shows that the God you are talking about does not exist, and I suppose that most atheists aren't really concerned w/ creating their own version of what "God" is, which would be like making any definition for some word that they made up and testing its reality. It very well could be that zark, and infinite other conceptions of deities, cannot be disproven, because we may not know of them, but once I have denied your God, I have gone far enough and I don't think it's worth my time considering zark, zank, timmy, and the flying spaghetti monster. In short, some unkown deity X which I still ought to believe in, would consume all of my time, and unless the trob deity shows that he will punish me for not considering -- I suppose as a form of worship -- zank, zark, timmy, et al, I won't concern myself, and I will live a life that is not all spent in consideration of the infinite forms X (not the same X as above, but some deity) may have."absence of proof is not proof of absence."
however, your point, i think, is that to a rational mind absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. imo, Pindar's argument (more or less the cosmological argument, i think) is premised on a subjective truth, revelation. this is because the reductio ad absurdum need not lead to "God", per se, just some uncaused entity. i don't see why this uncaused entity couldn't just as easily be the "universe" (physical reality). an uncaused universe should be no more absurd than an uncaused supreme being.
because of this, faithfuls often assert that the way to determine the nature of the great uncaused is revelation, which is entirely incommunicable to the non-faithful, apparently. however, to experience revelation, one must have faith. for someone without faith looking for evidence of a supreme being or even a valid reason to try to assume faith, this presents an obvious catch-22.
edit: this is not to say faith/revelation are invalid, but that they are useless with respect to this debate.
"absence of proof is not proof of absence."
however, your point, i think, is that to a rational mind absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
This would not be rational though it may be a common enough error.
imo, Pindar's argument (more or less the cosmological argument, i think) is premised on a subjective truth, revelation. this is because the reductio ad absurdum need not lead to "God", per se, just some uncaused entity. i don't see why this uncaused entity couldn't just as easily be the "universe" (physical reality). an uncaused universe should be no more absurd than an uncaused supreme being.
Hello Big John, (you're far too big)
The argument I used as a simple proof to help Sasaki is basically the cosmological argument. It doesn't appeal to revelation. If one posits the universe as the uncaused cause there are a few problems: one, the universe itself is a concept referring to stuff both here and out there. It is not itself a concrete thing, but a label for a collection of things: planets, stars, Deep Space 9 etc. It therefore runs into the fallacy of reification. Two, to admit the universe is necessary being means it cannot thereby be contingent being as the two are mutually exclusive. This runs into the problem that a host of things that compose the universe seem quite contingent: people for example (maybe not Captain Sisko however).
Red Peasant
12-06-2006, 00:34
"absence of proof is not proof of absence."
This looks like a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a favourite fallacy for proponents of intelligent design, i.e. something must be true because it cannot be disproven.
Big_John
12-06-2006, 00:50
howdy, Pindar (you are not too pindarious, yet). kudos for the DS9 reference.
--although would captian sisko be necessary if the wormhole aliens are themselves contingent?
i have questions:
1. is the physical universe necessarily so ambiguous that to refer to it as a "concrete thing" commits a fallacy of reification? is this a semantic argument? a collection of 5 apples can be called a "bunch", but is a "bunch" an entity? if i call this collection uncaused, and refer to the "supreme bunch", is this an ambiguous abstraction masquerading as the concrete? what if i just say bunch = the 5 apples and substitute... the "supreme 5 apples"?
2. how is a necessary universe being composed of contingent entities any more of a problem than a necessary creator creating contingent entities?
edit:
This looks like a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a favourite fallacy for proponents of intelligent design, i.e. something must be true because it cannot be disproven.i am not saying that X is true because there is no proof that X is false, just that X is not necessarily false simply because there is no proof that X is true.
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 01:20
You know, this seems to be turning into tiresomely nitpicky and semantical interpretation of the content of a somewhat vague sentence used by a third party. And I know I can't sustain the interest for that sort of word-mincing. Wouldn't it work rather better if we just waited until Claudius clarifies what he specifically meant ?
goodness me, I guess I have some explaining to do regarding this point:
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...
Now apply his statement to this analysis. If a writing of considerable historical and social significance is not to be taken seriousily - why study it?
I do not see him denying its significance in itself or claiming it should not be taken seriously as a whole, here meaning its impact on people and so on.
All he is denying is it being God's Own Truth (:sweatdrop: ) as a primary historical source or the end-all be-all guide to How Thou Shalt Live Thy Life.
Studying the Bible - or rather its multitudous different versions, translations and interpretations - would strike me as rather useful for understanding all those often rather arcane and esoteric fights (that all too often got settled with armies, or at least tried to) that have happened over it. It was also a cornerstone of the worldview of very many people for a long time, which obviously makes it useful for trying to decipher how people back then thought.
This makes logical sense - however that is not the same as his statement of
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...
Which does not. If one is to use it as an important piece for academic study one is taking the text seriousily for its historical impact on society. In itself the Bible is a source of historical information - some which is indeed accurate once the story is broken down to what is history, and what is methaphorical story telling for the moral and ehtical point of the religious text. In fact several historians have researched some of the historical tells of the Bible and have found a few to be accurate in the locations of events, and yes even outcomes of some of those events. If one removes the "diety" function from some of the historical text in the Bible - one can gain a picture of life during those times - that in itself is of some historical significance. As a universal guide to ethics the Holy Bible has been used by societies for many thousands of years. One can claim that they do not follow the text, but to discount the text because of a philisophy disagreement with it - does not consitute a logical denouncing of said text as a serious piece to be studied.
If one is attemptin to deny the impact of the holy bible on society - one is attempting to discount history. Which would make his statement rather illogical in itself from that viewpoint.
In fact I found your logical reasoning in response to my statement supporting my postion that his initial statement in itself was not logical. Your statement agrees with the premise that their is significant historical information in the Bible, and that should always be taken seriousily when studing history.
...etc...
okay, The Holy Bible has been edited and ommited and manipulated and mistranslated so much that it can't be taken too seriously as a piece of serious History. if anything, it is a good text to examine in the light of history and with other texts (such as the apochiphrya (spelling?)) in order to examine how history can be manipulated.
The Holy Bible deserves a fair bit of academic criticism... and it should not be taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics... if someone wanted to study the types of Laws and societies of the ancient near-east, then the Holy Bible may offer some clues, but today in many parts of the world, many of the moral lessons are inappropriate and uncivilized or simply contrary to how many societies have developed...
there have also been numerous problems in accuracy during the processes of translating one version into others... this also makes the text less authentic...
when I was talking about 'bad stuff' in the Bible, I'm talking both about the manipulation of history and several stories or moral lessons or whatever in the Bible that are promoted as ethical, but many today would consider highly UNethical...
as a text (many versions actually) which has been used in shaping western civilization and beyond for almost two millenia, it is incredibly important in the development of ideas, religions, intellectual movements, art, and so on... it also has plenty of social significance. But as a guide to Ethics or as a piece of History, it deserves considerable academic study and criticism
"why study it?" you ask... for numerous reasons... but not as accurate History itself, nor as a universal guide to Ethics today...
The text itself is historically important to many people, but to view Genesis or Noah's ark/the flood or the divinity of Jesus as historical fact is nonsense. nor should the Bible be taken as 'God's own truth'...
I am not attempting to deny the impact of the Holy Bible on society at all...
Watchman
12-06-2006, 01:23
That's what I was assuming too, I guess.
And I think it's "apocrypha" BTW.
Oh, no! I've been called a Liberal! That made my day. :laugh4:
Does this mean I have to stop being a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment? What about my stance that all government is bad government and thus the smaller the government the better? Don't "liberals" believe in big government? Of course, I am an anarchist and a socialist, so maybe that makes me a liberal? Or is it my anti-religion/anti-superstition/pro-humanism/pro-rational stance which makes me a liberal? Maybe I'm just confused... or, perhaps someone else is. :wink:
I wasn't picking on Pindar per se, I posted the foil covered cubicle pic in a perhaps misguided attempt to lighten the atmosphere in the thread before it became unnecessarily vitriolic. Then, of course, Pindar's darkness quote deserved something even sillier. Pindar can take it. He's a reasonably rational person, even if he is a Mormon. grin:
goodness me, I guess I have some explaining to do regarding this point:
The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...
So you agree with my statement that your statement here does not make Logical sense?
Do you realize that in your attempt to explain the logic behind such a statement you have contradicted yourself throughout your post?
Answer these two questions without consideration of what document or text one is speaking about.
Is not a document worthy of discussion, review, criticism, and study make the document important?
Does that not indeed make the document a serious piece for study?
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 02:33
So you agree with my statement that your statement here does not make Logical sense?
no i do not agree... however I admit that I should have elaborated further the first time...
Do you realize that in your attempt to explain the logic behind such a statement you have contradicted yourself throughout your post?
Answer these two questions without consideration of what document or text one is speaking about.
Is not a document worthy of discussion, review, criticism, and study make the document important?
Does that not indeed make the document a serious piece for study?
I said: (boldness added for emphasis)
"The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism..."
so I've already said that it is important for academic study. BUT it should NOT be taken seriously as an accurate historical text. It can be taken seriously on other questions such as the manipulation, abuse and misuse of History.
There is considerable historical information in the text, but the events described should never be taken as absolute fact as many do...
If you were writing a proffesional history of events of the first century CE in the Ancient Near-East, would you take the texts of the New Testament as FACT?
Would you describe Jesus as divine or the son of 'God'?
Would you use the Gospels of Judas or Thomas or James or Peter or Mary Magdelene or any of the other non-canonical Gospels as historical references for events?
I'm done with going over my previous statement, I'm not going to waste my time going back over it again if I can help it
i am not saying that X is true because there is no proof that X is false, just that X is not necessarily false simply because there is no proof that X is true.
with no proof and no evidence either way - only absense of both, there are two possibilities: either deities exist or they do not... what is so wrong about the theory/belief/assumption/reasoning that they do not exist? there's no real evidence to contradict this theory, so what's the problem with it? - it's just one theory out of two possible realities... the other theory being that deities do exist
there's no logical point at all in making the assumption that deities do exist if there isn't any real evidence to base it on in the first place...
it is possible that deities exist or existed in some form somewhere somewhen, but the same can be said about the tooth-fairy and the flying spaghetti monster... that's no reason to assume they do exist or did exist some time in the past...
when the basic argument about the existence of God goes in the direction the theists want it to, it is often one nonsensical argument and conclusion after another... Sin, worship, sacrifice, repent, heaven, hell, prayer, etc, scripture, etc, dogma, etc, indoctrination, etc...
the theist argument is designed to get the 'target' to believe one illogical thing after another, starting with the existence of God/s without any evidence...
Watchman
12-06-2006, 02:36
Well, they had to tell all those happy pagans something to get over the bafflement over why something called a soul needed saving in the first place you know...
no i do not agree... however I admit that I should have elaborated further the first time...
Which leads me to conclude that my initial statement is indeed correct. There is not a logic base to your statement.
I said: (boldness added for emphasis)
"The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism..."
so I've already said that it is important for academic study. BUT it should NOT be taken seriously as an accurate historical text. It can be taken seriously on other questions such as the manipulation, abuse and misuse of History.
This does not make logical sense. If a document is important for academic study it should be deemed a serious piece of literature. Several historians have indeed reviewed the text and determine that there are many parts of the text that are indeed accurate in relationship to historical events. Your statement here seems to be an attempt to dismiss that effort of scholars. Are you attempting to appeal to emotion to make such a claim?
There is considerable historical information in the text, but the events described should never be taken as absolute fact as many do...
Never stated it should be taken as absolute fact only that as a historical text it should be taken seriousily for the information that it does contain.
If you were writing a proffesional history of events of the first century CE in the Ancient Near-East, would you take the texts of the New Testament as FACT?
I would use it as source material and along with other source material, I might be able to come up with a logical sequence of events concerning that historical event. In fact several historians have done just that. They discount the relgious text of the material and focus on what they can determine to be the actual historical event.
Would you consider Homer's epic a serious piece of literature?
Would you describe Jesus as divine or the son of 'God'?
In the historical context of the literature I would discuss the nature of the religion and the views described in the text as it describes Jesus.
Are you attempting to state that a historian should make a claim that Jesus was Divine or the Son of God based upon using the text for historical record?
Or should the historian review the information to determine what historical fact can be gathered from the document? You do understand that in the New Testiment - very little historical reference points are available, however in the Old Testiment many historical reference points are available and have indeed been verified as religious text and historical describitions of real historical events. A historian must be able to seperate the religious aspects of the document from the historical event and reach a logical conclusion and interpation. A religious individual only needs to reach a logical conclusion based upon his religion.
Would you use the Gospels of Judas or Thomas or James or Peter or Mary Magdelene or any of the other Gospels as historical references for events?
Yes indeed, plus any Roman records I can find, any other writings of the time period I could find access to to verify information or to discount information. That is how one checks facts - verification. Not simple dismissal.
It seems more and more that your initial statment and your follow up explaination contains several logical fallacies.
I wonder if you would consider and answer the questions from the previous post.
Answer these two questions without consideration of what document or text one is speaking about.
Is not a document worthy of discussion, review, criticism, and study make the document important?
Does that not indeed make the document a serious piece for study?
And then add
Does that mean that the document can not have other purposes beside being only a historical collection of facts?
Big_John
12-06-2006, 03:24
with no proof and no evidence either way - only absense of both, there are two possibilities: either deities exist or they do not... what is so wrong about the theory/belief/assumption/reasoning that they do not exist? there's no real evidence to contradict this theory, so what's the problem with it? - it's just one theory out of two possible realities... the theory that deities do exist
there's no logical point at all in making the assumption that deities do exist if there isn't any real evidence to base it on in the first place...
[...]
the theist argument is designed to get the 'target' to believe one illogical thing after another, starting with the existence of God/s without any evidence...as i understand it, the gist of the cosmological (or "first cause") argument is basically:
there exist "contingent" entities. i.e., entities exist, but do must not necessarily exist (it is possible for those entities to not exist). using a previous example, take apples. apples do exist, but they need not (i think one can imagine a reality where apples did not and never will exist).
if an entity need not exist, then it must be caused.
if one goes back in time far enough, you must come to a point where all contingent entities are yet-to-be-caused (since causation depends on time).
thus contingent entities cannot account for the existence of each other; something non-contingent, necessary, uncaused must have been the first cause for all these contingent entites, otherwise reality is an infinite series of contingent entities, ceaselessly causing other contingent entities. this seems problematic to me, but i don't know that this is inherently absurd as i think Pindar asserts. let's assume that it is absurd, for the sake of argument. btw, there may be thermodynamic reasons to believe that the universe cannot be eternal, which an infinite chain of "contingents" may require.
the only conclusion availible is that there must be a necessary uncaused entity which caused all contingent enities, and for which non-existence is impossible.
(i could be wrong, but i think this is similar to the argument upon which the idea of metaphysical reality is based)
i don't necessarily buy this argument on its face, and my exam tomorrow morning precludes me from reading up on its criticisms. but my first concern was why the uncaused entity could not be the "universe". Pindar's first objection (i think) was that the "universe" is an abstraction, simply a collection of contingent enities. but i'm not sure if we can categorize all aspects of the "universe" as contingent (e.g. what about time? is matter/energy contingent?).
one question i have: is it necessarily incorrect to describe the universe as a system of causation? if not, is it fallacious to consider that system itself an "entity"? if not, can that system be "uncaused"?
when the basic argument about the existence of God goes in the direction the theists want it to, it is often one nonsensical argument and conclusion after another... Sin, worship, sacrifice, repent, heaven, hell, prayer, etc, scripture, etc, dogma, etc, indoctrination, etc...i believe this stuff comes in later in an attempt to determine the character of the necessary first cause. none of this makes any sense to me, but i think this is where ideas like faith and revelation become important.
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 03:49
Which leads me to conclude that my initial statement is indeed correct. There is not a logic base to your statement.
...
This does not make logical sense. If a document is important for academic study it should be deemed a serious piece of literature. Several historians have indeed reviewed the text and determine that there are many parts of the text that are indeed accurate in relationship to historical events. Your statement here seems to be an attempt to dismiss that effort of scholars. Are you attempting to appeal to emotion to make such a claim?
It is important for academic study, but the extensive manipulation of the text makes it something that an academic can't take seriously. it is important BECAUSE of the extensive manipulation of the text and the social importance of the text, but that doesn't mean that the events depicted should be taken seriously.
... how many times do I have to say this before you understand?
Never stated it should be taken as absolute fact only that as a historical text it should be taken seriousily for the information that it does contain.
and I'm saying that it deserves extensive critical analysis and academic evaluation in order to establish which parts of the text can be considered reliable.
Would you consider Homer's epic a serious piece of literature?
Yes, I would. but I would need a critical analysis/academic evaluation of the text before I can comfortably use any of the text as a piece of History...
Are you attempting to state that a historian should make a claim that Jesus was Divine or the Son of God based upon using the text for historical record?
I'm saying that during the Dark ages and Middle Ages, historians did just that... they would take the Biblical text as historical fact and deduce that Genesis occurred only some 6000 years ago or some nonsense like that...
Or should the historian review the information to determine what historical fact can be gathered from the document? You do understand that in the New Testiment - very little historical reference points are available, however in the Old Testiment many historical reference points are available and have indeed been verified as religious text and historical describitions of real historical events. A historian must be able to seperate the religious aspects of the document from the historical event and reach a logical conclusion and interpation. A religious individual only needs to reach a logical conclusion based upon his religion.
the question is how much has been manipulated to serve the religious aspects of the text? - that is why critical analysis is necessary.
Yes indeed, plus any Roman records I can find, any other writings of the time period I could find access to to verify information or to discount information. That is how one checks facts - verification. Not simple dismissal.
I never said to simply dismiss the text, I said it requires critical analysis or academic evaluation or whatever - that is in order to verify the authenticity of the text...
It seems more and more that your initial statment and your follow up explaination contains several logical fallacies.
I don't see any logical fallacies... just because a text is important doesn't mean it should be taken seriously...
I wonder if you would consider and answer the questions from the previous post.
I already have once...
Answer these two questions without consideration of what document or text one is speaking about.
Is not a document worthy of discussion, review, criticism, and study make the document important?
most documents are Important for various reasons. discussion, review, criticism and study can make a text important.
Does that not indeed make the document a serious piece for study?
How seriously a text should be taken depends on its level of authenticity. If one knows that a text has undergone numerous translations, mistranslations, editing, omitting, and has otherwise been manipulated for political reasons; then it should not be taken seriously as a reliable interpretation of the facts.
And then add
Does that mean that the document can not have other purposes beside being only a historical collection of facts?
what other purposes? if something is a load of B.S. then I don't think it is really suitable for educational purposes, only for criticical analysis.
are you arguing that all texts, no matter how corrupted, should be regarded as reliable and useful?
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 04:04
as i understand it, the gist of the cosmological (or "first cause") argument is basically:
there exist "contingent" entities. i.e., entities exist, but do must not necessarily exist (it is possible for those entities to not exist). using a previous example, take apples. apples do exist, but they need not (i think one can imagine a reality where apples did not and never will exist).
if an entity need not exist, then it must be caused.
if one goes back in time far enough, you must come to a point where all contingent entities are yet-to-be-caused (since causation depends on time).
thus contingent entities cannot account for the existence of each other; something non-contingent, necessary, uncaused must have been the first cause for all these contingent entites, otherwise reality is an infinite series of contingent entities, ceaselessly causing other contingent entities. this seems problematic to me, but i don't know that this is inherently absurd as i think Pindar asserts. let's assume that it is absurd, for the sake of argument. btw, there may be thermodynamic reasons to believe that the universe cannot be eternal, which an infinite chain of "contingents" may require.
the only conclusion availible is that there must be a necessary uncaused entity which caused all contingent enities, and for which non-existence is impossible.
(i could be wrong, but i think this is similar to the argument upon which the idea of metaphysical reality is based)
i don't necessarily buy this argument on its face, and my exam tomorrow morning precludes me from reading up on its criticisms. but my first concern was why the uncaused entity could not be the "universe". Pindar's first objection (i think) was that the "universe" is an abstraction, simply a collection of contingent enities. but i'm not sure if we can categorize all aspects of the "universe" as contingent (e.g. what about time? is matter/energy contingent?).
one question i have: is it necessarily incorrect to describe the universe as a system of causation? if not, is it fallacious to consider that system itself an "entity"? if not, can that system be "uncaused"?
so basically you're arguing that there must be a 'creator' or something that created the universe simply because the universe exists? :thumbsdown: now that's an argument with no substance...
Big_John
12-06-2006, 04:18
so basically you're arguing that there must be a 'creator' or something that created the universe simply because the universe exists? :thumbsdown: now that's an argument with no substance...i am an atheist, and i am arguing nothing at this point. i am trying to understand Pindar's position.
Kanamori
12-06-2006, 04:27
"absence of proof is not proof of absence."
however, your point, i think, is that to a rational mind absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. imo, Pindar's argument (more or less the cosmological argument, i think) is premised on a subjective truth, revelation. this is because the reductio ad absurdum need not lead to "God", per se, just some uncaused entity. i don't see why this uncaused entity couldn't just as easily be the "universe" (physical reality). an uncaused universe should be no more absurd than an uncaused supreme being.
Not exactly, I was not very clear. First, on the general topic of absence of proof, I recognize that absence of proof is not proof of absence. For a careful mind though, it should certainly play a limiting factor. Lack of evidence means that there is no justification, and there is then no reason to hold some belief, and introduce your system of understanding to unnecessary risk of error and misunderstanding.:whip:
I am unswayed though in this idea that a negative cannot be shown, or proof of something's non-existence. If in some religion the claim is made somewhere that 'If God, then perceptible X' then lack of X shows lack of its cause. I do not actually know any religion's scripture well enough to say that this is in any one of them, but I think that claims along those lines would exist, because religion is about the consequences of God on us and reality. In such a case, X does not show proof, but lack of X which it claims should be perceptible shows a lack of God as they understand it to be. I suppose, maybe wrongly, that there are cases in script that have this claim, though probably not said so plainly~;) It may be that scripture mistook what that real being once said via revelation to someone, but I can still conclude that their notion of God is not represented in reality. The atheist is not concerned with showing that an all encompassing 'God' does not exist but with the general lack of justification for deistic qualities being applied to truth-God even refutation of deistic qualities in particular ideas of God. Indeed, Only if the claims of those religions, or one of them, are true do we have any reason to tie the ideas of deity and all encompassing being together. That is what makes the atheist. The refutation of that scriptural God is enough for the atheist to put God out of his mind, for w/o the claim of some perceptible and revealed religion there is no reason to think and conceive of all the infinte labels and infinite minor differences between ideas of deistic 'God' which one could suppose. I.e., because the religion created that particular idea of God which is denied in the 'if-then' and there would be infinite equally unjustified recategorizations calling it the same being, we ought not concern ourselves, as we would then fetter ourselves for all time in a fruitless search.
And Pindar, we are not swine; we are inquiring minds that need to know, if we are to have any fruit.~:)
It is important for academic study, but the extensive manipulation of the text makes it something that an academic can't take seriously. it is important BECAUSE of the extensive manipulation of the text and the social importance of the text, but that doesn't mean that the events depicted should be taken seriously.
... how many times do I have to say this before you understand?
Again how can a document that is important for academic study not be considered seriousily? For it to have academic value a scholar has determined that the document is worthy of serious study. Your statement in itself is a contradiction.
are you arguing that all texts, no matter how corrupted, should be regarded as reliable and useful?
No - I am arguing the counter of your postion. That when one conducts a critical analysis of a written document one is taking the information contained in the document seriousily.
Is Your arguement that the Bible can not be considered as a serious piece or that it should not be considered seriousily as a document of social history, a document of history, and a history of a religion? That the document itself has had a serious impact upon the history of the world?
If indeed this is your arguement it is incorrect given that numerous scholars have taken the information contain in the Bible seriousily to the point that many a few sites have been confirmed as actually existing, and that some type of event actually happened. What those same historians (read Archlogists (SP)) are attempting to determine is what actually happened. Religious texts place a religious interpation to the event. In the time that the text of the old testiment in the Christian bible was written man tended to believe that a diety often had something to do with diasters or events that they faced.
What you have been doing in your posts in response to my question about the statement not making logical sense, is the logical fallacy know as Posioning the Well.
Now for a critical analysis of the Bible that takes the Bible seriousily and is highly critical attempting to sort out the relgious dogma from what one can precieve from other historical records.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 09:09
i am an atheist, and i am arguing nothing at this point. i am trying to understand Pindar's position.
my apologies, I was unaware that it was Pindar who made that argument in the first place...
Again how can a document that is important for academic study not be considered seriousily? For it to have academic value a scholar has determined that the document is worthy of serious study. Your statement in itself is a contradiction.
we obviously have different definitions or interpretations of the term 'seriously'... what country are you from if you don't mind my asking?
I'm saying that the highly corrupted text of the Holy Bible is an Important text (reasons given above) yet I don't take it seriously as a source of reliable information... this is mainly because much of the information is either too biassed or too unreliable... if you still don't understand then I'm sorry, you're not going to get another explanation.
No - I am arguing the counter of your postion. That when one conducts a critical analysis of a written document one is taking the information contained in the document seriousily.
oh, the critical analysis should be taken seriously, but one should question the information given in the text and not take those fables as historical truth. I would think this to be quite obvious...
Is Your arguement that the Bible can not be considered as a serious piece or that it should not be considered seriousily as a document of social history, a document of history, and a history of a religion? That the document itself has had a serious impact upon the history of the world?
it should always be viewed with a critical eye, and the numerous translation errors, omissions, and editing and so on should be kept in mind when studying the text. it should not be taken too seriously as a document of historical events, though it can be informative as a document of social history and as a history of religion. and as I've said several times before it is important for its impact upon societies throughout history.
What you have been doing in your posts in response to my question about the statement not making logical sense, is the logical fallacy know as Posioning the Well.
I've never heard of this term before. "poisoning the well"?
Now for a critical analysis of the Bible that takes the Bible seriousily and is highly critical attempting to sort out the relgious dogma from what one can precieve from other historical records.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
thanks
Banquo's Ghost
12-06-2006, 13:56
as i understand it, the gist of the cosmological (or "first cause") argument is basically:
there exist "contingent" entities. i.e., entities exist, but do must not necessarily exist (it is possible for those entities to not exist). using a previous example, take apples. apples do exist, but they need not (i think one can imagine a reality where apples did not and never will exist).
if an entity need not exist, then it must be caused.
if one goes back in time far enough, you must come to a point where all contingent entities are yet-to-be-caused (since causation depends on time).
thus contingent entities cannot account for the existence of each other; something non-contingent, necessary, uncaused must have been the first cause for all these contingent entites, otherwise reality is an infinite series of contingent entities, ceaselessly causing other contingent entities. this seems problematic to me, but i don't know that this is inherently absurd as i think Pindar asserts. let's assume that it is absurd, for the sake of argument. btw, there may be thermodynamic reasons to believe that the universe cannot be eternal, which an infinite chain of "contingents" may require.
the only conclusion availible is that there must be a necessary uncaused entity which caused all contingent enities, and for which non-existence is impossible.
(i could be wrong, but i think this is similar to the argument upon which the idea of metaphysical reality is based)
i don't necessarily buy this argument on its face, and my exam tomorrow morning precludes me from reading up on its criticisms. but my first concern was why the uncaused entity could not be the "universe". Pindar's first objection (i think) was that the "universe" is an abstraction, simply a collection of contingent enities. but i'm not sure if we can categorize all aspects of the "universe" as contingent (e.g. what about time? is matter/energy contingent?).
one question i have: is it necessarily incorrect to describe the universe as a system of causation? if not, is it fallacious to consider that system itself an "entity"? if not, can that system be "uncaused"?
i believe this stuff comes in later in an attempt to determine the character of the necessary first cause. none of this makes any sense to me, but i think this is where ideas like faith and revelation become important.
If I am understanding this debate correctly, there is one proposition that has not been taken into account. The concept of time is a dimension of the current universe - causality dependent on time (ie the notion of "before") is limited only to the extant universe.
Quantum mathematics is beginning to explore the beginnings of the universe and show that there is no necessity for a "before". The position that "there must have been someone/thing before to create the universe" does not really figure in modern cosmology.
we obviously have different definitions or interpretations of the term 'seriously'... what country are you from if you don't mind my asking?
US. As evident in my profile where in Location it states Dallas, TX.
Regardless of your use of the term seriously, its not consistent with how the document is viewed in academics. Your use of the term seriousily is an attempt to imply that people should not take the document as a guide to life or to take the text as factual history. I realized that from the very beginnning - but when you took the course of acedemic study - well it was important to demonstrate that the document is seen in serious and important way in the study of not only relgion, but history and social developlement. That from this viewpoint the document is indeed taken seriousily. Attempts to discount that point seem to fall short of how the document is viewed by those who study it.
I'm saying that the highly corrupted text of the Holy Bible is an Important text (reasons given above) yet I don't take it seriously as a source of reliable information... this is mainly because much of the information is either too biassed or too unreliable... if you still don't understand then I'm sorry, you're not going to get another explanation.
This is a logical fallacy - its called Posioning the well. It is also inconsistent with the approach historians are using with the text (especially the Old Testiment) to research the past.
The Fallacy is defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Edit: You should also notice I only approached the seculer academic reasons why the text is seriousily consider in historical studies, cultural studies, and yes even other such studies as archology (SP?). Why do this areas study take a serious look at the text - there are several such reasons as pointed out in another post. Now there is also the obvious theist reasons for taking the text seriousily, but this is the part you wish to discard as an atheist, and rightly so since you do not practice the religion.
Redleg, what approach do historians take?
Redleg, what approach do historians take?
Good Question, and there are many different answers
Places to look are
For the review of the text itself the author of this essay seems to believe there are three approaches to study-
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_1_118/ai_69404501
Then some other ways the Bible is looked at can be referenced here - which if I remember my terms correctly supports the gest of the first link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography
A critical essay reference can be found here - a library normally has access to the full article. This is a professional association so I can only reference that they have articles - I have not read most of the material contained within the site from home. Limited time for indepth library research is available for me at this time - so if any finds access and determines the articles and information is irrelevant then won't reference the site.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-3578(190608)28%3A2%3C82%3AWNITHS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3
Now I also know from watching the Discovery Channel and the History Channel that several Archalogists (SP) have used the bible to attempt to answer some of the questions about events depicted in the testaments. Some of it is very interesting - especially the episodes around Jericho. One theory was that the Bible actually tells how the Israeli's laid seige, had a spy inside the wall which helped saboters get inside the city walls to open the gates, and the story in the text was used to hide this. Rather interesting theory. Then there is the dating techniques done on what some consider to be the historical location of Jericho.
howdy, Pindar (you are not too pindarious, yet). kudos for the DS9 reference.
--although would captian sisko be necessary if the wormhole aliens are themselves contingent?
I thought I remembered right that you were one of the wise who recognized DS9 was the best of the Star Treks. Regarding our good Captain Sisko: he would be contingent if the wormhole fellows were similarly so.
i have questions:
1. is the physical universe necessarily so ambiguous that to refer to it as a "concrete thing" commits a fallacy of reification?
It's not ambiguity, but the fact the idea 'the universe' is itself a mental construct.
is this a semantic argument?
No, it's an ontic argument: if a posited X exists it must have distinct being.
a collection of 5 apples can be called a "bunch", but is a "bunch" an entity?
No.
if i call this collection uncaused, and refer to the "supreme bunch", is this an ambiguous abstraction masquerading as the concrete?
Yes. To quote Wittgenstein: "Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment of our intellect by means of language"
what if i just say bunch = the 5 apples and substitute... the "supreme 5 apples"?
Is the adjective 'supreme' an objective statement? If not, then it does not impact the status of the apples which remain 5 apples.
2. how is a necessary universe being composed of contingent entities any more of a problem than a necessary creator creating contingent entities?
Save for pantheists, theists do not conflate the creator with the creation. A necessary being is ontically distinct.
with no proof and no evidence either way - only absense of both, there are two possibilities: either deities exist or they do not... what is so wrong about the theory/belief/assumption/reasoning that they do not exist? there's no real evidence to contradict this theory, so what's the problem with it? - it's just one theory out of two possible realities... the other theory being that deities do exist
Claudius my good man,
I have already explained two issues with atheism. Note them again:
Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.
there's no logical point at all in making the assumption that deities do exist if there isn't any real evidence to base it on in the first place...
I have already given a simple proof to Sasaki. One shouldn't use categoricals unless they have refuted conflicting stances already put forward.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2006, 19:26
Now look Pindar. Take the Christian God.
Atheism: He doesn't exist. Not provable.
Christian: He does exist. Not provable.
Agnostic: We can't tell. Not provable.
So, you aren't making a valid criticism. A movie reviewer does not criticize a movie for "not being interactive" since no movies are interactive.
Now look Pindar. Take the Christian God.
Atheism: He doesn't exist. Not provable.
Christian: He does exist. Not provable.
Agnostic: We can't tell. Not provable.
So, you aren't making a valid criticism. A movie reviewer does not criticize a movie for "not being interactive" since no movies are interactive.
My post on atheism makes no reference to the "Christian God". The above post does not respond to the issue. Absurdity is the issue with strong atheism. Emotivism is the issue with weak atheism.
Note: I already gave you a simple proof for theism which you admitted was valid.
It's as if Kierkegaard and Nietsche had genetically deficient love child and named it Kant. Kind of sad, but amusing nonetheless. :wink:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-06-2006, 21:24
My post on atheism makes no reference to the "Christian God". The above post does not respond to the issue. Absurdity is the issue with strong atheism. Emotivism is the issue with weak atheism.
Note: I already gave you a simple proof for theism which you admitted was valid.
Then you are admitting that your post on atheism was a strawman. You are first claiming atheism is a positive statement that god doesn't exist (even though it is also defined as simply a lack of belief in a god) and secondly equating a creator of the universe with "god".
As I said, I believe yours was a valid argument for a first cause of the universe. A valid argument can have false premises as I'm sure you know.
Claudius the God
12-06-2006, 23:51
I found this article thismorning, and it mentions the flaws in the first cause argument... amongst other points...
While I disagree with Dawkins' methods, he makes several interresting points...
... personally I think that the South Park creators could have criticised him with a lot more than what they did...
WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD [10.26.06]
By Richard Dawkins
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins06/dawkins06_index.html
WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in his new short book, Letter to a Christian Nation, hits the bull's-eye as usual:
It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ . . .Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.
Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? We don't know, but would anyone be surprised?
My scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency. Ignorant and absolutist attacks on stem cell research are just the tip of an iceberg. What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education — and hence the whole future of science in this country — is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the 'breathtaking inanity' (Judge John Jones's immortal phrase) of 'intelligent design' continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency. For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban.
Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.
The Chamberlain school accuses Churchillians of rocking the boat to the point of muddying the waters. The philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:
We who love science must realize that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. Too often evolutionists spend time insulting would-be allies. This is especially true of secular evolutionists. Atheists spend more time running down sympathetic Christians than they do countering creationists. When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.
A recent article in the New York Times by Cornelia Dean quotes the astronomer Owen Gingerich as saying that, by simultaneously advocating evolution and atheism, 'Dr Dawkins "probably single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists".' This is not the first, not the second, not even the third time this plonkingly witless point has been made (and more than one reply has aptly cited Uncle Remus: "Oh please please Brer Fox, don't throw me in that awful briar patch").
Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:
To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.
This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.
To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.
Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it — an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.
The Chamberlain tactic of snuggling up to 'sensible' religion, in order to present a united front against ('intelligent design') creationists, is fine if your central concern is the battle for evolution. That is a valid central concern, and I salute those who press it, such as Eugenie Scott in Evolution versus Creationism. But if you are concerned with the stupendous scientific question of whether the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence or not, the lines are drawn completely differently. On this larger issue, fundamentalists are united with 'moderate' religion on one side, and I find myself on the other.
Of course, this all presupposes that the God we are talking about is a personal intelligence such as Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Wotan, Zeus or Lord Krishna. If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies. An American student asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is ¬religion!' Well, if that's what you choose to mean by religion, fine, that makes me a religious man. But if your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, wreaks miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare and raises you from the dead, you are unlikely to be satisfied. As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." But don't expect congregations to flock to your church.
When Einstein said 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' he meant 'Could the universe have begun in more than one way?' 'God does not play dice' was Einstein's poetic way of doubting Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. Einstein was famously irritated when theists misunderstood him to mean a personal God. But what did he expect? The hunger to misunderstand should have been palpable to him. 'Religious' physicists usually turn out to be so only in the Einsteinian sense: they are atheists of a poetic disposition. So am I. But, given the widespread yearning for that great misunderstanding, deliberately to confuse Einsteinian pantheism with supernatural religion is an act of intellectual high treason.
Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think, and here's why.
First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things. Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem. But whatever the answer — a random quantum fluctuation or a Hawking/Penrose singularity or whatever we end up calling it — it will be simple. Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don't just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right. They are impotent to terminate regresses, in a way that simple things are not. The first cause cannot have been an intelligence — let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshipped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
Another of Aquinas' efforts, the Argument from Degree, is worth spelling out, for it epitomises the characteristic flabbiness of theological reasoning. We notice degrees of, say, goodness or temperature, and we measure them, Aquinas said, by reference to a maximum:
Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things . . . Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
That's an argument? You might as well say that people vary in smelliness but we can make the judgment only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion. That's theology.
The only one of the traditional arguments for God that is widely used today is the teleological argument, sometimes called the Argument from Design although — since the name begs the question of its validity — it should better be called the Argument for Design. It is the familiar 'watchmaker' argument, which is surely one of the most superficially plausible bad arguments ever discovered — and it is rediscovered by just about everybody until they are taught the logical fallacy and Darwin's brilliant alternative.
In the familiar world of human artifacts, complicated things that look designed are designed. To naïve observers, it seems to follow that similarly complicated things in the natural world that look designed — things like eyes and hearts — are designed too. It isn't just an argument by analogy. There is a semblance of statistical reasoning here too — fallacious, but carrying an illusion of plausibility. If you randomly scramble the fragments of an eye or a leg or a heart a million times, you'd be lucky to hit even one combination that could see, walk or pump. This demonstrates that such devices could not have been put together by chance. And of course, no sensible scientist ever said they could. Lamentably, the scientific education of most British and American students omits all mention of Darwinism, and therefore the only alternative to chance that most people can imagine is design.
Even before Darwin's time, the illogicality was glaring: how could it ever have been a good idea to postulate, in explanation for the existence of improbable things, a designer who would have to be even more improbable? The entire argument is a logical non-starter, as David Hume realized before Darwin was born. What Hume didn't know was the supremely elegant alternative to both chance and design that Darwin was to give us. Natural selection is so stunningly powerful and elegant, it not only explains the whole of life, it raises our consciousness and boosts our confidence in science's future ability to explain everything else.
Natural selection is not just an alternative to chance. It is the only ultimate alternative ever suggested. Design is a workable explanation for organized complexity only in the short term. It is not an ultimate explanation, because designers themselves demand an explanation. If, as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel once playfully speculated, life on this planet was deliberately seeded by a payload of bacteria in the nose cone of a rocket, we still need an explanation for the intelligent aliens who dispatched the rocket. Ultimately they must have evolved by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings. Only evolution, or some kind of gradualistic 'crane' (to use Daniel Dennett's neat term), is capable of terminating the regress. Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step. The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain — a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it.
Whether my conjecture is right that evolution is the only explanation for life in the universe, there is no doubt that it is the explanation for life on this planet. Evolution is a fact, and it is among the more secure facts known to science. But it had to get started somehow. Natural selection cannot work its wonders until certain minimal conditions are in place, of which the most important is an accurate system of replication — DNA, or something that works like DNA.
The origin of life on this planet — which means the origin of the first self-replicating molecule — is hard to study, because it (probably) only happened once, 4 billion years ago and under very different conditions from those with which we are familiar. We may never know how it happened. Unlike the ordinary evolutionary events that followed, it must have been a genuinely very improbable — in the sense of unpredictable — event: too improbable, perhaps, for chemists to reproduce it in the laboratory or even devise a plausible theory for what happened. This weirdly paradoxical conclusion — that a chemical account of the origin of life, in order to be plausible, has to be implausible — would follow if it were the case that life is extremely rare in the universe. And indeed we have never encountered any hint of extraterrestrial life, not even by radio — the circumstance that prompted Enrico Fermi's cry: "Where is everybody?"
Suppose life's origin on a planet took place through a hugely improbable stroke of luck, so improbable that it happens on only one in a billion planets. The National Science Foundation would laugh at any chemist whose proposed research had only a one in a hundred chance of succeeding, let alone one in a billion. Yet, given that there are at least a billion billion planets in the universe, even such absurdly low odds as these will yield life on a billion planets. And — this is where the famous anthropic principle comes in — Earth has to be one of them, because here we are.
If you set out in a spaceship to find the one planet in the galaxy that has life, the odds against your finding it would be so great that the task would be indistinguishable, in practice, from impossible. But if you are alive (as you manifestly are if you are about to step into a spaceship) you needn't bother to go looking for that one planet because, by definition, you are already standing on it. The anthropic principle really is rather elegant. By the way, I don't actually think the origin of life was as improbable as all that. I think the galaxy has plenty of islands of life dotted about, even if the islands are too spaced out for any one to hope for a meeting with any other. My point is only that, given the number of planets in the universe, the origin of life could in theory be as lucky as a blindfolded golfer scoring a hole in one. The beauty of the anthropic principle is that, even in the teeth of such stupefying odds against, it still gives us a perfectly satisfying explanation for life's presence on our own planet.
The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good — as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.
Again, the anthropic principle delivers its devastatingly neat solution. Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe — everything we can see — is only one universe among perhaps billions. Some theorists postulate a multiverse of foam, where the universe we know is just one bubble. Each bubble has its own laws and constants. Our familiar laws of physics are parochial bylaws. Of all the universes in the foam, only a minority has what it takes to generate life. And, with anthropic hindsight, we obviously have to be sitting in a member of that minority, because, well, here we are, aren't we? As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack. Similarly, it is no accident that we see a rich diversity of living species: for an evolutionary process that is capable of yielding a species that can see things and reflect on them cannot help producing lots of other species at the same time. The reflective species must be surrounded by an ecosystem, as it must be surrounded by stars.
The anthropic principle entitles us to postulate a massive dose of luck in accounting for the existence of life on our planet. But there are limits. We are allowed one stroke of luck for the origin of evolution, and perhaps for a couple of other unique events like the origin of the eukaryotic cell and the origin of consciousness. But that's the end of our entitlement to large-scale luck. We emphatically cannot invoke major strokes of luck to account for the illusion of design that glows from each of the billion species of living creature that have ever lived on Earth. The evolution of life is a general and continuing process, producing essentially the same result in all species, however different the details.
Contrary to what is sometimes alleged, evolution is a predictive science. If you pick any hitherto unstudied species and subject it to minute scrutiny, any evolutionist will confidently predict that each individual will be observed to do everything in its power, in the particular way of the species — plant, herbivore, carnivore, nectivore or whatever it is — to survive and propagate the DNA that rides inside it. We won't be around long enough to test the prediction but we can say, with great confidence, that if a comet strikes Earth and wipes out the mammals, a new fauna will rise to fill their shoes, just as the mammals filled those of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And the range of parts played by the new cast of life's drama will be similar in broad outline, though not in detail, to the roles played by the mammals, and the dinosaurs before them, and the mammal-like reptiles before the dinosaurs. The same rules are predictably being followed, in millions of species all over the globe, and for hundreds of millions of years. Such a general observation requires an entirely different explanatory principle from the anthropic principle that explains one-off events like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, by luck. That entirely different principle is natural selection.
We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.
[First published by Huffington Post, October 23, 2006.]
My post on atheism makes no reference to the "Christian God". The above post does not respond to the issue. Absurdity is the issue with strong atheism. Emotivism is the issue with weak atheism.
Note: I already gave you a simple proof for theism which you admitted was valid.
Then you are admitting that your post on atheism was a strawman.
This doesn't follow.
You are first claiming atheism is a positive statement that god doesn't exist (even though it is also defined as simply a lack of belief in a god) and secondly equating a creator of the universe with "god".
To define atheism as a simple lack of belief is the fail to apply any rigor to the meaning of the concept. It cannot make distinction between atheism and agnosticism for example or an atheist and a hedgehog. This has already been pointed out. Atheism in its strong form is a claim: god does not exist. This is a positive knowledge claim. I am not the source for the distinction of strong and weak forms of atheism. This is rudimentary material with an established theoretical pedigree..
My discussion of the notion atheism makes no comment on god as the creator of the universe.
As I said, I believe yours was a valid argument for a first cause of the universe. A valid argument can have false premises as I'm sure you know.
Something that is valid is a proof and thereby logical. The simple argument I gave was in direct response to your claim: "All strong positions on god are illogical." which was in error. Truth is not a criteria of logic. Do not confuse the issues.
I found this article thismorning, and it mentions the flaws in the first cause argument... amongst other points...
While I disagree with Dawkins' methods, he makes several interresting points...
The article aside from having a screed like quality is philosophically naive. This is the unfortunate condition of far too many scientists.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2006, 02:12
This doesn't follow.
To define atheism as a simple lack of belief is the fail to apply any rigor to the meaning of the concept. It cannot make distinction between atheism and agnosticism for example or an atheist and a hedgehog. This has already been pointed out. Atheism in its strong form is a claim: god does not exist. This is a positive knowledge claim. I am not the source for the distinction of strong and weak forms of atheism. This is rudimentary material with an established theoretical pedigree..
It's in the dictionary ~D Even if you feel it isn't rigorous enough you can't define it how you like. You claim there are only two forms of atheism while leaving out the definition many self proclaimed atheists would say fits them. This is a false way of making your position easier to defend and is therefore a straw man. Your criticism of atheism is invalid because of how you are defining it to meet your own needs.
Actually where are you getting your definition of weak atheism? The definition I find is "absence of belief". I think your definition is incorrect here.
My discussion of the notion atheism makes no comment on god as the creator of the universe.
You did right here:
Something that is valid is a proof and thereby logical. The simple argument I gave was in direct response to your claim: "All strong positions on god are illogical." which was in error. Truth is not a criteria of logic. Do not confuse the issues.
I said "god" and you gave me an argument for "first cause". They are not equal.
In summary:
You criticize weak atheism but your definition is incorrect.
You criticize strong atheism, but:
If you take it as "god does not exist" there is no logical position, so atheism is not absurd.
If you take it as "a creator does not exist" there are multiple logical positions (your contingency thing, scientific explanation) so atheism is not absurd.
It's in the dictionary ~D Even if you feel it isn't rigorous enough you can't define it how you like. You claim there are only two forms of atheism while leaving out the definition many self proclaimed atheists would say fits them. This is a false way of making your position easier to defend and is therefore a straw man. Your criticism of atheism is invalid because of how you are defining it to meet your own needs.
The dictionary is not where one looks to find the meaning of a concept if accuracy is important. That you are in college and make this mistake surprises me.
As mentioned: the distinction between strong and weak forms of atheism is not my construction. It is a mundane distinction in philosophical discourse. I'm sure if you were to look you will find references a plenty. To charge a basic distinction (that strong and weak forms of atheism exist) is a false position indicates either the entire thrust of a discipline is in error or the one making the charge is deeply confused.
Actually where are you getting your definition of weak atheism? The definition I find is "absence of belief". I think your definition is incorrect here.
If you found a definition of weak atheism that necessarily implies other forms of atheism as well. You should have also noted strong atheism as the other category. To your question: sometimes weak atheism is defined as absence of belief. This is problematic as it doesn't allow distinctions between itself and agnostics who often take exception. Atheism and agnosticism are not the same. Atheism derived from Greek involves a negative prefix attached to the word for god. It is thus: the negation of god. Agnosticism is the same negative prefix attached to the word for knowledge. It is thus the negation of knowledge (which is used traditionally as knowledge about god). The position I put forward that weak atheism reflects back on the private sentiments of the subject only is the most charitable explanation that still allows agnostics their own position.
I said "god" and you gave me an argument for "first cause". They are not equal.
First cause does not appear in my argument. I used necessary being. If you wish to argue there is a necessary being other than god do so. If you cannot do so and insist on the distinction then you have created a false dichotomy. This is a fallacy. Within the Western Intellectual Tradition necessary being has been understand as synonymous with god.
In summary:
You criticize weak atheism but your definition is incorrect.
No, it is not. See above.
You criticize strong atheism, but:
If you take it as "god does not exist" there is no logical position, so atheism is not absurd.
If there is no logical position then atheism is by definition absurd.
If you take it as "a creator does not exist" there are multiple logical positions (your contingency thing, scientific explanation) so atheism is not absurd.
This is a non sequitur.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2006, 10:57
Ok. I'll define God as nonexistant. Prove that god exists while accepting my definition. ~:rolleyes:
I don't see anything convincing in your post sorry. You're just restating what I've already disagreed with.
Ok. I'll define God as nonexistant. Prove that god exists while accepting my definition. ~:rolleyes:
Sasaki you're demonstrating a certain argumentativeness that is not becoming. If one really took the above as something other than what it is, the answer is obvious: existence only has meaning because of nonexistence (the meaning relies upon a juxtaposition): to posit one necessarily implies the other. Therefore insofar as you accept existence there must be nonexistence. Since you have defined God as this necessary other, you are therefore an implicit theist. Welcome. I don't expect to hear anymore advocacy or self-identification with the other flawed viewpoint.
I don't see anything convincing in your post sorry. You're just restating what I've already disagreed with.
Your being convinced or not is not my concern. Disagreement alone is not compelling. The position revolves around a logical point that can be dated back over 2,500 years. Logic is objective. If there is a flaw in the logic show it. Thus far you have not done so (quite the opposite as you admitted it was valid). If you wish to argue for a necessary being that is other than God do so, otherwise your not being 'convinced' rests on a false distinction.
As far as distinctions/definitions are concerned: strong and weak atheism is a common distinction within theoretical circles. This is easily verifiable. That you take issue with the division speaks more about yourself than the distinctions since they are reasonable and commonly accepted. To fail to make proper distinction between weak atheism and agnosticism is to fail to apply any rigor to the notions at hand since they are clearly separable (I already explained the basic meaning of the two words themselves). Further, claiming strong atheism is outside of logic or citing non sequiturs does not address the logical tensions inherent in the knowledge claim. Finally, were one to simply accept the uncritical version of atheism you seem fond of, where there is no difference between your view and a hedgehog's: the stance can be simply dismissed (like the hedgehog's) as self separating from critical judgment and is thus irrelevant.
Kanamori
12-07-2006, 19:28
Atheism derived from Greek involves a negative prefix attached to the word for god. It is thus: the negation of god. Agnosticism is the same negative prefix attached to the word for knowledge. It is thus the negation of knowledge (which is used traditionally as knowledge about god).
I would think that there are plenty of agnostic theists; those who believe in God while saying that it cannot be known... as opposed to those who don't believe in God and think that it cannot be known. Those who don't believe in God and are 'agnostic' are apologists:P (really though, especially in the context of this debate and people trying to deny the 'absurd' contents of the label, it implies more respect for theists, trying to lend the idea of validity -- where atheists supposedly add the invalidity -- and their choice to believe in God, in usage). The point that someone prefers it to be used towards themselves is irrelevant, as in lay use, which supposedly justifies one term over the other, they both have more meaning than "I don't know, I don't believe," and agnostic itself doesn't necessarily mean, "I don't know, I don't believe," like atheism.
(Who needs more cowbell, I gave you more rigor!?!~D)
My point, which was apperantly considered too absurd to respond to, that in those notions of non-contingent being, there is nothing that also ties theistic qualities into 'God', as in it should be worshipped, or as somehow being scripture related. And again, praying and worshipping to every concept of deity that I can apply to the non-contingent being would mean spending my entire life just hoping that I would tie in the right qualities of deity, which unless zark's goal is really for me to worship him by trying to worship him, it would be a better use of my time not to bother, as the infinite conceptions would take me much longer to finish a concievable fraction of a percent than my life will give me.
Save for pantheists, theists do not conflate the creator with the creation. A necessary being is ontically distinct.
I think those theories of universe are served better by saying all that ever was, is, but has existed variously... space-time, motion, matter are due to those basic and identical parts arranging variously, determined only by their nature.
Kanamori
12-07-2006, 19:40
Finally, were one to simply accept the uncritical version of atheism you seem fond of, where there is no difference between your view and a hedgehog's: the stance can be simply dismissed (like the hedgehog's) as self separating from critical judgment and is thus irrelevant.
How do you mean "self separating"?
Red Peasant
12-07-2006, 19:52
The article aside from having a screed like quality is philosophically naive. This is the unfortunate condition of far too many scientists.
And, you are a renowned philosopher I suppose, Pindar?
That is peremptorily dismissive of you. Dawkins may only be a scientist, but he has spent many years studying this stuff because philosophical questions about how life arose, or came into being, impinge directly upon his chosen discipline. The arguments he uses are not made up, although he adds his own 'unique' insights, but can be found widely taught by modern philosophers. The only proviso is that D. takes a 'hard' stance on this subject whereas it would be fairer to say that the questions concerning the existence of God and the origins of the universe/life are still mysteries that can ultimately be neither explained nor explained away. However, the rationality of theism is on a par with belief in the tooth fairy. ~;)
Personally I haven't read much of his work on this question because I find his tone and style too strident, but he is a big hitter at this game and you should do better than just dismiss him off-hand.
:inquisitive:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2006, 20:31
https://img164.imageshack.us/img164/8069/emotwordsbl2.gif
I'm completely aware now of how you choose to define the two, I've been disagreeing with your choice.
Weak atheism can be seen as separate from agnosticism. If you have never thought at length about god you would be atheist but not agnostic. If you had thought a great deal but not come to a conclusion that he exists or that you can't tell if he exists you would be atheist but not agnostic. It isn't only hedgehogs who are like this as you seem to be trying to say.
When someone says "god does not exist" they are expressing a belief. I do not see why you take issue with this.
I may be being argumentative but you are being obtuse. I asked for a strong logical position on god, you have me one for a creator, thus defining creator as god, which I disagreed with, and are now saying I am defining god as creator :dizzy2:
Arguments for a creator alone have no influence on daily life and so are not interesting. I've tried to steer the discussion back to god for this reason. To repeat:
Take any god that is more than creator you like:
Atheism: He doesn't exist. Not provable.
Christian: He does exist. Not provable.
Agnostic: We can't tell. Not provable.
This isn't an answer to your statement, I'm showing why it is irrelevant. The very fault you ascribe to weak atheism.
ps: What do hedgehogs have to do with anything, really?
I would think that there are plenty of agnostic theists; those who believe in God while saying that it cannot be known...
Maybe. I haven't met any, but it's certainly possible.
Those who don't believe in God and are 'agnostic' are apologists:P (really though, especially in the context of this debate and people trying to deny the 'absurd' contents of the label, it implies more respect for theists, trying to lend the idea of validity -- where atheists supposedly add the invalidity -- and their choice to believe in God, in usage). The point that someone prefers it to be used towards themselves is irrelevant, as in lay use, which supposedly justifies one term over the other, they both have more meaning than "I don't know, I don't believe," and agnostic itself doesn't necessarily mean, "I don't know, I don't believe," like atheism.
(Who needs more cowbell, I gave you more rigor!?!~D)
An agnostic is one who doesn't claim to know regarding god.
My point, which was apperantly considered too absurd to respond to, that in those notions of non-contingent being, there is nothing that also ties theistic qualities into 'God', as in it should be worshipped, or as somehow being scripture related.
The simple proof I gave is not concerned with worship or scripture. Such issues are sect specific. (I don't understand the comment about points being too absurd to respond to. If you made this point earlier and I didn't respond then I didn't notice it. It wasn't an intentional slight)
Save for pantheists, theists do not conflate the creator with the creation. A necessary being is ontically distinct.
I think those theories of universe are served better by saying all that ever was, is, but has existed variously... space-time, motion, matter are due to those basic and identical parts arranging variously, determined only by their nature.
By those theories do you mean pantheism?
How do you mean "self separating"?
Self-separating means the subject identifies themselves by absence of belief or judgment (since making a conclusion would bring in the earlier issues about knowledge claims). The reason for the self separating label is because man as a rational creature is able to make judgments (and does about a whole host of things), but this particular uncritical view opts for identification by the lack of that very quality.
And, you are a renowned philosopher I suppose, Pindar?
I'm actually a fairly renowned speculative poet.
That is peremptorily dismissive of you.
I don't think so. I read the piece. This comment: "First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself." is something a first year student in a history of philosophy class would put forward. No serious thinker familiar with St. Thomas or more properly Aristotle or the general issue would take such a view. Anyone who can dismiss a view that has literally millennia of thought behind it, was proposed by the founder of logic, held by arguably the greatest mind of the Middle Ages, and also held by the founder of calculus as a few examples is telling.
I'm completely aware now of how you choose to define the two, I've been disagreeing with your choice.
Disagreement is not an argument.
Weak atheism can be seen as separate from agnosticism. If you have never thought at length about god you would be atheist but not agnostic.
No, one would be ignorant regarding the question.
If you had thought a great deal but not come to a conclusion that he exists or that you can't tell if he exists you would be atheist but not agnostic.
No, one would be agnostic.
When someone says "god does not exist" they are expressing a belief. I do not see why you take issue with this.
Quite right! That is exactly my point!
I asked for a strong logical position on god, you have me one for a creator...
My argument doesn't mention a creator. It refers to necessary being. This has been pointed out several times.
I may be being argumentative but you are being obtuse.
This comment above and the "talk talk smilely" used for my entire previous post indicate personal attacks that do not serve you well as a moderator or interlocutor. Emotion seems to have taken hold. Best you disengage.
I'd just like to know how it is logical to believe absurd things such as that native Americans are descended from the lost tribe of Israel.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2006, 21:47
No, one would be ignorant regarding the question.
No, one would be agnostic.
Disagreement is not argument.
Quite right! That is exactly my point!
So then what is your problem with atheism?
My argument doesn't mention a creator. It refers to necessary being. This has been pointed out several times.
I don't see the difference in this case. A necessary being is just as irrelevant as a creator.
This comment above and the "talk talk smilely" used for my entire previous post indicate personal attacks that do not serve you well as a moderator or interlocutor. Emotion seems to have taken hold. Best you disengage.
The talk talk smiley is a standard when quoting long posts, though not on these forums. I thought it was cute :sweatdrop:
As for obtuse: I apologize, I looked it up and it means something other than what I thought it meant. I was aiming for "stubborn".
This discussion is far too theoretical for any emotion, I would like a response to the rest of my post following the obtuse comment.
Banquo's Ghost
12-07-2006, 21:55
Guys, if I may venture an opinion from an interested reader:
We are veering dangerously near "angels dancing on the head of a pin" territory here.
:smash:
Watchman
12-07-2006, 23:19
I think we've been spending far too much time defining and neatly arranging words already, myself. I tend to find arguments that mainly concentrate on syntax rather boring, as they tend to feature excessive dosages of nitpicking. :brood:
Pindar and Sasaki seem to be enjoying it though.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2006, 23:24
I think we've been spending far too much time defining and neatly arranging words already, myself. I tend to find arguments that mainly concentrate on syntax rather boring, as they tend to feature excessive dosages of nitpicking. :brood:
Pindar and Sasaki seem to be enjoying it though.
I don't agree with your definition of "nitpicking" :shame:
No, one would be ignorant regarding the question.
No, one would be agnostic.
Disagreement is not argument.
This comment above doesn't relate to my post(s) you cite both of which are quite straight forward answers to you comments.
So then what is your problem with atheism?
I don't have a problem with atheism. I simply pointed out the logical tensions inherent in the notion both of which directly relate to atheism as a belief. In its strong form the belief is put forward as a knowledge claim. In its weak form it is a privately held sentiment only. The objection you had fails not only in that it doesn't allow the proper distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but it also makes atheism totally irrelevant as it doesn't even warrant belief standing: like the lack of abstract ideas of a hedgehog.
I apologize,... I was aiming for "stubborn".
Very good. Why would you be aiming for stubborn. Nothing I've put forward is personal. The arguments stand independently.
This discussion is far too theoretical for any emotion, I would like a response to the rest of my post following the obtuse comment.
This comment seems tied to what's noted below:
I don't see the difference in this case. A necessary being is just as irrelevant as a creator.
I'll answer both together.
I don't understand what you are looking for. After the obtuse comment you mention my giving arguments for a creator. I didn't do this. I did give you a simple argument showing why not all "strong arguments for god" are illogical based on contingent being. I also gave you a simple proof when you flippantly said you defined god as non existent. If the focus of your question is about influence in daily life: this is a category mistake. Philosophy is theoretical. It is not concerned with any praxis. Even so, given the billions who have sacrificed and killed over their version or a Creator over centuries this seems historically wrong to boot.
Guys, if I may venture an opinion from an interested reader:
We are veering dangerously near "angels dancing on the head of a pin" territory here.
:smash:
Hello BG,
I hope not. I've tried to keep things really simple. I don't think the position I put forward on atheism is complex. I don't think the simple proof I gave to Sasaki on a necessary being is complicated either.
Watchman
12-08-2006, 00:55
I don't agree with your definition of "nitpicking" :shame:QED. :balloon2:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-08-2006, 01:02
QED. :balloon2:
Heh, that was the idea.
I do think we've reached the point where we are merely disagreeing about definitions. Oh well, it was fun. :balloon2:
Heh, that was the idea.
I do think we've reached the point where we are merely disagreeing about definitions. Oh well, it was fun. :balloon2:
The definitions I put forward are both standard to the subject and correct based on you own admittance that Atheism is a belief. I also explained the ramifications of following the less rigorous hedgehog definition of atheism.
To sum: atheism is distinct from agnosticism. The logical tensions with atheism (both in its strong and weak forms) remain. I also provided a proof for god that answers the charge all strong positions on god are illogical (which itself admits the strong form of atheism is untenable).
Reenk Roink
12-08-2006, 02:21
And, you are a renowned philosopher I suppose, Pindar?
That is peremptorily dismissive of you. Dawkins may only be a scientist, but he has spent many years studying this stuff because philosophical questions about how life arose, or came into being, impinge directly upon his chosen discipline. The arguments he uses are not made up, although he adds his own 'unique' insights, but can be found widely taught by modern philosophers. The only proviso is that D. takes a 'hard' stance on this subject whereas it would be fairer to say that the questions concerning the existence of God and the origins of the universe/life are still mysteries that can ultimately be neither explained nor explained away. However, the rationality of theism is on a par with belief in the tooth fairy. ~;)
Personally I haven't read much of his work on this question because I find his tone and style too strident, but he is a big hitter at this game and you should do better than just dismiss him off-hand.
:inquisitive:
Pindar has a point on Dawkins...
Hume was much more intelligent and original, not to mention that his writing was tactful and eloquent, as well as persuasive and cogent.
Don't know why atheists quote Dawkins over Dave... :shrug:
Hume was much more intelligent and original, not to mention that his writing was tactful and eloquent, as well as persuasive and cogent.
I agree.
CrossLOPER
12-08-2006, 04:53
this thread
Kanamori
12-08-2006, 06:31
Alright, in order to speed this all along a little, I will adopt your terms, and inquire in quality where I think it is needed...
I would think that there are plenty of agnostic theists; those who believe in God while saying that it cannot be known...
Maybe. I haven't met any, but it's certainly possible.
Really, you haven't seen people to tend toward using the mysterious quality of religion to justify specific doctrinal belief?
An agnostic is one who doesn't claim to know regarding god.
Alright, as stated, I'll agree.
The simple proof I gave is not concerned with worship or scripture. Such issues are sect specific.
I see, so Christianity and Islam are sects of Judaism, or those being sects of vedas? While the general argument for god is in consideration, what makes god and what makes God? The notion of necessary worship is inherent in the abrahamic deity; I'm not sure on the etymology, but to me deity always carries the notion of worshipping it as prescriptive for righteous adherents. Really, all this rambling is getting at: athiesm and agnosticism do not keep their positions to the thing in the proof, but are claims of not accepting religion or deity... if you want my version of atheism to be called the calculus raciocinator, and unassociated with God, I could accept that too. I may be persuaded to some other term, but it seems unlikely.:clown:
(I don't understand the comment about points being too absurd to respond to. If you made this point earlier and I didn't respond then I didn't notice it. It wasn't an intentional slight)
Indeed, I thought that ignoring somebody was inherently unPindarlike. If it were the case though, it was only meant to compel consideration. I'm always interested to see how my half-baked, ocassionally 3x baked, ideas fair against another's consideration...
By those theories do you mean pantheism?
Those theories of a physical universe made of a basic part that always has been, but which we perceive in the forms like space-time, matter, and energy has always existed. Relativity predicts this.
Claudius the God
12-08-2006, 07:01
a while back I learnt about this, and thought I should share it here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Adam
Several hypotheses have been put forward about the meaning of The Creation of Adam's highly original composition, many of them taking Michelangelo's well-documented expertise in human anatomy as their starting point. In 1990 a physician named Frank Lynn Meshberger noted in the medical publication the Journal of the American Medical Association that the background figures and shapes portrayed behind the figure of God appeared to be an anatomically accurate picture of the human brain, including the frontal lobe, optic chiasm, brain stem, pituitary gland, and the major sulci of the cerebrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png
so basically Michelangelo is likely suggesting that even though "God created Man", that the idea of "God" and things like cherubs actually come from the human mind...
~:lightbulb:
Really, you haven't seen people to tend toward using the mysterious quality of religion to justify specific doctrinal belief?
Hi Kanamori,
Yes I have, but I haven't seen it so much as a justification as a final retreat by parishioners when unable to answer a question on some point.
The simple proof I gave is not concerned with worship or scripture. Such issues are sect specific.
I see, so Christianity and Islam are sects of Judaism, or those being sects of vedas?
I was using sect as a division within a religion: Christianity, Islam Judaism, Hinduism are religions. Examples of sects would be Catholicism, Sufism, Hasidism and Vedanta respectively. The notions of worship, liturgy and canonic appeal often vary within different sects of a religion.
Those theories of a physical universe made of a basic part that always has been, but which we perceive in the forms like space-time, matter, and energy has always existed. Relativity predicts this.
Did you mean pantheism then?
Really, all this rambling is getting at: athiesm and agnosticism do not keep their positions to the thing in the proof, but are claims of not accepting religion or deity...
I put this quote last as you noted this was your point as it were: I don't understand how your post engages what I have been posting on. If you were aiming to respond to my stuff (I'm not sure you were), what is the disagreement or point of contention?
Kanamori
12-09-2006, 08:45
a final retreat by parishioners when unable to answer a question on some point.
My point is that it varies according to religions, but not just based on sect.
Did you mean pantheism then?
I don't know of scientists that are planning to have people worship our 'building blocks'.
I put this quote last as you noted this was your point as it were: I don't understand how your post engages what I have been posting on. If you were aiming to respond to my stuff (I'm not sure you were), what is the disagreement or point of contention?
Also, that God is a misleading word for the non-contingent being. Nothing religious or deistic in nature is included in it. Other than that, yeah, it was worthless observation.
Self-separating means the subject identifies themselves by absence of belief or judgment (since making a conclusion would bring in the earlier issues about knowledge claims). The reason for the self separating label is because man as a rational creature is able to make judgments (and does about a whole host of things), but this particular uncritical view opts for identification by the lack of that very quality.
The judgment is that I shouldn't spend my time in worship, believing, or assuming god, because it would be spending time on a total uncertainty and no evidence to show that I should. It entails judgment, therefore has meaning.
My point is that it varies according to religions, but not just based on sect.
I don't know what the pronoun refers to, but if the it refers to your earlier stated "specific doctrinal belief" that is sect specific not simply religion bound.
I don't know of scientists that are planning to have people worship our 'building blocks'.
This comment doesn't fit with the train of thought leading up to it. It doesn't connect to pantheism or the ontic distinction between necessary and contingent being.
Also, that God is a misleading word for the non-contingent being.
If non-contingent being means necessary being then the Western Intellectual Tradition disagrees with you.
Self-separating means the subject identifies themselves by absence of belief or judgment (since making a conclusion would bring in the earlier issues about knowledge claims). The reason for the self separating label is because man as a rational creature is able to make judgments (and does about a whole host of things), but this particular uncritical view opts for identification by the lack of that very quality.
The judgment is that I shouldn't spend my time in worship, believing, or assuming god, because it would be spending time on a total uncertainty and no evidence to show that I should. It entails judgment, therefore has meaning.
This doesn't relate to my usage of self separating.
Big_John
12-10-2006, 11:35
ok, i've been away doing some thinking i hadn't time for earlier and now i'll step into the wayback machine for a few..
one, the universe itself is a concept referring to stuff both here and out there. It is not itself a concrete thing, but a label for a collection of things: planets, stars, Deep Space 9 etc. It therefore runs into the fallacy of reification. Two, to admit the universe is necessary being means it cannot thereby be contingent being as the two are mutually exclusive. This runs into the problem that a host of things that compose the universe seem quite contingent: people for example (maybe not Captain Sisko however).
one: why is the universe not a "concrete thing"? what is an example of a concrete thing?
two: what exactly is the problem with a necessary entity being comprised of contingent entities? does the contingent property of the pieces of the universe necessarily extend to the whole universe?
can you, Pindar (or anyone else), point me to some modern philosophy involving criticisms/apologetics of the first cause argument (the sort one would find in a suburban public library)? because i'm thinking about a few things..
can there exist a universe where nothing is necessary except that any one contingent entity exists? that is, nothing in the universe is necessary, but any possible universe would contain at least one contingent being?
as anyone with a science background knows, the matter-energy conservation is an observed law of the universe. is it fair then to consider matter-energy contingent? just because we think we can imagine a "universe" without matter-energy, does that mean such a thing is actually possible? obvisouly, what i'm wondering is could matter-energy be the uncaused necessary being?
as per Banquo's Ghost's earlier observation, what is the modern take on causality (with respect to the first cause argument) in light of quantum indeterminacy?
it must be said at this point, while i think DS9 was indeed the best star trek series in terms of the quality of the whole product, i enjoyed TNG more.
one: why is the universe not a "concrete thing"?
The universe is not a concrete thing because its an abstract concept.
what is an example of a concrete thing?
A hedgehog.
two: what exactly is the problem with a necessary entity being comprised of contingent entities?
Because contingent and necessary are mutually exclusive.
does the contingent property of the pieces of the universe necessarily extend to the whole universe?
This depends on how one defines universe. As far as ontic standing of the 'pieces' are concerned: yes.
can there exist a universe where nothing is necessary except that any one contingent entity exists? that is, nothing in the universe is necessary, but any possible universe would contain at least one contingent being?
No.
as anyone with a science background knows, the matter-energy conservation is an observed law of the universe. is it fair then to consider matter-energy contingent?
Materiality is the composition of being: it is not being itself. Recall, Aristotle was a thorough going materialist.
as per Banquo's Ghost's earlier observation, what is the modern take on causality (with respect to the first cause argument) in light of quantum indeterminacy?[/LIST]
Indeterminacy does not mean there is no cause, but rather the causal tie is not known/determinable.
it must be said at this point, while i think DS9 was indeed the best star trek series in terms of the quality of the whole product, i enjoyed TNG more.
You enjoy more an inferior product? :inquisitive:
Kanamori
12-11-2006, 22:27
I don't know what the pronoun refers to, but if the it refers to your earlier stated "specific doctrinal belief" that is sect specific not simply religion bound.
I was wrong, there was no disagreement.
This comment doesn't fit with the train of thought leading up to it. It doesn't connect to pantheism or the ontic distinction between necessary and contingent being.
My only point was that there are no non-contingent beings in those theories of universe, 'we' are only the various results of those interacting non-contingent beings. No thing is not of them.
If non-contingent being means necessary being then the Western Intellectual Tradition disagrees with you.
Well of course, it came up w/ the usage. Those looking to justify their beliefs found the proof and called the necessary being 'God' overlooking that the idea of 'God' entails many more qualities than are necessarily in the necessary being. There is nothing to say besides reiterating it, because you haven't given an argument against it...
I was wrong, there was no disagreement.
Gotch'ya.
My only point was that there are no non-contingent beings in those theories of universe, 'we' are only the various results of those interacting non-contingent beings. No thing is without them.
I'm not sure I understand your point. If "those theories" is referring to your earlier comment on scientists (which itself didn't relate to the discussion) then you are committing a category mistake. Science is bound by inductive logic and concerned with the physical arena, not ontology.
Well of course, it came up w/ the usage. Those looking to justify their beliefs found the proof and called the necessary being 'God' overlooking that the idea of 'God' entails many more qualities than are necessarily in the necessary being.
The idea God entails necessary being is not simply a devotional position. Moreover, that the notion God entails more than necessary being does not negate that aspect of God that can be so identified.
Big_John
12-11-2006, 23:56
The universe is not a concrete thing because its an abstract concept.how is the universe more of an abstract concept than a hedgehog?
Because contingent and necessary are mutually exclusive.
[...]
This depends on how one defines universe. As far as ontic standing of the 'pieces' are concerned: yes.how does mutual exclusivity matter? a thing cannot be both an atom and a hedgehog, because hedgehogs are composed of atoms, right? the definition of one excludes the possibility that either can be the other. if we have some yet-to-be-determined object in our hands, we can say with certainty that it is not both a hedgehog and an atom.
yet, there is no problem with saying that all hedgehogs are composed entirely of atoms. by extension, why should a necessary universe not be composed entirely of contingent things? explain how mutual exclusivity relates in the case of universes, but not hedgehogs.
No.tldr.
Materiality is the form of being: it is not being itself. Recall, Aristotle was a thorough going materialist.but then objects are just contingent in form, not substance. you can say "object X could be otherwise, or not be at all", but in this universe, under conservation, that means object X's matter could be arranged differently, or could be transformed entirely into energy. so the existence of matter/energy is not contingent, just its form.
in order to break conservation, and thus demonstrate that matter/energy is contingent, you have to suppose that a universe can exist without any matter or energy. on its face, this seems absurd, but i'll have to think about it more.
Indeterminacy does not mean there is no cause, but rather the causal tie is not known/determinable.i'll not argue this for the time being. but if a "causal tie" is not determinable, that does beg a question.
You enjoy more an inferior product? free will.
Sjakihata
12-11-2006, 23:58
Example of a concrete thing: a hedgehog
How do you arrive at conclusion that a hedgehog is not an abstract thing, but the universe are? Im inquiring because a hedgehog could as well as the universe be an abstract thing to the mind. Where is the exact difference? That you can observe the hedgehog with the senses? I think that has been showed throughly not to fulfill much. (Eg. Hume et. al.)
ps. interresting discussion, keep it up and dont let my comment derail you
Papewaio
12-12-2006, 01:23
I don't think so. I read the piece. This comment: "First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself." is something a first year student in a history of philosophy class would put forward. No serious thinker familiar with St. Thomas or more properly Aristotle or the general issue would take such a view. Anyone who can dismiss a view that has literally millennia of thought behind it, was proposed by the founder of logic, held by arguably the greatest mind of the Middle Ages, and also held by the founder of calculus as a few examples is telling.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
No serious thinker would validate an argument based on the pedigree of its proponents nor would they pass it based on merits of age. Bloodlines and pensions do not a valid argument make. The argument must stand on its own merits not on its debators.
Sjakihata
12-12-2006, 01:27
The argument must stand on its own merits not on its debators.
Quite the contrary. If you evaluate an argument soley on its philosophical value, you'll hardly ever reach any proper results. Instead, you need to take a historical approach and place the argument into a context. That means also trying to figure out what a thinker actually meant, not what he wrote. Quite a difficult excersice. Since Im studying History of Ideas (opposed to philosophy) I can recommend that you read Skinner and Foucault on this matter.
Papewaio
12-12-2006, 01:43
Generally that is correct that one needs as a listener to understand the cultural context of the speaker. However argument X should not have any more or less value based on the speaker. A discussion about the Universe should not be validated by who states their claim nor the age of that claim, it should be the argument itself that makes it 'true' or not, God actually showing up as the speaker in the debate would be the obvious exception to this idea.
Now that is just the first order approximation. Just like the validity of search engines, once you find one that works and understand its nuances and deeper properties you can adjust to its quirks. The same applies to the debaters, once you know who is debating that will generally help you find a valid argument easier then just a random grab-bag of contenders. So with the selection of great thinkers, by selecting from their arguments it has an much higher chance of finding a solution.
However in the end of the day the argument itself, understood within its milieu of cultural baggage, must stand on its own merits apart from its parent and their parents previous progeny of arguments.
Sjakihata
12-12-2006, 01:51
Generally that is correct that one needs as a listener to understand the cultural context of the speaker. However argument X should not have any more or less value based on the speaker. A discussion about the Universe should not be validated by who states their claim nor the age of that claim, it should be the argument itself that makes it 'true' or not, God actually showing up as the speaker in the debate would be the obvious exception to this idea.
Now that is just the first order approximation. Just like the validity of search engines, once you find one that works and understand its nuances and deeper properties you can adjust to its quirks. The same applies to the debaters, once you know who is debating that will generally help you find a valid argument easier then just a random grab-bag of contenders.
However in the end of the day the argument itself, understood within its milieu of cultural baggage, must stand on its own merits apart from its parent and their parents previous progeny of arguments.
This supposes the thesis that there indeed is such a thing as the 'objective' or 'universal' argument. I do not believe there is such a thing detached, as you say, from the milieu of cultural baggage. The todays debate about God is quite different from that of the middle ages or of antiquity.
Historicism needs taken into account and also the princple of charity (opposite of the straw man).
This that I argue of course supposes that we want to understand and further knowledge. A philosophical discourse is all well and good for the excercise of brainpower, however, it fails where historicism succeeds.
Papewaio
12-12-2006, 02:01
This supposes the thesis that there indeed is such a thing as the 'objective' or 'universal' argument.
Surely an argument about the universe can be 'universal' :laugh4:
I didn't say detached from its cultural ties, I said understood within it's cultural connections so one can try and understand the intent of the speaker. Two polar opposites methinks.
how is the universe more of an abstract concept than a hedgehog?
"More" is not part of my reply. The one is an abstract concept, the other is not. Regarding the latter: over and above whatever socio-linguistic context is implied with the word hedgehog: it can bite your toe. The universe cannot. It is simply an idea.
how does mutual exclusivity matter?
What is mutually exclusive cannot be what is precluded by its definition: a square cannot be a circle.
a thing cannot be both an atom and a hedgehog, because hedgehogs are composed of atoms, right?
Right, A hedgehog cannot be an atom. A hedgehog may be composed on atoms, but the meaning of atom and hedgehog are different.
tldr.
I don't know what this means.
but then objects are just contingent in form, not substance. you can say "object X could be otherwise, or not be at all", but in this universe, under conservation, that means object X's matter could be arranged differently, or could be transformed entirely into energy. so the existence of matter/energy is not contingent, just its form. in order to break conservation, and thus demonstrate that matter/energy is contingent, you have to suppose that a universe can exist without any matter or energy. on its face, this seems absurd, but i'll have to think about it more.
I actually changed the word "form" to "composition" as form is too loaded a term. If I understood your point above you are confusing subject and predicate. Materiality is a predication.
i'll not argue this for the time being. but if a "causal tie" is not determinable, that does beg a question.
Yes, one either assumes causality or assumes things come into being ex nihilo.
free will.
It is a question of judgment not free will.
How do you arrive at conclusion that a hedgehog is not an abstract thing, but the universe are? Im inquiring because a hedgehog could as well as the universe be an abstract thing to the mind. Where is the exact difference? That you can observe the hedgehog with the senses? I think that has been showed throughly not to fulfill much. (Eg. Hume et. al.)
ps. interresting discussion, keep it up and dont let my comment derail you
Hi Sjakihata,
Since your studying ideas and referenced Hume I'll give you a Kantian reply: a hedgehog contains noumenal content, the universe doesn't.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
No serious thinker would validate an argument based on the pedigree of its proponents nor would they pass it based on merits of age. Bloodlines and pensions do not a valid argument make. The argument must stand on its own merits not on its debators.
Hi Papewaio,
I did not validate any argument, but rather invalidated an argument. I did so based on a supposedly relevant portion of the piece which I quoted. The content of the quote was sophomoric and therefore dismissible.
Big_John
12-12-2006, 03:15
It is a question of judgment not free will.i choose to ignore my judgements. :blank2:
hedgehog: it can bite your toe. The universe cannot. It is simply an idea.
A hedgehog can bite my toe so it exists. Yet the universe cannot so it does not? What about the other senses. I can see the universe. Point a telescope at the sky, there is the universe, not all of it, but still. It could burn you if you got too close to parts of it, freeze you in other parts. It exerts gravitational forces on you and me and the rest of itself. How is it simply an idea.
On a smaller scale does my neighbor's house not exist to an ant at my feet? It cannot touch it, it can only see part of the roof, would it exist?
i choose to ignore my judgements. :blank2:
I see said the blind man. ~:cool:
A hedgehog can bite my toe so it exists. Yet the universe cannot so it does not? What about the other senses. I can see the universe. Point a telescope at the sky, there is the universe, not all of it, but still. It could burn you if you got too close to parts of it, freeze you in other parts. It exerts gravitational forces on you and me and the rest of itself. How is it simply an idea.
On a smaller scale does my neighbor's house not exist to an ant at my feet? It cannot touch it, it can only see part of the roof, would it exist?
Hello,
You do not understand. My post(s) say nothing about existence. The focus is the difference between abstract concepts and what is not. Let me illustrate with a different example. Imagine Borat wanted to visit Harvard University. We go up through Cambridge Massachusetts and I show him the JFK School of Government Buildings, the Widener Library, the Malkin Athletics Center, Annenberg Hall etc. After I show him these and other things, imagine he were to say 'All very nice, but I want to see Harvard University make Kazakhstan great: show me University'. I would have to then explain these buildings are what make the University. Harvard University is the larger label we give to these various buildings taken together. Harvard University itself is a mental construct only that gives a certain meaning to the various things shown. It does not have a distinct physicality like the Widener Library or any hedgehog we might happen to see while crossing the yard.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-12-2006, 09:13
But you could show Borat a spike, then a tooth, then a whisker, and then an eye an he would say "All very nice, but I want to see the hedgehog".
Sjakihata
12-12-2006, 13:14
Hi Sjakihata,
Since your studying ideas and referenced Hume I'll give you a Kantian reply: a hedgehog contains noumenal content, the universe doesn't.
This is how I understand noumena: they are objects of the mind, that may or may not exists and they may or may not be acknowledged, if you possesse other abilities of cognition than that of a human being. The problem with noumena arises if it is confused with an object and is thought of as a phenomenon. Therefore, the noumena has to negatively guide us to the limits of the categories, to what can actually be experienced.
So I would say it is the opposite, that the universe is a noumenon and that the hedgehog is a phenomenon. The universe is not necessarily an abstract idea as much as it is a theory (maybe you consider abstract ideas = theories). Anyway, Im not sure exactly of what Im arguing here, Im just inclined to disagree that the universe, as such, is more abstract than the idea of a hedgehog, to me they would either be equally abstract or not abstract at all. As long as they are categorized the same.
edit: i just read your post with the analogy to the Harvard University. I think Im inclined to be more atomistic in my view of the world. To me Harvard University, The Earth or any country could be viewed as abstract, following your reasoning. To me, however, they aren't. Since I think of them also as unities. Denmark consists of seperate parts, true, but these parts brought together constitutes Denmark and that consitution is valid. A hedgehog has legs, spikes, snout and whatnot - these brought together makes a hedgehog. Im aware the the analogy perhaps isnt entirely valid, however, I think it is cogent and that it conveys my position.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.