Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

And, you are a renowned philosopher I suppose, Pindar?

---

I'm actually a fairly renowned speculative poet.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, one would be ignorant regarding the question.

No, one would be agnostic.

---

Disagreement is not argument.

Quote:

---

Quite right! That is exactly my point!

---

So then what is your problem with atheism?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

No, one would be ignorant regarding the question.

No, one would be agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't agree with your definition of "nitpicking" :shame:

---

QED. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

this thread

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...

Quote:

---

I would think that there are plenty of agnostic theists; those who believe in God while saying that it cannot be known...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

An agnostic is one who doesn't claim to know regarding god.

---

Alright, as stated, I'll agree.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

(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...

Quote:

---

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.

a while back I learnt about this, and thought I should share it here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_Adam

Quote:

---

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:G...ine_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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

The simple proof I gave is not concerned with worship or scripture. Such issues are sect specific.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Did you mean pantheism then?

---

I don't know of scientists that are planning to have people worship our 'building blocks'.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

one: why is the universe not a "concrete thing"?

---

The universe is not a concrete thing because its an abstract concept.

Quote:

---

what is an example of a concrete thing?

---

A hedgehog.

Quote:

---

two: what exactly is the problem with a necessary entity being comprised of contingent entities?

---

Because contingent and necessary are mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

[*]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.

Quote:

---

[*]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.

Quote:

---

[*]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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I was wrong, there was no disagreement.

---

Gotch'ya.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The universe is not a concrete thing because its an abstract concept.

---

how is the universe more of an abstract concept than a hedgehog?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

No.

---

tldr.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

You enjoy more an inferior product?

---

free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.