|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Can Atheism develop an epistemology to live by?
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
This is a variant on a theme: hopefully not a dead horse (though I'm not sure here).
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which tries to define what valid grounds for belief are. Most atheists believe strongly that the only valid grounds for demanding belief are that a proposition can be subject to tests which can decide empirically where or not it is true, and failing that, there is no compelling case for belief. Privately you can believe whatever bat shit you want so long as you don't expect anyone else to. Agreed?
The religious objection to this is that it cannot cover most of the essential issues of life. For most people, whether we evolved or were created as separate species has little impact on our lives, whereas questions about whether it is ok to discriminate on the basis of race, sexual preference or whatever, or whether abortion is sometimes/always justified, or whether capitalism is morally good/bad/neutral: these are the things which really do effect our lives.
That is not to say that the strictly scientific is irrelevant, but it is to claim that ethical issues are more pressing for most people.
And if the modern atheist movement has an epistemology for ethics I have not seen it, nor do I know of any who claim that the method they use for science will do the job. I admit that many are utilitarians (e.g. Singer) but they seem to accept no responsibility to establish this philosophy in the face of its many criticisms. Dawkins, in a recent interview, admitted that the science is not friendly to altruism, but said nothing determines that we should live selfishly. I agree, and think that the religious claim that all atheists somehow have to be spencerite social darwinists is wrong-headed.
But it still looks as if those who have such a strong critique of religion as not being evidence based, are themselves living on no better a basis: unless they ignore all ethical issues, which few of them do. Stones and glass houses? Or is there a better story?
One way out is to class all ethical matters as private preferences, so one hates antisemitism in the same way one hates cubism. Does anyone really take this view? I can hardly believe it, and if they did, then the arrogance which would lead them to enshrine in law, what are simply their private preferences, makes the supposed oppressive actions of all the churches seem mild.
I think there is a real problem here. I'm not saying it is easy, but at least the Religious are trying, and grappling with varying degrees of success, at addressing problems which can never be the subject of scientific experiment.
Have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick? If so where?
As an aside, lest I be misunderstood, some of the most thoughtful books on ethics that I have read are from people of secular opinions, so I fully accept and admire the much good work that is being done in this field by non-religious people.
[ 15. June 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
There are many problems with atheistic epistemology (or, more accurately, naturalistic epistemology), but I think the main issue concerns the claim that "objective" knowledge can be defined as "that which is confirmed by the scientific method". The fundamental problem with that proposition is that it itself cannot be confirmed by the scientific method. Therefore there is an element of what many atheists (mistakenly) term "faith" at the heart of the claim.
Science is replete with assumptions - and indeed dependent on assumptions - which lie outside the scope of the scientific method. Examples are the universality of cause and effect, the uniformity of nature and even the existence of an external world (how do we know that our senses are not deceiving us?).
As for ethics: one only needs to consider that nature does not provide us with an "ought". There is nothing in the empirical scientific method which requires us to act in a certain way. The methodology of Josef Mengele is, in principle, no less scientific than that of any normal doctor who seeks the wellbeing of his patients.
Of course, it is important to point out that many atheists have a strong moral sense. I think it would be wrong for any theist to deny that. But this is not the point. It's one thing to have a strong moral conscience, but it is quite another to claim that it has objective validity and therefore it can be imposed on others.
[ 11. June 2012, 14:49: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which tries to define what valid grounds for belief are. Most atheists believe strongly that the only valid grounds for demanding belief are that a proposition can be subject to tests which can decide empirically where or not it is true, and failing that, there is no compelling case for belief. Privately you can believe whatever bat shit you want so long as you don't expect anyone else to. Agreed?
Ah yes, the stereotype of the scientific atheist.
Most atheists, and all the ones of my acquaintance, don't believe an observation necessarily needs to be empirical or scientific to be valid. I don't know anyone, atheist or not, who breaks out a spectrometer in order to tell what color a flower is.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM Dawkins is wrong. Science is friendly to altruism, at least to a point. Measuring brain responses during behavioural tests seem to indicate we are wired to want to help others. This is a species survival mechanism.
IME, atheists run the same gamut as religious. From well reasoned and though through to unthinking reaction. Most being somwhere between. So to point to atheists as having a empirical basis for their beliefs is rather like saying all Christians reason like Fred Phelps.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most atheists, and all the ones of my acquaintance, don't believe an observation necessarily needs to be empirical or scientific to be valid. I don't know anyone, atheist or not, who breaks out a spectrometer in order to tell what color a flower is.
Just to be pedantic: Telling what colour a flower is seems to me a paradigm case of an empirical observation.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think epistemology is a fundamentally mistaken discipline at least as it is practiced in Anglo-American philosophy departments.
Epistemology is the attempt to build a bridge between a knowing subject and a knowable object. But once you've decided that there's a gap there that has to be bridged you've decided that the gap is unbridgeable. Epistemology to be valid has to take it for granted that there are things that we know and then ask how we know them, rather than to attempt to legislate a priori standards of knowledge.
I'm not sure that there's anything specifically atheist about epistemology. I suppose you rule out theories of divine guarantee such as Descartes. But I don't think most believers in God believe in those. If you're saying that it's an attempt to show that belief in ethics, economics, and mathematics is justified but religion is for a priori reasons not justified then I think that's doomed, but I doubt there's many atheists consciously engaged in such an a priori project.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
quote:
Ah yes, the stereotype of the scientific atheist.
Really?
So you don't believe that "the only valid grounds for demanding belief are that a proposition can be subject to tests which can decide empirically where or not it is true"?
Talk of "breaking out a spectrometer" is just a red herring. Nobody is suggesting you have to do it yourself, just that it has been done. If you are really saying that Atheism does not demand evidence for belief, I think you are in a minority. Or maybe being pedantic.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Talk of "breaking out a spectrometer" is just a red herring. Nobody is suggesting you have to do it yourself, just that it has been done. If you are really saying that Atheism does not demand evidence for belief, I think you are in a minority. Or maybe being pedantic.
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that "evidence" need not necessarily be empirical. Insisting on a lot of unnecessary adjectives usually indicates the construction of a straw-man argument.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
anteater
Very interesting and thought-provoking, as usual! Quick reaction is to say that the trouble with atheists is that the only thing they definitely have in common is a total lack of belief in God/god/s.
No time to think more about this just at the moment, but I look forward to doing so asap.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most atheists, and all the ones of my acquaintance, don't believe an observation necessarily needs to be empirical or scientific to be valid. I don't know anyone, atheist or not, who breaks out a spectrometer in order to tell what color a flower is.
Just to be pedantic: Telling what colour a flower is seems to me a paradigm case of an empirical observation.
Doesn't that depend on whether you're a human being. a bull or a butterly?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Telling what colour a flower is seems to me a paradigm case of an empirical observation.
Doesn't that depend on whether you're a human being. a bull or a butterly?
Classical empiricism says that secondary properties, such as colour, only exist in the perception apparatus of the observer, yes. But in none of the above is the process described as 'telling what colour a flower is' a matter of reasoned argument.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But in none of the above is the process described as 'telling what colour a flower is' a matter of reasoned argument.
So your position is that it is easy and empirically verifiable to tell at a glance whether a flower is burgundy or carmine? Or even that there is an obvious, clear, and non-arbitrary (i.e. empirical) dividing line between "red" and "orange"? That seems like pitching the "empirical" nature of color distinction a bit high.
Since you seem to be having trouble with this example, let's try another. Let's say Office Atheist's co-worker tells him "there are bagels in the break room this morning"? Is Office Atheist required to disbelieve this information, since it comes to him in the form of hearsay instead of empirical observation?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Since you seem to be having trouble with this example, let's try another. Let's say Office Atheist's co-worker tells him "there are bagels in the break room this morning"? Is Office Atheist required to disbelieve this information, since it comes to him in the form of hearsay instead of empirical observation?
Ah - we're clearly arguing at cross purposes. No, I'm not under the impression that atheists, or even Western rationalists, fetishise first-hand observation over hearsay. Sorry if you thought that I was.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Most of the atheists that I know are working class oiks who couldn't even spell epistemology, and couldn't give a flying fuck about it.
Are they somehow excluded from this? They just don't believe in God.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for ethics: one only needs to consider that nature does not provide us with an "ought". There is nothing in the empirical scientific method which requires us to act in a certain way. The methodology of Josef Mengele is, in principle, no less scientific than that of any normal doctor who seeks the wellbeing of his patients.
The big problem with this kind of analysis is that Josef Mengele was not an atheist, he was a Roman Catholic. Given this, it's not apparent that adhering to some kind of divinely mandated moral code is required to prevent Mengele-like behavior, or that it's very successful at doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, it is important to point out that many atheists have a strong moral sense. I think it would be wrong for any theist to deny that. But this is not the point. It's one thing to have a strong moral conscience, but it is quite another to claim that it has objective validity and therefore it can be imposed on others.
Claiming morality has an objective validity that everyone should follow? Are you sure you're not confusing monotheism with atheism?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
croesus:
quote:
Since you seem to be having trouble with this example, let's try another. Let's say Office Atheist's co-worker tells him "there are bagels in the break room this morning"? Is Office Atheist required to disbelieve this information, since it comes to him in the form of hearsay instead of empirical observation?
No, of course not.
What I am saying is that most atheists take the view that unless something is testable and verifiable in principle, it does not deserve general belief. Of course, most people believe "science" like they used to believe the Church, since they reasonably believe that when Science says there is very strong evidence for evolution then that is correct. In the bagel example, you would presumably believe there is a chain of evidence from your co-worker to some observation of bagels. And if the example were less trivial (e.g. there is a bomb in the post room) or more fanciful (the Spirit of God is moving in the post room) you are more likely to want harder evidence.
The objection to theistic belief would then be that its proponents would cheerfully admit that no decisive test can be constructed that would enable you to decide for/against God on the basis of some measurable parameter.
And I thought that objection was a general one amongst atheists. So am I really wrong about this?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The big problem with this kind of analysis is that Josef Mengele was not an atheist, he was a Roman Catholic. Given this, it's not apparent that adhering to some kind of divinely mandated moral code is required to prevent Mengele-like behavior, or that it's very successful at doing so.
That is true but totally irrelevant to the two sentences immediately preceding what you highlighted - and, indeed, the point which they were supposed to be illustrating.
quote:
Originally posted by EE:
As for ethics: one only needs to consider that nature does not provide us with an "ought". There is nothing in the empirical scientific method which requires us to act in a certain way. The methodology of Josef Mengele is, in principle, no less scientific than that of any normal doctor who seeks the wellbeing of his patients.
There we go. Fixed it for you.
You're welcome.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
anteater wrote:
What I am saying is that most atheists take the view that unless something is testable and verifiable in principle, it does not deserve general belief.
How do you know that most atheists take this view? Have you seen a poll of them? I know quite a number of atheists who are working class people, and who don't normally argue in those terms, so are you assuming that somehow they are subsumed under 'most atheists'? Seems a bit non-empirical and untested to me, therefore I don't believe you!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
who are working class people, and who don't normally argue in those terms
And I suppose some of your best friends are working-class people. It's where I sprang from.
My evidence is based on stuff I have read, and atheists who I have listened to, all of whom took the view that religion lacks the basis of reasonable proof by which they mean scientifically testable. It certainly is the thrust of the current wave of atheist books, whose titles I'm sure you know.
This thread is going nowhere, and maybe that's my fault. It's like arguing with christians who say: What on earth gives you the idea that christians believe in God? Of course, there is a recognisable group of christian atheists, just as I am sure there is a group of atheist astrologers, or atheist druids for all I know.
So maybe those atheists who see no merit in the argument that lack of scientifically testable evidence is a compelling reason to withhold belief should leave the thread. And if it dies, because it leaves no atheists left - so be it. R.I.P.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
anteater
Well, I have often debated the Munchhausen trilemma on atheist forums - the division of beliefs into those based on an infinite regress, those involving circularity, and those which rest on axiomatized ideas, (often termed foundationalism).
In my experience, many atheists are happy to accept point 3, that there are beliefs which ultimately rest on unevidenced foundations. For example, that there is an external world, or other minds. Indeed, this would mean that science itself rests on such foundations.
There are other interesting beliefs, such as belief that there is a past, or that the present moment exists, which seem non-empirical.
Of course, some theists make hay with this, and begin to argue about basic beliefs in God as foundational, and here atheists may well call a halt.
I don't think this is particularly controversial, is it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My evidence is based on stuff I have read, and atheists who I have listened to, all of whom took the view that religion lacks the basis of reasonable proof by which they mean scientifically testable. It certainly is the thrust of the current wave of atheist books, whose titles I'm sure you know.
Not all proofs are scientifically testable. Just ask a mathematician. I think a clearer formulation is atheists point out that religion has made a whole lot of claims which are scientifically testable (the Universe is six to ten thousand years old, rain is caused by Zeus pissing through a sieve, the sun is a flaming barge that sails the heavens, etc.) and that these claims always fail to pan out.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Of course, some theists make hay with this, and begin to argue about basic beliefs in God as foundational, and here atheists may well call a halt.
All what you say sounds eminently sensible, and I agree that halts must be called. After all a well known school of Reformed apologetics (pre-suppositionalism) includes the verbal inerrancy of Scripture as foundational.
So the question perhaps becomes: Are there any principles other than personal judgement, for where you call a halt? And how would this apply to ethics? Does this generate a necessary set of foundational beliefs? For instance might you take the principle of utilitarianism as foundational on the pragmatic basis that you have to start somewhere?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
quote:
Not all proofs are scientifically testable. Just ask a mathematician.
Well in my little way, I used to be one. I'm not sure this is a real problem, as mathematical systems have there rules and a "proof" consists in verifying the rules are followed. Just like you can prove that the Immaculate Conception is an RC doctrine of faith, by following the rules of what defines a doctrine of faith.
quote:
I think a clearer formulation is atheists point out that religion has made a whole lot of claims which are scientifically testable . . and that these claims always fail to pan out.
I'm not sure you're right here. In any case, has not Science made loads of claims which did not pan out? And you're just setting up a straw man if you identify christians in general, with those who cling to disproven claims like YEC creationism.
Even where clams are made, I don't think the church invites testing, or claims that it's beliefs are testable. There are exceptions, like research into meditation and brain patterns (Buddhist typically - not christian). But in general the Church's attitude is that demands that God be subject to scientific testing are illegitimate.
But maybe I am just wrong. I have to admit that I genuinely thought that a central plank of atheist thought was that in order to legitimately demand assent, some testable evidence has to be submitted, and that this affect non religious claims (e.g. homeopathy, and even in some people's view string theory) as well as religious claims.
[ 12. June 2012, 14:58: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm not sure you're right here. In any case, has not Science made loads of claims which did not pan out?
A key difference here is that science doesn't claim to be the revealed eternal truth from an omniscient superbeing.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Even where clams are made, I don't think the church invites testing, or claims that it's beliefs are testable. There are exceptions, like research into meditation and brain patterns (Buddhist typically - not christian). But in general the Church's attitude is that demands that God be subject to scientific testing are illegitimate.
Well yes, the Church has never liked having anyone check its work. That's a fairly well known historical fact (and is still current practice in some places). But either God interacts with the Universe, in which case we should be able to observe that interaction, or He doesn't, which is functionally the same as non-existence.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But maybe I am just wrong. I have to admit that I genuinely thought that a central plank of atheist thought was that in order to legitimately demand assent, some testable evidence has to be submitted, and that this affect non religious claims (e.g. homeopathy, and even in some people's view string theory) as well as religious claims.
The problem comes when you insist that the only kind of evidence atheists will accept is scientific. To go back to a former example, Office Atheist considers Co-Worker to be his friend. They're on a first name basis, they occasionally chat about their families, and she always tells him when there are bagels in the break room. All this is evidence, but none of it is scientific. Office Atheist didn't conduct any double blind tests, there's not a lot of repeatability, and the control group is hopelessly non-standardized.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have to admit that I genuinely thought that a central plank of atheist thought was that in order to legitimately demand assent, some testable evidence has to be submitted, and that this affect non religious claims (e.g. homeopathy, and even in some people's view string theory) as well as religious claims.
You're confusing 'atheist thought' with 'thoughts that some atheists have used as an argument against religious beliefs'.
Someone like A.J.Ayer would have endorsed the kind of position you're attributing to atheists. And, no doubt, bastardised ideas from philosophers like Ayer get onto the internet and get repeated by people who aren't thinking. But it's not required to hold such a position about what counts as knowledge to be an atheist. Compare Schopenhauer.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Compare Schopenhauer.
Sorry - Schopenhauer thought that we could tell, on the basis of rational analysis and introspection that the world we think we experience is in fact a projection of an amoral universal will whose only aim is it's own self-reproduction.
More relevantly to the English scene, most atheists who express themselves are in the same family as Ayer so they have some family likeness. But they aren't necessarily signed-up logical positivists. No doubt many atheist scientists have pontificated along the lines you suggest in public without thinking through what they were saying, but the point there is that they wouldn't have said it if they'd thought.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
quote:
A key difference here is that science doesn't claim to be the revealed eternal truth from an omniscient superbeing.
No, but if you strip away the hyperbole, isn't it enough that they claim to purvey truth? I don't see a difference, unless it be in the degree to which they wish to impose acceptance of their truth, and both the non-religious and the religious do this to various degrees.
quote:
bagels in the break room redux
But does this work with a non-trivial example. If your good friend assured you that some financial product was a dead cert, or that God spoke to them would you automatically accept this too? I think it doesn't help to look at examples where the issue at stake is quite insignificant. I'm sure that you accept many of the non-controversial claims of christians. Most non-believers see no reason to disbelieve that Jesus existed and taught many of this things attributed to him. Issues arise when a proposed belief is not easy to accept.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Dafyd:
quote:
Someone like A.J.Ayer would have endorsed the kind of position you're attributing to atheists.
OK I think I may have been rumbled. I did read Language Truth and Logic at an impressionable age, and have stuck more to British philosophy.
Probably you are right, and there are plenty of philosophers who are prepared to argue on a broader basis and still remain atheists.
And I haven't read Schopenhauer. And only the usual Nietzsche.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think there is such a thing as atheist thought, is there? Many Buddhists are atheists, for example, and it is quite difficult to predict where they would stand on this issue of testing ideas.
It sounds as if anteater is reifying a loose group of scientifically minded atheists, who may be influenced by the Four Horsemen, and who purvey a warmed over (and self-defeating) version of 19th century positivism.
I don't think that that summarizes the thinking of atheists, though.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Croesus:
quote:
bagels in the break room redux
But does this work with a non-trivial example. If your good friend assured you that some financial product was a dead cert, or that God spoke to them would you automatically accept this too?
No, you've missed the point. We've moved past the bagels as a specific instance. Office Atheist is reaching a conclusion (Co-Worker is a friend) based on evidence (familiarity of address, occasional chit-chat, tip-offs about break room snacks) which is non-scientific in nature. Your basic theory is that Office Atheist wouldn't be able to reach this conclusion (or any other) without several repeats of a double-blind experiment (or similar).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
longing
Apprentice
# 17154
|
Posted
I think part of the struggle is that if science tries to get too involved in ethics, it starts rolling out of its own limits, and that's where atheism stumbles. McGrath talked about science and religion being 'partially overlapping magisteria' (based on Gould's theory of Non overlapping magisteria). They cross where they cross, but science will never be able to answer some questions religion can, and vice versa.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Having only encountered the language of Philosophy in recent years, I'm never quite sure about my understanding of it but certainly agree with all you have to say in the first part of your post.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The religious objection to this is that it cannot cover most of the essential issues of life.
But it can cover an increasing number of them because of constant new research and knowledge.
quote:
For most people, whether we evolved or were created as separate species has little impact on our lives, whereas questions about whether it is ok to discriminate on the basis of race, sexual preference or whatever, or whether abortion is sometimes/always justified, or whether capitalism is morally good/bad/neutral: these are the things which really do effect our lives.
I agree of course, but I think I'd say that religious rules and ideas are being challenged and replaced at many points as people use the technology, the medical advances, that certainly haven't been created by any god! the religious may say that it has been because of God's will or something, but without evidence.
quote:
That is not to say that the strictly scientific is irrelevant, but it is to claim that ethical issues are more pressing for most people.
I'd say it was more likely to be the other way round, but I have no evidence to support this assertion! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
And if the modern atheist movement ...
If only there was a 'movement'! Humanist groups, NSS, etc are all, in my opinion, doing mostly good work, but I don't think it will ever be more than a too slow, though inexorable, move away from God/god/s beliefs.
quote:
I admit that many are utilitarians (e.g. Singer) but they seem to accept no responsibility to establish this philosophy in the face of its many criticisms.
The expression it's like herding cats' seems to come up quite often when people talk about putting atheists into a group!
quote:
Dawkins, in a recent interview, admitted that the science is not friendly to altruism, but said nothing determines that we should live selfishly. I agree, and think that the religious claim that all atheists somehow have to be spencerite social darwinists is wrong-. headed.
Agree.
quote:
But it still looks as if those who have such a strong critique of religion as not being evidence based, are themselves living on no better a basis: ...
I don't think I agree. The atheist views I hear and read are something like:
1 - Such and such is true and there is supporting, falsifiable evidence;
2 - We don't know the answer to this yet;
3 - We can see, with only the vanishingly small possibility of being wrong, that God/god/s had nothing to do with it since they do not exist except in the minds of people.
quote:
...unless they ignore all ethical issues, which few of them do.
Because of the history of gods arising from the need to find out how things happen, just about no part of human history has been without gods, so it seems they cannot be ignored. they can eventually be understood as human ideas.
quote:
One way out is to class all ethical matters as private preferences, so one hates antisemitism in the same way one hates cubism. Does anyone really take this view? I can hardly believe it, ...
I suppose it is possible, but only theoretically,or maybe that should be hypothetically.
quote:
I think there is a real problem here. I'm not saying it is easy, but at least the Religious are trying, and grappling with varying degrees of success, at addressing problems which can never be the subject of scientific experiment.
Yes, but there is surely enough knowledge, law, understanding of moral behaviour, international majority view etc which should mean that decisions can - must in my view - be taken without reference to god. When referring to the various books, supposedly containing the wordes and thoughts of deities, , it should in my atheist view be clearly understood that every single one of these thoughts originated only in ahuman brain, however much the person believes them to have come from a God/god.
quote:
Have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick? If so where?
I don't think so, but I think there will be quite a few here who will think that I have!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Croesus:
quote:
No, you've missed the point.
Well your's - evidently. So be patient, I'm not trying to refute you but genuinely don't quite get it.
First, you are exaggerating my position if you think I'm implying double-blind testing is needed to check if there is a pussycat in the kitchen. You just have a look, and indeed if someone who I trust informs me that there is I believe them. If it was something more important (there's a rat in the kitchen) I might ask "did you see it?" and if the reply was "no, Fred told me" I might investigate further - but no double blind test.
So you take in on faith - belief in another person's word, but in a context where the claim is so ordinary that you have little reason to doubt it.
So as a mental mechanism you believe in the kitchen bagel for the same reason a catholic believes in the Real Presence: someone you trust has told you. Except nobody believes the two cases to be remotely comparable. In the first case, you know that empirical verification is possible - even easy. It's just not worth bothering, but it matters that it is possible. In the second case, no such verification is possible.
[ 12. June 2012, 19:03: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My evidence is based on stuff I have read, and atheists who I have listened to, all of whom took the view that religion lacks the basis of reasonable proof by which they mean scientifically testable. It certainly is the thrust of the current wave of atheist books, whose titles I'm sure you know.
Not all proofs are scientifically testable. Just ask a mathematician. I think a clearer formulation is atheists point out that religion has made a whole lot of claims which are scientifically testable (the Universe is six to ten thousand years old, rain is caused by Zeus pissing through a sieve, the sun is a flaming barge that sails the heavens, etc.) and that these claims always fail to pan out.
Well not always. Christians and Jews have always held that the universe was created ex nihilo. One hundred or so years ago the prevailing scientific view was that the universe was past eternal. It is advanced in science that have led to the standard cosmological view that universe is finite and has an absolute beginning.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well not always. Christians and Jews have always held that the universe was created ex nihilo. One hundred or so years ago the prevailing scientific view was that the universe was past eternal. It is advanced in science that have led to the standard cosmological view that universe is finite and has an absolute beginning.
The schedule appears to be much different than originally believed. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
As a non-philosophizing atheist,my question is; if believe in non-falsifiable hypothesis, how do you distinguish between the many variations. How many gods do you believe in; 1, 2, 3, 7, 9,4000 or infinitely many? Family tradition seems a poor justification.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
Okay, a vague attempt at a reply from an atheist perspective, it's a big subject!:
As others have said, I think a lot of atheists are not necessarily all that philosophical, and may not think about the epistemological issues raised here at all.
As I see atheism, it's primarily a position on factual rather than ethical issues - does this God chap exist or not? Obviously we're leaning on the "not" side, with varying degrees of intensity depending on the person.
As I understand religion, ethics is rather complicated, but the rough position is "morals come from God", which seems to me to be a mix of factual and ethical claims - a) factually, God exists, b) he is the source of ethics. Knock out (a), as atheists think they have, and (b) doesn't work.
Knowledge generally comes in through the senses in various ways, and doesn't always require the full "scientific palaver" of double blind experiments and peer reviews and so on. I can have a fair degree of confidence my coffee will be tasty without doing a full research project on coffee taste.
I read a few moderately philosophical and fairly heavily atheist websites (eg lesswrong
where ethics is agreed to be an important problem. People seem to lean towards Utilitarianism and Consequentialism
At lot of work seems to go into justifying ethics on some non-religious basis, the rough principle being to provide some solid foundation for people's ethical intuitions. Personally I've never seen anything convincing, although I do lean in a Utilitarian direction as above.
(general footnote: I'm generalising quite wildly in various ways above, and using "he" for God for grammatical convenience)
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there is such a thing as atheist thought, is there? Many Buddhists are atheists, for example, and it is quite difficult to predict where they would stand on this issue of testing ideas.
It sounds as if anteater is reifying a loose group of scientifically minded atheists, who may be influenced by the Four Horsemen, and who purvey a warmed over (and self-defeating) version of 19th century positivism.
I don't think that that summarizes the thinking of atheists, though.
I wouldn't quite describe myself as "warmed over and self-defeating", but I am a sort of mild fan who feels logical positivism was underrated.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well not always. Christians and Jews have always held that the universe was created ex nihilo. One hundred or so years ago the prevailing scientific view was that the universe was past eternal. It is advanced in science that have led to the standard cosmological view that universe is finite and has an absolute beginning.
The schedule appears to be much different than originally believed.
As a non-philosophizing atheist,my question is; if believe in non-falsifiable hypothesis, how do you distinguish between the many variations. How many gods do you believe in; 1, 2, 3, 7, 9,4000 or infinitely many? Family tradition seems a poor justification.
The point is that Christians don't just believe in a generic 'god of the philosophers', we specifically believe in Yaweh, the triune God of Father, Son and Spirit. As followers of Jesus Christ, we believe that he was the Son, the second person of this trinity, and we believe that he saved the world by dying and rising again.
Our belief is therefore eminently falsifiable: you need to show that Jesus did not rise. As Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." There's the condition, go and fulfil it and I'll stop wasting my life chasing after a non-existent God.
You may notice that the condition is now historical, not scientific. That shouldn't be a problem since history is a reputable academic discipline, just like science.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Palimpsest:
quote:
As a non-philosophizing atheist,my question is; if believe in non-falsifiable hypothesis, how do you distinguish between the many variations. How many gods do you believe in
First I wouldn't take falsifiability as the main criterion. It's hard to prove a negative. The existence of the Yeti lends itself more to verifiability.
However, the main issue is how to distinguish, and I would turn this back to you and ask the same about competing ethical theories, none of which AFAIK is veri- or falsi-fiable.
The point is that it is not by using the scientific method that one finds out how many Gods to believe in. Any more than you can use it to determine whether one has a duty of care to oneself only, ones family, tribe, ethnic group, all humankind or indeed all of life.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
We've moved past the bagels as a specific instance. Office Atheist is reaching a conclusion (Co-Worker is a friend) based on evidence (familiarity of address, occasional chit-chat, tip-offs about break room snacks) which is non-scientific in nature. Your basic theory is that Office Atheist wouldn't be able to reach this conclusion (or any other) without several repeats of a double-blind experiment (or similar).
quote:
Originally posted by mstevens:
Knowledge generally comes in through the senses in various ways, and doesn't always require the full "scientific palaver" of double blind experiments and peer reviews and so on. I can have a fair degree of confidence my coffee will be tasty without doing a full research project on coffee taste.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The point is that it is not by using the scientific method that one finds out how many Gods to believe in. Any more than you can use it to determine whether one has a duty of care to oneself only, ones family, tribe, ethnic group, all humankind or indeed all of life.
Why are you so stuck on the idea that atheists only believe in formal, scientific observations? It's been pointed out repeatedly that this is an obvious falsehood. If you have some reason to persist in this assertion, let's hear it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The point is that Christians don't just believe in a generic 'god of the philosophers', we specifically believe in Yaweh, the triune God of Father, Son and Spirit. As followers of Jesus Christ, we believe that he was the Son, the second person of this trinity, and we believe that he saved the world by dying and rising again.
Our belief is therefore eminently falsifiable: you need to show that Jesus did not rise. As Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." There's the condition, go and fulfil it and I'll stop wasting my life chasing after a non-existent God.
You may notice that the condition is now historical, not scientific. That shouldn't be a problem since history is a reputable academic discipline, just like science.
One could, of course, use the same argument for just about any deity. For instance, the walls of Troy were said to have been built by Apollo and Poseidon. Given that we've got better evidence for the existence Troy's walls than of the Resurrection of Jesus, I'll be expecting you to offer hecatombs rather than (or at least in addition to) attending church from here on out.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why are you so stuck on the idea that atheists only believe in formal, scientific observations? It's been pointed out repeatedly that this is an obvious falsehood. If you have some reason to persist in this assertion, let's hear it.
To slightly argue with myself, or possibly clarify, I do think the scientific method is underrated, and people generally would benefit from more rigour and science, but I don't go around doing controlled experiments on my breakfast before eating.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@mstevens. You observed 'As I see atheism, it's primarily a position on factual rather than ethical issues - does this God chap exist or not? Obviously we're leaning on the "not" side, with varying degrees of intensity depending on the person.'
If you are 'leaning' would this not make you an agnostic, rather than an atheist?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mstevens
Apprentice
# 15437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@mstevens. You observed 'As I see atheism, it's primarily a position on factual rather than ethical issues - does this God chap exist or not? Obviously we're leaning on the "not" side, with varying degrees of intensity depending on the person.'
If you are 'leaning' would this not make you an agnostic, rather than an atheist?
I'd go with the definition of "agnostic" from wikipedia - "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.". So people who don't know whether god exists.
As soon as you've decided he doesn't, I think that puts you in atheist land, but with room for lots of room for maneuver - perhaps you're certain he doesn't exist, perhaps you think it's impossible for him to exist, perhaps you think he doesn't exist but aren't very confident in this view.
Posts: 44 | From: London,UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
As followers of Jesus Christ, we believe that he was the Son, the second person of this trinity, and we believe that he saved the world by dying and rising again.
Our belief is therefore eminently falsifiable: you need to show that Jesus did not rise. As Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." There's the condition, go and fulfil it and I'll stop wasting my life chasing after a non-existent God.
Are you saying that if someone makes a claim it's up to other people to disprove it rather than the job of the claimer to prove it?
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
As followers of Jesus Christ, we believe that he was the Son, the second person of this trinity, and we believe that he saved the world by dying and rising again.
Our belief is therefore eminently falsifiable: you need to show that Jesus did not rise. As Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." There's the condition, go and fulfil it and I'll stop wasting my life chasing after a non-existent God.
Are you saying that if someone makes a claim it's up to other people to disprove it rather than the job of the claimer to prove it?
It depends on the claim George. So in the case of atheism the burden of proof is on you to show that God definitely does *not* exist rather than taking the agnostic approach that the question is undetermined.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well not always. Christians and Jews have always held that the universe was created ex nihilo. One hundred or so years ago the prevailing scientific view was that the universe was past eternal. It is advanced in science that have led to the standard cosmological view that universe is finite and has an absolute beginning.
The schedule appears to be much different than originally believed.
As a non-philosophizing atheist,my question is; if believe in non-falsifiable hypothesis, how do you distinguish between the many variations. How many gods do you believe in; 1, 2, 3, 7, 9,4000 or infinitely many? Family tradition seems a poor justification.
Occam's razor would appear to be the right tool in this instance.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well not always. Christians and Jews have always held that the universe was created ex nihilo. One hundred or so years ago the prevailing scientific view was that the universe was past eternal. It is advanced in science that have led to the standard cosmological view that universe is finite and has an absolute beginning.
The schedule appears to be much different than originally believed.
As a non-philosophizing atheist,my question is; if believe in non-falsifiable hypothesis, how do you distinguish between the many variations. How many gods do you believe in; 1, 2, 3, 7, 9,4000 or infinitely many? Family tradition seems a poor justification.
Occam's razor would appear to be the right tool in this instance.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Croesos. You wrote '. But either God interacts with the Universe, in which case we should be able to observe that interaction, or He doesn't, which is functionally the same as non-existence.'
What evidence would persuade you that is a God interacting with his universe?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As a non-philosophizing atheist,my question is; if believe in non-falsifiable hypothesis, how do you distinguish between the many variations. How many gods do you believe in; 1, 2, 3, 7, 9,4000 or infinitely many? Family tradition seems a poor justification.
Occam's razor would appear to be the right tool in this instance.
The problem here is that "God" is so vaguely defined we don't know how many are required to explain all known facts.
Of course, the simplest possible number of deities is zero.
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Croesos. You wrote '. But either God interacts with the Universe, in which case we should be able to observe that interaction, or He doesn't, which is functionally the same as non-existence.'
What evidence would persuade you that is a God interacting with his universe?
Some kind of personal revelation is traditional in such cases, isn't it? A burning bush with the solution to Fermat's last theorem, slaying an earth-dragon with divine arrows while composing an ode to the event, accurately predicting unlikely future events in a non-vague way, etc.
More seriously, as a believer what evidence was required to convince you?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Croesos: I'll be happy to answer your question in good time. But first, perhaps you would like to answer mine. As a close follower of these discussions you must have seriously considered what would convince you that there a God who intervenes in this universe.
Or at least that it is more likely that God does exist than that he does not.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
