Most other major religions are very live-and-let-live and wait for you to come to them. Christianity invites argument. It is one of the most in-your-face religions that atheists come up against. It is the dominant paradigm of western culture and becomes a target for that reason.
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Some are of the live and let live school otheres want to convert you...
Why be mad? Don't you want to convert them? 
Thank you for those very insightful thoughts. They are a pleasure to read, and really answer the question for me.
Keep 'em coming!
quote:
Originally posted by Pete:
I was wondering why atheists frequently seem to be hugely keen on debating/arguing with Christians - do they exert as much effort with regard to Hinduism or other deist faiths?
I think willyburger's points are excellent. Personally, in regard to Pete's question posted above, I find that as an Atheist I do exert equal energy on other irrational belief systems.
Astrology, for example, gives many people enjoyment and some people claim to get good advice from it. I could say "Live and let live," but instead I feel compelled to reason with them, analyzing why they would believe in astrology, and yes, trying to talk them out of it! 
In day to day living, there are countless irrational behaviors and beliefs that I find I'm always addressing, because as willyburger pointed out, I love debating. But also because irrational things seem to push a button in me, "setting me off."
See, I actually think that irrational belief systems are destructive and dangerous. I truly believe our rational mind, our sense of reason, is our most evolved attribute. Irrational thinking negates that quality, and so, I argue against Past-Life Regression, Christian Scientists, Tarot Card readers, Psychics, etc. I include Theism in this list as well.
Of course, if any of the above can show me evidence that their far-fetched claims have validity, I will be open to admitting error.
quote:I'll agree with this. But I'll also venture that Christianity is a safe target. What's the worst an angry Christian is allowed to do? Love you? Pray for you? Avoid you? Hehe!
It is one of the most in-your-face religions that atheists come up against
quote:
Originally posted by The Happy Coot:
I'll also venture that Christianity is a safe target. What's the worst an angry Christian is allowed to do? Love you? Pray for you? Avoid you? Hehe!
I will agree with that for the most part.
OTOH, here in the US, we have extremists who profess Christianity yet will plant bombs in abortion clinics.
Willy
And I'm not trying to paint Christians as dangerous extremists but make the point that Christianity doesn't automatically make every one of them non-violent.
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
...
I truly believe our rational mind, our sense of reason, is our most evolved attribute.
...
Reason,
I agree that our rational faculties give us a higher standing than less evolved dumb animals. We are able to exert power over less rational parts of God's creation (or "our environment" if you prefer). However that power is not always exercised wisely, and we are damaging creation / nature / environment. Our splendid evolution doesn't seem to prevent us damaging our own life support system. For this we need, I believe, some sense of moral responsibility, which a higher faculty than mere reason. (Just as reason is a higher faculty than mere physicality).
It is noticeable that in the last 150 years the economy has wanted more and more people of reason - people with numerical or scientific abilites. But today's economy is looking for a more subtle yet sophisticated range of abilities - customer service, communictaion skills, creativity, relationship management, consultancy skills, telephone skills. The merely intellectual who cannot get on with others, sell his/her wares, influence, motivate etc is less in demand.
Reason is important but there is more to life.
(Of course, you, Reason, are important!)
I hope that makes some sense.
Pt
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
For this we need, I believe, some sense of moral responsibility, which is a higher faculty than mere reason.
Couldn't disagree more.
Morality is not a higher faculty than reason. Moral responsibility is simply the ability to be obedient to Laws created extrinsically, usually from God. Reason, on the other hand, determines what is moral and ethical in the first place.
From Reason, Ethics are created. And living up to those ethics is how we can achieve our greatest good.
Your post, ptarmigan, illustrates this point. It's through your wonderful ability to reason that you are aware of how we are destroying our environment, etc. And it's through reason that we create ways to avoid such catastrophies.
Don't get me wrong....I'm all for Ethics. But morals? I don't think they do people much good, really. If someone wants to make a graven image of the Lord Thy God, that's an immoral act, but honestly, I don't think it does that much harm.
SO we use REASON to take a clear moral absolute such as that commandment and basically over-ride it. Without reason, we'd still be slaughtering animals to appease God. It's reason that led us out of the Dark Ages. Moral absolutism is what led us there.
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
Couldn't disagree more.
Right back at you.
quote:
Morality is not a higher faculty than reason. Moral responsibility is simply the ability to be obedient to Laws created extrinsically, usually from God. Reason, on the other hand, determines what is moral and ethical in the first place.
You're right here - morality is not a higher faculty than reason. Morality isn't even a faculty. However, aligning moral responsibility with God is erroneous. God may be one source of morality if you believe such a being exists, and there are certainly others. Unfortunately (as I'll explain), "reason" isn't one of them.
quote:
From Reason, Ethics are created. And living up to those ethics is how we can achieve our greatest good.
Here's the first problem. While I agree that ethics source from reason, you need to start with something else; before you can conclude that A is good and B isn't, and thus create an ethic that says A should be normative, you need to decide what "good" actually represents.
That's morality. It's source is irrelevant (at least for the purposes of this argument), but it must exist in order for reason to be able to create ethics.
quote:
Your post, ptarmigan, illustrates this point. It's through your wonderful ability to reason that you are aware of how we are destroying our environment, etc. And it's through reason that we create ways to avoid such catastrophies. p
Why bother? "reason" tells me the Earth will in most probability be able to support me for the rest of my life - it certainly will unless I give up smoking soon - so what difference does it make to me? Following that ethic won't improve my life even a little bit. Perhaps I need to decide why it's ethical in the first place. That means examining the underlying morality.
quote:
Don't get me wrong....I'm all for Ethics. But morals? I don't think they do people much good, really. If someone wants to make a graven image of the Lord Thy God, that's an immoral act, but honestly, I don't think it does that much harm.
Is it immoral or merely proscribed for other reasons? Careful not to juxtapose morality with ethics here. It's easy to do.
quote:
SO we use REASON to take a clear moral absolute such as that commandment and basically over-ride it. Without reason, we'd still be slaughtering animals to appease God. It's reason that led us out of the Dark Ages. Moral absolutism is what led us there.
Oh yes, those ancients, they didn't have a clue, did they? Bunch of morons. Not one of them could think. Lucky for that fantastic Modern invention Reason (capital "R"). It's a shame that Socrates never knew what an ignorant dolt he was.
Sorry, chronological bigotry such as this sets me off. Back to the point.
I don't see anyone arguing for moral absolutism here. If they are, they should realise that it's probably impossible to define an absolute. However, my point holds: ethics is not possible without an overriding morality. My friend, you've elevated "Reason" way above its actual usefulness. When reason can tell me why I shouldn't beat my children, or what type of music I prefer, then perhaps I'll revisit the scope of reason.
[damn typos]
[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: David ]
In many ways, I confess to losing the debate here. You make excellent points, and I have to acknowledge your intellectual prowess. I'm a little intimidated! 
However, I think our difference of opinion is based on differing definitions of exactly what "morals" and "ethics" are. I always, (and I may be wrong this) assumed that morals are codes of conduct that are established not out of reasoned analysis, but out of direct commands from God.
I differentiated morals from ethics by believing Ethics to be codes of conduct based on reason.
So, in my view, homosexuality between two consenting adults may be immoral, but it's not unethical. It's only immoral because a Diety said so. When we try to come up with reasons for why this behavior would be unethical, we have no real arguments.
Your questioning of where ethics bases it's primary assumptions has me stumped, I'll admit that. But I don't think it's from a Diety's words. I believe in ages of reasoning, we conclude that senseless murder is wrong. I dont think we only know that because the gods told us so. But I'm on shaky ground here, and am willing to give you victory on this point!
I haven't actually out-argued you, I've out-defined you, if that makes sense. But then, my definitions of ethics and morality are probably equally as idiosyncratic, and I'm almost positive someone will be along shortly to correct me.
Rationalising morality to formulate rules doesn't always work.
Ethics tends to be systematic, and more about trying to make explicit the rules that govern our behaviour in relation to our morality (can you derive "ought" from "is"). Ethics, to me is simply something to study, and doesn't have any bearing on our intrinsic morality. Morality is something we do, or aspire to, Ethics is simply dry study.
We may think killing is wrong, but how many of us would really hesitate if a child was being tortured. (don't go to deep into this). It is very very hard to overcome natural moral instincts with reason. You may rationalise your moral instincts to prove you really do have a reasonable morality, but in a situation of stress you would go with gut instinct, rather than sitting down and being reasonable.
So the way of changing this instinct is not directly thinking about morality, but by greater reference to "others" which is not limited to theism by any means.
Love
Angel
quote:
Originally posted by Pete:
I was wondering why atheists frequently seem to be hugely keen on debating/arguing with Christians - do they exert as much effort with regard to Hinduism or other deist faiths?Assuming (perhaps falsely) that atheists also tend towards a "this life only, then you're gone" worldview, isn't it a bit strange to waste so much time engaging in this activity? Unless, of course, what primarily drives them is reaction AGAINST Christianity/God in some way - sort of Christophobia.
Any comments?
I think that this has a lot to do with the fact that atheism is not a position that can be adopted due to reason alone.
It is impossible to disprove the existance of something, so therefore it requires an additional non-rational motivation to adopt the position of atheism.
In my experience, this is generally a strong reactionary emotion. I suppose it possible that there could be dispassionate atheists who have adopted atheism as a working hypothesis, however, I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.
And it is not difficult or unusual to have these. I think that this adds to the reasons listed above. I would like to add another.
I was so impressed with Willyburger's list above that I have refrained from adding what I actually think. But since no one else has mentioned it, I'll throw it in.
I agree with everything that has been written so far. I also think, however, that there is an element of Christianity being attacked for the same reason Christ was.
Jesus taught the truth, which made those who disliked the truth uncomfortable. He asked people to give up their evil ways, which made people involved in evil deeds unhappy and angry. Evil spirits especially hated Him on sight, because they knew who He was and what He stood for.
I doubt that these factors figure prominently in the conscious thought of most atheists. Previous comments have pointed out plenty of other motivations, and I don't attribute bad motives to atheists in general - perhaps especially because of the sins of Christianity. But the forces of hell are, I think, happy to use whatever justification they can to deny the truth.
Connected with this thought is that I believe people have a natural resistance to controls on their behavior, and a natural inclination to believe only what they can see and touch. Both of these work against religion, and make atheism an attractive alternative.
quote:
I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.
I have. Those motivated by a bad experience of life. As I said to someone in the cafe the other day, its quite a hard intuitive leap to make from:
"My life sucks"
To:
"There is a God who loves me".
Admittedly, a lot of the people I know who feel like this had their views confirmed by a bad experience of religion, but in most cases that was not the cause.
Let's face it, atheism can make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to feel "My life sucks and no one gives a blink, therefore there is nothing out there".
And there are those who do not and cannot understand love, because they have never experienced it. If your whole life has been about people using each other, and love has always been a conditional reward of success, then how can you believe in a God that loves you for no reason? The Christian God is therefore a very good target - Christians clearly haven't seen this important truth.
Once upon a time, when I was a very outspoken atheist, it was two things that made me argue with Christians especially. Firstly, they all believed in this God who loved them, and didn't understand that if there were such a God, He must have an ulterior motive. Secondly, they tried to tell me at great length that He loved me too, which was clearly nonsense.
<Looks faintly embarrassed>
Also, it wasn't fair that all these people with their easy lives and their warm, happy God feelings should be allowed to get away with living in a dream world, when the rest of us couldn't.
Yes, well.
Peace,
The Shadow Lover
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I was an atheist for some years (from about age 9 through to 15) but NOT because I'd had a bad experience of religion as such. It was because I was interested in prehistoric life/palaeontolgy, and what featured right at the start of the Bible seemed at the time such 'rubbish' compared to what I knew of the evolution of life.
I would beg to differ, and include your experience in 'bad experiences of religion'.
quote:
Originally posted by shadow-lover:
I have. Those motivated by a bad experience of life. As I said to someone in the cafe the other day, its quite a hard intuitive leap to make from:
"My life sucks"
To:
"There is a God who loves me".Admittedly, a lot of the people I know who feel like this had their views confirmed by a bad experience of religion, but in most cases that was not the cause.
Let's face it, atheism can make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to feel "My life sucks and no one gives a blink, therefore there is nothing out there".
Sorry, I have to disagree.
Atheism generally comes with an emotional agenda. Surely "My life sucks - therefore God doesn't exist" includes "(although he ought to)" as a subtext, and is therefore A Bad Experience Of Religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I suppose it possible that there could be dispassionate atheists who have adopted atheism as a working hypothesis, however, I have never come across one who is not motivated by a bad experience of religion.
I have met lots. I would claim to be one such.
The subtle difference between what I and most atheists think and what you are arguing is this.
I lack belief that there is a god or gods.
I don't definitely believe "There is no god."
There is a difference. Think of it in terms of something that matters less "I don't think there's life on Mars" -v- "I think there's no life on Mars". In the second case someone going to Mars and coming back with a specimen would actually prove the speaker wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins:
I have met lots. I would claim to be one such.The subtle difference between what I and most atheists think and what you are arguing is this.
I lack belief that there is a god or gods.
I don't definitely believe "There is no god."
Then are you not an agnostic, and not an atheist?
quote:
Then are you not an agnostic, and not an atheist?
No. An agnostic is someone who says he/she can't ever know one way or another.
To go back to my life on Mars example, you could (in principle) resolve the question once and for all by going to Mars and looking. So I wouldn't be "agnostic" about life on Mars. It would be possible to find out.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Then are you not an agnostic, and not an atheist?
Sorry, I don't think that was clear. What I meant was:
Agnosticism = absence of belief in God.
Atheism = belief in the non-existence of God.
which would seem to categorise most would-be atheists as actual agnostics.
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins:
No. An agnostic is someone who says he/she can't ever know one way or another.To go back to my life on Mars example, you could (in principle) resolve the question once and for all by going to Mars and looking. So I wouldn't be "agnostic" about life on Mars. It would be possible to find out.
But it would not be possible to disprove the existence of life on Mars. So if you didn't find life on Mars, you couldn't rationally dis-believe in it. However, you could take the step of faith that there was no life on Mars, because you hadn't found any!
I agree with John Collins on the definitions of Atheist vs. Agnostic. I see anyone who believes in a God or gods as being a Theist. In contrast, a person who doesn't have a belief in a God or gods is an Atheist. As an Atheist, I am NOT saying definitively "There is no God." I'm instead merely acknowledging my lack of belief.
I think many Atheists call themselves "Agnostics" because it sounds friendlier or something. If an Agnostic's position is "I don't know whether or not there is a God," then I'd say I am an Agnostic.
Someone suggested that maybe Atheists are Atheists because they are unhappy people. Quite to the contrary, that's why I was a Christian. I had become a Christian because I was at such a low point in my life that I needed the comfort of an Imaginary Friend to see me through it.
And I don't doubt that if hard times come my way again, I might become a Theist, not because I think it's literally true, but because my fragile human psyche needs the illusion of one.
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I agree with John Collins on the definitions of Atheist vs. Agnostic. I see anyone who believes in a God or gods as being a Theist. In contrast, a person who doesn't have a belief in a God or gods is an Atheist. As an Atheist, I am NOT saying definitively "There is no God." I'm instead merely acknowledging my lack of belief.
OK, I'm prepared to acknowledge that perhaps I'm adopting Humpty-Dumpty's approach of taking words to mean what I want them to mean, and backing down on this point!
quote:
Anyone who is being rigorously rational would surely adopt a position of agnosticism in preference to atheism.
From Cambridge dictionary Online:
quote:
atheist noun -- someone who believes that God or gods do not existagnostic noun, adjective -- (someone) not knowing, or believing that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists
Other dictionaries give subtle variations on these, but it looks to me that atheism is addressing faith and agnosticism is referring to knowledge.
So an atheist can either say "I don't believe in God" or I believe there is no God."
An agnostic would say "I don't know there is a God" or " I can't know there is a God."
Subtle but important differences. Or am I just repeating what everyone else has said?
It doesn't appear that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Wouldn't agnostics, by definition, express a disbelief in God? An atheist, however, may or may not base his belief on agnosticism.
So, here's the kicker: Is agnosticism and theism mutually exclusive? After all, one may say that you can't know there is a God, yet believe in one. Just a thought.
quote:
Originally posted by willyburger:
Is agnosticism and theism mutually exclusive.
I think in a sense it is[ possible to be both a theist and an atheist at the same time!
While I don't believe in actual gods of the supernatural that answer prayers or respond to ritual dances, I DO believe in Gods as metaphors. That is to say, I think Gods exist in the way the Santa Claus exists; as a story which can carry meaning in it. I can believe in God as a metaphor for our own creativity, judgement, and destruction, while simultaneously proclaiming no belief whatsoever in an actual Diety.
quote:
I can believe in God as a metaphor for our own creativity, judgement, and destruction, while simultaneously proclaiming no belief whatsoever in an actual Diety.
I think i agree that Atheism is a faith system.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
We seem to be playing Wittgensteins word Games with atheist and Agnostic.I think i agree that Atheism is a faith system.
I was trying to illustrate something I've been thinking about for a while now. I'm convinced that theism and atheism are belief systems. I'm also convinced that God cannot be proven to exist by rational means. You, Reason, and maybe John Collins would call belief in God irrational. (correct me if I'm wrong)
It was proposed by a friend of mine, a committed Theist, that while belief is non-rational, it is not necessarily irrational. His major point being that existence and reality cannot be fully known through rational means; that the non-rational aspect is at least as valid as the rational. This non-rational aspect would be completely subjective and internalized to the believer.
Now while I can't prove that God exists by rational means, neither can I disprove it, so I would have to at least admit to and consider the possibility.
I'm having fun dancing around the Fideism Tree.
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by willyburger:
I'm also convinced that God cannot be proven to exist by rational means.
I would agree with this. In fact I consider it an article of my faith that God does not show Himself in any provable way, in order to preserve human freedom. (Convenient, heh, heh.)
But in one way, it is illogical to reject a belief in God.
Life passes very quickly - and then what? Maybe nothing.
But things such as near-death experiences strongly suggest that conscious existence continues in an afterlife. Not proof, of course. There are alternative explanations, but they are evidence none-the-less.
Logically, if you believe in God and live according to some religion - and then there is nothing when you die, what will be lost?
But if the reverse is true, and there turns out to be a heaven and a hell manifestly ruled by God - well there you are, um, maybe not in such a good spot. Or maybe with a merciful God it doesn't matter - but it just might.
A fun thing to think about - except that one or the other really is true, and within a very few years you are going to know.
The logical thing would be to be prepared.
But I guess you could make the same argument for building a bomb shelter.
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If you believe in God and live according to some religion - and then there is nothing when you die, what will be lost?But if the reverse is true, and there turns out to be a heaven and a hell manifestly ruled by God - well there you are, um, maybe not in such a good spot. Or maybe with a merciful God it doesn't matter - but it just might.
Freddy,
Accepting God as a sort of insurance policy? Is that what Pascal's Wager is?
Well, here's my response to that: If I accept God merely to obtain the goodies He offers and avoid the punishments he threatens, I am nothing more than a shallow sycophant. Anyone with any integrity would refuse such bribes and threats. For example:
Christ was in the wilderness, and Satan made him an offer; Christ could have everything if he would simply get down on his knees and worship Satan. And Christ said something to the effect of "No way, Jose."
And that's what I say to your proposal of accepting bribes from a supposed God. Essentially, religions have created a God that uses the same tactic as Satan did in the wilderness. "I'll give you everything if you bow down and worship me." But worse than that, there's an implicit threat: "And if you don't, I'll throw you into the Lake of Fire!"
But if I accepted God's threat/bribe simply to save my own hide from the tortures of Hell, I'd be losing my integrity in the process. I might make it to Heaven, but I will have been untrue to myself in the process, and find myself in eternity with a God I don't respect.
How can I not respect this God? Well....if He is a God that is going to punish people simply for being true to their own reason and intellect, He's not much of a God. He's more of a Big Meanie.
And if God is NOT a Big Meanie, well then, as you said, He'll welcome me with open arms regardless.
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
But if I accepted God's threat/bribe simply to save my own hide...
Well, when you put it that way it does sound pretty bad, doesn't it!
Still, something happens when you die - and I consider near-death experiences reasonable evidence that consciousness continues. I wouldn't think about this as a threat or a reward, it's just that expectations, such as that life does not end at death, have an inevitable effect on how a person thinks about life.
Still, it is true that a person has to be true to what they believe, and not be swayed by the opinions of others, and especially not by fear.
There is no objective falsifiable evidence.
No-one has produced any. That means it is reasonable to say that there is no God. I will admit it may be wrong, but it does not need faith to say that.
I will change my opinion if somebody can show me how it is reasonable to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence. Obviously, there will be no empirical grounds, but what about a philosophical argument to show that something that I accept as true I have no evidence for.
Now, I am an atheist because I have thought very deeply about the subject and come to the conclusion that there is no God.
I actually find it insulting to be told that it is a faith of mine or that agnosticism is more intellectually rigorous. It isn't. In some cases, agnosticism is intellectual laziness. It is not being willing to think the issues through. Not in all cases, though.
I will get off my soap box now. Everyone is more than welcome to ignore the above.
Now, onto confession time. My wife became a Christian over a year ago. She has been trying to convert me in a subtle way. To be fair to her, I have taken the trouble to seek out people that could answer the questions that I have. Her knowledge of the Bible isn't as great as mine (from my Evolution/Creation debating) and she isn't as well read on philosophy (but she has common sense, an awesome ability to keep our three children and me well fed/clothed etc and she also has a life) Hence, me ending up here.
It is impossible to categorise atheists, who, by their nature do not take a single authority as true. I have heard trying to organise atheists described as like trying to herd cats.
Plenty of credible studies have been done (Morse, Ring, etc.) which show that these experiences are amazingly consistent regardless of the beliefs or culture of the individuals involved.
I'm not saying that they are proof of anything. I also grant that there are reasonable alternative explanations besides the reality of life after death - such as that they are chemically based halucinations. I'm only saying that they are evidence that is both objective and falsifiable. Obviously the experiences themselves are not objective, only the consistent patterns of the reports.
This isn't direct evidence that there is a God - but it is evidence of a closely related concept, eternal life.
how can such a position be discussed at all?It's true that some people come to whatever position they hold through laziness but that holds for theists, atheists and agnostics equally. You obviously have done much thinking about the issue. You disbelieve in God because empirical evidence cannot be produced. Fair enough, but I gather you do not absolutely believe there is no God?
These are subtle differences but I believe they are able to be categorized. (as I said before, useful for purposes of discussion) I would propose the two views might be labeled hard vs. soft atheism. If those categories are acceptable, then I would state that hard atheism is definately a belief. Soft atheism would admittedly be less definable.
My original exercise was to posit whether the three views are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that someone who does not believe in God because of a lack of empirical evidence has arrived at atheism through agnosticism. I was trying to sharpen the distinction between belief and knowledge.
Sorry for all the categories.
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
There is no objective falsifiable evidence.No-one has produced any. That means it is reasonable to say that there is no God. I will admit it may be wrong, but it does not need faith to say that.
I have to disagree. Logically, it may bereasonable to say that it is possible/probable that there is no God. It is unreasonable to categorically say that there is no God, as this is not a logical conclusion. Lack of evidence for the existence of something is not proof of its non-existence.
quote:
Originally posted by willyburger:
I'm also convinced that God cannot be proven to exist by rational means.
Does anyone have an opinion on the position taken by Josh McDowell in "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" (ISBN 1-872059-05-8) that belief in Christianity is entirely reasonable, and may be argued on a completely logical basis? I must admit to being unable to spot any obvious flaws in his arguments...
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Lack of evidence for the existence of something is not proof of its non-existence.
I OWN AN INVISIBLE THIRTY-FOOT FIRE-BREATHING DRAGON. HE LIVES ON THE ROOF OF MY APARTMENT. I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN HEAR WHAT HE SAYS AND ONLY I CAN SEE HIM. LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF OF MY DRAGON'S NON-EXISTENCE.
EVERYBODY, QUICK! GIVE ME MONEY TO BUY MY DRAGON FOOD! IF YOU DON'T, HE'S GONNA BLOW FIRE ALL OVER NEW YORK!!!!!! 
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
EVERYBODY, QUICK! GIVE ME MONEY TO BUY MY DRAGON FOOD! IF YOU DON'T, HE'S GONNA BLOW FIRE ALL OVER NEW YORK!!!!!!
Now let me see, what's the balance of probability here...
(the mayors residence, for those not in the know)
Best make sure you don't have one, then!
I see no difference between your position and that of the agnostic vis-a-vis life on Mars.
There is no proof either way.
Semantics? Sloppy! "I don't believe in God" implies there is a God not to believe in, as you'll know.
Hedging bets? Mmmmmm possibly!
Requiring A Notable Sum Of Money?
Age old story.
quote:
See, I actually think that irrational belief systems are destructive and dangerous.
You indeed did well, to read into my CHARLIE impression as being elementary DECEPTION:
Deed Entails Covert Elusive Pretences That Is Otherwise Nothing.
Jokingly love.
That is what Descartes wondered. He thought he used quite a severe form of scepticism to throw out anything he could not be poeitively sure of. He obviously lived before TV, Computers, VR and the Matrix, so he used the idea that demons could be supplying the sense data to him.
He then realised that something must be aware of the sense data, even if it was fictitious. Whatever was aware of it was himself. So, he came up with "Cogito Ergo Sum".
I am afraid that is all we can be sure of. In fact, even that has been under attack since then. Instead of "I think therefore I am" it could be "There are thoughts, therefore something is" (see Russell "The problems of Philosophy" and Ayer "Language Truth and Logic").
So, you cannot even be sure that your own body exists, as that could be a figment of your imagination.
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins: I have met lots. I would claim to be one such.
John, please don't take this the wrong way, but judging by both your history of posting on the Ship and your website, I'd say that wasn't actually true.
Sure it is reasonable to say that, since I don't see God, therefore there isn't one.
It is equally reasonable to say that, since we exist, something or someone must have caused that existence.
Existence could be random, causeless and purposeless. But if I have a choice about what to believe, it is much more satisfying to me if cause and purpose are involved. After all, everything within creation operates on that basis. Why not exptrapolate?
I only wish that religion were a better vehicle for discussing that purpose in a rational way. Too often religion gets side tracked into mumbo-jumbo, and when you ask "why" you get a rap on the knuckles.
Philosophy trys to make sense of the world and remove as many assumptions as possible.
We can say that conciousness exists (using the Cogito). We can say that there is sense data.
We then have two options. The sense data is real (in the usual sense of the word) or the sense data is fictitious. If it is fictitious, then the fiction must be made by something.
We can say that if it is a fiction, it is remarkably good. The fiction works according to laws that we can fathom. That would point to a 'real' world but it is by induction, not deduction, so it is not known to be true, only very probably true.
There is no empirical way of finding out which is actually true, but we can apply Occams razor and remove the fictitious argument because a real world is simpler than a real world that is created as a fiction by something (this is not about God, who, if sustaining the world, is doing it as a fundamental part of reality, not creating a fiction for us all).
Solipsism (the belief that the world is just part of ones own imagination) fails the Occams razor test too.
So, we have a reasonable method of saying that the world is real.
Descartes having shown that we exist because we think said that the next thing that we could be sure of without a doubt was the existence of God. He claimed that only God could make reality follow laws, and that it was therefore impossible to be an atheist scientist!
Strangely enough, I am sceptical about that.
What I would question is whether these feelings are signs of anything other than my mind. I get a feeling of joy when listening to certain music, but that joy, though it feels greater than me, is contained within my mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
John, please don't take this the wrong way, but judging by both your history of posting on the Ship and your website, I'd say that wasn't actually true.
Hmmmm... We might be heading for a discussion like Humpty-Dumpty word definition here...
The experiences I had, which are mostly 15 years old at least, are far removed in time from my moving away from Christianity.
Obviously I would be lying if I said that there weren't lingering regrets about this and that.
I don't think there are many people on this board who can honestly say their experiences of churches and other Christians has been uniformly happy from day one.
All I can say is that I am sure for myself that it was bitterness at my experiences, whether you think them gross and that unstandable or otherwise. But I'm not a psychologist, least of all one capable of analysing myself.
I'm just very glad to be out of it. But I thankfully maintain friendships with plenty of people who wildly disagree.
To put it another way, the "I had terrible experiences so I left" is to me about as patronising as "Christians only stay in it because it gives them a nice warm feeling about a big guy up there looking after them".
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
It is perfectly okay to just make assumptions, but for a philosopher that isn't an option. Remember philosophy means 'lover of knowledge.'Philosophy trys to make sense of the world and remove as many assumptions as possible.
You can't avoid making assumptions.
Philosophers make assumptions.
The question is what kind of assumptions you want to begin from - because you have your choice among a variety of them.
I do not think that they count as assumptions.
By applying logic to our sense data, which is empirical data, a knowledge of the world can be built up. I think I have already covered this in teh post which talks about the use of Occams Razor
Willy
quote:
Are you convinced that empiricism is an adequate epistemology?
Yes. I see no reason that empiricism combined with logic is not adequate. I am willing to listen of you can show me any reason for thinking otherwise. Well, not any reason. I won't take your word for it or believe it just because a particular book says so. I mistrust my own subjective views on things, so I would mistrust your at least as much.
quote:
That Logic and Philosophy will never lead beyond that?
I cannot know this, as it is an inductive argument, but it probably won't.
And is empirisicm and logic adequate to explain Life, The Universe and Everything?
Yes. We have a good hypothesis for everything at the moment. Some things (such as the start of life) are more hypothetical than others, but we have enough to use as a logical, empirical system without needing to invoke anything greater.
I will repeat, if there is no evidence, then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Call me a logical positivits if you like, but that is how I am, until shown to be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Yes. We have a good hypothesis for everything at the moment. Some things (such as the start of life) are more hypothetical than others, but we have enough to use as a logical, empirical system without needing to invoke anything greater.
I'm not trying to invoke anything greater here. That being said, do you think we have a good explanation for the uncaused existence of the Universe?
What it boils down to is that it is not a valid question to ask "What happened before the universe?" No, this isn't a cop-out. Space and time did not exist before the Big Bang. So questions like 'where?' and 'When' have no significance.
Hawking describes it (in 'A Brief History of Time) as going to the North pole and when there asking where North is from there in terms of the Gobe you are standing on.
How did the Big Bang happen? Well, one idea is the 'Free lunch' theory'. That suggests that we are a quantum blip. There are virtual particles being created and destroyed all the time everywhere, and it is possible that the uiniverse is just such a one that has gained real existence due to the immense energy involved pulling it out of whatever there was bedfore the Big Bang. The physicist Paul Davies is a suporter of this view, and for evidence he states that gravity cancels out the other three forces. I am taking this from memory from a newspaper article he wrote about five years ago, which I have at home. I am sure Alan will correct my mistakes and misunderstandings.
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
Semantics? Sloppy! "I don't believe in God" implies there is a God not to believe in, as you'll know.
hmmmm...
i don't believe in the easter bunny. does he exist now too ?
i don't believe in a huge pile of gold at the bottom of my garden ( well its worth a try
d.
quote:
Originally posted by Akeldama:
(until finding faith in 1993) and I think that's because I was brought up in a strong Roman Catholic family and really resented missing Chopper Squad to go and sit in a draughty church hearing words that meant nothing to me. The schools I attended as a child never engaged the faith intellectually, you were just supposed to believe it. And I found, even at a very young age, I didn't believe a word of it. So you can imagine Sunday morning became a complete pain in the arse for me, as did Easter when we went to church nearly every day.
Most of the athiests I know are ones who have had bad childhood experiences of sitting in hideous services, listening to long, boring services and seeing people who apparently have no real interest in being there. I actually think one of the reasons I am a Christian today is because of my good experiences in church as a kid. We attended a real kid friendly church, the minister bought a whole bunch of plastic instruments and encouraged the kids to 'play' their own instruments during the singing - and we had really good childrens church, stuff to keep the kids attention and fully involve them in the life of the church. I recall church being the fun highlight of the week and I can still recall the Bible stories and stuff we learned - 20 years later! So sad that so many people have been turned off Church because of being forced to go to something so dire and boring.
[UBB corrected]
[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Well, I am actually a little further in than the blurb where I got that from.
If we consider the two sentence "martyrs suffer" and "martyrs exist" they are both grammatically the same, but we can speculate about their suffering, but we cannot speculate in the same way about their existence. This is because, as Kant said (as Ayer said!), existence is not an attribute. Existence is assumed in the sentence "martyrs suffer."
Then when we consider the lines "unicorns are fictitious" and "dogs are faithful" we see that dogs must exist in order to be faithful, but to say that unicorns must exist in order for them to be fictitious is contradictory.
What it amounts to is taking language further than is warranted.
I am one of the exceptions. Never went to Church as a child, my mum and dad were both non-believers (of course, that never influenced me ).
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Call me a logical positivits if you like, but that is how I am, until shown to be wrong.
Logical positivism seeks to prove a hypothesis by building up overwhelming objective data in support of it. Falsifictionism seeks to prove a hypothesis by looking for but not finding objective data that would contradict it. Generally speaking the two are seen as incompatible philosophies (although most scientists would work with elements of both). Does this mean you would accept objective positivist evidence as well as objective falsifiable? You seemed to understand Paul Davis' view pretty well. Since it takes energy to seperate two gravitationally attracted objects, gravitational attraction can be considered as negative energy. Davis' view is that the sum of negative gravitational energy and positive energy (mass and radiation) is zero. The universe is hence just a very interesting arrangement of nothing. Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle comes in 2 forms; the more famous is that you can't simultaneously know the precise position and speed of particles, but there is also a similar relationship between energy and time that means virtual particles can "borrow" energy from the universe - the more energy they have the shorter the time they exist for. A zero energy particle (or universe) can exist for eternity. Of course, virtual particles exist within a universe governed by the laws of physics, including Heisenberg uncertainty. It begs the question, if the Universe is some form of virtual particle, what does it exist in? and why does that something have to governed by the same laws as our universe?
Alan
quote:
So, you cannot even be sure that your own body exists, as that could be a figment of your imagination.
Now that COULD be the best news I've heard in ages!!!
quote:
What I would question is whether these feelings are signs of anything other than my mind. I get a feeling of joy when listening to certain music, but that joy, though it feels greater than me, is contained within my mind.
quote:
I will repeat, if there is no evidence, then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Call me a logical positivits if you like, but that is how I am, until shown to be wrong.
Epistemologies are still based on ontological assumptions.
quote:
Originally posted by doug:
i don't believe in the easter bunny. does he exist now too ?
Doug: No, the Easter Bunny is just make-believe. The Tooth Fairy is Real, though. Sadly, some people do not believe in Her because of negative childhood experiences. Some don't believe in her because they just never bothered to put their tooth under their pillow in the first place!
But anyone who has sincerely prayed to Her and established a relationship with Her knows that She is Real. We can't trust science in this.....we have to trust our feelings. When you pray to her, you'll feel and experience Her fairy magic. Sceptical Atheist and Me are both believers. Want to join?
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins:
To put it another way, the "I had terrible experiences so I left" is to me about as patronising as "Christians only stay in it because it gives them a nice warm feeling about a big guy up there looking after them".
Fair enough. Obviously, I don't know you, and despite previous discussions, I cannot really say that I could know how you tick.
I'm happy to leave it at that.
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
I see no reason that empiricism combined with logic is not adequate. I am willing to listen of you can show me any reason for thinking otherwise.
My old Psych Systems professor used to point out that none of the systems we studied were adequate to explain "feelings of warmth and intimacy."
Empiricism and logic are inadequate to explain this kind of thing. The human drive to understand such concepts as love and the meaning and purpose of life is fairly strong.
Empiricism and logic by themselves take you nowhere in this arena. However, if spiced up with a few metaphysical assumptions, they can be part of a pretty satisfying conception of existence.
quote:
Originally posted by doug:
i don't believe in the easter bunny. does he exist now too ?i don't believe in a huge pile of gold at the bottom of my garden ( well its worth a try
I don't believe in Warp Drive!! When do I get my Starship?!? Cool. This is better than shopping on the Internet.
Sorry, Gill.
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
<....>
Hawking describes it (in 'A Brief History of Time) as going to the North pole and when there asking where North is from there in terms of the Gobe you are standing on.How did the Big Bang happen? Well, one idea is the 'Free lunch' theory'<....>
Yup. I love reading Hawking and have no argument with his cosmology. I recognize the fallacy of talking about anything 'before' the Big Bang.
As an aside, S.A. or Alan, is the Free Lunch theory the same one that says the Big Bang is the result of a defect in the quantum vacuum?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It begs the question, if the Universe is some form of virtual particle, what does it exist in?
Don't you also have to ask what that precursor stage exists 'in,' ad infinitum. It seems that from an atheist or agnostic point of view, one must then either accept an infinite regress or at some point an uncaused cause as the beginning to the Universe.
S.A., previously I had asked:
quote:
That Logic and Philosophy will never lead beyond [empiricism]?
quote:
Sceptical Atheist:
I cannot know this, as it is an inductive argument, but it probably won't.
Doesn't the Free Lunch theory, in attempt to explain how the Universe came to be, already go far beyond what we can know empirically about the precursor state to the Big Bang?
Alan, is there a term for this thing we're trying to talk about or can it only be accurately described with mathematics? Saying the Big Bang sprang from some aether or continuum sounds like so much 1950's sci-fi.
Willy
Hey, I have a problem now.
Which is real-er - the Tooth fairy or Charlie? I have lots of gay friends so I guess I'd better stick woth the Fairy. Sorry, Charlie, it was nice knowing ya!
quote:
It is perfectly okay to just make assumptions, but for a philosopher that isn't an option. Remember philosophy means 'lover of knowledge.'
Philosophy trys to make sense of the world and remove as many assumptions as possible.
all philosophy starts from some basic premis which I would call an assumption other wise everyone would have come up with Identical philosphies
Each one of us posting here has underguiding assumptions that make us tick.
for instance my teenage atheism was based upon a fairly strong belief that i did not exist and simply a figument of an imagination (cheered up when i read about Berkeley) now am convinced that this is incorrect but no evidence has come my way to show me this i have I guess faith that this is so.
I am beginning to consider that what ever position we take it takes faith we might dress it up as reason and logic but it takes faith. Some one said earlier that agnosticism is generally lazy I probably agree but there are aohter agnostics who have come to that conclusion after careful thought.
SA said
quote:
I see no reason that empiricism combined with logic is not adequate. I am willing to listen of you can show me any reason for thinking otherwise.
Sounds a bit like Mr spocks approach to life which is some times shown to be incomplete
basically there is more to life than this.
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
Which is real-er - the Tooth fairy or Charlie?
Thank you for sinking your teeth into the Tooth Fairy question. Clearly, she is the only real One. Charlie is hypothetical. Sorry, Charlie! Other gods are just myths.
As a matter of fact, is this statement something people of all religions can agree on?:
ALL GODS ARE MYTHOLOGICAL EXCEPT THE ONE I BELIEVE IN.
quote:
I don't deny that the music is sense data, but if you are prepared to take the sense data as reliable, (in order to avoid a solipsistic meltdown) why suddenly assume that the more transcendant feelings it provokes are internalised and somehow less real? If you are prepared to explain this away, why not go the whole phenomenological hog and question the validity of the sense data itself?
I do not make any claims to necessarily trust the validity of sense data, but I do know there is sense data. There is a difference. I do not assume that transcendent feelings are internalised, I have no reason to think any other way. My feelings come from my brain, my brtain is inside my skull. What reason should be given to think any other way?
quote:
You demand empirical evidence for something that cannot provide it(proof denies faith and all that). I could get just as picky and say I only accept proof I see with my own eyes. This would mean I am unconvinced that the moonlandings took place 'cos I wasn't on them and the films, pictures etc could be fakes. At the end of the day, so called empiricists have to take stuff on trust and make assumptions like everyone else.
That would take scepticism further than even I would take it. I have reason to accept sense data as generally reliable. If I see a photo, I will take it at face value unless there is a particular reason not to. I do that with all my sense data. I can see no reason why I shouldn't. The photo's/films etc could be fakes, but what reason do you have to think so?
So, I will reiterate, I use logic, which I do not consider an assumption, but it would be a possible argument to take, and I would be unable to show the reason why I trust logic as it is self-evident. Maybe that is it, Question for you, is something that is self-evident an assumption? I have always thought not, but maybe….
quote:
you have faith that logical positivism is a better route to ultimate truth than theological revelation, spiritual experiences etc. But you can't prove this to be the case anymore than I can prove that Jesus wants me for a sunbeam Epistemologies are still based on ontological assumptions.
No, I cannot prove it, but I can provide an impressive amount of evidence that it can arrive at truth. I make no claims about 'ultimate truth' which, as I am mortal, is probably unknowable, which means I have little interest in that. I am interested in any truth that can get to know. There isn't enough time to even learn all of that!
Reason:
quote:
But anyone who has sincerely prayed to Her and established a relationship with Her knows that She is Real.
quote:
Empiricism and logic by themselves take you nowhere in this arena. However, if spiced up with a few metaphysical assumptions, they can be part of a pretty satisfying conception of existence.
I have a very satisfying conception of existence, thank you! It is more than enough to explain all the things that your prof. Said were unexplainable. It allows me to live a life of love, joy and contentment without causing any contradictions with the seemingly arid world-view.
Willy:
quote:
S.A. or Alan, is the Free Lunch theory the same one that says the Big Bang is the result of a defect in the quantum vacuum?
I think Alan explained that it is, the 'defect' isn't really a defect, but a 'feature' (I sound like a computer programmer now!) of the uncertainty principle. BTW Alan, did you know that Heisenberg was right at the spot I am now? I am not sure when though!
Alan has a point about why the whatever-was-before should behave why what-is-now. It is a point that I am stuck on. See, I don't know everything. Yet. .
quote:
Doesn't the Free Lunch theory, in attempt to explain how the Universe came to be, already go far beyond what we can know empirically about the precursor state to the Big Bang?
We know (or at least Paul Davies claims to know) the relative strengths of the forces, and that they cancel each other out. We know that QM shows that things that paricles and anti-particles that cancel out are being created all the time, so we have some evidence to suggest this as a hypothesis. That is not as good as a theory, but it is better than speculation.
quote:
Alan, is there a term for this thing we're trying to talk about or can it only be accurately described with mathematics? Saying the Big Bang sprang from some aether or continuum sounds like so much 1950's sci-fi.
I am afraid the sci-fi people have taken the terminology. We must talk of the 'space-time contimuum' if we are to be accurate when talking about space (at least in terms of extremes like huge gravity and high speeds). The aether is a little dated now, though.
quote:
It seems that from an atheist or agnostic point of view, one must then either accept an infinite regress or at some point an uncaused cause as the beginning to the Universe.
The theory of causation is one that some philosophers think is imposed by us on reality. It is also pointed out that it is an inductive argument so, there could possibly be exceptions. I will hide behind that at the moment, although it is unsatisfying, I have to concentrate on other points and consider that at a later date.
quote:
for instance my teenage atheism was based upon a fairly strong belief that i did not exist and simply a figument of an imagination (cheered up when i read about Berkeley) now am convinced that this is incorrect but no evidence has come my way to show me this i have I guess faith that this is so.
I also went through a time wondering about my very existence. I can now accept that sense data is evidence (not proof!) that there is reality. The discovery that I could not, even in theory, disprove 2+2=4 showed me that something was solid. I have yet to find out that this isn't the case, but it would make little difference now, I think.
quote:
I am beginning to consider that what ever position we take it takes faith we might dress it up as reason and logic but it takes faith. Some one said earlier that agnosticism is generally lazy I probably agree but there are aohter agnostics who have come to that conclusion after careful thought.
No. I would disagree. I would say that there is no faith in knowing that 2+2=4. I would say that there is no faith in saying that something is perceiving sense data. I label that 'something' as 'me'. That is a label for it, not an assumption. I was the one who said that some (I don't think I said 'generally' ) agnostics were lazy, and I wholeheartedly endorse your point that others have applied careful thought and come to that conclusion.
[/quote]
My point is that atheism is an emotionally easy and intellectually difficult stance.[/quote]
quote:
Sounds a bit like Mr spocks approach to life which is some times shown to be incomplete
basically there is more to life than this.
So, I have it emotionally easy because my emotional life is stunted? I sense a little misunderstanding about how fulfilling atheism can be as a world view.
My emotional life is full, my intellectual life is too. I do not like the implications of people think that something is missing from my life. I am a normal human being , if nerds are normal!
quote:
The theory of causation is one that some philosophers think is imposed by us on reality. It is also pointed out that it is an inductive argument so, there could possibly be exceptions. I will hide behind that at the moment, although it is unsatisfying, I have to concentrate on other points and consider that at a later date.
Fair enough. OTOH, wouldn't a logical positivist accept the validity of causation by the overwhelming demonstrability of it?
I struggle with the illogic of uncaused entities -- whether they be God or the Universe.
Willy
It does assume that QM worked before the BB, OK?
What we know about the universe is that there are parts of it that are unknowable. Just follow me a moment, please.
When the BB happened, the rate of expansion meant that the universe expanded quicker than the speed of light (though no one part exceeded that, of course). So, we live in one section of an even bigger universe. This means we do know we are part of a much bigger picture. Wait a sec, I don't know where this is leading myself.
Lets start again. I personally have no problem with a vacuum with virtual particels existing before the BB. As Alan pointed out (I think) the uncertainty principle means that virtual particles, which always appear in matter/antimatter pairs which annihalate, of immense energys can come into existence but only for a miniscule amount of time. If a pair of virtual particles appeared with immense energy, then, because of relativity, they would bend the space-time continuum due to E=MC2. If the energy was string enough they would be "pinched out" of the what-was-before and have a real existence outside anything that what-was-before could conceive. This is not prohibited by the laws of physics as we know them, because teh totality of energy in a particle-antiparticle pair is zero. So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) is not broken.
So, our universe could very conceivably be producing new universes all the time. Which leads to infinite regression, I guess.
So, in conclusion I can take the philosophical uncaused cause or the scientific (well based on known scientific) infinite regression.
Which is it? I don't know, but I prefer the scientific point of view.
Basically, I don't know, and I doubt I ever will, but there are possibilities that stop it from being impossible either philosphically or scientifically. That will have to do for now.
Cop out or what?
It seems to me that by "irrational belief systems" you actually mean "belief systems that I find unreasonable". I cannot think of a single belief that cannot be expressed rationally (including your fire-breathing dragon). It seems to me that belief is a completely subjective value judgement, entirely dependant on the information/experience/predisposition available to the subject. I have no doubt that the belief system which inspired the Final Solution (which may be expressed rationally) seemed entirely reasonable to Hitler. Do you agree?
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Freddy:I have a very satisfying conception of existence, thank you! It is more than enough to explain all the things that your prof. Said were unexplainable. It allows me to live a life of love, joy and contentment without causing any contradictions with the seemingly arid world-view.
SA, I think it is just great how you are willing to sit and respond to all these peppershot questions. This discussion has been pretty instructive for me.
I'm not meaning to question whether your concept of existence is satisfying. I'm sure it is just fine.
I am still curious as to how a monistic worldview accounts for "feelings of warmth and intimacy," and other questions such as:
What is the purpose of life?
What is the nature and cause of happiness?
What are a person's long run future prospects? Do you just disappear when you die?
Maybe the answer is simply - who knows, or who cares, or what does it matter?
If that is good enough, well, OK.
quote:
I am still curious as to how a monistic worldview accounts for "feelings of warmth and intimacy," and other questions such as:
What is the purpose of life?
What is the nature and cause of happiness?
What are a person's long run future prospects? Do you just disappear when you die?
Hey I'm an Evilutionist .
The purpose of life is to pass on genes. The cause of happiness is a hormonal change in the brain. Its nature is to make one feel good. Hmmm. Too reductionist.
We feel happy when our desires are met. This could be the basic drives or the "higher" desires. This can also be linked to gene carrying. A simple animal will follow its drives for food/sex etc in a basic way, that will lead to fulfillment. That could be described as happiness, and in a small way would bring warmth and fulfilment. Humans, having a distended cerebral cortex have an increased ability to feel this in a more abstract way.
A persons long term future prospects? Death and Taxes.
Do you just dissapear when you die? I see no reason to think otherwise (though I would like to believe otherwise, like I would like to believ I can fly).
Hey. Mr Logic!! What do you know that WITH? And can you rely on it?
Wot yer sayin', like? Have yer nivva seen a Tooth Fairy wearin' a Braw befooar?
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Thanks Willy! I point out that I don't know, and wil have to leave it, but you 'woouldn't let it lie' (in my best Vic Reeves accent).
It does assume that QM worked before the BB, OK?
<....>
Cop out or what?
No, not a cop-out. I think it's a sign of a growing, healthy worldview. I'd have more of an issue if one didn't admit to some assumptions.
Please don't feel that I'm banging on you about this. You're discussion has been going in the directions that I've been pondering so I just grabbed your tail, hung on tight and applied the goad.
I won't get into trying to refine the definitions of atheist, agnostic or theist again, as that went over like a lead balloon.
I was once convinced that logic and empiricism would eventually explain all, but I'm coming to the opinion that all worldviews proceed from one unprovable assumption, which is, what came 'before.'
(it just occurred to me that maybe the agnostic doesn't fit that definition. must go back to that.)
A theist presupposes God. Other metaphysical worldviews presuppose a spiritual realm of some type. Material monists, atheists et. al., presuppose a physical world only. I think we've come to the point where we can say that an atheist must take it on 'faith' (hehee) that there was either an uncaused event or an infinite regress. Davies' model is fascinating, but it makes me nervous simply becuase it sounds so much like a theological construct. (in general form, not the particulars)
You made the comment about intellectual laziness. I am trying to avoid that because I feel that among atheists that I hang out with, there is an infuriatingly glib acceptance of the party line. Scepticism of ones own scepticism isn't quite acceptable, you see.
Anyway, doesn't it all boil down to the competing presuppositions?
I have a reply to your thread "An Introduction" where I started thinking about this. I think I will go back to that and break it out into its own thread soon.
--
Hey! My 51st post! I should be a shipmate! Can I have some rum now?
Willy
I can see that you are constructively trying to discover my worldview, so if you want to rake up old territory I have no problem. Sometimes I get ratty and lash out when it seems like a fundy response. I forget that here people actually try and learn.
quote:
I feel that among atheists that I hang out with, there is an infuriatingly glib acceptance of the party line. Scepticism of ones own scepticism isn't quite acceptable, you see.
I guess you are probably right. I am glad to say I try and avoid that. I have about an hour ago found this note I wrote to myself in May:
quote:
I must be careful about pragmatism – It must not be used to accept things for which there is no evidence.
Check
1.Is there evidence?
2.Could there be, in theory, evidence against proposition.
So, for a pragmatic view, we must take one of the following attitudes towards a non-falsifiable position:
a. Reject it
b. Don’t waste time thinking about it.
Unless more evidence comes in.
That shows I think that I am sceptical about my own scepticism. It also shows that I need to get a life.
In the Introduction thread, I pointed out that my position of atheism was one that I could hold from a rational point of view.
If that is the case, then rationlly I can reject the God as first cause argument. It would be contradictory for me to say that God dosn't exist, but at that point in time when we cannot say anything, God caused it.
So, I can say I have reason to say that God was not the first cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I have no doubt that the belief system which inspired the Final Solution (which may be expressed rationally) seemed entirely reasonable to Hitler. Do you agree?
I believe Hitler used faith more than reason to validate the Final Solution:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolf Hitler, mein kampf
“"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."
-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich (1922)
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am still curious as to how a monistic worldview accounts for "feelings of warmth and intimacy,"
Neurotransmitters and hormones.
quote:
What is the purpose of life?
You are presupposing that there is a purpose.
quote:
What is the nature and cause of happiness?
Neurotransmitters and hormones resulting from the satisfaction of 'needs' which are nothing more than homeostatic mechanisms seeking equilibrium.
quote:
Do you just disappear when you die?
When the person dies, the brain dies. So, yes.
I'm feeling epecially monistic today.
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I believe Hitler used faith more than reason to validate the Final Solution.
Quite possibly. But the word I used was "reasonable", not "reason", and you appear to have completely avoided addressing my point...
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I believe Hitler used faith more than reason to validate the Final Solution:
These are early quotes. Are they not as likely to be attempts to keep his vile message cloaked in respectability to make it more palatable in the beginning? Did Adolf speak that way once he gained absolute power?
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Quite possibly. But the word I used was "reasonable", not "reason", and you appear to have completely avoided addressing my point...
Yes, Ham 'n' Eggs, what's reasonable to one person might strike another as unreasonable. You make a good point here. The same can be applied to faith.
quote:
originally posted by willyburger
Did Adolf speak that way once he gained absolute power?
“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”
-Adolf Hitler, 1944
SA asked, again, for OF evidence for the existence of God, I would like to turn this around and ask him for OF evidence of the non-existence of God. My worldview is based on the assumption that there is a God. I’m as sure about that as I am that anything exists – most of the time.
Reason (I think) said that one of the things that helped convince him (her? I’ve assumed Reason’s male, but I’m not entirely sure I’ve got evidence for that!) that sense data is real is that he couldn’t disprove even theoretically that 2+2=4. But I would like to assert that 2+2=11. Which is perfectly true – if you alter one of the assumptions of the system. 2+2=4 is true in a decimal system (in fact in anything from base 5 up) but it is not true in a base 3 or base 4 (where 2+2=10).
Reason
quote:
Well, here's my response to that: If I accept God merely to obtain the goodies He offers and avoid the punishments he threatens, I am nothing more than a shallow sycophant. Anyone with any integrity would refuse such bribes and threats.
I agree entirely. Reading this I ended up singing a hymn.
My God I love thee not because
I hope for heaven thereby
Nor yet because who love the not
Are lost eternally
I don’t believe in the hope of gaining ought or seeking a reward, but because God loves me and has revealed himself to us, ultimately in his Son, who died for us and rose again, by death destroying death.
God is truth and I believe that he values intellectual integrity; he has given us our intelligence, we are created in her image and should make the most of that. Better an honest doubter than a hypocritical sycophant. IMO at least!
Freddy
quote:
I would agree with this. In fact I consider it an article of my faith that God does not show Himself in any provable way, in order to preserve human freedom. (Convenient, heh, heh.)
Babel Fish! In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, there is a creature called a Babel fish – you put it in your ear and it translates any language for you. This is cited as evidence for the non-existence of God because it would constitute non-controvertible evidence but God wouldn’t provide such evidence therefore he doesn’t exist.
As to atheists having a bad experience of religion. Sometimes talking to Atheists I agree with them that I don’t believe in that god either. With that experience of God, it is most logical and honest to reject belief in him.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
Yes, Ham 'n' Eggs, what's reasonable to one person might strike another as unreasonable. You make a good point here. The same can be applied to faith.
I agree entirely. And that leads back to my original point about atheism.
Lets face it, logic doesn't exactly take us very far, does it. It doesn't equip us for everyday existance, in that it won't tell SA that when he walks in through his front door, the house won't collapse on his head. However, he can form a judgement based upon his experience of the material world, as to whether or not it is reasonable to enter the house.
Now most of us would make a (possibly glib) assumption here, and say that it would be unreasonable to be unwilling to enter a house, for fear that it may fall on your head. But suppose SA was just returning home from an evenings electrifying debate around the kitchen table with his good friend Optimistic Deist, which had concluded with the sudden collapse of the ceiling about their ears. He may therefore be now disposed to open and close his door rather more carefully than before, in case history repeats itself. He may choose to laugh off his experience, and assume that it is unlikely to ever happen in his house. Or he may become so concerned at the possibility that a greater injury might befall him that
he decides that he will sleep on his back lawn tonight.
OK, so you don't like the word faith. So let me use belief to describe the conclusions that SA is coming to here. I would maintain that it is impossible for anyone to get up in the morning, get dressed and go to work without exercising beliefs resulting from value judgements that we have made based on the information/experience/predisposition at hand.
Reason is not the precision instrument that infallably guides us. It is another tool in the box, albeit, a very important one. It has however, limitations, which need to be recognised. For example, reason seems entirely self-justifying by your definition. I doubt that you would think it valid to accept the truth of a belief system simply because it was self-justifying, but that seems to be exactly what you are doing with regard to reason.
Do you have any basis for your defence of reason that is not self-justifying?
At the end of the day, atheism is a belief system adopted, just like any other, as a result of a subjective value judgement based on the information/experience/predisposition available to the individual, and cannot be asserted logically.
As human beings, we cannot cope (particularly emotionally) with the tension of holding a matter unresolved (which would be the logical thing to do), so we find it easier to weigh up the options, and make our best guess about the matter. And that includes atheists!
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Hey I'm an Evilutionist
OK, well. I can see someone thinking all those things.
Kind of bleak and pointless - but that is only my opinion. It takes a kind of existential courage to accept the purposeless absurdity of the universe and yet soldier on.
Maybe I should state what I think, not to crusade for my own, limited, worldview or anything.
It seems pleasant and reasonable to me that the only uncaused entity is a God who is love itself. He created the universe in general, and the human race in particular, because the nature of love is to love something outside of itself - so He created something to love.
Other aspects of love are that its nature is to seek the happiness of what is loved, and also to somehow be joined freely to what is loved.
To my mind these essential attributes explain existence itself.
The name of the game, then, is the happiness and welfare of everything in creation, and being freely joined to God in heaven.
Evil and suffering are accounted for by the necessity of freedom on the part of humanity to accept or reject its Creator. Otherwise it is only an extension of the Creator, and not something separate. Working within this freedom, however, God gradually leads the human race away from things that cause hardship and pain. This is what knowledge and religion are all about.
The purpose of life, therefore, is to live a life of love and service to one another and to God, with happiness as the result. Happiness comes from being joined with God by the process of freely doing His will. Put another way, happiness comes from freely thinking, willing and acting in a way that is consistent with reality itself, or with the forces of the universe.
The long term prospects for each individual, and for humanity in general, are continual growth and development, increasing knowledge and usefulness, the continually expanding freedom and capacity to love, and therefore eternal happiness. This happens both in this life and after death in heaven forever.
Genes, hormones and desires are all a part of this, and serve the same basic ends.
When someone falls in love they really want to say "I will love you forever." The evolutionary need to reproduce, although certainly important, is not, in my view, an adequate explanation of that feeling. Becoming one with God and the universe, with love and eternal happiness as its fundamental driving force, is in my opinion more satisfying. It is in my opinion a more adequate explanation of what I observe.
I'm not saying this is all true. But I have heard no better explanation.
It seems to me to be a reasonable and hopeful point of view - all stemming from the assumption that there is a God and that He is love itself.
There are lots of reasonable alternatives. I think we have our choice.
quote:
SA asked, again, for OF evidence for the existence of God, I would like to turn this around and ask him for OF evidence of the non-existence of God. My worldview is based on the assumption that there is a God. I’m as sure about that as I am that anything exists – most of the time.Reason (I think) said that one of the things that helped convince him (her? I’ve assumed Reason’s male, but I’m not entirely sure I’ve got evidence for that!) that sense data is real is that he couldn’t disprove even theoretically that 2+2=4. But I would like to assert that 2+2=11. Which is perfectly true – if you alter one of the assumptions of the system. 2+2=4 is true in a decimal system (in fact in anything from base 5 up) but it is not true in a base 3 or base 4 (where 2+2=10).
If you want to assume there is a God, go ahead. I do not accept the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on the person saying something does exist. I cannot give any evidence to show that leprechauns don't exist, and I shouldn't have to. If somebody make the claim that they do, they need to present evidence for it.
It was me with the 2+2 quote. Just using binary doesn't work (that was my Dad's argument when I raised it with him). 100 in binary is equivelant to 4.
It is like saying that 2+2 doesn't equla four because when we say "four" we could say "quatre" (sp?). Changing the name of "4" doesn't alter the fact that 100 in binary = 4 denary.
quote:
OK, so you don't like the word faith. So let me use belief to describe the conclusions that SA is coming to here. I would maintain that it is impossible for anyone to get up in the morning, get dressed and go to work without exercising beliefs resulting from value judgements that we have made based on the information/experience/predisposition at hand.
This is known as induction. It is a valid, self-evident form of reasoning, but it is not 100% certain like deduction is. Bertrand Russell showed its limitations with the analogy of a chicken that had been fed by a Farmer for years, and so came to the conclusion that the farmer was a friend. One day the farmer wrung its neck!
It is known as the 'induction problem' by philosophers, but Karl Popper claims to have solved it. I am not too hot on the details, but I think it is basically that we can use induction to produce a theory, and then by using the theory we can continually check whether that theory is effective or not. If it continues to be valid there is reason to accept it.
My personal position (being a pragmatic person) is that apart from philosophers, no-body doubts teh fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that buidlings don't just fall down. That, I feel, is quite a reasonable position, but of course I could not prove it.
quote:
Reason is not the precision instrument that infallably guides us. It is another tool in the box, albeit, a very important one. It has however, limitations, which need to be recognised. For example, reason seems entirely self-justifying by your definition. I doubt that you would think it valid to accept the truth of a belief system simply because it was self-justifying, but that seems to be exactly what you are doing with regard to reason.Do you have any basis for your defence of reason that is not self-justifying?
I do not claim that reason is infallible. I do claim it is the most effective method.
Reason is based on logic and the 'laws of thought' (see the 'introduction' thread' from way back when). The whole of science os based on the application of reason. I trust it because of its effectiveness, not for any dogmatic "reason". I am sceptical about the application of reason, but when I apply critical thinking to it, it stands up to scrutiny. It is not perfect but it works.
When you switch a light switch and the bulb doesn't work, your first thought (after retrying the lightswitch) will probably be 'the bulb has gone'. That is the application of reason.
quote:
so we find it easier to weigh up the options, and make our best guess about the matter. And that includes atheists!
I agree, but I can present you all with what I accept ansd what would change my mind. I can also publicly say that I could be wrong and say that I am willing for others to show me I am.
Believers cannot do that. They do not set up any system for showing that they coudl be wrong. There is no criteria for failure.
That to me is a flaw in any system. My system is falsifiable. Yours isn't.
I love your worldview. It is so 'warm and friendly'. I admit mine is bleak.
That does not bother me at all. It is better, in my opinion, to not fall into falsehood than to allow unecessary assumptions to creep in.
What I do object to though is your making happiness dependant on a relationship with God. That is unwarranted, IMHO. I have no realtionship with anything higher than myself. In fact I reject even the concept of God, but I am happy. Probably happier now than ever before in my life (and my life has been good).
quote:
Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
What I do object to though is your making happiness dependant on a relationship with God. That is unwarranted, IMHO
Yes. Sorry. I didn't mean to say that a person can't feel happiness if they don't believe the right thing. Anyone can feel happiness.
Still, to put that idea another way, happiness can be viewed as the result of coming into harmony with the order of the universe. A fulfilled need is an example, since a felt need is a signal that things are not as we would like them to be. The need's fulfillment restores equilibrium, and brings happiness.
This works with or without God. But if you see God as synonymous with the order of the universe it adds a non-random, rational dimension to the process. Unfortunately, it also means that there is no real happiness without God.
Admittedly, however, happiness is a quirky and unpredictable quality that is not easily subjected to rules and regulations.
Oh! No WONDER I've been puzzled! I've been reading that as [B] monastic!!
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
I've been reading that as monastic!!
And there is no doubt plenty of warmth and intimacy in monasteries!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It takes a kind of existential courage to accept the purposeless absurdity of the universe and yet soldier on.
Freddy: You are absolutely right. I actually think you've hit on one of the main reasons that mankind has created his many theologies.
In a sense, our creation of dieties, from Allah to Zarathustra, has been designed to give meaning to what otherwise might seem absurd and pointless. All through history, Gods gave the answers to mans' most important questions: Why are we here? What happens after we die?
If you consider the plight of the Jews, as a nomadic people, Moses needed to create a God that was "theirs" and through reading the Old Testament, we can almost feel the comfort it must have given the Jews in an otherwise absurd world where they were often given the raw end of the deal. Their exiles, their enslavements, now had meaning.
However, just because a concept gives people comfort doesn't mean that the Thing itself is true. Children love and believe in Santa because he's jolly and loves children and rewards good behavior at the end of the year. One might say, "Christmas without Santa would be rather bleak and existential," so let's keep Santa. But, um, let's admit that he's just pretend, okay?
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
But, um, let's admit that he's just pretend, okay?
I once asked my little niece who Santa was. She said that he was an angel that God sent out to celebrate His birthday. I thought that was cute. I have no idea where she got it from.
The thing is that I really think that there is a God. So do most people on earth. It is more than a comfort thing - I consider it to be an objective reality. It is also one that sooner or later everyone will find out about, when they leave this life. The evidence exists, it is merely hidden during a person's lifetime, so that they can make a free choice to live as they truly wish.
Does evidence that happens only after death count as OF evidence? 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Does evidence that happens only after death count as OF evidence?
Yes. But I won't be discovering that evidence (if any) until I die. At that time, I will be open to admitting that my earthly philosophies may be in error in light of any new-found evidence.
But until that time, the evidence is that there is no God or Gods and immortality is a human desire, but not a truth.
I was just considering going for the cheap laugh, and asking you if "sceptical Atheist" was not a tautology.
But I admire your honesty and determination, and feel that it would show you more respect to read up the threads you mention, bone up on a bit more philosophy, and then ask the myriad of questions that I have for you...
quote:
It takes a kind of existential courage to accept the purposeless absurdity of the universe and yet soldier on.
quote:
You are absolutely right. I actually think you've hit on one of the main reasons that mankind has created his many theologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
I find this kind of reasoning pretty insulting. Trying to dismiss theology as an anodyne for those lacking in existential courage is a lot of Nietschian hooey.
Wulfstan: Sorry to insult. What is Nietschian hooey to you is common sense to me. If what strikes me as truth is insulting to others, should I refrain from expressing it?
If people on an island with a volcano in the center of it create a Volcano God who is highly unpredictable, arbitrarily releasing red-hot lava on Its followers; chances are a lot of their creed is going to be about comforting them and trying to explain the Volcano God in ways that will give the villagers more sense of empowerment and security.
Perhaps the Volcano God needs a virgin sacrificed into the mouth of the volcano every full moon. The villagers try this, and find that it's TRUE, when they give the Volcano God His virgin....he doesn't pour the lava on them!!!! (Well, most of the time, anyway.)
Or maybe I shouldn't accuse these villagers of "creating" a Volcano God for their own purposes, as this would offend them.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And then if there really was a volcano god, there you would be with egg on your face.
Or worse....LAVA on my face !
Depends which thread you're on...
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
If what strikes me as truth is insulting to others, should I refrain from expressing it?Depends which thread you're on...
Speaking as host ...
Gill is right. In this thread and some others (the Skeptical Atheist's "Introduction" and the current "Hypothetical" threads, for example) the existence of God is not taken as a given; it is in fact the subject of the debate. That religion is an anodyne is a common idea, and however unpalatable it may be to us who are Christians (and to other people of faith), it is certainly within the realm of acceptability in discussions about the causes of belief and unbelief.
None of our resident atheists have expressed a negative view of religion or Christianity on threads where it would be inappropriate to do so, and I'm sure they are far too courteous and reasonable (pun intended) to do so.
Purgatory host
quote:
From SA:
My personal position (being a pragmatic person) is that apart from philosophers, no-body doubts teh fact that the sun will rise tomorrow...
Nobody except astronomers, or anybody who knows anything about the Newtonian physics of the solar system.
Seriously though, why do you place so much wieght on your cognitive faculties? It seems to me that nealry everthing that comprises the memories of your (or anyone else's) life have absolutely no evidence for them.
You just know them.
I'm not sure what your conk is, nor how to get up it. (and I don't think I wanna know)
quote:
I think the volcano god example is a bit too specific to be generally applicable though. In that instance there are activities being performed that are(presumably) morally offensive to you: i.e. ritual murder. I'm not aware of such activities being peformed in English churches....
I don't think that's a reasonable distinction to draw. History has many examples in which the Church condoned (and sanctified!) killing. Give the Volcanoites a couple of millenia to develop a few theologies along with some schisms and they may ultimately find parts of their history as distasteful as Christians find with parts of theirs.
Willy
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Others may disagree, in which case pitch in.
Okay.
The Volcano God is much more prosaic. I admit that the problems listed above are much more personal/social than the villagers simple fear of lava. Guilt, the fear of death and the unknown, the desperation to feel loved, and the suspicion that life is meaningless....these are our lava. And most Christians confess that God does give them solace. Just like the Volcano God gives those villagers. Well, except when He's erupting!
. Like your theory however, the evidence would be circumstantial. The line of atheistic argument seems so far to have been that atheism is the product of logic and a scientific outlook. Your justifications of the "spiritual anodyne" theory hardly constitute empirical proof.quote:
Originally posted by David:
Why do you place so much weight on your cognitive faculties?
It does seem strange that if reasoning is important, it is unimportant that life has no cause, purpose or meaning beyond evolution. Why is logic of any value within a system that is ultimately illogical?
A belief in God invests the whole shebang with glory. Surely it is far more logical than courageously facing the absurdity of life.
quote:
Believers cannot do that. They do not set up any system for showing that they coudl be wrong. There is no criteria for failure.
I can't avoid having a system whereby I could be wrong - my system for being wrong is that I am mad. This would explain my experiences of God, which are the one thing that I could not explain as coincidence if I tried hard enough, as delusions. That would work.
I can't function on the assumption that I'm mad, though, so I assume I am not. However, if provided with sufficient evidence, I would at least possibly conclude that I was, although I'd likely remain sceptical for a good while.
To me the experience of God I have had is real. I can't take it out and show someone, and I can't say for sure that I have not made it up myself. I could be wrong...although I do have faith that I am not.
The Shadow Lover
P.S. Maybe I should see a shrink? The trouble is, I doubt I could find an unbiased one, so it wouldn't resolve the question of my madness or otherwise!
