|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Arguing for atheism by arguing against theism
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A pop culture analogy from Fred Clark:
That whole article is very relevant to this thread, as well as several others that we've had over the last month or so. Especially the way it shines a big spotlight on the "something happened, we don't know what caused it, therefore IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD!!!" process of "reasoning".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Or as a waspish friend of mine intones: it's a nice sunny day, therefore Roman Catholicism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Interesting that I gave my reasons for making my claim about atheism, none of which have been refuted. I would have thought that the judgment of irrationality should have come after debunking someone's arguments, not before.
That is likely the wonkiest bit of reasoning you have used on this thread.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
Except that atheism is not a worldview.
So if atheism is not a worldview - and therefore implies nothing beyond the bare assertion that "God does not exist" - then I suppose it must be possible for an 'atheist' to believe that there is an intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the whole universe, and that life was created by this person, as long as he doesn't call this creator 'God'!
After all, if atheism is not a worldview, and implies nothing conceptual and metaphysical, then it must be possible for an atheist to believe in intelligent design by an uncreated designer, intelligent first cause and to affirm all the moral, epistemological and ontological concepts normally associated with, say, monotheism, as long as the word 'God' (or equivalents in other languages) is never used!
In some cultures people address their prayers to 'spirits' rather than Gods. I suppose that theoretically, such people could be called atheists, if the concept of God, as we understand it, makes no sense to them. We read of the folk-Catholicism of the Middle Ages; it had little use for God, and was directed primarily towards various saints, or towards various spirits and sprites from pagan times.
Perhaps, in the future, much atheism will be of this type: little if any perception of 'God', but with a rich sense that certain shadowy entities might be called upon to help us in particular situations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Sigh. Rejecting a concept does not require one to insert another concept in its place. You're still acting as if we need to be able to answer every single possible question in order for you to consider our worldview valid.
Depends on the context. If we are talking about the basis of reality, then I guess my point stands. After all, if someone doesn't accept the concept of, say, a star existing at the centre of our solar system to give heat and light, then, if he bothers to think at all, he really needs to come up with some other explanation as to why we have heat and light. It's not compulsory, but if he gives any impression of being a 'thinker', then it's really not a lot to ask, is it?!
quote:
Why are you so afraid of "we don't know"?
What gives you the impression that I am? Evidence please. I am certainly not afraid to say "we don't know". It may possibly have occurred to you that I am not omniscient, and therefore I cannot but say "we don't know" for most things in life! However, it is ludicrous to suggest that we can know nothing at all about anything. If you assert anything at all to be true, then I could equally ask you: "Why are you so afraid of 'we don't know'?" !
It's not really much of a question, is it?
(By the way... I assume you will have the integrity to ask the same question of Croesos, following his hyper-confident pronouncements concerning the Big Bang!)
quote:
And I notice that you've given up on the whole ridiculous "when my God creates something it's intelligence, but when any other God does it it's magic" line of argumentation. Probably for the best.
I've given up on it, because I have already answered it.
By way of analogy, I made the distinction between the workings of my car being the result of intelligent design and manufacture (by Fiat, as it happens) and the idea of the car functioning through the actions of little invisible men under the bonnet. In my illustration, Zeus sending lightning bolts is equivalent to a little man in the workings (because such an agent ignores the normal laws by which the system should function), whereas the intelligent and eternal creator of the universe is equivalent to the car manufacturer.
There is a huge difference between these two explanations. Can you really not see it?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
That is likely the wonkiest bit of reasoning you have used on this thread.
You may perhaps like to explain why.
But it's not compulsory!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To put it as simply as I am able:
The value A is "not B"
You say A is actually ("not B" + C) and if you subtract out the C, A = B. As long as you relabel B as fruit bat.
[ 28. February 2013, 17:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, one of the interesting ideas coming out of this thread is the possible hook-up between atheism and various world-views. It seems to be a mixed bunch.
For example, the link with materialism seems to be one way - if someone is a materialist, you might predict they would be an atheist, but not v.v.
But I suppose this is not strictly correct, since you might have a version of theism, in which God is a material being, as some Mormons seem to.
The same with naturalism - it predicts atheism, but atheism does not predict naturalism. But again, I have heard of people working on a naturalistic theism.
Then you get a kind of goulash of stuff - such as animism, Buddhism, dualism, neutral monism - which neither predict atheism, nor are predicted by it. I suppose you might argue that Buddhism tends towards atheism, but I don't think this is absolutely correct.
In other words, atheists can have any damn view of reality they want, except one containing God, and including having no view.
So I suppose you might get 'spiritist' atheists, who believe the world is populated by all kinds of spirits, or is made up of spirit, in fact, some Buddhists seem to get close to this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Buddhism* is more properly non-theist than atheist. Much of the view of the West is informed by Christianity, even for non-Christians. It is very much Christian/Not-Christian. This dipolar view makes an ill fit for other religions/philosophies.
*Like all religions/philosophies, Buddhism has variation amongst its adherents.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
A rose by any other name...
Very telling that you ignored the third paragraph of my post, which anticipated your objection!
The answer I gave further down was
quote:
In my case It would be replacing "God did it" with "I currently don't know why the universe exists".
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Rejecting a concept does not require one to insert another concept in its place. You're still acting as if we need to be able to answer every single possible question in order for you to consider our worldview valid. Why are you so afraid of "we don't know"?
Some concepts. But not others. For example, if you're going to behave ethically and not just follow social consensus on autopilot, you need to have some sort of underlying theory about what the point of ethics is. (Take ethics here to cover all normative judgements: the idea that all one's beliefs should be justified by reason is in this sense ethical.)
If you're going to argue that, say, property rights or other rights are prior to and not granted by government you have to have some underlying account of what rights are and how they fit in with the rest of human life.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
None of that need be "moral" or "ethical."
Practicality takes care of most things, even local charity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl
Interesting post.
I have to say that atheism would be more interesting to me if it wasn't always being reduced to New Atheism - this Anglophone, intellectual thing that goes on about science and logic, and being utterly rationalistic about everything. Oh - then there's that constant refrain about how evil religion is, which doesn't make much sense if the argument is that religion only evolved because it was useful to mankind!
(Well, maybe something can be both evil and useful. Still, that changes the anti-religion argument a bit...)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
To put it as simply as I am able:
The value A is "not B"
You say A is actually ("not B" + C) and if you subtract out the C, A = B. As long as you relabel B as fruit bat.
Or let's put it another way...
I am out walking in, let's say, the Yorkshire Dales, and as I look up at one of the many rock faces, I see a large image of a man accurately carved into the rock (somewhat similar to the accuracy of the carvings on Mount Rushmore in the USA). It's a stunningly accurate portrayal of that great Yorkshire cricketer, Geoffrey Boycott, bat and pads included. Now inevitably I will ask: what caused this?
Let's call the image 'M' (for 'man').
And let's call the cause of the image 'C'.
Now I consider the accuracy and complexity of the carving, and I propose that an intelligent agent sculpted this. I'll call this type of cause: 'C(I)' (for "cause-intelligent"). So C(I)-->M
But a friend of mine with whom I am walking does not think much of that theory and he declares himself to be an "An-intelligent-ist". He simply refuses to believe in C(I)-->M.
Now I suppose we could just leave the discussion there, but I ask him concerning his explanation for this phenomenon. He responds by saying that he doesn't have an opinion at all, other than just rejecting C(I)-->M. Therefore it is incumbent on me (so he says) to prove C(I)-->M, but there is no burden on him to prove [NOT-C(I)]-->M.
But I protest and argue that [NOT-C(I)]-->M implies C(N)-->M (for "cause-nature" caused M). Nature alone did it, because there are no other possible explanations. Either an intelligent being sculpted it, or it was 'sculpted' entirely by the laws of nature without any intelligent guidance whatsoever.
This rather annoys my friend, who walks off in a huff, having declared that he does not need to explain himself at all: "NOT-C(I) does not mean C(N). It means NOT-C(I). End of. In fact, it could just mean 'I don't know!'!!"
Now I am puzzled by this, so I run through the options of [NOT-C(I)]-->M:
1. C(N)-->M - nature did it.
2. We don't know the cause.
3. There is no image in the rock and we are both hallucinating.
If #1, then my friend the "An-intelligent-ist" has a position, on which there is a burden of proof.
If #2, then my friend is not an "An-intelligent-ist", because his agnosticism implies that C(I) could very well be true. So he is both a potential "Intelligentist" and "An-intelligent-ist, and thus it would be absurd to describe himself with only one of those terms, to the exclusion of the other. To exclude either of those terms from his self-identification is to admit that he does know, and is committed to either C(I) or C(N).
If #3, then there is nothing to explain, and if we realise that this is merely an analogy for reality as a whole, then that means that nothing exists at all, including ourselves.
Therefore "An-intelligent-ism" implies C(N) --> M, which is a specific 'positive' viewpoint, on which there is a burden of proof. My "an-intelligent-ist" friend needs to explain how nature alone could create Geoff Boycott in the rocks, because he has rejected the only other possible explanation.
Please do try to find some fault in my logic, because I certainly can't see one!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The practice of science or scientific rationality is held by many people as a kind of spiritual ideal. As an example, if you look back at old Doctor Who, in general when the Doctor meets a scientist that scientist will be the most reasonable person around, unless they are outright mad.
And here I'm simply going to say that you are twenty or thirty years older than I am. Note the "If you look back at old Doctor Who" - that's a lot less true than in nuWho where the scientists are more than likely to be either (a) villains trying unethical experiments, (b) messing with things they shouldn't in a "Once the rockets are up who cares where zey come down" manner or (c) deluded and trying to find mundane explanations for aliens.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
...the position that atheism is a world-view, or entails one, is an irrational one, and hence, not susceptible to argument.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, be it irrational or otherwise!
Interesting that I gave my reasons for making my claim about atheism, none of which have been refuted.
Your "reasons" are too trivial to be worth bothering with. I'm going to give an example of how silly they look.
There is an invisible pink elephant who lives in my house and steals my socks at night. Which is why I so often can only find odd socks. So you don't believe there's an invisible pink elephant - but this in no way rules out you believing in an invisible pink thing with a long trunk and flapping ears that weighs a quarter of a tonne and saying that you're a-invisiblepinkelephantist.
See how silly that argument is? It's exactly the argument you're putting forward. Well, that, and as I mentioned before and your attempt to add complexity by playing with the tools of symbolic logic, you've rediscovered Palley's Watchmaker.
And your a-intelligentist friend isn't refusing to believe that C->M. He's actually looking at M, and pointing out that
1: You've only seen this so-called statue from half a mile away.
2: That "head" that you claim looks like Boycott is simply an example of humans seeing faces in just about anything.
3: Those pads you're talking about? Two shrubs, 100 metres apart. And if you walk over here you can see that they are two separat shrubs.
4: If you walk the other way, you can see what's actually behind the pads. A column of rock. Nothing like Boycott's legs.
5: You need glasses.
Whether or not C->M is irrelevant if M does not exist. And it doesn't. Even a cursory study at a distance less than half a mile, and staying in line with your optical illusion, shows that if M exists the sculptor was singularly inept. And even if from one angle and at one distance and without a telescope it looks something like a statue of a cricketer, the whole thing is an optical illusion.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Yeah, pretty much.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Indeed. It doesn't matter how good or bad the logic is, if the presuppositions are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The practice of science or scientific rationality is held by many people as a kind of spiritual ideal. As an example, if you look back at old Doctor Who, in general when the Doctor meets a scientist that scientist will be the most reasonable person around, unless they are outright mad.
And here I'm simply going to say that you are twenty or thirty years older than I am. Note the "If you look back at old Doctor Who" - that's a lot less true than in nuWho where the scientists are more than likely to be either (a) villains trying unethical experiments, (b) messing with things they shouldn't in a "Once the rockets are up who cares where zey come down" manner or (c) deluded and trying to find mundane explanations for aliens.
I did say that there had been a change. And I thought that the change wasn't so much that the ideal had gone away as that it had been pushed out of place by anti-scientific ideals. Roughly speaking, I'd say that the ideal of scientist as hero - call it technocratic - became sufficiently establishment to be worth reacting against. Fancifully I would correlate the change with a right-wing politician with scientific training taking power.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of that need be "moral" or "ethical."
Practicality takes care of most things, even local charity.
In so far as practicality is something that people ought to be and often aren't, I'd include it under ethical.
Even the ideal of practicality is questionable. Should one go for long-lasting material satisfactions: house, family, status, self-respect; or short-term intense hedonistic satisfactions, with a different kind of self-respect or self-forgetfulness. (And if you enjoy the present moment, do you let it happen or seek out intensity of experience?)
I'd say more about the underlying metaphysics and picture of human existence. But put this in a strong form. From a Buddhist perspective, the ideal of practicality is an illusion anyway, yes? It's confusion chasing after suffering. From the perspective of economic rationality, practicality is common sense and any deviation from it is a positive ideal that has to be proved (or assimilated). But from a Buddhist perspective, practicality is the thing that's an unjustifiable positive ideal.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quetzalcoatl
Interesting post.
I have to say that atheism would be more interesting to me if it wasn't always being reduced to New Atheism - this Anglophone, intellectual thing that goes on about science and logic, and being utterly rationalistic about everything. Oh - then there's that constant refrain about how evil religion is, which doesn't make much sense if the argument is that religion only evolved because it was useful to mankind!
(Well, maybe something can be both evil and useful. Still, that changes the anti-religion argument a bit...)
I find the anti-theism of the Gnus marginally interesting. It's a common cry, where is the Sartre/Camus/Nietzsche of today? Today, we get Harris saying that morality can be explained scientifically! O tempora, o mores.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. It doesn't matter how good or bad the logic is, if the presuppositions are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.
I thought I'd expand still further.
Under formal logic
If C(I) -> M and M is false then so is C(I). The -> symbol is the material conditional. Therefore when EE says that C(I) -> M and M turns out to be not true, so is C(I).
Also we're talking about C(I) -> M because we've already disproved C(I) -> A, C(I) -> B, C(I) -> C, and so on. In the words of Tim Minchin, "Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." As of the two dozen supposed direct consequences of C(I), twenty of them have been shown to be out and out wrong and none of them have shown to be right, why should we believe C(I) this time? It's a hypothesis with a 0% hit rate so far, and has been offered for just about everything.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did say that there had been a change. And I thought that the change wasn't so much that the ideal had gone away as that it had been pushed out of place by anti-scientific ideals. Roughly speaking, I'd say that the ideal of scientist as hero - call it technocratic - became sufficiently establishment to be worth reacting against. Fancifully I would correlate the change with a right-wing politician with scientific training taking power.
I'd disagree for several reasons. The first is that the same change happened in the US - and their right wing politician was a B movie actor. I would, however, call it a consequence of overreach by the Logical Positivists and of promising the earth and delivering ... a lot but nothing like that which was promised. Of course the post-modernists in turn overreached (doesn't every group?)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. It doesn't matter how good or bad the logic is, if the presuppositions are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.
I thought I'd expand still further.
Under formal logic
If C(I) -> M and M is false then so is C(I). The -> symbol is the material conditional. Therefore when EE says that C(I) -> M and M turns out to be not true, so is C(I).
This isn't taking what Marvin said farther; this is a completely different point. You're talking about denying the consequent, which is a formal logic form; he's talking about starting with bad premises, which is outside the scope of formal logic. Validity versus soundness, in specific that part of unsoundness that comes not from invalidity but from bad premises.
quote:
Also we're talking about C(I) -> M because we've already disproved C(I) -> A, C(I) -> B, C(I) -> C, and so on. In the words of Tim Minchin, "Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." As of the two dozen supposed direct consequences of C(I), twenty of them have been shown to be out and out wrong and none of them have shown to be right, why should we believe C(I) this time? It's a hypothesis with a 0% hit rate so far, and has been offered for just about everything.
There appears to be some confusion here about "disproving" a conditional. If we have C(I) -> M and prove ¬M, that would only prove ¬C(I) if we know for a fact that C(I) -> M. On the other hand if we know that C(I) is true, then it merely disproves the conditional C(I) -> M. In short, what are you arguing for? Are you saying that disproving C(I) -> A, C(I) -> B, and so on, disproves C(I) (which is reaching)? Or just that we have been given a string of disproven conditionals, and we should be wary of any future conditionals of the form C(I) -> P for any given P (which is more reasonable)?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did say that there had been a change. And I thought that the change wasn't so much that the ideal had gone away as that it had been pushed out of place by anti-scientific ideals. Roughly speaking, I'd say that the ideal of scientist as hero - call it technocratic - became sufficiently establishment to be worth reacting against. Fancifully I would correlate the change with a right-wing politician with scientific training taking power.
I'd disagree for several reasons. The first is that the same change happened in the US - and their right wing politician was a B movie actor. I would, however, call it a consequence of overreach by the Logical Positivists and of promising the earth and delivering ... a lot but nothing like that which was promised. Of course the post-modernists in turn overreached (doesn't every group?) [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
he's talking about starting with bad premises, which is outside the scope of formal logic.
Don't say that to EE - he seems to think that "logic" is a valid answer to the question "how sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
he's talking about starting with bad premises, which is outside the scope of formal logic.
Don't say that to EE - he seems to think that "logic" is a valid answer to the question "how sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?".
He's just a parallel postulate away from apostasy, then.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of that need be "moral" or "ethical."
Practicality takes care of most things, even local charity.
In so far as practicality is something that people ought to be and often aren't, I'd include it under ethical.
Even the ideal of practicality is questionable. Should one go for long-lasting material satisfactions: house, family, status, self-respect; or short-term intense hedonistic satisfactions, with a different kind of self-respect or self-forgetfulness. (And if you enjoy the present moment, do you let it happen or seek out intensity of experience?)
I'd say more about the underlying metaphysics and picture of human existence. But put this in a strong form. From a Buddhist perspective, the ideal of practicality is an illusion anyway, yes? It's confusion chasing after suffering. From the perspective of economic rationality, practicality is common sense and any deviation from it is a positive ideal that has to be proved (or assimilated). But from a Buddhist perspective, practicality is the thing that's an unjustifiable positive ideal.
Wasn't speaking from a Buddhist perspective, as this thread is about atheism.
I was speaking mostly about laws and general societal interaction. Human social interaction can be seen as based upon practical considerations. Murder, theft, trespass, etc. Whilst there have been morality-based laws, those can be dispensed without destroying the fabric of society.*
BTW, ethical=moral. Or at least, ethical~moral.
*despite some of the current caterwauling.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Your "reasons" are too trivial to be worth bothering with. I'm going to give an example of how silly they look.
There is an invisible pink elephant who lives in my house and steals my socks at night. Which is why I so often can only find odd socks. So you don't believe there's an invisible pink elephant - but this in no way rules out you believing in an invisible pink thing with a long trunk and flapping ears that weighs a quarter of a tonne and saying that you're a-invisiblepinkelephantist.
See how silly that argument is? It's exactly the argument you're putting forward. Well, that, and as I mentioned before and your attempt to add complexity by playing with the tools of symbolic logic, you've rediscovered Palley's Watchmaker.
No, my argument is not silly at all, and my reasons are certainly not trivial.
Your example of an invisible pink elephant is a straw man argument when applied to the argument concerning the existence of God. This is a common type of analogy offered by atheists (particularly of the 'new' variety), but it is really quite absurd. An invisible pink elephant is an entirely trivial and inconsequential idea, unlike the idea of the intelligent creator of the universe. Not believing in the theory of the existence of the invisible pink elephant has no implications whatsoever, and therefore the denial of this construct could be called a non-position, on which, of course, there can never be a burden of proof.
However, when we look at reality, and the systems and structures that make up the universe, we could say that they were ultimately the work of an intelligent agent. We may perhaps not be able to identify this agent, but we could surmise that such an agent existed. The alternative is to deny that an intelligent agent was involved, and therefore we would have to explain the cause of all phenomena in terms of natural laws alone - operating without any intelligent guidance - and also we would need to explain the origin of those laws themselves in these terms.
That was the point I was trying to make concerning my analogy of the statue in the rock. Your idea that it could be an optical illusion is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily have given the example of the very real sculptures on Mount Rushmore. We happen to know that they were, in fact, sculpted by an intelligent agent (or agents), namely the artist who created them, but suppose we did not know that? Suppose we looked at these sculptures for the very first time and asked what caused them? There are really only two theories: either an intelligent agent created them (a human sculptor), or they were the incredibly fortuitous result of natural erosion. Either the cause is intelligence or it is non-intelligence, the latter meaning natural causes alone.
So it follows logically that if someone rejects the intelligent agent theory, then, by a simple process of elimination, he has to commit himself to the only alternative theory, namely, the non-intelligent natural theory. The fact that the intelligent agent - in the case of Mount Rushmore - was human, is completely irrelevant. I am talking about the distinction between intelligence and non-intelligence.
Thus what is true of Mount Rushmore, or the fictional statue of Geoff Boycott in the Yorkshire Dales, is also true of reality as a whole. Either it's the result of intelligence or non-intelligence. If intelligence is the ultimate creator, then we are talking about an absolute intelligence, which is pretty much a definition of God. If the idea of God (absolute intelligence) is rejected, then, by a process of elimination, reality must have been 'created' by non-intelligent factors. And this last theory is a definite and positive position, which constitutes a worldview at a basic level.
Because 'God' is not a trivial concept, then it follows that the denial of 'God' is also non-trivial. Profound implications flow from both 'God' and 'not-God'. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that atheism does not imply a definite view of reality (at a basic level - root and trunk, rather than branches and twigs), and wrong to say that a lack of belief in God is in the same epistemic category as lack of belief in the invisible pink elephant.
As for William Paley's analogy: it's only wrong in the minds of those who want it to be wrong. Just loudly and persistently claiming that something is fallacious, does not necessarily make it so. It is perfectly sound to infer the intelligent causation of a complex and intricate functioning system, especially as we have no empirical knowledge of the staggeringly improbable (and more likely impossible) alternative.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because 'God' is not a trivial concept, then it follows that the denial of 'God' is also non-trivial. Profound implications flow from both 'God' and 'not-God'. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that atheism does not imply a definite view of reality (at a basic level - root and trunk, rather than branches and twigs), and wrong to say that a lack of belief in God is in the same epistemic category as lack of belief in the invisible pink elephant.
Once again, the straightforward claim that your particular pet theory is exempted from normal standards of proof because it's so gosh darn important. Self-declared importance is not the same as demonstration and is no substitute for evidence. Just as there is no royal road to geometry, there is none for logic either.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for William Paley's analogy: it's only wrong in the minds of those who want it to be wrong. Just loudly and persistently claiming that something is fallacious, does not necessarily make it so. It is perfectly sound to infer the intelligent causation of a complex and intricate functioning system, especially as we have no empirical knowledge of the staggeringly improbable (and more likely impossible) alternative.
The internal contradictions in Palley's watchmaker analogy were apparent almost as soon as it was formulated. The basic reasoning goes that if we find a watch on a beach its inherent complexity and order is in contrast to the simplicity and chaos of its natural surroundings, therefore we can classify it as the artificial creation of an intelligent agent. Palley then goes on to reason that the pattern and orderliness of the natural world means . . . wait, just a second ago nature was simple and chaotic and now it's inherently ordered? If nature is complex and ordered, then what distinguishes the watch from its natural surroundings? Palley's watchmaker analogy, essentially a much more compact form of EE's ramblings, depends on being able to switch between two contradictory understandings of the natural world. Couple this with a definition of "complex" that essentially boils down to personal ignorance and incredulity, and you've got something that's superficially convincing but crumbles at closer inspection, hence EE's insistence that the normal rules don't apply to examinations of his pet theory.
[ 01. March 2013, 17:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
God is indeed a trivial concept to some atheists. The consequence of not believing is the same as believing, from an atheist's perspective. Why is your perspective (or mine) any more deserving of special consideration?
The Pink Elephant absurd? No more so than trying to prove god(s).
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But from a Buddhist perspective, practicality is the thing that's an unjustifiable positive ideal.
Wasn't speaking from a Buddhist perspective, as this thread is about atheism.
I was merely using Buddhism as an example. The point is that what considers itself to be common sense and an absence of a perspective, looks from somewhere else like a perspective in its own right.
quote:
I was speaking mostly about laws and general societal interaction. Human social interaction can be seen as based upon practical considerations. Murder, theft, trespass, etc. Whilst there have been morality-based laws, those can be dispensed without destroying the fabric of society.
Whereas I'd say that trespass laws are transparently there for the benefit of landowners rather than for society. The kinds of things that a society thinks it is protecting out of practical considerations tell you something about what the ideals of that society are.
(Incidentally, I'm not sure under what definition of 'moral' moral is equivalent to ethical but excludes murder.)
quote:
BTW, ethical=moral. Or at least, ethical~moral.
A number of philosophers make a distinction. Moral covers things obligations, duties and generally what things are or aren't forbidden or mandatory. Ethical covers ideals: for example,, is it better, more fulfilling, more admirable, more deserving of respect to be a yuppie or a hippie? That would be an ethical question not a moral question. (Assume both yuppie and hippie obey the laws.) Moral is the right; ethical is the good.
There have been repeated attempts to establish a general theory of political obligation as based upon moral considerations while neutral towards all ethical considerations. ('The priority of the right over the good' is how John Rawls phrased it.) On examination, they all covertly smuggle in some ideal of the good - whether noble (Rawls' autonomous deliberating agents) or less so (the rational wanting machine of most right-libertarian economic theory).
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, my argument is not silly at all, and my reasons are certainly not trivial.
Your example of an invisible pink elephant is a straw man argument when applied to the argument concerning the existence of God.
...
An invisible pink elephant is an entirely trivial and inconsequential idea, unlike the idea of the intelligent creator of the universe. Not believing in the theory of the existence of the invisible pink elephant has no implications whatsoever
You mean if I don't leave a saucer of milk out for the elephant he won't be likely to crush me in the night? Is that what you mean by implications?
quote:
However, when we look at reality, and the systems and structures that make up the universe, we could say that they were ultimately the work of an intelligent agent.
If they were ultimately rather than proximately the work of an intelligent agent then your claim is significantly more trivial than my invisible pink elephant. If they were proximately the work of an intelligent agent (with a twisted sense of humour) then we can check the handiwork. And whether there is evidence of the handiwork of such a being. It turns out that there isn't. And every time some evidence has been offered it has turned out to not work. To the point that the most recent time a biologist offered such an idea in a court of law, after his misapprehension of biological science was shredded. the conservative Christian judge declared his arguments to be "breathtaking inanity".
You have fiction on your side. The fiction that there is a statue that looks exactly like a cricketer. But the cold hard fact of the matter is that every time there has been a test which would show the presence of an intelligent designer the test has either been inconclusive or congruent with the result that there isn't one.
quote:
That was the point I was trying to make concerning my analogy of the statue in the rock. Your idea that it could be an optical illusion is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily have given the example of the very real sculptures on Mount Rushmore.
No. My comments about your analogy are not irrelevant. Your entire analogy about the cricketer is irrelevant because the cricketer does not exist.
You are claiming that if a cricketer exists that has to have been created by a sapient agent it's evidence that there was one. The rebuttal is simple. Literally every such artifact found has been the work of either humans or animals. That every time we've investigated claims of a supernatural agent or irreducible complexity they've turned out not to be needed is telling. Your idea has been tried many times with a 0% success rate.
quote:
There are really only two theories: either an intelligent agent created them (a human sculptor), or they were the incredibly fortuitous result of natural erosion. Either the cause is intelligence or it is non-intelligence, the latter meaning natural causes alone.
And we know humans did it. No one is denying that humans are intelligent agents. We just have not found one single such case that requires an intelligent supernatural agent.
quote:
If intelligence is the ultimate creator, then we are talking about an absolute intelligence, which is pretty much a definition of God. If the idea of God (absolute intelligence) is rejected, then, by a process of elimination, reality must have been 'created' by non-intelligent factors. And this last theory is a definite and positive position, which constitutes a worldview at a basic level.
And as there is no evidence that we have that is consistent with an intelligent agent and not with a lack of one, and plenty with a lack of one we can say that the creator is incredibly unlikely to exist. Tests for a creator have a 0% success record and a 100% failure or inconclusive record.
Now, are you going to follow the logic through and come and join the atheists? Rather than the side that has never been right and needs to create fiction to make its case?
quote:
Because 'God' is not a trivial concept,
The Creator is a trivial concept merely needed to kick off the big bang. It just creates. The non-trivialities are things you've grafted on.
quote:
Profound implications flow from both 'God' and 'not-God'.
Not really. Deism is its own thing and all it says is "There is an entity that triggered the big bang but the universe behaves consistently with there being none". The practical difference between deism and atheism isn't there. For all practical purposes God isn't there in a deistic system.
Profound implications flow from specific conceptions of God. If there was an active creator, we then need to know the nature of that creator. We need to know the nature of the creator of the Bubonic Plague and birth defects. If there is a God, profound implications flow from the nature of God.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Dafyd,
Ethics and morals are both systems guiding behaviour, what is "right." Yes, some do apply them with variation, but the debate is far from one-sided. Tan vs taupe.
Trespass affects anyone who is not homeless, not just landowners. Still shows what we value, though. Note: I am not making a good/bad judgement on what society considers valuable enough to encode into law. Just that moral/ethical need not be the drivers. Indeed, they may just be the expression of said practicality.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Hughwillridme. You reckoned 'there is experimental evidence which suggests that thinking supernaturally doesn’t develop until age seven or so – and that prior to that it is absent – which suggests the ability to think supernaturally is learnt rather than default. It is, of course, clear that we are evolutionarily predisposed to believe whatever authority figures (including parents, preachers, priests, peers and teachers) tell us, which explains why we learn to accept silly ways of thinking and then to copy them.
Nah. Have a look at these scientific studies
Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake [/QB]
Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake
Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?
[/QB]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake
Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?
[/QB]
indeed.
But it's not really an effective challenge to Hugh's stated view that supernatural belief is learned rather than inherent. Parents are only the primary authority figures in a child's life. Wider society soon kicks in - TV, teachers, peers, etc. A child learns all manner of things from them.
And anyway, the link-cited Mr Barrett concludes,
quote:
...children have naturally-developing receptivity to many core religious beliefs...
(My italics)
The only quibble would be over the age at which that begins to manifest.
[ 03. March 2013, 22:53: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I would posit that it is the natural curiosity in humans that this is truly being observed. The search for the how and the why.
Unfortunately, the only proper tests are unconscionable.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake
Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?
indeed.
But it's not really an effective challenge to Hugh's stated view that supernatural belief is learned rather than inherent. Parents are only the primary authority figures in a child's life. Wider society soon kicks in - TV, teachers, peers, etc. A child learns all manner of things from them.
And anyway, the link-cited Mr Barrett concludes,
quote:
...children have naturally-developing receptivity to many core religious beliefs...
(My italics)
The only quibble would be over the age at which that begins to manifest. [/QB]
My point exactly. I doubt the urge to make an el shape with your fingers so they look like a gun is a genetic rather than social nurture.
There's a wonderful moment in the Ken Burns documentary about the Wright Brothers. They have some film of the evening supper after the successful flight at Kitty Hawk. The narration ponts to the children who are holding their arms up like wings and running around and points out that these are the first children ever to do this.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The narration ponts to the children who are holding their arms up like wings and running around and points out that these are the first children ever to do this.
Really? I'd have thought at least a few children would have imitated birds before then...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
No before then they flapped their arms.
Not when they were gliding.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Returning to the OP - "Arguing for the non-existence of God by arguing against the existence of God" doesn't sound that ridiculous, if a tad tautological.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Returning to the OP - "Arguing for the non-existence of God by arguing against the existence of God" doesn't sound that ridiculous, if a tad tautological.
"Returning to the OP," how quaint.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is it actually allowed? Surely it must contradict some rule somewhere?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not so much a rule, methinks, as it is simple courtesy.
What comes of letting the commoners participate, I suppose.
Let's indulge him for a mo.
Karl, the idea of sentence itself might not be unreasonable, but it isn't what the opening post really argues.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
What amuses me is the number of people using the thread to argue for theism by arguing against atheism!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
No before then they flapped their arms.
Not when they were gliding.
This was the first time they were pretending to be airplanes. They may have raised their rams before pretneding to be birds or angels or ornithopters.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Too many analogies...
...
and one more
Humans, like all animals, are curious. But whereas other animals merely divide that which they encounter into pleasure/pain, food/not-food; we have developed an elaborate language which enables us to transmit complex ideas. And the corollary to curiosity is answers.
Two thousand years ago people were no more stupid than they are today (Yes, I know that's not saying much), but they were ignorant; they lacked the information we have today. For example in medicine, Illness was believed to be the result of an imbalance in the humours, a curse, evil spirits, too much blood etc.. Some-one may have suggested that it was the result of microscopic organisms, but such a view would be no more valid than any other as there were no means whereby to confirm such a diagnosis. Consequently, treatment was either largely ineffective or at worst, accelerated one's demise.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.
No,
a perfectly reasonable answer is to say that we lack sufficient information to make any plausible answer.
Ignorance
This is what distinguishes atheism - we're not afraid to simply say: "We don't know".
We do not need an answer to many of the questions raised here as much as some obviously do.
S-E
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That stuff about the ignorance of ancient peoples confuses knowledge with wisdom. Sure, they weren't too hot on quantum mechanics, but there is plenty of wisdom in their literature and culture. I'm not religious in order to acquire knowledge about stochastic processes, but in order to be here now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Ignorance
This is what distinguishes atheism - we're not afraid to simply say: "We don't know".
We do not need an answer to many of the questions raised here as much as some obviously do.
S-E
'We?' Are you speaking for all atheists, including those who think they do know - as science fills in all the gaps, or soon will?
As religion raises more questions than answers, questions wrestled with in each generation by people far less ignorant than me, where is the evidence to indicate that religious people need answers any more than any other group of people?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
