|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Belief and Disbelief in God, Fairies etc
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm setting this new thread up to provide scope for a separate discussion on the developing tangent in the "Dawkins" thread. Such issues as whether Atheism is a faith, whether there are differences between disbelief in God and disbelief in fairies seem to point to a desire to explore belief and disbelief in the supernatural.
I suggest those of you who were enjoying the exchanges on the Dawkins thread re-gather here - please feel free to post any links to posts from that thread if you want to.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 21. June 2010, 17:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Originally posted by Matt H:
quote:
Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not believing in fairies is a religion. Do you understand my point now or are you going to insist I'm talking about something else?
I think that there is a definite disanalogy between not believing in God and not having hair.
I'll start with the fairies. Why don't I believe in fairies? Well, for one thing, I'm pretty much a materialist. (I believe in the real existence of things like the real existence of mathematical objects and God that don't have a material basis - but that's because they don't have any basis. Neither God nor the set {rational numbers} are made of anything.) If fairies are made of matter - I don't see how they could hide themselves in a country with the population density of the United Kingdom. Nor could they exercise many of the abilities attributed to fairies in stories. On the other hand, if fairies are not made of matter that contradicts my commitment to materialism.
In short, the difference between me and a believer in fairies isn't just that they have an extra belief that I don't have. I have beliefs that the believer in fairies doesn't have and can't have.
The comparison of atheism to baldness falls down for that reason. You cannot produce a coherent belief system either by taking an atheist belief system and adding God, nor by taking a theist belief system and taking away God.
Now I'd agree that atheism isn't well-described as a faith though.
quote:
And it seems my original point has been lost on you, which is that all it takes to be an atheist is to not believe in god; it doesn't require rationality.
Noted.
But I think you made your original point in a way that attracted this tangent. I suppose that the reason I want to respond to your point is that in the way you phrased it it is:
a) a mischaracterisation of belief in God (it's not atheism with extra bits added);
b) a way of shifting scrutiny to religion while leaving humanism or postmodernism or Randian objectivism or whatever the atheist does believe unscrutinised.
(Reposted to this thread.)
--------------------
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
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Originally posted by Matt H:
quote:
[qb] Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not believing in fairies is a religion. Do you understand my point now or are you going to insist I'm talking about something else?
There was a thread sometime back in which a poster said something to the effect of this:
quote:
There is a substantive difference between not believing in God and believing that there is no God.
Both are atheists, but one is [at least close to] holding a faith position.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
As I said above, faith is trust in God. You can't trust in not-God.
Dawkins has stated that eliminating religion will affect the world for the better.
'Believing that there is no God' doesn't imply anything either way about whether you think eliminating religion will make the world better. (Except in so far as you think it's intrinsically bad for people to believe things that are false, regardless of effects on happiness.)
quote:
I don't think he has demonstrated any proof for that position; so to me it's a belief.
Nitpick: I wouldn't use the word 'belief' like that. As far as I'm concerned, justified beliefs, proven beliefs, and unjustified beliefs are all equally beliefs.
quote:
Of course he uses all sorts of rhetorical tricks to prop up his assertion, like disassociating himself from anything bad done by atheists because they did not do it 'in the name of atheism', while holding everyone with a faith responsible for anything bad ever done by anyone with a faith; but that isn't proof.
Now I would agree that this is Richard Dawkins playing dishonest rhetorical tricks, and he's misusing the claim that atheism isn't in itself a belief position to do that. It doesn't mean that all uses of the claim are misguided.
quote:
As Matt's posts demonstrate, you can't say anything about atheism without getting into first principles about what it is, which in effect prevent anyone who holds that position from accepting any critique of anyone because they are an atheist at all.
There's no such thing as what atheism is. That's because there are a lot of different atheisms, and they don't have anything in common with each other. Not even not believing in God, because the difference between two different types of atheism can be a lot more profound and a lot deeper than the difference between one of those types of atheism and Christianity.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In these kinds of discussions, folks are often arguing at cross purposes because they start from different understandings or emphases on a key word.
Take the word faith. There are various definitions in that link and it's possible that some of you may have others in mind. But the notion that some of you have that atheism (or some kind of atheism) is a faith may be based on a definition of faith which may be different to the one Matt H brings to the discussion. So I reckon it's good to try and clarify terms.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's no such thing as what atheism is.
That may be true - in the way you explain - though clearly there is 'such a thing as atheism' in the sense that we are discussing it.
If 'there's no such thing as what atheism is', does that mean there is 'no such thing as atheism' and therefore it can't be discussed?
In the sense that there is no one characteristic that all atheists can be said to share, that applies to a lot of other things as well, arguably including Christianity but in practical terms it doesn't stop us discussing them.
When I look on the Dawkins site and related sites there is a clear sense of identity with something shared which people are being encouraged to embrace and come out as embracing.
It would be somewhat disingenuous for someone to run a campaign to encourage a group he identifies as 'atheists' to publicly identify themselves as belonging to that group but then to say that no such concept as atheism exists.
Hence your statement
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's because there are a lot of different atheisms, and they don't have anything in common with each other. Not even not believing n God, because the difference between two different types of atheism can be a lot more profound and a lot deeper than the difference between one of those types of atheism and Christianity.
is not applied by Dawkins and those supporting his 'out' campaign to what they are calling 'atheism' - so I don't see why it should apply to anyone wanting to discuss 'atheism' as a grouping in general terms, regardless of the individual differences you point out.
[ 27. February 2010, 14:32: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I would say that atheism, like religions, is a worldview. It's one of the basic assumptions through which we view the world. And that it is an unproveable axiom within that worldview. But all systems have their unproveable axioms.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Even if you define atheism as an absence of belief in God or the 'supernatural', you are still saying something very positive about your belief in the universe as being ultimately self explanatory which seems to me to be a statement of faith.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm not sure that works. Standing as I do on the shoulders of generations of dissenters, the statement "I do not go along with that" doesn't make it clear what "I do go along with".
As part of my "swotting" for the Trinity thread, I'm re-reading Karen Armstrong's historical survey entitled "A History of God". A N Wilson's review comment is quoted on the back page of my (paperback) copy and says.
quote:
This is the most fascinating and learned survey of the biggest wild-goose chase in history - the quest for God.
If people have given up on the chase - or see no point in it - I find it hard to accept that such givings up are themselves either statements of faith or steps on an inexorable journey to a particular and identifiable world view.
I think Dafyd's view of this is very reasonable.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think theoretically, atheism, "I do not believe God exists" and antitheism "I believe God does not exist" are separate, in a sense unrelated, self-descriptions.
However I think in the real world they inhere in many of the same people, and although the former (atheism) probably doesn't really give rise to actions or to other beliefs, the latter can and does. I think it's probably not too difficult to kid oneself that one's relationship to The Big Question falls under "atheism" but not under "antitheism" -- just as believers in various faith traditions don't recognize or own all of their many subbeliefs.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] I'm not sure that works. Standing as I do on the shoulders of generations of dissenters, the statement "I do not go along with that" doesn't make it clear what "I do go along with".
I think in this case it does - simply because there are only those two options - either there is something beyond the universe or something within the universe which accounts for its existence. Now the second option may have a lot of variances within it i.e. there may be many different theories as to how the universe is self explanatory, but the end point will be the same - that in some way the universe explains itself.
[ 27. February 2010, 18:00: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
I think the question of what believers and (some) atheists have in common is a very interesting one. Discussion on the topic tends to founder on atheism being a 'belief' or 'faith'. Faith along the lines of believing without proof' is probably the wrong word. Belief is probably wrong in many cases as it implies something active rather than passive. Faith in the sense of believing something to be the right way of viewing the world might be more appropriate. I wonder if this 'faith', however, is often more placed in, say, scientific empiricism than in atheism itself.
I think it's interesting as the same people can turn from staunch believers to staunch atheists or vice versa. You could say they are simply seeing the light, but is there something more that can be said about it: what is similar in their world-view?
I agree with what Dafyd says about atheism representing many differing views. Talking about 'don't-care-not interesteds' as being a form of faith doesn't work, but it might be more pertinent for activist-types. Perhaps the adequacy or use of language is at fault.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
Is there not an emotional element to deeply held beliefs/world views? Is it this that makes atheism appear to have some of the characteristics of religion, or atheists some of the characteristics of believers in religion?
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Ćbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
I think that for most atheists, the problem arises that they have no central "beliefs". There is no document that they point to as what you have to "believe".
If you ask most Christians, they can give you one. (The Bible,Catechism, or other lengthy document.)
Of course that's also the problem for me with equating God with fairies. Where's the "I believe in Fairies" Catechism??
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
The 'out' campaign could be seen as an attempt to create a 'brand' to rival or parallel faith groups - it encourages people to wear a trademark red 'A' symbol and to identify as 'atheists'.
Of course neither Dawkins nor anyone else is authorised to make such a decision on behalf of other 'atheists', so he is relying on people wanting to be identified with something because he is asking them to.
Incidentally I remember from another discussion - maybe here - that the word 'atheist' is not neutral, since it defines someone in terms of God. But I don't know if there are any preferable words.
And that seems to sum up the problem really. You can't organise without an organising principle of some sort.
I can understand that 'not belief' is not an organising principle or a characteristic, but if that's the case I can't understand what basis RD.net had for existing in the first place.
The claim that it was an 'oasis of reason' - reason being a positive attribute that theists are assumed not to possess - seems to have been blown out of the water by recent events.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Atheism often looks like a religion to me. So many of its adherents spend so much time proselytizing. In the practical, pragmatic, almost materialist sense, they are a faith, a religion.
Where I have to deal with them, on the ground, in the trenches of life, practically, pragmatically, in the material world -- they fit the same behavioral/conversational receptors as religious people. They speak in the same frequency. They are just as earnest or funny, hateful or stupid, without-a-clue or perceptive, as any religionist, for the same exact interpersonal reasons.
I don't have learn a different language to deal with them, 'cause the dealing-with-churchers tongue is 100% adequate.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
I don't believe in fairies, but I don't typically go crusading about it either. If someone else wants to believe in fairies, I'll would try to discourage them. I would do this because it's against my religion though.
Otherwise I wouldn't care.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
The claim that it was an 'oasis of reason' - reason being a positive attribute that theists are assumed not to possess - seems to have been blown out of the water by recent events.
I should think that the idea of reason being something that theists do not possess was blown out of the water by Thomas Aquinas. Among many others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QJ
Shipmate
# 14873
|
Posted
How about "agnostic?"
My son was dating a German Girl and she said "I do not believe in God. I look around and do not see God anywhere."
My son said "I look around and see God everywhere."
I don't think she had a belief, nor was she against a belief.
And who says there cannot be fairies? I don't believe they exist, but i base that on them not being in the bible. However, in the bible is a talking donkey, sorcerers, witches, cherubim (what they heck are they) and seraphim (again, what the heck are they) and angels, arch angels, the devil and his angels. All those hevenly beings are seldom seen by people except in old books. How about a chariot from heaven? How about manna? Lots of hard to believe stuff.
You can't really fault athiests for not believing in the fairytale of christianity. If it was so true, why are all the churches arguing about what is true?
--------------------
QJ
Posts: 111 | From: PA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I know plenty of reasonable atheists, I also know some very unreasonable Christians (and vice verca)
I think when anyone starts to think that theirs is the 'one true way' they are closing their minds to possibilities - and there are always possibilities.
I don't believe in the supernatural - but I do believe there's a gret deal of 'not yet discovered' natural!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I should think that the idea of reason being something that theists do not possess was blown out of the water by Thomas Aquinas. Among many others.
So would I.
But if it's axiomatic that theists are unreasonable - which it seems to be in the Dawkins world view - then nothing a theist says counts.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Dawkins looks and sounds like a religious zealot to me.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
While it's accurate in one sense to say that atheism is an absence of belief, rather than an belief, no-one is just an atheist, just as no-one is just a theist.
Firstly, anyone who self-identifies as an atheist has gone beyond a simple absence of belief, and is rejecting whatever concepts of God that they have come across.
Secondly, everyone has a worldview. Just as someone is not merely "theist", but Christian, Muslim, or a worshipper of Thor, or whoever, with a whole way of understanding the world that goes with that, no-one is merely "atheist", but secular humanist, Marxist, logical positivist, materialist or whatever. If you don't believe in God, then you'll still have some belief or philosophy by which you make sense of the world, which will happen to be atheistic.
Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
...everyone has a worldview. Just as someone is not merely "theist", but Christian, Muslim, or a worshipper of Thor, or whoever, with a whole way of understanding the world that goes with that, no-one is merely "atheist", but secular humanist, Marxist, logical positivist, materialist or whatever. If you don't believe in God, then you'll still have some belief or philosophy by which you make sense of the world, which will happen to be atheistic.
Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.
It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.
Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.
But atheists have a problem in that theism seems to have got there first in all world societies. So their position is inevitably a defensive, reactive one, hence the very name, which mostly comprises a word that is the antithesis of what they claim to be. As such, atheists often find themselves in the tedious position of being called to address such ridiculous circular arguments as 'if there's no god how can you say you don't believe in Him?'. (Previous posts noted in this respect.)
While there is some refuge in subsections like 'secular humanist','logical positivist', etc, there really is a need for a term which is more comprehensive, and a stand-alone statement on what non-god-imaginers agree on. I note some bands of atheists have taken to calling themselves 'brights', which says nothing about their position, sounds a bit like a breakaway homosexualist lobby, and seems further to be a cheap shot at theist 'retards'.
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief. From that point, we can lend uncritical credence to other points of view or demand evidence of them as we see fit. It seems like an incontrovertible bedrock for non-god located opinion. (I say I've coined it: it hasn't shown up in any google searches that would indicate its pre-existence.) Occasionally, I bandy it around internet discussions like this one in the hope that others will agree that it makes sense. If you do, please pass it on. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.
Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.
Even if atheism is the default position, I don't think this is an argument for its truth. Much of what we value in human life is the result of education and later social influences - including the sciences.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.
Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.
Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?
I think Buddhists can start anywhere - in fact, they have to start where they are, even if that leaves them with a concept of self that much modern science and philosophy is undercutting.
As regards the question raised in the OP: fairies, supernatural or otherwise, are, or were, or would be (if they existed) beings. There is a theory, for example, that belief in 'the little people' stems from encounters with the first inhabitants of Britain. Be that as it may, God is not a being.
If there is no evidence for a being, then that strongly suggests that no such being ever existed, and - especially if there is no evidence of any remotely similar kind of being ever existing - that is a strong argument for not believing in it.
The same does not apply to any concept of God that a rational adult might appropriately hold - of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm setting this new thread up to provide scope for a separate discussion on the developing tangent in the "Dawkins" thread. Such issues as whether Atheism is a faith, whether there are differences between disbelief in God and disbelief in fairies seem to point to a desire to explore belief and disbelief in the supernatural.
I think atheism is a faith position, requiring selective belief, the same as religions. It requires, among other things, for you to believe that the records about Jesus are false and that the physical world is self-contained, self-creating and self-sustaining.
I think agnosticism is the more neutral position. 'I don't know.' To say you know implies a faith position.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.
There is something in that statement which I don't follow. What is the difference between a being which "is" and one which "exists"? I would have said we "are" and we also "exist."
Any answers? I don't think that Google is likely to be my friend over this one. Or is that because Google "is" but doesn't "exist?
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Ćbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Originally posted by kankucho: quote:
quote:
Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.
It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.
Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.
Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.
Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.
quote:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.
I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.
Any candidate for something that a position can begin with can have one of two properties:
a) it can be completely certain;
b) it can serve as the starting point from which one can move on.
You can't have both.
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)
[ 28. February 2010, 16:34: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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 QLib:
The same does not apply to any concept of God that a rational adult might appropriately hold - of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.
I think you have to put quotes around 'is' just as you put quotes around 'exist'. You can't get round the problem just by switching from Latinate language to Anglo-Saxon.
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If atheism believes (i.e. trusts) in anything, it trusts (i.e. has faith in) the reasonableness of the hypothetico-deductive method. Atheism is faith in reason.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If atheism is western scientific rationalism that is...
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If someone else wants to believe in fairies, I'll would try to discourage them. I would do this because it's against my religion though.
Otherwise I wouldn't care.
What religion discourages believing in fairies?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There's quite a lot of good empirical evidence out there that scientific rationalism works quite well so my instincts are a) not to describe it as a faith and b) not to conflate it with atheism.
My own view is that neither atheism, nor theism, nor any other metaphysical belief in isolation can be construed as a faith. However when a metaphysical system gets elevated into a code of living it can be so defined. So atheism isn't a faith but objectivism and Marxism are. Theism isn't a faith but Christianity and Islam are. Und so weiter.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If someone else wants to believe in fairies, I'll would try to discourage them. I would do this because it's against my religion though.
Otherwise I wouldn't care.
What religion discourages believing in fairies?
So many jokes about homosexuality and Christianity, so little time.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the point was that some folks would see disbelief in fairies and disbelief in God as belonging to one category i.e disbelief in all mythical supernatural beings.
There is also an argument which says that once you have admitted a supernatural category of being (belief in God) what possible grounds can you have for ruling out the possibility of fairies? Or something like that.
Wikipedia article
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
As has been pointed out before, many people's conceptions of God differ from a belief in faeries in that God isn't a being amongst others in the world like faeries are. No one has ever constructed an ontological argument for the existence of faeries. Nor are faeries deemed to have the ability (at least in theory) to explain the existence of everything else i.e. faeries are not deemed to possess necessary being over and against the contingency of the world. They also differ phenomenologically and existentially as well. Conan Doyle aside, I don't know of anyone who converted to a belief in faeries in adulthood and through that faith found fresh meaning and hope in their lives.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know plenty of reasonable atheists, I also know some very unreasonable Christians (and vice verca)
I think when anyone starts to think that theirs is the 'one true way' they are closing their minds to possibilities - and there are always possibilities.
I don't believe in the supernatural - but I do believe there's a gret deal of 'not yet discovered' natural!
This is my view also. And as kankucho said, "there is no neutral worldview."
Proselytizers will sometimes urge wannabe Christians to take "a leap of faith" - when reason doesn't provide adequate answers.
Many people have responded piositively to that invitation. But for a believer to understand an atheist's worldview, I think a leap of faith in the opposite direction is required.
How sensible does that sound? How useful? I think I am now atheist, though I still use the now "foreign language" of religion to make a point from time to time. Some things just don't translate too well from one language to another.
And for all that, religious belief is still my mother tongue. I wish more people would make the interesting leap of faith from one side to the other. I now think as an atheist. I don't feel "liberated" or frightened by this. There will always be people who can achieve things that I cannot, and if some of those things are the useful, healthy, compassionate outcome of their religious beliefs, why should I not applaud them?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know plenty of reasonable atheists, I also know some very unreasonable Christians (and vice verca)
I think when anyone starts to think that theirs is the 'one true way' they are closing their minds to possibilities - and there are always possibilities.
I don't believe in the supernatural - but I do believe there's a gret deal of 'not yet discovered' natural!
This is my view also. And as kankucho said, "there is no neutral worldview."
Proselytizers will sometimes urge wannabe Christians to take "a leap of faith" - when reason doesn't provide adequate answers.
Many people have responded piositively to that invitation. But for a believer to understand an atheist's worldview, I think a leap of faith in the opposite direction is required.
How sensible does that sound? How useful? I think I am now atheist, though I still use the now "foreign language" of religion to make a point from time to time. Some things just don't translate too well from one language to another.
And for all that, religious belief is still my mother tongue. I wish more people would make the interesting leap of faith from one side to the other. I now think as an atheist. I don't feel "liberated" or frightened by this. There will always be people who can achieve things that I cannot, and if some of those things are the useful, healthy, compassionate outcome of their religious beliefs, why should I not applaud them?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The same does not apply to any concept of God that a rational adult might appropriately hold - of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.
I think you have to put quotes around 'is' just as you put quotes around 'exist'. You can't get round the problem just by switching from Latinate language to Anglo-Saxon.
Yes, the statements 'God is'/ 'God is not' don't mean much either. So that just leaves us with:
God.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I wonder if it makes any difference to go at this question -- whether elements of something faith-like form part of atheism -- from a different angle.
Would most people who answer to "atheist" agree that they are materialists, at least in the sense of assuming that the universe consists solely of that which can be (or can eventually be) observed, sensed, tested, and/or measured?
Perhaps it's simply a way of stating that the universe is ultimately explicable.
The opposing view would seem to be that there's an "extra" component of the universe for those who believe in God, fairies, tree-sprites, etc., and that "extra" is the inexplicable (or singular, or anomalous). . . sorry. I like it here, but maybe I'm having trouble with the jargon.
Personally, I'm hung about midway between the two camps and can't reconcile. Camped at one end for several years; now sitting in t'other camp.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
But for a believer to understand an atheist's worldview, I think a leap of faith in the opposite direction is required.
How sensible does that sound? How useful? I think I am now atheist, though I still use the now "foreign language" of religion to make a point from time to time. Some things just don't translate too well from one language to another.
I don't think leap of faith is helpful here but that the foreign language idea is, especially if you were to take two completely unrelated languages that look at concepts in different ways. So it does require a leap of understanding.
Religion, and Christianity in particular, uses a lot of specialised language, including a lot of words used differently to more common usage. When considering atheism a Christian needs to be prepared to put those meanings on one side rather than demand that the atheist should also subscribe to them when defining his own world view.
The subject of this thread - and the subsequent discussion - is a good case in point. It has been said by several theists that their belief in God is intrinsically different to a belief in fairies, because they believe God is intrinsically different to fairies. OK, as that is how they see their belief. However, they then go on to say that because the two beliefs are intrinsically different (in their view) that my unbelief in God must also be intrinsically different to my unbelief in fairies. But that is just an imposition of their language pattern/world view on mine.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
IF the following is too much of a tangent I'll maybe start a new thread, but ISTM that most of this talk of fairies is straw man put to make people with religious beliefs look childish.
There is a much more reasonable foundation for some forms of religious belief to be found in nature. I don't just mean animism (I don't even know what that is, for certain) but still worship the sun in everything but formal language, and I think many other people do, too.
The sun created and sustains me, and I watch her ride her golden chariot across the sky on fine days with wonder, awe and gratitude.
Of course the sun can destroy what it has made, too. But I think of it as largely benevolent.Perhaps I mean beneficent - I'm not being anthropomorphic (am I?)
The difference between the sun and the supernatural God people claim made the sun in the first place is that I can see the sun (sometimes) and the effects of not giving her due respect are also plainly obvious. What need God?
Religion cannot do without reason - witnesses are claimed for resurrection - how materialist is that? And atheism can't do without something more than scientific knowledge. Most sensible scientists admit this. Human lovingkindness, music, art, poetry - and even football FFS, demand more than sense and reason to work their magic. But - God?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
If you say you (and a bunch of your friends) believe that Plato used to wear a bright red hat everywhere he went, am I allowed to just not believe that? Or do I need a separate body of evidence to match yours, and to have faith in my belief that Plato wore no such hat to some acceptable level?
There are atheists with radical agendas but the absence of belief in something doesn't automatically imply anything. That seems so obvious that it's painful.
As for fairies, there's really not any need to totally psycho-analyze it. Some people are just confused about how other people can believe in a whole string of things that they can't see, because the way people talk about experiencing God doesn't sound like the kind of experience that would convince them to decide to believe in that thing. Just like if someone said they had experienced a fairy in their backyard, you might not jump right in and believe with him. That's really all that analogy is about.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
There are atheists with radical agendas but the absence of belief in something doesn't automatically imply anything. That seems so obvious that it's painful.
Hear, hear. Not believing in God implies nothing about what a person does believe in, any more than (say) not having a Toyota implies about what one does have.
quote:
Just like if someone said they had experienced a fairy in their backyard, you might not jump right in and believe with him. That's really all that analogy is about.
That and being in-your-face offensive.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
As part of my "swotting" for the Trinity thread, I'm re-reading Karen Armstrong's historical survey entitled "A History of God". A N Wilson's review comment is quoted on the back page of my (paperback) copy and says.
quote:
This is the most fascinating and learned survey of the biggest wild-goose chase in history - the quest for God.
Tell me Barnabas, would we be talking about the same A. N. Wilson?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Talk about scholastic neutrality. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Of course this is the guy who spent half of his bio of CS Lewis trying -- using exactly zero evidence -- to prove that Lewis was having an affair with Mrs. Moore. I wouldn't trust him to read me the bus schedule.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Talk about scholastic neutrality. Of course this is the guy who spent half of his bio of CS Lewis trying -- using exactly zero evidence -- to prove that Lewis was having an affair with Mrs. Moore. I wouldn't trust him to read me the bus schedule.
I wonder has his opinion shifted on Lewis now that he is a Christian.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That and being in-your-face offensive.
Well, true. I wish there was a way to succinctly make that point without resorting to something that's obviously an attempt to offend. It's not like replacing "fairy" with "unicorn" or "tooth fairy" helps things at all.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
