|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What exactly does atheism have to offer?
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Justinian
But your arguments are pure metaphysics. Perhaps you are not claiming to be an adherent of naturalism or physicalism? Otherwise, I can't see how you reconcile all this metaphysics with physicalism. I suppose the awkward bits are emergent!
My arguments start from the premise that the universe is bigger than we are - and is more than big enough to encompass my brain and billions of other brains of equal complexity*. Even if the watchmaker universe didn't appear to conflict with our observations we need to work with what we have available. Will pure physicalism work? In theory - in exactly the same way that Chemistry is a branch of physics in theory. But standing where we are treating chemistry as nothing more than a branch of physics (rather than starting with chemistry and attempting to unify the two) would be a bad idea.
* To fully understand something you need to be at least one step more complex than it to fit it inside your complexity. I can't fit even my own brain into my brain...
[ 10. October 2012, 17:17: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, for me, a pure physicalism is immediately contradicted when the physicalist starts to think or speak, since their ideas and meanings are themselves not physical things. OK, they are connected to physical things - patterns of neurons, but they are not identical to them.
We all implicitly accept this, and accept that experience exists sui generis, not as an outcrop of neurology.
But I think 'emergence' is a pretty good dodge! It just leaves physicalism as a horrible untidy mess, riven with contradictions.
I think one of the problems with this is the criss-crossing between scientific method and philosophy, as many people wander to and fro over this boundary, without even realizing it.
[ 10. October 2012, 17:28: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Addendum - well it just leads to dualism, where abstract objects are accepted.
So I can never quite understand why atheists are not happy to be dualists, since presumably they are happy to accept that numbers and propositions are not themselves physical, aren't they? Such things have no physical extension, surely.
Or is there a fear that dualism has a nasty little back door, into which G-d might sneak?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists. About mental processes like consciousness I like the views of Jon Searle and his Biological Naturalism. Which wikipedia has a good description of. A good quote on this:
quote:
I want also to say that consciousness is nothing but a neurobiological process, and by that I mean that precisely because consciousness is qualitative, subjective, irreducibly phenomenological (airy fairy, touchy feely, etc.) it has to be a neurobiological process; because, so far, we have not found any system that can cause and realize conscious states except brain systems. Maybe someday we will be able to create conscious artifacts, in which case subjective states of consciousness will be “physical” features of those artifacts. John R. Searle in Why I Am Not a Property Dualist
Having personal experience with mental illness and the incontrovertible fact that drug treatments do in fact make a difference in some cases is part of the evidence. Also there are many documented cases in which people with brain damage suffer corresponding changes in mental abilities. Just as it would be expected if those mental abilities actually reside in the brain. The changes documented also include changes to behavior.
This I believe also has implications in the part of this thread concerning “evil”. Is misbehavior following brain damage a “sin”? [URL= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1009486.stm] BBC article[/URL] ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which, looked at from a different angle, means that there's not one rigid standard to which everyone must conform their lives whether they like it or not. We are free to decide our own moral truth and purpose, be it as individuals or as societies. Looked at this way atheism offers moral freedom while religion offers moral tyrrany.
Which is better? Ask any member of a group that has been persecuted because they don't conform to the moral absolutes of the dominant religion.
When you use words like freedom and tyranny you are begging the question, Marvin.
By way of counter-point, I would contend that certain rigid standards are essential in any loving relationship, and they type of unlimited freedom that you are espousing is precisely the type of thing that can stunt and poison relationships. It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists.
I take it you mean there is no scientific evidence for non-material entities? This is hardly surprising given the purpose of science is to investigate the material world. You may as well attempt to phone your mother with a cheese cake moulded into the shape of a mobile phone as use science to investigate things at are by definition outside its remit.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists.
I take it you mean there is no scientific evidence for non-material entities? This is hardly surprising given the purpose of science is to investigate the material world. You may as well attempt to phone your mother with a cheese cake moulded into the shape of a mobile phone as use science to investigate things at are by definition outside its remit.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
So I can never quite understand why atheists are not happy to be dualists, since presumably they are happy to accept that numbers and propositions are not themselves physical, aren't they? Such things have no physical extension, surely.
Many atheists are property dualists and happy with it.
quote:
Or is there a fear that dualism has a nasty little back door, into which G-d might sneak?
Some atheists may have that fear, as unlikely as I may find it. Of course, the obverse may be true of some theists - they may fear that the advance of knowledge and the overturning of long cherished notions might slam the door shut in God's face, or at least leave him sneaking around in ever shrinking gaps.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
You conveniently ignored the evidence I presented in favor of mental processes residing in the brain.
I also did not limit what I said to scientific evidence.
What objective evidence do you have that anything non material exists? Proponents of the non-material
do not agree on what it is.
The reason the non-dualist position exists is not reluctance to accept where the evidence takes you.
Most non-dualists would accept such evidence if it was shown to them.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
My previous post was Cross-posted with Grokesx.
While I prefer Searle's position on this, property dualism does not have most of the problems that substance dualism has. Property dualism holds that there is only one kind of substance in the Universe the physical, and does not try to claim that we need a non-physical substance to explain what we see. So If I made a more serious study of this someone might convince me of that position.
It would be harder to convince me of the reality of substance dualism.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists.
I take it you mean there is no scientific evidence for non-material entities? This is hardly surprising given the purpose of science is to investigate the material world. You may as well attempt to phone your mother with a cheese cake moulded into the shape of a mobile phone as use science to investigate things at are by definition outside its remit.
Yes, this shows the chaotic nature of naturalism, that naturalistic evidence should be sought for something non-natural or non-material. Eh? This is so incoherent, it makes you wonder if naturalists or materialists even understand their own terms.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
If you show me were to find those non-natural or non-material things you conveniently fail to specify. I would take your accusation of incoherence more seriously.
[ 11. October 2012, 01:06: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a god. Beyond that, atheists hold a wide range of beliefs, values, and attitudes.
Consequently, one can't simply read off beliefs about metaphysics or value from a profession of atheism. Bertrand Russell believed in the existence of abstract objects; the ontology and epistemology of John Dewey, Mr Naturalism, was nothing like the crudely reductionist physicalism commonly ascribed to atheists. You'll find atheists whose thinking about ethics - whether it be Kantian, neo-Aristotelian,or some variant of moral realism - is directly opposed to the emotivist or expressivist approach often imagined to be the "party line" atheist view.
Those who are particularly concerned about questions of reductionism and circular arguments in naturalism might be interested in reading this review by Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg of Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos.
The heterogeneity of atheists' thinking makes me wonder if the original question "What does atheism have to offer?" mistakenly assumes that atheism must be, for atheists, some kind of equivalent of or substitute for religion.
Some atheists might feel a god-shaped hole in their lives, but others will feel no such lack.
Similarly, some atheists might feel that some combination of life affirmation, moral autonomy, and a sense of emancipation from false belief and oppressive tradition is the "good news" of atheism. Others might just wonder if the supposed need to proclaim atheism's life transforming virtues is itself an unnecessary hangover from Christianity.
Do my remarks go some way to addressing the OP's original question, or should I and other atheists be saying more from a distinctly personal point of view?
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
If you show me were to find those non-natural or non-material things you conveniently fail to specify. I would take your accusation of incoherence more seriously.
Hang on - which thread are you on? I look at the top, and it says 'what exactly does atheism have to offer?' I take that to be asking for some information about atheism, whereas you seem to now asking for information about theism. Are we on the same wave-length here?
I was just making the point that asking for evidence for something that is non-natural or non-material strikes me as very odd. Science itself sets its limits in methodological terms, so that stuff like God is omitted or ignored. How then can there be scientific evidence for what has been omitted? It just doesn't make sense, yet again and again one finds atheists asking 'where's the evidence?'
Perhaps they are using the term 'evidence' in a different way - then they should say so.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just making the point that asking for evidence for something that is non-natural or non-material strikes me as very odd. Science itself sets its limits in methodological terms, so that stuff like God is omitted or ignored. How then can there be scientific evidence for what has been omitted? It just doesn't make sense, yet again and again one finds atheists asking 'where's the evidence?'
Or as my systematic theology lecturer says: “Methodological atheism jumps to ontological atheism with no explanation.”
I do not assume God is necessary to run a car. When the car runs without God, God obviously doesn't exist.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, for me, a pure physicalism is immediately contradicted when the physicalist starts to think or speak, since their ideas and meanings are themselves not physical things. OK, they are connected to physical things - patterns of neurons, but they are not identical to them.
I'm pretty sure I addressed this in a previous post.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
Looks for Like button...will have to make do with ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Evensong
My favourite example is geometry. If I start to investigate, say, non-Euclidean geometry, I don't generally include God in the axioms. But if I eventually understand something, say square circles, (well, I think I understand it, you understand), I don't conclude that God has been shown to not exist. I can't cite my original omission of something as evidence for its non-existence!
Just paraphrasing you really, so apologies for that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Tea wrote:
Consequently, one can't simply read off beliefs about metaphysics or value from a profession of atheism. Bertrand Russell believed in the existence of abstract objects; the ontology and epistemology of John Dewey, Mr Naturalism, was nothing like the crudely reductionist physicalism commonly ascribed to atheists. You'll find atheists whose thinking about ethics - whether it be Kantian, neo-Aristotelian,or some variant of moral realism - is directly opposed to the emotivist or expressivist approach often imagined to be the "party line" atheist view.
Good post. Yes, atheism has no particular consequences, in philosophical or moral terms. I think I said earlier, there is no requirement for atheists to be materialists or naturalists at all. I am curious, actually, about Buddhist atheists, but I would think that they show a variety of philosophical attitudes.
By beef is with naturalism, or at any rate, some versions of it. I am looking forward to reading the Nagel book, but it seems to me that the arguments about evolution are a distraction really. There is the old argument (I think C. S. Lewis has a version of it), that evolution cannot guarantee that human reasoning is accurate. That was demolished by Elizabeth Anscombe, I think (who, ironically, was a devout Catholic). However, can of worms, etc.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Make your own:
**[[ LIKED ]]**
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
When you use words like freedom and tyranny you are begging the question, Marvin.
Like I said, it depends on your point of view. Theists see having a bunch of Divine Commandments to live by as freedom, atheists see being able to decide how to live their lives for themselves as freedom.
quote:
By way of counter-point, I would contend that certain rigid standards are essential in any loving relationship, and they type of unlimited freedom that you are espousing is precisely the type of thing that can stunt and poison relationships.
The question is not whether standards should exist. The question is "who gets to decide what they are?"
Yes, standards are essential in relationships. That does not mean the same standards should apply to all relationships.
quote:
It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
Every single democracy that has ever existed, for a start.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just a footnote to the stuff above about Lewis - I am doing him a disfavour in saying that his argument was that evolution could not guarantee the validity of human reasoning. He didn't really say that; rather, that the natural universe is an irrational place, so how could reasoning arise in it, or be considered trustworthy? Anscombe, I believe, thoroughly whupped that one in the ass, and Lewis reformulated. However, can of worms here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
Every single democracy that has ever existed, for a start.
Yes - the first Greek democracy was founded on these principles and was a disaster for these very reasons.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
Every single democracy that has ever existed, for a start.
Yes - the first Greek democracy was founded on these principles and was a disaster for these very reasons.
Are you talking about Athens? One of the most powerful Greek City-states for hundreds of years?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
**[[ LIKED ]]**
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
In the same way you unbelieve in Marxism, Hinduism and a million other things.
What a crock of shit.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Make your own:
**[[ LIKED ]]**
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
Hubristic to tell atheists what they mean by the term isn't it?
There are thousands of gods spread throughout human history. You don't believe in any of them except one. Atheists just take that process a reasonably logical stage further and don't believe in that one either.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Make your own:
**[[ LIKED ]]**
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
Hubristic to tell atheists what they mean by the term isn't it?
There are thousands of gods spread throughout human history. You don't believe in any of them except one. Atheists just take that process a reasonably logical stage further and don't believe in that one either.
Actually, as far as I can see, more and more Christians do give some credit to other religions, and 'other gods'. They might not go so far as to say, well, your path is as valid as my path, which is an ultra-liberal position, but they might say that there are many paths, and I can't really dismiss them all, since God sure works in mysterious ways.
This has come up quite sharply in relation to Islam, where I am pretty sure that some Christians are willing to accept that the Islamic view of God is not simply nonsense.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
If you can convince EE that the idea of God - the eternal, personal, intelligent Creator of the universe - is just a trivial idea, from which flow absolutely no implications whatsoever for our view of reality, then not only will you have won the internet, but EE will also award you the Nobel Prize for Sophistry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
Hubristic to tell atheists what they mean by the term isn't it?
But I didn't - I just stated what it meant to me.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There are thousands of gods spread throughout human history. You don't believe in any of them except one. Atheists just take that process a reasonably logical stage further and don't believe in that one either. [/QB]
Interestingly, the early Christians were denounced as atheists because of their disbelief in any other God but one.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
So is theism disbelief in the non-existence of God or belief in the existence of God?
I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in Fate, or for that matter the tooth fairy. I didn't choose this position any more that than I chose to be right handed. It seems to just be the way my mind/brain works.
Could somebody please explain the difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the non-existence of God. Can you do both? If you only do the first it seems you aren't an atheist - so what are you?
And how do I know which I am? Unless I'm both ... or even if I am.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
So is theism disbelief in the non-existence of God or belief in the existence of God?
I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in Fate, or for that matter the tooth fairy. I didn't choose this position any more that than I chose to be right handed. It seems to just be the way my mind/brain works.
Could somebody please explain the difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the non-existence of God. Can you do both? If you only do the first it seems you aren't an atheist - so what are you?
And how do I know which I am? Unless I'm both ... or even if I am.
I think that's a very good point. I have always said that I don't go to church in order to sit there having beliefs. In fact, I'm not really sure what it means to 'believe in God'.
As you say, I didn't choose for my mind and body and imagination to work this way. I can't unchoose it either. Fuck it, I'm stuck with it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Etymological Evangelical
If you can convince EE that the idea of God - the eternal, personal, intelligent Creator of the universe - is just a trivial idea, from which flow absolutely no implications whatsoever for our view of reality, then not only will you have won the internet, but EE will also award you the Nobel Prize for Sophistry.
I am not claiming that theism is trivial, but that arguments like "If Tea is an atheist, then Tea is an eliminative physicalist" are unsound. As I pointed out earlier, atheists have all sorts of views about ontology, epistemology, and ethics.
I would like to return to your original question,
"What exactly does atheism have to offer?"
Perhaps dialogue with atheists does have something to offer to Christians like you who make a strong link between "the idea of God" and "our view of reality." As you tell us about your faith and encounter non-believers with some background in philosophy, might it not occur to you that your proclamation of the Kingdom of God does not require you to take a position on a "view of reality" - supervenience, levels of explanation, causal closure, pragmatic justifications for naturalism, and so on?
I see a parallel with the Christian encounter with evolutionary thought here. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, thoughtful Christians in dialogue with natural scientists came to recognize that Christianity was not to be understood as body of doctrine in which beliefs about geology or speciation were of central importance.
I ask you to consider this "offering" not as one from a "concern troll", but as coming from an atheist who thinks that some Christians have something interesting and important to say when they talk about the religious dimension of their lives. I will understand these accounts differently from the manner in which thoughtful Christians understand them, but I am certainly ready to listen and listen with interest.
On the other hand, I really have little time for creationists playing at being life scientists. Similarly, I am not going to spend a lot of time listening to tales of a God who sent his only begotten son into the world to set us straight on metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind.
In short, EE, we atheists might be offering you the opportunity to cut out the redundant from your proclamation of the gospel. You can give us good news rather than bad philosophy.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
As you say, I didn't choose for my mind and body and imagination to work this way. I can't unchoose it either. Fuck it, I'm stuck with it.
So let me get this straight. From this and your recent posts, you seem to me to be saying you have a mind and imagination that have a separate existence from your body. Together these things determine your belief in God. You also have contra causal free will that doesn't seem to extend to influencing the belief, and somewhere in the mix there is an exchange of immaterial stuff between the time and space where where your body resides and another place, where God is.
I know I must have it all wrong, but it from where I'm standing the incoherence of your interpretation of naturalism has nothing on that lot.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
In short, EE, we atheists might be offering you the opportunity to cut out the redundant from your proclamation of the gospel. You can give us good news rather than bad philosophy.
Actually, going back to the OP, it's you and your adherents we are waiting to hear some good news from.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea
As you tell us about your faith and encounter non-believers with some background in philosophy, might it not occur to you that your proclamation of the Kingdom of God does not require you to take a position on a "view of reality" - supervenience, levels of explanation, causal closure, pragmatic justifications for naturalism, and so on?
If my "proclamation of the Kingdom of God" is just a hobby like flower arranging, then I guess you've got a point. But I tend not to pay much attention to such patronising nonsense.
I prefer something called "good philosophy" - you know, the sort of philosophy in which ideas about reality actually have implications for reality. Since "God" is the biggest idea of the lot, then I think my position regarding a "view of reality" is a no-brainer, philosophically speaking.
[ 11. October 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
As you say, I didn't choose for my mind and body and imagination to work this way. I can't unchoose it either. Fuck it, I'm stuck with it.
So let me get this straight. From this and your recent posts, you seem to me to be saying you have a mind and imagination that have a separate existence from your body. Together these things determine your belief in God. You also have contra causal free will that doesn't seem to extend to influencing the belief, and somewhere in the mix there is an exchange of immaterial stuff between the time and space where where your body resides and another place, where God is.
I know I must have it all wrong, but it from where I'm standing the incoherence of your interpretation of naturalism has nothing on that lot.
Well, that's because you've done a complete caricature.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Quetz
That's kind of the point. What's good for the goose and all that.
Anyway, help will soon be at hand for you in addressing actual naturalistic arguments on free will, consciousness, morality, emergence and the rest.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Quetz
That's kind of the point. What's good for the goose and all that.
Anyway, help will soon be at hand for you in addressing actual naturalistic arguments on free will, consciousness, morality, emergence and the rest.
So how do you think I have caricatured naturalism?
My point is that eliminative materialism is not incoherent; it strikes me as consistent. What puzzles me are those materialists or naturalists who are not eliminativists.
[ 11. October 2012, 23:07: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting footnote, that Chalmers, famous for his observations on the 'hard problem' of consciousness, appears to be someone who adheres to naturalism, but is not a materialist. That is, he seems to take mind as existing sui generis, and as part of nature.
If this is a correct reading of him, one might envisage a theism one day which argued that God is part of nature, but is not material.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
So how do you think I have caricatured naturalism?
Well, you've drawn a big hairy bubo labelled "incoherent" on some naturalist positions and despite counter arguments that you have either not responded to or dismissed as dodges, carried on drawing the bubo.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
