|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 04/30/2002 : 19:37:47 [Permalink]
|
Yeah I know it seemed a bit obvious but you know how it is when you say "God" and people have billions of ideas as to what that means.
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 22:15:16 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry to butt in here in the middle of everything, and therefore reserve the right to further reply.
I just had to get my vote in.
I voted A as both science and religion seek to explain the world. I'm not saying they do it the same way, and I would lean towards the scientific method every time, however, people want to make sense of things and will use whatever tools they can to do so.
Sorry if I'm repeating what has been said befrore.
As you were.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 02:19:44 [Permalink]
|
> I prefer the label "non-theist" because I
> can't decide whether or not I want to be
> an atheist or agnostic.
Many agnostics are really atheists, but they really don't know it. The word "atheist" has been thought to mean something it doesn't have to mean: "one who 'denies' the existence of God or gods." (Yes! "Denies" the apparent "fact" of God or gods!) In other words, many people have a straw-man version of the word in their heads.
Ian Andreas Miller. DIES GAUDII. |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 04:22:36 [Permalink]
|
Antie: you are probably right--I'm really an atheist and haven't fully come to terms with it yet. I am a card-carrying member of American Atheists, and really don't disagree with their definition of atheism in their publications. Maybe I'm still just a bit hesitant to "come out of the closet" with this revalation, especially with regards to some of the religious people in my life (including my wife, a pagan, and parents, who are Methodists).
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 05:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Antie: you are probably right--I'm really an atheist and haven't fully come to terms with it yet. I am a card-carrying member of American Atheists, and really don't disagree with their definition of atheism in their publications. Maybe I'm still just a bit hesitant to "come out of the closet" with this revalation, especially with regards to some of the religious people in my life (including my wife, a pagan, and parents, who are Methodists).
Your wife might be a bit more understanding than your parents. Hey, at least you have more fun with her, right? 
________________________
Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...
*whine* |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 05:35:41 [Permalink]
|
In reply to Badger, let me interject an interruption of my own. I'm surprised that more people didn't go for view #1. As Shermer presents it, it is saying that there is only one world to describe, and that while science has not unravelled all of the mysteries of the universe, it can, in principle, do so. We could, then, "forsee a time when science not only can explain the purpose of religion, but will replace it with a viable secular morality and ethics."
While I would side with view number one, I would insist that Shermer presents something of a straw person--elsewhere he defines "science" in relation to values in such a narrow way as to put such questions out of the realm of rational inquiry. He thus, for instance, reduces aesthetics to a matter of taste.
If we put questions such as the nature of reality and epistemological concerns aside, then, I think that this is what leads Shermer to view #2. It's almost as if one is saying "well, there might ultimately be nothing to religion, but it does provide a vocabulary with which to talk about values and seems to provide some psychological need for most people. So if you behave yourselves, you religious folks can have your own piece of the pie."
I would come back with an essentially atheist response: we DO have a non-religious vocabulary for talking about values. While philosophical ethics may not be fully scientific, it relies on reason, rather than athority to examine questions of value. I would much rather assent to the outcome of differing philosophies when it comes to value conflicts than that of conflicting religious perspectives (philosophers don't generally feel the need to bomb the other camp out of existence). I would also say that whatever psychological needs are fulfilled by religion can be more constructively fulfilled in other ways.
My main problem with #3 is that it could be the pick of, say, characters such as Dr. Gish. One could say that science is right and religion is wrong, which is esentially what position #1 says. Or, one could say that religion is right, and where science contradicts religion, science is wrong (in fact, we are going to produce religiously guided, "real" science to prove it!).
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 06:04:34 [Permalink]
|
Only science seeks to explain the world. Assuming that by using the word "world" we mean reality.
Religion seeks to justify its own existence regardless of reality.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 06:26:50 [Permalink]
|
I have been thinking about the definition of 'agnostic' espoused by TD (via George Smith) and others. I don't think it's philosophically tenable, without invoking a supernatural knowledge-gathering mechanism, to say that we can know (sense) a thing exists but we can't know (sense) its properties. A thing must exist before (or perhaps concurrent with) its properties, but we cannot sense existence, only properties.
<aside>
Existence cannot be a property because for any property p, there must also be a property -p. A thing, by definition, cannot have the property 'non-existence' so existence fails this test.
</aside>
I think perhaps the problem stems from the notion that the nature of a thing cannot be known. Certainly, many things were "known" before we could observe any of their properties because the existence of the things were basically necessitated by the observation of their effects. Photons, neutrinos, most subatomic particles existed in theory only at some point, but the supporting theories were the best, and most parsimonious explanations of the data. The same cannot be said for god-concepts.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 10:42:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Badger---I voted A as both science and religion seek to explain the world. I'm not saying they do it the same way, and I would lean towards the scientific method every time, however, people want to make sense of things and will use whatever tools they can to do so.
I see in another thread that you have read only three pages of the bible. This probably left you with the mistaken impression that such levels of nonsense couldn't be maintained over the entirety of such a thick book, and it would have had to get better. I regret to tell you that your optimism is ill founded. Whatever it is that the bible is seeking to explain it isn't the world.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 10:45:20 [Permalink]
|
I can second that.
quote:
Whatever it is that the bible is seeking to explain it
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 10:54:30 [Permalink]
|
In my opinion ...
Religion is (essentially) a philosophy.
Science is (essentially) a methodology.
Religion and methodological naturalism can (and have) coexisted peacefully.
Religion and ontological naturalism cannot.
Finally, to suggest that two things can coexist peacefully in no way implies that they are equally valid.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 11:03:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by PhDreamer:
I have been thinking about the definition of 'agnostic' espoused by TD (via George Smith) and others. I don't think it's philosophically tenable, without invoking a supernatural knowledge-gathering mechanism, to say that we can know (sense) a thing exists but we can't know (sense) its properties. A thing must exist before (or perhaps concurrent with) its properties, but we cannot sense existence, only properties.
<aside>
Existence cannot be a property because for any property p, there must also be a property -p. A thing, by definition, cannot have the property 'non-existence' so existence fails this test.
</aside>
I think perhaps the problem stems from the notion that the nature of a thing cannot be known. Certainly, many things were "known" before we could observe any of their properties because the existence of the things were basically necessitated by the observation of their effects. Photons, neutrinos, most subatomic particles existed in theory only at some point, but the supporting theories were the best, and most parsimonious explanations of the data. The same cannot be said for god-concepts.
At risk of exposing my intellectual limitations, I must admit that I do not follow this.
It seems your last paragraph contradicts your first.
I'll also admit to being a fan of Smith's, as quoted by TD. His book "Atheism: The Case Against God" crystallized much of what I had been thinking but could not articulate. I think his definitions of atheism and agnosticism are not only correct and logically tenable, but inevitably so. I'm not a philosophy or logic student per se, though, so I can probably be out-debated on this.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 11:37:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Religion and ontological naturalism cannot.
Hello, what's this? Metaphysics rears it's head.
Welcome ReasonableDoubt , would you care to elaborate?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 12:00:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Posted by PhDreamer:
I have been thinking about the definition of 'agnostic' espoused by TD (via George Smith) and others. I don't think it's philosophically tenable, without invoking a supernatural knowledge-gathering mechanism, to say that we can know (sense) a thing exists but we can't know (sense) its properties. A thing must exist before (or perhaps concurrent with) its properties, but we cannot sense existence, only properties.
<aside>
Existence cannot be a property because for any property p, there must also be a property -p. A thing, by definition, cannot have the property 'non-existence' so existence fails this test.
</aside>
I think perhaps the problem stems from the notion that the nature of a thing cannot be known. Certainly, many things were "known" before we could observe any of their properties because the existence of the things were basically necessitated by the observation of their effects. Photons, neutrinos, most subatomic particles existed in theory only at some point, but the supporting theories were the best, and most parsimonious explanations of the data. The same cannot be said for god-concepts.
At risk of exposing my intellectual limitations, I must admit that I do not follow this.
I don't really know how to restate it, so maybe you have some specific objections?
quote:
It seems your last paragraph contradicts your first.
I can see how I may have been unclear. Let me say, in clarification, that if Smith's definition of 'agnostic' was something like, "Someone who believes we don't know the nature of God," I would have a much weaker objection. The attempted analogy with photons and neutrinos was along this line: before we had the means to observe the properties of neutrinos, we had to rely on observations of their effects on space-time and matter in order to provisionally accept their existence. However, at no time was it said that we could not observe their properties. (it is an ontological necessity that anything we presume to exist must have observable properties) Conversely, a Smithian agnostic would say, "we observe effects that some attribute to an existing god" and "we cannot, a priori, observe this allegedly existing god." The use of the absolutist "cannot" is what I have the most basic problem with.
quote:
I'll also admit to being a fan of Smith's, as quoted by TD. His book "Atheism: The Case Against God" crystallized much of what I had been thinking but could not articulate. I think his definitions of atheism and agnosticism are not only correct and logically tenable, but inevitably so. I'm not a philosophy or logic student per se, though, so I can probably be out-debated on this.
It might be as simple as word usage, though I don't know how existentially attached to "cannot" is Smith.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume
Edited by - phdreamer on 05/01/2002 12:01:56 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 12:12:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Religion and ontological naturalism cannot.
Hello, what's this? Metaphysics rears it's head.
Welcome ReasonableDoubt , would you care to elaborate?
IMO, "Ontological naturalism" (also metaphysical naturalism) are funny phrases people use to hold positions as contrary to classical ontology and metaphysics. If you ask me, they are oxymoronic phrases. Naturalism doesn't, and by definition can't, hold that there is an inherent nature underlying the nature of nature. 
[edited to add]
BTW, ReasonableDoubt, are you the same from the Infidels message boards?
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume
Edited by - phdreamer on 05/01/2002 12:13:46 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
