|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2007 : 11:32:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: quote:
she seemingly objected to my calling her liberal theist friends theists
I did no such thing.
That's why I said "seemingly." It seemed that way to me, but I was hoping you'd explain how it wasn't that way.quote:
If you consider a rock to be an atheist because it does indeed lack a belief in any gods, that is IMO taking the term "atheist" too literally.
"Atheist" is the term describing a state at the highest level of abstraction. If you want to sub-divide atheists into smaller groups, feel free. Perhaps there exists a certain type of atheism you'd feel more comfortable with as a "default position."
quote:
I do not equate atheist with anti-theist. I myself identify as an atheist, but I am not anti-theist. What I was saying is that there are fundamental differences in the mindsets of various theists and atheists, and so to merely draw lines between atheist and theist is not especially useful in a discussion over whether atheism or agnosticism should be considered the default positions of a skeptic.
I wasn't "merely" doing that. It seemed to me that the line needed to be drawn to further the discussion, and it is, indeed, a rather sharp demarcation. It's not a "fuzzy" question like, "how old must one be to be an 'adult'?" There is no "in between" having a particular belief and not having such a belief. Even Buddhism is regarded as an "atheistic religion."
If you'd like to propose a definition of "atheism" which includes you, me and all other atheists, and which excludes rocks and wheat, please do so. Because we cannot begin to answer the question without a definition upon which we can all agree. You disagree with my definition, and that's fine. But without a replacement, we're stuck in a semantic vacuum, and the OP may as well have asked "Does skepticism default to feeblenarkish?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 12:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
That's a trivial detail for two reasons, there is no requirement that the evidence you assume exists must exist (there may not be a security camera or reciepts or other evidence), nor is it provable that the gnostic theist's position is not verifiable in principle.
...
Extraordinary claims don't come into it. Whether I accept your claim as true or false is beside the point. In the thought experiment I am trying to determine if your belief is based on faith or evidence not whether it is true or false.
Actually, if a belief is unverifiable in principle, then it cannot be based upon evidence, despite any protestations otherwise of the holder of that belief. How much leeway do we want to cut people who claim to have evidence but don't?quote:
quote:
Then what would you call a person who doesn't express a position on the question at all? "Non-religious?"
I'd go with something like "unclassified".
Well, then what qualifies as "expressing a position?"quote:
I just don't think marf was attempting to address the binary nature of atheism.
Well, that's what I was addressing.quote:
There's a rat's nest of unstated assumptions that have to be made explicit. Are we speaking only about conscious entities? Only humans? Only adults? Only people who have considered the question? How is god defined? Would Thor count as a god for the purpose of the question? What about fairies? What about super advanced aliens? Few people would describe inanimate objects as atheists so it is at least clear that "without a belief in god" is not sufficient for most.
Okay. So in that case even a theist could be considered an athiest when unconscious. All of the constituent parts of a theist (with the exception of those parts that are actively involved in god belief) could also be considered athiests. Every individual atom of a theists body and brain could be considered an athiest.
If you ignore the unstated assumptions you destroy the utility of the concept.
Well, it's time to start adressing them then, because as I said to marf, we're otherwise stuck without an answer to the question in the OP. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 12:06:36 [Permalink]
|
How about, simply, "Anyone who does not believe in a god or gods is an atheist"?
That's exactly what "atheist" means. The "a-" prefix for "without." "The" for "god." But don't forget the "-ist" suffix, implying a person who holds to a philosophy or belief. Though they are not theists, no rocks or wheat need apply.
"Atheist" would also seem to be a general enough term to cover both anti-theists (and "strong atheists"), as well as those simply lacking theist belief (as well as "weak atheists").
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/01/2007 12:08:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 13:05:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, if a belief is unverifiable in principle, then it cannot be based upon evidence, despite any protestations otherwise of the holder of that belief.
Yes, I know. That's why I said that it's not provable that the gnostic theist's position is not verifiable. If it were provable that the gnostic theist's position were not verifiable even in principle, your point would stand.
quote:
Well, then what qualifies as "expressing a position?"
For practical purposes a consistent sincere description of their position should suffice. There may be a need to ask a few follow up questions to determine consistency. If someone were to say "I'm an agnostic theist." but then go on to detail all the evidence proving God's existence then that would be a clear inconsistency.
quote:
Well, it's time to start adressing them then, because as I said to marf, we're otherwise stuck without an answer to the question in the OP.
Well we're not going to come up with anything difinitive on what set of assumptions are the ideal in general. To my way of thinking atheism is a meaningless distinction unless the being in question at least has some capacity for theistic belief.
For the purpose of answering the question in the OP it's reasonable to assume we are talking about skeptics. Defining God might be a bit more problematic. Maybe "intelligent being that created the universe" could work. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 14:36:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yes, I know. That's why I said that it's not provable that the gnostic theist's position is not verifiable. If it were provable that the gnostic theist's position were not verifiable even in principle, your point would stand.
Take the Christian concept of God, for example. There is no evidence that is not consistent with such an all-powerful being, and so there can be no test which will tell us whether or not it exists. "The Christian God exists" is untestable, and so unverifiable, in principle, based upon how the Christians themselves describe their God.quote:
quote:
Well, then what qualifies as "expressing a position?"
For practical purposes a consistent sincere description of their position should suffice. There may be a need to ask a few follow up questions to determine consistency. If someone were to say "I'm an agnostic theist." but then go on to detail all the evidence proving God's existence then that would be a clear inconsistency.
Are you being literal, or can we infer things about a person's position based upon their actions and other statements?quote:
Well we're not going to come up with anything difinitive on what set of assumptions are the ideal in general. To my way of thinking atheism is a meaningless distinction unless the being in question at least has some capacity for theistic belief.
And I think theism is what requires such a capacity. Rocks are similarly incapable of credulity, but that fact doesn't make "skeptic" a meaningless distinction. Would this be better were I to use the word under discussion as an ajective, as in "rocks are atheistic" rather than the implied anthropomorphizing of "rocks are atheists?"quote:
For the purpose of answering the question in the OP it's reasonable to assume we are talking about skeptics.
Agreed, but that doesn't require any change in the definition of "atheism" that I've been using, and to which you seem to object.quote:
Defining God might be a bit more problematic. Maybe "intelligent being that created the universe" could work.
Well, chaloobi did give us "purpose, function, and/or a creator of some type" rather than "God." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 16:14:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Take the Christian concept of God, for example. There is no evidence that is not consistent with such an all-powerful being, and so there can be no test which will tell us whether or not it exists. "The Christian God exists" is untestable, and so unverifiable, in principle, based upon how the Christians themselves describe their God.
There is a logical error here. There is no test that can prove that the Christian God does not exist, but we cannot say whether or not there is a test that proves he does exist. Presumably if God exists and wished to reveal himself or make such a test available he could or has.
quote:
Are you being literal, or can we infer things about a person's position based upon their actions and other statements?
We can infer things certainly. There is no need to exclude any relevant evidence. I was just speaking in practical terms.
quote:
And I think theism is what requires such a capacity. Rocks are similarly incapable of credulity, but that fact doesn't make "skeptic" a meaningless distinction.
I think refering to "atheistic trees", "non-credulous rocks" or "nihilist atoms", is an example of a category error. It may be trivially true but it is essentially meaningless. There has to be some practical possibility that the categorization won't be entirely uniform or no information is actually conveyed.
quote:
Would this be better were I to use the word under discussion as an ajective, as in "rocks are atheistic" rather than the implied anthropomorphizing of "rocks are atheists?"
Only semantically. I think the categorization is fundamentally unsound.
quote:
Agreed, but that doesn't require any change in the definition of "atheism" that I've been using, and to which you seem to object.
And here I thought that would be a good thing. 
quote:
Well, chaloobi did give us "purpose, function, and/or a creator of some type" rather than "God."
Thanks, so that makes the real question "Does skepticism default to no purpose, no function and/or no creator?" Ouch! That sounds pessimistic. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 16:26:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
There is a logical error here. There is no test that can prove that the Christian God does not exist, but we cannot say whether or not there is a test that proves he does exist. Presumably if God exists and wished to reveal himself or make such a test available he could or has.
This is actually why I do not consider myself agnostic, since I do not believe that knowledge of god's existence to be beyond man's intrinsic capabilities any more than any other kind of knowledge is. If god existed, that fact could be supported with evidence, exactly like any other assertion. Just because theists spend the majority of their time thinking up excuses for why that hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't possible in principle.
Absolute knowledge may lie beyond man's ability, but that's true of anything. We when speak of man's ability to know something, it will always be limited. Thus I see no reason why the existence of god should be relegated to a special class of "knowability."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/01/2007 16:27:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 16:52:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Take the Christian concept of God, for example. There is no evidence that is not consistent with such an all-powerful being, and so there can be no test which will tell us whether or not it exists. "The Christian God exists" is untestable, and so unverifiable, in principle, based upon how the Christians themselves describe their God.
There is a logical error here. There is no test that can prove that the Christian God does not exist, but we cannot say whether or not there is a test that proves he does exist. Presumably if God exists and wished to reveal himself or make such a test available he could or has.
But there is no test that proves anything outside of mathematics and logic, both of which are definitional, not empirical. Or am I being too Popperian?quote:
We can infer things certainly. There is no need to exclude any relevant evidence. I was just speaking in practical terms.
Okay, you had me worried there that the 99.9% of people who've never been asked to present a consistent description of their beliefs would get swept into the "unclassified" category.quote:
quote:
And I think theism is what requires such a capacity. Rocks are similarly incapable of credulity, but that fact doesn't make "skeptic" a meaningless distinction.
I think refering to "atheistic trees", "non-credulous rocks" or "nihilist atoms", is an example of a category error. It may be trivially true but it is essentially meaningless. There has to be some practical possibility that the categorization won't be entirely uniform or no information is actually conveyed.
Well, it's trivially true only as a "side-effect" of the definition. marf objected to a definition of "atheist" which would include rocks and plants. I actually don't have a problem with "atheist" meaning "a person with no belief in any gods," but that would still include the brain-dead. We can yoke the definition with more and more qualifiers, but as it applies to this discussion, it's still going to be a binary condition once everyone that it cannot apply to is discarded, because they'll have to be discarded from the "theist" group, also. For example, if the definition winds up being that an atheist "is a person with the capability for theistic ideas and who has made a consistent description of those ideas and who has no belief in any gods," then a theist will necessarily be "a person with the capability for theistic ideas and who has made a consistent description of those ideas and who has a belief in at least one god," and my earlier statement would have been "there are two kinds of people with the capability for theistic ideas and who have made consistent descriptions of those ideas: atheists and everyone else falling into those categories." But isn't that just friggin' tedious?quote:
quote:
Would this be better were I to use the word under discussion as an ajective, as in "rocks are atheistic" rather than the implied anthropomorphizing of "rocks are atheists?"
Only semantically. I think the categorization is fundamentally unsound.
I think the categorization was a bit of a pedantic nit-pick that was unnecessary. I'm still unsure as to why, precisely, marf brought rocks and plants into this.quote:
quote:
Well, chaloobi did give us "purpose, function, and/or a creator of some type" rather than "God."
Thanks, so that makes the real question "Does skepticism default to no purpose, no function and/or no creator?" Ouch! That sounds pessimistic.
Well, it was for the universe as a whole. I'm sure he didn't mean to include personal purposes in there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 18:51:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, Half, what about infants?
Atheists. Mostly strong ones.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 21:59:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
This purpose driven Universe made me think about something. 14 billion years into current Universe/Time and 4 billion years after the Earth was formed an insignificant life form (considering the enormity of the Universe) on a itty bitty planet in an itty bitty galaxy among billions of galaxies and we are supposed to think the fact we evolved to believe things have purpose would have relevancy at all to the big picture?
Your quote made me think about something, are you sure you aren't channeling the late, great Douglas Adams?
quote:
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea...
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 23:40:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
There is a logical error here. There is no test that can prove that the Christian God does not exist, but we cannot say whether or not there is a test that proves he does exist. Presumably if God exists and wished to reveal himself or make such a test available he could or has.
But there is no test that proves anything outside of mathematics and logic, both of which are definitional, not empirical. Or am I being too Popperian?
I don't know if you're being too Popperian or not but let's allow that scientific proof would be sufficient. We shouldn't place a higher burden of proof on our hypothetical gnostic deist than we do on science itself.
quote:
Well, it's trivially true only as a "side-effect" of the definition. marf objected to a definition of "atheist" which would include rocks and plants. I actually don't have a problem with "atheist" meaning "a person with no belief in any gods," but that would still include the brain-dead. We can yoke the definition with more and more qualifiers, but as it applies to this discussion, it's still going to be a binary condition once everyone that it cannot apply to is discarded, because they'll have to be discarded from the "theist" group, also. For example, if the definition winds up being that an atheist "is a person with the capability for theistic ideas and who has made a consistent description of those ideas and who has no belief in any gods," then a theist will necessarily be "a person with the capability for theistic ideas and who has made a consistent description of those ideas and who has a belief in at least one god," and my earlier statement would have been "there are two kinds of people with the capability for theistic ideas and who have made consistent descriptions of those ideas: atheists and everyone else falling into those categories." But isn't that just friggin' tedious?
Perhaps it would be helpful to consider atheism as an analogue to theism. Atheism has meaning only by referencing theism as such they share the same basic assumptions.
If applying the lable "theist" to a thing would be a contradiction in terms, (not merely inaccurate) then applying the lable "atheist" to that thing would also be a contradiction in terms.
You'd probably agree that "square circle" is a contradiction in terms. What I'm saying is that "non-square circle" is also a contradiction in terms. "Non-square circle" is true only in the same meaningless sense that "square circle" is false. Both are simply nonsense.
quote:
I think the categorization was a bit of a pedantic nit-pick that was unnecessary. I'm still unsure as to why, precisely, marf brought rocks and plants into this.
I think bringing inanimate objects into the picture was a way to illustrate the inadequacy of the simple "lacking a God belief" definition of atheism.
quote:
quote:
Thanks, so that makes the real question "Does skepticism default to no purpose, no function and/or no creator?" Ouch! That sounds pessimistic.
Well, it was for the universe as a whole. I'm sure he didn't mean to include personal purposes in there.
There is that. Still, I think adding purpose and function into the picture only serves to muddy the waters. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 02:34:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
This purpose driven Universe made me think about something. 14 billion years into current Universe/Time and 4 billion years after the Earth was formed an insignificant life form (considering the enormity of the Universe) on a itty bitty planet in an itty bitty galaxy among billions of galaxies and we are supposed to think the fact we evolved to believe things have purpose would have relevancy at all to the big picture?
Your quote made me think about something, are you sure you aren't channeling the late, great Douglas Adams?
quote:
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea...
I imagine there are many people who have pondered the insignificance of being a tiny bit on a tiny plant in a GIANT Universe.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 22:09:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does Skepticism Default to Atheism?
No.
Skepticism about religion, on the other hand, does.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 05:21:39 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
Skepticism about religion, on the other hand, does.
I gotta disagree and side with Wikipedia. From the stub on "religious skepticism": quote:
Religious skepticism is a type of skepticism relating to religion, but should not be confused with atheism. Religious skeptics question religious authority and are not necessarily anti-religious but are those skeptical of a specific or all religious beliefs or practices.
And in the article on "skepticism": quote:
Religious skepticism is skepticism regarding faith-based claims. Religious skeptics may focus on the core tenets of religions, such as the existence of divine beings, or reports of earthly miracles. A religious skeptic is not necessarily an atheist or agnostic.
Also in the article on skepticism, a whole slew of phrases, all of which fall within a particular scope, are used to describe both ordinary and philosophical skepticism. Such phrases include attitude of doubt, suspended judgment, systematic doubt, continual testing, and intellectual caution.
Reading over the whole article, it ends up describing theistic skeptics such as our friend Indeterminacy (and some other members of this forum) just as well as it might describe a skeptical atheist or agnostic.
Socrates, the most true of historical skeptics, was prosecuted for atheism, but that label is questionable. Jennifer Hecht writes in Doubt: A History: quote:
Socrates was indicted for atheism, but the wording of the indictment suggests that even his accusers did not think him particularly atheistic, just disruptive and antitraditionalist. From Plato and others we know that Socrates respected the traditional rites of piety. At his famous trial, Socrates responded to his accuser by asking if the idea was that he didn't believe in any gods at all. He went on to say that it had been an oracle that told him to become a philosopher, and he would not have risked the unpleasant social and economic consequences of such a life if he had not believed in the divine origins of the command.
I have often asserted on this forum that skepticism deals in the acceptance of knowledge or facts, and that so long as one holds beliefs separate from knowledge, and holds them tentatively and never in opposition to knowledge, that one is being equally skeptical to another without those beliefs. Again from the Wikipedia article on "skepticism": quote:
the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
Plenty of theists have such an attitude about their own religious beliefs. How can we say that is not religious skepticism? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2007 05:24:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Does Skepticism Default to Atheism?
