Inspired by the Atheism Thread

[Daniel_]

I've been reading the atheism thread with interest and one thing that occurs to me is that on multiple occasions, self confessed theists have told me what atheism is, and what I (or others like me) believe.

So - I'd like to post what I feel about atheism, god, and godlessness.

If I believe anything, I believe in Occam's Razor.

Put simply, I believe that in any situation, the simplest answer is the most reasonable in most cases.

I find that the testable observations of science make more sense to me than the untestable explanations presented by theists.

As soon as a theist can offer me an explanation that holds as much water as those of science, I'll accept that I was wrong about God.

The converse does not in my explanation seem to be true very often (that a theist will become an atheist when sufficient science is explained to them in simple terms).

Please do not post here telling me what atheists believe, or what theists believe, there's another thread for that, please tell me what you feel about your own belief (or lack thereof).

Thanks.

[levite]

I believe in God, partly because I see what I perceive to be the effects of the hand of God at work in the world around us (nature, people, etc.), and partly because I have had moments where I personally feel the presence of God with me.

I have no need to convince anyone or prove anything, so I don't really think about "evidence" or "proof" about God. What other people believe is their business, not mine.

[Willravel]

By my understanding, most theists don't believe because they think they can prove there is a god (creationists and the like are, in fact, in the extreme minority, even in the US). No, most simply have a different basiss upon which they build their understanding of the universe. Where you, Dan, and I may be somewhat pragmatic, skeptical, and scientifically based, someone similar to levite has a perception that don't require real evidence (the type of evidence that would be admissible in court). He has made the decision to see things in a certain way, and that way happens to be different than you and I.

Sometimes it's the way someone is born, sometimes it's the way someone is raised, and sometimes it's simply a decision: for whatever reason, there is simply a belief that is.

I also have sets of beliefs, even as an atheist, such as my morality and my subjective impressions about life (my philosophy). I can't really explain why I am a secular humanist, but I am and that's just how I am. It feels right. Levite should correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect his faith in G-d is similar.

[jewels]

I believe there may be a higher power I'm hesitant to call God.

I don't profess to know what it is, but I don't discount the possibility that the the answer could be in whales, dolphins or some other ancient underwater creature, an alien science project ... I'm open to all possibilities until there's proof otherwise.

That said, I do have much pride and often celebrate in the heritage of my ancestors, but I absolutely do not believe in any organized religion.

I've formed my ideas based on the religion I grew up in, weekly stoned bible studies and church frequenting during high (prep) school, many stoned hours writing personal philosophy and - yeah okay - judgments formed after years and years of watching the hypocrisy of nearly all churchgoing people I've met.

This is my perspective, but my judgment contributes to my personal beliefs, and does not impact my respect for anyone else's.

[Martian]

I think I touched on my own beliefs in the Atheism thread, but I will be more than happy to put them down here for any who's interested.

First of all, I believe that I know very little. This is my starting point. For all the 24 year's worth of knowledge I've accumulated, there are thousands of years worth of teachings out there that I will never get around to in my lifetime and there are millions of years worth of phenomena and principles and mechanics within this mortal coil of ours that I will never be able to study and comprehend.

From this I draw the conclusion that for me to assume that I can guess the answer to the biggest question we as a species are faced with (the origin of the Universe) is simply misinformed and more than a little conceited. I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion from and anything I attempt to give as an answer is wild speculation. There's no basis for it.

But then, I don't know everything, as has already been established. Therefore it's entirely possible that other individuals might know something I don't. Given that, it would be equally arrogant for me to dismiss their beliefs; I know that they've thought about their own answers, probably at least as much as I've thought about mine. Their answers are clearly valid and meaningful to them, so who am I to say that they're wrong? I don't know that they're wrong anymore than I know that they're right. The only thing I know is that I know very little.

This is why I try to approach all beliefs on equal footing, whether they're Christian or Judaic or atheistic. Each is deserving of respect; I may not share your opinion, but I will certainly respect your right to it and even acknowledge the fact that I cannot say with any certainty that you're wrong.

Interestingly, this means that the only time I will come into conflict with someone's religious beliefs is when that person refuses to show me or another person the same respect. You don't have to believe what someone else believes in order to respect their right to draw their own conclusions. Assuming that you hold all the answers and that other people are too stupid or too badly misinformed to find the 'right' answer on their own is, I think, the absolute pinnacle of arrogance.

And that's what I believe.

[Charlatan]

I am open to the possibility that there is a god or a higher being I just think it is highly (extremely) improbable. As I reason out the possibility of god it just doesn't make sense to me. Everything I have seen and experienced suggests that there is no god and no reason for a god.

I am content in the view that morality rises from our collective experience. That there is no life after death, only death and that the meaning and purpose of life, whatever it might be, is to be found in the life you live and the people you live it with.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by levite

I believe in God, partly because I see what I perceive to be the effects of the hand of God at work in the world around us (nature, people, etc.), and partly because I have had moments where I personally feel the presence of God with me.

I have no need to convince anyone or prove anything, so I don't really think about "evidence" or "proof" about God. What other people believe is their business, not mine.

This is pretty much how I feel. My beliefs are a little more complicated--for instance, I believe that God has a feminine component, historically represented as the Great Goddess, or Mary in Christianity. I believe the Goddess is the one who intercedes for us on a day-to-day basis--she is our Mother. At any rate, hers is the presence I have felt, as well as the presence of Jesus. Yet these are things I would never be able to explain to someone and expect them to understand. All of these moments are deeply personal and reinforce my belief, but there is no way for me to prove that they occurred, and as such, I don't expect them to carry any weight with other people.

But I do know what has happened to me, and I know what I see in the world around me, and I know what is true to me. My belief system is a weird amalgamation of mainline Protestantism (go Episcopalians!), crossed with a fair bit of Wicca and a healthy dose of Buddhism.

Spirituality is something that comes from within us, and as such, it is something that is up to each individual to define.

[Baraka_Guru]

I am on the fence with Occam's Razor. I am willing to accept such a position, which easily gels with my generally Buddhist/humanist beliefs, but, on the other hand, I don't want to be so hasty.

In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant writes, "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished." This in response to Occam's position. It would be a shame to pass on an opporunity for great wisdom on a whim or out of impatience. The path of simplicity, or of least resistance, isn't always the best one.

I'd rather do the work than pass it up.

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by levite

I believe in God, partly because I see what I perceive to be the effects of the hand of God at work in the world around us (nature, people, etc.), and partly because I have had moments where I personally feel the presence of God with me.

I have no need to convince anyone or prove anything, so I don't really think about "evidence" or "proof" about God. What other people believe is their business, not mine.

This pretty much sums it up as far as I go too. I feel sometimes that non believers are much more interested in proving non existence than I am in proving existence

[Halx]

To explain why the theists have little drive to prove, while the atheists are all too eager; its because an atheist's position is one of logic. One uses logic to make a point, to judge, or to convince. Its not worth the trouble applying logic to god because you just can't translate it from person to person.

Verily, that is my "proof" - the conclusion of atheism is more consistent than that of theism.

[miko]

As an agnostic, I always got the feeling that theists have the personal need to believe. They need to believe there is something bigger than them. They need to believe that there is life after death. They need to believe it isn't just over when you die. They need an explanation for everything (hence the bible). They need to believe there is a reason everything happens, like losing a loved one. They need to believe they are not alone in this big scary world. They need someone to turn to for answers when there is no one else. They need to have values set for them and for those around them. They need to feel safe and protected.

Personally, I don't need any of that. At this time, anyway.

I think the only reason that non-believers have any interest in proving anything is that we are constantly bombarded with believers beliefs. Most non believers don't give a hoot what you or anyone else believes. We just go on with our daily lives minding our own business. Until believers start preaching, trying to convert, saying simple things like "god bless" at the end of an email, etc. Believers don't understand why this is annoying.

[roachboy]

i came to a position of agnosticism tending toward atheism from inside the judeo-christian tradition by way of folk like kierkegaard and, especially, pascal. nominalism.

on those terms: if human understanding is finite and this god character the inverse (infinite), it follows that human understanding would have no access to or understanding of this character.

worse: the set up of that relation relies on inversions of categories and entails no knowledge. it is just as arbitrary as any other such statement.


general: our understanding of the world is limited and circumscribed by the effects of assumptions that we use to organize information.
i operate with the assumption that there is much that we do not know and that what i know is much smaller a set than what we know and i am ok with that.
i do not think that we do not and cannot know anything about the world, but we work with severe limitations that we impose on ourselves often without realizing it.
tinkering with this problem and ways to deal with it is why i like philosophy.

i don't grant any particular privilege to occam's razor, mostly for the reasons baraka guru outlined above but without the kant quote.
i'd probably have put up something from wittgenstein.
it's all the same, really.
occam's razor is an aesthetic commitment. that's all it is.

what unifies believers who are firm in their belief and atheists who are firm in theirs is anxiety in the face of radical, irreducible uncertainty.
i dont think either group can deal with it: so they each, in opposite ways, try to eliminate it.
i think that's weakness and its reverse in arrogance, but i don't particularly care about it.
i don't see this as a fundamental issue.
i see it as a consumer choice.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if human understanding is finite and this god character the inverse (infinite), it follows that human understanding would have no access to or understanding of this character.

This is the exact reason I am agnostic, and disbelieve almost all perceptions of what God thinks or is. If this thing is infinite, how dare we even begin to believe we can understand the motivations, understandings, and feelings of being as large as this?

[filtherton]

I think that on the subject of occam's razor, there is only a difference of interpretation between some theists and some atheists. God is a much simpler explanation for everything than particle physics if you presume that god needs no explanation.

The reason I say "some" is that I think it is a mistake to assume that there is anything about the words "atheist" or "theist" which imply anything meaningful about the motivations and justifications one has for being an atheist or a theist.

Not all atheists are atheists out of a commitment to rationality. Not all theists are theists because of a commitment to irrationality.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by roachboy

occam's razor is an aesthetic commitment. that's all it is.

Whilst I realise that Occam himself may have meant it this way, I was using the phrase in a general way - I had thought that was cear from context that I as open to convincing that God exists, but that to date nobody has ever explained to me their belief in a way that sounds convincing.

As I said in the earlier thread - belief isn't a choice, it's an atribute. People with belief don't need proof, anymore than I need elevator shoes (being already tall).

Proof or convincing arguments seem to me the theistic equivalent of a walking stick - for those who do not have the attribute of faith, the assistance of proof can produce similar results.

I'm not saying that there's no God, or that theists are wrong, I'm saying that the feeling that there IS a God is one that I've never had.

[roachboy]

Whilst I realise that Occam himself may have meant it this way, I was using the phrase in a general way

if i understand this correctly--and i'm not sure i do--the claim regarding the razor would still obtain--all that would change is that you could be surprised by it. not meaning to be snippy with this, but---what else could it possibly be BUT an aesthetic commitment?

unless you imagine that there is some correspondence between it and phenomena in the world---but i'd argue that is also an aesthetic commitment.

I had thought that was cear from context that I as open to convincing that God exists, but that to date nobody has ever explained to me their belief in a way that sounds convincing.

uh...ok.
i'm not the one to help you with this, however.

belief isn't a choice, it's an atribute

that makes no sense.
you mean belief is like--say--having a nose?

all it seems like your saying really is that faith and proof are different from each other--which is entirely unobjectionable--and that faith can precede and condition the results generated by any given proof--in the way any axiom can--so....

all this is in pascal.
he was a smart guy--you might enjoy the pensées.

[Jinn]

I'm agnostic because I know that by the rules of logic I cannot prove OR disprove the existence of any diety. Thereby, it'd be silly for me to adamantly hold either position.

It's too much of an inconvenience on my life to adhere to the rules of any religion, as it is too much cognitive dissonance to believe in something I cannot see, feel, hear, touch, or know.

On my deathbed, I'll probably "convert" to as many religions as I can, in the "just in case" sense of it. Presumably some that allow this type of "deathbed confessional" (Catholicism), and probably one of the Judeo-Christian variants (because I'm more familiar with them).

I won't be converting because I actually believe them, but more because it doesn't hurt to try, in the event that I really was wrong about my disbelief in deities. And for ONCE in my life, I might actually "need" that comfort that Christians so love - the comfort of knowing people will be happy in Heaven, etc. In my daily life, I've never 'needed' that comfort.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if i understand this correctly--and i'm not sure i do--the claim regarding the razor would still obtain--all that would change is that you could be surprised by it. not meaning to be snippy with this, but---what else could it possibly be BUT an aesthetic commitment?

unless you imagine that there is some correspondence between it and phenomena in the world---but i'd argue that is also an aesthetic commitment.




uh...ok.
i'm not the one to help you with this, however.




that makes no sense.
you mean belief is like--say--having a nose?

all it seems like your saying really is that faith and proof are different from each other--which is entirely unobjectionable--and that faith can precede and condition the results generated by any given proof--in the way any axiom can--so....

all this is in pascal.
he was a smart guy--you might enjoy the pensées.

Belief is an atriibute, because you either have it or not. Just like a nose.

I've come to this realisation by talking to many people with faith. They almost always say that they cannot explain how they know that there's a god, but that they just FEEL it (or similar expressions).

One of the things that always puzzles me is how almost all of the people who KNOW Jesus died for their sins were born to Christian parents, whilst all the ones that KNOW that Mohamed is the true Prophet were born to Islamic families.

My atheism is my rational response to the thoughts I have had about the world around me - I was raised in a Christian way, and attended several churches until I was about 18, but then stopped going - so in a way, I'm a Christian Atheist.

My confusion about "TRUTH" is that all the religions in the world are mutually exclusive. They all seem to be human constructs; even if you accept that the people who wrote the various holy books were sincere and were documenting their own heartfelt belief that they HAD spoken to God, the way that these faiths have been practiced in the intervening times has been affected by non-divine influences.

I guess that the thing I mis-trust is that if in historic times various prophets claim to have had messages from god delivered into their hands, why is it that the messages are so confused now, and that God has not sent any prophets for centuries?

Unless the Mormons are right, and they had one?

If there is a God, why are the messages so confused?

Also, as an asside - long ago, the scriptures or many religions tell us that Gd (or some divine entities) caused miracles on earth - there's different stories, but we've got powerful examples of massive wrld changing miracles in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc.

So how come now the best that Jesus can do is appear on a tortilla chip, or the best that Vishnu can do is manifest as a deformed baby by the Ganges that lives for 10 days?

I supose that before I can acquire faith, I need to know which faith is right, and why the wrong ones have been allowed to carry on by an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator. If this is what God is, why not just reveal the truth to everyone at the same time in an unambiguous way?

EDIT

Oh - and I left a bit out. Looking back I see that you called Occam's Razor aetheitic - I mis-read that as atheistic, and answered accordingly. You are quite right, William of Ockham was writing about aesthetics in the litteral sense.

[Mantus]

God is a philosophical creation.

I see philosophy as a pursuit of understanding subjective concepts though subjective devices.

I believe that human being understand the world though relativity: the relationship between objects and ideas. Subjectivity is a quality attributed to things outside the realm of experience. If our world concept can be seen as a spiderweb of connected objects and ideas than subjective concepts are those items within that web which are added by our mind to fill in missing links.

Philosophy is a way for us to explore far past the objective limits of this relative network. God is one such philosophical device. It is a placeholder for everything we don't understand. A temporary link to connect dots that have a link we don't yet perceive. We can be very creative with such devices.

In the end everything, including experience, requires faith. We never have a complete picture of the world around us. Philosophy is very much a necessity for living a fulfilling life. There are times when "spirituality" is the best attribute we can give to the experiences in our life. In this case Occam's Razor plays against the atheist because much like theists they dive into the complexities of scientific theories.

I see life as walking a fine balance between faith and perception. At times going with your gut is the best course of action; accepting the spiritual allows us to fully experience a moment rather than lose it to scientific analysis; opening our minds to contradicting possibilities gives us the right answer; and thinking outside the box leads us to the right perspective.

How does one live like this? To begin we have to have faith in the most important variable of all: ourselves. We are the center of our relative universe. If we don't have faith in ourselves than all else becomes suspect and looking for other sources of truth - outside ourselves - will only lead to pain.

So I start with a simple statement: "I'm" and work my way from there using both perception and faith.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think that on the subject of occam's razor, there is only a difference of interpretation between some theists and some atheists. God is a much simpler explanation for everything than particle physics if you presume that god needs no explanation.

In that case I assume particle physics needs no explanation.

That was easy.

God isn't a simple explanation for anything. Its an amazingly complex explanation.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In that case I assume particle physics needs no explanation.

That was easy.

God isn't a simple explanation for anything. Its an amazingly complex explanation.

I won't argue that you aren't free to assume that particle physics needs no explanation. Those pesky particles seem to just plug along with little regard for our ability to understand their underlying mechanisms. You'd be doing something very unscientific to something very scientific (if you exclude string theory). It wouldn't make much sense in the context of particle physics, but you could do it.

Theists don't necessarily care to explain god, I imagine many deem it impossible. Scientists, at least the optimistic ones, think everything can be explained. They don't necessarily think that an explanation will ever be forthcoming, just that one exists. This way of looking at the world clearly violates Occam's Razor; assuming that everything has an explanation is essentially assuming the universe has infinite complexity, which isn't very simple at all.

If one really wanted to be down with Occam they'd assume that there was at least one thing that was completely unexplainable, a kind of "final explanation" of some sort. They wouldn't have to call it god, of course.

That's if one really wanted to be down with Occam. I think his razor is a bit overrated.

[Willravel]

Occam's Razor is about lazy deductive reasoning. It's fine in a pinch, but if you want a real, reliable answer it falls flat.

[Charlatan]

I honestly don't care if there is a God or not. I suppose if God were to come down and prove himself to me somehow, I might be convinced. But the proof would have to be something tangible to me (after all, God is supposedly a personal God so if it isn't tangible to me then what's the point?).

The only times where I actually care what anyone believes or doesn't is when their beliefs and practices are imposed upon me.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by willravel

Occam's Razor is about lazy deductive reasoning. It's fine in a pinch, but if you want a real, reliable answer it falls flat.

I don't mean to single you out, willravel, since you're not the only one who seems to have little understanding of parsimony but... Good God! "If you want a real, reliable answer it falls flat?" What on God's green Earth is that supposed to mean?

Parsimony, the actual name for the principle now commonly expressed by that stupid phrase made popular only by that stupid movie, is a philosophy of pragmatism. The simplest explanation with the requisite properties is the prefered one because... it is the simplest! In other words, why needlessly complicate your life with theories more complex than they need be.

In other words, if you have two theories with equal explanatory power, you should prefer the simpler one because it will make life easier. Is it more "true?" Well, what is truth? They have the same explanatory power so they're both equally true. So, your only decision is whether you want to live an easy life or a hard life. Most of us don't need life to be any harder than it already is. In regards to science, the subject appears to already be too complicated for the minds of most people without needlessly complicating it with non-parsimonious theories!

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I honestly don't care if there is a God or not. I suppose if God were to come down and prove himself to me somehow, I might be convinced. But the proof would have to be something tangible to me (after all, God is supposedly a personal God so if it isn't tangible to me then what's the point?).

The only times where I actually care what anyone believes or doesn't is when their beliefs and practices are imposed upon me.

Want to join my apatheist movement?

[Leto]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I'm agnostic because I know that by the rules of logic I cannot prove OR disprove the existence of any diety. Thereby, it'd be silly for me to adamantly hold either position.....

I think that this pretty well sums it up in my mind as well. It takes a heap of faith to be either Atheistic or Theistic. Given the lack of proof either for or against a God, I choose to "Not Know" (Agnostic).

Given the advances of human capability to measure and predict using the scientific method, I can't discount that one day we will be able to use provable (to the scientific community) methods to take the measure of a supreme being. So as a scientist, I would never disclaim the existence of a God, simply because I cannot take God's measure. In this way, I think that there should be no problem for religion and science to co-exist.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I don't mean to single you out, willravel, since you're not the only one who seems to have little understanding of parsimony but... Good God! "If you want a real, reliable answer it falls flat?" What on God's green Earth is that supposed to mean?

Ironically, the answer to this question is simple: Occam's Razor is an educated guess. Educated guesses aren't going to be reliable as conclusions based on firm, verifiable data. Many times the answer is not the simplest one, in fact, so using Occam's Razor for some conclusions is incorrect. Occam's Razor isn't a law; it's a logical principle that has nothing to do with the scientific method.

[roachboy]

occams razor is an older enactment of a principle of parsimony. all it amounts to is a preference for a simpler (or more general) explanation if you are selecting from amongst a range of possible explanations.

aside: the more powerful arguments that lead from a basically agnostic position regarding this god character toward atheism is an argument from consequences of adopting a theist or non-theist starting point. this generlly runs you toward the political implications of one or another. on those grounds, you can introduce questions of proof/evidence.

for example, if you adopt a premise based on a god-character, it generally follows that human beings do not create meanings, but rather that they find them. there are significant political consequences that follow from this.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I don't mean to single you out, willravel, since you're not the only one who seems to have little understanding of parsimony but... Good God! "If you want a real, reliable answer it falls flat?" What on God's green Earth is that supposed to mean?

Parsimony, the actual name for the principle now commonly expressed by that stupid phrase made popular only by that stupid movie, is a philosophy of pragmatism. The simplest explanation with the requisite properties is the prefered one because... it is the simplest! In other words, why needlessly complicate your life with theories more complex than they need be.

In other words, if you have two theories with equal explanatory power, you should prefer the simpler one because it will make life easier. Is it more "true?" Well, what is truth? They have the same explanatory power so they're both equally true. So, your only decision is whether you want to live an easy life or a hard life. Most of us don't need life to be any harder than it already is. In regards to science, the subject appears to already be too complicated for the minds of most people without needlessly complicating it with non-parsimonious theories!

Not addressed to me, but meh.

The principle of Parsimony is excellent for informing a bias, but does not provide anything concrete. As willravel noted, it's not a scientific principle but rather a philosophical one. In some cases it can be useful, but in a situation where there's little to no data to begin with it doesn't really tell us anything. One could argue that atheistic viewpoints tend to be less complex than theistic ones and are therefore more probable, but with no evidence it's impossible to draw any conclusions on the matter.

There is no law, principle or hypothesis that can be used to prove or disprove religious beliefs of any nature. Such is the nature of religion.

Also, Contact the novel is much better than Contact the movie.

Originally Posted by filtherton

Want to join my apatheist movement?

I'm pretty sure the adjective form of apathy is apathetic, which would by extension mean that your movement would be more properly named apatheticism. I'd get out a dictionary to double-check this myself, but if 'm honest I just don't care.

Originally Posted by roachboy

for example, if you adopt a premise based on a god-character, it generally follows that human beings do not create meanings, but rather that they find them. there are significant political consequences that follow from this.

That's a fun premise, and certainly not one I'd argue with. Determinism, anyone?

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Martian

I'm pretty sure the adjective form of apathy is apathetic, which would by extension mean that your movement would be more properly named apatheticism. I'd get out a dictionary to double-check this myself, but if 'm honest I just don't care.

Well, I originally thought I was going to be cute and coin a term referring to someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't find the question of the existence or nonexistence of god all that compelling. Apatheist seemed like a good term. I googled it, and apparently there was some dead guy from the past who had also had the idea of being cute.

I think the existence of a god is a silly thing to argue about.

[Daniel_]

An apatheist surely is someone that doesn't care if God exists or not...

[filtherton]

An apatheist, at least as I'm concerned with the definition, doesn't care about the question of the existence of god.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by willravel

Ironically, the answer to this question is simple: Occam's Razor is an educated guess. Educated guesses aren't going to be reliable as conclusions based on firm, verifiable data. Many times the answer is not the simplest one, in fact, so using Occam's Razor for some conclusions is incorrect. Occam's Razor isn't a law; it's a logical principle that has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Martian

The principle of Parsimony is excellent for informing a bias, but does not provide anything concrete. As willravel noted, it's not a scientific principle but rather a philosophical one. In some cases it can be useful, but in a situation where there's little to no data to begin with it doesn't really tell us anything. One could argue that atheistic viewpoints tend to be less complex than theistic ones and are therefore more probable, but with no evidence it's impossible to draw any conclusions on the matter.

Judging by these reponses, I still think you're all missing the point of parsimony.

Parsimony is not an educated guess. It's not an analysis of probability. It's not even about finding answers. It's about what kind of answers you're willing to settle for! If, after your investigations, you have several theories that fit the data, you pick the simplest one because it's the simplest. Do you want to live a hard life or a simple life? If you get more data, you reconsider your theories and repeat the whole process. It was never a method for determining anything, in and of itself, and it's not supposed to curtail investigation. To think this is to miss the point...

[Martian]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Parsimony is not an educated guess.

True.

Originally Posted by KnifeMissle

It's not an analysis of probability.

False. This is precisely what the principle of parsimony is.

principle of parsimony

Also called Ockham's Razor.

Principle that one should not multiply entities unnecessarily, or make further assumptions than are needed, and in general that one should pursue the simplest hypothesis.

Adoption of this principle, though seemingly obvious, leads to problems about the role of simplicity in science, especially when we are choosing between hypotheses that are not (or are not known to be) equivalent.

There are often different and clashing criteria for what is the simplest hypothesis, and it is not clear whether a simpler hypothesis is pro tanto more likely to be true; and if not, what justification other than laziness there is for adopting it.

Source

The principle of parsimony indicates that in a situation where multiple explanations of a phenomenon are possible, one should choose the least complex (simplest). This is, at it's essence, a statement of probability; it is essentially equivalent to stating that, all things being equal, complexity and probability are inversely proportional.

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

It's not even about finding answers. It's about what kind of answers you're willing to settle for! If, after your investigations, you have several theories that fit the data, you pick the simplest one because it's the simplest. Do you want to live a hard life or a simple life?

In a scientific context, one should never settle for any answers. If the evidence is inconclusive, one should state that. If the evidence correlates to a conclusion but does not prove it, one should state that. One should never settle for any sort of an answer or assume something to be true or false based solely on it's complexity.

In an objective evaluation, what one wants has nothing to do with the conclusions one draws.

Originally Posted by KnifeMissle

It was never a method for determining anything, in and of itself, and it's not supposed to curtail investigation. To think this is to miss the point...

Precisely. You seem to be misunderstanding what this implies. One cannot simply choose the truth. I firmly believe that the truth in a theological context is beyond human grasp, but I do not take this as license for me to choose the answer I like best.

This is exactly why said principle does not apply in this discussion. We can use the principle of parsimony to inform a bias, but once that's done we cannot investigate the matter any further. There's no evidence to base any investigation on, and therefore application of the principle of parsimony doesn't lead to any progress towards an answer to questions theistic in nature.

Your problem stems from a misapplication of the principle of parsimony; you're trying to apply it after analysing the data, where in truth it should be applied before any analysis occurs. This is where your confusion lies.

I assure you that I have a full and complete understanding of the philosophic principles in play here, and based on past discourse I feel confident in stating that willravel does as well.

[Mondak]

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand Lecture, Columbia University 1960

excerpt . . . I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are impossible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind -- a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence. And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: "It's so, because I say so," will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later. ...

I thought of this when I read your thread. It is from a longer lecture Called "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the modern world"

Theists feel intense cognitive dissonance when presented with atheists. These conversations usually result in anger on the part of the theist. This anger is the precurser to violence, even if the individual them self never resorts to it. They simply have no other course open to them.

Here is a link to the lecture in case you want to read the entire thing.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2224701/tx...e-Modern-World

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Mondak

Theists feel intense cognitive dissonance when presented with atheists. These conversations usually result in anger on the part of the theist. This anger is the precurser to violence, even if the individual them self never resorts to it. They simply have no other course open to them.

I don't think this is true at all. From what I've seen, most theist on atheist conversations result in anger on the part of all involved, and the anger has less to do with who was right than with the fact that conversations like that tend to bring out the inner douchebag. There is no shortage of misplaced smug self righteousness on either side of the debate.

What you're claiming seems to me to be more like rationalization, perhaps a tad self serving) of the communication problems inherent between two fundamentally divergent perspectives. Cognitive dissonance would only come into play if the theist in question believed that faith and reason weren't compatible. Some theists do some theists don't.

And as far as Ayn Rand and reason vs. brutality, didn't one of the protagonists in The Fountainhead rape on of the other protagonists into loving him? Isn't her version of a free market utopia based on the rich, intelligent, strong people (I guess for her these words are synonyms) force the stupid, slovenly, poor folk to submit?

Aside from that, I think it is generally a stretch to claim that men ever really deal with one another from a basis of pure reason.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't think this is true at all. From what I've seen, most theist on atheist conversations result in anger on the part of all involved, and the anger has less to do with who was right than with the fact that conversations like that tend to bring out the inner douchebag. There is no shortage of misplaced smug self righteousness on either side of the debate.

In an argument in a bar sure, I'll agree with you, but this is on a broader scale, wars and suppression of ideas. There the theist becomes the aggressor.

What you're claiming seems to me to be more like rationalization, perhaps a tad self serving) of the communication problems inherent between two fundamentally divergent perspectives. Cognitive dissonance would only come into play if the theist in question believed that faith and reason weren't compatible. Some theists do some theists don't.

I honestly have a hard time understanding how any intelligent, educated theist can be employing reason in regards to their own faith. Faith itself implies there is no need for reason.

Aside from that, I think it is generally a stretch to claim that men ever really deal with one another from a basis of pure reason.

Ego can always get in the way.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In an argument in a bar sure, I'll agree with you, but this is on a broader scale, wars and suppression of ideas. There the theist becomes the aggressor.

Well, if we want to play the "religion is responsible for war" game I might direct you to a couple of folks who were popular in Europe and Asia in the 20th century. Perhaps it is a claim that could be made about specific theists in specific contexts, but Mondak was referring to general conversations between general atheists and general theists (at least as far as I could tell), which generally have nothing to do with wars or suppression of ideas, beyond flame wars and bannings.

I honestly have a hard time understanding how any intelligent, educated theist can be employing reason in regards to their own faith. Faith itself implies there is no need for reason.

On the great ideological road trip, reason has to do with how you get where you're going with whatever you started with, faith has to do with what you start with.

Solid reasoning can result in questionable conclusions if that reasoning is based on questionable premises. Uncertainty in the premises doesn't make the conclusion any less valid with respect to the reason used to derive it. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say (not that I think theology is garbage).

Speaking of congnitive dissonance and reasoning, yesterday's New York Times had an article about a scientist (mathematician maybe) who may have just invalidated a whole set of "classic" psychology experiments concerning cognitive dissonance in monkeys. All he did was show, using a fairly straightforward probability proof, that the researchers apparently assumed that apes choose things randomly, when it could have also plausibly assumed that they don't. The researcher's premises were flawed, their conclusion probably wrong, but the reasoning they used to get from that premise to their conclusion wasn't. In fact, the reasoning seemed so solid, that despite the fact that the science was bad, it seems it took over 50 years for anyone to catch it.

This is really only related to the present discussion tangentially, but I thought it was interesting.

Ego can always get in the way.

That's what I'm saying. I also think that the problems of religion are also problems of ego.

[Mondak]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't think this is true at all. From what I've seen, most theist on atheist conversations result in anger on the part of all involved, and the anger has less to do with who was right than with the fact that conversations like that tend to bring out the inner douchebag. There is no shortage of misplaced smug self righteousness on either side of the debate.

Quite literally two people speaking different languages - much like the example I quoted above. It is frustrating for both parties, but the mystic has no recourse when "faith" is the basis of their conversation.

Originally Posted by filtherton

What you're claiming seems to me to be more like rationalization, perhaps a tad self serving) of the communication problems inherent between two fundamentally divergent perspectives. Cognitive dissonance would only come into play if the theist in question believed that faith and reason weren't compatible. Some theists do some theists don't.

One cannot choose reason when it is convenient to do so and ignore it when mystic claims fit. Even if some theists try to make reason compatible with faith - it does not make it so. The fact that some may "believe" they are compatible has no bearing on whether they actually are.

Originally Posted by filtherton

And as far as Ayn Rand and reason vs. brutality, didn't one of the protagonists in The Fountainhead rape on of the other protagonists into loving him? Isn't her version of a free market utopia based on the rich, intelligent, strong people (I guess for her these words are synonyms) force the stupid, slovenly, poor folk to submit?

Trying to invalidate all of what is found in The Fountainhead because Roark and Dominique had a complex relationship that requires a grasp of reason to understand does not make any of the ideas presented there any less true and is itself and escape from reason. And no idea from the book represents a free market that has anything to do with forcing anyone to do anything. In fact it is the exact opposite. Reading it may help, but I suspect not.

Originally Posted by filtherton

Aside from that, I think it is generally a stretch to claim that men ever really deal with one another from a basis of pure reason.

I do. It is my only way.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Mondak

Quite literally two people speaking different languages - much like the example I quoted above. It is frustrating for both parties, but the mystic has no recourse when "faith" is the basis of their conversation.

No recourse for what?

One cannot choose reason when it is convenient to do so and ignore it when mystic claims fit. Even if some theists try to make reason compatible with faith - it does not make it so. The fact that some may "believe" they are compatible has no bearing on whether they actually are.

Okay, well it would be interesting to me if you could provide a reason for your assertions about the nature of reason, because it seems to me that your definition of reason isn't all that reasonable. As far as the dictionary and I can tell, reason isn't the same thing as science. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Reasonable people can disagree, and proper reasoning need not result in accuracy with respect to reality or scientific verifiability.

What reason should not be, is a convenient excuse for self righteously sequestering yourself away from anyone who disagrees with you.

Also,

I can reasonably come to faulty conclusions, and I can, using proper reasoning, come to correct conclusions based on faulty premises.

Trying to invalidate all of what is found in The Fountainhead because Roark and Dominique had a complex relationship that requires a grasp of reason to understand does not make any of the ideas presented there any less true and is itself and escape from reason. And no idea from the book represents a free market that has anything to do with forcing anyone to do anything. In fact it is the exact opposite. Reading it may help, but I suspect not.

I wasn't trying to invalidate the fountainhead based on Ayn Rand's rape fantasies. The fact that it is boring and simplistic should be enough to invalidate it. I was just pointing out that Rand is full of shit when it comes to dismissing anyone for their brutality.

I do. It is my only way.

If you honestly believe this then the only thing you've convinced me of is that you aren't very in touch with yourself.