Inspired by the Atheism Thread
 

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. :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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!

Want to join my apatheist movement?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...

True.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Ego can always get in the way.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 do. It is my only way.

No recourse for what?

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.

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.

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

You're begging the question, here. You think that parsimony is the inverse relationship of complexity and probability (if I understand your current use of this term) because you're assuming that parsimony is a statement on how likely an hypothesis will be true.

When I say "settle" I don't mean "settle for all time." We have scientific theories but, by definition, they're all tentative. In other words, there exists scientific theories, so we've settled for some explanations, but we're willing to scrap them for new ones once we get contradicting data, so we haven't settled for them, permanently.

I never claimed that one should settle for answers "based solely on it's complexity." It's statements like these that make me think you're going for rhetoric rather than honest communication. Are you even trying to understand my point?

...but doesn't one want their conclusions to be objective and true?

In a scientific context, this simply isn't true. There are many things we want from our theories. That they accurately describe reality is one of them. That they be useful to us is another. For example, it could very well be that God created all life on Earth and designed them all to look just as if they all descended from a common ancestor. This, however, is not a useful theory. If nothing else, it fails to help us make any kind of predictions...

Perhaps my problem is that I've been assuming we've been talking about parsimony in a scientific context and you're not. Then again, judging by some of the things you've said, above, it sounds like we have been talking about it in a scientific context and you simply don't really know what you're talking about.

We're talking about answers we like best. For most of us (actually, this isn't true but I like to think it is), the best answers are the "truthy" ones... but what is truth? In a scientific context, we judge the "truthiness" of theories by how well they fit our data, how well they predict the future and their utility (that would be the parsimonious part), in that order.

I think there's something we can almost agree upon and that's that there is no "truth." I suspect that you believe that there is a truth but it is beyond our "grasp" whereas I believe that it's just a poorly defined human construct and doesn't really exist. To me, our beliefs are functionally equivalent and are, therefore, equivalent, because what the fuck is there beyond function?

You can tell how much I apply parsimony to my life. The last paragraph demonstrates this. If you can never grasp the truth, how is that different than there not being truth? You might as well assume there's no truth 'cause that's a more simple hypothesis...

Oh, this is going to be funny and I'll be waiting for your reply with a bowl of popcorn. Why do you think the application of parsimony is restricted to before the gathering of evidence?

Consider that parsimony is about choosing among different theories. You're suggesting that we theorize before gathering evidence. Really? Do you care to reconsider that?

You have not instilled me with any confidence...

Knifemissle:

I don't have time to reply fully right now, as I have to be down at the hospital shortly for some tests. Regardless, I will give you two questions now, and will address your further points this afternoon.

1) Typical debate practice when accusing someone of begging the question is to ask the question being begged. Where is the unasked question in my earlier statements?

2) You seem to use hypothesis and theory interchangeably, which they are not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in a scientific context?

No worries. Life comes first...

I'm guessing that you're in such a hurry that you didn't have time to read the link of "begging the question." I'm using the classic meaning of the term, rather than the modern bastardization because I don't believe in changing the meaning of terms through ignorance and I've expressed this opinion on many threads, here, on the TFP...

I am using the two words interchangeably and this may be confusing. Please assume I've been using it in the colloquial sense since I don't think I've used it in its sceintific sense in this discussion...

I do understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory. So much so, in fact, that I feel free to use the term in both senses because I understand the motive behind the use of the word in science and don't, personally, see any confusion. The difference between the two are generally overstated for a public unequiped to understand the nuances of scientific discourse.

The reason why the word "theory" is used to describe well supported scientific models is to remind ourselves that no matter how well supported a scientific theory may be, it can always be overturned in the face of new, contradictory evidence. That is to say, not matter how well supported a theory is, it is always tentative and, thus, will always be a theory. In a sense, nothing in science is absolute truth, which is why it's all "just theory." Some theories just happen to be better supported than others.

To give you an idea of how closely related the two senses of the term "theory" are, take a look at string theory. We call it a theory even though it has no supporting evidence and few physicists (no, really, not like the alleged scientific dissent from Darwinism, whatever that's supposed to mean) have any faith in it. As it is, unless it's injected with some actual testable hypotheses, it's about to implode. Yet, we still call it a theory. Why is that? It's because a scientific theory and a colloquial theory aren't so different...

I did not read your link because I'm already familiar with the concept. If you like, I can rephrase the question. What assumption have I made that you're taking issue with? So far as I can see, all I've done is expanded upon the underlying reasoning for the principle in question.

This, then, is the source of confusion. As I've stated above, during an investigation the principle of parsimony is properly applied at the hypothetical stage. We observe a phenomenon, we devise a possible explanation, then we use said principle to help us choose the best possible explanation to put to the test. Should the testing prove the hypothesis to be invalid we can go back and try again. As I've said all along, this is inapplicable to discussions of theology because we have nothing to test; we can use the principle of parsimony to inform a hypothetical bias, but cannot take it any further. Logically, no one unproven hypothesis is any more valid than another. If we have no proof we cannot logically conclude that your explanation is superior to mine or anyone else's. Therefore, the principle of parsimony, in the context of this discussion, is of no use to us.

I think you underestimate the layman. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is not so difficult to grasp; the problem is not one of capacity so much as it is one of education.

The emphasis on both quotes are mine...

This is the best understanding I can make from your statements. We both agree that parsimony states that you should choose the simplest explanation but it doesn't say why. You claim that this statement is, "in essense," "a statement of probability." I can't see how this follows or is even related so my best guess at what you're thinking is that the motive behind parsimony is to choose the most probable explanation. My entire thesis, of course, is that this is not the case...

I disagree with your description of the scientific method.

We don't need parsimony to decide which hypothesis to test. Why not just test them all! Maybe you can use parsimony to prioritize which hypothesis to test first, especially if resources are scarce but, really, this is quite rare. The real interesting case is when you have more than one hypothesis pass the test! What do we do then? We may apply parsimony... although, in practice, even this is quite rare. Parsimony is generally just a rule of thumb; a strive to not needlessly complicate things.

In science, the testing of hypotheses and theories never stops. That's why scientific theories will always be theories regardless of how much evidence we have for them. As such, parsimony will always be applied...

Your claim that we cannot apply parsimony to theology is a little curious. Perhaps you feel that you don't want to apply it to theology but to claim that we can't? Suppose we have two theories that are both utterly unsupported. Wouldn't you still prefer the simpler one? If the Universe behaves exactly as one would expect if there were no god, the simplest explanation is that there is none.

If I may indulge a bit, we can make the hypothesis that there is a tea pot in orbit around Jupiter. There is no telescope powerful enough to confirm or deny this so we have no evidence, either way. Do you think it's inapplicable to apply parsimony and say that there simply isn't one?

I don't think it's so difficult, either, but I'm not the one making soundbites on TV about it so I don't have much of a choice on the matter. Scientific theories are just simply models of reality that may or may not be well supported...

A few people addressed the idea that atheists are more belligrent than theists. I think that needs to be addressed.

First off, its totally balance.s Sure, when it comes down to debate, we're probably more inclined to make our point (though more than often not), we're also not going around knocking on people's doors while they're eating dinner.

Also, we're abit more belligerent on the topic from a political standpoint. Alot of people go from atheist to antitheist (Hitchens, anyone?) because of the atrocities that get committed in the name of religion. I'm not as hardcore as some, but i'm still a firm believer of the separation of church and state, as well as keeping religion out of the classroom.

Right now I think the only way to firmly support religious belief is by faith, and (in most cases) i can respect that, but creation science, with all due respect, is a joke.

I was drawn to this thread because Daniel set up a forum where people can express their beliefs without getting mired in an infinite and unresolvable argument and game of one-upmanship. Although the thread hasn't reached this state, I do believe it has digressed from it's original intent. So, to bring attention to this, I propose a brief intermission. While you relax, consider what one of our great Americam philosophes has said:

"What I Believe."

I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.

And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.

And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.

And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos".. and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".

And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.

And I believe the United States should let all foreigners in this country, provided they can speak our native language: Apache

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.

And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.

And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.

And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now.

That's what I believe.


-Steve Martin

Well, atheism is not a leap of faith. It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon. It is the opposite of faith.

The debate of divine existence, and its degrees and nature of intercession, goes around in circles like this because some people simply want to or need to believe. The world is already cruel enough without the distinct possibility that you will not, in fact, enter eternal paradise if you are a good Christian; that suffering and misery is not a Jobian test of spiritual resolve, but just the way life is; that the Devil didn't make them do it, nor was it God's will.

While formalized mysticism runs counter to Occam's Razor, so do we in general. Unlike scientific methods, slide rules and Bunsen burners, we possess the infection of hope -- hope that we individually or at least collectively belong to a higher purpose that is worth the gauntlet we run from the cradle to the grave.

So there is no explanation based in logic, because faith is a psychological attribute.

I don't know that atheism needs to have anything to do with a commitment to logic. I've spoken with quite a few atheists who didn't really seem like they were all that concerned with framing their atheism in a logically rigorous way. On the other side, there are plenty of logical reasons to believe in a god. I don't think logic is necessarily relevant in any kind of general way. Certainly you might be an atheist (I'm not sure if you are) out of a commitment to logic, but then one might wonder how such a commitment to logic can be reconciled with the fact that it is very difficult to make a sound logical argument that the universe behaves absolutely logically. At some point in any organized system of ideas, usually near the base, logical arguments evaporate and all we are left with are assumptions. Logic says nothing about the verifiability of these assumptions, just what they must mean if they are true.

There's a correlative link between being an atheist and being interested in logic considering the environment in which most atheists live. It's that commitment to logic among others that leads people away from the very strong hold of religion.
The point is that it's not logical to believe god exists. It's not about thinking the belief is logical due to whatever hypothetical peace comes with the belief.

There's a correlative link between eating peanut butter as a child and smoking crack. It is not a commitment to peanut butter that leads people to crack. Also, there isn't necessary a causal relationship between having a self perceived commitment to logic and having an actual commitment to logic. From my experience, there is more a correlative relationship between being an atheist and having a half-assed hobby-like interest in things like logic and science than there is for being an atheist and having a rigorous, this-is-fucking-boring-and-difficult-to-wrap-my-head-around interest in science. See any comment section digg when the news item involves either pop-science or atheism if you don't believe me.

There is definitely something that divides theists and atheists, but commitment to logic or science isn't it.

What's not logical about it? Remember, logic has nothing to do with proof.

And?
It's what divides THIS atheist from theists.
You're incorrect. It's illogical to absolutely believe in something's existence absent any evidence.

But you are a specific person, whereas I was speaking about more general differences between atheists and theists. The only difference between atheists and theists is the belief in the existence of a deity. To claim that atheists are somehow more reasonable and/or logical than theists isn't really accurate; there are plenty of atheists who aren't really that "reasonable" and plenty of theists who are very "reasonable".

There is evidence. The fact that it doesn't pass a scientific litmus test only invalidates it from a scientific perspective, not a logical perspective. Logic and science are two different things.

There's anecdotal ignorance on both sides of the fence. Those anecdotes do not address the underlying reasoning. While some people are secular because they follow a certain logical rigor, others simply reject God because they are bitter or angst-ridden. So? Does the presence of the latter group mean that atheism is a weak position? No. No more than the ridiculous claims of fundamentalist Christianity define theism. They merely occupy stations in a spectrum.

As for your claim that a person can't say that the Universe behaves logically -- of course it does! People can tend towards the irrational, but the laws of physics are pretty well defined. When we get down to the subatomic level, we get paradoxes like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But does that mean or even suggest that God or something mystical hides within this gap of understanding? That depends: How rational are you?

At the edge of understanding, there are always assumptions. In science, this is called a hypothesis. Sir Isaac Newton had a hypothesis about how and why the Moon orbited around the Earth, and how planets revolved around the Sun. The Wright Brothers had a hypothesis about what it would take to keep an aeroplane in the air. We know how these systems work now. At the time, they seemed as cryptic and bizarre as Heisenberg's discovery. But no one would claim that God was moving planets or airplanes around. It was just a matter of testing assumptions until you found the right one.

But when no testable data ever represents itself, over the course of thousands of years, you have to eventually move on to something that is in some way tangible.

I'm usually a diplomatic guy in these discussions, but... I just got through saying how it's a leap of faith. You're going much further than most religious folk, who acknowledge and accept and are sometimes even proud of the fact that their decision is not based on logic.

Second, separating logic and science this way is, frankly, ridiculous. Logic is used by science all the time. Math is logic, only defined with numbers instead of words. Science is observation, with logic (often math) used to determine what the observed phenomenon is.

It's tough to speak in generalities on the differences because people are theistic and atheistic for a myriad of reasons. Generalizing seems to ignore this reality
There is no reason in believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a thing or person for which there is no evidence absolutely exists. So in being atheist or theist, there is a definite difference in reason.
There is no evidence. Logic and science are two different things, yes. So are science and math. But they team up quite often.

I agree. This doesn't agree with your claim that atheism is a conclusion of logic. All atheism is is a rejection of belief in a deity. Logic need not have anything to do with it, and frequently it doesn't. It has nothing to do with atheism being a weak position; one would need to know more about the particular justifications one uses for being an atheist.

I didn't say the universe doesn't behave logically. I said that it is very difficult to make a sound logical argument that the universe is absolutely logical, especially in light of certain phenomena that seem to be completely random (assuming my understanding of them is correct). It has nothing to do with god. What it does speak to is the inherent flaw, from a scientific perspective, in assuming that the universe is governed completely by logic.

You have to? Why? I mean, I understand the thirst for actual, verifiable scientific knowledge, but I also understand that most people don't care, because it doesn't really matter to them. Most people only care about science to the extent that they enjoy watching dumbed down bits of it on the discovery channel. I think that there are a great many atheist who have merely replaced god with anyone with a PhD or a lab coat. It isn't logical at all, just a substitution. You seem to make the same mistake that many religious folk do, which is that you presume to have the correct perspective, instead of just a perspective. There is more to the world than that which can be independently verified in peer reviewed academic journals.

What's you're point? I thought we were in agreement that the words of a subset of members of a group don't define that group.

Logic is used by science all time, that is correct. Logic uses science never at all; people often reference science while using logic, but there is nothing about logic that requires science. Logic and science are separated every time someone writes coherent science fiction.

And as far as math goes, science needs math a lot more than math needs science. Mathematically speaking, one can rotate an infinitely large area around one of its boundaries and end up with a finitely large volume. Scientifically speaking, no. If all the natural laws of the universe changed overnight, there is no single purely mathematical proof that would need to be changed. Without math, science would be pretty much useless for a lot of things. Without science, math would be pretty much useless too. They are complementary, but they are still separate; there are a whole lot of "pure" mathematicians who frown upon the idea of wasting their time developing useful mathematics.

Your statements here do not add anything to your original position, nor do they address the points I brought up about it. Furthermore, why would someone need to justify being an atheist?

Randomness is illogical? Therefore the Universe is flawed?

We can never know everything about the Universe, therefore... God might exist? Therefore one cannot really know anything? I don't think you're arguing very clearly here either. And I'm not going to bother defending the opinions of theoretical people. There are a "great many" of people who do all kinds of stupid shit.

And as for your talking about the differences between science and logic, I don't know where you're going with that either. Yes, they are distinct elements, like red and blue and up and down. You wanted to separate them, whatever. Does it matter? Not really.

But what I can tell you is that atheism is not a "perspective." It is a conclusion. There is no logical support for faith. That's why it's called "faith," and not "reason."

For someone who claims to be agnostic, you sure do work up a sweat for the theists.

You said atheism was I implied that you were being a bit ostentatious, and that all atheism really is is a lack of belief in a deity. You said some stuff that I thought had something to do with that, but I guess I was mistaken.

Randomness places a certain limit on the predictability of phenomena, which seems like the kind of thing you wouldn't expect in a completely "logical" universe. It is one thing for deterministic process to be treated randomly for lack of information, it is another thing for a process to be intrinsically probabilistic.

And I never said the universe was flawed, I said that's its difficult to claim that it is absolutely logical, and that any argument that attempts to prove the universe inherently logical that also happens to be argued from an empirical perspective must necessarily be flawed.

I'm not a theist. I don't mind if you don't bother to defend the opinions of theoretical people. You didn't seem to mind claiming for them a sincere and robust commitment to reason and logic, though so your refusal to defend their opinions seems odd.

You're the one who said:
Apparently, now that it obviously isn't ludicrous it is irrelevant. Well, if it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

Well, if atheism is a conclusion, then certainly so is theism, not that that phrase really means anything; belief in the supremacy of mountain dew is a conclusion too. All can be perspectives, in that they inform the way one perceives and interacts at the world. Just because you don't see atheism as your perspective doesn't mean it can't be. The kind of atheist that you are isn't necessarily the same kind of atheist that other atheists are.

And why is there no one who says things like "There is no logical support for faith." who can also explain what it means for something to be logical?

Well apparently agnostics are now atheists, so i guess we're members of the same club. Be that as it may, I don't really think of this as "working up a sweat for theists" as much as "being annoyed by vapid atheist cheerleading", not that what you said was necessarily vapid.

That's kind of my point. It is a mistake to claim that folks only choose to be atheists out of a commitment to reason or the scientific method. That's all I was really trying to say.

I changed it to reflect what I think it should say. I'm clever.

Tru dat. Chocolate and coffee team up quite often in my house, but they are also fully appreciated on their own.

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, I'm really not into piecemeal breakdowns. I can't even read that stuff, it makes my eyes hurt. I don't think it's a good way to exchange ideas. Sorry. You seem to disagree with pretty much everything I said, though. Well... that's your problem now. I've said my piece.

Edit: Although I do recommend checking out The God Delusion. It addresses many of the issues you bring up, and although the title is confrontational, the body of the work isn't. At least, I didn't find it confrontational. It may not give you all the answers you're looking for, but I guarantee it won't bore you. There's a part about agnosticism that you should find especially interesting, and there's a new with an updated preface, going for less than ten bucks.

It seems these things always end up in the piecemeal breakdowns. And I don't know that I disagree with everything you said, as discussions like this one often hinge on misunderstandings. All I was trying to say is that it is not accurate to claim that atheism is somehow the result of a triumph of reason.

In any case, I'm not particularly interested in anything that Dawkins has to say on the matter, if he's anything like his most vocal acolytes he is prone to self-serving misunderstandings and undeservedly smug self congratulation. I don't need someone to tell me how to not believe in god or why it might make sense in some sort of overarching way why people would believe in god. In many ways evolutionary psychology has as much relevance to my life as theism does; which is to say, I get enough trivia in my life already.

That's a lot of guesswork you packed in there. Also, evolutionary psychology? No, he's an evolutionary biologist, and his evolution-based arguments take up about a page in a half in the entire book.

But if you're more comfortable with setting fire to straw men, don't be surprised when someone torpedoes one of your arguments, as I have several times in this thread, using arguments he brought up in the book. Which ones? It doesn't matter, because according to you, the guy's probably a fucking douchebag anyway.

Well, like I said, I don't really care all that much. I'd rather read about things I find interesting, and to tell you the truth, convoluted rationalizations for atheism aren't all that interesting. Neither are the bulk of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology.

What exactly were my straw men?

You didn't even know what I was talking about, and then when I tried to talk about it more you threw your virtual hands in the air and said "This is too difficult, I'm going to take my superior commitment to reason (which apparently doesn't actually extend to conversation) and go. Just read Dawkins." Why should I read it? You read it, if you understood what you read correctly and what you read proves that I'm wrong, by all means, convince me that I'm wrong. I would love to find out that I'm wrong, then I could stop getting in these stupid arguments with people who make broad statements about the nature of logic, yet can't even be bothered to define what exactly logic is beyond silly claims that essentially boil down to "logical positions are based on assumptions that I agree with and illogical positions are based on assumptions that I don't agree with".

All you did was make a claim or two, and then when I responded, you couldn't be bothered to actually address what I said or attempt to clarify what you said. You may be right, but I have no way of knowing because you can't seem to clearly communicate what you're talking about or even read the words I wrote in the order I wrote them so as to not misunderstand them.

And c'mon, the ability to poorly paraphrase ideas you read in a book in a context where they aren't even relevant isn't the same as "torpedoing". I mean, you seem to have the Dawkins tone down, but the ability to come across as dismissive is a poor substitute for the ability to express your ideas clearly.

Shit, even Ustwo thinks Dawkins is a douchebag, and ustwo loves being dismissive and sardonic. It's not like the perception of Dawkins as being an asshole is something I just made up.

You seem to have difficulty appreciating the points of my arguments, and you don't you see the flaws in your own. You keep repeating things I've responded to like I haven't addressed them. I point out that Dawkins' book is a good read, and you astonish me by revealing that you don't even have a passing familiarity with him or is work, because he's probably an asshole. If you were in my shoes, would you continue this discussion?

I don't know, I'm trying here, but you just get angrier and angrier. That you don't even see all the straw men you dressed up means to me that there isn't much point in continuing to be at the receiving end of uninformed dismissiveness. I have better things to do with my time. I'd rather talk about this with people who know the material.

Edit: Just so we're clear here -- because I know you're going to respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to read some book to have a discussion on this?" -- these books are the most influential written on the subject. Not having a familiarity with them is like trying to have a discussion about great films without having seen Citizen Kane or The Godfather. It just doesn't work.

I find the points of your arguments less than compelling, because they don't really seem like points. As far as I can tell, your "points" consist of not much more than expressions of incredulity.

Did you know:

Atheism existed before Richard Dawkins wrote a book about it?
Many people don't need a book to tell them why atheism is right for them?
The reasons that Richard Dawkins is an atheist do not comprise the entire set of reasons that people are atheists?

It seems to me like you're treating "The God Delusion" like some sort of bible, which is dumb. That's the thing that's nice about not believing in god, you don't need a bible.

You know, I asked you to point out my strawmen, so until you can, perhaps you should refrain from mentioning them. And this isn't a discussion of "The God Delusion". I don't care about the "The God Delusion"-- atheism exists without Richard Dawkins. If you can't formulate positions and arguments on your own, then perhaps you should stop talking to me. If you want to talk more, then leave your atheist bible out of it.

For the record, I'm not angry, maybe just annoyed.

Sounds like a cop out. Dawkins influential? All the atheists I know were atheists before Dawkins cashed in on the apparently large number of atheists who require some sort of intellectual handholding to justify their atheism. If Dawkins convinced you to be an atheist, that's fine, but you're being just a tad foolish if you think that Dawkins is the reason that most atheists are atheists. He is probably the reason that most people think atheists are assholes, though.

i dont really play in these threads any more because they're essentially always the same thing-filtherton is right in that a commitment to "logic" (which is really just a formal procedure) does not and cannot lead you one way or another on the a/theism question because in logical terms, belief or non-belief is an axiom. your use of logic presupposes it, and so does not and cannot demonstrate it.

on the other hand, if you think about being-in-the-world as processes or through the metaphor of emergence (complex dynamic systems theory, say) it is pretty obvious that logic, as it is built off of the way sentences stage the world, provides incomplete and refracted access to the world--this need not lead you in any particular direction in terms of the a/theism division--but it does point to a potential underlying driver that pushed folk on both sides along, which is their capacity to deal with uncertainty or incompleteness.

for some reason, incompleteness seems to spook people and drives them to more rigid relations to the procedures and frames of reference that situate them than it really makes sense to have, if you think about it at a remove.

i've said this before, all of it, really (this is the effect of the sameness of the threads)---but you cannot account for the processes that go into making a sentence in terms shaped by the sentences that you make. incompleteness is all around you. it's constituitive of being-in-the-world. this doesn't mean that anything goes, that rigor doesn't matter in games that call for rigor--but it does mean that there are fundamental dimensions of being that you don't know about---but not knowing does not require that you therefore go running to a god to enable you to pretend that at some level or another the situation is otherwise any more than it should prompt you to make ludicrous claims about the comprehensiveness of logic's ability to account for the world.

you just don't know.
systems are incomplete.
it's just like that.

boo.

For the record, Dawkins is in fact an asshole.

Doesn't make him less right.

If you want to see a real asshole, check out Christopher Hitchens. He makes Dawkins look like a saint.

roachboy

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I didn't speak english.

Well, it doesn't make him more right. Dawkins is only right if you happen to subscribe to his very particular notions of what science is and how scientists must interact with the world. To claim that he is "right" isn't correct.

It is interesting that you think he's right, though. On the subject of global climate change, he's apparently a big fan of a certain movie by a certain former VP. Does that make him a better scientist in your eyes?

BTW, nice avatar. I haven't had a reason to use adblock's manual feature in a long time.
edit: not the Israeli flag avater, but the spinning spiral avatar

This is why I brought up Hitchens. He manages to be quite atheist, but is also deeply conservative. He believes there were WMDs in Iraq, in fact.

Yep. I just goes to show that a commitment to atheism isn't necessarily correlative with a rational commitment to reality. Which is my point.

If mofos don't want to believe in god, that's great. They should refrain from pretending that not believing in god is somehow reflective of any sort of advanced ability to think logically or rationally.

His arguments are simply based on outdated information, and he's naturally stubborn. Just fyi.
But if they do believe that, who am I to stop them? :expressionless:

Well, the same could be said about the president. I'm not really apt to put either on my "people who's opinions I will go out of my way to appreciate" list.

Nothing. It's just something to argue about on the internet.

How would you respond to someone who was self-righteously claiming a superior appreciation mathematics and in the same breath proclaiming that 2+2=5? You'd say something? I would.

You misunderstand, when it's about ME it's okay. :thumbsup:

You know I love you, baby.

Rigor mortis sets in eventually.

Boo Hiss, would be be a good name for a band.

You didn't know there was a right wing coup that already took over the news media and brainwashed you I see.

Thanks for changing it, you're a real pal.

There's a lot I could respond to, in this thread, but I simply can't keep up. So, I'm just going to touch upon some of the more major points, I think...

I think "logic" is being used colloquially, here. Indeed, formal logic is a procedure and, alone, can't render decisions.

I think we can all agree that, in general, people don't believe things without due evidence. Theists, however, make an exception for their religion. They rationalize this exception, of course, but under scrutiny, they really have no reason to believe in their religion other than that they want to. I think it's this inconsistency of critical thinking that people often label as "illogical." I prefer to use the term "unreasonable," since "logic" has a specific meaning to me, as a mathematician...

If nothing else, he's not an evolutionary psychologist, so that's a strawman. Now, it may very well be that you're just as disinterested in evolutionary biology but say that rather than to dismiss something no one has brought up.

For the record, Dawkins is very fair in his arguments and does not prey on misunderstandings. He's not like Hitchens, whose arguments are often as specious as his theist opponent's. The only reason Hitchens has a career is because he's so funny. He's a witty and vocal atheist writer but not a fair debater...

How did you develop your view of Richard Dawkins? Simply because he's smug?

As always, I have great trouble understanding what the hell roachboy is saying but I'm pretty sure that this is not an endorsement for religion. Now, I understand that filtherton is not looking to endorse religion but I don't understand what he's thanking roachboy for...


The claim wasn't that Dawkins' asshole behaviour makes him "more right." Whether Dawkins is correct is independent of his demeanor. I've never understood why people dismiss the arguments of people they dislike, personally. These people are cutting off a world of information based on personal whims. It's simply stupid...

Whatever disagreement you have with Dawkins, his views on what science is happens to coincide with scientists' views on science. Seriously, sceintists share a very particular view on what science is and, in this sense, Dawkins can be said to be right. With what are you disagreeing, in particular?

I'm going to have to agree with Willravel, while no generalities can be made without discriminating against some minority, it can safely be said that Atheists either a) being so because of a basis in logic or b) being rebellious or angst-ridden. However, "b" should be disregarded, as I'm sure in a completely Atheistic society there would be rebels wishing to praise a supernatural being. For the most part--at least in my experience--even the most logical Theists often disregard that logic and take a leap of faith in their beliefs. I say this mainly because I have yet to hear an argument for a god that doesn't go something along the lines of "there has to be more out there" or "everything that exists must have a creator", without bordering on the simply ridiculous ("my momma said so," "I had a feeling").

Now, anyone who's read my posts knows I'm not nearly as intellectual or articulate as Willravel or, for that matter, most anyone in this thread, so I'll skip trying and simply say that the above arguments are a heaping load of horse shit. To believe in something supernatural because it cannot be disproved is silliness, simple as that. This is not to say agnostics are wrong, but rather that any Theist who uses the argument as their reasoning while also saying they are being logical are. If there is absolutely no proof, there is absolutely no reason to argue for it, in my opinion.

I personally believe in science, and when someone disproves evolution via scientific means, I will cease to believe in evolution, for example. Now, I'm sure someone could combat this by saying "Science makes no comment on the supernatural." I agree with this, partly because I refuse to believe in anything fictitious and as everyone knows, you can't use science to explain Harry Potter.

Further, I can't see any reason beyond selfishness or ignorance to believe in a god from any Theistic standpoint. I recall my mother once arguing that she simply couldn't live thinking there was nothing out there, and my thinking that it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard her say. I have no reason personally to fear death (well, unless it's early death, but that's another matter), because not only do I not know what happens, but assuming you just stop existing, it seems perfectly sound. We're nothing but a biological entity with an advanced intellect that allows us to think outside the box, so it seems only logical that we would cease to comprehend once dead. Sure, it would be nice if we could go off to Heaven and spend eternity without boredom (somehow, it is Heaven after all) enjoying every minute, as hackneyed as that reads, but wanting something does not mean it exists. The idea that people base their lives around the notion that this can't be it is confounding and very close to depressing.

You can read into the attitude of people like Dawkins and Hitchens (whom I adore by the way), you can bring up angst-ridden teenagers, you can romanticize life and make philosophic mincemeat of the matter, but in the end it does not logically prove any religious belief.

That is my opinion on the debate this thread has become, as well as my Atheistic belief.

I think that theists do believe things with due evidence. Their notion of what constitutes "due" with respect to evidence is different than yours. That's the point.


Perhaps I misspoke. I just assumed he was working from an evolutionary psychologist perspective. Either way biology or psychology, neither is particularly interesting to me from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't care for him based on different interviews I've read and the way he is represented by his acolytes. I'm open to the notion that he could actually be quite a peach.

Well, you'll have to reread what roachboy wrote, because he put it better and more succinctly than I have been able to.

I could come up with a version of "The Courtesan's Reply" here, but since that's bullshit, I'll refrain.

Of course his accuracy exists discretely from his demeanor. I don't dismiss his arguments, I don't even know what his arguments are, aside from the few articles I've read or how his arguments are distilled through his followers. Unless he's talking directly to me, I don't care what he thinks.

Let me repeat that. I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks, I didn't bring him up here, the AWOL Mr. Rotten did. When he did, I replied:

Now, obviously I was mistaken in pegging Dawkins as an evolutionary psychologist. Aside from that, if you swap psychologist for biologist, I would sign off on it.

I don't care about Dawkins' perspective on atheism in the same way that I don't care about David Berlinski's perspective on evolution (though I did read his book on calculus and his book on notable historical mathematicians, they were both pretty good.)

I don't know how many scientists you've interacted with. I haven't really interacted all that closely with too many of them, though I spend a good deal of time with them. As someone who has had a couple years of scientific training, I know how I view science, and I don't know that you or Mr. Dawkins are in any position to validate or invalidate my relationship with science or capacity as a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to the actual doing of science, debate about the relative merits of atheism vs. theism are irrelevant.

I don't believe in god, and I used to believe that science would provide me with the truth. The more I know about science, the less that seems to be the case. I recognize science as a powerful tool, but I don't expect science to be able to satisfy my curiosity in any sort of lasting way, and I don't begrudge people who go one step further and fill in the blanks themselves, provided they aren't telling me what to do.

It has been my experience that there is a pretty wide range of theistic belief amongst scientists, from atheists all the way to evangelicals. Many of them seem perfectly capable of being good people and good scientists regardless of whether they subscribe to a belief in god.

Of the little that I know of Dawkins, the only thing I can think of where I disagree with him specifically (everything else could just be some shit some of his acolytes have told me) is that I disagree with the idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Science is only good for evaluating a subset of reality; it isn't the only means by which one can or should make sense of the world.

And if this has been kind of rambly, well, we're all adults here, deal with it.

Okay, I know what you mean. They look at "creation" and know that there is a god while I find this unsatisfactory evidence.

For instance, I recognize the Bible asserting its own truth as circular logic and, thus, uncompelling. However, those unfamiliar with formal logic won't recognize this as a flaw of reasoning and may very well accept the Bible's own testimony of its events as evidence...

The solution seems simple. Educate people on the rules of logic (and other forms of reasoning that they already adhere to) and get them to apply it to their own religion. This education is quite easy if, instead of applying it to their religion, you apply it to some other religion. However, the instant you try to turn these mental tools to their religion, that's when their critical thinking skills suddenly shut off and the ignorant rationalizations start up again.

Logic is great for mathematics, reason is great for science and both are great tools for debunking other people's religion. However, no one seems to think that these tools should be applied to their own religion and that's the exception of which I speak...

Okay, after much work, I think I am now able to see what he's trying to say but I swear that his sentences are badly malformed...

I've never heard of this. Is it interesting?

While Johnny Rotten likely brought him up 'cause he didn't want to defend his views, himself, he clearly feels that Richard Dawkins can express his views better than he can. In the same way you felt that roachboy stated your view better than you did (although I still find his writing unreadable!), he feels the same way about Dawkins.

In short, I think what Johnny Rotten was saying is that if you care what he thinks (and I'm not saying that you do!) then you should read Dawkins' book...

I agree, one's theism or lack, thereof, has little bearing on how one does science, unless one chooses to make it so. There are plenty of excellent, theistic scientists...

I'm not sure why you're saying this. I was saying that Dawkins knows what science is. What's all this about atheism vs. theism?

If you don't mind my saying, I think you had a rather naive view of science. What satisfies your curiosity now, if anything?

I agree. One of my favourite scientists working today is... Roman Catholic!

Having said that, most scientists are atheists. The vast majority of the top scientists in the western world (such as members of The National Academy of Sciences or The Royal Society) are athiests. Of course, this is correlation and not causation...

Many of the claims you make here are contingent on our use of terms...

Claims of vague deism are not falsifiable and, thus, not scientific hypotheses. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this statement. However, some religions, like Fundamental Christianity, are falsifiable. Basically, any religion that makes factual claims is a scientific hypothesis like any other. The Earth is older than 10,000 years. If your religion relies on that then your religion is simply wrong!

I think science is good for evaluating the whole of reality but I work with a rather stringent definition of the term. For instance, whether Iron Man is a good movie or not is not an aspect of reality and, thus, is not somethig that can be evaluated scientifically.

Hey, where else may one ramble if not here? I think of web forums as modern day soap boxes...

Yes, its popularity began with Sartre around the turn of the century, before which it was fringey philosophy.

As for the rest of your comments, I can't really address them since they don't apply to this book. If you refuse to so much to skim the jacket copy, I refuse to discuss its content or character any further, except to say that you miss the mark, and your attempts to imply emotional connection to it are clumsy and unnecessary.

They're obvious enough for me. I don't feel the need to prove them to you. It's enough for me that they enlighten my understanding of your manner of discussion. Besides, if I pointed them out, the discussion would spiral into what constitutes a straw man. I'd rather focus on other things.

Once again, you're attempting to attach things to my argument that I'm not saying, while also flatly denying probable claims. Again, I recommend you read some of the material, because there's really no need to make these dismissive speculations. You can simply read the material and decide for yourself.

What appears to be bothering you is that you don't know where I stand on the issue, so you don't know how to respond effectively. For you, a person's take on the subject seems to be incredibly relevant to the accuracy of their statements. I choose to separate the argument from my viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that faith is incompatible with reason. This viewpoint is informed by people like Dawkins. You are unfamiliar with his work, and apparently proudly so. That sounds like an impasse to me.

knifemissle:

my sentences are rarely malformed.

if you want to say something about an argument that i made just do it.

johnny

this
is hopelessly mangled. i don't think it's central to your argument so i'll just leave it at that.

On topic, but not necessarily following the current argument, I enjoyed J. L. Mackie's description of the historical arguments for and against theism in his book, The Miracle of Theism. It has been awhile, but if I recall correctly, he doesn't spend much time maligning one side or the other. He just attempts to characterize the arguments.

I think that anyone familiar with formal logic will find any logical system is doomed to incompleteness or inconsistency. One need not be religious to put too much faith in logic.

This isn't to say that logic isn't useful, just that it is what it is.

Well, yes, but I would include the belief in logic in there as one of those religions, provided of course that one has deified logic.

His style does take some getting used to, but once you do it can be pretty rewarding.

It's an interesting way of claiming that one need not understand the intricacies of that which one criticizes if one rejects its general conclusions. It's a way of rationalizing the apparently underwhelming scope of Dawkins' understandings of religious belief.

I see what you're saying, but roachboy's post is actually here, in the thread. Also, I think you'd find that if you pressured me a bit more I might be inclined to explain my interpretation of roachboy's post, whereas Johnny Rotten won't explain his interpretations of Dawkins at all.

Perhaps my response is more attributable to the fact that I infer much of my information about Dawkins from the things the people who are into him say. In retrospect, it isn't necessarily a very good way to get an accurate idea of the claims he's actually made.

It was pretty naive, and seemingly all too common. Science still satisfies my curiosity to a limited extent; it's just satisfaction that is immediately followed by apathy or more curiosity depending on whether I'm interested in getting further into whatever I happen to be studying. When I got into it, I wasn't expecting a neverending chain of whys. It required a slight mental adjustment.

I know what you're saying; it's difficult to reconcile young earth creationism with the fossil record without turning your god into a trickster. That being said, if one is inclined to go that route, to claim that god planted fossils to trick us is not falsifiable, despite how far-fetched.

I think the logic of religion is interesting in that its axioms are frequently created and modified based on the conclusions one hopes to draw from them. It's a very cart before the horse kind of thing. It isn't always a bad way of doing things, though. It seems like there is a fair amount of philosophical musing that uses logic in the very same way. It isn't generally a good way to carry out science, but then again, I think it is only a confused and insecure theist who would claim otherwise.


I read the wikipedia page on it. I'm sorry you brought it up. Clearly you think atheism can't be discussed without using it as a reference, and though millions of tfp philosophy board threads might be proof otherwise you seem unconvinced.

That being said, I can't quite make out why we're still talking here, you and I. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to read the book, for reason which I have stated over and over again.

Let's focus on the straw man of why having read The God Delusion is now a prerequisite for talking about atheism. Now, I don't want the discussion to get bogged down in discussions about whether this actually is a straw man or not, because that's not the point. The point is, apparently, that one cannot discuss atheism without having first read The God Delusion.

Okay, well here's what I originally responded to:

I said that there were, in my experience, plenty of people for whom your definition of atheism clearly didn't apply. I also said something about logic not necessarily being all that it was cracked up to be.

To which you essentially seemed to claim the it didn't matter why people were atheists, because atheism is essentially a conclusion of logic based on etc... Nevermind that you seemed to claim that atheism is defined independently from how it exists in reality.

You then said that the universe does, in fact, behave logically, a point with which I never disagreed.

When I pointed out that there does exist evidence to support theistic ideas and acknowledged that it doesn't in any way conform to scientific standards of evidence, instead of responding with any sort of rebuttal you said something to the effect of "but I just said that that wasn't the case." Indeed you had just said that, and apparently when you say things they are final.

Then, you said that it was ridiculous to separate science and logic. What you must have meant was that you find it philosophically unacceptable to separate science and logic. That's your prerogative. I disagree.

Onward from there, things spiral further out of control. If we are being so inclusive about labeling straw men, it should be pointed out that there was no shortage of them coming from you.

Let's start over then. Faith is incompatible with reason, why do you feel this way?

It depends on what you mean by "too much faith." Are we placing too much faith into a hammer because we think we can use it to plant nails into wood?

You cannot use logic to construct answers to all your questions but you can certainly use it to weed out fallacious thinking. Can you clarify your point, here?

Oh, are we going the "it's a religion, too!" route? Really?

It should be noted that very few people, religious or otherwise, believe that they are being illogical. If theists said "yes, I know what I believe makes no sense but I want to believe it, anyway" then I would have little problem with that. It's that they believe their position is, somehow, reasonable and is worthy of being enforced upon me that's the problem...

Logic simply works. Calling logic a religion is like calling physics a religion...

Context would be important, here. For instance, if your conclusion is outrageous and I can find a false premise in your argument, I think I can safely disregard your argument without understanding the rest of it...

In my experience, people have their own opinions and use famous, credible people who somewhat share their opinion to bolster their own, even if those opinions differ subtley...

It's easy to make false generalizations of things we don't understand. It's obvious how much science affects our lives despite how little people understand what science is. Combine this with the simple fact that most people don't really need to know, exactly, how science works and you'll create a common misconception...

If your hypotheses are not falsifiable then, arguably, they are not statements of reality. Again, we are back to our use of terms...

If you're going to state that your religion somehow reflects reality then, by my terms, it is subject to scientific inquiry.

Regardless, creationists do not claim to worship a trickster god planting evidence so their religion remains scientifically disprovable...

In other words, religion is the rationalization of what one wants. I don't find this interesting...

Incidentally, by your criteria, there are a awful lot of confused and insecure theists out there...

Oh, this is going to be difficult to explain but I suppose that you deserve an explanation.

Let me give you a trivial example...

First of all, I don't have anything to say about your argument or I would simply have said so. I really only had something to say about how you state your arguments because I do want to know what the hell you're saying and you don't make it easy.

For instance, this paragraph would be more clearly written as "if you want to say something about an argument that i made then just do it." While I was able to discern your meaning with little difficulty, it is still malformed.

More seriously, take this sentence for example:Ignoring your bizarre use of dashes, let me remove the qualifiers of the sentence after the last use of dashes to get to the central point.

Not knowing does not require that you go running to a god to enable you to pretend that the situation is any more than it should prompt you to make claims about the comprehensiveness of logic's ability to account for the world.

The bold is what I think may be the source of confusion. I understand the part about claims of what logic can do. I understand that "not knowing" (ignorance) does not require God. What I fail to understand is how you're relating the two sentence fragments. Religion enables you to pretend that the situation is... what? That it is any more than... it should prompt you to do something? Does that make sense to you? What is "it" in "it should prompt you to?"

I cannot parse this sentence and I hope you can see why. This is a good example of how I view all your sentences. I simply don't understand what you're saying and this happens with astounding consistency...

I am complaining because, based on the few fragments I can discern, you actually understand some subtle points and I honestly wish I knew what the hell you're saying!

knifemissle:

thanks for that.

first a little explanation: i started playing at tfp mostly as a device to get myself away from writing in an academic style, which i had more or less forgotten how to do--i don't know when exactly--all i know is that i remember reading something i wrote a few years ago and not recognizing anything about myself in it at all. this did not please me.

so when i started here, i adopted a couple style tics to force myself out of it.
for some reason, they've become characteristics of how i write on the board.
i write in a different mode in the journal--more precise (probably more hermetic, too)
another feature is that i write very fast because i'm generally wedging this in between other things.

and i don't post to philo that often because i find it frustrating.
it's difficult to say much.

one of the tics was the use of dashes to separate clauses or fragments. i use them to switch register alot within the same sentence. i figure that i can make sentences do more or less what i want that way. there's a conceptual game that interests me which centers on playing around with sentence structures. so even though i am not playing them here, i've trained myself to work through that game. it seems to have eaten its way into how i think.

that i don't use caps follows from the same basic idea--it was a device to push myself off writing in an academic mode initially, a way of marking this as another space, another type of writing. now it's just a habit specific to this place.

your parsing of my sentence is curious: i meant the whole thing as a continuous move and it doesn't really reduce in the way you posited. the original makes more sense to me if you read the whole thing as a continuity rather than break it up by seeing it as fragments.

but it does help me see why you (and maybe others) have trouble with the style. which seems clear to me.

i'm not sure about changing the approach, particularly not to this particular forum. i'm thinking about it for clarity's sake, but at the same time i suspect that if i push much away from this informal type of writing, i won't be inclined to post here. this is a very very constricting and constricted format to do much with beyond cite things and make little comments.
not much room for argument or variations, i find.
plus i don't particularly feel like loading in a frame of reference that has no particular standing in the community. so i don't.

thanks for the post, though.
i'm thinking about it.

I don't want to "harsh your mellow," roachboy. The forum is here for your entertainment as much as it is mine. I have no idea why you're so determined to break away from "academic writing" but, if that's your goal, let me assure you that you're achieving it!

i am breaking away from it because i don't find it a particularly interesting way to run conceptual games or to explore philosophical problems.
it's far from useless...it's just not the most interesting way to do it.
the difference between doing philo and talking about it is mostly a register shift.
there's a long explanation for this, but i'll leave it at that.
and it doesn't apply to this space, which is a parlor game.

my zen-like state is rarely perturbed:

i just decided to say something about why things are as they are within my little boxes, make a box inside the box.

I'll marsh your mallow.

I agree with what you said here, if that's any clarification. Maybe "too much faith" is the wrong way to put it. How would you describe someone who thinks that hammers only work on one kind of nail?

I'm working from the premise that anything, when pursued religiously, can become a religion. If you'd prefer a different term, let me know.

Do you see anything problematic with making the claim "very few people believe that they are being illogical' and then following it up by lamenting the people whose logic doesn't line up with yours? What makes you so sure that you aren't one of the folks who isn't erroneously presuming to be behaving logically?

That's my point. I agree with you that logic does simply work, and there is nothing religious in how it does its thing. The religious aspect comes in when certain folks co-opt the word "logic" as a means of attempting to justify purely philosophical preferences. To paraphrase atheism as the pinnacle of logic: "Oooh la la, look at me, it's not that I prefer my perspective to be based on scientifically verifiable information, it's that I'm, like, so logical about everything."

The claim is often made in these discussions that atheists are right because they are logical and that religious folk are wrong because they aren't logical. It is also true that ensuing discussions of what logic actually is show a rather wide divide between the people who think its relevant and the people who don't. In any case, if one defines the word "logical" as being "any position which agrees with mine" (which seems to be an implicit belief in the "theism is wrong because it is illogical" perspective) then one is using logic in a religious sense.

And whether you feel oppressed by religious folk is irrelevant to anything I'm talking about. Some folk might call it a straw man.

From my understanding, Dawkins quotes religious ideas to discredit them, but in doing so fails to show an adequate understanding of their significance. Whether his general criticisms of theism are correct or not, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by overstating the case.

I think it extends from a common mistake in criticisms of theism, in that it attempts to discredit theism in general by discrediting how it is practiced by certain groups. If one's goal is to discredit theism in general, it seems like it should be of little practical value to discredit a subset of people who practice it.

Makes me glad I'm not a famous intellectual, though if you read the works of Carl Friedrich Gauss, Richard Feynman, or Euler you kind of get a good idea where I'm coming from;).

I know. Anyone who gets their science from the Discovery Channel doesn't know the half.

Certainly there are some religious claims which can be verified through scientific means. Science can readily verify that god isn't a visible three foot tall hobgoblin that perches on George Bush's head during press conferences.

There are limitations to what science can say, however, and theism thrives just beyond these limitations. So while it may be right to claim that by making certain claims, some religious statements naturally avail themselves to scientific inquiry, the idea that all religious statements about reality can be subjugated by scientific inquiry isn't itself all that well reflected in reality.

It is difficult to devise an experiment to reveal the nature of an omnipotent being who doesn't necessarily want its nature revealed. As far as debunking the central ideas of theism directly, science is useless because as far as the scientific process is concerned, theism doesn't play fair.

And I'm pretty sure that there are some creationists who do believe that their god planted evidence.

I'm fairly certain that everyone's reality is in some respects a rationalization of what one wants. That being said, your particular interest in the nature of religion is immaterial here; not to be flip, but it isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about.

I won't argue with this, though I would extend recognition to humanity in general. Make the claim that religion is rational and you get a pretty good idea about the number of confused and insecure logicians...

Are you sure that's what you're trying to say? I thought you were trying to describe someone who thinks that hammers can drill screws into wood...

My claim is that people don't think critically of their own beliefs. They asymetrically apply reason to other people's beliefs and not their own. It sounded like your rebuttal is that logic and reason can only do so much and we're forced to be stupid. Before I attack a strawman, let me ask you: what were you trying to say?

The word you're looking for is probably "dogma." Something that is followed blindly. Of course, logic isn't dogma...

Honestly, do you see me doing this?

I've already stated that people have used the word "logic" colloquially and that it has a literal meaning that I often refer to as "formal logic." I've already stated that I prefer to use the term "reason" because what people use to rebut religion is not logic in the strictest sense. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking?

For the record, I haven't co-opted the word "logic." My complaint is that people are not applying due critical analysis. They are willing to use logic and reason on anything except what they want to believe. My atheism is not just a philosophical stance, it's also a practical one. It's not just a "preference," like whether you enjoy chocolate or not. It's a claim that can and should be debated just like any in politics and it's just as important, too...

Only the ones that don't understand what strawmen are. For it to be a "strawman," I must claim that what you're saying is that religion is oppressing me and then attack that oppression. Of course, I'm not doing that...

It's an expression of what I dislike about religion. Specifically, the state of religious affairs in the US right now. It's actually a bit of personal hyperbole since I'm not in the US right now but I feel for the American people who have to suffer through that nonesense! ...and I suppose I like to debate on webforums...

If you're going to hold opinions or make claims about Richard Dawkins, you should probably have actually seen or read his material. Otherwise, you really are just attacking a strawman.

Here's a thread on one of his Q&As in Lynchburg, no less. My opinions have changed somewhat since I made that thread so don't take them too seriously...

This is simply a conflation of issues and it's perfectly understandable. You can debate theism from strictly a philosophical standpoint or you can debate its practice and effects on our society. The latter is much more interesting, to me, than the former. Indeed, I think, for most people, this is the central issue. Of course, discrediting religion in general will help discredit it in the specific case so that's what often happens. I really do think that what people do because of religion is the important issue...

Again, it depends on what you mean by "reality." Remember my criteria? Is "Iron Man is a good movie!" a statement of reality?

It's not that theism doesn't play fair, it's that it doesn't seem to play at all!

Trust me, they are fringe creastionists!

Oh, but you are being flip. My interest is, indeed, relevant since you have chosen to speak about this with... me...

Logic and reason can only do so much, why would that make us stupid?

My claim is that there are plenty of people who seem to apply reason asymmetrically to other people's beliefs and not their own, and that from my experience a sizable portion of the people who claim to reject theism on the grounds that it is "unreasonable" fit this category.

I can only assume you are referring to the final paragraph that you quoted, in which case, no, but I wasn't talking about you. You are not the focus of anything that I said in that paragraph. You can rest assured that when I am talking about you I will use the word "you".

Yes, I know who you are and how you define things. What I'm saying is that the people who use the term "logic" colloquially use it because it lends a certain authority to their position that their position doesn't deserve. It's fine if one uses the term "logic" to refer to the relative agreeability of an argument, they just shouldn't be so dismayed when technically they're incorrect.

Again, I am not talking about you; your specific justifications for your atheism aren't what I'm interested in. My initial response to Mr. Rotten was concerned with debunking the idea that atheism is somehow the only logical position one can take with respect to the existence of god. That's the discussion I was having and that's the discussion you joined. If you want to talk about something else, lay out your position and if it interests me we can go from there.

It's more of a red herring, my mistake. I'm always surprised how much google knows.

No, I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked. I am familiar with the Courtesan's Reply, which was written by someone other than Dawkins. I've already stated that I'm not that familiar with Dawkins' work directly, and that any claims I make about them aren't necessarily accurate. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking? :p

It's as much a statement of reality as "It's 6:30 p.m." What's your point?

Once again, I'm not interested in talking about why you are an atheist. I'm talking about the concept of logic as it relates to validating various ways of looking at the world.

What have we been talking about?

It shouldn't make us stupid but that's what it sounds like you're saying. Let me clarify this point.

It sounds like you're arguing that because logic can't construct an answer to all our questions, it makes sense to forego their use whenever it suits us. I think this is stupid. At the very least, whenever contradictions can be logically built from our presuppositions, we should change our presuppositions.

I agree that all manner of people believe all manner of things for no good reason and this also applies to atheism. That doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable position and I would argue that it is. I would also argue that theism is an unreasonable position or, at least, that no good argument has ever been set forth. Surprisingly, this actually strays from the topic of conversation where I entered but not necessarily from the topic of the thread...

Actually, looking back on the thread, I was responding to roachboy and you were the one to rebut my response to him. It just so happens to be the same topic and that's whether atheism is the only reasonable stance and I assert that it is.

I don't think it's a red herring, either. If I had claimed oppression and abandoned my original claim of the unreasonable nature of theism, then I would agree that it was a red herring. Besides, that term is more properly used to describe narration rather than argument...

You say "I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked" as if they were mutually exclusive acts. You were answering my question with a strawman argument. That you already mentioned that you don't actually know Dawkins' arguments doesn't change the fact that you were attacking strawmen, it's merely an admission of such.

I wasn't suggesting that you spend the kind of effort necessary to, say, read his book. You could just spend a couple of minutes watching a video of him. You have strong enough opinions of him that you must have some interest in his work...

My point is that, unlike your example here, it's not a statement of reality. I thought there was an understanding between us in this regard. It's not actually that great an example 'cause much of the reason why it doesn't describe reality is that it's a poorly defined term but the point is that it's not falsifiable and thus not a statement of reality, by my use of the term.

The current time is falsifiable while an opinion on a movie is not. Consequently, the current time is a statement of reality while an opinion on a movie is not...

In these types of conversations it's difficult to tell sometimes.

No. All I was saying is that logic can't construct an answer to all of our questions, that it is naive to assume that it can. This has nothing to do with theism, I maintain that theism in a general sense can be completely logical.

I don't think you can claim that a position is reasonable without taking into account the basis for that position. Atheism is a reasonable position when it is held by someone who has a reasonable basis for holding it. It is not a reasonable position if it is held for unreasonable reasons.

All atheism is is the lack of a belief in a deity; any other qualities you give it are nothing more than projection.

And in any case, the question of whether theism is reasonable or not depends on your definition of reason. Show me a nontrivial/noncolloquial definition of "reason" which doesn't include theism in it.


I could have sworn you quoted me in your response to roachboy. Even then, your particular justifications for your atheism still aren't germane.

Well, you offered up a possibly contentious statement of questionable relevance. If you didn't mean it as a red herring, mea culpa.

It would be a straw man if you were PZ Myers, the person who wrote the courtesan's reply, or Dawkins and I happened to be arguing with you about it. But seeing as how you are not PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, and I'm not trying to claim any sort of comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, you don't really have a point. In fact, since you seem to be misstating the facts here and then using that misstatement of facts to call me out, the claim might be made that it is you who are employing straw men.

To be clear, anything involving the courtesan's reply is a footnote. I made an offhand remark about it seeming stupid, and then provided clarification about it when you asked, while admitting that I only had secondhand knowledge of it. It's not like I'm being deceptive here. Why do you need this to be a straw man so badly?

I have seen a few videos of him. It doesn't make my opinion of him credible. It doesn't have anything to do with the courtesan's reply, or my dismissive opinion of it.

How is an opinion on a movie not falsifiable? Everyone has criteria for what constitutes a good movie, it just isn't necessarily standardized. It might seem like it isn't falsifiable, but try this out:

Think of a movie you hate.
Consider the hypothesis: The movie is good.
Compare the qualities of the movie with the characteristics you use to define a good movie.
Either your hypothesis stands or it is falsified.

It is a pretty common procedure.

Right now my computer says it's 8:37. My microwave says it's 8:38. Who's right? Which statement is falsified?

You seem to be acting under the assumption that subjective statements aren't falsifiable. I think that's a mistake. When it comes down to it, there aren't necessarily any qualitative differences between statements of opinion and statements of fact. In fact, as far as I have been able to tell, opinion is of vital importance in most matters of fact; the data is what it is, but what it means is an altogether different thing, falsifiability be damned.

Indeed, I agree that our positions don't exist in a vacuum and require some kind of basis. I contend that most of us share a common basis for which theism is unreasonable. You can see this basis in action when theists dismiss a religion not their own. I maintain that they fail to apply this critical thinking to their own religion and that this is unreasonable. In my experience, theists agree with this idea, in principle, but rationalize that their religion somehow stands up to this criticism.


I responded to both you and roachboy, in the same post. The forum software would have just automerged two consecutive posts, anyway. You were probably responding to the entire post, regardless of whether it were directed at you or not. These are not exactly private conversations so it's no big deal...


The Courtesan's Reply? I was referring to this:I don't think you were referring to the Courtesan's Reply when you were saying this...

Furthermore, your assessment of what constitutes a strawman is simply incorrect. Who I am or am not is irrelevant. As long as you are refuting a claim that someone did not make as if they had made it, you are employing a strawman argument.

Finally, I have no fetish for strawmen. You brought it up in post #92 and I've been correcting your use of terms ever since...

While we're on the subject, can you provide a link to the Courtesan's Reply? A Google search has proved fruitless...


It makes it more credible. At least you know something about him and can comment on the content of those videos. He does go over the same subject matter over and over again...


I don't think I follow your reasoning here but, regardless, I'm not saying that subjective statements are necessarily non-falsifiable.

I don't quite like my example 'cause its non-falsifiability is rooted in the deliberately undefined term "good." Nevertheless, the statement can't be falsified while the term "good" is so poorly defined and, thus, is not a statement of reality. I think it's fair to say that poorly made statements are also not statements of reality and that's what I was thinking with that last paragraph.

Apparently, my examples suck so I'll go back to the abstract. Statements that are not falsifiable aren't statements on reality. If you make a statment that is impossible to verify, even in principle, are you really talking about something that is real? In a sense, these are nonsensical statements...


Finally, lets get back to the original point, which is that Dawkins isn't saying that all theistic claims are subject to scientific inquiry. He's saying that it can be, in contrast to Non-overlapping magesteria. My interpretation of his statements on this matter is that religions often make statements on reality that can be verified scientifically. He may have clarified this point in The God Delusion, which would relieve us of my interpretation so let me check on that before I assert this too strongly...




PS. I found the Courtier's Reply. You'll never guess how!

"Statements that are not falsifiable aren't statements on reality."

Really? Is that statement falsifiable? The problem, as the logical positivists finally realized in the 50s, is that all observation is theory-laden, so any project that attempts to make all knowledge 'scientific' is bound to fail, because it's bound to rely in its premises on something that is not itself 'scientific'.