Slashdot Mirror

What about the religion of anti-theism?

>The main difference between theism and science (to generalize this somewhat) with respect to point a) is the nature of the "sense data." Theism's has a flaw—it is not inherently replicable, something the diversity of religions (and the existence of atheism) is a testament to. In contrast, science's is replicable; the results of all properly done studies are theoretically capable of being reproduced. I assume, of course, that we are discarding solipsistic and brain-in-a-vat-type viewpoints. It follows, then, that science is a "belief system" of a different sort—it is based on many individuals' "sense data."

There is some fascinating data out there that appears to invalidate that interpretation, but the data is not widely known in the U.S.. The Tibetan Buddhist monks are able to create tulpas, or thoughtforms made solid. They can create objects, animals, people, biologically improbable deities from their pantheon and, according to their texts, "the elixir of immortality". Through about three months of seclusion and intense visualization, these things take on solid form and become perceptible to those around them. People and animal tulpas begin showing up unbidden, and acting on their own cognizance. A few westerners such as Alexandra David-Neel have learned to form tulpas themselves.

I hesitate to state that these tulpas have become "real", but they are as real as anything else around us. This makes an interesting case for the whole world being one giant tulpa itself, kept manifested into apparent solidity by the day-to-day beliefs and choices (acts of Will) of the population.

Additionally, David Hawkins has adapted a technique of applied kinesiology to tap into non-localized consciousness. The mechanism is theorized to work in the following way: Consciousness is non-localized, with the body's nervous system acting as an interpreter and actualizer, in addition to passing along sensory data back to it. Through muscle-resistance tests, the nervous system is queried for "strong" and "weak" responses. Unhealthy stimuli typically cause a "weak" response. These include saccharin, an apple grown with pesticides, and alcohol-based perfume. Healthy stimuli produce a "strong" response: sugar, an organically-grown apple, a smile, and even a kind and loving thought. Test subjects can successfully distinguish between a conventionally-grown apple and an organically-grown apple, despite not knowing which is which.

Interestingly, false statements also produce a "weak" response - even if the accuracy of the statement is not known to the subjects. Verifiably true or false statements were written on various 3x5 cards, sealed individually into envelopes, shuffled, and passed around a lecture room. A roomful of people would get the same responses, despite not even knowing which statement was in which envelope. This applied kinesiological technique has since been used to distinguish between original works of art and art forgeries, legitimate business offers and scam attempts, and even used to pare down potentially suitable fabrication materials by dividing the possible materials into two groups, checking for a "strong" response, and then repeating the process to pare down the possibilities. The R&D potential of this is amazing. The technique has since been used to narrow down the possible location of a number of items "20 Questions"-style, to check on the level of integrity within various ranks of the CIA remotely, and to research matters that had previously lacked scientifically-objective data; the levels of consciousness have apparently been calibrated, with higher levels possessing a stronger influence on the world around us than lower levels by orders of magnitude. I recommend Hawkins' book, Power vs. Force, which goes into better detail on this.

Taken in combination, these things present quite a non-st

So called "agnostic" are in reality agnostic atheist. Let me explain. Atheism is the belief there is no god. It is opposed to theism. The middle ground is not agnosticism. Its middle is you don't know whether god exists or not.

Agnosticism on the other hand is about whether it is possible or not to ever know/provide evidence of gods existence. The reality is that the one calling themselves agnostic, are betetr called agnostic atheist (see list below) as they live their live as if no gods existed. Gnosticism is about knowledge , theism is about belief. They are perüandicular.

So you see you can be a :
* gnostic theist (basic believer faithful and think god can be proved formally (kalam argument) or similar)
* agnostic theist (most people, believing but not believing it can be proved)
* gnostic atheist (believe atheism can be demonstrated relatively rare)
* agnostic atheist (atheist thinking that the burden of proof on theist side is not doable).

I'm not clear on the distinction between the two. How would a belief held irrationally not be an irrational belief?

I guess it is a but subtle, isn't it? The belief itself is separate from how you came to believe it.

Now, there is a knowledge component the comes in to play, which is why you've probably already shouted "how on earth can beliefs be rational or irrational on their own!" Indeed, there is also a social component, but neither are important for making the distinction, which is our only goal here.

That's both what I know and what I believe-again, I'm unclear on the distinction between the two.

Knowledge and belief are pretty easy to distinguish -- and you do it rather well in the post I'm replying to! Let me try a different example from the mind/brain one: The terms theism and gnosticism refer to two different things. Theism is about belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief in a god (handy, that little a). Gnosticism is more general, but refers to knowledge. An agnostic (without knowledge) theist (believer) would say that he believes that there is a god, but doesn't claim to know that there is a god -- that is, he claims no knowledge that supports that belief. A gnostic theist, on the other hand, would claim knowledge in addition to belief; for example, through personal revelation.

That's a bit deceptive as in the above we're talking about a claim to belief, but should still make the distinction between knowledge and belief clear. [A gnostic atheist is in a different position that the person who has knowledge but lacks a corresponding belief.]

I prefer the mind/brain example as it's a very widely held belief that is necessitated by a common set of metaphysical assumptions. That is, you don't actually need any evidence to hold the belief. (Consequently, all the evidence we have that indicates a relationship between the mind and the brain can only be interpreted to support that belief -- there can be no alternative interpretation from within that metaphysical system!)

I hesitate to use it, but the luminiferous aether is a neat example as it was also a necessary consequence of the metaphysical assumptions of the time (mechanism, in this case). When the wave behavior of light was observed, the most obvious question to ask was "what, exactly, is waving?" I can imagine slashdotters, had they existed at the time, saying: "We can't have waves without a medium through which they propagate! Waves aren't some mystical magical things, they're just particles bumping in to one another." (I've neglected tons of history here, but only to keep the example clear.)

Anyhow, the point of all this is to show that it's easy to hold a belief without evidence and not know or be able to acknowledge it. Some very smart people even managed a century of science on the basis of a belief without evidence merely because it was demanded by their metaphysical assumptions!

I suppose it would be better said that I endeavor to only have beliefs supported by sufficient evidence

I agree. That was what I was getting at.

If what you say is correct, a group calling itself "Rationalist" and basing itself upon irrational principles could be quite amusing.

They are ridiculous! In the average religious group, you'll find that the majority of the adherents can't articulate even the very basic tenants of their faith. The "Rationalists" are no different from their religious counterparts in that respect -- which is very amusing.

two criteria:

a) It's based on interpretations of "empirical" sense data (and the interpretations, as well as which data to use, are based on their present context), and

b) It's a non-trivially complex system, and more or less adheres to an internally-consistent set of principles and rules.

The main difference between theism and science (to generalize this somewhat) with respect to point a) is the nature of the "sense data." Theism's has a flaw—it is not inherently replicable, something the diversity of religions (and the existence of atheism) is a testament to. In contrast, science's is replicable; the results of all properly done studies are theoretically capable of being reproduced. I assume, of course, that we are discarding solipsistic and brain-in-a-vat-type viewpoints. It follows, then, that science is a "belief system" of a different sort—it is based on many individuals' "sense data."

Note that many clinically insane patients adhere to belief systems that meet the above criteria. It makes total sense to them, but since their beliefs are not aligned with the beliefs of the majority, society is quick to dismiss them.

As you have correctly pointed out, many cases of insanity are caused by the sufferer experiencing a different reality. This is exacerbated by the fact that we are incredibly inclined to trust our senses, even when it might be irrational to do so. This being the case, consider the following scenario. Consider an individual, arbitrarily male, whom it befalls to contract a mental disorder—in particular, let the result be vivid hallucinations, which he, on account of their nature, perceives to be as real as his former reality. Let the man have previously possessed rationality and have lived long enough to be aware of the nature of such disorders. Suppose, then, that the man is able to overcome the severe pressure of his disturbed senses and reasonably consider the possibility that the changes in the landscape of the world around him are the result of his contraction of the disorder. As many characters around him are undoubtedly pointing out that he is losing his grip on reality, that should reaffirm his suspicions, allowing him to resist accepting his hallucinations as reality.

In this scenario, the most improbable part is the man's denial of his own senses. However, if he is capable, it seems that he, and thus all who would really consider the possibility of their own illness, should be able to prevent his insanity.

With that point made, it is worth nothing that he denies his senses on account of his (prior) senses. How, then, would he be able to come to the correct conclusion if he was originally born in the Matrix and was taken to the real world? It seems reasonable that some evidence would be able to be offered to him to illustrate the fact. However, we can equally well imagine that a sufferer of hallucinations believes he has been taken out of the Matrix and shown evidence demonstrating his normal existence in the Matrix. The way out of this most apparent to me is that the proffered evidence be knowledge of what he could not possibly otherwise know, as confirmed by individuals he is fairly certain are not just products of his possibly deranged mind.

In conclusion, then, it seems that a rational individual should be able to select which of several different realities his mind presents him with is most likely the true reality through reason, granting that he can doubt his senses. Specifically, rational hallucinating individuals should be able to realize their condition and avoid insanity.

To reconnect this with the quotation, I believe this lumps your example of insane individuals in with theism, as someone who is insane is, unlike with science, basing his view of reality mainly on his own "sense data." Thus, I maintain that science is, to repeat, a "belief system" of a different sort.

TL;DR: Science is not really a belief system, at least not in the sense that theism is.

Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.

The parent did confuse knowledge and beliefs. Saying "I don't believe any gods exist" is the same as saying "I believe that no gods exist" -- What he's trying to say is that he's not asserting knowledge about his belief. He doesn't believe that any gods exist but makes no positive claim about the nonexistence of gods. Consequently, he's an agnostic atheist.

Well I have heard the claim many times from religious folk that Atheism requires just as much faith as any form of Theism

Which is stupid and also belittling to the real faith they value.

It didn't even make a dent in my agnosticism, nor did the nuns try to tear that down.

You mean 'agnostic atheism' or 'agnostic theism'?

Agnostic atheism. Strangely, my classmates cared about it a lot more than the priests and nuns. But teenagers can be assholes in general. >_>

It didn't even make a dent in my agnosticism, nor did the nuns try to tear that down.

You mean 'agnostic atheism' or 'agnostic theism'?

> Literally twice the age at which you said he had completed "all his greatest work"

Newton's greatest work was the theory of optics, NOT principia. Principia is much more famous work but it was a far less impressive and world-changing theory than his theory of optics and he himself readily admitted that and decried the fact that his later work paled in comparison to what he did as a young man. The ultimate proof of that ? The vast majority of Newton's theory of optics is still held as valid today while the laws of motion have been replaced entirely.

The only thing we changed with optics was to discover the underlying structures that made them happen (quantum physics), and throw away that 7th color in the rainbow he made up because he was too much of a theist to be a scientist. Specifically he was a Spinozan, I said that in my post - Spinozan's are a form theism. What they are NOT are deist.

Either way - you suggested Newton as proof that religion and science can mix - I showed you that Newton wasn't a scientist which completely refutes your position, and furthermore that even in his most scientific work he was greatly HAMPERED by his spiritualist thoughts. If anything his religious views caused him to make embarrassing mistakes (well they weren't seen as such in his time but would be today) - like adding a clearly non-existent extra color to the spectrum because 7 is a holy number and 6 isn't -even though to do so he had to violate the very mathematical principles of colour mixing that he himself had discovered (three primary colors cannot make 7 secondary colors) or spending decades upon decades lost in pursuit of alchemical results.

Point being - Newton wasn't religious in the way you think of the concept - he was religious more in the way of Arthur C. Clarke - and even THAT religious viewpoint was a major hamper to his work - and part of the reason he was NOT and never should be DEEMED a scientist. Religion and science can co-exist, but they sure as fuck cannot and should not mix.

How does assuming that the laws of nature don't change suddenly imply "theism"? That is a non-sequitur.

I don't think you get my overall point. The law-like understanding of the world is under-girded by theistic assumptions. I would go with Airplane A and theism backs that belief up.

Were "well-established physical laws" broken the first time man escaped Earth's gravitational field?

Our understanding of science is still largely limited to conditions that we can reproduce, and this continues to put very few absolute bounds on what physical processes absolutely cannot occur, even without some completely immeasurable "magic" force existing.

This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the best arguments for either theism or atheism, but we can do without the tired "breaking the laws of physics" trope.

And, as it stands, for every one instance of bad science that is revealed, two new ones have already taken its place.

Here we have the inevitable result of the trend of advocating "memes" as the overarching model of human cognition.

If you don't like theism, Pirsig's "Quality", for one, is a much better guiding metaphysics.

Wouldn't the environmental movement be subverting science if it only funds, pushes, talks about environmentally damaging industrial practices?

What exactly are you saying here? Environmentalists should picket both wind farms and coal plants or they're being unscientific?

Or, while it's a minority, there is a portion of people out there that try to use evolution as proof against religion.

Nobody, not even Dawkins, uses evolution as "proof" against religion. Every skeptic knows that you can't prove the non-existence of something.

What people actually claim is that since we have a secular, mechanisitc explanation for the production of complexity that complexity cannot be used as an argument for theism.

That is not a hard distinction to make. Yet conservatives screw it up regularly. Why do you think that is? I have an idea...

Also, having a "creation" myth is par for the course.

So, what you're saying is, theism is pretty damn normal.

Thank you for reiterating my point.

Well, if you consider the knowledge means I'll have eternal life, and you'll just be inevitably "naturally deselected" as you claw for a few seconds more like a dog dying in an alley...

Or maybe our souls will both be weighed by Anubis to determine our fates. Or maybe we'll end up in Vahalla. Isn't it fun to generate "knowledge" by making it up as you go? Congrats on that sound footing.

In fact, I would propose to you that the very basis upon which you gauge and infer the future of the world around you, is based very much, both informationally and methodologically, on theism--entirely whether you choose to admit it or not.

Utter dipshittery. The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is.

You see, I do not credit atheism with any functional system of behavioral norms whatsoever of its own--merely a provisional, self-contradictory approximation of one, for people for which it exists at all, that is based on indirect cultural assimilation of theism's cultural influence. I'll change my stance on this when, for the first time in history, atheism actually -generates- a coherent, sustainable set of behavioral norms that are not merely "the opposite of whatever theism says on the topics I feel like applying that to".

Atheism does not presuppose any sort of behavioral norms, sans those which are intrinsically tied to religion. I mean, you'd have to consider something like secular humanism for that. But then, the every existence of secular humanism disproves your whole point, doesn't it?

If you asked them, independently, to write down their own Top 5 ethical axioms (even ones they know they cannot justify beyond pure subjectivity), I guarantee there would be essentially no correlation with regard to what they are -for-, independent of reference to theism.

Rubbish. They would be pointing out things like the ethic of reciprocity, the freedom of self determination, the freedom from slavery, etc. None of which require your silly theistic beliefs to justify. Are you really so lost in the dark that you've not paid attention to what they(and many like them) have been writing for decades, hell, millenia, now?

If you theists weren't busy mentally masturbating with theology, you might actually learn that the world doesn't need your cosmological boogeyman to either deduce ethics or run a civilization. If that doesn't scare you shitless, it should. Because one day, if you lunatics don't manage to take the human race with you in your insanity, your whole religion and worldview will be just another footnote that kids will learn from dusty old books on mythology.

Well, if you consider the knowledge means I'll have eternal life, and you'll just be inevitably "naturally deselected" as you claw for a few seconds more like a dog dying in an alley...

Well, then, outside of -that-, you might start to consider it "useless". However...

As a wider consideration, in fact, your worldview presuppositions have enormous predictive power. Consider merely in the realm of politics--knowing that you personally, the subculture you are in, or the government in general, are/will-be Democrat or Republican, or any other of a myriad of stances, allows a great deal of prediction regarding a broad set of future actions and trends--it is a very fundamental basis for human interaction. Very much the same way, religious metaphysics and norms do much the same thing. In fact, I would propose to you that the very basis upon which you gauge and infer the future of the world around you, is based very much, both informationally and methodologically, on theism--entirely whether you choose to admit it or not. You see, I do not credit atheism with any functional system of behavioral norms whatsoever of its own--merely a provisional, self-contradictory approximation of one, for people for which it exists at all, that is based on indirect cultural assimilation of theism's cultural influence. I'll change my stance on this when, for the first time in history, atheism actually -generates- a coherent, sustainable set of behavioral norms that are not merely "the opposite of whatever theism says on the topics I feel like applying that to". Along the way, we could reasonably expect that basic requirements for a coherent philosophical worldview would be generated--for instance, a logical connection between the metaphysics of Naturalism and a justification for any ethical norms, of any type or content, at all. Really, the only people doing even an attempt to not formally sign-on to such a subjective mush of non-direction are the Objectivists--that is, the Rand followers, and that was a 20'th-century development with its own internal consistency issues. Take, as a test-case, Dawkins and Hitchens--who were proverbially "joined at the hip" in their metaphysics. If you asked them, independently, to write down their own Top 5 ethical axioms (even ones they know they cannot justify beyond pure subjectivity), I guarantee there would be essentially no correlation with regard to what they are -for-, independent of reference to theism. From that stance, they are proposing we reduce ourselves as a society to a "predictive power", with regard to the entire domain of human interaction, of zero. This "thought experiment", naturally, would only be the merest beginning of maybe, someday, atheism getting to an unenforceable, subjectivity-laden non-consensus, that maybe could appear on first glance to not be that, and might stand more than 30 to 45 seconds of rigorous philosophical questioning. The "Is-Ought Dichotomy" is not a trivial thing to address--almost universally, people don't even try, a situation exacerbated by the fact most don't want to, because avoiding having ethical norms which are actually expected to be followed, and not simply ignorably subjective, was their whole point and emotional impetus to attacking theism in the first place.

I suggest, "lack of predictive power" is just a criticism requiring self-induced myopia to considering a very small subset of the hard sciences, as is also required by a broad range of standard atheist argument. I suggest you may want to reconsider the veracity of that argument.

And, well... you asked. Predictive power with regard to methods you are currently unable of know are even there to be brought to bear, I'll leave for another day.

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Without an objective standard of "good" any claim of "good" or "evil" is nothing more than ones personal opinion. Under Atheism, if god does not exist, to say that killing the mentally retarded is "evil" is nothing more than ones own personal opinion. Someone else could hold the opinion that the burden they place on society is too great and is hurting the rest of society.

Let me explain it this way: How do you objectively tell if a drawing of President Obama is a "Good" drawing? Simple, since President Obama exists you simply compare the drawing to the original. There is an objective standard to compare to.

Now, how do you tell if a drawing of Sherlock Holmes is a "Good" drawing? You can't, Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist, therefore any conclusion of "good"or "bad" is relative. There is no objective standard to compare to.

Under Theism there is an objective "good", a standard that one can compare and justify moral actions against. (A standard that we ALL fall short of.) Under Atheism there is not, everything is relative.

Now of course the question is NOT, can Atheists recognize objective moral values. They certainly do. Romans 2:14-15 Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

The moral law is written on the hearts of all humans, none is without excuse. The problem for Atheists is that while they recognize moral values and duties and can live lives that put theists to shame, they cannot JUSTIFY objective morality. The Atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was correct in his observation that "If God is dead, everything is permitted.". Most Artiest and Theist philosophers agree. Without God to serve as a foundation for morality, "good" and evil" do not exist. Rape is no more "evil" than belching at the dinner table. All that exists is a sea of differing personal opinions.

So what you have in the case of hairyfeet's post is incoherence. On one hand he says that god does not exist by holding to Atheism, but then claims that god DOES exist by claiming that objective evil exists. (Richard Dawkins also has this problem of incoherence.) His observations on technical matters are superb, thus why I follow his posts on those subjects, but his philosophical and economic observations show that he is simply uninformed on those subjects. Nothing to be ashamed about, we all have subjects that we are not well read in. You don't see me commenting in car forums about rebuilding a transmission.

Thankfully most Atheists do not follow their philosophical beliefs to their logical conclusion, sadly though, most don't even realize the conclusions that their worldview leads to. On the flip side, the world would be a far better place if more Christians DID follow their philosophical beliefs to their logical conclusion, it's sickening how many supposed "Christians" I run across that are pro warfare state.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is no god. It is the opposite of theism.

Agnosticism is the stance (with regards to religion, anyways) that gods' or god's existence or non-existance is unknowable. It is the opposite of gnosticism.

A gnostic atheist 'knows' that there are no gods. They make a claim of absolute knowledge. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god, but cannot rationally state that they know this with 100% certainty. They simply aren't convinced of the existence of gods. Most atheists fall into the latter category.

I thought that atheists were people who have faith (aka a belief absent of evidence) that all religion is wrong and there is definitely not a god. They are 100% certain this is true, having faith that it must be true.

What you are describing is gnostic, hard, or positive atheism.