Slashdot Mirror

Like I said, everyone fixates on biologists ;) Collins is more interesting for his combination of faith and science than for his reasons for faith. Gödel is fascinating for his personal application of logic to the discussion of God's existence, even if you don't agree with his presuppositions. C.S. Lewis is another (non-scientific) personage known for his application of reason to belief. I also recommend you check out Matthew Dickerson's forthcoming book "The Mind and the Machine" (disclaimer: the author is a close family member, he also holds a doctorate in computer science from Cornell, and I've generally found him to be very intelligent in his discussions of theism).

You appear to be confusing the meanings of several of the words you are using. Religious agnosticism you seem to have mostly correct, it is an epistemological view that it's impossible to prove that a diety(or dieties) exist. This is entirely compatable with either atheism or theism, it's not a point on a spectrum. See agnostic theists such as Kierkegaard.

Atheism is a simple word, the a- prefix means not. The word means not theist... that's all. You appear to be attacking a strawman definition of atheism that involves "stating outright that there isn't one". This belief is held by a small subset but far from all atheists.

It is not at all surprising that there is a negative reaction to this sort of strawman characterization of a large group based on the beliefs of a small subset. If you were to say that all Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old you might expect a similar negative response to that mis-characterization of a large group based on the beliefs of a small subset.

Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.

In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism. An agnostic wouldn't waste his time trying to prove to the religious that they're believing in a fantasy, because the acknowledge the possibility that the "fantasy" could be reality.

As I said previously, there's two conditions to the practice of your faith (or lack thereof) that matter to me:
1, that you're not harming anybody, and
2, that you recognize that you've made a conscious choice to believe something you can't prove.

I went further as to define evangelism as harmful, and on that point, you've failed both of my conditions. I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me? (for the record, I don't really care if Yahweh exists or not, because he doesn't play into the practice of my faith, which is much more earth-based, and focused on the interconnectedness of everything in the natural world. any gods, plural, that do exist are neither infallible nor omnipotent, and can only exert power over you if you let them. I also don't subscribe to a creation myth, preferring a cyclical universe)

Mostly familiar with Collins, whose reason to believe ultimately came down to seeing three frozen waterfalls, which he took to mean the trinity.

Is it going to be worth my time to look up what the others had to say about religion?

The point isn't whether the theist is intelligent. Certainly, there are and have been many intelligent theists. The point is whether their theism is intelligent.

Theism: FAIL
Atheism: WIN

May also explain why prayer works without regard to specific faith.

First of all, in all seriousness, your first post, is pretty much a exactly what I've heard theologians say in arguing for God's existence.

But secondly, You can't be serious that you don't think about the things you already believe to be true. Leaving the Theism vs Atheism debate aside, how did you ever learn anything with that attitude? I'm sure what you believed about math, language, culture, cuisine, love, work, live and death as a 9 year old isn't the same as you do now. How did you ever do that if you didn't revisit those things which you once believed? Progress of science is dependant on people looking at things the think and imagining for a second, what if ? And then of course applying that hypothesis towards the realm of experiences and seeing if it explains things a little bit better than what came before it.

Please don't think I take anything I state here as gospel truth, this is just a hypothesis I play with to help explain why there seems to be actual ethics in the real world (beyond prescriptive academic philosophy) while there is no apparent source of these ethics (yes, I'm an atheist).

No danger of that here. There are few things I take as gospel truths and this is just an informal discussion. As for theism, I wish I could say I believe in God, but it's more like I *want* to believe in God and often operate under the assumption that there is a God. But that's besides the point (which is off-topic to begin with :).

Some of these traits are uniquely human, and some continued on from previous primate iterations (notice the commonalities within social structures of divergent primate groups).

Your hypothesis seems perfectly tenable. Since you bring up other primates, the question arises (again?) how we define "human". Chimpanzees are 96-99% genetically identical to humans. According to this article, Chimpanzees are more genetically similar to humans than various species of yeast are to one another. Recent research indicates that there are non-human animals which are self-aware to some degree.

What we define as human, or human like varies with culture. Black people weren't human for a time, and neither were Jews or women (who still aren't in many cultures considered fully human), for example, and thus were not part of the formula.

Exactly. The demarcation line is not at all immovable. So, why not err on the side of caution? Of course, that's a personal choice (albeit influenced by our cultural progress).

There are many variations by culture since the evolutionary framework only provides us with a hard and fast default, which can be somewhat overwritten by cultural conditioning and personal circumstances, it becomes more and more apt at larger aggregate levels though.

Is culture evolutionary as well?

Cannabalism can spread nasty prion diseases (kuru, historically), meaning there may be larger cultural and traditional forces against it, or even another slight evolutionary imperative.

So can eating non-human animals. Some folks suspect that vCJD (Mad Cow Disease) is much more prevalent than meat industry stakeholders want (or will allow) us to believe. Since it takes so long for symptoms of the disease to manifest, it's hard to know. Some have suggested that, perhaps, Alzheimer's is also prion-related.

We didn't genetically evolve past slavery, we just culturally reclassified black people (or poor people, or whoeever) as being equally human with us, and thus entitled to the same rights and ethical choices as us.

Well, yes. Time has shown that there's more to evolution than simple genetic mutation/natural selection. *Choices* do play a role. Much of human "evolution" in the past 10,000 years have been a product more of adaptation to circumstances and our lifestyle choices than pure survival. More and more evidence is revealing that many of our former assumptions about other animal species (e.g. that they are essentially automatons driven by instinct) are not valid.

The problem is that animals are not human, and thus face an uphill battle.

Not human by our current definition. We could (once again) redefine what it means to be human.

The only alternative I can see is that ethics and rights are completely socially derived, and thus completely transient and arbitrary.

It's a scary thought, but it might be so. Anyways, I thank you for your though-provoking response. I wish my own response was more detailed and reasoned, but this is the best I can do at the moment. I have way more questions than answers. Cheers!! --MM

> For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_.

Apologies for offending you but that is a simplistic dualistic-modality of thinking and looking at the world:
e.g.
In understanding truth, we have evidence, therefore logic dictates that the only other choice is lack-of-evidence.

To provide another perspective. While you are correct, you have only described the horizontal axis: logic

You are missing the vertical axies: emotion / faith.

The two are orthogonal.

There is actually a 3rd dimension of consciousness (knowingness) but I would encourage you to explore the first two, Theism (Femine Non-Linear Faith/Emotion) vs Atheism (Masculine Linear Logic), before moving to Agnostic. If you are persistant, you may experience Gnosticism to be able to undertand the strengths and limitations of the first two.

Good luck!

Not at all. It adds clarity. It is one of the possible states of being an atheist. Turn it around. There are many possible states of being a theist. You can be a polytheist, a deist, a monotheist, a quasi-monotheist or a pantheist, just to name a few. This belief may be the basis for a lifestyle, or it may be held in isolation. Likewise, there is a spectrum of atheistic beliefs, which include the state of having no concept of a god.

The discussion is concerned with opinions which can be engaged, evaluated, and critiqued. Theism describes an opinion. Deism describes an opinion. Agnosticism describes an opinion. Pantheism describes an opinion. All these terms are nouns which describe opinions. Atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, does not describe an opinion. It is an adjective. This creates ambiguity. If atheism is going to be meaningful and helpful in the discussion then it must be a noun.

Not at all. If you wish to engage someone, then ask them what else they believe. For example, engaging me as an atheist is useless. You have one point of contention which doesn't tell you much about my worldview. Engaging me as a secular humanist and an anti-theist is far more productive, since it allows you to engage my worldview.

This is confusing the broad discussion (i.e., worldview) with the narrow discussion (i.e., gods). If an atheist desires to engage in the "gods discussion," then the atheist must have an opinion on the matter and be willing to present and defend the opinion. If the atheist fails to do so, then the atheist is not engaging in discussion.

No, it is a point of clarity. If you wish to argue against a view which incorporates atheism, such as secular humanism, that is one thing. If you wish to argue against atheism itself, you actually have to argue FOR theism. Just as if I want to argue for atheism, I have to argue against theism. It goes both ways.

If atheism is a "lack of theistic belief" only, then the expression "argue for atheism" is meaningless. For the expression to be meaningful, then atheism must describe something of substance. It must describe an opinion. If one is going to "argue against theism," then one must necessarily take the opinion "theism is false." (That is, unless they wish to flout the Gricean maxim of being truthful.) That opinion is the substance of atheism. What is atheism? It is the doctrine that no gods exist.

Your definition of atheism includes those who lack an opinion on the existence of gods. This definition makes atheism meaningless and unhelpful, and to use it damages the discussion by creating ambiguity.

Not at all. It adds clarity. It is one of the possible states of being an atheist. Turn it around. There are many possible states of being a theist. You can be a polytheist, a deist, a monotheist, a quasi-monotheist or a pantheist, just to name a few. This belief may be the basis for a lifestyle, or it may be held in isolation. Likewise, there is a spectrum of atheistic beliefs, which include the state of having no concept of a god.

That ambiguity alone is problematic, but it can also prevent progress by creating a safe haven for those who engage and refuse to present and defend an opinion.

Not at all. If you wish to engage someone, then ask them what else they believe. For example, engaging me as an atheist is useless. You have one point of contention which doesn't tell you much about my worldview. Engaging me as a secular humanist and an anti-theist is far more productive, since it allows you to engage my worldview.

Thus, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn about atheism defined as a lack of theistic belief is sophistry. And, further, those engaged in the discussion are ethically obligated to forbid its use. Atheism, to be allowed in the discussion, must contain something of substance (i.e., an opinion about the existence of gods).

No, it is a point of clarity. If you wish to argue against a view which incorporates atheism, such as secular humanism, that is one thing. If you wish to argue against atheism itself, you actually have to argue FOR theism. Just as if I want to argue for atheism, I have to argue against theism. It goes both ways.

We have agreed atheism is without substance or meaning in isolation. We have agreed atheism has substance or meaning in the context of theism or, more precisely, in the context of the discussion about the existence of gods. Atheism obtains its meaning from describing an opinion within the discussion.

Your definition of atheism includes those who lack an opinion on the existence of gods. This definition makes atheism meaningless and unhelpful, and to use it damages the discussion by creating ambiguity. That ambiguity alone is problematic, but it can also prevent progress by creating a safe haven for those who engage and refuse to present and defend an opinion.

Thus, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn about atheism defined as a lack of theistic belief is sophistry. And, further, those engaged in the discussion are ethically obligated to forbid its use. Atheism, to be allowed in the discussion, must contain something of substance (i.e., an opinion about the existence of gods).

Different axes? Or simply different points along the line with one endpoint at atheism, and the other at theism?

Agnostics don't sound like they're on a different axis at all, it sounds like shades of gray on the continuum between theism and atheism, to me.

No, it's answering a different question altogether.

Atheism<-->theism: Is there a god?

Agnostic<-->Gnostic(Note: not the classical "gnostic" religious movement, just the opposite of agnostic): Are claims about the existence of a deity unknowable?

Maybe this will help.

> both conclude there is and can never be no credible evidence
That is true that one man's "evidence" is another man's skepticism.

However, that is an incorrect conclusion based on a faulty assumption, even though a quite reasonable conclusion, lack of experience. Here is an analogy:

A blind man says there is no such thing as color. From his perspective (pardon the pun) he is absolutely correct - he has no valid frame of reference to even understand what color is.

Theists, Atheists, and the Agnostic are the blind men all arguing over what constitutes color when they really don't have a clue what the spectrum is.

It's like saying there is no life after death. If you have NEVER been dead, you don't KNOW, so you can NOT assert this claim. Once you have been dead, you will KNOW that Reality is much, much more complicated than the average human could even comprehend.

> how can you provide evidence of something you cannot define in clear non-supernatural terms,

If _you_ are unable to define it, that is _your_ problem. For example, as a baby did you understood Differential Calculus? Why Not?? The same applies to spiritual understanding. The fact that you are unable to understand the answer does not imply there is no answer.

Furthermore, ALL KNOWLEDGE is subjective. The objective relies upon the subjective experience/evidence. How do you KNOW that 2+2 = 4? If you can't do math or even know what numbers are, you DON'T, let alone come up with a proof.

> Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god
Can you show me where I said that please?

a-{word} = without, or lacking

Theism = has-a belief
Atheism = has-no belief (due to lack of evidence)
Agnostic = has-no knowledge (due to lack of evidence or experience)
Gnostic = has-a knowledge (due to experience and evidence)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism?&qsrc=

Note: Faith is DIFFERENT than belief. Everyone has faith, in some form or another, even if they are unwilling to admit it.

The problem is the "blind faith" that religion ignorantly tries to use as a crutch for "God".

--
Death is only a change in state.

Different axes? Or simply different points along the line with one endpoint at atheism, and the other at theism?

Agnostics don't sound like they're on a different axis at all, it sounds like shades of gray on the continuum between theism and atheism, to me.

Umm, maybe.. I don't know what the question is... also I am not the same "you", i am another "you" unmocked, so far.

Alas, the uncertainty inherent in arguing with AC.

In the same way being a jerk and saying "im joking" makes it all better. What is true in your mind is not a global truth, what others think is also true(at least to them). It seems to me you use definitions to hold things in certain places, so that they cannot be more or less than what you have defined. I find this limiting. It is possible that a whole bunch of small parts make up a whole, each defined by the other all to create a single - or more likely a tangle. So is it possible it could be that atheism is a part of "that" - for without atheism, would "that" still be "that", or would it be "this".

I use definitions for clarity. If you do not have a clear definition of a concept, then how can you possibly communicate about it? And if two people are arguing about a concept for which they hold two differing definitions, then they aren't communicating about that concept at all.

Well at least its a possibility. Is this how you "practise" your religion. If so I'm glad to have helped :) I guess that you enjoy this as much as I do, but for different reasons.

I suppose in part it is. But I do enjoy it, especially with a glass of good red wine.

I agree, that does not seem the illusion you are under. But that is the great thing about illusions, if you knew you were under the effects of one, it would cease to be an illusion. I found myself under the illusion the other day that no one had thought of making hot chip nachos, but a little searching and alas, i was not unique in this regard. The trick is never to stay under the same illusion for too long.

I agree. I was under the illusion of theism myself for quite a while, and it is refreshing to be out from under that illusion.

Here's the kicker. If atheism is going to be meaningful then it must necessarily have some central defining opinion. If atheism lacks a central defining opinion, then it cannot be an "-ism." You, along with your Internet buddies, have made atheism into a meaningless term.

Rendering it completely meaningless is a noble goal, as that will happen when theism is finally regulated to the dustbin of mythology. I would be perfectly happy knowing that my grandchildren won't have any reason to think about atheism at all.

A discussion is the sharing and supporting of differing opinions on an issue. With regard to theism, the opinions of the theist are often well known (i.e., "God exists" is a true proposition, etc.). What are the opinions of the atheist?

It depends on the individual. Some don't have an opinion(my kids for all the years until they became aware of the god concept). Some find theism to be benign. Some, like myself, find it to be a toxic and puerile concept. You answer could range from "I don't know if a god exists" to "I believe that this certain set of gods don't exist" to "I believe that no god exists."

Have you not read any of my posts? The thing I am doing when I mock you and poke fun at you? That's not atheism. That's anti-theism. If I have a religion, it is a form of secular humanism. My atheism informs my disgust of theism, but it is not the same thing. It's my anti-theism and general asshole tendencies which lead me to have fun attacking theists. I'm under no illusion that speaking to theists in such a forum does anything at all to dent their delusions.

You would discuss theism, of course.

A discussion is the sharing and supporting of differing opinions on an issue. With regard to theism, the opinions of the theist are often well known (i.e., "God exists" is a true proposition, etc.). What are the opinions of the atheist?

Yes, I understood the distinction you were making between "atheism in isolation" and "atheism in contrast with theism." This distinction is unhelpful with regard to my question.

If atheism has meaning then it is possible to critique the idea. And, as a consequence, it is possible to discuss the idea. Therefore, what does one think or talk about when one has the desire to critique or discuss atheism?

You would discuss theism, of course.