Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 134 (196486)
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


First lets define "Fundamental Atheism" as:
The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence.
This is to distinguish this sub-group from the broader group atheism, defined as:
atheism - n
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
atheism - n
1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
The fact is that atheism is based on belief and thus taking this belief as fundamental truth makes it fundamentalism on the same order as fundamental literalist YEC beliefs.
Now let us consider the problem of "Conflicting Ideas:"
Everybody has a {world view} that is a conceptual map of reality: they have an idea of what the {real universe} is like, based on their {beliefs, experiences, ideas and what they have learned}. Some of these {world views} are better than others in actually mapping concepts to points of reality, and the better they are the less conflict there is between any concept and reality.
Problems with the conceptual map occur when a conflict arises between the {world view} and a {concept}: either the {concept} is rejected as "nonsense" or it is incorporated into a revised {world view}
The fundamentalist rejects the notion that the {world view} needs to change when any such conflict occurs, thus when a {concept} conflicts with the {world view} the {concept} is rejected: it cannot be true.
Obviously on these forums we see that YEC and other absolutist literal fundies have this problem with several branches of science wherein a line is crossed that conflicts with their {world view} and the {concept} is rejected, but the same thing happens when this conflict occurs with any other fundamentalist {world view} when the notion of changing the {world view} is rejected.
Take for instance, the following concept that was raised on the (now closed) {DHA's Wager} thread (click):
ABSENT proof that {A} exists AND
ABSENT proof that {A} does NOT exist
What is the most logical position:
(1) YES {A} exists! OR
(2) NO {A} does NOT exist! OR
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not
(Note: the above is the original form of the concept, in later posts (3) was {modified\simplified} to "I don't know"
The fundamental atheist rejects the concept as valid because to be logically correct and an atheist {he/she/they} need to be able to pick both (2) and (3).
Thus we see the fundamental atheist insisting that there is a 4th answer "(4) none of the above because I need more information".
When you look at the actual meaning of what they are saying though, what you see is "I don't {have enough information to} know."
The fundamental atheist is really picking option (3) while insisting that {he/she/they} are not picking option (3), and this equivocation on the question is due to {his/her/their} fundamental desire to be able to pick (2) at the same time.
The fundamental atheist also uses a lot of the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses: argument from incredulity, strawman examples, claiming that {this one example (an "exception to the rule")} proves the whole concept is wrong, deflecting the topic to other points altogether, etcetera, etcetera. What they don't do is answer the question (even to themselves).
It is worth noting that not one theist had issue with that post, and I take this to be evidence that the available theists knew that they believed "(1) Yes {A} exists" but also understood that this belief was based on faith and not fact (and thus not constrained to meet the test of logic). I assume that there are also several atheists that recognize that their belief that "(2) No {A} does not exist" is based on faith and not logic. Both these groups have world views where faith exists aside from logic (and Agnostics are sitting pretty in the cat-bird seat).
Enjoy.
note to admin: I am thinking {Faith and Belief} forum for this
EvC Forum: Faith and Belief
while it is an outgrowth of {DHA's Wager} it is not a continuation of that thread or any debates there, but is to focus on the concepts of {fundamental atheism} and {concepts in conflict with a world view}

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2005 4:21 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 5:07 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 15 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-04-2005 11:40 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 1:17 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 41 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-08-2005 8:24 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 6:19 PM RAZD has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 134 (196489)
04-03-2005 3:58 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 134 (196499)
04-03-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


quote:
I assume that there are also several atheists that recognize that their belief that "(2) No {A} does not exist" is based on faith and not logic.
I don't quite agree with this. The absence of evidence for an entity can be evidence for the absence of the entity if there is reason that evidence for its existence should exist if it does exist.
The arguments against atheism is rarely that a god exists, it is that a particular deity exists, and a particular religion is true. The assumptions of a fundamentalist Christian are:
1) A deity exists;
2) This deity has an interest in human affairs;
3) Lack of belief in this deity (or, more specifically, refusal to accept the sacrifice of the Christ for our sins) will result in eternal torment; and
4) This deity is perfectly just.
It is a reasonable assumption, then, that this deity would provide clear, unambiguous evidence that it exists. A portion of Christian apologetics attempts to resolve this, but these arguments are pretty unconvincing; remember, to avoid eternal torment it is not enough for me to say, well, yeah, maybe some god exists -- it is necessary for me to say, yes, the god Yahweh, as described in the Chistian Bible, definitely exists, and His Son came to earth to die for my sins.
For this reason, I maintain that the belief the evangelical Christian god does not exist is entirely reasonable; in fact, I would say that belief in the evangelical Christian god is entirely illogical and unreasonable.
Now, it is true that one can simply discuss the statement "The universe was created by an unimaginably powerful being at some point in the past, for some purpose of its own." If that is the statement, then I agree that this statement, by itself, without any qualifications, is perfectly logical consistent with the data. Although I do not believe the statement is true, I nonetheless cannot disprove it, and I admit that I could possibly be wrong. But I also find such a general statement uninteresting.
Sorry if this isn't exactly what you wanted to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 3:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 5:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 134 (196507)
04-03-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


Firstly, to hold a belief is to accept it as true.
So, if on a rational consideration of the evidence someone came to the belief that no God or gods existed - even if such a belief was held tentatively - would you consider that "fundamental atheism" ?
Or should the definition be restricted to those who hold that it is certain that no God or gods existed ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 3:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 5:47 PM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 134 (196517)
04-03-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
04-03-2005 4:21 PM


ummm,
limiting the discussion to one specific god is another form of {equivocation\strawman} on the question.
this is reducing the question of {does any god exist} to {does one very specific example of a god exist that I define in such a way that it can't exist}
It is a reasonable assumption, then, that this deity would provide clear, unambiguous evidence that it exists.
I agree with that, but note that this position is consistent with being a theist (of several varieties), deist, agnostic and atheist, not just the atheist.
"The universe was created by an unimaginably powerful being at some point in the past, for some purpose of its own." ... I agree that this statement, ... Although I do not believe the statement is true, I nonetheless cannot disprove it,
Actually the "some purpose of it's own" is not necessary: perhaps it was just an accidentally hard exhalation during sex or something ... but in essence that is what I believe -- that god transformed self into universe.
What I understand you are saying is: that "(3) I don't know" is the logical answer, but I believe "(2) No {A} does not exist" because of my faith that this is so, and that absent any evidence to the contrary I will continue to do so.
I have no problem with that, as noted above, and because my personal answer is: that "(3) I don't know" is the logical answer, but I believe "(1) Yes {A} does (or did) exist" because of my faith that this is so, and that absent any evidence to the contrary I will continue to do so.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2005 4:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 134 (196518)
04-03-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
04-03-2005 5:07 PM


Or should the definition be restricted to those who hold that it is certain that no God or gods existed ?
I thought that was spelled out with "that the tenets of atheism are literally true"
not just true in general but (absolutely) literally true
to hold a belief is to accept it as true according to the information available to date. the question is whether one is open to revising that opinion should evidence to the contrary become available: will the person revise their {world view} to incorporate the new information or will the new information be rejected as {nonsense}?
thanks

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 5:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 6:28 PM RAZD has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 134 (196522)
04-03-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
04-03-2005 5:47 PM


I think you need to reconsider - "literal" doesn't mean "absolute".
All it means is that the statement is to be taken at face value rather than as a metaphor, say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 5:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 8:58 PM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 134 (196556)
04-03-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-03-2005 6:28 PM


but
I never said it did
absolutely, incontestably, other modifiers as appropriate ...
that the belief that there is no god is literally true
that is the nature of fundamentalism n'est pas?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*03*2005 07:59 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 6:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2005 2:38 AM RAZD has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 134 (196608)
04-04-2005 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
04-03-2005 8:58 PM


Re: but
Go back and read your Message 6 again. You clearly equate "literal" truth and "absolute" truth, which is clearly wrong.
The issue about literalism and Biblical Fundamentalism is that many Christians accept that a literal reading of the creation stories in Genesis is not true, but hold that they are true in other ways (as allegory, say). The reason it is seen as unreasonable is because the scientific evidence is very much against the truth of a strict literal reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2005 7:20 PM PaulK has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 134 (196625)
04-04-2005 6:42 AM


Thisd is an entirely predictable attempt by theism to claim that atheism is the same beast. It displays both arrogance and a poverty of imagination.
Not believeing in a thing is not the same as believing in a thing. Its not even the same as a negative version of believeing in a thing. I have non-belief in anything that does not exist. I have non-belief in the famous djinn voiced by Robin Williams in a series of animated movies.
If I am to be accused of "fundamentalism" in regard my belief in the non-existance of the djinni, then surely I must be a fundamentalist in regards the non-existance of, say, Postman Pat. Or the Tweenies and the rugrats or the Simpson family.
How can I be a "fundamentalist" in all these aspects simultanesously? The term is being used to imply that I am a fanatic in regards these topiucs, but is it really plausible to be seen as fanatically hostile to imaginary entities? I cannot have any postitive position if I am so busy denying Jessica Rabbit.
This is also, I should point out, the misuse of the term fundamentalist, and using it for slander. A Fundamentalist, while probably a fanatic, is a particular type of fanatic, appealing to an orthodox teaching. What is the orthodox teaching against Bugs Bunny? Atheism has no teaching, has no fundamental doctrine, and so you cannot be a fundmentalist atheist: the required structures do not exist.
RAZD:
quote:
I assume that there are also several atheists that recognize that their belief that "(2) No {A} does not exist" is based on faith and not logic.
Nope. Becuase there is no REASON whatsoever to think A exists. So you must show me some plausible basis for expecting or knowing that A exists in the first place. This dishonesty on your part was already highlighted with the keys example - you are not comparing like with like.
quote:
Both these groups have world views where faith exists aside from logic (and Agnostics are sitting pretty in the cat-bird seat).
Nonsense. Agnostics are just cowardly theists, and have the least rational position of all.
I ask now specifically: do you leave a bowl of milk out for the brownies? They can make your life a living hell if you spurn them, you know.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-04-2005 05:46 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2005 7:32 PM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 134 (196734)
04-04-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-04-2005 2:38 AM


Re: but
no, I quite clearly modified literal with absolutely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2005 2:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2005 2:45 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 134 (196737)
04-04-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by contracycle
04-04-2005 6:42 AM


Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
spoken, predictably, like a true fundamentalist atheist who is convinced that his position is both logical and literally correct.
I could easily rest my case.
Notice that this particular statement:
contracycle writes:
Nope. Becuase there is no REASON whatsoever to think A exists.
was predicted:
The fundamental atheist also uses a lot of the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses: argument from incredulity,
as were the strawmen, with the standard (for contracycle, based on my experience) ad hominum thrown in for good measure.
notice that if he thinks he is being insulted, then he is putting on the shoe and finding that it fits.
enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*04*2005 06:36 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by contracycle, posted 04-04-2005 6:42 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 8:14 PM RAZD has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 13 of 134 (196748)
04-04-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
04-04-2005 7:32 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
contracycle, who may or may not be a fundamentalist atheist, has one thing in his favour. It is that he is correct. contracycle pointed out that atheism has no tenets (your word). Therefore there are no fundamentalist atheists. an atheist may be an atheist simply because he woke up one morning following a dream in which he was told to be an atheist, and followed the advice. You don't need to have any rational justification for being an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily require rationality.
What you are talking about is a fundamentalist sceptic. now a sceptic does indeed have tenets. Being an atheist may follow from fundamentalist scepticism, but it is possible to be an atheist without being a sceptic.
There are tenets to being a sceptic. They include, for example, the idea that you should radically distrust logical statements which are non-sequiturs.
A logical statement takes the form,
if X then Y.
Theists often put rather odd things in place of X and Y.
If I don't know whether God exists, then God exists.
If God exists, then he is love.
If life is complex, then God created it.
etc. etc.
A non-sceptical atheist might say:
If I don't know whether god exists, then God doesn't exist.
(no better than the theist)
A sceptic is rather different. He says:
If I don't know whether God exists, then I will distrust the proposition that God exists.
Being a sceptic is all about DISTRUST. If you are an atheist, you may well have been led to that viewpoint on the basis of your fundamentalist scepticism. But in that case, the "fundamentalist atheist" does NOT use "the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses". This is because the atheist is a radical sceptic, while the YEC is a radical believer.
The YEC can believe anything he likes, whereas the sceptic can disbelieve anything he likes.
hope this helps,
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2005 7:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2005 9:12 PM mick has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 134 (196762)
04-04-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mick
04-04-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
first off, note that I did note include all atheists in the group, and was very specific about that.
no tenets?
tenet n.
An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization. See Synonyms at doctrine.
Going back to the original post:
atheism - n
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
atheism - n
1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Ooops: looks like atheism has at least one tenet: the belief or doctrine that there is no god ... your evidence that contracycle is "correct" just evaporated.
I also specified that to be a "fundamentalist atheist" one had to hold that this position was literally true. And as pointed out in the original post, this is just as {irrational\illogical} as the fundamentalist theist that thinks the existence of god is literally true beyond mere belief.
Note also, that the definition specifies that atheism is a belief, this is not me changing the meaning or trying to make atheism less than it is, but my pointing out what it is to those trying to make more of it than is there.
Your point about skepticism is interesting, but if you really look at it, the only logical position for a skeptic to take is agnosticism: skeptical of both the existence and the non-existence.
notice the scorn in contracycles post regarding agnostics: this is someone who feels his {world view} is threatened by a {concept} but cannot admit it, so he rejects the idea as nonsense.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 8:14 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 5:21 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 42 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-08-2005 1:14 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 43 by mick, posted 04-08-2005 6:33 PM RAZD has replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 15 of 134 (196790)
04-04-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


Bravo
I agree with all of your points and your rebuttal to Contracycle.
I've tried to argue the same thing before to no avail...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 3:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2005 7:44 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024