|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: Fine, but then doesn't that rule out the appreciation for anything philosophical? As long as we are conscious creative imaginative thinking beings I don't see how anything will rule out the need or appreciation "for anything philosophical". Why do you think it does?
GDR writes: Evidence, whether it be the study of human nature or whatever, is then essentially ruled out, therefore atheists are philosophically limited. I don't see how the requirement that to qualify as a form of "evidence" something must lead to conclusions that are demonstrably superior to blind random chance precludes studying human nature. Nor can I see how that requirement can really be contended. Are you unhappy with that requirement? What forms of "evidence" did you have in mind with regard to atheists being "philosophically limited"? Can you give an example? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
GDR writes: Evidence, whether it be the study of human nature or whatever, is then essentially ruled out, therefore atheists are philosophically limited. What on earth makes you think that atheists would rule out evidence related to the study of human nature? Someone who opts for a Faith in interpretation "x" of sect #18 of religion #287 would certainly be philosophically limited. Such a person would have ruled out more than 99.9 % of possible explanations of the universe. But lack of belief is not philosophically limiting. Atheism is not something that claims to explain the universe, existence and everything. An atheist could remain open to all possible explanations of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Straggler writes: As long as we are conscious creative imaginative thinking beings I don't see how anything will rule out the need or appreciation "for anything philosophical". Why do you think it does? You said in post 28:
quote: I agree that there is no evidence to show that any particular philosophy is "demonstrably superior to random chance, in terms of what you accept as evidence.
Straggler writes: I don't see how the requirement that to qualify as a form of "evidence" something must lead to conclusions that are demonstrably superior to blind random chance precludes studying human nature. Nor can I see how that requirement can really be contended. Are you unhappy with that requirement? What forms of "evidence" did you have in mind with regard to atheists being "philosophically limited"? Can you give an example? Let's try the fact that humans have the capacity to exhibit altruism. I see that capacity in our human nature as evidence of something that points beyond ourselves, or if you like, beyond our material world. I do not claim that I can show that my view is demonstrably superior to the materialistic view. It can't be worked out mathematically or put in a test tube. It seems to me then that the atheist in rejecting the possibility that there is something more beyond the material world limits himself philosophically. An agnostic, deist or theist is open to the possibility of something more, or that which can at least be partly discerned philosophically. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think your reply is succinct and insightful and worth drawing to the attention of other partrcipants in this thread.
Trae writes:
The theist viewpoint seems to hold that atheists are more restrictive in that they reject one possible explanation theists do not. What theists fail to grasp is that the atheist view permits for an unknown number of possible answers replacing the theist’s single answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you actually disagree that to qualify as a form of evidence something needs to be able to demonstrate that it leads to conclusions that are superior to blind random chance?
GDR writes: Let's try the fact that humans have the capacity to exhibit altruism. I see that capacity in our human nature as evidence of something that points beyond ourselves, or if you like, beyond our material world. OK. But why evidence for god/God/GOD rather than evidence in favour of (for example) mind control exacted by distant benevolent aliens trying to make us be nicer to each other? Seriously - Is one conclusion more evidenced that the other?
GDR writes: It seems to me then that the atheist in rejecting the possibility that there is something more beyond the material world limits himself philosophically. An agnostic, deist or theist is open to the possibility of something more, or that which can at least be partly discerned philosophically. As has been pointed out by others - It is the exact opposite!!!! It is you that ignores all of the possible causes and focuses exclusively on the subjectively preferred one of GOD. Meanwhile atheists see all such baseless potential answers as philosophically possible whilst giving significant weighting to those which have reliable evidence in their favour. Ask yourself this - Whatever it is that you think is indicative of the existence of GOD - What else could conceivably also account for that and are these alternatives any more or less evidenced than the theistic answer? Ask yourself that and you might get an insight into where it is we are coming from here.............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Obviously you are philosophically very limited yourself. You are unable to understand that the origin of a word does not dictate it's subsequent use for ever more. And you certainly have no understanding of materialism as a philosophical position. I doubt if you could even provide a sound explanation of your position if you tried.
quote: Of course I am not literally demanding that the experiences of whatever is alleged to be "evidence" be literally piped into the minds of the others present. But at least we should have a description of the evidence and an explanation of why it should be considered evidence. And as I remember it, that never occurred.
quote: Of course the mere claim to have "non-empirical" evidence should not simply be accepted. So your "point" fails. So let me make a philosophical point. If neither this alleged evidence nor the connection between it and the assertion it is alleged to support can be adequately explained how can it possible be the case that the claim to have "non-empirical evidence" is actually true ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Straggler writes: OK. But why evidence for god/God/GOD rather than evidence in favour of (for example) mind control exacted by distant benevolent aliens trying to make us be nicer to each other? Seriously - Is one conclusion more evidenced that the other? No, and I'm not claiming that. I'm not arguing far any particular theological answer. It's a discussion of whether an atheist is philosophically limited compared to everyone else including agnostics. You liked this quote from Trae.
Trae writes: The theist viewpoint seems to hold that atheists are more restrictive in that they reject one possible explanation theists do not. What theists fail to grasp is that the atheist view permits for an unknown number of possible answers replacing the theist’s single answer. Once again this isn't just about theists but I want to respond to this. As a Theist I also accept an unknown number of possible answers. Yes, I believe God dun it, but I don't pretend to know how He dun it. I am only suggesting that if someone believes that the material world is all there is, they are limiting any answers to things like altruism to material causes. As a theist I can accept that there might be material causes but in the end I do believe that there is an intelligence behind it all.
Straggler writes: Ask yourself this - Whatever it is that you think is indicative of the existence of GOD - What else could conceivably also account for that and are these alternatives any more or less evidenced than the theistic answer? This is dragging things off track but there is always the basic question - why is there something instead of nothing. As far as I'm concerned it is more reasonable to believe that there is an intelligence behind all of this than to accept that everything exists because of random chance. The fact that anything exists is evidence of something and we can all make up our mind as to where that evidence points, but none of us can prove our conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I see this whole thread as theists saying an atheist is philosophically limited by excluding non-evidenced speculations and religious wishful thinking in the same way they say an atheist is morally limited by not having faith in the ten commandments. The observation is self-serving to the theist and in actuality carries no weight.
The problem with philosophy is that as a discipline it has none. There are no rules. Anything that enters a human head can be built into a philosophical position. And since there are no rules, and thus no venues for determining strength and quality between them, even the most absurd philosophies stand shoulder-to-shoulder to all others. Any practice that can be so structured as to promise absolutely anything and everything to everyone, in fact delivers nothing to anyone. Philosophy is such a practice. A realistic analysis of the various philosophies (meaning a scientific treatment of the quest for knowledge) would eliminate all those that exist on un-evidenced speculations and emotional wishful thinking, those absurdities that are known to plague the human mind in the absence of critical analysis. Throwing out the obvious rubbish would surely make philosophy itself philosophically limited. Not a bad thing at all. It might then have some utility. But today that is pipe dream. Other than for the intellectual entertainment and argumentative joy of it all, philosophy produces nothing of value for our species. Being philosophically limited in actuality has no meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
PaulK writes: So let me make a philosophical point. If neither this alleged evidence nor the connection between it and the assertion it is alleged to support can be adequately explained how can it possible be the case that the claim to have "non-empirical evidence" is actually true ? In trying to understand this I came to this site. HugeDomains.com Here is an excerpt from it:
quote: So, to go back to my point the materialist is always limited to material answers, but for myself as a theist I'm am prepared to accept that there is something beyond the material where we might find answers. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
AZPaul3 writes: Other than for the intellectual entertainment and argumentative joy of it all, philosophy produces nothing of value for our species. Being philosophically limited in actuality has no meaning. Tell that to Plato and Socrates. Have they added nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That isn't what you said before at all. It's a major retreat from your previous assertions. And all the quote says is that materialism doesn't accept mind as a separate substance. Nor does it reveal any significant limitation for materialism. Materialists may certainly be open to alternatives. They just don't BELIEVE them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
PaulK writes: That isn't what you said before at all. It's a major retreat from your previous assertions. And all the quote says is that materialism doesn't accept mind as a separate substance. How is that.e is a quote from my post to Straggler which I think is consistent with what I posted to you, and maybe adds context.
GDR to Straggler writes: Once again this isn't just about theists but I want to respond to this. As a Theist I also accept an unknown number of possible answers. Yes, I believe God dun it, but I don't pretend to know how He dun it. I am only suggesting that if someone believes that the material world is all there is, they are limiting any answers to things like altruism to material causes. As a theist I can accept that there might be material causes but in the end I do believe that there is an intelligence behind it all. PaulK writes: Nor does it reveal any significant limitation for materialism. Materialists may certainly be open to alternatives. They just don't BELIEVE them. OK if you say so, but it seems to me that if it is your firm belief is that there is nothing beyond the physical then you will not accept the possibility of non-physical answers, as non-physical answers can never be physically proven. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
GDR writes: So, to go back to my point the materialist is always limited to material answers Atheists aren't, though. Perhaps, given that the thread asks "are atheists philosophically limited?", you should have looked up "atheism" rather than "materialism". Then, you would have found out that atheists can have a wide variety of philosophies, and that there are non-theistic religions with non-material beliefs that they can follow. They can also, so far as moral philosophy is concerned, follow versions of your religion. Christian Atheism! You, as a Christian theist, cannot be a Jain or a Buddhist. But there are atheists in these religions. Atheists can also be agnostic about anything they wish to be agnostic about, including gods, and most do have some level of agnosticism towards the existence of gods (they do not claim to know that there are no gods, just don't believe in any of them). Atheism in its broadest sense, which encompasses anyone who lacks belief in gods, doesn't really mean anything more philosophically than what it says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Tell that to Plato and Socrates. Have they added nothing? As mathematicians and academics they provided the first science in its nascent form. What did we get from them philosophically? Divine fatalism, Platonism, knowledge as recollection, divine inspiration. They helped set the un-critical, non-empirical foundation of philosophy that remains useless to us all to this day. What do you say they gave us of any philosophical value?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
bluegenes writes: Atheists aren't, though. Perhaps, given that the thread asks "are atheists philosophically limited?", you should have looked up "atheism" rather than "materialism". I have been working on the assumption that if someone was an atheist it would also mean that they would also be materialists. I might be wrong. It's happened before.
bluegenes writes: Then, you would have found out that atheists can have a wide variety of philosophies, and that there are non-theistic religions with non-material beliefs that they can follow. They can also, so far as moral philosophy is concerned, follow versions of your religion. Christian Atheism!You, as a Christian theist, cannot be a Jain or a Buddhist. But there are atheists in these religions. I know this sounds like the "true Scotsman" thing, but are they really atheists? All of these cases have a social or philosophical basis. What would be their explanation for the basis of their belief? I would think that an atheist would be committed to the belief that there is no truth that is external to the physical world.
bluegenes writes: You, as a Christian theist, cannot be a Jain or a Buddhist. But there are atheists in these religions. In one sense yes, but on the other hand the moral underpinnings of Christianity and Buddhism are remarkably similar so on that basis I don't reject the teachings of Buddha. The big difference is really all about the person of Jesus Christ. From a philosophical point of view there doesn't have to be a great difference.
bluegenes writes: Atheism in its broadest sense, which encompasses anyone who lacks belief in gods, doesn't really mean anything more philosophically than what it says. My understanding is that would be someone who is agnostic. I understand that an atheist believes that there is no god or gods, and for that matter no ultimate truth. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024