Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 151 of 375 (499563)
02-19-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Phat
02-19-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Phat writes:
bluegenes writes:
The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".
don't follow. Why must?
Because they're mutually exclusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Phat, posted 02-19-2009 7:01 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 152 of 375 (499568)
02-19-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Phat
02-19-2009 7:01 AM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Phat writes:
bluegenes writes:
The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".
I don't follow. Why must?
bluegenes is just saying that both the deist and the Christian believer cannot be strictly correct about everything they believe God to be.
General Deist God -> Created the universe and does not get (currently) obviously involved
General Christian God -> Created the universe and is (currently) obviously involved in some way
They can both be correct that "a God" exists. But they cannot be both correct about the extents of how that God is involved in our universe. Equally, they could both be wrong completey about God's existence in the first place.
Since they cannot be both strictly correct on exactly which God really exists... one of them must be wrong. One of them must be imagining a "random, made up entity." They could possibly still be right about "a God" existing, but "the God" they think about will be a random, made up entity and they will be forced to correct "how" they think about God.
...just thought I'd add some 2-cents in

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Phat, posted 02-19-2009 7:01 AM Phat has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 375 (499569)
02-19-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
02-18-2009 11:32 PM


Re: magnum opus response
Except that you don't have objective fact. What you have is your opinion, and that is "subjective evidence" and does not compare with - for instance - phydeaux's denial of 222Rn in the polonium halo when the picture is right in front of him. That halo is objective reality, the measurements match the peer reviewed published data.
Hi RAZD. Are you saying that I'm not an atheist? No - you agree I'm an atheist. The report of actual atheists about their actual beliefs is an actual fact about what atheists actually believe (or rather, don't believe) and why. It is this actual fact that your belief about atheists is in confrontation with.
As an atheist I, and others, are telling you that the reason(s) we don't believe in any deity is quite different from the reason(s) you have outlined, or your reason(s) are a tiny unrepresentative subset of those reason(s). What objective facts, preferably peer reviewed, did you refer to conclude what you did about why atheists do not believe in god(s)? I'd have thought that the facts you referred to were the reported positions of atheists themselves - which are objective facts. And thus, contradictory reports of atheists carry the same kind of factual weight as the kind of facts I believe you believe you used to set up your message 4 description of the atheist position in the first place.
I have provided you with the identity of at least one atheist that doesn't use your logical construct in order to not believe (that would be me). I would venture that other atheists have spoken that they also disagree that they use this construct. The only example you have given of an atheist that does use your logical construct is me: an atheist that explicitly says that he doesn't use that logical construct.
I appreciate that if we're going to get technical, we could talk about heterophenomonology. We could say that an atheist's report about what they don't believe and why they don't believe it is only a fact about the way things seem to them (or even more technically, it is only a fact about what they say the way things seem to them actually are, and we can continue down that road of 'seems to' at least one more step), not about the way things actually are.
I suspect though, things are as I have said: The only facts you have at your disposal are the reports of atheists, so your message 4 is, technically, "The reported position of atheists is that they believe there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy)."
This is an empirically falsifiable claim - I am, and others are, trying to advise you that it stands falsified - but your beliefs to the contrary are resistant to this falsifying evidence. It is also possible to empirically verify that it is at least sometimes true - but you haven't done that either. So we have some falsifying evidence and no verifying evidence. And yet you still hold on to your belief.
Or maybe you have some other source about the beliefs of atheists?
One way to test if they are identical is to see if your 'logical fallacy' argument works when you are using ONLY my wording.
And vice versa?
In my last post where I showed that my position follows the form "If A then B. A, therefore B." Is that what you mean by 'vice versa'? I'm assuming, for ease, your wording does lead to or stem from, a logical fallacy. Can you show how mine does? If you cannot, that must mean the two positions are different (Law of contradiction: my position can not both be a logical fallacy and not be a logical fallacy). Can you show how my position falls into the trap of "All A is B. B, therefore A."?
from Message 4
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
from Message 116
The atheist position is simple:
1. I don't believe in things for which I can find no reason to believe.
2. I find no reason to believe in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.
OR
1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.
2. There is an absence of evidence for belief in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Either way you don't believe in god, and your justification is that there is no evidence, so I don't see what the big outrage is.
Argument ad nauseam? I've explained the difference several times. Repeating your position is pointless, don't you think? I have invited you to attempt to show the two positions are identical by showing how they both fall into the same logical difficulties you believe the position you outlined does. If they don't - then there is a big difference between the two - big enough to justify 'big outrage' at the claim that the atheists position does encounter certain logical problems when it doesn't.
Since you repeated yours, let me repeat my position again. Your position states that the atheist concludes that there is "evidence of absence". The position I stated does not result in the atheist concluding there is "evidence of absence". My position simply states that I do not believe a proposition unless there is reason to do so. This is the difference. I have stated several times that for certain constructs of god(s) there can be no evidence of absence! How can I hold that I don't believe in such constructs because there is evidence of absence!? You realize this, and so the only thing you can think of is 'cognitive dissonance' rather than 'factual dissonance'. I do not not believe in unfalsifiable/unverifiable entities because there is evidence of absence because I know full well that the definition of unfalsifiable/unverifiable is that such evidence doesn't exist even if the proposition were true.
Given your current track record - you will ignore my stated position and instead rely on your own perception of my position as somehow being the authoritative understanding of my epistemological framework.
Your justification is that you do not see any evidence for god/s.
That is only partially my case, and it is untrue by omission. First: I have already stated there is lots of evidence for god(s) - but that's a linguistic shortcut so we'll skip it since I know what you meant. My justification is that if I don't see any reason to believe in a proposition, I don't. Your wording of my justification is that not having evidence for something is reason to believe that the proposition is false.


"Mod believes unfalsifiable entity G exists"
False.



"Mod believes unfalsifiable entity G does not exist"
False.



"Since Mod does not believe that unfalsifiable entity G exists, Mod is an aGist"
True.



"Mod cites the lack of evidence/reason or the unknowability of entity as sufficient demonstration that entity G does not exist"
False.

It may well be the case, that an argument justifying the belief that entity G does not exist (or is so unlikely to exist that the belief position is practically the same) could in principle be constructed, but such an argument is not necessary in order to be an aGist and this argument would not necessarily be based purely on the premise that there is a lack of evidence about entity G.
I have given several possible arguments that justify the belief that entity G does not exist (or the pragmatic equivalent) previously.
There is finally the issue of potential special pleading. You believe that aGists are committing a logical fallacy somehow by not accepting 'Entity G exists' as a true proposition when they see no reason to accept Entity G exists. Either this is true of all conceivable entities, or you special plead that it is only logically fallacious for certain specific entities (ie., God(s)).
Correct. Each has a different world view, and they interpret the evidence around them according to that world view. When we have a concept that is not testable by objective reality type evidence all we have are the subjective justifications built on our world view.
If that is the case, why did you say that atheists believe that there is evidence of absence and that it was a logical fallacy? Why did you say that atheists believed that since god(s) are unknowable, they therefore don't exist? If you think it is correct that an atheist is someone who has yet to find sufficient reason to accept the proposition "God(s) exist", why create a straw man about atheists with a subsequent knockout punch?
Yes, this is your subjective justification for your position. Mine is different.
So, in the future, when describing what the justification of atheists is for their not holding that the proposition "God(s) exists" is True what will you say?
1. They do it because they have yet to find sufficient reason to believe that the proposition is True. What any given atheist finds to be sufficient reason to accept any given proposition varies.
2. They do it because they believe there is evidence that the proposition is False (evidence of absence).
3. They do it because they hold that it is rational to believe the proposition is False since the entity is unknowable.
Would you say that the absence of evidence that would convince you is sufficient subjective justification, based on your rational empiricist world view, for you to reject the proposition that god/s exist?
No, since I don't necessarily reject the proposition that god(s) exist (I reject the existence some god(s)). I have simply not found any reason to accept any god-exists related proposition, so I don't. The absence of evidence and reason is justification enough, based on my preferred epistemology, to not accept a proposition. Note: Not accepting something isn't always the same thing as rejecting it.
"Hey Mod, did you know that Vogodon cures Malaria?", says a Vogodon salesman.
"Can you give me any reason to accept that proposition? Has it been independently tested in double blind trials? Has your reasoning been reviewed by other scientists?", replies Mod.
"No.", he replies.
"Then what reason is there for me to accept your proposition?"
"So you believe that Vogodon cannot cure Malaria?".
"Is there any reason to accept that proposition?"
"No."
Setting aside the argument that the Vogodon salesman clearly has a financial interest to lie etc - is there something logically fallacious about not believing the Vogodon salesman's proposition? Once we start factoring in other evidences such as conflicts of interest and the like, we are right to be more sceptical that open-minded. As with any scientific discovery, "I'll believe it when I see it." is the order of the day. That doesn't mean "I will disbelieve unless I see it", though in some cases such scepticism is a decent enough pragmatic shortcut.
If you agree that your position in message 4, and some subsequent similar positions is hasty, flawed, unfair or the like - then we can agree, shake hands, and move on.
I have shortened that down to "evidence for absence" ... if for no other reason than to emphasis that the logic is based on subjectivity, not objective fact, and not on prepositions that can be validated by objective fact.
"I have evidence for NOT(X)" is different than saying "I don't have evidence for X"
One says "I can falsify a proposition", the other says "I cannot verify a proposition."
This is probably the key to the argument atheists are having with you here.
I've spent all evening on this, and I'm not sure how many more times I can be interested in repeating the basic points.
Then stop repeating them
Seriously, what you said in this little summary at the end was debatable and I disagree with some of it, but it isn't something that right now I'm interested in debating. To me it sounds like it is in danger of devolving into absurd relativism, or post modern nonsense. Still, I'd be happy to leave it at that if you would accept that your message 4 and related messages provides a poorly worded characterisation of the atheist position, setting up a strawman and knocking it down in a single sentence.
Let me reword your message 4 so it is more in line with what you have suggested here:
quote:
As another resident Deist, let me reply.
The atheist does not believe in god/s.
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2009 11:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 154 of 375 (499591)
02-19-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
02-18-2009 11:32 PM


Relative Likelihood: The Issue You Keep Avoiding.
Your "world view" argument is just inadequate.
Do you think that the unevidenced existence of Wagwah is equally as plausible as the unevidenced existence of life elsewhere in the universe?
Do you think that any perceived difference in likelihood between these two equally unevidenced claims is the result of subjective world view alone?
Honestly?
Do you discount all of the evidence that we have regarding the conditions that are conducive to life forming? Evidence which I would argue logically suggests that the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is highly probable despite the fact that we have no direct evidence for or against such life?
Do you discount all of the evidence that we have in favour of the fact that humans are very good at creating imaginary entities for various purposes? Evidence which I would cite in favour of the fact that Wagwah's actual existence is deeply and highly improbable despite the fact that we have no direct evidence of Wagwah's non-existence or otherwise
No claim, not even one that is in itself strictly unevidenced, operates in a vacuum of evidence.
Specific unevidenced claims can be evaluated probabilistically in terms of the logical alternatives for which evidence does exist. Your analysis to date completely ignores our ability to reason in this manner.
E.g.
god X actually exists Vs the likelihood that god X is the product of human imagination.
Alien life does exist elsewhere in the universe Vs The likelihood of the conditions conducive to life exist elsewhere in the universe
Whilst the first term may well be completely unevidenced it is not as unknowable as you claim in terms of likelihood if the logical alternatives are able to be evaluated in terms of objective evidence.
Not all unevidenced claims are equally plausible.
Why are you so unwilling to confront this fact?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2009 11:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 155 of 375 (499613)
02-19-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
02-18-2009 11:32 PM


Re: magnum opus response
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Oni writes:
That there is a known image of this god IS made-up, no matter what the desciption.
Curiously this does NOT apply to deism, where god/s are unknowable and not described.
If it is knowable then it follows that,
Oni writes:
"random made-up entity" = idea put forth by a diest.
"idea put forth by a diest" = random made-up entity.
So either it is known that god/s exists, or god is a made-up entity. I don't see where you could place your deistic beliefs to be somewhere in the middle of that. It seems like you would contradict yourself either way.
You can't claim that god is unknowable and then reject ever concept of god claimed by people of faith...to include the jellyfish-type god. If it is unknowable then any and all concepts are valid possibilities.
So, either you know god is not a jellyfish, or Jesus, or Allah, or whoever else, or you don't know. You can't have it both ways.
You can't say:
"I have faith that there is a god/s, but, trust me it's not any that have been claimed by religion"
"God/s are unknowable, but, trust me I know it's not a jellyfish"
"My concept of god/s is not made-up, but, all others are"
Each one of those is a contradicting statement. Which was my only point to CS.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2009 11:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 375 (499617)
02-19-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
02-18-2009 5:09 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
What god specifically is being put forward by deists such that we can determine whether this is indeed true?
I thought the Deists' god was fairly unspecific.....
Its not that they are putting forth some specific god, its that so many different peoples have similiar spiritual experiences that adds weight to the idea of some kind of spiritual realm or source to the point that we can reasonbly say that the idea of some generic unspecific god-like thingy is more rational than some specific random obviously made-up god-like thingy.
Also, other than popular belief which is more about marketing than truth, how can we possibly know which gods are "random" and "made-up" and which are not?
Well, an idea of god that has evolved through various stages of development wouldn't be random or made-up. Although 'made-up' was bad word choice because every idea has to be made-up at some point, its just that if you hear about someone else's idea of god, then you didn't make it up, whereas if someone brings forth an idea of god that has never been seen before, then they obviously just made that one up recently.
If enough people claim subjective experience of the face sucking jellyfish will you change youir stance and consider this to be a viable entity?
Yes.
Are there any objective reasons to believe in God?
No.
If the only reasons to believe in God are subjective then all other subjectively derived claims are worthy of equal "airtime".
That's what I'm disagreeing with.
That so many different peope have had similiar spiritual experience thoughout history makes the claim of some type of spiritual realm or source worthy of more "airtime" than if someone introduces a whole new subjective concept that nobody else has any experience with.
But are they reliable or objective reasons?
If not then in what way are the reasons you claim worthy of any consideration?
Is reliable and objective really a pass/fail test or can there be some gradient of reliability and objectivity?
I would say that they are not reliable and objective in the sense that I suppose you mean by those words (in the sense that the reasons have been empirically verified), but I think there is some reliability and some objectivity to the reasons, just that they fail to be empirifcally verifiable. I don't think that makes them unworthy of consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2009 5:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 375 (499618)
02-19-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by bluegenes
02-18-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".
Nope. They're only mutally exclusive in their enitrety. Both positions could be partially correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 5:42 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2009 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 375 (499620)
02-19-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by onifre
02-18-2009 6:32 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
"random made-up entity" = idea put forth by a diest.
"idea put forth by a diest" = random made-up entity.
That's not true. From wiki on Deism:
quote:
Deism is a theological position (though encompassing a wide variety of view-points) concerning God's relationship with the natural world which emerged during the scientific revolution of seventeenth century Europe and came to exert a powerful influence during the eighteenth century enlightenment.
An idea that evolves over centuries is neither random, nor made-up. "Made-up" is not in the sense that every idea has to be made at some point, but that the idea was recently created by one person.
Sanity in masses? Not fair, human history has proven this to be a logical fallacy.
Its not that the popularity proves the position, its that the popularity adds weight to the position and makes it worthy of consideration and more rational than some random made-up idea.
You say "silly jellyfish", I say "silly guy who was born of a virgin", both equally silly, si?
Not in my opinion, but I don't really know how to measure sillyness.
When two different primitive cultures over many generations came up with similiar independent ideas on the existence of some kind of spiritual realm or source (something like animism), I say that those ideas are less silly than one man pulling some random idea out of a hat.
You in fact say "some kind of god", so, unless you can produce an image of said god, the jellyfish is no more silly than the guy who was born of a virgin, the one who rode on a flying horse, or the one who has eight arms. If we denounce the idea of the god called a jellyfish as a "random made-up entity" then they are all to be considered "randomly made-up".
That there is a god, in my opinion, is not randomly made-up. That there is a known image of this god IS made-up, no matter what the desciption.
But were talking about the idea of god as put forth by deists so there is no known image of this god. "That there is a god", which you agree is not randomly made-up, is what we are talking about and what I am contrasting against the randomly made-up jellyfish god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 02-18-2009 6:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 159 of 375 (499628)
02-19-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
An idea that evolves over centuries is neither random, nor made-up. "Made-up" is not in the sense that every idea has to be made at some point, but that the idea was recently created by one person.
The origin of any concept in which there is no objective evidence is a "made-up" concept. Be it 100,000 years ago, or yesterday. It's evolvement over the centuries has more to do with people's willingness - and in some cases they are forced - to accept the concept put forth.
All ideas to which no objective evidence exists, at some point in it's history, was created by one person. I am not willing to accept that everyone has had an independent subjective experience about the same god without taking into account people's ability to be influenced in their thoughts.
Its not that the popularity proves the position, its that the popularity adds weight to the position and makes it worthy of consideration and more rational than some random made-up idea.
I agree with that. But, as RAZD would say, curiously I wonder if you'd hold the same position if you were a Greek in the times of the mythological gods?
Not in my opinion, but I don't really know how to measure sillyness.
Neither do I so I would either hold to the position that both are silly concepts, or that both are equally valid concepts.
When two different primitive cultures over many generations came up with similiar independent ideas on the existence of some kind of spiritual realm or source (something like animism), I say that those ideas are less silly than one man pulling some random idea out of a hat.
Yes but primitive cultures did have a point of origin for their ideas, be it independent or not. So it could have been claimed then that those ideas were the result of someone pulling it out of a hat. One day there was no idea of god, then the next day there was, someone thought it up and we have to take them on faith that they actually had a subjective experience to which this idea of god came to them. Further we would have to accept, on faith, that the person interpreted it correctly. And just because the cultures are geographically independent of each other does not mean that we know for sure that no outside influences were introduced to expound on their claimed subjective experiences.
But we're talking about the idea of god as put forth by deists so there is no known image of this god. "That there is a god", which you agree is not randomly made-up, is what we are talking about and what I am contrasting against the randomly made-up jellyfish god.
My only point is that if deists claim no known knowledge of the image of god due to their own personal subjective experiences, they do not have the authority to reject any concept of god that is claimed to be known by people who claim they have had a subjective experience in which the image of god was revealed.
I agree that the jellyfish was made up, but I believe it was made up just to serve as an analogy.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 3:13 PM onifre has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 160 of 375 (499630)
02-19-2009 1:38 PM


Why don't they believe?
Just thought I'd collate some simple quotes from nonbelievers:
quote:
If we wish to explain our ideas of the Divinity we shall be obliged to admit that, by the word God, man has never been able to designate but the most hidden, the most distant and the most unknown cause of the effects which he saw; he has made use of his word only when the play of natural and known causes ceased to be visible to him; as soon as he lost the thread of these causes, or when his mind could no longer follow the chain, he cut the difficulty and ended his researches by calling God the last of the causes, that is to say, that which is beyond all causes that he knew; thus he but assigned a vague denomination to an unknown cause, at which his laziness or the limits of his knowledge forced him to stop. Every time we say that God is the author of some phenomenon, that signifies that we are ignorant of how such a phenomenon was able to operate by the aid of forces or causes that we know in nature. It is thus that the generality of mankind, whose lot is ignorance, attributes to the Divinity, not only the unusual effects which strike them, but moreover the most simple events, of which the causes are the most simple to understand by whomever is able to study them. In a word, man has always respected unknown causes, surprising effects that his ignorance kept him from unraveling. It was on this debris of nature that man raised the imaginary colossus of the Divinity.
Percy Shelley's argument is that God ..."bears every mark of a veil woven by philosophical conceit, to hide the ignorance of philosophers even from themselves. They borrow the threads of its texture from the anthropomorphism of the vulgar. " He also states that, "God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist. ", which is the position I have been saying here in this thread. This is all taken from The necessity of atheism which began sometime around 1811. I'm not sure I agree with the whole text, but that's not too surprising.

quote:
It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty, to allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings respecting religion: and he impressed upon me from the first, that the manner in which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was known: that the question, "Who made me?" cannot be answered, because we have no experience or authentic information from which to answer it; and that any answer only throws the difficulty a step further back, since the question immediately presents itself, Who made God? He, at the same time, took care that I should be acquainted with what had been thought by mankind on these impenetrable problems. I have mentioned at how early an age he made me a reader of ecclesiastical history; and he taught me to take the strongest interest in the Reformation, as the great and decisive contest against priestly tyranny for liberty of thought.
I am thus one of the very few examples, in this country, of one who has, not thrown off religious belief, but never had it: I grew up in a negative state with regard to it. I looked upon the modern exactly as I did upon the ancient religion, as something which in no way concerned me. It did not seem to me more strange that English people should believe what I did not, than that the men I read of in Herodotus should have done so. History had made the variety of opinions among mankind a fact familiar to me, and this was but a prolongation of that fact.
John Stuart Mill, from his Autobiography, 1873 - he reports never really having had a religious belief and that he essentially agreed with his father/teacher's argument against the looming infinite regression. Mill did not consider himself an atheist, but something closer to an non-believer. Although the terminology in this next quote differs from mine, the position is once again very similar:
quote:
In this context I take 'atheism' to include not only positive atheism, i.e. the dogmatic denial of God's existence, but also negative atheism, i.e. the denial that there is any evidence either for or against God's existence, which I call a form of atheism because for most practical purposes amounts to the same thing as if the existence of a god had been disproved. If I am right in the
conclusions I have been led to by this inquiry, there is evidence, but not enough to count as a proof, and amounting only to one of the lower degrees of probability.
From Three essays on Religion, published posthumously 1874 (written between 1850-1870).

quote:
As to gods, they have been, I find, countless, but even the names of most of them lie in the deep compost which is known as civilization, and the memories of few of them are green. There does not seem to me to be good reason for holding that some of them are false and some of them, or one of them, true. Each was created by the imaginations and wishes of men who could not account for the behavior of the universe ~ in any other satisfactory way. But no god has satisfied his worshipers forever. Sooner or later they have realized that the attributes once ascribed to him, such as selfishness or lustfulness or vengefulness, are unworthy of the moral systems which men have evolved among themselves.
Carl Van Doren, Why I am an Unbeliever, 1926. As you see he starts with something akin to 'I see no good reason' and proceeds to give reasons against the god(s) hypothesis, including the argument from change (arguing that since the character of gods changes alongside culture, this is evidence that gods are the product of culture rather than being real existent beings). He continues..."For myself, I feel no obligation whatever to believe. I might once have felt it prudent to keep silence, for I perceive that the race of men, while sheep in credulity, are wolves for conformity; but just now, happily, in this breathing-spell of toleration, there are so many varieties of belief that even an unbeliever may speak out.".

Hopefully those three atheists/nonbelievers/unbelievers selected from the early 19th to early 20th centuries should help demonstrate that I am not some freakish anomaly in my lack of belief in God, and that the Message 4 description of the reasons for atheism has to therefore be wrong. I am perfectly happy to continue into the 20th and 21st Century if there remains any doubt about the ubiquity of these reasons for non-belief.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 161 of 375 (499640)
02-19-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by New Cat's Eye
02-19-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
CS writes:
You do not. A random made-up entity doesn't have the same weight behind it as the idea of a god put forth by deists.
Really? What god specifically is being put forward by deists such that we can determine whether this is indeed true?
I thought the Deists' god was fairly unspecific.....
Well if the Deists God is so non-specific as to be essentially undefined how can we determine how much weight there is behind it?
Its not that they are putting forth some specific god, its that so many different peoples have similiar spiritual experiences that adds weight to the idea of some kind of spiritual realm or source to the point that we can reasonbly say that the idea of some generic unspecific god-like thingy is more rational than some specific random obviously made-up god-like thingy.
OK. But if A) These various spiritual experiences are in many cases mutually exclusive and B) Many such spiritual beliefs have in fact turned out to be demonstrably wrong through evidence based investigation (fertility gods, Sun gods etc. etc. etc.) then where does that leave your argument?
If anything it suggests that humans are particularly good at creating false beliefs based on unreliable subjective evidence.
we can reasonbly say that the idea of some generic unspecific god-like thingy is more rational than some specific random obviously made-up god-like thingy.
We both agree that my Wagwah example was made-up and silly. We both agree that the face sucking jellyfish was made-up and silly.
But what I want to know is exactly what it is about these entities that makes them obviously made-up and silly as opposed to just unevidenced and worthy of our agnosticism.
I have repeatedly asked RAZD this question in various formats and all he has come back with is some waffle about preconceived subjective world views. I think we all (even RAZD if pushed) would agree that there is something innately unworthy of agnosticism about these examples but I want the deists/theists to identify and explicitly state what that "something" is.
Straggler writes:
Also, other than popular belief which is more about marketing than truth, how can we possibly know which gods are "random" and "made-up" and which are not?
Well, an idea of god that has evolved through various stages of development wouldn't be random or made-up. Although 'made-up' was bad word choice because every idea has to be made-up at some point, its just that if you hear about someone else's idea of god, then you didn't make it up, whereas if someone brings forth an idea of god that has never been seen before, then they obviously just made that one up recently.
Marketing and flexibility seem a better explanation here. If a specific belief is willing to energetically and consciously set about recruiting new believers (e.g. missionaries) and is able to be flexible enough to adopt aspects of the cultures it seeks to convert (e.g. adopting Pagan holidays as it's own) then it is hardly surprising that it prevails above those beliefs that do not take such measures.
Add to this some circular but internally consistent promotion of belief ("blessed are those that believe but do not see" etc. etc.) and you have recipe for adaptive and evolutionary success.
But that is not the same as a recipe for veracity.
Straggler writes:
If enough people claim subjective experience of the face sucking jellyfish will you change youir stance and consider this to be a viable entity?
Yes.
Well I admire your consistencey.
I take it you will be advocating that scientology receives the recognition it so obviously deserves...................?
Straggler writes:
If the only reasons to believe in God are subjective then all other subjectively derived claims are worthy of equal "airtime".
That's what I'm disagreeing with.
That so many different peope have had similiar spiritual experience thoughout history makes the claim of some type of spiritual realm or source worthy of more "airtime" than if someone introduces a whole new subjective concept that nobody else has any experience with.
Please remember that the vast majority of the beliefs that these experiences have resulted in have been mutually exclusive.
Please also remember that most of the spiritual claims made throughout history have now been pretty comprehensively debunked.
On this basis it seems that the remaining widely held spiritual beliefs are simply those that are inherently the least falsifiable due to their comparitive vagueness and lack of specifity (e.g. the deistic type gods we started with)
Given the history of elimination this is not a cause to assume that the remaining spiritual beliefs are any indication of veracity.
Is reliable and objective really a pass/fail test or can there be some gradient of reliability and objectivity?
Almost certainly. But we need to work out what the criteria for increasing reliability actually could be.
I would say that they are not reliable and objective in the sense that I suppose you mean by those words (in the sense that the reasons have been empirically verified), but I think there is some reliability and some objectivity to the reasons, just that they fail to be empirifcally verifiable. I don't think that makes them unworthy of consideration.
In the case of gods I think that the "evidence" is wholly subjective. I also think that the indisputable historical elimination of all but the least physically definable gods is a clear indication that gods in general are a human construct as opposed to an entity that can be said to exist in any objective sense at all.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 12:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2009 3:32 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 164 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2009 3:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 375 (499643)
02-19-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by onifre
02-19-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
The origin of any concept in which there is no objective evidence is a "made-up" concept.
On the face of it, that statement seems accurate by definition. But I'm not so sure that it is founded as it pertains to this discussion. I don't think we can say that there really is absolutely no objective evidence (which depends on how you define "objective"). Also, its possible that the subjective evidence has an outside source.
All ideas to which no objective evidence exists, at some point in it's history, was created by one person.
I definatlely don't agree with this one. Groups can come up with ideas as a whole as the individuals work together to come up with the idea.
Not in my opinion, but I don't really know how to measure sillyness.
Neither do I so I would either hold to the position that both are silly concepts, or that both are equally valid concepts.
I wouldn't push it into all or none categories. Although, I would be comfortable just judging it with my gut
Yes but primitive cultures did have a point of origin for their ideas, be it independent or not. So it could have been claimed then that those ideas were the result of someone pulling it out of a hat. One day there was no idea of god, then the next day there was,
I don't agree with this one either. A group's ideas could gradually emerge.
I understand what you're getting at, I just don't agree with it because I think your premises are false.
My only point is that if deists claim no known knowledge of the image of god due to their own personal subjective experiences, they do not have the authority to reject any concept of god that is claimed to be known by people who claim they have had a subjective experience in which the image of god was revealed.
I agree to an extent, which is that the concept of the jellyfish god is not something that people have had a subjective experience of.
Also, one man's subjective experience can be more easily rejected than a million's.
And, What if they thought the person was lying? Couldn't they use that as a basis for their "authority"?
And just because the cultures are geographically independent of each other does not mean that we know for sure that no outside influences were introduced to expound on their claimed subjective experiences.
By outside influence, you meant a god, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 163 of 375 (499648)
02-19-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
02-19-2009 2:56 PM


Wagwah is not that silly
We both agree that my Wagwah example was made-up and silly.
I don't. I mean I agree it was made-up, and we have the delightful privilege to have perfect provenance for it. However 'silly' is a relative term. I have certainly verbalised my hope that my computer will not crash at various points, who was I talking to but Wagwah? I have made more supplications, performed more esoteric rituals (maybe if I align the computer slightly more eastwards or if I wiggle this cable three times and blow on these components) to this 'deity' than I have to YHWH in the past ten years.
From my perspective Wagwah is far less silly than entity that can shapeshift and change size from a tall person all the way down to something the shape and size of a blade of grass with a beard of vines, blue skin, glowing eyes that wears its shoes backwards and if you cut down an aspen tree so that it falls facing East. Bend over and look through your legs saying "Forest Lord, come to me now; not as a grey wolf, not as a black raven, not as a flaming fir tree, but as a man." you might convince it to appear and teach you magic (or it might turn up and tickle you to death - as a protection against this eventuality you should wear all your clothes backwards). And there is definitive history for people believing in this latter 'silly' entity (it is called a Leszi).
quote:
Technopaganism, like Paganism, is an umbrella term. It may refer to various different understandings of incorporating technology and modern living into Neopagan religious expressions. There is as of yet, and perhaps never will be, a specific definition of just what technopaganism is and what in encompasses, however there are several commonly held understandings:
- Incorporating technological features like blogs, internet video, chat rooms, instant messaging services, virtual simulations and worlds for use in ritual or fellowship, or the use of technological features like televisions, ovens, and personal computers in the use of ritual or divination.
- Incorporation of modern implements or items of technology as ritual and/or magical tools. Examples may be the use of copper tubing as a wand or incorporating modern signage in the use in sigil making or divination.
From What is Technopaganism - it might be determined through Foramancy that Wagwah is a real deity and some people might come to believe in it. It actually isn't all that silly. In fact - just in case this thread becomes the basis of a religion you might want to make sure you get Wagwah's properties straight - you know how violent people can get over such disagreements

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 2:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 3:57 PM Modulous has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 375 (499652)
02-19-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
02-19-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Well if the Deists God is so non-specific as to be essentially undefined how can we determine how much weight there is behind it?
It, specifically, we cannot. But the idea of god/s existing, in general, we can see has more weight than the face sucking jellyfish because of all the different cultures that have independly come up with the idea of god/s existing, in general.
OK. But if A) These various spiritual experiences are in many cases mutually exclusive and B) Many such spiritual beliefs have in fact turned out to be demonstrably wrong through evidence based investigation (fertility gods, Sun gods etc. etc. etc.) then where does that leave your argument?
A) They're mutually exclusive in their entirety and could, together, both be partially correct.
B) They're demonstrably wrong in the specificity and could, generally, be partially correct.
Assuming a god exists, if we had one culture that says that god is red and one that says that god is blue, they would be mutally exclusive but they would both be correct that the god existed. That their colors are different doesn't mean that we can be sure that there's no god there in the first place.
But what I want to know is exactly what it is about these entities that makes them obviously made-up and silly as opposed to just unevidenced and worthy of our agnosticism.
Well, it is hard to put your finger on it. I think it has something to do with its popularity and how long it has standed the test of time.
*Actually, I've come back up to this point now that I've typed about primitive religions below. These entities are not ones that have gradually emerged and evolved within a culture so that might be why its so obvious that they don't have any weight behind them.
Well, an idea of god that has evolved through various stages of development wouldn't be random or made-up. Although 'made-up' was bad word choice because every idea has to be made-up at some point, its just that if you hear about someone else's idea of god, then you didn't make it up, whereas if someone brings forth an idea of god that has never been seen before, then they obviously just made that one up recently.
Marketing and flexibility seem a better explanation here. If a specific belief is willing to energetically and consciously set about recruiting new believers (e.g. missionaries) and is able to be flexible enough to adopt aspects of the cultures it seeks to convert (e.g. adopting Pagan holidays as it's own) then it is hardly surprising that it prevails above those beliefs that do not take such measures.
I was thinking along the lines of early primitive religions, like animism, that gradually emerged and evolved within the cultures. I don't think anybody set them up to do that, nor that the ideas were really marketed that much. But I'm starting to speculate now....
I take it you will be advocating that scientology receives the recognition it so obviously deserves...................?
Honestly, I put Scientology in the group with the face sucking jellyfish as ideas that one man made-up recently as opposed to religious ideas that gradually emerged and evolved within a culture.
Please remember that the vast majority of the beliefs that these experiences have resulted in have been mutually exclusive.
Please also remember that most of the spiritual claims made throughout history have now been pretty comprehensively debunked.
On this basis it seems that the remaining widely held spiritual beliefs are simply those that are inherently the least falsifiable due to their comparitive vagueness and lack of specifity (e.g. the deistic type gods we started with)
Given the history of elimination this is not a cause to assume that the remaining spiritual beliefs are any indication of veracity.
and too, I don't think its cause to reject them.
In the case of gods I think that the "evidence" is wholly subjective. I also think that the indisputable historical elimination of all but the least physically definable gods is a clear indication that gods in general are a human construct as opposed to an entity that can be said to exist in any objective sense at all.
I don't think that everyone getting all the details wrong suggests that they weren't even talking about something in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 2:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 375 (499653)
02-19-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Modulous
02-19-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Wagwah is not that silly
Wow! Maybe I really was divinely inspired by Wagwah. Maybe in response to my broad rejection of gods he specifically revealed himself to me as evidence to the contrary. Maybe my world view is so stubbornly entrenched that I have relegated this divine revelation to fantasy and rejected this honour bestowed upon me as a product of mere imagination. Maybe I was the potential prophet of Wagwah?
Maybe my PC would never inexplicably freeze, bluescreen or crash if I only had the courage to believe.
It seems that we will never now know...............
Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2009 3:32 PM Modulous 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