Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 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?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 181 of 375 (499926)
02-21-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by cavediver
02-21-2009 11:11 AM


Determination of World View
cavediver writes:
My spiritual journey is by no means over, and I may end up somewhere completely different, if evidence leads me there. Evidence determines my world-view... simple really.
Interesting. Feelings and intuition are what determine my world-view. I realize that feelings can be deceptive and intuition unprovable...but that's the way I roll.
Straggler writes:
Gods actually existing or gods not actually existing and being the product of human invention are two mutually exclusive alternatives.
Exactly. My belief is that either we initially imagined God(gods, spaghetti, etc) or God imagined/created us initially. I lean towards belief in the latter, though the former seems more logical from a strictly logical perspective.
Edited by Phat, : added features

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2009 11:11 AM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 182 of 375 (499942)
02-21-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by cavediver
02-21-2009 11:11 AM


footnotes
For Cavediver:
I was rather disturbed by one particular accusation that RAZD repeated in this thread - that atheists hold a world-view and pick and choose the evidence that supports that world-view.
Curiously, this is not really what I said. What I said was that we all have a world view, and that when we have an absence of evidence one way or the other, that we then make decisions based on consilience with our world views.
One of those (seems almost universal) world view beliefs is that we personally are rational and logical beings who make decisions based on rationality and logic. Thus the first reaction to any claim that your personal belief is irrational or illogical is met with scorn and anger. This is a natural result of cognitive dissonance between our belief and the contradictory claim. I've been there, done that, have the bloodied t-shirt for evidence.
The conclusion I have come to is that agnosticism\uncertainty is the only rational position when confronted with concepts where there is no (reasonable, convincing, world view consilient) evidence, thus my personal view is not rational\logical, it is just not ruled out by what is rational\logical. That I also consider atheism to be another concept that is also not ruled out by what is rational\logical, does not mean that I consider it to be based purely on rationality and logic.
For Modulus:
I began my argument here because RAZD implied that one of the differences between a deist and an atheist is that the atheist commits a certain kind of logical fallacy in their reasoning to their position.
Not one of the differences, for I don't claim there is logic in my position, it is based on faith first. I just don't see EITHER argument as being based ONLY on logic, especially when there is evidence of flawed logic.
Nor do I claim that it is foundational to the atheist belief, rather that it is perceived as supportive reasoning for the position.
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.
Restated:
1. I don't believe in things for which I can find no reason an absence of [1] evidence to believe.
2. I find no reason an absence of [1] evidence to believe in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in the presence any proposed deity.
[1] - insert "convincing" here if you think it makes the argument better.
So strangely, I still see no significant difference between that and "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" ...
General reply:
As regards the invisible pink unicorn, etc., the logical, rational answer is the same: that we don't know. We cannot be certain, even if the concept is knowingly made up to be a strawman, because there is a lack of evidence for or against the concept. Thus our personal decision, sans evidence, is not based on logic and rationality, but on consilience of concepts with our world view.
Enjoy.
nuff said

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2009 11:11 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2009 2:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 3:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 183 of 375 (499945)
02-21-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by RAZD
02-21-2009 1:36 PM


footnotes on the footnotes
Not one of the differences, for I don't claim there is logic in my position, it is based on faith first. I just don't see EITHER argument as being based ONLY on logic, especially when there is evidence of flawed logic.
I thought that might be the case, indeed that is why I said that you implied it. When replying in a thread about the differences between atheists and deists you make specific mention of some problem you see with the atheist position which strongly implies that you mean that the existence of this kind of logical problem represents a difference in the two positions. It turns out you were making an offtopic strawman attack.
Depending how you want to classify logic - it is either trivially true or untrue that atheists claim to base anything purely on logic. I certainly don't believe or disbelieve propositions based purely on my ability to deductively demonstrate their truth or falsehood from axiomatic statements and nor do I claim to.
I still see no significant difference between that and "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence"
As I said, more is the pity since at no point during even your reworded version of my position did the syllogism include anything to do with having any evidence regarding the absence of a deity. No matter how many times I stress that I do not think there is evidence for the absence of certain types of deity, you simply choose to ignore me and somehow continue to interpret my argument in that way. It remains how I said:
quote:
{RAZD} was unable to show how the moderate and extreme views were the same, despite his repeating the assertion that they were.
It seems you are still repeating your assertion. The only things for which there is any evidence for the absence of is any sufficient reason to cause Mod to believe and there is evidence for the absence of my belief too. There is no evidence, by definition of the absence of an unfalsifiable deity. Your track record in comprehending this isn't particularly good, but I retain a (perhaps irrational) faith that might change.
Have you at least abandoned your Message 4 position that the fallacy is "all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy"?
As regards the invisible pink unicorn, etc., the logical, rational answer is the same: that we don't know.
Agreed. Welcome to the position of just about every single atheist in the world. So when somebody asks, "Do you hold the belief that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a real and existent being?", the answer is, "No I do not hold that belief."
Where is the logical fault in saying that?
If you were to ask me, an atheist, "Mod, does god(s) exist?" I'd answer, "I don't know RAZD, and neither do you. We don't know. Here are some of my thoughts on the various issues about the old god question..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 1:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 184 of 375 (499954)
02-21-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by RAZD
02-21-2009 1:36 PM


RE: Footnotes - Still Looking at Evidence in a Vacuum
As regards the invisible pink unicorn, etc., the logical, rational answer is the same: that we don't know.
Absolutely. We do not know.
We cannot be certain, even if the concept is knowingly made up to be a strawman, because there is a lack of evidence for or against the concept.
No we cannot be certain. But maybe we can get an indication of the relative probability of the available options from the related evidence that is available.
Thus our personal decision, sans evidence, is not based on logic and rationality, but on consilience of concepts with our world view.
No. There is more to this than simple preconceived world view. If we have rejected the existence of other such beings to all practical intents and purposes, rejected them as being very probably the result of human imagination, rejected them on the basis of increased knowledge and understanding, rejected them on the basis of empirical investigation and objective physical evidence then that in itself is undeniably a relevant form of evidence.
Why exactly have we all but abandoned belief in fertility gods, harvest gods, Sun gods, Thor, Neptune etc. etc. etc? On what basis have these been abandoned? Is it just the shifting of one subjective and irrational world view to another world view that is equally subjective and irrational? No.
Any given specific god either actually exists or it does not. If it does not then said god is the product of human invention and nothing more.
If we know that the probability of humans inventing gods is very high then when assessing the plausibility of any given god for which there is no other evidence available we know that there is a high probability that it is a human invention.
If there is a high probability that it is a human invention then there is a correspondingly low probability that said god actually exists.
Now if you want to tell me that my degree of certainty is rationally unwarrented and that my over-interpretation of the evidence reflects my world view rather than the actual reliability of the evidence at hand then we can have that discussion. Given that in my experience when strongly held beliefs are put under the micoscope they rarely come out as black and white as initially seemed justified I think it highly likely that I would have to concede some ground.
BUT don't tell me that there is absolutely no evidence available relevant to the question of any specified god actually existing - Because. This. Just. Is. Not. True.
No matter how directly unevidenced a claim may be there is no such thing as a total vacuum of evidence.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 1:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 185 of 375 (500354)
02-25-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
02-20-2009 9:35 PM


Back to the fundamental definitions and functionality considerations
Sorry if I missed too much of the previous discussion - It's all too much for me to keep up on in any real comprehensive manner.
RAZD writes:
Deists believe in god/s, {irrelevant justifications snipped}.
# Atheists don't believe in god/s, {irrelevant justifications snipped}.
First of all, the above (here only partially quoted) statements may be equivalent to those of message 4, but my personal impression is that they are more clearly stated than those of message 4.
Putting all that aside, I never was interested in the justifications for deistic beliefs and for atheistic non-beliefs. I was interested in the practical day to day applications of the beliefs/non-beliefs.
So I state once again my impression of the deistic and atheistic positions:
Deist - Believes that a God or gods set up the parameters for and initiated the beginnings of the universe as we know it, but took no active roll in the universe since that start-up.
Atheist - No belief that a God or gods set up the parameters for and initiated the beginnings of the universe as we know it, and also that there are no God/gods taking an active roll in the universe since that start-up.
For both deist and atheist, the position is "No belief that God/gods took any active roll in the universe since its start-up."
I said in message 1:
Minnemooseus writes:
Isn't it a mighty fine line between deist and atheist? I think so.
Here I restate (or perhaps clarify) my position that deists and atheists are functionally the same. Any belief or non-belief of why/how it happened "in the beginning" is irrelevant to do how deists and atheists function in the present.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2009 9:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 8:01 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 190 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 12:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 186 of 375 (500424)
02-26-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Minnemooseus
02-25-2009 12:53 AM


Re: Back to the fundamental definitions and functionality considerations
Thanks Moose
Deist - Believes that a God or gods set up the parameters for and initiated the beginnings of the universe as we know it, but took no active roll in the universe since that start-up.
Atheist - No belief that a God or gods set up the parameters for and initiated the beginnings of the universe as we know it, and also that there are no God/gods taking an active roll in the universe since that start-up.
For both deist and atheist, the position is "No belief that God/gods took any active roll in the universe since its start-up."
I'd agree with that.
Here I restate (or perhaps clarify) my position that deists and atheists are functionally the same.
Any belief or non-belief of why/how it happened "in the beginning" is irrelevant to do how deists and atheists function in the present.
Here again I refer to the issue of worldviews for how we all interact with the world of reality:
When two people agree on all the known scientific information, then the only difference in their opinions will be the result of the rest of their worldviews.
When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview. From outside, this has the appearance of a coin-toss, where the theist\deists see the coin landing on heads, the atheists see the coin landing on tails, and the agnostics see it landing on edge.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-25-2009 12:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 9:27 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 188 by Woodsy, posted 02-26-2009 1:14 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2009 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 187 of 375 (500435)
02-26-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
02-26-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Back to the fundamental definitions and functionality considerations
RAZD writes:
When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview. From outside, this has the appearance of a coin-toss, where the theist\deists see the coin landing on heads, the atheists see the coin landing on tails, and the agnostics see it landing on edge.
This may be the bulk of the misunderstanding.
When the matter is not pressing (like the existence of God), this is not true:
(Bolding by me)
quote:
When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview.
When confronted with "no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method" on a matter that is not pressing, it is quite possible for one to simply stop and no longer pursue the matter. There is nothing that forces one to continue in reaching a potentially-wrong conclusion, especially when one is no longer assured to be as close to reality as known to be possibe by using the scientific method. And, since before the matter was brought up, one would not have a belief in God, this default stance is retained since no more information is available. This is what atheists do, they simply don't even take out a coin for a flip. They simply walk away and leave it as "currently unknowable... therefore irrelevent to waste any additional time on." An atheist deems the situation unworthy of further study because it is unreasonable to consider possibly changing a stance on the basis of unverifiable information when the matter is not pressing.
No heads, no tails, no coin. No belief, just as before the matter was presented.
You can call that "agnostic" if you like, but "seeing it landing on it's edge" is not the same as "not tossing the coin in the first place." Even if, practically speaking, the resulting mind-set is extremely similar (no heads, no tails). This minor difference is large enough for most of the population (even if it doesn't make sense to you personally) to warrant having an additional word to describe such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 8:01 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 7:08 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 188 of 375 (500458)
02-26-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
02-26-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Back to the fundamental definitions and functionality considerations
When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview. From outside, this has the appearance of a coin-toss, where the theist\deists see the coin landing on heads, the atheists see the coin landing on tails, and the agnostics see it landing on edge.
Just to follow on from Stile.
Concerning your extrapolation; if the extrapolation is not based on some kind of evidence, no matter how indirect, if will not be rational.
It seems to me that, if there is any kind of evidence, even if only remotely connected, one can honestly form a provisional opinion, but it should include a notion of uncertainty. The more remote the connection, the higher the uncertainty.
Absolute conviction either way concerning gods seems unjustified, as, at least in public discourse, evidence must be shareable.
I am not convinced by all this talk of world-view. Things are as they are, and that does not change according to people's philosophical notions. Opinions that do not match reality are false, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 8:01 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 9:43 PM Woodsy has replied

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


(1)
Message 189 of 375 (500444)
02-26-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
02-26-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Back to the fundamental definitions and functionality considerations
When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview.
There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence. We can always apply logic and reason to some degree of evidence such that not all conclusions are equally substantiated. Even when the scientific method is unable to supply a tested reliable conclusion due to lack of direct evidence it is still a vastly superior method of determining the likelihood of a claim as compared to subjective 'world view' or faith.
With regard to gods/deities we have two facts regarding the evidence:
1) There is no objective scientific evidence in favour of the existence of gods.
2) There is a vast array of objective verifiable evidence in favour of the fact that humans are extremely capable of inventing false concepts for both rational and irrational purposes.
With these two facts in mind I would suggest that the chances of any particular claimed entity being the result of human invention are very high. Correspondingly I would suggest that the chance of any particular claimed god actually existing are very low.
From outside, this has the appearance of a coin-toss, where the theist\deists see the coin landing on heads, the atheists see the coin landing on tails, and the agnostics see it landing on edge.
If we apply the scientific method to the greatest degree possible on the limited evidence available then the metaphorical coin toss is weighted in favour of the atheist conclusion.
The degree of weighting may be in dispute but the fact that there is a weighting should not be.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 8:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 190 of 375 (500456)
02-26-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Minnemooseus
02-25-2009 12:53 AM


Back to functionality
Minnemooseus writes:
Deist - Believes that a God or gods set up the parameters for and initiated the beginnings of the universe as we know it, but took no active roll in the universe since that start-up.
Atheist - No belief that a God or gods set up the parameters for and initiated the beginnings of the universe as we know it, and also that there are no God/gods taking an active roll in the universe since that start-up.
For both deist and atheist, the position is "No belief that God/gods took any active roll in the universe since its start-up."
...
Isn't it a mighty fine line between deist and atheist? I think so.
I would agree. However, I would also say that this "mighty fine line" does leave room for some possible life-living differences.
Here I restate (or perhaps clarify) my position that deists and atheists are functionally the same. Any belief or non-belief of why/how it happened "in the beginning" is irrelevant to do how deists and atheists function in the present.
I would have to say that "why/how it happened in the beginning" is extremely relevant because it is the foundation for our other thinking processes as well.
Just because they are functionally the same in one aspect does not mean they are functionally the same in all aspects. Rubber boots and moccasins are functionally the same when walking on pavement. Not so when walking through puddles.
Fact: There is no objective, verifiable evidence pointing in the direction of any deity, even those that exist in the sense of the Deist's idea. That is, in the context that it doesn't also point in the direction of other conflicting possibilities as well.
Do you agree? If so:
For whatever reason, a Deist accepts the existence of something that has no objective, verifiable evidence pointing only in it's direction.
For whatever reason, an Atheist does not accept the existence of something that has no objective, verifiable evidence pointing only in it's direction.
So.. this certainly leaves the door open for the Deist's mind to possibly accept the existence of other things that have no objective, verifiable evidence pointing only it it's direction.
I suppose you can define a Deist to be one who only accepts this concept when thinking of deities... but such a restriction is not generally assumed to necessarily follow for every Deist.
Isn't it a mighty fine line between deist and atheist? I think so.
I would still agree. I think it's generally easy to seperate between "an uninvolved deity" and "anything else." But, that still doesn't mean that it must follow. Which is why I say "the door is open." Any particular Deist may or may not walk through it. I must admit that I have yet to meet a Deist that does walk through this door. Of course... I've probably only met, like, a handful of Desists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-25-2009 12:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 375 (500494)
02-26-2009 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Stile
02-26-2009 9:27 AM


The options - you still make up your mind based on your world view
Thanks Stile
This may be the bulk of the misunderstanding.
When the matter is not pressing ..., this is not true:
When confronted with "no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method" on a matter that is not pressing, it is quite possible for one to simply stop and no longer pursue the matter.
In other words you are saying "I haven't thought about it ..." or "(I) don't care" ... and this defaults to "we (I) don't know"
Strangely this too is another extrapolation "as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview" for people concluding "we (I) don't know"
...(like the existence of God)...
Curiously, I don't consider the existence of god/s "pressing" - nor do I believe this is so for atheists either.
An atheist deems the situation unworthy of further study because it is unreasonable to consider possibly changing a stance on the basis of unverifiable information when the matter is not pressing.
Which is a classic cognitive dissonance position, defining the issue as of little importance, and it looks suspiciously like what creationists do to ignore inconvenient information.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 9:27 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 02-26-2009 7:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 192 of 375 (500500)
02-26-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
02-26-2009 7:08 PM


Re: The options - you still make up your mind based on your world view
Which is a classic cognitive dissonance position, defining the issue as of little importance, and it looks suspiciously like what creationists do to ignore inconvenient information.
In the case of atheists rejecting a belief in God/gods/deities what information is being ignored? Specifically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 7:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 375 (500518)
02-26-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Woodsy
02-26-2009 1:14 PM


Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
I am not convinced by all this talk of world-view. Things are as they are, and that does not change according to people's philosophical notions. Opinions that do not match reality are false, after all.
Of course, however, what do we do about opposing opinions that are not contradicted by reality? Is there an absolute answer to who "has it right" between democrat and republican ideologies? Most of the interactions you have with people are not on the basis of scientific knowledge and known objective facts. What you share is a common society and social values that are ... part of your world view by definition.
It becomes rather self-evident or tautological that if you define the world view as the gestalt of a persons whole being, that it is inevitably the basis on which that person's opinions are based.
This includes their scientific knowledge as well as their political and social leanings.
Logical people don't fall in love, for love is not logical or reasonable or rational. And yes, part of my world view includes the people I love without knowing why. It is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. Love does not make conclusions based on evidence, it makes conclusions about evidence based on love.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Woodsy, posted 02-26-2009 1:14 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 02-27-2009 1:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 195 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2009 6:02 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 196 by Woodsy, posted 02-27-2009 6:16 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 199 by Straggler, posted 02-27-2009 8:23 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 194 of 375 (500529)
02-27-2009 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
02-26-2009 9:43 PM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
I would say that the question is not the "reality" of worldviews but the usefulness of the concept to this discussion. Under your definition your statements are trivially true - and trivial.
Even when you distinguish between solid science and "everything else" in a worldview you still conflate everything that is not science. To look at extreme cases, a strong philosophical argument would be placed on the same level as blind adherence to dogma. This talk of worldview seems to be just a lumping together of things that should be considered on their own merits if they are to be usefully discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 195 of 375 (500538)
02-27-2009 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
02-26-2009 9:43 PM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
RAZD writes:
Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
Indeed why? Of course different world views exist.
It's the way in which you're using that fact in argument which is invalid.
Look at the popularity of the "world view" argument here
3160 uses of the phrase "world view" on one website. Are all world views equally valid when there's only one world?
The AiG people believe in a deity who does miracles. They argue that science classes exlude this possibility because of an arbitrary "secular world view". A deity who can do miracles can magic the world into having a world wide flood, then magic it into its present appearance. It can also magic changes in the laws of physics. So, when their attempt at "creationist science" fails, they can always resort to omphalism, using the world view argument in the way that you do.
In this view, because ~47% of Americans have a YEC world view, such a view should take up ~47% of the teaching time in relation to historical science in your country.
So, in your opinion, are all world views equally valid when it comes to a discussion on supernatural propositions? The existence of miracles and the existence of deities are things that cannot be conclusively disproved. But is it reasonable to include them in one's world view without positive evidence for them? And does the fact that belief in miracles of some kind is (and has been throughout known human history) a majority belief constitute positive evidence for it?
I put forward the suggestion that one of the practical differences between deists and atheists is that it's harder for deists to argue against the people we call creationists due to built in contradictions related to their deist "world view".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2009 7:57 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024