The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it.
Right, but only as individual ambiguous concepts.
Why can't their be collective ambiguous concepts? Cough-Deism-Cough.
quote:To which I would then hold no position of belief (atheist or otherwise) since no definitive attributes are prescibed to this particular (or your individual concept) of (for lack of a better word) God.
That's all fine and dandy.
I'm sure a lot of the concept emerged from people's objective experiences as well.
Objective or otherwise, the end result, IOW, my (your) conclusion of said experience, is subjective. Since it doesn't follow any specific religious concept of God, the concept itself, that of the individual God in question, is made up in the mind of the individual who had the experience.
Oh, you mean the details of the concept...
How can I be an atheist toward that?
After I tell you all the details!
---------------------------------------
free HTML tip....use:
‹hr›
and it becomes:
As a performer I was alone in my cabin, small, but not too bad.
Ah, that's nice you had a cabin. I had one on one ship but the other three were crew quarter with bunk beds.
I don't get it, I'm counting every fuck'n carb I eat and these people have a mountain of rice on their plate and they're as thin as a rail! The fish stuff they eat is gross looking, though!
Yeah it was. You didn't get a taste of the goat curry, did you?
I just wanted to bang a dancer.
Oh shit some of them were hot. I met a few dancer girls working out in the gym and that alone was reason enough to come back and pretend like I was working out They're fit and flexible.
But if the collective ambiguous concepts are of the experience, then there is nothing to reject. It's the name "God" that gives it a quality that seems to be past the point of concept or idea.
After I tell you all the details!
You can only give me details of your experience, right? The notion of it being representative of a God is your added portion.
That takes us past the stage of concept and into an established represenative for your concpt, that I would then ask you to define. You say "it was God." I'll ask you to describe it. "Its a nondescrpt concept of God." Then I'll ask, having nothing to base your concept on, how do you know it's a God? "Well throughout time people have had these expereinces and they've attribute it to God." Ok, but since they too had no basis to concluide it was God, how did they know it was God?
This will continue to we get to the first person who saw something they couldn't explain naturally, or had an experience that they couldn't explain naturally, and set the ball rolling with their concept/idea/made up version (for lack of a better word) of God.
Thus it has it's origin in the human mind as an ambiguous concept, that, due to the nature of its ambiguity, was adopted by others with shared, unexplainable, experiences.
But it's never more than an ambiguous concept attributed to a subjective experience.
Ah, that's nice you had a cabin. I had one on one ship but the other three were crew quarter with bunk beds.
Yea, that sucks. I saw those, too fuck'n cramp for me.
Yeah it was. You didn't get a taste of the goat curry, did you?
Oh that's what that was.
Oh shit some of them were hot. I met a few dancer girls working out in the gym and that alone was reason enough to come back and pretend like I was working out They're fit and flexible.
Them and the girls working in the spa. There was a Romanian chick, Christ! what an ass!
if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.
Fair enough, but what method exists to investigate the claim that would help provide proof against the claim?
People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.
But there is a method to do the research for or against evolution. What method of research do you suggest for investigating philosophical claims that would then yeild evidence for or againsts certain philosophical claims?
The point is that for you to have a valid negative hypothesis that it must be based on evidence, and if you don't have that evidence that your logical position is necessarily agnostic.
The same holds for any positive hypothesis, of course, however we are much more familiar with that burden.
Re: So we want evidence of absence? (or maybe philosophy will suffice?)
Hi Otto Tellick, thanks for setting aside your trepidation.
We have the very clear and concise synopsis of the current topic provided at Message 22 (thanks and kudos to petrophysics1), ...
Yes, the broad topic is that any negative hypothesis has as much burden of evidence as any positive hypothesis, that being a skeptic is more than just saying "I don't think so".
... and we have the sense (not mentioned in the OP, but now obvious) of the intended ("real") focus of the topic: whether there is (or can be) an evidentiary basis for atheism.
As a frequent example where the negative hypothesis is made without evidence and asserted as being the result of skepticism alone.
Bottom line: maybe I misunderstand RAZD, but if he's trying to say that a "positive atheism" is somehow less supportable than "agnostic atheism", my response would be that theism/deism, and any form of agnosticism (just allowing a possibility of a deity) is the far less supportable position, by virtue of the fact that it simply extends a quirk of linguistic structure into a logical contradiction.
Curiously, if position notA is "more supportable" (to you) than position A, then you should have some evidence of this difference. If you don't have evidence, then you are making a guess and just calling it logical skepticism. This is what Truzzi referred to as pseudoskepticism.
That is fine as long as it is acknowledged that the default logical position is agnostic, and that the choice to be an atheist is because of certain personal beliefs about reality. You are free to tentatively conclude that god/s don't exist while waiting for more conclusive evidence, whether pro or con.
You seem to think that when an evidence-less proposition which cannot be disproved is suggested that it should be treated as a 50/50 proposition. You do realise that omphalism fits that description, don't you? The only "personal beliefs about reality" required not to believe in fairies is that I know of no evidence that would lead me to do so. So, I'm agnostic about them because I cannot know their existential state, and I'm an "a-fairiest" because there's no reason to believe in them unless positive evidence crops up. Same with gods. Same with omphalism.
Exactly, the default logical position is agnostic, as I said at the beginning, and I am a deist because of certain personal beliefs about reality. Likewise I am free to tentatively conclude that god/s exist while waiting for more conclusive evidence, whether pro or con.
Look at my personal beliefs (that there's currently no evidence for fairies and gods) and think of your own. The equal and opposite equivalent would be that you do believe there's evidence for gods. What is it?
Remember that they do not reasonably become 50/50 propositions without it unless fairies and omphalism do.
That last is a problem for you when you argue against creationists.
I see the virtually inevitable diversion to talk about deities rather than the topic.
I see that the IPU has reared her pretty little head again.
I see people are talking about my beliefs again.
All of this, sadly, is off topic.
quote:The issue of providing evidence for a positive assertion is well known, and what I would like to discuss is the issue of providing evidence for a negative assertion.
Taking these three statements:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .
(The last quote, by the way, is from Susan Blackmore, not Marcello Truzzi)
New member Izanagi add this to the discussion:
Message 25 Because there are people who are agnostic atheists and there are people who are agnostic theists. Agnostic atheists do not believe in deities but they also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable. Agnostic theists believe in deities but also believe their claims are unknown or unknowable.
Message 24 For example, I am an agnostic Deist. I am a Deist because I believe in God, although my idea of God is somewhat modified from the Judeo-Christian God. And I am agnostic because while I believe God exists, I cannot know that he exists. For me, it is a matter of faith. I'd be happy to tell you my subjective reasons for believing, but I am almost certain my subjective reasons won't convince you if you happen to not believe in God. So I feel anything unknowable shouldn't be argued as if it is, i.e. trying to convince someone of your claim because your claim is right and theirs is wrong. That, to me, shouldn't be done.
To flesh out this distinction of atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic, agnostic theist and theist, I pulled in the Dawkins Scale (Message 34):
quote:1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
1&2: theist: burden of proof needed 3-5: agnostic: no burden of proof 6&7: atheist: burden of proof needed
If nobody wants to provide evidence for the negative hypothesis of atheism (6&7), then fine and dandy: the point is made, and pseudoskepticism is alive and well.
If people want to claim that they are really agnostic atheists, then fine and dandy: they are 5's on the list, and not effectively different from agnostic deists as 3's, basing their view on their subjective evaluation of the pros and cons.
Perhaps we can start further discussion on the issue of atheist evidence for the negative hypothesis with people posting where they put themselves on the Dawkins Scale, and why.
To start, I'm a 3, and my reason for leaning to the theistic side is personal subjective experience that leads me to believe there is possibly a spiritual essence to life that can be further explored with an open mind. More need not be said, other than that I have seen absolutely no evidence to contradict this position.
Re: So we want evidence of absence? (or maybe philosophy will suffice?)
RAZD writes:
Curiously, if position notA is "more supportable" (to you) than position A, then you should have some evidence of this difference. If you don't have evidence, then you are making a guess and just calling it logical skepticism. This is what Truzzi referred to as pseudoskepticism.
Quixotically, you seem to be missing my point. If "position A" is the one that asserts (or allows the possibility) that a deity exists, whereas "position notA" is the notion that all human conceptions of any deity are logically unsound and (as Onifre expresses nicely) not susceptible to any evidential basis, why would you seem to give "position A" some sort of pre-eminence that makes it unassailable by "position notA" except by force of evidence?
Even when "position notA" allows the mulligan of ignoring all the evidence about theistic predictions that utterly fail and theistic histories that are demonstrably false, why is the logical dysfunction of "position A" not taken into account, in accordance with "step 10" of your own epistemological recipe? Is it simply your own personal preference of wanting to guess that "some deity might exist"?
Whatever the rationale for your position, I'm compelled to ask that you provide some sort of definition for your notion of "deity" that doesn't ultimately lead to logical contradictions. If you can do that, then I'll accept your notion that I should have evidence before asserting "position notA".
Until then, rather than "positive atheism" being "pseudo-skepticism", I'd say instead that deism/theism (agnostic or otherwise) is based on a "pseudo-entity".
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
What do they have to prove? Do they have to prove that they "cannot know for certain" or do they have to prove that they "think God is very improbable" or do they have to prove that they "live {their} life on the assumption that {a god} is not there?
They need to prove why they choose 6 (or 7) instead of 4 or 5. We ask this of 2's (and 1's) frequently - why should 6's (and 7's) get a free ride?
... but since they admit they cannot know, I don't see how we can expect a defninitive and compelling demonstration of the truth of the matter. You might, and presumably do, think those reasons are not compelling to you.
What puzzles me is your idea that somebody that begins their position with 'I cannot know for certain' would not be regarded as agnostic or as being 'too certain'.
If nobody wants to provide evidence for the negative hypothesis of atheism (6&7), then fine and dandy: the point is made, and pseudoskepticism is alive and well.
How about this: I am a 6 on that scale. My evidence to back this up is that every system of belief I have encountered that involves a god has either made predictions which reality fails to conform to, or is such that Occam's Razor strips out every important aspect. Reality is, to the best of my ability to determine, indistinguishable from one which does not contain a god. Therefore, it would be unreasonable of me to behave in a manner inconsistent with this conclusion until such time as solid evidence is presented to contradict it.
So how about it RAZD? Does this "evidence" live up to your completely subjective concept of "acceptable", or would you consider my behavior unreasonable?
RAZD, the default position is indeed the suspension of judgment when lacking any data.
I think everyone is pretty much agreed on that issue. The problem arises when people feel they have reason to make a choice to one side or the other while not having any reason to do so.
There is a point at which suspension of judgment becomes unreasonable. For example compare the difference between the unsubstantiated claim that there is a person in an adjacent room. ... Compare that example to the claim that there is a gargantuan dragon in the adjacent room. ... Now, to spark further discussion I propose that there are some circumstances where pure skepticism is insufficient for practical application. For instance, I assume you are fairly confident there is not a live armadillo in your living room.
Curiously, the issue involves a simple paradigm: the default position is agnostic, and that if you chose a positive or a negative position you have a burden of providing evidence. The term pseudoskeptic was invented to apply to those who claimed to have a negative position due to being a skeptic rather than due to evidence.
The point is that for you to have a valid negative hypothesis that it must be based on evidence
Right, understood, I must have evidence. Now, how can I get the evidence for it? How do I falsify your claim and therefore support my negative hypothesis with evidence against your position?
Curiously, I give this as much credence as people claiming to be skeptics while still exhibiting bias in there posts - everyone likes to believe that they are rational and make decisions based on logic rather than emotions and (hidden?) beliefs. Perhaps we need to apply an objective measure to what we are talking about here:
Again, your problem here is your own bias in favour of evidence-less propositions. Where are you on the one to seven scale on the proposal of omphalism?
As for your "objective measure", it confirms the point I made; that most atheists are agnostics, because categories 2 to 6 are agnostic by definition (they recognise that they do not or cannot know).
A 6 cannot really be regarded as agnostic according to this scale, because the uncertainty is so small in comparison to the certainty, would you agree?
quote:Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable. It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.
"6" specifically includes the agnostic statement "I cannot know for certain". It couldn't be clearer.
So, you made the O.P.
Which categories on the 1 to 7 scale are pseudo-skeptics? Have the "sevens" refused and/or failed to investigate the god in the question? Or have they investigated an evidence-less proposition just as thoroughly as anyone can? Is it any more likely that they have approached the question with preconceptions than those in the 1 to 3 categories, who seem willing to selectively believe in one proposition without evidence when they wouldn't believe in most others?
How about this: I am a 6 on that scale. My evidence to back this up is that every system of belief I have encountered that involves a god has either made predictions which reality fails to conform to, or is such that Occam's Razor strips out every important aspect. Reality is, to the best of my ability to determine, indistinguishable from one which does not contain a god. Therefore, it would be unreasonable of me to behave in a manner inconsistent with this conclusion until such time as solid evidence is presented to contradict it.
Here's an analogy: I define god as a pink elephant. I do not know of any pink elephants, therefore I don't believe in gods.
So how about it RAZD? Does this "evidence" live up to your completely subjective concept of "acceptable", ...
Does it convince me? No, for the simple reason that you are assuming you know enough about god/s to rule them out, and you have not presented evidence to substantiate that.
... or would you consider my behavior unreasonable?
That's for you to decide, but it is illogical, because it is based on an assumption, not a fact.
Right, understood, I must have evidence. Now, how can I get the evidence for it? How do I falsify your claim and therefore support my negative hypothesis with evidence against you position?
It's not about falsifying my hypothesis, it is about supporting your negative hypothesis.
If you can't find evidence, then the default position (agnostic) should apply, or you acknowledge that you make a choice that is not supported by logic or evidence.
They're fit and flexible.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
