Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

Materialism - WikipediaMaterialism is a philosophy so how can someone that follows a philosophy be philosophically limited?

I don't know what they or you mean by "philosophically limited". But some have made the case that the "new atheists" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al, recently joined by Hawking) are philosophically deficient. McGrath, Lennox, and others have taken Dawkins to task for his sloppy thinking about philosophy of science and philosophy in general. Hawking essentially rejects philosophy as outmoded and irrelevant in his "Grand Design".This sloppy thinking does not seem to be true of all atheists. Some, such as Peter Medawar, are fairly careful and philosophically astute.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

Good question. I think science is a product of methodological naturalism or at least philosophical naturalism rather than simple materialism. Am I wrong?Edited by anglagard, : misspelled titleEdited by anglagard, : neded to add philosophic naturalism and a few spaces for clarity

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

I say: nay. I say this due to the simple fact that the theist has already made his mind up about which deity he/she believes in. An atheist leaves the option open for ALL deities. This is, of course, in regard only to the philosophical nature of theism, not philosophy itself, as choice of theism does not inherently limit ones philosophical mindset.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

I'd love to see the case which has Dennett come out as 'philosophically deficient' while Peter Medawar is philosophically astute; and it would strike at the heart of the topic, too.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

BTW, the last of the "four horsemen of new atheism" who I forgot was Hitchens.I heard Dennett speak a few years ago, and was not impressed by his philosophy of science or of God. But I don't remember enough details to say any more. I am most familiar with Dawkins, and as I said, he is the one most commonly taken to task for sloppy philosophy (and rightly so, IMO). Maybe someone else can provide more information on Dennett's arguments?Medawar is a scientist rather than a philosopher, but he seems to think fairly clearly and deeply about philosophy of science. His book on "The Limits of Science" seems to be quite good.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

I do think it is funny to say that a professional philosopher is philosophically deficient and your basis for that seems to be that you weren't personally impressed with his position.But to keep discussion moving I'll accept examples of the deficiency of philosophy with regards to Dawkins so that we might at least know what you mean.

Sorry, I did not say that I wasn't impressed with Dennett's position. Rather, I was not impressed with his thinking about God and about philosophy of science. I remember that his arguments struck me as shallow and unsophisticated. But since I can't remember the details of his arguments, I can't elaborate further.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This is from wiki:

quote:

---

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance.

---

I think you're probably right, but it seems to me that if there is nothing else around but matter, then "love of wisdom' depends entirely on how matter interacts with itself and that there is no final wisdom as your wisdom may be very different than my wisdom. Doesn't that make philosophy meaningless?Without hunting for examples I seem to recall atheists on this forum rejecting philosophical evidence claiming that the only evidence that matters is empirical. It seems to me that if one was a materialist that position would make sense.Hopefully this addresses all the answers to my previous post. (Hope no one feels slighted. )

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

I think you're probably right, but it seems to me that if there is nothing else around but matter, then "love of wisdom' depends entirely on how matter interacts with itself and that there is no final wisdom as your wisdom may be very different than my wisdom. Doesn't that make philosophy meaningless?

---

I don't think that speculations about the ultimate nature of wisdom or the existence of "final wisdom" whatever that is have much relevance. Especially as "wisdom" per se doesn't seem to have anything special to do with the mass of subjects we call philosophy.

quote:

---

Without hunting for examples I seem to recall atheists on this forum rejecting philosophical evidence claiming that the only evidence that matters is empirical. It seems to me that if one was a materialist that position would make sense.

---

I think what you have in mind is atheists refusing to accept the value of alleged "non-empirical evidence" when that "evidence" is never produced for investigation. Which seems to be a perfectly respectable position.

Actually you said you were 'not impressed by his philosophy of science or of God'. You did not say you were not impressed by his thinking about God and philosophy of science, though I grant that is what you meant to say. Which is why I invited you to discuss the philosophical deficiencies of Dawkins, with whom you are more familiar, so that we may at least get a sense of what you are talking about.

Then you misunderstand "the atheistic position".See the reply from Trae Message 13 in this very thread.

What on Earth is "philosophical evidence".....?And I think you will find that the requirement is for evidence that is demonstrably able to lead to reliable conclusions rather than being simply empirical for the sake of empiricism.Unless a form of "evidence" can demonstrate that it leads to conclusions that are demonstrably superior to those derived from random chance how can it even qualify as "evidence" at all?

From wiki:

quote:

---

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".

---

I won't try and pretend I'm not out of my depth here, but it seems to me that if we live in an entirely material world then we are all just a collection of atoms and everything is relative and thus philosophy is meaningless. That's a circular argument. It is understood that non-empirical evidence cannot be produced for investigation. You can't have it both ways, but it shows the point I was trying to make. Atheists or materialists don't accept as evidence that which can't be produced through material means, therefore they limit themselves philosophically.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Fine, but then doesn't that rule out the appreciation for anything philosophical? Evidence, whether it be the study of human nature or whatever, is then essentially ruled out, therefore atheists are philosophically limited.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.