Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Atheism Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I didn't realize Ronald Dworkin died last month. Apparently, he recently finished authoring a book titled Religion Without God that will be published soon. Here's a blurb about it from the NYT website:

    Later this year will see the release of “Religion Without God,” a posthumous work by the late, eminent legal and political philosopher Ronald Dworkin, and The New York Review of Books has posted an excerpt from the first chapter. Dworkin, too, believes there is no contradiction in the term “religious atheism,” and offers no less towering examples than Shelley, Einstein and William James to show that it’s possible to adopt what he calls a “religious attitude,” a worldview which “accepts the full, independent reality of value,” as distinct from scientific fact, and which holds that both individuals and the natural world they inhabit have intrinsic, transcendental value, without believing in a personal God. Putting naturalism and its proponents, who are committed to the position that there can be no independent objective realm of value, to one side, Dworkin’s goal is to emphasize “the importance of what is shared” by subscribers of both “godly and godless religion.” That, in a word, he thinks, is faith. And while believers may think their faith in God differs substantially from the “faith” of an atheist, Dworkin’s rather startling conclusion is that the faith of theists is necessarily identical to that of religious atheists.
    The NYT blurb is found here:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...gious-atheism/

    The excerpt from the first chapter of the book is found here:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

    At first glance, it looks like this will dovetail with some of his critical legal studies work. I'll be interested to see more once it's published.
    "What are you prepared to do?" - Jimmy Malone

    "What choice?" - Abe Petrovsky

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joe Public View Post
      I didn't realize Ronald Dworkin died last month. Apparently, he recently finished authoring a book titled Religion Without God that will be published soon. Here's a blurb about it from the NYT website:



      The NYT blurb is found here:

      http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...gious-atheism/

      The excerpt from the first chapter of the book is found here:

      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

      At first glance, it looks like this will dovetail with some of his critical legal studies work. I'll be interested to see more once it's published.
      Awesome. Thanks.
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

      --Jonathan Swift

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joe Public View Post
        I didn't realize Ronald Dworkin died last month. Apparently, he recently finished authoring a book titled Religion Without God that will be published soon. Here's a blurb about it from the NYT website:



        The NYT blurb is found here:

        http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...gious-atheism/

        The excerpt from the first chapter of the book is found here:

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

        At first glance, it looks like this will dovetail with some of his critical legal studies work. I'll be interested to see more once it's published.
        Refine religion, redefine faith, redefine naturalism, and then come up with a way to connect your newly nonsensical terms. Might work as an undergrad assignment, seems weird as a book.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
          It's not knowledge if it can't be demonstrated or tested in a verifiable way. I think you could call it a strong belief, but you can't call it knowledge.
          That's silly reasoning. And you can see why if you take the opposite proposition. If something can be demonstrated or tested in a verifiable way, does that mean it is known to be true? No. History is full of examples of scientific and philosophical "truths" changing. At the time when these "truths" were accepted, they were thought to be testable and demonstrable.

          The scientific method is a tool that can be used to gather information to assist in forming belief. It is not an oracle for proving the truth. How is blind devotion to the scientific method any different than blind devotion to the words of a person who is believed to be a profit? Both are simply methods/tools that people rely on in their quest to discover what is true. Both have proven to be less than 100% reliable over time.

          I find these arguments between "knowledge" and "belief" to be quite silly and usually pointless. Certainly there are things that you can "know," such as a mathematical formula or a persons name, because those things are defined by language. 2+2 will always equal 4 because that is the definition we give the equation. But do we truly "know" that the earth is billions of years old? How could we? No one can truly know that. We can form a belief, and it may be a very strong belief, based on inferences we make from facts. But it is no more knowledge than the belief that God exists that is derived from personal experience. How does someone "test" the age of the earth?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by woot View Post
            Many of those things can be tested or demonstrated. Regardless, we aren't talking about experiential knowledge. The existence of a supernatural realm is an empirical claim for which there is no evidence. The influence of this realm on our world is also an empirical claim, or perhaps a category full of various empirical claims, for which there is no evidence.



            Perhaps I'm not using the same definitions for these terms, but it seems to me that if something is subjective then it isn't knowable, unless you're referring to the fact that one can know what one's opinion is. If, when you claim to know god exists, you are really just saying that you know that it is your opinion that god exists, or that you know you had some experiences which you have interpreted as confirmation of god's existence, then I doubt anyone here would disagree with you. We aren't denying that you had these experiences or hold these opinions. We are simply raising the possibility that your interpretation of these experiences isn't the only possible one, and that therefore you cannot be sure that the meaning you have attributed to them is valid.

            I've probably mentioned this before, but I, too, have had some experiences that I once interpreted as confirmation of god's existence. I have since realized that they did nothing of the sort, and that my interpretation was the result of wishful thinking and a lack of understanding about the power of emotion, how evidence works, etc. That's not to say that this is the case for you, but it is to say that these sorts of anecdotes have no bearing on the likelihood of a phenomenon, and those concerned with discovering truth have no choice but to ignore them.
            No one is claiming that the existence of God can be proven with the scientific method. But the scientific method is not the only source of knowledge in the universe.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by woot View Post
              There actually are ways to test whether you "love" your wife (fMRI scans, for one), but I don't think that's a very helpful metaphor anyway. In the same way that love is a subjective phenomenon without definitive attributes or clearly delineated boundaries, belief is different for every person.

              fMRI scans have been performed on believers, and it is now known that when you say you "know" god exists, you actually don't, at least in the sense that you "know" things that are actually knowable. A different area of your brain is active when you say you know god exists than when you say you know the color of your car or something. So, you have a strong belief in god that you have chosen to call knowledge, perhaps to demonstrate how strong your belief is, but your own brain doesn't treat it like it does other kinds of knowledge.

              As for your final point, it has been repeated numerous times in this very thread that the burden of proof resides with the one making the claim. Saying that one can't disprove the existence of god is no more to the point than is saying you can't disprove the existence of unicorns or any other fanciful notion. The way it works, even for believers on just about any other topic, is that unless there is reason to suspect that something is true, one assumes it isn't true. Believers have yet to present any evidence, after thousands of years, for the existence of god. Therefore, there's no reason to think there is one.

              Finally, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" isn't quite true in all cases. Since you brought up paleontology: if a locality's faunal list includes large samples of a wide range of species but doesn't include any monkeys, it's safe to say that monkeys weren't very common, and probably didn't live there at all, unless there's some reason that their bones wouldn't have been preserved as well as all the others. It doesn't prove there were no monkeys there, but science doesn't deal in proof so that doesn't matter. It is evidence against the presence of monkeys at that place during the interval of deposition. Similarly, because there is still not a shred of evidence for the existence of god after all this time, it is reasonable to assume that evidence isn't forthcoming. That assumption could be wrong, just as an infinite number of other assumptions involving the nonexistence of mythical creatures could be wrong, but that's not a good reason to start believing in everything.

              I'm not trying to talk you out of your belief, as I don't think that's possible, but I am saying that it's not irrational for many people like me to think you don't "know" god exists for any accepted definition of "know".
              The burden of proof is only important when one is trying to prove something. Someone can have personal knowledge of something without attempting to prove that truth to someone else.

              For example, suppose I am in the Amazon rain forest and I discover a species of bird that has never been observed before by humans. I have seen it and heard its call. I do not record that though. Do I "know" that the bird exists? Of course I do. Can I prove it to someone else using the scientific method? No. The burden of proof is irrelevant to my personal knowledge. Not unless I can find it again and photograph it or capture it and show it to someone else. Does the bird exist? Yes.

              Of course you will say that this is knowledge because it was verifiable by the five senses. But who is to say that there are only five senses? Have we reached the limits of human perception and understanding of the world around us? Are we really limiting the scope of knowledge in the universe to only those things we can articulate in terms of the five senses? That is a pretty artificial definition of knowledge that relies on a lot of assumptions that are most likely false.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by woot View Post
                If you reread this thread, I hope you'll find that nobody is saying that god doesn't exist. Certainly I'm not, nor do the vast majority of atheists. We're simply saying that there no reason to believe that god exists. I would go further to say that "god" is a nonsensical concept, for which a more proper response would be something like "wait... what?" Perhaps the reason this isn't the most common response is the general familiarity with what people mean when they say "god", even though it's probably a given that everyone has a different idea of what they mean when they say the word. If god weren't such a pervasive concept, we would all assume that the unique person who proposed the idea is insane (after a few hours of trying to figure out what the hell they were even talking about).

                Believers have made a claim that there exists a mysterious supernatural force, which may or may not have some concern with, and influence over, the natural world. Therefore, if they expect the claim to be taken seriously in a rational debate, the burden of supporting the claim with evidence lies with them. If they do not wish to be taken seriously in rational debate, or if they are satisfied simply holding their beliefs while acknowledging that it isn't possible to confirm their beliefs and that no one who doesn't believe should be held responsible for living up to those beliefs (this would be my strong recommendation), then there is no need to worry about evidence or knowledge or any of this stuff. Meanwhile, the rest of us have made no claims regarding god. We don't believe it because we have no reason to believe it, in the same way we have no reason to believe in anything else for which there's no evidence.

                It's possible that invisible monsters are all around you right now. Because there's no reason for you to believe that, it's probably safe to assume that you go about your life assuming it's not the case. You don't necessarily make positive assertions that there aren't invisible monsters hanging around your house right now. Maybe you're confused about what a monster even is, or how they could have gotten into your house. Maybe you recognize the problematic nature of invisibility, and the lack of evidence to support the existence of that phenomenon. Maybe the whole scenario just seems stupid to you. The point is, you don't even entertain the idea, because you have better things to do than to positively refute obviously imaginary scenarios like this one.

                I feel like I'm repeating myself, so perhaps I'm not explaining it very well. I'm happy to clarify.
                You contradicted yourself like five times here. First you say you aren't making any claims about the existence of God, then you say god is a "nonsensical concept" (which is clearly a positive assertion about the nature of God). I am beginning to think that you think you are smarter than you really are. Or that you like to make people think you are smarter than you are by writing long posts that sound very authoritative. Your arguments are full of contradictions.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by woot View Post
                  I have "spiritual" experiences all the time. I just don't make up nonsense to explain them. Defective brains indeed. The couple times I've done shrooms didn't provide any, by the way.

                  (sorry to stoop to tb's level)
                  You keep making these positive conclusory statements about nonsense (while insisting you are making no claims about God). How do you know what is nonsense? How is your assertion that God is nonsense any different than my assertion that God is real?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
                    I would say every idea deserves respect in proportion to how well reasoned and persuasive it is. I don't think any idea should be off limits for discussion myself.
                    All reasoning relies on certain assumptions, and it is impossible to ever prove the truth of every assumption that reasoning relies on. Rationality is not a good test for judging the worth of an idea. Reason is a tool that relies on certain assumptions to draw conclusions.

                    Scientific reasoning begins with the assumption that all things can be observed empirically and that there is no mystical higher power that causes things to occur in the natural world that cannot be observed by the human senses. In effect, science assumes that there is no God. Asking someone to prove that God exists using the scientific method makes no sense. You can't prove the existence of something using a method that assumes the thing you are trying to prove does not exist.

                    Does this mean that God does not exist? No. This is merely an assumption that is necessary for the scientific method. Does this mean the scientific method is a bad tool? Of course not. It is an imperfect tool though. It isn't an oracle of truth.

                    Comment


                    • Uh... Sorry you were offended by things I said a couple years ago. I stand by every word, and disagree with your statement that calling god a nonsensical concept is equivalent to a positive claim of nonexistence.

                      For what it's worth, you're correct that there are many more than 5 senses. None of the ones you didn't know about have shown any ability to detect supernatural forces either.

                      Comment


                      • Forget theism. I want to know more about Alincolism.

                        www.facebook.com/alincolnism
                        τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
                          All reasoning relies on certain assumptions, and it is impossible to ever prove the truth of every assumption that reasoning relies on. Rationality is not a good test for judging the worth of an idea. Reason is a tool that relies on certain assumptions to draw conclusions.

                          Scientific reasoning begins with the assumption that all things can be observed empirically and that there is no mystical higher power that causes things to occur in the natural world that cannot be observed by the human senses. In effect, science assumes that there is no God. Asking someone to prove that God exists using the scientific method makes no sense. You can't prove the existence of something using a method that assumes the thing you are trying to prove does not exist.

                          Does this mean that God does not exist? No. This is merely an assumption that is necessary for the scientific method. Does this mean the scientific method is a bad tool? Of course not. It is an imperfect tool though. It isn't an oracle of truth.
                          This isn't true. Science does rely on methodological naturalism, but doesn't require ontological naturalism. The motivation for the former should be obvious -- of course a scientist wouldn't go about trying to experiment on phenomena with no impact on the physical realm (unless it's to test that very hypothesis). That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, or even that the scientist(s) performing the experiment must assume it doesn't exist. All that's been demonstrated is that if any kind of supernatural realm exists, it either doesn't seem to interfere with material laws, or else covers its tracks pretty well.

                          Many people in the world think that there are more "ways of knowing" than what we can observe. As my argument above indicates, I simply deny that the supernatural ways of knowing actually lead to knowledge in the standard sense (adjudged by fMRI data). Perhaps they lead to some kind of higher knowledge instead. I just think there's already a perfectly functional word for that -- belief.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by All-American View Post
                            Forget theism. I want to know more about Alincolism.

                            www.facebook.com/alincolnism
                            Hah I ran across that a while back and it took me a while to realize they're serious. The conspiracy crowd is a bottomless well of fun.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by woot View Post
                              Hah I ran across that a while back and it took me a while to realize they're serious. The conspiracy crowd is a bottomless well of fun.
                              I think you should take another while. The picture with Lincoln holding an iPhone says much about how serious they are.
                              τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by All-American View Post
                                I think you should take another while. The picture with Lincoln holding an iPhone says much about how serious they are.
                                Oh dear. Maybe they've become less subtle recently. It seemed they were really keeping a straight face when I saw it. Or maybe I was really tired. Blush.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X