# Is Diogenes a pretentious bombast? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 6, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549 "2011-01-06T00:20:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/141 "2011-01-10T02:51:28Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > If religion defines one’s outlook on life (and I think it does), I think atheism does as well, _if only because_ it makes your approach “different” from a majority of people (assuming you live in the U.S. Please don’t attempt to tell me what defines my outlook on life. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/142 "2011-01-10T02:51:48Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > The religious, of course not. But we have atheists all over the world talking about it all the time. When they talk about crystal therapy, chiropractors, and anti-vaccine assertions, the first thing they turn to is science. But when it comes to religion, the thing that, y’know, defines their outlook on life, they start talking about the problem of evil and Biblical inconsistencies and other such things, and NOT leading off with the fact that they have rational solid proof that one of its key points is impossible. Hell, I’d ignore the Bible and all that and focus JUST on that, if I were inclined to have the debate. At the very least, I’d have expected folks like **Dio** and **DT** to do so. You seem to be talking about rational skeptics, not necessarily atheists. Religion makes A LOT of unfalsifiable claims, which science can’t touch. The afterlife is one claim and atheists do bring up the science regarding this. Let’s look at this though - scientifically speaking, a load of biblical claims have been shown to be false. What happens? Believers change what they believe to indicate a more metaphorical belief or they ignore the science. God can do anything, including deviating from the natural. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/143 "2011-01-10T02:55:12Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > The religious, of course not. But we have atheists all over the world talking about it all the time. When they talk about crystal therapy, chiropractors, and anti-vaccine assertions, the first thing they turn to is science. But when it comes to religion, the thing that, y’know, defines their outlook on life, they start talking about the problem of evil and Biblical inconsistencies and other such things, and NOT leading off with the fact that they have rational solid proof that one of its key points is impossible. Hell, I’d ignore the Bible and all that and focus JUST on that, if I were inclined to have the debate. At the very least, I’d have expected folks like **Dio** and **DT** to do so. DT and I both do it constantly. There afe a lot of atheists who do point out the impossibility of surviving consciousness (i.e afterlife beliefs), but when you’re talking to people who believe in magic, it doesn’t really matter. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/144 "2011-01-10T02:58:16Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Which is why it seems a good analogy to what I’m asking. > > But **Dio** asserted that the non-existence of the non-physical (at least this aspect of it) was **proven**. So it should be prime fodder. (I don’t know about the studies he’s citing myself, which is why I’m using weasel words here.) The non-existence of the non-physical is just a definitional truism. Existence, by definition, has to be physical. The studies being referenced are those proving that consciousness is a physical, emergent property of the brain, and, as such, inseparable from it. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/145 "2011-01-10T02:58:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I would submit that some prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins actually _have_ made a concerted effort to point out the scientific impossibility (actually, Dawkins would just call them extreme implausibilities) of such claims. I’m curious as to why, in this particular case, Dawkins would use such weasel words. I haven’t read his work, but from what I understand of him, he usually isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade, metaphorically speaking. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Please don’t attempt to tell me what defines my outlook on life. Genuine question, then: religious people live and structure their lives on the assumption that their religion is true, which affects what they do, how they do it, how they spend their money, what they support politically, what they teach their kids, and so on. Atheists do not. Please explain how and why that difference is not defining, especially as (for example) a member of Congress who is a member of one group is likely to make far-reaching decisions that affects the nation (and perhaps the entire world) much more differently than a member of Congress who is a member of the other group. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/146 "2011-01-10T03:00:12Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > which is why it seems a good analogy to what I’m asking. Well, now you are making me curious. 😃 I might have to go looking for some debates. As I said, I read this years ago. It _might_ have been in Shermer’s “how we believe”, but maybe not. > [@Leaper](#): > > But **Dio** asserted that the non-existence of the non-physical (at least this aspect of it) was **proven**. So it should be prime fodder. (I don’t know about the studies he’s citing myself, which is why I’m using weasel words here.) I don’t know specifically what Dio is talking about. As far as scientific proof goes, it seems as though you feel that this means it’s a deductive certainty (if not, my mistake). That’s not how science views proof though. They view it as reasonably certain - as certain as we can be without 100% certainty (which we can’t really achieve). So, I suspect this leaves believers with more wiggle room. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/147 "2011-01-10T03:01:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > DT and I both do it constantly. > > There afe a lot of atheists who do point out the impossibility of surviving consciousness (i.e afterlife beliefs), but when you’re talking to people who believe in magic, it doesn’t really matter. Hmm. Then perhaps I’m more thinking about the **framing** of those assertions. I just don’t remember hearing that science has proven that the Big Three religions are lies, not even as rebuttal from the religious side. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The non-existence of the non-physical is just a definitional truism. Existence, by definition, has to be physical. Double hmmm. If this means what I think this means, then I think I’m starting to see some light on this issue. > [@Meatros](#): > > I don’t know specifically what Dio is talking about. As far as scientific proof goes, it seems as though you feel that this means it’s a deductive certainty (if not, my mistake). That’s not how science views proof though. They view it as reasonably certain - as certain as we can be without 100% certainty (which we can’t really achieve). > > So, I suspect this leaves believers with more wiggle room. Well, it seemed to me that **Dio** was _presenting_ it as a deductive certainty. If I’m misinterpreting him, then I myself apologize. If it is, though, that ties in to my confusion on tactics and such. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/148 "2011-01-10T03:04:26Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Genuine question, then I don’t believe that any of your questions have been genuine ones. If you feel like started a GD thread someday, I might join. But I don’t feel that you are interested in doing more than playing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/149 "2011-01-10T03:06:42Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I’m curious as to why, in this particular case, Dawkins would use such weasel words. I haven’t read his work, but from what I understand of him, he usually isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade, metaphorically speaking. They’re not weasel words, they’re necessary scientific qualifications. From a purely scientific standpoint, you can never say that anything is absolutely impossible, only astronomically unlikely. > [@](#): > > Genuine question, then: religious people live and structure their lives on the assumption that their religion is true, which affects what they do, how they do it, how they spend their money, what they support politically, what they teach their kids, and so on. > > Atheists do not. > > Please explain how and why that difference is not defining, especially as (for example) a member of Congress who is a member of one group is likely to make far-reaching decisions that affects the nation (and perhaps the entire world) much more differently than a member of Congress who is a member of the other group. I think it’s a false premise to say it really makes any difference. Basic ethical concepts and feelings are biological in nature, not religious. There are, of course, some religious rules that some people order their lives around, lacking those rules does not mean one’s life is defined by lacking them. Are the lives of non-Muslims defined by not praying five times a day facing Mecca? Do non-Muslms go around thinking, “it’s time to not face Mecca and pray?” People’s lives are not defined by what religious rules they don’t follow. That’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/150 "2011-01-10T03:11:14Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Well, it seemed to me that **Dio** was _presenting_ it as a deductive certainty. If I’m misinterpreting him, then I myself apologize. If it is, though, that ties in to my confusion on tactics and such. I suspect he’s not (don’t know), but this stance is often confused about science. People use it to suggest that science is full of holes (If science was wrong about Newton -a la Einstein- then it could be wrong about this!). The trouble is that people don’t realize that we build on previous knowledge. It’s not that we were empirically wrong, it’s that we had a narrower view of what reality consists of. Google The Relativity of Wrong, to get a much better written explanation then what I’m saying. Basically, science generally works off of abduction, induction, and falsification. Only very few disciplines are truly deductive in science. So science works to achieve a reasonably certain view of the world, not a 100% certain one…because, well, how would you go about doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/151 "2011-01-10T03:13:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They’re not weasel words, they’re necessary scientific qualifications. From a purely scientific standpoint, you can never say that anything is absolutely impossible, only astronomically unlikely. Then I must’ve been misinterpreting the post that originally brought the basic question to mind, then, because I _thought_ you were asserting absolute impossibility as proven by science. But in combination with your previous clarification on definitions, I’m guessing you must’ve meant “impossible” insofar as science has the ability to prove. ETA: The post before mine seems to back this up, assuming you agree with **Meatros**. My apologies, **Dio**. > [@](#): > > I think it’s a false premise to say it really makes any difference. Basic ethical concepts and feelings are biological in nature, not religious. There are, of course, some religious rules that some people order their lives around, lacking those rules does not mean one’s life is defined by lacking them. Are the lives of non-Muslims defined by not praying five times a day facing Mecca? Do non-Muslms go around thinking, “it’s time to not face Mecca and pray?” People’s lives are not defined by what religious rules they don’t follow. That’s absurd. Aha. I thought at first that **jsgodess** ’s original reply to a previous paragraph of mine was a bit of a non-sequitur. But I see where she/you is coming from now. I guess there’s a bit of a definition difference, then, because what I was thinking was “Since, for example, the objections to gay marriage are almost entirely religious, how can the difference between Christians and atheists on subjects such as this (and subjects such as the afterlife and whether what we do in life affects whether we’ll spend an eternity happy or in hellish torment) not be outlook defining? How can it not be outlook defining that an atheist KNOWS he won’t have to stone a witch or take away the rights of a gay person just to satisfy some unseeable and unknowable God?” The Mecca thing felt to me more like the _trappings_ of religion. Am I making sense? 😛 (And I knew I should’ve paid more attentions to those GD threads over whether morality/ethics are inherent or a function of culture…) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/152 "2011-01-10T03:17:05Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Hmm. Then perhaps I’m more thinking about the **framing** of those assertions. I just don’t remember hearing that science has proven that the Big Three religions are lies, not even as rebuttal from the religious side. That’s not how science works. It doesn’t draw conclusions about philosophical/religious implications. It can (and has) proven that consciousness is a purely biochemical phenomenon, but the religious implications of that are not for scientists to draw conclusions about. > [@](#): > > Well, it seemed to me that **Dio** was _presenting_ it as a deductive certainty. If I’m misinterpreting him, then I myself apologize. If it is, though, that ties in to my confusion on tactics and such. In scientific terms, nothing can ever be presented as an absolute certainty, but in practical terms, we can say that some things are so close to certain as to render qualifications functionally unnecessary (for instance, we can just say the earth revolves around the sun, we don’t have to say it almost certainly revolves around the sun), and we can say some things are so astronomically improbable that we are safe in saying it’s “impossible” for all practical purposes (i.e we can say it’s “impossible” for me to levitate my Dodge Grand Caravan over the Cathedral in St. Paul, we don’t have to say, “it’s extremely improbable”). There are orders of probablity/improbability so great that we can dispense with qualifications in ordinary conversation, but science always has to technically leave the door open. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/153 "2011-01-10T14:16:44Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Which is why it seems a good analogy to what I’m asking. As an FYI - I’ve been just farting around the intrawebs trying to figure this out - it seems there are multiple versions of astrology - some claiming a heliocentric model. I’ll have to find my original source before I’m confident in my claim. I believe it was regarding western astrology and maybe the zodiac. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/154 "2011-01-13T19:13:49Z")
Speaking of astrology, **Meatros** , [these days people aren’t even the signs they’re told they are.](http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/113100139.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU) ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549/155 "2011-01-13T20:28:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In scientific terms, nothing can ever be presented as an absolute certainty, but in practical terms, we can say that some things are so close to certain as to render qualifications functionally unnecessary (for instance, we can just say the earth revolves around the sun, we don’t have to say it almost certainly revolves around the sun), and we can say some things are so astronomically improbable that we are safe in saying it’s “impossible” for all practical purposes Wellllll … I understand what you’re saying and I qualifiedly agree, but strictly speaking, scientific practice says nothing about the probability of an explanation’s correctness. All one can do is pose theories subject to (hopefully) many harsh potential falsifications. Someone might want to argue that surviving lots of tests implies a greater propensity toward truthfulness, but – for any test – there are an infinity of theories which are not falsified by the result. Arguing that the truth of a theory (say, of the origins of consciousness) is essentially one puts you on fishy epistemic grounds. The choice between “Theory A” and “God did it, but made it look like Theory A” is not one that can be made within science. (Assuming you’re even after truth at all, as opposed to, say, predictive power.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-diogenes-a-pretentious-bombast/566549.md?page=7)