Is Fundamentalist Atheism real?

[cosmosdan]

Thanks to DtC I think we’ve covered the tread title. Fundamentalist is an incorrect term for atheists, while activist, radical, evangelical {my fav} or militant might be accurate. Man that didn’t take long.

Let’s move on to the secondary and perhaps more complicated question.

What do you propose is the is the best way to challenge beliefs that have a negative impact on others?

I think we see that beliefs do have a sometimes negative impact on the world. If we are under any moral obligation to try and improve that situation,{I think we are} then how do we approach it in an effective manner. Religion , or religious people, also do a lot of good work in the world. Can we separate the belief system from the actions and address the actions?

IMHO it’s a matter of making the individual{s} responsible for their actions and the effect their actions have on others. I don’t care what someone believes {other than hoping they are at least trying to improve themselves} until their beliefs are reflected in actions that impact others. If the impact seems positive, then I applaud the action and it’s results and don’t sweat the details of belief. If the impact is negative then we need to bring this into the light and the forefront of discourse, using universal concepts of honor, justice, human rights, compassion, rather than language specific to religion.

[marshmallow]

@Charlie Tan

I think a lot of stuff exist based only on belief. Money being the obvious example. The paper has almost no value in itself and the only reason it works is because it’s backed by belief. Watching the value of a currency change is watching the belief go up and down.

On a more philosophical level, there are things like justice, equality, honesty ASF, which are all based in faith or belief. I’m going to walk across a street, because I believe that the guy in the car, waiting on red, will not suddenly push the peddle and run me over. Much of what both atheists and theists regard as moral have no real existence. There is no equalitum or justificium atoms to be meassured and classified.

And you’re an atheist?

All the things you listed involve highly complicated relationships and interconnections. All human emotions are intricate chemical relationships built on a structural frame backed by our genes. As long as human brains exist human emotions and constructs will exist in a very real way. Just because you can’t hold “anger” or “mental retardation” or “memory” in your hand doesn’t mean it’s illusionary.

If we ever come in contact with a social sentient extra-terrestrial race it would be expected they would have very different “brains” than us. It would not be all too surprising if they would have similar emotions as jealousy, happiness, or what we call love because there are good evolutionary reasons for a sentient race as social as ours (or dolphins, dogs, or…) to have these qualities in their brains. They may also have emotions or views of the physical realm completely bizarre to us but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, either.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

This is the kind of approach to religion that comes across as arrogant. It’s not your disbelief in the existence of Baal that’s the problem: it’s your dismissal of Baal’s worshippers as nutjobs or your conflation of “Why do you think that” with “Why Baal is great” that is arrogant.

Very interesting. I’m inferring you hold all religions and views on the world with equal respect and humility. There is no difference between an astrologer, a dowser, a palm reader, or a crystal healer to you in terms of respect? Therefore, it would seem all due accordance must be shown to Islam, Scientology, Mithraism, Christianity, and a neo Mars cult.

Personally, I view all the above with similar skepticism. Is lunatic or nut job too severe? Maybe. How about “suffering from severe cognitive dissonance and somewhat delusional?”

Another idea is that it’s actually not too difficult at all to feel superior to those who believe some random messiah was crucified and then returned from the dead 2000 years ago. Of course, that could just make me a Jew instead of an atheist*. I personally try to avoid that (something I’m not always successful in, especially over the ‘net) because it’s fucking depressing when contrasted with, well, our entire modern ciziliation. I then try to take up a more lighthearted joking manner in accord with the previous paragraph and hope for our continued social evolution.

• I miss the Jewish smiley.

[outlierrn]

IMO it’s a valid term. being closed minded and hostile because you already know the truth is fundamentalist whatever

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@mstay

Very interesting. I’m inferring you hold all religions and views on the world with equal respect and humility. There is no difference between an astrologer, a dowser, a palm reader, or a crystal healer to you in terms of respect? Therefore, it would seem all due accordance must be shown to Islam, Scientology, Mithraism, Christianity, and a neo Mars cult.

Personally, I view all the above with similar skepticism. Is lunatic or nut job too severe? Maybe. How about “suffering from severe cognitive dissonance and somewhat delusional?”

Yeah, I try to hold them all in equal respect, and why not? Some of them are silier to me than others, in aesthetic terms, but the core belief of each is either true or false, and that’s a binary scale.

Another idea is that it’s actually not too difficult at all to feel superior to those who believe some random messiah was crucified and then returned from the dead 2000 years ago.

I don’t think anyone’s denying that it’s easier to feel superior to other people because of their beliefs; it’s pretty easy for fundamentalist Christians to feel superior to you because you haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior. The question is whether such feelings of superiority comprise arrogance, and if so, whether such arrogance is a good thing. I believe they do and it’s not.

Daniel

[Charlie_Tan]

@mstay

And you’re an atheist?

All the things you listed involve highly complicated relationships and interconnections. All human emotions are intricate chemical relationships built on a structural frame backed by our genes. As long as human brains exist human emotions and constructs will exist in a very real way. Just because you can’t hold “anger” or “mental retardation” or “memory” in your hand doesn’t mean it’s illusionary.

I don’t call myself atheist, I call myself religion free. To me there’s a difference.

Moral codes and conducts are not universal. They are not hardwired in our brains or genes. Anger is a real emotion but it’s equally difficult to take apart these to statements:

“I’m angry because I didn’t get a raise.”
“I’m Christian because I feel God in my life.”

In both cases, we have to take the persons word for it. In a controlled environment, we can meassure anger (eeg, adrenaline level, heart rate) and conclude that the person is experiencing a strong emotion. Is it different from a person in strong religious fervor? I don’t know. Maybe the difference is big enough between individuals so that what is described as ‘anger’ by one subject get readings equal to another subject that claims ‘fear’.

Different cultures have had different concepts of what it is to be ‘an upstanding citizen’. I’m sure that’s obvious. If the concept of ‘justice’ were hardwired, it should look the same on all continents over the millenia. It doesn’t even do that across the globe today. Justice in Saudi Arabia include public lashings, in the U.S. injecting people with poison and the EU refuses to extradite criminals to the U.S. that might be sentenced to the DP.

So if it’s not hardwired, it must be transmitted, by culture, church, parents, schools. We’re pack animals and learn from each other, one reason most pack animals are at the top of the food chain, be they apes, humans, wolves.
So who gets to decide what ‘justice’ is? The concept of justice will only work as long as enough people in the community buy into it, i.e. it’s based on faith, not something “real”.

[tomndebb]

@outlierrn

IMO it’s a valid term. being closed minded and hostile because you already know the truth is fundamentalist whatever

However, the point of this thread is to examine the use of that word and evaluate whether it is particularly useful.
Fundamentalism was a specific movement within Protestant Christianity that emphasized the literal reality of the historical texts of the bible.
The word has taken on two transferred meanings:

1. that of any religiouis group that uses their holy text as an authority of absolute appeal;
2. that of any group of people who are rather inflexible in their beliefs.

The second definition is not strictly accurate even when describing the original American Protestant Fundamentalists, although some of their more outspoken members have called down that connotation upon all their heads. it appears to be the meaning to which you subscribe.

However, seeking a meaning with a bit more accuracy in terms of actual meaning, (rather than emotional flavor), the other participants of this thread appear to have opted for definition (1), which would exclude even the loudest and most obnoxious evangelical atheists (who are still a rather tiny number of people).

(Evangelical continues to work, since such atheists are, indeed, messengers of (what they perceive to be) the “good news” that no god exists. This, of course, is a bit ironic, since various religious groups have recently begun to identify themselves as Evangelical rather than Fundamentalist, for the very reason of the negative connotations that fundamentalist now evokes.) So the “bad” Christians are Fundamentalists, not evangelicals, and the “bad” atheists, are evangelicals, not fundamentalists. Ain’t language fun? )

[cosmosdan]

@tomndebb

However, the point of this thread is to examine the use of that word and evaluate whether it is particularly useful.
Fundamentalism was a specific movement within Protestant Christianity that emphasized the literal reality of the historical texts of the bible.
The word has taken on two transferred meanings:

1. that of any religiouis group that uses their holy text as an authority of absolute appeal;
2. that of any group of people who are rather inflexible in their beliefs.

The second definition is not strictly accurate even when describing the original American Protestant Fundamentalists, although some of their more outspoken members have called down that connotation upon all their heads. it appears to be the meaning to which you subscribe.

However, seeking a meaning with a bit more accuracy in terms of actual meaning, (rather than emotional flavor), the other participants of this thread appear to have opted for definition (1), which would exclude even the loudest and most obnoxious evangelical atheists (who are still a rather tiny number of people).

(Evangelical continues to work, since such atheists are, indeed, messengers of (what they perceive to be) the “good news” that no god exists. This, of course, is a bit ironic, since various religious groups have recently begun to identify themselves as Evangelical rather than Fundamentalist, for the very reason of the negative connotations that fundamentalist now evokes.) So the “bad” Christians are Fundamentalists, not evangelicals, and the “bad” atheists, are evangelicals, not fundamentalists. Ain’t language fun? )

indeed an ironic observation

[marshmallow]

This is a massive hijack that would probably make a good thread. However, since the OP has seemingly been decided on, why not…

@Charlie Tan

If the concept of ‘justice’ were hardwired, it should look the same on all continents over the millenia. It doesn’t even do that across the globe today. Justice in Saudi Arabia include public lashings, in the U.S. injecting people with poison and the EU refuses to extradite criminals to the U.S. that might be sentenced to the DP.

An ant never stops to examine whether it is in its self interest to be carrying this leaf back to the colony. Its genes have already made that decision.

We are not ants…mostly.

I say mostly because our complex brains allows us to be very flexible – our slightly different cultures are a testament to this. But not as different as you may think:

@The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature p.7

But our “culture” does not have to be the way it is. Human culture could be very much more varied and surprising than it is. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, live in promiscuous societies in which females seek as many sexual partners as possible and a male will kill the infants of strange females with whom he has not mated. There is no human society that remotely resembles this particular pattern. Why not? Because human nature is different than chimp nature.

If this is so, then the study of human nature must have profound implications for the study of history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and politics. Each of those disciplines is an attempt to understand human behavior, and if the underlying universals of human behavior are the product of evolution, then it is vitally important to understand what the evolutionary pressures were. Yet I have gradually come to realize that almost all of social science proceeds as if 1859, the year of the publication of the Origin of Species, had never happened; it does so quite deliberately, for it insists that human culture is a product of our own free will and invention. Society is not the product of human psychology, it asserts, but vice versa.

That sounds reasonable enough, and it would be splendid for those who believe in social engineering if it were true, but it is simply not true. Humanity is, of course, morally free to make and remake itself infinitely, but we do not do so. We stick to the same monotonously human pattern of organizing our affairs. If we were more adventurous, there would be societies without love, without ambition, without sexual desire, without marriage, without art, without grammar, without music, without smiles—and with as many unimaginable novelties as are in that list. There would be societies in which women killed each other more often than men, in which old people were considered more beautiful than twenty-year olds, in which wealth did not purchase power over others, in which people did not discriminate in favor of their own friends and against strangers, in which parents did not love their children.

I’ll make this the second post where I recommend the book to anyone interested in human culture, evolution, or sex and move on.

So if it’s not hardwired, it must be transmitted, by culture, church, parents, schools. We’re pack animals and learn from each other, one reason most pack animals are at the top of the food chain, be they apes, humans, wolves.

It’s not an either or situation. Culture is a resulting outgrowth of our hardwired selves. It has to be, looking through the lens of evolution.

So who gets to decide what ‘justice’ is? The concept of justice will only work as long as enough people in the community buy into it, i.e. it’s based on faith, not something “real”.

I agree fully until you say faith. Faith means without reason or proof. Maybe an individual in a society, like an ant, never reasons through their sense of justice with regards to the society with which they live…but that doesn’t mean there aren’t very good reasons to share the justice.

I think we mostly agree with each other otherwise, but it reminds me of the many, many theists I’ve talked with who will often go down the road of saying something outlandish like 'You can’t prove your mother loves you. You can’t prove there’s such a thing as love or justice or x human cultural construct. Yet we all agree they exist. Therefore, I don’t have to prove _____ god/spirit/whatever."

[cosmosdan]

@mstay

This is a massive hijack that would probably make a good thread. However, since the OP has seemingly been decided on, why not…

An ant never stops to examine whether it is in its self interest to be carrying this leaf back to the colony. Its genes have already made that decision.

We are not ants…mostly.

I say mostly because our complex brains allows us to be very flexible – our slightly different cultures are a testament to this. But not as different as you may think:

I’ll make this the second post where I recommend the book to anyone interested in human culture, evolution, or sex and move on.

It’s not an either or situation. Culture is a resulting outgrowth of our hardwired selves. It has to be, looking through the lens of evolution.

I agree fully until you say faith. Faith means without reason or proof. Maybe an individual in a society, like an ant, never reasons through their sense of justice with regards to the society with which they live…but that doesn’t mean there aren’t very good reasons to share the justice.

I think we mostly agree with each other otherwise, but it reminds me of the many, many theists I’ve talked with who will often go down the road of saying something outlandish like 'You can’t prove your mother loves you. You can’t prove there’s such a thing as love or justice or x human cultural construct. Yet we all agree they exist. Therefore, I don’t have to prove _____ god/spirit/whatever."

This may indeed be another thread but since there is still a question pending I’d rather you didn’t hijack the thread. Thats why not.

[wonky]

@mstay

I think we mostly agree with each other otherwise, but it reminds me of the many, many theists I’ve talked with who will often go down the road of saying something outlandish like 'You can’t prove your mother loves you…"

Why is that outlandish?

I’m an atheist and I get annoyed when someone says that believing in something without proof is necessarily irrational. I believe that I love my husband. I can’t prove it. Am I irrational? I believe that my husband loves me. I can’t prove it. Am I irrational? I believe that I miss my dead father. I can’t prove it. I believe that I will miss my mother if she dies. I can’t prove it.

My finger hurts. I can’t prove it. You have no way of knowing if any of these things are true. They can neither be proved nor disproved. So, do you have to say they aren’t true in order to be consistent?

[wonky]

@cosmosdan

This may indeed be another thread but since there is still a question pending I’d rather you didn’t hijack the thread. Thats why not.

Sorry. Strike my previous post.

[lowbrass]

@cosmosdan

I’m with RJ on this issue. I understand the feelings against religion and I fully support beliefs being challenged. When those beliefs have a negative impact on the lives of others then we have a moral obligation to challenge them. The idea that the world would be better off without religion is a claim unsubstantiated by evidence. Some smugly tout there own logic and reason and trot this concept out as if it were an obvious fact. IMO that shows arrogance and hypocrisy. They are embracing a belief without evidence in much the same way the believers they love to criticize do. The meme that believers are stupid is another example that seems ludicrous.

I’m sure that militant atheists exist, but they have one and only one thing in common with me: we don’t believe in God. I’ve never understood this need to actively hunt for and then cherry-pick the most egregious quotes by atheists. This RJ guy obviously did a lot of searching to come up with the carefully selected articles that he links to. I have gone my whole life without coming across that many writings by militant atheists; that’s how rare they are.

And even in these carefully cherry-picked articles, he frequently seems to miss the point. He takes Sam Harris’ title “Science Must Destroy Religion” out of context. One wonders if he even read the article. The word “must” has many meanings. RJ seems to assume it’s

to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement

when even a quick reading of Harris’ article makes it clear that it’s

to be inevitably certain to; be compelled by nature

Harris sums up his point here:

I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths.

Quite a far cry from RJs implication that Harris wants to ‘destroy’ religion. It is an impassioned plea that reason triumph over superstition. Does he have less right to make such a case than a religious person’s right to proclaim the greatness of God? That doesn’t seem quite fair.

So what’s the point of all this? Does focusing on a very small minority of atheists who are militant say anything about all atheists? Of course it doesn’t. It makes no more sense than my trying to say that Jim Jones said anything about all Christians.

[Alan_Smithee]

@mstay

Very interesting. I’m inferring you hold all religions and views on the world with equal respect and humility. There is no difference between an astrologer, a dowser, a palm reader, or a crystal healer to you in terms of respect? Therefore, it would seem all due accordance must be shown to Islam, Scientology, Mithraism, Christianity, and a neo Mars cult.

Personally, I view all the above with similar skepticism. Is lunatic or nut job too severe? Maybe. How about “suffering from severe cognitive dissonance and somewhat delusional?”

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Are you asking whether “lunatic” and “nutjob” are too severe to describe the people you listed above, or are you asking whether a lunatic or nutjob would deserve respect and humility if those people do?

For me, the answer is yes, either way. I have worked with several people who suffered from schizophrenia, late-term Alzheimer’s, and other conditions that caused them to be severely delusional. I attempted to treat each and every one with courtesy and respect. Some people seem to think that courtesy is something we give people only when obligated by certain circumstances. Often they then object to being called “rude” or “arrogant.” With all due courtesy and respect to every poster here, I think anyone who only treats people with courtesy and respect when it suits them is an asshole.

I think astrology is about the most objectively foolish belief anyone could subscribe to. My sister happens to believe in astrology deeply. She hasn’t read the same things about cognitive science and the cognitive biases that cause people to form erroneous beliefs that I have. I haven’t read everything she has. She has had experiences that she thinks justify her beliefs, and perhaps more importantly, the people she trusts and respects the most in her life also hold beliefs in astrology. Neither one of us has taken the time to fully educate ourselves about the philosophical justifications of belief and then exhaustedly examined all the data available about astrology. We both use information gathered and conclusions formed by people we trust and respect, but that we have not evaluated ourselves.

My sister does not deserve less love or respect from me (or from you) because of these things. I realized a long time ago that treating her experiences and beliefs with contempt and dismissiveness is counterproductive. My life is richer and better for the time I have spent listening to her and others tell me about what is important and meaningful for them, even when it lacks any sensible basis or objective reality whatsoever. If you can’t be bothered to listen, it’s your loss.

[marshmallow]

@cosmosdan

This may indeed be another thread but since there is still a question pending I’d rather you didn’t hijack the thread. Thats why not.

I apologize. I thought we had all agreed that there’s nothing wrong with calling it evangelical atheism, summed up in tomndebb’s excellent post. I would consider myself such an evangelist in certain circumstances. Certainly over the internet; less so in real life, unless the situation is amiable to it.

@Alan Smithee

My sister does not deserve less love or respect from me (or from you) because of these things. I realized a long time ago that treating her experiences and beliefs with contempt and dismissiveness is counterproductive.

Right, this was the potentially depressing situation I alluded to earlier with regards to feeling superior to another seemingly wholesome individual just because he believes in some whacky BS.

It’s funny you mention astrology though, since I’m friends with a girl who is smart, pretty, and a nice person…but she has some beliefs that are totally woo-woo, including astrology. It’s just one of those internal tinges of…disappointment? when you meet someone or delve into their internal beliefs and discover something unhinged. It’s like talking to someone and, as can happen often enough around here anyway, finding that he believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for or had a serious role in 9/11. It doesn’t make a big deal, does it? Not really I suppose…it’s just…damn. Too bad.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Are you asking whether “lunatic” and “nutjob” are too severe to describe the people you listed above, or are you asking whether a lunatic or nutjob would deserve respect and humility if those people do?

Too severe, I suppose. It depends on the criteria, which I have not thought about too much I must admit. What about actions? Is someone who pickets the funerals of gays and works politically to keep gay marriage illegal due to scripture a nut job? I would say so, and I would also say he does not deserve respect, whereas someone with similar beliefs but has gay friends may have crazy beliefs but is a kind person, which is what counts in my view.

jsgoddess:

In brief, because you can prove those things. If you can’t, consider marriage counseling. Also, I believe future improvements in brain scanning machines will make such things even easier to prove like the finger example, although I’m sure I could convince someone it hurts in the present, too.

Another thing which makes it outlandish is, even if you couldn’t prove that stuff, we don’t all experience gods, or even vaguely similar ones, certainly none which would confirm one bronze age book over another, so the analogy doesn’t hold.

[Evil_Captor]

@Sevastopol

The truly difficult problem with religion is that it is quite reasonable to take the view that significant parts of it are wrong, whatever form it takes. However significant parts aren’t.

It is simple arrogance to reject it wholesale, as though generations of people as wise and live as us were fools and dupes. No, the debate if you wish to be sensible must be which parts of religion to reject and which to respect.

I have heard this argument so many times.

Basically, you are saying it is arrogant of atheists to disagree with you.

Now THAT’S arrogance!

[Charlie_Tan]

I am going to answer, but I’ve had a couple of glasses of wine and watched the four first eps of S.6 of 24, so I don’t want to do this argument WUI. Also it’s close to midnight here.
Much of the basis for my reasoning is Figment of Reality: The evolution of the curios mind by Stewart & Cohen (Cambridge University Press). I’ll dig out a few choice quotes tomorrow. Or maybe I’m the one doing the hijacking and should start a new thread. I’ll let the concensus decide.

[cosmosdan]

@lowbrass

I’m sure that militant atheists exist, but they have one and only one thing in common with me: we don’t believe in God. I’ve never understood this need to actively hunt for and then cherry-pick the most egregious quotes by atheists. This RJ guy obviously did a lot of searching to come up with the carefully selected articles that he links to. I have gone my whole life without coming across that many writings by militant atheists; that’s how rare they are.

And even in these carefully cherry-picked articles, he frequently seems to miss the point. He takes Sam Harris’ title “Science Must Destroy Religion” out of context. One wonders if he even read the article. The word “must” has many meanings. RJ seems to assume it’s

to be obliged or bound to by an imperative requirement

when even a quick reading of Harris’ article makes it clear that it’s

to be inevitably certain to; be compelled by nature

Harris sums up his point here:
Quite a far cry from RJs implication that Harris wants to ‘destroy’ religion. It is an impassioned plea that reason triumph over superstition. Does he have less right to make such a case than a religious person’s right to proclaim the greatness of God? That doesn’t seem quite fair.

So what’s the point of all this? Does focusing on a very small minority of atheists who are militant say anything about all atheists? Of course it doesn’t. It makes no more sense than my trying to say that Jim Jones said anything about all Christians.

Excellent post. I appreciate it. I was suprised by the title of the Harris article and after I read it I thought it was a bad example of the point RJ was trying to make. I think your take on the Harris article is accurate.

to be clear, I’m not implying in any way that all atheists share the evangelical or dogmatic attitude. I don’t even think that being evangelical is automatically a bad thing. If the attempt to convince somebody is done with some decency the dialogue usually helps all concerned.

I am also aware that unreasonable dogmatic believers far outnumber dogmatic atheists. My point was simply mto discuss the term, and more importantly discuss what might be a good method of moving the dialogue forward with the least amount of name calling and antagonism. Did you read any of the comments on the articles? One joker said “We need to ridicule them at every opportunity.” It seems there is a shitload of resentment and anger aimed at religion. I’m not surprised. I’d even call it understandable, but I maintain that the cries of “all believers are idiots and morons” doesn’t help the dialogue. I’m thinking Harris would agree with me on that point.

[cosmosdan]

@mstay

I apologize. I thought we had all agreed that there’s nothing wrong with calling it evangelical atheism, summed up in tomndebb’s excellent post. I would consider myself such an evangelist in certain circumstances. Certainly over the internet; less so in real life, unless the situation is amiable to it.

Thanks. Your subject is related but I’d rather discuss possible methods of dialogue.

I think the dialogue is very important. That’s why I wanted to discuss the methods.

[cosmosdan]

@Evil Captor

I have heard this argument so many times.

Basically, you are saying it is arrogant of atheists to disagree with you.

Now THAT’S arrogance!

That’s not what was said at all, but thanks for playing.

It’s not arrogant to disagree. It’s not arrogant to strongly disagree and be willing or even eager to engage in debate. It’s arrogant to dismiss millions of believers as dupes, fools, and morons, because of their belief. It’s incredibly shallow and short sighted, and every bit as stupid as the beliefs that are being ridiculed.

[Otara]

@jsgoddess

Why is that outlandish?

I’m an atheist and I get annoyed when someone says that believing in something without proof is necessarily irrational. I believe that I love my husband. I can’t prove it. Am I irrational? I believe that my husband loves me. I can’t prove it. Am I irrational? I believe that I miss my dead father. I can’t prove it. I believe that I will miss my mother if she dies. I can’t prove it.

My finger hurts. I can’t prove it. You have no way of knowing if any of these things are true. They can neither be proved nor disproved. So, do you have to say they aren’t true in order to be consistent?

Id have said that most of those can be supported to a reasonable level through behaviour, EEG’s or whatever - proof doesnt have to mean ‘beyond any possible doubt whatsoever’, you can have working hypotheses and the like.

Otara