I think that there is something that created this magnificent machine that we are. THe most complex , unduplicated, unexplained , self healing, feeling, caring, maddening, thinking, breathing thing that exists is us. I dont think we came from a germ and if we did it was intended to erect what we are today. I think we all have our own personal beliefs that include a God in some shape or form or even just in name. However our beliefs in such a entity is a personal relationship between us as individuals and that entity. I do not believe in my fathers or my mothers or even my friends Gods. They conform to a set religion already created by some prophet…for …well profit. But they mostly choose a set religion they find comfortable and agreeable to their own utopian dreams. If there was one god and his heaven is suitable for all and all my loved ones dont go there then why would i want to go there? If your heaven consists of specific characteristics that you find comforting and everlastingly appealing that i do not…then how would i be happy there if I loathe it. For example…I prefer my existence quiet and peacful and mostly alone. My friends and family (not all but most) prefer people and laughter and loudness. We cannot have the same heaven cause one of us would not be happy there. Or maybe god changes my mind on what i want the minute my heart stops and conforms me to prefer that standard heaven that exists. WHo knows?..
I can say if God (whomever or whatever that may be) wanted us to live by such standards and rules he would have made that clear. Instead we have prophets with their opinions scoping out ways in which to conform society to his own form of happiness. We have our little hitler in office spouting religious beliefs and telling the sheep the way they need to act, How they need to be, and what they are suppose to spend their money on.
Axioms of belief and knowledge are quite different. While knowledge of a fact implies a fact, belief in a fact does not. If the middle is excluded, then the differences are even more drastic. No knowledge of a fact does not imply no fact.
Also, Apos makes an important point about the distinction between “no belief in” and “belief in no”; the former negates belief, while the latter is a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition and is therefore a fallacy.
When I say that “I know” something is true, I am saying that my perception of reality is such that I accept this statement as true. I may be impying that I do not accept that I may be in error.
When I say that “I believe” something is true, I am saying that my perception of reality is such that I accept this statement as true. In common usage, I may be accepting the possibility that I may be mistaken.
It seems as if you are saying that “knowledge” is based on an absolute faith (or confidence, if you prefer) in the truth of a proposed fact, and that “belief” allows for uncertainty. Which may be true in some usages of the words, but in this context, I would argue (in fact, in the past, have argued) that knowledge, in scientific epistemologies, is about managing the degree of uncertainty, whereas religious belief is more often about denying uncertainy, ie “faith” even in the face of evidence to the contary. I do not think that when many deeply religious people express their “beliefs” that they mean to imply that they have some doubt about whether or not it is true.
Never did understand any of that excluded middle stuff though. Parts of my middle I’d like to exclude … gotta start jogging again.
The difference for me, is that claiming knowledge is essentially just shorthand for saying “I have some evidence that, if I presented it, should convince a reasonable person to a particular degree of certainty.” while belief is more “I believe it is true, but not necessarily for reasons which I can justify external to myself.” Belief need not be anything more than an affirmation of something: it can be reflexive, emotional, etc. Knowledge encompasses justification of a belief via some argument or reason.
I don’t know if there is a god, hence I cannot honestly believe THAT there is a god.
Another person might say: I don’t know if there is a god… but i FEEL it somehow.
Another might say: I know there is a god (and here’s how I know) and hence I believe it.
Knowledge is defined in terms of necessary truth, whereas belief is defined in terms of possible truth. So, K([symbol]f[/symbol]) [symbol]Û f[/symbol], but B([symbol]f[/symbol]) [symbol]Ü f[/symbol]. (Not that one is biconditional, and the other is not.)
It’s a simple principle based on the tautology p [symbol]Ú Ø[/symbol]p. Or, put another way, A is either B or Not B. It is the Principle of Noncontradiction, a precedent axiom, that allows the tautology to be stated.
A = A is an identity.
A cannot be B and Not B is a noncontradiction.
A is either B or Not B is an excluded middle.
The Principle of the Excluded Middle is a very useful (and very common) tool in formulating an argument. If there are difficulties in proving that A is true, you may prove that Not A is false (which proves that A is true). You do this by assuming at the start of your argument that Not A is true, and then deduce until Not A is contradicted. When Not A is contradicted, then by the Principle of Noncontradiction, A must be true.
Note that the adage “you cannot prove a negative” is a myth. To convince yourself of this, merely assert it as a hypothesis for a proof. If you succeed in proving your hypothesis, then your conclusion is false; and if you fail to prove your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is false.
In other words, if you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot prove that you cannot prove a negative.
—Note that the adage “you cannot prove a negative” is a myth. To convince yourself of this, merely assert it as a hypothesis for a proof. If you succeed in proving your hypothesis, then your conclusion is false; and if you fail to prove your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is false.—
You are, of course, being a little misleading. Few people mean “prove a negative” in the sense you are (legitimately) attacking: i.e. a strict logical sense. They use it to describe the problem of proving negative claims in regards to existence of particular things that have non-contradictory characteristics. i.e. prove that spidergoats do not exist. Prove that aliens don’t exist. None of these are impossible to prove in theory, but almost always definately so in practice.
It’s because somehow ‘atheist’ has been made into a dirty word. Part of it is years of propaganda from the religious community, who have a natural reason for wanting to suppress atheism, and part of it is because only the more vehemently anti-religion atheists talk about their beliefs much - which makes sense to me, I feel it’s abnormal to obsess that much over a non-belief. Anyway, I feel a lot of the ‘Non-religious secularists’ and such are actually people who honestly believe there is no god or afterlife, and there are probably many atheists who would name the church they go to every Sunday as their religion, who only go because they’ve gone their entire life. I think atheists may be a silent…well, not majority, but a significant portion of our population who aren’t drawing attention to themselves.
If you don’t mind, I prefer to say that I am being precise, while those who argue what you say they argue are being misleading. Ontological proofs, whether or not they are excluded middles (negatives), are notoriously difficult anyway. Prove that you exist.
And yet American Atheists proudly embraces that label. Go figure.
Besides which, I daresay that many atheists have made “Christian” out to be a dirty word as well. (And yes, I do know that Christianity is not the complement of atheism.)
Ellen Johnson is one of the dumbest leaders of an organization claiming to stand for rationalism I’ve ever talked to. She hadn’t even HEARD of people like George Smith.
Atheism has had many meanings. Christians were at one time called “atheists” because they didn’t believe in the Roman gods. Atheists throughout history have made up their own definitions. And atheism has in the past been a synonym for “wicked.” It really HAS been the subject of a demonization and redefinition campaign by theologists during various times in history, though many modern theologians have rejected this approach (realizing that the tame negative definition makes things clearer and nicer even for their own arguments, while the strong definition is better suited to the rabid). Paul Tillich, of course, defines things so that even atheists are theists.
However, it’s also been a synonym for “godless” which is nearest to the mark of my particular preffered usage.
Again, I think “non-theist” is a pretty good comprimise, and perhaps it would be clearer for survey purposes than the contested “atheist.”
The problem is that since most atheists are not activists, whenever an atheist DOES make a public stand on an issue, they are immediately pounced on by theists who say “see how rabid and single-minded those atheists are?”. Of course, we have a Catch-22 here, because the moment any atheist tries to make a push for using a different terminology in order to divest the name of its negative connotations, such as “non-theist”, they will immediately be viewed as an activist, and ridiculed for being too “PC”, as has happened with the movements to use “Native-American”, “African-American”, etc.
My definition of ‘atheist’ is rather broad as well. I don’t believe in gods the same way I don’t believe in Santa Clause…not only does the idea of a being with his powers clash strongly with my view of what is possible and what is not possible in this universe, I also know about the myths that the concept of Santa Clause came from and the reasons why people are made to believe in him.
I could not say that I knew for a fact that there is no Santa Clause, but if I was proven wrong it would be a sanity-shaking experience that would force me to abandon everything I knew about how the universe works.
Some people would say that makes me agnostic, but I’d feel weird claiming to not be sure whether or not Santa Clause was real.
I can’t see how someone who wasn’t really an atheist could claim to not care about religion at all one way or the other. If I believed there might be powerful supernatural entities with the ability to give me eternal life I would be EXTREMELY interested in religion, and probably eventually choose one that I felt was the safest bet.
I suppose a second-level individuated bounding predicate would be the simplest, so use that. Or define it any way you wish. But make your proof deductive.
So Din can I be a humanist? I believe in all the positive attributes of humanism, BUT I am also a theist in my own God-the-incomprehensible-who-doesn’t-really-give-a-dang way. I kinda always thought of myself as a secular humanist anyway. Am I out of the club now?
