Not remotely what I said. If you truly lacked a belief system about how the universe worked, you wouldn’t have typed this post to me, because you would have had no beliefs about what would happen when your fingers moved a certain way on the keyboard.
I’m talking about a very basic level of belief, and given how often I’ve been talking about it and people keep acting as though I’m talking about only religious beliefs, I suspect the communication barrier here is insurmountable. Unless I see that someone’s responding to what I say, rather than to bits taken out of context or completely misconstrued, I’m not seeing much percentage in continuing here.
The significance of the distinction escapes me, then. Theism is a branch of philosophy that deals with (generally) deities and their attributes (an entirely masturbatory exercise where no statement can be said to be any more or less true than any other because no means of measurement or evaluation exist), while religion is (generally) a set of ritualized practices and beliefs (that are an entirely masturbatory exercise where no statement can be said to be any more or less true than any other because no means of measurement or evaluation exist).
It’s not a 100% correlation, since not all religions incorporate deities, but I figure close enough.
In any case, having described a creator god that has only the attributes of a creator god, what do you plan to do with this notion? Or is it to remain tucked away and untouched, like one of those crystal animal statues one can buy in overpriced hobby stores?
The evolution thing vs. the creationist thing is all wrong. There is nothing contradictory in believing that there is a god and that evolution is real.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Except that it goes against the claimed actions of the gods people actually believe in.
[/QUOTE]
SOME people not all.
[QUOTE=sisu]
The conflict arises from people who want to look at a book and the cult built around it and say “it is written, therefore it is so”. When you talk to more liberal folk the answer is “the bible is a collection of stories designed to help us move towards god” then we get closer to what I am talking about. The science that is mentioned in the bible has to take into context the Roman era and to a lesser degree the Iron Age of the first testament.
[/QUOTE]
I do say the book is true, I don’t think that it is a literal book written by god. It is a story of how we can live to be closer to god according to the people at the time. Healthy skepticism is to be applauded.
Why? I don’t believe the world was created in 7 days and most Christians don’t.
religion can be and at it’s best is an exploration of the universe in a quest for truth, it can be a wonderful journey or it can be a destructive dogma hijacked by people who want to control people.
Well that’s good science. Close enough is good enough.
I can understand why yanks get annoyed about religion. It seems you have a class of christian that only exists in the USA and some ignorant nations. Telling Lies for God is a great book and should be mandatory reading for anyone.
Well, actually, the account describes the entire universe being created in six days, with a well-deserved rest on the seventh, but no matter. There are enough people who do believe it, and they are sufficiently political about it, that vigilance is required, lest they be allowed to screw up how science is studied, applied and/or taught because it makes them uncomfortable.
Well, religion’s been at it for ~10,000 years, now. What truths has it uncovered?
That’s not what fundamental or fundamentalist means. Anyway, I don’t know these any of these atheists you speak of. Atheists (of the skeptical variety, anyway) generally don’t accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. That doesn’t mean they think they’re 100% right and everyone else is wrong; they just know that believing crazy shit without good reason isn’t rational. If you mean that they believe accepting things, especially extraordinary things, based on faith is the wrong way to accept things as being true, then yes, they generally believe that is a “completely wrong” way to find truth. Christians, in my experience, believe the same thing in regard to everything else but make an exception for their religious beliefs. That, however, doesn’t make one a “fundamentalist.”
This is what you said:
How does the second sentence follow the first? How does someone asking that question imply that the questioner can’t be pleased? And how does that make him a fundamentalist even using your definition? The question was a good one. If I believed a book of rules was brought down by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, I wouldn’t believe my limited understanding of right and wrong and my limited reasoning abilities could pick and choose what to follow and I would already believe all of it should be based on his omniness.
That’s the best position to be in when asking a question. I don’t see how it makes one impossible to please or points to that person being a fundamentalist.
I know exactly what you’re doing; you’re trying to justify the assertion that atheism is a belief and you are using whatever torturous logic you can find.
But OK, let’s play the game a little longer.
You’ve said that I must have a belief system because otherwise I would have no beliefs about what would happen when I press a key on my keyboard etc etc.
This isn’t quite a fully-formed argument; there are at least 3 philosophical arguments that you might be reaching for. I’ve listed them below. Note that all of them apply as much to the theist as the atheist i.e. They are all “beliefs” that would be shared by everyone.
I think all these arguments are flawed, and on the first draft of this post, I included retorts, but let’s at least hear which direction you are going first.
Our knowledge must have a foundation. These are our core beliefs or “axioms” about the world
We must start with the assumption that everything is real
There is no non-inductive support for the principle of induction
ETA: Point 3 is not actually “flawed” but there is a refutation from a practical POV
Theism takes a lot of explanation and time to teach a kid. On the other hand, not teaching something is instant. The idea that you are born a theist is absurd.
I have some rare experiences in that I have some early infantile memories(which through a stroke of luck were collaborated as fact). Unlike some infantile memories they are not associated with strong cognitive experiences such as being burned or injured. In fact they are entirely mundane.
For example I recall being placed in my crib for a nap. Looking around at the walls, I noticed the window, orange curtains, that ubiquitous brown paneling in early 70s house trailers and a crucifix on the wall. The afternoon light was streaming in the window, bathing the room in an orange glow. Whats interesting is that I didnt have a concept of these things having names, nor even that they were discrete objects. They just were. The world just was.
I certainly didnt have any concept of the crucifix being special, though it certainly was blessed. If I had some innate babies sense of god, I surely would have felt it. Like all babies, I suspect I was concerned about 3 things. Eating, sleeping and comfort. These things being satiated and without any distractions, I was primed to think whatever primeval thoughts an infant can think.
I was in the most safe, peaceful and content place in my world. While I can put value judgements on it today, my memories are quite clear: I was a passive observer. I had no thoughts of liking this, hating that, no wondering of why, no questions, doubts, confidences, no concept of future. My mind did not think of the world outside my view or outside the instant. I did not think about yesterday nor tomorrow.
You know zen? I was zen. And god was not there. I was primed and able to listen to any divine whispers. But there was only silence and the real world.
And you want to say thats a natural theist? Please.
The point I make is a simple one. Not all spiritual/religious folk think the same things. The arguments I hear from a lot of people against belief tends to be pointing out the errors of literal interpretation and with them I agree on nearly everything.
At this stage I am what you may term a hopeful agnostic. So I use the teachings of religion to search for truth.
You’ve spent time and and a lot of words attacking a straw man.
Please point out where anyone in this thread has said that you are born a theist.
BTW, when you were one year old, what did you think about the origins of the universe, the large amount of biodiversity, and that round, bright, hot object up above that you would sometimes see? Also, where did you think your food and your toys came from? And, what happened to your parents when they left the room?
In your zen-like state, what did you think about the scientific method?
Arguments about the root, or foundation, of our knowledge have lost a lot of their power since we’ve understood more of how our brains work. Our brains are basically pattern-finding machines with built in instincts. They don’t have, nor need, axioms, any more than any other animal requires them.
When we’re babies, first interacting with the world, it’s not formal principles our brains are laying down, but observations and skills in how we can interact. Thus, we can show a child a novel kind of object without causing them to lose all their object manipulation skills.
Indeed this is arguably why it took mankind so long to come up with science. If we really did have to support our knowledge with fundamental principles, we’d have stumbled onto the scientific method virtually from Day 1.
Similarly, our “fact-based” knowledge is broadly in a web; it doesn’t have or need a foundation. There is no piece of knowledge that you can remove that would bring the whole thing down jenga-style. Even if, say, it turned out this world is not real, the capital of France, in this reality, is Paris.
Your response is both factually incorrect and orthogonal to the point.. Advances in understanding the mind have helped us see what the underlying axioms are that most people accept. For example, we intuit that space is a relative, directional space, not an XYZ grid, and that relatively flat objects are two-dimensional, not three-dimensional. (Test: ask some friends to describe the shape of a compact disc. See how many say “circle” versus how many more accurately say “cylinder”). On this subject I recommend “The Stuff of Thought,” by Steven Pinker.
But that’s all beside the point, because that’s not quite the level I’m talking about. I’m talking about the level on which you believe that the universe is rational–and that level is a prerequisite to using any patterns that you find.
Yes, some highly rarified atheists don’t believe that the universe is rational, sure, but they operate that way because why not? I do not think that most atheists genuinely lack a belief in a rational universe.
As for the jenga-style construct of knowledge, the principle of cause and effect surely qualifies. Without it, what we have seen in the past can have no predictive value for what will happen in the future. This includes the value of past predictions: just because the scientific method has worked well up until now doesn’t hold any predictive value for whether it will work in the future, unless similar causes beget similar effects.
Certainly I find the axioms of a naturalistic, objective, apprehendable, rational, logical universe far more compelling than the axioms of any religion I’ve encountered, for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t mean that they’re not there.
Sure, certain things are hard-wired. I like the example of circles with crescent-shaped shading along one vertical side. If the shading is in the top half, we perceive the circles as concave, but if it is in the bottom half, we perceive them as convex. This is because we’re hard-wired to assume that light sources come from above.
In fact though, my preceding sentence is incorrect. There’s no part of the brain that decrees “light sources come from above” there’s merely a hard-wiring between a particular input and a particular perception, honed through evolution.
There are good reasons for describing a CD as being circular.
Firstly, we approximate about objects all the time: I may describe a ruler as being straight, for example. And note that a CD is not a true cylinder either. I’m trying o find the approximation that will evoke, in the listener’s mind, something like a CD.
A “circle” takes away a degree of freedom and ensures that they will be imagining something flat.
Secondly, it’s the fact that we don’t interact with 2D objects that means we tend to label objects that are very flat in a 2D way.
I’m sure there are lots of other reasons, but as you say, it’s beside the point.
Right, and I’m questioning that. I do not believe that there is a part of us that assumes that the universe is rational.
By the time we reach adulthood, we have certain beliefs about the nature of reality. None of these are necessary or “fundamental”.
Again, this is why you could show someone a paradox, say, without blowing their mind. Because even if you could demonstrate something irrational in this universe, so what?
Of course, if you dropped a human into an entirely crazy, illogical universe, that person would be lost in indecision. This is not the same thing as saying we assume that the universe is rational however.
Well, of course we operate under inductive or cause and effect assumptions every day. But again, this is not to say that we have this as a fundamental belief or axiom.
At the fringes of science, causality itself has come into question. If we find that causality does not hold in all situations, does that mean every human is going to go insane, as a load-bearing jenga block is removed?
Oh, and importantly, I should point out again that we’re still talking in general terms of how all humans think.
If we can call causality a belief, and say by implication that atheism is a belief, then the word has utterly lost all meaning as every human and every area of human thought becomes a “belief”.
Have I said that atheism is “a belief”? I don’t believe I have: rather, I’ve suggested that most atheists adopt a suite of beliefs that contradict the beliefs of most theists. If I’ve ever said that atheism is “a belief,” I apologize for my poor wording in that instance.
Again, the definition of “belief” that I’m using is “a position regarding the truth value of a statement.” If you have no position regarding the truth value of a statement, then you have no belief regarding that statement; but if you have a position, you have a belief.
I evaluate things and make my call. I’ve been wrong before, and I’m sure I’ll be wrong again.
Sometimes I don’t know enough to make that call, but with Zeus, I’ll step out on a limb and say I don’t believe he is real.
I think well greater than 99.99999% of the things I believe to be true are based on hearsay. (Or readwrite.) I believe George Washington was our first president. I believe the Roman empire once dominated Italy. I believe several men walked on the moon. Lots more stuff. I have no first hand knowledge of these facts, nor know anyone who has. I still believe them to be true.
I have no problem disbelieving that Zeus is a real entity. I’m not holding out for more evidence before making that call.. (I’m perfectly capable of saying “I was wrong” if some huge dude comes down and starts throwing lightning bolts around.)
You really have trouble making that call since it might be wrong and Zeus might be real? You believe that to be the more rational position?
I’ll also state that I cannot know about the IPU and FSM, but that I believe them to be extremely improbable. As such I don’t believe they exist and I will live my life in accord with that belief.
Do you really think there is any difference whatsoever between our positions?