Humanism

[Danyc]

No I have not.

I reject scientific doubt and embrace faith. Faith means trusting/believing until you have cause not to. Doubt is refusing to trust/believe until you have evidence. I still accept evidence, I just do not require evidence before I believe something.

What? You embrace believing whatever you hear until you have evidence to the contrary?

That is inane. Sorry.

That is how I can believe, for example, in innocent until proven guilty. I do not require evidence that someone is innocent before I believe that they are. I require evidence in order to stop believing in their innocence.

That isn't the same thing. The reason we have the axiom of innocent until proven guilty is because everyone innately understands that the burden of proof is on those making the claim. In a criminal trial, the plaintiff makes a claim (regarding the crime and the innocence or guilt of the defendant) and the defendant either accepts or does not accept the assertions.

It's (very roughly) the same thing with atheism. You, comparable to the plaintiff, have made a claim, and we, comparable to the defendant, do not accept your claim. The burden of proof is on you. We are not obligated to prove your particular flavor of deity does not exist.

I will, however, go ahead and say that this analogy is a rough one. For example, in criminal cases, as opposed to civil cases, the burden of proof is much higher, and it rests solely on the plaintiffs to show that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. In civil cases, however, where the stakes are lower, and do not involve the restriction of liberties, there is more of a demand on the defendant to show that their version of the story is more likely true than false.

 

[Leap]

The reason we have the axiom of innocent until proven guilty is because everyone innately understands that the burden of proof is on those making the claim. In a criminal trial, the plaintiff makes a claim (regarding the crime and the innocence or guilt of the defendant) and the defendant either accepts or does not accept the assertions.

It's (very roughly) the same thing with atheism. You, comparable to the plaintiff, have made a claim, and we, comparable to the defendant, do not accept your claim. The burden of proof is on you. We are not obligated to prove your particular flavor of deity does not exist.

Belief in innocence IS a belief in itself. You either believe that someone is innocent or you believe that they are guilty. The question is simply whether you need evidence before you believe the innocence or whether you need evidence before you believe the guilt. The first is empiricism, treating as untrustworthy until evidence is forthcoming, whilst the second is faith, treating as trustworthy until given cause not to.

 

[Danyc]

Belief in innocence IS a belief in itself. You either believe that someone is innocent or you believe that they are guilty. The question is simply whether you need evidence before you believe the innocence or whether you need evidence before you believe the guilt. The first is empiricism, treating as untrustworthy until evidence is forthcoming, whilst the second is faith, treating as trustworthy until given cause not to.

No, it's not. It's a lack of belief of the positive claim of guilt, and an admission of a lack of knowledge on the person in question's innocence.

I do not believe that Person A is innocent when Person B says that Person A is guilty. My position on Person A's innocence or guilt is "I don't know".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nihilism isn't an improvement on anything....

It's just the honest position to take when Infinite Love does not exist.

Not really, no. "Infinite love" is not the only possible basis for a non-nihilistic ethics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When you first decided that evidence was required in order for belief to be forthcoming, you could not have decided that on the basis of evidence because you were (by definition) yet to hold the belief that evidence was required.

Therefore your first coming to require evidence MUST have come as an act of faith, and that act of faith denies the whole basis of the demand for evidence (that it is superior to faith).

Umm... I don't see what exactly the problem is here. This is similar to your argument against tolerance, and it is similarly inconsequential.

Also, incidentally, empiricism is about working from data. However, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of variables impacting every situation. As we can never know more than an infinitesimal amount of those infinite impacting variables, empiricists also do not rely on reason as they claim but instead make a leap of faith concerning the immeasurably greater amount that they do not and can never know.

So the basis of empiricism is a leap of faith and its nature is a lie.

So because we are not able to account for every possible variable, we should regard all science as "a leap of faith" belonging to the same category as religion? A religious myth for some phenomenon is just as good as a scientific theory? Is that your take on it?

 

[Leap]

No, it's not. It's a lack of belief of the positive claim of guilt, and an admission of a lack of knowledge on the person in question's innocence.

I do not believe that Person A is innocent when Person B says that Person A is guilty. My position on Person A's innocence or guilt is "I don't know".

We either treat them as innocent or we treat them as guilty. The "I don't know" aspect of a trial still treats the person as innocent until the crime is proven.

There is no in-between stage. You either trust someone, or you do not.

 

[Danyc]

We either treat them as innocent or we treat them as guilty. The "I don't know" aspect of a trial still treats the person as innocent until the crime is proven.

There is no in-between stage. You either trust someone, or you do not.

Their treatment is not a reflection of whether or not we 'believe' that they are innocent. Their treatment is a reflection of our disbelief that they are guilty. That is what innocence is. A lack of guilt.

And there certainly is an in-between stage - I have, in my life, not known whether or not to trust someone. I did not trust them and I did not distrust them. I didn't know.

 

[Leap]

Their treatment is not a reflection of whether or not we 'believe' that they are innocent. Their treatment is a reflection of our disbelief that they are guilty. That is what innocence is. A lack of guilt.

They both remain beliefs. You either believe that they are innocent or you believe that they are guilty. In a messed up world you require evidence of innocence. In a decent one you require evidence of guilt. They BOTH remain beliefs though, and innocent until proven guilty is a belief based on faith.

This is highly inconvenient for humanists though, hence their refusal to take their fingers from their ears.

And there certainly is an in-between stage - I have, in my life, not known whether or not to trust someone. I did not trust them and I did not distrust them. I didn't know.

Either you trust someone one, or you do not. The idea of there being a middleground is nonsense.

 

[Paradoxum]

In which case it still is not a position based upon evidence, but rather you came to it regardless of evidence. In which case, as soon as you realise that you need to seek evidence for believing it...but then you need evidence to believe that you need to seek evidence to believe it, and so onwards into an infinite loop. Sooner or later it takes a leap of faith that denies its own basic premise (that evidence is needed before belief is forthcoming).

Or it could be based on reason. You seem to keep ignoring the other possibilities I give. I have never said, "that evidence is needed before belief is forthcoming" so it sounds as if you would rather argue against a strawman than me. Since my humanism doesn't rely on what you think it does it means my humanism is free from your criticism.

I am happy to based my beliefs on evidence and reason, not just evidence.

It is natural to believe what you are given (from those you trust until you have cause not to) until you have cause not to believe such because it itself denies faith.

Yes, it is natural to do that when you are a child. Then normally at some point in life you realise that the authority above you can get things wrong, so you ask yourself why you believe what you believe. If it is just because "Some guy said it is true" then that isn't very good reason to believe. Also, realisation of a lack of evidence and reason could be considered a cause to lack belief.

 

[Danyc]

They both remain beliefs. You either believe that they are innocent or you believe that they are guilty. In a messed up world you require evidence of innocence. In a decent one you require evidence of guilt. They BOTH remain beliefs though, and innocent until proven guilty is a belief based on faith.

This is highly inconvenient for humanists though, hence their refusal to take their fingers from their ears.

Perhaps I should first ask you what definition of 'belief' you are using.

 

[Leap]

Yes, it is natural to do that when you are a child. Then normally at some point in life you realise that the authority above you can get things wrong, so you ask yourself why you believe what you believe. If it is just because "Some guy said it is true" then that isn't very good reason to believe. Also, realisation of a lack of evidence and reason could be considered a cause to lack belief.

Swapping something that occasionally gets things wrong (ie: faith in authority) for something that is inherently anti-social self-contadictory insanity-provoking nonsense (ie: requiring evidence before you trust) is a truly foolish move.

Doubt (ie: distrusting until given reason to trust) self-evidently distrusts until given reason to trust. Therefore it must also distrust “distrusting until given reason to distrust” until it is given reason to trust it.

If it trusts “distrusting until given reason to trust”, without reason, it is an act of faith that contradicts itself.

If however it does not trust “distrusting until given reason to trust” for lack of reason to trust, it jumps the gun, pre-supposing itself (once more as an act of faith that contradicts itself by assuming, without evidence, the need for evidence before trust is forthcoming).

Furthermore, if it trusts “distrusting until given reason to trust” with reason, it once more pre-supposes itself by requiring reason to trust “distrusting until given reason to trust”. Jumping the gun once more.

Finally, in all of this, its very nature calls it, once accepted (in whichever manner), to doubt its own acceptance because:
* in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of variables impacting on each and every thing, and you can never know more than a infinitesimal fraction of them, thus always leaving doubt un-sated through an absence of evidence,
* even if you trust “distrusting until given reason to trust”, you must then Doubt this trusting, and then any subsequent trusting of this trusting etc, in a similar manner, in an endless downward spiral of distrust.

Whichever way you look at it, faith in authority, even when authority is fallible, is the only sane option. Doubt is a path of self-contradiction leading to an endless spiral of doubt, despair and insanity.

 

[ranunculus]

I reject scientific doubt and embrace faith. Faith means trusting/believing until you have cause not to. Doubt is refusing to trust/believe until you have evidence. I still accept evidence, I just do not require evidence before I believe something.

Laugh harder - YouTube


By the way, maybe you can help me. I'm the princess of Liechtenstein and I have too much money. If you send me a couple of thousand dollars, I'll wire you millions back.

 

[Leap]

By the way, maybe you can help me. I'm the princess of Liechtenstein and I have too much money. If you send me a couple of thousand dollars, I'll wire you millions back.

I would put faith in what you say, except that are an atheist, you deny faith, and in so doing you lose the right to have faith placed in what you say. That is an example of trusting until given reason not to.

 

[Danyc]

Whichever way you look at it, faith in authority, even when authority is fallible, is the only sane option. Doubt is a path of self-contradiction leading to an endless spiral of doubt, despair and insanity.

That's all very well and good. Now please show me all of the humanists currently caught in this endless spire of doubt, despair and insanity.

 

[Danyc]

I would put faith in what you say, except that are an atheist, you deny faith, and in so doing you lose the right to have faith placed in what you say. That is an example of trusting until given reason not to.

In this response I am being genuine.

What if you did not know ranunculus's religious orientation? What if he was a christian? What if he was like you, fully accepting faith as valid?

I am sincerely interested in how you think about this. The strangeness is oddly fascinating.

 

[Leap]

That's all very well and good. Now please show me all of the humanists currently caught in this endless spire of doubt, despair and insanity.

All of those who are not in denial on the nature of what they are beholden to. It can take a while to sink in, but even then in most of them you can see the unquiet in their eyes.

 

[Leap]

In this response I am being genuine.

What if you did not know ranunculus's religious orientation? What if he was a christian? What if he was like you, fully accepting faith as valid?

I am sincerely interested in how you think about this. The strangeness is oddly fascinating.

Faith carries with it certain fruits. Any act against those fruits is cause to raise caution.

 

[Danyc]

All of those who are not in denial on the nature of what they are beholden to.

Not sure what you're saying here, could you rephrase it?

It can take a while to sink in, but even then in most of them you can see the unquiet in their eyes.

I hope you'll forgive me for not accepting your personal take on the minds of people you've never met.

 

[Danyc]

Faith carries with it certain fruits. Any act against those fruits is cause to raise caution.

Could you answer the question please? I really am curious now.

 

[Leap]

Could you answer the question please? I really am curious now.

I already have.