Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[stevevw]

That would be nice if you did...

Then we will both have to keep that in mind.

I doubt they use the term "true atheist" in those studies. It sounds too much like "true Scotsman". (And I definitely ain't one of those.)

They use various words like real or true atheists. Thats because the studies seem to be saying that some form of metaphysical belief is a default human cognition. Its just how humans think even if we don't consciously know this.

I thought I explained this. Do I need to do it again?

Not believing in a god is not a belief, just like:

not playing a sport is not a sport;
not having a job is not a job;
not having a hobby is not a hobby;
and not having a religion is not a religion.

Atheism (non-belief) is not a kind of belief. (or even a proper term at all. There is not "ism" here.)

I don't think its as simple as that. Belief or non belief in metaphysics and meanings of life and reality as far as whether there is something beyond the objective world is completely different to belief in sports ect. All humans are born with an inclination to believe and our cognition finds it easy to believe in such ideas. Where as sports, a job and hobbies are not and are learnt. We are stuck with the big questions that are associated with belief which are fundemental whether we like it or not.

There are various forms of atheism from weak to strong where stronger forms take the position that there is no God or gods and even stronger that there is not supernatural at all regardless of form or force.

The pertenant question I think is why "non belief". Non beleif is a kind of assertion about reality. Having a non belief or the position of not believing in gods or the supernatural equates to naturalism and in a stronger form materialism.

I don't think we can seperate the assertion or position from the metaphysical and philosophical implications for the subject. Its claiming an epistemic truth or fact that 'we can only know reality through methological naturalism and making a claim about the ontological makeup of reality in that it must fall within the closure of the physical (every cause and cause of causes trace back to the physical with no supernaturalism allowed).

Yet there is no direct evidence for making these epistemic and ontological claims that follow non=belief. So in that sense its a belief position. Taking a position and making an non verifable claim about the nature of fundemental reality when we just don't know.

There is no strength to non-belief. You either don't believe or your do believe. It's not possible to "not believe" more strongly.

I disagree. Look at the New Atheist movement, almost like organised religion, holding gatherings, talking about how deluded religion is especially Christianity for some strange reason. The strength of the reaction and the language they use about religious belief from many New Atheists is apparent in their passion to denounce religion and push atheism.

Atheism have degrees of non belief from weak (non belief in a theistic god) to staunch materialistic and naturalistic atheism where all gods, supernaturalism, mysticism and spiritual are rejected. Belief is not some seperate category we can detach from ourselves so however we believe will determine our worldview which have vary in degrees of belief and disbelief.

The only "assertion" I am making is that I assert that I don't believe in your god or any of the other gods. The only reason I have to "assert" it is because it is a description of an internal mental state and the only way to properly communicate it is to tell you what I don't believe. It is the same for you belief in your god. You must assert it so that we may be informed of your internal mental state.

Yes its an internal cognitive state that has to be cultivated. It doen't just pop into your head. Your belief influences your world view so its going to influence your assumptions, thinking and perceptions of reality. Some atheist believe in the soul but not gods. Some bisbelieve in anything that cannot be verified by empiricle science or are materialists. So their mindset is not the same.

The point being between all these varying mindstates and worldviews about 'how we can know' and 'what is or isn't' they are all belief positions as none can be verified.

All atheists (no belief in a god = atheist). None more "true" than any other.

So do some atheist believe in other supernatural or mystical possibilities that may not be gods. Or do they ddisbelieve all supernatural and spiritual possibilities.

It's just about not believing in god, nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea how many are philosophical naturalists (a term I much prefer to "materialist" which sounds like someone motivated by wealth and greed.)

Some use 'Physicalist or physicalism' instead. But its the belief that everything, all causes fall within the closure of the physical. I would have thought that primarily t5hat because atheist disbelieve in a supernatural god they would also be naturalist or physicalists. Otherwise believing in a soul or consciousness or mysticism would contradict their belief position.

Most people are not scientifically inclined including atheists. [I did not become a philosophical naturalist because I was an atheist, but the opposite, I became an atheist because I was a philosophical naturalist.]

Thats interesting. But being a naturalist takes a form of belief as I said so I guess its natural to follow onto a non belief in gods if a person believes that we can only know reality through naturalism as this is an epistemic truth claim beyond what science can verify,

It is a position *on belief* but not a belief.

I don't think you can seperate them. As I said a persons belief position is linked to a whole bunch of ways we will think about the world and reality, meaning to life, values ect.

I mean for starters if theres no God then theres no soul and no afterlife. So atheist and and believers standing around a friends coffin being lowered into the ground will have completely different beliefs which will effect how they see these important aspects of life. One believs theres nothing and thats it and the other is living in belief that what is happening is not the final end into nothingness.

 

[stevevw]

And the "roots" are in the Gospel of Christ and the "strayed away" part is the Western Christian Culture you are pushing.

I think it helps that we understand what each of us actually means by "Western Christian Culture". I see it as the bible, Christs teachings expressed in a Western cultural context. I don't call colonialism, imperialism or any of the harms done to peoples Christian teachings or truth. All I am looking at is the way the West expressed the core truth principles and values of Christianity, Christs teachings.

So though the US enslaved people in the 18th century I don't see this as Christainity but rather a corrupted version. I see movements like Wilberforce or Dr Kings as expressing Christianity.

It was the west rather than any other nations who champions the biblical truths into their Declarations, Laws and Human Rights and not the Russians, Chinese, or many MIddle Eastern Nations. They may have their own versions of how they champions the core truths of other religions. Or how even other Christian nations may have expressed Christ teachings in a different way to the west.

But it seems to me that it was the west who best expressed Christ teachings in an organised way for society through the establishment of charities, hospitals, universities, human rights, marriage laws, the family, Rule of Law, human worth, and democracy.

Sure there has been lots of bad stuff that happened in the name of the church but that gives the true Church, Christs church a bad name. These are different and should not be conflated. In fact Satans greatest weapon is the church.

 

[Ophiolite]

@stevevw, if you can see the humour in my post #260 - and I thank you for the laughing icon - then I think you have the humanity to recognise the wrongness of your position on European colonialism. I beseech you to reconsider that position. Few would deny that there were some benefits to that colonialism, but what a dreadful price was paid, both by exploited and exploiter. The former was cruel and physical, the latter was spiritual and insipid. Please don't fall victim to that same attitude.

 

[BCP1928]

I think it helps that we understand what each of us actually means by "Western Christian Culture". I see it as the bible, Christs teachings expressed in a Western cultural context. I don't call colonialism, imperialism or any of the harms done to peoples Christian teachings or truth. All I am looking at is the way the West expressed the core truth principles and values of Christianity, Christs teachings.

Maybe, but all you have actually done is to justify imperialism, colonialism and exploitation by white-washing it as "Christian."

It was the west rather than any other nations who champions the biblical truths into their Declarations, Laws and Human Rights and not the Russians, Chinese, or many MIddle Eastern Nations. They may have their own versions of how they champions the core truths of other religions. Or how even other Christian nations may have expressed Christ teachings in a different way to the west.

But the West was more successful at imperialism, colonialism and exploitation than others because of acting in Christ's name and now Western Christians are better off than many others--a just reward for their piety.

But it seems to me that it was the west who best expressed Christ teachings in an organised way for society through the establishment of charities, hospitals, universities, human rights, marriage laws, the family, Rule of Law, human worth, and democracy.

Sure there has been lots of bad stuff that happened in the name of the church but that gives the true Church, Christs church a bad name. These are different and should not be conflated. In fact Satans greatest weapon is the church.

A reporter once asked Mahatma Gandhi, "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi replied, "It would be a good idea; they ought to try it."

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw, if you can see the humour in my post #260 - and I thank you for the laughing icon - then I think you have the humanity to recognise the wrongness of your position on European colonialism. I beseech you to reconsider that position. Few would deny that there were some benefits to that colonialism, but what a dreadful price was paid, both by exploited and exploiter. The former was cruel and physical, the latter was spiritual and insipid. Please don't fall victim to that same attitude.

I am not sure what you even think I am guilty of lol. I havn't supported what they did, I havn't said it was ok. So I am not sure why you keep thinking this.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe, but all you have actually done is to justify imperialism, colonialism and exploitation by white-washing it as "Christian."

Show me where I have justified colonialism or imperialism. I just said clearly that I am not saying imperialism or colonialism has got anything to do with Christianity. I don't trest these as Christian.

Believe it or not but two opposite things can happen at the same time. The west did oppress other nations but at the same time did bring the gospel and Christian teachings to many people. Stating this fact doesn't excuse the horrible things done but at the same time lets no dismiss the good done as well.

But the West was more successful at imperialism, colonialism and exploitation than others because of acting in Christ's name and now Western Christians are better off than many others--a just reward for their piety.

I think the west would have been successful even without Christianity. It was a powerful military and navel force, advanced technology and was going to explore the world. That has happened throughout history regardless of religion. Look at Alexandria the Great who captured many nations as part of his empire.

I don;t think the Christian missionaries were going there to exploit, they meant good. They established schools and brought Gods word. The church was not in power but the Crown who but that time was acting more as a secular power seperated from the church.

The west was more successful because it was the pinicle of power at that time, the British Empire, the French and the Spaniards were the most powerful nations on earth at the time. They did what they wanted because they had the tech (ships that could sail the seas) and the capability to do so. It was the best and the worst of humankind. They invented many great things in health and science but also allowed that power to go to their heads.

A reporter once asked Mahatma Gandhi, "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi replied, "It would be a good idea; they ought to try it."

Ok I am not sure what he meant by this. Is he saying its good. I know he was educated in a western university in London and supported western political and legal systems.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok I am not sure what he meant by this. Is he saying its good. I know he was educated in a western university in London and supported western political and legal systems.

He is saying that the West becoming civilized would be a good idea if they actually tried it. But I don't think he was counting on it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think its as simple as that. Belief or non belief in metaphysics and meanings of life and reality as far as whether there is something beyond the objective world is completely different to belief in sports ect. All humans are born with an inclination to believe and our cognition finds it easy to believe in such ideas. Where as sports, a job and hobbies are not and are learnt. We are stuck with the big questions that are associated with belief which are fundemental whether we like it or not.

The tendency to believe things that are not evidenced is a serious flaw in our species that evolution has not rectified. OK, now let's talk about non-belief...

There are various forms of atheism from weak to strong where stronger forms take the position that there is no God or gods and even stronger that there is not supernatural at all regardless of form or force.

What you are in effect saying is that different atheists apply the same skepticism of gods to other supernatural claims to different supernatural and paranormal claims including things like souls. We're saying the same thing. I prefer to keep these things separate because not only are they not identical, but the confusion about terminology (To note an even more extreme thing, there are people on this board that insist that scientist and atheist are basically the same thing. SMH.)

The pertenant question I think is why "non belief". Non beleif is a kind of assertion about reality. Having a non belief or the position of not believing in gods or the supernatural equates to naturalism and in a stronger form materialism.

Non-belief is a state of not believing in something. Expressing it as such is about communicating our actual mental state (our mental reality), but non-belief itself is just not believing in something. It doesn't take any more effort than that. Sometimes you only need to hear a claim once to respond "Nope, I can't believe in that."

Though I wish it weren't the case, there are plenty of atheists (non-believers in gods) who still have supernatural or paranormal beliefs like souls or "vibes".

I don't think we can seperate the assertion or position from the metaphysical and philosophical implications for the subject.

I don't know what the philosophical implications of not believing in something is or why it should matter.

Its claiming an epistemic truth or fact that 'we can only know reality through methological naturalism and making a claim about the ontological makeup of reality in that it must fall within the closure of the physical (every cause and cause of causes trace back to the physical with no supernaturalism allowed).

People who are making truth claims about reality are making truth claims about reality. Not believing in something doesn't make it non-existent. The fact that I do not believe in your god doesn't make it non-real anymore than the fact that you believe in it doesn't make it real. Existence and belief are separate questions.

As for methodological naturalism, that is a *tool* used in science. Science only considers natural explanations of natural phenomena and as such does not invoke non-natural explanations when analyzing data or designing experiments. That is all it is. It is not a claim about the existence of non-natural causation. It is just a tool.

Yet there is no direct evidence for making these epistemic and ontological claims that follow non=belief.

Belief (or the absence thereof) is a conclusion about a claim made on evidence. That we can come to belief or non-belief without a rigorous analysis is a species flaw, but belief (or non-belief) does not necessitate making further claims. For example, not believing in any god does not require one to claim that no gods exist or could exist any more than believing in your god requires one to claim that the rapture is coming on Thursday. (Or even that the rapture is a thing.) Separate claims are separate. It may be the case (and it is likely) that not believing in any gods makes one more likely to believe no gods exist or believing in the future coming of Jesus makes one more likely to believe in a immanent rapture, but neither is required.

So in that sense its a belief position. Taking a position and making an non verifable claim about the nature of fundemental reality when we just don't know.

Not really as I just said. There are certainly correlations, but not necessity. (And non-verifiable claims about the nature of fundamental reality from Christianity is *exactly* why I stopped believing in your god and could never go back.)

I disagree. Look at the New Atheist movement, almost like organised religion, holding gatherings, talking about how deluded religion is especially Christianity for some strange reason. The strength of the reaction and the language they use about religious belief from many New Atheists is apparent in their passion to denounce religion and push atheism.

There were gatherings of atheists, so what. Most atheists didn't participate in them unlike most Christians who do at least occasionally attend a service, even if only at Christmas. From what I could take in about such gatherings, the attendees were often formerly quite active in their churches and many were recently departed from religion. They had a "community hole" in their lives and they were angry about what they had experienced. (I would do more denouncing here, but the rules...)

Atheism have degrees of non belief from weak (non belief in a theistic god) to staunch materialistic and naturalistic atheism where all gods, supernaturalism, mysticism and spiritual are rejected. Belief is not some seperate category we can detach from ourselves so however we believe will determine our worldview which have vary in degrees of belief and disbelief.

Again, no such thing as atheism as it is not a philosophy or practice, but as we have discussed, different atheists have different approaches to other supernatural or spiritual topics.

Yes its an internal cognitive state that has to be cultivated. It doen't just pop into your head.

Certainly belief in Jesus had to be cultivated in me. Jesus didn't pop into my head. (If it did, it would be far more believable.) I did not, however, cultivate my non-belief, it just happened and happened while I still went to church regularly.

Your belief influences your world view so its going to influence your assumptions, thinking and perceptions of reality. Some atheist believe in the soul but not gods. Some bisbelieve in anything that cannot be verified by empiricle science or are materialists. So their mindset is not the same.

Certainly beliefs and world view influence how you think about things, but I can't really tell what about my thinking changed when I stopped believing in a god. It was so gradual, I didn't even notice.

The point being between all these varying mindstates and worldviews about 'how we can know' and 'what is or isn't' they are all belief positions as none can be verified.

Those are not mind states, world views, or belief positions. They are questions. If the answer is inconclusive and you make a conclusion anyway -- that is a belief.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So do some atheist believe in other supernatural or mystical possibilities that may not be gods.

Absolutely some do as we have gone over several times before.

Or do they ddisbelieve all supernatural and spiritual possibilities.

And some disbelieve in all supernatural and spiritual things. (I am one of those.)

Some use 'Physicalist or physicalism' instead.

UGH.

But its the belief that everything, all causes fall within the closure of the physical.

I think of it more as a conclusion. Everything we understand is explainable by the natural laws, it is reasonable to think all is. More so, adding non-physical/natural things to attempted explanations of things we don't properly understand doesn't really help and just ends up creating "schools of thought" (or if you like belief systems). Given that there are many such belief systems built around things that are demonstrably not true, adding non-natural explanations seems risky. It is better to admit that you don't know why something is than to craft a non-natural explanation.

I would have thought that primarily t5hat because atheist disbelieve in a supernatural god they would also be naturalist or physicalists.

I cant speak for the majority, only myself. I always had a naturalistic tendency to find explanations for things. It likely lead me to my profession.

Otherwise believing in a soul or consciousness or mysticism would contradict their belief position.

I can not explain people's ability to merge seemingly contradictory notions (no gods, but spirts), but then again I some how managed to accept most of Christian teachings while training in science.

Thats interesting. But being a naturalist takes a form of belief as I said so I guess its natural to follow onto a non belief in gods if a person believes that we can only know reality through naturalism as this is an epistemic truth claim beyond what science can verify,

I would say it was more a very strong bias towards natural explanations rather than a dogmatic rejection of the supernatural. None of the supernatural claims had any good evidence for them, so they were quite easy to dismiss.

 

[stevevw]

He is saying that the West becoming civilized would be a good idea if they actually tried it. But I don't think he was counting on it.

OK, yep I get it.

 

[stevevw]

The tendency to believe things that are not evidenced is a serious flaw in our species that evolution has not rectified. OK, now let's talk about non-belief...

Yet many say it was a benefit for survival. So what it is a flaw or benefit.

What you are in effect saying is that different atheists apply the same skepticism of gods to other supernatural claims to different supernatural and paranormal claims including things like souls. We're saying the same thing. I prefer to keep these things separate because not only are they not identical, but the confusion about terminology (To note an even more extreme thing, there are people on this board that insist that scientist and atheist are basically the same thing. SMH.)

But aren't they identical in that as you say they apply the same principle of disbelief to a wider range of the supernatural. In fact as I mentioned to be consistent all atheist should disbelieve all supernatural ideas. If you all the soul then it opens the door for gods.

Non-belief is a state of not believing in something. Expressing it as such is about communicating our actual mental state (our mental reality), but non-belief itself is just not believing in something. It doesn't take any more effort than that. Sometimes you only need to hear a claim once to respond "Nope, I can't believe in that."

Though I wish it weren't the case, there are plenty of atheists (non-believers in gods) who still have supernatural or paranormal beliefs like souls or "vibes".

I disagree that the entire representation of 'non-belief' is in the statement of non-belief. Belief itself is the culmination of life experiences so a lot goes into it. It represents as you say the "mental state" of a person which has been primed to believe what they believe or not believe.

Its also a profound position in that it comes with a bunch of other related positions on life and reality.

I don't know what the philosophical implications of not believing in something is or why it should matter.

Well if someone has a strong disbelief in all supernaturalism then the obvious implication is that they believe that reality is purely a physical or material reality. It stops with the physical objective world. So metaphysically they believe in a physical reality. That will have implications for a persons worldview and be expressed differently as opposed to someone who believes.

People who are making truth claims about reality are making truth claims about reality.

Yes but if a non-believer is making truth claims about reality being only physical and no supernatural is involved. When their truth claim is challanged they will fall back on empiricle science and naturalism to support their position. Yet ultimately there is no empiricle evidence so it then comes back to a philosophical and metaphysical belief about reality.

Not believing in something doesn't make it non-existent. The fact that I do not believe in your god doesn't make it non-real anymore than the fact that you believe in it doesn't make it real. Existence and belief are separate questions.

Its about epistemics, who we can know whats real or not. A disbelief in gods or all things supernatural is the same thing as saying we can only know reality by things we can see and verify. All supernaturalism is discounted due to not meeting the requirements of naturalism based on the belief that we can only know reality by the physical evidence. That then leads to a ontological position about what reality is.

As for methodological naturalism, that is a *tool* used in science. Science only considers natural explanations of natural phenomena and as such does not invoke non-natural explanations when analyzing data or designing experiments. That is all it is. It is not a claim about the existence of non-natural causation. It is just a tool.

Its actually more than that. Its an epistemic claim based on assumptions about reality being only physical which is itself an unsupported assumption.

If we assume that something can only be measured by certain tools and we leave other ways of measuring out to begin with then you can't make claims about what reality is. Those who support naturalism as the only reality defend their position by defeating supernaturalism with methological naturalism.

Thats going beyond what science can claim and therefore falls into metaphysical beliefs. Otherwise we have to keep policing those claims and qualifying them as just an assumption about reality and that no one can make a claim that the supernatural is not part of reality.

Belief (or the absence thereof) is a conclusion about a claim made on evidence. That we can come to belief or non-belief without a rigorous analysis is a species flaw, but belief (or non-belief) does not necessitate making further claims.

But this position itself is based on belief. Your saying epistemically that the only way to know reality is through the empiricle evidence, (physicalism). Its reducing reality to the physical only before we have even determined that to be the case.

To say its a flaw is based on a biased view of reality that makes it a flaw before its been verified it is a flaw. So if for example God is real and you claim that non belief doesn't imply that there is no gods then you cannot make claims that the evidence supports non belief. It only supports a predetermined assumption about reality that may or may not be the case.

For example, not believing in any god does not require one to claim that no gods exist or could exist any more than believing in your god requires one to claim that the rapture is coming on Thursday. (Or even that the rapture is a thing.) Separate claims are separate.

But if someone is pushed to defend their non belief against supernaturalism they fall back on the physical evidence to defeat supernaturalism. So its not so simple to seperate when we actually live these non beliefs out.

It may be the case (and it is likely) that not believing in any gods makes one more likely to believe no gods exist or believing in the future coming of Jesus makes one more likely to believe in a immanent rapture, but neither is required.

It is when it comes down to applying that practically which is part of life in living out non-belief. A non-believer who is naturalistic will automatically refer to naturalism and physicalism to support their position against supernaturalism to defeat it as unreal as part of supporting their own position. Otherwise their position is just a statement of words, which it is not as words carry meaning and represents something when its applied to life.

Not really as I just said. There are certainly correlations, but not necessity. (And non-verifiable claims about the nature of fundamental reality from Christianity is *exactly* why I stopped believing in your god and could never go back.)

Hum I am not sure. Like I said these are not just flippant claims or statements of non belief. If you make this claim then its necessarily to support it according to that persons own position that evidence is required. Their own philosophical position that epistemically we can only know reality by naturalism and evidence requires them to live that way.

Thats opposed to a believer in God who is not relaying purely on naturalism or any espistemic truths about reality and is open to other ways of knowing.

There were gatherings of atheists, so what. Most atheists didn't participate in them unlike most Christians who do at least occasionally attend a service, even if only at Christmas. From what I could take in about such gatherings, the attendees were often formerly quite active in their churches and many were recently departed from religion. They had a "community hole" in their lives and they were angry about what they had experienced. (I would do more denouncing here, but the rules...)

I think for many they may not have attended the gatherings but like Christians they certainly looked up to the New Atheists movement as part of their atheism and bought into the claims made by the New Atheist.

I think the movement reflected a societal shift in positions which many non believers related to so they were expressing where society was at at the time. This has just increased since then. We see this reflected in how belief in God has shifted from being respected as part and parcel of society to being ostrasized and attacked within society. That reeks of a belief rather than just a statement of non belief.

Again, no such thing as atheism as it is not a philosophy or practice, but as we have discussed, different atheists have different approaches to other supernatural or spiritual topics.

Yes which comes back to how belief of some sort is ingrained in us. But noticably I think is that when atheists who believe in the supernatural or mystics do believeits tied to naturalism such as the pagan beliefs and beliefs in natural being a spiritual type experience. Not quite supernatural but a compromise to allow people to both fullfill their innate beliefs while maintaining a connection to naturalism.

But I wonder if a belief in supernaturalism or mysticism is being atheistic as if a person truely believes in the supernatural then they weaken their position against non belief in gods. So are they really atheistic to begin with.

Certainly belief in Jesus had to be cultivated in me. Jesus didn't pop into my head. (If it did, it would be far more believable.) I did not, however, cultivate my non-belief, it just happened and happened while I still went to church regularly.

Why a child ends up not believing is complex. Its not the same for everyone and the particular mix of experiences is different and may not be anything we can specifically identify.

All we know is that experiences contribute to why someone believes or not in anything or has particular focus on certain aspects of life or may be sensitive to certain situations that cause them to believe what they believe.

Certainly beliefs and world view influence how you think about things, but I can't really tell what about my thinking changed when I stopped believing in a god. It was so gradual, I didn't even notice.

Yes it can even happen subconsciously and in fact much of who we are how we think and behave can be traced back to the subconscious.

Those are not mind states, world views, or belief positions. They are questions. If the answer is inconclusive and you make a conclusion anyway -- that is a belief.

It is related to mind states in that it influences the type of questions we will ask in the first place. People rarely have a completely neutral state of mind and is biased and influenced by experiences which determine our mindset as to how we see the world and thus how we believe and how open we are to possibilities.

If you are predisposed to a certain mindset that maybe closed to belief in the supernatural then your questions are not really open but already pre determined to be attracted to certain answers over others.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet many say it was a benefit for survival. So what it is a flaw or benefit.

It's called a Type 1 versus Type 2 error, but that isn't the point of this discussion, so let's move on.

But aren't they identical in that as you say they apply the same principle of disbelief to a wider range of the supernatural. In fact as I mentioned to be consistent all atheist should disbelieve all supernatural ideas. If you all the soul then it opens the door for gods.

I said *SOME* apply the same skepticism to other supernatural claims. Others DON'T. You are walking your self into a conflation that is not justified, or part of my statement.

I disagree that the entire representation of 'non-belief' is in the statement of non-belief. Belief itself is the culmination of life experiences so a lot goes into it. It represents as you say the "mental state" of a person which has been primed to believe what they believe or not believe.

You have successfully described "belief", not "non-belief".

Its also a profound position in that it comes with a bunch of other related positions on life and reality.

Belief might be a profound position, but non-belief isn't. That I don't believe in a god has very little impact on my life and most of it from these conversations. Out in the real world, virtually nothing.

Well if someone has a strong disbelief in all supernaturalism then the obvious implication is that they believe that reality is purely a physical or material reality. It stops with the physical objective world. So metaphysically they believe in a physical reality. That will have implications for a persons worldview and be expressed differently as opposed to someone who believes.

To be clear naturalists are not going to invoke supernatural causation, but now often do most believers do that anyway? I don't have a lot of experience with people claiming something happened because of a supernatural being or force. (Not none, but just not often.)

Yes but if a non-believer is making truth claims about reality being only physical and no supernatural is involved. When their truth claim is challanged they will fall back on empiricle science and naturalism to support their position. Yet ultimately there is no empiricle evidence so it then comes back to a philosophical and metaphysical belief about reality.

Then that is about the person making a truth claim, not the fact that they don't believe in something.

Its about epistemics, who we can know whats real or not. A disbelief in gods or all things supernatural is the same thing as saying we can only know reality by things we can see and verify. All supernaturalism is discounted due to not meeting the requirements of naturalism based on the belief that we can only know reality by the physical evidence. That then leads to a ontological position about what reality is.

And if there was good evidence for anything supernatural, I would probably believe it.

[The rest of this must be addressed separately.]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since you made some blatently wrong statements about the methods/motivations of science I could not let it be.

I wrote:

"As for methodological naturalism, that is a *tool* used in science. Science only considers natural explanations of natural phenomena and as such does not invoke non-natural explanations when analyzing data or designing experiments. That is all it is. It is not a claim about the existence of non-natural causation. It is just a tool."

To which you replied:

Its actually more than that. Its an epistemic claim based on assumptions about reality being only physical which is itself an unsupported assumption.

Methodological naturalism is precisely NOT that. It is right there in the name -- METHOD. Science studies natural causation and explanation of natural phenomena. It does not make claims about the supernatural. Period.

If we assume that something can only be measured by certain tools and we leave other ways of measuring out to begin with then you can't make claims about what reality is. Those who support naturalism as the only reality defend their position by defeating supernaturalism with methological naturalism.

Supernaturalism isn't defeated by methodological naturalism (or science). You can't "defeat" something by just assuming it isn't there. Philosophical naturalism is just that, a philosophical position. You can use the *results* of scientific inquiry by the scientific methods as a reason to reach or support that conclusion (as I do), but it is not, and never will be, the direct product of science or methodological naturalism.

Thats going beyond what science can claim and therefore falls into metaphysical beliefs.

Yes.

Otherwise we have to keep policing those claims and qualifying them as just an assumption about reality and that no one can make a claim that the supernatural is not part of reality.

You can make those claims, just the same as you can claim that the Earth was created in 7 days by a deity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Back to your discussion of me and my kind...

It is when it comes down to applying that practically which is part of life in living out non-belief.

Not really much to it. My life as a non-believer was much the same as a believer. The main difference was I didn't go to church anymore.

A non-believer who is naturalistic will automatically refer to naturalism and physicalism to support their position against supernaturalism to defeat it as unreal as part of supporting their own position.

Not sure what that means. Other than weird discussions like this one, I almost never think of the supernatural or philosophical naturalism. I just live my life in the physical world, like I always have.

Otherwise their position is just a statement of words, which it is not as words carry meaning and represents something when its applied to life.

Maybe that's all it is. How much does one need to think about their position on the nature of the Universe. Even when I am doing science, I don't think about it. I just apply the laws of physics to solve the problems I am trying to solve.

Hum I am not sure. Like I said these are not just flippant claims or statements of non belief.

They can be. There is no requirement for them to be deeply examined. They just represent what you believe or don't believe.

If you make this claim then its necessarily to support it according to that persons own position that evidence is required.

No it isn't. I have no need to justify my "philosphvical position" to you or anyone else. I didn't have any need to justify my belief position when I did believe. Why should this be any different.

Their own philosophical position that epistemically we can only know reality by naturalism and evidence requires them to live that way.

No it doesn't.

Thats opposed to a believer in God who is not relaying purely on naturalism or any espistemic truths about reality and is open to other ways of knowing.

I think you may have the nature of dogma backward. I am not obligated to reject any ideas because of a position I hold.

On to the "practice" of "atheism"...

I think for many they may not have attended the gatherings but like Christians they certainly looked up to the New Atheists movement as part of their atheism and bought into the claims made by the New Atheist.

Even in it's heyday I was unaware of the "New Atheists" though I was aware of two books written by Dawkins and Hitchens. I did not own or read either (much later I did purchase, read, and *enjoy* Hitchens book), and I was quite angry with Prof. Dawkins for stirring up anger and controversy and trashing his reputation with the non-creationist Christians to write a book attacking God and religion. (It took finding CF for me to find the "New Atheists" properly.)

I think the movement reflected a societal shift in positions which many non believers related to so they were expressing where society was at at the time. This has just increased since then.

The number of non-believers continue to grow in your country and mine. The "movement" is a lot of us deciding to not be quiet about our non-belief and stop pretending that most people believe in a god.

We see this reflected in how belief in God has shifted from being respected as part and parcel of society to being ostrasized and attacked within society. That reeks of a belief rather than just a statement of non belief.

The most prominent "leaders" of that "movement" were just those telling the rest of us what we already knew -- that religion wasn't a force for good in the world and that we are not alone. If it is a belief, is more akin to a political belief than a spiritual one.

Now on to something else for some reason...

Yes which comes back to how belief of some sort is ingrained in us.

The *tendency* to belief or acquire beliefs is part of human nature. No one had any particular belief ingrained in themselves at birth.

But noticably I think is that when atheists who believe in the supernatural or mystics do believeits tied to naturalism such as the pagan beliefs and beliefs in natural being a spiritual type experience.

I have no idea what they think as I am not, and never have been one of them. The last supernatural belief I had was the belief in God. Those other supernatural beliefs that many atheists have (the non-god ones) were things that I either never had or had abandoned looong before belief in God. The primary difference between the two -- people actively implanted and reinforce the god-belief, but not the others.

Not quite supernatural but a compromise to allow people to both fullfill their innate beliefs while maintaining a connection to naturalism.

Whatever.

But I wonder if a belief in supernaturalism or mysticism is being atheistic as if a person truely believes in the supernatural then they weaken their position against non belief in gods.

Again I have no experience of such, but people believe (theists and atheists alike) in all sorts of supernatural things and superstitions. Most would not say that believing in clairvoyance interferes with a belief in God, so why should it interfere with a non-belief in God.

So are they really atheistic to begin with.
Why a child ends up not believing is complex.

I wasn't talking about any child ending up not believing. I was speaking of someone that had advanced degrees in physics before ending belief in God. (Me.) I still retained the religious beliefs inprinted upon me 10 years after reaching adulthood.

Its not the same for everyone and the particular mix of experiences is different and may not be anything we can specifically identify.

All we know is that experiences contribute to why someone believes or not in anything or has particular focus on certain aspects of life or may be sensitive to certain situations that cause them to believe what they believe.

I'm not sure anyone is saying any different.

 

[stevevw]

It's called a Type 1 versus Type 2 error, but that isn't the point of this discussion, so let's move on.

Well I think it is and I disagree that its an cognitive error or distortion. Belief in a natural cognition for humans and not an error. Its our default cognition whether thats by evolution or is something beyond the objective world like people believe in consciousness beyond brain.

Its actually the basis for science such as with imagination which is closely tied to belief in things beyond evidence. Look at some of the major scientific ideas and the paradigm changes which took imagining and believing of things beyond what could be verified to be able to even come up with the possibility. Often many did not believe it possible but it turned out correct.

Paradigm shifts require a completely different take on reality which break the boundaries of current thinking and possibilities such as the shift from the deterministic classical billiard ball schema of physics to the non deterministic and relative quantum world. We still havn't figured this out yet and it could well require more shifts in thinking that again breach the current models. It seems the most popular path at this stage that offers the best path is Consciousness and Mind as fundemental.

But this is relevant because it supports the idea that belief in something beyond the physical world is fundemental and therefore humans as a society will have a need to incorporate some belief system that will give meaning and morals. So if we reject God then we are accepting another kind of belief as a society and it seems that its not producing very good results and taking us down a path to destruction.

I said *SOME* apply the same skepticism to other supernatural claims. Others DON'T. You are walking your self into a conflation that is not justified, or part of my statement.

My point was not saying that all atheist believe in the soul. It was that those that do believe in a soul or other supernatural ideas would be inconsistent because fundementally any belief in a soul or the supernatural opens the possiblity for a supernatural agent.

You have successfully described "belief", not "non-belief".

No this is describing both belief and non belief. You have to earn your belief or non belief through experiences. Thats just a fundemental truism of human nature. As mentioned the studies show that its easier to teach belief than non belief as belief is the default cognition in infants and kids.

As they grow and are immerced in whatever experiences they have this will influence towards or away from belief. Or cultivate different beliefs in a range of things. You have to first relate to the belief or non belief position before you can try it on so to speak.

Belief might be a profound position, but non-belief isn't. That I don't believe in a god has very little impact on my life and most of it from these conversations. Out in the real world, virtually nothing.

You'd be surprised how much belief and non belief or even the beliefs we have subconsciously that we don't even realise we have. If belief is a natural state for kids then non belief is something cultivated into the child to exponge the belief. But then studies show that deep down belief cannot really be expunged. Its just people don't realise how much it shapes our lives.

It may surface in situations that call upon the big questions of life. Like say when someone passes away. But many small things as well like how a person sees human nature as being programmed as opposed to agency. It effects a persons worldview on many levels.

But humans tend to skip by these especially I guess those who have set in their minds that its nothing to be concerned about. But primarily we are creatures of meaning, we see reality through meaning and not the quantitified objective world.

To be clear naturalists are not going to invoke supernatural causation, but now often do most believers do that anyway?

Believers also support the natural world as this is just Gods order at work in what he has created. He is also the creator of the laws, processes and mechanisms that all life to exist and adapt to the planet he also created. It would be silly not to.

I don't have a lot of experience with people claiming something happened because of a supernatural being or force. (Not none, but just not often.)

Well I guess thats just natural as you are going to hang with like minded people or at least mostly. It would be awkward and conflicting. It would be like a classical musician hanging with punk rockers lol. But even more profoundly in that religious belief is about the big questions which mean much more to people. You would be thinking these people are unreal in the way they think.

Then that is about the person making a truth claim, not the fact that they don't believe in something.

The point is that they are making a belief claim and not a scientific one. Their non belief in the supernatural has been replaced with a belief in naturalism. They are making both a epistemic and ontological truth claim about reality and whats real or not that cannot be supported by the science.

When they turn to empiricle science to support their claim They are claiming we can only know reality by scientific evidence or what we see and can test by empiricle science. Thats beyond science and into philosophy and metaphysics.

And if there was good evidence for anything supernatural, I would probably believe it.

But how do you know what is supernatural or not. It seems the line is quite blurred. It seems that according to methological naturalism the very thing we are trying to establish has already been assumed to be naturalism without considering other ways of knowing which are also assumed to be unreal before we can work out how to even measure these aspects.

I mean look at phenomenal and transcendent experiences. They cannot be measured in quantified terms so they are automatically discounted as something secondary epiphenomena. Yet these experiences have real effects and knowledge about reality.

It may well be as some say that its the other way around where these conscious experiences are fundemental and our sense perceptions which are also experiences by the way are just a reflection of a deeper reality. Some are saying we need another paradigm shift across the sciences to incorporate subjective consciousness as part of the equation.

Considering all we have is our conscious experiences and quantified concepts are a 3rd part abstract it seems that we need to include the subject, the observer doing the measurements also into the measurements.

[The rest of this must be addressed separately.]

No worries.

 

[stevevw]

Since you made some blatently wrong statements about the methods/motivations of science I could not let it be.

I wrote:

"As for methodological naturalism, that is a *tool* used in science. Science only considers natural explanations of natural phenomena and as such does not invoke non-natural explanations when analyzing data or designing experiments. That is all it is. It is not a claim about the existence of non-natural causation. It is just a tool."

To which you replied:

Methodological naturalism is precisely NOT that. It is right there in the name -- METHOD.

It depends on what science is actually doing. When science finds a new particle they claim its a new aspect of fundemental reality. The science method does tell us about reality with ideas like particles, chemicals, fields and forces. Primarily that matter or something within the causal closure of the physical is fundemental reality.

The METHOD assumes before it measures reality that it can only be measured in quantified terms. That is not a scientific claim as science cannot measure itself as this is circular. But in assuming this method its dismissing the supernatural as a possible influence on matter.

Otherwise the method and scientists would have to admit that their findings are only part of reality, the quantified stuff and there must be other possibilities we have not considered that may be effecting the findings.

It may be that we live in a simulation and the scientific findings are what we are programed to find while there is a deeper reality beyond what the science can measure. It may be that Gods order is sustaining reality or that some Mind is behind things. We cannot know.

In fact Consciousness is a good example of how we cannot seperate the metaphysical from our measurements. Naturalism claims consciousness is an epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So it has assumed consciousness can only be physical before it really knows whether consciousness beyond brains is possible.

If consciousness is beyond brain and is non quantifiable then science has missed a big chunk of what is fundemental reality by assuming it cannot exist by the very method is claims is the only way to know consciousness.

Science studies natural causation and explanation of natural phenomena. It does not make claims about the supernatural. Period.

Yes it does epistemically. Its saying the only way to know and measure reality is by quantifiable terms. You claim consciousness is an epiphenomena. That consciousness beyond brain is unreal and a delusion. You have to as otherwise your not standing by your convictions about the power of science and naturalism. In doing so you have discounted supernaturalism as a non starter.

You have to otherwise you would then have to admit that naturalism and the science method are incomplete in their measure of consciousness and therefore any claims that consciousness is caused by the physical brain is more a belief than fact.

Supernaturalism isn't defeated by methodological naturalism (or science). You can't "defeat" something by just assuming it isn't there.

Epistemically you can. The science method and scientists are saying the only way we can know whats real is through methological naturalism. Otherwise supernaturalism will come back to defeat or at least undermine methological naturalism because it would have to admit its incomplete and phenomena like consciousness may be beyond science.

All science then becomes subject to possibilities beyond itself and this won't do. A more dogmatic stand must be taken to uphold the integrity of science.

Philosophical naturalism is just that, a philosophical position. You can use the *results* of scientific inquiry by the scientific methods as a reason to reach or support that conclusion (as I do), but it is not, and never will be, the direct product of science or methodological naturalism.

Yes thats because you cannot seperate metaphysical naturalism from methological naturalism. You can't seperate the scientist from the measurement. You cannot be 100% detached as a 3rd party. As per above if true to the science then the science method is either a stand alone method about reality or its open to supernaturalism.

It certainly won't do that. So it has to exclude supernaturalism while at the same time having to stand firm on methological naturalism as the only way to know reality.

Yes.

You can make those claims, just the same as you can claim that the Earth was created in 7 days by a deity.

Yes so we can verify that. But you can't verify that the only reality is naturalism. Yet the science method assumes that beforehand which is not scientifically verifiable and therefore not science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop it Steve. I mentioned the thing (type 1 v. type 2 errors) and said we should move on because it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (or even whatever it is I am discussing with you now). It is merely an explanation of how a tendency to apply unwarranted agency to natural phenomena can arise through natural selection. There is no need to discuss it more. LET'S MOVE ON.

Well I think it is and I disagree that its an cognitive error or distortion. Belief in a natural cognition for humans and not an error. Its our default cognition whether thats by evolution or is something beyond the objective world like people believe in consciousness beyond brain.

Its actually the basis for science such as with imagination which is closely tied to belief in things beyond evidence. Look at some of the major scientific ideas and the paradigm changes which took imagining and believing of things beyond what could be verified to be able to even come up with the possibility. Often many did not believe it possible but it turned out correct.

Paradigm shifts require a completely different take on reality which break the boundaries of current thinking and possibilities such as the shift from the deterministic classical billiard ball schema of physics to the non deterministic and relative quantum world. We still havn't figured this out yet and it could well require more shifts in thinking that again breach the current models. It seems the most popular path at this stage that offers the best path is Consciousness and Mind as fundemental.

But this is relevant because it supports the idea that belief in something beyond the physical world is fundemental and therefore humans as a society will have a need to incorporate some belief system that will give meaning and morals. So if we reject God then we are accepting another kind of belief as a society and it seems that its not producing very good results and taking us down a path to destruction.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It depends on what science is actually doing. When science finds a new particle they claim its a new aspect of fundemental reality. The science method does tell us about reality with ideas like particles, chemicals, fields and forces. Primarily that matter or something within the causal closure of the physical is fundemental reality.

The METHOD assumes before it measures reality that it can only be measured in quantified terms. That is not a scientific claim as science cannot measure itself as this is circular. But in assuming this method its dismissing the supernatural as a possible influence on matter.

Science is examining natural phenomena with natural experimental apparatuses and methods and coming to conclusions about the possible natural explanations. That is all -- n
othing more, nothing less.

Otherwise the method and scientists would have to admit that their findings are only part of reality, the quantified stuff and there must be other possibilities we have not considered that may be effecting the findings.

You are projecting. This has no bearing on the reality of scientific inquiry. I have had regular, frequent, and intense conversations on science with other scientists for 25+ years and we NEVER talk about supernatural causation EVER.

It may be that we live in a simulation and the scientific findings are what we are programed to find while there is a deeper reality beyond what the science can measure. It may be that Gods order is sustaining reality or that some Mind is behind things. We cannot know.

In fact Consciousness is a good example of how we cannot seperate the metaphysical from our measurements. Naturalism claims consciousness is an epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So it has assumed consciousness can only be physical before it really knows whether consciousness beyond brains is possible.

If consciousness is beyond brain and is non quantifiable then science has missed a big chunk of what is fundemental reality by assuming it cannot exist by the very method is claims is the only way to know consciousness.

Yes it does epistemically. Its saying the only way to know and measure reality is by quantifiable terms. You claim consciousness is an epiphenomena. That consciousness beyond brain is unreal and a delusion. You have to as otherwise your not standing by your convictions about the power of science and naturalism. In doing so you have discounted supernaturalism as a non starter.

You have to otherwise you would then have to admit that naturalism and the science method are incomplete in their measure of consciousness and therefore any claims that consciousness is caused by the physical brain is more a belief than fact.

Epistemically you can. The science method and scientists are saying the only way we can know whats real is through methological naturalism. Otherwise supernaturalism will come back to defeat or at least undermine methological naturalism because it would have to admit its incomplete and phenomena like consciousness may be beyond science.

All science then becomes subject to possibilities beyond itself and this won't do. A more dogmatic stand must be taken to uphold the integrity of science.

Applying the results of science to a conclusion about the supernatural IS NOT SCIENCE, nor part of science. It is "philosophy".

Yes thats because you cannot seperate metaphysical naturalism from methological naturalism. You can't seperate the scientist from the measurement. You cannot be 100% detached as a 3rd party. As per above if true to the science then the science method is either a stand alone method about reality or its open to supernaturalism.

YES WE CAN. We do it everyday and every time. The MAJORITY of scientists believe in some sort of supernatural thing and they use methodological naturalism for their research EVERY DAY. It is so common we just don't even need to talk about it amongst ourselves. By insisting otherwise you are just plain wrong about something you clearly don't have any personal experience of. That is a clue that you should stop.

 

[BCP1928]

But this is relevant because it supports the idea that belief in something beyond the physical world is fundemental and therefore humans as a society will have a need to incorporate some belief system that will give meaning and morals.

Without doubt.

So if we reject God then we are accepting another kind of belief as a society and it seems that its not producing very good results and taking us down a path to destruction.

If we reject God. But are we doing that? Or are we just moving on from your theology? Whether the results are good or bad is a matter of opinion.

 

[BCP1928]

In fact Consciousness is a good example of how we cannot seperate the metaphysical from our measurements. Naturalism claims consciousness is an epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So it has assumed consciousness can only be physical before it really knows whether consciousness beyond brains is possible.

Wrong. Science "claims" that there is no evidence of anything else and leaves the question open. Nor does Christian doctrine require that our consciousness can exist without a brain. Why do you think Christians assert their belief in the resurrection of the body?