There .. So now .. can we move onwards and discuss how Atheism/Nihilism is impacted by this perspective on how beliefs, reality and science work?
Upvote
0
Atheism and nihilism
- Thread starter Lord Vega
- Start date
Below is the definition of “real” I gave you a few days back. Any definition that is different than below is not what I am talking about. You need to address what I said in the context of the below definition otherwise we aren’t speaking the same language.
Definition of real | Dictionary.com
Belief leaves room for doubt. I have no doubt about the tree, therefore I know.
Difference Between Knowing and Believing | Difference Between
Upvote
0
Oh .. we're writing in the same language (English) .. but I agree that there are different contexts here could potentially inhibit acquiring eachother's meanings (and thence gain understanding).
The context I'm using is scientific, your context is still belief.
Ok .. Conditionally. My condition is that I emphasize what a pile of unclarity and confusion this definition is, and therefore, how it will lead to the same, in any discussion about what is real!Ken-1122 said:
Let's take a look at that:
How do we agree on what 'is true', if that is the standard by which 'what is real' is to be based? More importantly, who is the authority I have to defer to, in order to find out, given that 'true' is asserted without evidence here? Do they possess a human mind?
How do we go about agreeing on a 'fact' in some discussion in the case of where there is no consistency? Are those trying to reach agreement, humans?
How do we agree on 'real events'? And how does the word 'actual' add anything but circularity to the meaning of 'thing'?
Having clarified the above, I am able to work from within such a sloppy definition even if doing that leads to utter useless-ness in the form of unresolvable arguments.
Can you reorient yourself to the mind dependent reality hypothesis viewpoint?
Calls for a separate post .. (when I get the chance).Ken-1122 said:
Upvote
0
We can work more efficiently with the summary in that link. It is as follows:
Superficially, items (1) and (2) are contradictory. If 'knowing' means that I am 100% certain about a chosen truth, then why is that not a 'belief' as defined by item (3), ie: 'Believing’ is blind trust'?
The authors of that article confused themselves right there.
As a scientific thinker, I'd choose operational definitions (objectively testable), rather than trying to adjudicate words by convention (in other words, what we can show we mean, not what we'd like to mean).
An operational definition of belief is:
SS#1) 'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
An operational definition of 'knowing' is more difficult as it is one of the more complicated words we have. I would say an operational definition of 'knowing' would be:
SS#2: Knowing is akin to the odds a person would give on being right (like, '95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct, if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they 'know'.
Note: SS#2 means we would generally never assess our odds as 100%, (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the, (in my opinion: rather foolish), standard that to 'know' something it must always end up being true (as they did above). Philosophers arrived at 'justified true belief' as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean rather than what they really mean .. it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all.
Upvote
0
In this context, real and true are pretty much the same.
Why do you have to appeal to an authority? Don’t you know the difference between real and make believe? And as far as evidence, there is plenty of evidence that the tree is real.
Really???
The inconsistencies are so slight that it doesn’t prevent it’s reality from being agreed upon
By experiencing using our 5 senses.
Upvote
0
To know is also to believe; its just more than merely believing
That’s your choice; I chose to use dictionary definitions; (the way terms are commonly used) when making the analogy of the tree in my front yard.
Upvote
0
To know is also to believe; its just more than merely believing
That’s your choice; I chose to use dictionary definitions; (the way terms are commonly used) when making the analogy of the tree in my front yard.
Upvote
0
cvanwey
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Noted.
Uh oh?
Did you ever truly stop and ask why?
One plausible reason: The fact there exists the term 'atheist' could shed some light... You do not see people going around labeling themselves an 'abigfootist'. This is because the majority of the populous around them are not asserting unfalsifiable claims, day in and day out, which also is accompanied by unfalsifiable moral doctrines associated or attached, which surround Big Foot.
Another plausible reason: Maybe many use these forums as a refuge, to air their internal grievances with fellow anonymous internet users; as maybe their loved ones oppose their internal views? Maybe they do not wish to raise discord among their family and friends? But wish to escape to a place of refuge to unload?
Yet another viable reason: Maybe these individuals see Christianity, as doing more 'harm' than 'good', from their individual perspectives? If Christianity is going to be reduced or equated to the likes of feeding the poor, then we do not need Christianity for this, as there exists secular organizations which perform as such, as well.
I'll stop here...
How many atheists are famous authors? I'd reckon to state maybe .001%?
Furthermore, you don't think a portion of this theme is to raise book sales, by raising controversy..?
Your above 'points' do not look to justify this statement? You mentioned internet bloggers and book authors. I would dare to say this is the extreme minority of existence, regarding 'atheists'. The ones whom are indifferent are likely not on the internet, spending their time blogging about a concept for which they do not believe. Just like you likely do not spend much of any time blogging against Big Foot supporters
If it directly impacts your life, on a regular basis, and you disagree, then you might join a blog, write a book, protest, and/or other. Otherwise, you go about your merry way, completely indifferent to the topic.So this means you too condone inequality for women, endorse slavery practices, and also approve of God's presented ultimatum? Cool.
Upvote
0
'Atheism' is more than just a label though .. I've come to the conclusion there is a (big) belief underpinning the practice.
I think, (but , I'm not sure yet), that Atheists seem to think that the absence of the belief of the existence of a deity is not, itself, just another belief(?)
See, when the belief (in a deity) is objectively untestable, there are only two ways I see atheists use for ruling out the possibility of one .. either by way of logical contradiction/inconsistency (which might dismiss the argument, but doesn't rule out the belief itself) or, by invoking yet another undisclosed belief, which then acts as the basis for ruling it out. Both ways require believing in some untestable notion, which then makes atheism indistinguishable from being yet another religious belief (maybe even a religion)?
Certainly possible motivations .. but, (as an example only), your invoking 'what's possible' also re-admits the possibility of the existence of a deity .. which is apparently what atheists are arguing against(?) There's inconsistency there, I think(?)cvanwey said:
(Please note: I'm not saying possible motivations directly equate with the possible existence of a deity .. I'm just noticing how whenever we invoke 'possibilities', it tends to lead to unconstrained notions).
I agree with that .. (there's objective evidence for it).cvanwey said:
Upvote
0
Consider another way for ruling out the possibility; that they see no convincing evidence that the claim is even possible.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Can you demonstrate that in some way?
(I mean, as opposed to simply claiming it as being true and expecting everyone to just accept it?)
I also don't have clue what it means .. sounds like completely useless philosophical rhetoric to me.
That's right ... It is a choice I can make and not something I believe .. because I have a test for distinguishing beliefs .. which is way more useful than perpetually quoting untestable truisms.Ken-1122 said:
Upvote
0
Often what's possible isn't obvious .. especially when its not testable.
Going even one step further however, I would say one often doesn't see any rational evidence either .. its a belief! .. where, by 'belief', I mean (see the underlined bit):
' ... any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
However, many notions, even in science, don't at first present as having rational evidence .. but that doesn't mean they get ruled out! That's often how speculation commences. (Eg: Cosmology's 'something from nothing'). Many irrational notions may be sidestepped or rendered neutral, but science is about where to place our best bet .. its not about ruling things out unless there's specific test results which enable doing that .. and as it turns out, the context of 'something from nothing' is what turns the statement into a rational (theoretical) notion.
It seems to me ruling out claimed possibilities comes at the end of some process .. not at the beginning simply because they seem outrageous. That's how religions operate .. its called Universality (or Absolutism) and science (for eg) just doesn't operate that way.
Upvote
0
Correct. The absence of a thing is not itself that thing which is absent.
I'll just stop you there. Lacking belief doesn't require ruling out the possibility. It's possible that I'll meet a female with good looks who cooks and cleans, but I lack belief that there exists such a creature.
Some atheists do hold to the belief that "there are no gods", that's called hard atheism and I would agree it's untenable, but it isn't required for atheism.
Upvote
0
Appreciate your feedback there.
I really wish an Atheist would speak up so I could understand how they rationalise their position. I'm (fairly obviously) gravitating towards that a hidden, assumed belief is lurking around there somewhere(?)
I recently had one present me with this rather interesting insight (from a Humanist/Atheist):
'I respect the right to freedom of belief - but I don’t respect the belief itself. I think that’s general though - religious people are effectively atheists when confronted with all but their one particular choice of religion'.
(My underline). So, if one accepts the underlined, the implication there is that if one then reverses it, Atheism, for that person, is on a par with being a religion .. (which was quite a surprise for me).
Upvote
0
Okay, here's a good illustration I've heard. Let's say you and I are walking through the county fair and come upon a booth with a large jar full of marbles. I say to you "The number of marbles is odd". If you don't believe me, does that require you to believe the number of marbles is even? Of course not. That's atheism in a nutshell.
I'm an atheist because I lack belief. That's all it takes. I'm a hard agnostic because the belief I do hold to is that it is impossible to know if there is a god or if there is not.
I looked into the etymology of the word "atheism" a long while back and I found out that the Romans used to call Christians "atheists" in a derogatory manner because the Christians didn't believe in their pantheon. Sounds like you've been talking to a hard atheist. It's fair to bash that, I do, but it isn't accurate to generalize atheism based on that. It would be like talking to a Baptist and telling the multitude of other denominations what they believe about Christianity.
A hard atheist lacks belief in a god and holds the belief that there is no god. If you don't believe there is something, then of course you also don't have a belief that there is that something. But it doesn't work in reverse. It's possible to not have a belief that there is something without believing that there is not that something.
We don't need to argue that a god is not possible. We can merely argue that what a person thinks is evidence does not lead to the conclusion they've arrived at. For instance, a theist might claim that because the geographical facts in the Bible are accurate, we should believe that the miraculous events are also accurate. But that doesn't logically follow. The geographical facts were accurate in "The War of the Worlds" too, and that caused people to believe it when it was read on the radio, but the sci-fi events weren't actually happening. See, I didn't argue against the possibility of god, I merely argued against the value of some piece of evidence for that god. If all claimed evidences for a god are bunkum, then there's no reason to hold a belief in god even while there's also no reason to hold a belief that there is not a god.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Thank you for sharing that .. much appreciated.
I'll do some more pondering on it all, but the first thing that strikes me is the whole belief-centric paradigm of it all.
I must be an odd-bod or something because frankly, I don't really give a hoot about beliefs (or lack of beliefs) .. including my own. What people believe, don't believe, or lack by way of belief, barely even registers for me except when it stands in the way of clarifying reality, or science.
I don't mean disrespect of others here either.
Humans clearly have the capacity of belief .. So that capacity needs to be recognised and taken into account because it can (and does) obscure what we mean by reality when we add meaning to our knowledge of the term. Any philosophy of science therefore, has to pay careful attention to that capacity because there's clear abundant objective evidence that humans do science and humans have the final say in what reality is.
Upvote
0
No. What you believe vs know is based on what’s going on inside your head. You cannot demonstrate what’s going on inside your head, you can only tell people about it and they can take your word for it or not.
This is simple stuff! Most people have no problem understanding it; I have no idea why you are struggling with this.
Not a belief? How could your choice to use operational definitions be a belief? That doesn’t make any sense.
Don’t assume because I’ve ruled out religion, that I haven’t tested it first only to find out the claims are false.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I’m an atheist; what is it about my position you would like to understand?
Just because a person is atheist doesn’t mean they don’t have beliefs; they just don’t have belief in God.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming all atheists are for the same reason. Perhaps the person you were discussing with is on par with being a religion (but it’s not a religion) but that doesn’t mean his logic applies to all atheists.
Upvote
0
Stated like a true believer!
Well maybe its because you're just expecting me to swallow it holus bolus .. y'know just like believing in a deity .. including its miracles 'n stuff(?)Ken-1122 said:
'Simple stuff' or not; there's no difference between believing in a deity and: 'To know is also to believe; its just more than merely believing' because you can't give me something more to go on other than that unthinking, untestable truism.
Not sure how you came up with that statement after I said the opposite:Ken-1122 said:
What I was trying to say is that if I have the ability distinguish a belief by applying my operational definition for one, then I can apply that to one of my own thoughts to see if it qualifies as a belief (or not). Because I have that test, I am then free to choose (or make a choice). Where I don't have such a test, I'll probably go on forever being driven by that undistinguished belief (with no freedom to choose another path).SelfSim said:
Ok .. accepted.Ken-1122 said:
And yet, it seems that you believe in the existence of some mind independent reality .. and yet you just said:
So I ask: How can something exist independently from your mind (or head) when what you 'believe' vs 'know' is based on what's going on inside your head?Ken-1122 said:
Whatever 'tests' you're applying to rule out religion, clearly aren't also up to the task of assessing the truth or falsity of your claim of the existence of some mind independent reality then.
Do you see the problem you've created for yourself here?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Umm .. feel free to share .. but after the dilemma you just presented, please don't expect me to understand it, if that same thinking is involved. (All will be cool by me if you accept that).
Where 'God' exists as some kind of mind independent 'thing' there, I presume you to mean?Ken-1122 said:
Sure .. and to be fair to them, I don't think they'd be saying that either. They said it was very personal to them .. and I get that.Ken-1122 said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
