Atheism and nihilism

[Ken-1122]

Yeah. You might want to check it out since it'll help you better understand just how well you (and others) may or may not be justifying your own understanding and beliefs about the world around you.

No thank-you. How about if you read up on those positions and use that information to challenge how I justify my understanding and beliefs about the world around me. Up for that?

 

[SelfSim]

Coming back onto Atheism, I recently encountered this gem in a conversation elsewhere, with an Athiest scientist, also a Humanist. (The 'belief' metioned in the first part, is the belief in deities):

'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'.

So, taking that argument onboard, Atheism is religion also .. in they they all operate on the same basis of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own(?)

 

[SelfSim]

If reasons X,Y, and Z are “because not only do I experience it’s existence, but everybody else (independent of me) have the exact same experience that I have concerning that tree” that reason would be independent of me.

No .. those other people may perceive it in similar ways as you do, because they possess the same brain/mind type as you do. But what about other people who don't (eg: drug addicts, babies, mental patients, etc)? Are they to be excluded from being people because of that? That would be denial of the obvious to me.
The mind independence (ie: the 'exterior-ness') of that tree, never gets tested because that's an untestable belief.

Objective means a lot more than “focus on the object” It also means based on unbiased fact, something that can be demonstrated as true.
...
Because “God did it” cannot be demonstrated as true.

So what do you mean by 'true' there? What is 'true' and why does that exist?
(I guess you're assuming it does, because that appears as being your basis for comparison there?).

A mirage only affect your vision; it does not affect your other 4 senses

That's what I meant by consistency between the senses (I think we agree).

From my experience, most evolution vs creation debates is based on ignorance. Creation is about how life began, evolution is about how an already existing life evolves from one state to another. Evolution does not address the beginning of life but creationist (at least the ones I’ve seen debate) believe it does.

Ok .. but my example wasn't really about emphasising that specific aspect.

Again; objective means based on something that can be demonstrated as true; IOW fact. The small group of scientists in your scenario are basing their findings on fact, the vast majority of people tricked into believing are not basing their views on fact but subjective opinions. The only difference between your scenario and todays reality is the percentage of people who believe the scientists, and the percentage who believe the conspiracy theorists.

That's right .. and that's because the scientists are thinking in different ways (and executing different kinds of tests) compared with the conspiracists .. and not because they have access to some knowledge about 'things' which 'physically exist', 'exteriorly' or independently from any human mind (whatsoever). I mean how could they have such knowledge .. when that's not even a testable concept to them?

No, in your scenario the majority have no clue about diseases, they know they have no objective proof to back up their beliefs so they know they are not being objective. Only the scientists claim to have proof, only the scientists can claim to be objective.

You still haven't shown what scientists leverage in that discussion, other than whatever you mean by 'true' and 'fact', which gives them the edge. I say its the scientific method and scientific thinking.
It appears you're saying, (I'm not sure about this though), that scientists only work on things which exist independently from any human mind as being 'true', or 'facts', or exist 'exteriorly' from any other human minds)?
(Caveat: I'll emphasise that I'm not exactly sure if that's what your saying or not, so I'm happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood what you mean here, namely by 'exterior'?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No thank-you. How about if you read up on those positions and use that information to challenge how I justify my understanding and beliefs about the world around me. Up for that?

Oh, you can just tell me. It makes it easier that way because you see......I think ALL episemological positions have a chink in their armor. So, may I add your chink to my collection?

 

[Kylie]

I'm a Star Trek fan as well, and I was going to bring this to your attention. In fact, it provides a good metaphor for its meaning....................which is what I'm sure folks like Gene Rodenberry chose to call it, and not by some mere accident, Kylie. The Klingon moon, and its explosion in the movie screenplay, makes the perfect point.

No, try again. You're a smart girl, and I'm confident that if Gene Rodenberry knew what 'praxis' means, then you can too. And if I can put in the word 'praxis' into the Google search engine and find something substantive with the first search, then again, you can too.

Yes, and I'm glad you're educated. I've had both, however: a secular education, and also a religious one.

Moreover, what I'm asking you to do really has nothing to do with religion. It's all secular: epistemology is secular. Hermeneutics is also secular.

So it seems to me that your arguments would be a lot better if you actually made it clear what you were talking about rather than just introducing some concept, not explaining it, and hoping the other person can figure out the way you meant it.

Oh, I'm sure I do. I've been recused of verbosity before. But then again, I'd like to suggest to other people that maybe they need to work on their listening and learning skills. On this note, I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself could do so without too much difficulty.

Maybe other people need to work on their listening and learning skills too, maybe not. But the fact remains that you should be doing everything you can to make sure your message is as clear as possible.

Which methods of science do you like to use? How does your own understanding about the Nature of Science (N.O.S.) play into your scientific and/or epistemological praxis, Kylie?

I come up with an idea based on an observation of the real world. I come up with a way to test it - not just verify as working in a particular situation, but also finding situations where it could fail if the idea is wrong to see if it does so. If the idea provides accurate results, and does not fail in the cases it would fail if it was wrong, then I accept that idea as correct.

No, actually I did not 'imply' it. This is just how you're interpreting what you think I've said. You're making conceptual connections about what you think I mean that I never hooked up together. The truth of the matter is that she got her previous, more superstitious, 2-dimensional understanding about moonlight...............because she grew up in a former Soviet block country which didn't do much for her scientific understanding of the world around her. In fact, it's 'worldview' was such that it was stunted her overall praxis, kind of like those of the Klingons in Star Trek 6 (which in a direct way in that very movie, the Klingons represented the Soviets.....)

Then perhaps you shouldn't say things if they were not relevant. By mentioning them, you gave the impression that they were relevant.

No, that's not exactly correct. Simply because some source gets something wrong on one account doesn't mean it'll necessarily be wrong on all accounts with everything else in life. We don't assume that just because one apple on top of the barrel is tainted with a worm doesn't automatically mean every other apple in the barrel is likewise tainted.

No, but it does show that there are insufficient protocols in place to keep the worm-infested apples out of the barrels. While it doesn't prove that all the other apples are infested, it DOES show that the apples could have worms, and we should check them first to make sure they are free of worms.

The actual answer is both 'Maybe/Maybe Not--it depends!!'

No it's not.

 

[SelfSim]

I think ALL episemological positions have a chink in their armor.

Whenever they rely on some kind of belief, I tend to agree. For example whenever definitions of knowledge involve a basis of 'justified true belief', we have the makings of a completely useless, circular definition.

I never saw any sense at all in such a claimed meaning of 'knowing'. It certainly has nothing to do with 'scientific knowledge', which is all about justification, is sketchy on truth, and is devoid of any need for belief. Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences. So 'knowledge' boils down to 'track record', and nothing else .. certainly not 'justified true belief'!

 

[Ken-1122]

Coming back onto Atheism, I recently encountered this gem in a conversation elsewhere, with an Athiest scientist, also a Humanist. (The 'belief' metioned in the first part, is the belief in deities):

'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'.

So, taking that argument onboard, Atheism is religion also .. in they they all operate on the same basis of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own(?)

Atheism nor religion operates on the bases of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own. There are lots of beliefs I do not have, and they have nothing to do with theism, nor do they have anything to do with atheism

 

[Jok]

.

 

[Ken-1122]

No .. those other people may perceive it in similar ways as you do, because they possess the same brain/mind type as you do. But what about other people who don't (eg: drug addicts, babies, mental patients, etc)? Are they to be excluded from being people because of that?

What are you talking about? Tell you what; get me a baby, a drug addict, and a mental patient and I bet you they will each experience the tree the same way I do.

would be denial of the obvious to me.
The mind independence (ie: the 'exterior-ness') of that tree, never gets tested because that's an untestable belief.

The existence of the tree on my lawn is testable. I can demonstrate it’s existence using any of your 5 senses.

So what do you mean by 'true' there? What is 'true' and why does that exist?

True (in this context) is that which is consistent with reality

Ok .. but my example wasn't really about emphasising that specific aspect.

Perhaps the analogy creation vs evolution; to make your point, was a poor choice.

That's right .. and that's because the scientists are thinking in different ways (and executing different kinds of tests) compared with the conspiracists ..

What type of tests are scientists excluding?

and not because they have access to some knowledge about 'things' which 'physically exist', 'exteriorly' or independently from any human mind (whatsoever).

Actually they do have such knowledge

I mean how could they have such knowledge .. when that's not even a testable concept to them?

What type of knowledge are you talking about that is not testable?

You still haven't shown what scientists leverage in that discussion, other than whatever you mean by 'true' and 'fact', which gives them the edge.

Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical world by observation, measurement, and experimenting, and developing theories to describe the results of these activities.
SCIENCE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Hopefully that answers your question.

 

[SelfSim]

Atheism nor religion operates on the bases of exclusion of beliefs which differ from their own. There are lots of beliefs I do not have, and they have nothing to do with theism, nor do they have anything to do with atheism

Interesting .. what is your 'operating basis' then, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Ken-1122]

Oh, you can just tell me. It makes it easier that way because you see......I think ALL episemological positions have a chink in their armor. So, may I add your chink to my collection?

I thought I already told you; my beliefs are based on what makes sense to me. it's based on the best information I have at the moment

 

[Ken-1122]

Interesting .. what is your 'operating basis' then, if you don't mind my asking?

What do you mean when you say operating basis?

 

[SelfSim]

What are you talking about? Tell you what; get me a baby, a drug addict, and a mental patient and I bet you they will each experience the tree the same way I do.

Different minds 'experience' things slightly differently. My evidence for that, are the conversations going on here, in this thread. People construct different 'models' from the same observations all the time.
Why makes you think everyone will always experience a tree in exactly the same way you do?

The existence of the tree on my lawn is testable. I can demonstrate it’s existence using any of your 5 senses.

The only thing you'll be testing there will be your description of, (or what you mean by), 'tree'. When you describe that meaning, you will be using your own mind. When you use your mind, you will not be demonstrating the mind independence, of a tree will you?

True (in this context) is that which is consistent with reality

Reality is a word, can you describe what you mean by that word and how you came by that meaning, (seeing as 'reality' is now your basis for establishing consistency with 'true')?

(The only other alternative way I can think of, by which 'reality' somehow acquired a meaning, ie: other than by some human mind giving it a meaning, is .. well .. the miraculous way!?)

Perhaps the analogy creation vs evolution; to make your point, was a poor choice.

No .. I just don't think you understand the point I was making about objectivity requiring agreement on consistency amongst like-thinking minds, yet.

What type of tests are scientists excluding?

Test descriptions come in two types: ones that can be tested and those which can't, using the scientific method (requiring operational definitions) and scientific thinking.
Science has nothing at all to say about those descriptions it cannot test .. I wouldn't call that excluding them.

.. and not because they have access to some knowledge about 'things' which 'physically exist', 'exteriorly' or independently from any human mind (whatsoever).

Actually they do have such knowledge

Really?
And so you think knowledge now exists independently from any human mind, (all of them), including scientists' minds then?
That would have to be as close a way I can think of, as being a miraculous way!

What type of knowledge are you talking about that is not testable?

The miraculous example you just gave immediately above!

Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical world by observation, measurement, and experimenting, and developing theories to describe the results of these activities.
SCIENCE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Hopefully that answers your question.

Ahh .. you're choosing to hide behind dictionary definitions .. which are always couched in contextually generalised ways.

OK here's a context: every definition (or description) used in producing science's 'objective reality' (ie: what 'exists' in science - eg: atoms, electrons, photons, electricity, gravity, time, quarks etc, have either been tested, or are objectively testable in principle .. with no exceptions. These definitions (descriptions) are thus all based on idealised models .. which are about as far as it gets from being 'mind independent things ... which (somehow) just simply exist'!
Otherwise, perhaps you can show us the way idealised models can be idealised by not using a human mind?
If you don't agree that they are idealised mind dependent models, then why have all of those examples changed so radically, since scientists started using them? How could that happen if they were always just mind independent 'things' .. sort of floating around in space waiting for us to grab them?

Science has never tested (nor ever tests) anything truly independent from a human mind. It may someday .. but not so far yet.

 

[SelfSim]

What do you mean when you say operating basis?

You said:

Atheism nor religion operates on the bases of exclusion of beliefs ..

Ok .. so I ask: If Atheism doesn't operate on the bases of exclusion of beliefs (as you say above), then what does it operate on?

 

[Ken-1122]

You said:
Ok .. so I ask: If Atheism doesn't operate on the bases of exclusion of beliefs (as you say above), then what does it operate on?

Atheism does not operate on anything; it's the default position. It's the rejection of one thing; God/Gods.

 

[SelfSim]

Atheism .. It's the rejection of one thing; God/Gods.

.. and yet that 'thing' is objectively untestable in science.
So, specifically what test/data/results (or other) enable the rejection?
(.. or: What is the basis of rejection?)

 

[Kylie]

.. and yet that 'thing' is objectively untestable in science.
So, specifically what test/data/results (or other) enable the rejection?
(.. or: What is the basis of rejection?)

The same thing that enables the rejection of other religions. A lack of evidence. If there is no evidence for God that can withstand scrutiny, why believe in such a God?

 

[SelfSim]

The same thing that enables the rejection of other religions. A lack of evidence. If there is no evidence for God that can withstand scrutiny, why believe in such a God?

Who knows?
Better still (I say) to not answer the question in the first place (as you just did by answering with a question) .. because a demand for what one believes, (which never seems to fail in soliciting its response), by definition, can't produce anything which will make any difference whatsoever, to the results of science's objective tests!
They asked for a belief, so that's exactly what they'll take any response as being.

Secondly, (sorry .. I know you're well aware of this .. so, this is more for any readers): 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

The insight here however, (which I was presented with outside of CFs, see post#842), was:
'Religious people are effectively atheists when confronted with all but their one particular choice of religion'. (I rather oddly, end up concurring with this whenever I quietly put it to the test).
So reversing this, one can equally say that atheists are also religious when confronted with all but their one particular choice of belief (ie: 'the absence of evidence')... which the original question solicited (and is usually subsequently met with its intended response of the atheist's belief of: 'absence of evidence').

 

[Kylie]

Secondly, (sorry .. I know you're well aware of this .. so, this is more for any readers): 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

Of course, it can be counted as evidence of absence if that evidence should be there. If your neighbor claimed that teenagers were racing their cars outside of his house, the absence of teenagers, cars, and tire marks on the street would be negative evidence against his claim.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course, it can be counted as evidence of absence if that evidence should be there. If your neighbor claimed that teenagers were racing their cars outside of his house, the absence of teenagers, cars, and tire marks on the street would be negative evidence against his claim.

There can always be reasons for why such 'negative evidence' isn't there .. and those reasons can legitimately be just a pile of more untestable beliefs.

Belief is the issue here .. not the existence or otherwise, of evidence (negative or otherwise).

I'd answer the question along the lines of: Beliefs mean nothing in science (and thus, so does your question) and then proceed with a discussion on objective scientific grounds (note: not purely logic grounds), and then one is not in the position of having to defend from within the realm of beliefs.