Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am going to present you with an argument for atheism that you have never heard, and before seeing it you will be given the chance to privately wager on whether the argument will convince you.
Before I tell you, on a scale of 0-10, how inclined do you think you will be to be convinced?
Would you say that the totality of everything you have heard (on this forum, in your own life, etc.), in regards to what my argument could be, affects your close-to-0 inclination?It is very doubtful that I would be convinced.
So the followers of New Atheists "have faith" in the spokesmen that if a new argument arises, their spokesmen will be able to shoot it down. I'm sure some don't think they need their spokesmen to be able to shoot down any new arguments too. Plenty of people think they're smarter than the folks who make it onto TV to advocate for the things they agree with. For instance, I like watching Dawkins explain evolution, but I know more about the Bible than he does. So generalizing "followers" as "having faith" is still an inappropriate sweeping generalization.
I assumed, and I still think I'm right in that assumption, that the "vast majority of all human beings" you refer to is theists in general. Am I incorrect? If not, then my paraphrase of you is accurate.
More to the point though, Shermer, by saying that bit of irrationality evolved in us, is stating that all humans are irrational, thereby including himself, so it is a far stretch to call that arrogant.
You also said that such a claim avoids any epistemology, which Shermer does not avoid but instead explains its reasons.
You said people ought not act like that, I showed someone not acting like that.
You say you understand my point, yet you still call it an "argument". It is a plausible explanation for a "why" question. It is not an "argument" that tries to prove religious people are irrational. It pokes holes in the argument that there's no good explanation for theist belief other than "it's true".
What, what, what? "Supposing"? Are you saying that there was no time in human history that the majority of people thought these examples were true, or are you saying that I'm wrong about my "ain'ts"?
The point is that an argument ad populum is not a probabilistic argument. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it more likely to be true. There's a reason that is already a well accepted fallacy, and to think that you're trying to justify using fallacious reasoning is astounding.
Let's try to get back on track though. The OP says that "I am an atheist because I lack belief" is not an okay claim to make. He pins it on "New Atheists", sure, but he implies that anyone who would say such a thing must be a "New Atheist". You say, "God is not worthy of belief" is an appropriate replacement for "I lack belief". I say "All evidence I've seen is bad" is a better way to phrase it. Mine can apply to all atheists even if some take it further. So, why is "All evidence I've seen is bad" an insufficient claim to argue about whatever a theist and an atheist want to argue about?
Would you say that the totality of everything you have heard (on this forum, in your own life, etc.), in regards to what my argument could be, affects your close-to-0 inclination?
So that's a good thing, bad thing?Sure, although that seems tautological. What else than everything I have heard in my life could affect my inclination? I don't believe in reincarnation.
I was referring to this:What? My lack of belief in reincarnation? I think it's a good thing.
(I don't know what you are referring to.)
I'm trying to understand the difference.
I was referring to this:
"If I said to Dawkins, "I am going to present you with an argument for theism that you have never heard, and before seeing it you will be given the chance to privately wager on whether the argument will convince you." Do you think he would wager against the argument? I think it is obvious that he would. Heck, you yourself admitted that the New Atheists are militant, combative, disparaging. They mock religious people, they think they are stupid. They produce documentaries showcasing fundamentalists denying scientific consensus. You don't think any of this produces any sort of inclination about new arguments?"
I'm trying to understand the difference.
It was the only thing that popped in my head when trying to find a simple way to respond to positively not believing a negative claim positively... or whatever that was.A jury is asked if the evidence presented demonstrates guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", so, it's not a good barometer. Courts don't decide based upon what they believe, but rather, what they can justly act upon, and what it is fair to ask someone to prove in front of them. It is harder to prove not X than X with evidence so we don't ask people to do so.
You can also believe things you have reasonable doubts about.
Of course a lack of evidence is always going to be a reasonable point against any given assertion, which is the problem here.
Something about an atheist being ashamed, tricky rhetoric and claims atheist don't make.Whatever the OP says it is?
Redo:
A "positive reason" to disbelieve a claim is that it the lacks evidence to support itself. One doesn't need to have a reason for a contradictory claim to simply find the asserted claim insufficient.
My head hurts. This is a really simple concept that is getting unnecessarily complex...
(Bolding added by me for emphasis)1) God is not worthy of (my) belief, or 2) God is not worthy of (anyone's) belief. (1) Is equivalent to your definition
Which doesn't apply to every atheist as you admit here:(2) may be preferable (i.e. relating to future theistic arguments).
So there's no reason to apply your version to atheists in general because it doesn't apply to all of them... but mine does! Even if they take it a step further and they want to add to it.I didn't say it is the only reason or that it apples to all New Atheists.
No. Let's take the idea that the Earth is flat. At one point in time, most people thought it was, agreed? At that point in time, most people prior to the people that currently existed also though the Earth was flat. So at that point in time, we take a cross section of history and find that most people throughout history believed the Earth was flat. Therefore, at that time it was more likely that the Earth is flat than it is round. Anyone at that time employing your appeal to popularity would be wrong. This also means that the probability for something being true or false changes over time, somehow. It used to be more likely that the Earth is flat, and now it is more likely that the Earth is round. See how silly that sounds?An interesting question that arises is: what is a true consensus? I think it quickly becomes apparent that a consensus summing beliefs across history is more of a consensus than one which only considers beliefs at a given time, a given cross slice of history.
That isn't what scientific consensus means. When they say there is a consensus, it isn't because they polled a bunch of scientists and asked them their opinion. It means that of all the tested hypotheses about a subject, the majority of those hypotheses turned out in favor of the subject. So you aren't comparing people's opinions, you're comparing actual data. It isn't comparable.Justify that it is a fallacy without an appeal to authority (e.g. Wikipdia). I've read the various justifications and they explicitly relate to deductive logic, not probabilistic logic. Interestingly, Wikipedia claims that it can be a valid argument in the case of inductive logic (but I think their reasoning fails in this case).
Do you think that scientific consensus provides a probabilistic argument for truth? If 90% of climate scientists claim that global warming is happening, does this provide a legitimate reason to believe that it is?
Because of the continual rhetorical tricks you are deploying, I have decided to answer you with responses by an atheist philosopher out of Australia.
"The first thing I can say here is that belief and knowledge are not usually paired this way. As our justification for a belief being true gets stronger, it eventually qualifies as knowledge (because knowledge is at least a ‘justified, true, belief’). So this makes both the gnostic positions rather redundant, as you necessarily have to have a belief if you also have knowledge."
"When we’re talking about scientific concepts, we make the effort to use appropriate scientific language. We ought to make the same effort to be philosophically precise in matters of philosophy. ‘Atheism’ and ‘belief’ are also technical terms in philosophy. This might rub some anti-philosophical types the wrong way, but like it or not, if you engage in rational argument, you’re doing philosophy. And anything worth doing is worth doing correctly."
That may be. I simply said that one reason many New Atheists think future arguments will fail is due to their faith in spokesmen (or official atheist apologists).
Do you think that scientific consensus provides a probabilistic argument for truth? If 90% of climate scientists claim that global warming is happening, does this provide a legitimate reason to believe that it is?
As I explained to Variant, my definition could be taken in two ways. 1) God is not worthy of (my) belief, or 2) God is not worthy of (anyone's) belief. (1) Is equivalent to your definition, and I already gave reasons why (2) may be preferable (i.e. relating to future theistic arguments).
Thanks for your question. It gives me an opportunity to flesh out my argument and dismiss superficial interpretations such as Variant's.
The Prima Facie Situation
Prima facie it is more rational for theists to have an inclination against changing their beliefs than New Atheists. This is because New Atheists define atheism as, "The lack of belief in gods."
Redo:
A "positive reason" to disbelieve a claim is that it the lacks evidence to support itself. One doesn't need to have a reason for a contradictory claim to simply find the asserted claim insufficient.
My head hurts. This is a really simple concept that is getting unnecessarily complex...
Just to be clear, has Variant identified himself as your definition of a New Atheist? If not, this post seems to be a non-response to him.
(Bolding added by me for emphasis)
Whew! Okay, then we agree and there's no more reason to argue! My definition works just fine and there's no reason to use yours except:
Which doesn't apply to every atheist as you admit here:
This one is still off-topic, but what the heck, why not?
No.Let's take the idea that the Earth is flat. At one point in time, most people thought it was, agreed? At that point in time, most people prior to the people that currently existed also though the Earth was flat. So at that point in time, we take a cross section of history and find that most people throughout history believed the Earth was flat. Therefore, at that time it was more likely that the Earth is flat than it is round. Anyone at that time employing your appeal to popularity would be wrong.
This also means that the probability for something being true or false changes over time, somehow. It used to be more likely that the Earth is flat, and now it is more likely that the Earth is round. See how silly that sounds?
Now let's expand my example to everything that we've learned over time. For everything we've learned, there's a different belief previously held by, what was at the time, the majority of humanity that was wrong. Since we don't know everything, there are beliefs right now that the majority of humans hold that aren't true. Here's one example you can get on board with, I think: the majority of humans believe that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. So, according to you, they are probably right and the Bible probably is not the inerrant word of God. But you disagree, I presume, yes?
That isn't what scientific consensus means. When they say there is a consensus, it isn't because they polled a bunch of scientists and asked them their opinion.
It means that of all the tested hypotheses about a subject, the majority of those hypotheses turned out in favor of the subject. So you aren't comparing people's opinions, you're comparing actual data.
If you did poll a bunch of scientists and 90% said global warming is real, it would be an appeal to authority, which is not necessarily a fallacy. If those scientists all studied climatology, then it is appropriate.
If those scientists all studied biology, then it would be inappropriate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?