Where is the hope in atheism?

[KCfromNC]

It's called sarcasm, but I'm damned if I'm going to try and explain that. (hmmm, maybe I should create a new thread)

Looks like my initial reading of the situation was correct. Oh well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good job complaining that I don't post enough content for your standards rather than addressing what I do post. Any wonder why I don't bother writing more?

Can you find anyone hear on CF that thinks you "do enough" to constructively further a discussion? I don't see you doing the work of a @Nihilist Virus or other, similar individuals in your own camp.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you find anyone hear on CF that thinks you "do enough" to constructively further a discussion?

Sure. For an example, take a look at post 206. Look at the checkmarks at the bottom of it.

All of these attempts to avoid talking about what I wrote really aren't doing much to convince me there's any substance to what's being discussed here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. For an example, take a look at post 206. Look at the checkmarks at the bottom of it.

Look, I get it. It is hard to keep the rhetoric going when people point out the obvious - there are better ways to figure out reality works than paragraphs and paragraphs of creative writing exercises. But don't shoot the messenger.

And I thought the rhetoric--or actually the more appropriate word in your case would be "polemics"--was on your side.....since you almost never, as far as I can tell, buttress your points with anything academic (by which I mean here "of scientific and scholarly substance"). It would be good for you to support your statements and demonstrate for us from where you drawn your all encompassing, and rather simply, ocean of knowledge that supposedly backs all that you say. What classes have you taken? What books have you read? Which scientific and/or atheistic authors have been most influential in your view of the world? Etc. etc. But, when I look for that kind of thing from you, I hear this guy singing in your chorus line ....

P.S. [Although, I will say that the NASA illustration and link you provided was a nice, but rare touch from you... You might do that kind of thing more often.]

 

[KCfromNC]

And I thought the rhetoric--or actually the more appropriate word in your case would be "polemics"--was on your side.....since you almost never, as far as I can tell, buttress your points with anything academic

Wait, I thought the issue was that I didn't win some sort of arbitrary popularity contest. Why are you moving the goalposts yet again?

(by which I mean here "of scientific and scholarly substance"). It would be good for you to support your statement and demonstrate for us from where you drawn your all encompassing, and rather simply, ocean of knowledge that supposedly backs all that you say. What classes have you taken? What books have you read? Which scientific and/or atheistic authors have been most influential in your view of the world?

I see the problem here. I don't honestly remember the names of the authors of the textbooks I read 25 years ago. But that's the benefit of working in a field which has well tested methods for determining the truth of claims - it simply doesn't matter who wrote the books as long as the content does line up with reality. That's why I'm not impressed by the fact that you can name drop some dead white dudes having opinions - even if you can tell me when and where they had that opinion and which other dead white dudes shared them. I'd much rather have an effective method of seeing how those opinions line up with reality - and the results of applying that method.

But if it really matters I can try to find the authors of some of my college textbooks. I have a feeling this is another red herring, but hey, why not waste more time trying not to actually discuss ideas rather than name drop?

Etc. etc. But, when I look for that kind of thing from you, I hear this guy singing in your chorus line ....

I see another problem. I'm not used to fields which consider pictures of cartoon characters "of scientific and scholarly substance". I'll try to improve.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait, I thought the issue was that I didn't win some sort of arbitrary popularity contest. Why are you moving the goalposts yet again?



I see the problem here. I don't honestly remember the names of the authors of the textbooks I read 25 years ago. But that's the benefit of working in a field which has well tested methods for determining the truth of claims - it simply doesn't matter who wrote the books as long as the content does line up with reality. That's why I'm not impressed by the fact that you can name drop some dead white dudes having opinions - even if you can tell me when and where they had that opinion and which other dead white dudes shared them. I'd much rather have an effective method of seeing how those opinions line up with reality - and the results of applying that method.

But if it really matters I can try to find the authors of some of my college textbooks. I have a feeling this is another red herring, but hey, why not waste more time trying not to actually discuss ideas rather than name drop?



I see another problem. I'm not used to fields which consider pictures of cartoon characters "of scientific and scholarly substance". I'll try to improve.

Well, that's great and all that you have your "own" approach to life and work. But since you're an apparent interloper here on the CF's Christian Apologetics forum, one has to wonder why you are voluntarily here, especially when I'm sure there are so very many more practical, even scientific, matters to attend to in life. Is voluntarily signing up for a forum such as this and constantly 'downing' other peoples ideological views an activity that correlates with the actual work you do? Just wondering.

And yes, please feel free to "drop names" of your own. Why? Because ideas as they develop aren't really separate from the conglomerate of people who develop and work to establish those 'ideas' as an expression of the reality in which we all do live.

 

[gaara4158]

Wellll, now you're going to need to deal with @2PhiloVoid's Jewish epistemology and my Platonism at the same time. Sorry, can't be helped.

Gah, you are really not going to let me get away with brushing aside Platonism, are you? I don’t feel I know enough about it to give it a proper evaluation, but I can get back to you perhaps in another thread? I feel like all my conversations in here are now about my epistemology vs everyone else’s and not addressing the OP’s question anymore.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, I’m glad we agree on this. I do understand what you mean with the whole separate epistemology for finding faith in God, I just wholly reject the idea of using a different epistemic standard for one specific type of claim. The problem specifically with your Jewish epistemology is that it seems identical to self-deceit. Studies in cognitive dissonance show that when there is a conflict between your beliefs and your behavior, you’re more likely to change your beliefs to justify your behavior rather than the other way around. We really don’t like to admit when we’re acting in what Sartre would call “bad faith.” I hate to say that about something so many generations have taken very seriously and held sacred, but I call it like I see it.

@2PhiloVoid's video does a nice job of describing what mauvaise foi really means--a matter of lying to ourselves about the choices that are available to us rather than strictly speaking being about the way we come to beliefs at all. If you've read some of his plays, I'd say Huis Clos (No Exit) is really effective at demonstrating what's meant by this. (Way better than his philosophy, which is a bit on the unreadable side.) All the characters are focused on what they could have been had circumstances not conspired against them instead of taking responsibility for their own failures.

In the religious context, mauvaise foi can definitely pop up. In fact, it probably does more often than not, simply because it's really easy to surrender responsibility for anyone, whether they're religious or secular. Ironically enough, I suspect that Sartre's entire philosophical system was built upon willful deception--knowing that meaning did not exist and yet insisting that it could somehow be constructed left him wide open to eventually being seduced by Marxism, which is kind of hard to reconcile with some of his other views. I don't think there's much debate over the fact that when it comes to living authentically, the paragon was Albert Camus, not Jean-Paul Sartre.

Now, Sartre himself might have disagreed with this because he was a bit of an anti-theist, but there's nothing inherently self-deceptive about being religious. Some of us theistic existentialists are actually fascinated by the concept of theological rebellion because we do recognize that there's no obligation to accept God into our lives at all. We are free to reject him, presumably forever, we are free to say "no" to his world and all his works. If we decide instead to say "yes," it is not because we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we have no other option, but because this is what we've knowingly chosen. And if this involves accepting additional epistemological considerations (perhaps for some people including fullblown biblical inerrancy), that is a choice that can be made in full knowledge as well. It does not have to be an excuse for not considering other possibilities; it can in and of itself be the decision that someone has made.

This doesn't mean that this always is the case, because obviously it isn't, but mauvaise foi is a lot more complicated that "religion, bad; secularism, good." There are tons and tons of examples of very authentic religious thinkers throughout history--plenty of the saints in any number of traditions.

Gah, you are really not going to let me get away with brushing aside Platonism, are you? I don’t feel I know enough about it to give it a proper evaluation, but I can get back to you perhaps in another thread? I feel like all my conversations in here are now about my epistemology vs everyone else’s and not addressing the OP’s question anymore.

Haha, no worries. I have no idea how we got on this tangent in the first place, except that we usually do end up here no matter what the topic is. I'm not sure what more can be said about the OP's question, though, unless we want to jump straight into Sartre for real.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The point is that most theists would not be making claims like this either. "I believe that God exists" would be a more appropriate claim, and unless atheism is now defined as the belief that theists do not believe that God exists, which would be really wild, it doesn't make sense to say that atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim.

In practice, at least where I live, this doesn’t hold true at all.

When I ask a theist (and in my case it’s almost always a Christian) the question, “Could you be wrong about your god existing?”, the answer is overwhelmingly “No, I know that God exists.”

 

[gaara4158]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the one to say that religiously oriented Jewish people have always acted ... in Sartrean "bad faith." In fact, to say so is basically a 'crock of bull' AND an implicature that diminishes (and otherwise completely and utterly ignores) both the epistemic and the social indicia within the biblical texts.

Sure, we might say that the Israelites in the O.T. had periodic episodes of acting in "bad faith," but this wouldn't comport to the Sartrean notion in the least. Rather, the prophetic institution within the biblical corpus supplies and implies a completely different complex to explain the Israelites mental "situation," one that is quite different in nature than the one you are construing with casuistry ... from the 'outside' of the Bible.

I guess how one sees the nature of the faith depends on whether your are an 'innie' or an 'outie.' Personally, I try to see things from multiple perspectives, not just one.

Ok, fair enough. I seem to have misinterpreted Sartre's meaning of "bad faith" to simply mean acting in a way that goes against your beliefs, but your video (and Silmarien) has explained that it's more about acting as though no other choices are available to you when there really are. I accept this correction. All I meant was that the epistemology proposed by Judaism as you describe it, if used as an apologetic strategy, appears to take advantage of a well-documented psychological phenomenon that compels people to change their beliefs when they're forced to act in ways that contradict them. If someone doesn't already believe in God, but then they start living as though they do, they might very well start to believe just to relieve the cognitive dissonance. But that's true for any given belief so it's not a strong indicator of God's existence either way. I did notice that the Jewish god-epistemology isn't exactly for someone who doesn't already believe, but rather those who believe and wish to explore the nature of their beliefs a little deeper, so that's fine. I just had to criticize it as an apologetic strategy because as you reminded me, this is an apologetics forum.

Moreover, I for one am not going to accept ANY insipid insinuations that I, myself, only have Christian faith because I have ... Sartrean "bad faith." Yeah, as I said above, I think that kind of evaluation is a crock of bull and if anything, I've studied way too much to be taken in by a bunch of atheistic amateurs who want to take crackshots at my faith.

Notice, too, or maybe you haven't, that my epistemological understanding of things actually makes room and explains at least some of the reasons why people can be atheists, and it doesn't imply that atheists are all at fault for being where they are cognitively with the whole 'god question.' But, apparently, atheists (or agnostics, or skeptics, doubters, or whatever label you want to use) such as yourself are in such a rush to discount everything biblical that some of you guys want to insist that all this Christian belief stuff can just be pawned off to cognitive dissonance and "bad faith." How convenient for you.

I did not mean to insult you, truly. It was a misinterpretation on my part. I have heard and understand your Jewish epistemology as you have described it, and my only point is it doesn't help a non-believer come to belief at all. I know it's not meant to, either. I don't doubt that those who use that epistemology are sincere in their already-existing faith, I just don't know if it belongs in the same category as Christian apologetics.

 

[Silmarien]

So you say, and yet you also think that modern physics is simply mathematical models rather than based on observation. Something's not adding up.

No, I literally said this:

Just wanted to point out that our sensory perception of reality actively conflicts with the scientific picture of it. Is the candle in front of me actually green or is it the light reflecting against it in a specific way that makes my brain register the color green? Is it solid, or does the structure of the atom mean that it and everything else is mostly empty space? Do fundamental particles actually "exist" in the same way that atoms and molecules do at all?

And then you jumped on it for reasons unknown.

Physics does use mathematical models to describe what it studies. This goes all the way back to Ptolemaic astronomy--people believed that the sun went around the earth because of astronomical calculations rather than simply because they observed it going around the earth. I'm talking about the use of mathematical models (and reason) instead of relying upon naive sensory perception, and this gets increasingly more important as the work gets more and more theoretical. This does not rule out observation, but the scientific method is meant to correct for the flaws of sensory perception, even as it obviously makes use of it. If you were willing to read my post in the context in which it was originally made instead of replying to a straw man of your own making, this strange dispute could have been avoided altogether.

In practice, at least where I live, this doesn’t hold true at all.

When I ask a theist (and in my case it’s almost always a Christian) the question, “Could you be wrong about your god existing?”, the answer is overwhelmingly “No, I know that God exists.”

I've also never met an atheist in person who would claim that it was a lack of belief. All of my atheist friends will say they don't believe in God.

Theism covers a lot of different beliefs. If atheists don't want theists to make assumptions about their beliefs or lack thereof, they should be willing to return the favor. But that doesn't happen around here very often. It seldom even registers with people that I don't identify as Christian, even after I've said it multiple times.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Physics does use mathematical models to describe what it studies. This goes all the way back to Ptolemaic astronomy--people believed that the sun went around the earth because of astronomical calculations rather than simply because they observed it going around the earth. I'm talking about the use of mathematical models (and reason) instead of relying upon naive sensory perception, and this gets increasingly more important as the work gets more and more theoretical. This does not rule out observation, but the scientific method is meant to correct for the flaws of sensory perception, even as it obviously makes use of it. If you were willing to read my post in the context in which it was originally made instead of replying to a straw man of your own making, this strange dispute could have been avoided altogether.

.....why is it you can always say things...so much better than I can?!

 

[bhsmte]

In practice, at least where I live, this doesn’t hold true at all.

When I ask a theist (and in my case it’s almost always a Christian) the question, “Could you be wrong about your god existing?”, the answer is overwhelmingly “No, I know that God exists.”

I ask that question quite a bit myself and the answers are highly predictable, based on the content of one's posts.

I always felt, it is a sign of strength to state; hey, I could be wrong. The thing is, IMO, the folks who are likely trying to shelter deep insecurities about their beliefs, are the one's more likely to claim; it is impossible for them to be wrong.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I've also never met an atheist in person who would claim that it was a lack of belief. All of my atheist friends will say they don't believe in God.

Probably all of my atheist friends would recognize that the two statements are colloquially equivalent.

Theism covers a lot of different beliefs.

Yes, like the claim that I see all the time that someone knows that a god exists, which runs counter to your suggestion that "most theists would not be making claims like this".

If atheists don't want theists to make assumptions about their beliefs or lack thereof, they should be willing to return the favor. But that doesn't happen around here very often. It seldom even registers with people that I don't identify as Christian, even after I've said it multiple times.

I'm apparently not seeing what you're seeing. In terms of putting words (or beliefs) in other people's mouths, over the 14 years I've been here I've seen it happen much, much more often from theists.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I literally said this:



And then you jumped on it for reasons unknown.

Physics does use mathematical models to describe what it studies. This goes all the way back to Ptolemaic astronomy--people believed that the sun went around the earth because of astronomical calculations rather than simply because they observed it going around the earth. I'm talking about the use of mathematical models (and reason) instead of relying upon naive sensory perception, and this gets increasingly more important as the work gets more and more theoretical. This does not rule out observation, but the scientific method is meant to correct for the flaws of sensory perception, even as it obviously makes use of it. If you were willing to read my post in the context in which it was originally made instead of replying to a straw man of your own making, this strange dispute could have been avoided altogether.



I've also never met an atheist in person who would claim that it was a lack of belief. All of my atheist friends will say they don't believe in God.

Theism covers a lot of different beliefs. If atheists don't want theists to make assumptions about their beliefs or lack thereof, they should be willing to return the favor. But that doesn't happen around here very often. It seldom even registers with people that I don't identify as Christian, even after I've said it multiple times.

Lacking a belief that something exists and not believing something exists, would appear to be one and the same.

For myself personally, I certainly lack a belief that a God exists and I also don't believe a God exists.

 

[Silmarien]

Probably all of my atheist friends would recognize that the two statements are colloquially equivalent.

Would they also say that God does not exist and is a human invention? I have a friend who has said that in no uncertain terms. I was not even aware of this "lack of belief" definition before running into the internet version of atheism, and I used to actually identify loosely with the movement.

Yes, like the claim that I see all the time that someone knows that a god exists, which runs counter to your suggestion that "most theists would not be making claims like this".

Perhaps this is anecdotal on all sides. Most of the theists I know in person would not make such a claim. Perhaps the ones who do make that claim are simply louder about it? That would not mean there are more of them.

Of course, there are also questions concerning what we mean by knowledge. Even people who claim that the existence of God can be demonstrated philosophically or are convinced on the grounds of personal experience will probably back down if you set the bar for knowledge all the way at absolute certainty. Unless you're dealing with people who are completely unreasonable, but that can be the case whether you're a theist or an atheist.

I'm apparently not seeing what you're seeing. In terms of putting words (or beliefs) in other people's mouths, over the 14 years I've been here I've seen it happen much, much more often from theists.

This is a very Protestant forum, so many of the people on it will fit with certain stereotypes to one extent or another. That doesn't mean that they're not stereotypes, and as a Platonist whose interest is primarily in Eastern Orthodoxy, I get hit with them all the time. It is very clear to me that many of the atheists here, at least in the Apologetics forum, think that they are owed respect without having any obligation to return it.

As for theists putting words in atheists' mouths, sometimes it depends. Earlier in this thread I used the word "atheistic perspective" to refer to looking at reality with the assumption that atheism is correct, and someone flipped out because "atheism" is not a claim. This new definition of atheism as a lack of belief has become so rigidly dogmatic that some people are apparently unable to handle seeing the word used in entirely different contexts. That is not a good sign.

Lacking a belief that something exists and not believing something exists, would appear to be one and the same.

For myself personally, I certainly lack a belief that a God exists and I also don't believe a God exists.

They don't have to be. I lack belief in an afterlife but I do not disbelieve that there is an afterlife. I prefer to operate under the assumption that there is one, as it makes me take this life more seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm not agnostic about it.

 

[bhsmte]

Would they also say that God does not exist and is a human invention? I have a friend who has said that in no uncertain terms. I was not even aware of this "lack of belief" definition before running into the internet version of atheism, and I used to actually identify loosely with the movement.



Perhaps this is anecdotal on all sides. Most of the theists I know in person would not make such a claim. Perhaps the ones who do make that claim are simply louder about it? That would not mean there are more of them.

Of course, there are also questions concerning what we mean by knowledge. Even people who claim that the existence of God can be demonstrated philosophically or are convinced on the grounds of personal experience will probably back down if you set the bar for knowledge all the way at absolute certainty. Unless you're dealing with people who are completely unreasonable, but that can be the case whether you're a theist or an atheist.



This is a very Protestant forum, so many of the people on it will fit with certain stereotypes to one extent or another. That doesn't mean that they're not stereotypes, and as a Platonist whose interest is primarily in Eastern Orthodoxy, I get hit with them all the time. It is very clear to me that many of the atheists here, at least in the Apologetics forum, think that they are owed respect without having any obligation to return it.

As for theists putting words in atheists' mouths, sometimes it depends. Earlier in this thread I used the word "atheistic perspective" to refer to looking at reality with the assumption that atheism is correct, and someone flipped out because "atheism" is not a claim. This new definition of atheism as a lack of belief has become so rigidly dogmatic that some people are apparently unable to handle seeing the word used in entirely different contexts. That is not a good sign.



They don't have to be. I lack belief in an afterlife but I do not disbelieve that there is an afterlife. I prefer to operate under the assumption that there is one, as it makes me take this life more seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm not agnostic about it.

If a God does not exist and some people believe a God exists, wouldn't the belief then be a human invention?

Humans manufacture certain beliefs all the time, there is nothing unusual or even abnormal about that. And the fact, that humans have so many different beliefs, and they all can not be correct, verifies that beliefs are invented by human minds.

People believe big foot exists, people believe they have been abducted by aliens and I could go on and on.

 

[Silmarien]

If a God does not exist and some people believe a God exists, wouldn't the belief then be a human invention?

Humans manufacture certain beliefs all the time, there is nothing unusual or even abnormal about that. And the fact, that humans have so many different beliefs, that all can not be correct, verifies that beliefs are invented by human minds.

People believe big foot exists, people believe they have been abducted by aliens and I could go on and on.

Of course. My point was that this particular friend doesn't say that she lacks belief in God. She says that God was invented by humanity and does not exist. That is an actual positive claim. I've got another friend who would be an agnostic but thinks it's a copout so instead believes that God does not exist. He's less adamant about it than the first one, but given his feelings about agnosticism, I doubt he would describe his stance as a lack of belief.

I'm not sure if any atheist I've known in person would say that their atheism is a "lack of belief," though. I'm familiar with "agnostic atheism," but atheism as "lack of belief" or as the rejection of a specific claim is entirely new to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course. My point was that this particular friend doesn't say that she lacks belief in God. She says that God was invented by humanity and does not exist. That is an actual positive claim. I've got another friend who would be an agnostic but thinks it's a copout so instead believes that God does not exist. He's less adamant about it than the first one, but given his feelings about agnosticism, I doubt he would describe his stance as a lack of belief.

I'm not sure if any atheist I've known in person would say that their atheism is a "lack of belief," though. I'm familiar with "agnostic atheism," but atheism as "lack of belief" or as the rejection of a specific claim is entirely new to me.

But, wouldn't that almost be a position one would have if they don't believe in something, that they automatically attribute it to human invention?

Again, lack of belief and not believing something, is exactly the same thing using different words. I mean, if you lack a belief in something, you automatically don't believe in that something. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.

 

[Silmarien]

But, wouldn't that almost be a position one would have if they don't believe in something, that they automatically attribute it to human invention?

That depends. What do we mean by "I do not believe in God?"

Either:

A) I do not believe the proposition "there is a God."
B) I believe there is no God.

As has been pointed out many times here, the first does not necessarily entail the second. However, if you are attributing the concept of God to human invention, then you are at the second. You cannot simultaneously reject the claim that there is no God and hold that God is a human invention.

Again, lack of belief and not believing something, is exactly the same thing using different words. I mean, if you lack a belief in something, you automatically don't believe in that something. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.

Because it's not true. I'm some sort of Christian agnostic, so I lack belief in the truth of Christianity but I do not automatically not believe in it. I'm pretty cool operating under the assumption that it might be true, even though I have no personal confirmation of that fact.

This is why agnosticism should not get subsumed into atheism. Of course, there's also the question of whether it's appropriate to use the term "lack of belief" at all in situations where we have enough information about a topic to hold an opinion, whatever it might be. I would not, but other people around here seem determined to, no matter what absurdities follow.