Where is the hope in atheism?

[apogee]

Sure, but I'm afraid that when skeptics, atheists, and other outside onlookers hear us "saying" that these models in science are "only models," they're not hearing what we're saying. Unless, of course, some Christians actually DO think that the models have little real efficacy in technological human "doing."

Fair enough, I'll go along with that.

 

[Silmarien]

Fair enough, I'll go along with that.

Yeah, we have learned this the hard way.

The very, very hard way, replete with countless screaming matches and accusations of anti-realism. It's in part the fundamentalists' fault, since they like to point out the same stuff and then use it to bizarrely support their own ideas.

 

[apogee]

Yeah, we have learned this the hard way.

The very, very hard way, replete with countless screaming matches and accusations of anti-realism. It's in part the fundamentalists' fault, since they like to point out the same stuff and then use it to bizarrely support their own ideas.

Thanks, I really don't want to go down that path.

 

[gaara4158]

Pretty easily. I actually don't believe in the supernatural, but I would define that somewhat differently than you probably would.

Well, now you’ve captured my interest. I don’t believe in the supernatural either, in part because it seems to be a somewhat incoherent concept and in part because of course I’ve never seen evidence of anything resembling what’s generally referred to as such. But as a theist, I’m very interested to hear how you can believe in a non-supernatural god.

Here’s why the label “supernatural” might be incoherent or at least never applicable to anything we can point to. If something “above” or “beyond” the natural exists, it would have to manifest in nature for us to notice it. If it manifests in nature, it should be measurable (even if only theoretically). If it manifests in nature and we can measure it, why label it supernatural?

 

[Silmarien]

Well, now you’ve captured my interest. I don’t believe in the supernatural either, in part because it seems to be a somewhat incoherent concept and in part because of course I’ve never seen evidence of anything resembling what’s generally referred to as such. But as a theist, I’m very interested to hear how you can believe in a non-supernatural god.

Here’s why the label “supernatural” might be incoherent or at least never applicable to anything we can point to. If something “above” or “beyond” the natural exists, it would have to manifest in nature for us to notice it. If it manifests in nature, it should be measurable (even if only theoretically). If it manifests in nature and we can measure it, why label it supernatural?

Yeah, my feeling is also that "supernatural" is an incoherent concept. This is one of my problems with the term "naturalism," since it seems that it can expand to include phenomena previously considered supernatural if they can be identified and explained. If fairies and ghosts exist, they would have to be in some way natural, not supernatural. The whole dichotomy between natural and supernatural seems artificial to me, so I pretty much just reject it wholesale.

As for theism itself, I'd call my position ontological rather than supernatural. I'd rather go full Neoplatonic and proclaim that God is Beyond Being rather than that he's some sort of supernatural entity, since whatever is meant by "supernatural," it's almost never what I'm thinking of. Where I depart from you is that I don't think God needs to manifest in nature for us to notice him, since I view the existence of nature itself as the manifestation. I'm not sure that would make sense to anyone who's never gone a little bit crazy over the question of why anything at all exists, though.

 

[gaara4158]

Yeah, my feeling is also that "supernatural" is an incoherent concept. This is one of my problems with the term "naturalism," since it seems that it can expand to include phenomena previously considered supernatural if they can be identified and explained. If fairies and ghosts exist, they would have to be in some way natural, not supernatural. The whole dichotomy between natural and supernatural seems artificial to me, so I pretty much just reject it wholesale.

As for theism itself, I'd call my position ontological rather than supernatural. I'd rather go full Neoplatonic and proclaim that God is Beyond Being rather than that he's some sort of supernatural entity, since whatever is meant by "supernatural," it's almost never what I'm thinking of. Where I depart from you is that I don't think God needs to manifest in nature for us to notice him, since I view the existence of nature itself as the manifestation. I'm not sure that would make sense to anyone who's never gone a little bit crazy over the question of why anything at all exists, though.

I promise one day I’ll dive into this Platonism you keep referencing, but for now I’ll sidestep it to mention that I have indeed gone crazy over the question of why anything exists at all. It can be haunting or exhilarating depending on your mood. But if I read you correctly, if nature is a manifestation of God and we are a part of nature, that would make us a part of God, right? This reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s rough definition of God as “transcendent reality.” Insomuch as we are entirely beholden to this reality which has produced us all on its own, I can understand deifying it, but that at best gets us to pantheism, which I’m sympathetic to on particularly starry nights. I just don’t think this qualifies me to say “I believe in God” any more than owning a toy car qualifies me to say “I own a Lamborghini.”

 

[Silmarien]

I promise one day I’ll dive into this Platonism you keep referencing, but for now I’ll sidestep it to mention that I have indeed gone crazy over the question of why anything exists at all. It can be haunting or exhilarating depending on your mood. But if I read you correctly, if nature is a manifestation of God and we are a part of nature, that would make us a part of God, right? This reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s rough definition of God as “transcendent reality.” Insomuch as we are entirely beholden to this reality which has produced us all on its own, I can understand deifying it, but that at best gets us to pantheism, which I’m sympathetic to on particularly starry nights. I just don’t think this qualifies me to say “I believe in God” any more than owning a toy car qualifies me to say “I own a Lamborghini.”

Are we part of God is a very good question, and you're going to get different answers there depending on who you ask. For myself, I would maintain the distinction between Uncreated and Created, but there's a lot of extra stuff underlying my position on that. The most important factor is my philosophy on time--I think special relativity and what it says about time as a property of the universe vindicates the medieval picture of God as apart from Creation, viewing past, present, and future simultaneously, and yet from within the universe we obviously experience things differently, so I do see a strong disconnect there between God and the universe. Enough that while I would say that God is maintaining it in existence, the universe is not itself a part of God.

Whether or not we are ourselves a part of God is an entirely different question, though. As far as I'm concerned, that depends on what's really going on with the phenomenon of consciousness, because while I do think the mind is material, there seems to be a strongly transcendent aspect to it. If you're not going to be a dualist about it and claim that God has individually granted each person a soul, then you're effectively stuck at something closer to a world-soul concept, so... yeah. In some sense I would consider us a part of God, or at the very least that we're participating in his nature simply by consciously existing. (This is unlikely to make much sense unless you drop materialism like it's on fire and run away to India, though.)

But yes, you sound a bit close to pantheism right now. I don't think the border between atheism and pantheism is that clear--I spent most of my college years dancing across that particular line, and I would agree that pantheism does not really entail belief in God. At least it didn't for me. You need to hit panentheism for that title to fit in any meaningful way. If you end up having to attribute will and awareness to the transcendent reality (and there are genuine reasons to do so), then you are at God.

And concerning going crazy over the question of why anything exists at all, welcome to the wonderful world of existential angst. I've actually seen it suggested that this is the real issue that the ontological argument is aimed at--for a theist, the next question is why there is God instead of nothing, and what it would mean that he exists by his own nature. I get nervous about this level of intellectualizing about the unknown, but it does make for an interesting thought experiment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Pretty easily. I actually don't believe in the supernatural, but I would define that somewhat differently than you probably would.

Could you not do this thing where you cut posts up sentence by sentence? Paragraph by paragraph is fine, but unless you actually have substantial commentary to make regarding something very specific, sentence by sentence just says, "I do not want to have a conversation." Usually it results in raising objections that would have been answered if you bothered to first read the whole post in context. Or, you know, asked for clarification.



Define supernatural. Define God.

Hilarious. Redefining the word "supernatural", is not going to accomplish anything.
Gods, angels, "miracles", ... those are supernatural things. If you want to use a different word for it - knock yourself out, but it won't change anything to the point being made.

It seems like you focus mainly on the mythological aspects of theism and then define your position in contrast to that

That is what atheism is......................................

If you automatically assume that everyone is talking about Zeus tossing down lightning bolts, I imagine it all would look a little crazy.

Zeus throwing lightning bolts, Jawhe impregnating virgins, Jesus turning water into wine, Deities "speaking" the universe into existance, ....
Yes, indeed.

This is not true. If you insist the other side has a burden of proof, then you have a burden of proof concerning your positive claim that your opponent has the burden of proof.

Ow boy...................................

Anyway, it's not like there aren't problems with the intelligibility of reality if you assume that theism or something like it is not true. Why does the universe appear to function according to regular laws? Because SCIENCE

No. Science is just a method, a tool, to help us find out. "Science" doesn't make the universe function.

And until we find out, the only proper answer is "i don't know".

Well, science observes but doesn't really explain why it's the case that the world works this way instead of a different way. Why does causality seem to hold? If I toss a rock at a window, why doesn't it sometimes turn into a bouquet of flowers? DON'T ASK QUESTIONS. Alright atheists, some of you are really echoing the religious fundamentalists now, but hey, I suppose I already knew that.

I don't even know how to respond to that....
First you make some stuff up about atheists and then you attack atheism based on those made up things.

I can only shrug my shoulders and walk away. Nothing interesting to see here.

 

[Silmarien]

And until we find out, the only proper answer is "i don't know".

Welp. There's another positive claim. And one that assumes that agnosticism isn't compatible with theism. It absolutely is.

First you make some stuff up about atheists and then you attack atheism based on those made up things.

I can only shrug my shoulders and walk away. Nothing interesting to see here.

I'm not attacking atheism. I just think it's weird how some atheists seem to think that nobody is entitled to have questions that they themselves don't have. If you don't look at the world through a lens that presupposes atheism, you're doing it wrong. Anyway, bye!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm not attacking atheism. I just think it's weird how some atheists seem to think that nobody is entitled to have questions that they themselves don't have.

I have no problem with questions. I do have a problem with vacuous naked assertions masquerading as 'answers'.

If you don't look at the world through a lens that presupposes atheism, you're doing it wrong. Anyway, bye!

Disbelief is the default position. I don't grant from the outset the existence of faeries, dragons, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns etc. For what reason should I make an exception for gods?

 

[apogee]

Disbelief is the default position.

I disbelieve this.

 

[Silmarien]

I have no problem with questions. I do have a problem with vacuous naked assertions masquerading as 'answers'.

In that case, I hope you go after materialists and naturalists and not just theists. Lots of naked assertions and dogmatism in those waters too.

Disbelief is the default position. I don't grant from the outset the existence of faeries, dragons, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns etc. For what reason should I make an exception for gods?

This is very narcissistic, given that my concern was the way certain atheists treat theists, not what the atheists themselves ought to believe. You do not need to make an exception for anything you do not want to. You can go be a solipsist for all I care, or insist that the universe is a computer simulation. If the main weapon in your little private war against religion is scorn and mockery, however, I'm going to feel free to write you off as an idiot.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I disbelieve this.

You are free to do that, of course. I personally see the value in believing in things for reasons, rather than just granting their existence from the outset.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In that case, I hope you go after materialists and naturalists and not just theists. Lots of naked assertions and dogmatism in those waters too.

No I don't, because they're not comparable. At all.

This is very narcissistic, given that my concern was the way certain atheists treat theists, not what the atheists themselves ought to believe. You do not need to make an exception for anything you do not want to.

Ok. So I take it that you see no problem in acknowledging that disbelief is - or at least, should be - the default position.

 

[Silmarien]

No I don't, because they're not comparable. At all.

Yeah? Eliminative materialists insisting that the mind doesn't really exist, because you can't describe subjectivity scientifically, and anything that can't be described scientifically must be illusory? You don't see that as at all comparable?

Ok. So I take it that you see no problem in acknowledging that disbelief is - or at least, should be - the default position.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Followed faithfully, that would lead us into fullblown Gorgias level sophistry where you disbelieve literally everything and end up ultimately denying that anything exists at all. As a default position, that's pure lunacy. Though the idea that there could even be a default position seems psychologically naive.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yeah? Eliminative materialists insisting that the mind doesn't really exist, because you can't describe subjectivity scientifically, and anything that can't be described scientifically must be illusory? You don't see that as at all comparable?

Nope. I don't agree with those positions, but they are at least based on a coherent ontology and epistemology. Theism has neither of those.

I don't acknowledge that at all. Followed faithfully, that would lead us into fullblown Gorgias level sophistry where you disbelieve literally everything and end up ultimately denying that anything exists at all. As a default position, that's pure lunacy. Though the idea that there could even be a default position seems psychologically naive.

No. All it means is you withhold belief in something or set of things until sufficient reason for belief is gleaned. The criteria will vary depending on the subject and the individual, but it's hardly a 'naive' position. You do it all the time, every single day. So do I. So does everyone.

Unless you don't. In which case, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Silmarien]

Nope. I don't agree with those positions, but they are at least based on a coherent ontology and epistemology. Theism has neither of those.

If you're going to make a claim like that, you really ought to support it. Just proclaiming that something is incoherent is a bit of a vacuous naked assertion, after all.

No. All it means is you withhold belief in something or set of things until sufficient reason for belief is gleaned. The criteria will vary depending on the subject and the individual, but it's hardly a 'naive' position. You do it all the time, every single day. So do I. So does everyone.

It would be naive to think that there's no underlying network of beliefs that changes from person to person and from culture to culture and that would determine what the default positions were and what qualified as sufficient reason to accept them. If atheism is your default position, you're perfectly entitled to your own epistemology. If you're going to argue that it ought to be everyone's default position, then you need to do a considerably better job of supporting that than you have so far. On the other hand, if you're just here to snipe, I'm really not interested.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you're going to make a claim like that, you really ought to support it. Just proclaiming that something is incoherent is a bit of a vacuous naked assertion, after all.

No, that is not my obligation. It's the obligation of people who claim they do have a coherent ontology and epistemology to present it. Comparatively few theists seem to even try.

It would be naive to think that there's no underlying network of beliefs that changes from person to person and from culture to culture and that would determine what the default positions were and what qualified as sufficient reason to accept them.

I would too. That's why I said the criteria will vary depending on the subject and the individual.

What will not vary is the fact that those individuals will still come to believe things for reasons, whatever they are, and not just as a default.

If atheism is your default position, you're perfectly entitled to your own epistemology. If you're going to argue that it ought to be everyone's default position, then you need to do a considerably better job of supporting that than you have so far.

Again, I argue that disbelief is or at least ought to be the default position on everything, in lieu of reasons for believing. There is nothing special about 'gods' or atheism. The word 'atheist' only exists as a means of differentiating oneself from the status quo on god belief. If belief in leprechauns was the status quo, I would have to identify as an aleprechaunist, for the exact same reason.

 

[Silmarien]

No, that is not my obligation. It's the obligation of people who claim they do have a coherent ontology and epistemology to present it. Comparatively few theists seem to even try.

Historically, many have. There's a ton of systematic theology out there that rationally presents theistic concepts. If you are going to call it incoherent, it very much is your obligation to explain why. After all, if I were to say, for example, that atheism is irrational and refuse to defend that statement, any atheist would be right to call me on that. It would not be your responsibility to defend the rationality of atheism in the absence of any genuine criticism. (For the record, I'm not calling atheism irrational.)

If you have reasons to believe that theism is incoherent, I would be interested in hearing them. Ontology and epistemology are kind of what I'm into. If you have no actual reasons, you are welcome to refrain from this sort of rhetorical ploy.

Again, I argue that disbelief is or at least ought to be the default position on everything, in lieu of reasons for believing. There is nothing special about 'gods' or atheism. The word 'atheist' only exists as a means of differentiating oneself from the status quo on god belief. If belief in leprechauns was the status quo, I would have to identify as an aleprechaunist, for the exact same reason.

As long as you are not making claims concerning what constitutes an appropriate reason to believe, I don't have a problem with your view, except that it becomes somewhat meaningless. Even a fideist who believes that faith is irreconcilable with reason and ought to be privileged above it is going to have a reason for belief: pure, unadulterated irrationalism.

I don't know why you're randomly talking about leprechauns. Obviously if you were going to say that everyone's default position on leprechauns should be that they didn't exist, you would need to support that claim too. If someone's culture included belief in leprechauns, they would have a culturally informed reason to believe in them. Perhaps from our perspective they would not have a good reason, but it would be our responsibility to make that argument.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Historically, many have. There's a ton of systematic theology out there that rationally presents theistic concepts.

I disagree with the 'rational' part, but yeah there sure is a lot of it. Still comparatively very little, though, in regard to the sheer amount of stuff written about gods.

If you are going to call it incoherent, it very much is your obligation to explain why.

Ah, nope. Not gonna spend however many untold hours it will take to go over every single theistic concept I have ever encountered and explain in turn why I find each one of them incoherent or otherwise unconvincing. If you have a specific ontological or epistemological case you'd care to focus on and defend in your own words, you can name it.

As long as you are not making claims concerning what constitutes an appropriate reason to believe, I don't have a problem with your view, except that it becomes somewhat meaningless. Even a fideist who believes that faith is irreconcilable with reason and ought to be privileged above it is going to have a reason for belief: pure, unadulterated irrationalism.

I never said anything about 'good' or 'bad' reasons. Just reasons. Reasons are why people believe things, not out of 'default'.

If that's true, my view isn't meaningless. It's correct.

I don't know why you're randomly talking about leprechauns.

It's not random. It's a point of illustration, that gods aren't special. They are just one thing in the enormous category of things not believed in by me.

Obviously if you were going to say that everyone's default position on leprechauns should be that they didn't exist, you would need to support that claim too. If someone's culture included belief in leprechauns, they would have a culturally informed reason to believe in them. Perhaps from our perspective they would not have a good reason, but it would be our responsibility to make that argument.

Again, if they have reasons for believing, then they're not believing on 'default', and my view is correct.