tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5781279368098659399..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Atheism, Agnosticism and the Default PositionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9089639904508093872008-09-04T15:04:00.000-04:002008-09-04T15:04:00.000-04:00guy said...atheism is not "believing there are no ...guy said...<I>atheism is not "believing there are no gods," but rather "not believing there are gods." It's a very important distinction.</I><BR/><BR/>If you've read through what I've said then please state why you think this is a very important distinction.<BR/><BR/>I maintain atheism means what it means, "non-theism." I maintain it depends on the question being asked. I maintain it is the agnostic who disbelieves in the gods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44218314858616131312008-09-04T14:54:00.000-04:002008-09-04T14:54:00.000-04:00Just to resurrect this quickly, my understanding o...Just to resurrect this quickly, my understanding of atheism is not "believing there are no gods," but rather "not believing there are gods." It's a very important distinction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91793825229498130752008-08-13T23:17:00.000-04:002008-08-13T23:17:00.000-04:00Scott, such a God is not irrelevant to liberal bel...Scott, such a God is not irrelevant to liberal believers like John Hick and others.<BR/><BR/>Remember, my position is <I>a priori</I>.<BR/><BR/>And I do argue against any God, just like you do.<BR/><BR/>I just think we should treat believers with fairness on this and admit with Sam Harris we really don't know why anything exists at all (something Shegetz said and which I agree with him about, if I understand him correctly.<BR/><BR/>Are you reading the link I provided?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34996962326249716332008-08-13T21:12:00.000-04:002008-08-13T21:12:00.000-04:00John wrote: When it comes to the question of wheth...John wrote: <I>When it comes to the question of whether there is any God at all, the default position should be agnosticism, I don't know. Anyone wishing to affirm that there is no God has the burden of proof, just like any person who affirms there is a God.</I><BR/><BR/>But what do you mean by "any God?" A disinterested and reclusive God who sat on the sidelines while the universe - and all life in it - formed naturally could exist. The existence of such a God could never be ruled out, but his existence would be irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>As such, I don't see the significance about being agnostic about such a God because he wouldn't have any decernable impact. It's like saying I don't know about things that would be impossible to know or would essentially be irrelevant even if I did know the answer. <BR/><BR/>Of course, what I've described does not match most people's definition of "God."<BR/><BR/>However, a God that exhibits agency in the universe to manifest a specific plan would have an discernible impact outside himself. Knowledge, or the lack of knowledge, of this God's existence and his reasons for taking action would be relevant and and could possibly even influence said God's future actions. But, in defining God in this way, one moves from "I don't know" to "I DO know." <BR/><BR/>Based on these properties, what abilities would God require to make such an impact? What motivation would God have for making said impact? Do we have evidence that such agency has taken place in the past or will occur in the future? Do these features pose a contradiction? <BR/><BR/>These are positive claims which we can evaluate and reject based on what we know about human perception, motivation and even personal experience gained by stepping back and objectively questioning and observing our own actions and behaviors. <BR/><BR/>If I were to say "I don't know" about the existence of a God with properties that would make him relevant, I'd need to say "I don't know" about everything around me. <BR/><BR/>As such, I don't see the significance of singling out God when I'd be agnostic about everything else. <BR/><BR/>Shygetz said... <I>Sorry, but you're wrong--saying "I don't know" is not the default position, and you don't REALLY believe it is.</I><BR/><BR/>John wrote: <I>Yes I do, when it comes to why something—anything—exists.</I><BR/><BR/>For the sake of argument, let's assume some deity tuned the laws of the universe just enough so eventually humans would evolve, but left some factors just enough out of tune so our universe would look as if it may have formed naturally. This deity doesn't have a personal relationship with us, doesn't make any demands of us and has made no provisions for some kind of afterlife. We have no knowledge of his intention, moral orientation, goals or his reason for creating us. <BR/><BR/>If you knew this deity existed to this extent as just described, what advantage would you gain over knowing the universe was formed natural and organically? <BR/><BR/>Making the distinction between these two possible realities doesn't seem to be a fruitful endeavor. <BR/><BR/>Before you could make any significant conclusions, You'd have to ASSUME said deity was good or evil, had a rational reason to create us, that our specific design was not an accident or mistake, etc. These things do not follow and are not apparent.<BR/><BR/>Sure, it's an interesting question, but when it comes down to taking concrete actions based on the belief of the existence of a God or Gods, (which I think we are really concerned about here), does making such a distinction have relevance?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4849214831159818132008-08-13T17:11:00.000-04:002008-08-13T17:11:00.000-04:00Shygetz I think Stenger does a good bit of this. I...Shygetz I think Stenger does a good bit of this. I read his latest book God: The Failed Hypothesis and found his arguments compelling.<BR/><BR/>Moreso, I've yet to see a single educated Christian rebuttal to his points.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91366209561806503202008-08-13T17:08:00.000-04:002008-08-13T17:08:00.000-04:00No time to get into the discussion, but I'd like t...No time to get into the discussion, but I'd like to make one quick comment:<BR/><BR/><I>Just a quibble here. Some atheists do indeed claim to know how the universe was made, at least Paul Davies does, as does Victor Stenger.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd love for them to show their math.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65769165112162872852008-08-13T09:13:00.000-04:002008-08-13T09:13:00.000-04:00Here's one thing I have been thinking about. John...Here's one thing I have been thinking about. John said:<BR/>"It is simply unfair to say that a spiritual being, if one exists, must be known by the laws of physics. If one exists then it is outside the laws of physics. And even if such a being can be known by these laws there may be reasons why he hides himself from people who don’t want to know him." <BR/>Many people look at the 'dark energy' thing and claim that the 70some percent of the universe that it occupies is plenty of room for god. But if god exists outside the realm of physics or god exists in or as dark energy, is that god relevant?<BR/>What makes God relevant to us? The need to beleive to be 'saved'? A need to worship him/it? The value of prayer? <BR/>Can a God outside the realm of physics or within or of dark energy that we can't see or feel or know about be relevant? Can a god outside physics interact with us within the rules of physics where we reside? This is a question not so much of the existance of god but allowing that if that sort of god exists, it it relevant? Would such a god 'care' about worship or beleif or prayer? If such a god cannot interact with us because it is in another realm with different rules, is itirrelevent to us?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70399593206870342352008-08-13T08:43:00.000-04:002008-08-13T08:43:00.000-04:00"Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you haven't ..."Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you haven't given these issues as much thought as they deserve?"<BR/>On the contrary. I think I have wasted far too much time on anything to do with religion. Perhaps including reading and commenting here. Interesting point. If I have decided it is irrelevant, why bother?<BR/>I already know the answer to that: My only hope in participating is to be part of the significant mass that is here to provide support for those on the fence, those with doubts, thinking they are alone or strange for their doubts.<BR/>I also have concerns about the USA letting religion creep more and mroe into state matters, into the school, such as the new Illinois 'moment of silent refleciton' law, and such mixing is dangerous, so I hope to keep informed in order to argue against such further creep if I have the opportunity.<BR/>So - No, I do not think I need to waste much more time on evalutating or reevaluating whether I should beleive or not. That does not mean I will not reconsider new evidence. I have read quite a bit on the recent Lakeland 'healings' for example. And I might defensively point out that no one can know how much time another has spent on this topic. One may have easy answers that were easily come to or one might have struggled with it at great length. Would any amount satisfy you? What is the amount of thinking that would make me 'worthy' in your eyes. One point I have been trying to make here is that I am not a professional debunker, as John is, and he sometimes puts down people a bit for not using the right rules of debate or riducules people for not being sphisticated enough about this, but it is indeed 'not my area' and therefore I am not as proficient in the tools of it. But that does not make my position less valid or less 'right' or less 'true'. THis is not a club one has to meet certain miminum hours of thinking to join or know certain debate styles to join with levels of membership achieved. Some people were pretty much always atheist because it never felt right or made sense and some people spent years and years studying it at universities and colleges. If they both got to the correct answer, is the hard earned one more correct?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5813949534238671852008-08-13T05:39:00.000-04:002008-08-13T05:39:00.000-04:00Goprairie: "If you chose not to wear purple, you a...Goprairie: "If you chose not to wear purple, you are not obliged to defend it, but if you tell someone they look bad in the purple suit they are wearing, you are on the offensive and ought to explain why."<BR/><BR/>But if I post regularly an a "People Look Putrid in Purple" website wouldn't that imply that I am taking an offensive stance against wearing purple clothes?<BR/><BR/>GP: "And you seem to be saying that agnosticim is the default position but only for a brief instant in time, because once you say you don't know, you should investigate and make up you mind one way or another. this means it is such a temproary things as to be meaningless."<BR/><BR/>How long should it take for somebody to investigate and reach a conclusion about issues that philosophers, theists, scientists and other great thinkers have been studying to one degree or another for pretty much all of human history without ever coming close to reaching an agreement on any workable solutions?<BR/><BR/>Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you haven't given these issues as much thought as they deserve?<BR/><BR/>GP: "When I say I do not beleive in gods, I cannot prove that. I think we've been down that path a number of times here. But I can explain my reasons."<BR/><BR/>There's no need. You have demonstrated, both on this thread and in other topics that you have many very good reasons for being an atheist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75043879291149060782008-08-12T09:26:00.000-04:002008-08-12T09:26:00.000-04:00You are saying then that an offensive atheist does...You are saying then that an offensive atheist does need to provide reasons, and with that I would agree. But that is not the same at all as a defensive atheist. It is one thing to declare that I don't beleive a thing in a declarative manner, as if someone invites me to a prayer service, so say "I don't believe in god or prayer" but quite another to declare it on an offensive way that puts a negative value judgement on it. The first is merely to say that thing is not for me, but the second is to pass judgement on it and say it is not valid for anyone. If you chose not to wear purple, you are not obliged to defend it, but if you tell someone they look bad in the purple suit they are wearing, you are on the offensive and ought to explain why. <BR/>And you seem to be saying that agnosticim is the default position but only for a brief instant in time, because once you say you don't know, you should investigate and make up you mind one way or another. this means it is such a temproary things as to be meaningless. <BR/>There is also a huge difference between proof and reasons. When I say I do not beleive in gods, I cannot prove that. I think we've been down that path a number of times here. But I can explain my reasons. My reasons might resemble a proof or they might be simply this: Every single thing I was ever told was because of god and every single thing i considered might be has turned out to be caused by nature (where humans are part of nature) and so I conclude that any question that is still unanswered will as well. That is not a proof there is no god but i thnk it is certainly a valid reason for not being open to the possibility. a trend is not a proof, but it is how people think and make decisions.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80571604075032224082008-08-12T08:36:00.000-04:002008-08-12T08:36:00.000-04:00Here we go again: agnostics claiming that agnostic...Here we go again: agnostics claiming that agnosticism is the default position and atheism should be justified.<BR/><BR/>First of all I want to say that I agree. Our senses, our logic, our science points to the ideea that nothing is ultimately justifiable and absolute certainty in knowledge doesn't exist. So agnosticism is the default position.<BR/><BR/>Second of all I want to say that I disagree. Agnosticism is the default position but it is not a position to be taken. As any rule there are some rare ocassions that require some kind of apathy from the agnostic. <BR/><BR/>I'll give you an example. You find a person you like and he/she says he/she likes you back. Do you really 100% know that either she is lying or not? People can act and he/she may be acting. People can find hard to express their emotions so she maybe telling the truth even though other signs tell you he/she doesn't. And yet we never stay agnostics. We take the risk. We "choose" (loosely stated) to believe or not. In rare ocassions when we don't care what that person thinks we choose to remain agnostics which basically means postponing the decision.<BR/><BR/>We all have beliefs either we like it to call them such or not. All the knowledge we aquired is based on at least one untestable claim and thus nothing is ultimately provable. Staying always on the default position would require for the agnostic to not get out of the bed and be totally apathetic.<BR/><BR/>I have never met an agnostic who would say "I don't know with 100% certainty that lighing and thunder are not the product of an angry god so I'm an agnostic toward Zeus". That would be an agnostic who lives up to the label. The rest are people who give some credit to the ideea of God but know they don't have any valid reason to believe.Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72508530654943310052008-08-12T08:35:00.000-04:002008-08-12T08:35:00.000-04:00If anyone is interested, the forum I had mentioned...If anyone is interested, the forum I had mentioned in my OP is the Internet Infidels where a philosopher and I are dealing with these same questions. You can read our exchange so far <A HREF="http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5494274#post5494274" REL="nofollow">here</A>, where I entered the discussion. I plan on replying to his latest post today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69002577854696153722008-08-12T06:12:00.000-04:002008-08-12T06:12:00.000-04:00Hi Goprairie.Have you ever noticed how often belie...Hi Goprairie.<BR/><BR/>Have you ever noticed how often believers will avoid discussing the relative absurdity of their beliefs with you and, instead, challenge the legitimacy of your point of view?<BR/><BR/>You do not need to prove anything to anybody to call yourself an atheist. But if you say to someone "I think you are wrong because what you think is absurd." then you are going to have to defend your definition of absurd and your authority to make such a claim.<BR/><BR/>John is not attacking your beliefs, he is pointing out that simply dismissing god or the Easter Bunny as absurd does nothing but shift the burden of proof onto you.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean you shouldn't think of these as absurd; but just imagine if I were to say to a christian, "Hey, your god doesn't exist because Goprairie says he's silly." Not much of an argument, is it? Sooner or later it all boils down to your opinion vs their opinion. <BR/><BR/>If, though, you begin without an opinion, no predetermined boundaries for what is "plausible" or even "possible" (an open mind, as it were), then you can say "Ok believer show me why I should believe. Convince me. Convert me. Make me understand why this makes sense to you." (The agnostic default)<BR/><BR/>All of the burden is on them now. You've made no claims that need to be justified and no assertions that have to be proven.<BR/><BR/>This is not a trick or a strategem. It is simply acknowledging that everyone has a valid point of view and that everyone (atheists, theists and everything in between) is capable of being mistaken even about those things that they are the most certain of.<BR/><BR/>No one is going to listen to you and consider what you have to say if you aren't willing to sincerely listen to them and take their beliefs seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16621345781207200992008-08-12T01:23:00.000-04:002008-08-12T01:23:00.000-04:00evan, i am perfectly calm. but john cannot just c...evan, i am perfectly calm. but john cannot just change the definition of words and make up new criteria for them. or maybe i was backpacking on the island when he was voted representative of all the atheists, i mean, agnostics. he claims i cannot say i am atheist unless i can prove there is no god. or something like that - that i cannot be an atheist unless i can prove why. well, i cannot do that. but i maintain that i can still claim that i with 100% certainty am an atheist. there is nothing special about god. i don't beleive in gods. it is absurd to look at a volcano and assume there is a god inside and it is absurd to claim that god made the universe. if that is the case, and john would answer this himself if he were debating the other side, who made god? john ridicules my suggestion that god would defy the laws of physics so cannot exist, puts the words into my mouth that the universe just popped into existance without some force, then mocks that idea that he just attributed to me. so i ask him how HE thinks the universe came to be and did god do it. no answer. so he maintians one has to be able to prove there is not god if he is an atheist. he calls himself an atheist in his book title. where is his proof there is no god? in the book? maybe when amazon finally makes good on my order, i will know. but could he summarize here? how does HE prove there is no god in order to get the title atheist? if he can't, and that is how he is going to define atheist, he better lay in a stock of sharpie markers and get to relabeling the covers of all of them with agnostic instead of atheist. i am not saying he is actually agnostic, but if that is his new definiton of the word, it has to apply to him too. in the end, this IS about the bearded plump man i have been told to shut up about and the mythological rabbit and the native american sun god and the ghost of that cemetery in chicago. none of them exist and they are all absurd. equally so. and it is legitimate to claim to not beleive without 'proof'. just because people spend great parts of their lives believing in IT because they were taught to believe in IT does not make IT less NOT. as in less mythical, less made up, less a human invention. it might be harder to give up god because it is a bigger concept, a bigger story, with threats of eternal doom, but one can still say they don't beleive at all without having to prove why they don't believe. it is not my area to know a straw man from special pleading nor to have the ability to take biblical text back to source or know all the terms john uses. but my disbelief, my unbelief, my belief there simply is not god no spirit no soul is just as valid as his. whatever it is based on. if you heard someone say god gave us flowers so that we could enjoy their beauty, you might say that is ridiculous. but could you answer to why flowers are beautiful? i know some botany and some evolution and some anthropology and some sociology and i can actually tell you why flowers are beautiful and tell you therefore why the idea it was made that way by god is ridiculous. but you can KNOW it is ridiculous intuitively without knowing the details i know. and that does NOT make you a sloppy thinker. i merely means your areas of specialty are not the same as mine. but your conviction that god is not the reason flowers are beautiful is just as valid as mine, even if you may not be able to 'prove' it. anyway i am calm. or i will be until john slices and dices me again.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2810937497700727142008-08-12T00:02:00.000-04:002008-08-12T00:02:00.000-04:00Goprairie please calm down. I'm disagreeing with s...Goprairie please calm down. I'm disagreeing with some of what John says, so is Shygetz, so are you. John's a big boy and he can defend himself. There's no reason to get this upset about it. We can disagree where we disagree and agree where we agree.<BR/><BR/>John's specific position that I'm not sure I agree with is that the arguments in favor of the theist/deist/pantheist/panentheist God are not by themselves ridiculous (and here I assume he means that this is before the facts are examined dispassionately).<BR/><BR/>Personally I find the theist position ridiculous and self-refuting. I am in more agreement with the possibility that deism and pantheism may have merit.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I spent a significant portion of my life as a theist, so I would be making my old self into a fool if I really believed that the theist position was <I>prima facie</I> absurd.<BR/><BR/>What I think most of the freethinkers on this board have done is examined the theist position closely, and on close examination declared it untenable, and then in hindsight declared it worthy of ridicule (which it most certainly is).<BR/><BR/>This is very different than the position of someone who has *NOT* examined the position and I think this is where the distinction is.<BR/><BR/>I won't speak for John but I do think his position has more merit than I thought when I first examined it, although I don't know that I'm fully convinced when it comes to theism.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36333963716598044132008-08-11T23:24:00.000-04:002008-08-11T23:24:00.000-04:00gopraire said......the rule is apparently that no ...gopraire said...<I>...the rule is apparently that no one is allowed to disagree with it without being subject a personal critique by you.</I><BR/><BR/>Really? My, but I misjudged your thinking skills. Sorry about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4174726454411007312008-08-11T21:53:00.000-04:002008-08-11T21:53:00.000-04:00"No wonder I cannot convince you of that which I a..."No wonder I cannot convince you of that which I am persuaded about. All you can do is to cough up what you have read from other atheist writers on this subject. But when asked by me to explain and defend what you've read you cannot do it."<BR/>my my my, you certainly do know exactly what is in my head, don't you? what is it you think i have 'read' and by whom? you are quite full of judgements and accusations. what have you asked me to explain that i have not? perhaps the error was in the asking if i failed to answer to you satisfaction. or perhaps i answered with questions to you that YOU did not answer. <BR/>you have defined this 'default position' concept out of whole cloth and the rule is apparently that no one is allowed to disagree with it without being subject a personal critique by you. so be it.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64391028790224419572008-08-11T16:21:00.000-04:002008-08-11T16:21:00.000-04:00Shygetz, John, I think we're entering scholastic-l...Shygetz, John, I think we're entering scholastic-level discussions here but they are at least entertaining.<BR/><BR/>However I do think your analogy breaks down a little Shygetz and here is why I would say so.<BR/><BR/>The universe as we observe it has an n of 1. We know nothing of any other instantiations of the universe. Therefore something about our universe is (from our perspective) <I>sui generis</I>.<BR/><BR/>The atheist believes this on the basis of math. The believer believes this on the basis of whatever conclusions she draws about the basic facts as they present to her consciousness.<BR/><BR/>So, contra your statements about the fusion device in the abdomen, the general question of whether there is or is not a supernatural deity of any type is something that the individual must decide on the basis of the relatively scant number of examples they have. Whereas the nuclear device is something they have at least 6 billion examples which they can use and they realize this is quite unlikely after looking at those examples.<BR/><BR/>For Jesus and Yahweh, or for that matter Allah and many other named deities, the ability to rule them out comes pretty quickly. But I agree with John that it's harder to rule out the Deist god and I would say it's impossible to rule out pantheism since I see that more as a flavor than anything else. Panentheism is a special case but it is also one I find easy enough to rule out given the facts as we see them.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57068709037767765142008-08-11T15:17:00.000-04:002008-08-11T15:17:00.000-04:00Shygetz said... A few quibbles. First of all, how ...Shygetz said... <I>A few quibbles. First of all, how you define atheism and agnosticism is not how I was taught the terms.</I><BR/><BR/>I wonder how many definitions of agnosticism there are and which one’s must be considered orthodoxy? I agree with your definitions, however, and I like the the way you articulated them. Thanks! Nothing I said indicates I think otherwise, although yours are more precise definitions. Mine were personalized ones since I think arguments are all person related. That is, they are all related to what I personally think is the case.<BR/><BR/>Shygetz said... <I>Sorry, but you're wrong--saying "I don't know" is not the default position, and you don't REALLY believe it is.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I do, when it comes to why something—anything—exists. The other cases you mention are non-analogous…the alien example is not about a supreme deity or the answer to why we exist. Let me ask you if you’ve read through this whole thread before commenting, for I think I’ve already addressed your concerns…concerns which you’ve expressed before.<BR/><BR/>I’m the first person to argue that we evaluate any claim based on Bayesian background factors, which I call control beliefs. I have skeptical control beliefs and I spent half of my book arguing for mine. Again, half of my book argues for my skeptical control beliefs. But it took half of the book to do so, you see. I think atheists and skeptics are so far removed from the world of a supernaturalist that they cannot even understand them enough to reason with them on such issues. But I can. So I do. When approached by claims about aliens and gods and goddesses I initially disbelieve in them all, just like you. But I understand the supernaturalist control beliefs. They think atheists believe in absurdities. Do skeptics just not understand this? Or do they refuse to do so? The default position is an <I>a priori</I> one, before examining the arguments and the evidence. When it comes to aliens and gods and goddesses I already have examined enough to develop the skeptical control beliefs that cause me to reject such claims. But when we’re talking about a truly supreme deity as a necessary being, who cannot not exist, as a sufficient answer to the question about existence, that is another matter entirely, and reflected in your definitions about agnosticism and atheism earlier.<BR/><BR/>Shygetz said... <I>You, me, and Socrates all know the answer to this question, John--by default, you disbelieve untestable, unjustified assertions.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes we do, but it’s not by default that we do so. We’ve developed skeptical control beliefs that cause us to do so. Does no one understand this, or even try to do so?<BR/><BR/>Shygetz said... <I>The atheist's mantra is not "I know how the universe was made." It's "I don't know, but I'm damn sure you don't either."</I><BR/><BR/>Just a quibble here. Some atheists do indeed claim to know how the universe was made, at least Paul Davies does, as does Victor Stenger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79694921149857522322008-08-11T14:35:00.000-04:002008-08-11T14:35:00.000-04:00So when an atheist says, "there is no God," or "th...<I>So when an atheist says, "there is no God," or "this God does not exist," those are indeed stated beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>A few quibbles. First of all, how you define atheism and agnosticism is not how I was taught the terms. Agnosticism deals with the question of knowing...is it possible to know if gods exist? Weak agnostics say that, given our current state of knowledge, we cannot know if gods exist, and strong agnostics say we can NEVER know enough to say if gods exist. Atheism deals with the question of existentialism...can we justifiably conclude gods exist? A weak atheist says we cannot justifiably conclude gods exist, and a strong atheist says we can justifiably conclude gods do NOT exist. Most atheists are weak atheists AND either weak or strong agnostics, but it's possible to be a weak atheist AND a "gnostic" (i.e. it's possible for someone to know, but I don't), or a strong atheist and a gnostic (i.e. a person who has concludes the very definition of gods is inconsistent and therefore impossible), or even a strong atheist and a strong agnostic (i.e. a person who has FAITH that no gods exist). I am a weak atheist and a weak (who is slowly wavering towards strong) agnostic.<BR/><BR/>So, when an atheist says "this God does not exist", assuming that the claim for this God is unjustifiable, the atheist has an inherent justification based on Bayesian probability. If we take all possible knowable scenarios of the universe that are consistent with what we know, and then of those we take out only the ones that are consistent with "this God" that is unjustifiably claimed, the probability of the unjustified claim being true is the number of possible knowable scenarios with "this God" divided by all possible knowable scenarios. This number will be very small, and the more specific the definition of "this God", the smaller the number. Therefore, if a person claims anything more than "something(s) exist that we would agree are god(s)" without justification, the Bayesian statistics justify the null without further argument.<BR/><BR/><I>ANYONE WHO LEAVES THE DEFAULT POSITION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, whether it's a theist or an atheist.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, but you're wrong--saying "I don't know" is not the default position, and you don't REALLY believe it is. Does HIV cause AIDS, or is it HIV plus space aliens? HIV plus invisible gremlins? HIV plus telepathy? Or maybe it's JUST telepathy, and the HIV is a symptom of the telepathy--when we treat the HIV, the telepaths decide to ease up on their bad voodoo vibes? All of this and more is POSSIBLE and inherently UNTESTABLE (so it will NEVER be disproven), but since I pulled them all out of my ass without justification, they are all HIGHLY UNLIKELY.<BR/><BR/><B>The burden of proof lies upon the phenomenological claim that A affects B.</B> To subscribe to your different version of rationality would force you into decision paralysis...you would be forced to grant every unjustified claim that cannot be tested a 50/50 shot of being correct, and would have to make judgements based on cost/benefit analysis with no information on probability of results. <BR/><BR/>Let me use one of my recent favored analogies to demonstrate that we are in violent agreement. I claim that aliens have embedded a miniature nuclear fusion warhead in your abdomen without your knowledge. It's powerful enough to wipe out everyone within several hundred yards of you. It will be detonated by your body heat in ten minutes UNLESS you cut your intestines out and let them cool to room temperature.<BR/><BR/>Now, my claim is wholly unjustified, but based on all the knowledge we have it is not impossible--nuclear fusion could generate enough energy to do that with a tiny amount of mass, and there are no fundamental laws that would make such a bomb impossible. There are numerous reports and calculations that alien lifeforms may (or even probably) exist, and even some highly dubious reports that they may have visited Earth. So, the claim cannot be immediately refuted. Based on <B>your</B> definition of burden of proof, you must give the idea equal consideration with it's null, since neither can be refuted based on the facts we have--all we have is an absence of evidence. So, you are left with a cost-benefit analysis--if my claim is true and you don't act, then if you don't act you and everyone close to you will die in a fiery explosion. If my claim is false and you do act, only you will die but those close to you will still be saved.<BR/><BR/>Are you eviscerating yourself yet? Or are you treating my claim with skepticism based solely on the fact that I did not justify it, even though you cannot debunk it in the next ten minutes? You, me, and Socrates all know the answer to this question, John--by default, you disbelieve untestable, unjustified assertions.<BR/><BR/>Empirical rationalism DEMANDS that every claim be testable, and that it be rejected if it is not--if your version of rationality is true, why would empirical rationalism make this specific demand? Why not merely say that untestable claims be held as maybe right, maybe wrong? It's because the burden of proof in empirical rationalism is on the positive phenomenological claim--the default assumption is <B>always</B> that A does NOT affect B. Now, even small amounts of evidence can serve to put this assumption in doubt, but with zero evidence the assumption holds. Yes, it holds as a provisional truth, but empirical rationalism holds ALL truths as provisional.<BR/><BR/>The atheist's mantra is not "I know how the universe was made." It's "I don't know, but I'm damn sure you don't either."Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32152580188430211512008-08-11T14:06:00.000-04:002008-08-11T14:06:00.000-04:00Evan, I'm glad we agree, but agreement isn't calle...Evan, I'm glad we agree, but agreement isn't called for, just a better understanding. I maintain there is no real useable distinction between these two statements, apparently against most English speakers. (!)<BR/><BR/>Is this just semantics? I dunno. Does it matter? Probably not. Still I think we need to try to understand what our language is supposed to convey.<BR/><BR/>1. I do not believe there is a God.<BR/><BR/>2. I believe there is not a God.<BR/><BR/>The distinction you've proposed between the above statements is one between an examined position on the God issue and no belief one way or another on the God issue. We're in agreement that the default position is no <I>a priori</I> belief one way or another on the God issue.<BR/><BR/>That being said, language is elastic and tough to pin down. There are connotations, propositions and statements, as mentioned. There are intentions of the author and what the words signify to the reader (or meaning and significance). <BR/><BR/>To properly look at these two statements would actually require a detailed analysis of all aspects of these things...things I'm not willing to do at this point.<BR/><BR/>Except that I want to look into one particular aspect, and maybe you can help me.<BR/><BR/>What is a "non-belief" in comparison to a "belief" when we state what we believe or don't believe? I can have a non-belief on the issue of whether there is a guy named Duke who is dying in, say, a boat off the shores of South Africa right now. Why? Because until I entertain such a question I have no belief about it one way or another. However, once I entertain such a question and issue a statement about it one way or another I have moved from having "no belief" to having a belief about the question. If not, why not? <BR/><BR/>So in my opinion, since Both 1 & 2 above are making statements about the God question, both of them reflect a belief about God. <BR/><BR/>Now, if there is anything in those two statements indicating that one of them is an examined belief and the other is not, or that such a distinction can even be sustained under further questioning, I'm all ears. <BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13642059916085947852008-08-11T13:14:00.000-04:002008-08-11T13:14:00.000-04:00I agree that I certainly can't enforce my understa...I agree that I certainly can't enforce my understanding of statements on others. But I do think the distinctions I'm making are in general those of most English-speakers. The other languages I speak have similar transitions.<BR/><BR/>In Turkish for instance, although the grammar is very different, the same ideas can be expressed meaning basically the same thing with small changes in denotation due to the primary religion of most Turkish speakers being Muslim and therefore a contradistinction between the word "tanri" which is any deity and "Allah" which is the unified God of Islam. The ways of stating belief -- I do not believe in a god(tanrisi inanmiyorum) or I belive there is no god(hic tanrisi degildir inaniyorum)[my apologies to native Turkish-speakers for the lack of proper alphabet and any grammatical errors that I have inadvertently made here] stand in the same relative positions, however.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70708112371507090182008-08-11T11:49:00.000-04:002008-08-11T11:49:00.000-04:00Evan, thank you, but I'm not sure. Your definition...Evan, thank you, but I'm not sure. <BR/><BR/>Your definitions of the two sentences are person related, no? That is, you've defined them as they mean to you. Would you say everyone would agree with how you defined them? Must they agree with you for one reason or another? What would that reason be? Why should theists, for instance, agree with the way you've defined them?<BR/><BR/>All of my "eating" statements (in the usual context) called people to eat, and you know that. They all connoted something, ie., "come and eat now because the food is ready."<BR/><BR/>Linguists also make a distinction between what words denote and what they connote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23502562123694804962008-08-11T11:39:00.000-04:002008-08-11T11:39:00.000-04:00To say that you believe there is no God is to say ...To say that you believe there is no God is to say that you have examined the claim and you have found no evidence to support it.<BR/><BR/>To say you do not believe in God is to say that you have no <I>a priori</I> notion that a God exists and may or may not be persuadable by a given set of data. I agree with you that this is the default position.<BR/><BR/>Does that help?<BR/><BR/>The same process of thinking analogically would apply to the rest of my subsequent statements.<BR/><BR/>Your list of examples is instructive:<BR/><BR/><I>Let's eat.</I><BR/><BR/>I am hungry, I would like it if you would eat with me.<BR/><BR/><I>Time to eat.</I><BR/><BR/>It is now the hour at which we usually eat, whether we are hungry or not.<BR/><BR/><I>Dinner's ready.</I><BR/><BR/>A large meal has been prepared and is at its maximum taste/texture/heat value at this moment.<BR/><BR/><I>Supper's on.</I><BR/><BR/>The evening meal is now on the table.<BR/><BR/><I>Come and get it.</I><BR/><BR/>Something is ready for you to come and get.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33708693312249210272008-08-11T11:30:00.000-04:002008-08-11T11:30:00.000-04:00Evan said...The following two sentences in my mind...Evan said...<I>The following two sentences in my mind are not identical:<BR/><BR/>1. I do not believe there is a God.<BR/><BR/>2. I believe there is not a God.</I><BR/><BR/>Besides merely providing one example after another, my friend, would you mind stating the difference between these two sentences?<BR/><BR/>In linguistics there is a long held difference between propositions and statements (like types and tokens).<BR/><BR/>Several different statements utilizing different words in a different syntax can express the same proposition.<BR/><BR/>Let's eat.<BR/>Time to eat.<BR/>Dinner's ready.<BR/>Supper's on.<BR/>Come and get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com