|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2010 12:20:44 GMT
Monkeyman; I appreciate that having the atheists on the forum can potentially be an occasion of sin against the virtue of faith. I take the view that the present world is full of occasions of sin of this type and that a certain amount of it has to be endured in order to guard agaisnt a worse reaction. I had to work out my response to the clerical abuse scandals over several years and it hurt, but I believe working through it was more fruitful than pretending it didn't happen. The atheists are not going to go away if we ignore them or shut them out; we ahve to live with them so we may as well get used to them and face them down. The answers are there,e ven if we don't know them all.
The atheists are of course STRICTLY excluded from the Catholic forum sections now, so if you don't care for them you can stay away from the open forum. It's up to you.
I'm not sure whether I would let the atheists on the forum if they were not already here, But I take the view that they have a certain presecriptive right so long as they behave themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 18, 2010 21:03:17 GMT
Hi Hibernicus, I think we may be talking at slight tangents now, Atlantis may well not be a good example - I wasn't searching for an exact analogy, just one to illustrate that taking a stance of disbelief in X, should not be considered part of the set of competing belief systems in X. I think you probably get my point. We could pick a completely different analogy, say a scientific theory without concrete evidence like String Theory. There are many physicists currently working on about half a dozen or so competing versions of String Theory - they are all of the opinion that String Theory is the most likely description of reality, though they have yet failed to provide much in the way of evidence. At the same time there are a great many physicists who are not studying String Theory, and are skeptical of it's potential. It would not be correct to categorise these people as holding "just one of many competing theories on String Theory." Similarly, it is inaccurate to to describe those who lack a belief in one god or another, as being part of the set of people holding "just one of many competing theories on god." Atheists don't have a theory about god, because for us, god does not exist. The problem with your application of this view to the existence of God is; You talk about physical evidence as if this was the only sort of evidence which counted - i.e. you assume a positivistic materialist view, which itself is open to dispute. That is because it is the only sort of evidence which counts for atheists - which was kind of my whole point. It's one of the reasons why disbelief in god, should not be considered within the same category as competing beliefs in god. We use a completely different yardstick to the one collectively used by those people who do hold competing beliefs in god. Your statement that atheism is no more common than it used to be but that people are simply becoming more open about it is a good example of a question that can't be resolved by physical evidence. Well, there is quite a lot of physical documentary evidence over on Atheist.ie for the process I describe. There, you'll find that the majority of people went through the long, slow process of dawning realization and fighting against the need to conform within their group. As a lifelong atheist, I'm in quite a minority in this regard, at least in Ireland. I do agree that there is an increase in self-identifying atheists and non-believers in Ireland, but who are they and where did they come from? They didn't simply spring up overnight, wake up one morning, and just be atheists. I think I may start a poll on Atheist.ie to get some more data, then post the results back here for you. It is quite another thing to say that there are no more atheists now than there have ever been, as if changes in current opinion have no impact at all. I didn't actually say that, Hibernicus. In fact, I agree that there are more self-identifying atheists and non-believers in Ireland at the moment, what I said was that the apparent recent increase is due to them "coming out" in a relatively short space of time. This seems to me to come suspiciously close to saying either that everyone is an atheist without knowing it... Really? I think it's a million miles away from saying that. But seeing as you are coming close to putting words in my mouth, let me be categorically clear: I think there is a small subset of the Irish population, currently probably around the 4 to 5% mark who do not believe in god. Of these, a tiny handful have self identified. The rest are almost certainly keeping it to themselves for private, personal reasons - in most instances due to a desire to conform and not upset family members. The recent marked increase in the number who have self-identified are those who have "come out" thanks to the recent rise in popular atheism driven by people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett et al.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 19, 2010 12:52:55 GMT
Just as a matter of curiosity, Inedifix, how do you distinguish between agnostics and atheists? It seems to me that a lot of atheist rhetoric collapses the differnece between the two. [At the same time there are a great many physicists who are not studying String Theory, and are skeptical of it's potential. It would not be correct to categorise these people as holding "just one of many competing theories on String Theory."] Why would it not be correct to so describe them? The advocates of String Theory are clearly advancing a serious proposition which cannot be dismissed out of hand. They are not in the same position as, say, people who claim to have invented perpetual motion machines (which can be shown to be impossible) or phlogiston and aether theorists (whose theories were reasonable hypotheses at the time they were first made but which have now been falsified). A physicist who stated a priori that there is no evidence for string theory with the insinuation that it must be self-evidently false would surely not be behaving reasonably (as he might be if he constructed a critique based on countering the arguments which have been put forward for string theory). If only material evidence counts for physicists, how is it that physicists such as einstein have acknowledged that they were influenced by philosophers such as Kant in forming their hypotheses?
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 21, 2010 22:32:46 GMT
Just as a matter of curiosity, Inedifix, how do you distinguish between agnostics and atheists? Broadly speaking I would say that an atheist is someone who asserts: I do not believe in god. While an agnostic is someone who asserts: I do not believe in god, but I accept the fact that it is not possible for someone to know with certainty whether god exists or not. However, I'm not sure you'll ever satisfy agnostics/atheists by trying to draw a definitive line where one stops and the other begins. I think it's probably more helpful (to those of us who hold agnostic-atheist opinions) to think of it as a spectrum. And in my experience a fluid one. Broadly speaking though, self-identifying agnostics and atheists (not to mention humanists, rationalists, skeptics, philosophical naturalists, etc) can all be considered under the general term: non-believers. It seems to me that a lot of atheist rhetoric collapses the differnece between the two. I'm not sure what you would consider 'atheist rhetoric', or what you're really talking about at all here. Atheists/agnostics, in my experience, are not generally concerned with attempts by others to define who they are. We're all a pretty diverse lot who don't like to be pigeon holed. But we do tend to accept the fact that most other people refer to us as atheists, and so accept the label. Personally, I don't care what you call me: atheist, agnostic, banana... whatever. All that matters is the fact that you accept those of us who don't believe in god as people who don't believe in god. Why would it not be correct to so describe them? The advocates of String Theory are clearly advancing a serious proposition which cannot be dismissed out of hand. They are not in the same position as, say, people who claim to have invented perpetual motion machines (which can be shown to be impossible) or phlogiston and aether theorists (whose theories were reasonable hypotheses at the time they were first made but which have now been falsified). A physicist who stated a priori that there is no evidence for string theory with the insinuation that it must be self-evidently false would surely not be behaving reasonably (as he might be if he constructed a critique based on countering the arguments which have been put forward for string theory). You are focussing on the metaphor instead of the point, Hibernicus. It may have been a poor metaphor, so let's dispense with them entirely. Here's a very simplified Venn diagram instead. These two circles cannot overlap.
Thereby demonstrating that: "Those who do believe in the various competing versions of theism, are in a distinctly different category from those who don't." If only material evidence counts for physicists, how is it that physicists such as einstein have acknowledged that they were influenced by philosophers such as Kant in forming their hypotheses? I think you're guilty of equivocation here Hibernicus. "Inspiration" may help a scientist to formulate a hypothesis. "Evidence" is the criteria by which he/she proves or disproves it. Einstein was also deeply "inspired" by music, and frequently played Mozart on his violin to free his mind while formulating hypotheses, but they still had to pass the test of empirical evidence. There is no room for Mozart, Kant, or the ineffable beauty of a woman's smile in judging the accuracy of the formula: E=mc2. The only criterion that counts... is empirical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Feb 24, 2010 1:31:09 GMT
BTW: The contents of the circles in my previous post are not intended to be exhaustive in any way. Clearly I'd need a much bigger area. But the point remains the same: the subset of "believers" does not and cannot overlap with the subset of "non-believers".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 1, 2010 12:50:29 GMT
I'm not so sure they can't overlap. It has been argued that pantheism is actually a form of atheism on the grounds that if everything is God, nothing is God (in the Abrahamic sense of a transcendent supernatural being). This is why there are atheist forms of Buddhism and Hinduism. Will respond in more detail when I settle back in.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Mar 2, 2010 2:04:52 GMT
I'm not so sure they can't overlap. It has been argued that pantheism is actually a form of atheism on the grounds that if everything is God, nothing is God (in the Abrahamic sense of a transcendent supernatural being). This is why there are atheist forms of Buddhism and Hinduism. Will respond in more detail when I settle back in. Thought you might mention something like that. You forgot to mention two rather more interesting groups though: believers with varying degrees of doubt, and so called "weak agnostics". They can all be broadly grouped in a separate subset: "people who are unsure, confused, or who hold no opinion either way" I've called them "Others" for simplicity's sake. However, as you can still see: it is still not possible for the two main circles ever to overlap. Non-believers are simply in a different category to believers. Atheists do not hold "just one of many beliefs about god and the supernatural". We are in a separate category that completely rejects the entire notion of god and the supernatural at all. I understand that some believers may feel that classing atheism as one of many "god theories" serves to "pull us down" to the same level as religion in our eyes. But in doing so, aren't you also running the risk of elevating our disbelief and blasphemy to the same heights as faith in yours?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 2, 2010 11:26:35 GMT
I still don't get your point, Inedifix. Surely the statement "metaphysics is a disease of language" is itself a metaphysical statement. My point about your circles is that they are all subsets of a larger set, which is "beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality". Incidentally, since you suggested in one of our earlier exchanges on this thread that the theory of a multiverse was held only by science fiction writers rather than serious scientists, you may be interested in an interview with the British Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees in the current (March 2010) issue of PROSPECT magazine in which he discusses it as a serious concept to which he himself subscribes. He has some interesting comments about faith from what is basically a "reverent atheist" position. Unfortunately the link below requires a subscription to take you to the full article, but you may be able to get access to a print copy. www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/02/cosmic-man/
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Mar 2, 2010 23:53:02 GMT
My point about your circles is that they are all subsets of a larger set, which is "beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality". No. Only one of them is: the one on the left. That's my point. People in the Theism set all hold "beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality." People in the atheism/humanism/agnosticism set do not hold any "beliefs" about the ultimate nature of reality at all. Broadly speaking, atheism is a set of "opinions" on the evidential nature of observable/measurable reality, it's not concerned with ultimate reality, whatever that may be. Atheism does not claim to know anything about that which cannot, or has not been proven, or supported with evidence. And consequently does not propose a "belief" or "faith" based doctrine of any kind to bridge that gap. Simply put: you bridge the gap between what you know and what you don't/cannot know with a "belief" in god. I don't attempt to bridge it at all. I simply say: "I don't know". That's the categorical difference between people with competing faith positions, and people who have none at all. Attempting to lump them together is akin to one child who believes in Santa, telling another who doesn't, that their views are equally valid, and that disbelief in Santa is just one of many views about the ultimate nature of Santa. Clearly it isn't. One is a class of beliefs entailing much "filling in" in order to maintain a belief, the other is an absence of that mechanism. I am not drawing a comparison between god and santa in order to insult you. The reason I chose this analogy is because from my perspective as an atheist, I disbelieve in both santa and god (not to mention ghosts, spiritualism, astrology etc) for precisely the same reasons, and via exactly the same mechanism. I accept the fact that you won't understand what it's like to be an atheist, all I can tell you, is that you are making a mistake about classing atheism as "just one of many competing views on god/the ultimate nature of reality." Incidentally, since you suggested in one of our earlier exchanges on this thread that the theory of a multiverse was held only by science fiction writers rather than serious scientists, Actually Hibernicus, I said precisely the opposite. The exchange went as follows: You said: If there is by definition nothing outside the universe why do physicists seem to spend so much time specualting about parallel universes, etc? I replied: I think it's science fiction writers who speculate on "parallel universes." Quantum physicists discuss various "multiple universe theories"Just to spell it out again. - Multiverse/Multiple Universe = science.
- Parallell Universe = Science Fiction.
Hope I've cleared that one up.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 3, 2010 18:20:48 GMT
Inedifix: that really is hairsplitting. Whether you refer to "multiple" or "parallel" universes, my point remains valid, which is that if the possibility that more than one universe exists is subject to serious scientific debate, it is not possible to argue that the universe is all tht exists and therefore it is not possible that God can exist apart from the universe. This claim, by the way, appears to be the atheist equivalent of St. Anselm's alleged ontological proof of God's existence (which argues that God is the highest being that can be postulated, a being which can be postulated but does not exist is lesser than one which possesses the same qualities and also that of existence, therefore the highest being which can be postulated must actually exist.) Beware of shortcuts.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Mar 3, 2010 20:49:02 GMT
Hi Hibernicus, Well we seem to have left the main topic of conversation behind and moved on to this side road. Should I take that as a signal you have tacitly accepted the distinctions I've drawn between believers and non-believers? But moving on. A few points. 1. It's a shame you didn't acknowledge misquoting me in your previous post. If I make that slip I tend to apologize to the person in question. 2. The distinction between Multiple Universe Theory and Parallel Universes may seem like a split hair, but I'm not the one splitting it. The distinction exists among those people who study/write about these things. In works of science fiction, you will read about parallel universes that look the same as ours: a person might be a loser in this one, a millionaire in another. Physicists hypothesize on much more mundane interpretations of various Multiverses where the levels not apparent to us are nothing like ours at all. Read up on it and you'll notice that. Plus the fact that physicists do not talk about Parallel Universes. 3. The 'Inside' and 'Outside' existence dilemma.Whether you refer to "multiple" or "parallel" universes, my point remains valid, which is that if the possibility that more than one universe exists is subject to serious scientific debate, it is not possible to argue that the universe is all tht exists and therefore it is not possible that God can exist apart from the universe. You seem to be conflating two distinct concepts here Hibernicus. Concept A - Multiverse Theory: says that we exist in a multiverse, not a universe.
Concept B - God Theory: Says that we exist in the universe while god exists in another dimension outside of the universe. As you can see, A is not the same as B. I should also restate something I said in my initial post on this subject, which was: Crucially, it should be noted that in all multiple universe theories, the set of universes proposed makes up the entirety of everything that physically exists: all matter, energy, governing forces and space time. None of them allows for a location, time or combination of the two "outside" of the universal set. Basically, existence is existence. There is no outside. If god exists, he, she or it is somewhere within.It's probably worth trying to clear up this misconception, which often crops up in these sorts of conversations. The word 'universe' means everything that exists. In conventional thinking, there is one universe, parts of which are known to us, parts of which are not. In multiverse theory, there is still one universe but the word for it is 'multiverse'. It comprises the locale we call "the universe" as well as many levels/tiers/segments or whatever you chose to call them. Multiverse theory does not propose dimensions "outside of our own", but that our locale (the place we call "the universe") exists within a multiverse. People must once have struggled similarly with distinctions between what was meant by "the world" and "the universe" when the universe was first proposed as a greater entity of which our world was just one small part. BTW: It's also worth pointing out that all Multiverse hypotheses are, as yet, unproven, and in many cases, untestable. This claim, by the way, appears to be the atheist equivalent of St. Anselm's alleged ontological proof of God's existence (which argues that God is the highest being that can be postulated, a being which can be postulated but does not exist is lesser than one which possesses the same qualities and also that of existence, therefore the highest being which can be postulated must actually exist.) Beware of shortcuts. I've seen some strawman arguments in my time Hibernicus, but that one really takes the biscuit. A. Multiverse theory is not an 'atheist' theory. It's a set of scientific hypotheses. If there are errors within it, they are the errors of the proposing physicists, not "atheism". Therefore nothing in multiverse theory can be described as "the atheist equivalent" of anything. B. The argument that a multiverse encompasses all of existence, is not not even remotely close, or similar in anyway to Anselm's proof (of which I'm quite well aware, and which I'm glad to see we both seem to treat with similar disdain). C. There's no shortcut in the first place. This one's a complete non sequitur. And again: any errors in mutiverse theories are the fault of their proponents. not atheism per se, and certainly not me.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 4, 2010 14:15:53 GMT
When I said "this claim" I was not referring to multiverse theory. I was referring to the view that the idea that God exists independently of the universe is self-contradictory because the term "universe" refers to the whole of reality and there can be nothing outside it.
Multiverse theory can be used for atheism (to oppose the equation of the Big Bang with divine creation) or as a theological hypothesis (CS Lewis uses it somewhere to suggest that the tension between divine foreknowledge and omnipotence and freewill might be overcome by the hypothesis that at every freewill decision alternate universes come into existence, each embodying different possible outcomes, and God is the only one who can see all the universes simultaneously - seems a bit extravagant to me.
I still don't accept your version of the believer-unbeliever divide, because you seem to assume that the methods of the natural sciences are the only valid source of knowledge. A historian deals with events which by their nature are unique and nrepeatable and can only be glimpsed through the traces they leave behind, and works in an area where there is a great deal of room for debate over rival interpretations/reconstructions - but are you saying historians do not produce real knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Mar 4, 2010 20:42:12 GMT
When I said "this claim" I was not referring to multiverse theory. I was referring to the view that the idea that God exists independently of the universe is self-contradictory because the term "universe" refers to the whole of reality and there can be nothing outside it. There is absolutely nothing self-contradictory about the statement: a god cannot exist outside of the universe/reality, because there is nothing outside the universe/reality. Reality means everything that exists. If god exists outside of reality. God does not exist. There is absolutely nothing in any physicists work on Multiverse theory that offers any information whatsoever on a place that might exist outside of physical reality. Go have a look. You won't find it. I'm quite happy for theists to argue that there is a dimension outside of reality where god may be. It's only natural for them to do so. But physicists do not do this. Science deals with observable/measurable reality, not unobservable unmeasurable non-reality. Multiverse theory can be used for atheism (to oppose the equation of the Big Bang with divine creation) I completely disagree. I'm an atheist, but I'm hugely skeptical of Multiverse theory. MT stems from one interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It's not the only interpretation, it's just the one that happens to be in vogue at the moment. MT is unnecessary to refute the view that the big bang equates to divine creation. That view can be refuted in the same way it ever was a). because it falls victim to the same problem of infinite regress that god hypotheses always encounter, and b). because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the big bang (now correctly Inflation Theory) was caused by anything other than natural forces and matter. I still don't accept your version of the believer-unbeliever divide, because you seem to assume that the methods of the natural sciences are the only valid source of knowledge. When an atheist considers questions on the nature of reality, like: "Does God Exist?" the natural sciences are indeed the only valid source of viable information. For us. This is just one of the reasons why you cannot class atheists and theists together in the same set. We are trains that run on different tracks. Your track are faith and belief. Ours are proof and evidence. The world's supernaturalists hold many competing views about the nature of what is not, and cannot be known. The world's naturalists are concerned only with the nature of what is known or knowable. We may both be human beings, but philosophically, we are in different categories. Similar looking trains - different set of tracks. And I think - beneath your apparent desire to classify atheism as "just another faith position" in order (rather ironically) to dismiss it with greater ease - that you actually do understand this. This starts from the assumption that none of us know everything, that we are all to some degree ignorant, that this ignorance can be diminished by the use of reason and that the aim of discussion is to approach closer to the truth even if we continue to disagree. I applaud this wholeheartedly. But I’m not sure your philosophy is well served by taking a line of argument that seeks to classify others (in this case atheists) in your own terms and language, rather than permitting us (in this case me) to be the judge of who we are, what we don’t believe, and how we should be classified. I would never begin a conversation with a theist by first attempting to apply my atheistic definition or classification of their world view as say... a superstitious myth. I believe there is something to be gained through rational debate between theist and atheist, but not when it’s underpinned by one side first attempting to classify the nature of the other on it’s own terms.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 5, 2010 12:38:21 GMT
INEDIFIX SAYS I applaud this wholeheartedly. But I’m not sure your philosophy is well served by taking a line of argument that seeks to classify others (in this case atheists) in your own terms and language, rather than permitting us (in this case me) to be the judge of who we are, what we don’t believe, and how we should be classified. REPLY: The point of such a debate is precisely to establish common ground on which the discussion can proceed. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for it to begin with one side trying to address the other's beliefs in terms of their own, and the other responding by explaining why they think this account is mistaken. INEDIFIX SAYS I would never begin a conversation with a theist by first attempting to apply my atheistic definition or classification of their world view as say... a superstitious myth. REPLY It would be quite wrong to demand that this be accepted as a CONCLUSION before any debate begins at all. If on the other hand, having said that you believe theism is a superstitious myth, you explain WHY you hold this view and allow the theist to respond, this is a perfectly reasonable procedure. INEDIFIX SAYS I believe there is something to be gained through rational debate between theist and atheist, but not when it’s underpinned by one side first attempting to classify the nature of the other on it’s own terms. REPLY On the contrary, such an attempt is a necessary prelude to any dialogue at all; what is futile is when one side demands the other accepts its presuppositions as self-evident as a precondition for debate. In your case this takes the form of assuming the postivist definition of knowedge is self-evident and refusing to acknowledge that it is open to debate. Anyone who is following thisexchange may like to visit the following page in order to see how your position treats the positivist view as self-evident: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Mar 5, 2010 13:54:14 GMT
I for one am enjoying this exchange of views, but it seems to me "ner the twain shall meet" on on many topics raised by Hibericus and Inedifix above.
And what’s wrong with that I ask?
Wouldn’t it be strange if people with diametrically opposing views regarding some of the subjects discussed above ended up agreeing with each other? Although, I am sure on some topics common ground will be found, the fundamentals are opposing.
All I will say is it makes for some very stimulating and interesting debate. And isn’t that what this section of the forum is for people?
I would say the following to people who wanted Atheists removed from this site for no other reason than that they are Atheists (ignoring trolling of course):
Read the above exchange of views. For the most part it is courteous (overlooking a minor matter of accepting responsibility for a misquote) and yet both parties disagree on many fundamental areas.
I don’t want to hijack the thread with my tuppence worth as this post is merely an observational one that doesn’t really add to the substance of the topics under debate, however, I am Looking forward to seeing where it goes from here.........
|
|