Kat_Somm_Faen

Well Bosun, I may have put words in your mouth - I assume now that you have rationally looked as far as you could and found no satisfying answer. And made your decision based on belief after exhausting your rational options.

BTW: Universe was "proven" finite and expanding. To the best of our knowledge and abilities that is the answer. Tha is what I can tell you.

Nathan - The Copperfield dichotomy is a bit weak since his trickery is readily explainable using the current state of knowledge. The answer is definite to what he claims he is doing and the verdict is in. Our level of understanding what he does is more than sufficient to explain what he does. Chose a real "unexplainable" problem - Theory of Realtivity has problems - in its predictions. Do you still believe it is essentially true? Do you think it will/could ever be refuted?

Bosun

Kat:

Yes, I agree that the universe is probably finite and expanding. That space is defined by the presence of mass-energy. But the idea that space is also expanding is a little hard to grasp. Does space exist where the universe has not yet expanded?

BTW: The fact that the universe is finite and expanding is one more datum that seems to support a "creative event" like the big bang. That there was once a moment with no moment preceding it. I do not think it irrational to believe that there is a sentient "something" that brought it all about. But I do have a problem with trying to define what that "somthing" is. It surely is "something" completely outside our experience and therefore not amenable to definition.

I do think to the second level of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that god does not speak to us through prophets or holy books or revelation. But there is just a slim chance that this view, also, is wrong. However, some people seem to need that revelation in order to deal with life and living. Some folks just seem to thrive under the cloak of revealed religion. I do not fault them for that. And I do not consider such beliefs necessarily irrational. I have known too many bright people who were theists. My big problem is the idea that just because religion is good for some folks that it is good for everybody. This is manifestly false.

Bosun

njhartsh

Well, let's go back to that statement of mine that you think the above contradicts:
Now let's see whether those "certainty" citations you brought in verify this claim of mine...

That's merely a citation of the age-old (hence the Socrates) notion that when there is no positive evidence for a proposition, the rational solution is to withhold acceptance, not to adopt a blissfully unevidenced belief. This is merely a deductive conclusion from what "reason" is.

The first thing to note is that this was not a "response to you." (Read again what I claimed in the first italicized quotation in this post. Do you see how I make my claims carefully?)

Second, "You're right" is merely my agreement with K_S_F's above-quoted "argument": in my experience, theists do indeed hold that particular belief. (Evidently you took that to mean that I think "Kat has it right" in some broad sense. How you inferred that I have no idea.) Do you seriously dispute that most theists don't see the existence of God as an extraordinary claim?

"They're wrong" is, quite clearly, a statement that this particular belief held by many theists (which K_S_F had just mentioned)... is wrong. Which, again, is a mere deduction from the axiomatic definition of "extraordinary claim."

So--as I said, I haven't expressed an ounce of certainty in my responses to you that isn't derived directly from axiomatic philosophical terms of art (the Razor, "extraordinary," etc.). Q.E.D.

I'd be ecstatic if you ever noticed that, responding to you, I have yet to make a single disputed claim about anything but axiomatic definitions and logical deductions therefrom. Has it occurred to you that I've yet to claim that there is no god? That I have made no positive physical claims that could possibly be "right," that I could possibly "evangelize"? Have you even noticed that I haven't declared your deism "wrong"?

In fact, however, the truth about axiomatic definitions is that we do "have [an] idea where the reality lies." Occam's Razor, for example, does have a real definition--and you fundamentally misstated and misapplied it. "Extraordinary evidence" does mean something, and K_S_F and I have discussed it. "Reason" has actual content, and logical conclusions can be drawn therefrom.

Finally, "atheism" actually means something in these parts. At least two comments you have made on this thread carry the unquestionable implication that you are blissfully unaware of what that meaning is.

Then let's hear it.

- Nathan

Bosun

From your link (which I have read many, many times in the past)


Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.


So to quote your own reference, you believe that there is no god. Fine with me. What I think is hanging us up is the semantic difference between absence of belief in god and believing that there is no god. To me, this is trivial. To you it seems to be essential. Is that right?

Bosun

njhartsh

"To quote"? (Dear, dear Winston! He's only holding up four fingers...)

Please, read the passage again. Better yet, just read the first sentence. Note the difference between the first paragraph's "Atheism is characterized..." and the second paragraph's "Some atheists..." It's right there in front of you. It's not that hard.

The document even lays it out again: "Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are 'strong atheists'. There is a qualitative difference in the 'strong' and 'weak' positions[.]" But you fell into the trap anyway.

Well, gee, seeing as how it entirely obliterates multiple conclusions you have incorrectly drawn about what I'm arguing... yeah, I'd say it's kind of vital.

Here's an idea--let's read the next paragraph in the document:
And then there's everything the earlier passage had to say about "weak atheism." It's all right in front of you. What more can I do?


Well, we can try the that old Philosophy 101 standby, the Case of Julius Caesar's Teeth, I guess.

Here are some presumptions I hope we can all share:

• Julius Caesar once lived, and then he died.
• At the moment he died, Caesar had either an odd or an even number of teeth in his mouth.
• (Zero is an even number.)
• There is no extant reliable evidence about the number of teeth Caesar had in his mouth when he died.

I suppose one of those premises (perhaps the fourth, very slim chance the first) might be false, but then we'd just change it to someone else. The third is just another member of that category that's our old friend by now: undeniable conclusions deduced from axiomatic definitions. Anyway, can we just take those four as read? Good.

Now, then. Given the above, here are two mutually exclusive beliefs you could hold about Caesar and teeth:

(1) Julius Caesar had an odd number of teeth in his mouth when he died.
(2) Julius Caesar had an even number of teeth in his mouth when he died.

Notably, (2) could be restated as follows:

(2') Julius Caesar did not have an odd number of teeth in his mouth when he died.

Interesting conclusions follow from this. First, either (1) or (2') has to be right. One of them is true; the other is false. You could, I suppose, believe (1); you could alternatively believe (2') (which, as it happens, entails believing (2) as well).

Very interestingly, though, which one of those should we pick? Well, there's a system called "reason" that might help us out. One of the axioms in reason is that it is improper to believe a proposition without evidence. And yet, by our premises, we have no evidence. Ergo belief in either (1) or (2') is irrational. Neither belief is justifiable--even though one of them has to be true! So one of those two beliefs is irrational but true. Interesting, eh? Think about our earlier discussion in light of this fact.

Now, then. What's the rational course of action in this situation? Well, let's remember ol' Socrates up there. He can tell us what the rational conclusion is: "I don't know." We can rationally support neither (1) nor (2') (nor (2)). The rational solution is to withhold acceptance of all such beliefs.

Now, wouldn't it be incoherent and ridiculous to accuse the person who refused to accept either (1) or (2') of trying to "evangelize" (2')? Or of accusing that same withholder of "say[ing] 'There is no [ ]od[d tooth]', or ... say[ing], 'I believe there is no [ ]od[d tooth].'"? Yes, indeed, it would be incoherent and ridiculous.

Do you get the analogy, or should I make it simpler?

(I should add that "strong" atheists can, quite possibly legitimately, argue that this allegory has a dispositive difference from the gods/no gods issue, because here we are presuming that there is no evidence of an even number of teeth. "Strong" atheists often allege that there is evidence of the non-existence of certain god concepts, which would make that case dispositively different from this one. I certainly haven't disproved "strong" atheism; I've just shown that the "weak"/"strong" distinction, as the document I pointed Bosun toward makes entirely clear, is obviously not "trivial.")

I sincerely hope that this thread has been an educational experience for you, Bosun.

- Nathan

Bosun

Actually, it will take more than your pedantry to educate me, dear Nathan. There is a body of folks here abouts that belives to a moral certainty that Julius Ceasar had a pi number of teeth in his mouth when he died. But then most folks consider them to be completely irrational.

Bosun

NonHomogenized

Puns aside, you seem to have ignored the point that njhartsh made: that there is a distinct difference between not accepting a proposition as true, and deciding that said proposition is false.

Asha'man

malookiemaloo,

Absolute knowledge doesn't exist, except in the mythical worlds of religion and mathematics. I have nothing more than a strong belief in science, tempered by a skepticism that forces me to withhold judgement of extreme or abnormal claims.

However, I do not have faith in science. Faith is a belief without supporting evidence. My belief in the success of science has an immense amound of supporting evidence. A few random examples:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/
http://www.newscientist.com/
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/

The fact that we can deliver a robot probe to the surface of Mars is rock solid demonstration that our scientific knowledge is at least close to the truth. The fact that I can hold live conversations with people like ju'iblex (halfway around the world) is a rock solid demonstration that our scientific knowledge is not smoke and mirrors. The fact that we have a genetic map of SARS within months of the outbreak is a rock solid demonstration that the scientific process is one that works. The fact that I can hold a handheld device that will tell me where I am standing on the planet, anywhere and anytime, within a few meters, is a rock solid demonstration that my belief is rationally justified.


PS. You never addressed my question from earlier in this thread. I talked about how people have emotional bias, how they believe many things through wishful thinking or need. I suggested that the scientific method is squarely aimed at finding unbiased answers. How much of your faith is based on need? How much of your thinking is clouded by emotional bias?

Asha'man

Bosun,

You seem to have forgotten a few levels of evidence:

4. Strong evidence, enough for the police to investigate, but not strong enough to take to court.

5. Good evidence, enough to convince a detective to take a second look, but not enough to keep him on the task if nothing else is found quickly.

6. Poor evidence, enough to plant a suspicious hunch in the mind of a detective, but not enough to push him into following up.

7. Pitiful evidence, if you hold your head just right and squint, it might look like something it isn't, but doesn't hold up to a second glance.

8. No evidence at all, not a hint of suspicion is justified.

As far as actual demonstrated evidence, I think God is sitting somewhere between 6 and 8. Everything else is in the mind of the believer, and nowhere else.

Bosun

And likewise, there is a distinct difference in not accepting a proposition as false as opposed to deciding that it is true.

So, as regards a creator, are you saying that you do not accept the truth or falsity of the proposition of its existence? This seems to me to be closer to agnosticism than atheism. A non statement of non belief.

Bosun