Curious Mind

LinuxPup:

You know very well that that's not what I meant. Of course I don't sense Antarctica, because I am nowhere near Antarcta. However, it is still a thing that can be sensed. It can be felt, seen, even smelled.

My point is, if your doubts have merit and our senses ARE deceiving us, we'd never have knowledge of it. If a tree appears green to us, then to us, that tree being green is a fact. To question this wouldn't serve a purpose. Sure, we might be wrong, and it might not be green. That's always a possibility. But of what use is it? Our senses say that it's green, so that will always be truth to us.

As to God, gods, spirits, and such, well, we can't even sense He/She/It/Them, so why should we believe that they're real? If our own senses are deceptive and things aren't what they seem, then how much more should we doubt things that we CANNOT even sense?

Vorkosigan

Atheism is not a worldview. The dictionary definition YOU gave above defined a worldview as "a collection of beliefs." Atheism is a single statement: I don't believe in gods. Many worldviews incorporate atheism into their thinking, like certain Buddhist and Confucian systems, certain flavors of Communism, metaphysical naturalism, and so forth. Not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

I assume from the content of your post that you are confusing "atheism" with "metaphysical naturalism."

The metaphysical naturalist is the only philosophical position that can rest secure in the possession of its cognitive faculties. The rest of you have to worry that some supernatural entity is playing tricks on you; we don't have that problem.

I suggest you curl up with a good book on cognitive science and the mind.

S. Pinker
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393318486/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">How the Mind Works</a>

Kitchen, et al.
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/052148541X/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226292061/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Explaining Science : A Cognitive Approach(Science and Its Conceptual Foundations)</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300083092/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">What Is Evolutionary Psychology : Explaining the New Science of the Mind (Darwinism Today)</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060976519/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Language Instinct</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198524196/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Descent of Mind : Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution</a>

and most importantly, Tooby and Cosimides'

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195101073/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Adapted Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture</a>

Our brains are not products of "blind chance" but of deterministic selection processes. Their ability to interpret reality is the result of billions of years of evolution of life. Logical thinking is a crucial component of human social interaction, and is also evolved into people. So basically, Linux, if you study evolution, you'll understand how it is the human brain works.

Vorkosigan

katerina

Curious

Huh? If your sense faculties give faulty results, then why would you prefer their information over nonsensory sources of information?

E_muse

I was very intrigued by this answer, and particularly the quote from Linuxpup that was used.

First of all, I define 'A' in Atheist in the same was as I define the 'A' in Asexual! No insult intended Asexual means having no evident sex or sex organs - sexless. Likewise, Atheist simply means having no God - Godless. Once again, I do apologize to the Atheists for using this analogy!

One of the main struts of Judeo/Christian belief is that of intelligent design. Now obviously Atheists in general must dispense with this option.

Once upon a time this was not so easy and in The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins asserts that prior to Darwinian evolutionary theory, Atheists were always a little uncomfortable. However, he goes on to say that, with the advent of evolutionary theory Atheists were able to be intellectually fulfilled.

The two main struts of neo-Darwinism are the acceptance of two main forces that produced life on this planet, those being natural selection and random mutation. Natural selection is blind and also happens to be the very word that Linuxpup has used to describe how our brains have appeared. Secondly, natural selection can only select from genetic mutations that have occured randomly. I therefore do not see a problem with Linuxpup's opening assertion as quoted here.

It must follow that it is true of all atheists that they do not believe in intelligent design! It also follows that all atheists will embrace the theory of evolution as the best explanation available for describing how life (and therefore our brains) appeared on this planet.

In short, I do think that there are ideas that are central to atheism and in some way give it identity as a belief system.

As far as the OP goes, Richard Taylor, the American Philosopher made the observation that we suppose, without even thinking about it, that our sense organs reveal to us things that have nothing to do with themselves, their structures or their origins.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Vorkosigan

One of the main struts of Judeo/Christian belief is that of intelligent design. Now obviously Atheists in general must dispense with this option.

Obviously not, since there is nothing to rule out a naturalistic Designer. There is just no evidence for it. Supernatural Designers are ruled out under metaphysical naturalism. Atheists (Buddhists, panthiests, Confucians, Communists, metaphysical naturalists...) have many different takes on Design.

I assume you mean metaphysical naturalist when you say "atheist."

The two main struts of neo-Darwinism are the acceptance of two main forces that produced life on this planet, those being natural selection and [/i]random mutation[/i]. Natural selection is blind and also happens to be the very word that Linuxpup has used to describe how our brains have appeared.

Yes, and linux is wrong. Natural selection is a deterministic process. It is not blind, but guided by various constraints.

Secondly, natural selection can only select from genetic mutations that have occured by chance.

Genetic mutations are random with respect to given environments/evolutionary pressures. However, mutations do not occur by chance, but have causes.

I therefore do not see a problem with Linuxpup's opening assertion as quoted here.

That is because you are laboring under the same erroneous view of things that he is.

It must follow that it is true of all atheists that they do not believe in intelligent design!

Hogwash. Many pantheists, to name only one group, believe in intelligent design.

It also follows that all atheists will embrace the theory of evolution as the best explanation available for describing how life (and therefore our brains) appeared on this planet.

Hogwash again. Many pantheists deny evolution. Many atheistic groups with a supernatural take on thing deny evolution. Many metaphysical naturalists, such as the American neo-lamarckians prior to 1900, denied natural selection and random mutation. Clearly you need to do some reading, son.

In short, I do think that there are ideas that are central to atheism and in some way give it identity as a belief system.

Pfui. Atheists agree on one thing only. Please explain what central ideas unite Buddhism, Communism, metaphysical naturalism, freethinkers, Wiccans, pantheists.....

As far as the OP goes, Richard Taylor, the American Philosopher made the observation that we suppose, without even thinking about it, that our sense organs reveal to us things that have nothing to do with themselves, their structures or their origins.

Taylor may not have thought about it, but others of us have.

Vorkosigan

Pomp

LinuxPup,

My argument doesn't prove atheism is false, but rather it merely means that to believe atheism is true is completely irrational and must therefore be rejected.

I just love presuppositionalists.

Your first mistake is the flawed assertion that atheists (by which, I'm sure, you mean metaphysical naturalists) believe that our ability to reason is the result of "blind chance." I didn't come to be through the random juxtaposition of my constituent parts. I was assembled by preexisting biological systems. which were asssembled, in turn, by older biological systems, and so on. In order to maintain that our ability to reason is due to blind chance alone, you would have to maintain that, in each generation, from the earliest inkling of cognitive ability to the present day, there was no survival or reproductive differential between those individuals with mostly true beliefs and those individuals with mostly false beliefs. That individuals, for example, who believed lions to be dangerous predators were no more likely to survive than those who believed lions to be harmless features of the landscape. It is the inevitable result of variation, selection, and heredity that any cognitive ability that eveolves will be at least reasonably reliable.

This brings us to a second weakness in your argument. Human beings are observed to be imperfectly rational. We reach all sorts of false conclusions. Our reasoning ability is imperfect but largely adequate for the purposes of our survival. This is exactly what we would expect to see, if our reasoning abilty were the result of an evolutionary process. What would we expect if our reasoning ability were the result of an intelligent designer? We don't know. It depends on the whim of the designer. The hypothesis that our brains are the product of evolution, then, is supported by this observation and the hypothesis that our brains are the product of a designer is neither supported nor denied. Score one point for evolution. This, in fact, is the largest theoretical weakness with the designer hypothesis. No observed reality is, or can be, inconsistent with the designer hypothesis; it cannot be falsified. No matter what we observe, it is always possible to claim that the designer wanted it that way.

Finally, even if we were to presume that our ability to reason was given to us by a designer, we have no reason to presume that our ability is accurate. You ask us to presume that the hypothetical designer gave us an accurate ability to reason, but we have no grounds by which to rule out the alternate hypothesis that the designer was some sort of trickster who revels in our inability to reason accurately.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Principia

Trust our senses? ... because God "intelligently" designed our visual system?

Then explain what you see here:



Are those flashing dots a secret code from God? Hmm... I may be convinced, yet!

SC

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

E_muse

And isn't this is also the main reason why most atheists on these boards reject the idea of God - because there is no evidence for it?

Perhaps we should replace the term Atheists with 'Atheists on this board' as that is probably what most of us are actually referring to.

The roll of a dice is guided by various constraints and the result of any dice roll is therefore deterministic.. an inevitable outcome.

I would argue that atheism in the west has been dominated by the scientific method. I accept your correction though .. and it is helpful. However, I seriously question how many of these systems represent what could be considered 'mainstream atheistic thought' with regard to western culture.

Fair comment and it seems that I should have been more careful with my wording. However, the opening page of the Secular Web makes the following statement:

I think that many of the comments made a relevant to the objectives of the Secular Web. However, I think that it is too easily assumed that Sec Web thought is somehow representative of atheism.. and I think that even many atheists can create this idea.

It is helpful to have someone who can remind us of the bigger picture however... and thank you.

Vorkosigan

The roll of a dice is guided by various constraints and the result of any dice roll is therefore deterministic.. an inevitable outcome.

That's right, E_muse. Die rolls are determined by a huge array of factors. We refer to them as "random" because we cannot predict the outcome of any particular roll. But really, that describes our own lack of knowledge, rather than the die itself.

As for the rest of your post, I thank you for the acknowledgement of the problems of creating a monolithic thing called "atheism." I have the same problem myself, it helps me to make a clear differentiation when I discuss it.

Vorkosigan

SteveD

LinuxPup,
I think that everyone (including you) trusts in their rationality for the same reason. Throughout your whole life it is tested constantly day after day and found to be generally reliable. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be able to function. This has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the source of it is.

To apply this to your flower analogy; If we found through experience that every time the flowers told us something it was true, then we would have good reason to trust what they say, whether it happened by intention or not.

The question I would ask you is, if our reasoning ability was created by an all powerful intelligent designer (God), then why do people not always believe the same things when presented with the same information? Wouldn't you expect an omniscient God to endow you with flawless reasoning power? Either the designer purposely gave us flawed reasoning ability or he wasn't really that great of a designer.

I find the imperfect reasoning ability that humans have to be much more consistent with a naturalistic explanation than with a theistic one.

Steve