HRG

Actually, all you ever see are electrons. What else do you think emits or scatters photons in the visual spectrum ?

I agree with the other critics of your confusion of religious faith with justified belief in a fact.

Regards,
HRG.

Typhon

I'll type slowly, and repeat myself.

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is not a belief. Really, we're absolutely right on this one you know.

It's certainly NOT a worldview either. I'm rather skeptical that you know more about what atheism is or is not, than I, and others on the board who are, indeed atheists.

Atheism may be part of my worldview, but it is not even close to being "it" in its entirety.

Atheism is the LACK of belief just like the space in the center of a donut is the LACK of donut. I don't believe in any gods, hence I'm an atheist.

You can stand around waiting for "proof" from an atheist until, well, until the current climate cycle gets a whole lot cooler, but you'll not get it. And for good reason. The burden of proof is never on the "unbeliever" in a thing. I don't believe that my head is full of bright yellow pygmy marmosets, or that there is a full sized albino elephant hiding under my bed, or that my toes are actually the reincarnated sentient rulers of Mars. I certainly don't have to put forward "proof" that any of these "don’t exist" in order to profess disbelief in them. I'd only need some sort of credible evidence if I did profess such things existed here and now.

Furthermore, I wouldn't even be bothered to say anything about gods, except for theists who are always insisting they exist in the first place. As my favorite bumper sticker says, "It's your God. It's your Book. You go to Hell."

Provided you're willing to admit this point of definition and move on, let's look at your larger argument.

You seem to be arguing that we can not use our senses or logic, being atheists, as a yardstick for the world around us, as we have no reason to trust our "randomly" developed brains.

This is not true of course. I for one, have great reason to trust my senses and my brain. It's a complex system that has taken millions of years to come about in its particular configuration. It has served both me and my countless ancestors extremely well. If it had not, I would not be here today, likely having fallen prey to something toothier and faster of limb than myself, or perished when the climate changed (again) or food grew scarce.

My senses keep me from dying, more times daily than I care to rightly think about. They've sent my fellow homo sapiens and our cousins, spinning into orbit, unlocked the secrets of the atom for good or bad, and even figured out how to keep my breakfast cereal crunchy longer in milk (I'm not sure which of these three accomplishments is actually the most impressive).

The point is, I have EVERY reason to trust my brain and its ability to do a fairly decent job of detecting, processing, and analyzing the world around me. I'd be in dire trouble if it could not, and while far from perfect, it has done reasonably well by me and I've gotten skilled at using it in turn over my three plus decades of life.

Considering that these are the only available tools at our disposal, why would I not make good use of them and feel confident, within the understood limitations of their imperfect nature, and range of their scope, that using them in a logical, rational, and careful manner, would not be advised? Even religion and our concept of gods are the product of these senses, as are art, science, philosophy, and everything else.

I on the other hand, believe that my brain can provide me with accurate information about my situation (i.e. "I'm typing, I'm eating pasta with red sauce, I'm running from a long-toothed carnivore," etc.) because it is the product of millions of years of evolution, and if it wasn't, for example, able to tell the difference between a plate of pasta with red sauce and a long-toothed carnivore, I would not be here today. I have no belief in any Intelligent Creator because I have never seen either reasonable (or even scant for that matter) evidence or a need of one. I do not see that this is "completely irrational" at all, and would challenge you to prove otherwise.

.T.

LinuxPup

Goliath:

Webster's Dictionary says atheism is:

"the doctrine that there is no deity"

It's not my definition... it's pretty much the definition everywhere.

Another way of putting this is this (and please answer me): Do you hold the belief that God does not exist? (yes or no)

That statement in itself is a claim. This is silly, why don't you focus on the topic instead?

Typhon:

I haven't forgotten your challenge, and will address it, but I have class in 10 minutes....

This is good conversation... I like it.

Philosoft

Bah. Can you say "loaded question"? Thought so.

LinuxPup, have you stopped beating your wife? (yes or no)

Bill Snedden

I consider myself an atheist, and my answer to your question would be "no." I do not hold the belief "God does not exist." I simply do not hold a belief that He does. They are not the same thing.

Let me try to illustrate with a more mundane example. Suppose I asked you, "Do you believe my right shoe is brown?" If you did, you'd answer, "yes." If you didn't, you'd answer, "no." However, does a "no" answer mean that you believe that my right shoe isn't brown? No, it simply means that you don't hold the belief that it is.

In other words, a "yes" answer represents a positive belief while a "no" answer represents a lack of that positive belief but does not represent a negative belief.

I hope that helps.

Now, to keep this post on topic, "rational" is, by definition, what humans are. Asking if humans are "rational" is like asking "do squares have four equal sides?"

In my opinion, the ideas in your OP (which can also be found in the writings of C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga, to name two) represent the creation of a dichotomy where none, in fact, exists.

It seems to me that "rational" and "irrational" only have meaning as distinctions within the range of human thought and experience. To ask whether "rationality" can develop as a product of "irrationality" is therefore a little like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" The question has no answer because it presumes the existence of that which it seeks to discover.

It would seem to me that the human capability for rational thought is an example of an extremely complex and ordered process. Therefore, the question should be, "can order arise from disorder?" We know from our examination of nature that the answer to this question seems to be "yes". Therefore, I find it quite reasonable to posit a "non-rational" source for "rationality".

Regards,

Bill Snedden

LinuxPup

No, it's a perfectly legitimate question... And I'm not married, so that question is irrelevant, however, my question isn't. It's not a trick question... it's actually quite simple and straightforward. So it should be easy to answer with a yes or a no. Why are some atheists, who believe there is no God, trying to avoid the word "belief"? "Belief" is not a bad word.
Typhon:

The two states of the mind which contribute the most to your behaviour are your beliefs and desires. Example: Let's say I stand in the rain with an umbrella, so I won't get wet. I *believe* the umbrella will keep me dry, and I *desire* to stay dry, so that's how I behave. If I desire to stay dry in the rain, and I believe that painting my face green will keep me dry, I'll get wet obviously... Switching that around, Let's say I believe that an umbrella will keep me dry, but I desire to get wet, so I don't use it, and get wet.

Knowing that is important to my next point: Evolution doesn't care what my belief and desires are, what it does concern itself with is that I survive so that I can pass my genes on, or die to eliminate myself from life... basically natural selection. Now I'll borrow an example from Alvin Plantinga:

Let's say you're wandering in the jungle when you run into a tiger. Natural selection basically states that in order for you to survive and pass on your traits, you'd better run/hide from the tiger, or somehow survive. Natural selection can give a rip what I'm thinking, it just matters if I survive or not. Here are some possible belief/desire driven scenarios:

1. I believe that the tiger is a cute little kitten and desire to get closer to the kitten, and I believe the way to get closer to the kitten is to run as fast as possible away from the kitten.

2. I believe that the tiger is going to kill me, and I desire to be eaten by a tiger, but I desire to be eaten by a bigger, more ferocious tiger, so I run away quickly.

3. I believe that the tiger is a reoccuring illusion, and hoping to keep my weight down, I run a mile away from it.

4. I'm running a 1600 meter race, I want to win, and I believe that the appearance of the tiger is the starting signal to run.

5. I believe.... etc. etc. etc.

As you can see there are an infinite amount of belief/desires that can cause me to run and survive from the tiger, thus allowing me to pass my traits on to my ancestors. It stands to reason then that based on our ancestor's survival alone we cannot conclude that our belief/desires are correct.... in fact they can still be completely false as shown above. In order for your brain to provide you with true beliefs(e.g. 1+1=2, "I exist", etc.), which we all take for granted, you are left with an Intelligent Designer. This is why I think atheism is completely irrational, and is a tremendous leap of presumptious blind faith, and to believe that, I'd have to completely disregard all reality including my own thoughts.

Philosoft

No, it's not. The question is worded to get a response that you have already presumed. That is, if the atheist answers "yes," you can say, "aha, I told you you had beliefs" and if "no," then you can claim he's not really an atheist according to dictionary x. I'm sorry, I'm not going to give an inch on this until you actually start listening.

<strong> See, right here you are making the same presumption that we have asked you repeatedly to avoid. Again, there are some atheists that would stipulate to your narrow definition, but it is not a necessary property of atheism.

<strong> Especially when you want to use the word to diminish atheism to the point that atheism and theism are competing on equal logical and rational footing.

sandlewood

Your examples above provide cases of faulty reasoning in which the potential victim happened to avoid being eaten anyway. But how about these scenarios:

1. I believe that the tiger is a cute little kitten and desire to get closer to the kitten, and I believe the way to get closer to the kitten is to run as fast as possible toward the kitten.

2. I believe that the tiger is going to kill me and I desire to be eaten by it, so I run toward it quickly.

3. I believe that the tiger is a reoccurring illusion, so I remain where I am.

4. I'm running a 1600 meter race, I want to win, and I believe that the appearance of the tiger is the signal to wait.

So faulty reasoning and desires that are not conducive to my survival also get me killed. Since faulty reasoning is not at all associated with survival, you might expect that on the average, faulty reason might lead to 50% survival and 50% death.

However, correct reasoning about the truth of reality leads to a much higher percentage of survival, virtually 100%. Therefore, natural selection favors the animal that can correctly assess the truth of reality, whether that is by reasoning, instinct, or whatever. Furthermore, natural selection also favors those animals that have a desire to stay alive. So the desire to stay alive is passed on.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

James AD

All four of your examples are ridiculous. A creature that confused would not be represented in the gene pool for very long. We do not understand our environment with complete clarity, understanding and accuracy. Nor are we in complete confusion. We understand and react to it well enough to survive and reproduce. Reasoning based on ridiculous distortions leads to ridiculous conclusions.


You made no comments on my criticism of intelligent design on my previous post. The problem is that the words "intelligent" and "design" have no precise definition. Intelligent design advocates "say" it could have been space aliens (although I'm sure few believe it). Intelligent design could actually be plain old Darwinism. "Random" variation is the design and natural (and sexual) selection is the intelligence. Until you define the terms there is nothing to debate about.

P.S. I'm glad you are enjoying the conversation.

Bill Snedden

This entire argument, including Plantinga's objections, have been <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000001" target="_blank">previously covered</a> in the philosophy forum, in case anyone's interested.

Regards,

Bill Snedden