Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 03:38 AM

Hello Atheists,

Beginning with the proposition that God does not exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?

I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self.

I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

Thanks,

David Mathews

Cretinist · 07-25-2002, 03:58 AM

<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#emp" target="_blank">Empiricism</a>.

What do I win?

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 04:01 AM

Hello Cretinist,

Quote:

Empiricism

Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so that nothing can be thought without first being sensed. Prominent modern empiricists include Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill. In the twentieth century, empiricism principles were extended and applied by the pragmatists and the logical positivists.

Would you be so kind as to present your empiricistic worldview here?

Thanks,

David Mathews

WJ · 07-25-2002, 04:05 AM

Hi David!

Once again, good question/post! I will be anxious to hear how atheist's justify their position. Anyway, I was thinking this morning about which philosophy comes the closest to a match for the atheist. In other words, which philosophy is the most consistent with the atheist's non -belief(?)

I tried to think of one but saw holes in each one of them. Even complete skepticism (Hume) seems to be contradictory because of infinite regress (causation), which could basically mean then the world is absurd and illogical in a strictly apriori 'perfect' sense. And that would run counter to their 'hanging their hat' on logic.

Too, in an existential vein, I've asked many here if they could adequately explain their own existence, and of course received no absolute explaination (because there is no logical one that absolutely explains the deepest questions of existence/Being). And so, similar to you, I'm trying to figure out which philosophy is consistent with their belief/non-belief.

I propose, for them, there is none.

Darkside_Spirit · 07-25-2002, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Beginning with the proposition that God does not exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?

Weak atheism (agnosticism): The lack of belief that god exists.
Strong atheism: The belief that god does not exist.

You are misrepresenting atheism as incorporating only strong atheism, when in fact it includes weak atheism as well.

Quote:

I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self.

You are asking for answers to many questions--answers that we are not obliged to provide. Can you demonstrate that a worldview makes more sense with the concept of god included? If not, then your point is redundant.

Quote:

I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

The rejection of unsubstantiated propositions is rational, reasonable and logical. So long as you fail to provide evidence for theism, atheism will remain rational, reasonable and logical.

Cretinist · 07-25-2002, 04:07 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "worldview", but I certainly believe that if any answers exist for the questions you want answered, the only answers that will be worth a crap will be based on empirical evidence.

WJ · 07-25-2002, 04:11 AM

creatine!

Go ahead and asnswer David's question. After that, explain to me why Empiricism and Revelation are incompatable?

Cretinist · 07-25-2002, 04:20 AM

It depends on what you mean by incompatible. Certainly blind acceptance of any belief is obviously contradictory to empiricism, but Christianity isn�t necessarily ruled out by empiricism. It certainly could be possible that all the claims of Christianity were actually supported by the available evidence. It just happens that it isn�t.

Though I suppose many claims of Christianity are indeed ruled out from the start, since they are by their very nature impossible to verify.

WJ · 07-25-2002, 04:30 AM

cretine!

But blind acceptance is not Revelation. If you are familar with it, it relies on the aposterior for its 'percieved' truth. Which is basically the same as your empricist guide/method to a truth/reality.

Why are they incompatable if sense experience is common in both?

the apeman

HelenM · 07-25-2002, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>Hello Atheists,

Beginning with the proposition that God does not exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have?

I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self.

I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical.

Thanks,

David Mathews</strong>

Atheists don't need one, David.

That things exist the way they are, proves conclusively that they were able to come into existence. Scientists may enjoy investigating the process but there is no doubt that whatever the process was, it was possible because it happened.

They can use all of their brain, unhindered by any dogma, to decide how to behave. They can learn by observation, such things as, there is a greater chance people will be kind to you if you are kind to them - although there are no guarantees of how others will treat you. They can adapt their own behavior accordingly, based on their goals.

They can enjoy everything there is to enjoy, making wise decisions about what things are best in moderation, or even, perhaps, totally avoided.

They are adults and don't have to be 'told' what to do. They believe in the ability to reach constructive, appropriate, helpful consensus on important issues even when they are not being 'told' how they should think and behave.

These are some things I have observed about atheists although some of them might also apply to non-atheists and given that I am not supposing that atheism is unified to the extent that it is a 'worldview' that can be easily and concisely described.

But - at least atheists seem to know that about their views.

Christians seem to tend towards a lot of unrealistic idealism about how unified they are. Maybe only some of them. I'm not sure.

love
Helen

07-25-2002, 03:38 AM	#1
David Mathews Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: st. petersburg Posts: 622	Atheistic Rationality Hello Atheists, Beginning with the proposition that God does not exist what sort of rational, reasonable and defensible worldview do you have? I am seeking an inclusive and complete worldview which takes into account 12 billion years of history, the whole Universe from subatomic particles to the forces of nature to superclusters to the variations in the cosmic background radiation, the whole of human identity including the meaning and purpose of life (if any), and finally the meaning, purpose and role of the individual self. I know that it is a lot to ask but atheists have gone out of their way to claim that their viewpoint is rational, reasonable and logical. Thanks, David Mathews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2002, 03:58 AM	#2
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	<a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#emp" target="_blank">Empiricism</a>. What do I win?

07-25-2002, 04:05 AM	#4
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hi David! Once again, good question/post! I will be anxious to hear how atheist's justify their position. Anyway, I was thinking this morning about which philosophy comes the closest to a match for the atheist. In other words, which philosophy is the most consistent with the atheist's non -belief(?) I tried to think of one but saw holes in each one of them. Even complete skepticism (Hume) seems to be contradictory because of infinite regress (causation), which could basically mean then the world is absurd and illogical in a strictly apriori 'perfect' sense. And that would run counter to their 'hanging their hat' on logic. Too, in an existential vein, I've asked many here if they could adequately explain their own existence, and of course received no absolute explaination (because there is no logical one that absolutely explains the deepest questions of existence/Being). And so, similar to you, I'm trying to figure out which philosophy is consistent with their belief/non-belief. I propose, for them, there is none.

07-25-2002, 04:07 AM	#6
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	I'm not sure what you mean by "worldview", but I certainly believe that if any answers exist for the questions you want answered, the only answers that will be worth a crap will be based on empirical evidence.

07-25-2002, 04:11 AM	#7
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	creatine! Go ahead and asnswer David's question. After that, explain to me why Empiricism and Revelation are incompatable?

07-25-2002, 04:20 AM	#8
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	It depends on what you mean by incompatible. Certainly blind acceptance of any belief is obviously contradictory to empiricism, but Christianity isn�t necessarily ruled out by empiricism. It certainly could be possible that all the claims of Christianity were actually supported by the available evidence. It just happens that it isn�t. Though I suppose many claims of Christianity are indeed ruled out from the start, since they are by their very nature impossible to verify.

07-25-2002, 04:30 AM	#9
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	cretine! But blind acceptance is not Revelation. If you are familar with it, it relies on the aposterior for its 'percieved' truth. Which is basically the same as your empricist guide/method to a truth/reality. Why are they incompatable if sense experience is common in both? the apeman

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.