Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sir drinks-a-lot · 08-05-2002, 03:32 PM

If you look at etmology of the word agnostic, it leads to the same conclusion, since gnosis = knowledge.

Pople believe in alot of things, without claiming to know them. For example, non-solopsists believe that other people have first person perspectives. But they will admit that there is no way to really know this.

Dr S · 08-05-2002, 05:10 PM

Isn't that non-solipsist?
And isn't there a difference here between not knowing for sure what is happening in someone else's head and not knowing what is happening in your own?

sir drinks-a-lot · 08-05-2002, 05:24 PM

Dr. S,

Yes, there is a difference, so maybe that was a bad example. But the belief that other people have first person perspectives is in the head of the non-solipsist!

Another example: I believe that Jay Leno has never had thoughts of firing an automatic weapon into the audience during his show. But, I will admit there is no way for me to know this. I can ask him, but he may lie, etc.... Even though I don't think there is any way to know for sure, I hold on to my belief.

By the way, I am also in SF. Cool city.

08-05-2002, 08:54 PM

Sir-Drinks-alot,

Quote:

For example, non-solopsists believe that other people have first person perspectives. But they will admit that there is no way to really know this.

I reject solipsism because of it's very conception of what it is to "know" something. So I pointedly do not admit that there is no way of knowing that other people have minds similar in certain respects to mine. The details of their similarity are an empirical matter, and even now well within the realm of what we can call knowledge.

Fiach · 08-06-2002, 12:23 AM

The argument about rationality in theism versus rationalism in atheism is far to subjective. All people barring the insane are rational to some extent. They vary from weakly rational, to moderately rational, to strictly rational.

An Atheist having a world view is the topic of the thread, and I rejected because we all have a variety of view. But I have reconsidered. Atheists have one thing in common in viewing the universe. We all believe the universe and matter-energy are all that we know exists. We approach world problems without the hope or expectation of aid from a deity of which we don't believe. We believe that we ourselves must solve all solvable problems and that imaginary beings using magic are ludicrous superstition. We do our best to maximise the benefits of our lifes, our only lives, the biological ones, not in hope of some etherial hypothetical existence after death. I suppose that is our world view.

The second issue is are we more rational than Theists. I have dealt with that before. It is like IQ. Rationality and IQ if measured by standard testing plots out in a Bell Curve. Remember the controversial Bell Curve by Murray and Hernstein that plotted IQ curves and found that they largely overlap but that some goups had more participants in the above average scores while another group had more in the below average scores. The curves did not overlap exactly with one extending farther to the right while the other extended more to the left with 80% of all being in the overlapping (equal) ranges.

I suspect that Atheists and Liberal Theists have curves of rational thinking scores that nearly completely overlap, with no statistical differences. Atheists versus Fundamentalists however, in my observation clearly think differently. I have learned this by observation of these forums. The Fundamentalist is on the weakly rational side. He/she can think rationally but not consistently nor efficiently. The Liberal Anglican Christian can think rather rationally in all areas and even tries to rationalise Christian Mythology to have it acquire meaning to a thinking person. He/she makes Genesis metaporical not literal. He regards Revelation as apocolyptic literature for moral improvement. The Fundamentalist believes all of Genesis, denies the findings of science on evolution, planetary and solar formation, plate tectonics, continental drift, and age of the Earth despite the proof now available because he cannot function without the myth basis of his cult faith. That myth is illogical and so his mind is trained to accept the irrational as true (Paul said so.) Nothing is as it appears, the universe is all a delusion deliberately set up to fool us and test our faith.

Because of his fundamentalist mind set or because his brain cannot efficiently process rational syllogisms, he lives most of his life in a delusional universe of magic and magical beings. That ultimately harms his brain and causes him to be unable to rationally assess the real matter-energy universe. I think it is chicken or egg argument. Does the rationally impaired person naturally drift to fundamentalism and magic, or does one raised in fundamentalist thinking loose rational skills over time as the brain circuits adapt to the irrationality of the fundamentalism.

I guess it is a bit of both. Some rational childeren raised as fundamentalists cannot accept it. Their brains are too rational. That is why we have Fundamentalist Annonymous Chapters in every American state. Fundamentalism is the State Religion of the USA.

In summary:

1. Aye, we have a world view. That is we are responsible for ourselves and no gods or magic will solve our problems.
2. Aye we, as atheists and as liberal enlightened Christians are more rational than primitive thinking superstitious fundamentalists whose solutions depend on magic (miracle). Like any skill one uses, rationality improves with constant use and deteriorates with neglect. Thus fundies become more and more irrational the more time they spend in the Magic Universe instead of the real material one.

Fiach

Jamie_L · 08-06-2002, 04:47 AM

Fiach,

I think you've made an error commn to theists: using atheism as a synonym for metaphysical naturalism. I don't know why this is my pet crusade of late, but it is. It is quite possible to not believe in god(s), but to believe in supernatural forces, psychic powers, even communication with the dead. Thus, many different world-views could incorporate atheism.

Metaphysical naturalism may be common among us, but it is erroneous to consider it the same thing as atheism.

Jamie

Dr S · 08-06-2002, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot:
<strong>By the way...SF... Cool city.</strong>

Cool? I'm freezing my butt off. I hate summers in SF give me NYC.

When we get done with "World view of Atheists" why don't we tackle "World Political Stands of Non-Smokers" It would make as much sense as a question.

scumble · 08-07-2002, 12:36 AM

Look, I said, worldviews that belong to atheists hoping to get a range of thoughts.

Keith Russell · 08-07-2002, 10:57 AM

DoctorS, and Sir-Drinks-A-Lot:

I think there are four types of belief:

One: Belief based only on evidence. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the claim is rejected.

Two: Belief based on evidence and faith. There may be evidence to support a small level of acceptance/belief, but through faith one believes fully, even though the evidence isn't sufficient to support full acceptance/belief.

Three: Belief based only on faith; the desire to beleive. There is no evidence, but one wishes to believe, anyway.

Four: Proof. This is the most problematic of the four. It is difficult, though not impossible, to have proof--but it is much harder for one to know that one does in fact have proof.

I believe that it is not enough to hold the right belief, but just as important, if not moreso, one should hold beliefs only based on evidence, and one should accept claims only to the degree that the claim is supported by that evidence.

Just because something is a belief, and not claimed as 'absolute truth/knoweldge' doesn't mean that it is invalid. But, neither does the fact that something is claimed as a belief make it valid, either.

Keith Russell.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Dr S · 08-07-2002, 11:36 AM

And why should one even consider a belief based wholly or in part on "faith"? Why should credulity be considered anything more than a human failing?

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

08-05-2002, 03:32 PM	#51
sir drinks-a-lot Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 665	If you look at etmology of the word agnostic, it leads to the same conclusion, since gnosis = knowledge. Pople believe in alot of things, without claiming to know them. For example, non-solopsists believe that other people have first person perspectives. But they will admit that there is no way to really know this.

08-05-2002, 05:10 PM	#52
Dr S Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 106	Isn't that non-solipsist? And isn't there a difference here between not knowing for sure what is happening in someone else's head and not knowing what is happening in your own?

08-05-2002, 05:24 PM	#53
sir drinks-a-lot Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 665	Dr. S, Yes, there is a difference, so maybe that was a bad example. But the belief that other people have first person perspectives is in the head of the non-solipsist! Another example: I believe that Jay Leno has never had thoughts of firing an automatic weapon into the audience during his show. But, I will admit there is no way for me to know this. I can ask him, but he may lie, etc.... Even though I don't think there is any way to know for sure, I hold on to my belief. By the way, I am also in SF. Cool city.

08-06-2002, 12:23 AM	#55
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	The argument about rationality in theism versus rationalism in atheism is far to subjective. All people barring the insane are rational to some extent. They vary from weakly rational, to moderately rational, to strictly rational. An Atheist having a world view is the topic of the thread, and I rejected because we all have a variety of view. But I have reconsidered. Atheists have one thing in common in viewing the universe. We all believe the universe and matter-energy are all that we know exists. We approach world problems without the hope or expectation of aid from a deity of which we don't believe. We believe that we ourselves must solve all solvable problems and that imaginary beings using magic are ludicrous superstition. We do our best to maximise the benefits of our lifes, our only lives, the biological ones, not in hope of some etherial hypothetical existence after death. I suppose that is our world view. The second issue is are we more rational than Theists. I have dealt with that before. It is like IQ. Rationality and IQ if measured by standard testing plots out in a Bell Curve. Remember the controversial Bell Curve by Murray and Hernstein that plotted IQ curves and found that they largely overlap but that some goups had more participants in the above average scores while another group had more in the below average scores. The curves did not overlap exactly with one extending farther to the right while the other extended more to the left with 80% of all being in the overlapping (equal) ranges. I suspect that Atheists and Liberal Theists have curves of rational thinking scores that nearly completely overlap, with no statistical differences. Atheists versus Fundamentalists however, in my observation clearly think differently. I have learned this by observation of these forums. The Fundamentalist is on the weakly rational side. He/she can think rationally but not consistently nor efficiently. The Liberal Anglican Christian can think rather rationally in all areas and even tries to rationalise Christian Mythology to have it acquire meaning to a thinking person. He/she makes Genesis metaporical not literal. He regards Revelation as apocolyptic literature for moral improvement. The Fundamentalist believes all of Genesis, denies the findings of science on evolution, planetary and solar formation, plate tectonics, continental drift, and age of the Earth despite the proof now available because he cannot function without the myth basis of his cult faith. That myth is illogical and so his mind is trained to accept the irrational as true (Paul said so.) Nothing is as it appears, the universe is all a delusion deliberately set up to fool us and test our faith. Because of his fundamentalist mind set or because his brain cannot efficiently process rational syllogisms, he lives most of his life in a delusional universe of magic and magical beings. That ultimately harms his brain and causes him to be unable to rationally assess the real matter-energy universe. I think it is chicken or egg argument. Does the rationally impaired person naturally drift to fundamentalism and magic, or does one raised in fundamentalist thinking loose rational skills over time as the brain circuits adapt to the irrationality of the fundamentalism. I guess it is a bit of both. Some rational childeren raised as fundamentalists cannot accept it. Their brains are too rational. That is why we have Fundamentalist Annonymous Chapters in every American state. Fundamentalism is the State Religion of the USA. In summary: 1. Aye, we have a world view. That is we are responsible for ourselves and no gods or magic will solve our problems. 2. Aye we, as atheists and as liberal enlightened Christians are more rational than primitive thinking superstitious fundamentalists whose solutions depend on magic (miracle). Like any skill one uses, rationality improves with constant use and deteriorates with neglect. Thus fundies become more and more irrational the more time they spend in the Magic Universe instead of the real material one. Fiach

08-06-2002, 04:47 AM	#56
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Fiach, I think you've made an error commn to theists: using atheism as a synonym for metaphysical naturalism. I don't know why this is my pet crusade of late, but it is. It is quite possible to not believe in god(s), but to believe in supernatural forces, psychic powers, even communication with the dead. Thus, many different world-views could incorporate atheism. Metaphysical naturalism may be common among us, but it is erroneous to consider it the same thing as atheism. Jamie

08-07-2002, 12:36 AM	#58
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	Look, I said, worldviews that belong to atheists hoping to get a range of thoughts.

08-07-2002, 10:57 AM	#59
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	DoctorS, and Sir-Drinks-A-Lot: I think there are four types of belief: One: Belief based only on evidence. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the claim is rejected. Two: Belief based on evidence and faith. There may be evidence to support a small level of acceptance/belief, but through faith one believes fully, even though the evidence isn't sufficient to support full acceptance/belief. Three: Belief based only on faith; the desire to beleive. There is no evidence, but one wishes to believe, anyway. Four: Proof. This is the most problematic of the four. It is difficult, though not impossible, to have proof--but it is much harder for one to know that one does in fact have proof. I believe that it is not enough to hold the right belief, but just as important, if not moreso, one should hold beliefs only based on evidence, and one should accept claims only to the degree that the claim is supported by that evidence. Just because something is a belief, and not claimed as 'absolute truth/knoweldge' doesn't mean that it is invalid. But, neither does the fact that something is claimed as a belief make it valid, either. Keith Russell. [ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

08-07-2002, 11:36 AM	#60
Dr S Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 106	And why should one even consider a belief based wholly or in part on "faith"? Why should credulity be considered anything more than a human failing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.