atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
Forwarded message:
From: pjm@spe.com Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:24:32 +0200 Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd))
Not all philosophies are religions.
If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy' (ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos won't work. This is called a straw-man. Pick an argument that you want to (dis)prove but don't know how. Then pick a similar but non-identical (or fail to prove the identity) which one knowns how to (dis)prove. Finaly claim that the second easier (since it is (dis)provable) problem is identical to the first.
Asserting so is an attempt to make one or both of the terms meaningless.
And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'. Just remember this, it's your ugly baby.
There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for an unending discussion). "Strong" atheists state that they "believe that god does not exist." "Weak" atheists state that they "do not believe that god exists."
Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning. These two sentences are identical in content and meaning. I belive god does not exist I do not believe god exists or, ^(A) = (^A)
Do you believe in leprechauns, because there is no proof that they don't exist? Do you believe in the Hindu pantheon?
Whether I believe in them makes no difference to their existance (you really really need to quit taking drugs). This is the same sort of crap reasoning the UFO nut-cases partake in. They run around asking "Do you believe in aliens?" when the question that needs asking is "How do we prove aliens have been here?", and in many cases they take the two to be equivalent. Hindu pantheon is a different form of Pantheism that I practice. I don't agree with many of the points that Hindu, Aztec, Buddhist, New Age, etc. pantheist practice, it's too anthropocentric for my taste and in the case of New Age Pantheism (gag) they've simply given transcendance a new form. And I further believe that the Hindu practice of sweeping ants out of ones way and wearing a veil to inhibit bug inhalation is taking it too far the other way (though I respect and practice the spirit of their actions). Respect does not mean subserviance.
Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these assertions?
I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your reasoning.
Reason and logic don't "constrain", they provide a framework for discovery. This framework is unavailable to, and indeed actively rejected by, believers in the supernatural. Any meaningful definition of the word "inquiry" presupposes the use of logic.
Ohhhh, supernatural is by definition in this discussion equivalent to transcendental. I'll say it again, there are two types of religion - those who believe transcendentalism exists (ie traditional religions) and those that don't (eg Pantheism). It is not reasonable nor logical to expect the natural rules of experience to be recognized by the supernatural. Now I can inquire into many things without using a particular type of logic (you keep writing as if there is only one form of logic - perhaps this is the root shortcoming in your reasoning). So trying to say that inquiry is equivalent to using logic is a misunderstanding of both inquiry and logic. The question that you are skirting around is: If God exists and created the universe, does this imply that it is constrained by that creation? You can answer that question with three answers: Yes Pantheism and some other forms of pagan religions No Traditional religions ? Agnostic (if you'd like to know, Nihilism (if you believe the question is irrelevant), etc.
All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational. Mystics frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition. Perhaps you'll surprise me?
Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another. If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with). ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate writes:
Patrick May writes:
Not all philosophies are religions.
If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy' (ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos won't work.
Excuse my shorthand: Not all "personal" philosophies are religions. [ . . . ]
Asserting so is an attempt to make one or both of the terms meaningless.
And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'.
Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious beliefs. Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are clearly religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence, sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature. The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up equivocating based on the term religion. They first broaden the definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a much narrower definition to support their ultimate point. I'm not suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out why it is something of a sore point. [ . . . ]
There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for an unending discussion). "Strong" atheists state that they "believe that god does not exist." "Weak" atheists state that they "do not believe that god exists."
Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning. These two sentences are identical in content and meaning.
No, they are not. The distinction is crucial to the main point I evidently failed to make in my previous message: Atheism is not a set of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy. There are Buddhist atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists, Wiccan atheists, etc. Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the statement of a lack of one particular belief. Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a religion. The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute a belief. Recognizing that someone holds the strong atheist position may give some clues to their other beliefs and the remainder of their personal philosophy, but, again, that position alone does not constitute a personal philosophy or religion. [ . . . ]
Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these assertions?
I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your reasoning.
I'm not trying to prove anything either. I'm simply pointing out some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused. [ . . . ]
All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational. Mystics frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition. Perhaps you'll surprise me?
Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another.
If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with).
Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own curiosity. Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to take it to personal email if you wish. When you say "more than the earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical mechanism we can create? If so, how do you know and why would it matter? Regards, pjm
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate
-
pjm@spe.com