Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Are you trying to claim " a child's laughter" is a unifying principle of the universe?

Does it have meaning? If yes, then it does not stand apart from any unifying principle worth considering.

You don't appear to comprehend that a unifying principle and the things a unifying principle is relevant to are two separate things.

While a unifying principle may have some relevance to a child's laughter, a child's laughter is not a unifying principle.

Now, did I or did I not say A PRINCIPLE that cannot be measured is completely useless? So I repeat, is the child's laughter a unifying principle of the universe you wish to put forward? If not, then your comments about its meaning are irrelevant to my point.

Evolutionary biology and neurology does. Which depend on... the laws of physics.

You should look up the etymology of the word "principle." Doing that leads to more questions, questions like are the laws of physics necessary or are they contingent?

Don't care. You asked for a unifying principle. They meet the exact definition. Your question has been answered.

Moreover, the laws of physics are indeterminate (unless you believe the most successful and most tested the theory in the history of science and the world is wrong). You have to ask yourself why they exhibit a tendency to self-organize. Only when you answer that can you call it a proper unifying principle.

You appear to be confusing "unifying principle" with "theory of everything".

Have you actually been meaning to say "theory of everything" this entire debate? Because if so, nobody has one.


And I just can't let this bit of idiocy go by without remark:

Do you have a God-fetish of some kind? Why do you bring it up? We were not talking about that. We're talking about the rationality of atheism, not atheism per se.

To paraphrase the incredible stupidity you just posted, "We're talking about the rationality of not believing in God, why do you keep bringing up God?"


Take a wild guess. You can't possibly be that stupid. It is impossible to discuss whether it is rational or irrational to not believe in God without talking about God. Being such a moron as to not be able to comprehend that would mean you would have difficulties with things like remembering "Stove hot" or turning your computer on. And since you are here on the internet and are able to type without hands swathed in bandages from severe burns I have to assume you're not actually that completely idiotic.



Which leaves me with two explanations I can think of.

1. You are trolling this thread.

2. You are aware that you ave nothing resembling an argument that not believing in God is irrational yet have some deep seated need to declare it to be so, possibly born out of your insecurities in your religious beliefs. And so you're trying to pull a sleight of hand bit of bullshit to convince people you have established the irrationality of not believing in God without ever actually making any argument to that effect by talking fast enough and doing enough frantic philosophical hand waving that maybe somebody will be fooled. (We're not)

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Fucking Hell. I knew you were desperate but you have sunken to a new low.

What got your feathers in a bunch?

If you challenge atheism (which we are still waiting for), then some mention of god might be useful.

I don't. I challenge its rationality.

Let's pretend that you did not mention god. You DID mention "unifying principle".
So what do YOU mean by it?

unifying (adj)
1. Combining into a single unit
2. Tending to unify

principle (noun)
1. A basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct
2. A rule or standard especially of good behavior
3. A basic truth, law or assumption
4. A rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system
5. Rule of personal conduct
6. (law) the fundamental reasons or logic behind something; the justification for something

Any moron can bring two words together...

but you can't?

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. This is a perfectly reasonable request because I'm probably not alone in not understanding what you mean. What is the nature of this unifying principle to which you refer?

Satisfied?

I'm still catching up today and so this may already be too late to point out. Each numbered description in a dictionary are distinctly different definitions. We usually are able to interpret which one somebody means in context. But this is not always as 'obvious' unless you clarify which one you mean. Taking the second word above, "principle", definition one implies no moral implication whereas the second one does. Thus it is important when confusion arises we indicate which one at present is the one we are meaning. You cannot simultaneously assume all definitions at once. This is why others have a justification to ask. If you appeared to agree to one but then transfer your meaning to another, this causes more misunderstanding. Religions/cults most often use this tactic (transference) by beginning with a common accepted definition, then create their own by begging it. Then imply that the different definitions are equivalent. This is used also in advertising/marketing with purposeful intent to deceive:

For instance, the word "free" is often used intentionally to trick the audience into thinking, "that which is offered without a need to compensate or exchange money or other values". But when used in such an 'offer' like this: "Buy one, get one free", this actually reduces to simply mean, "Buy two for the normal cost of one," or "Buy one for the whole cost OR accept two". This is used often to dump excess inventory, create an appearance of a 'deal' that actually doesn't exist (since they only create the false 'normal' cost), and to draw others to their business in the hope of selling them other products/services that are often not so cheap (as a foot-in-the-door).

This example is why it is necessary to supply the particular meanings you use explicitly. The above list of definitions you provide shows how you don't distinguish each separate definition uniquely.

Not only has he given up listening, understanding or paying attention, he has now also left the stage.

Where the hell were we?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:he has now also left the stage.

An Inglorious exit, one might say.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:he has now also left the stage.

An Inglorious exit, one might say.

Perfect!

I just wanted to add my voice to this discussion and say this has been one of the worse article sin this magazine.

I agree a lot with what been said here. Anyway here are some of my notes.

Anderson doesn't really understand what atheism is, as well as agnosticism either. One is about belief, the other about knowledge.
The agnostic stance is the acceptance that we can't prove the existence of gods.

It's a softer version of athiesm??? Agnostics are not just a 'less firm' version of atheism.
Soft, hard agnostics, there's just agnostics as far as I know.

The feedback from others. Who clearly don't understand atheism either.
'The atheists I meet say, “We disbelieve because of the evidence.”'
They clearly don't understand why they are atheists.

“Evidence shows there is no god”. No evidence does not show a god, a lack of evidence shows this. This is why atheists, are atheists, the lack of evidence.

The problem of proving a negative is correct, about the only thing right in the article. Except that atheists don't have the burden of proof.

With all these bad arguments, the conclusion is not surprisingly incorrect.

Most troubling is the fact that Anderson is a philosophy teacher.

SonOfColl wrote:Most troubling is the fact that Anderson is a philosophy teacher.

Yes, I consider this to be grave. Anyone learning from this man is being dealt an injustice.

A teacher of philosophy would be expected to know the tools of the trade, what they mean, how they are used and how to choose them wisely.

Lets consider Mr Anderson's use of the principle of charity. Unlike his brief explanation, the principle of charity asserts that when examining a proposition critically one should attribute the interpretation that assumes the most favourable, hard to refute version of the proposition, and that which suggests the presentation used the most reasoned approach possible. The opposite of the principle of charity is the oft mentioned straw man, wherein you select that interpretation of a proposition that is the easiest to refute, sometimes distorting or redesigning the proposition in order to do so.

So atheism

The charitable position
p1 literally "without theism".
p2 Theism = belief in a deity.
therefore atheism = without a belief in a deity

Strawman of atheism
c1 claim that there is no deity
therefore atheists must demonstrate their claim for it to be accepted

Anderson goes for the straw man not the charitable position as he claims. He also goes further by adopting the fallacy of the excluded middle, in this case by assuming you can only either claim there is a deity or claim there is not a deity, excluding the actual atheist position that there is no reasonably supported claim for a deity.

Anderson is not alone in this failure of thinking, as some posters in this thread have demonstrated. But for Anderson this is bad if he professes to teach philosophy while failing demonstrably to be able to do philosophy.

I covered a lot of the issues people raised. This article is simply bad.

http://academicatheism.tumblr.com/post/ ... l-on-trial

Impenitent wrote:absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence is to be expected. A god that doesn't do parlor tricks is no different than atheism.

As others have written, the arguments Mr. Anderson provides are falsely predicated and specious. The highlights include:

1. Conflating knowledge with belief. Belief pre-empts the need for knowledge whereas knowledge investigates until there is cause to believe.

2. It is not on atheists (or agnostics) to prove the negative, but on theists to show concrete evidence of God/god/gods existence. This is a basic principle of argumentation and attempting to reverse it merely illustrates the paucity of Mr. Anderson's position. Indeed, the theistic position is weakened by this effort.

3. The fact is that no one has evidence of supernatural being(s). It has been argued and debated for centuries and not a single person has been able to show indisputable evidence. Only those whose belief trumps knowledge believe this - a circular path at best.

4. The silliness of the Denmark example purporting to discredit agnostics, is, well, silliness approximating foolishness. Equating the physically and objectively verifiable existence (inasmuch as anything can be so verified) of a land mass with doubts about that which cannot be proven is nonsense.

GordonHide wrote:Stephen Anderson has built himself a fine straw man and the dissected it. The vast majority of the world's atheists make no claims about the existence of gods. They merely don't believe in them for lack of empirical evidence. Agnosticism originally was the claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist or not. The common usage today is doubt about the existence of gods. Most of the world's atheists would also count themselves agnostics because they cannot prove the non-existence of gods. For myself I accept that I cannot prove gods don't exist but I think it more likely that the sun will not rise tomorrow than that a traditional type of god exists.

Isn't this conflating "atheism" with "agnosticism"?

Gary Childress wrote:Isn't this conflating "atheism" with "agnosticism"?

Language is all about meanings in terms of common usage, Gary, and in the common usage such a distinction is simply invalid. In every practical sense these two terms are synonymous and it is in fact theists who seek to maintain the distinction somewhat deceptively. For instance a theist might say that an atheist believes there is no god whereas an agnostic is willing to keep an open mind on the question because the existence of god cannot be established to his satisfaction. This understanding is both mischievous and disingenuous because an atheist does not believe there is no god. An atheist does not believe there is a god and the distinction is not a trivial one. One is a statement of belief and the other is a statement of disbelief. As you can see this more precise use of the language makes the position of the atheist and the agnostic indistinguishable.

The word "atheist" simple means "not a theist" and does not imply an alternative system of belief. It conveys as much meaning as to describe oneself as a non-dentist or "not a bricklayer". Personally I never bother to insist on such distinctions in my own case and merely call myself a non-believer. This covers a far broader range of possible beliefs because I truly don't believe in ANYTHING. Belief is simply not a part of my psychological make-up.

"belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell

Obvious Leo wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Isn't this conflating "atheism" with "agnosticism"?

Language is all about meanings in terms of common usage, Gary, and in the common usage such a distinction is simply invalid. In every practical sense these two terms are synonymous and it is in fact theists who seek to maintain the distinction somewhat deceptively. For instance a theist might say that an atheist believes there is no god whereas an agnostic is willing to keep an open mind on the question because the existence of god cannot be established to his satisfaction. This understanding is both mischievous and disingenuous because an atheist does not believe there is no god. An atheist does not believe there is a god and the distinction is not a trivial one. One is a statement of belief and the other is a statement of disbelief. As you can see this more precise use of the language makes the position of the atheist and the agnostic indistinguishable.

The word "atheist" simple means "not a theist" and does not imply an alternative system of belief. It conveys as much meaning as to describe oneself as a non-dentist or "not a bricklayer". Personally I never bother to insist on such distinctions in my own case and merely call myself a non-believer. This covers a far broader range of possible beliefs because I truly don't believe in ANYTHING. Belief is simply not a part of my psychological make-up.

"belief is the antithesis of knowledge"....Bertrand Russell

Just going form Merriam Webster's definitions:

Agnostic:
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

Atheist:
: a person who believes that God does not exist

Theism
the belief that God exists or that many gods exist

In what way are the definitions of agnostic and atheist synonymous?

It seems to me that there are 3 possible positions a person can take with respect to a god or gods:

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.
3. I don't know if God exists or not.

I would call #1 a "theist", #2 an "atheist" and #3 an "agnostic". No?

Gary. Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary and America is a theocratic state. I have a large number of different English dictionaries in my home and the definition you quote appears ONLY in Merriam-Webster, from which fact you are free to draw your own conclusions.

From the Oxford dictionary of standard English

"Atheism" ...a disbelief in the existence of god or gods

The other dictionaries I have all define atheism similarly but NONE define it as a belief.

Gary Childress wrote: I would call #1 a "theist", #2 an "atheist" and #3 an "agnostic". No?

Once a word is committed to print it passes out of the ownership of the writer and becomes the property of the reader so you can define things as you choose but the last word on this question must always lie with the individual who chooses to label himself as one or the other. I doubt that there would be many people who call themselves atheists and then define this stance as a belief. I'm willing to bet that nearly all of them would see it as a lack of belief.