Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:09 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:25 am Mr Can, you have repeatedly called 'Atheists' irrational.

I believe this is incorrect, IC has certainly stated that Atheism is probably irrational, but I do not recall him singling any particular Atheist or group of Atheists and calling them irrational

Well, for all the other things they might be as individuals, the defining feature of an atheist is their atheism; it's a bit like arguing that a murderer is quite a nice guy when he isn't murdering.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:18 pm Atheism is irrational. The people who believe in it (i.e. "Atheists) may be, in other ways, rational to one degree or another -- outside of their Atheism, of course. In that area, they remain manifestly irrational.

Do you think there is any prospect we might agree that what you are describing as 'Atheism', is just a subset of the broader atheism? Many atheists are as aware as you that the claim that god does not exist, is irrational; that is precisely why we don't make any such claim.

thedoc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:42 pmAs has been stated There is no reason to believe that an Atheist would not be a moral person, on that IC and I have agreed repeatedly. The statement is that there is no basis in Atheism on which to base this morality. In fact it is possible that some Atheists are more moral than some Christians, or someone who holds to another religion, but whereas the religious person has the religion (and personal integrity) on which to base the morality, the Atheist must base their morality on something other than Atheism.

Well, many atheists live by 'the golden rule'. There are many versions of it, the most famous is do unto others, as you would have them do to you. The claim made by some Christians is that the only basis for abiding by it is that Jesus said it. For atheists, it doesn't matter who said it, it's a good rule.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:12 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:09 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:25 am Mr Can, you have repeatedly called 'Atheists' irrational.

I believe this is incorrect, IC has certainly stated that Atheism is probably irrational, but I do not recall him singling any particular Atheist or group of Atheists and calling them irrational

Well, for all the other things they might be as individuals, the defining feature of an atheist is their atheism; it's a bit like arguing that a murderer is quite a nice guy when he isn't murdering.

I met one of those, very likable person, but not very smart. He was a nice guy, but one of the police officers didn't think he would see his 18th birthday.

ken wrote:
What I was saying was although human beings can and do place labels on all things they can not place labels on themselves and have those labels and definitions agreed with successfully unless of course a succesful example of this can be given

A sufficiently rigorous definition of a label is given and that definition is subsequently adhered to

thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:53 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:12 amWell, for all the other things they might be as individuals, the defining feature of an atheist is their atheism; it's a bit like arguing that a murderer is quite a nice guy when he isn't murdering.

I met one of those, very likable person, but not very smart. He was a nice guy, but one of the police officers didn't think he would see his 18th birthday.

As I'm sure you appreciate; the point I am making is that the nice guy doesn't have to kill every individual he encounters, to qualify as a murderer. By the same token, one doesn't have to be irrational all the time to qualify as irrational. I expect we agree that very few are either entirely rational or irrational.
Rather than trawl through every post ever published by Immanuel Can, I'll just give you this one example:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:48 pm...I would argue that Atheism is so absurdly irrational that no rational person could sincerely believe it.

But I take your point that it is more accurate that, generally, the claim is that 'Atheism' is irrational, and that 'Atheists' hold at least one belief irrationally. As I said above, and have said many times before, the claim that 'God does not exist', is extremely difficult to defend, logically or empirically, hence trying to do so is, to some degree, irrational. But as I, and several others, have also stated, an atheist is not necessarily an 'Atheist', and it is unfair, potentially un-Christian, to attribute beliefs to people who have quite clearly stated that they do not hold them.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:16 am

ken wrote:
What I was saying was although human beings can and do place labels on all things they can not place labels on themselves and have those labels and definitions agreed with successfully unless of course a succesful example of this can be given

A sufficiently rigorous definition of a label is given and that definition is subsequently adhered to

Can you provide any examples?

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm

ken wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:36 pm What is the "it" in "It could be defined, ..."?

If "it" is 'individual', then what is wrong with putting any 'individual' into a group? ...Part of the definition of 'individual' would include it's separateness from another thing, thus there would be an implied 'group'.

Nothing 'wrong', but if we put something into a group then it would no longer fit the definition of 'individual'.

What about a group of individuals? If we put an individual into a group of individuals, then does the definition of 'individual' still fit? Can there not exist an individual, which is defined by its oneness?

Also, what about the one individual group of everything? If we put not just some thing but all, individual, things into a group, then we have one actual individual group, right?

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm As you say, if we defined 'individual' as 'not a member of a group' but then named any specific group, then we would not be treating them as an individual, but as a member of a defined group.

But that is NOT as I said. I NEVER said if we defined 'individual' as 'not a member of a group'. On the contrary, I just asked you the completely open question, "what is wrong with putting any 'individual' into a group?" I then went on to explain that the word 'individual' implies being separate from another thing, for example, one group is separate from another group. They make up individual groups.

All I was trying to say here is some words like 'christian' can not be successfully defined but the word 'individual' can be.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pmI think 'individual' as a word is empty of reference, like 'something' or 'somewhere'. As soon as we apply it to any actual thing it loses its original meaning.

There are very roughly about seven billion individuals living, at the moment when this is written. Or, there is an individual living. Is 'individual' empty of reference in these examples? Did the word 'individual' loose any of its original meaning when applied to an actual thing in this example?

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pmI agree we can also use the word 'individual' to mean 'a unit'. But then we must have already defined the group. Remember, the quote I was responding to was:

There is something very wrong with trying to draw a boarder around a group like 'christians', because christians is a word that has not yet been successfully defined, nor even closely greed upon. Whereas, the word 'individual' can very easily be defined and agreed upon.

But the word 'individual' can keep its original meaning (whatever that was) without necessarily having already been defined by a group. An, or one, separate group itself, is very individualistically defined, by it's self. For example, if we hear "An individual group" we are aware that it is a separate group, which probably is close to it's original meaning.

I was saying that there is some thing wrong with trying to put a border around a thing, such as 'christian', which can not be successfully defined, and that the word 'individual' can be successfully defined. I did mention any thing about putting 'individual' into any seemingly defined group.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pmSo I'm saying that I would not agree because we are not comparing like with like. Christians are a group (however loosely defined), we might talk about 'individual Christians' but not 'individual individuals'. I am only responding to that particular paragraph, not taking sides about religion.

I understand that you are not taking sides about religion, but I obviously did not explain clear enough. I was not comparing like with like. I was explaining that I have not seen how the word 'christians' could be successfully defined, and agreed upon, whereas I can easily see how the word 'individual' can be successfully defined and agreed upon. I was never talking about nor even thinking about 'individual christians' or the such. I was just referring to how the word 'christian' can not be successfully defined whilst the word 'individual' can be.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm

I never suggested anywhere that things can not be put into groups. Why did you say, "If we were to say anything about any individual we would have to use words that put them into a group"?

For the reason I give above. If we were to say of an individual 'they are a man' then we must put them into the group of men and so on. The only way to avoid that would be to simply point at them, but even then both parties would have to understand exactly what is being pointed to (a person, a part of the person, a direction...)

Two things here;
1. An individual human body can have male genitals, but an individual can not be a man, so I can not put an individual into a group like 'men'.
2. Putting an individual into a group is some thing I do not do unless the word or "group" can be successfully defined, and agreed upon. I have not yet seen how the word (or group) 'christians' can be successfully defined.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm

What I was saying was although human beings can and do place labels on all things, they can not place labels on themselves and have those labels and definitions agreed with successfully, unless of course a succesful example of this can be given.

What would count as 'success'?

Universal agreement. Or, where no thing could disagree.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm If somebody identifies themselves as a Christian it will always be in some context, for some purpose. As long it meets that purpose I would say it is good enough. If it doesn't, we can always ask for clarification.

I will ask for clarification now, in what context and for what purpose would a person identify them self as some thing, which they are not, such as a "christian"? (Whatever 'christian' may mean?)

To Me, there seems to be no reason and no purpose to label one's self as any other thing than what they really are.

ken wrote:What I was saying was although human beings can and do place labels on all things they can not place labels on themselves and have those labels and definitions agreed with successfully unless of course a succesful example of this can be given

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:16 amA sufficiently rigorous definition of a label is given and that definition is subsequently adhered to

ken wrote:Can you provide any examples?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:08 am
I could but none are actually necessary since the point you made has been adequately addressed by me

You have NOT addressed the point I made at all. My point is human beings try to put labels on themselves, like 'christian', 'muslim', 'atheist', 'american', 'somoan', 'doctor', 'nurse', for example but the definitions of these type of labels can not be successfully agreed upon. I also specified unless of course a successful example of a label and it's definition can be given. You did NOT provide a successful example. You just provided a part of what is needed for a successful example. Although what you have provided is accurate, it is NOT by any means AN example in addressing My point, so you certainly have not addressed My point adequately enough. My point is a successfully defined label for human beings has not yet been provided, except of course for the one and only obvious label. Until you provide THE example, you have addressed nothing here. My point still stands. No sufficient nor successful label AND definition could be put on human beings. If any person thinks there could be, then provide the example, so that we can all take a look at it, and discuss.

You said you could provide an example, so let us see it.

In fact you even stated, "A sufficiently rigorous definition of a label is given and that definition is subsequently adhered to". If a sufficiently rigorous definition of a label is supposedly GIVEN and that definition is subsequently adhered to, then what is IT and where is it given?

You are focusing more on a specific example rather than on the general principle that is actually more important. That is why I have not given examples as none are necessary. This is true of all words not merely the ones we use to describe ourselves. I notice the examples you give are entirely wrong. Read them again to see why and understand why I am not giving you any examples either. The clues are there so go find them

One of the physicians I am seeing every 6 months is a cardiologist. I believe those labels are sufficiently specific to identify at least one aspect of his life.

ken wrote:
No sufficient nor successful label AND definition could be put on human beings

If labels and definitions are neither sufficient nor successful then such descriptors would become redundant through lack of use. So any label
which is in common usage must by definition be sufficient and successful. And therefore your claim stating the opposite is demonstrably false

uwot: You have it completely backwards. Atheism is perfectly rational, as it is simply a non-belief in a deity. Since there is no credible evidence any deity exists, this belief is consistent with the evidence and rational.

ken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:46 pm What about a group of individuals?

If they were purely individuals then they could not be part of a group. To have put people into a group you have first to identify some common factor; a group of men, a group of atheists, a group of mountains.

If we put an individual into a group of individuals, then does the definition of 'individual' still fit? Can there not exist an individual, which is defined by its oneness?

As I said last time, once we have put things into groups, then we can also use 'individual' to mean a unit in that group. An individual man (X is a member of the group of 'men'). But I think that would be a different meaning of individual. It would be like a number; 'X is one of ten men'. But if we treat things as units, as numbers, then we can only do that if we deny their individual-ness. I can only 'count men' if I treat all men as identical. I can say 'one man plus one man equals two men'. But I cannot add Fred to John.

Also, what about the one individual group of everything? If we put not just some thing but all, individual, things into a group, then we have one actual individual group, right?

I do not see how we could have an 'individual group of everything'. If something is an individual, then it would be separate from whatever wasn't that individual. But if the individual is 'of everything', then there would be nothing for it to be separate from.

But that is NOT as I said. I NEVER said if we defined 'individual' as 'not a member of a group'. On the contrary, I just asked you the completely open question, "what is wrong with putting any 'individual' into a group?" I then went on to explain that the word 'individual' implies being separate from another thing, for example, one group is separate from another group. They make up individual groups....

All I was trying to say here is some words like 'christian' can not be successfully defined but the word 'individual' can be.

I think that either 'individual' describes objects. Or it describes the quality 'separateness', in which case it would be self-contradictory to talk of putting 'separateness' into a group.

I am just making a limited point about that particular nature of that word 'individual'. As I wrote before, I think we get the same sorts of problems with other words (e.g. 'everything'). They appear to be like names, attached to objects, but they do not work that way. It is a minor point which was not intended to divert the thread. I'm sure it is possible to find a better word.

I understand that you are not taking sides about religion, but I obviously did not explain clear enough. I was not comparing like with like. I was explaining that I have not seen how the word 'christians' could be successfully defined, and agreed upon, whereas I can easily see how the word 'individual' can be successfully defined and agreed upon.

And, as you see, I beg to differ. I think 'individual' cannot be defined or understood - except in the context of a group. 'Individual man'; yes. 'Individual fish'; yes. 'Individual Christian'; yes. But not just 'Individual' with no context at all.

Regarding a successful definition of 'Christians':

Me: What would count as 'success'?

Universal agreement. Or, where no thing could disagree.

If something depends on agreement, then there must be the possibility of disagreement. For example, if we all agree on the definition of 'a metre' it must be the case that it could be possible to have an alternative definition of a metre.

It would only be the case that no thing could disagree if it was an empirical matter. If the word 'Christian' was glued to some specific object. But if it was, then 'Christian' would be no use as a word, since it would be the same as pointing, and saying 'that!'.

I do not think language works that way. I think:

Me: If somebody identifies themselves as a Christian it will always be in some context, for some purpose. As long it meets that purpose I would say it is good enough. If it doesn't, we can always ask for clarification.

I will ask for clarification now, in what context and for what purpose would a person identify them self as some thing, which they are not, such as a "christian"? (Whatever 'christian' may mean?)

I don't understand the 'which they are not' in that quote. I'm saying that we understand words - all words - in context. If I am taking a census, then 'Christian' can just mean 'identifies themself as Christian'. That would be entirely satisfactory. But,if I am interviewing somebody for the job of Pope, I would be looking for a particular theology. There is no single answer that applies in every context - but this is true of all language.