Subject: atheism
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 17 2000 - 08:17:48 EST
In a message dated 1/17/00 1:21:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
<< << I don't see how you can compare the "more" here to anything. More
problems than what? Does postulating a God with no other
characteristics cause more problems with accounting for the existence of
the universe than theories we now possess? No, not so long as you are
only seeking an origin for this vast effect we witness on a daily
basis. Unanswered questions such as, "what is this God like?" does not
bear on the "God-thesis" as an account for the existence of matter. It
is a reasonable question, but not one we can leave unanswered without
violating our initial thesis. -- Jim >>
You can leave it unanswered without violating your initial thesis
because the thesis doesn't contradict itself, but that doesn't make it
reasonable. My "Magic-thesis" of email delivery doesn't contradict
itself either. But the thesis is unreasonable because it requires that
Magic exists and we have no reason to believe that it does (and to my
estimation, no reason to believe that it does is reason enough to
assume, until further notice anyway, that it doesn't.)
Postulating that the Universe was brought into existence by a deity
requires the existence of said deity, and the added complexity that this
entails can't be overlooked for convenience. The "God-thesis"
accounting for the existence of matter is not one single iota more
reasonable than the "Magic-thesis" accounting for the arrival of email.
You must explain the nature of Magic for the "Magic-thesis" to hold any
water just like you must explain the nature of God for the "God-thesis"
to do likewise.>>
Robbie, again, remember you were speaking by comparison. You said, "More
complex." I am not saying that an account of the existence of the universe
through Divine fiat is "not complex," but that it is "less complex" than the
Big Bang theory, which you've clearly and wisely chosen not to defend (you
didn't mention it once in your post). Again, Occam's razor tells us that
when we need to start mutiplying hypotheses to support a thesis, that thesis
should be abandoned. I see that happening more and more with the Big Bang
theory, while a simple theism requires less support. "Some God Somewhere
with Indefinable Characteristics started the whole shebang. And it has
proceeded according to physical law ever since."
If you can demonstrate how this is "more" complex than any other theory out
there today, please do. Be specific, as I was about the Big Bang theory.
You can abandon Occam's razor as a criteria if you like, and we can proceed
from that point as well. But please address the Point :)
<<(But I believe you can use "Magic" as shorthand for the technical
explanation of email delivery, just like you can use "God" as shorthand
for the natural explanation of the existence of matter (which may not
even be very clear yet). This is why I contend that Atheists ranging
from myself in conversation to Carl Sagan in Contact to Einstein in
interviews may invoke the name of God or use religious rhetoric and
symbology without contradicting themselves or being irrational. Poetic
license, friend. And in this sense, I suppose you could even say that I
believe in and am in awe of God, but this sense is not compatible with
man's traditional anthropomorphic projection of a personal God and an
afterlife.) >>
No, Robbie, Sagan was not using Poetic liscense at the end of Cosmos. He was
offering a viable alternative within the context of a very specific type of
theism, one that seemed to support the scientific analysis he had offered up
to that point. Really, it was the same type of mistake the Catholic Church
made in canonizing Aristotle and Ptolemy. Einstein, now, may have been
speaking with poetic lisence -- but I think it's also clear his rhetoric and
moral consciousness was developed from the synagogue. There's a theism
behind it. But I think it's interesting how you feel you have to shape the
plain meaning of their words to fit your belief system. Almost the way some
religious people use their sacred texts...
<< But regarding how you and I are approaching each other, I think we're
running into a wall that is very frequently run into in these sorts of
discussions. Maybe this will help explain it:
The Theist says of the Atheist: He Believes that there is no God.
The Atheist says of himself: I Do Not believe that there is a god.
Despite how a particular atheist or a particular theist uses words to
express their belief or non-belief, the particular selection of words
above, I believe, best displays the two radically different outlooks.
Do you see the difference? It's very subtle, but it makes all the
difference in the world.
The theist perceives Atheism as a Belief. The atheist perceives it as
the absense of one. A Belief in non-existence and a Non-Belief in
existence are *not* the same thing. I feel that you are projecting the
former on me, when I harbor the latter.
You seem to feel (as the Theist) that we have two options: believe there
Is a god or believe there Is Not a god. Neither option is provable and
both are reasonably baseless assumptions. You have, for reasons that
are unique to every Theist, chosen to side with the God-Belief instead
of the No-God-Belief.
I have chosen to abandon the whole deal altogether. Because I have no
means of discerning God-Belief as the Truth, I see no reason to side
with it. It's not that I harbor a belief that there Is No God. It's
that I don't harbor a belief that there is. So I sit without belief,
not just with an opposing one. You may then tell me that I'm not really
an Atheist, that I'm actually agnostic, but what it comes down to is
that I really just abhor that term. I'll get to that in a moment.>>
That's interesting and a new set of ideas for me, thanks for sharing. I
think the real difference is between the "Standard Written English" use of
words and the specialized use of words within a specific philosophical
framework. I and most people use the former when talking about atheism. You
seem to be doing the latter, where the words are redefined to more precisely
articulate the thoughts of a group.
The Standard Written English words mean:
Theist -- Asserts that there is a God.
Atheist -- Asserts that there is no God (this is a categorical, factual
statement for them, like saying the Sky is Blue).
Agnostic -- Asserts that the data isn't sufficient to make a judgment.
You seem to be saying what the Agnostics say, but from that conclude "there
is no God." Your real belief is that the data does not "prove" anything one
way or the other, the way you choose to interpret the data is represented by
atheism. Is this close?
But your language, through your post, up to now, has been provisional. You
admit to the possibility of future knowledge. This is just a redefinition of
atheism, and that's fine. I appreciate your elucidation of your position.
<< << But I don't see why we're arguing on these grounds. We should only
believe something because it is true. -- Jim >>
But we cannot know that the "God-thesis" is true. We can't know that it
isn't, so it may seem that belief or non-belief is pretty arbitrary.
But non-belief requires one less baseless assumption. (note that when I
refer to non-belief in existence, I am not saying belief in
non-existence, as that IS another baseless assumption)
And like I've said before, if I believe in everything that I can't
disprove, I'll believe in every bullshit story I ever hear. >>
Here is where you are missing me. What is a baseless assumption for you is
not necessarily baseless for others. Belief is not arbitrary for me. It is
necessary in the same way, and for very similar reasons, that I believe there
is a computer sitting in front of me. You are closed to that possibility,
however. You don't address it in your thinking. Which tells me that your
atheism is more of the Other Sort. More of a belief.
Your stigmata example really only demonstrates that people will consistently
interpret what is happening to them in the light of their own belief system.
See...I think stigmata is BS :) I don't think it signifies anything about
the individual's relationship with God, but is only an odd psycho-physical
manifestation of Something. If I were to argue this with a person possessing
the Stigmata, I would have to find common ground and reason from there.
Otherwise, we could not even speak to one another.
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:05 EST