Get your subjects straight, please!
Offline I know we're getting a pretty big influx of theists after the ABC debate, so I'm writing this post to cover what I think is one of the most glaring errors in many theists criticisms of atheism -- namely, confusing what various sciences, terms, and theories deal with, and what they don't. I'll give my list, and atheists, feel free to add to it if I miss something.
Atheism - the position that states that there is no evidence to support belief in a deity. That's it. Atheism does not deal with: Morality, Politics, The Big Bang, Evolution, Abortion, Environmentalism, Astronomy, Geology, or anything else. It is improper to assume ANYTHING about an atheist's beliefs in any of these fields simply because they are an atheist.
Evolution - the theory that explains the way life evolves through adaptation and mutation. Evolution deals only with what happened AFTER life existed. It does not, in any way, address the following topics: Beginning of the Universe/Big Bang; the origin of life; morality; politics, etc... (Note, morality can be discussed as an evolutionary development, but you want philosophy if you are talking about the way you think things ought to be.)
Cosmology - This is what you want to discuss if you're interested in the Big Bang, the nature of the universe, or the possibility of a multiverse, string theory, etc... You won't be discussing evolution, because it has nothing to do with it. Atheists do not have a common belief with regard to any of these questions.
Logic - Logic is simply the description of thought processes. Certain patterns of thought are valid and others are invalid. If you plug true facts into a valid argument, you will arrive at a true conclusion. If you plug in false facts, you will get an unreliable answer. An invalid argument is unreliable regardless of the truth value of the facts you plug into it, and so it is useless in the pursuit of truth. Validity is not the same as Truth. Invalid arguments are described as fallacies. If an argument contains a fallacy, the conclusion of the argument is invalid. Period.
Philosophy - A gigantic catch-all for rumination concerning everything from the meaning of life to the origins of logic, art, knowledge, consciousness, etc... Philosophy is bound by reason, and stives to leave no assumption unquestioned.
Last, here are a couple of words that get molested quite often:
Natural - Anything that exists and has a positive definition. (A positive definition is simply a definition that describes what a thing actually is.)
Supernatural - Like it or not, this word is completely meaningless. Because anything that exists is, by definition, natural, there is nothing left for supernatural to be. Any definition of "supernatural" contains only negative definitions, i.e. "something that is not natural," or "something that is beyond nature."
Science - technically, any pursuit that seeks verifiable truth through the scientific method is a science. In order to use the scientific method, we have to have verifiable facts first. In no instance does a true science begin with a conclusion and work towards the facts. It will ALWAYS begin with facts and hypothesize based on them.
Faith - Again, like it or not, since anything we believe based on evidence falls under science, the only thing left for faith to be is "belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary." In other words, faith is NECESSARILY opposed to science.
That's all I can think of at the moment. Anyone else got any? I'm particularly interested in topics that don't belong to the science they're often ascribed to.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Scientific Theory- A formulated hypothesis which was was then tested, retested, reviewed, published and peer reveiwed. A theory does not mean that scientists "guessed" or "thought up a suggestion" or "sat around and voted for which explanation they liked best". No. Theory means we proved it. Like the Theory of Electromagnetism, or the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Evolution.
Hypothesis: What all the laypeople think a "theory" is, is actually a Hypothesis. So before something is tested, a proposition/solution is put forth. In it's untested state this is a hypothesis. This IS essentially an eductaed guess or a suggestion. An example of a Hypothesis would be Panspermia, or God. The only difference between the two is that the God Hypothesis was debunked because it couldn't be tested (couldnt progress to theory stage) and it's proposition was destroyed by Victor J Stenger in The Failed Hypothesis.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Great idea Hamby, this will certainly need to be read by all newcomers.
Very good post!!
This definition seems narrower than many I have seen. Is this peculiar to this website?
From http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be.
From: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism
Noun
My Artwork
It's a good question, wavefreak. Technically, yes, the definition I gave is a little more limited than many you will hear. I'm sure you can find atheists who will tell you their position is more complicated.
The thing is, much of what you read about atheism is a couple of steps beyond the basic belief. For instance, if there is no such thing as a supernatural soul, then logically, there is no life after death. However, you might be able to find an atheist who believes in some kind of afterlife.
If you think about the definition you quoted, you'll see that most of what's included follows naturally from the lack of belief in a deity. Even so, these conclusions are just that -- conclusions deduced from the premise that there is no evidence for a deity's existence. All I did was reduce the definition to its simplest form.
Also, it's important for you to realize that there is a war of words in the media. Always has been. The easiest way to discredit someone is to redefine their label. Theists will choose the worst possible definition when discussing atheism, and since theists are the majority in America, it stands to reason that many people would have a skewed version of atheism.
Lastly, it is a logical error to assert that you can prove the non-existence of a thing with certainty. Any definition of atheism that says atheists have a positive belief in the non-existence of god is not accurate for 95% of atheists. This is the Rational Response Squad, so we hold to the logical definition of atheism, which is simply that there is no evidence for a deity, and it is therefore illogical to believe in one.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I may as well admit that I am a theist, though not a typical one. I am always fascintated by the fact that the things that make me think hardest about my beliefs often come from people who belive differently.
This may sound strange, but I agree that theism is not emperically logical. I am actually not particlarly bothered by this. And strangely enough, I owe this comfort with my illogical side to Kurt Godel. His Incompletness Theorem blew my mind. It was a an intellectual tour-de-force to take logic, turn it inside out and prove that logic itself could be consistent or complete but never both. This to me was like the Heisenberg Uncetainty principle or the wave/particle duality of light. It is as if the very foundation of existance is bound to paradox. I've come to the conclusion that the irrational and rational sides of my nature are not in conflict, but rather paradoxical attributes of the whole. I would even go so far as to posit that it is illogical to deny that humans are paradoxical by nature, that paradox is a fundamental and irrefutable part of reality.
THis could prove to be an interseting place. I suspect I'll hang out, cross swords, and say hmmmm alot to myself. Then I'll get bored and disappear. And come back afte awhile. Or not. (personality flaw - I get bored easily)
My Artwork
Hmmm... I think you over-estimate the impact of Godel's results.
Godel proved that the proposition "This sentence isn't provable" is constructable under the rules necessary for arithmetic. The sentence is true else we can prove something false, but not provable otherwise it's false. It basically proved that some true statements are not proveable.
As far as I'm aware, this has only applied to mathematical theorems. I don't see how it could apply to God statements as they are not statements of this kind of paradox... but hey, I've not really looked into it so who knows!
I think Godel would strenuously object to extending his proof to encompass all of rational thought. That is not my position. My position is that a fundamental attribute of reality is that it contains paradox. The Uncertainty Principle and Godel's incompleteness Theorem are two examples of this. I guess you could say that I am hypothesizing that the universe is paradoxical at its core. I even go as far as invoking this property in the argument over free will and determinisim. The more accurately and deeply I describe free will, the more defintions of determinism slip away. And the more I focus on determinism, the foggier free will becomes. I don't believe the two can be reconciled and so have decided that they are two aspects of the same thing whose descriptions are bound together in the same manner as position and velocity are bound in Heisenbergs Certainty Principle.
My Artwork
I think you're making a bit of a leap that isn't warranted. Paradoxes can be created in mathematics because of the abstract nature of math, which is, itself, a created ummm... "language" Not the right word, I know, but my brain is fuzzy because I just woke up from a nap.
I'd say resting a hypothesis of a paradoxical universe on two mathematical constructs is putting the cart about 94 trillion light years ahead of the horse.
Free will and determinism are apples and Heisenberg and Godel are not even oranges.. they're something like those funny little clasps on earrings that I never seem to be able to work. To say that your analogy is false misses the boat completely. (Have I worked in enough cliches yet? I'll stop now. I promise. Wouldn't want to beat a dead horse.... ACK!!)
Ok. Seriously. I appreciate the fact that you're willing to look at science to try to find a space for god to wedge himself into. I'm afraid you've missed the mark, though, and if you are a true devotee of reality, I think you'll see that if you do some homework on the nature of mathematic abstractions. (Also, do some serious thinking about this question, please: Did you start by trying to find someplace for god to live, or did you begin with no existing belief in god? You know the scientific method, of course. Was your conclusion about god reached using this method? If not, what is your justification?)
The last thing I want to mention is that your earlier statement about the illogic of theism not bothering you bothers me. By what logic did you arrive at this conclusion? Have you considered that? At what point can you say that (logic = valid) ends and (illogic = valid) begins? Surely you know that you can't arrive at that conclusion logically, so were you using illogic to decide? Why?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Logic is a construct of human conciousness. I do not assume that human consciouness is capabale of a comphrehensive description of reality. If something is illogical to me, it simply means that my construct cannot apply to that thing. It does not prevent its existence. It does say something about my capacity to describe it. One of the few things that I know with certainty is that my capacity to understand the universe has limits. It is hubris for me to assume that there exists no knowledge beyond that capacity. If I look at the *evidence*, the world around me abounds with contradiction and paradox. It seems to me that simplest explanation is to accept that rational contradiction is built into the universe. Creating versions of reality that eliminate contradiction and paradox strike me as Quixotic.
My Artwork
True... more properly, it is a description of the way human conciousness moves from axiomatic truth to deductive truth... more on this later.
Here's your first mistake. You're mixing concepts. An individual human is not capable of a comprehensive description of reality. However, this does not have anything to do with logic's ability to describe any individual aspect of reality. Again, logic is simply a description of the process by which the human mind can recognize truth.
No.
If something seems illogical to you, either:
It is illogical, or
You're making an illogical argument, and it's actually logical.
Your inability to determine which is true has nothing to do with which one is actually true.
Well, technically, your perception of logic doesn't prevent or enable anything.
True.
Also true.
True.
I cannot argue with your perception. I have to assume that you are telling the truth.
At this point, I can say that your explanation is illogical. The words, "rational contradiction" in the sense you mean are impossible. One of the basic axioms of logic is A=A. The flip side of this is that A cannot contradict itself. It cannot be "A" and "Not A" at the same time.
Then you don't understand the basic origins of cognition and logic. Not my fault.
You can look here for a primer on logic, as well as some history, and a few good explanations of why things like the axiom of identity are 100% necessary for any knowledge to exist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I have to remember that the people that haunt this forum are not typical and I must choos my words precisely. I'm not replying to all of your points because my ability to juggle multiple threads of thought are suspect.
Godel's Theorem "On Formally Undecidable Propositions" uses logic to show that there are indeed propositions that cannot be logically decided and are nevertheless true. So rather than saying because something seems illogical to me means that it does not confomr to my systme of logic is flawed. A more correct statment is that a proposition that is undecidable within my logical framework is not necessarily false.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
My Artwork
It's still a false analogy because you're still talking about the difference between a constructed system of abstraction and the existence of objective, necessary axioms.
You still need to learn about the origins of logic and the necessary nature of the axiom of non-contradiction.
And you still need to learn why your own comprehension of the axioms of logic doesn't have any bearing on their validity.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Can you give me an example of an objective necessary axiom?
My Artwork
Can we "sticky" it?
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I exist.
Retortion is the method for determining if an axiom is necessarily true. I cannot retort the statement "I exist" without relying on my existence to ask the question.
Also, I can say that I do not "not exist." It sounds trivial, but that's an important point. In fact, I cannot "not exist" for that would make "I exist" not true, and this is inductively true.
So, we get to the law of non-contradiction, made famous by Aristotle. The law of non-contradiction is what we call "indemonstrable." If you attempt to disprove it, you must use it. If you attempt to prove it, you create a circular argument, since you must use it to prove it.
Now, before you say, "SEE! I got ya! You can't prove it or disprove it, so it's a paradox!" just hang on for another step or two.
This law of non-contradiction is completely and unquestionably necessary for ANY knowledge to exist. Think about it. It cannot be disproven because of retortion. It cannot be proven because it is the very basis from which anything can be proven. It is axiomatic! Inductively true. It comes BEFORE proof. NOTHING could be proven without it! Therefore, if there is any knowledge, it is true. Since I know that I exist... you see?
Once we understand that non-contradiction is an essential axiom, we get to the Law of the Excluded Middle, which states that the statement (P or not P) must be true. If you think about it, if anything else was possible, then the law of non-contradiction would be false. (But, if it was false, then there could be no knowledge! So it is necessarily true.)
So... the next thing we get to is a tautology. A tautology is a statement that utilizes necessarily true axioms, and is therefore necessarily true itself. If I say, "If I am asleep, then I am sleeping," this is a basic tautology. They can also be expressed as negatives, i.e. "If I am asleep, then I am not awake." Since "awake" and "asleep" are contradictory, and I exist, I cannot exist in a contradictory state.
Let me go back a step or two to make sure you understand something. Math and Logic are different animals. In math, we can create paradoxes and contradictions if we're clever enough, but they are contradictions in a language! If, in objective reality, a contradiction is possible, then it becomes unquestionably impossible to know whether ANYTHING is a contradiction or not. If this is true, then NOTHING is known...
but..
I exist.
You see? In logic, it's unavoidable. Non-contradiction is essential to any knowledge whatsoever.
I know by your question that you haven't taken my advice yet. HERE AGAIN is a link to an invaluable resource where you can learn all of this for yourself, since I am not being paid enough to be your personal logic tutor.
At this point, wave, I feel I should point something out to you. "Debate" is a term we use to describe an exchange in which both parties are aware of the other party's position. In other words, to debate, you must understand the other position enough to disagree with it. You clearly don't even understand the basics of logic, so I have to tell you that you are not in a position to dispute it. Please, do yourself a favor and learn about logic before you go about haphazardly pooping on centuries of learning. It only makes you look bad.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This much would have been quite sufficient. I just wanted something to ponder as I read the link you suggested.
Playing intellectual "gotcha" is a useless excercise. I have no intention of convincing atheists that they are wrong. Were that to happen, I would consider it a side effect of clarifying my own thinking.
You are correct that as of the time of your response I had yet to follow the link, but I feel asking foe a clear example of something is hardly in septh tutoring. Besides, the stated aim of RRS is to cure the world of the disease of theism. Your demonstrated lack of motivation in curing my disease is not consistent with the Hippocratic Oath. Must be the doctor doesn't do housecalls.
A rather broad generalization. Perhaps I am just out of practice. Logical argument is a learned skill and like any skill degrades when not used.
Your condescencion is duly noted. It may surprise you that after reading the link, there is very little that I have not already previously read. Referring to my previous comment, I have not attempted to engage in this level of discourse in well over a decade. I'm beginning to remember why - quite often, those that are extraodinarily good at logical arguments are contemptuous of those who are not. Of course that attitude is not on display here.
As for pooping on centuries of learning, I never poop haphazardly.
My Artwork
Ok... but...
So, you didn't actually want me to go into any depth, and you're calling me out for writing too much, and you're upset with me for not wanting to write out stuff you could read on your own...
ok...
but.... you actually hadn't put together a coherent argument, and you hadn't tried to correct yourself...
and you admit that you're not up to the debate...
and I'm the one at fault for pointing this out to you?
I can only speak for myself. I'm not contemptuous of people who are not good at logic. I'm aggravated and frustrated by people who know they are not, and yet attempt to prove points, knowing that they don't know what they're talking about.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism