Look, Kaz, the point being made is that until one hypothesis can be granted superiority over another, we should withold judgment. The witholding of judgment is atheism, i.e. “I do not believe in God.” Not, “I can verify that there is no God.”
That we haven’t thought of a way to tell doesn’t mean one cannot exist.
Fine, but in the meantime, don’t act as if it is positively true
I’m generally not a fan of the group of new atheist “scientists” who place themselves as political and philosophical figureheads, particularly the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. As public intellectuals, what they’re really doing has nothing to do with science per se - they’re taking on the role of philosopher and social commentator, and their status as “scientists” doesn’t give them any special authority in this respect as I see it. I think that they should stick to what they do best within their professions rather than put themselves in such a position.
I think someone like Carl Sagen is in an entirely different category, since he largely restricted himself to scientific education and cosmological speculation.
This tends to be my sentiment. I am particularly wary of having too much emphasis on scientism and the narratives that come out of that, as well as some type of “neo-modernism” to hit the main stream trains of thought.
How can an atheist or agnostic take issue with Dawkins’ rhetoric? He never claims absolute certainty. He’s spent his entire career and applied his considerable intellect to studying how the world works and has come to the same conclusion as most great thinkers since the Enlightenment: there is no evidence for the existence of any deity or supreme being.
By definition, an agnostic knows there is not enough evidence to warrant belief in any god.
Why say “We can’t know,” when you can say “There’s no evidence,” instead? The second is clearer and may help enlighten some believers. The first one won’t help anyone’s understanding.
Why not side with those who react consistently to a lack of evidence? They have every reason to preach about what they believe and why they believe it. Look at the world! Something must be done about those who believe that the Koran is a perfect book written by the creator of the universe. Something must be done about those who think teaching children the myths of Christianity is more important than teaching them science. If the greatest thinkers in the world have to take their valuable time fixing this stupidity, it’s more efficient to correct the one belief that’s common to all branches of these religions.
Do you atheists and agnostics want Dawkins to change his rhetoric? Einstein was less outspoken about his atheism and many people were convinced he was some kind of believer or agnostic. Dawkins may be despised, but he’s actually very effective. Almost all great thinkers are atheists, but only a handful have been so successful at making people think rationally and objectively about their own beliefs.
We should be hoping for more people like him.
I don’t even understand what it means for God to appear. For all kinds of other things to happen, yes. For this, no. The simulation and God being outside the universe sounds a little like bong hits meet scifi. But maybe also a strawman since I don’t see any religions based on these assumptions.
It’s like saying Ted can walk into a barroom. Without mentioning what he looks like or even which Ted. Or where he gets any money to buy beer.
On another note, some people have started to call themselves agnostic-atheists, or atheist-agnostics.
They’re acknowledging their lack of proof, but they still want to hold on to ‘atheist’ designation because it’s a lot stronger and bolder than ‘limp noodle’ agnosticism.
Mostly these people will be saying something along the lines of: "I don’t know with absolute certainty, but God probably, most likely doesn’t exist. By the way, I don’t have time to comment on everything I’ve read here, but a lot of you have really misconstrued conceptions about the nature of this debate altogether.
He is fairly explicit, as is evident in a 2008 interview on Real Time w/ Bill Maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRpbkpNpgw
The relevant part starts around 1:37.
Do Atheists do this? From memory, I cannot recall a time when an atheist used evolution to disprove god, or claimed that a lack of evidence for god is proof that god does not exist. Even if one were to find an atheist that makes such claims, they shouldn’t then go and think all atheists agree with such claims. Many atheists, such as myself, will readily say that one can believe in both evolution and a universal creator. One describes how life as we know it came to be on this planet, the other describes a creator. A believer could simply say that such a creator set evolution into motion.
Claiming that a lack of evidence is proof of god’s nonexistance is fallacious as well, and does not appear to be common among atheistic arguments. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, this argument may be confused with the claim that since there is no evidence, we should either withhold judgment or simply not believe in a creator.
Although I think testing for a creator is a rather useless endeavor, at least this would be a step in the right direction for those who want to see if a god exists. Just remember that although one can come up with all sorts of hypotheses (Divine Hiddeness, etc.), that doesn’t mean such hypotheses are true.
Such as?
The simulation argument is one of the most solid, consistent explanations for the origin of the universe that I’ve encountered. It solves the prime mover problem more effectively than any other, because it at least allows for the “real” cosmos having a different set of physics, or even logic, rules that might allow for its solution.
Look at the people describing agnosticism as “limp noodle”, an irrational, emotional appeal to what ends up being an is/ought fallacy.
The difference identified by the “limp noodle” argumentum ad hominem is that agnostics first acknowledge the impossibility of knowing, while the atheists focus on the DISbelief in “religion”, “god”, or whatever it is they’re attacking at that moment.
While I am generally replying here from behind a firewall that makes it impossible for me to look up Dawkins’ material to verify that he at least implies certainty and takes an actually a-theist (no god) stance, not a-gnostic (no spiritual knowledge) stance, this certainly is the overwhelming impression one gets from evangelical atheists.
Even on here, someone was trying to claim that “God” was impossible, not simply unobserved and unvalidated.
Go to any “atheist” discussion board and start making moderate, “we just don’t know” statements, even accurate ones that state the unlikelyhood of Christian mythological specifics, and you’ll get a torrent of angry response from atheists, insisting on what amounts to certainty there is no god. I know those nitwits don’t prove the guys named in the OP are the same way, but they do illustrate the common useage of “atheist”.
“He implies it.He should be honest and be more explicit in his agnosticism.”
“The relevant part starts around 1:37.”
Fair enough.However he is still too friendly to atheism i.e. to unwilling to say it too is a faith and also in God Delusion if I remember correctly he makes the claim or implies there is no god.
“But when Atheists use for example evolution to claim god does not exist or claims lack of evidence is proof I disagree”
Do Atheists do this?"
I’ve seen it implied -dawkins is guilty of suggesting it at times- though thankfully it seems to be losing favour.
" or claimed that a lack of evidence for god is proof that god does not exist."
That’s the standard atheist proof.
" Many atheists, such as myself, will readily say that one can believe in both evolution and a universal creator."
Good to here.I admire the honesty.
“One describes how life as we know it came to be on this planet, the other describes a creator. A believer could simply say that such a creator set evolution into motion.”
Exactly.
“Although I think testing for a creator is a rather useless endeavor, at least this would be a step in the right direction for those who want to see if a god exists.”
True.I too think it would be in vain yet I don’t think we should stop trying incase agnosticism is wrong and either theism/atheism is true.
“Just remember that although one can come up with all sorts of hypotheses (Divine Hiddeness, etc.), that doesn’t mean such hypotheses are true.”
True.That’s why I admit when I talk of possibilities about god(s) I say they are speculations.
“Atheism tends you towards certain negative personality traits.”
“Such as?”
Intolerant,hatred,skepticism about concern for others,narrowmindedness,ignorant of religious tradition/philosophy,arrogance ..
.Agnosticism as I understand means you believe the chances of atheism/theism being true are roughly 50/50.
Question to the forum:
Is the introduction of odds/chance/probability speak in such a context justifiable? do these concepts and tools find purchase in this realm? It doesn’t seem that we are all that close to considering something akin to measuring long term relative frequencies of events in some probability space,… and one wonders how ‘subjective degrees of belief’ can be weighted and sliced up into numerical amounts and properly enter into ‘mathematical’ probability talk…
Or perhaps 50/50 is merely a metaphor sort of thing? something like 'I’m confused about which way to bet on the truth of this, I feel about the same as when I consider how to be on the outcome of a single coin" perhaps?
Thoughts welcome. We can thread split if needed.
I’m not sure we’re operating under the same definition of athiesm. Atheism is merely a lack of a belief in a creator/god/supernatural being. I think it is all too often confused with the claim “there is no god.” Excuse my humor here, but it seems only fourteen-year-olds who are new to non-religious thought make such claims .
As for what he says in The God Delusion, do you have the relevant passage? I personally don’t own the book so I’d like to see some textual evidence.
I vaguely recall Dawkins saying one couldn’t believe in Evolution and God at the same time, but I forget the reasons why. I think it had to do with the person doing so being unscientific and hypocritical (because they accept a theory based in science as well as a hypothesis based in ancient mythmaking), but I’m not certain.
I’m not so sure it is the standard, but I’m just speaking from my own experiences (meaning such a standard doesn’t seem to be common). Just because there is no evidence for something does not mean that something doesn’t exist. But the lack of evidence means we should either withhold judgment or simply not believe the “something” to exist/be true. I lean toward the not-believing part. I just don’t find withholding judgment to be satisfying enough. But that doesn’t mean, should evidence come along, that I won’t change my mind.
Well again, I’m not sure there’s anything to prove about athiesm. Can one PROVE their lack of belief in unicorns? A-unicorn-ism? The only thing I can think of is having the person admit their disbelief.
Well, I’m not sure atheism necessarily leads to such personality traits. You might be thinking of anti-theism, which is (and this is the wikipedia definition) an active opposition to theism.
But there might be some truth. How tolerant could one be to beliefs they think are rooted in unscientific speculation and charlatanry which are constantly claimed to be true?
Well, that hasn’t been my experience, so for now there’s no use in talking about it since we’ll both just say “they do/they don’t.”
Well not all atheists are positive atheists, so saying its the standard proof for atheists isn’t exactly correct.
To be honest there doesn’t appear to be much of a difference in saying “I don’t know” and “I don’t believe.” They both seem to come from the same premise: there is no evidence. It’s a thin line, really.
Saying “I don’t know” doesn’t make you any different knowledge-wise from a person who says “I don’t believe.” One can say they don’t believe and still be open-minded to exploring the possibilities of a creator.
Well, again, lacking a belief in god doesn’t appear to be as “huge” as “god exists.”
I was using it as an example. Since atheism is a lack of belief in a creator, the only way they could possibly prove such a claim is to say that they don’t believe. What other steps could they take?
My point is, again, that not every atheist would agree with the claims you’ve heard by strong atheists.
Well I don’t think their reactions are unfounded. Religion has done a lot of awful things, and continues to, so I can understand why people would actively fight it. Although I agree that some people will have a knee-jerk reaction toward people when they learn about their religious beliefs.
I prefer Lord Acton, Alex De Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant
doesn’t Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument count simulated persons as being of the same type as non-simulated persons, thereby assuming what he’s got to prove? does he not, by conflating the two types of humans in his probability argument, unwittingly smuggle in the notion that ALL humans are simulated? (thereby making the probability that we are in a simulation, in fact, strictly 1: by definition!)
rephrased: aren’t you equivocating on the word “people” (or the word “exist”) when you say above that “more people will exist in simulations than in ‘real life’”?
as Bill Gaede says, define the word “exist” and you will know if God exists.
Who cares? I mean does our speculation on a diety matter if we have already ruled out organized religions? It’s not as if we can change the nature of the universe, knowing it or not knowing it will not do a damn thing. Does it matter?