Christian Humanism is the name of my Junior religion class. For those of you who are unaware, which is probably everyone, I go to a Catholic high school. Something that I'd guess no one here knows is that I'm actually an agnostic atheist, and more and more I'm leaning towards being a full blown atheist.
But I still find this course interesting. According to my teacher, it's just a course on how the Christian man views other humans and his surroundings. I disagree with almost everything that comes out of his mouth, but I still enjoy learning about it. We've read some books that I probably would have never even thought to have picked up if it wasn't for taking the class, and we discuss some basic philosophies.
That being said, some of the stuff that we've discussed is objectively wrong. There were some "interesting" article choices that we had to read that were basically full of misinformation and logical fallacies, but now my class has gotten to a point where we're talking about conscience and moral law. Although we've barely touched the surface, I knew what direction the discussion would immediately head to: Is there an objective moral law that defines right and wrong? First, I'd like to pose that question to you guys, and then offer my own thoughts about it.
1.) To get the conclusion that there is an objective definition of right and wrong when it comes to morals, that means that there has to be a clear definition of right and wrong. This just simply is not the case for many, if not most, scenarios in life. There are better and worse decisions, but saying that a choice is right or wrong is oversimplifying the situation.
I understand Christian-Judao thinking would assert that the Bible has a clear definition of what is right or wrong in a specific situation, but to say that you can extend these definitions and make blanket statements for what is right or wrong for everyone is ridiculous.
2.) According to my teacher and the book we just read (Man For All Seasons by Robert Bolt), responsibility for one's actions is also affected by one's conscience. But that means that everyone must have a conscience that is formed "correctly" according to what is considered right or wrong by the Bible.
This is easy for certain clear areas. Obviously sociopaths tend to be an exception for some of these, but things like murder, assault, rape, etc. are all pretty obvious when it comes to morally "right" or "wrong." The 5th commandment (thou shalt not kill) is extended to things like insulting someone or physically harming them, but what about making someone feel bad about himself or herself because that person feels that being homosexual is a sin and they will go to hell for it?
Is the gay person's conscience incorrectly formed because they don't think that what they are committing is a sin? This creates a bit of a gray area that isn't simply answered by the idea that there is a moral right and wrong.
3.) Not everyone is Christian (or Jewish)! This is pretty obvious, but not everyone agrees with what they believe. So how does that impact the development of that person's conscience? Are they doomed to make certain mistakes over and over again because they haven't been exposed to Christianity? There is the fact that people who aren't Christian can still go to heaven, but how is something like avoiding premarital sex an "obvious" moral right or wrong? There's nothing wrong with premarital sex, marriage hasn't been around since the dawn of mankind. Humans are meant to carry out basic biological functions, among them reproduction.
So all this said, I know that this is a bit of a controversial topic. I don't mean to offend anyone and I'd like to have as open of a discussion as possible. I don't disagree with everything Christianity offers, but there is a bit of circular logic involved with coming to conclusions about morality and conscience.
could you mabye explain a bit more what you exactly did in your class and what you dislike so much? like, did you actually talk about a specific example as a moral wrong/right?
to answer your question, there is obviously no such a thing as a truly objective "moral law" that defines right and wrong. however, i believe that there is a more or less objective way to evaluate the different subjective "moral laws" to some extend.
out of curiosity, why exactly do you go to a catholic school?
For moral right and wrong, we'd usually take a look at something that is explicitly stated outright as wrong according to the Bible. This includes anything stated in the 10 commandments, anything explicitly stated as bad in the Old Testament, or anything that is considered an extension of the 10 commandments.
To give you some really simple examples of morally wrong things, here's a list of a few major ones:
-Physically harming someone for any reason that's not self defense (or justified war) -Premarital sex of any kind -Stealing someone else's property
These are all general circumstances. Then, one would use his or her conscience to go from a general circumstance, to their specific situation. Instead of just saying that premarital sex is bad, the person would have to understand why in the context of his or her situation premarital sex is bad. Or why killing someone in that person's specific situation is morally wrong. Using a person's subjective sense of right or wrong, we perform an act that is judged against an "objective" code of right and wrong.
out of curiosity, why exactly do you go to a catholic school?
That's a bit of a long explanation, but I can explain that one too.
1.) My dad's side of the family really pushed for me to go to the school. My mom is actually Jewish (lol) and I rarely, if ever, go to Church on my own freewill.
2.) It's the best school anywhere near my area that is not in New York City. Hands down the best school in my area.
3.) I went to a really small middle school (only about 80 kids in my graduating class) and went to a school of about 400-450 in a graduating class. It's a completely different, and more competitive, environment and I wanted to get out of the monotony of seeing people I knew every single day, in a small neighborhood. There was nothing wrong with my old school and I have some really close friends from there, but I just wanted to have a bit of a change of scenery.
4.) The school is actually ridiculously close to my house. Some people travel upwards of 2 hours to go to my school; it's a 5 minute drive for me.
5.) I wanted to be challenged more in high school. My old school was incredibly easy for me. It was so easy for me that I would just not do homework, pay attention, or study at all. This ended up in me doing some pretty dumb stuff and I wanted to go to a school where I would be challenged to the point of needing to do work.
That's not to say I'm entirely happy with my choice, but I'm kind of dedicated to it for the next year and 5 months or so. This is a pretty superficial explanation, but that's basically the reasons I chose to go to my school.
I can't discuss something I don't fully understand. I do agree with the points you raised in your spoiler though. You'll find a lot of classes are just there for professors to ramble.
You are a full blown atheist because agnostic atheism is full blown atheism. If you do not believe in any God or gods you are an atheist.
Theism and atheism are belief claims. You either believe that a God or gods exist, or you do not believe that a God or gods exist. Gnosticism is a knowledge claim, you know a God or gods exists, or you do not know that a God or gods exist. So when you say that you are an agnostic atheist, you are saying that you do not believe in a God or gods, and that you do not know for sure - which is the position that the vast majority of atheists identify with.
As far as the topic, you should really read Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape". It pretty much deals with everything that you wrote in the spoiler.
Matt Dillahunty gives a nice lecture on the superiority of secular morality, also
i enjoyed religion in school(its like a course we have to have in a normal high school). i had a very young priest as a teacher who was a very cool dude (apart from being religious). it was pretty philosophy based (like advanced religion, how religion applies to moral situations etc.) and we learned about different opinions on those matters the only thing that annoyed me all through highschool was the constant nietzsche bashing T_T like all we got taught was that he was some nuts guy who said stuff like "god is dead" (not even the full quote lmao) and only his very late stuff (wheres hes actually nuts) to show how nuts all he said is. i guess it depends on the teacher, all through 5th to 10th grade we had an old priest who pretty much only taught the old testament lmao (even tho we liked it when he told those fucked up old testament stories about killing and war :D )
Hey Mtl long time no see! I understand your position fully right now as I was in a Catholic high school and had to take religion class while also slowly discovering myself as an "atheist" if that's what you want to call it.
As someone pointed above me before Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" has a pretty good start on the complicated topic of morals and ethics. The thesis is basically that there is a landscape with highs and lows (situations and conditions) and to be "good" if it has any definition is too strive and practice to move towards the greatest possible happiness and well-being for everyone while moving as far away from the greatest possible suffering of conscious creatures. Once we understand the sciences of psychology and neurology more than we can make objective claims about right and wrong. The only knock I have on this book though is he spends more time pointing out the flaws in religious and scripture based morals instead of supporting his own claims.
The truth of the matter is, is that morals are completely a human phenomena. We are fully aware of our actions and their motives as well as the consequences because our capacity of emotions and reflection. Every other species on the planet (except maybe some domestic exceptions) is driven purely by the nature of survival. Humans have slowly removed themselves from that obviously as daily survival is no longer a concern for the majority of us. Then slowly this creation of right and wrong was brought into being.
To put it as clearly as I can;Humans are the only species that can cause physical and also emotional suffering through actions that are not driven by survival or protection of our offspring. Therefore, to be "Moral" is too strive to minimize and resist this capacity to create (unnecessary) suffering that we are capable of.
I hope I taught you something you can use in your class
The first thing I'd suggest is that you take a good, long, honest look at yourself and really ask yourself if you are as intellectually pure as you think because I just don't see it. You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one. Instead it is full of competing worldviews that cannot be dismissed as merely fallacious. Also, have some humility and understand that while you may think the class simple (it's for high school students, for pete's sake) you couldn't possibly hope to hold an intelligible argument with its source material.
Now on to your actual questions: Now the title of your blog (and class I presume) is Christian Humanism. This is an important distinction because it's not exactly whole milk Christianity. Rather, it's how can we explain Christianity to non-Christians and advance Christian arguments without explicitly requiring Christian faith. Leaning in that direction.
Now, as you say, in order to construct a moral framework, there must be something to ground this morality. This reference for Christians is not "because the Bible says so" but the metaphysical worldview contained in the Bible and all of the subsidiary literature. Another way of saying this is to say that Christians subscribe to a "natural law". Saying that murder is wrong is not just a moral statement but also an assertion about the nature of the universe. Now what is a conscience? It's our "moral map" and shouldn't our moral map depict the moral contours of nature? Part of the assertion of natural law is that this morality is not found only Christianity but is part of the common human heritage (see the appendices of Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate for a list of almost universal human compunctions) and is to some degree innately known by all humans ("the law is written in their hearts"). Obviously, though, not everyone at all times is good so the moral sense must be plastic and through either faulty reason or violent passions becomes subverted. This also suggests that an act does not merely have a practical effect, but has consequences for your nature/character/soul/what have you.
If you wished to argue against a particular premise in this system, you could say that you hold a different view of nature, but the beauty of natural law is that it can be transposed to nearly any other system. Every particular custom may not line up exactly, but the basics should and the rest can be deduced by reason. To answer your question, a natural law Christian would say that, of course, it's possible for a pagan to be good, but Christianity is not only a moral system.
The other, and far more common, argument, is to assert that the universe has no definite metaphysical nature. If you do that, though, you really can't convince me of anything. Some writers, with an almost mulish obstinacy, insist that they can construct a moral framework from practicality, but that only extends as far as it is actually the case. You could not convince Stalin or Mao or Franco that the greater good outweighed their personal good. You could only convince them that on average it is better to follow your code, but not everyone is average.
I mentioned earlier that the "humanism" part was important. I joke that anyone who says humanism is about to do something really inhumane. While I don't think nothing good has come out of Christian Humanism, I think they are for the most part misguided because the phrase is an oxymoron. As I said before, in order to accept Christian morality, you have to accept Christian metaphysics, but humanists are essentially trying to convince you of the former without the latter. It's not surprising, then, that when you examine it with your own basic premises, like relativism, you think it has holes.
You don't, I think, make very clear your arguments regarding gray areas and when a thing might be right or wrong for different people, but that won't stop me from talking.: Gray areas was a good phrase because it's common to talk about the dogmatism of Christian sin as if it were a list of Dos And Don'ts- cross off the list and you go to Heaven, fail to do so and you go to Hell. In reality, it's all gray area. Every little action you do either conforms to the nature of the universe or it doesn't. Imagine it's like a Bioware game. Flip off your neighbor, -1. Rescue a kitty from a tree +10. I'm really joking here, but it seems like half the anti-Christian arguments are Christianity says this is wrong, therefore they hate them and want them dead and burning in hell.
There are a lot of things that are variable for person to person. You might say, for instance that liberal democracy may not be the best form of government for every country, or that some people are better doctors and some people better librarians. I'm not sure how this relates to moral decisions though. I don't think anybody argues that homosexuality or premarital sex are "moral rights", they are either moral wrongs or there is simply no morality governing it. Morality does not give choices, it either says Yes (in an imperative sense), No, or nothing. Your argument about premarital sex also seems weak because I could argue that marriage arose out of the natural proclivity of humans to form monogamous pair bondings.
Here are some books you can read if you wish to further educate yourself:
If you wish to explore actual Christian arguments and not condensed textbook crap, I recommend Introduction to Christianity and Truth and Tolerance, both by His Former Holiness, Joseph Ratzinger. These books are not light reading from a conceptual or vocabulary standpoint, but I think they are wonderfully written and very accessible.
As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias.
Well, as much as I'd like to watch an hour long video, I really wouldn't. If someone wants to summarize it for me I would respond to it, since I insulted people like him in my previous post. :p
On December 12 2013 10:44 ninazerg wrote: I hereby prophesy that this thread will end up in some kind of endless argument over something stupid.
On December 12 2013 09:08 Myrkskog wrote: You are a full blown atheist because agnostic atheism is full blown atheism. If you do not believe in any God or gods you are an atheist.
Theism and atheism are belief claims. You either believe that a God or gods exist, or you do not believe that a God or gods exist. Gnosticism is a knowledge claim, you know a God or gods exists, or you do not know that a God or gods exist. So when you say that you are an agnostic atheist, you are saying that you do not believe in a God or gods, and that you do not know for sure - which is the position that the vast majority of atheists identify with.
'Atheism' is more naturally taken to mean a disbelief in gods than a lack of belief in gods.
The distinction frogrubdown is making is that you can believe that there is no proof of God/gods or believe that there are no gods. Of course, anyone arguing about it would say that there is no proof of gods because that has the lesser burden of proof (in fact the latter is impossible to prove, at least by empirical standards). In any event, I don't think it makes much difference because they are still asking you to behave as if there were no God/Gods (criminy, that is annoying to type everytime). I think most of the real partisan atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, what have you) really believe (or wanted to believe) that there is no God, but in the real ivory tower of thinkers, there are quite a few that have tremendous difficulty reconciling their atheism with a coherent worldview (see my paragraphs on natural law) and they are the only ones I would rightly allow the term agnostic.
To respond to Myrkskog, the vast majority of "atheists" are such for the same reason that the vast majority of people are religious- because that's what their culture taught them (or didn't teach them). So it's no surprise that when pressed, they would give the lowest common denominator opinion. A better response might have been, "I hadn't really thought about it."
All of the prominent atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, have said they are agnostic atheists. That's a pretty bold assertion of you to make to tell us what they actually believe.
Edit: Under the definition of humanism that means ethics can be intrinsic to humans, and do not need to come from an outside source, such as a god. Which is its real definition, as far as I know.
I think ninazerg's prediction just came true. JK JK.
You know I kind of unintentionally did something I try to avoid. I don't think that those guys are at the highest rung of thinking and I don't think we should spend that much time examining their ideas. I also don't want to bash on bad thinking, just like I don't like lowest common denominator Christian bashing. I brought them up to signify a particular stratum of thought, i.e. someone who had put together an at least coherent view, rather than to comment on their particular opinions. However, I still hold to my point.
You're right, I don't really know what they believe. I also think there are often several layers to a person. I do know that that has to be their official position. You can't advance a position so easily dismissed and you want to capture the largest audience possible.In fact Dawkins is philosophically bound to admit his agnosticism. I do believe, though, that it seems awfully strange that a carefully crafted conclusion could then lead to so much vitriol and utter contempt for their adversaries.
I also don't think it really matters. The practical effect is the same and what is only "technically accepted" one generation becomes dogma the next. They wouldn't even make the distinction if there was no adversary.
Every agnostic I've ever known or read about seemed to be in limbo: Either they believed in God but couldn't reconcile it with their worldview or vice versa. Others had some qualms, like the one we've been discussing, that they had to work through eventually. Agnosticism is not their position, it's a transient phase. A period of development. I think it would take a very subtle mind indeed to truly deserve the title agnostic. These guys aren't in limbo; they are very set in their beliefs. They may call themselves agnostic atheists, but I cannot discern any difference than someone who simply calls themselves an atheist. A rose by any other name.
But let's discuss something more interesting shall we? You know that saying about people, events, ideas, etc...
Edit: Under the definition of humanism that means ethics can be intrinsic to humans, and do not need to come from an outside source, such as a god. Which is its real definition, as far as I know.
On December 12 2013 11:54 Jerubaal wrote: Well, as much as I'd like to watch an hour long video, I really wouldn't. If someone wants to summarize it for me I would respond to it, since I insulted people like him in my previous post. :p
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: The first thing I'd suggest is that you take a good, long, honest look at yourself and really ask yourself if you are as intellectually pure as you think because I just don't see it. You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one. Instead it is full of competing worldviews that cannot be dismissed as merely fallacious. Also, have some humility and understand that while you may think the class simple (it's for high school students, for pete's sake) you couldn't possibly hope to hold an intelligible argument with its source material.
Now on to your actual questions: Now the title of your blog (and class I presume) is Christian Humanism. This is an important distinction because it's not exactly whole milk Christianity. Rather, it's how can we explain Christianity to non-Christians and advance Christian arguments without explicitly requiring Christian faith. Leaning in that direction.
Now, as you say, in order to construct a moral framework, there must be something to ground this morality. This reference for Christians is not "because the Bible says so" but the metaphysical worldview contained in the Bible and all of the subsidiary literature. Another way of saying this is to say that Christians subscribe to a "natural law". Saying that murder is wrong is not just a moral statement but also an assertion about the nature of the universe. Now what is a conscience? It's our "moral map" and shouldn't our moral map depict the moral contours of nature? Part of the assertion of natural law is that this morality is not found only Christianity but is part of the common human heritage (see the appendices of Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate for a list of almost universal human compunctions) and is to some degree innately known by all humans ("the law is written in their hearts"). Obviously, though, not everyone at all times is good so the moral sense must be plastic and through either faulty reason or violent passions becomes subverted. This also suggests that an act does not merely have a practical effect, but has consequences for your nature/character/soul/what have you.
If you wished to argue against a particular premise in this system, you could say that you hold a different view of nature, but the beauty of natural law is that it can be transposed to nearly any other system. Every particular custom may not line up exactly, but the basics should and the rest can be deduced by reason. To answer your question, a natural law Christian would say that, of course, it's possible for a pagan to be good, but Christianity is not only a moral system.
The other, and far more common, argument, is to assert that the universe has no definite metaphysical nature. If you do that, though, you really can't convince me of anything. Some writers, with an almost mulish obstinacy, insist that they can construct a moral framework from practicality, but that only extends as far as it is actually the case. You could not convince Stalin or Mao or Franco that the greater good outweighed their personal good. You could only convince them that on average it is better to follow your code, but not everyone is average.
I mentioned earlier that the "humanism" part was important. I joke that anyone who says humanism is about to do something really inhumane. While I don't think nothing good has come out of Christian Humanism, I think they are for the most part misguided because the phrase is an oxymoron. As I said before, in order to accept Christian morality, you have to accept Christian metaphysics, but humanists are essentially trying to convince you of the former without the latter. It's not surprising, then, that when you examine it with your own basic premises, like relativism, you think it has holes.
You don't, I think, make very clear your arguments regarding gray areas and when a thing might be right or wrong for different people, but that won't stop me from talking.: Gray areas was a good phrase because it's common to talk about the dogmatism of Christian sin as if it were a list of Dos And Don'ts- cross off the list and you go to Heaven, fail to do so and you go to Hell. In reality, it's all gray area. Every little action you do either conforms to the nature of the universe or it doesn't. Imagine it's like a Bioware game. Flip off your neighbor, -1. Rescue a kitty from a tree +10. I'm really joking here, but it seems like half the anti-Christian arguments are Christianity says this is wrong, therefore they hate them and want them dead and burning in hell.
There are a lot of things that are variable for person to person. You might say, for instance that liberal democracy may not be the best form of government for every country, or that some people are better doctors and some people better librarians. I'm not sure how this relates to moral decisions though. I don't think anybody argues that homosexuality or premarital sex are "moral rights", they are either moral wrongs or there is simply no morality governing it. Morality does not give choices, it either says Yes (in an imperative sense), No, or nothing. Your argument about premarital sex also seems weak because I could argue that marriage arose out of the natural proclivity of humans to form monogamous pair bondings.
Here are some books you can read if you wish to further educate yourself:
If you wish to explore actual Christian arguments and not condensed textbook crap, I recommend Introduction to Christianity and Truth and Tolerance, both by His Former Holiness, Joseph Ratzinger. These books are not light reading from a conceptual or vocabulary standpoint, but I think they are wonderfully written and very accessible.
As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias.
Ok, there's a lot to respond to, so I'll do my best to try and respond without making a gigantic mess. I never claimed to be an intellectual or to know everything about the subject. The point that I made when I was responding (I actually never said that I found my school easy, I was referring to my middle school if that's what you're talking about). And my middle school WAS objectively easy, but that's because of the failings of the US educational system. Not really a discussion for this blog.
The one thing I would object to in your first paragraph explaining your argument is that your argument is only held for certain Christian sects. I can see that you're Catholic (probably Roman Catholic from how you regard the Pope), so that would explain your views of morality. Not all Christians think that their is more to read and learn about than the Bible, in regards to their faith. But since we're both Catholic, we'll just precede from that viewpoint.
So what you're saying is that the Bible is intended to reflect natural law? That's a heavy assertion to be made, especially depending on the context of which specific passages you are referring to. I had to read quite a bit of the BIble in my freshman year, and as we skimmed through Deuteronomy and Leviticus there are certain things that absolutely do not reflect natural law at all. That being said, I'd assume you're talking about the Commandments themselves and not the specific laws that were created afterwards to help protect/govern the Israelites? I always assumed most (if not all) of the laws in the Deuteronomy and Leviticus were for practical purposes, not to reflect the natural law. Things like keeping kosher and quarantining certain "diseases" (basically everything was leprosy to them, lol) were to keep them safe, not to govern their moral actions necessarily. And the punishments were incredibly harsh, especially compared to today's standards.
Obviously this is a pretty cherry picked argument, but I just would like to point out that not all of the laws of those days reflected natural law. The other thing I'd like to dispute (which I started on in my original post) is that not everyone has their conscience developed the same way. Conscience dictates how the person responds to the specific situation he or she is in, moral law "objectively" decides whether he or she did the right thing or the wrong thing. Just because certain things are considered "universal," people do what they have to to survive and carry out their biological functions. It is our nature, despite what anyone tries to tell us. I guess I agree that for the morality of an act to matter, there has to be some effect it bears on a person's character/nature/spirit/soul/whatever, but how does someone distinguish between people? Not everyone is created the same way, but is everyone judged on acts that they committed the same way? No one on earth can truly answer that question, but that would seem to disagree with the concept of moral objectivity. We can't really separate the judgement from the morality of a situation, since that would be dividing the most important part of the action. The morality of the action is not what is important (since actions can be done with incorrect judgement, incorrectly perceiving a situation, or being done unwillingly), what is important is the responsibility/accountability of the person who committed the action, whether the action be good or bad.
I think most people understand the basic example you used, but the issue is extending the metaphor and understanding where different acts objectively stand on the scale. To give you an example, say that I see a homeless man starving and freezing outside the Dunkin Donuts I'm going to. One person walks by him, goes into the Dunkin Donuts, buys two donuts and two coffees, and gives the homeless man the coffee and donut. Most people would consider that objectively good. What about if someone goes in, orders a donut and a coffee but ends up getting two donuts because they messed up his order accidentally. He's not hungry enough to eat the second donut and doesn't want to throw it away, so he gives it to the homeless man to not waste it. He did a good thing, but it wasn't exactly for the right reasons. Jesus himself said that it matters more the spirit of the action than the action itself. Not that what he did could be considered "bad," but he didn't really intend to do anything good, which can be (and is) as much of a sin as doing something bad.
And, while I'm sure this is a very controversial topic, humans are not inclined to mate for life. Obviously there will be studies going both ways for this, but most chimpanzees do not mate for life, and there is a lot of research pointing to the fact that humans are not naturally monogamous. This is a pretty deep subject in itself, and isn't something that I'd really like to discuss here just because it could have a gigantic discussion by itself.
I would like to read more about it, since I do find it interesting, I'll just have to find time when I don't have finals or anything. Anyway, I'm not saying that I know everything about the subject or that I know everything about Christianity. I'm just saying that with what I know about the subject, it seems asinine to claim that there is an objective moral law. But then again, I think most of Christianity is wrong anyway, so for me to disagree with it on moral objectivity isn't that much of a stretch.
You are a full blown atheist because agnostic atheism is full blown atheism. If you do not believe in any God or gods you are an atheist.
Theism and atheism are belief claims. You either believe that a God or gods exist, or you do not believe that a God or gods exist. Gnosticism is a knowledge claim, you know a God or gods exists, or you do not know that a God or gods exist. So when you say that you are an agnostic atheist, you are saying that you do not believe in a God or gods, and that you do not know for sure - which is the position that the vast majority of atheists identify with.
Not to talk about my own religious beliefs for too long, but I am almost sure that the idea of the Christian-Judao (even Islamic) idea of what God is has almost no truth in it. That said, I have no idea if there are other deistic powers, but more and more I tend to side with the idea of there being nothing that plays any role in our lives other than what is completely tangible. So in a sense, yes, I am a full blown atheist, but only in regards to the Trinity, or Yahweh, or Allah, not to what I cannot know.
Edit: Under the definition of humanism that means ethics can be intrinsic to humans, and do not need to come from an outside source, such as a god. Which is its real definition, as far as I know.
Edit: Under the definition of humanism that means ethics can be intrinsic to humans, and do not need to come from an outside source, such as a god. Which is its real definition, as far as I know.
6th paragraph of my first post.
I posted on impulse, it was too amusing.
The course is almost as dumb as the name of the course. They tried to tell us that the reason they removed the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is because people in California were trying to favor the needs of the few over the needs of many and weaken the "power of the Church in public schools." This may be a shock to the author of the article, but the United States is a secularized nation and there is no power or rights of the church in public schools, which is how it should be.
On December 12 2013 14:51 Myrkskog wrote: What would you say the difference between disbelief and lack of belief is?
I am not against the idea of God, but I don't think humans can ever find enough proof to make a rational conclusion that there is/isn't a God and that would make agnostic Also I am not talking about a Christian God, I am talking about the concept of God in general.
On December 12 2013 14:51 Myrkskog wrote: What would you say the difference between disbelief and lack of belief is?
Disbelieving P is believing that P is false. Lacking a belief that P is simply not having the belief that P. It's not like I made up the distinction.
Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
On December 12 2013 16:02 Jerubaal wrote: The distinction frogrubdown is making is that you can believe that there is no proof of God/gods or believe that there are no gods.
That's not quite the same distinction, but it could be a related one. For instance, a reason a person might be undecided about the existence of God is if they think there's no proof one way or the other. An undecided person doesn't believe in God, but they aren't an atheist because they also don't actively believe God doesn't exist.
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one.
Don't believe this person, the world is full of people who are objectively wrong. They are wrong according to criteria the vast majority of people, including themselves, would agree on. They might be wrong on questions of fact, their logic might be off or they simply believe things that are logically contradictory. In the worst case they might even answer the exact same question differently in different contexts.
Actually, most people are objectively wrong on at least some questions. It's hard not to be unless you qualify most of your beliefs with a probabilistic estimate, and even then it's quite possible to go wrong.
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias.
It's insulting him to say Plato would confuse him. The short dialogues like the Euthyphro or Lysis are great introductory material... way more than jumping into Aristotle or Cicero.
On December 12 2013 16:44 Myrkskog wrote: All of the prominent atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, have said they are agnostic atheists. That's a pretty bold assertion of you to make to tell us what they actually believe.
They say that because of the ridiculous people who love to insist that atheism means you're saying there is 100% not a God, when by definition, it isn't. They say their agnostic atheists as opposed to gnostic atheists, as they're not 100% sure there isn't a God, only 99.99%.
Theism = Belief in god(s) Atheism = No belief in god(s)
The reason why many identify as agnostic atheists, is to sort of refute the association that atheists believe there is no god. It's more of a skeptic interpretation, that unless there is sufficient evidence, there's no reason to make a leap of faith for belief.
I just finished "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer, and I would definitely recommend it. It's about all the studies of neuroscience and psychology that help explain why our brains are programmed to believe over the use of rational thought (and why sometimes this is a good thing). It also goes into evolutionary factors of why humans as a species and our societies developed religions.
"That atheists believe there is no god" isn't just an "association". It's part of one of the standard meanings of 'atheist', the one I find more interesting to discuss.
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote: difference between atheism and anti-theism ^ not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: You'll find, hopefully, as you become more educated that the world is not full of people who are "objectively wrong" as if their philosophy was a math problem and they forgot to carry the one.
Don't believe this person, the world is full of people who are objectively wrong. They are wrong according to criteria the vast majority of people, including themselves, would agree on. They might be wrong on questions of fact, their logic might be off or they simply believe things that are logically contradictory. In the worst case they might even answer the exact same question differently in different contexts.
Actually, most people are objectively wrong on at least some questions. It's hard not to be unless you qualify most of your beliefs with a probabilistic estimate, and even then it's quite possible to go wrong.
I'm not exactly sure what angle you are coming from, but if you are saying that people don't fully understand the worldview they espouse, then that's true but not interesting. Lowest common denominator bashing isn't really helpful in advancing conversations. Finding simple contradictions in lower level thinking isn't helpful to you and likely won't convince anyone.
More than that, though, the young and foolish need to have their mental laziness discouraged or they'll turn into idiot ideologues.
On December 12 2013 11:48 Jerubaal wrote: As for general philosophy, I think Cicero might be a very good place to start. Starting with Plato will just confuse you. So read De Legibus and De Officiis by Cicero, then you can read Aristotle's Ethics and start on Plato with something light like The Symposium or Gorgias.
It's insulting him to say Plato would confuse him. The short dialogues like the Euthyphro or Lysis are great introductory material... way more than jumping into Aristotle or Cicero.
It's not insulting. It's easy to comprehend the texts, but that doesn't mean you're getting anything out of it. I read The Republic 3 times and in 2 different classes before I was able to understand a lot of the points and the OP is probably reading alone and without any guidance. Cicero seems to me to set the table much better. And judging by his responses, I think what remained of my optimism vanished.
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote: difference between atheism and anti-theism ^ not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair.
On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote: Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former.
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote: difference between atheism and anti-theism ^ not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair.
On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote: Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former.
100% of atheists identify with the former because believing that god doesn't exist is one way of not believing god exists. The set of [believers that there is no god] is a proper subset of the set of [non-believers that god exists]. That doesn't mean that the majority of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't believe there is no god, or that the majority define 'atheism' in the first way.
My definition also makes a lot more sense of many ordinary ways that people describe agnosticism than the other definition.
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote: difference between atheism and anti-theism ^ not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair.
On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote: Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former.
100% of atheists identify with the former because believing that god doesn't exist is one way of not believing god exists. The set of [believers that there is no god] is a proper subset of the set of [non-believers that god exists]. That doesn't mean that the majority of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't believe there is no god, or that the majority define 'atheism' in the first way.
My definition also makes a lot more sense of many ordinary ways that people describe agnosticism than the other definition.
So we are in agreement then that being atheist does not necessitate a belief that there is no God. Granted, I haven't seen any surveys on how atheists self identify, however, my comment was based off the fact that all prominent atheists, along with all atheists I have talked to or listened to, fall under the category of agnostic atheist.
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote: difference between atheism and anti-theism ^ not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
As far as I know Christopher Hitchens never claimed that he had knowledge that god(s) do not exist. I am happy to change my mind though, if you have some quotes of him stating that he knows for sure that god(s) don't exist. The term agnostic has nothing to do with how someone feels towards specific institutions, so to say his agnosticism somehow lightened his anti-religious sentiment is unfair.
On December 13 2013 05:00 frogrubdown wrote: Atheism isn't simply the absence of the believing in God, it's believing that there is no God.
The overwhelming majority of atheists identify with the the former.
100% of atheists identify with the former because believing that god doesn't exist is one way of not believing god exists. The set of [believers that there is no god] is a proper subset of the set of [non-believers that god exists]. That doesn't mean that the majority of self-proclaimed "atheists" don't believe there is no god, or that the majority define 'atheism' in the first way.
My definition also makes a lot more sense of many ordinary ways that people describe agnosticism than the other definition.
So we are in agreement then that being atheist does not necessitate a belief that there is no God. Granted, I haven't seen any surveys on how atheists self identify, however, my comment was based off the fact that all prominent atheists, along with all atheists I have talked to or listened to, fall under the category of agnostic atheist.
No, I'm not agreeing to that. There are two very prominent meanings to 'atheist'. I don't know exactly how the pop-culture atheists tend to use the term, but I get the impression that my use is more popular among prominent atheist philosophers.
You seem to be under the impression that agnostic atheism is only possible under your definition. If so, I don't see why. Being agnostic just means you don't take yourself to know (or don't take it to be possible to know) whether god exists. That's entirely consistent with believing that god doesn't exist.
On December 13 2013 11:09 Roe wrote: I don't know about anyone else but I see the two of you guys in agreement
Things we plausibly disagree about:
(1) Whether 'atheism' is commonly used in the way I tend to use it. (2) Whether it's possible to be an agnostic atheist on my reading of 'atheist' (3) Related to (2), whether knowledge is a norm of belief (i.e., whether you should only believe what you know)
How individuals choose to define the word atheist or agnostic or Christian or theist is entirely up to them. If the people you are referencing define atheism as a belief that God does not exist, then who am I to argue what they choose to call it. Considering how muddled debates over God(s) can become, I prefer to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
The problem I have having is that you are equating a lack of belief in God with the belief that there is no God, when they are different.
On December 13 2013 11:26 Myrkskog wrote: How individuals choose to define the word atheist or agnostic or Christian or theist is entirely up to them. If the people you are referencing define atheism as a belief that God does not exist, then who am I to argue what they choose to call it. Considering how muddled debates over God(s) can become, I prefer to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
The problem I have having is that you are equating a lack of belief in God with the belief that there is no God, when they are different.
If everybody chose to define their words on their own with no regard for what people think those words mean, then on aurait bin dla misère a scomprendre mon chou.
The entire point of language is communicating stuff. If I say I'm an atheist meaning I don't subscribe to any religion and the other person assumes it means I worship Satan, then we have an issue. That's why people tend to preface the terms that they use before arguments, to avoid ambiguities.
I may as well clear this argument up since it's taken over this thread. Richard Dawkins created a belief scale in his book The God Delusion. It goes like this;
Level 1: Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung (IQ=160), ‘I do not believe, I know.’
Level 2: Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
Level 3: Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
Level 4: Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
Level 5: Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘’I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.’
Level 6: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
Level 7: Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.’
From who I've talked to and what I've seen being a very active member in the Atheist community. The overwhelming majority of Atheists are level 6. To be a level 7 Atheist is really just as arrogant and silly as a full blown believer. Given the current definition that mainstream Religion speaks about as "God" it's really impossible to be certain of the existence of this concept, it is outside and intertwined with our reality.......... apparently lol.
However, if anyone literally just starts learning about the sciences and looks at the nature of reality with an open mind. I guarantee they're likely to find the entire concept of God a ridiculous fantasy. Which it is.
P.S. A LOT of people have the definition of Atheism completely wrong. Atheism isn't there belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s). There is a huge difference. One that a lot of people apparently can't discern. That goes for believers as well, to be Religious or to be an Atheist is a Level 2 (3) and a Level 6 (5). When you reach Level 1 or Level 7 you're past the definition and into the realm of arrogant stupidity in the face of reality.
I'm not sure I understand the nuanced distinctions in levels 2-4...
In any case, that's not the only area where this chart is confused. Throughout, the chart treats epistemological questions as though they were the exact same thing as questions of degree of belief. Hence, at level 5 we get the claim that someone with a degree of belief a bit lower than .5 must be agnostic, even though a person's degree of belief says very little about whether they take the relevant proposition to be knowable. If you're going to make a scale of atheism out of degrees of belief then you should avoid using the word 'know' in any of the definitions.
Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing.
Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing.
To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis.
Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing.
To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis.
I was just using your own scale. The two positions on your scale that are called 'atheism' both require not only an extremely high degree of belief that God does not exist but also that one acts as though that is true. If those aren't sufficient for atheists to believe God does not exist, then I'd expect to hear a reason, because that's just about the definition of believing something.
Also, I'm not sure what your first sentence has to do with anything. What percentage of a person's beliefs do you really think they actively go around trying to prove to people? The fact that most atheists don't do this says nothing more about their beliefs concerning God than the fact that I don't go around trying to prove my address to everyone says about what I believe my address to be.
If you really believed that the definition of atheism was a lack of belief in God, then your chart would look very different. All but the top handful of levels (ignoring the copy/paste in 2-4) would count as atheists, because all but the top handful in the chart lack a belief in God. Their degrees of belief in God aren't high enough. But you didn't label the chart this way; you reserved 'atheist' for the two rungs that fit my use of the term.
Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing.
To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis.
I was just using your own scale. The two positions on your scale that are called 'atheism' both require not only an extremely high degree of belief that God does not exist but also that one acts as though that is true. If those aren't sufficient for atheists to believe God does not exist, then I'd expect to hear a reason, because that's just about the definition of believing something.
Also, I'm not sure what your first sentence has to do with anything. What percentage of a person's beliefs do you really think they actively go around trying to prove to people? The fact that most atheists don't do this says nothing more about their beliefs concerning God than the fact that I don't go around trying to prove my address to everyone says about what I believe my address to be.
If you really believed that the definition of atheism was a lack of belief in God, then your chart would look very different. All but the top handful of levels (ignoring the copy/paste in 2-4) would count as atheists, because all but the top handful in the chart lack a belief in God. Their degrees of belief in God aren't high enough. But you didn't label the chart this way; you reserved 'atheist' for the two rungs that fit my use of the term.
It isn't my chart, Richard Dawkins made it (I'm pretty sure) and put it in his book. I think I copy pasted one of the levels twice it was really late last night when I posted it . Sorry for the mistake.
To put it in a simple analogy; My absence of belief in God (and many Atheists alike) is like me being a non-volleyball player. I don't learn and practice to be a non-volleyball player lol. (Don't take the contrast between the concept of God(s) and the actual sport of volleyball seriously ).
Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing.
To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis.
I was just using your own scale. The two positions on your scale that are called 'atheism' both require not only an extremely high degree of belief that God does not exist but also that one acts as though that is true. If those aren't sufficient for atheists to believe God does not exist, then I'd expect to hear a reason, because that's just about the definition of believing something.
Also, I'm not sure what your first sentence has to do with anything. What percentage of a person's beliefs do you really think they actively go around trying to prove to people? The fact that most atheists don't do this says nothing more about their beliefs concerning God than the fact that I don't go around trying to prove my address to everyone says about what I believe my address to be.
If you really believed that the definition of atheism was a lack of belief in God, then your chart would look very different. All but the top handful of levels (ignoring the copy/paste in 2-4) would count as atheists, because all but the top handful in the chart lack a belief in God. Their degrees of belief in God aren't high enough. But you didn't label the chart this way; you reserved 'atheist' for the two rungs that fit my use of the term.
It isn't my chart, Richard Dawkins made it (I'm pretty sure) and put it in his book. I think I copy pasted one of the levels twice it was really late last night when I posted it . Sorry for the mistake.
To put it in a simple analogy; My absence of belief in God (and many Atheists alike) is like me being a non-volleyball player. I don't learn and practice to be a non-volleyball player lol. (Don't take the contrast between the concept of God(s) and the actual sport of volleyball seriously ).
I understand the difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that your/Dawkin's own chart says that atheism is the latter. No one from level 3 on down has a high enough degree of belief to count as believing in God. So if you really defined 'atheism' as not believing in God, everyone level from 3 on down should be labeled an 'atheist'.
But that's not what the chart says. Only the people with strong enough degrees of belief that God doesn't exist are labeled 'atheists'. In short, the chart uses 'atheist' the same way I do, not the way you do.
I don't know if Dawkins thinks the chart uses 'atheist' differently than it actually does. But at the very least the chart would embody his confusion of epistemic issues with questions of degrees of belief, as I discussed earlier.
Then there's the bizarre claim at the end that "Atheism isn't there [sic] belief there is no God(s). Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in God(s)". This comes after your level 6 and level 7 definitions, the two official types of atheism on the scale, both explicitly require high degrees of belief that God does not exist. By your own scale atheism is the former thing.
To be an Atheist isn't to be among a group of other people trying to prove God does not exist because we believe it doesn't. To be an Atheist is simply not having any beliefs in the concept of God at all. Of course there are the % that claim God does not exist purely on scientific understandings but they're irrelevant since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis.
I was just using your own scale. The two positions on your scale that are called 'atheism' both require not only an extremely high degree of belief that God does not exist but also that one acts as though that is true. If those aren't sufficient for atheists to believe God does not exist, then I'd expect to hear a reason, because that's just about the definition of believing something.
Also, I'm not sure what your first sentence has to do with anything. What percentage of a person's beliefs do you really think they actively go around trying to prove to people? The fact that most atheists don't do this says nothing more about their beliefs concerning God than the fact that I don't go around trying to prove my address to everyone says about what I believe my address to be.
If you really believed that the definition of atheism was a lack of belief in God, then your chart would look very different. All but the top handful of levels (ignoring the copy/paste in 2-4) would count as atheists, because all but the top handful in the chart lack a belief in God. Their degrees of belief in God aren't high enough. But you didn't label the chart this way; you reserved 'atheist' for the two rungs that fit my use of the term.
It isn't my chart, Richard Dawkins made it (I'm pretty sure) and put it in his book. I think I copy pasted one of the levels twice it was really late last night when I posted it . Sorry for the mistake.
To put it in a simple analogy; My absence of belief in God (and many Atheists alike) is like me being a non-volleyball player. I don't learn and practice to be a non-volleyball player lol. (Don't take the contrast between the concept of God(s) and the actual sport of volleyball seriously ).
I understand the difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that your/Dawkin's own chart says that atheism is the latter. No one from level 3 on down has a high enough degree of belief to count as believing in God. So if you really defined 'atheism' as not believing in God, everyone level from 3 on down should be labeled an 'atheist'.
But that's not what the chart says. Only the people with strong enough degrees of belief that God doesn't exist are labeled 'atheists'. In short, the chart uses 'atheist' the same way I do, not the way you do.
I don't know if Dawkins thinks the chart uses 'atheist' differently than it actually does. But at the very least the chart would embody his confusion of epistemic issues with questions of degrees of belief, as I discussed earlier.
It uses it the same way I do though. Levels 5 & 6 both say they cannot be certain but are skeptical and think that God does not likely exist. They aren't claiming to know God doesn't exist like the arrogance of level 7. All the reputable Atheists I'm aware of are level 6's. (The Four Horsemen of New Atheism). You can still lack belief like all Atheists do and still think of God's existence as unlikely. The probability of God's existence is INDEPENDENT of what any one believes. It's the same thing as me saying that the Sun will stop rising (or the Earth will stop rotating more appropriately) because I believe it will be that way if I somehow don't see it. Reality isn't dictated by what anyone believes, hopes or imagines. An Atheist is likely best defined as someone who has looked at all the knowledge and evidence Humans have gathered about reality and thought "hey, this whole concept of God is silly."
I agree with the misuse of theist and atheist in Level's 1 and 7. They may have been used just because of the convenience of their description. I'd be willing to argue that Level 6 & 7 shouldn't share the label of Atheist. Their difference is simply too large. (Believing there is no God and absence of belief). As great as it would be to be absolutely certain like level 7 we simply can't in these circumstances which is why you'd look like an all-knowing prick to be a Level 7. While on the opposite spectrum the difference simply isn't as large because the Religious are striving to reach Level 1, or at least their authorities encourage them too.
Jesus Christ, this sounds like a video game now haha. I've reached Level 6 wooh lol!
I really don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You claim that atheism is the absence of a belief in God, then you say that level 7 shouldn't count as atheism even though people at level 7 clearly do not possess a belief that God exists. Which is it?
My overall point is simple:
(1) No one in levels 3-7 has a high enough degree of belief in God's existence to count as believing God exists.[1] (2) Therefore, everyone in 3-7 lacks a belief in God. (3) Therefore, according to the definition of 'atheism' that includes everyone who lacks a belief in God (the definition you hold), everyone in 3-7 counts as an atheist. (4) Most of level 3-7 aren't counted as atheists. (5) Therefore, the chart doesn't use "absence of a belief in God" as meaning 'atheism'. (6) Therefore. since you do use the definition that way, the chart doesn't use the same definition as you.
Which premise do you deny?
edit:
[1] level 3 itself is a possible exception to this, but I don't need it for my point. The chart also doesn't count 4/5 as atheist even though they clearly don't believe in God.
On December 15 2013 06:05 frogrubdown wrote: I really don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You claim that atheism is the absence of a belief in God, then you say that level 7 shouldn't count as atheism even though people at level 7 clearly do not possess a belief that God exists. Which is it?
My overall point is simple:
(1) No one in levels 3-7 has a high enough degree of belief in God's existence to count as believing God exists. (2) Therefore, everyone in 3-7 lacks a belief in God. (3) Therefore, according to the definition of 'atheism' that includes everyone who lacks a belief in God (the definition you hold), everyone in 3-7 counts as an atheist. (4) Most of level 3-7 aren't counted as atheists. (5) Therefore, the chart doesn't use "absence of a belief in God" as meaning 'atheism'. (6) Therefore. since you do use the definition that way, the chart doesn't use the same definition as you.
Which premise do you deny?
I completely agree. While Level 7 clearly doesn't possess a belief that God exists just as the 2 preceding Levels, it makes the claim with total certainty that God does not exist while it is simply impossible to know given the definition and attributes that have been collectively ascribed to God.
Therefore Level 7 should not be grouped with Atheism because it is disrespecting one of the most important universal values that most Atheists hold; Evidence. In the face of the evidence and understanding we have of God, a Level 7 believer (believing there is no God) believes they know with 100% certainty that God does not exist. It can be argued what values Atheism holds but scientific values seem to be extremely common.
Do you understand my point? (I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way if it comes off like that).
As for the list; I agree it uses Atheism in the wrong way only for Level 7 though. Everything above level 4 on the list explicitly says they are leaning towards the belief in God. Which means they do believe to some %. All of those %'s are above the 50% of agnosticism which is NOT an absence of belief at all. This isn't a case of black and white all or nothing. That's the purpose of this scale, to show the degrees.
Now I bring up my point once again; It is completely possible to have an absence of belief which is what Atheism is, while still believing/thinking God does not likely exist (not to be confused with does not exist) because God's existence is 100% independent of what any one believes. Believing there is a low probability of God does not impede upon the absence of belief because the belief itself it irrelevant. Everyone will die one day regardless of what they believe. The Earth is a tiny pebble in the cosmos regardless of what anyone believes. God either exists or doesn't regardless of what anyone believes. Beliefs do not influence anything in reality except the behaviours of the holders.
On December 15 2013 06:05 frogrubdown wrote: I really don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You claim that atheism is the absence of a belief in God, then you say that level 7 shouldn't count as atheism even though people at level 7 clearly do not possess a belief that God exists. Which is it?
My overall point is simple:
(1) No one in levels 3-7 has a high enough degree of belief in God's existence to count as believing God exists. (2) Therefore, everyone in 3-7 lacks a belief in God. (3) Therefore, according to the definition of 'atheism' that includes everyone who lacks a belief in God (the definition you hold), everyone in 3-7 counts as an atheist. (4) Most of level 3-7 aren't counted as atheists. (5) Therefore, the chart doesn't use "absence of a belief in God" as meaning 'atheism'. (6) Therefore. since you do use the definition that way, the chart doesn't use the same definition as you.
Which premise do you deny?
I completely agree. While Level 7 clearly doesn't possess a belief that God exists just as the 2 preceding Levels, it makes the claim with total certainty that God does not exist while it is simply impossible to know given the definition and attributes that have been collectively ascribed to God.
Therefore Level 7 should not be grouped with the majority of Atheists because it is disrespecting one of the most important universal values that most Atheists hold; Evidence. In the face of the evidence and understanding we have of God, a Level 7 believer (believing there is no God) believes they know that God does not exist. It can be argued what values Atheism holds but scientific values seem to be extremely common.
Do you understand my point? (I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way if it comes off like that).
As for the list; I agree it uses Atheism in the wrong way only for Level 7 though. Everything above level 4 on the list explicitly says they are leaning towards the belief in God. Which means they do believe to some %. All of those %'s are above the 50% of agnosticism which is NOT an absence of belief at all. This isn't a case of black and white all or nothing. That's the purpose of this scale, to show the degrees.
Now I bring up my point once again; It is completely possible to have an absence of belief which is what Atheism is, while still believing/thinking God does not likely exist (not to be confused with does not exist) because God's existence is 100% independent of what any one believes. Believing there is a low probability of God does not impede upon the absence of belief because the belief itself it irrelevant. Everyone will die one day regardless of what they believe. The Earth is a tiny pebble in the cosmos regardless of what anyone believes. Etc. Beliefs do not influence anything in reality except the behaviours of the holders.
I don't know what you think I've been arguing, but it can't be what I've actually been arguing since you keep bringing up points I've never disputed.
First, you return to your insistence that level 7 is unreasonable. When have I ever claimed otherwise? I'd have to have the terms precisified to give a firm pronouncement on it but it sure sounds unreasonable. But I fail to see how that at all contradicts the only thing I've claimed about it, namely, that it counts as atheism under your definition.
Then, you say once again that there is a difference between believing God doesn't exist and not believing God exists. It is a mystery why you think I need the lesson. Almost every one of my double digits worth of posts here has pointed to that distinction. Don't try to out-hipster me on this, because I brought it up way before it was cool.
Then you say some stuff about death which also has nothing to do with any of my claims.
If you want to know what my claims actually are, just look at the numbered argument I gave in my last post. I'm stating no more and no less than what is contained there. So if you have a problem with my claims, argue against one of those numbers, and please state which one.
On December 15 2013 06:05 frogrubdown wrote: I really don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You claim that atheism is the absence of a belief in God, then you say that level 7 shouldn't count as atheism even though people at level 7 clearly do not possess a belief that God exists. Which is it?
My overall point is simple:
(1) No one in levels 3-7 has a high enough degree of belief in God's existence to count as believing God exists. (2) Therefore, everyone in 3-7 lacks a belief in God. (3) Therefore, according to the definition of 'atheism' that includes everyone who lacks a belief in God (the definition you hold), everyone in 3-7 counts as an atheist. (4) Most of level 3-7 aren't counted as atheists. (5) Therefore, the chart doesn't use "absence of a belief in God" as meaning 'atheism'. (6) Therefore. since you do use the definition that way, the chart doesn't use the same definition as you.
Which premise do you deny?
I completely agree. While Level 7 clearly doesn't possess a belief that God exists just as the 2 preceding Levels, it makes the claim with total certainty that God does not exist while it is simply impossible to know given the definition and attributes that have been collectively ascribed to God.
Therefore Level 7 should not be grouped with the majority of Atheists because it is disrespecting one of the most important universal values that most Atheists hold; Evidence. In the face of the evidence and understanding we have of God, a Level 7 believer (believing there is no God) believes they know that God does not exist. It can be argued what values Atheism holds but scientific values seem to be extremely common.
Do you understand my point? (I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way if it comes off like that).
As for the list; I agree it uses Atheism in the wrong way only for Level 7 though. Everything above level 4 on the list explicitly says they are leaning towards the belief in God. Which means they do believe to some %. All of those %'s are above the 50% of agnosticism which is NOT an absence of belief at all. This isn't a case of black and white all or nothing. That's the purpose of this scale, to show the degrees.
Now I bring up my point once again; It is completely possible to have an absence of belief which is what Atheism is, while still believing/thinking God does not likely exist (not to be confused with does not exist) because God's existence is 100% independent of what any one believes. Believing there is a low probability of God does not impede upon the absence of belief because the belief itself it irrelevant. Everyone will die one day regardless of what they believe. The Earth is a tiny pebble in the cosmos regardless of what anyone believes. Etc. Beliefs do not influence anything in reality except the behaviours of the holders.
I don't know what you think I've been arguing, but it can't be what I've actually been arguing since you keep bringing up points I've never disputed.
First, you return to your insistence that level 7 is unreasonable. When have I ever claimed otherwise? I'd have to have the terms precisified to give a firm pronouncement on it but it sure sounds unreasonable. But I fail to see how that at all contradicts the only thing I've claimed about it, namely, that it counts as atheism under your definition.
Then, you say once again that there is a difference between believing God doesn't exist and not believing God exists. It is a mystery why you think I need the lesson. Almost every one of my double digits worth of posts here has pointed to that distinction. Don't try to out-hipster me on this, because I brought it up way before it was cool.
Then you say some stuff about death which also has nothing to do with any of my claims.
If you want to know what my claims actually are, just look at the numbered argument I gave in my last post. I'm stating no more and no less than what is contained there. So if you have a problem with my claims, argue against one of those numbers, and please state which one.
Eveything I just said rendered points 2-7 completely false, just because I didn't label the exact number before each point I made doesn't mean they are somehow invalid lol. You seem competent enough to know which ones I'm talking about that's why I didn't label it out. It's all in order any ways.
I didn't say all those things as direct responses to anything you specifically said. they were just supporting sentences for my claims which once again render your points of 2-7 as false.
However you didn't tackle any of the points I made in that so I'm guessing you don't have any counter arguments.
What are you talking about? I don't even have a premise (7), so I hardly see how my points (2)-(7) could be false. And no, I don't see any arguments in anything you've written that directly address any of my actual premises. I would need to discover these before coming up with "counter arguments".
On December 15 2013 07:53 frogrubdown wrote: What are you talking about? I don't even have a premise (7), so I hardly see how my points (2)-(7) could be false. And no, I don't see any arguments in anything you've written that directly address any of my actual premises. I would need to discover these before coming up with "counter arguments".
Sorry it I made a small mistake. That's fine though ignorance is bliss I guess. It's impossible to teach someone when they're unwilling to learn. I should know better than to waste my time with people on the internet like this. I'll save my energy for the people in real life I meet.
On December 15 2013 07:53 frogrubdown wrote: What are you talking about? I don't even have a premise (7), so I hardly see how my points (2)-(7) could be false. And no, I don't see any arguments in anything you've written that directly address any of my actual premises. I would need to discover these before coming up with "counter arguments".
Sorry it I made a small mistake. That's fine though ignorance is bliss I guess. It's impossible to teach someone when they're unwilling to learn. I should know better than to waste my time with people on the internet like this. I'll save my energy for the people in real life I meet.
So I guess that means you're not sorry, as you made a large number of large mistakes rather than a single small one
But you're right, this is a waste of time for both us.
this scale is hilarious. lots of religions use a kind of "scale of enlightenment" as an important psychological tool in their arsenal. this dawkins thing is structurally identical
On December 15 2013 07:53 frogrubdown wrote: What are you talking about? I don't even have a premise (7), so I hardly see how my points (2)-(7) could be false. And no, I don't see any arguments in anything you've written that directly address any of my actual premises. I would need to discover these before coming up with "counter arguments".
Sorry it I made a small mistake. That's fine though ignorance is bliss I guess. It's impossible to teach someone when they're unwilling to learn. I should know better than to waste my time with people on the internet like this. I'll save my energy for the people in real life I meet.
Wtf? What are you even saying man? Do you have a point?
On December 13 2013 00:37 Roe wrote: difference between atheism and anti-theism ^ not believing, vs believing that there is not
Anti-theism is more of an active position that argues that belief in a deity leads to moral pitfalls and that theism is inherently toxic. At least this is how Hitchens used to define his position. Hitchens certainly was not some lukewarm agnostic. Dawkins on the other hand really is not as much of an anti-theist as he might hope to be, given his consistent remarks that he is a "cultural Anglican". On this point he's a bit like Russel.
So with regards to a post above that claims Hitchens was an "agnostic" is really pulling the wools over just how directly and assertively anti-theistic Hitchens was. His opposition to religion didn't centre around evidential grounds and this is why he was really different from the rest of the so-called New Atheists. His was primarily of moral concern, and this is why his critique of religion had so much more force than the limp liberal musings of the other New Atheists.
EPT
