tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5151319894959481350..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Atheism Is Not a Virtue - Rationality IsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34031952461952111122010-04-12T23:33:24.983-06:002010-04-12T23:33:24.983-06:00You are claiming to have observed, "countless...<i>You are claiming to have observed, "countless times", a person "attach all sorts of other properties to theism just so that they can get to their conclusion that theism is a threat to humanity".</i><br /><br />Correct.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, Alonzo was charging me with being one of those people. But my argument is nothing like that. So you haven't seen me do it.</i><br /><br />I didn't say I did. I wasn't talking to or about you.<br /><br /><i>Who have you seen mischaracterizing theism in order to support an assumption that theism is a threat to humanity?</i><br /><br />The internet is awash with b-grade atheists that do just that. If it weren't, I doubt Alonzo would have written this post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48331387923254292012010-04-12T13:26:47.533-06:002010-04-12T13:26:47.533-06:00@cl: OK, let's be very clear what the dispute ...@cl: OK, let's be very clear what the dispute is here.<br /><br />You are claiming to have observed, "countless times", a person "attach all sorts of other properties to theism just so that they can get to their conclusion that theism is a threat to humanity".<br /><br />Furthermore, Alonzo was charging me with being one of those people. But my argument is nothing like that. So you haven't seen me do it.<br /><br />Who have you seen <i>mischaracterizing</i> theism in order to support an <i>assumption</i> that theism is a threat to humanity?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3619595518141757902010-04-12T13:12:49.197-06:002010-04-12T13:12:49.197-06:00Alonzo said, "If it is permissible to define ...Alonzo said, "If it is permissible to define theism according to the bundles of beliefs that get attached to belief in God and to condemn them for it . . . then it is permissible to define atheism according to the bundles of beliefs that get attached to it as well . . . and to condemn it for the attrocities of the 20th century."<br /><br />1. Atheism is not a belief. <br /><br />2. Nor is theism a belief! <a href="http://noonebelievesingod.com" rel="nofollow">There is no one who believes in any god.</a> There are only <i>religions,</i> which are oligarchies masquerading as benevolent brotherhoods.<br /><br />3. I condemn no one for their beliefs, only for their actions.<br /><br />4. As I am sure you are aware, the idea that "atheism" is somehow to blame for "the atrocities of the 20th century" is not just false, it is a deliberate lie.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-92108834268116375352010-04-12T03:41:36.632-06:002010-04-12T03:41:36.632-06:00yashwata,
Too many times to count? I suspect that...yashwata,<br /><br /><i>Too many times to count? I suspect that you are exaggerating. Indeed, I suspect that you have never seen it.</i><br /><br />Why is that? Just to argue? Or, have you actually some reason?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28382057903559920802010-04-11T21:58:56.556-06:002010-04-11T21:58:56.556-06:00Yeshwata
If it is permissible to define theism ac...<b>Yeshwata</b><br /><br />If it is permissible to define theism according to the bundles of beliefs that get attached to belief in God and to condemn them for it . . . then it is permissible to define atheism according to the bundles of beliefs that get attached to it as well . . . and to condemn it for the attrocities of the 20th century.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43395131758554492042010-04-11T11:14:50.574-06:002010-04-11T11:14:50.574-06:00Alonzo said, "Instead of defining theism as a...Alonzo said, "Instead of defining theism as a simple belief that one or more gods of some type do exist, they attach all sorts of other properties to theism just so that they can get to their conclusion that theism is a threat to humanity. This is inconsistent. It is irrational."<br /><br />cl said, "I agree. I've seen this too many times to count."<br /><br />@Alonzo: I have no problem with "a simple belief that one or more gods … exist". But this not what we see. What we see is <i>religion</i>, which is a bundle not of intellectual beliefs but of repressive practices.<br /><br />@cl: Too many times to count? I suspect that you are exaggerating. Indeed, I suspect that you have never seen it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48558224754292995592010-04-10T20:20:19.009-06:002010-04-10T20:20:19.009-06:00Yet, many of those who offer these defense will of...<i>Yet, many of those who offer these defense will often - even in the same brath - condemn all of theism because of its dire implications for the well-being of humanity. Instead of defining theism as a simple belief that one or more gods of some type do exist, they attach all sorts of other properties to theism just so that they can get to their conclusion that theism is a threat to humanity. This is inconsistent. It is irrational.</i><br /><br />I agree. I've seen this too many times to count.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-45286228981255631442010-04-04T11:19:10.672-06:002010-04-04T11:19:10.672-06:00Matt M said: "I wonder if the nebulousness of...Matt M said: "I wonder if the nebulousness of the god concept plays a part in the disagreement (or my own confusion, depending on how you want to look at it) here?"<br /><br />Absolutely. It plays a part in the mis-framing of the whole issue. Because of the nebulousness of this and other religious concepts, one can imagine that one understands a lot more about religion than is possible.<br /><br />"I think the proposition 'The traditional Christian God exists' is false - as it seems clear to me that such a god is incompatible with the way the world is."<br /><br />Certainly.<br /><br />"It is not just that I lack belief in it, I also find the concept incoherent."<br /><br />Here I think you're mixing up different ideas. If it doesn't match what we observe with our senses, it's <i>false.</i> If it fits with all possible observations, it is <i>unfalsifiable</i> (and therefore <i>empty</i>). If it misuses language and therefore fails to make any sense, it is <i>incoherent.</i> Various people insist that various statements in all three of these categories can be profound, useful, beautiful, or even (in some special sense) true. A person saying this is repeating someone else's lie without understanding it — or is the original liar.<br /><br />Unfalsifiable and incoherent propositions both warrant Hitchens's observation that "what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Since no evidence can be brought to support or deny either type, no evidence is needed for their dismissal – only a clear head.<br /><br />"However, when it comes to the deistic god of someone like Tom Paine I could not make the same claim - I see no reason to believe in it (and therefore lack belief), but is that really a sufficient reason to believe it false?"<br /><br />Deism is not obviously false. On the other hand, it is unfalsifiable, and therefore empty. It is not in need of rebuttal, because it is not even a claim in the first place.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32540558780361814372010-04-04T09:42:31.656-06:002010-04-04T09:42:31.656-06:00Let he/she who is without irrationality cast the f...Let he/she who is without irrationality cast the first stone.Christian Poppycockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02665585159235700510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-12406491285184065472010-04-03T03:09:10.465-06:002010-04-03T03:09:10.465-06:00I wonder if the nebulousness of the god concept pl...I wonder if the nebulousness of the god concept plays a part in the disagreement (or my own confusion, depending on how you want to look at it) here?<br /><br />For example... I would have no problem stating that I think the proposition 'The traditional Christian God exists' is false - as it seems clear to me that such a god is incompatible with the way the world is. It is not <i>just</i> that I lack belief in it, I also find the concept incoherent. However, when it comes to the deistic god of someone like Tom Paine I could not make the same claim - I see no reason to believe in it (and therefore lack belief), but is that really a sufficient reason to believe it false?Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21418621353123888022010-04-03T00:24:25.990-06:002010-04-03T00:24:25.990-06:00Danny said, "the default condition of any uns...Danny said, "the default condition of any unsubstantiated claim (U) is not automatically false but instead has null truth value."<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />"There is a Father-Creator who made the whole Universe" is an unsubstantiated claim; by default I consider it <i>neither-true-nor-false.</i> So to the question, "Do you believe that there is Father [etc.]" I cannot honestly answer yes or no. The best I can do is to say, "It is my understanding that this question is wrongly put."<br /><br />In a word: I am an atheist.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5176446972522369242010-04-02T23:55:34.624-06:002010-04-02T23:55:34.624-06:00The "lack of belief" phrase might be bas...The "lack of belief" phrase might be based on a misunderstanding of the default skeptical condition toward claims. Skepticism requires a belief that reason and evidence should be used to substantiate claims, hence the default condition of any unsubstantiated claim (U) is not automatically false but instead has null truth value. In the case of unknowable god claims such as existing outside of time, the skeptical approach will lead to both "U is true" and "U is false" being called false claims until logical methods determine the answer if possible.<br /><br />Assuming almost all English speakers know about the concept of at least one god, is someone who does not answer 'Does at least one god exist?' with 'yes' an Atheist? Methinks that is the case since people not answering yes have a reason even if they cannot verbalize it. For example, yashwata's response that 'The question "Do you believe in God?" does not make sense.' indicates a reason for not believing in any gods; a "lack of belief" is not the same as believing all god definitions are nonsensical.Dannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53297069502352715672010-04-02T12:28:06.394-06:002010-04-02T12:28:06.394-06:00I agree with Matt M: "If asked to justify my ...I agree with Matt M: "If asked to justify my lack of belief I would explain that I've never encountered an argument for a god or gods that I found convincing."<br /><br />I would go further. The arguments for the existence (and therefore the properties) of these gods fail to make sense. They are incoherent, and therefore not in need of refutation.<br /><br />Alonzo Fyfe said that some atheists "claim that such a conclusion is true by definition - as if native English speakers just through their proper understanding of the way the words are commonly used would assent to this."<br /><br />Yes, I do claim this, at least if you accept a strong (Wittgensteinian) reading of this "proper understanding of the way the words are commonly used".<br /><br />You said, "If the atheist = 'lack of a belief in God' theoriest were correct, then the question they are trying to dodge would not even be asked because, to English speakers, it would not make sense to ask it."<br /><br />That is correct (except that we're not trying to dodge anything.) The question "Do you believe in God?" does not make sense. You can't "believe in God" any more than you can "gyre and gimble in the wabe"; and this is not because you're not a slithy tove, It's because you don't know what any of those words mean. Heck, you might be gimbling in the wabe right now, without knowing it. But you cannot honestly claim to be doing it; nor can you (or anyone) honestly claim to "believe in God". <i>You don't know what it means.</i><br /><br />If this position does not qualify me for the term 'atheist', then maybe there's another term you'd like to suggest. 'Atheist' works for me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49156692457704173092010-04-02T11:40:38.104-06:002010-04-02T11:40:38.104-06:00Does saying that a rock lack a certain belief impl...<i>Does saying that a rock lack a certain belief implies the ability to hold that belief?</i><br /><br />Looks like I could have phrased that better.<br /><br />Normally, when you talk about someone lacking a certain belief the implication is that you're talking about someone capable of holding beliefs.<br /><br />If I say that Jerry doesn't like 'The Simpsons', for example, you wouldn't assume that Jerry was brain-dead. You'd assume that Jerry was someone capable of watching TV and forming an opinion about the various shows - even thought my statement could cover both scenarios. <br /><br />Similarly, it would be strange for me to describe my dog (or a rock) as apolitical - as the word is normally applied only to something capable of forming an opinion on politics.<br /><br />So while the brain-dead individual is technically an atheist (if we use the lacking-theistic-beliefs definition), it would be meaningless to apply the word to them, given the way it's commonly used.<br /><br /><i>Therefore, in claiming that atheism is the lack of a belief, atheists get to act like rocks when asked to justify their 'lack of a belief'.</i><br /><br />I really don't think this is the case.<br /><br />If asked to justify my lack of belief I would explain that I've never encountered an argument for a god or gods that I found convincing. <br /><br />All someone would have to do to challenge this is put forward an argument and ask me to explain *why* I thought it didn't work.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71993777631932002262010-04-02T11:08:38.188-06:002010-04-02T11:08:38.188-06:00But, I think that, in common usage, saying that so...<i>But, I think that, in common usage, saying that someone lacks a certain belief implies the ability to hold that belief.</i><br /><br />How is this true?<br /><br />Does saying that a rock lack a certain belief implies the ability to hold that belief?<br /><br />Atheism, in common usage, necessarily implies the ability to hold a belief. However, this is <i>because</i> atheism is a belief that the proposition 'a god exists' is certainly or almost certainly false. One cannot have such a belief unless one has the capacity to hold such a belief.<br /><br />Therefore, only those who have the capacity to hold beliefs can be atheists.<br /><br />With an understanding of the definition as it is used in common language, we do not need to throw in ad-hoc ammendments just to get the word to fit. With your definition, "a person capable of holding beliefs that . . ." is just an unwarranted ad-hoc amendment. Where does it come from? Why is it there?<br /><br />With what I argue is a correct definition, it is a direct implication from the fact that an atheist is somebody who has a belief that it is somebody who has the capacity to have a belief.<br /><br />Now, some word needs to be said as to why some atheists like the "lacks a belief" definition. It is because nobody needs to go through the effort of lacking a belief. Rocks lack a belief - but no rock is ever asked to justify a lack of belief. Therefore, in claiming that atheism is the lack of a belief, atheists get to act like rocks when asked to justify their 'lack of a belief'.<br /><br />That option is not avaialable to the atheist = 'one who belief that G is false'. This atheist can be asked, 'Why do you believe that G is false?'<br /><br />However, the very fact that 'Why do you believe that G is false' is a perfectly sensible question to native English speakers is, itself, evidence that the atheist = 'lack of a belief in God' theorists are mistaken. If the atheist = 'lack of a belief in God' theoriest were correct, then the question they are trying to dodge would not even be asked because, to English speakers, it would not make sense to ask it.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28644165856335051402010-04-02T09:24:54.990-06:002010-04-02T09:24:54.990-06:00He lacks a belief in any god. But is he an atheist...<i>He lacks a belief in any god. But is he an atheist?</i><br /><br />This is definitely one of the biggest issues with "my" definition. <br /><br />But, I think that, in common usage, saying that someone lacks a certain belief implies the <i>ability</i> to hold that belief. <br /><br />So - a brain-damaged person would not be described as an atheist, in the same way that they would not be described as being apolitical, despite lacking beliefs about politics.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-56794434605358658172010-04-02T09:14:27.229-06:002010-04-02T09:14:27.229-06:00Matt M
And as an English speaker, what do these p...<b>Matt M</b><br /><br />And as an English speaker, what do these people mean by "someone who does not believe in any gods"?<br /><br />Here's a test. Is a person who is so brain-damaged that they lack the ability to form a coherent thought considered an 'atheist' by native English speakers?<br /><br />He lacks a belief in any god. But is he an atheist?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14594417713326609962010-04-02T08:47:55.177-06:002010-04-02T08:47:55.177-06:00Anybody with even a moderate amount of experience ...<i>Anybody with even a moderate amount of experience with the English Language knows...</i><br /><br />In my experience - as an English person, living in England, and with a 2:1 degree in English - most people here use atheist to mean someone who does not believe in any gods. <br /><br />This seems to me to cover both those who lack any theistic beliefs (because the subject really doesn't interest them) as well as those who, having given the matter some thought, arrive at the conclusion that the proposition in question is most probably false.<br /><br />It's also my experience that the former vastly out-number the latter - at least, here in my part of the UK.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1342255901584217022010-04-02T08:11:40.415-06:002010-04-02T08:11:40.415-06:00Supersage400
A rock lacks a belief in a God. One ...<b>Supersage400</b><br /><br />A rock lacks a belief in a God. One has to have a brain to have a belief that the proposition 'a God exists' is certainly or almost certainly false.<br /><br />The main reason why the first definition is so popular among many atheists is because they can then claim that they have nothing to defend.<br /><br />In fact, atheists do have something that they need to defend. They need to defend the proposition that, "The proposition, 'at least one God exists' is certainly or almost certainly false."<br /><br />This false definition is popular among some atheists because it allows them to make absurd claims like, "People are born atheist and become theists only through indoctrination."<br /><br />However, this is a claim that such a conclusion is <i>true by definition</i> - as if native English speakers just through their proper understanding of the way the words are commonly used would assent to this. The absurdity of that conclusion should show the atheist that their basic premises are false. Instead, they embrace the false premise for the sake of irrationally supporting their absurd conclusion.<br /><br /><i>MattM</i><br /><br />Anybody with even a moderate amount of experience with the English Language knows that the term is not used to refer to entities that "lack a belief in God".<br /><br />In English, it refers to those who hold that the proposition, 'At least one God exists' is certainly or almost certainly false.<br /><br />Many words may retain their original meanings. However, regardless of whether 'lack of a belief' was ever the original meaning of 'atheism', it is not the current meaning.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30414315844895735642010-04-02T04:20:32.102-06:002010-04-02T04:20:32.102-06:00I'm not sure your "atom" example hol...I'm not sure your "atom" example holds up.<br /><br /><i>Simply</i> pointing to the root of a word in order to define it isn't enough. True. The meaning of <i>some</i> words evolve.<br /><br />This appears to be what happened with atoms - what were believed to be the fundamental particles of the universe were discovered and named accordingly. However, it was later discovered that these supposedly non-divisible particles were in fact divisible.<br /><br />However, it remains the case that the vast majority of a- words retain the original meaning: Apolitical, asexual, asymmetrical, etc. They denote the <i>lack</i>, rather than the denial, of something.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42153209800208416022010-04-02T00:52:00.036-06:002010-04-02T00:52:00.036-06:00@Yashwata
I've started reading. Might take a c...@Yashwata<br />I've started reading. Might take a couple of days in between life in general though. :-)Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729858603831755459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10940348373891383152010-04-02T00:50:03.079-06:002010-04-02T00:50:03.079-06:00@Marc -- oops, I forgot to answer your first quest...@Marc -- oops, I forgot to answer your first question, "How is Alonzo misusing the word belief?"<br /><br />As you say, "it is convenient to speak of a any conviction you hold about the state of the world as a belief." The funny thing about religious "beliefs" is that that they are not convictions about the state of the world. "Jesus loves you" (for example) is a claim that can be made no matter what happens, anywhere in the world, to anyone, ever. But this means that it is not a claim at all. It does not say anything about anything.<br /><br />Thomas Jefferson described belief as "the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition". But religious propositions are uniformly unintelligible; therefore, they cannot be <i>believed</i>.<br /><br />The point is developed much more rigorously in my book.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-53822728346983315152010-04-02T00:39:38.293-06:002010-04-02T00:39:38.293-06:00@Marc, you said "You're [sic] basic assum...@Marc, you said "You're [sic] basic assumption is that anyone who claims that they have certain 'religious' beliefs is actually lying. Maybe you should explain how you come to this conclusion."<br /><br />It's not an assumption, it's a finding.<br /><br />I hope I didn't imply that all "believers" are lying. Most are simply mistaken.<br /><br />My findings are explained in a book, which you can download free of charge: <a href="http://noonebelievesingod.com" rel="nofollow">No One Believes In God</a>.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58086324539333334272010-04-02T00:23:28.745-06:002010-04-02T00:23:28.745-06:00Is there a seriously significant difference betwee...Is there a seriously significant difference between "lack of belief in gods" and "a person who holds that the proposition 'at least one God exists' is certainly or almost certainly false?" They seem to say essentially the same thing to me. <br /><br />I agree that rationality is a virtue and irrationality a vice. I suppose what I was thinking of when I made the comment is the sort of person who makes it a point to stress their supposed rationality to themselves and others in an attempt to make themselves seem better than others. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of a sort of arrogance. But yes, I completely agree with that rundown. <br /><br />One more question, though: you say that having a false belief isn't on its own a reason to condemn someone and I agree; however, would you consider someone who has been shown the falsehood/irrationality of his or her beliefs and yet still holds them to be true immoral? <br /><br />The sort of unsecured belief I'm talking about is not one that leads to any problems. If he/she continues to hold it, no harm will come to anyone. But I'm curious because, if I understand your ethical theory correctly, it's not about condemning this person for this one particular instance (act) of brazen irrationality, but condemning the desire to do so since it is, as you have written, a vice. Am I on the right track or completely missing the mark? <br /><br />Also, it's an honor to be quoted in one of your essays. Thanks for taking the time to examine my reasoning. :)SS400https://www.blogger.com/profile/17307796666410840170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6816299153088744482010-04-02T00:04:53.230-06:002010-04-02T00:04:53.230-06:00@Yashwata
How is Alonzo misusing the word belief?
...@Yashwata<br />How is Alonzo misusing the word belief?<br /><br />Wiktionary says belief means: "Mental acceptance of a claim as truth." There are a million different ways of expressing this meaning of course, but it is convenient to speak of a any conviction you hold about the state of the world as a belief.<br /><br />You say:<br />"People believe what experience shows them." <br />Well... They sure do. But not everyone experiences the same situation in the same way. And all experiences are filtered by previously held beliefs and desires. Confirmation bias is a well established fact of human thinking.<br /><br />As for Alonzo's comments about "unsecured beliefs": He is not referring to religious beliefs exclusively. Which should be obvious from this statement:<br />"One of the issues I write about is that, even though many atheists claim to value rationality and consider themselves to be rational, they often do not have as much rationality as they claim credit for."<br /><br />There is no intrinsic difference between religious or other types of beliefs. All can be true or false and thus unsecured.<br /><br />You're basic assumption is that anyone who claims that they have certain 'religious' beliefs is actually lying. Maybe you should explain how you come to this conclusion.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729858603831755459noreply@blogger.com