Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's why I said 'do you mean somebody else?'

That's interesting.

[wigginhall]

That's interesting.

Totally. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because the ontological discovery of God in experience rather than in the abstraction of philosophical debate changes the philosophical position of the person. On the other hand since I recognise your position to be philosophical with what must be a moment by moment repudiation of your experience I for one know that you are going to approach every proposition from an empiricists point of view.

That isn't to say that there can be no intellectual conversion since I understand the idea of an intelligent creator who is not of the universe but is outside it is now considered not unreasonable by people self identifying as atheist.

Like watching a pair of pyjamas in a tumble drier - madly incomprehensible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Like watching a pair of pyjamas in a tumble drier - madly incomprehensible.

Lol.

[wigginhall]

Lol.

So who do you mean by 'people self-identifying as atheist'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So who do you mean by 'people self-identifying as atheist'?

By their deeds you will know them.

[wigginhall]

By their deeds you will know them.

Aw, you've come over all coy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Aw, you've come over all coy.

And you came over all Tysony.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

So who do you mean by 'people self-identifying as atheist'?

Surely you know by now that Vlad doesn't answer questions. He'll demand that others answer his, but he won't answer anything himself. Never. Never, ever, ever.

Look, I'll show you:

Hey Vlad: What method you you use to determine whether the explanatory narrative you attach to your "experiences" is the correct one, and that the various alternative explanations are therefore not the correct ones?

(Somewhere in the distance a coyote wails mournfully, tumbleweed scurries by, a wind chime clangs dementedly as the breeze picks up etc) 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Surely you know by now that Vlad doesn't answer questions. He'll demand that others answer his, but he won't answer anything himself. Never. Never, ever, ever.

Look, I'll show you:

Hey Vlad: What method you you use to determine whether the explanatory narrative you attach to your "experiences" is the correct one, and that the various alternative explanations are therefore not the correct ones?
 

The adequacy of the alternatives to explain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

The adequacy of the alternatives to explain.

Told you so – he's just kicked the can down the road.

On the question he was actually asked though – ie, the method he uses to determine the "adequacy" of the potential explanatory narratives – answer comes there none.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Told you so –

No you said I never,never answer. You have my answer.

Which means that this is all a question of your acceptance.

[Shaker]

Yes, he sounds confused

I don't think it's confusion; to me it seems to be fairly self-evidently a political stance, to avoid tying atheism and the public understanding acceptance of science together. This is an American 'thing' rather than a British thing: there's enough opposition to science already - with evolutionary biology especially, of course - and NdGT probably thinks that if he's seen to nail his colours to the mast as an atheist, it'll only provide the science-deniers with even more ammunition.

Strategically important over there, undoubtedly, but the cynic in me (surely not! I hear you cry) baulks at it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you said I never,never answer. You have my answer.

You haven't answered the question you were asked at all. You never do.

Which means that this is all a question of your acceptance.

Of what – your answer? No it isn't because, so far at least, there's nothing either to accept or to reject, and nor can there be until you finally answer something you've actually been asked.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think it's confusion; to me it seems to be fairly self-evidently a political stance, to avoid tying atheism and the public understanding acceptance of science together. This is an American 'thing' rather than a British thing: there's enough opposition to science already - with evolutionary biology especially, of course - and NdGT probably thinks that if he's seen to nail his colours to the mast as an atheist, it'll only provide the science-deniers with even more ammunition.

Strategically important over there, undoubtedly, but the cynic in me (surely not! I hear you cry) baulks at it.

So Tying atheism and the public awareness of science is a good thing is it.
Here we have the identification of atheism with science something I believe is denied even by atheists. Because it is mistaken.....but an idea at the heart of New Atheism.

Still, Tyson sounds so sensible and not at all swivel eyed* I'm beginning to warm to him.

[Shaker]

So Tying atheism and the public awareness of science is a good thing is it.
Here we have the identification of atheism with science something I believe is denied even by atheists. Because it is mistaken.....but an idea at the heart of New Atheism.

If you think it's mistaken it's up to you to say why you believe that.

I'd have thought that anybody reasonably well-informed would know that the practice of science is procedurally 'atheistic' if only in the sense that it is methodologically naturalistic. This prevents no working scientist from entertaining whatever beliefs about reality outside work that they wish, but they won't be doing so on the basis of science. See bluehillside's current signature for further details - apparently you haven't done so already.

This is all bog-standard stuff which has been rehearsed a thousand and one times before.

If you think it's impolitic to point out these facts, that's very much your problem. It certainly ain't mine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you think it's mistaken it's up to you to say why you believe that.

I'd have thought that anybody reasonably well-informed would know that the practice of science is procedurally 'atheistic' if only in the sense that it is methodologically naturalistic.

There is no equation of atheism and science. Stop trying to claim science for atheism. That's merely intellectual piracy. Atheism is merely non belief in Gods so you are doubly fucked by those scoundrels who treat us to the full New Atheist flop out then resort to that defence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you think it's mistaken it's up to you to say why you believe that.

I'd have thought that anybody reasonably well-informed would know that the practice of science is procedurally 'atheistic' if only in the sense that it is methodologically naturalistic.

Interesting because there can only be a naturalism in the context of there being a supernaturalism.
I'm not certain therefore whether describing science as methodological naturalism is accurate or adequate.

What we do know is that science is methodologically materialistic or more accurately physicalist. That is an arbitrary thing which has no philosophical commitment. Even one sneeked in by the oddly named RationalWiki. Science is as atheist as Brobat toilet cleaner.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Atheism is merely non belief in Gods...

DEAR GOD – HE'S FINALLY GOT IT!!!!!!

[Shaker]

Interesting because there can only be a naturalism in the context of there being a supernaturalism.

Some people, for whatever reasons of their own, think there is such a thing, but can't adduce any evidence for it.

I'm not certain therefore whether describing science as methodological naturalism is accurate or adequate.

Accurate.

What we do know is that science is methodologically materialistic or more accurately physicalist. That is an arbitrary thing which has no philosophical commitment.

Apart from the 'arbitrary', you're getting there ...

Even one sneeked in by the oddly named RationalWiki. Science is as atheist as Brobat toilet cleaner.

... and the expected collapse into incoherence comes in at the death.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

DEAR GOD – HE'S FINALLY GOT IT!!!!!!

For many on this forum though there are also the charges of being a New Atheist, Philosophical naturalist, Philosophical materialist, Philosophical physicalist, Antitheist, scientism, Leprechaunism, Generally speaking extra rectally.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For many on this forum though there are also the charges of being a New Atheist, Philosophical naturalist, Philosophical materialist, Philosophical physicalist, Antitheist, scientism, Leprechaunism, Generally speaking extra rectally.

They're only "charges" rather than just descriptions though when you re-define these terms in order to attack them.

The good news however is that never again will we be treated to you assuring us that atheism entails arguing that there are no gods.

Huzzah! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Interesting because there can only be a naturalism in the context of there being a supernaturalism.

Don’t be silly. Naturalism proceeds as if the universe is naturalistic in character, but is indifferent to claims of the supernatural because the term is just white noise   

I'm not certain therefore whether describing science as methodological naturalism is accurate or adequate.

Your “therefore” has collapsed, and that’s exactly how science operates.

What we do know is that science is methodologically materialistic or more accurately physicalist.

Wrong again. Physicalism is the philosophical thesis that everything is physical. Science however makes no such claim because it takes no position on matters philosophical.

That is an arbitrary thing which has no philosophical commitment.

It might be if it was true. It isn’t though.

Even one sneeked in by the oddly named RationalWiki. Science is as atheist as Brobat toilet cleaner.

No it isn’t, or at least not unless you want to assert that Morris dancing, origami and whist drives are atheist too.

What’s ironic here (and so will be lost on you) is that on the one hand you complain that people conflate science with atheism (which no-one I’m aware of does by the way), and on the other you do exactly the same thing.

Weird thinking indeed.   
   

[Alan Burns]

Any emergent property can have no control in itself, because it is entirely defined by the deterministic reactions of the material it emerges from.

And then a non sequitur to follow.

I see nothing wrong with this logic, so please try to explain why you deem it to be non sequitur ?

[Alan Burns]

I think a sandwich board would state 'God is in control'.

Not strictly true, because in this universe God appears to have delegated control to the laws of nature and human free will.