Rethinking Atheism

[Nearly Sane]

Well, more looking at what some of the issues might have been with 'new atheism', a problematic concept in its own right. A lot of it I agree with - the arrogance inherent in the 'Brughts' nonsense, and the idea that belief or lack of belief in a 'god' tells you nothing useful about the person.

I think that it overplays the idea of some of the thoughts of those seen as 'new atheists' as being of use in thinking of atheists. Where it warns about the ease of stereotyping atheists, ironically perhaps because of the very simplicity of what unites atheists, I feel it indulges a bit in that.


https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/06/rethinking-atheism.html

[jeremyp]

No it's just complete unadulterated tripe.

Don’t be so sure of yourself.

Really? It's atheists that have the problem being too sure of themselves is it? Bollocks.

If humanism is to offer any benefits, it must begin with an acknowledgment of humanity’s vast ignorance and inability to learn much.

I can't stand this "oh we are so vastly ignorant of the World" nonsense. Collectively, humans have vast knowledge of how the Universe works. Why do religionists feel the need to disparage us so much? It's a classic tactic: make people feel worthless and then offer a way for them to build themselves up again.

We’ve achieved so much, they will protest. And I am certainly happy that I get to live in a world with painkillers and antibiotics. But let’s not make too much of our achievements. Slamming atoms together doesn’t make us brilliant. It just means we’ve found new clubs to whack with.

Why shouldn't we make much of our achievements? Yes, slamming atoms together makes us brilliant - hell, even knowing that there are atoms is something not to be sneezed at.

But many atheists, similarly burdened, invent other meanings. They reject gods but perceive humanity as a pantheon of godlike super achievers working their way towards the heavens.

What a load of crap. Name names.

It is irrational to define belief in the supernatural as irrational. Belief in the supernatural is entirely natural.

Belief in the supernatural is irrational. Also, there's no reason to assume that beliefs that are natural are also rational.

Religions offer an answer. You reject their answer. What is your answer?

Answer to what? Religions don't offer an answer to anything because an answer that cannot be verified is not really an answer.

Sorry, but it is the usual religious apologist tripe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Belief in the supernatural is irrational.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Positive Assertion. You know what you have to do.

[Outrider]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Positive Assertion. You know what you have to do.

Yep, you have to say 'what's the rational basis'? And if that's not forthcoming, 'irrational' is the valid conclusion.

O.

[Enki]

Well, more looking at what some of the issues might have been with 'new atheism', a problematic concept in its own right. A lot of it I agree with - the arrogance inherent in the 'Brughts' nonsense, and the idea that belief or lack of belief in a 'god' tells you nothing useful about the person.

I think that it overplays the idea of some of the thoughts of those seen as 'new atheists' as being of use in thinking of atheists. Where it warns about the ease of stereotyping atheists, ironically perhaps because of the very simplicity of what unites atheists, I feel it indulges a bit in that.


https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/06/rethinking-atheism.html

it seems Reinhardt is talking about and to a select group of atheists(which he likes to call 'new atheists' or 'modern atheists'). He seems to have decided what are their negative qualities(i.e. arrogance, myopia) and then proceeds to give advice on how to rectify these deficiencies. However by his tendency to relate these deficiencies to atheists in general(see the title) he runs the risk of stereo typifying atheists in exactly the same way as he accuses some atheists of doing as regards believers.

I simply don't have any belief in gods. Others may have. I will always seek to listen to their reasons, but, so far, I find no convincing evidence that any god exists. That works for me. If believing in some god or other works for someone else, and in doing so is not harmful, that's up to them. I have no reason to think of such a person as a 'simpleton' simply on the basis of their belief. As regards his idea of 'genuine dialogue' I have no objection to his ideas at all. Why on earth should one not engage in dialogue with someone who shows awareness and respect for another's point of view? On the other hand it is often very hard to enter any meaningful discussion when a person holds absolute views, simply produces assertion after assertion and ignores or fails to respond to contrary and reasonably argued points of view. I'm thinking here of a former member of this forum, Nicholas Marks and a present member of these forums, Alan Burns.

So, for me, Mr Reinhardt isn't really saying something of great importance. I get the feeling he likes to fulfil the role of a knowing and helpful advisor. I could be wrong, of course, but a little more humility on his part might not come amiss.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep, you have to say 'what's the rational basis'? And if that's not forthcoming, 'irrational' is the valid conclusion.

O.

I think you are trying to dodge the burden of proof on a positive assertion there.

[jeremyp]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Positive Assertion. You know what you have to do.

I only meant "irrational" in the sense that it is not evidence based.

Edit: and I can support the assertion by pointing out that those who believe in the supernatural are unable to produce any evidence.

Of course, when evidence is discovered for a supernatural phenomenon, it immediately stops being supernatural.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I only meant "irrational" in the sense that it is not evidence based.

No, it’s argument based.  I think you maybe conflating empiricism with rationalism here.

Edit: and I can support the assertion by pointing out that those who believe in the supernatural are unable to produce any evidence.

But not having evidence does not make a belief or argument irrational, Jeremy.

Of course, when evidence is discovered for a supernatural phenomenon, it immediately stops being supernatural.

That statement alone will have propelled the online atheist community into an orgy of self abuse.

[Stranger]

No, it’s argument based.

Except there are no sound arguments for it either. At least none that I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of people attempt them....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except there are no sound arguments for it either. At least none that I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of people attempt them....

I don’t agree.

[Stranger]

I don’t agree.

Why haven't you ever posted or referenced a sound argument for it in all your years posting here, then?

[Outrider]

I think you are trying to dodge the burden of proof on a positive assertion there.

I'm inclined to agree, what with you being the expert on dodging the burden of proof. However, then I look a the evidence:

There is a claim of 'god'.
"What's the rationale for that claim?" - various logical fallacies and special pleadings ensue, none of which constitute a rationale.

Ergo, it's an irrational position. It's not a derivation from logic, it's an observation about that absolute lack of logic. That's my basis for it - you're at liberty to try to disprove my conclusion, of course, and all you need is a logical thread that ends with 'therefore God'.

If it's all the same to you, though, I won't  hold my breath - I don't look good in purple.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm inclined to agree, what with you being the expert on dodging the burden of proof. However, then I look a the evidence:

There is a claim of 'god'.
"What's the rationale for that claim?" - various logical fallacies and special pleadings ensue, none of which constitute a rationale.

Ergo, it's an irrational position. It's not a derivation from logic, it's an observation about that absolute lack of logic. That's my basis for it - you're at liberty to try to disprove my conclusion, of course, and all you need is a logical thread that ends with 'therefore God'.

If it's all the same to you, though, I won't  hold my breath - I don't look good in purple.

O.

You need to say where the logical fallacy is and why suspension of the principle of sufficient reason is not itself special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm inclined to agree, what with you being the expert on dodging the burden of proof. However, then I look a the evidence:

There is a claim of 'god'.
"What's the rationale for that claim?" - various logical fallacies and special pleadings ensue, none of which constitute a rationale.

Ergo, it's an irrational position. It's not a derivation from logic, it's an observation about that absolute lack of logic. That's my basis for it - you're at liberty to try to disprove my conclusion, of course, and all you need is a logical thread that ends with 'therefore God'.

If it's all the same to you, though, I won't  hold my breath - I don't look good in purple.

O.

You seem to be flip flopping between rationalism and empiricism. When one of the arguments from a rationalist point of view fails, there is an appeal to empiricism and science. The goalposts are changed.

Again an argument without evidence can still be rational without scientific proof. In cosmology, all arguments fall into that bracket.

As well as the flip flopping. You do have the outstanding charge of suspending the pursuit of cause or reason when it suits in this matter.

My money is that there are people who see the argument from contingency and the PSR as reasonable even though they are not prepared to accept the necessary being as the Christian God or God of any sort.

Alternatives, as I have pointed out are outlandish, suspend reason to suit, Close off discussion, mock science.

[Outrider]

You seem to be flip flopping between rationalism and empiricism. When one of the arguments from a rationalist point of view fails, there is an appeal to empiricism and science. The goalposts are changed.

No, there's a hierarchy. If you can have an absolute, via say pure logic, great. If you can't, you drop to evidentiary basis.

Again an argument without evidence can still be rational without scientific proof.

Yes arguments can - these specific arguments, however, aren't.

In cosmology, all arguments fall into that bracket.

That rather depends on your definition of cosmology - I'd suggest Professor Brian Cox and his colleagues at CERN would have a different interpretation of that. Attempts at Cosmological Arguments for a creator attempt to fall into that bracket, yes - again, though, they fail.

As well as the flip flopping. You do have the outstanding charge of suspending the pursuit of cause or reason when it suits in this matter.

Putting aside that you apparently wouldn't know a flip-flop from a brogue, no. The pursuit of cause or reason isn't suspended, but in the absence of a current resolution from absolute logic we still to have to operate in the world, and so we move to the next level down - evidentiary conclusions, which are technically only provisional, but they last until something comes along to call them into question, and 'but I really believe' doesn't really cut it.

My money is that there are people who see the argument from contingency and the PSR as reasonable even though they are not prepared to accept the necessary being as the Christian God or God of any sort.

There are, of course, always people who are wrong. There are always people who believe, and then try to find a rationale for their belief after the fact, just as there are undoubtedly people who don't believe, and find explanations after the fact for why.

Alternatives, as I have pointed out are outlandish, suspend reason to suit, Close off discussion, mock science.

Of course they're outlandish, they're considerations of phenomena so far beyond our day-to-day rationale that we don't have any experiential basis with which to interpret them, we have to try to imagine the possibilities. If someone has a prosaic explanation I'd be concerned. As to the idea of suspending reason, so many of your arguments fall into the special pleading category that's not even just ironic, that's Alanis Morissette levels of ironic. They don't close of discussion, they just highlight why the particular points you're trying to bring aren't worth exploring - if you want to stay in the discussion, bring better ideas.

And as for 'mocking science', you don't appear to understand that trusting to the scientific method is not automatically 'scientism', which isn't automatically 'anti-theism^TM'. Not that you'd try to shut down a line of discussion with an ad hominem, or anything...

O.

[Stranger]

Again an argument without evidence can still be rational without scientific proof. In cosmology, all arguments fall into that bracket.

So we can add cosmology to the list of subjects you know fuck-all about. 

My money is that there are people who see the argument from contingency and the PSR as reasonable even though they are not prepared to accept the necessary being as the Christian God or God of any sort.

Quite possibly but the BIG problem with it is the inherent incoherence of the idea of something that couldn't not exist or be different. Why couldn't have not existed? Where is your precious principle of sufficient reason when that question is asked? Hiding under the duvet, muttering something that amounts to "it must be magic" from what you've said.

Alternatives, as I have pointed out are outlandish, suspend reason to suit, Close off discussion, mock science.

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. The problems with the alternatives do not excuse the massive problems with your own preferred 'solution'. "We don't know" is a perfectly rational position to take.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So we can add cosmology to the list of subjects you know fuck-all about. 

Quite possibly but the BIG problem with it is the inherent incoherence of the idea of something that couldn't not exist or be different. Why couldn't have not existed? Where is your precious principle of sufficient reason when that question is asked? Hiding under the duvet, muttering something that amounts to "it must be magic" from what you've said.

Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. The problems with the alternatives do not excuse the massive problems with your own preferred 'solution'. "We don't know" is a perfectly rational position to take.

Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is  no where for it to go.
It IS the ultimate something rather than nothing.
I think you will find that the only thing that could prevent it from existing is itself. THIS IS THE INTERNAL REASON.

Now these conditions cannot exist with a contingent thing

[Stranger]

Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is  no where for it to go.
It IS the ultimate something rather than nothing.

Good description of a brute fact.   

And, of course, there is nothing to prevent endless types of things from existing, so its uniqueness  is questionable. And why would it be the 'thing' it is and not something else? With nothing external to prevent existence, we would expect all sorts possibilities.

I think you will find that the only thing that could prevent it from existing is itself. THIS IS THE INTERNAL REASON.

The only thing that could prevent existence in the absence of physical laws, would be self-contradiction (probably), so you're getting close to the idea that everything that is self-consistent exists, and we're off into Tegmark multiverse territory.

Now these conditions cannot exist with a contingent thing

You've described a brute fact that could easily apply to the whole universe (space-time).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good description of a brute fact.   

And, of course, there is nothing to prevent endless types of things from existing, so its uniqueness  is questionable. And why would it be the 'thing' it is and not something else? With nothing external to prevent existence, we would expect all sorts possibilities.

The only thing that could prevent existence in the absence of physical laws, would be self-contradiction (probably), so you're getting close to the idea that everything that is self-consistent exists, and we're off into Tegmark multiverse territory.

You've described a brute fact that could easily apply to the whole universe (space-time).

It's not a description of a brute fact at all.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not a description of a brute fact at all.

You mean this

"Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is  no where for it to go.
It IS the ultimate something rather than nothing."

Absolutely it is.

[Stranger]

It's not a description of a brute fact at all.

Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?

Mindless contradiction is not an argument. You said that it exists because nothing prevented it from existing, so it could have been pretty much anything that isn't self-contradictory. That's a brute fact. There is nothing necessary about it and nothing to make it unique.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?

Mindless contradiction is not an argument. You said that it exists because nothing prevented it from existing, so it could have been pretty much anything that isn't self-contradictory. That's a brute fact. There is nothing necessary about it and nothing to make it unique.

Let me try to put you straight on brute fact.

There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing
Is BRUTE FACT.

There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.
But there is a reason,
This reason must and cannot fail to exist.

That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.

Penny dropping?

[Nearly Sane]

Let me try to put you straight on brute fact.

There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing
Is BRUTE FACT.

There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.
But there is a reason,
This reason must and cannot fail to exist.

That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.

Penny dropping?

Yes, you're either stupid or lying 

[Stranger]

Let me try to put you straight on brute fact.

There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing
Is BRUTE FACT.

There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.

But there is a reason,
This reason must and cannot fail to exist.

That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.

Penny dropping?

Apparently not. You don't seem to understand the problem you've created. You said the only reason this 'necessary' thingy exists is because nothing prevents if from existing. That could apply to pretty much anything, so you have given no reason why it's the specific thingy you think it is.

That means the specific thingy has no reason why it exists, so isn't necessary, it's just a brute fact, and could be the universe (whole space-time).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently not. You don't seem to understand the problem you've created. You said the only reason this 'necessary' thingy exists is because nothing prevents if from existing. That could apply to pretty much anything, so you have given no reason why it's the specific thingy you think it is.

That means the specific thingy has no reason why it exists, so isn't necessary, it's just a brute fact, and could be the universe (whole space-time).

But not only is there nothing preventing it from existence there is also nothing bringing it into existence and yet it exists. It exists therefore in it's own right without due to anything else.

That does not apply to ANYTHING,Stranger.