Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There seems to be quite a lot of theists for which this is true, and that's all fine if it makes you happy. I can't imagine why they would want to do that, but each to their own. The only problem is if people think they have uncovered an objective truth by subjective means such as faith. Even that can be benign in most cases, just somewhat irrational (and nobody can be rational about everything). In other cases it can be dangerous because it can lead to prejudice or even violence.

Of course there are a lot of theists (like Alan and Vlad) who think there is either objective evidence, sound reasoning, or both. I'm not sure about Gonnagle but he seemed to be implying that all the believers in the world were evidence, which was what I was talking about, but some of what he's said since makes me unsure what he really believes and whether he really thinks there's objective evidence.

Only if you think you've uncovered an objective truth and you care that your beliefs are as accurate as possible. In other words, if you aspire to be what Pinker calls a "universal realist", see the passage I quoted for you before >here<.

Universal realist? Universal physicalist or naturalist surely.
Pinker, an evolutionary psychologist wrote an optimistic 'human progress' tome called "Enlightenment Now" in 2018. It had a revival with Pinker admitting that the 'Enlightenment' was stalling. A mere 5 years after he had written it

[Stranger]

Universal realist? Universal physicalist or naturalist surely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'The Enlightenment now revival was an attempt to revive a progress touted as natural yet had , according to Pinker, or was in danger of stalling.
You need to add John Gray "Seven types of Atheism" to your Religionethics booklist.

[Stranger]

'The Enlightenment now revival was an attempt to revive a progress touted as natural yet had , according to Pinker, or was in danger of stalling.
You need to add John Gray "Seven types of Atheism" to your Religionethics booklist.

I quoted one passage from one of his books in order to explain a particular point. Why the fuck are you going on about another book about something else, let alone some other book by somebody else? Do you have a relevant point to make?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I quoted one passage from one of his books in order to explain a particular point. Why the fuck are you going on about another book about something else, let alone some other book by somebody else? Do you have a relevant point to make?

I was commenting on you using Pinker as some kind of authority and giving my take on yours and Pinkers category 'Universal realist'.

[Stranger]

I was commenting on you using Pinker as some kind of authority and giving my take on yours and Pinkers category 'Universal realist'.

What about it? As I said, I quoted Pinker on one issue, that doesn't mean that I think he's an infallible authority or that I agree with everything he's ever written (I haven't even read everything he's ever written). This isn't religion. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This strikes me as being mostly about finding cultural values that you align with.  That doesn't speak to a justification that those cultural values must have a supernatural origin.

I don't think there is any justification that any moral values have a supernatural origin - that's the bit that is faith.

For a person to have faith - psychologically/ physically/ 'spiritually' there must be a benefit to them, otherwise presumably they would jettison it - would you not agree? Biological adaptability?   

[jeremyp]

I always thought that being a theist is a faith position

I've always thought that, if more theists admitted this, all of these arguments would go away. It often surprises me that so many theists, instead of embracing their alleged faith position, try to argue the evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'evidence' that would make you a theist.

I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.

If you have a reaction that includes exploring these abstract concepts further both philosophically and emotionally - you might find yourself attracted to or landing on a particular position for a while.

For example, I started reading bits of the Quran as an atheist to find holes and absurdities in it - I found value in being an atheist because the religious ideas I had been exposed to sounded so absurd to me. I was sure of my ability to find stuff to ridicule in the Quran. I went straight to the verses about women, as that seemed an obvious place to find ideas I would disagree with, but I surprised myself by not disagreeing with what I read. I ended up becoming a Muslim - which is a faith position. Of course, I could still find stuff to ridicule in the Quran if I read it literally, but if I don't take it literally I find a lot that triggers introspection that I value, and apparently I also value faith.

I must have found something that must be giving me some kind of add-value or must be meeting some kind of human need, otherwise I would not seek out or repeat the experience. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-control/201808/why-do-we-do-things-we-dont-want-to-do?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a

Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith? How do you think that works? Surely that would only work if a person perceives the results of critical thinking to be of more personal value to them than the personal value they derive from the results of their faith position? What a person derives more value from isn't an objective position - it's aesthetics / personal taste.

So what would turn me back to being an atheist would be if there was a result I valued from being an atheist that appealed to me more than the value I get from being a theist. 

Which is fine for you if you find the bits that appeal to you to be helpful, though it might give you pause to note too that the head of the Taliban justifies the disgusting treatment of Afghani women with the different bits of the same book that appeal most to him. If you ditch the religiosity and treat the Quran as epistemically equivalent to “How to Make Friends & Influence People” and the like though and that gives you subjective truths that you find helpful then it’s no-one’s business but your own. What’s more, you could still be an atheist and find that to be the case. 

The problem though comes when people rely on their faith(s) to elide their personal, subjective truths into generalised, objective truths for everyone else too: “God/Allah/whatever isn’t just a fact for me, it’s a fact for everyone too”; “God/Allah/whatever isn’t just inerrantly correct in his pronouncements for me, he’s inerrantly correct for everyone else too”; “this God’s/Allah’s/whatever’s thoughts and instructions are correctly recorded in book A/B/whatever, and so apply to you just as much as they apply to me” etc.

And the problem with that is that, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there, people who think that way often act that way too.       

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There seems to be quite a lot of theists for which this is true, and that's all fine if it makes you happy. I can't imagine why they would want to do that, but each to their own. The only problem is if people think they have uncovered an objective truth by subjective means such as faith. Even that can be benign in most cases, just somewhat irrational (and nobody can be rational about everything). In other cases it can be dangerous because it can lead to prejudice or even violence.

Of course there are a lot of theists (like Alan and Vlad) who think there is either objective evidence, sound reasoning, or both. I'm not sure about Gonnagle but he seemed to be implying that all the believers in the world were evidence, which was what I was talking about, but some of what he's said since makes me unsure what he really believes and whether he really thinks there's objective evidence.

As they have not presented any objective evidence that justifies any supernatural entity or their particular version of a supernatural entity, it appears they don't have any objective evidence and are instead presenting their faith claims. From their posts that I have read, they appear to be presenting only a few possibilities they have chosen, out of millions of possibilities they could have chosen.

Alan has stated quite often that the possibilities that he has chosen, for which he has no objective evidence, are based on his strongly held faith.

Vlad has stated quite often that there are numerous ideas in science that we discuss as possibilities that do not conform to current mainstream consensus based on current knowledge, and 'supernatural' is just one more to add to the list of possibilities.

Only if you think you've uncovered an objective truth and you care that your beliefs are as accurate as possible. In other words, if you aspire to be what Pinker calls a "universal realist", see the passage I quoted for you before >here<.

Yes - I remember - I disagree with Pinker's idea that these beliefs make no discernible difference to people's lives - from your quote of Pinker:

People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.

The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose.

I think beliefs make a huge difference to people's lives - e.g. humans are often violent, savage people - even if they are not actively engaged in violence themselves they will politically and economically support the violence of others. But in these battles it is not just the reality mindset that prevails - it might buy bullets and missiles and drones but battles against larger, better equipped armed forces have also been won based on faith and what faith can motivate humans to do or to endure - it's not just about gas and bullets and objective reality.

Therefore, I appear to have no desire to embrace Bertram's view that "We children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset."

I have no desire to handicap myself that way.

[Nearly Sane]

As they have not presented any objective evidence that justifies any supernatural entity or their particular version of a supernatural entity, it appears they don't have any objective evidence and are instead presenting their faith claims. From their posts that I have read, they appear to be presenting only a few possibilities they have chosen, out of millions of possibilities they could have chosen.

Alan has stated quite often that the possibilities that he has chosen, for which he has no objective evidence, are based on his strongly held faith.

Vlad has stated quite often that there are numerous ideas in science that we discuss as possibilities that do not conform to current mainstream consensus based on current knowledge, and 'supernatural' is just one more to add to the list of possibilities.
Yes - I remember - I disagree with Pinker's idea that these beliefs make no discernible difference to people's lives - from your quote of Pinker:

People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.

The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose.

I think beliefs make a huge difference to people's lives - e.g. humans are often violent, savage people - even if they are not actively engaged in violence themselves they will politically and economically support the violence of others. But in these battles it is not just the reality mindset that prevails - it might buy bullets and missiles and drones but battles against larger, better equipped armed forces have also been won based on faith and what faith can motivate humans to do or to endure - it's not just about gas and bullets and objective reality.

Therefore, I appear to have no desire to embrace Bertram's view that "We children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset."

I have no desire to handicap myself that way.

And, of course, we are back at being unable to derive ought from is. 'Reason is a slave to the passions' - Hume

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Which is fine for you if you find the bits that appeal to you to be helpful, though it might give you pause to note too that the head of the Taliban justifies the disgusting treatment of Afghani women with the different bits of the same book that appeal most to him.

Why would that give me pause for thought? It's not exactly a surprise that different people derive different interpretations of ideas they come across based on their own individual nature/ nurture. 

For example, Mark David Chapman (who murdered John Lennon) was obsessed with the book Catcher in the Rye and from it formed the idea of John Lennon being a phony, because he saw God as real. By killing Lennon, Chapman hoped to save children from emulating Lennon’s godless ways. Chapman saw Catcher in the Rye as his inspiration. What Chapman took from the book does not give me pause for thought just because I also enjoyed reading Catcher in the Rye and recommended it to my children.

If you ditch the religiosity and treat the Quran as epistemically equivalent to “How to Make Friends & Influence People” and the like though and that gives you subjective truths that you find helpful then it’s no-one’s business but your own. What’s more, you could still be an atheist and find that to be the case.

My experience is it doesn't work without the faith. As I said in my reply to Stranger, I appear to have no desire to handicap myself by ditching the religiosity when my experience tells me I operate better if I include the religiosity.

The problem though comes when people rely on their faith(s) to elide their personal, subjective truths into generalised, objective truths for everyone else too: “God/Allah/whatever isn’t just a fact for me, it’s a fact for everyone too”; “God/Allah/whatever isn’t just inerrantly correct in his pronouncements for me, he’s inerrantly correct for everyone else too”; “this God’s/Allah’s/whatever’s thoughts and instructions are correctly recorded in book A/B/whatever, and so apply to you just as much as they apply to me” etc.

And the problem with that is that, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there, people who think that way often act that way too.     

As I have said before, that's true for when people try to turn any subjective moral values into objective truths for everyone else too, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there. For example some non-religious people hold the moral belief that Hamas murdering approx. 1,200 armed and unarmed people, including women and children, on Oct 7th justifies the Israeli government murdering 50,000 people in revenge, the majority of whom are unarmed women and children. Other non-religious people don't hold that moral belief.

Singling out religious moral values as particularly problematic for you just seems to be based on your own personal tastes, not on any objective truth.

[Stranger]

Alan has stated quite often that the possibilities that he has chosen, for which he has no objective evidence, are based on his strongly held faith.

Alan has frequently said that he has evidence, as well as 'sound logic'.

Vlad has stated quite often that there are numerous ideas in science that we discuss as possibilities that do not conform to current mainstream consensus based on current knowledge, and 'supernatural' is just one more to add to the list of possibilities.

Vlad thinks he has logic on his side. Most recently he's been trying to use the argument from contingency.

Yes - I remember - I disagree with Pinker's idea that these beliefs make no discernible difference to people's lives - from your quote of Pinker:

People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.

The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose.

I think beliefs make a huge difference to people's lives - e.g. humans are often violent, savage people - even if they are not actively engaged in violence themselves they will politically and economically support the violence of others. But in these battles it is not just the reality mindset that prevails - it might buy bullets and missiles and drones but battles against larger, better equipped armed forces have also been won based on faith and what faith can motivate humans to do or to endure - it's not just about gas and bullets and objective reality.

I think the point was really that these beliefs have no practical impact in the way the other zone does. There is no equivalent of starving to death if you don't believe you need to eat, or falling off a cliff if you believe you can fly. He does point out these beliefs do "construct a social reality" and bind tribes.

But I think you missed my point. If people recognise that they are using a mythology mindset, there is little problem, it's when people think that their faith positions are literally and objectively true that problems can arise. Let's face it religious differences have played a huge role in many wars and other violence, precisely because people really, literally believed they were doing some God's will. The same is true for discrimination and prejudice.

Therefore, I appear to have no desire to embrace Bertram's view that "We children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset."

I have no desire to handicap myself that way.

I have no need for make-believe. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've always thought that, if more theists admitted this, all of these arguments would go away. It often surprises me that so many theists, instead of embracing their alleged faith position, try to argue the evidence.

Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?

Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists". OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Alan has frequently said that he has evidence, as well as 'sound logic'.

I don't think he has ever claimed to have objective evidence, has he? I'm not about to look through all his posts, but if you have a link to a post where he has claimed objective evidence, happy to have a read and revise my opinion accordingly.

Otherwise I assume his 'evidence' is his subjective interpretation of his experiences and how he has made sense of them. 

Alan claiming 'sound logic' seems likely - I think I remember that. But what he presents is his incredulity followed by his belief of a possibility.

Vlad thinks he has logic on his side. Most recently he's been trying to use the argument from contingency.

My understanding of Vlad's posts was that he has been presenting a possibility.

Regardless, I am not seeing a problem that is intrinsic to religion - Trump along with most other politicians claims lots of things in order to try to convince voters of a particular reality - that's just the nature of human communication, and people who are aware of that, when they hear claims from politicians, may respond differently to certain claims compared to people who get some kind of add-value in believing that particular claim a politician has just made.

I think the point was really that these beliefs have no practical impact in the way the other zone does. There is no equivalent of starving to death if you don't believe you need to eat, or falling off a cliff if you believe you can fly. He does point out these beliefs do "construct a social reality" and bind tribes.

Ok but humans are a lot more than organisms that eat and don't fall off cliffs. Beliefs and social realities are part of their human experience and what makes them human.

But I think you missed my point. If people recognise that they are using a mythology mindset, there is little problem, it's when people think that their faith positions are literally and objectively true that problems can arise. Let's face it religious differences have played a huge role in many wars and other violence, precisely because people really, literally believed they were doing some God's will. The same is true for discrimination and prejudice.

Differences have played a huge role in many wars, even before religion came along - e.g. tribal differences, differences in access to resources, differences in physical appearances, differences in physical and mental power and capabilities based on nature and nurture, differences in access to weapons etc

I have no need for make-believe. 

What do you classify morals as?

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?

Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists". OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.

I'm not

[Maeght]

Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?

Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists". OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.

Evidence presented by theists for the existence of God surely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence presented by theists for the existence of God surely.

And what evidence is that?

[Maeght]

And what evidence is that?

You've never seen evidence presented for God by Theists?

[Nearly Sane]

You've never seen evidence presented for God by Theists?

I haven't. I've seen claims of evidence but with the lack of a coherent definition of god and no methodology for what any such evidence would be, they are "not even wrong".

[Stranger]

Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?

The pretend evidence that theists present for their Gods.

The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?

Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists".

Given the game away? My quote was from 2023. What game have I given away? That lots of us want evidence or reasoning for what we believe? Wow, what a terrible mistake to have made...   

OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.

What definition of reality would that be? Or is this just another straw man of philosophical materialism or some such?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't. I've seen claims of evidence but with the lack of a coherent definition of god and no methodology for what any such evidence would be, they are not even wrong.

Could you provide an example?

[Nearly Sane]

Could you provide an example?

Miracle claims. Anything based on misuses of methodological naturalistic concepts such as probability. We've covered this many times before.

[jeremyp]

Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence?

Are you seriously trying to claim that you don't understand the meaning of "argue the evidence"?

What evidence?

That's exactly the point. We keep challenging theists to provide their evidence and they never provide it.

The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God?

No. You are the one supposed to be arguing that there is a god remember? I wouldn't expect you to present arguments against your position, although you have been known to do it (e.g. your claim that a necessary entity can't be a composite whilst asserting that your god is a composite).

[Stranger]

I don't think he has ever claimed to have objective evidence, has he? I'm not about to look through all his posts, but if you have a link to a post where he has claimed objective evidence, happy to have a read and revise my opinion accordingly.

I'm not going to look through all his posts either, but his main argument is that free will and how people think in general, is impossible to explain physically and so people's posts are evidence of God-magic.

I believe he's also claimed answered prayer as evidence, and I think I'm right in saying that he thinks evolution would be impossible without guidance.

My understanding of Vlad's posts was that he has been presenting a possibility.

As I said, Vlad has recently been using the argument from contingency which is a supposed deductive proof originally from Thomas Aquinas.

Regardless, I am not seeing a problem that is intrinsic to religion - Trump along with most other politicians claims lots of things in order to try to convince voters of a particular reality - that's just the nature of human communication, and people who are aware of that, when they hear claims from politicians, may respond differently to certain claims compared to people who get some kind of add-value in believing that particular claim a politician has just made.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Ok but humans are a lot more than organisms that eat and don't fall off cliffs. Beliefs and social realities are part of their human experience and what makes them human.

Indeed. I still don't see a need to hold faith positions about gods and so on, though. On the other hand, if it helps some people and they realise it's faith or mythology, then that's fine.

Differences have played a huge role in many wars, even before religion came along - e.g. tribal differences, differences in access to resources, differences in physical appearances, differences in physical and mental power and capabilities based on nature and nurture, differences in access to weapons etc

I didn't claim that religion was the only cause, but people who believe literally that their God or gods exist and they are doing its/their will, have been responsible for a lot.

What do you classify morals as?

Complicated but a combination of empathy and rules that benefit societies. I can't really see a connection to believing that beings exist without evidence.