talkmagic.co.uk

Robbie wrote:There's been some semantic confusion in this thread. In the name of pedantry, I'll just add as a footnote:

Atheism (a-theos = "no god") is the belief that there is definitely no God of any kind.

Agnosticism (a-gnosis = "no knowledge") is the belief that there may or may not be a God of some kind, but its existence or nonexistence has not been proven or is not knowable by man.

Several posters here have called themselves atheists, but seem to be really agnostics, judging by what they've said.

Nope, I am atheist. There is no God, and even if there was one, we have got all of his qualities wrong because they are logically incompatible. I am, however a relitavist. Some people mistake this for believing nobody is right- well, at least, that is not what I believe- but rather it is KNOWING that nobody is right. I can still hold beliefs, which by virtue of their nature... I believe.. to be true. But, I am saying that my beliefs could be wrong, anyone's beliefs could be wrong- that we KNOW nothing- however, because knowledge is an illusion because we cannot 'step out' of our own perception, EVERYTHING I genuinley believe is fact- because by using the term fact to mean something which is universally true.. for me. Equally, everything Mr Christian believes is also fact... for him. The idea is that facts only exist within one's own mind.. It is VERY VERY VERY difficult to explain properly, especially when I am tired, but no... i do know the difference between atheism and agnosticism..

Ah, excellent, relativism is a philosophy that I can wholeheartedly, 100% say that I totally dismiss as utter rubbish! Truth is not relative in all cases, and certainly when it comes to religion it should be obvious; many people believe in many different things which are mutually exclusive so they cannot all be true, however hard they are believed. Belief is not truth. Saying something is "true" for you is just using the wrong word, you simply mean that you believe it unwaveringly and without possibility of doubt. In my opinion (and it is only opinion) that is an entirely bankrupt way of looking at things; why not be open to new ideas?

Equally with science, all view points DO NOT have equal validity, the one with the most evidence in its favour has most validity. However, that doesn't make it absolute either; Newtonian gravity was the best explanation of the observed evidence until the Theory of Relativity came along, and that too may be displaced if a modification can align it with quantum mechanics.

Religion was the best guess until science started to explain things. That is not to say that, despite the masses of evidence, we can say that we yet have the absolute truth about the existence of God or gods; it looks likely beyond all probable doubt that they don't, and if I had to bet the universe then I would bet against gods. Unfortunately, as it is more or less impossible to prove a negative, we are never likely to be able to say without doubt that there is no god, we can just increase the amount f evidence against.

science can seem "best guesses" too at times, the "this is what i absolutely believe in...until I'm proven wrong..."

so even if you believe in something, until you prove it scientifically - it doesn't exist...atoms, if you believed that we were made of atoms in the 15th century - you could prove it..even though the future would prove you right...so you'd look a complete fool in the 15th century as a scientist...

your belief was correct, what you felt inside was 100% correct...you just couldnt prove it to anyone, until science caught up with that belief...so maybe...

see where I'm going with this?

so maybe, there is a god - maybe not in the boxed/rigid framework of the major 5 or 6 currently...but something, some entity out there that maybe caused the big bang and has no bible-based powers as such...and it could be a case of our belief in that may or may not be true - but until science catches up with that belief neither side will know...

IAIN wrote:science can seem "best guesses" too at times, the "this is what i absolutely believe in...until I'm proven wrong..."

...

your belief was correct, what you felt inside was 100% correct...you just couldnt prove it to anyone, until science caught up with that belief...so maybe...

In fact, the scientific method didn't really come along until around about the 19th century. Until then it was thought that truth could be decided by intellectual debate and philosophy. It is religion that has been left behind and needing to catch up!

These days, the theorising is still vital, however, it is backed up by experiment in order to provide evidence for or against a hypothesis. Someone truly in touch with the scientific method would never absolutely believe anything, only state that the evidence appears to be in favour of that conclusion. That is not to say that there is anything relative about the truth of a scientific conclusion either; it is right or wrong, it can never be true for one group of people and not for another.

Science is constantly explaining things that religion was used for previously, or contradicting scripture. The point is that the evidence is there in order to state with some degree of confidence that the new theory is closer to the truth than the old.

i suppose my point was, is that though you may not be able to scientifically prove something (belief in atoms in my example) - yet you could be correct in your belief; it may just be a question of science and technology being able to test it in a sufficient way to get a definite yes/no answer...

so that 15th century scientist had a belief he couldnt test scientifically, but believed it to be true...his belief was true, but could not be tested and scientifically proven for another few centuries...

so it could be argued (well, i am arguing it!) that we could one day scientifically prove that there is or is not a god...it sometimes seems that some atheists (and other non-believers) dismiss religion out of hand with the whole burden of proof thing...

that burden of proof only comes into play if your own personal belief leaks out and you start telling others they should believe in your god too...

Well, here we get into the difference between a belief and a hypothesis, but we are going off the topic of turkey and plum pudding a bit!

Unfortunately, humans seem to be hard wired to believe things, we aren't naturally very good at being objective; despite my best efforts, I believe that the best time for me to take off work is Christmas, no matter how hard I believe that my family will be free during other religious (or otherwise) holidays they never actually seem to be. Therefore, based on the evidence available to me, it is my hypothesis that, if I want some time with them I will have to do it at Christmas. This happens to be quite convenient since lots of other people are doing it too, so there is a preponderance of god cheer around.

nickj wrote: so there is a preponderance of god cheer around.

believer!

Damn it, you got me!

nickj wrote:Ah, excellent, relativism is a philosophy that I can wholeheartedly, 100% say that I totally dismiss as utter rubbish! Truth is not relative in all cases, and certainly when it comes to religion it should be obvious; many people believe in many different things which are mutually exclusive so they cannot all be true, however hard they are believed. Belief is not truth. Saying something is "true" for you is just using the wrong word, you simply mean that you believe it unwaveringly and without possibility of doubt. In my opinion (and it is only opinion) that is an entirely bankrupt way of looking at things; why not be open to new ideas?

Equally with science, all view points DO NOT have equal validity, the one with the most evidence in its favour has most validity. However, that doesn't make it absolute either; Newtonian gravity was the best explanation of the observed evidence until the Theory of Relativity came along, and that too may be displaced if a modification can align it with quantum mechanics.

Religion was the best guess until science started to explain things. That is not to say that, despite the masses of evidence, we can say that we yet have the absolute truth about the existence of God or gods; it looks likely beyond all probable doubt that they don't, and if I had to bet the universe then I would bet against gods. Unfortunately, as it is more or less impossible to prove a negative, we are never likely to be able to say without doubt that there is no god, we can just increase the amount f evidence against.

Typical Atheist- Logic and reason are reality and everyone else is wrong and don't try and tell my ego I am
In Philosophy there are two schools of thought it essentially boils down to: Aristotle and Plato... Rationalism and Empiricism- I think that they are both right... I really cannot go into it now and it seems contradictory but, I chave no energy to go into a several year long conversation: but just remember science and logic are only one attempt at philosophy. They are not the be all and end all. I quote Chaplin: We think too much and feel too little.
I should mention, I am simply being the devil's advocate here: I am an atheist and as I said before I believe in science, but I can also see that rationalism and science are part of a bigger picture...
All I can say, is Don't worry- beeee happy

SamGurney wrote:just remember science and logic are only one attempt at philosophy. They are not the be all and end all. I quote Chaplin: We think too much and feel too little.

But philosophy is all to do with thinking whilst science is about combining that thought with a little bit of reality and checking if any of it makes even the tiniest bit of sense. For those without a science background it is easy to say that science and logic are just one way of looking at things, but science is about trying to minimise doubt, not come up with as many alternative possibilities as it can.

In fact, the Universe itself is the only thing we can refer to as "the be all and end all" and science is simply our best description of it. If I could make an analogy for science and philosophy I would compare science to a guide book and philosophy to a novel; a guide to Paris certainly isn't Paris itself, but it's a damn sight more useful to refer to if you are there than a coy of The Da Vinci Code would be.

I'm afraid I don't have much patience for devil's advocacy when alternative world views are presented as having equal value to science; once philosophy comes close to curing cancer or designing me a hover car I might change my mind!

nickj wrote:Unfortunately, humans seem to be hard wired to believe things, we aren't naturally very good at being objective; despite my best efforts

This is what most people are talking about when they say 'Atheists are religious'

Christians say we should deny natural sexual urges.
Buddhists say we should deny natural physical urges.
Atheists say we should deny natural subconscious urges.

There is no 'one right way of being,' no perfect human (apart from Jesus obviously), and the idea that you should or even can fight a few hundred million years of evolution in your short lifetime is laughable.

...

nickj wrote:

SamGurney wrote:just remember science and logic are only one attempt at philosophy. They are not the be all and end all. I quote Chaplin: We think too much and feel too little.

But philosophy is all to do with thinking whilst science is about combining that thought with a little bit of reality and checking if any of it makes even the tiniest bit of sense. For those without a science background it is easy to say that science and logic are just one way of looking at things, but science is about trying to minimise doubt, not come up with as many alternative possibilities as it can.

In fact, the Universe itself is the only thing we can refer to as "the be all and end all" and science is simply our best description of it. If I could make an analogy for science and philosophy I would compare science to a guide book and philosophy to a novel; a guide to Paris certainly isn't Paris itself, but it's a damn sight more useful to refer to if you are there than a coy of The Da Vinci Code would be.

I'm afraid I don't have much patience for devil's advocacy when alternative world views are presented as having equal value to science; once philosophy comes close to curing cancer or designing me a hover car I might change my mind!

Well, before that, I didn't doubt science's validity and merits and acheivements and intelligence- but if that is what most scientists think, scientists have seriously gone down in intellectual dignity.
The funny thing is that from the same source of the above Chaplin quote, he also said 'science and progress will lead to all men's happiness'... My understanding of scientific protocol, actually isn't too bad. I can question science because I am secure that regardless of any empiricism, within my reality it has value. But that is the point, I actually know at least something about science- from reading that, you clearly know nothing about philosphy.
Because if you did, you would notice that science and philosphy are not at all two different things at all. Science is one approch- one out of many, science is A philosphy: it questions what reality is and how life works- but it has different views from other philosophical ones. The fact is that science does not magically jump around questions epistemological and metaphysical in nature, it is as subject to them as any appraoch to philosophy. Personally, I believe there is much to be found in trying to reconcile empiricism and rationalism and none of that gain can be earned if one is dogmatic and does not understand what other people's points even are.
I cannot be bothered to explain my philosophical beliefs at this present moment because dogma makes it ardous. But the point is that I use logic and reasoning to arrive at these conclusions, Philosophers are not just stoners who eat shrooms and make wild guesses about things.

SamGurney wrote: Well, before that, I didn't doubt science's validity and merits and acheivements and intelligence- but if that is what most scientists think, scientists have seriously gone down in intellectual dignity.
The funny thing is that from the same source of the above Chaplin quote, he also said 'science and progress will lead to all men's happiness'... My understanding of scientific protocol, actually isn't too bad. I can question science because I am secure that regardless of any empiricism, within my reality it has value. But that is the point, I actually know at least something about science- from reading that, you clearly know nothing about philosphy.
Because if you did, you would notice that science and philosphy are not at all two different things at all. Science is one approch- one out of many, science is A philosphy: it questions what reality is and how life works- but it has different views from other philosophical ones. The fact is that science does not magically jump around questions epistemological and metaphysical in nature, it is as subject to them as any appraoch to philosophy. Personally, I believe there is much to be found in trying to reconcile empiricism and rationalism and none of that gain can be earned if one is dogmatic and does not understand what other people's points even are.
I cannot be bothered to explain my philosophical beliefs at this present moment because dogma makes it ardous. But the point is that I use logic and reasoning to arrive at these conclusions, Philosophers are not just stoners who eat shrooms and make wild guesses about things.

Sorry, I wrote that after a couple of glasses of wine, I didn't mean to seem so dogmatic and dismissive of philosophy as I did and what I wrote is certainly not representative of the views of most scientists (Jean Eugene Roberts; I wasn't suggesting that we try to suppress our urge to believe, that would make life quite tricky, I was simply noting that it was a feature of the human condition that we are set up to believe things that seem logical without need for much evidence).

You are, of course, right; science developed from metaphysical and epistemological philosophy and combined logic with empirical evidence to produce a new field of human endeavour. Its existence does not lessen the validity of any field of philosophy, it simply advances a couple in slightly different directions.

I would say, though, that if two philosophies (and I will regard science as a philosophy as you suggest) deal with the same subject, considerations of relativism must come second to the existence of evidence. Until evidence is present, two different theories can be studied with equal validity, but once evidence is gained which supports one or other theory, the other must, necessarily, lose authority. This is what I meant by my post and is the way that science works; a lot of the theoretical physics being conducted on the nature of matter, for example is more in the realm of higher level metaphysical philosophy than science at the moment as there is little evidence available and so several different theories exist in parallel.

I don't think you are a shroom gobbling stoner, please don't think I'm as dogmatic as my last post appears!

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:Christians say we should deny natural sexual urges.
Buddhists say we should deny natural physical urges.
Atheists say we should deny natural subconscious urges.

In which case, I'll pick the fourth option please. Those three are no fun at all!