Archbishop in pot calling kettle black shock

[pat127]

The absence of faith (atheism) does not require a proof/disproof.

I wonder about that. A committed Agnostic (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) will tell you that believing that there isn't a Deity is every bit as irrational as believing there is. In the absence of proof, 'faith' is required to make the assertion on either side.



Thomas T Huxley who is credited with inventing the term defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

"... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."

 

[Caveat]

"... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."

I wondered when this might be addressed. My guess is that some 'atheists' on AAM are really agnostics when they think about it.

The (very) common misconception about agnostics is that they are 'fence sitters' rather than the considered, logical, non-absolutists that they really are.

 

[homeowner]

The problem here is Dawkins' assumptions about proof.....
What is Dawkins' definition of 'proof'? He's never particularly clear about this (probably because it would require him to actually do some philosophy).

He has been explicitly clear on what sort of proof he requires. Have you read any of his books? Tests that are repeatable and measurable is what he states.

The idea that science is the only way to truth is a dogma. Blind faith.

Its the only measurable way. Otherwise you have to believe everything people say is true just because they say it is true or have experienced it. You have no way to differentiate unless you have tangible proof. i can tell you that extra-terrestrials have visited me in my house and if I dont offer you any proof by what you are saying it must be credible evidence that it is true because I believe it to be true.

What atheists are saying is that in the absence of conclusive evidence of a supernatural entity, they do not believe such an entity exists

That is the agnostic not the atheist view point.

 

[z109]

I wonder about that. A committed Agnostic (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) will tell you that believing that there isn't a Deity is every bit as irrational as believing there is. In the absence of proof, 'faith' is required to make the assertion on either side.

Where would you then place not believing that there is one? (That is, I don't believe there isn't a god, I just don't believe that there is one - is this semantics or do the two propositions have different meanings?). Surely this is atheism and, as you are not professing to believe in something, it does not require proof? Until such time as you are disproved by evidence, it seems a rational position?

To take the aliens example again, if you don't believe they have visited earth, this surely can't be irrational compared with believing that they have when there is no proof. On the other hand, if I decide not to believe in gravity, falling off a cliff will do great things to prove otherwise to me!

 

[pat127]

Where would you then place not believing that there is one? (That is, I don't believe there isn't a god, I just don't believe that there is one - is this semantics or do the two propositions have different meanings?). Surely this is atheism and, as you are not professing to believe in something, it does not require proof? Until such time as you are disproved by evidence, it seems a rational position?

Taking what Huxley said ("it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty"), there are 2 propositions, 1 that God exists, the other that he doesn't. The Agnostic's position is that when either is expressed as a certainty it requires to be proved to be acceptable.

To say "I don't believe there isn't a God" could mean that you accept the possibility that there is one - in fact as 2 negatives make a positive you are actually saying that you do believe that! The second statement ("I [just] don't believe there is one") has only one, incontroversial meaning.

Stating it at its simplest, an Agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists. He/she holds that the only rational response to the unprovable question "is there a God?" is "I don't know". An Atheist on the other hand positively believes that no God (or Goddess for that matter - perish the thought!) exists.

To take the aliens example again, if you don't believe they have visited earth, this surely can't be irrational compared with believing that they have when there is no proof

.

To say you don't believe they have visited Earth is not the same as saying that you don't believe they exist, merely that they haven't dropped in yet. In that sense you are being just as irrational as those who say that Aliens have visited Earth because by implication that means they have to believe in their existence.

On the other hand, if I decide not to believe in gravity, falling off a cliff will do great things to prove otherwise to me!

Not necessarily. Your firm belief that gravity doesn't exist may well prevent you from concluding that it does simply because you find that you are falling. You may actually reach some other conclusion - provided that you don't reach the ground first.

 

[Remix]

The reason why many don't accept science as the only source of truth is that science is a construct as described by Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism

This is very honest of Lewotin (himself an atheist).

So for scientists like himself the materialism comes first; the science follows. No matter what!

What we are often seeing is commited atheists employing science for their own ends and not neutral philosphers surveying the evidence and arriving at atheism.

This is why some of the great debates around these issues - despite their wonderful entertaintment value - can never really get started let alone resolved !

 

[z109]

Taking what Huxley said ("it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty"), there are 2 propositions, 1 that God exists, the other that he doesn't. The Agnostic's position is that when either is expressed as a certainty it requires to be proved to be acceptable.

But I am not saying I am certain of an objective truth; subjective to me I don't believe he exists.

No, there are many propositions:
1. I believe god exists
2. I don't believe in god (atheist)
3. I believe there isn't a god (hard atheist!)
3. You can't prove that god exists, therefore he doesn't (Dawkins/agnostic)
4. You can't prove that god doesn't exist, therefore he does (agnostic!)

To say "I don't believe there isn't a God" could mean that you accept the possibility that there is one - in fact as 2 negatives make a positive you are actually saying that you do believe that! The second statement ("I [just] don't believe there is one") has only one, incontroversial meaning.

Sorry, I should have put that in quotes, it should have read: I don't believe "there isn't a god", I just don't believe in god. I give the existence of god (or not) no thought or angst. I do not try to convert anyone. My atheism is personal. It is not reliant on any outside agency or proof/disproof.

 

[Remix]

I realise some posts are at cross purposes here but I just wanted to suspend me daily grind for a moment to add another comment to my quote of Lewonsin above.

In it he outlines an aspect of the limits of science. I came across a similiar idea from C.S. Lewis regarding the use and limits of scientific language that I enjoyed.


Lewis describes the difference between ordinary language:

"It was very cold"

and scientific language:

"The temperature was -10 degrees celsius"

We can see the scientific language has a precision that we can quantify, test and verify. But on a human level it is limited - it doesn't portray quality or feeling.

Ordinary language might do a little better:

"Your ears will tingle" or "It will hurt just to breathe".

Then he elevates the language further by taking an example from Keats:

Ah, bitter chill it was!
The owl, for all his feathers, was a-cold;
The hare limped trembling through the frozen grass,
And silent was the flock in wooly fold:
Numb’d were the Beadsman’s fingers

This language cannot be quantified or tested but Lewis felt that it conveyed information that can be given in no other way.

It communicates a quality of experience that renders the scientific description (-10 degrees celsius) almost primitive by comparison.

Lewis goes on to describe what to him was the ultimate in human linguistic achievment - the language of this faith - but I'll leave it at that.

(Ref: C.S Lewis Essay "The Language of Religion")

 

[Purple]

I am an agnostic. I don't like the way Dawkins delivers his message though I find myself veering toward the contemptuous when engaging in these sort of debates with those who "just believe" and have never questioned something that should have a profound influence on all aspects of their lives.
My take on religion is that the Egyptians, the Bronze Age Indians and the Mesopotamians all had belief systems that existed for thousands of years, in the Egyptians case virtually unaltered. These faiths were at least twice as old as Christianity and older than any monotheist religion by over a thousand years. They are all now utterly dead and the world has kept on turning.
This is not a debate about the source of ethics in the world but it is interesting to note that when Confucius and Buddha (both belief systems that do not require a belief in the divine) were formulating and preaching their teachings the civilisations they were born into were already a few thousand years old, stable, urban and relatively prosperous and were attempting to deal with how to make people "good" without the fear of a celestial sanction.

 

[pat127]

But I am not saying I am certain of an objective truth; subjective to me I don't believe he exists.

No, there are many propositions:
1. I believe god exists
2. I don't believe in god (atheist)
3. I believe there isn't a god (hard atheist!)
4. You can't prove that god exists, therefore he doesn't (Dawkins/agnostic)
5. You can't prove that god doesn't exist, therefore he does (agnostic!)

One of the difficulties with this debate is that each of the terms 'atheism', 'agnosticism' and 'christianity' indeed, can be used to cover a wide area of meaning or interpretation. There are for example Agnostic theists who are defined as believing that a deity probably exists and Agnostic atheists who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists. That's why I tried to take the broad meanings.

I'd have to take issue with your last 2 statements however. Above all, borrowing Caveat's term, Agnostics are non-absolutists. The word 'therefore' is not part of their vocabulary (therefore!).

 

[polaris]

What we are often seeing is commited atheists employing science for their own ends and not neutral philosphers surveying the evidence and arriving at atheism.

What evidence is out there that leads to the conclusion of theism?

 

[pat127]

I realise some posts are at cross purposes here but I just wanted to suspend me daily grind for a moment to add another comment to my quote of Lewonsin above.

In it he outlines an aspect of the limits of science. I came across a similiar idea from C.S. Lewis regarding the use and limits of scientific language that I enjoyed.


Lewis describes the difference between ordinary language:

"It was very cold"

and scientific language:

"The temperature was -10 degrees celsius"

We can see the scientific language has a precision that we can quantify, test and verify. But on a human level it is limited - it doesn't portray quality or feeling.

Ordinary language might do a little better:

"Your ears will tingle" or "It will hurt just to breathe".

Then he elevates the language further by taking an example from Keats:

Ah, bitter chill it was!
The owl, for all his feathers, was a-cold;
The hare limped trembling through the frozen grass,
And silent was the flock in wooly fold:
Numb’d were the Beadsman’s fingers

This language cannot be quantified or tested but Lewis felt that it conveyed information that can be given in no other way.

It communicates a quality of experience that renders the scientific description (-10 degrees celsius) almost primitive by comparison.

Lewis goes on to describe what to him was the ultimate in human linguistic achievment - the language of this faith - but I'll leave it at that.

(Ref: C.S Lewis Essay "The Language of Religion")

I fail to see the relevance Remix. Scientific language has by definition to be precise. What both Poetry and Religion have in common is an appeal to the emotions. The abiding theme in Christianity (and perhaps in other religions) is 'love' and you cannot get more emotional than that.

While on the subject of choosing the type of language to suit the occasion, it's interesting to note that the title of this thread is not 'scientific' in that sense of being precise and neutral. A somewhat pejorative, even derisory expression, was deployed. That may well have been intended but it limits the ability to discuss the topic in a dispassionate, logical manner.

 

[Remix]

I fail to see the relevance Remix. Scientific language has by definition to be precise.

The point I was trying to make is that there is often too much faith put in science even as scientific method and language are limited in what they can achieve and communicate.

Also it's useful to distinguish scientific language as a type so your eyebrows can raise when Dawkins et al deviate wildly from it - even as they posture as scientists.

What both Poetry and Religion have in common is an appeal to the emotions. The abiding theme in Christianity (and perhaps in other religions) is 'love' and you cannot get more emotional than that.

Topic for another day! But emotion comes into it on all sides. There's also a lot of emotion - anger - tied into some sub-species of atheism. I don't specifically mean AAM but you don't have to look very hard to find it.

While on the subject of choosing the type of language to suit the occasion, it's interesting to note that the title of this thread is not 'scientific' in that sense of being precise and neutral. A somewhat pejorative, even derisory expression, was deployed. That may well have been intended but it limits the ability to discuss the topic in a dispassionate, logical manner

It's normal in debates or the "culture wars", if you like, to see attempts to bias the language. This is a common persuasion technique.

Most times it's fair enough - almost funny in fact. Note the use of the term "believer" and the way it's used. Also note the use of good solid hard words like knowledge, reason, objectivity, fact versus dubious words like subjectivity, superstition, values etc. Classic stuff !

But I agree sometimes it goes beyond attempts to persuade and comes across more as a kind of cheap pop-culture bigotry.

 

[Purple]

I don't think ClubMan was trying to be scientific or balanced when he wrote the title. The point of the thread is that it is absurd for one belief system that is based on faith alone and has no scientific basis what so ever (indeed requires the rejection of science) to criticise another equally groundless belief system.
By the way Remix, Richard Lewontin reacted angrily when selective quotations of his observations on the limits of science were used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest he supported the concept of a deity.
He has written on the dangers of accepting existing theory as fact within a scientific context but only within that context. For example he said that evolution was a fact but there were sub-debates about the exact path that it has followed.
Quote:
"Lewontin himself, complaining about this exact same misquotation as presented in an issue of the Institute for Creation Research's Acts & Facts: "But the point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist [Gary] Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science."

Lewontin, "Misquoted Scientists Respond," Creation/Evolution VI, Fall 1981, p. 35.

I agree that Richard Dawkins can veer from the scientific to the rhetorical without letting his audience know but I agree with him that wonder and poetry can be experienced in abundance in the world around us and it does not require the suspension of our critical faculties to appreciate it.

 

[MOB]

"The point of the thread is that it is absurd for one belief system that is based on faith alone and has no scientific basis what so ever (indeed requires the rejection of science) to criticise another equally groundless belief system."

At risk of repeating myself, it is not at all absurd. The Catholic church is perfectly free to conduct itself in whatever way it wants provided it does not impose its views or rules on non-Catholics. If you concede (as I presume you do) that people are perfectly free to participate in an organised religion, and that any religion is entitled to have its own rules, then there is nothing at all absurd about proponents of a particular religion telling their adherents that the rules forbid participation in certain other conflicting (non-scientific) beliefs. And is it not perhaps a little unfair to suggest that Catholicism requires the rejection of science?

 

[Purple]

"The point of the thread is that it is absurd for one belief system that is based on faith alone and has no scientific basis what so ever (indeed requires the rejection of science) to criticise another equally groundless belief system."

At risk of repeating myself, it is not at all absurd. The Catholic church is perfectly free to conduct itself in whatever way it wants provided it does not impose its views or rules on non-Catholics. If you concede (as I presume you do) that people are perfectly free to participate in an organised religion, and that any religion is entitled to have its own rules, then there is nothing at all absurd about proponents of a particular religion telling their adherents that the rules forbid participation in certain other conflicting (non-scientific) beliefs. And is it not perhaps a little unfair to suggest that Catholicism requires the rejection of science?

My point is that Sean Brady's comment that "People who put their trust in horoscopes, astrology and mediums lack trust in God and are "colluding with an illusion" " is absurd as both systems of belief are equally illogical. I have no problem with the rest of his comments, in fact I agree with much of the sentiment expressed.

 

[z109]

Francis Fukuyama and the whole "end of history" nonsense.

 

[Remix]

By the way Remix, Richard Lewontin reacted angrily when selective quotations of his observations on the limits of science were used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest he supported the concept of a deity.
He has written on the dangers of accepting existing theory as fact within a scientific context but only within that context. For example he said that evolution was a fact but there were sub-debates about the exact path that it has followed.
Quote:
"Lewontin himself, complaining about this exact same misquotation as presented in an issue of the Institute for Creation Research's Acts & Facts: "But the point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist [Gary] Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science."

Lewontin, "Misquoted Scientists Respond," Creation/Evolution VI, Fall 1981, p. 35.

Purple - you appear to be confusing quotations.

The info above from your post is from a different debate. Note the date of your quote: 1981.

My quote is taken from Richard Lewontin's January 9, 1997 article, "Billions and Billions of Demons", which is a review of a Carl Sagan book.

For him to complain in 1981 about being misquoted on something he hadn't yet said and would eventually say in 1997 would be some accomplishment for someone who doesn't believe in miracles

To my knowledge, Lewonsin has not attempted to backpeddle on the words I quoted from this article :

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

[polaris]

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door

This is merely a factual statement. Lewontin would have no reason to backpedal from it.

Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.

 

[Purple]

This is merely a factual statement. Lewontin would have no reason to backpedal from it.

Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.

I couldn't have put it better myself.