Hawking says there are no gods

[epeeist]

I had a person online argue with me once that she was an atheist because she believed in god but rejected all the current religions.

It takes all kinds.

I've had (from the other side!) arguments with people who don't see the difference between secularism and atheism. But depending upon the person's specific beliefs, calling themselves atheist might have been literally incorrect, but an attempt to get across their worldview generally?

In fairness, words do shift their meaning or otherwise have nuance. I mean, an atheist Buddhist who believes in the soul and reincarnation might have more in common for religious discussions or otherwise with various theists than they would with most atheists. Calling them atheist might be technically true, but misleading in many contexts.

Or a Deist, especially if they believed in a limited, not omniscient nor omnipotent deity, who only set the universe in motion and then did nothing more, might be in 100% agreement with an atheist about absolutely everything except for certain elements of physics relating to what caused the big bang (assuming they agreed on that).

So Stephen Hawking or those of similar views might well have had more agreement with a theist Deist than an atheist Buddhist. If a Deist as a shorthand - until or if appropriate to explain - described themselves as atheist, not intending to defraud anyone but just to encapsulate most of their beliefs, wouldn't that be understandable?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unfortunately a good bit of philosophical discussion is about splitting hairs. Or hares, much more gruesome.

People, in my opinion, are hiding behind this unable to get over the fact that this level of overwrought pedantics is "perfectly normal" as long as the discussion is "philosophical" in nature.

This idea that "philosophy" as this vaguely defined collection of mostly nonsensical epstimologies hangs over every discussion Sword of Damocles style, ready to take over the discussion and rewrite its rules to nothing with more intellectual weight than a mass creative writing exercise where "Who has the biggest imagination wins" on a whim does ring true to me.

But even if I did buy that, why it is invoked in some discussions and not others is still the central core point.

Until someone can cough up a non-special pleading reason or non-purely semantic reason we can say "There's not a chair in the room" in a room with zero evidence for the existence of a chair in it without triggering this level of existential crisis, I still don't see what's even being argued here.

"I can make a conversation go on forever if I'm just anal enough?" Yeah we all get that. That's pointless nothing.

 

[Belz...]

"I can make a conversation go on forever if I'm just anal enough?" Yeah we all get that. That's pointless nothing.

Not when part of your curriculum rewarded you for exactly that.

 

[kellyb]

But even if I did buy that, why it is invoked in some discussions and not others is still the central core point.

Until someone can cough up a non-special pleading reason or non-purely semantic reason we can say "There's not a chair in the room" in a room with zero evidence for the existence of a chair in it without triggering this level of existential crisis, I still don't see what's even being argued here.

Like I said before, questions such as "How strong/compelling is this evidence, really?" and "Is this amount of absence of evidence now in the realm of evidence of absence?" are at the heart of a lot of the legit medical debates.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Like I said before, questions such as "How strong/compelling is this evidence, really?" and "Is this amount of absence of evidence now in the realm of evidence of absence?" are at the heart of a lot of the legit medical debates.

When a doctor is looking at a CT scan, see zero evidence of a tumor, but decides to keep looking for some magical unknown, undetectable, undefined new kind of tumor before telling the patient his scan came back clear, that comparison will work.

Until then, it doesn't.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

People, in my opinion, are hiding behind this unable to get over the fact that this level of overwrought pedantics is "perfectly normal" as long as the discussion is "philosophical" in nature.

This idea that "philosophy" as this vaguely defined collection of mostly nonsensical epstimologies hangs over every discussion Sword of Damocles style, ready to take over the discussion and rewrite its rules to nothing with more intellectual weight than a mass creative writing exercise where "Who has the biggest imagination wins" on a whim does ring true to me.

But even if I did buy that, why it is invoked in some discussions and not others is still the central core point.

Until someone can cough up a non-special pleading reason or non-purely semantic reason we can say "There's not a chair in the room" in a room with zero evidence for the existence of a chair in it without triggering this level of existential crisis, I still don't see what's even being argued here.

"I can make a conversation go on forever if I'm just anal enough?" Yeah we all get that. That's pointless nothing.

You can do the same with say rights as "I have property and/or political rights". The same goes with morality/ethics in general.

Now all 3, gods, rights and right/wrong have something in common, can you figure out what?

What is the difference between e.g. gravity and these 3?
I will give you a hint, it has something to do with the relationship to brains.
And it relates to what reality actually is.

Now for what philosophy is, this one is to the point.
The rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy

Notice the "or". Sometimes is rather an "and".
The rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole and of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
How do reality as a whole and human existence and experience combine?

Now I know you like the "we". But I am sorry, you and the rest of your tribe are not the "we" of humanity. Neither am I.

As for epistemologies: There are 4 main ones. Can you name them?
They are all relevant in this thread.
And as a bonus can you name the problems with knowledge in general? That has to do with a variant of 3.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sorry Tommy I didn't mean to leave you out.

I should have said "Hiding behind pedantics, semantics, and absolute gibberish."

 

[kellyb]

When a doctor is looking at a CT scan, see zero evidence of a tumor, but decides to keep looking for some magical unknown, undetectable, undefined new kind of tumor before telling the patient his scan came back clear, that comparison will work.

Until then, it doesn't.

If the scan comes back clear, then they start looking for other causes of the symptoms/illness.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Sorry Tommy I didn't mean to leave you out.

I should have said "Hiding behind pedantics, semantics, and absolute gibberish."

Likewise: Hidden by dogmatic assertion of not having to check one's own thinking, because everybody else in the record history of mankind, which disagrees with me are wrong.
You should get a Nobel prize for everything, because you have figured it out. Now I doubt that you will get, because you actually haven't figured reality out. You have figured out to live in reality as you. Now I hope you have a good enough life, but your life is not all human life.
That is where we always end, you are a part of life and reality and so are everybody else. But you and your tribe is not the correct standard for all of humanity.
My MO is to point out that nobody is that, including you an I, and then start from there.
You don't have to do that, because you already know what the standard is. The problem is that everybody else than your tribe disagrees, but that is problem with them and not with your standard for the human existence and experience.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the scan comes back clear, then they start looking for other causes of the symptoms/illness.

But there are no symptoms/illness in this case. There's nothing to diagnosis.

At best the believers and apologist are hypochondriacs in this metaphor.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But there are no symptoms/illness in this case. There's nothing to diagnosis.

At best the believers and apologist are hypochondriacs in this metaphor.

Yes, there is, sort of. You can't cure that other people believe differently than you no matter how right you are and that they are wrong. It doesn't cure it, because it is not the cure. It is a part of the reality and you are fighting windmills.
So what is the "illness", most people live all their life with and which says nothing about their quality of life?
They believe they are right and they don't know that it is a belief. Or they know, but don't care, because the belief works for them.

 

[Phlegm]

People, in my opinion, are hiding behind this unable to get over the fact that this level of overwrought pedantics is "perfectly normal" as long as the discussion is "philosophical" in nature.

Yes, undeniably.

This idea that "philosophy" as this vaguely defined collection of mostly nonsensical epstimologies hangs over every discussion Sword of Damocles style, ready to take over the discussion and rewrite its rules to nothing with more intellectual weight than a mass creative writing exercise where "Who has the biggest imagination wins" on a whim does ring true to me.

"Philosophy" is not one thing, but there is much truth to what you write. "Philosophy" means love of wisdom. It is very true that much of transpires within its "realm" is utter bollocks, to use a term from across the pond.

The very act of breaking things down to epistemology vs other ways of interacting with the world may be one of the bigger mistakes. That was Descartes' move. It is similar to Plato's attempt to reconcile, essentially, Parmenides and Heraclitus and arriving at the Forms.

But even if I did buy that, why it is invoked in some discussions and not others is still the central core point.

That one is easy. Because it's something that people care about. Yes, it is a form of special pleading. But there is another issue, which gets back to Descartes -- a chair not being evident in a room has no way to demonstrate its own existence. It is just a brute fact of nature/human construction. A god is different since it is defined as a being with thought. A being with thought could, in theory, demonstrate its existence by thinking -- the Cartesian cogito.

Using examples that deal with that issue would probably help the argument along. Otherwise, I'm with you. Yes, there is a type of special pleading going on. If it ends up boiling down to a Cartesian argument, then there is a direction to explore for future arguments. This is, in large part, why I mentioned the green dragon 'problem'. Plus invisible green dragon is an oxymoron.

Until someone can cough up a non-special pleading reason or non-purely semantic reason we can say "There's not a chair in the room" in a room with zero evidence for the existence of a chair in it without triggering this level of existential crisis, I still don't see what's even being argued here.

For chairs there is no issue. For gods there is one -- and it will always be in the area of 'care', what people really care about. No one devotes this much energy into a debate that one does not care about.

"I can make a conversation go on forever if I'm just anal enough?" Yeah we all get that. That's pointless nothing.

If that were all that it was, then I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that is the case in all situations. Clearly folks engage in such debates for a reason. And it may be that they do so only to justify their preconceived notions of how they view the universe. Let's be honest, that is how humans work most of the time. I would hope there is something more to it, but that may be an idle wish.

I have engaged in debates where that seems to be the case -- if I outlast you, I win. I have no interest in that approach.

I will leave you with one of, what I think is, the best quotes from the old JREF site from one of my favorite posters -- "Metaphysics is largely a pantload."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

....
If that were all that it was, then I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that is the case in all situations. Clearly folks engage in such debates for a reason. And it may be that they do so only to justify their preconceived notions of how they view the universe. Let's be honest, that is how humans work most of the time. I would hope there is something more to it, but that may be an idle wish.

...

This is related:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Kohlberg.pdf

When doing these debates they always in part are about how humans ought to understand reality.
But that is related to the above.
Now try to explain how a debate should proceed based on stage 5 (and 6) and compare with stage 3/4 as between different (sub-)culturally colored world-views.
There is always culture and cognition in these debate, even for atheists.

 

[Belz...]

Likewise: Hidden by dogmatic assertion of not having to check one's own thinking, because everybody else in the record history of mankind, which disagrees with me are wrong.
You should get a Nobel prize for everything, because you have figured it out.

Stop grandstanding. You're not challenging your own thinking. You're wallowing in it. You're ignoring thousands of years of science and philosophy because you like the sound of your own thoughts. Nothing you've posted is insightful or relevant. It's just self-important word salad.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Philosophy" is not one thing, but there is much truth to what you write. "Philosophy" means love of wisdom. It is very true that much of transpires within its "realm" is utter bollocks, to use a term from across the pond.

The problem isn't that philosophy isn't one thing, it's that it's everything. There's no structure, no standards. It's everything so it's nothing. Anybody can do anything and call it philosophy.

The very act of breaking things down to epistemology vs other ways of interacting with the world may be one of the bigger mistakes. That was Descartes' move. It is similar to Plato's attempt to reconcile, essentially, Parmenides and Heraclitus and arriving at the Forms.

Listen we've already got one person who's entire argumentative toolkit is "List off names of philosophers at people."

I might be committing some form of intellectual sin here, but I don't really care what a punch of people who thought Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water were the elements and that rotten meat could spontaneously generate maggots think about the universe.

That one is easy. Because it's something that people care about.

And that's all fine until it allows emotional stubbornness to rewrite intellectual standards.

 

[Phlegm]

This is related:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Kohlberg.pdf

When doing these debates they always in part are about how humans ought to understand reality.
But that is related to the above.
Now try to explain how a debate should proceed based on stage 5 (and 6) and compare with stage 3/4 as between different (sub-)culturally colored world-views.
There is always culture and cognition in these debate, even for atheists.

Maybe? Could you explain the relevance of moral development to what I wrote? I am not interested in labeling anyone as morally inferior in these sorts of debates if that is what you are after...

 

[Belz...]

Maybe? Could you explain the relevance of moral development to what I wrote? I am not interested in labeling anyone as morally inferior in these sorts of debates if that is what you are after...

For some reason, factual questions always circle back to morals with Tommy.

 

[Phlegm]

The problem isn't that philosophy isn't one thing, it's that it's everything. There's no structure, no standards. It's everything so it's nothing. Anybody can do anything and call it philosophy.

Of course philosophy is 'everything', at least it is the attempt to understand everything. I'm sure you know that science is 'natural philosophy', so there is nothing grand in this. I know there is an anti-philosophy bent here -- and it is largely an anti-Continental philosophy bent. Much of the criticism is well-deserved. But different philosophical projects do have something to teach us. They are not entirely without merit. Some clearly are without any real merit, but that is not true of all.

Anyone who really wants to argue -- philosophy says -- should not be listened to. OK, re-reading that, it is too ambiguous. What I meant is that anyone who wants to argue that Philosophy says is a real argument should not be taken seriously.

Listen we've already got one person who's entire argumentative toolkit is "List off names of philosophers at people."

I might be committing some form of intellectual sin here, but I don't really care what a punch of people who thought Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water were the elements and that rotten meat could spontaneously generate maggots think about the universe.

I apologize. It was a sort of short-hand to avoid writing too much. What I meant was that Descartes' move, in order to deal with 'what we can really know', to split humans into 'subjective' and 'objective' -- or mind and body -- is probably just as big of a philosophical error as Plato trying to reconcile Parminides' "Being is One" and Heraclitus' "All is Change". Plato's way of doing so was to see the world as ever-changing and not-reliable (shadows on the cave wall) and some other realm as 'true and unchanging' (along the lines of Parminides' ONE) -- the forms. That move may have helped him deal with ambiguity, but it split the 'world' into two realms -- what we see and experience and what is really TRUE.

Descartes, in an attempt to deal with what we can really know -- he had to deal with Scholastic philosophy, after all -- created a similar split into 'mind' and 'body' or subjective/objective. He concentrated on what we can know subjectively -- I think (or feel), therefore I am.

Both split the world. But that is not how we experience it. Modern views of epistemology largely rest on this split between mind and body.

The idea of brains in vats also rests on this idea. But our brains are not brains in vats, they are parts of bodies living in the world. The modern reboot of behavioral psychology takes this into account and includes much of cognitive psychology -- since cognition is a behavior.

I hope that is a little better. It's clearly not a full explanation.

And that's all fine until it allows emotional stubbornness to rewrite intellectual standards.

Granted fully. Keep in mind, however, that we are all human and it can work both ways. I'm not saying one side has more blame than another...but I don't want to get into politics.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Maybe? Could you explain the relevance of moral development to what I wrote? I am not interested in labeling anyone as morally inferior in these sorts of debates if that is what you are after...

How do we understand reality? - is always also - How ought we understand reality? - which leads to - How ought you and I treat our individual differences in understanding reality? - which leads to - Is there one and only one methodology for all of reality both without and including the human existence and experience? - which leads to - That depends in part on cognition, culture and how you understand reality or not, if there is one and only one methodology for all of reality?

In other words - There is a connection between what reality really is and how we treat each other.

So there is more than how people view the universe, it is connected to how people view each other, because how you answer how you understand the universe is connected to how you understand humans.

• Through science
• Through philosophy
• Through religion
• Through what ever
• And if you combine those or not

...

If that were all that it was, then I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that is the case in all situations. Clearly folks engage in such debates for a reason. And it may be that they do so only to justify their preconceived notions of how they view the universe. Let's be honest, that is how humans work most of the time. I would hope there is something more to it, but that may be an idle wish.
...

There is always more to it.

It is always about different versions of the understanding of science, philosophy and religion and how we ought to treat the differences.

 

[kellyb]

But there are no symptoms/illness in this case. There's nothing to diagnosis.

Doctors don't expose people to the radiation of a CT looking for a tumor if there's no reason to.