Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?

[barehl]

Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?

I can understand the term "naturalism" as an assertion of laws of cause and effect that are consistent. Specifically this excludes supernatural influences. As far as I can tell, anything that would be described as a god would be supernatural so naturalistic and theistic beliefs would be mutually exclusive.

If we start with the basics:

Set - A collection of items.
Subset - A collection of items that is less than or equal to another known collection.
Selection - Choosing one or more items from a finite set.
Selection Criteria - A property shared by all items in a set that can be used to assign comparative value.
Decision - True if a selection has been made for a set.
Selection Result - What was chosen from a set.
Null Selection - The result of a selection if any of the following are true:

1. A set is empty.
2. A set is infinite.
3. More than one item had the best comparative value AND the number of items that can be selected is less than the number of items with the best comparative value.
4. No selection criteria is available for the set.
5. No decision has been made for the set.

A given set will always have a non-null selection result if all of the following are true:

• The set contains at least one item.
• The set is finite.
• Only one item had the best comparative value OR the number of items that can be selected is equal to or greater than the number of items with the best comparative value.
• The set has a selection criteria.
• A decision has been made for the set.

As far as I can tell, naturalism would be a selected belief of the set of {cause and effect} that would exclude anything supernatural.

Presumably theism would be any selected belief from the undefined set of {gods} with {gods} as an undefined subset of {supernatural}.

Atheism would presumably be a null selection from the undefined set of {gods}.

I have not though been able to define what the members of the set of {gods} would be. Some options seem to include:

• Builder - a maker of part or all of the material world.
• Dualistic endowment - giving a non-material essence to something material.
• Instruction - giving knowledge that would otherwise not be available.
• Command - giving an arbitrary list of practices with rewards for compliance and penalties for non-compliance.
• Interference - giving assistance or hindrance to some material configuration.
• Extended existence - existence either before or apart from material things.

Since this list does not include a common selection criteria, I'm not sure how a selection would be possible. To obtain a selection, it appears that you would need to either make a random choice, choose the entire list, or restrict the list in some fashion until one common criteria is available. People seem to use the term "atheism" as though it has a strong definition but I'm not sure how it would have any definition if "god" is not first defined.

 

[Loss Leader]

If we start with the basics:

I realize you worked hard on this, but I really don't see it as anything more than a semantic game. There are a couple of words and they generally represent mostly agreed-upon concepts. You are then trying to subject the words to math. Math is precise and requires precise inputs in order to generate anything useable. I just don't see being able to do operations on words that are so variably understood.

 

[ynot]

Great to see you’ve started your own thread. I hope it goes well for you and some members don’t obfuscate your debate it with derails.

 

[Brian-M]

Since this list does not include a common selection criteria, I'm not sure how a selection would be possible. To obtain a selection, it appears that you would need to either make a random choice, choose the entire list, or restrict the list in some fashion until one common criteria is available.

I don't understand why you think this is a problem with atheism. Is far as I can tell, your objection only applies to the selection of a non-null option (ie, theism).

But choosing at random is a perfectly valid way of making a selection, so I don't see why you're objecting to that possibility either.

People seem to use the term "atheism" as though it has a strong definition but I'm not sure how it would have any definition if "god" is not first defined.

Most people have a working definition of what they mean by "god".

I define "god" as an intelligent supernatural entity in some way responsible for our existence.

(And I define "supernatural" as something capable actions which are incompatible with the observable laws of physics.)

A given set will always have a non-null selection result if all of the following are true:

• The set contains at least one item.
• The set is finite.
• Only one item had the best comparative value OR the number of items that can be selected is equal to or greater than the number of items with the best comparative value.
• The set has a selection criteria.
• A decision has been made for the set.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Manopolus]

Yeah, but aren't naturalists those people that like to run around naked?

 

[Brian-M]

Yeah, but aren't naturalists those people that like to run around naked?

Those would be the methodological naturalists. Philosophical naturalists just sit around thinking about running around naked.

 

[ehcks]

Let A be theism. Atheism is thus not-A.

Take a whole alphabet of beliefs that people could be any combination of, even all 26 if they're weird enough. Atheism is every combination that does not include A.

Atheists can believe in the supernatural, or the paranormal, or that aliens created life on earth. The one and only common feature of atheism is the lacking of a belief in any god. This makes it a somewhat useless term. It would not exist if no one created stories about gods.

I have not though been able to define what the members of the set of {gods} would be.

That's one problem. That's where ignosticism comes from. There is no way to describe a god with words that make sense. But for atheism, it doesn't matter. An atheist does not believe that any god exists, no matter how the set of gods is defined. At best, they are fictional creatures like unicorns or dragons.

 

[barehl]

I really don't see it as anything more than a semantic game.

So, my question isn't rigorous enough.

Most people have a working definition of what they mean by "god".

So, my question is too rigorous.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what to say.

 

[barehl]

Let A be theism. Atheism is thus not-A.

Theism is a subset of the class of supernatural beliefs. If it is useful to specifically classify theistic beliefs then why would it not be useful to classify all supernatural beliefs?

Theism seems to be of roughly the same precision as "vehicle" where bicycles, ships, trains, and jet aircraft are lumped together. Atheism would then be like walking I suppose. So, walking = NOT vehicle. Would roller-skates and skis be counted as walking or as vehicles? Would a horse be counted as a vehicle?

 

[phiwum]

I can understand the term "naturalism" as an assertion of laws of cause and effect that are consistent. Specifically this excludes supernatural influences. As far as I can tell, anything that would be described as a god would be supernatural so naturalistic and theistic beliefs would be mutually exclusive.

If we start with the basics:

Set - A collection of items.
Subset - A collection of items that is less than or equal to another known collection.
Selection - Choosing one or more items from a finite set.
Selection Criteria - A property shared by all items in a set that can be used to assign comparative value.
Decision - True if a selection has been made for a set.
Selection Result - What was chosen from a set.
Null Selection - The result of a selection if any of the following are true:

1. A set is empty.
2. A set is infinite.
3. More than one item had the best comparative value AND the number of items that can be selected is less than the number of items with the best comparative value.
4. No selection criteria is available for the set.
5. No decision has been made for the set.

Not that I think this approach was really headed in a good direction to begin with, but your idea that one cannot select an element of an infinite set is utterly bizarre. It has absolutely no support in any mathematical setting I've seen, and certainly not classical set theory.

So, yes, if you make stuff up that no one else would think sensible, you might derive some surprising results. Congrats!

 

[Brian-M]

So, my question isn't rigorous enough.

I don't see how you got that conclusion from what he said.

So, my question is too rigorous.

I don't see how you got that conclusion from what I said.

 

[phiwum]

So, my question isn't rigorous enough.


So, my question is too rigorous.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what to say.

Well, it is traditional to respond to two independent criticisms independently, whether the criticisms are mutually inconsistent or not.

Of course, calling something a "semantic game" is not the same thing as saying it is "not rigorous enough". Nor is saying that most people have some idea of god the same as saying "too rigorous". So, perhaps the problem really lies in the fact that you cannot understand the criticisms to begin with.

 

[Pup]

I can understand the term "naturalism" as an assertion of laws of cause and effect that are consistent. Specifically this excludes supernatural influences.

I got stuck right there. It seems that defining supernatural is just as squishy as defining gods, so if one can understand what's not supernatural, one can understand what's not a god.

For example, Joe says ouija boards are a way for spirits to communicate. He can describe an entire worldview in which spirits logically exist and use cause and effect to communicate. To him, they're part of this world, behave in consistent ways, but are considered supernatural by customary usage of the word, but not because they're outside of the law of cause and effect.

Or Jane says her lucky charm keeps bad events away if she wears it: pure cause and effect. Perhaps she can't explain how it does so, but then there are observations in science where the how hasn't been worked out but the observation exists. Her luck is provable, because all the potential bad things that could have happened while she was wearing it, didn't. Even that day a piano fell on her, her lucky charm prevented it from killing her.

And then there are things which are so strange they shade toward the supernatural, but strictly aren't, like bigfoot or chemtrails or massive conspiracies that require nothing truly violating the laws of nature as we currently understand them, but are so unlikely that believing them to be true is almost like believing something supernatural.

Then there's the old excuse that some people try to apply to the Million Dollar Challenge. If something appears "supernatural" but is proven, after winning the MDC, to be within the current laws of nature, is the prize-money revoked? Well, of course not--it's a contract--but the label of what's supernatural would surely change. An isolated primitive tribe might consider radio supernatural, but not us. We might consider something supernatural, but then consider it natural the next year after it's explained and the laws of nature adjusted if necessary.

A strict definition of supernatural seems as hard, or easy, as a strict definition of gods.

 

[barehl]

Not that I think this approach was really headed in a good direction to begin with, but your idea that one cannot select an element of an infinite set is utterly bizarre. It has absolutely no support in any mathematical setting I've seen, and certainly not classical set theory.

If what you said was true then I would agree with you. However, a comparison of selection criteria for an infinite set would take an infinite amount of time. Even something as simple as choosing a random number from an infinite set would take an infinite amount of time. If you feel that you can disprove this you are welcome to give it a try.

 

[barehl]

I really don't see it as anything more than a semantic game. There are a couple of words and they generally represent mostly agreed-upon concepts.

I can try to simplify it further.

T: Are you an atheist?
D: What is an atheist?
T: You are an atheist if you don't believe in God.
D: Which god are you referring to?
T: There is only one god.
D: How do you know?
T: It says so in the Bible.
D: Then aren't you just asking me if I'm a Christian?
T: Well, you could believe in some other god.
D: You said that other gods don't exist so why would it matter?
T: You would be theistic if you believed in some god; that is important.
D: If theism is believing in something that doesn't exist then how is it different from just being crazy?

I just don't see being able to do operations on words that are so variably understood.

Are they "mostly agreed-upon concepts" or are they "variably understood"?

 

[barehl]

But choosing at random is a perfectly valid way of making a selection, so I don't see why you're objecting to that possibility either.

You are the first person I've ever talked to who stated that his beliefs were chosen at random. That would however explain why you don't need comparisons or any selection criteria. If you can show that most other people choose their beliefs the same way then you have a good point.

 

[epepke]

No, they aren't logically consistent, and they're only approximately useful.

Here's another idea as to why they aren't. Nobody has any idea of what a god is. In order to say meaningfully "I do [do not] believe in a god," one has to have a pretty clear idea of what a god is.

On the other hand, with respect to Cognitive Science, the meta-stuff is meaningful and fascinating. What it means is that theists, at least, have constructed a category and a frame of "god" that is connected in their brains to "I believe." But since there is no evidence that the category of "god" applies to anything directly communicable with respect to shared experience, it means that these categories and frames can be constructed out of whole cloth. This is extremely important.

Then we could get into how they are constructed. It's well known that frames and metaphors are constructed by mere association of experience. This is why verticality is associated with quantity: there is a near universal experience of, for example, the top of the fluid in a container rising as the quantity increases. (Perhaps a zero-gravity species wouldn't make this association.)

Religious practice makes a lot more sense this way. You expose someone to repeated emotional rewards for thinking "god." The learning is enhanced by stress (see the conversions at college, a stressful time for many).

What is fascinating is the idea that an entire category can be constructed in the brain just because of this. This leads to the question, what if all the categories in the brain are like this? That's a very deep rabbit hole.

 

[Navigator]

.



That's one problem. That's where ignosticism comes from. There is no way to describe a god with words that make sense. But for atheism, it doesn't matter. An atheist does not believe that any god exists, no matter how the set of gods is defined. At best, they are fictional creatures like unicorns or dragons.

There it is. That is really what an atheist is.

Not just someone who lacks belief in god(s) [the default position] but someone who emphatically believes that god(s) do not exist.[has moved from the default position]

 

[Navigator]

I define "god" as an intelligent supernatural entity in some way responsible for our existence.

I define "gods" as conscious intelligent entities in some way responsible for their own existence.

In that way I know at least humans fit this definition so in that sense I can say that I know gods exist.

But in relation to your definition of "god" I don't know if such an entity exists or not and am not inclined to believing either way.

Which makes my position neither atheist or theist.

 

[ehcks]

There it is. That is really what an atheist is.

Not just someone who lacks belief in god(s) [the default position] but someone who emphatically believes that god(s) do not exist.[has moved from the default position]

"Does not believe" is not "believes in not."

Why does this need to be stated in every single thread on this subject?