Ask a Radical Atheist

[qayak]

One way of reforming Piggy's original post is to say that the old definitions for god have passed and we now need a new word or a new way of using the old word.

I see your point but I disagree. There have been enough religions and gods die out over the course of human history that we do not need new words or definitions. Once they fall out of favour they are known as myths.

This is common usage and would make the god of the bible simply the "judeo-christian myth."

Take the word 'atom' -- it originally meant 'indivisible'. Clearly that is not true, so we did not jettison the word, we simply rearranged what the word means. Or, to repeat, the word 'consciousness'.

There is a big difference though. We redefined atom because it had caught on as a name for a specific thing that exists in our universe. It was easier to use the accepted word for this thing even though it was found that the word did no accurately describe it. BUT . . . gods don't exist and many are trying to usurp the definition of "universe" as their new definition of "god." Add to this the fact that they are trying to get us to believe that this was the definition earlier peoples really meant when they talked about god.

So, it maybe a semantic argument but it is a dishonest semantic argument. I don't mean this to sound like the dishonesty is on your part. The dishonesty is in trying to a salvage respectability for a deeply held belief that has been shown to be false, by stealing the definition of an accepted and revered word.

 

[Piscivore]

You need to stop jumping in without reading the thread. Piggy isn't using leprechauns as gods, but as examples of things that, like god, cannot be.

You indicated "it makes no difference [to Piggy] if god is defined as... a leprechaun..." It was to that I was responding.

His estimation that "leprechauns cannot be" has no bearing whatsoever on what defintions of god he is or is not willing to accept, and do not relate to the comments under discussion at all. I did not realise you were throwing a non-sequitor in there.

"My arguments do not depend on any single definition of God" /= "no definition of God would satisfy

".

It means he knows no single definition of god that invalidates his argument. That does not mean that no definition will invalidate his argument, it means if one does, he does not know it. He explicitly asked for any. It is not his failure that you cannot provide anything more concrete than "there might be".

This is (still) a generalisation error on your part.

How can anyone know that??

I don't know, it is your hypothetical.

I didn't bring up the example of quasars to explain dark matter, but to point out that we discover new things about the universe all the time.

Okay, but we are not talking about what we know about the universe, except that you offered dark matter as a something that science was investigating that had not any qualities. Yet, as far as science is concerned, it does have at least one. Whatever some future world view that is not scientific might say about the matter is really irrelevant, isn't it? We are talking about science.

Do you agree that science has nothing to say about things that have no qualities?

Do you understand that as far as science in concerned, dark matter is not one of those things that has no qualities?

Huh?

It is a simple question, Claus. Do you know of any such qualities a god must have to warrant scientific investigation? Yes or No.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Piggy,

This is all about how words are used.

To use the word God to refer to the universe needn't entail new aspects for God. It isn't a new way of defining God. It simply is not a Western way of doing it.

This is a romantic version of a myth. We in the West cannot comprehend the mystical Eastern thought. Then how can you comprehend it? Or if you are Eastern, how do you know we in the West cannot comprehend it? That is absurd. I speak 2 languages and have traveled extensively. There is no magical unattainable noble savage Eastern view that Westerners just cannot comprehend.

You aren't saying anything a zillion Christians aren't saying when they claim they can feel God's presence and atheists just need to do [X] and they would feel it too. Yet all tests for the supposed things said Christians believe God does like answer prayers turns out not to be supportable with any evidence.

What it amounts to is an entirely different way of looking at the same issue. It does not make a separate ontological claim for God, so that way of dealing with the issue is not subject to the analysis you are subjecting it. You are analyzing based on new ontological claims. Any way of looking at "god" that does not make an ontological claim can't be touched in that way.

What you are saying is that this sort of speech -- calling God the universe -- cannot create some new ontological entity that can be used in some new way. I don't think anyone disputes that -- except for the woos who try to get airplay out of it and equivocate over the idea of God. I fully agree that it doesn't provide anything new under the sun. But I don't think that is a valid critique of those Eastern ways of looking at the issue, since they are not concerned with God being something else (again, except for the common practices where there are gods and demons all over the place, but they are another concern).

ETA:

Sorry, forgot to address this part -- yes, if you only rename the universe 'god', then the process consists only of a renaming. Woogle works fine too. But that isn't what is at play. The difference is that the word 'god' denotes a type of relationship that someone has to the universe. So, it concerns not a new entity, but one's relationship to the same entity. I may feel cold about the universe, but feel all warm and fuzzy and bunny-lovey about 'god as the universe'.

You claim this definition of god is not an entity then call it a relationship with the entity. Which is it, the entity or the relationship? If it is the entity, it is a god myth like all other god myths. If it is one's relationship with the natural world, then it isn't a god, it is a philosophy.

More on your other comments later, gotta go.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I see your point but I disagree. There have been enough religions and gods die out over the course of human history that we do not need new words or definitions. Once they fall out of favour they are known as myths.

This is common usage and would make the god of the bible simply the "judeo-christian myth."

A new way of using the word should make it obvious that they are all 'myths', as you basically point out.

There is a big difference though. We redefined atom because it had caught on as a name for a specific thing that exists in our universe. It was easier to use the accepted word for this thing even though it was found that the word did no accurately describe it. BUT . . . gods don't exist and many are trying to usurp the definition of "universe" as their new definition of "god." Add to this the fact that they are trying to get us to believe that this was the definition earlier peoples really meant when they talked about god.

And 'god' has caught on as a specific word to describe an entity that people feel a sense of reverence toward. Why not co-opt it in a new way that maintains the sense of reverence to refer to the universe. This is essentially what Einstein and Spinoza did.

Problems, of course, arise when folks try to equivocate over the use of the word and take from this meaning and ascribe all sorts of other meanings.

So, it maybe a semantic argument but it is a dishonest semantic argument. I don't mean this to sound like the dishonesty is on your part. The dishonesty is in trying to a salvage respectability for a deeply held belief that has been shown to be false, by stealing the definition of an accepted and revered word.

I don't see it as trying to salvage any respectability, but as a way to transition people into a new way of thinking so that they move past the simplistic and obviously infantile notions into a more adult view of the universe. Complete breaks with the past make the transition more difficult, I think. That is part of the reason why we kept the word 'atom'.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is a romantic version of a myth. We in the West cannot comprehend the mystical Eastern thought. Then how can you comprehend it? Or if you are Eastern, how do you know we in the West cannot comprehend it? That is absurd. I speak 2 languages and have traveled extensively. There is no magical unattainable noble savage Eastern view that Westerners just cannot comprehend.

I am not saying that Westerners cannot comprehend Eastern thought*. I am saying that you are using words in a particular way. There is another way to use the words, nothing else. Just as we can use the word 'atom' to refer to something that can obviously be split or the word 'consciousness' to a series of behaviors/actions instead of their old meanings that kept us behind. If you want to jettison the word, that is fine too. Then we need some other usage that easily encodes reverence for the totality of all that is. That phrase 'reverence for the totality of all that is' just seems a lot clunkier than 'god'.

* the Eastern-Western split in usages came about only because Piggy accused others of redefining the word 'god' and I mentioned that this was actually an old idea -- pantheism is not peculiar to Eastern thought even. But if you really look at it, I'm just as happy to jettison the whole idea of 'pantheism' since it carries with it the idea of the 'divine' and I have absolutely no idea what that word refers to, except in relation to the profane (which is a purely religious term and does not seem to refer to anything in reality).

You aren't saying anything a zillion Christians aren't saying when they claim they can feel God's presence and atheists just need to do [X] and they would feel it too. Yet all tests for the supposed things said Christians believe God does like answer prayers turns out not to be supportable with any evidence.

Whoa now. I am not claiming that God is a person with whom anyone can have a personal relationship, which is what Christians claim when they say they feel His presence. I am saying that using the word 'god' to refer to the universe carries with it different connotations than the word 'universe' alone brings with it.

You claim this definition of god is not an entity then call it a relationship with the entity. Which is it, the entity or the relationship? If it is the entity, it is a god myth like all other god myths. If it is one's relationship with the natural world, then it isn't a god, it is a philosophy.

More on your other comments later, gotta go.

Calling the universe 'god' carries with it the connotation of a particular type of relationship. You are being too analytical about the language relationship. This is merely a connotational issue, not a formal argument with terms that can be parsed in that way. There is a different meaning that is transmitted by this use of language.

So, this use of the word 'god' is not a definition of a new entity -- it is one and the same entity 'the universe' or 'the totality of all that exists'. It is not a definition of a relationship. It is a word usage that denotes a person's relationship with the universe and encodes the idea of reverence and awe for the universe. It is purely a word usage issue and not some type of fancy game. I'm not trying to get anything past you or use it for some other purpose.

 

[Hokulele]

Calling the universe 'god' carries with it the connotation of a particular type of relationship. You are being too analytical about the language relationship. This is merely a connotational issue, not a formal argument with terms that can be parsed in that way. There is a different meaning that is transmitted by this use of language.

So, this use of the word 'god' is not a definition of a new entity -- it is one and the same entity 'the universe' or 'the totality of all that exists'. It is not a definition of a relationship. It is a word usage that denotes a person's relationship with the universe and encodes the idea of reverence and awe for the universe. It is purely a word usage issue and not some type of fancy game. I'm not trying to get anything past you or use it for some other purpose.

As an analogy, there is a man currently sitting in my living room I call "my husband". He was the same person before we were married, when I called him "my boyfriend". He hasn't changed, but our relationship has. The label I use for him demonstrates the relationship I have with him. "My husband" isn't the name for the relationship (that would be "marriage"), but I do not have to tell someone we are married when I refer to him as "my husband". I think this is the point you are trying to make, no?

 

[articulett]

I see your point ich... and as I was "letting go of god" I learned to hear "all that is" or "the universe" or "nature" whenever someone referred to god. We hope that people transfer their reverence onto something that is real, like Sagan did and use it to further understand that real thing. I think that's fine. I have no arguments with that. I'm willing to call that "god" or think of "god" as that to keep the peace.

But I don't refer to that as "god" when I say I don't believe in god. I reject all invisible and immeasurable forms of consciousness. I think consciousness is dependent upon brain matter. It seems that when people say they believe in god they are saying they believe some kind of consciousness exists that has no measurable qualities. Maybe it's a childish or mythological metaphor to express a feeling... I can see that.

But, per piggy's argument, it's a useless definition... a metaphor for a feeling--
Piggy can dismiss that god, not because he doesn't recognize the feeling... but because there are better terms for that feeling that don't imply invisible forms of consciousness or purpose or plan.

There does not seem to be a definition of god that can't be dismissed under his rubric-- a definition that most people would agree is a minimal definition of a god that can be shown to exist in any way distinguishable from a delusion of that god. He invites such definitions... and you've provided the best--but most atheists would interpret that as using the word "god" to describe "reverence or awe of the majesty of the universe".

We believe in that "god"--but we don't call it god. Hey, but if that's what people mean by god... then, fine-- it exists. I'm a believer. I thought I was an atheist, but I believe in that sort of god-- but I wouldn't call it god. When I say I don't believe in any gods, it's the same as my saying I don't believe in any leprechauns. Sure, there are dwarfs in ireland and leprechauns on cereal boxes... but per any normal definition of the word... I don't believe in leprechauns... nor demons, ghosts, nor gods.

People seem to use a lot of semantic tricks to take god our of the category of those other things given the fact he has no measurable characteristics just like those other things. I understand Hokulele's analogy regarding her husband. But she has a real material man in her house, I presume... and it is useful to distinguish her husband from imaginary husbands people might have. "The universe is my God" doesn't quite do that for me and more than imaginary friends can be said to be "real friends".

 

[Jimbo07]

Within the Western tradition there have also been attempts to "save God" by appeal to higher mathematics. The story goes (as you know), we think so one (or in this case, three) dimensionally. Think of God as a multidimensional being and this universe is merely a small three dimensional portion of this greater multidimensional being. What you may see as 'miracles' are merely interactions in this three dimensional space of the greater multidimensional being -- you know the flatworld story.

I hope you're not positing this as a potential definition, because this borders on making a specific claim.

These greater dimensions... are they space-like dimensions? I'm assuming so, because you're comparing them to the three spatial dimensions of common experience. How do you account for the fact that we can't readily perceive these extra dimensions? I've had people explain various aspects of String Theory, where the extra dimensions are actually curled up and very small... a product of the math, I suppose.

Can we make representations of this greater-dimensional being in 3-space? We can certainly make representations of 3-D objects (and even 4-D) in 2-space.

Representations here

...

Ascribing special wisdom to non-western ways of viewing supernatural mumbo-jumbo still doesn't rescue them from supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

...

and I think you were referring to Flatland

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I hope you're not positing this as a potential definition, because this borders on making a specific claim.

These greater dimensions... are they space-like dimensions? I'm assuming so, because you're comparing them to the three spatial dimensions of common experience. How do you account for the fact that we can't readily perceive these extra dimensions? I've had people explain various aspects of String Theory, where the extra dimensions are actually curled up and very small... a product of the math, I suppose.

Can we make representations of this greater-dimensional being in 3-space? We can certainly make representations of 3-D objects (and even 4-D) in 2-space.

Representations here

...

Ascribing special wisdom to non-western ways of viewing supernatural mumbo-jumbo still doesn't rescue them from supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

...

and I think you were referring to Flatland

Flatland, yep.

Could a two dimensional being see the 'third dimension' in flatland? They could see two dimensional 'cuts' of three dimensional objects passing through -- something that would look 'magical'.

And no, I am not making this as a specific claim, only that it is one possibility that discounts the idea that God is impossible. Especially if God encomapsses the entire third dimension that we experience so that we could not see any change in Him.

 

[Piggy]

I think it's time to make one point perfectly clear.

Several posts earlier, one poster pointed out that I'm not interested in abstract philosophical musings, but only in empirical reality.

Another poster commented that this "explains a lot".

Indeed it does.

I take this issue very seriously. Whether God does or does not exist is of utmost importance. The answer to that question has enormous impact on what this world is, and what we are as humans.

I am not fooling around here.

This is not some parlor game for me, or some abstract intellectual exercise.

I'm not talking about placeholders in some abstract philosophical space. I'm talking about the real world that all of us wake up in every morning.

So if anyone wants to propose that God may be real, they'd better be talking about a God that is God, not some empty collection of words, or something that no believer actually believes in, or something that can only be real if "real" is the same as "not real" or if "God" is the same as "not God".

I've spent many hours of my life pondering this question. I take it seriously. I ask that others here do so as well.

 

[Piggy]

"Something started my car" This is without definition, without qualities, except as some kind of car starting thingy. Thus, it cannot exist?

Careful.

If we say "something caused the Big Bang", we're on safe ground.

If we say "X caused the Big Bang" but we refuse to define X, then we're talking nonsense.

The claim "God caused the Big Bang" is not equivalent to "Something caused the Big Bang".

Similarly, the claim "Something started my car" is not equivalent to "God started my car".

So, to put some clothes on the "what, exactly", I'll say this God was a powerful sentience where "powerful" means the ability to start up a universe at a minimum.

The last part is of no consequence, since it's not a quality.

So what you want to claim is that a conscious entity caused the Big Bang, and that this entity is God?

The claim is that the universe had a start, and it was started by a sentience. Do you view that as a meaningless statement?

Now you're getting closer. You're claiming that a conscious being created the universe, and that this conscious being is God. Correct?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But I don't refer to that as "god" when I say I don't believe in god. I reject all invisible and immeasurable forms of consciousness. I think consciousness is dependent upon brain matter. It seems that when people say they believe in god they are saying they believe some kind of consciousness exists that has no measurable qualities. Maybe it's a childish or mythological metaphor to express a feeling... I can see that.

But, per piggy's argument, it's a useless definition... a metaphor for a feeling--
Piggy can dismiss that god, not because he doesn't recognize the feeling... but because there are better terms for that feeling that don't imply invisible forms of consciousness or purpose or plan.

Oh, I completely understand and fully agree -- as I said earlier, even directly to Piggy, this is not an issue over theistic Gods. The theistic definition of god falls as long as magic is impossible, and I think that deserves more interest. In a way, I think that is what Piggy was getting at in the original post, though I could be wrong (and I'm really sorry to derail this thread into this direction for so long, Piggy).

There does not seem to be a definition of god that can't be dismissed under his rubric-- a definition that most people would agree is a minimal definition of a god that can be shown to exist in any way distinguishable from a delusion of that god. He invites such definitions... and you've provided the best--but most atheists would interpret that as using the word "god" to describe "reverence or awe of the majesty of the universe".

As long as it is directed to the theistic definition, yes, I agree. Unless one wants to invoke the Deist god -- which still is possible, but merely called inconsequential -- which it is. And the potential multidimensional entity, which is another possibility, though unlikely.

We believe in that "god"--but we don't call it god. Hey, but if that's what people mean by god... then, fine-- it exists. I'm a believer. I thought I was an atheist, but I believe in that sort of god-- but I wouldn't call it god. When I say I don't believe in any gods, it's the same as my saying I don't believe in any leprechauns. Sure, there are dwarfs in ireland and leprechauns on cereal boxes... but per any normal definition of the word... I don't believe in leprechauns... nor demons, ghosts, nor gods.

No one needs to call it god. I'm sure most people prefer not to do so. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a potential way to use the word.

People seem to use a lot of semantic tricks to take god our of the category of those other things given the fact he has no measurable characteristics just like those other things. I understand Hokulele's analogy regarding her husband. But she has a real material man in her house, I presume... and it is useful to distinguish her husband from imaginary husbands people might have. "The universe is my God" doesn't quite do that for me and more than imaginary friends can be said to be "real friends".

Right, and that is one of the reasons why everyone must remain on the lookout for overuse or equivocation when such a word is used.

 

[Piggy]

Dark matter is therefore unscientific?

Pardon my French, but are you really this ignorant, or are you just pretending?

Dark matter -- whether it proves to be actual or not -- is an anchored concept.

No one would say of dark matter "it is utterly beyond man's understanding, and I cannot tell you any of its qualities".

You're trying my patience.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As an analogy, there is a man currently sitting in my living room I call "my husband". He was the same person before we were married, when I called him "my boyfriend". He hasn't changed, but our relationship has. The label I use for him demonstrates the relationship I have with him. "My husband" isn't the name for the relationship (that would be "marriage"), but I do not have to tell someone we are married when I refer to him as "my husband". I think this is the point you are trying to make, no?

Well, only sort of. Those are different roles that a person took in your life. This is more a a fundamental difference in the way we use a word. Part of the reason I have gone off in this direction is because of a few recent threads that also used words in new ways and because of my rumination recently on Wittgenstein and Rorty for other reasons.

 

[Piggy]

Indeed. "God" has left artifacts all over the place. Chartres. The Sistine Chapel, The Gutenberg Bible. The Acropolis. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salvation Army.

Excuse me, but human beings left every one of these artifacts.

Behaviour patterns that would not exist absent the notion of "god". Praying, rituals, hymns.

The notion of God is not God.

And we have a perfectly good explanation of why people should believe in God even if God is not real.

Creating arbitrary connecions between otherwise unconnected believers is one. Providing a basis for morals and ethics is another.

These are not qualities of God. These are things you might claim God does.

Not quite. My definition does not include a faith component. Would you say that because Wolfman's Mousu friends think western medicine is another ritual for exorcising an evil spirit, my understanding of germ theory is "humpty-dumptyism"?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. If your definition does not include a faith component, then you're contradicting those who actually claim God is real -- the faithful.

Your understanding of germ theory is not HD-ism, if your understanding agrees with what the theory actually is.

A claim that God is created by human beings -- yeah, that's HD-ism, because the faithful don't actually think that.

 

[Piggy]

Pardon Piggy, but your answer evidences that you have not examined the views I cited to any depth yourself. And you really need to before you make sweeping dismissals based on no understanding of those positions.
There's nothing about them, of themselves, that is contrary to scientific fact, they are not empty of meaning, but you would summarily find them "nonsensical" because they are contemplative and philosophical approaches.

Give me a summary, how 'bout?

If you understand them, that shouldn't be difficult.

I won't reject anything merely because it is, as you say, contemplative or philosophical.

If it is bogus, however, it's out the door.

 

[Piggy]

Yeah, this is part of Piggys problem. He really seems quite ignorant of certain things, and he seems to disguise his ignorance by hand-waving away whatever he is ignorant of.

Excuse me, but as it happens, I've read those guys. None of their arguments convince me.

And I have yet to dismiss anything by hand-waving. I've explained why I believe what I believe, and why I've reached the conclusions I have.

You, on the other hand, have contributed exactly nothing of substance to this thread, and yet you insult me.

Oh well. So be it.

 

[Piggy]

Ooooh, aren't you the slippery one! Now it has to be a genuine possibility.

Uh... yeah. Would you accept one that wasn't?

That's precisely your problem: You think it has to make sense to you.

Are you any different? Do you believe things that don't make sense to you? I doubt it.

But you have already said that no definition of God would satisfy you.

No, I have not.

If anyone can produce one that doesn't fall into error, then I'm wrong, plain and simple.

Because it isn't meaningful to you, no. But you can't decide what is meaningful to others on their behalf.

Now you're back into your post-modernist claptrap.

People believe all kinds of nonsense. The fact that a notion is meaningful to someone... that holds no weight. Therefore, I'm not concerned with what other people find meaningful in their hearts. I'm concerned only with what holds up to objective scrutiny.

So far, you haven't even attempted to produce anything of the sort.

You don't use science to answer the question. You use your own prejudices.

I haven't described prejudices here. I've explained precisely why I believe all potential definitions must fail.

You should either address what I'm saying, or put a cork in it.

 

[qayak]

And 'god' has caught on as a specific word to describe an entity that people feel a sense of reverence toward. Why not co-opt it in a new way that maintains the sense of reverence to refer to the universe. This is essentially what Einstein and Spinoza did.

I think there is a difference. Einstein for sure was not seriously saying that the universe was god. He was stating that he personally saw it as his "god", the thing he reveres most. That would not work for religious people who see god as an entity far superior to anything in this universe.

I don't see it as trying to salvage any respectability, but as a way to transition people into a new way of thinking so that they move past the simplistic and obviously infantile notions into a more adult view of the universe. Complete breaks with the past make the transition more difficult, I think. That is part of the reason why we kept the word 'atom'.

Although I do agree with you on the idea that complete breaks with the past are very difficult, I think you are suggesting something even more difficult. You are suggesting that religious people who have always seen science and scientists as the mortal enemy of their beliefs will embrace the idea of changing to become a follower of that enemy. The very fact that this was Einstein's, or Spinoza's, or Darwin's idea will make it infinitely harder for them to swallow.

I still feel there is a vast difference between why we keep the word "atom" and why we should change the definition of the word "god." Isn't the word for universe "universe?"

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Piggy,

OK, all those other issues aside, does this really boil down to "magic is impossible?"

If so, why is that the case? I think I completely agree, but I am not sure that I could prove it on logical grounds.