Should atheism be considered a movement?

[CFLarsen]

I understand what the term theory and law both refer to in science, Claus. What is it about my use of the term, theory, makes you think I am referring to the term, law?

The "natural laws" you speak of refer to physical observations. A scientific theory, while related, is not the same as a scientific "law".

I know. I'm not saying otherwise.

And again you completely ignore what I said and replace it with what you imagine I said.

Like I said, "The issue I have is when I clarify what was said, you stick with the misunderstood version."

I knew I was too wordy in that reply to your post. It didn't sound any more clear after I restated it. I think it was most clear the first time.

But you don't merely restate or clarify. You change what you said - and then complain that I originally misunderstood you. It is dishonest, pure and simple.

Also, you have a tendency to act all offended at my perceived misunderstandings and forget to answer whatever questions there were. So, here it is again:

Would you say that evolution is a fact?

This whole thing revolves around the continual use of the claim atheism is too strong of a statement and agnosticism is the correct position because one cannot "prove" there are no gods. At first glance, this is technically correct. But that technicality is the equivalent of saying one cannot "prove" the theory of gravity. That is also technically correct and hopefully my previous posts explains why that is how theories are referred to in science.

It gets confusing as Claus seems to have erred because we have a separate term in science, a law. But the fact there is a "law" of gravity does not change the fact there is also a "theory" of gravity. And the fact the theory of gravity is not often questioned, doesn't change the definition of a scientific theory either.

Nobody has been arguing otherwise. I sure haven't.

That same technicality regarding scientific principles is also touted by people afraid to face or are unaware that we have concluded in science the theory of evolution is essentially a fact. But I digress...

Not only do you contradict yourself (before, you said that theories can't be proven), you are also wrong. Very wrong.

The theory of evolution is not a fact, essentially or not. Evolution itself is a fact - the theory is a theory.

Theories can never be facts. They can be true, if enough evidence points in that direction. And always with the qualifier: Until new evidence is discovered.

I strongly suspect that you will respond to this with yet another head-shaking post about how I misunderstand you, but this is entirely your own fault. When you play fast and loose with terms (you also do it here), people are bound to misunderstand what you say.

The scientific technicality that one cannot prove there are no gods is misused. One needn't be agnostic because one cannot 'prove' there are no gods because there is no evidence there are gods. Or at least it should be clear that one is simply being anal about a scientific principle rather than actually agnostic about the possibility of gods.

Here you go again: Mixing two things. In this case, you confuse the principle of divinity with the concept of evidence.

Yes, we can say that one cannot prove god. In fact, the lack of evidence and the difficulty in defining a god are two very strong arguments in favor of agnosticism.

I don't see a problem with agnosticism at all, when it comes to science. Science doesn't claim to explain everything.

Maybe you disagree?

I have an issue with this. Yes, we do. An implicit assumption in our study of physics is that the physics we are studying is more than a prevailing local condition.

This assumption has never been conclusively verified. We have failed to observe anything outside this galaxy operating counter to our laws of physics, except for certain gravitational anomalies and problems (we attribute this to Dark Matter) and a lot of missing energy (we attribute this to Dark Energy). But I'd like testing in a minimum of two other galaxies before I would be willing to sign off as certainty that the laws of physics apply everywhere. There's no reason they wouldn't - but there's no reason - beyond massive headache generation above all comprehension - that they necessarily have to.

That's the very definition of a natural law: That they are all-pervasive: Gravity works the same way on Earth, as it does everywhere else in the universe. Scientific conclusions are always provisional, but that has nothing to do with the universal quality of a natural law.

So, no: We don't need to test a natural law everywhere to say that it is a natural law. We need to test it where we can, and see if the evidence supports it. The more it is supported, the more true it becomes.

Science doesn't hinge on "but X can't be proven wrong" (skeptigirl's claim). It hinges on "until new evidence is discovered".

 

[Fiona]

Science doesn't hinge on "but X can't be proven wrong" (skeptigirl's claim). It hinges on "until new evidence is discovered".

Now I am really confused. I think the two of you are agreed.

"X can't be proven wrong" is a description of the state of our knowledge. In the absence of a contrary instance we cannot completely prove that X is wrong and there are many things where we have not found a contrary instance but we have lots of confirming instances. They CANNOT be conclusive- thus the importance of falsifiablitiy.

"until new evidence comes along" acknowledges that. A black swan might appear at any moment, but so far it hasn't. If it does then X=all swans are white has been proven wrong, and to that extent CFLarsen is right. But a new idea which explains more facts might come along at any moment too. It might displace X but it does not prove it wrong.

Beyond a certain point we treat some of those ideas which are, so far, unfalsified as facts. That is the rational thing to do and we call it a "working hypothesis" or some such term. We act as if gravity were true and evolution were true, and we make progress by behaving in this way. But always with the unspoken understanding that this is only valid until "new evidence comes along".

The point about this is that we do not usually make that unspoken premise explicit. We only do that for things which are really uncertain: that is things, unlike gravity or evolution, where the evidence we have is much less strong. For truly robust ideas like gravity and evolution we do not say it, because there comes a point when ideas are so well supported that it is irrational not to reach a conclusion (albeit it is still not a final conclusion in terms of epistemology: because pretty much nothing is final in that sense).

I think the problem which is being addressed is that some believe that the "absence of God idea" is an idea supported as strongly the "presence of gravity idea". And so they object to having to make the statement that it not finally proved in one case and not the other. To include the "agnostic caveat" each time is to suggest that the idea is much weaker than they believe it to be.

Now it is possible to say that the "presence" of a thing is inherently different from the "absence" of a thing, and therefore to say that they need not (perhaps cannot) be subject to the same kind of rules. For myself I cannot see any reason why that should be true, but I am open to persuasion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Now I am really confused. I think the two of you are agreed.

"X can't be proven wrong" is a description of the state of our knowledge. In the absence of a contrary instance we cannot completely prove that X is wrong and there are many things where we have not found a contrary instance but we have lots of confirming instances. They CANNOT be conclusive- thus the importance of falsifiablitiy.

This is the only part you got wrong.

It isn't a description of the state of our knowledge; it's the realization that we cannot, ever, investigate every atom in the universe, at all moments in time. We have to test each new discovery and see if our own scientific world view measures up to the new and expanded reality.

Add to that, science does not claim that it can explain everything in the universe. That's what skeptigirl is missing, when she uses the argument "X can't be proven wrong".

"until new evidence comes along" acknowledges that. A black swan might appear at any moment, but so far it hasn't.

Yes it has....

If it does then X=all swans are white has been proven wrong, and to that extent CFLarsen is right. But a new idea which explains more facts might come along at any moment too. It might displace X but it does not prove it wrong.

No, and that's what a lot of woos get wrong: They think that Einsteinian physics invalidated Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics can be described as a subset of Einsteinian ditto.

Beyond a certain point we treat some of those ideas which are, so far, unfalsified as facts. That is the rational thing to do and we call it a "working hypothesis" or some such term. We act as if gravity were true and evolution were true, and we make progress by behaving in this way. But always with the unspoken understanding that this is only valid until "new evidence comes along".

The point about this is that we do not usually make that unspoken premise explicit. We only do that for things which are really uncertain: that is things, unlike gravity or evolution, where the evidence we have is much less strong. For truly robust ideas like gravity and evolution we do not say it, because there comes a point when ideas are so well supported that it is irrational not to reach a conclusion (albeit it is still not a final conclusion in terms of epistemology: because pretty much nothing is final in that sense).

I think the problem which is being addressed is that some believe that the "absence of God idea" is an idea supported as strongly the "presence of gravity idea". And so they object to having to make the statement that it not finally proved in one case and not the other. To include the "agnostic caveat" each time is to suggest that the idea is much weaker than they believe it to be.

The agnostic stance is that god can't be proved either way - with anything. It isn't a question for an agnostic to weigh the evidence pro et con (that's what an atheist might do), because his argument is that god cannot be known by science at all - so it's no use even trying.

Skeptigirl's mistake is to argue that everything can be known by science - and that we therefore can say that god never will be shown to exist. But we can't go that far - at least not the way we view science today.

Skeptigirl wants to bang people over the head with science even though they are talking about something that isn't in the realm of science. She thinks that, because she is right about science, she is right about everything else, too. She uses science like someone who only has a hammer: Everything looks like a nail.

Now it is possible to say that the "presence" of a thing is inherently different from the "absence" of a thing, and therefore to say that they need not (perhaps cannot) be subject to the same kind of rules. For myself I cannot see any reason why that should be true, but I am open to persuasion.

One difference is that once we speak of "presence", somebody has thought of it, and, in the case of a claim being made, we can do something about it. Investigate it, test it.

When we speak of "absence", there are two kinds: Absence of something that someone has thought of, and absence of something that someone hasn't thought of - yet. But we can't really do anything about something that nobody has thought of yet. How do we scientifically test something like that?

That's what skeptigirl is missing: She cannot understand that God could be something that nobody has thought of - yet. If she did, she wouldn't be so over-confident in her flat-out rejection of agnosticism.

Remember the scene in "Dead Poet's Society", where Robin Williams explains how he views the textbook he is supposed to teach poetry from?

Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"

Skeptigirl is doing the same as "Mr. J. Evans Pritchard": She is trying to fit someone else's numinous experience into neat little boxes of her own narrow-minded world.

Again: Skeptigirl may be right about science (though with some real whoppers of misunderstandings), but that doesn't mean she is right about everything else, too. She certainly is wrong about this.

 

[Dancing David]

Say, can I join your non-movement? --We won't allow straw men, okay?

Sigh, my straw man does the house work and makes popcorn....

 

[Dancing David]

'Just want you to know that like HS, I find you clear.

Me too. Saying that atheism should probably not be dominant, that means it must be a requirement.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you not propose a movement for critical thinking?

Yes, you did.

Did you not state that one requirement for joining this movement was that people were atheists?

Yes, you did.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I did not erect any strawmen. I went with what you said. So, stop placing blame on other people and answer the question:

What are the other requirements - if any?



I do no such thing. I challenge you to point out where I do.

Dear CFL, I read what she wrote, and I read what you write.

She did not say it was a requirement.

Where did she say that?

You are wrong or not understanding. So huff and puff all you want. You are misinterpreting what she wrote.

i hope there is a language issue here and that it is not you just insisting you are right.

So get off the playground if you won't behave yourself.

here is her quote

Atheism is only one aspect of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

Now as a speaker of Americanese I don't see a requirement at all, aspect has many uses in Americanese and it is a very fluid and idiomatic language.

In this use 'aspect' could mean many things, comparable words are 'facet', 'part', 'point of view' or 'bilabong'.

So when she says that
Atheism is only one facet of critical thinking

Atheism is only one part of critical thinking

Atheism is only one point of view of critical thinking

Atheism is only one bilabong of critical thinking

She is not making exclusive statements, in American culture there is an implicit assumtion that people do not have the same point of view, that they disagree, that they don't listen to authority and that they like hamburgers.

So if ScepticGirl has used exclusive language such as ' a nessecary conclusion',' an absolute requirement', 'an inevitable endpoint' or 'throat warbling mangrove' then your conclusions might have some merit.

But SG did not say

Atheism is only one nessecary conclusion of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

Atheism is only one absolute requirement of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

Atheism is only one inevitable endpoint of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

Atheism is only one throat warbling mangrove of critical thinking, but there's no reason it needs to be the dominant aspect.

So I don't know where you think you are right, but you are wrong, you make yourself look really foolsih.

The rest of the crew at the Dusty Raven still looks forward to your company.

 

[Meadmaker]

We've gone fairly far afield from the OP in the discussion that began with the acceptability of religious education, but I think it illustrates some points.

Obviously, there is great diversity of thought among people who call themselves atheists. To that extent, atheism can't be a movement.

On the other hand, there are a lot more atheists than there used to be, and some of those atheists are a heck of a lot more vocal than they used to be, and they are much more inclined to try to persuade others of their correctness than in years past. Also, their writings are more availabe, and people tend to read and pick up on ideas of atheist authors much more so than in the past. To that extent, there is certainly a trend among atheists that could be considered a movement.

Among people in that movement, one of the trends is to believe the idea that science can answer every problem. I find that I must agree with Claus on this point, that it cannot. I want to take one thing he said, and relate it to the other discussion between Skeptigirl and me.

That's what skeptigirl is missing: She cannot understand that God could be something that nobody has thought of - yet. If she did, she wouldn't be so over-confident in her flat-out rejection of agnosticism.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. The religious agnostics I know generally reject any notion of miracle working deities who give commandments and interfere in human history. That's only one sort of concept of what God could be. We can look at whether or not such a God exists scientifically, and conclude that if he does, he keeps a much lower profile than he is typically described in the folk literature. Indeed, most of us have concluded that there is no reason to believe in such an entity.

When Skeptigirl criticises "god-beliefs", I think that's the sort of god to which she refers. However, that isn't the only concept of god available. Moreover, there are people who feel that while there is no miracle working dude with the beard and the throne, there may be "something", something they cannot describe, do not know, and do not understand. These are agnostics. Many of the people in that category will participate in a traditional religion. Certainly culture plays a role in that choice, but that's not a complete explanation. Rather, they recognize that they myths and rituals of traditional religion are a way of giving form to the nebulous idea of that "something". Wrapping that "something" in a traditional form and giving it a description as Zeus makes the idea a bit more concrete. They don't actually believe that there is a Zeus, but by worshipping Zeus they believe they are getting closer to that indescribable something which he represents.

Unless of course, there is no other something, but in that case there's no harm done. It's still a good excuse to get together for coffee, or wine, or bread or orgies or whatever your particular church gets into.

 

[Dancing David]

The reason for the season is the tilt of the Earth's rotational axis in relation to its orbital path.

(Not an original idea, BTW)

Wow that is a snappy jingle, i want to go buy some right now!

 

[Dancing David]

Look at what she says right above:



You see the quotes? If she forgot the quotes around 'gravity exists but I can't prove it', then it was her mistake, not mine.

However, look at her follow up sentence: "because I cannot test gravity in every location within the Universe".

That is pure rubbish, and reveals a profound misunderstanding of science.

That is pure cute fluffy bunnies and reveals a profound misunderstanding of frilly easter dresses.

 

[Dancing David]

You clearly don't understand how natural laws work and how we test them. We do not need to test a natural law in every place of the universe to see if it is a natural law.

Would you say that evolution is a fact?



You have plenty of issues with what you claim are my constant misunderstandings of what you say.

But it is not my fault if you leave out quotes, or add to/explain away/change what you said earlier, that completely change the meaning of what you say.

You clearly don't understand how flat rocks work and how we test them. We do not need to test a flat rock in every place of the universe to see if it is a flat rock.

Would you say that tasty pudding is a fact?



You have plenty of sunsets with what you claim are my constant pointed stick of what you say.

But it is not my fault if you leave out the trash, or add to/explain away/change what you said earlier, that completely change the farfenuegen of what you say

 

[Dancing David]

... eyepatches optional ... and BYOPH*, of course.






*bring your own pointy helmet

And the Fuzzy Vest!

 

[Dancing David]

I know. I'm not saying otherwise.





But you don't merely restate or clarify. You change what you said - and then complain that I originally misunderstood you. It is dishonest, pure and simple.

Uh huh, and so how did 'aspect' become 'requirement'?

Why don't you go find Tai Chi and engage in a pissing contest with them?

 

[Dancing David]

We've gone fairly far afield from the OP in the discussion that began with the acceptability of religious education, but I think it illustrates some points.

Obviously, there is great diversity of thought among people who call themselves atheists. To that extent, atheism can't be a movement.

On the other hand, there are a lot more atheists than there used to be, and some of those atheists are a heck of a lot more vocal than they used to be, and they are much more inclined to try to persuade others of their correctness than in years past. Also, their writings are more availabe, and people tend to read and pick up on ideas of atheist authors much more so than in the past. To that extent, there is certainly a trend among atheists that could be considered a movement.

Among people in that movement, one of the trends is to believe the idea that science can answer every problem. I find that I must agree with Claus on this point, that it cannot. I want to take one thing he said, and relate it to the other discussion between Skeptigirl and me.



I think there is a lot of truth to this. The religious agnostics I know generally reject any notion of miracle working deities who give commandments and interfere in human history. That's only one sort of concept of what God could be. We can look at whether or not such a God exists scientifically, and conclude that if he does, he keeps a much lower profile than he is typically described in the folk literature. Indeed, most of us have concluded that there is no reason to believe in such an entity.

yes but when you try to talk about a scientific understanding of the process that generate human thoughts and experience, it is science?

So when i start to talk about how the models of psychology can model most of what people call religion, that is science right?

Some people are just uncomfortable with applying science to thier beliefs.

Science is not a hammer, it is a tool kit. You can apply it to whatever you want.

tell me, what aspect of religion can not be studied by science/

(I am not baiting you i am seriously interested).

 

[CFLarsen]

Dear CFL, I read what she wrote, and I read what you write.

She did not say it was a requirement.

Where did she say that?

Right here:

So if people aren't atheists, they are not allowed in the critical thinking movement?

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical.

You are wrong or not understanding. So huff and puff all you want. You are misinterpreting what she wrote.

Ask her yourself if she thinks one has to be an atheist to join this movement for critical thinking of hers.

 

[Dancing David]

CFL you are way too uptight and don't understand Americans very well.
"A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron."
A critical thinking theist may be an oxymoron in SG's eyes, and it may offend your sensibilities. But it is not an exclusive statement. It is saying that she thinks it is a contradiction. It does not sate that they are not critical thinkers. And please before you go on about the definition of oxymoron, it doesn't matter. saying that there is a contradiction does not mean that they are not critical thinkers. You are extrapolating motive and meaning that is not there. That statement does not demonstrate exclusion. Americans are very used to disagreeing withe ach other, that is part of who we are. You disagree with someone, argue for days, tease them incessitantly and then turn around and work with them and agree on other things. It is not an exclsuive statement.

"If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical."

And that is saying what? that they are not applying thier critical thinking to their god beliefs, which I think she defines in the daddy in the sky sort of thing. But it states that she feels if they applied critical thinking to her defintion of god beliefs that they would conclude that god beliefs (in her defintion) are mythical Again it does not say that they are not critical thinkers, it states she feels they exclude thier god beliefs from critical examination.


So here you are stating that SG makes the statement that 'people who do X are not critical thinkers' and that is a case of overgeneralization, based upon some sort of social cohesion model that may not apply to the situation.

here statements if we take them at my interpretive value are

"People who are citical thinkers and have belief X are contradicting themselves".

and

"People who uswe critical thinking skills will conclude all belief X is mythical"

No where does she state:
1. People who hold these beliefs are not critical thinkers.
2. People who hold tehse beleifs should not be considered to be critical thinkers.

So, that is what you are contending, that she stated that it is requirement of critical thinking that people not contradict themselves or have beliefs that they do not examine with critical thought. Which I don't see her making those statements but rather you engaginging in "overgeneralization", "assumptions without evidence" and "creating matter without a requisition form from the vacum Energy Dust Bunnies".

So you are saying she is being exclusive, but so far that is not what the statements you quoted would indicate.

the only critique would be based upon her defintion of god belief and the use of the word 'all'.

So overall it would seem to me that you are engaging in straw arguments, you are putting conclusions to her statements through overgeneralization, assuming a conclusions and then attacking your own ideas of what she has said.

As I said, go find Tai Chi and spray your urine at him/her, it does you no credit to act this way.

"If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical."

If I do ask her then I will listen to her response, something that you seem incapable of doing.

But whatever CFL all I can say is "Onward through the fog!"

 

[Meadmaker]

tell me, what aspect of religion can not be studied by science/

(I am not baiting you i am seriously interested).

Anything can be studied, but there are questions that cannot be answered.

Examples:

Do good and evil have any meaning beyond enhancing the survival chances of genetic material similar to ours?

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Is there a purpose to life beyond existence and reproduction?

Do we have free will?

Can consciousness exist independent of matter?

Can consciosness exixt independent of the behavior we associate with conscious beings? For example, can a stone have consciousness? A galaxy?

I

 

[CFLarsen]

CFL you are way too uptight and don't understand Americans very well.
"A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron."
A critical thinking theist may be an oxymoron in SG's eyes, and it may offend your sensibilities. But it is not an exclusive statement. It is saying that she thinks it is a contradiction. It does not sate that they are not critical thinkers. And please before you go on about the definition of oxymoron, it doesn't matter. saying that there is a contradiction does not mean that they are not critical thinkers. You are extrapolating motive and meaning that is not there. That statement does not demonstrate exclusion. Americans are very used to disagreeing withe ach other, that is part of who we are. You disagree with someone, argue for days, tease them incessitantly and then turn around and work with them and agree on other things. It is not an exclsuive statement.

"If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical."

And that is saying what? that they are not applying thier critical thinking to their god beliefs, which I think she defines in the daddy in the sky sort of thing. But it states that she feels if they applied critical thinking to her defintion of god beliefs that they would conclude that god beliefs (in her defintion) are mythical Again it does not say that they are not critical thinkers, it states she feels they exclude thier god beliefs from critical examination.


So here you are stating that SG makes the statement that 'people who do X are not critical thinkers' and that is a case of overgeneralization, based upon some sort of social cohesion model that may not apply to the situation.

here statements if we take them at my interpretive value are

"People who are citical thinkers and have belief X are contradicting themselves".

and

"People who uswe critical thinking skills will conclude all belief X is mythical"

No where does she state:
1. People who hold these beliefs are not critical thinkers.
2. People who hold tehse beleifs should not be considered to be critical thinkers.

So, that is what you are contending, that she stated that it is requirement of critical thinking that people not contradict themselves or have beliefs that they do not examine with critical thought. Which I don't see her making those statements but rather you engaginging in "overgeneralization", "assumptions without evidence" and "creating matter without a requisition form from the vacum Energy Dust Bunnies".

So you are saying she is being exclusive, but so far that is not what the statements you quoted would indicate.

the only critique would be based upon her defintion of god belief and the use of the word 'all'.

So overall it would seem to me that you are engaging in straw arguments, you are putting conclusions to her statements through overgeneralization, assuming a conclusions and then attacking your own ideas of what she has said.

As I said, go find Tai Chi and spray your urine at him/her, it does you no credit to act this way.

"If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical."

If I do ask her then I will listen to her response, something that you seem incapable of doing.

But whatever CFL all I can say is "Onward through the fog!"

Ask her yourself if she thinks one has to be an atheist to join this movement for critical thinking of hers.

 

[Dancing David]

Anything can be studied, but there are questions that cannot be answered.

Examples:

Do good and evil have any meaning beyond enhancing the survival chances of genetic material similar to ours?

Sure, I can suggest a game theory model where social responsibility creates an enviroment in social interactions where following the rules (if they are not absurd) will provide for greater safety and hope of aid in times of need. There are pay offs for behavior others than genetics.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Now there is one that does not have an answer at this time.

Is there a purpose to life beyond existence and reproduction?

Depends on your POV, if you are pragmatic you can see that there is benefit to social support and interaction, self defintion and engagement is pleasurable activities (that are not strictly hedonistic)

Do we have free will?

i believe so, but it is very likely to be an illusion. As a person living with OCD I know that there are degrees of freedom in my actions. I like Zoloft.

Can consciousness exist independent of matter?

Could be, no evidence I have seen yet leads me to believe so.

Can consciosness exixt independent of the behavior we associate with conscious beings? For example, can a stone have consciousness?

A really fancy stone.

A galaxy?

I

Perhaps stars are sentient. I don't know how to test it, so speculative. A great idea for sure.

 

[Dancing David]

Ask her yourself if she thinks one has to be an atheist to join this movement for critical thinking of hers.

I take that as a "No, I do not have that evidence".

 

[CFLarsen]

I take that as a "No, I do not have that evidence".

Not at all. I have shown you the evidence. You are not convinced. So, go ask her yourself.

It's a simple question. See what she answers.