atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From: pjm@spe.com
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:24:32 +0200
> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd))

>      Not all philosophies are religions.

If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy'
(ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the
topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating
to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos  won't work.

This is called a straw-man. Pick an argument that you want to (dis)prove but
don't know how. Then pick a similar but non-identical (or fail to prove the
identity) which one knowns how to (dis)prove. Finaly claim that the second
easier (since it is (dis)provable) problem is identical to the first.

>  Asserting so is an attempt
> to make one or both of the terms meaningless.

And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a
set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal
or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are
identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and
therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'.

Just remember this, it's your ugly baby.

>      There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for
> an unending discussion).  "Strong" atheists state that they "believe
> that god does not exist."  "Weak" atheists state that they "do not
> believe that god exists."

Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning.
These two sentences are identical in content and meaning.

I belive god does not exist

I do not believe god exists

or,

^(A) = (^A)

>      Do you believe in leprechauns, because there is no proof that
> they don't exist?  Do you believe in the Hindu pantheon?

Whether I believe in them makes no difference to their existance (you really
really need to quit taking drugs). This is the same sort of crap reasoning
the UFO nut-cases partake in. They run around asking "Do you believe in
aliens?" when the question that needs asking is "How do we prove aliens have
been here?", and in many cases they take the two to be equivalent.

Hindu pantheon is a different form of Pantheism that I practice. I don't
agree with many of the points that Hindu, Aztec, Buddhist, New Age, etc.
pantheist practice, it's too anthropocentric for my taste and in the case
of New Age Pantheism (gag) they've simply given transcendance a new form.
And I further believe that the Hindu practice of sweeping ants out of ones
way and wearing a veil to inhibit bug inhalation is taking it too far the
other way (though I respect and practice the spirit of their actions).

Respect does not mean subserviance.

>      Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these
> assertions?

I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your
reasoning.

>  Reason and logic don't "constrain", they provide a
> framework for discovery.  This framework is unavailable to, and indeed
> actively rejected by, believers in the supernatural.  Any meaningful
> definition of the word "inquiry" presupposes the use of logic.

Ohhhh, supernatural is by definition in this discussion equivalent to
transcendental. I'll say it again, there are two types of religion - those
who believe transcendentalism exists (ie traditional religions) and those
that don't (eg Pantheism). It is not reasonable nor logical to expect the
natural rules of experience to be recognized by the supernatural. 

Now I can inquire into many things without using a particular type of logic
(you keep writing as if there is only one form of logic - perhaps this is
the root shortcoming in your reasoning). So trying to say that inquiry is
equivalent to using logic is a misunderstanding of both inquiry and logic.

The question that you are skirting around is:

If God exists and created the universe, does this imply that it is
constrained by that creation?

You can answer that question with three answers:

Yes	Pantheism and some other forms of pagan religions

No	Traditional religions

?	Agnostic (if you'd like to know,
        Nihilism (if you believe the question is irrelevant),
        etc.

>      All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational.  Mystics
> frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept
> with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition.
> Perhaps you'll surprise me?

Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly
veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by
definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another.

If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is
purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random
dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with).


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate writes:
 > Patrick May writes:
 > >      Not all philosophies are religions.
 > 
 > If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy'
 > (ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the
 > topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating
 > to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos  won't work.

     Excuse my shorthand:  Not all "personal" philosophies are religions.

[ . . . ]
 > >  Asserting so is an attempt
 > > to make one or both of the terms meaningless.
 > 
 > And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a
 > set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal
 > or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are
 > identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and
 > therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'.

     Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious
beliefs.  Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are
clearly religious in nature.  Personal philosophies that include the
concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature.  Personal
philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence,
sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions
due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature.

     The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people
often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up
equivocating based on the term religion.  They first broaden the
definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a
much narrower definition to support their ultimate point.  I'm not
suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out
why it is something of a sore point.

[ . . . ]
 > >      There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for
 > > an unending discussion).  "Strong" atheists state that they "believe
 > > that god does not exist."  "Weak" atheists state that they "do not
 > > believe that god exists."
 > 
 > Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning.
 > These two sentences are identical in content and meaning.

     No, they are not.  The distinction is crucial to the main point I
evidently failed to make in my previous message:  Atheism is not a set
of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy.  There are Buddhist
atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists,
Wiccan atheists, etc.  Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the
statement of a lack of one particular belief.

     Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist
position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute
a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a
religion.  The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do
not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute
a belief.  Recognizing that someone holds the strong atheist position
may give some clues to their other beliefs and the remainder of their
personal philosophy, but, again, that position alone does not
constitute a personal philosophy or religion.

[ . . . ]
 > >      Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these
 > > assertions?
 > 
 > I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your
 > reasoning.

     I'm not trying to prove anything either.  I'm simply pointing out
some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused.

[ . . . ]
 > >      All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational.  Mystics
 > > frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept
 > > with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition.
 > > Perhaps you'll surprise me?
 > 
 > Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly
 > veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by
 > definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another.
 > 
 > If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is
 > purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random
 > dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with).

     Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own
curiosity.  Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to
take it to personal email if you wish.  When you say "more than the
earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even
in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical
mechanism we can create?  If so, how do you know and why would it
matter?

Regards,

pjm