| Author |
Messages |
|
Eric Fors
Posts:1
 |
| 04/17/2008 5:16 PM |
 Alert
|
On the VDJ show the morning of the 15th, a caller named Michael called asking "What's the Dogma?"
It seems a reasonable question. I’ve an answer to propose and discuss…
Vince suggested that it might be “Atheism”, but Michael objected to that idea by suggesting that atheism was not a dogma since there is “nothing you have to accept on lack of evidence” to be an atheist.
Really?
Does atheism not require us to accept a universal negative that cannot possibly be proven? Atheism boils down to “There is no God.” Exactly what evidence for this bold assertion does atheism provide? Not much. The best they can do is suggest that they have never found any proof of God’s existence anywhere that they have looked. It requires a fairly large lack of evidence leap to get from there to there is no God.
I would like to suggest that the dogma behind much of the academic disenfranchisement we see in academia is based on Naturalism. In short, naturalism is the idea that all things that can be observed can be explained or understood through natural causes and laws. It further requires that there is no other reality than the one we are able to observe and understand through the classic scientific method.
Without saying much more about it, the great attraction of Naturalism as a ‘faith construct’ or dogma for atheists is two fold. One, it frees them from all responsibilities to any moral pretext not plainly grounded in naked self-interest. In short, they can do whatever they want. I’ve read quotes where the great Aldous Huxley quite explicitly said that the reason atheism and evolution were necessary is that to think otherwise would be to allow for the requirement to behave according to moral law.
Secondly, Naturalism allows the believer in such to assign themselves and endless number of revisions to previously dogmatically held positions. Anytime new information comes available, naturalistic explanations are adjusted to better approximate the new data. …but [b]ALWAYS[/b] maintaining the core dogmatic thesis of Naturalism, i.e. – all things are explained completely by natural processes and laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Darin Chappell
Posts:29
|
| 04/18/2008 9:27 AM |
Alert
|
The problem with atheism is that to be a true atheist, you have to claim omniscience for yourself. To assert a negative (There is no God), is to have to say the effect of:
"I know everything, and in all that I know, I know that there is no God anywhere."
If one does not assert that degree of omniscience (and one would obviously be a fool to do so), then he/she must then reasonably accept that there is at least one thing that he/she does not know, and that one thing MIGHT BE that there actually is a God.
Unfortunately, the agnostic is only slightly less self-aggrandizing in that he claims that there might be a God, but it is impossible to know for sure. The problem there is that he claims for himself total comprehension (not merely of his own mind, which would in itself be quite the claim!) of ALL of the mind of humanity. If there is even one thing that he does not understand about the capacity for humans to use their minds in the search for God, it may be that which lets us know that He does exist.
This forum may not be the place to actually have an indepth discussion about what is knowable about God (though I am always up for such a rational appeal to knowledge!), but in matters of religion, I believe that it is intellectually dishonest for the atheist, the agnostic, and the darwinistic evolutionist to chide believers in God as being dogmatic, when there is nothing more dogmatic than joining the "scientific" community in its assertions without proof. |
|
Darin Chappell
Just a little to the right of Atilla the Hun... |
|
|
Darin Chappell
Posts:29
|
| 04/18/2008 1:37 PM |
Alert
|
Oh...and by the way...
I am on my way this afternoon to go see the Ben Stein movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I am ecited to go see it, and I'd be happy to report back here (or on another thread) what I found it to be. Maybe, if several of us go...we could compare thoughts on the movie?
We'll see... |
|
Darin Chappell
Just a little to the right of Atilla the Hun... |
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/20/2008 9:49 AM |
Alert
|
I don't think that either one of you understand what it means to be an atheist. Atheism has absolutely no content, it makes no claims whatsoever. So, Mr. Chappell, when you say that "to be a true atheist, you have to claim ..." - you can stop right there. You do not have to claim anything in order to be a true atheist. Atheism is not about making claims, it's about evaluating claims and dismissing them based on lack of evidence. That's it. Atheism does not claim that there is no God, they dismiss the claims that there is a God. There's a big difference. And it's not agnosticism because Agnostics just don't know one way or the other. At least an atheism is looking at one point of view (religion) and saying "OK, we can rule that out as even being possible."
It's funny that you would relate the claim "I know everything, and in all that I know, ..." with an Atheist because in fact it is religious people who claim to know things about the nature of this universe that no scientist could possibly know. Now it may not be ALL religious people, but some of them who take their holy books a little too seriously claim to know things about the history of this planet, the origin of species, and the future of our reality that no scientist could possibly know. Atheism makes no such claims. Such claims are completely reliant upon religious dogmas. Religion ITSELF is reliant upon dogma. Atheism and the scientific method do not include dogma, in fact they are mankind's best solution-to-date to dogma. |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/21/2008 4:17 PM |
Alert
|
| But, if it makes no claims, atheism must rely heavily on faith. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/21/2008 6:26 PM |
Alert
|
| Faith in what??? |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/22/2008 9:17 AM |
Alert
|
A brief perusal of the American Heritage Dictionary yields:
atheism: NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Faith that there is no God. You can't prove a negative, so you must accept his absence on faith.
Faith that your judgment is better than countless people before you.
Faith that we just happened, in an enormous galaxy, to have some organic molecules form on a planet that just happened to be the right distance from the sun that just happened to have water that just happened to freeze and thaw at just the right point and that self awareness just happened to occur.
Faith in evolution - have you ever seen the human family tree from an evolutionists or anthropologists view point? They have really long dotted lines of conjecture connecting really short lines of evidence from the fossil record. It was actually anthropology courses in college that cemented my faith in God. The anthropologists made much more soup out of a few bones than Jesus made a meal out of a few loaves and fishes.
It actually takes less faith to believe in God.
Just out of curiousity, Mike, what's your background? It's always nice to have an idea who you're talking to.
I'm an engineer, married, with 4 kids.
You? |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 9:53 AM |
Alert
|
I work in geospatial science, I'm 1 thesis shy of my master's degree in geospatial science. I also have a minor in CIS, and am preparing to make the switch full time to PC repair, web-development, and building networks. I have my first child on the way in probably late March/early April, and I'm married.
I love science. It's my favorite topic. I'm often baffled at the general public's lack of understanding of science and technology, sometimes even when they think they have a good understanding. I know what the dictionary says about 'Atheism,' but because there is absolutly no content or philosophy involved in saying "No, I don't see any evidence that your claim is true," there is no claim being made; there's only the denial of a claim. Look at Bertrand Russell's "Tea Pot" example: if I tell you that there is a tea pot that orbits the sun just between the earth and mars' orbits then you are under no burden whatsoever to agree with me. You should say "oh yeah, what possible evidence could you have?" Now, either I've seen the tea pot through a telescope and taken a photograph of it, or maybe I just say "well, since you can't prove there ISN'T a tea pot in orbit, it's safe to assume there is." You're not going to think I'm too bright if I'm just taking the tea pot upon 'faith,' are you? I wouldn't. And it doesn't make sense to have to disprove such a claim when the burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim. So I propose that I make NO claims about the supernatural, because such claims cannot be founded upon evidence or logic, therefore rendering them invalid. It's just not a part of reality.
The only faith it takes to deny the existance of God (or all supernatural for that matter) is faith in logic, reason, mathematics, and science. All of which we know and have served us well in the past. Now I don't claim that there is no God, I have no evidence that would prove that, and I don't expect to EVER have such evidence. But I'm open minded enough to change my mind, given extrordinary proof. I'm not holding my breath though... |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 9:57 AM |
Alert
|
| Did you know that you're almost as much of an Atheist as I am? It's true, you probably deny every single religion ever conceived of by mankind... except one. And that one religion started as a cult - about 2000 years ago by one person with 12 followers. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of subscribers. So maybe now you can relate to how religious claims really are ridiculous, or do you still believe in Thor and Zeus and the like? Do you believe in Allah? |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/22/2008 11:04 AM |
Alert
|
In order to have a discussion, it's usually necessary that people agree on what the words they'll use mean. I tend to rely on dictionary definitions because
The dictionary says an atheist DISbelieves in or denies the existence of God. That is, he makes a definite proposition that God does not exist.
It says an agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. He doesn't say one way or the other.
Your statements sound to me as if you better fit the agnostic definition.
Question 1: Regardless of the label you choose, do you positively deny the existence of God, or do you claim that it is impossible to know for sure?
Question 2: Do you accept any particular dictionary as, relatively speaking, an authority on the definition of words, or do you go more with your feelings of what a word should mean?
Question 3: Linguistically speaking, do you consider yourself a prescriptivist or a descriptivist?
As a scientist, I'd think you'd like concrete and agreed-upon definitions as a tool to assist in describing and quantifying our world, no?
I need to understand these so I can know how to answer your question of whether I'm as much an atheist (or Atheist) as you. |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/22/2008 11:09 AM |
Alert
|
Oops. I see I didn't get back to finishing the second sentence of paragraph 1 above.
I tend to use dictionary definitions because they're widely available for reference. That lets widely separated people consult the same reference to make sure they understand the words they're using in the same way.
Are you OK with our using the dictionary to coordinate our understandings of the words we're using, or did you propose something else? |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 11:45 AM |
Alert
|
| Being that it would be impossible to substantiate the claim "There is no God," I prefer to just reject the claim "There exists a God." See the difference? I'm not making any claims. So if I accept that particular definition of Atheism (which I do not), then I can not call myself an Atheist. I don't really care to call myself an Atheist or to label myself in any way. Do you have a label for people who don't believe in Astrology? It's just superstition. We don't really need a term for it, but for sake of argument we'll call it an Atheist. A as in 'no' and theist as in 'belief in God.' So my definition is 'Atheist: No belief in God(s).' |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 11:56 AM |
Alert
|
Expressing "disbelief" is not making a proposition, it is denial of one.
Dis*be*lief"\, n. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief. |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/22/2008 12:12 PM |
Alert
|
I confess that I'm still a bit confused. Let me try to paraphrase what you've said to test my understanding.
I see the difference between claiming definitively that there is no God and rejecting the claim that there is a God. So far, so good.
You reject the definition of atheism that states that an atheist positively denies the existence of God. You use your own definition. (By extension, I infer that your answer to my question above is that you rely on no particular dictionary, but that you go with your feelings on what a word SHOULD mean rather than with a more standard and widely accepted definition.)
In not caring to label yourself in any way, I infer that you agree with the (possibly apocryphal) Kierkegaard quote, "If you label me, you negate me." How about this Kierkegaard quote: "How unreasonable people are! They never use the freedoms they have but demand those they do not have; they have freedom of thought-they demand freedom of speech." I'd say that freedom of definition releases you from the necessity rigorous thought.
If I use a dictionary as the source of the meanings of my words and you use your feelings, we have different definitions. We cannot really communicate our meanings if the units of meaning are undefined. When you measure current, do you use amperes or atlases or how-hurtie-is-the-shock or what? How would you tell someone else anything about that current?
Let's hit another philosopher for a quote. 'If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself' - John Searle.
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/22/2008 12:18 PM |
Alert
|
We're cross-posting.
Disbelief: Your definition expresses a positive assertion: "one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true"
When it comes to God, one can take one of three possible stands:
1. I positively believe God exists.
2. I positively believe God does not exist.
3. I do not know whether God exists or not. I cannot say either with certainty.
I take stand 1. I can't prove it, but I believe it, and I take it on faith.
An atheist takes stand 2. He can't prove it, but he believes it and takes it on faith.
An agnostic takes stand 3. He can't prove anything, and takes nothing on faith.
Which stand do you take? |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 12:24 PM |
Alert
|
| Ok, fair enough. I like the quotes, too. I do accept the definition of Atheist as: the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God. But you had to add that little part (on your own), "Thatis, he makes a definite proposition that God does not exist." That I can't agree with. I make no proposition, I just reject those propositions that have been made. Now, it's true that I don't believe in God, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that God exists, I just haven't seen any evidence that would suggests God does exist. Let's not make this too complicated, agreed? I make absolutely no claims about the supernatural. I won't accept any claims about the supernatural without compelling evidence, undeniable evidence. Carl Sagan used to say: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That's really all I'm saying too. |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 12:35 PM |
Alert
|
How can you say that those are the only possible stands you can have on the existance of God? I have a stand that is apparantly impossible:
I do not believe in God, I see no reason to. I will not conclude, however, that the possibility of God is impossible. To make such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. To claim that God does exist would require the same level of evidence.
You see, that doesn't fit into your nice and neat list above. The scientific approach is that of a skeptic, but an open-minded skeptic. You musn't accept beliefs without proper evidence or you run the risk of being 'gullible.' |
|
|
|
|
Scott Murphree-Roberts
Posts:21
|
| 10/22/2008 12:47 PM |
Alert
|
So which stand of the three numbered stands do you take?
I did add, (on my own) the *clarification* that "he makes a definite proposition that God does not exist." To "deny" the a statement is to state your definite proposition that it is not true, that it is false. That's different that to express doubt or skepticism.
I'm not trying to make things too complicated. I was trying to hear from you a definite statement amongst:
1. I positively believe God exists.
2. I positively believe God does not exist.
3. I do not know whether God exists or not. I cannot say either with certainty.
You've now said you won't make claims about the supernatural and you won't accept claims about the supernatural without compellling, undeniable evidence.
You won't say the word, but the word is agnostic (http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/A0145000.html) and not atheism (http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html).
I don't believe labels negate. I believe they facilitate more expeditious communication as long as we realize that labels can never fully define. |
|
|
|
|
Mike Atlas
Posts:44
|
| 10/22/2008 12:58 PM |
Alert
|
| Here Here. Now, let me complicate things a little. I actually would lean towards Atheism, with the understanding that there is still absolutely no content there. There is no religion of "Atheism." Atheism is the disbelief in ANY religion. It is a little different than Agnosticism. To me, and Agnostic is the phase between believer and non-believer. You wouldn't claim to be an Agnostic about Zeus, would you? Do you want to leave that possibility still open? How about Thor? There's no need, just toss them onto the heap of dead Gods with the rest of them and we'll call that heap "Mythology." |
|
|
|
|
|