Definitions. Atheism.

Compact Oxford English Dict.: "Disbelief in the existence of a God or gods."

Penguin English Dict.: "The belief or doctrine that there is no deity." Among the Specialist Advisers and Contributors is a certain Richard Dawkins...

Get out of that you, you atheists!

Atheism is the default. There is nothing. JJ really takes the bucket though. People like him are the cause of religious problems.
Like all good theists he will never answer any real questions.

How about the Universe JJ when was that made? On a wet Sunday afternoon when god was bored?

Alan B wrote:Definitions. Atheism.

Compact Oxford English Dict.: "Disbelief in the existence of a God or gods."

Penguin English Dict.: "The belief or doctrine that there is no deity." Among the Specialists Advisers and Contributors is a certain Richard Dawkins...

Get out of that you, you atheists!

Definition of atheism on the Oxford dictionary website here (my bolding):
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

I think the second part of the definition has been coming in during the last few years, as atheists who have found themselves unnecessarily cornered by theist arguments have pressed for it. Oxford dictionaries have got it on to the website, but it's not in their dictionaries published years ago, it's not in my fairly hefty Oxford dictionary dated 2003.

Dictionary definitions are based on usage, and the way the word "atheism" is used has been changing.

zoon wrote:

Alan B wrote:Definitions. Atheism.

Compact Oxford English Dict.: "Disbelief in the existence of a God or gods."

Penguin English Dict.: "The belief or doctrine that there is no deity." Among the Specialists Advisers and Contributors is a certain Richard Dawkins...

Get out of that you, you atheists!

Definition of atheism on the Oxford dictionary website here (my bolding):
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

I think the second part of the definition has been coming in during the last few years, as atheists who have found themselves unnecessarily cornered by theist arguments have pressed for it. Oxford dictionaries have got it on to the website, but it's not in their dictionaries published years ago, it's not in my fairly hefty Oxford dictionary dated 2003.

Dictionary definitions are based on usage, and the way the word "atheism" is used has been changing.

Look up the definition of disbelief on the OED.....

Definition of disbelief in English:

disbelief

NOUN
mass noun
1 Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

1.1 Lack of faith.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disbelief

Hermit wrote:

zoon wrote:I find both supervenience and NOMA problematic. I’ve just looked up “supervenience” in the SEP and promptly became totally confused, so I’m not up to getting technical, I’ll try to explain my disquiet with an analogy.

I don’t understand the innards of my computer. At the moment, my computer is following the rules of Word while I type this post, so as far as I’m concerned my computer is following the rules of Word rather than the laws of physics. I can’t actually tell whether it’s following the laws of physics or not, but I presume it is. Would it be correct, in your view, to say that for my computer at the moment, the rules of Word are supervening on the laws of physics?

No, that would not be correct at all. You are persisting with the mistake of thinking that the religious magisterium replaces some of of the scientific. In most of mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism this is simply not the case. Instead, the supernatural sphere is just added to the material. Your analogy is profoundly misguided. Your computer will always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. The rules of Word are just a subset of them. The two magisteria do not overlap or impinge on each other in any way.

I agree that computers always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only, and that the rules of Word are just a subset of them.

It is also the case that human brains and human bodies always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. Any regularities in human behaviour are just a subset of them. Are you contesting this?

Hermit wrote:

zoon wrote:...there is a large quantity of evidence that we are not by any means just naïve inductivists.

Yeah, OK, you can tempt me into discussing epistemology, but this is the wrong thread for it.

I should forewarn you that the evidence I was referring to is evidence that we are pre-wired by evolution with specialised mechanisms for thinking about other people, aka Theory of Mind. “Theory of Mind” is definitely an unfortunate name for something that isn’t even a theory in the usual scientific or philosophical sense, it’s a name that psychologists started using in the seventies for the specialised social thinking that humans do, and the name stuck. Some scientists have tried to call it “mindreading” instead, but that starts to imply that it’s supernatural, which it most definitely isn’t. Quoting Wikipedia (my bolding):

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc.—to oneself, and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.[1] Theory of mind is crucial for everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors.[2] Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[3] cocaine addiction,[4] and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity.[5] Although philosophical approaches to this exist, the theory of mind as such is distinct from the philosophy of mind.

I think it’s relevant to epistemology in, for example, discussion of false beliefs, since I don’t think we would bother with false beliefs if we weren’t tracking other people’s false beliefs, and occasionally contributing to them with carefully-placed lies – all of this is Theory of Mind stuff. If we weren’t tracking other people’s false beliefs, I would expect that we would simply discard our own when they turned out to be wrong, and not otherwise bother about them. Though perhaps philosophers might? I’m definitely derailing.

zoon wrote:I agree that computers always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only, and that the rules of Word are just a subset of them.

It is also the case that human brains and human bodies always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. Any regularities in human behaviour are just a subset of them. Are you contesting this?

Computers were designed and built by human beings, unless you doubt that, too. You're just repeating your assumption that no observable phenomena will be attributed to supernatural processes. How does this help articulate the defect in resorting to magical explanations?

"God of the gaps" is a perfectly adequate summary of the way theists attack the provisional aspect of scientific conclusions. The difference between theists and atheists (or between philosophers and scientists) is, therefore, all down to whether somebody requires an explanation for everything, and not whether or not physical laws are universal or whether that is a worldview. The rational worldview is about tolerating incompleteness instead of resorting to imaginative "rationalizations".

zoon wrote:I should forewarn you that the evidence I was referring to is evidence that we are pre-wired by evolution with specialised mechanisms for thinking about other people, aka Theory of Mind. “Theory of Mind” is definitely an unfortunate name for something that isn’t even a theory in the usual scientific or philosophical sense, it’s a name that psychologists started using in the seventies for the specialised social thinking that humans do, and the name stuck. Some scientists have tried to call it “mindreading” instead, but that starts to imply that it’s supernatural, which it most definitely isn’t.

It's philosophical, rather than scientific, and that's what Hermit noted. Simply declaring that your philosophical proposition does not invoke supernatural factors is a declaration that only proves you don't invoke the supernatural. All this is about what people are willing to say, which is (of course) all you get when people tell you what they believe, no matter how much argument they give you. If it's wibble, which is what you're generating, then that's what it is.

zoon wrote:I think it’s relevant to epistemology in, for example, discussion of false beliefs, since I don’t think we would bother with false beliefs if we weren’t tracking other people’s false beliefs, and occasionally contributing to them with carefully-placed lies – all of this is Theory of Mind stuff.

Is it? People allow themselves all sorts of beliefs because nobody can show that those beliefs are false. Why theists try to prove that their beliefs are true is a mystery to me, but it's a lot like the way some people try to prove that "Theory of Mind" is science rather than philosophy.

"Lack of belief in deities" is (despite my own willingness to make positive claims about the concept of deities) a fairly robust way of saying that one does not require an explanation for everything, because deities serve no other purpose than providing an explanation for everything. I don't know what's going to happen when physicists develop new theories. People who can't understand those theories either dismiss them or accept them on some epistemic basis relating to the stuff they do understand.

laklak wrote:You can change the rules of Word, but you canna change the laws of physics.

Yes, when I said that a Nobel prize would be due to the designer of a computer which overruled the laws of physics in favour of the rules of Word, it was intended as a joke. I should perhaps have phrased it more forcefully.

zoon wrote:

laklak wrote:You can change the rules of Word, but you canna change the laws of physics.

Yes, when I said that a Nobel prize would be due to the designer of a computer which overruled the laws of physics in favour of the rules of Word, it was intended as a joke. I should perhaps have phrased it more forcefully.

So, uh, you didn't really have anything else you wanted to say? Thought so.

Cito di Pense wrote:
So, uh, you didn't really have anything else you wanted to say? Thought so.

So that has never stopped you Cito?

zoon wrote:
I think the second part of the definition has been coming in during the last few years, as atheists who have found themselves unnecessarily cornered by theist arguments have pressed for it. Oxford dictionaries have got it on to the website, but it's not in their dictionaries published years ago, it's not in my fairly hefty Oxford dictionary dated 2003.

Dictionary definitions are based on usage, and the way the word "atheism" is used has been changing.

And even dictionaries don't always correctly reflect usages of words.
IF one wants to look into the supposed changing of the usage of atheism, it would be reasonable to also look at which people use the word in what way.
Imo how theists have been using the word doesn't invalidate how atheists have been using it nor demonstrate that the usage has been changing among people as a whole rather than theists specifically.

zoon wrote:

Hermit wrote:

zoon wrote:I find both supervenience and NOMA problematic. I’ve just looked up “supervenience” in the SEP and promptly became totally confused, so I’m not up to getting technical, I’ll try to explain my disquiet with an analogy.

I don’t understand the innards of my computer. At the moment, my computer is following the rules of Word while I type this post, so as far as I’m concerned my computer is following the rules of Word rather than the laws of physics. I can’t actually tell whether it’s following the laws of physics or not, but I presume it is. Would it be correct, in your view, to say that for my computer at the moment, the rules of Word are supervening on the laws of physics?

No, that would not be correct at all. You are persisting with the mistake of thinking that the religious magisterium replaces some of of the scientific. In most of mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism this is simply not the case. Instead, the supernatural sphere is just added to the material. Your analogy is profoundly misguided. Your computer will always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. The rules of Word are just a subset of them. The two magisteria do not overlap or impinge on each other in any way.

I agree that computers always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only, and that the rules of Word are just a subset of them.

It is also the case that human brains and human bodies always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. Any regularities in human behaviour are just a subset of them. Are you contesting this?

Hermit wrote:

zoon wrote:...there is a large quantity of evidence that we are not by any means just naïve inductivists.

Yeah, OK, you can tempt me into discussing epistemology, but this is the wrong thread for it.

I should forewarn you that the evidence I was referring to is evidence that we are pre-wired by evolution with specialised mechanisms for thinking about other people, aka Theory of Mind. “Theory of Mind” is definitely an unfortunate name for something that isn’t even a theory in the usual scientific or philosophical sense, it’s a name that psychologists started using in the seventies for the specialised social thinking that humans do, and the name stuck. Some scientists have tried to call it “mindreading” instead, but that starts to imply that it’s supernatural, which it most definitely isn’t. Quoting Wikipedia (my bolding):

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc.—to oneself, and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.[1] Theory of mind is crucial for everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors.[2] Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[3] cocaine addiction,[4] and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity.[5] Although philosophical approaches to this exist, the theory of mind as such is distinct from the philosophy of mind.

I think it’s relevant to epistemology in, for example, discussion of false beliefs, since I don’t think we would bother with false beliefs if we weren’t tracking other people’s false beliefs, and occasionally contributing to them with carefully-placed lies – all of this is Theory of Mind stuff. If we weren’t tracking other people’s false beliefs, I would expect that we would simply discard our own when they turned out to be wrong, and not otherwise bother about them. Though perhaps philosophers might? I’m definitely derailing.

Let me reiterate that any discussion of theory of mind makes me break out in pimples. Perhaps that was not clear enough, so let me rephrase: I avoid discussing that topic as much as I can. As for epistemology, I'm fine with discussing that - in an appropriate thread. So, shall we return to the topic? That would be ever so nice. Thank you.

The topic is the proposition that atheist ideology messed up the human origin story. I side with the nay-sayers on the grounds that, (a) although all atheists have an ideology, just like everybody else, there is no such thing as an atheist ideology, and (b) most theists belonging to mainstream Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism have no problem accepting the scientific view of the world in its entirety. The only difference between them is that the former lack a belief in (or in some cases positively disbelieve) the existence of a supernatural being, while the latter do believe in one with varying degrees of certainty.

Hermit wrote:The only difference between them is that the former lack a belief in (or in some cases positively disbelieve) the existence of a supernatural being, while the latter do believe in one with varying degrees of certainty.

I think what you mean, here, is "varying feelings of certainty". You can do a whole dissertation on how much certainty a feeling of certainty entails. It could almost make you want to give up on that line of investigation.

Once you figure out how this whole joke is nominally about degrees of certainty, you realize it's really set up for something else.

Or maybe it's about the feelings engendered by arguing about whether anyone's given good reasons for their beliefs. and the feeling you end up with is that everybody gives reasons.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:The only difference between them is that the former lack a belief in (or in some cases positively disbelieve) the existence of a supernatural being, while the latter do believe in one with varying degrees of certainty.

I think what you mean, here, is "varying feelings of certainty". You can do a whole dissertation on how much certainty a feeling of certainty entails. It could almost make you want to give up on that line of investigation.

Yes, sure, but I was trying to save a keystroke. You wrecked that by making me feel that I ought to explain to you why I chose to use the word 'degree'. This makes me feel very, very, majorly pissed off with you, so fuck off to another thread and spin some puns there. :tantrum:

Also you have to look who wrote the dictionaries. Atheism is the 18th and 19th century would have been very negative. They were all holy joe's and any chance to put the boot in. Well an open goal.

There is so much crap written about it.

Atheism does not exist. If it exists it is only in theist's minds.

Hermit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hermit wrote:The only difference between them is that the former lack a belief in (or in some cases positively disbelieve) the existence of a supernatural being, while the latter do believe in one with varying degrees of certainty.

I think what you mean, here, is "varying feelings of certainty". You can do a whole dissertation on how much certainty a feeling of certainty entails. It could almost make you want to give up on that line of investigation.

Yes, sure, but I was trying to save a keystroke. You wrecked that by making me feel that I ought to explain to you why I chose to use the word 'degree'. This makes me feel very, very, majorly pissed off with you, so fuck off to another thread and spin some puns there. :tantrum:

Well, no problem. If we want to say certainty (degree) is only a feeling, well, then fuck statistics. But you can't fuck statistics unless you have some judgement to pass on methodology. Nothing more than I've said in general.

You couldn't explain to me why you chose to write 'degree'. I use imprecise language from time to time, here, and get shafted for it, same as you do. There isn't much reason to use precise language, since the existence of a supernatural being is a "fuck off" topic, so you're okay.

Hermit wrote:…The topic is the proposition that atheist ideology messed up the human origin story. I side with the nay-sayers on the grounds that, (a) although all atheists have an ideology, just like everybody else, there is no such thing as an atheist ideology, and (b) most theists belonging to mainstream Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism have no problem accepting the scientific view of the world in its entirety. The only difference between them is that the former lack a belief in (or in some cases positively disbelieve) the existence of a supernatural being, while the latter do believe in one with varying degrees of certainty.

a) Granted, there is no such thing as an atheist ideology. At the same time, the scientific worldview does have a historical association with atheism, though it’s not exclusive to atheism and is certainly not entailed by it.

b) It still seems to me that if the theists accept the scientific view in its entirety, as you stress, then they have to be deists, and take the line that their god has no observable effect at all: everything including human brains is following the laws of physics without exception. I think that otherwise theists are only partially accepting the scientific view of the world – probably a large part, but not in its entirety. If you consider that this difference of opinion is splitting hairs and not worth arguing over, fair enough.

You stated in your earlier post #2794 that computers always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only, and that the rules of Word are just a subset of them. In my post #2805 I agreed with you on that point. As I understood you, you were saying that most theists do not believe that their supernatural being causes computers to do anything different, that the concept of supervenience doesn’t apply to computers, although it does apply to humans. Did I misunderstand?

As I understand the scientific view of the world, taken in its entirety, it includes the view that human brains and human bodies always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. Do you disagree with this?

zoon wrote:
a) Granted, there is no such thing as an atheist ideology.

Then the only theist ideology ... there is a god.

Everything else is dressings of various flavours. It would appear atheists don't have an ideology but they too have dressings of various flavours.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

zoon wrote:
Again, I don't see why you consider that the process of evolution by natural selection, as I've very roughly outlined it above, would be incompatible with your version of theism, since you say that you do not expect God to make any purposes he may have apparent to us mortals. There's no apparent guiding purpose behind the functionality which evolution by natural selection produces, and you don't expect to see any apparent guiding purpose in God's creation, so why do you go to the trouble of arguing with the consensus of scientific opinion?

I can’t stand it that so many people can be wrong in the stories they tell about the creation of mankind. And there’s something interesting about the way they are wrong; it’s organic. And that organic structure seems to be explorable in an open-ended way. That's why I don't want to limit exploration by agreeing e.g. that "evolution is true"

The creation is described in terms of evolution through more than just a consensus of scientific opinion, it is authoritative, also in an organic way. Take the concepts of punctuated equilibrium and exaptation; both central to the human creation. Both are associated with Stephen Jay Gould and with also somewhat lesser known (though surely well respected) figures; Niles Eldredge and Elisabeth Vrba. Gould can be seen as having appropriated these potentially dangerous terms to scientific authority and so removed their sting. His later concept of spandrels diverts attention away from the deep functionality of living things. It claims that some changes just happen because something has to happen and it doesn’t matter what that is.

Punctuated equilibrium was immediately recognised as potentially dangerous because it could give comfort to the enemy: it looks a bit like special creation. And its sting was pulled by just categorising it along with phyletic gradualism as one way that evolution can work. Exaptation replaced the politically incorrect term preadaptation. Basically both terms speak to new functionality appearing through structured processes and one can get as spooky or as un-spooky about that, as one likes. The point is that one CAN get spooky. ..

The core of your argument, as I understand you, is given in your comment: “His later concept of spandrels diverts attention away from the deep functionality of living things.” You appear to me to be saying that if attention is focussed on this “deep functionality” of living things, then it will seem more probable that God created them. This is the classic argument from design, that functionality needs a creator. It is somewhat at odds with your claim that you would not presume to say what God’s purposes are, since you are presumably saying that the functionality is good for something, which would be God’s purpose in creating it, assuming He didn’t do it by accident.

While I agree with you that the functionality of living things at all levels is astonishing, there is also more than enough evidence that it is entirely the result of evolution by natural selection, with no input from any creator. Calilasseia has a fine collection of relevant papers.

If you want to be spooky without clashing with science, you could say that God is out there and active, but choosing to keep his purposes hidden by following the laws of physics without exception.

zoon wrote:...if the theists accept the scientific view in its entirety, as you stress, then they have to be deists, and take the line that their god has no observable effect at all...

It seems you have not understood why I disagreed with that assertion when you made it in an earlier post.

Hermit wrote:Actually, theists need not be deists in order to accept the material, scientific world in its entirety. You are making the mistake of thinking that their theism must replace some of that world. In most of mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism this is simply not the case. Instead, the supernatural sphere is just added to it. The mythical Jesus Christ did not break universal mathematical laws when he performed his loaves and fishes trick. He just supervened on them. Though I think Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is problematic, it is useful for understanding what I mean.

zoon wrote:As I understood you, you were saying that most theists do not believe that their supernatural being causes computers to do anything different, that the concept of supervenience doesn’t apply to computers, although it does apply to humans. Did I misunderstand?

Yes, you misunderstand. Supervenience, as employed by theists, applies to nobody. It's as much bullshit as the concept of NOMA, both made up to enable theists to believe all currently accepted scientific knowledge in its entirety while simultaneously believing in the existence of a supernatural being, be that being the divine watchmaker type or the interfering busybody type.

Worldviews don't have to be coherent, remember?

zoon wrote:As I understand the scientific view of the world, taken in its entirety, it includes the view that human brains and human bodies always follow the physical laws, and the physical laws only. Do you disagree with this?

No, I agree with this.

Hermit wrote: … NOMA, both made up to enable theists to believe all currently accepted scientific knowledge in its entirety while simultaneously believing in the existence of a supernatural being, be that being the divine watchmaker type or the interfering busybody type.

Do you have any evidence that Gould did NOMA to enable theists?