Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Fallible · **#81** by **Fallible** » Jul 24, 2013 4:01 pm

Aye, we're getting nowhere.

BlackBart · **#82** by **BlackBart** » Jul 24, 2013 4:11 pm

So, is non-belief in UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster or Pixies also 'paradigms' or do they just get lumped in with non-belief in this 'god' thingy?

chairman bill · **#83** by **chairman bill** » Jul 24, 2013 4:13 pm

I'm becoming more & more convinced that Michael66 doesn't know what atheism actually is. It isn't the position that there are no gods, rather the simple absence of belief in such beings. It says nothing about whether they do or do not exist.

trubble76 · **#84** by **trubble76** » Jul 24, 2013 4:14 pm

Michael66 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:So you reject the definition of paradigm that I provided as incomplete? I tried the Wiki entry for paradigm to see if I could grasp the thrust of your point. It seems the term is a complicated one, with many subtle changes of meaning and use depending on the subject matter. You seem to be arguing for the meaning which is synonymous with "worldview", correct me if I'm wrong. If so, this has all been a wasted enterprise because if you are talking about an atheist worldview, the only world view atheists all share is the worldview that the world doesn't seem to include any gods. I might be wrong, I'm no philosopher, but this seems utterly tautological to me because we have arrived at a point where we are talking about atheists not holding any belief in gods, which is the definition of an atheist. There is no need to discuss the paradigm of atheists, or the worldview of atheists because we can add no more information than is already given by the word "atheist".

Am I wrong?

Hi trubble,

The way I have used the term is in the 'prior' understanding we each bring to analysis of any new claim evidence or experience of the existence of at least one god. So, in connection to your words I bolded, yes, that is the prior understanding I see atheists bring to discussions/claims of the existence of God. The atheist model of reality is simply (and I really don't see this as controversial) one that does not include the existence of at least one god. Their model of reality, their paradigm, is atheistic. To put it another way atheism is a model, a paradigm, of reality without any god. That model is not held simply because the proposition has never been considered, but for most atheists it has been considered and rejected (I accept some might never have actively considered it). This gives the model some 'certainty' (which may range from being impossible to be true, through the a perceived certainty of truth) that is carried forward and is used when examining new claims.

Where people seem to be differing is whether people do examine a claim using 'prior' knowledge, or whether claims are appraised from a neutral or 'naive' standpoint. And that is fine, there's no reason that absolutely everybody should approach things in the same way.

Now if someone wants to insist they never apply past consideration of theistic claims to new ones, that they use no 'prior' understanding then I'm willing to accept that. We might then have a discussion over whether that is the best approach - as many, especially concerning partial or complex data, would say we should bring what 'prior' knowledge and understanding we have when assessing new claims.

One of the things about paradigms is, good and bad, they provide stability - you don't have a model of reality that continually flips around - the model develops stability as it accumulates more prior knowledge and is only overturned when there is accumulated and clear evidence that an alternative is better. Joel Barker, among others, has also shown mental models are used to filter data - what we might call "confirmation bias" where data that confirms our current model of reality is more readily accepted than data that challenges it. You can, I think, see this operating in both theists and atheists alike, and essentially it's simply the application of acquired understanding in assessing new evidence. "Confirmation bias" may be bad at times because it weakens the ability to develop new or changed thinking (William Harvey found it incredibly difficult to persuade people that blood circulated, because Galen's paradigm of continually produced humors was so dominant even though there was little or no evidence to support Galen), but it can be good in that it can protect a good model from being over-turned by poor quality data.

As for atheist and atheist paradigm being tautological - I find recognizing that we do have models of reality, and that we do use that 'prior' understanding to assess new data useful to acknowledge. When two people dispute whether any particular evidence supports a proposition or not it is commonly the 'prior' understanding that they each bring which affects how they assess the evidence. Paradigms also legitimize what we all know we do - that we do bring prior understanding to bear in assessing evidence. The Rev Bayes even put this in a mathematical framework further legitimizing the use of prior knowledge. We need not feel we need to pretend we are all taking a neutral position - we can be transparent in what prior understanding we bring to the table, what model of reality we currently hold. I think that's actually a more scientific, a more honest, approach.

Still, I'm pleased that it has provoked so much discussion and, as ever, I don't mind people disagreeing with me

Pax +

I feel I should repeat the points made by other posters about this. There is no atheist model. There are atheist models, all of which only share one common factor, the lack of a belief in gods. In suggesting the existence of an atheist model, you are implying that there is a common construct we all use, this is untrue, we all use very different constructs which share one small part. You are inflating that small part and taking it to be the whole. A similar claim can be made for theists of course but they do have common dogmas to follow meaning they share far more overlap than atheists.
To put is in brief, you are treating atheism as if it is athe-ism, instead of a-theism. I hope the distinction is clear.
We are not a common group with a common model, we are a disparate group with disparate models. The atheist paradigm/worldview/model is a myth.

I am out of time for now, I will have to finish my reply later.

Fallible · **#85** by **Fallible** » Jul 24, 2013 4:19 pm

Fallible wrote:
trubble76 wrote:It seems to me that you are simply asserting that atheists have the "priors" that you suggest.

Person A: I believe in an invisible superhero who loves us all, even the ones it kills.

Person B: I don't see any reason to believe you, I remain unconvinced.

Person A: Ah you must be prejudiced by your prior-held paradigms.

Person B: What? Just because I don't believe you?

Person A: Yes.

Does that sum it up? Everyone that doesn't share your faith is labouring under some sort of atheistic delusion?

Surely the scientist in you recognises that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims. Yet you seem to be suggesting that the fault lies with the atheist for disbelieving the absurd assertions of theists.

Let me ask you this, imagine a group of people devoid of priors, how do you think they would react to unsupported claims about magical entities who are supposedly made out of love but rejoice in death and punishment, who care a lot about what we do with our dangly bits but are powerless to prevent suffering? Do you think they would withhold belief until some fairly solid evidence was presented or would they jump right in?

Exactly. I made a similar comment to Michael in his initial thread (to which he didn't reply), concerning his ''sense of the numinous''. The fact that he said he had ''always'' had a sense of the numinous points to him always having had that concept of a god who touches people in special ways, even when he was an ''atheist''. I said to him that if he had never heard of any god, he wouldn't attribute those feelings to it either, just as we don't. Of course it should also probably be noted that Michael yet again trots out the same old definition of ''atheist'' as someone who believes a god does not exist, although he doesn't use that exact terminology.

Edit: during the time it took for me to type this, Michael again came out with a definition of atheism that doesn't stack up. Perhaps that's where we should start...again...

OlivierK · **#86** by **OlivierK** » Jul 25, 2013 12:32 am

Fallible wrote:
Fallible wrote:
trubble76 wrote:It seems to me that you are simply asserting that atheists have the "priors" that you suggest.

Person A: I believe in an invisible superhero who loves us all, even the ones it kills.

Person B: I don't see any reason to believe you, I remain unconvinced.

Person A: Ah you must be prejudiced by your prior-held paradigms.

Person B: What? Just because I don't believe you?

Person A: Yes.

Does that sum it up? Everyone that doesn't share your faith is labouring under some sort of atheistic delusion?

Surely the scientist in you recognises that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims. Yet you seem to be suggesting that the fault lies with the atheist for disbelieving the absurd assertions of theists.

Let me ask you this, imagine a group of people devoid of priors, how do you think they would react to unsupported claims about magical entities who are supposedly made out of love but rejoice in death and punishment, who care a lot about what we do with our dangly bits but are powerless to prevent suffering? Do you think they would withhold belief until some fairly solid evidence was presented or would they jump right in?

Exactly. I made a similar comment to Michael in his initial thread (to which he didn't reply), concerning his ''sense of the numinous''. The fact that he said he had ''always'' had a sense of the numinous points to him always having had that concept of a god who touches people in special ways, even when he was an ''atheist''. I said to him that if he had never heard of any god, he wouldn't attribute those feelings to it either, just as we don't. Of course it should also probably be noted that Michael yet again trots out the same old definition of ''atheist'' as someone who believes a god does not exist, although he doesn't use that exact terminology.

Edit: during the time it took for me to type this, Michael again came out with a definition of atheism that doesn't stack up. Perhaps that's where we should start...again...

OlivierK wrote:
Michael66 wrote:I find it absolutely fascinating that non-theists here don't think they are thinking within an atheistic paradigm - applying presuppositions to the way they think and judge.

It's so obvious from the outside.

But I accept people are telling the truth - and that you are quite sure that your atheistic view is not creating a certain paradigm of thought. I don't doubt your honesty, but I do doubt your ability for introspection about the way you think.

God bless +

I absolutely have an atheist paradigm, but I don't have the atheist paradigm, because there isn't one, as others have pointed out.

On a site like this, you might find many who share a rationalist paradigm. The extent to which that necessarily entails atheism is one you may like to consider.

OlivierK · **#87** by **OlivierK** » Jul 25, 2013 12:33 am

Sendraks wrote:
Michael66 wrote:. From my discussion with atheists they too have and use 'prior' understanding in assessing claims about the existence of God.

We can assess claims that are supported by evidence, in so far that we can assess the evidence which supports the claim.

If a claim i.e. god exists, has no evidence, then we can disregard it, because there is no evidence.

No prior required.

Yep. The "atheist paradigm" in this case is merely the null hypothesis. In itself, describing the ability to discern the null hypothesis as a paradigm is a stretch (and describing it as the atheist paradigm is simply meaningless), but to go further and describe it as a "bias" or a "prior" is an equivocation that is either dishonest (consciously or nor) or an admission that by "the atheist paradigm" what is meant is "rationality", in explicit contrast to irrational theist paradigms. I don't think that that's what michael means to do - it certainly seems a tad harsh on theists.

kennyc · **#88** by **kennyc** » Jul 25, 2013 2:32 am

Well if it's a pair a' dimes then with my nickle I'll have a quarter. Woo-Hoo!

chairman bill · **#89** by **chairman bill** » Jul 25, 2013 10:02 am

Dragons. We've all heard of dragons, and have a concept of what a dragon might be like. Personally, I don't believe in dragons, and my worldview is one where dragons are merely mythical constructs. I hold to a dragon-free paradigm, and this constitutes my 'prior' when assessing the question, do dragons exist.

Unicorns. We've all heard of unicorns, and have a concept of what a unicorn might be like. Personally, I don't believe in unicorns, and my worldview is one where unicorns are merely mythical constructs. I hold to a unicorn-free paradigm, and this constitutes my 'prior' when assessing the question, do unicorns exist.

Leprechauns. We've all heard of leprechauns, and have a concept of what a leprechaun might be like. Personally, I don't believe in leprechauns, and my worldview is one where leprechauns are merely mythical constructs. I hold to a leprechaun-free paradigm, and this constitutes my 'prior' when assessing the question, do dragons exist.

Cockatrices. We've all heard of cockatrices, and have a concept of what a cockatrix might be like. Personally ... oh fuck it, you get the picture; I've got loads of paradigms. Fucking hundreds. In fact, over eleventy thousand of them (I've been up all night counting - that's commitment for you).

Briton · **#90** by **Briton** » Jul 25, 2013 12:39 pm

chairman bill wrote:I'm becoming more & more convinced that Michael66 doesn't know what atheism actually is. It isn't the position that there are no gods, rather the simple absence of belief in such beings. It says nothing about whether they do or do not exist.

He's obviously an intelligent guy; it's difficult to imagine he can't grasp the simple idea that atheism is not believing in god/s and thereafter atheists need not have anything else in common. I think it's probably a wilful misunderstanding.

Michael66 · **#91** by **Michael66** » Jul 25, 2013 12:58 pm

Briton wrote:
chairman bill wrote:I'm becoming more & more convinced that Michael66 doesn't know what atheism actually is. It isn't the position that there are no gods, rather the simple absence of belief in such beings. It says nothing about whether they do or do not exist.

He's obviously an intelligent guy; it's difficult to imagine he can't grasp the simple idea that atheism is not believing in god/s and thereafter atheists need not have anything else in common. I think it's probably a wilful misunderstanding.

Hi Briton

I just disagree

When we talk of paradigms, scientific or social, we don't mean that everyone has the same complete model of reality. Paradigms are usually defined in scope. For example we might talk about heliocentric and geocentric paradigms, as one of the great paradigm shifts of science. Those holding to a heliocentric paradigm held that view for multiple reasons (e.g. influence of faith, simple observation of what we see in the day, Ptolomy's superb predictions of the positions of the planets). So those people had assimilated different data to reach a conclusion, a model, of how the solar system moved. They had a geocentric paradigm, or model. Now they might disagree on 100s of other things but we still talk about a heliocentric paradigm - meaning a mental model with a particular scope, and they adopted that mental model as their starting point (their 'prior') when assessing claims for a heliocentric solar system.

Likewise I'm well aware of many differences between atheists, as I am between theists (which is why I used a broad general definition of a theistic paradigm as a model of reality that includes at least one god). And yet, I do think, we can distinguish between atheism as a paradigm (which simply says that a physical model has been developed over time that has no god) and theism as a paradigm. So just as a heliocentric paradigm doesn't try to say anything else about science, neither need an atheistic paradigm try to say lots of other things about the atheist's model of knowledge.

Does that make sense?

I sense we may be about to go full circle, so I will try not to flog a dead horse (well, at least too much anyway).

Accepting we may well continue to disagree.

Peace,

Michael

Sendraks · **#92** by **Sendraks** » Jul 25, 2013 1:12 pm

Michael66 wrote:
When we talk of paradigms, scientific or social, we don't mean that everyone has the same complete model of reality.

In science, when a paradigm shift occurs, the end result is what is considered to be the consensus view. For a long time plate tectonics was heavily debated, but eventually the paradigm shift occurred and it is now accepted as the process by which the Earth's landmasses move around. That is the default position for anyone considering further evidence or theories on the functions of the Earth's crust.

Comparing a paradigm or paradigm shift to atheism (even as a social paradigm) is a nonsense, because there is no single accepted consensus view of what drives atheism at an individual level, other than a non-belief in supernatural entities, which is the end result of each individuals thought processes on this matter.

Michael66 wrote:
And yet, I do think, we can distinguish between atheism as a paradigm (which simply says that a physical model has been developed over time that has no god)

This presumes that all atheists think that way and, as has already been expressed in this thread, they do not. Paradigms at an individual level are not paradigms, no matter what the commonalities may link them.

If there were two competing schools of thought in athesim about why there should be non-belief (say between those who hold the view because of the available evidence and those who hold the view because they just don't like the idea of deities) and atheists were shifting to a consensus view as to which of these was correct, then you could say (at a push) that there was a shift occurring in a social paradigm.

Michael66 wrote:
Accepting we may well continue to disagree.

I accept that you are seemingly unwilling or unable to understand the points being put to you.

Paul · **#93** by **Paul** » Jul 25, 2013 1:57 pm

Michael66 wrote:And yet, I do think, we can distinguish between atheism as a paradigm (which simply says that a physical model has been developed over time that has no god) and theism as a paradigm.

Strictly speaking, theism as a paradigm superseded atheism. A physical model that has no god has always existed, it was not developed over time.
What has developed over time are the many and various models that require gods, to make up for early humans' poor understanding of the world around them.

chairman bill · **#94** by **chairman bill** » Jul 25, 2013 1:59 pm

Michael66 wrote:... atheism as a paradigm (which simply says that a physical model has been developed over time that has no god) ...

No. It. Doesn't.

FFS, this isn't difficult stuff. Atheism is nothing more than an absence of belief in god(s). It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether there are indeed gods or not. The physical model is the physical model, irrespective of whether anyone posits a god of some sort (see Deism, which absolutely is not atheism, but which says nothing supernatural about the unfolding of physical laws & the cosmos generally).

Your assertion that atheism renders a different worldview to theism, might stand, but it does not provide a worldview in and of itself. Functionally, the deist & atheist perspectives eschew the presence of interventionist god(s) in the cosmos. In that sense, they differ from a theistic view that does include godly interventions, but I fail to see how you would distinguish an atheist perspective (that makes no claim vis a vis gods), and a deist view that does. Clearly, atheism is not the basis for a physicalist perspective. Deism is the one black swan that disproves your hypothesis.

I mentioned earlier, the progression of worldviews, from one grounded in supernaturalism & myth, to a post Renaissance & Enlightenment view of a largely mechanical universe, and the emergence of a more unified, ecologically aware perspective, grounded in an understanding of relationships. We might place a theological paradigm between the mythic & mechanical, given that the mythic tended to see humanity in relationship with the cosmos, and the theological (essentially Christian & Muslim) sees humanity as special & with dominion over the cosmos, a view that continues through the mechanical view. Only now are we beginning to move to a more enlightened (i.e. non-supernaturalist) version of the mythic paradigm, where our place in the cosmos is more about relationship than hierarchy - humanity is no longer seen as the pinnacle.

If you want to talk about paradigms, your 'atheism is a paradigm' must of necessity lead to a set of individual paradigms, one for each person. I've made this point before, and no one has so far refuted my argument. A paradigm as over-arching worldview, requires a greater generality. Now, in arguing for a theistic worldview, you seem to allow for a generality (and there is in fact great heterogeneity & plurality), yet in calling atheism a paradigm, you are ascribing a great deal of homogeneity & conformity to the perspective. I call that double standards. And you misrepresent the atheist position, which is one of absence of belief, not necessarily belief in absence.

chairman bill · **#95** by **chairman bill** » Jul 26, 2013 7:42 pm

I think I killed the thread

Animavore · **#96** by **Animavore** » Jul 26, 2013 7:50 pm

Looks like you just resurrected it.

BlackBart · **#97** by **BlackBart** » Jul 26, 2013 7:55 pm

Is the atheism paradigm different to the apatheism paradigm?

chairman bill · **#98** by **chairman bill** » Jul 26, 2013 8:00 pm

Animavore wrote:Looks like you just resurrected it.

I'm Jesus! Who knew? Come on, somebody must have suspected it

chairman bill · **#99** by **chairman bill** » Jul 26, 2013 8:01 pm

BlackBart wrote:Is the atheism paradigm different to the apatheism paradigm?

Who gives a shit? I mean, really?

BlackBart · **#100** by **BlackBart** » Jul 26, 2013 8:02 pm

chairman bill wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Is the atheism paradigm different to the apatheism paradigm?

Who gives a shit? I mean, really?

I was only...

Ah, I see what you did there.

Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Is atheism a paradigm?

Re: Is atheism a paradigm?

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Re: Atheism is a paradigm apparently

Who is online