Activism by atheists

[Revoltingest]

Both are equally stupid in the following sense:
Someone: The universe is natural:
Someone else: No!

Someone: The universe is from God.
Someone else: No!

I disagree.
Neither is "stupid".

To say the universe is natural speaks to consistency of physical
laws but says nothing about its origin being divine or not.
This is useful.
To say the universe is from God is an unverifiable claim.
And it adds nothing to our understanding of the observed.
Moreover, there's no reason to presume a singular god.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree.
Neither is "stupid".

To say the universe is natural speaks to consistency of physical
laws but says nothing about its origin being divine or not.
This is useful.
To say the universe is from God is an unverifiable claim.
And it adds nothing to our understanding of the observed.
Moreover, there's no reason to presume a singular god.

And you are the source of all judgment and justification of useful, or rather not. Nor am I.
The universe is not for all aspects just consistent for the physical laws.

Someone: The universe is consistent for the physical laws.
Me: No!
That is the limit of all of the versions of logical consistency, how ever you or anybody else phrase it.
Because if the universe is physical back to its start or what ever you assume and everything is from that even in a limited yet universal sense, then the "No!" is also a part of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you are the source of all judgment and justification of useful, or rather not.

We all get to judge.

The universe is not for all aspects just consistent for the physical laws.

Physical laws & emergent properties are what we get to observe.

Someone: The universe is consistent for the physical laws.
Me: No!
That is the limit of all of the versions of logical consistency, how ever you or anybody else phrase it.

I'm not using any logic regarding this issue.

Because if the universe is physical back to its start or what ever you assume and everything is from that even in a limited yet universal sense, then the "No!" is also a part of it.

It's a useful assumption.
Assuming a god or gods doesn't change things.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do quotes such as these following qualify as activism, meaning, wishing for change in society? (Argumentation is a tool of activism, an action.)

All these quotes assume it's better if there were no religion, with the assumption that certain intuitions promote religion.

Most everyone wishes for change in society. That is fine.

We should however be responsible for that which we pursue.

By that standard, there is nothing at all to fear from the mindsets that you quote in the OP. They are neither well informed nor likely to succeed, but there would be no true harm even if they did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Physical laws & emergent properties are what we get to observe.
...

No, you can't observe the meaning of a "no". You are hidden behind the woo of emergent properties.

Physical laws & emergent properties as all we have for observation, is a pile of woo, because "Physical laws & emergent properties as all we have for observation" is not an observation itself. It is an act of faith in the end. No more and no less.
You don't go through your everyday life doing everything based on testing through observation alone.

The furthest you can get, is non-reductive physicalism. That has nothing to do with God, but is rather to admit the limit of science.
Just admit that word "useful" has no scientific basis itself and indeed is an emergent property you can't reduce down to a physical law.
You can't even phrase a correct sentence: It is not useful in itself, it is useful to somebody and there is no universal "we" in neither science nor religion for all of the everyday life. I am not a part of your "we" and I never will be. You are functionally no different that a religious fundie, which speaks for a "we" for all humans.

It is useful for you to believe in the fantasy of "Physical laws & emergent properties are what we get to observe". But that is not useful to me, and I just use another fantasy. I know that, but you apparently don't know, that you are using a fantasy.

So report me, ignore me or learn. That is your problem, not mine.
You as a human have a belief system of what is useful to you. I do too, I am just honest about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, you can't observe the meaning of a "no". You are hidden behind the woo of emergent properties.

Physical laws & emergent properties as all we have for observation, is a pile of woo, because "Physical laws & emergent properties as all we have for observation" is not an observation itself. It is an act of faith in the end. No more and no less.
You don't go through your everyday life doing everything based on testing through observation alone.

Au contraire....no faith is needed for my observations being what I observe.
Faith, for example, would be to presume this or that about things I don't observe,
eg, proclaiming that there are no gods, or that there are gods.

The furthest you can get, is non-reductive physicalism. That has nothing to do with God, but is rather to admit the limit of science.
Just admit that word "useful" has no scientific basis itself and indeed is an emergent property you can't reduce down to a physical law.
You can't even phrase a correct sentence: It is not useful in itself, it is useful to somebody and there is no universal "we" in neither science nor religion for all of the everyday life. I am not a part of your "we" and I never will be. You are functionally no different that a religious fundie, which speaks for a "we" for all humans.

It is useful for you to believe in the fantasy of "Physical laws & emergent properties are what we get to observe". But that is not useful to me, and I just use another fantasy. I know that, but you apparently don't know, that you are using a fantasy.

So report me, ignore me or learn. That is your problem, not mine.
You as a human have a belief system of what is useful to you. I do too, I am just honest about it.

Report you?
For what?
You're just opining in a civil (mostly) manner.
Besides, my motto (one of'm) is "snitches get stitches".
If we have difficulties, we should work them out ourselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Au contraire....no faith is needed for my observations being what I observe.
Faith, for example, would be to presume this or that about things I don't observe,
eg, proclaiming that there are no gods, or that there are gods.

Report you?
For what?
You're just opining in a civil (mostly) manner.
Besides, my motto (one of'm) is "snitches get stitches".
If we have difficulties, we should work them out ourselves.

First off, thank you for your civil tone.

Okay, let us look closer at "we" and "observe". Are all acts of declaring a "we" based on observations alone?
No, some times a "we" is social, a "we" of shared beliefs. E.g. a belief in liberal democracy.
So some times when you use a "we", it is not just based on observation alone.
Now to keep it simple for observation, there is a reason, how it is the "Declaration of Human Rights". Not observation/ physical law of human rights and all.
So back to emergent properties. Can all words about emergent properties be reduced to physical properties alone? And the answer is: No! I have a book by a scientist about that in Danish, I am sorry to say.
Here is the example he used:
Draw a rectangle and inside it a circle. Now notice something, what about that outside the rectangle ? Not that it is a rectangle and the differences with the circle. You know, the rest of the universe. That which is not the box. Now focus on the word "no" as the root of "not". Can you hold, touch, see and so on its referent, what "no" is about. No, you only know a "no" in the mind. Now describe, how you would see the referent of "no" in the physical and chemical processes in a brain. You can't.
The brain "cuts" out difference in the universe, which are there in some sense, but some of the differences are only inside your mind and not outside it. Some words as how these words work have no objective referent. That includes some versions of "we" and the word "useful". That is the limit of emergent properties in regards to the physical aspects of the universe and "we observe". Humans don't just observe and act with their bodies. They use words like "it matters to me", "is useful to me", "makes sense to me" and so on.

So I accept the word "God" doesn't make sense to you, but it does make sense to me. Now notice something.
I don't use the word "God" to judge you. I point that we do it differently and then I point that nobody have an universal "we" for all aspects of being human neither with science, philosophy nor religion.
Now please read this, read it again if need be and reflect on it.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I have spent years working along side scientists and asked questions and gotten answers. I have read countless books about the limitations of science in some human lines of work. My wife is in part a social worker.
I know the limit of observation as a tool. I know that science is itself a human behavior and just like e.g. human mobility it has a limit.

So the final part: Can we observe, that there are humans, which believe in gods? Yes! Are these cases emergent properties of the physical universe in your model? Yes!
Then here is my question to you? Only using observation as external sensible experience, answer how that matters to you? You can't!
You believe in a given set of rules for behavior, morality, which you can't do with science alone or derive one to one from science. That is your faith, it is not religious but it is without observation and not grounded in science. So yes, you have faith, albeit not a religious one.
That is the limit of science. It is a fact, that religion is a human behavior, so what is the problem? The problem is how you feel about other human behavior, but you can't use science for that.
"Physical laws & emergent properties" - that "&" is not that simple, when you look closer.

With the best regards and thanks for keeping it civil: I tried to live up to you.

PS "Useful to you" is a part of your faith. "Useful to me" is a part of my faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

First off, thank you for your civil tone.

Okay, let us look closer at "we" and "observe". Are all acts of declaring a "we" based on observations alone?
No, some times a "we" is social, a "we" of shared beliefs. E.g. a belief in liberal democracy.
So some times when you use a "we", it is not just based on observation alone.
Now to keep it simple for observation, there is a reason, how it is the "Declaration of Human Rights". Not observation/ physical law of human rights and all.

I don't understand.
But I'll say that human rights are a construct of ours.

So back to emergent properties. Can all words about emergent properties be reduced to physical properties alone? And the answer is: No! I have a book by a scientist about that in Danish, I am sorry to say.
Here is the example he used:
Draw a rectangle and inside it a circle. Now notice something, what about that outside the rectangle ? Not that it is a rectangle and the differences with the circle. You know, the rest of the universe. That which is not the box. Now focus on the word "no" as the root of "not". Can you hold, touch, see and so on its referent, what "no" is about. No, you only know a "no" in the mind. Now describe, how you would see the referent of "no" in the physical and chemical processes in a brain. You can't.
The brain "cuts" out difference in the universe, which are there in some sense, but some of the differences are only inside your mind and not outside it. Some words as how these words work have no objective referent. That includes some versions of "we" and the word "useful". That is the limit of emergent properties in regards to the physical aspects of the universe and "we observe". Humans don't just observe and act with their bodies. They use words like "it matters to me", "is useful to me", "makes sense to me" and so on.

So I accept the word "God" doesn't make sense to you, but it does make sense to me. Now notice something.
I don't use the word "God" to judge you. I point that we do it differently and then I point that nobody have an universal "we" for all aspects of being human neither with science, philosophy nor religion.
Now please read this, read it again if need be and reflect on it.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

The word "God" makes sense to me.
I just don't believe that he/she/it exists.

I have spent years working along side scientists and asked questions and gotten answers. I have read countless books about the limitations of science in some human lines of work. My wife is in part a social worker.
I know the limit of observation as a tool. I know that science is itself a human behavior and just like e.g. human mobility it has a limit.

I agree that observation is limited.
A leap of faith to believe in the supernatural is not a useful alternative for me.

So the final part: Can we observe, that there are humans, which believe in gods? Yes! Are these cases emergent properties of the physical universe in your model? Yes!
Then here is my question to you? Only using observation as external sensible experience, answer how that matters to you? You can't!
You believe in a given set of rules for behavior, morality, which you can't do with science alone or derive one to one from science. That is your faith, it is not religious but it is without observation and not grounded in science. So yes, you have faith, albeit not a religious one.
That is the limit of science. It is a fact, that religion is a human behavior, so what is the problem? The problem is how you feel about other human behavior, but you can't use science for that.
"Physical laws & emergent properties" - that "&" is not that simple, when you look closer.

With the best regards and thanks for keeping it civil: I tried to live up to you.

PS "Useful to you" is a part of your faith. "Useful to me" is a part of my faith.

"Useful" isn't a faith based thing.
It simply means that we can apply what we know/understand.
Example....
Physics is useful because I use it to design & construct things.
It's based upon concepts being reliable to effect results.
"Inductive reasoning" it would be.

 

[tayla]

Are you honestly bothered by that?

I don't wish people to tell me what I can and can't think, and to lock me up if I believe in God. At least where I live, I'm not concerned with this for the time being.

 

[tayla]

Didn't you already do this thread.

The other thread emphasized my comments which people mostly didn't like. This one emphasizes quotes of well-known people.

 

[tayla]

Atheist activism is useful.

Yes, I agree. As long as they don't forbid belief in God, or disallow various other things they don't like.

 

[tayla]

A lot of those quotes strike me more as criticism of religion than activism.

Yes, thanks for you thoughts.

 

[tayla]

The parts that could be construed as having an activist ring to them (such as the comments on religious schools) aren't inherently atheistic.

I'm a theist and still inclined to agree with Dawkins on that one.

I suppose as long as people's activism doesn't intrude on freedoms and rights, it's fair game.

 

[tayla]

We all know that certain intuitions promote religion, some of which aren't even religious.

Can you provide an example please?

 

[tayla]

@dmap I believe it was also Dawkins who has called for teaching unbiased, comparative religion in schools. The point is to quell indoctrination, and let people decide for themselves.

Yes, I like his viewpoints. A very wise man.

 

[tayla]

Yes, that's activism by atheists to me, and I applaud it.

Yes, I agree that sharing ideas with the hope of influencing people's beliefs and of changing laws; this is activism.

 

[tayla]

Christianity has declared war on atheists.

They have declared war on everyone, even themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if there are none left someday.

 

[tayla]

I've been expected to swear an oath to
God...the Christian one...no choice of Allah, Thor, Ganesh, etc.
I'm loath to pretend to be one of them, so I ask for a secular oath.
Thereby, I must tacitly announce that I'm not a Christian...& worst of
all, perhaps a heathen, a non-believer, an apostate, or an atheist.

Seems swearing in ceremonies should emphasize the commitment made, not the so-called God who is supposedly watching.

 

[tayla]

I could cite surveys & scripture to show that Christians have a
religious basis for their high percentage of adherents who think
low of atheists, & don't trust us to be moral or honest. (One
study had us ranking down there with rapists.)

Based on the support by many Christian evangelical leaders for the current president of a certain country, seems they should swap places with their opinion of atheists. I certainly have drastically reduced my opinion of them; they are scary. Who knows what they are capable of doing? (Oh, just look at the burnings at the stake and religious wars and genocide from Christian history to see what they are capable of.)

 

[tayla]

I CAN believe that he would have advocated the teaching of 'comparative religion' from the atheist "none of these are true so let's show you how stupid they are" POV.

I think I've heard Dawkins say we should teach about religions in school. And I didn't think he wanted to include nasty comments on each one as you are claiming.

I agree with him that most core religious teachings are based on fiction; presenting untruth as truth.