Atheism is not a default position

[Curious George]

You said this:

Well I can only go by specific descriptions - but WL Craig and many modern Christian apologists describe Yahweh as immaterial, timeless and external to the universe.
Which would actually work quite well as a definition for: Non-existent.

The only reading I can think of for this is you are dismissing this idea of God as referring to what doesn't exist, or in other words, you are saying immaterial = non-existent.

If god is immaterial, outside time, and outside space. Then wouldn't he be non existent in our space, time, and material?

 

[Bunyip]

Ahh, prove it no. However I would reason it with the assertion that not one intelligent thing that objectively exists does not have a degree of control over the universe.

Ok, but that is not great reasoning. But sure ok.

The counter argument to this would be absolute determinism.

Why would there even need to be a counter argument?

a be But that relies on more unproven assertions. Ironically though, if we are discussing the deists god conception and positing absolute determinism, then the deist god is the only entity with control over the universe. Either way, the deist god falls in line with the definition.

Though there still exists the possibility that one could, sans, determinism come up with an example of some intelligent thing that objectively exists that has zero control over the universe. I will await that "black swan."

Sure, ok.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

If god is immaterial, outside time, and outside space. Then wouldn't he be non existent in our space, time, and material?

Well, these are complex problems - the relationship of God to the world. All classical theists would say God is immaterial and not in his essence bound by time and space, but how they explain his exact relationship to the world differs slightly.

 

[Bunyip]

You said this:

Well I can only go by specific descriptions - but WL Craig and many modern Christian apologists describe Yahweh as immaterial, timeless and external to the universe.
Which would actually work quite well as a definition for: Non-existent.

The only reading I can think of for this is you are dismissing this idea of God as referring to what doesn't exist, or in other words, you are saying immaterial = non-existent.

Nope. That is just a fragment of what I said. Read the whole comment please.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

This was your whole post, I can see nothing extra relevant in the other sentence, directed at a different quote:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...default-position.178494/page-119#post-4416827

 

[Copernicus]

Noncognitivists are all logical positivists?

In my experience, most, if not all, seem to be aware of A.J. Ayers and cite him as an inspiration for their view of what we mean by "meaning". However, that doesn't mean that they really understand what logical/empirical positivism was all about. So it might not be accurate to call them all "logical positivists". They all hold that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless. If you don't agree, then please give an example of one who doesn't.

capable of being analyzed is always meaningful?

Yes. What else do you think the analysis could be based on?

Drange is a logical positivist?

Good question. I don't recall him ever actually saying that, but he did say that he accepted the argument. If not on the basis of logical positivism, then on what basis?

Are you sure. Perhaps you aretrying to say much, and in haste, sacrificed substance for brevity. I am not sure I follow all of this. But it is interesting, perhaps you could say more.

Fair request. I really think that a more elaborate explanation would involve taking a course or two in philosophy and/or linguistics. I have taught such courses, so I can tell you that this is not really a suitable venue for that. But I would recommend that you look at the Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pages on "logical positivism" and "logical empiricism". As a linguist who has specialized in semantic theories, I do have some different views on the subject than philosophers usually do, but those really are topics that are central to the study of philosophy. If you take an introductory course in philosophy, you are likely to hear about logical (or empirical) positivism and why it is no longer taken as seriously as it was many decades ago.

 

[Curious George]

Ok, but that is not great reasoning. But sure ok. Why would there even need to be a counter argument?
Sure, ok.

literally every intelligent thing that exists supports my claim and somehow that is not good reasoning?

There doesn't need to be a counter argument but there is, and I am aware of it, so it would be wrong to not mention it.

If I am mistaken here, and with absolute determinism, I would be mistaken, then I will reformulate accordingly. Unlike some people I have chanced across in life, I have no big fear of being wrong. I have been wrong lots of times. But I often rely on others to show me where I am mistaken. I will certainly push against others assertions, as I continually do against my own, but that does not mean I am not listening or open to the ideas. They are just ideas after all. Some closer to truth than others, but ideas nonetheless. The more ideas I can understand the more entertained I am. Determinism, though I don't accept it, is one of these ideas. And in this instance, determinism would serve to counter my claim by effectively depriving all entities of control.

I am not trying to needlessly complicate my ideas I am currently positing, but neglecting to mention a major potentiality for disagreement would be unfair.

 

[Curious George]

In my experience, most, if not all, seem to be aware of A.J. Ayers and cite him as an inspiration for their view of what we mean by "meaning". However, that doesn't mean that they really understand what logical/empirical positivism was all about. So it might not be accurate to call them all "logical positivists". They all hold that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless. If you don't agree, then please give an example of one who doesn't.


Yes. What else do you think the analysis could be based on?


Good question. I don't recall him ever actually saying that, but he did say that he accepted the argument. If not on the basis of logical positivism, then on what basis?


Fair request. I really think that a more elaborate explanation would involve taking a course or two in philosophy and/or linguistics. I have taught such courses, so I can tell you that this is not really a suitable venue for that. But I would recommend that you look at the Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pages on "logical positivism" and "logical empiricism". As a linguist who has specialized in semantic theories, I do have some different views on the subject than philosophers usually do, but those really are topics that are central to the study of philosophy. If you take an introductory course in philosophy, you are likely to hear about logical (or empirical) positivism and why it is no longer taken as seriously as it was many decades ago.

Not challenging the logical positivism's relevance or suggesting the problems have been addressed. I was asking whether you were sure about the implications in your post which I questioned above. Thank you for asking. Although the "outside the scope" answer is not one which I find satisfying. We all have our limitations and it would be unfair for me to ask you to exceed yours or to inform me in a way for which you are accustomed to receiving compensation.

Thank you for your elaboration though.

 

[Bunyip]

literally every intelligent thing that exists supports my claim and somehow that is not good reasoning?

There doesn't need to be a counter argument but there is, and I am aware of it, so it would be wrong to not mention it.

Ok, no worries.

If I am mistaken here, and with absolute determinism, I would be mistaken, then I will reformulate accordingly. Unlike some people I have chanced across in life, I have no big fear of being wrong. I have been wrong lots of times. But I often rely on others to show me where I am mistaken. I will certainly push against others assertions, as I continually do against my own, but that does not mean I am not listening or open to the ideas. They are just ideas after all. Some closer to truth than others, but ideas nonetheless. The more ideas I can understand the more entertained I am. Determinism, though I don't accept it, is one of these ideas. And in this instance, determinism would serve to counter my claim by effectively depriving all entities of control.

I am not trying to needlessly complicate my ideas I am currently positing, but neglecting to mention a major potentiality for disagreement would be unfair.

 

[Bunyip]

This was your whole post, I can see nothing extra relevant in the other sentence, directed at a different quote:

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...default-position.178494/page-119#post-4416827

Yes, correct. That was my whole quote. It gave three qualities - timeless, immaterial and external to the universe. What was the issue?

 

[Curious George]

In my experience, most, if not all, seem to be aware of A.J. Ayers and cite him as an inspiration for their view of what we mean by "meaning". However, that doesn't mean that they really understand what logical/empirical positivism was all about. So it might not be accurate to call them all "logical positivists". They all hold that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless. If you don't agree, then please give an example of one who doesn't.


Yes. What else do you think the analysis could be based on?

Then the king of France is bald cannot be meaningless. But does this challenge logical positivism as you assert? Certainly we can derive several observations from this proposition that could be evidenced as true or false.

But, that was not my point. My point was that those who determine the proposition god exists meaningless, in my experience, do so not from the grounds of a logical positivist definition of meaning but rather from the standpoint that god is indefinable and the term is meaningless.

Personally, I am not a noncognitivist and I am not studied in their ideas. (Perhaps I shall remedy that-- the study not the state of being, of course). I would still question your definition of meaning though. I read up on Ayers definition of meaning, and I contemplated your definition of capable of being analyzed. I disagree with both. Ayers, for good reason if the internet has anything to say about it, and yours because one can experience without analyzing. Perhaps this is too much of a bent towards the layman definition of meaning. But it occurs to me that sounds alone can have some effect. Why would we not consider even this meaning? Certainly this would create an strong subjectivity to the meaning of meaning, (I just had to write that at least once) but I see no reason why we must adhere to objective meaning if we already accept everything must be viewed through a subjective lens.

Anyhow, thank you for giving me concepts to ponder, and although I am not happy about the homework, it will probably do me some good to read more on the topic.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Yes, correct. That was my whole quote. It gave three qualities - timeless, immaterial and external to the universe. What was the issue?

That you flippantly dismissed these qualities as implying non-existence, despite the fact you acknowledge the role of such conceptions in classical theism, hence it was an example of your general dismissal of the intellectual worth of theism.

 

[David M]

AIf you reject or against any belief with gods, you are an anti-theist. A (opposite) anti (against).

To be accurate its "A" = without and "Anti" = against.

If you are denying a god because "you dont believe gods exist" then you'd still be an atheist. If you are denying a god "but have no position on whether or not they exist", you are an anti theist. Id probably say agnostic antitheist. Atheists dont believe in gods point blank.

Wrong way round.
If you don't have a belief in the existence of theistic Gods you are an atheist.
If you believe that theistic Gods definitely do not exist then you are an anti-theist.

All anti-theists are also atheists but not all atheists are anti-theists.

Here is a good discription of prefixes.
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/prefix.htm

As your link states, "A" means without not against.

 

[Copernicus]

Then the king of France is bald cannot be meaningless. But does this challenge logical positivism as you assert? Certainly we can derive several observations from this proposition that could be evidenced as true or false.

Paradoxes such as that one troubled philosophers in the early 20th century, especially Bertrand Russell and his protege, Ludwig Wittgenstein. The idea that originally kicked off the logical empiricism trend was started by these two philosophers, and it rested essentially on the assumption that what gave rise to philosophical paradoxes were flaws inherent in natural language. Russell and (to a lesser extent) Wittgenstein founded the so-called "Ideal Philosophy" movement, which aimed to create a formal logical language in which it would be impossible to formulate propositions that had no truth value, e.g. "The present king of France is bald". Wittgenstein went on to reject Russell's original program and formulate the view that such conundrums were caused by the misuse of "ordinary language". So he is sometimes cited as the founder of the school of "Ordinary Language Philosophy". Logical positivism was essentially within the branch known as "Ideal Language", so its bias from the beginning was to treat meaning as essentially a property of bivalent logic. If an English proposition could not be said to be "true" or "false", then it lacked coherent meaning. It would therefore not be translatable into the "ideal language". That, at least, was one of the concepts that seems to have driven the rise of logical empiricism, although there were many other factors that contributed to it in the early 20th century Zeitgeist.

But, that was not my point. My point was that those who determine the proposition god exists meaningless, in my experience, do so not from the grounds of a logical positivist definition of meaning but rather from the standpoint that god is indefinable and the term is meaningless.

Right, but the concept of gods is not meaningless. We have a very good idea of what they are. They are human-like (usually spiritual) agencies that have absolute control over some aspect of reality and that human beings try to influence through worship rituals. There can be a lot of different ideas about the nature of gods, but there is a common core of ideas that define them. Perhaps our earliest prototypical understanding of gods in childhood derives from our experience of parental and adult authority, which children tend to obey instinctively. Adults, especially parents, define all moral behavior and are all powerful in the eyes of very young children. As children mature, they acquire a more realistic view of parents and other adults, but the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing being that commands absolute obedience and love is ingrained from the beginning.

Personally, I am not a noncognitivist and I am not studied in their ideas. (Perhaps I shall remedy that-- the study not the state of being, of course). I would still question your definition of meaning though. I read up on Ayers definition of meaning, and I contemplated your definition of capable of being analyzed. I disagree with both. Ayers, for good reason if the internet has anything to say about it, and yours because one can experience without analyzing. Perhaps this is too much of a bent towards the layman definition of meaning. But it occurs to me that sounds alone can have some effect. Why would we not consider even this meaning? Certainly this would create an strong subjectivity to the meaning of meaning, (I just had to write that at least once) but I see no reason why we must adhere to objective meaning if we already accept everything must be viewed through a subjective lens.

You are asking about the basis for human cognition--what its nature is. That is a topic that you can spend your entire life trying to understand. FWIW, my own personal recommendation is that you start with the concept of embodied cognition. All human knowledge is grounded in experience, and experience consists primarily of bodily sensations.

Anyhow, thank you for giving me concepts to ponder, and although I am not happy about the homework, it will probably do me some good to read more on the topic.

If you are young, you have time to think about these things. I wish I had more time to look forward to.

 

[Shad]

I am just applying a usage, there is no fault in doing so.

You are attacking a label, not a position. I do not think whether babies or rocks are atheists or not even matters.

Your statements imply otherwise. So lets just get this out of the way. Do you believe that babies in any form or inferred in any way are atheists. Yes or no?

I am sorry that you are upset about this, but am struggling to explain it to better. Yes, I understand that you are disproving a usage I have applied - the problem is that there is no point in disproving a usage, you need to disprove/defend/argue for ideas, and positions.

If the idea is solely based on a definition, which is found all over this thread, then defeating the definition and showing it's flaws also defeats the argument.

Attacking somebody over the misuse of a term is like trying to fight off an assailant by re-spelling his name.

Not if said term is the core of their argument to the point of being the only factor the argument has.

Dictionaries do not dictate definitions, it is not like a law or a regulation enforced by the police.
No....instead dictionaries listen to the hum of society and try as best they can to catch and describe word usages like a schoolboy catching butterflies.

Definitions of words should be logical and not just used due to popular opinion. Hence why many dictionaries do not include slang at all. This is the difference between formal and informal language. Formal language is not dictated by the masses, only informal language is. I am under no obligation to entertain informal language.

The point still being largely missed is fundamental. Arguing about correct definitions of atheism/theism/God is futile, it is the IDEAS being described that need to be discussed not the labels.
There is no such thing an a correct definition of atheism, language has no enforcement office - dictionaries record the way people use words and their definitions are the best descriptions of how those words are being used that they can design. They are not authoritative, they are not prescriptive - they describe language, they do not dictate it.

Arguing about which is the correct definition is like arguing about what to call a fishing rod and thinking you are fishing.

Again if the idea and argument is solely based on a single definition then defeating the definition defeats the argument. I already proposed two alternatives which few even considered.

 

[David M]

The distinction between negative and positive claims doesn't really hold. Every negative claim is a positive claim, and vice versa. Every negative claim implies a positive way of looking at the evidence and of forming an alternative conclusion. Such games are not enough to establish that atheism is any sort of logically default position.

You are misssing the third postion, rejection of the claim (whether its the positive or the nehgative). And rejection of a claim can be the default position (and usually should be).

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You are misssing the third postion, rejection of the claim (whether its the positive or the nehgative). And rejection of a claim can be the default position (and usually should be).

What do you mean when you differentiate the rejection of the claim from a negative claim in this context? They seem to be referring to the same thing. If you are rejecting the claim that God exists, implicitly or explicitly, you are at least implicitly making a claim about the evidence for God (or, more generally, what the nature of the universe is, etc.) and where this evidence points instead in terms of an alternative, atheist metaphysic. It depends on the way the argument goes who will have the burden of proof (who is making the claims and who just critiquing them and how), but abstractly the atheist bears an equal burden to the theist.

 

[ArtieE]

To be accurate its "A" = without and "Anti" = against.

Right.

If you don't have a belief in the existence of theistic Gods you are an atheist.

Right.

If you believe that theistic Gods definitely do not exist then you are an anti-theist.

No, you are a strong atheist. Just because you believe gods don't exist doesn't mean that you are against the belief that gods exist.

All anti-theists are also atheists but not all atheists are anti-theists.

Right.

 

[David M]

What do you mean when you differentiate the rejection of the claim from a negative claim in this context? They seem to be referring to the same thing. If you are rejecting the claim that God exists, implicitly or explicitly, you are at least implicitly making a claim about the evidence for God (or, more generally, what the nature of the universe is, etc.) and where this evidence points instead in terms of an alternative, atheist metaphysic. It depends on the way the argument goes who will have the burden of proof (who is making the claims and who just critiquing them and how), but abstractly the atheist bears an equal burden to the theist.

You say that Bigfoot exists (as an example). I say that I do not accept your claim (because I see no evidence sufficient to support that claim).

I am not claiming that Bigfoot definitely don't exist, I am just stating that until evidence is provided I am not going to accept that Bigfoot exists.

 

[David M]

No, you are a strong atheist.

One definition of anti-theism is "denial of the existence of a God". Strong Atheism (a newer term) has become synonymous with that version of anti-theism.