Dogmatic atheism and fundamentalist Christianity: creating certainty in an uncertain world

[allfoak]

It's a self-defeating definition. "God" as "description of the undescribable" is literally meaningless: if it really is undescribable, you aren't describing it, and if you are describing it, it isn't indescribable. Either way, your definition is useless.

If anyone is accepting things uncritically, it's you.

If someone has a coherent idea of what "god" means to them, I'm happy to talk with them about their definition and whether something fitting it might exist in reality.

...But when our starting point is the oxymoronic stuff you're peddling, rational discussion is impossible. We can't rationally evaluate a claim that's irrationally expressed.

CHAPTER IV

THE ALL


"Under, and back of, the Universe of Time, Space and Change,
is ever to be found The Substantial Reality--the Fundamental
Truth."--The Kybalion.

"Substance" means: "that which underlies all outward manifestations; the essence; the essential reality; the thing in itself," etc. "Substantial" means: "actually existing; being the essential element; being real," etc. "Reality" means: "the state of being real; true, enduring; valid; fixed; permanent; actual," etc.

Under and behind all outward appearances or manifestations, there must always be a Substantial Reality. This is the Law. Man considering the Universe, of which he is a unit, sees nothing but change in matter, forces, and mental states. He sees that nothing really IS, but that everything is BECOMING and CHANGING. Nothing stands still-everything is being born, growing, dying-the very instant a thing reaches its height, it begins to decline--the law of rhythm is in constant operation--there is no reality, enduring quality, fixity, or substantiality in anything-- nothing is permanent but Change. He sees all things evolving from other things, and resolving into other things--constant action and reaction; inflow and outflow; building up and tearing down; creation and destruction; birth, growth and death. Nothing endures but Change. And if he be a thinking man, he realizes that all of these changing things must be but outward appearances or manifestations of some Underlying Power--some Substantial Reality.

All thinkers, in all lands and in all times, have assumed the necessity for postulating the existence of this Substantial Reality. All philosophies worthy of the name have been based upon this thought. Men have given to this Substantial Reality many names-some have called it by the term of Deity (under many titles). Others have called it "The Infinite and Eternal Energy" others have tried to call it "Matter"--but all have acknowledged its existence. It is self-evident it needs no argument.

The rest is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb06.htm

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still dogmatic. Still assuming you know how others think, and what others think without bothering to inquire. Honestly, I feel sorry for you.

I don't assume that I know how others think. I *hope* that what you say reflects your beliefs, but if it doesn't, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Acim]

As a strong theist, the topic fascinates me. But like other posters, I probably take issue with the terms in the study and how they are being employed. Earlier posts in the thread align with how I feel about the topic. In general, it seems to me that so called dogmatic atheists are cut from same/similar cloth as dogmatic theists. I don't readily define anyone in this fashion, but sometimes I come across a display, and it is a strong impression I may leave with. Like person standing outside sporting event loudly expressing bible verses, and seemingly showing no interest in a dialogue. Or website open to everyone, but is really intended to belittle anyone that doesn't adhere to the (ahem) principles of strong atheism. Not this website, mind you.

There are many people who believe Jesus Christ is literally going to come flying back to Earth someday with an army of angels on horseback, because that's what it says in the Bible.

I don't believe that is a very intelligent idea, and I don't think claiming certainty that this idea is untrue should be called "dogmatic" which brings us back on topic.

I'm not one of the people you are noting in this example (among many that could be cited). But I do wonder if someone that holds this position, with certainty, is themselves dogmatic? I would tend to say no. Perhaps it is just the degree of certainty they actually have, which would likely bear out in some sort of dialogue. I do think a thread on a forum could show (observers) that a believer holding to this notion is dogmatic, and the approach/counter-arguments an atheist takes could also be viewed as dogmatic.

 

[Sunstone]

I

The theist has no motive to present reality in any abbreviated overly simplistic form...

Good to know. I've always thought God creating the earth in six days was a thoroughly comprehensive account of reality. Not even the least bit abbreviated or overly simplistic.

 

[Sunstone]

"'God' is a word that describes the undescribable" is self-contradictory and meaningless.

I think that, as a definition of "God", that is, as you say, "self-contradictory and meaningless". But is it being used as a definition of "God", or as statement about descriptions and definitions of God? As the latter, it seems to me the equivalent of saying, "All descriptions and definitions of "God" are meaningless because "God" is indescribable and undefinable."

 

[Sunstone]

My instinct is to entertain the notion since I was once a dogmatic atheist. It had never occurred to me that it may have been linked to the difficulty in dealing with uncertainty but now that you've brought it to my attention I have to say that it makes some immediate sense. It's definitely worth thinking about. Thanks. Great post.

That's fascinating! I would never have suspected that you'd gone through a dogmatic atheist phase. What got you out of that?

The notion that dogmatic atheism is linked to an intolerance of uncertainty makes sense to me based merely on various people I've come across now and then. I'm kind of perplexed why the idea is as controversial as many of the responses in this thread would seem to suggest.

 

[Milton Platt]

[Source (The article is short)]

What do you make of the notion that fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic atheists have in common an intolerance for uncertainty?

I would say that atheists in general are far more with saying "I don't know" (uncertainty) than religious folks that have to stuff a god into the cracks in their knowledge.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think that, as a definition of "God", that is, as you say, "self-contradictory and meaningless". But is it being used as a definition of "God", or as statement about descriptions and definitions of God? As the latter, it seems to me the equivalent of saying, "All descriptions and definitions of "God" are meaningless because "God" is indescribable and undefinable."

And if you cannot describe or define something, why would you insist that it actually exists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that, as a definition of "God", that is, as you say, "self-contradictory and meaningless". But is it being used as a definition of "God", or as statement about descriptions and definitions of God? As the latter, it seems to me the equivalent of saying, "All descriptions and definitions of "God" are meaningless because "God" is indescribable and undefinable."

Even then, any statements about such a God (e.g. "I believe in God") are meaningless. It doesn't allow for any position besides ignosticism.

 

[Sunstone]

And if you cannot describe or define something, why would you insist that it actually exists?

Do you suppose that anything that exists must be describable or definable? I'm reminded here of that night I got lucky with Terri for the first time. But I don't think I could do more than give a vague description of my feelings. Many subjective states are like that. Do they not exist?

 

[Sunstone]

Even then, any statements about such a God (e.g. "I believe in God") are meaningless. It doesn't allow for any position besides ignosticism.

"I believe in the existence of something, x, that cannot be adequately defined nor described" is meaningless? There goes most people's notions that "infinity" might exist right out the door. Now, I do agree with you that if you define "x" (or "god") in such circumstances, you are being self-contradictory and your definition or description is meaningless. But to merely say you believe that "x" exists seems to me another matter. Of course, that leaves us with a statement that is perhaps trivial, "I believe there is something that can neither be adequately defined nor described." And that would seem to raise Thomas' question of whether you can legitimately provide a negative definition of that "something". i.e. "That something is not this. That something is not that. etc."

 

[Sunstone]

I would say that atheists in general are far more with saying "I don't know" (uncertainty) than religious folks that have to stuff a god into the cracks in their knowledge.

I would agree in so far as that has been my personal experience. I run across many more fundamentalist Christians who seem to have difficulty with uncertainty than I do dogmatic atheists who seem to have difficulty with uncertainty.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think that, as a definition of "God", that is, as you say, "self-contradictory and meaningless". But is it being used as a definition of "God", or as statement about descriptions and definitions of God? As the latter, it seems to me the equivalent of saying, "All descriptions and definitions of "God" are meaningless because "God" is indescribable and undefinable."

It's very similar to other things we do hold to be true without having complete understanding of, like quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy, expansion of space, or even something simple like economics (which seems to be too difficult to predict to the point where we keep on crashing every so often). God is basically the word we can use to point to the foundation of reality or existence itself, as well as our current existence without even understanding how we do exist.

 

[Orbit]

I don't assume that I know how others think. I *hope* that what you say reflects your beliefs, but if it doesn't, that's your problem, not mine.

Well, when you take one sentence entirely out of context and take it as a proxy for my "beliefs", I'd say it was your problem.

 

[Sunstone]

It's very similar to other things we do hold to be true without having complete understanding of, like quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy, expansion of space, or even something simple like economics (which seems to be too difficult to predict to the point where we keep on crashing every so often). God is basically the word we can use to point to the foundation of reality or existence itself, as well as our current existence without even understanding how we do exist.

The problem I think I see here is that to say "God is the foundation of reality" without otherwise defining God is the equivalent of saying "The foundation of reality is the foundation of reality". That is, in the absence of any other definition of God, the word "God" means only what you first define it as.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem I think I see here is that to say "God is the foundation of reality" without otherwise defining God is the equivalent of saying "The foundation of reality is the foundation of reality". That is, in the absence of any other definition of God, the word "God" means only what you first define it as.

Sure. But many other terms and phrases do have alternative names to give a different aspect or just make it simpler to use. Just because there are alternative words for the same concept that can carry some other emotions and such isn't uncommon. A biochemist might explain or have a whole article to describe what the feeling of love is. It's this chemical here, that here, and this hormone, and so on, but the word love, which is the same thing as all those chemical processes, is a word that carries a slightly different connotation. We use synonyms in language for this very purpose, to show aspects or multiple vectors that point to the same concepts, just to give a wider understanding.

And a second point is that language is inherently circular. I heard an interview once with a couple linguists that stated as much. Language is tautological in nature. A word is defined in other words, which are defined in other words, that are defined in other words, and eventually, you'll start seeing the first words showing up to explain the words further down the chain. Words are symbols, and they carry more than just single meanings. It's just like the other thread where it was stated something that words don't contain meaning, but rather meaning has words. And this doesn't prevent one meaning to have many words.

Why use terms like cosmos to mean the universe? Why say universe when you mean the whole natural existence of things? Why say big bang when it wasn't a bang? Why say black holes when they're not holes but massive clumps of matter? We have shortcut words for everything. Why say computer, when it's a automatic calculating electronic machine? Which word is better and which phrase says more or less or carry historical and intentional meanings (even if they might mean the exact same thing)?

Perhaps it's easier to see it from the difference between connotation and denotation?

 

[lunamoth]

As to the OP, I'm uncertain. <joke>

Actually, I think some people are attracted to the idea that their belief system/worldview must be the 'correct' one or it is worthless. I do see this in atheists as well as many theists. As for myself, I am not certain, I am OK with that, and it is why my belief in God is called 'faith.' People who always claim certainty, like those who adhere to any ideology, kind of scare me.

 

[Sunstone]

Sure. But many other terms and phrases do have alternative names to give a different aspect or just make it simpler to use. Just because there are alternative words for the same concept that can carry some other emotions and such isn't uncommon. A biochemist might explain or have a whole article to describe what the feeling of love is. It's this chemical here, that here, and this hormone, and so on, but the word love, which is the same thing as all those chemical processes, is a word that carries a slightly different connotation. We use synonyms in language for this very purpose, to show aspects or multiple vectors that point to the same concepts, just to give a wider understanding.

And a second point is that language is inherently circular. I heard an interview once with a couple linguists that stated as much. Language is tautological in nature. A word is defined in other words, which are defined in other words, that are defined in other words, and eventually, you'll start seeing the first words showing up to explain the words further down the chain. Words are symbols, and they carry more than just single meanings. It's just like the other thread where it was stated something that words don't contain meaning, but rather meaning has words. And this doesn't prevent one meaning to have many words.

Why use terms like cosmos to mean the universe? Why say universe when you mean the whole natural existence of things? Why say big bang when it wasn't a bang? Why say black holes when they're not holes but massive clumps of matter? We have shortcut words for everything. Why say computer, when it's a automatic calculating electronic machine? Which word is better and which phrase says more or less or carry historical and intentional meanings (even if they might mean the exact same thing)?

No argument with what you're saying. I was actually referring to something else. Tillich tried to duck arguments about the existence of god by saying, "God is not a being, but the ground of all being". Which is fine in so far as it goes. It's equivalent to saying "The ground of all being is the ground of all being." But people (including, I suspect, Tillich himself) sometimes do not limit themselves to that. Somehow they let other attributes of god slip in. "Oh, and by the way, God is all compassionate, all loving." But that now begs the question, "How do you know that?", etc.

 

[Sunstone]

People who always claim certainty, like those who adhere to any ideology, kind of scare me.

Amen.

 

[Ouroboros]

No argument with what you're saying. I was actually referring to something else. Tillich tried to duck arguments about the existence of god by saying, "God is not a being, but the ground of all being". Which is fine in so far as it goes. It's equivalent to saying "The ground of all being is the ground of all being." But people (including, I suspect, Tillich himself) sometimes do not limit themselves to that. Somehow they let other attributes of god slip in. "Oh, and by the way, God is all compassionate, all loving." But that now begs the question, "How do you know that?", etc.

Sure. Well, considering that the word "God" is a fluent word, and that we all (or most of us) never are completely sure of what we believe or think of how the world works (we learn something new everyday), perhaps the word is just the practical placeholder for things beyond our current comprehension but still somehow (poetically) represents the coalescence of all things.