Fundamentalist Atheists

[CynthiaCypher]

If you are referring to knowing with absolutely certainty that the water is wet than I would have to concede since we can't know anything with absolute certainty, But I don't have faith. I have a reasonable expectation based on every shower I've taken in the past and confirming with other people who take showers that I have spoken to. 'wet' is just a label we use to describe an attribute of water.

Sure you do, you are having faith experience. We all do. When I go to take a shower I experience the wetter of the water, how hot it is and it's pressure on my body.

But how can I be certain that the experience itself is real? I must take it on faith that it is.

 

[Willamena]

But how can I be certain that the experience itself is real? I must take it on faith that it is.

That's not faith, it's solipsism. If reality is the measure, then it cannot also be what is measured.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's not faith, it's solipsism. If reality is the measure, then it cannot also be what is measured.

So we can be sure that we are not brains in a vat? And that our experiences are not programmed into us? How can we be sure?

I think we take it granted that we are not brains in a vat, and we believe what we see, taste, smell, feel and hear. We trust our senses are giving us accurate data about the world around us and we also trust that the senses of others is giving them accurate data too. We also like to believe that our brain is accurately processing the data it receives from the sense organs.

 

[Willamena]

So we can be sure that we are not brains in a vat? And that our experiences are not programmed into us? How can we be sure?

One way is to examine the reasons why you concluded that it is possible. But this is a discussion for another thread.

I think we take it granted that we are not brains in a vat, and we believe what we see, taste, smell, feel and hear. We trust our senses are giving us accurate data about the world around us and we also trust that the senses of others is giving them accurate data too. We also like to believe that our brain is accurately processing the data it receives from the sense organs.

You've described sanity.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

One way is to examine the reasons why you concluded that it is possible. But this is a discussion for another thread.


You've described sanity.

Or as Ernest Becker called it "a necessary illusion of sanity"

 

[Copernicus]

I think we take it granted that we are not brains in a vat, and we believe what we see, taste, smell, feel and hear. We trust our senses are giving us accurate data about the world around us and we also trust that the senses of others is giving them accurate data too. We also like to believe that our brain is accurately processing the data it receives from the sense organs.

We trust in what we can reasonably verify. For most of us, we have repeated experiences of how the world behaves, and that establishes the basis of the trust. Moreover, other people share and confirm that trust, because they have the same experiences.

Religious faith is a very different kind of trust. Someone you've never met before will agree with you that water is wet, but not that your god exists. That person cannot verify your god's existence in the same way that he or she can verify the wetness of water.

So we are all people of faith, but not of religious faith.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I cant help it that the afterlife is a brute fact to me though.
It's a position I am certain of.

How are you certain of it?

I just am.
I have experienced it first hand and second hand.
It is...

 

[TheGunShoj]

So we can be sure that we are not brains in a vat? And that our experiences are not programmed into us? How can we be sure?

No we can't be sure. But faith and trust are not synonymous in the way they are being used here.

Faith:Belief that is not based on proof.

Believing that I'm not a brain in a vat and that mine and other peoples brains are giving them accurate information is based on everything we experience in the world around us each day. Even if it is simply a perceived reality, it's the only proof that we have. So this isn't blind faith that you are describing, it's trust earned through experience in the physical world and outside verification from other people.

It's similar to the question "does it take faith to not believe in big foot?" no.
"does it take faith to not believe we are brains in vats?"

No. it's not a faith based position. I reserve belief in that until it's demonstrated to be true. I don't have faith that it isn't true.

We could sit and talk about justified true belief but its easier to just say knowledge even though it isn't absolutely certain to a T.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So we are all people of faith, but not of religious faith.

And I agree with that.

 

[Copernicus]

I cant help it that the afterlife is a brute fact to me though.
It's a position I am certain of.

But you should think about Cynthia's point. We are all (or almost all) certain that we are not a brain in a vat, but we cannot know that as an absolute certainty? Why? Because our experiences sometimes deceive us. Reality can be other than it appears. The fact that you are certain of your religious beliefs has to be measured against that fact that every religion has people certain of their religious beliefs. Hence, we must always be open to skepticism, even in matters that we think we know for certain. The more so, if others cannot confirm our experiences.

So we can all get confirmation from anyone that water is wet. We trust it will be whenever we feel it on our skins again. We cannot get confirmation that everyone shares your religious experience. Quite the opposite. So we ought to be more wary about that kind of certainty.

 

[Willamena]

We are all (or almost all) certain that we are not a brain in a vat, but we cannot know that as an absolute certainty?

*raises hand*

I do.

 

[TheGunShoj]

*raises hand*

I do.

No you don't.

Because if you were a brain in a vat being programmed with thoughts, that's exactly what you would be programmed to think.

See the problem? You can't have absolute certainty about anything.

 

[Willamena]

No you don't.

Because if you were a brain in a vat being programmed with thoughts, that's exactly what you would be programmed to think.

See the problem? You can't have absolute certainty about anything.

Yes, I do, because the argument from igorance is not compelling.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Yes, I do, because the argument from igorance is not compelling.

It's not an argument from ignorance. It's about degrees of certainty. You seem to be claiming that you know with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a vat. At which point, you now possess the burden of proof.

It's just like my atheism. I haven't yet been convinced that a God exists but I don't know with absolute certainty and I don't claim to. If I made that claim I would possess a burden of proof and since I have no means to disprove it, I feel that it would be dishonest of me to hold that position.

I don't think its likely that we are brains in vats. But I can't be sure that we aren't.

 

[Willamena]

The argument from ignorance tells me that that I don't know its true is not a good reason to think it is true. Hence, like a well practiced elastic band, I am compelled in the other direction. And safe in my assertions.

 

[Uberpod]

I cant speak for the rest of the world, but in the USA, (anti)Theism is a dead cause.
We have a constitutional right to Religion. :yes:

Antitheists are not really against religious freedom, rather they hope to eliminate religious beliefs by convincing others how ridiculous such beliefs are. They allow people their own conscience, but do not support unfounded conclusions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you don't have faith that the water will be wet when you take a shower?

Oh, no. I have a thought that it will be wet. I have an assumption that it will be wet. I have an expectation that it will be wet.

But I doubt you'll ever hear me claim that I have faith that it will be wet.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We are all different and have different positions, right?
Seriously?
What, are you trying to say we are not diff, we are robots then?
Dude, there is no on off switch :sarcastic

Ah. I see that you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

That's OK. Maybe later.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But that's just a vocabulary problem.

Maybe it's all a vocabulary problem, all the way down.

 

[Bunyip]

What do ou have against identifiers? How can a person articulate their position without the use of identifiers?

Try to construct a single sentence without using identifiers.

What? I have no issue with the use of identifiers.