Is Atheism based on superstition?

[sayak83]

That was interesting reading indeed. I'll admit that I haven't been following it.

My perception is that materialism is essentially predicated upon the independent reality of the observed from the observer. If one takes that as an assumption, then certainly the philosophy of Vaisheshika, and what you discuss in those posts, are solid. As such, regardless of whether one is a materialist it has value from an immediate perspective. However, to stand solidly as a philosophy materialism would need to prove, rather than assume, that pre-requisite, and I don't see any way that can be done given the fact that external verification is impossible.

I think a good empirical observation that supports such an independent reality is that I have first person access only to my states and not of yours, or other people in the world. I still remain hungry when you eat food, remain thirsty when you drink water. I do not feel the pain of you burning your finger etc. The argument extends to the animate and inanimate world as well. I should be able to directly access the conscious states of my cat if the same I was everywhere. Evidence that some yogi can do that (direct first person access to other people's subjective experience) would be a defeater for the diversity of entities hypothesis. Till then observations show that the my first person experience is disconnected from your first person experience and is sufficient to ground the diversity of entities hypothesis.

Note that it has become possible to observationally demonstrate when two (or more) 1st person consciousness-es have become unified. For, science has done it with its "gizmos" already.
Interconnected rats' brains create organic computer

Note that QM and Relativity shows that matter-energy-space-time is one interconnected network and its elements cannot be truly isolated from each other. But this remain within the purview of a physicalist Vaisesika ontology.

 

[Kirran]

I think a good empirical observation that supports such an independent reality is that I have first person access only to my states and not of yours, or other people in the world. I still remain hungry when you eat food, remain thirsty when you drink water. I do not feel the pain of you burning your finger etc. The argument extends to the animate and inanimate world as well. I should be able to directly access the conscious states of my cat if the same I was everywhere. Evidence that some yogi can do that (direct first person access to other people's subjective experience) would be a defeater for the diversity of entities hypothesis. Till then observations show that the my first person experience is disconnected from your first person experience and is sufficient to ground the diversity of entities hypothesis.

Note that it has become possible to observationally demonstrate when two (or more) 1st person consciousness-es have become unified. For, science has done it with its "gizmos" already.
Interconnected rats' brains create organic computer

Note that QM and Relativity shows that matter-energy-space-time is one interconnected network and its elements cannot be truly isolated from each other. But this remain within the purview of a physicalist Vaisesika ontology.

Evidence of a yogi doing that is of course the problem, although personally I know people who can do that, as far as I am concerned. But that's no clincher, because it's the separate minds which are being impacted by those changing states, rather than the consciousness which precedes them. I think there's a difference between the usual sense in which the word consciousness is used in science and the sense in which it is meant from a Vedantic perspective. From a Vedantic perspective it's something totally passive and background, whereas materialism generally means something more active and attributed by it. Sometimes the use of the same term can cause confusion, I think, when consciousness as in Advaita Vedanta is really rather more like the shunyata of Buddhism.

Also, subjective confirmation of the consciousness-first stuff promoted in Advaita etc obviously can't be conveyed from one person to another, if it's just like 'look, observe, see?' because that comes only from one individual perspective.

 

[sayak83]

Evidence of a yogi doing that is of course the problem, although personally I know people who can do that, as far as I am concerned. But that's no clincher, because it's the separate minds which are being impacted by those changing states, rather than the consciousness which precedes them. I think there's a difference between the usual sense in which the word consciousness is used in science and the sense in which it is meant from a Vedantic perspective. From a Vedantic perspective it's something totally passive and background, whereas materialism generally means something more active and attributed by it. Sometimes the use of the same term can cause confusion, I think, when consciousness as in Advaita Vedanta is really rather more like the shunyata of Buddhism.

Also, subjective confirmation of the consciousness-first stuff promoted in Advaita etc obviously can't be conveyed from one person to another, if it's just like 'look, observe, see?' because that comes only from one individual perspective.

I will not discuss more here, as I am hoping to create a thread on the Upanisadic worldview sometime soon. But my first reaction is, if something is totally passive, can it not be removed from the explanatory net without any loss to explanatory completeness?

 

[Kirran]

I will not discuss more here, as I am hoping to create a thread on the Upanisadic worldview sometime soon. But my first reaction is, if something is totally passive, can it not be removed from the explanatory net without any loss to explanatory completeness?

That's a good idea. But I wanna respond to that point first

Canvas is passive. But a painting is meaningless without it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If we really wanted to be pedantic, the opposite to Jack's belief wouldn't be atheism; it would be some other type of theism ("all the gods that Jack believes in don't exist, and all the gods that Jack rejects do exist").

There is no rejection in atheism. It's just plain opposite of theism. However else people want to define it is on them. Ignostic would be based on rejection.

 

[sayak83]

That's a good idea. But I wanna respond to that point first

Canvas is passive. But a painting is meaningless without it.

Actually the canvass is not passive. It binds the paint pigments together and causes the pigments to remain at rest in space-time. It also forms the reflecting surface from which light waves can rebound and hit your eyes so that you can see see the painting. A canvas can be likened to a mathematical function like sin(x) or log (y) which can take in various values of x and y (the paint pigments) and maps them into z=sin(x) or z=log(y) (where z is the painting itself).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no rejection in atheism.

Not in atheism itself, but individual atheists can reject all sorts of things.

It's just plain opposite of theism. However else people want to define it is on them. Ignostic would be based on rejection.

There's no rejection in ignosticism. Ignosticism is the idea that "god" is so poorly defined that the statement "a god exists" is meaningless, and therefore can't be accepted or rejected.

 

[Kirran]

Actually the canvass is not passive. It binds the paint pigments together and causes the pigments to remain at rest in space-time. It also forms the reflecting surface from which light waves can rebound and hit your eyes so that you can see see the painting. A canvas can be likened to a mathematical function like sin(x) or log (y) which can take in various values of x and y (the paint pigments) and maps them into z=sin(x) or z=log(y) (where z is the painting itself).

I had a feeling you'd say something like this! Haha! Of course among observed phenomena we by definition can't find one that is truly passive, but things that approximate passivity can serve to illustrate the concept.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There's no rejection in ignosticism. Ignosticism is the idea that "god" is so poorly defined that the statement "a god exists" is meaningless, and therefore can't be accepted or rejected.

There ya go.

With atheism, and any other word, just because we have different views of what the word means doesn't change the definition of it at its core. Unlike the word god, atheism is pretty clear cut word.

 

[paarsurrey]

If we really wanted to be pedantic, the opposite to Jack's belief wouldn't be atheism; it would be some other type of theism ("all the gods that Jack believes in don't exist, and all the gods that Jack rejects do exist").

I agree with one here.
It is for this that we hold that if one does not find Truth in one religion, he should find for another religion to find Truth, it does not justify to become a disbeliever altogether.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Is Atheism based on superstition?

Neither science nor revelation supports Atheism. It must be superstition to take one to Atheism?
Regards

That is not what superstition means. Buy a dictionary.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is not what superstition means. Buy a dictionary.

Are dictionaries 100% accurate? Please
Regards

 

[Shad]

Are dictionaries 100% accurate? Please
Regards

You can look at multiple versions which will show superstition is a belief in something outside of nature, science or human reason. Rejecting a claim is not outside of nature nor human reason. Since atheism is not a belief in something outside of nature it can not be a superstition. Your whole thread is based on your mistake and refusal to open a dictionary, nothing more.

 

[McBell]

You can look at multiple versions which will show superstition is a belief in something outside of nature, science or human reason. Rejecting a claim is not outside of nature nor human reason. Since atheism is not a belief in something outside of nature it can not be a superstition. Your whole thread is based on your mistake and refusal to open a dictionary, nothing more.

I have to disagree.
His argument only applies to strong atheism.
Those making the claim there is no god.

 

[Shad]

I have to disagree.
His argument only applies to strong atheism.

It does not apply as being a strong atheist is still not believing in a supernatural entity rather than a belief in one. The only difference is one puts forward the claim and argument while the other is rejecting a claim and argument.

Those making the claim there is no god.

You are mistaking a belief in superstition with the burden of proof.

 

[McBell]

It does not apply as being a strong atheist is still not believing in a supernatural entity rather than a belief in one. The only difference is one puts forward the claim and argument while the other is rejecting a claim and argument.
You are mistaking a belief in superstition with the burden of proof.

On what base is the claim "there is no god"?
the exact same base as the claim "there is a god"?

therefore, if one is superstition, then the other is also superstition.

 

[Shad]

On what base is the claim "there is no god"?

Which is not believing in the supernatural

the exact same base as the claim "there is a god"?

Which is a belief in the supernatural

therefore, if one is superstition, then the other is also superstition.

No, one is still not believing in a supernatural entity as it has no replacement to offer.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree with one here.
It is for this that we hold that if one does not find Truth in one religion, he should find for another religion to find Truth, it does not justify to become a disbeliever altogether.
Regards

The proper procedure is to use the scientific method to find the Truth. Not running around like headless chickens trying out one religion after another in search of the Truth.

 

[McBell]

Which is not believing in the supernatural



Which is a belief in the supernatural



No, one is still not believing in a supernatural entity as it has no replacement to offer.

They are both claims that require support.
If both have the exact same evidence in support....

I am an atheist simply because I do not believe a god exists.
Problem is that everyone wants to take my lack of belief and make it into the belief that god does not exist.
I do not believe that god does not exist either.

But then, I am ok with not knowing.

 

[Shad]

They are both claims that require support.

Which is dodging your previous point by shifting the subject entity to support for the position.

If both have the exact same evidence in support....

If you accept Hawking's model there is more support for one than the other so these are not the same. If you accept string theory and m-theory there is support. One side at the very least has models, the other doesn't. These models make God redundant.

I said if as these are theoretical models and should be acknowledged as such.

There is a clear conflict in how believers operate. One is the idea that God is outside of science thus there can be no evidence, which is different from the models above as those are within a scientific framework. Yet they will jump to any argument from science that can be used to support their belief. They want to ignore science unless it can support their view point, then it becomes useful. The switch in Creationism to ID is a prime example. Now that it has been rejected they no longer has use for science and it's community.

I am an atheist simply because I do not believe a god exists.
Problem is that everyone wants to take my lack of belief and make it into the belief that god does not exist.
I do not believe that god does not exist either.

Yes I understand this point.

But then, I am ok with not knowing.

Same here.