(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Kuzcotopia]

Yes, I am in a very messy way. I think that for religious people a long time ago, they believed god existed objectively as a real person/thing. God was "real" for them. if you look at animists, they explained the way the world worked by saying that some spiritual essence 'animated' everything. in the same way they derived there sense of right and wrong from the same conception of reality as one in which god was an essential part of explaining it.

there are traces of it in liberalism because of it's legacy fro judeo-christian ethics (and as has been pointed out the ancient Greeks). Our conception of human rights originates from human nature (which is roughly the 'soul' or a property of the mind). we base on sense of what is right and wrong, and for what we are responsible for based on free will, which was something attributed to god.

But Judeo-Christian ethics were incorrect in their appeal to an ultimate authority. In practice, I believe that theists are much more flexible. Christians often refer to the Bible as a living text, suggesting that in can be interpreted based on cultural necessity.

The US constitution (and others in many counties) is an authority, and it is flexible. It is capable of being amended by legislature, and is continuously interpreted by the courts.

It seems like you are being too hard on yourself. Why can't the social order be a moral authority that is essentially flexible? Inflexibility, or any claim of absolute moral authority, seems like it would be destined to die. Couldn't you trust the dialectic to respond with relativistic morals that change as the material situation changes?

 

[suncowiam]

This question is directed more specifically at strong atheists who make a positive assertion that god does not objectively exist rather than weak atheists who have grounds for not having a subjective belief in god. Realizing this is the case, I've actually decided to change my position to an agnostic as I cannot objectively prove Atheism is true (agnosticism and weak atheism are barely distinguishable).

I honestly, don't know how it would be done because it appears to involve radical changes in how we define the nature of objective reality and would appear to involve considerable amount of philosophy in addition to a scientific method to approach the question. I suspect it's closely related to philosophical materialism, but I'm not 100% sure. Given the breadth of the question I felt I needed to throw it out to everyone on RF and just see what comes up.

So I wanted to ask:

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

This is asking to prove that Santa Claus does not exist or Big Foot does not exist.

The burden of proof is on individuals that assert such and such are true. There is absolutely no burden of disprove for non-believers.

If I can go around asserting that my health ointment can cure all your troubles and then tell others to disprove me when asked for proof, then that's faulty circular logic.

 

[outhouse]

This is asking to prove that Santa Claus does not exist or Big Foot does not exist.

Actually, there is proof that man has a track record of creating deities.

The burden of proof is on individuals that assert such and such are true

True

There is absolutely no burden of disprove for non-believers.

True.

But I find plenty of credible evidence that only man redefines these concepts at will.

 

[Typist]

I'm enjoying your comments Vish, and am becoming curious (ie. nosy) about how you came to do so much good thinking/writing on these topics.

I think they do need to be there, however, or else the whole system falls apart the moment people like us question its basis.

I guess the quibble I would offer here is that relatively speaking, nobody is listening to people like us. I don't mean just forum users, but philosophers more generally. Perhaps the system falls apart eventually, say 800 years after folks like us start complaining about it. Evidence, the Enlightenment was something like 500 years ago, and Christianity is still going strong.

If it all hinges on belief in a supernatural being, for example, the whole system collapses the moment you deny the existence of that supernatural being. Much better to rest it on something sound and then distill the basic, beginner-level precepts down from there.

Ok, fair point, and I guess Red is asking what that something sound might be. I um, hope you aren't referring to atheism, as that can be ripped to shreds in half the time it takes to poke holes in God talk. It might be based in common sense practicality, but that's generally in short supply or we probably wouldn't need morality to begin with. I have suggestions in regards to mysticism, but as for building a credible moral code which will earn wide consensus, without the traditional god guys, I'm outta ammunition.

I'd also be very wary of the idea that a workable moral system can be predicated on a fantasy.

Except that if we want to build a moral code on something bigger than us, fantasy is all we have. Plus, fantasy is very important to human beings, as the existence of an explicitly anti-fantasy yet drenched in fantasy atheist ideology demonstrates. Fantasy is very difficult to discard, cause folks really like it.

Ultimately what makes a moral system work is that it provides guidelines for correct practice, which means that on some level it's true, not purely fictitious.

For the sake of debate, I'll propose that what makes a moral system work is that it works for the individual, without reference to others. Imho, this is the genius of Christianity, a genius often buried under a big pile of not so genius stuff. Love works, for the person who loves.

To me, there's no benefit to basing a moral code on fictions because what works in a pragmatic sense does so precisely because it conforms to reality. In that way, morality flows directly from a correct understanding of the world; it's not something that we have imposed from outside (as if we could be "outside" to begin with).

Who pray tell understands reality? Who has a correct understanding of the world?

Maybe, but I'd say the whole thing is too tied up with projecting ancient human social systems onto the cosmos to be terribly useful.

Well ok, could be, but to play devil's advocate, where is the atheism based moral system which has lasted thousands of years?

But really, the question isn't whether the powerful can dominate the weak, but what leads to true happiness and harmony--what cultivates beneficial habits and states of mind, and what cultivates negative ones.

I can vote for this with enthusiasm. The need for moralism arises from those who have failed to find true happiness and harmony, ie. just about all of us. I do agree that if happiness and harmony can be produced internally, most of the external problems go away.

Thanks for the exchange, I am pleased indeed to discuss such things with someone of your ability.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I'm enjoying your comments Vish, and am becoming curious (ie. nosy) about how you came to do so much good thinking/writing on these topics.

Doesn't everybody think about these things?

I guess the quibble I would offer here is that relatively speaking, nobody is listening to people like us. I don't mean just forum users, but philosophers more generally. Perhaps the system falls apart eventually, say 800 years after folks like us start complaining about it. Evidence, the Enlightenment was something like 500 years ago, and Christianity is still going strong.

I don't think it's so simple as that. Christianity is still going, but it's lost a lot of moral authority, as well as a lot of good people, mostly through people's unwillingness to adapt or look beneath the surface. The traditional deontological moral system has ended up being a liability in this regard. House of cards, remember. And it's not just philosophers who ask these questions. Ordinary people without much education also question the basis of things and often come to the conclusion that it doesn't hold up. Ex-Christians aren't all intellectuals. However, they are almost all people whom the tradition has failed at some point. My parents, for example, who are not particularly deep thinkers but who also intuitively knew better than a lot of the stuff they were being told.

Except that if we want to build a moral code on something bigger than us, fantasy is all we have. Plus, fantasy is very important to human beings, as the existence of an explicitly anti-fantasy yet drenched in fantasy atheist ideology demonstrates. Fantasy is very difficult to discard, cause folks really like it.

For the sake of debate, I'll propose that what makes a moral system work is that it works for the individual, without reference to others. Imho, this is the genius of Christianity, a genius often buried under a big pile of not so genius stuff. Love works, for the person who loves.

We don't need fantasy, nor do we need the moral code to reference something bigger than us, nor does that necessarily mean that it must be focused on the individual and therefore ultimately subjective and relativistic. That's a pile of false assumptions that you get when you keep all of the premises of traditional theistic deontological ethics but just subtract the god. What I'm talking about is starting from an entirely different set of premises. For moral systems to work, they need to work for more than just one person, which means they have to appeal to something "real" in the sense that it's part of the experience of people generally. This is possible through the observation of the consequences of actions and views and mindsets, although there are some pitfalls that need to be addressed along the way.

Who pray tell understands reality? Who has a correct understanding of the world?

We all do, absent certain common forms of self-delusion. You have to correct for those, but this awareness is open to all. In fact, it must be, or the system doesn't work and falls back in to the trap of being some stuff that some guy said way back when and we all believe because reasons... unless one day we decide we don't.

Well ok, could be, but to play devil's advocate, where is the atheism based moral system which has lasted thousands of years?

Not sure why I need to answer that question. Or what "atheism-based" even means, since atheism by itself isn't a philosophical basis for anything. However, I have put forth Buddhist ethics as an entirely non-theistic moral system that has lasted thousands of years. Not sure what else there is to say on that front.

Thanks for the exchange, I am pleased indeed to discuss such things with someone of your ability.

Likewise. Talking about this stuff helps me to articulate things that have been in the back of my mind for a while (and to have them tested to see if they're really nonsense).

 

[Typist]

Doesn't everybody think about these things?

Did I remember to mention fantasy in my last post? Seriously, I know that feeling for sure, but living with a thoroughly non-philosophical mate helps cure it for me.

Christianity is still going, but it's lost a lot of moral authority, as well as a lot of good people, mostly through people's unwillingness to adapt or look beneath the surface.

What do you see below the surface of Christianity, if that is your point?

And it's not just philosophers who ask these questions. Ordinary people without much education also question the basis of things and often come to the conclusion that it doesn't hold up. Ex-Christians aren't all intellectuals. However, they are almost all people whom the tradition has failed at some point.

Fair points all. It seems clear Christianity faces a significant threat in it's traditional homeland of Europe. The situation elsewhere is less clear to me. I don't know what the overall global picture is.

What I'm talking about is starting from an entirely different set of premises.

Ok, continue please...

For moral systems to work, they need to work for more than just one person, which means they have to appeal to something "real" in the sense that it's part of the experience of people generally.

This makes sense. No complaints so far.

However, I have put forth Buddhist ethics as an entirely non-theistic moral system that has lasted thousands of years. Not sure what else there is to say on that front.

You have indeed, a fact I am forgetting amidst your anti-god speeches, which distracted me. Ok, there is clearly more you could say, as I don't know much about Buddhist ethics, and suspect many others don't as well. Fire when ready, listening.

 

[Vishvavajra]

What do you see below the surface of Christianity, if that is your point?

I think there's a lot more to the tradition than most people think. For example, I don't think Pauline Christianity runs on the kind of ethical system that most modern Christians take for granted. When Paul says, "All things are permitted, but not everything is useful," and when he goes on about how the Law has been shattered, I don't think he's just blowing hot air. He's actually arguing for a radically different ethical system than people normally associate with Christianity today. It's not based on obedience to a master, but rather on actualizing people's true nature as perfected beings in Christ, for whom for whom the old superficial divisions are fundamentally unreal. It's the diametric opposite of legalism.

Ok, continue please.

Buddhist ethics is impossible to explain comprehensively in a nutshell, but the basic starting premises are (1) that everything occurs because of certain causes and conditions in a regular and more or less predictable way, (2) people's actions--including mental actions--have consequences that ripple outward but also end up reinforcing habitual thoughts and behaviors, and (3) there are certain patterns of behavior that can predictably result in favorable or unfavorable outcomes (including the formation of habits that in turn are more likely to lead to favorable or unfavorable outcomes).

What is favorable or unfavorable? On a very basic level it's obvious: for example, pain and suffering are unfavorable, whereas satisfaction and tranquility are favorable. Beyond that it gets complex, such as how we know that it's often worth momentary discomfort to get something better down the road, and how it's not good to indulge in momentary pleasure that will have dire consequences down the road. Even more complex is the question of interpersonal relations and responsibilities.

Buddhist ethics is predicated on the tradition's deconstruction of the self to the degree that self-referentiality is seen as a poor rubric for ethical behavior. The reasons for this are given, but I don't have time to get into them now. Basically, you want others to be happy and to avoid pain not because it's good for you personally, but because you want to be happy and avoid pain and you recognize that there's no fundamental difference between you and someone else. At heart, there's the idea that compassion and wisdom are the same thing: deep understanding of the nature of things will show you that others' pain is your pain and their happiness your happiness. You should treat others with the same regard that you treat the person who will go by your name in the future, who will be different from you in many ways, yet you still reflexively care about that person's wellbeing. The key is to generalize that care beyond the restrictive sense of self.

And when you have that attitude and behave in that way, you really do become happier and more well-adjusted than a person whose entire outlook is "me-based." You draw people in by telling them that this way of approaching the world will make them happier and make them suffer less, and then once they try it they find that it's true and will develop faith in the process. There are still difficulties that people will face, such as tragic events and emotional catastrophes. Buddhist tradition prescribes certain types of meditation practice to go with the ethical system and help people to train their minds to have proper perspective and break out of habitual emotional reactions and unconscious prejudices. If you practice hard enough, you can learn to love even people you used to think of as enemies (there's a specific technique for that) and to maintain composure even when something terrible happens.

You'll note that there's no attempt to create a comprehensive list of dos and don'ts. There are plenty of maxims and precepts to be found (the Dharmapada is nothing but a list of moral suggestions, and all lay Buddhists take a set of 5 precepts that cover the stuff deemed most likely to cause people problems), but the Buddhist tradition mostly prefers to focus on core principles and trust that people can apply those as needed to their particular circumstances, with the understanding that all circumstances are unique and that moral sophistication entails being able to make complex decisions through honest awareness of those circumstances.

 

[Laika]

But Judeo-Christian ethics were incorrect in their appeal to an ultimate authority. In practice, I believe that theists are much more flexible. Christians often refer to the Bible as a living text, suggesting that in can be interpreted based on cultural necessity.

The US constitution (and others in many counties) is an authority, and it is flexible. It is capable of being amended by legislature, and is continuously interpreted by the courts.

It seems like you are being too hard on yourself. Why can't the social order be a moral authority that is essentially flexible? Inflexibility, or any claim of absolute moral authority, seems like it would be destined to die. Couldn't you trust the dialectic to respond with relativistic morals that change as the material situation changes?

This is asking to prove that Santa Claus does not exist or Big Foot does not exist.

The burden of proof is on individuals that assert such and such are true. There is absolutely no burden of disprove for non-believers.

If I can go around asserting that my health ointment can cure all your troubles and then tell others to disprove me when asked for proof, then that's faulty circular logic.

I think you've both got it right. there is a point where all these things are uncertain and we have to work with the ideas and knowledge that we have. The dialectic could easily work that way, but there is a hard thing of accepting it is 'true'. The notion of absolute truth is one that doesn't really work well for atheism, so there is most probably an element of pragmatic atheism and apatheism in which you say god doesn't have any relevance and I'm not interested in finding it out. knowledge isn't fixed, but I suppose it's about having confidence that it advances and the debate on the existence of god can one day be closed. To grow, a moral system has to be flexible.

 

[Typist]

I think there's a lot more to the tradition than most people think. For example, I don't think Pauline Christianity runs on the kind of ethical system that most modern Christians take for granted. When Paul says, "All things are permitted, but not everything is useful," and when he goes on about how the Law has been shattered, I don't think he's just blowing hot air. He's actually arguing for a radically different ethical system than people normally associate with Christianity today. It's not based on obedience to a master, but rather on actualizing people's true nature as perfected beings in Christ, for whom for whom the old superficial divisions are fundamentally unreal. It's the diametric opposite of legalism.

This is very interesting, thank you much. I'm impressed with how much study you have put in to these subjects.

To your understanding is there a branch of Christianity which pursues the vision you have outlined above? Or is this more a Buddhist interpretation of Christianity? Or, other? Are there perhaps different flavors of Christianity made available for those at different points along the path? A legalistic approach for the novice, and something else for those beyond novice? Questions, not points.

Not sure if this is relevant or useful. My sense is that it is the experience of love which is the healing agent in Christianity, and everything else is just the chatter of noisy minds. Thus, to me, it seems works are where it's really at, and ideology is a unfortunate piece of heavy luggage which many are condemned to have to drag from place to place along the way. Not sure how true this is, or if it relates to what you are saying.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I think you've both got it right. there is a point where all these things are uncertain and we have to work with the ideas and knowledge that we have. The dialectic could easily work that way, but there is a hard thing of accepting it is 'true'. The notion of absolute truth is one that doesn't really work well for atheism, so there is most probably an element of pragmatic atheism and apatheism in which you say god doesn't have any relevance and I'm not interested in finding it out. knowledge isn't fixed, but I suppose it's about having confidence that it advances and the debate on the existence of god can one day be closed. To grow, a moral system has to be flexible.

Speaking of flexibility, do you feel like you would need to have a state-sponsored atheism at all?

Maybe the end result of the process is that there is no economic rationale for allowing for the funding of religion, and the debate on god is just irrelevant to the material reality. What is being produced there? Is religion morally unfit as a waste of resources? I'd say you could let people be free to believe what they want, and they can gather in their homes to worship and discuss. But you could reason that is morally suspect to provide any funding or public space.

That keeps the eyes on the prize without having to "sell" anything except the economic system.

I am also having a hard time accepting that Marxism has to true to be accepted. Could you make an argument that it just represents a system of thought that produces better outcomes than alternative systems of thought? What outcomes are "better"?

 

[Typist]

Buddhist ethics is impossible to explain comprehensively in a nutshell, but the basic starting premises are (1) that everything occurs because of certain causes and conditions in a regular and more or less predictable way, (2) people's actions--including mental actions--have consequences that ripple outward but also end up reinforcing habitual thoughts and behaviors, and (3) there are certain patterns of behavior that can predictably result in favorable or unfavorable outcomes (including the formation of habits that in turn are more likely to lead to favorable or unfavorable outcomes).

Ok, I am now convinced you must do this for a living, and thus am flattered you would invest so much time in a conversation with one person. You are really good at this in any case.

I find your writing on Buddhist ethics to be so refreshingly clear, and free of unnecessary hand waving pseudo-intellectualisms and other such sins. Apologies, but I am OBSESSED with interface design, and thus writing, and tend to blabber on about such things.

Ok, you said, "certain patterns of behavior which can predictably result in favorable outcomes." Might this be the most practical thing to focus the discussion on? My mind has a sort of practical bottom line orientation, so what occurs to me first is...

Everybody wants favorable outcomes. So how do we get them?

My interface design obsession says that while I really enjoy your already condensed summary of Buddhist ethics and would welcome more, most folks may have less time than I do to ponder the details. Can Buddhist ethics be further edited in to an even smaller package, without throwing away too much?

Are you familiar with this study, sometimes referred to as "the world's happiest man"?

Is this the world's happiest man? Brain scans reveal French monk found to have 'abnormally large capacity' for joy, and it could be down to meditation | Daily Mail Online

"Neuroscientist Richard Davidson wired up the monk's skull with 256 sensors at the University of Wisconsin as part of research on hundreds of advanced practitioners of meditation.

The scans showed that when meditating on compassion, Ricard's brain produces a level of gamma waves - those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory - 'never reported before in the neuroscience literature', Davidson said."

​

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can Buddhist ethics be further edited in to an even smaller package, without throwing away too much?

It's not exclusively Buddhist, but the most elegant moral principle I've heard is ahimsa, non-harm.
Ahimsa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Laika]

Speaking of flexibility, do you feel like you would need to have a state-sponsored atheism at all?

Maybe the end result of the process is that there is no economic rationale for allowing for the funding of religion, and the debate on god is just irrelevant to the material reality. What is being produced there? Is religion morally unfit as a waste of resources? I'd say you could let people be free to believe what they want, and they can gather in their homes to worship and discuss. But you could reason that is morally suspect to provide any funding or public space.

That keeps the eyes on the prize without having to "sell" anything except the economic system.

I am also having a hard time accepting that Marxism has to true to be accepted. Could you make an argument that it just represents a system of thought that produces better outcomes than alternative systems of thought? What outcomes are "better"?

I'm not a fan of state sponsored ideology or thought- control honestly. a lot of mistakes were made when people chose the ideology over the facts (the most famous is Lysenko theories in biology) and even when they tried to impose Marxism on the entire country, in both Russia and China, it still failed overall and ended up just persecuting people. If I had been in the Soviet Union saying that would have been considered "right-wing" (and probably shot).

To some extent the atheism is an intricate part of a communist economic system. In order to plan the economy, you have to make a knowledge claim that everyone can be understood and can therefore be controlled (the control is a question of degrees rather than being absolute honestly). the attack on religion was partly down to the belief that if reality was something that could not be fully and scientifically comprehended (because there was a god or spiritual world working behind the scenes) communism was doomed.

Despite being familiar with Marxism, I have a lot of problems with it too. it does seem that to a greater or lesser extent it is about it being a "better" way of thinking, in which everything can be subject to a scientific understanding. it's very much a product of the 19th century and the belief in science and progress. that does appear to be precisely the claim it is making, that it is a "higher" or "superior" system of thought and therefore has the right to be a 'state-ideology' above all others. So you make a good point. it's very hard to sort through the preconceived notions I have from living in a society that is deeply hostile and skeptical of communism, to actually figuring out what they really wanted to do. it's a steep learning curve.

Marxism is probably best thought of as an intellectual system (or Russian/Leninist variants are); you put a question in, find some evidence to figure out the precise deatils, and you get an answer out. but because it's so relativistic, you're never quite sure what that will be. There is a security in knowing there will always be an answer and that can be very empowering too as it means you feel you can do something with that knowledge. But a lot of very intelligent people would say that's what makes it so dangerous, the "illusion" of knowing and that becoming the basis for a system of government. it can make you selectively blind as well as you're thinking inside a box- so having discussions like this can help me see things I might be missing.

Marxists are extreme progressives, and so measure "better" in terms of the "development of the productive forces"; science and technology, which consequently has an effect on what we are technologically capable of doing. it was believed that a more advanced society would make them more 'free', but a lot got lost in translation from a liberal system to a communist one.

 

[Typist]

At heart, there's the idea that compassion and wisdom are the same thing: deep understanding of the nature of things will show you that others' pain is your pain and their happiness your happiness.

Is the deep understanding of things the insight that separation is an illusion?

My sense is that such an illusion arises out of the inherently divisive nature of the information medium we're made of, thought. I've struggled to express this, without much luck.

Consider fish in the sea. Fish being ideas, the sea being thought.

If the problem is with a particular species of fish, if we remove or edit that species we have solved the problem. This is philosophy, the editing of the content of thought.

But what if the problem arises from the ocean itself, that which all the fish swim in and are made of? How will editing particular fish help us now?

What if the problem arises not within the content of thought, not from this or that bad idea, but from the nature of thought? If true, philosophy itself comes in to question, as all philosophies are made of thought.

What if the medium of thought, by it's very nature, introduces a division based distortion in to everything made of thought?

We are made of thought, and so we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else".

We are made of thought, and so we experience "I" am "thinking", a division, two things, when really there are not two things but just one, thinking.

Is this experience of a thought generated division illusion the source of all conflict, and thus what drives the need for morality?

And how would creating a moral system out of thought solve the problem which is generated by thought? Might this be like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch?

 

[suncowiam]

I think you've both got it right. there is a point where all these things are uncertain and we have to work with the ideas and knowledge that we have. The dialectic could easily work that way, but there is a hard thing of accepting it is 'true'. The notion of absolute truth is one that doesn't really work well for atheism, so there is most probably an element of pragmatic atheism and apatheism in which you say god doesn't have any relevance and I'm not interested in finding it out. knowledge isn't fixed, but I suppose it's about having confidence that it advances and the debate on the existence of god can one day be closed. To grow, a moral system has to be flexible.

You have to assume its the absolute truth. Its been who knows how long since we've established the first religions. And yet there is absolutely no proof of god. There has been no theories, no axioms, nothing scientific to suggest the existence. There has only been heresay and conjecture. Some of our greatest minds were religious like Newton and Einstein. Yet they could not establish a hard link from their sciences to god.

At some point, we have to say, "enough is enough.". We should use our focus, energy and resources on reality. Ethics, morality, and " science" based on myths and make believe has done much harm on society. Its still causing discrimination and physical harm around the world.

 

[Typist]

We should use our focus, energy and resources on reality.

I agree. And when we do, the goals of religion may possibly be reached by another method.

Simply tossing religion in the trash and walking away does nothing to address the fundamental human needs religion was invented to address in the first place. And thus those needs remain, unmet.

Thus discarding religion and walking away thinking the job is done is not an act of reason, but of emotion.

 

[suncowiam]

I agree. And when we do, the goals of religion may possibly be reached by another method.

Simply tossing religion in the trash and walking away does nothing to address the fundamental human needs religion was invented to address in the first place. And thus those needs remain, unmet.

Thus discarding religion and walking away thinking the job is done is not an act of reason, but of emotion.

You generalize human's needs. What were the "needs" of these first human beings outside of shelter and sustainence? Early religion was about control and conformity. Early societies needed more rigid dogmas for survivability. These days, some religions are still about control and conformity. Especialy the radical extremists sects.

Now, what are the needs of the current generation?

Reason dictates to build processes, we substantiate with foundational beliefs. If I want to build a process to educate the young, I use observations of the young to suggest stages of life. We then learn how the young can better succeed in such stages. If it fails, we continue the study. It continues to evolve based on observations. If I want to build a system of roads and vehicles but also to ensure its safety, I create plans that can be verified and tested. The pavement of the road has to ensure friction and durability. The vehicales have to ensure standards of operations and safety. If it fails, we continue the observations and make it better. All this is based on REALITY.

All other processes outside of religion has succeeded due to REALITY. Religion is based on fear, hope, and faith, which I counter argue with you are EMOTIONs. Faith is the driving force of religion. Faith is the bypassing of rational and logical processes to come to a conclusion. If every other processes were driven on faith, we wouldn't have advanced at all as a species.

 

[Laika]

You have to assume its the absolute truth. Its been who knows how long since we've established the first religions. And yet there is absolutely no proof of god. There has been no theories, no axioms, nothing scientific to suggest the existence. There has only been heresay and conjecture. Some of our greatest minds were religious like Newton and Einstein. Yet they could not establish a hard link from their sciences to god.

At some point, we have to say, "enough is enough.". We should use our focus, energy and resources on reality. Ethics, morality, and " science" based on myths and make believe has done much harm on society. Its still causing discrimination and physical harm around the world.

Well Said. I don't think there is any inherent need for religion, although we do not some kind of belief system to comprehend the world; theist or atheist. Materialism is a dogma, but it does open up the possibility of proving a great deal more scientifically as well as ruling out god. I'm not quite a strong atheist but I'm getting there.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

For moral systems to work, they need to work for more than just one person, which means they have to appeal to something "real" in the sense that it's part of the experience of people generally. This is possible through the observation of the consequences of actions and views and mindsets, although there are some pitfalls that need to be addressed along the way.

This.

I think there are many ways produce a common language, ways for humans to agree that some of the phenomena we are experiencing outside of ourselves is the same thing, or is somehow reliably known.

Once we have the language to communicate, we might be able to come to agreement on what material needs are necessary for survival, happiness, an economic system, etc.

To some extent the atheism is an intricate part of a communist economic system. In order to plan the economy, you have to make a knowledge claim that everyone can be understood and can therefore be controlled (the control is a question of degrees rather than being absolute honestly). the attack on religion was partly down to the belief that if reality was something that could not be fully and scientifically comprehended (because there was a god or spiritual world working behind the scenes) communism was doomed.

If we're looking for a way to demonstrate that we can be understood through common languages, does it mean we have to understand everything right away? That does seem dogmatic. Personably, I don't see there being a problem with citizens believing in a "god of the gaps," as long as it doesn't impede the process of scientific inquiry. The natural result of a new material understanding would be to diminish that god. Eventually, theoretically, there will be little left, and what is there would be so far beyond any economic application it might as well be irrelevant.

On the other hand, if scientific methodology fails to close the gaps that it should on the social level (looking at you, ID vs evolution), then yes, the religious dogma would be upsetting the system as people cling to ideas that are no longer relevant. But as Marx was not privy to some of the non-intuitive theoretical physics of today's inquiry he may not have realized that some of the universe may remain unknowable. CouLd a GOTG explain such matters without upsetting the who ideology?

Despite being familiar with Marxism, I have a lot of problems with it too. it does seem that to a greater or lesser extent it is about it being a "better" way of thinking, in which everything can be subject to a scientific understanding. it's very much a product of the 19th century and the belief in science and progress. that does appear to be precisely the claim it is making, that it is a "higher" or "superior" system of thought and therefore has the right to be a 'state-ideology' above all others. So you make a good point. it's very hard to sort through the preconceived notions I have from living in a society that is deeply hostile and skeptical of communism, to actually figuring out what they really wanted to do. it's a steep learning curve.

Marxism is probably best thought of as an intellectual system (or Russian/Leninist variants are); you put a question in, find some evidence to figure out the precise deatils, and you get an answer out. but because it's so relativistic, you're never quite sure what that will be. There is a security in knowing there will always be an answer and that can be very empowering too as it means you feel you can do something with that knowledge. But a lot of very intelligent people would say that's what makes it so dangerous, the "illusion" of knowing and that becoming the basis for a system of government. it can make you selectively blind as well as you're thinking inside a box- so having discussions like this can help me see things I might be missing.

Marxists are extreme progressives, and so measure "better" in terms of the "development of the productive forces"; science and technology, which consequently has an effect on what we are technologically capable of doing. it was believed that a more advanced society would make them more 'free', but a lot got lost in translation from a liberal system to a communist one.

I like that there can be relativist answers on how best to proceed economically. If the material evidence is there and agreed upon, it creates a solid foundation for debate.

Could the dialectic produce two outcomes, and then could those outcomes be debated based on public opinion? Is that ruining everything?

 

[Laika]

Could the dialectic produce two outcomes, and then could those outcomes be debated based on public opinion? Is that ruining everything?

not at all. The issue is whether the difference between the two outcomes can be resolved peacefully or not. the latter would mean one has to come out top.

On the other hand, if scientific methodology fails to close the gaps that it should on the social level,) looking at you, ID vs evolution), then yes, the religious dogma would be upsetting the system as people cling to ideas that are no longer relevant. But as Marx was not privy to some of the non-intuitive theoretical physics of today's inquiry he may not have realized that some of the universe may remain unknowable. CouLd a GOTG explain such matters without upsetting the who ideology?

The most orthodox interpretation of Marxism is deeply to agnosticism as it implies that certain things cannot be known and therefore controlled. I think the same could be applied to a God of the gaps. Marxism is ok with saying something is "unknown" but not with "unknowable". the possibility of god's existence implies that there is a spiritual world beyond the material one and that it may not be subject to rational and scientific knowledge. It's an interesting one as the Marxist form of atheism is irreconcilably opposed to religion. Not all Marxists are, but it is rare.