"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[Meow Mix]

Right. So the problem you are now having after the distinction of methodological naturalism is ontological naturalism. Am I correct? But you still define naturalism. I mean you did.

The only difference between methodological naturalism and an ontological naturalism is you take off the "assume" out of it.

So with that premise, you are now making it a subjective issue where a primitive person would not understand technology and consider that supernatural. Thus the understanding of supernatural would be subjective. Thus, that makes the understanding of naturalism a crisis? Is that right?

Yes. I think, if I'm reading you right. Yes, that's the problem. If "supernatural" is not an ontological distinction, then you can't have an ontology based on its absence. Because it (supernatural) would not be defined ontologically.

 

[Meow Mix]

Did... did we just make progress with each other? ^.^

 

[firedragon]

Yes. I think, if I'm reading you right. Yes, that's the problem. If "supernatural" is not an ontological distinction, then you can't have an ontology based on its absence. Because it (supernatural) would not be defined ontologically.

Alright. Can you define Atheism or/and atheist?

 

[Meow Mix]

Alright. Can you define Atheism or/and atheist?

I call myself a nontheist because I don't like that term either, and I see what you cleverly went for here.

So I'll bite, but keep in mind this is why I just use "nontheist" instead. An atheist is a person that doesn't accept theistic propositions as being true.

This will depend on what theistic propositions are, and will depend on what god(s) are. For well-defined concepts of god(s), the atheist is saying they think the propositions about them existing are false or unknown. For ill-defined concepts of god(s), the atheist is saying they find the propositions empty of cognitive meaning, or may simply request elucidation.

 

[firedragon]

I call myself a nontheist because I don't like that term either, and I see what you cleverly went for here.

So I'll bite, but keep in mind this is why I just use "nontheist" instead. An atheist is a person that doesn't accept theistic propositions as being true.

This will depend on what theistic propositions are, and will depend on what god(s) are. For well-defined concepts of god(s), the atheist is saying they think the propositions about them existing are false or unknown. For ill-defined concepts of god(s), the atheist is saying they find the propositions empty of cognitive meaning, or may simply request elucidation.

Does the definition of "atheism" depend on "what theistic propositions are"? Is that the definition?

Let me rephrase you in that case. Your definition of atheism is "An atheist is a person that doesn't accept theistic propositions as being true. This will depend on what theistic propositions are".

Is that the definition of Atheism?

 

[Meow Mix]

Does the definition of "atheism" depend on "what theistic propositions are"? Is that the definition?

Let me rephrase you in that case. Your definition of atheism is "An atheist is a person that doesn't accept theistic propositions as being true. This will depend on what theistic propositions are".

Is that the definition of Atheism?

People argue over atheism's definition a lot, but I will say that yes, that's what I mean when I say the term.

So, I understand your point that we use the word "atheism" even if a person doesn't think the alternative (theism) has cognitive meaning. I'm assuming that's your point, yes? (Genuinely asking rather than assuming for sure.)

It's a good point, but there are concepts of theism that have cognitive meaning even if they may not be true. For instance, I understand what is proposed with Zeus: a powerful humanoid being that lives on Mt. Olympus with the power to change shapes and wield lightning bolts, etc. That isn't cognitively empty.

And we can cognitiviely define what we mean by a "god." This might depend on the person (they might define a god as any being with the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, for example). These are ontological descriptions, and it gives "atheism" as a term something to latch onto.

However, if we can't ontologically define "supernatural," then ontological naturalism has nothing to latch onto in the same respect.

 

[firedragon]

People argue over atheism's definition a lot, but I will say that yes, that's what I mean when I say the term.

So, I understand your point that we use the word "atheism" even if a person doesn't think the alternative (theism) has cognitive meaning. I'm assuming that's your point, yes?

It's a good point, but there are concepts of theism that have cognitive meaning even if they may not be true. For instance, I understand what is proposed with Zeus: a powerful humanoid being that lives on Mt. Olympus with the power to change shapes and wield lightning bolts, etc. That isn't cognitively empty.

And we can cognitiviely define what we mean by a "god." This might depend on the person (they might define a god as any being with the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, for example). These are ontological descriptions, and it gives "atheism" as a term something to latch onto.

However, if we can't ontologically define "supernatural," then ontological naturalism has nothing to latch onto in the same respect.

Hold on lil sis. I want to nail your epistemology down.

You said that "An atheist is a person that doesn't accept theistic propositions as being true. This will depend on what theistic propositions are" is the definition of atheism with the addition of "that will depend on what theistic propositions are".

Is it your subjective definition of the term Atheism or is it the normal definition of atheism that the world at large uses?

1. If its your subjective definition, then all your definitions are subjective, and that's your methodology. If its the common definition I would like to see who makes that kind of definition. Which people argue, by name or/and group, and what is the argument?

2. You said "theistic propositions". What are theistic propositions? What does that mean?

 

[Meow Mix]

Hold on lil sis. I want to nail your epistemology down.

You said that "An atheist is a person that doesn't accept theistic propositions as being true. This will depend on what theistic propositions are" is the definition of atheism with the addition of "that will depend on what theistic propositions are".

Is it your subjective definition of the term Atheism or is it the normal definition of atheism that the world at large uses?

This is my definition, but it is echoed by some atheists defining similar things in different terms. For instance, George H. Smith uses the term "weak atheist" to mean essentially the same thing. I try to be more descriptive to avoid potential problems in definitions.

1. If its your subjective definition, then all your definitions are subjective, and that's your methodology. If its the common definition I would like to see who makes that kind of definition. Which people argue, by name or/and group, and what is the argument?

The common arguments over the definition are thus: some people say that atheism is "the belief that there are no gods." Some people say that's too strong, and atheism is just "the lack of belief that there are gods." For instance some people call the first example "strong atheism" and the second example "weak atheism." Then, George H. Smith and some others make a distinction between explicit atheism (chosen atheism, atheism that is consciously decided on after being exposed to beliefs about gods) and implicit atheism (non-chosen atheism, atheism that might exist because, say, someone was born on an island and has never heard of the concept of gods hypothetically; or children too young to have been taught about gods, etc.)

There are more battles over this word than even that, and that is why I hate it and don't use it; and that is why I just define it as succinctly as I can to be perfectly clear what I mean when I say it.

2. You said "theistic propositions". What are theistic propositions? What does that mean?

A theistic proposition is a proposition formed on the foundation that theism is true; that a god or gods exist. "God flooded the Earth" is a theistic proposition, "God exists" is a theistic proposition, "Mars helped the Romans win wars" is a theistic proposition.

Please let me know if that needs further clarification or anything.

When I say I'm an atheist, I mean to say that if I evaluate all of the propositions that I believe are true, I don't find any of them to be theistic.

 

[Meow Mix]

To which I immediately realize someone may respond, "perhaps naturalism is to evaluate all the propositions you believe to be true and to find none of them are supernaturally-based." Which would be a good point.

 

[Meow Mix]

To which I immediately realize someone may respond, "perhaps naturalism is to evaluate all the propositions you believe to be true and to find none of them are supernaturally-based." Which would be a good point.

My response to this would be that then we have a word responding to a cognitive emptiness, it would still be ontologically problematic.

We would be better off just saying we are methodological naturalists (and by doing so, signal that we will not be adopting things society thinks is supernatural in our reasoning); and not saying we are ontological naturalists (because we aren't offering anything against which "natural" can be distinct from).

Atheism is different because it offers an ontology that it is distinct from: we can offer cognitive pictures of what theism would be if theism were true. We can't do this with "supernatural."

 

[firedragon]

This is my definition, but it is echoed by some atheists defining similar things in different terms. For instance, George H. Smith uses the term "weak atheist" to mean essentially the same thing. I try to be more descriptive to avoid potential problems in definitions.

No problem.

The common arguments over the definition are thus: some people say that atheism is "the belief that there are no gods." Some people say that's too strong, and atheism is just "the lack of belief that there are gods." For instance some people call the first example "strong atheism" and the second example "weak atheism." Then, George H. Smith and some others make a distinction between explicit atheism (chosen atheism, atheism that is consciously decided on after being exposed to beliefs about gods) and implicit atheism (non-chosen atheism, atheism that might exist because, say, someone was born on an island and has never heard of the concept of gods hypothetically; or children too young to have been taught about gods, etc.)

There are more battles over this word than even that, and that is why I hate it and don't use it; and that is why I just define it as succinctly as I can to be perfectly clear what I mean when I say it.

That does not answer my question at all. But never mind.

A theistic proposition is a proposition formed on the foundation that theism is true; that a god or gods exist. "God flooded the Earth" is a theistic proposition, "God exists" is a theistic proposition, "Mars helped the Romans win wars" is a theistic proposition.

1. Is that atheist means? To not accept what you just said above? Is an atheist someone who does not accept theism, theistic propositions or both?

2. What does theism mean?

 

[Meow Mix]

That does not answer my question at all. But never mind.

It answered the "what is the argument" section of your question. The "which people" portion of the question is answered by saying "nearly everybody, everywhere: on the internet, amongst theists, amongst atheists, in academia, everywhere."

1. Is that atheist means? To not accept what you just said above? Is an atheist someone who does not accept theism, theistic propositions or both?

Both. The broadest definition of atheism is to not accept theistic propositions as true.

I say "broad" because the reasons for not accepting theistic propositions may vary among atheists. Some may think theistic propositions are false. Some may not know whether theistic propositions are true. Some may think theistic propositions are cognitively empty.

But broadly, among all of these, it is true that they at least do not accept theistic propositions as true.

2. What does theism mean?

Theism is the belief that a god exists or gods exist.

This is also a broad definition because theists define gods differently.

 

[Meow Mix]

Or did you mean "argument" in a different context than I thought? Well, that might explain that. I thought you were asking who "argues" about the definition of atheism, as in who debates over it.

If you meant who argues it in the context of who lays out a careful philosophical position on defining it, then indeed I missed your question; but only because it was unclear because of that misunderstanding.

In the USA, an "argument" is more often a heated discussion than it is a philosophical statement. So, I misinterpreted you if you meant the latter. I thought you were asking who argues over the definition (in the common American meaning, who fights over it).

 

[firedragon]

Theism is the belief that a god exists or gods exist.

There was a man named Buddha according to Buddhism. In his foundational stories there are many instances where he performed miracles. Buddhism is a major religion in the world. The Tipitaka or what is known as the three baskets, the most authentic Buddhist scripture does not speak of Gods. In fact, Buddhism is not about believing in Gods. But, a man can rise to become Sovan, Rahath, or/and Buddha. All of them will develop powers normal people cannot. For example, Irdhi or some kind of perception that goes beyond human capability. Even teleportation.

Do you think an atheist can believe in that with that definition of yours? If the definition of atheism is as you said above, is Buddhism atheism or falls within it?

 

[Meow Mix]

There was a man named Buddha according to Buddhism. In his foundational stories there are many instances where he performed miracles. Buddhism is a major religion in the world. The Tipitaka or what is known as the three baskets, the most authentic Buddhist scripture does not speak of Gods. In fact, Buddhism is not about believing in Gods. But, a man can rise to become Sovan, Rahath, or/and Buddha. All of them will develop powers normal people cannot. For example, Irdhi or some kind of perception that goes beyond human capability. Even teleportation.

Do you think an atheist can believe in that with that definition of yours? If the definition of atheism is as you said above, is Buddhism atheism or falls within it?

Yes, in fact it's an example I bring up often in atheism definition discussions. Atheism only has to do with theistic propositions. An atheist could still be (some flavors of) Buddhist, or Taoist, or any number of other religions while still broadly fulfilling the definition of atheism.

Of course, many atheists go further than just their atheism and reject, doubt, or deny all religions. But the term itself only deals with whether gods are thought to exist by the atheist.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, in fact it's an example I bring up often in atheism definition discussions. Atheism only has to do with theistic propositions. An atheist could still be (some flavors of) Buddhist, or Taoist, or any number of other religions while still broadly fulfilling the definition of atheism.

Of course, many atheists go further than just their atheism and reject, doubt, or deny all religions. But the term itself only deals with whether gods are thought to exist by the atheist.

You are speaking of subjective sociological issues of atheists. I am asking about definitions. What many atheists, some atheists, and especially the reference of "some flavours of Buddhism" is irrelevant to definitions. You should consider the "flavour" of Buddhism that I have proposed elaborately, and its not "some flavour", it is the Buddhist basics or fundamentals.

Or, are you making the same case that the definition of naturalism has a crisis because some people may perceive technology as supernatural and from their perspective the definition is flawed, so the same way the definition of atheism is also flawed because some atheists are different?

Does Buddhism as I explained fall under atheism by definition because your definition doesnt fit into it? Or is your definition flawed?

 

[Meow Mix]

You are speaking of subjective sociological issues of atheists. I am asking about definitions. What many atheists, some atheists, and especially the reference of "some flavours of Buddhism" is irrelevant to definitions. You should consider the "flavour" of Buddhism that I have proposed elaborately, and its not "some flavour", it is the Buddhist basics or fundamentals.

Somebody told me once that some groups of Buddhists do have theistic beliefs. I just took them at their word and have couched my words carefully ever since. So, the reasoning is that a Buddhist that believes in gods (if such a thing exists) would not be an atheist. A Buddhist that doesn't believe in gods would be an atheist.

Or, are you making the same case that the definition of naturalism has a crisis because some people may perceive technology as supernatural and from their perspective the definition is flawed, so the same way the definition of atheism is also flawed because some atheists are different?

Does Buddhism as I explained fall under atheism by definition because your definition doesnt fit into it? Or is your definition flawed?

The way you described Buddhism, that comfortably fits in with atheism.

The litmust test for atheism is to just check all of the propositions a person believes to be true and see if any of them are theistic propositions. If a Buddhist doesn't believe any theistic propositions are true, then they are an atheist. This is easy to do because many theistic propositions are ontological: "God has this property," "God exists," etc.

We can't do this same thing with ontological naturalism. We can't check all of our propositions we believe to be true to see if any of those propositions deal with the ontologically supernatural because we do not have a working definition of what "supernatural" means in an ontological way.

We can however check to see if we believe any propositions are true about what society considers to be supernatural. But then we are not checking ourselves for ontological naturalism, we're just checking for some lesser kind of naturalism. To check for ontological naturalism, we'd have to know exactly what we mean when we say "supernatural does not exist," we need an ontological definition of "supernatural" to do that.

 

[firedragon]

The way you described Buddhism, that comfortably fits in with atheism.

So magic like teleportation fits within the definition of atheism? How about prophecy and seeing the future etc? DO they fit to atheism?

 

[Meow Mix]

So magic like teleportation fits within the definition of atheism? How about prophecy and seeing the future etc? DO they fit to atheism?

Yes, there's no problem there. Atheism doesn't mean "skepticism of outlandish claims." It means only to lack beliefs about gods (or, as I put it more succinctly, to not hold theistic propositions to be true).

A-theism, privative "a" prefix meaning "without," and "theism" from the greek, "god-belief." "Without god-belief."

Atheists can believe in astral projecting, zombies, leprechauns, teleportation, whatever, as long as it doesn't involve gods, and still be atheists by definition.

Now of course, many atheists are skeptics on top of being atheists. But the atheism part itself is only about gods.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, there's no problem there. Atheism doesn't mean "skepticism of outlandish claims." It means only to lack beliefs about gods (or, as I put it more succinctly, to not hold theistic propositions to be true).

To define atheism to include magic like teleportation and predicting the future, is that an arbitrary definition or is it common definition of atheism?