On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.
The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a myriad
of
properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there doesn't
seem to be
a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of all games.
Nevertheless, we
use the word without any fuss.
Words with broad meanings are fine. Where they lead to trouble is when one asserts the
non-existence of all things that belong to very wide classes. For example "I don't
believe there exists any game that I would enjoy". As you point out, this statement
applies to an immense set of possible objects because so many possible games exist.
Without knowing or experiencing every possible game, how can such a belief be justified?
It's justified by introspection as to what one believes. Note that it is NOT the same as
the assertion, "There is no game that I would enjoy." So does an "agameist" simply fail
to believe there is a game he would enjoy or does an "agameist" assert, as a fact, there
is no game he would enjoy.
Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make rightfully make such
a statement without knowing all possible religions and conceptions of God in those
religions?
The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter.
Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories), that something
that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for your existence exists?
Logically possible. Nomologically?
Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and that a
hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through simulation? Such hyper
intelligent beings could even "save" other simpler beings by copying and pasting them
into a reality under its control.
Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal identity, and
there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind all the eyes of all creatures?
And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on creating the worst of
all possible worlds.
Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even realizing it has
done so.
"Rejects" as in "fails to believe" - as any rational person would.
Various existing religions across the world have described God in terms essentially
identical to the three examples above.
No religion with more than a handful of adherents posits an impersonal God. Of course the
apologists for religions have used such terms, because they realize much the evidence is
against a personal God and so they have sought to invent something on which they can hang
the word "God".
What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god? It seems the only
reason is the dogma: "there is no god", and so it was proven "anything that even has the
appearance of a god is obviously false at the start."
The atheists I know (including Dawkins and Stenger) are careful to define "God" as the god
of Abraham as described in the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the god of theism. They
directly admit that the god of deism is possible - though there is no reason to be;o
Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on ontological questions
which are no where close to being settled?
But if you believe things just because they are possible then you're so open minded you're
in danger of having your brains fall out.
And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people
isn't a
problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this person has
some
conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that thing exists.
You can
say that much at the very least.
In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition of some God
that person will not believe in.
Which is just the converse of dreaming up "possible" gods in order that you can claim
everyone MUST believe in one of them and so everyone is religious.
The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or certain God/gods),
or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to more general definitions of god.
It's a word that seems to carry less than 1 bit of information.
I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean when they say they
are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a "free thinker" as in:
"The philosophical <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> viewpoint that holds
opinions should be formed on the basis of logic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic>,
reason <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason>, and empiricism
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism>, rather than authority
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority>, tradition
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition>, or other dogmas
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma>."
Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific attitude, whereas many
sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas.
I agree with the first clause. The second makes me wonder where are these "sects of
atheism" where are their dogmas promulgated, where do they meet, how are they counted?
Brent
I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He did
not.
--- Jules Renard
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
