Is Strong Atheism Sophistry, or Evil?
- Stirling
- Posts: 91
- Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
- Location: Pullman, WA
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
And now you wish to make a metaphysical argument that there is no god? Or is it just everyone else who is mumbling unprovable irrelevancies when they argue metaphysics?Stirling wrote:I would like to point out the complete irrelevance and ideaistic nature of metaphysics. Nothing in it can be proven. It is subjective, abstract mumbling at its highest.
- Stirling
- Posts: 91
- Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
- Location: Pullman, WA
You seem rather tense, Meleagar.
"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
What do you mean by "metaphysics"? I don't think you're using the word in its philosophical sense.Stirling wrote:No, I'm saying that the claims of metaphysics cannot be proven, there are no facts, and therefore should not be taken as any relevant philosophy.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies existence itself; "metaphysics" is often called "ontology". "Metaphysics" is not synonymous with "mysticism", though that is a popular misconception...
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Scott wrote:Sure, strong atheism is as much what you call "sophistry" as theism is--assuming both are a belief held without evidence.
Yes, we have nothing left to debate of strong atheism or theism in this regard since we agree both are equally what you call "sophistry." Thus, the only position in regards to belief of god(s) that would not be what you call "sophistry" would be weak atheism which you are addressing in another thread.Meleagar wrote:Since you have agreed that your position is sophistry (as defined in this debate), I don't see that we have anything left to debate on the matter of strong atheism.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Stirling
- Posts: 91
- Joined: December 7th, 2009, 2:14 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
- Location: Pullman, WA
"By a sarcasm of law and phrase they were freemen." - Mark Twain
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
This debate isn't about theism, and I never agreed that theism is necessarily sophistry or evil.Scott wrote: Yes, we have nothing left to debate of strong atheism or theism in this regard since we agree both are equally what you call "sophistry." Thus, the only position in regards to belief of god(s) that would not be what you call "sophistry" would be weak atheism which you are addressing in another thread.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Scott wrote:Sure, strong atheism is as much what you call "sophistry" as theism is--assuming both are a belief held without evidence.
Meleagar wrote:Since you have agreed that your position is sophistry (as defined in this debate), I don't see that we have anything left to debate on the matter of strong atheism.
Scott wrote:Yes, we have nothing left to debate of strong atheism or theism in this regard since we agree both are equally what you call "sophistry." Thus, the only position in regards to belief of god(s) that would not be what you call "sophistry" would be weak atheism which you are addressing in another thread.
Meleagar, I only agreed that strong atheism is as much what you call "sophistry" as theism is.Meleagar wrote:This debate isn't about theism, and I never agreed that theism is necessarily sophistry or evil.
In this post in another thread which is NOT specifically about religion or supernatural claims, I proved with basic logic that a rational person belief in regards to any proposition, X, must fall into one of the following three categories:
- 1. I believe X. (which is theism, where X = 'at least one god exists')
2. I believe -X. (which is strong atheism, where X = 'at least one god exists')
3. I neither believe X nor believe -X. (which we agree is weak atheism, where X = 'at least one god exists')
If your argument entails a contradiction, then it must be unsound.
Moreover, as I am sure you would agree, people usually don't believe things because they think the belief will be useful. They believe something because they think it is true presumably based on the available evidence. If there is enough evidence to support their belief, then that belief is justified. And, again, evidence for X is evidence against -X and vice versa. If there is no evidence either way, I agree that belief in X is as much what you call "sophistry" as belief in -X.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
I misunderstood you then. I thought you were using the term "sophistry" to refer to useless ideas, namely propositions of which there is no evidence either way and/or that have no practical application (e.g. whether or not we live in an unnoticeable Matrix won't change what I eat for dinner tonight). This is not the case with the proposition, "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe." That proposition is not necessarily useless. It indeed could strongly affect one's actions and there is significant more evidence one way or the other. Consider, for example, if someone came across an offer by someone to buy ducks at $1 million a piece. As we are both sure to agree, it wouldn't be irrelevant in practical terms to believe that no ducks exist or don't exist, as it would affect whether one looks for ducks to earn that million dollars per duck or not. There's evidence to determine which of the two mutually exclusive propositions is right, and whoever is right has significant practical implications. If there's no evidence or logic to support the proposition X (in this case that no ducks exist) but there is significant evidence to support proposition -X, then it would be outright delusional and unreasonable to positively believe -X. Am I to take it that this is what you mean by "sophistry"--outright delusion and unreasonableness? If not, then please re-explain it to me.Meleagar wrote:Scott:
The claim that "ducks exist somewhere in the universe" can be proven; the claim that "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe" cannot be proven. That is why the latter is necessarily sophistry, and the former is not.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
Yes, it is. It's not only useless, it's counter-productive.Scott wrote:This is not the case with the proposition, "no ducks exist anywhere in the universe." That proposition is not necessarily useless.
One needn't believe that "no ducks exist" in order to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that looking for a duck wouldn't be a responsible use of their time, just as most people realize it isn't a responsible use of their time (and money) to invest their entire paycheck in lottery tickets.
However, try telling those who have won the lottery that it would have been better if they had believed "no lottery winners exist" - or, if Wilbur and Orville had believed "a means for human powered flight does not (and can not) exist".
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Some choices are inherently practically useless/irrelevant. They do not impact our practical choices. This is generally coinciding with the fact that there is no empirical evidence one way or the other, as the presence of empirical evidence stems from the truth or falsehood of the proposition impacting us. For instance, the statement, 'we are all living in an unnoticeable computer simulation similar to the Matrix,' is practically useless/irrelevant and would have no significant impact on choices we make; for instance whether or not I believe we live in an unnoticeable matrix wouldn't change what I have for dinner tonight. When you say a belief is sophistry do you mean the belief is practically useless/irrelevant? If so, then my only point is that if any proposition, such as X or -Y, is practically useless/irrelevant then so is it's opposite, -X or Y. Because either it impacts our choices or not.
If we are talking about propositions that that are practically useful/relevant, then that means that in practical situations they would impact which choice or set of choices from two or more options we take. For instance, unlike the Matrix hypothetical, the statement, 'my house is on fire and I will die do not get out immediately,' is practically relevant considering that if I believe it I will likely run out of my house perhaps in indecent clothes, call 911 and lose needed sleep. Generally speaking, a practically useful/relevant belief is helpful/productive when it happens to be true and harmful/counterproductive when it happens to be false. For instance, if I believe my house is on fire when it's not I may get a bill from the fire department and face other repercussions. If I do not believe it is on fire when it is, I may die or get seriously injured. Believing something despite significantly more convincing evidence to the contrary or not believing something despite much more evidence to the contrary is generally an instance of being outright delusional and unreasonable which is utterly different and probably much more dangerous and problematic than having a practically useless/irrelevant belief.
So when you say believing a certain belief or arguing in support of that belief is sophistry, are you saying it is practically useless/irrelevant (like believing or positively disbelieving that we live in an unnoticeable Matrix) or that it is a practically significant but outright delusional and unreasonable (like running out of your house screaming fire despite it being clear from the available evidence your house is not on fire or staying in your house saying there is no fire when the evidence indicates clearly that there is)? Or do you mean something else, and, if you do, what?
A belief can't be both useless and counterproductive. It can't both have a harmful impact and have no impact. Either a belief can impact one's practical choices or not. If it does, then it can be a harmful or helpful belief depending most of all on whether it happens to be true.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
If you notice in my O.P., I refer to another thread where I define Sophistry (in post #3):
My bad for not providing the link and quote in the O.P. here.Meleagar wrote:Philosophical argument with no practical application is the essential definition of sophistry, as stated in Socrates & Sophistry, by Keith Crome:
"The sophistic movement flourished in and around Athens in the latter half of the fifth century BC. It almost immediately acquired a bad reputation, and this reputation has stuck: a sophist, we say, is a quibbler; someone who indulges in mere argument for argument’s sake; someone who, by playing on words, makes issues problematic that are not. - Richmond Journal of Philosophy 9 (Spring 2005)"
Sure it can; it just can't be both in the same person at the same time. For a person who has no intention of ever looking for a mountain gorilla, the belief that they do not exist may be useless; however, for someone who might otherwise look for and find mountain gorillas, and thus acquire fame and fortune, the belief would be counterproductive as it would prevent them from attempting to find what is believed to not exist.Scott wrote:A belief can't be both useless and counterproductive.
Such categorical negatives are useless in some people, and counterproductive in others. It is either sophistry, as defined above, or evil, as defined in my "strong atheism" thread.
-
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am
For myself I am a pantheist so you can argue whether or not I'm an atheist or anti-theist all day long. For myself, its not that I believe god doesn't exist, or even lack a belief that god exists, but the type of god that that god that I believe in, is very unconventional in any theist outlooks, hence I hesitate to use theist as a term to describe my beliefs also. I certainly lack a belief in any of the gods that any known religion bangs on about, and I also believe that those gods do not exist in any literal physical sense. I believe, simply, that as god is a term devoid of any official definition, the term is thus subjective, and thus my usage of it is to use "God" and "Reality" as synonyms. I can forsee getting into endless arguments with Meleagar about the nature of this of course. Whilst he thinks free will is some kind of metaphysical force that pushes reality into existence & continuity I'm more a cause & effect kinda guy. But we can argue about that all day so I will not bother. Suffice to say Meleagar, "cause" is merely the prior event that is of such a pattern that with the advent of time leads onto the current event (an event is no more or less than a four dimentional shape in space-time & as you know, some shape fit for example a key and a lock, and shapes do not, hence the many "patterns" in nature that we call cause & effect), and you'd be hard pressed to proove that that doesn't exist, (no this is not an argument for determinism).
Anyway, the anti-theism i.e. believing that say, the judeo-christian and/or islamic god(s) don't exist is not without justification. None of these gods are inherently contradictory, hence deductive reasoning will not help you. If they do exist, then they are invisible, hence empirical reasoning will not help you either. As such, you have really only one logical inference left, and that is inference to the best explanation. Believing in such gods, require a belief in some sort of intelligeant design, as intelligeance is one of the properties that these gods claim. However, when you look at the way the universe works, you start to realise that there are an increadible amount of unneccities, and absurdities about it, particularly in biology. People often use the human eye as an example of intelligeant design, but this is madness, the human eye is, frankly, rubbish. It could work SO much better, the blind spot for example, why on earth would any intelligeant designer put THAT on the scematics???
Based on what empirical evidence we have of the universe "in general", we can summise a very high probability that the "design" of the universe, really isn't very intelligeant at all! Now you can argue that, ok, not intelligeant in contrast to what? How would YOU run the universe. Well, actually we know of many ways how the universe would work better, thats the joy of something like physics in that you can do some number crunching, and there are many ways that reality could be much simpler, and yet do the same job, or even better, same works with biology. If human eyes where more like octopus eyes, but no, that's not what evolution gave us? Why not? BECAUSE it's not very intelligeant.
Here is a thought experiment for you. How do you know unicorns don't exist? Now think about this carefully, I am not asking you how you are certain unicorns don't exist, only how you know, and no they are not the same thing.
Logical Certainty is only applicable in facts of which the opposite is a contradiction in terms, for example I am logically certain that all bachelors are unmarried. It is this kind of deductive reasoning that mathematics is based on. Unicorns however are not contradictory OR self evident, hence one cannot be logically certain either way. But knowledge is merely a justifed true belief, so its justification that we are looking for for our knowledge "claim". My justification is that based on the absense of evidence FOR the unicorn's existence the simpler yet still satisfactory explanation (in other words an actual conclusive answer to a question as apposed to an answer which merely results in more questions) is that they don't exist, that is called inference of the best explanation and that is how we "know" (i.e. how we justify our knowledge "claim", albeit we freely admitt that it is not a logical certainty and that unicorns ARE a possibility). Knowledge and uncertainty are compatible semantically.
God is much harder to disproove than unicorns however, because whilst with a unicorn you know what you are looking for (and don't find it cos it doesn't exist) "God" is very much a term devoid of formal definition and so you really don't even know what your looking for. Under the above methadology of inference to the best explanation, one can only "disproove" gods that HAVE a definition, i.e. ones which have characteristics like intelligeance, benevolence or omnipotence, but "God" outright cannot by definition (or rather the lack of it) be disprooved or prooved either way because we have nothing to work with.
With the probability pointing away from intelligeant design though, the probability of that kind of god deminisihes. Now my god is not a god of intelligeant design fortunately, my god is merely required to exist for a fraction of a milisecond every time reality bends back on itself (as happens about 40 times a second in the human brain, the compindium of which over that brain's lifetime being what we identify as ourselves). For me, god, and reality are synonomous, hence, we are all god. Don't get big headed though, the fact that we are all god doesn't make us any more special than we already are.
-
- Posts: 649
- Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce
Having said that, it certainly isn't evil, maybe sophistry to some extent, yet I personally think it's simply 'not being careful enough' with words. I can also imagine how years of dialogue with theists can make people upset that eventually they let their emotions take over and become 'strong atheists'. That would be a bad thing, but it's understandable.
One more thing: Just because strong atheism is logically problematic, that doesn't automatically give justification to agnosticism. Agnostics would have to be agnostic about everything, and this fails to address degrees of likelihood.
Example: I don't know whether aliens exist or not, but I would think that they're much more likely to exist than pink unicorns. I could call myself an a-unicornist (a weak one) and an agnostic with tendencies towards the positive answer for the question of whether there are aliens.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023