No, it doesn’t explain itself. Neither does unstable nothingness. That’s the point of Buridan’s Ass: it’s a leap of faith either way.
Are we all born an Atheist?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
Here's a study on the subject that might possibly be interesting, although I haven't finished skim-reading it yet:
https://www.bu.edu/cdl/files/2013/08/20 ... iYanni.pdf
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
Dark Matter wrote: ↑June 19th, 2018, 2:19 pm
While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think this is a fair assessment when the whole situation is taken into account. Study after study has shown that it more likely than not that the tendency toward religion, while optional, is hard-wired. Agnosticism with a tendency toward religion, not atheism, is the default position.
Humans may have some sort of cognitive predisposition to believe in supernatural forces in order to reason why certain aspects of life are how they are, however I can't see how it is even remotely possible the we are hard wired to believe one sort of philosophy (religion) over another? What study are you referring to?
If we were to push the analogy even further, we can say that some donkeys don't even like hay....so they will walk away at eat some grass and live happily ever after, in other words for many atheists and agnostics I have spoke to there is no dilemma cause they simply don't care.As we purse the question as to why there is something rather than nothing to its ultimate conclusion, we are left with two possibilities: unstable nothingness or the presence of will. Here, we encounter the dilemma of Buridan's Ass: which bale of hay do we choose? Both require a leap of faith because, logically, one doesn't make any more sense than the other. Yet, nothing is more more consequential.
The two options you stated is also a false dichotomy, on what grounds is the origin of the Universe an either or proposition? Secondly, Burdian's ass is based on a 50:50 possibility where either option is so equally rational that a logical choice is impossible, for someone who doesn't even contemplate the possibility that gods exist, the idea that the Universe was willed into existence is not only illogical but also highly irrational. Burdian's ass is a poor analogy.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
Yes, like many words, the words "logical" and "illogical" don't have a single fixed meaning in everyday usage. To me, a statement or argument is "illogical" only if it is internally inconsistent; if it contains a contradiction in terms. To find out whether it is illogical we don't have to think about any of our experiences of the world. We simply have to consult the standard meanings of the words being used. So it's not the same as saying that it is empirically false.Eduk wrote:I guess it depends on how you define logic Steve. For me though there is no logical way to go from nothing to something. Perhaps there is a logical way and it is simply my failing.
If I say "it's raining outside" when it isn't I'm not breaking the rules of logic. I'm just making a false statement that can be tested by experience. The same thing applies if I make a more general empirical statement about a principle of Nature, like, for example: "two positive electric charges attract each other". Again, this statement is false but not illogical. Its falsehood is demonstrated by experience.
I think the statement "something can arise from nothing" is another example of an empirical claim that is essentially similar to the previous two examples. As a statement of a general principle of Nature (a conservation principle), we know it to be false by experience. But it is not illogical. You said "there is no logical way to go from nothing to something". I think the word "logical" is misplaced there. I don't think it makes sense to think of the real-world empirical challenge of getting something from nothing (or any other empirical challenge) as a problem of logic. I think it would make more sense to say "there is no known empirical method to get something from nothing and we therefore assume that it is a general principle of Nature that you can't get something from nothing", or something like that.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
The question at hand is whether we are born atheists so I'll try to stay away from the question of God's existence.Eduk wrote: ↑June 20th, 2018, 3:27 am Exactly. So you agree you have presented only one option. Something from nothing. A logical impossibility. There is always the option that something has always been. Of course this is another logical impossibility. Conclusion is not that there must be only two options, but that the options are unknown. Once again not knowing something means you don't know.
It seems that the answer is no: we are born agnostic with a tendency towards religion. Why? Why this tendency towards religion? The idea of evolution has been a productive one for the scientific imagination, but the theory has its dangers outside the field of the natural sciences.
We are told that the first men, seeing their shadow, or seeing their own image in a dream, conceived the idea of an apparitional soul or ghost soul. But whatever the historic data on this subject may be, it is evident that the act of Reason, which we are aware of in ourselves by experience as much as we are of sight and touch, is not reducible by any number of intermediary terms that evolutionary theory depends on. And Reason is the fundamental condition of our psychology that we are not bound up in our own sensations and in perceptions of ourselves -- we are born philosophers.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
It's not definite, but it seems to be the case. And it's easy enough to run a search on the internetThinking critical wrote: ↑June 20th, 2018, 9:28 am
Humans may have some sort of cognitive predisposition to believe in supernatural forces in order to reason why certain aspects of life are how they are, however I can't see how it is even remotely possible the we are hard wired to believe one sort of philosophy (religion) over another? What study are you referring to?
that option isn't available.If we were to push the analogy even further, we can say that some donkeys don't even like hay....so they will walk away at eat some grass
True. Cockroaches don't care, either.in other words for many atheists and agnostics I have spoke to there is no dilemma cause they simply don't care.
The two options you stated is also a false dichotomy, on what grounds is the origin of the Universe an either or proposition?
What alternative do you propose?
Of course. That's the point. But the alternative is equally irrational.for someone who doesn't even contemplate the possibility that gods exist, the idea that the Universe was willed into existence is not only illogical but also highly irrational.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
For example I'm certain that an individual separated at birth from all human contact (ignoring survival issues) would not invent Christianity or Islam or Scientology or any other recognised religion. But chances are high, though not 100%, that they would invent a belief system which could be called a religion.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
Exactly. As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, "In the end, we know God as unknown." The possibilities on that end are endless and personal; the possibilities with respect to our ultimate origin are two.Eduk wrote: ↑June 20th, 2018, 3:31 pm DM as already pointed out the question of whether we are born atheists depends on definition.
For example I'm certain that an individual separated at birth from all human contact (ignoring survival issues) would not invent Christianity or Islam or Scientology or any other recognised religion. But chances are high, though not 100%, that they would invent a belief system which could be called a religion.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
If I said it was raining when it wasn't you would say I was wrong. If I said it was raining clowns when it wasn't you might consider me insane. If I said it was raining a slightly dizzy feeling you might then question the logic behind such a statement?
By the way what expression/term do you think would work better. Something from nothing is what? I can't say it's impossible because I don't know. Saying it's unlikely seems far too soft. Maybe I could call it infinitely improbable?
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
I thought you would say that, thank you for highlighting the fact that Hume also pointed when people use analogies. They are nothing more than a type of strawman argument which cherry picks one logical act to which we can relate to then insists that because the act is true and logical within the framework of the analogy that it must also be true outside of the framework......this leading to a epistemological fallacy as the analogy assumes that the either or dilemma is inherently true.
Again highlighting the weakness of the analogy, what this has to do with cockroaches I don't know? How ever the point still remains, people can be happy and content not knowing.True. Cockroaches don't care, either.
In response to the analogy dichotomy the truth is the best response, we simply don't know.What alternative do you propose?
We maybe part of an eternal multiverse there for no need to rely on any cause? Or the explanation may be so unfathomable and foreign to us that any hypothesis which we come up with may not even be close. An either or statement based on the absence of knowledge is not a valid proposal in any philosophical discussion.
Of course. That's the point. But the alternative is equally irrational
Maybe the alternative you provided is, however it is not irrational to say nobody knows.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
So, the ass starves. Well, I guess that's a choice, too.Thinking critical wrote: ↑June 21st, 2018, 1:00 am
In response to the analogy dichotomy the truth is the best response, we simply don't know.
Look, you started this thread by asking whether we're all born atheists. The answer is "no." The fact that you don't like the answer isn't going to change that.
To be human is to philosophize, to ask questions like 'who or what is the author of all nature?' 'why is there something rather than nothing?' 'who or what is the impetus that makes the universe the way it is?' We also supposes a morality: that man is a rational being and the order of nature is not an order of blind necessity, but an order infused with reason. By refusing to choose, people lose touch with the basic issues of their very existence.
Do not presume (like Greta) that I'm making all this stuff up. I just purchased a book by Rollo May that came highly recommended: The Cry for Myth. Wiki writes this about it:
I haven't read it yet, but the point is clear enough.The Cry for Myth (1991) is a book by the American existential psychologist Rollo May, in which he proposes that modern people need myths to make sense of their lives, and that without myth they are prey to anxiety and addiction.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Are we all born an Atheist?
Why does believing that you personally exist constitute empirical evidence that something can come from nothing?Eduk wrote:Steve I somewhat get your point. I think something from nothing is more than an empirically wrong statement though. For starters I'm not sure it is empirically wrong, after all I believe I do exist.
Aside from that, I also am not sure that it is empirically wrong. It just seems that way from my experience, and the experience of other people, so far. So we've all decided to call it a universal principle. In some contexts it's referred to as "conservation of mass" or "conservation of mass-energy" or some such thing. But in more everyday terms it's simply "you can't get something from nothing" or "there's no such thing as a free lunch". But obviously, as with any general principle derived from specific instances, it's always possible that a falsifying instance might be discovered, however unlikely that may be deemed to be. That makes it different from a logical error.
Yes, I would say that last one is a logical error because it's a mismatching of concepts - an incorrect use of language. Unless it's a poetic metaphor of some kind.If I said it was raining when it wasn't you would say I was wrong. If I said it was raining clowns when it wasn't you might consider me insane. If I said it was raining a slightly dizzy feeling you might then question the logic behind such a statement?
As I said earlier, I think it works better to treat it as a statement of a general principle that has been derived from our observations of the world. Essentially the same as other statements of general principles. As with those other general principles it seems to be something that we learn from experience.By the way what expression/term do you think would work better. Something from nothing is what? I can't say it's impossible because I don't know. Saying it's unlikely seems far too soft. Maybe I could call it infinitely improbable?
2023/2024 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