Atheism is not Logical
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Atheism is not Logical
Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.
But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?
In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.
And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.
With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.
To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:
1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.
More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.
To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
I don't know who rightly may be called "atheist". However you seem to assume that the term "atheist" affirms a belief system. That may be so but taking the "a" in "a-theist" as a mere negation of the affirmative belief in a 'god' there does not necessarily result an alternative belief system.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!
Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder?
See? One might just negate the affirmative belief (in a 'god') without affirming the negation as such, i.e. without believing 'there is no god'. That isn't agnosticism because agnosticism relies on the impossibility of knowing for sure.
I might be called "atheist" because I do not believe in a 'god'. But I do not have an alternative belief system. I am an 'atheist' in that the mere thought "god" is absurd for me but that also means that the assertion "there is no god" is absurd for me. Why? Because forming an affirmative or negative thought in the context of 'god' is absurd because the concept 'god' is absurd.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
What is God?! Monks spend lifetimes meditating on that & STILL don’t know. How pridefully ignorant for theorists or a-theists to assume they know! And I purposefully wrote plural of both since both are herd mentalities. Except Atheism involves the Strawman logical fallacy- taking the easiest idea of God to refute, while ignoring things like “God is love…truth.”
Atheism is like the pride of a lame man preventing him from using a cane. Intuition and inner-well-being are real. Life is hard & in a way we get knocked down, “lame” - needing something to buoy us up. Belief in something greater than us helps access that “crutch” to make life better. It’s smart to utilize whatever is in our power - stupid to refuse it simply because of herd mentality strawman.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
I found that quite hard to follow, and as has been mentioned, not believing in one thing doesn't constitute a belief system. Atheists can have all types of non-theistic beliefs about all types of things for all types of reasons.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!
Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.
But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?
In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.
And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.
With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.
To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:
1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.
More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.
To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
One of the probs with belief in god debates is not first specifying what god means in your opinion. Because ''god'' can mean all kinds of things to different people. So I think the onus is on you to first clearly define what your god is. (If it's something you believe exists, then you should know what you believe exists). Then I can think about if I believe it exists, and why/why not. The reasons might involve logic/reason, and if they do, you can then explain why reason/logic supports the particular characteristics of your god. But the burden is on the person making the claim to initially provide persuasive argument/evidence, as well as define what they're arguing for.
So what is your clear definition of ''god''? And stated concisely what is your evidence/argument/intuition for believing such a thing exists?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
I appreciate your efforts but I've learned by experience that only a small minority are willing to transcend the struggle between blind belief and blind denial. Barabbas in the Bible represents the public demand to rely on either blind belief or blind denial and rejects the alternative. I'll support your effort but don't expect the majority to. They demand: "Give us Barabbas" or don't knock the status quo.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Wow, where to start?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 6th, 2021, 3:48 pm Hello!
Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks. What would comprise their specific belief system, I wonder? There is an old cognitive science meme that says: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. Accordingly, we may be able to learn from each other’s arguments here, as I hope we can question and answer each other’s concerns with a high degree of transparency and impart our knowledge accordingly. As such, much can be said about that so-called sense of understanding in the way of subjectivity or subjective truth if you will, which we all hold so dearly to us; our own truth, our own way of Being. Our own sense of self. And, a truth that far exceeds verbal formulation.
But with respect to one’s belief system, logic and language, what about any sense of objective truth, and its significance relating to our thought processes vis-à-vis the concept of God? And similarly, what could philosophy tell us about any kind of synthesis between those so-called subjective and objective truths in understanding some sense of universal truth? Although a universal truth or, a priori truths (mathematics/ontological argument) may also include a belief system that logically conceives of a God, how should we understand the actual concept of a God?
In that sense, should an anthropic concept of a cosmological God somehow make him or it, a perfectly 'objective yet sentient mathematician’ as one might consider a kind of ontological ‘universal truth’ to be? In cosmology or otherwise, why or how can there be self-aware conscious Beings in a material universe whose existence doesn't require say, musical or mathematical genius to survive in the jungle? Why have Will and all of the other metaphysical features of consciousness and self-awareness when emergent instinct is all one needs? For the materialist, that would seemingly not square with quantity causation, because we are talking about a thing’s quality (qualia). Further, what about one’s empirical experiences that we assign to such a concept of a God? Similar kinds of questions may serve as a backdrop to debating one’s belief system and one’s own logical inferences from (human) nature and other phenomena.
And so, in pursuit of some sense of logic or pragmatism, although the concept of a God may simply be a paradigm/axiomatic, or even an archetype as often used for a causational criterion (super-turtle) in the various domains of philosophy, why should one invoke the concept of God to begin with? One could easily argue that it is no different than making a cosmological/metaphysical judgement such as: all events must have a cause. Is that judgement purely of a logical nature? What kind of truth is that and why should we believe that? Why should we Will to believe that or even care to believe that? Are those kinds of synthetic propositions critical to science and physics to advance a theory? In other words, can logic itself help us define any causal relationship, or any other notion or concept of a God? Or is it human Will causing this problem? Perhaps a better proposition/judgement is: all events must not have a cause? Please feel free to address any of those concerns.
With all that being said, I would like to argue against the Atheist belief system and prove that their belief system is not of a purely logical nature (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Instead, I will use this same sense of finitude or logic (obvious paradox), in uncovering the truth about A-theism as being superfluous...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, psychological, existential, or even metaphysical phenomena as found in our conscious existence. One irony that I hope to discover or uncover is, that which seems irrelevant to the Atheist may in fact be very relevant in its own rite.
To this end, let us be reminded of the infamous quote that is central to my argument from Einstein, that suggested sentience as perhaps relevant to the human condition and one’s dis-belief in a God.:
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
In trying to understand that definition/ judgement, value or (dis)belief system, I ask myself how should logic itself, provide for such insight, such conclusion, and such an Einsteinian grudge against a type of religious feeling associated with one’s disbelief in God? Because as common sense would guide us, if an A-theist posits the concept of a God’s non-existence using pure reason or logic, by advancing such a proposition (or theory, much like that of the Theist), he puts himself in an awkward, ironic situation of defending same. It seems then, by default that one is put in an untenable position of arguing an antecedent. (And oddly enough, perhaps not too dissimilar to the Taoist unity of opposites; something v. no-thing.)
Accordingly, notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, let’s safely assume that the Atheist ‘s disbelief is based on the logical impossibility surrounding the Omnipotence paradox. Hence, philosophical question one for the Atheist to respond:
1. If you consider part of your disbelief (your belief system) on the illogical concept of an Omnipotent God, in what sense did logic allow you to arrive at that conclusion (of disbelief)? If you do not consider part (or all) of your disbelief on that, why not? And is that not typical for most A-theists who reject the logic associated with Omnipotence, as their primary basis of disbelief?
My exceptions to those questions relate to use of certain synthetic propositions (as alluded to earlier) which are analogous to the supposition ‘all events must have a cause’. And that both philosophically and cognitively, there is little difference to the judgement/proposition known as the logically necessary Omnipotent paradox. Meaning, something beyond pure reason causes a person, to deny (or affirm) the existence (logical necessity/possible) of both a causational God and in this instance, a logically necessary yet impossible Omnipotent God. And that same reason of course would apply to either Theist/Atheist.
More important to the notion of logical impossibility and synthetic judgements, if logically, it is unreconcilable to any given concept of God, that paradox, uncertainty and incompleteness exists in the universe, and logically impossible explanations (contradictions) exist relative to the explanations of our own conscious existence and cognition as we understand it, then it essentially becomes blind leading the blind. In that context, what follows is human belief systems in general, are flawed. (In this context, that may comprise a partial justification for Agnosticism.) However, as I think maybe one can see, the broader issue obviously relates to temporal-ness and finitude, not to mention the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe (Metaphysics and the nature of reality) itself.
To state my case differently there, and perhaps more lucid, I submit that the blind person who cannot see red, can still believe red exists (what does it mean to believe). But in the postmodern era, the Atheist blind person who denies red, does so for irrelevant or superfluous emotional reasons that seem to suggest acrimony and arbitrariness at worst, ignorance and subjectiveness at best. With that, to the Atheist I say: What beliefs did Helen Keller deny? And if red is your strawman, so is your Atheism.
At the beginning, I guess... Ok let's lay some groundwork. First, their is no objective proof of gods. Of course there is no objective proof against the existance of gods either. That's why belief in gods is based on faith, that is: belief in the absence of proof.
I agree that such faith is "logical", that is: "predictable", because human psychology seeks to answer the question, why? When faced with things they are not equipped to explain. Why is there lightning? Zeus's thunderbolts. Why are there solar eclipses? The gods are angry. So I agree that inventing gods and religions is completely logical. Thus why it is essentially universal among early man.
Okay, fast forward to today. Religions and their gods still exist. They have been forced to adapt to science coming along and owning realms that in previous eras belonged to their gods. Depending on the education level of particular societies religions can be just as popular as they were in antiquity (essentially ubiquitous) or they can be giving up ground to the non-religious (as in the US and Europe). Of course, statistically a higher education level is correlated with lower birth rates so religion has a rosy future in pure numbers, especially in the third world.
Naturally, I don't believe the OP is using the above definition of "logical" though the traditional meaning of logical can't apply to gods since the metaphysical exists outside the concepts of evidence, proof and logic.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
3017Metaphysician, I think it would be a good idea to try to distill from your long OP one point that you regard as the most important.3017Metaphysician wrote:Atheism is not Logical...
If that point was just the title "Atheism is not logical" then you'd have to tell us what you mean by "logical" in this context (or point to where you believe yourself to have done that in the text of the OP). To me, to be logical is to conform to a set of rules that have been devised to govern the way that language/arguments are used. So, for example it could be said that the statement "God does and does not exist" is illogical (although even that is open to interpretation) but I see no obvious sense in which either of the statements "God exists" or "God does not exist" could be seen as illogical in themselves.
Another brief point: As has been discussed a lot in other topics, belief is not the same thing as certainty. I think some people confuse the two, with the result that they interpret somebody saying "I believe X" as "I am certain of X". I think comments like the one by Newme above stem from conflating those two different statements.
To believe something is simply to think, based on current evidence, and understanding of the terminology being used, and on the balance of probabilities, that it is the case.
One final point for now:
I think it's worth noting that almost all atheists probably think, in most ways, the same way that you do. They're not a different species. I've grown up in an environment where most people around me (friends, family and colleagues) are not religious. It's not a big deal. They're just not. I don't know for sure, but I suspect you've grown up in an environment where most people are religious. I think with any differences between people, if we grow up in an environment in which most people are the same with respect to that difference it's easy to get a an exaggerated sense of the significance of the difference. That's one reason why I like to talk to people who differ from me in various ways, including religion. But with religion, I generally have to go online to find them, to places like this. Maybe it's the same for you, but in reverse?3017Metaphysician wrote:Not being an Atheist myself, I’ve often wondered about how an Atheist thinks.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Atheism is not Logical
That depends. If someone actively denies the existence of God, that is (what I call) an atheist. If someone is indifferent to the concept of God, in which they find no use or purpose in their lives, that is (what I call) an agnostic. An atheist "affirms" a belief system; an agnostic does not.
Someone like Richard Dawkins, who prominently denies and dismisses everything to do with God, is an atheist. He has a belief system; specifically, he actively believes that God does not exist. Someone who lives their life without even considering God, they have no belief system.
N.B. A belief system encompasses much more than just God. In saying that an agnostic has no belief system, I mean only in the is-there-a-God sense.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Atheism is not Logical
As I have said before, this binary view is preventing you from seeing the nuances that this issue embraces. There are options other than "blind belief" and "blind denial" that you fail to consider.
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Nature is "greater than us", but I don't call it God.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
There is only one option; becoming willing and able to open ones eyes and earsPattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 7th, 2021, 9:03 amAs I have said before, this binary view is preventing you from seeing the nuances that this issue embraces. There are options other than "blind belief" and "blind denial" that you fail to consider.
Matthew 13
If there is another option; what is it?16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Right. One typical mistake is to equate atheism with materialism. For example, there can be an atheistic version of Berkeley's immaterialistic worldview.
People usually spend a lot of time arguing about whether atheism is to be defined as a belief or a nonbelief, but they forget defining "god/dess", "deity", or "divinity". The conceptual problem seems to be that these are basically role-concepts that per se tell us nothing or only little about the nature of what is called a deity or a divine entity. For something or somebody to be divine is for it/he/she to play a certain role for certain people, and this role can be played by many different sorts of things: material and immaterial ones, natural and supernatural ones, personal and impersonal ones.
It is clear that the god of Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) monotheism is an eternal superhuman and supernatural/superphysical person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-whatever, and who is the creator and sustainer of the physical universe.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Logic is a systematic method of thinking by which one can discover contradictions. All logical proofs are simply restatements of the postulates. The OP (like many others) misuses the word.
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Atheism is not Logical
Right, belief doesn't entail certainty qua (total) absence of doubt. To be more precise, with certainty coming in different degrees or strengths, belief does entail some degree of certainty >50% but not =100%.Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 7th, 2021, 6:20 amAnother brief point: As has been discussed a lot in other topics, belief is not the same thing as certainty. I think some people confuse the two, with the result that they interpret somebody saying "I believe X" as "I am certain of X". I think comments like the one by Newme above stem from conflating those two different statements.
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