|
I feel that there is an often unspoken subtext to these sorts of discussions. It relates to that stumbling block in a conversation when someone realizes it has come down to faith versus knowledge. Similarly, it relates to arguments that have already been made here concerning an atheist position making no positive claims. Basically, both sides are subscribing to an epistemology, whether they would like to admit it or not. The clash of these ideas of how gnosis is achieved is readily apparent, but a clearer understanding of the clash itself is seemingly rarely even looked for. Most significantly in terms of this topic, an atheist is subscribing to the idea that an understanding of the truth is obtained by rational and empirical analysis. Everything worth knowing is ultimately knowable. I don't think it's wrong, but that is merely one way of looking at things. Many religious people see it differently. It's not beyond a scientific mind to be able to change frames in this regard. Things always look a bit different from another perspective. In fact some of the finest minds of this and nearly passed generations have shown this ability. Let's not act like superstitious thinking, for lack of a less rude phrase, isn't drat well bred into us all. It's a choice when you refuse to switch perspectives. Commonly the refusal is moral in character. It's understandable that many people would think that humankind could use more rational and less magical thinking. I tend to agree. However, for those that have been touched, and remember, this is a deep and primal part of humanity; the refusal of someone else to sense that same reality feels somewhat like an idiot refusing to believe in the wind because he can't see it.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
evilmiera posted:Pretty much. But also, no, Atheism is not a choice anymore than any other position is. You get informed and decide based on that information, but you can't just flip a switch to disbelieve or believe something because you feel like it. Again, its a matter of looking at the problem from multiple angles. It's not impossible or even hard, that switch you are talking about is built into us naturally. Faith and reason and the ability to distinguish between the two are all built into us. Einstein and Sagan and a shitload of other scientists have been able to connect with an interpretation of the divine while remaining rooted in rational empiricism, so why are you still acting like they are mutually contradictory?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Saying two things are mutually exclusive does not make it so. You have object examples right in front of you, and the reasoning behind those examples. Which is again, rational empiricism is not the only natural and useful mode of human thought. Spirituality is just as hardcoded into us, perhaps moreso given that its a more primal mode of thought than empiricism. Denying this does not make the neural structures which light up when a human is involved in god-stuff cease to exist. Pretending that humans are unipolar empiricism machines is false and dangerous. Empiricism is certainly useful but doesn't result in Alice in Wonderland, the ode to joy, ecstatic revelation, and a hundred thousand other triumphs of the human mind. To deny other ways of thinking is to deny the value of the results of those methods, and denying yourself other angles from which to view and gain a better understanding of reality. Or to make that reality better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:True, but there is no part of the human brain that only lights up for god-stuff. Everything "spiritual" things can offer can be found through secular means. Granted but as an argument it's a bit off point. Rational empiricism is great and all, but it's merely one part of human existence. The left-brained part, to use a somewhat falicious metaphor. There are many aspects of human existence that have little to do with it. The right brained parts, to extend my lovely metaphor. No matter how much empirical rationalizing (  ) you do, you won't get moby dick or temples to ra or pretty "elvish" script from lord of the rings. These other aspects of human thought which include emotion and poetry and a yearning toward a power greater than ourselves are just as concrete and arguably as useful.Now, that's not to say empiricism has nothing to do with these realms of thought. Human brains are machines with interconnected parts, luckily. Music and poetry have their roots in math, for example. But math alone doesn't get you there. They also require that emotional, creative urge. So let's step back, and consider (as I feel we should strive to do often) not just our thoughts on the matter, but the modes of thought which give birth to those individual perscriptions. It is clearly possible to mix and match those modes as one desires. Tolkien was foremost a linguist and second a armchair historian, but he also had a love of myth and culture and creation stories. The Lord of the Rings is therefore the product of such a mixing. Nathilus fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Apologies gotta run an errand. I'll get to your post later berk. I appreciate the interest in this tangent though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
I take issue with that definition of atheism too. I'd consider anyone who has not given thought to the possibility of the divine or were otherwise utterly undecided agnostic. Agnostic means not taking a side, whether for faith or disbelief. Atheists on the other hand come down on the side of disbelief, whether they claim specific knowledge or no. To claim that the atheist catagory includes agnostics is an abuse of language, a twisting of the common definition of these terms that goes beyond the normal elasticity of the relationship between concepts and the words we use to describe them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Gnostic meaning to know, theism meaning to have belief, and the prefix "a-" meaning "without". These are all standard definitions and have been used for decades. Your ignorance of what words mean doesn't change them. There is no need to delve into root word connotations we have perfectly good modern definitions that are a consensus reality right now. Think I'm ignorant for refusing to allow you to pervert perfectly straightfoward language? Fine biyatch, definition war: ON. Google posted:ag·nos·tic Google posted:a·the·ist Seems utterly clear to me. Agnostics are on the fence whereas atheists come down on a specific side of it. There's some wiggle room and it's a given that all words are mere symbology, not utterly fixed referents to the ideas they represent, but still: claiming all agnostics are by definition atheists is a clear perversion of the intent behind these two words. At the end of the day words do mean specific things. We agree to what they mean at a cultural level. In this case, atheist represents the idea of "someone who does not believe in the divine". Because this is the commonly accepted definition of this word, I gain knowledge when it is communicated to me. I can expect someone who has been described as an atheist to answer no when asked if they believe in god, and similarly can expect an agnostic to say "I don't know" or "Maybe." If I take your twisted definition as fact, the terms aren't descriptive in the same way. Not only is this simply made up (I've literally never heard anyone else argue that anything other than a solid gnostic is by definition atheist), the change destroys part of the communicative power of the terms. No. Let's please agree that gnostic/agnostic/atheist are the proper words to use for someone who would say yes/maybe or dunno/no to the god question. It's reasonable and descriptive. There is a somewhat decent historical precedent. No one is just making it up on the fly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:This is a remarkable amount of effort to accurately label a subset of people whose religious beliefs are basically, "eh, whatever" Some people are clearly trying to muddy the waters. There is already a well accepted and more descriptive way to use the words they are trying to redefine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:So wait is this thread a semantic slapfight about the precise definition of a/theism and a/gnosticism or is there still room to talk about just how much volitional control we have over our own underlying assumptions (not that much it turns out) Well you have to agree on semantics before you can argue in good faith given that language is the medium in which we are communicating our arguments. If you and some other people can already come to a gentleman's understanding concerning the meaning of the words you are using, by all means proceed onwards. I don't feel that this part of the discussion is pointless, however. Who What Now posted:I agree. People who are trying to redefine atheism to mean "actively disbelieved in gods" and nothing else under any circumstances really are not helpful to discussions. Again, your definition lacks the descriptive power of the one I am using. Whether the disbelief is active or passive, it is disbelief which my usage of the term atheism describes. There is already another term for those who don't believe or disbelieve. This is the core reason doing it your way would be dumb. In doing so we would lose communicative power and have to mince even more words to get across the distinction between agnostics and atheists.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:What do you mean when you say "active or passive" disbelief? You either believe, or you do not. Do you mean whether or not one claims to know that their belief is true? Because if so, boy howdy are you going to be happy when I tell you that there's a word I've been using that addresses whether someone makes that claim or not! Again you're missing the very distinction I am arguing over. "Do you believe in god?" is a question with more than two acceptable answers, much like how sexuality is not a binary gay or straight dichotomy. Maybe someone just has not thought it through and doesn't hold a meaningful opinion, or doesn't consider the question important enough to answer. That second type might meaningfully be considered an atheist, as an example of what I'd consider passive disbelief. Quite often, you will come across people who consider themselves "spiritual" but who won't espouse any particular religious dogma. These can serve as an example of the possible inverse of that passive disbeliever by showing that the difference between an agnostic and a theist is the same as it is when considering an agnostic and an atheist: it is the difference between someone who has put a dog in the race and someone who has not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 02:33
|
|