RE: Community help for Non-Cognitive?
October 29, 2012 at 10:58 am
(This post was last modified: October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm by TROC.)
Few Points:
1: We should ask apophenia to change her name to "TheRaven" - every time I speak she chimes "nevermore"
2: Looked at your noted post:
Also I guess if I'm going to be a humanist : a word is only valuable if it successfully communicates something between people, so making up new words or using eupraxsophy is out... No way to educate around that.
The Kurtz quotes resonated with me in a big way though. Particularly:
So what I really need are tools to refine and defend the term 'non-cognitive'. Take a conventional definition along the lines of:
The statements are constructed in such a way that they are almost self defeating by design. If you raise a non-cog statement - the cogs beat you down shouting "Well you're basing it on a God that is not true therefore everything you just said is false".
The difficulty with this is a humanist truth value question for me: By that I mean: I owe another person the 'truth' as best I see it. For example:
If you asked me "Why do I love my wife" - I would have (after 20 years together) many cognitive things to describe - rugged pragmatism, a subtle wit, etc. etc. But in the end I know that there are aspects to subtle to get a handle on or that I lack the emotional vocabulary to describe. So, while there are many identifiable characteristics I know that there is a certain quantity of non-cognitive 'nebulous' factors that get lumped into the "Love Bucket". No-one has a problem with me describing it this way, even though I must admit that I have left a great deal in the non-cognitive "Love Bucket".. But:
The standard cognitive approach to those of faith is stereotypically: "Defend your love of this invisible entity". The theist begins to list them and the atheist constantly interrupts saying "Well... you can get that benefit anywhere". They then point out the 'deficiencies' in the "God Hypothesis".
The impact on the theist is functionally equivalent to telling me "Defend your love of your wife", then telling me that I could get those qualities in many women, then pointing out her deficiencies. (Yikes... imagine how I'd respond).
There are some deeply disturbing issues with the current definitions and beat-down of non-cognitive for me. Let me give you a rough parallel: Here in the US constitution article 1 section 2 states that "Representatives will be approtioned... by adding the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons" In this case 'other persons' meaning slaves. Later there is the 13th amendment to the constitution. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ... shall exist within the United States". Legally that means that everyone is 1 person and there are no slaves. But today many neo-Nazis and white supremacists are fond of printing article 1 section 2 in their propaganda (saying, in this case, that black people are 'less people' and therefore their hate mail is OK) while willfully ignoring a legal amendment which makes their hate statements false. The reason this is pertinent is that in the traditional anti-non-cognitive "The problem with the non-cognitivist view is that many religious utterances are clearly treated as cognitive by their speakers" is equivalent to saying "Neo-Nazi's are vicious therefore we should throw out the constitution".
Like describing my wife, describing religion contains some aspects of cognitive and some that escape emotional explanation. The definition "A non-cognitivist atheist denies that religious utterances are propositions (true or false)." itself almost seems devised to fail. It is an absolute - as if saying the sky is always blue. Sometimes it is cloudy therefore the statement must fail. I think such definitions are defective in that they've been controlled by the cognitives?
Maybe we should start writing 'something'. :-(
1: We should ask apophenia to change her name to "TheRaven" - every time I speak she chimes "nevermore"
2: Looked at your noted post:
(October 28, 2012 at 12:09 am)mralstoner Wrote: So, it's not really word choice that is holding us back. Rather, it is a lack of values, organisation and community behind the word.Couldn't agree more. "Rebranding" only works if an organization has fixed the issues that got them a 'reputation' in the first place. "The community" doesn't recognize an issue so...
Also I guess if I'm going to be a humanist : a word is only valuable if it successfully communicates something between people, so making up new words or using eupraxsophy is out... No way to educate around that.
The Kurtz quotes resonated with me in a big way though. Particularly:
Quote: one of the great failures of the atheist and freethought movement may be attributed to the fact that it was largely cerebral and cognitive in function
So what I really need are tools to refine and defend the term 'non-cognitive'. Take a conventional definition along the lines of:
Quote:" A non-cognitivist atheist denies that religious utterances are propositions (true or false). They are not the sort of speech act that have a truth value ... The problem with the non-cognitivist view is that many religious utterances are clearly treated as cognitive by their speakers—they are meant to be treated as true or false”Cog/Non-Cog in encyclopedia of Philosophy
The statements are constructed in such a way that they are almost self defeating by design. If you raise a non-cog statement - the cogs beat you down shouting "Well you're basing it on a God that is not true therefore everything you just said is false".
The difficulty with this is a humanist truth value question for me: By that I mean: I owe another person the 'truth' as best I see it. For example:
If you asked me "Why do I love my wife" - I would have (after 20 years together) many cognitive things to describe - rugged pragmatism, a subtle wit, etc. etc. But in the end I know that there are aspects to subtle to get a handle on or that I lack the emotional vocabulary to describe. So, while there are many identifiable characteristics I know that there is a certain quantity of non-cognitive 'nebulous' factors that get lumped into the "Love Bucket". No-one has a problem with me describing it this way, even though I must admit that I have left a great deal in the non-cognitive "Love Bucket".. But:
The standard cognitive approach to those of faith is stereotypically: "Defend your love of this invisible entity". The theist begins to list them and the atheist constantly interrupts saying "Well... you can get that benefit anywhere". They then point out the 'deficiencies' in the "God Hypothesis".
The impact on the theist is functionally equivalent to telling me "Defend your love of your wife", then telling me that I could get those qualities in many women, then pointing out her deficiencies. (Yikes... imagine how I'd respond).
There are some deeply disturbing issues with the current definitions and beat-down of non-cognitive for me. Let me give you a rough parallel: Here in the US constitution article 1 section 2 states that "Representatives will be approtioned... by adding the whole Number of free Persons... three fifths of all other Persons" In this case 'other persons' meaning slaves. Later there is the 13th amendment to the constitution. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ... shall exist within the United States". Legally that means that everyone is 1 person and there are no slaves. But today many neo-Nazis and white supremacists are fond of printing article 1 section 2 in their propaganda (saying, in this case, that black people are 'less people' and therefore their hate mail is OK) while willfully ignoring a legal amendment which makes their hate statements false. The reason this is pertinent is that in the traditional anti-non-cognitive "The problem with the non-cognitivist view is that many religious utterances are clearly treated as cognitive by their speakers" is equivalent to saying "Neo-Nazi's are vicious therefore we should throw out the constitution".
Like describing my wife, describing religion contains some aspects of cognitive and some that escape emotional explanation. The definition "A non-cognitivist atheist denies that religious utterances are propositions (true or false)." itself almost seems devised to fail. It is an absolute - as if saying the sky is always blue. Sometimes it is cloudy therefore the statement must fail. I think such definitions are defective in that they've been controlled by the cognitives?
Maybe we should start writing 'something'. :-(
