Community help for Non-Cognitive?

[Angrboda]

"He's going to start a blog. I feel safer already." — Hudson

[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:

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:

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:

" 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'. :-(

[Angrboda]

We should ask apophenia to change her name to "TheRaven" - every time I speak she chimes "nevermore"

Poe chose a raven as the central symbol in the story because he wanted a "non-reasoning" creature capable of speech.

[mralstoner]

TROC, I haven't quite got my head around your argument yet, but a couple of points come to mind that might help.

1 - That definition of non-cognitive atheism sounds exactly like the definition of emotivism:

Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes ... Hence, it is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory... Emotivism can be considered a form of non-cognitivism or expressivism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

emotivism, In metaethics (see ethics), the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker’s or writer’s feelings. According to the emotivist, when we say “You acted wrongly in stealing that money,” we are not expressing any fact beyond that stated by “You stole that money.” It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a special tone of abhorrence, for in saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our feelings of disapproval toward it.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi.../emotivism

2 - Professor of Psychology Jonathan Haidt describes morality this way:

The point of these studies is that moral judgment is like aesthetic judgment. When you see a painting, you usually know instantly and automatically whether you like it. If someone asks you to explain your judgment, you confabulate. You don’t really know why you think something is beautiful, but your interpreter module (the rider) is skilled at making up reasons, as Gazzaniga found in his split-brain studies. You search for a plausible reason for liking the painting, and you latch on to the first reason that makes sense (maybe something vague about color, or light, or the reflection of the painter in the clown’s shiny nose). Moral arguments are much the same: Two people feel strongly about an issue, their feelings come first, and their reasons are invented on the fly, to throw at each other. When you refute a person’s argument, does she generally change her mind and agree with you? Of course not, because the argument you defeated was not the cause of her position; it was made up after the judgment was already made. If you listen closely to moral arguments, you can sometimes hear something surprising: that it is really the elephant holding the reins, guiding the rider. It is the elephant who decides what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly. Gut feelings, intuitions, and snap judgments happen constantly and automatically . . . , but only the rider can string sentences together and create arguments to give to other people. In moral arguments, the rider goes beyond being just an advisor to the elephant; he becomes a lawyer, fighting in the court of public opinion to persuade others of the elephant’s point of view.

* * *
In my studies of moral judgment, I have found that people are skilled at finding reasons to support their gut feelings: The rider acts like a lawyer whom the elephant has hired to represent it in the court of public opinion.

One of the reasons people are often contemptuous of lawyers is that they fight for a client’s interests, not for the truth. To be a good lawyer, it often helps to be a good liar. Although many lawyers won’t tell a direct lie, most will do what they can to hide inconvenient facts while weaving a plausible alternative story for the judge and jury, a story that they sometimes know is not true. Our inner lawyer works in the same way, but, somehow, we actually believe the stories he makes up. To understand his ways we must catch him in action ...
http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/200...reasoning/

Here is a video of Haidt explaining that we are lawyers defending emotional attitudes:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/6487:jona...us-culture

I'll think about your question some more.

[TROC]

You're correct - emotive and non-cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism) do sound very similar. There's only a subtle difference in definition - emotive accepts an emotional statement as positive or negative (yea/boo) where non-cog philosophically defines that certain statements "do not express propositions and thus cannot be true or false".

It's a much 'harder' line and I suspect it's at the heart of my trouble. Most cognitive atheists will accept an emotive origin "That person finds God makes them happy" is an accurate observation. But to declare the statement non-cognitive (God has no truth value and therefore cannot be true or false) takes the debate away from their comfort zone (arguing the god hypothesis) and forces them to deal with the emotive origin. In short they're comfortable handling facts/proofs but not so much the sticky business of human nature so they "kill" the acceptability of non-cognitive to get back to pascal's wager.

Although we can agree on the philosophical definition, I think cognitives are in fact emotionally bound to 'proving or disproving' whereas I am not which causes practical difficulties in individual and group communications - not being able to express myself effectively in such groups or to declare my position and avoid time wasting. Just like I discovered calmly declaring myself an 'atheist' in the right way avoided evangelists - what is the succinct term to describe my desired outcome...

You haven't gotten your head round my argument because I haven't' yet myself :-(. Unfair for me to use you all as a sounding board to figure out what I'm trying to say but I do appreciate the help.

---

Or more succinctly:

Emotive: "I observe this person's emotional preferences"
Non-Cognitive: "I observe this person's emotional preferences, and de gustibus non disputatum est (thou shall not debate matters of preference)"

Emotive: "I love my wife"
Non-Cognitive: "I love my wife and trying to debate me out of it is a bad idea"

[mralstoner]

TROC, your reaction to the proposition "god is real" seems to be one of:

A - You heard the statement but, given the obvious lack of evidence, you instantly don't believe. (lack of immediate evidence atheist)
B - You heard the statement but felt no need to investigate the proposition. (emotionally disinterested atheist)
C - You believe religious utterances "express personal desires, feelings of subjugation, admiration, humility, and love" and therefore, given that we know the emotional intent of these statements, it makes no sense to treat them as propositions. (expression intention atheist)
D - Two or more of the above.

I assume that C is what you call non-cognitive atheism. My guess is that you are a combination of A, B, and C.
I don't mind being a sounding board, I'm still interested.

[TROC]

At origin I was "B" - emotionally disinterested. (9/10 years old).
Much Later - I did see expression intention © or 'emotive'. As well as that I could accept the evidence wasn't good, but because I was emotionally disinterested I didn't really give it much weight. (A)

So I think I may have come to a conclusion: I'm a 'functioning non-cognitive' - I accept that the statement "God exists" must in fact be either true or false, but for practical purposes I don't treat it as such and certainly don't invest time in trying to argue 'the god hypothesis'.

Statements like "God must be treated as any hypothesis" are ones I reject functionally and inter personally - even though it's literally true or false - in the same way I would reject something like "There was 74 cents in change in my pocket the morning of December 1st, 1982". The statement "There was 74 cents in my pocket" must be true or false, but arguing it (as the proofs are lost) is not rational.

[Angrboda]

You're missing an option in which God or spiritual reality is experiential, but not necessarily emotive, nor being evidenced objectively.

As a religious person, I split several ways. I look at one of my faiths in the sense of a model of social and experiential reality, as well as a proscriptive ethics. The other I look upon as proscriptive and a model of who I am, psychologically, and of my experience in the world. Finally, while I acknowledge other theories, I hew to the one that says that religious experience is a side effect of the way our brains operate; that we will have religious concepts because we have religious experiences, not because there are religious things in the world to be experienced, but because there are religious experiences resulting from the way our brains work.

[TROC]

You're missing an option in which God or spiritual reality is experiential, but not necessarily emotive, nor being evidenced objectively.

Yes, but only in that it wasn't part of my practical challenge. In my experience people who describe things as you do are easy to have a healthy conversation with (the majority). "apophenia is willing to listen, exchange ideas and consider" is all I needed to know and away we happily go. It's only when I get to the extremes (cognitive; either theists or atheists) that I have had difficulty. Anyone who says "This must be true and factual" (or untrue for that matter) even though they are dealing with a God designed to be ineffable are a challenge for me.

[Angrboda]

You're missing an option in which God or spiritual reality is experiential, but not necessarily emotive, nor being evidenced objectively.

Yes, but only in that it wasn't part of my practical challenge. In my experience people who describe things as you do are easy to have a healthy conversation with (the majority). "apophenia is willing to listen, exchange ideas and consider" is all I needed to know and away we happily go. It's only when I get to the extremes (cognitive; either theists or atheists) that I have had difficulty. Anyone who says "This must be true and factual" (or untrue for that matter) even though they are dealing with a God designed to be ineffable are a challenge for me.

You know, it occurs to me that you might not be an atheist at all, or at least the position you describe isn't classically atheist, as it incorporates significant beliefs about belief that most atheists leave undefined, or settle on an orthodox view.

As noted elsewhere, I'm a big fan of demoting the concept of knowledge, of anything, to at best an unreachable ideal.