Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[The Reality Salesman01]

It never ceases to amaze me how many times this video can offer clarification on the stance of atheism with regards to beliefs instead of choosing to waste time with claiming agnosticism, which specifies an admittance toward knowledge.

[bennyboy]

The ones here are constantly saying exactly that.

I have to say, I don't the weak definition of "atheist," since my beagle and my bunion both lack a belief about the existence of God/gods. I prefer a ternary choice: yes/no/I don't know. Since I also lack the belief that God/gods DON'T exist, I believe "agnostic" is a more sensible choice for me, and don't like the word atheist.

But I don't have control over the dictionary, and the "weak" position is one of the valid definitions: a + theist = not a theist.

It doesn't matter if you don't like the word.

If you do not hold the premise that a god exists to be true, you are an atheist.

Agnosticism is not a ternary choice to the question about BELIEF. It is a position that concerns knowledge.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it"

If your belief of the existence of a god is anywhere above nonzero, you are a theist. ANYTHING else is atheism.

I think my post was pretty clearly a statement of my semantic preferences. Your post ignores pretty much the entire essence of what I was trying to say, and in a pretty condescending way, too. You act as though the way you prefer to think about these words is the only way to think about them, which is a false belief.

First of all, "-ism" does not necessarily have to mean "belief," by your definition as supported by your appeal to various academic authorities; it does not mean "holding a premise." So the belief vs. knowledge axis you've set up is a false dilemma, based on an incorrect view of the etymology of that suffix.

Second, you act as though belief and knowledge are necessarily different axes. Another sensible position assumes that ALL knowledge is intrinsically unverifiable: solipsism, idealism, etc. cannot be disproven absolutely. So when I say I KNOW something, I'm stating a belief: an idea or experience accords sufficiently with the rest of my ideas that it's acceptable to me.

Third, you act as though a human is a single agent, not a composite of many brain functions. It is perfectly possible for the brain not to be able to resolve even a simple question into a single output: it is possible to believe in something and its opposite. For example, if asked "will you pass the Mensa test?" I can believe that I will, and that I won't. We've all had these questions in life where the outcome was unpredictable and the brain goes into a kind of flip-flop while it figures out if it thinks Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. The only honest answer to Schrodinger's cat is "I don't know unless I can open the box."

Finally, when the REASON for lacking a belief is a lack of sufficient definition or information, then you are necessarily agnostic. If I say "Do you believe that X=23?" you'd be silly to state that you lacked that belief: the question is not well-enough defined even to attempt an answer. Instead, you'd ask me to define some kind of circumstance which your brain could resolve into an answer to my question. If I told you "X= the average age of people in the Hot to Trot Nightclub," you'd say you weren't sure, but it seemed like a reasonable possibility. If I told you "X= 3 * 7," you'd say you knew for sure that was not the case. If I told you, "X is the first prime number after 19," you'd say you knew for sure that was the case.

So unless given a clearly-stated question that you take as the criterion for establishing theism, I cannot process it. I can only say that by MOST of the definitions I've heard so far, I'd be an atheist. For some definitions, like that of a Deity creating the universe, I'm agnostic. For some metaphorical definitions "God is love," I know for sure love exists, which would make me a theist by that definition-- but I'd argue strenuously against that definition.

See? Trying to stuff all of decision-making into a tidy little box is wrong. And trying to stuff other people's language about their decision making into YOUR tidy little box is rude.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Instead of a your language vs my language, why not use standard linguistic conventions of the relevant field?

That will not only solve language problems but show who is familiar with the literature versus who is talking out of their ass.

[The Reality Salesman01]

If you're a Theist, you can't tell the atheist what he believes anymore than he can tell you yours. If the Atheist tells you that he defines Atheism as a lack of belief in Gods, then that's the end of it. He has given you a description of the term he used to describe his position toward beliefs in God(s). Forcing your own definition on him will get you nowhere. If a Christian tells me he doesn't hold a belief in polytheism, I can't tell him that he actually does since he believes in the trinity. In these conversations, we are analyzing the views of individuals, and each individual may hold beliefs based on a multitude of different ideas and perceptions. In this sort of exchange, it is the other person that gets to tell you how they interpret the terms they use to describe their position. It's THEIR position. This is where objective and subjective intersect. If we are to fully understand a different position, we have to accept that their position is different. The position should be assessed on the merit of the arguments that support it. Once they've outlined the terms contained in their arguments, move on (with the exception of equivocation). These debates over semantics are a real time waster. It's no way to have a productive exchange of ideas.

[bennyboy]

bumped

[Ben Davis]

It's also worth saying that since 'atheos' roots from 'theos', 'a-theism' is a superior form to 'athe-ism'. As long as people are clear about their definitions, I'm happy.

How do you figure? atheos + ism = atheism, a + theism = atheism

I don't see how anything but context and a declaration of usage makes the two forms anything but perfectly ambiguous.

Because 'a-theism' is closer to the root than 'athe-ism': 'theos' gives rise to both 'atheos' and 'a-theism', subsequently 'atheos' gives rise to 'athe-ism'. But that's only a view for people who are interested in strict etymology. For most people, because both forms are in use, you're right about context & declaration.

[bennyboy]

How do you figure? atheos + ism = atheism, a + theism = atheism

I don't see how anything but context and a declaration of usage makes the two forms anything but perfectly ambiguous.

Because 'a-theism' is closer to the root than 'athe-ism': 'theos' gives rise to both 'atheos' and 'a-theism', subsequently 'atheos' gives rise to 'athe-ism'. But that's only a view for people who are interested in strict etymology. For most people, because both forms are in use, you're right about context & declaration.

Either way, the root is "theos." It's just the way words get crunched. To go back to the true ternary:
a + theos + ism
1. (a + theos) + ism = atheos + ism = atheism (the belief or doctrine of no-God)
2. a + (theos + ism) = a + theism = atheism (the state of not being theistic)
This is a perfect ambiguity as far as I can tell, unless someone here really knows Greek conjugation rules deeply and can correct me.


Anyway, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the weak form is the most pragmatic, at least in the States: it separates religious people from non-religious people (Stop ringing my fucking doorbell on Sunday morning, and go sell crazy somewhere else!), rather than engaging in a philosophical debate (I think there's no God. Why? Prove it. What's your reason? etc.)

But I'd argue that weak atheism is more a political or social position, rather than a philosophical one. In a philosophical thread, I think people have to accept and accommodate an expectation for a hard atheist position. Responding to a modal argument with "Show me the proof, asshole," isn't a very good philosophical argument.

[Ben Davis]

Either way, the root is "theos." It's just the way words get crunched. To go back to the true ternary:
a + theos + ism
1. (a + theos) + ism = atheos + ism = atheism (the belief or doctrine of no-God)
2. a + (theos + ism) = a + theism = atheism (the state of not being theistic)
This is a perfect ambiguity as far as I can tell, unless someone here really knows Greek conjugation rules deeply and can correct me.

Etymology isn't only concerned with accurate conjugation but also root, form, history & usage so...

Because 'atheos' is rooted from 'theos' there's a superior word for 'athe-ism' which also roots from 'theos': anti-theism (opposition to theism). Let's remember that 'atheos' was created to generalise & stereotype those who didn't believe in the Olympic pantheon, irrespective of whether there was belief in other deities involved or not. Therefore there's additional baggage in the word 'athe-ism' that there isn't in the word 'a-theism'. If we're looking for highly accurate descriptors/definitions and applying the strictest etymology, we should reject the word 'athe-ism' as being too ambiguous and stick to 'a-theism' and 'anti-theism'.

Anyway, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the weak form is the most pragmatic, at least in the States: it separates religious people from non-religious people (Stop ringing my fucking doorbell on Sunday morning, and go sell crazy somewhere else!), rather than engaging in a philosophical debate (I think there's no God. Why? Prove it. What's your reason? etc.)

Indeed. That's because it's the strictest, most accurate definition of the word.

But I'd argue that weak atheism is more a political or social position, rather than a philosophical one.

This is an argument that stems from the conflation of belief & knowledge and is exactly why I believe we should stick to the strictest definition of 'a-theism'. 'A-theism' doesn't contain any baggage, no political views, nothing. It's a simple statement that 'whatever my beliefs or value-systems are, theism is not amongst them'. It's not a statement on one's claims to knowledge in regard to specific 'god hypotheses'.

In a philosophical thread, I think people have to accept and accommodate an expectation for a hard atheist position. Responding to a modal argument with "Show me the proof, asshole," isn't a very good philosophical argument.

IMHO, It's possibly the best way to show 'a love of wisdom'

[Bucky Ball]

a-symmetrical : the absence of symmetry
a-symptomatic : the absence of symptoms
a-theism : the absence of theism






meow

[pocaracas]

asym-metrical: absence of 'symulation' about the metrical system