Reflecting on Atheism.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Bloody hell, I thought my posts were long

[arvind13]

in reply to Genkaus:

"There is no deadlock - and you don't need a theory to support the argument, you need facts. Whether or not pagan traditions have the properties X, Y and Z is a matter of fact and since facts in this case is that they do, the discussion isn't deadlocked, it is over."


"An ignorant statement made by someone who hasn't studied philosophy of science. Theory and data are distinct. Theory-laden data is regarded as biased and therefore, unreliable and every effort is made to remove the the influence of preconceived theories and sanitize the data. That is one of the fundamental requirements for a valid scientific inquiry. "





Clearly, it is you who have not studied philosophy of science. Because if you had, you would realize that there the theory/data distinction is a false distinction.

There is not such thing as an unbiased neutral observation. We all come with our cultural, intellectual, and theoretical baggage, and we observe phenomena through a lens coloured by that baggage. There is no avoiding that. Some frameworks are better than the other.

I would recommend Theory and Reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science by Peter Godfrey Smith and Progress and its Problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth by Larry Laudan.


IF you did read it, you would realize that Science is primarily a problem solving activity. The best theories are those that offer the best solution to important problems.

In this case, the problems are manifold:

What is are the properties that make any phenomena into religion?

Do all these properties need to be present, or just some of them enough?

What is the structure of religion that makes these properties necessary or consequences of that structure?

Do all the phenemena in the world that get labled as religion have these properties?


Is the question of truth important for any phenomena to be called a religion?

Since all facts are theory laden, what theory were the missionaries and travelers who first started traveling the world and discovering all these religions operating under?

A good theory of religion should address and solve these problems.

The theory I outlined above solves these problems better than any other theory in the market. This is not my theory, btw, I don't want to take false credit. But I can tell you that there has been a good amount of sweat and labour that has gone into developing this theory, lots of research.

If you want to refute this theory, come up with a better theory.

[arvind13]

I will respond to some of the comments and leave it there. you can respond back and have the last word.

"The other possibilities would be - there are multiple agents specifying different purposes or there is no supervening agency, but the purpose is provided by the nature of human existence.
As it happens, the claim made within Hinduism is that the purpose is to transcend to cycle of karma and become one with Brahman."

If the intentions of the agent is the cause and governs everything (past, present and future), how can there be multiples of that agent?
A logical consequence of the above framework is that there can only be one such agent. That's why Christians, Muslims, and Jews insist there is only one God. I don't believe in God myself, but there is an internal logic to their claims. It makes sense within their theological framework.

There is nothing inherent in the nature of human existence that makes them provide a purpose of life. Except for Christian and Islamic cultures, no other culture has even asked such questions about human existence.

"The other possibilities are that EIA posits the existence of multiple entities or it forgoes providing a teleological cause and posits no agent or it posits agency for some aspects of the explanation and none for the other or it posits multiple agencies for some aspects or it provides a layered structure - providing some agencies for some aspects and another set of agencies for those agencies and so on. All of these are viable alternatives to the first contingent property.

As it happens, if you replace the word god with Brahman, you have the first contingent property as it applies to Hinduism."

Brahman is not an agent. Brahman doesn't have intentions, goals, or desires. and The EIA is of the cosmos, not of this or that aspect. you cannot have an EIA of this or that aspect, because those aspects doesn't exist in isolation and are affected by other factors. For example you can't have an EIA of a house and say everything that happens in this house expresses the intention of a "house god", because whatever happens in the house is influenced by so many factors that lie outside the house. So an EIA automatically has to be all encompassing and about the whole cosmos and not about this or that aspect.


"Having a teleological cause of not a universal aspect of events - unlike the efficient cause. To use the example of your the door opening - if the wind blows and door opens then you have the presence of efficient cause and an absence of teleological cause"

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I was just using those examples to differentiate between a causal and intentional account. Ok fine, the wind blows and the door opens is also an example of a causal account.

As much variety as you can have within Christianity, there is a common framework that makes all these denominations into Christian denominations. and the theory I provided outlines such a structure

[genkaus]

Clearly, it is you who have not studied philosophy of science. Because if you had, you would realize that there the theory/data distinction is a false distinction.

Clearly, it is you who has not studied the philosophy of science. Because if you had, you'd realize that the theory/data distinction is fundamental to scientific inquiry.

There is not such thing as an unbiased neutral observation. We all come with our cultural, intellectual, and theoretical baggage, and we observe phenomena through a lens coloured by that baggage. There is no avoiding that. Some frameworks are better than the other.

And correcting that bias is a significant step in the scientific process.

I would recommend Theory and Reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science by Peter Godfrey Smith and Progress and its Problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth by Larry Laudan.

I'll pass.

IF you did read it, you would realize that Science is primarily a problem solving activity. The best theories are those that offer the best solution to important problems.

And in order to be best, they have to be based on objective and unbiased observations.

In this case, the problems are manifold:

And the current theory gives the solutions.

What is are the properties that make any phenomena into religion?

The list has already been provided.

Do all these properties need to be present, or just some of them enough?

It also indicates which are the basic ones.

What is the structure of religion that makes these properties necessary or consequences of that structure?

Also answered.

Do all the phenemena in the world that get labled as religion have these properties?

The basic ones - yes. Which is why they are labeled as religions.

Is the question of truth important for any phenomena to be called a religion?

Important - yes. Necessary - no.

Since all facts are theory laden, what theory were the missionaries and travelers who first started traveling the world and discovering all these religions operating under?

Irrelevant - since their theory is not the one currently accepted. As for the anthropologists who define it, their methods correct for any theory-ladenness.

A good theory of religion should address and solve these problems.

And the best one does.

The theory I outlined above solves these problems better than any other theory in the market.

Ha. In your dreams.

This is not my theory, btw, I don't want to take false credit. But I can tell you that there has been a good amount of sweat and labour that has gone into developing this theory, lots of research.

Then I feel sorry for the guys who wasted their time in developing it.

If you want to refute this theory, come up with a better theory.

I already have refuted it. And no, I don't need to come up with a better theory to refute yours - I just need to show the many reasons why your theory is wrong. Which I've already done. As for a better theory, look it up on google - there already is one available.

---

I will respond to some of the comments and leave it there. you can respond back and have the last word.

Is that a promise? That once I tell you how wrong yo are, you'll shut-up? I wish other discussions were this easy.

If the intentions of the agent is the cause and governs everything (past, present and future), how can there be multiples of that agent? A logical consequence of the above framework is that there can only be one such agent. That's why Christians, Muslims, and Jews insist there is only one God. I don't believe in God myself, but there is an internal logic to their claims. It makes sense within their theological framework.

That would be the Single Cause Fallacy. You are assuming that there can be only one agent whose intentions would govern everything. Why you are assuming such a ridiculous premise, I have no idea. That the Abrahamic religions start by assuming a single cause doesn't mean that some other framework cannot start by assuming multiple causes and yet others without any intentional cause.

There is nothing inherent in the nature of human existence that makes them provide a purpose of life. Except for Christian and Islamic cultures, no other culture has even asked such questions about human existence.

Wrong. The capacity to consider your life beyond your immediate needs - something that comes from our advanced capacity to reason - is what results in needing a purpose for life. Which is why every religion, every culture and every philosophy has come up with the very same question - what should I live for - and answered it in their own way.

Brahman is not an agent. Brahman doesn't have intentions, goals, or desires.

It is a conscious entity that is claimed to be the efficient and teleological cause of existence - it is an agent.

and The EIA is of the cosmos, not of this or that aspect. you cannot have an EIA of this or that aspect, because those aspects doesn't exist in isolation and are affected by other factors. For example you can't have an EIA of a house and say everything that happens in this house expresses the intention of a "house god", because whatever happens in the house is influenced by so many factors that lie outside the house. So an EIA automatically has to be all encompassing and about the whole cosmos and not about this or that aspect.

If that were the case then nothing that we currently define as religion would fit your definition. No current 'religion' is capable of giving the explanatory account for the whole cosmos. An explanation that encompasses the entire universe does not exist yet. So, congratulations, you have refuted your own theory.

This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I was just using those examples to differentiate between a causal and intentional account. Ok fine, the wind blows and the door opens is also an example of a causal account.

A causal account without an intentional account. Which is significant here. If causal accounts can exist without intentional accounts then there is no necessity for a phenomenon to provide both in order to be regarded as a religion.

As much variety as you can have within Christianity, there is a common framework that makes all these denominations into Christian denominations. and the theory I provided outlines such a structure

Unfortunately, the structure you provided does not fit all denominations - which means, it has been falsified. You were not able to correctly identify that "common framework". Further, your "common framework" was simply about finding common elements of Christian denominations. Thus, what you gave, if it had been correct, would've been the framework of Christianity, not framework of religion. In case you forgot, you were aiming for the latter.

Oh wait, I forgot, you think that the Abrahamic religions are the only religion, don't you?

[MindForgedManacle]

It's always interesting to me when people go around claiming to have refuted major positions in a discipline or have "a better theory than any on the market". Reminds of the Christian apologist Josh McDowell's massive book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", wherein he claims to have refuted empiricism as a college student. And his apparent refutation was "Empiricism is false because you cannot empirically verify the empirical principle."

I am similar unimpressed by what I'm seeing. o.o

[The Reality Salesman01]

Sounds like something you would defend...being convinced that assumptions are all any of us really have and all that. Right? Please, go on with your theory.

[Michael Schubert]

"To Deny the existence of God is to accept the categories [framework] of monotheism. As these categories fall into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christian God is still a Christian world. Secularism is like chastity, a condition defined by what it denies. If atheism has a future, it can only be in a Christian world.

Atheism is a late bloom of a Christian passion for truth. No Pagan is ready to sacrifice the pleasure of life for the sake of mere truth. The long delayed consequence of Christian faith was an idolatry of truth that found its most complete expression in Atheism."

That part about a secular world that is still a Christian world doesn't make very much sense. How can the world be secular when there are so many different religions in it? I think he means secular government. I don't think atheists necessarily want a secular world (except for the fundamentalist bigots like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins) entirely. The rationalist atheists are respectful of peoples' theistic religions as long as no one interferes with science or secular government. At least, I am.

[The Reality Salesman01]

The rationalist atheists are respectful of peoples' theistic religions as long as no one interferes with science or secular government. At least, I am.

Can you give an example of this? I don't think that such a state of affairs is even remotely achievable. A world where people believe in Gods, worship them, value the life they spend with them after they die more than the one the live and share with the rest of us, and it not effect Government, Science or the independent social affairs of those that think they're full of shit?

Call me a pessimist, but followers of ancient religious texts and secular free thinking societies seem like oil and water. I'd be pleased as punch to see them all go to an island and wipe each other out in the name of their respective Gods. The last nut standing could declare their island in the name of whatever sky-daddy they want and live out the rest of their self-declared insignificant earthly life there away from everyone else. It sounds Win/Win to me, and it also seems like the only way your dream could be actualized.

[Michael Schubert]

Can you give an example of this? I don't think that such a state of affairs is even remotely achievable. A world where people believe in Gods, worship them, value the life they spend with them after they die more than the one the live and share with the rest of us, and it not effect Government, Science or the independent social affairs of those that think they're full of shit?

Call me a pessimist, but followers of ancient religious texts and secular free thinking societies seem like oil and water. I'd be pleased as punch to see them all go to an island and wipe each other out in the name of their respective Gods. The last nut standing could declare their island in the name of whatever sky-daddy they want and live out the rest of their self-declared insignificant earthly life there away from everyone else. It sounds Win/Win to me, and it also seems like the only way your dream could be actualized.

In most cases, I'd agree. However, writer Chris Hedges is a Presbyterian who is exposing the Dominionist movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA_bBrB_TLY