Are you arguing that because it still happens today, it's not primitive? Seems like there's a hidden premise there, that anything contemporary can't be primitive and you defeat that premise yourself in the definition that you quoted - ": of, belonging to, or seeming to come from an early time in the very ancient past".

In fact there are many primitive behaviours and instincts that we still exhibit 'today'. I think that a belief in deities is just one of them.

I'm not ignoring anything, certainly not the highly complex philosophical arguments for and against the existence of deities. They don't change that the behaviour itself could be primitive in it's origins.

Let me see if I understand you. Let's take God out of the discussion since that seems to change the game somehow.

I consider the model of chemistry proposing four elements ie. earth, air, fire and water to be a primitive view of matter that I do not find to be very useful. Do you consider that "deeply ironic"? After all, the current model of matter is almost surely going to be superseded at some point in the future.


I do not believe that you are curious. If I react negatively to you it is because your tone appears to be condescending. I believe that you actually consider yourself intellectually superior because of your atheism and that your goal in these discussions is to belittle the theists that appear here. Yet I find your insights lacking or shallow at best. The juxtaposition of those two elements brings out the worst in me, I'm afraid.

I wish I had your knack for analogies, RLK.

I'm assuming MB would consider the belief in the current model of Chemistry comparatively primitive once it's been replaced (assuming the change is dramatic enough). Basically, RLK considers the (1) earth, air, fire and water model primitive given his (2) current understanding. Should a (3) dramatic shift be made he might consider (2) to be primitive. Now, working under a similar framework, from MB's view it would go (1) Thor, etc. to (2) Christianity to (3) atheism. Thus, from MB's perspective RLK has a primitive belief as it has already been replaced by a better model.

Probably, but its not ironic, is it?

RLK has his "best guess" view of the world, whilst acknowledging it may well be superseded in the future (explicitly wrt chemistry and I suspect he'd concede his religious views might become more sophisticated over time too). There's nothing ironic about declaring what's come before "primitive". (I mean maybe if he was a "my god is the one true god" kind of guy. But he pretty clearly isn't).

I thought it was a good analogy.

Dunno. If RLK were operating under today's 2014 understanding of Chemistry in the year 3000 (assuming a dramatic shift) and was dismissing some earlier model for being primitive, a person operating under year 3000 understanding might indeed find that ironic if he found RLK's view sufficiently primitive.

It doesn't really make for much of a discussion before we know that RLK's religion (as in specific beliefs) is and what claims it makes/implies.

However, if MB are making some trendwise observations then it isn't necessarily so that one man's belief prove him wrong, though it should make him tone down the blanket statements.

However things like "religion is dumb" is... well... pretty dumb.

Look, I'm more than happy to put previous animosities/tensions behind us in order to benefit from discussions we may have. I don't come here to get into flame wars, I can do that on youtube (which I don't btw), I come here to learn. That my posting style might hold me back in that is something I'm aware of and am trying to change. This is an example of that, I'm holding out an olive branch here. If you speak to me in a civil tone, I'll respond in kind.

Believe me that's the last attitude I adopt when I'm posting here. I'll admit to taking a snarky tone with you ITT, but that's because of the way you spoke to me in the thread about charity work. It's a vicious circle, let's break the cycle.

Not at all the case. I'm quite clearly intellectually inferior to several of the theist posters here. It doesn't even tweak my pride to admit that, I was a philosophy fish, now I'm consciously incompetent. I consider that progress.

Ok, perhaps in this context they're often shallow and lacking), I want to address that.

Now, all that out of the way (and hopefully done with), this is my response to what we're discussing:

Not really because I'm not talking about having a more sophisticated version of an explanation. I'm talking about it having been realised that the original explanation, and the more sophisticated version of it was complete wrong in the first place, and there's a completely new and different explanation.

I don't know if this is accurate or not because I'm not a Quantum Physicist but it might be similar to you holding a view on matter, and looking back on the Earth Fire Water thing as primitive because you have current sophisticated theories of matter actually being made up of atoms, but I'm looking at both theories and thinking that they're a completely outdated and redundant approach to explaining the universe because in fact there is no such thing as matter, there's only quantum strings and the effect that they have as they interact with each other and the quantum foam. What we have previously perceived as matter, or gravity, are actually second order effects of quantum mechanics and not even what we thought they were at all. So, both earth fire water AND atomic theories, are primitive and incorrect views on the laws of physics and the physical reality of the universe.

Because I don't believe in deities, and because I consider them to be a primitive explanation for what we observe, I don't consider a more sophisticated version of deities existing to be anything other than a more sophisticated version of an incorrect theory. That's the source of the irony comment (which I now wish I hadn't made), that you consider belief in Norse gods to be primitive, while I consider the belief in ALL gods to be primitive.

It's not about smart and dumb. Both camps have plenty of both types. (Resist the temptation that I've no doubt you just felt)

However, you might be a genius with the most sophisticated theory anyone's ever heard for why the tooth fairy IS real , (I'm just trying to use an example that we'd all agree isn't real), and consider previous versions of tooth fairy theories to be primitive, but it wouldn't change that the tooth fairy isn't actually real and it's actually parents who take the teeth and leave the money.

I think a lot of atheists are of the opinion that a belief in gods (as well as religions) is steeped in a primitive viewpoint. Especially if they are the type who agree that there used to be a much stronger case for god and religion in the past.

I've come to realize that I don't debate theists because I care what they believe. Rather, I engage with them to fight for modernity. I want to promote current science, the acceptance of evolution, that being gay doesn't make you evil, that women are equals who are not to be possessed or opressed, that a 3 day old fetus does not have a soul, that brain dead equals dead, and so on. To me, these are all terribly primitive views to hold. And while you don't have to be religious to hold them, you are much more likely to be if you do.

I don't like to sound condescending. Especially to people like RLK who I respect. But it's hard not to sometimes and the choice must often be made whether to leave an important albeit barbed point by the side of the road, or to call it as you see it. If you're religious or believe in gods, I think you're a participant in a primitive way of thinking. Sorry if that's condescending, but that's how I see it.

Your analogy is horrible. Religion is not analogous to belief in the tooth fairy.

This is missing the point that I was making. I'll try again with a (hopefully) more illustrative analogy;

Imagine you watched a street magician fool an audience with a slight of hand trick. You hear one observer explain what they observed as a form of pixie magic, and old system of belief in magic. A second observer states that it was indeed magic but that pixie magic is a primitive and outdated viewpoint and that they have a much more sophisticated explanation for how the laws of magic really work.

You might consider that they're both victims of primitive thinking because you don't believe in magic, you don't believe that it's ever existed and you have a completely different explanation for how the magician did what he did that doesn't involve magic at all.

If the second person tried to assure you that their more sophisticated version of the magic theory wasn't primitive, would you be swayed?

I think you are correct here in that for the irony comment to have validity MB would have to understand my views in detail and have a case for them being primitive. Given his reaction when challenged, he obviously does not. The assertion that theism is primitive a priori without any consideration of the specifics of the theistic view is not coherent imo. Being an old idea broadly speaking does not make all theistic philosophy primitive. There are old and primitive atheistic cultures also, so neither view has an inherent claim to superiority.

OK.


The thing that seems to happen all too often is the equating of theism to a belief in a specific God. I am a theist, but I do not assert that I know the nature of God. I consider the belief in a specific God to be unjustifiable. We simply cannot know and understand that much detail about something that is conceptually more complex than the universe. For that reason, statements like the bold simply do not address the question properly.

I think that religion was used for the purpose of explaining how the universe worked. Obviously that was a failure in judgment. I would call it a primitive failure in judgment, because I think that with sufficient philosophical advancement it can be seen to be flawed.

I think there are a lot of theists who would agree with you on most of this. I certainly do with the exception of the bold. I would examine that a little. At some risk of being correctly accused of presumption, I would assert that that is not a correct statement of what you believe. I suspect that you believe that no one has a soul. I probably do not have a good grip on how an atheist decides on who's life is worth protecting, but it is fundamentally different than how a theist approaches that question. Everywhere else I think we could probably hash through an approach that would be acceptable to us both. On that one point, it is probably not going to happen. But this is not a primitive versus sophisticated view. This is a fundamental question of what is at the heart of humanity. It is not an easy question and there is no clear answer so labeling a view that is different from yours as primitive is not justified.

Your comment was not offensive and I appreciate your comment. Simply stating that you think that I hold a primitive view with some explanation of that opinion is just discussion. What touched me off with the "deep irony" comment is that it implies that the person commenting completely understands my point of view, and in fact understands it better that me so that he can see an inconsistency with other comments that I have made that I cannot see.

But MB has expressed regret at having used that phrase, so I am willing to let that drop from here on out. I just wanted to explain a little.

I may be getting you mixed up with someone else, but I seem to remember you asserting that we could know what do , or how to behave, or how god wants us to behave. If you dont know the nature of god, and you dont believe in a specifc god, then how can you know what he wants? Apologies if I am mixing you up with someone else

Your memory is accurate. I did say something like that, but it was within the context of possibilities if one operates under the assumption that there is a God. I was itemizing the effect of prayer and meditation under different scenarios. In the scenario that God is benevolent and that specific behaviors are expected, one could expect God to provide guidance to someone who sincerely seeks it.

Ridiculous.

You really need to get out more.

Hard to do, since I'm rarely in now. Exactly what do you find ridiculous?

True. But even if I were to concede that souls exist, we'd still have (what I feel), is a huge problem. When is the soul inserted? Is it at the moment of fertilization? Most pregnancies end in abortion. Not by human hands, but of natural causes (or would you say at the hands of god?). Does a fertilized egg have a soul and go to heaven if it doesn't make it to term?

And there is also the problem (if you accept evolution, which I'm sure you do), of when the soul was inserted into our species. If you understand evolution (which again, I assume you do (and I'm going to assume that I know enough about it too, which might be incorrect)), then you know that there wasn't a *first* human. Rather, our species developed gradually. So at what point did humans start having souls?

So you are right. I don't believe in souls regardless, but it should be noted that these are two of the reason why. It just doesn't seem logically consistent with my understanding of how things work. There are other reasons, but I can't discount these two.

This is one of the most difficult questions for me (as an atheist) to answer. There is just no good answer for when in the gestation process a fetus should be termed a human being. And I don't think science has a good answer yet either. If pressed, I'd have to go with the line of thinking that no one has the "right" to live at the expense of another person's body. That would mean a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy right up to the time of birth. Of course, this conflicts with my own sense of morality and causes me great grief, because clearly a fetus is a human and can survive well before actual birth. But it's what I have to go with to remain what I feel is logically consistent. Otherwise, I'd have to say no to 100% of abortions at any time during pregnancy and I definitely don't feel that can't be right. So yeah... This is an incredibly hard question for me to answer and causes me moral conflict as an atheist. It certainly would be easier to believe in god and just say never to abortion. I just don't think that's right either.

I agree. And the only thing I call primitive is when someone gives precedence to commonly accepted views from 2000 years ago over what we know today. We probably agree on a lot of what falls into this category such as evolution and much of science. Our main difference is that I consider belief in an all powerful invisible deity as primitive, while I'm sure you don't. And that's the thing... I think most reasonable atheists and theists agree more than they disagree. It's just that the disagreements are the big issues that won't be reconciled any time soon if ever.

The problem of understanding details is not a problem. Scientists currently understand very little about dark matter/dark energy, but they're quite content with its existence (observed in primarily indirect ways).

So even we don't have a precise mechanism for things like the existence of the first soul, or when a soul is created, or whatever, it's not immediately a "huge problem."

You're welcome to hold the position "If I don't understand it, then it must not be real." But you ought to search harder for better reasons than that. Notice that your objections were not about logical inconsistencies but rather an insufficiency of understanding. It is not logically inconsistent for there to exist a first soul. It is not logically inconsistent to not know the precise moment at which souls are created.

If there were a god like that, there would be a lot fewer atheists.

Aaron, that's a reasonable argument, but let's get one thing out of the way first...

This is not a good analogy, since the existence of dark matter isn't in question. We know for a fact it exists through measurements. We just don't know exactly what it is. So I have to reject the comparison.

Perhaps, but just feel the need to reiterate the point that we do have a precise mechanism for detecting the existence of dark matter.

I wholeheartedly agree that an argument from incredulity is not a good reason to believe something else must be true. But does this mean it's also insufficient for not believing something to be true? I don't know. I'll have to think about this some more.

My main point was that it was inconsistent with what I know about evolution and embryology. It's not that I can't figure out how a soul could exist, but rather, that I know how species and embryos develop and there's no logical insertion point for one. At least not logical for me. If you care to make an argument or clarify how god determined when to insert the soul, I'm all ears and could easily change my mind.

You seem to be saying that, "I do not see any other way the universe could have came into existence, therefore god" and... "I cannot make sense of when souls are inserted into human embryos, therefore I cannot believe in souls", have the same flaw. I'm not sure that's true, but I could be wrong about that.

Lastly, remember I did say that these were only two of the reasons I don't believe in souls. But if you could correct me on the above, I'll have two less reasons to be skeptical.

I may as well answer this too. It's not that I don't know the precise moment which souls are created that I find bothersome. It's the 50% of pregnancies that result in miscarriage. This happens before most women even know they're pregnant. I feel this does in fact present a problem of logical consistency at least in the way most Christians (that I've talked to) define a soul. They do not think 50% of heaven is filled with 5 day old embryonic souls. So to my mind, this needs to be reconciled before I can develop a belief in their existence.

You ought to stare at these sentences for a while and really try to understand what you're saying.

1) "It" definitely exists because we've measured "it".
2) We don't know what "it" is.

People who believe in the existence of the soul have an even more fundamental connection to "it" than the types of measurements that science can provide. So even though one could say that we don't really know what "it" is, it can be said that "it" definitely exists because we've all experienced "it."

You're putting a lot of weight on simply having created a label for "it." For example, we all understand that there is such a thing as the "placebo effect" despite the fact that there's no known mechanism which creates it and no meaningful way to predict it. It's just a label for a thing that we understand happens.

Don't use the word "logical" unless you're really sure that you mean it. Throwing around the word "inconsistent" with the word "logical" puts you in a bad spot. It is *NOT* actually inconsistent with either evolution or embryology if there is such a thing as a soul.

As for evolution, there is no "logic" for the creation of novel features. It's not like evolution "decides" to "insert" a soul for some reason. I'm less sure what your objection would be with embryology, but I see no reason why there's a logical inconsistency with the existence of the soul and welcome you to articulate why it would be logically problematic for the sould to exist.

There are people who believe in the existence of a soul without believing in the existence of God. So that's not really a problem. But notice how you've changed the structure of your argument a bit. If it's a logical inconsistency, then you ought not be persuaded by some other argument.

I have not mentioned God once.

I'm correcting you in the sense that you've presented it as being logically inconsistent with those things, and that's simply not true.

They may not think 50% of heaven is filled with 5 day old "embryonic souls" but that could be more of a problem of their conception of heaven than their conception of a soul. What I would suggest is that you're creating a fairly arbitrary barrier to your belief in the existence of a soul. Suppose a Christian were to consent that 50% of heaven consists of "embryonic souls." Would you suddenly feel better about believing in souls? Probably not.

You might want to probe those Christians further, as I'm not quite sure that they "define" a soul in a way that allows your statements to make sense.

I haven't read this book, but the author was on the Dogma Debate podcast recently, and he expanded on the definition of faith as being (from memory) believing something to be true when there is insufficient evidence. Equivocation is quite a problem when the topic of faith comes up, and even those that use the word do not seem to agree on it's meaning. But imo, the reason skeptics would say it is worth a discussion is only when it is used in that context. After all, when faith appears in the Bible, it does get linked to hope, and wishes, and unseen evidence, and certainly some (many?) Christians use the word faith to mean the way they came to their beliefs because of the unprovable nature of God. In fact, if a Christian claims that the existence of God can be proven to be true, you will see other Christians counter-comment that this would negate the requirement of faith in their belief, which they would claim to be a paramount aspect.