New York Times Opinionator - On Dawkins’s Atheism: A Response - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

What I'm concerned with is describing the philosophical commitments of atheism. That means, what is it that someone must believe (or not believe) in order to be an atheist?

In terms of what we do and do not believe, I'd break it down as follows:

1. The theist,
1.1. holds the belief: God is, necessarily.
1.2. does not hold the belief: God is not, necessarily or possibly.

2. The atheist,
2.1. holds the belief: God is not, necessarily.
2.2. does not hold the belief: God is, necessarily or possibly.

3. The agnostic,
3.1 does not hold the belief: God is, necessarily or possibly.
3.2 does not hold the belief: God is not, necessarily or possibly.

4. The possibilist,
4.1 holds the belief: God is, possibly.
4.2 holds the belief: God is not, possibly.

Quote

08-22-2010 , 05:42 PM

#127

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffe

Well, you can define these terms this way if you want. I think it is very misleading, but whatever. For instance, I am a "possibilist" on your account. I also believe 5.1 "God is not, actually." I also imagine that many agnostics think that God possibly doesn't exist and many other "possibilists" belief "God is, actually."

Quote

08-22-2010 , 10:09 PM

#128

duffe

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1,306

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I think it's misleading because most atheists hold more worldviews than simply atheism. An adherent/believer of naturalism does not hold the belief that (2.1.) God is, necessarily or possibly, and can logically hold the belief that (2.2.) God is not, necessarily. Consequently, a believer in naturalism is an atheist in the same manner as a believer in Catholicism is a theist.

Quote

08-22-2010 , 11:04 PM

#129

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by duffe

What do you mean by "possibly" and "necessary"?

Quote

08-22-2010 , 11:30 PM

#130

duffe

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1,306

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

What do you mean by "possibly" and "necessary"?

modal operators.

Quote

08-23-2010 , 11:21 AM

#131

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Actually - I didn't quote Descartes. I twisted his expression humorously, because Descartian philosophy has done enormous damage to the field of psychology.

If you didn't assume my knowledge of European philosophy was at the level of a highschool freshman, this particular side "debate" would not be needed.

Or if you would actually explain what specifically you're referring to and how you know these things...

Quote:

I'm asserting that saying X models objective reality as an argument for or against X is meaningless.

I don't think it is very deep claim...it's actually fairly basic, and both you and Aaron seem like intelligent enough people to understand it just fine...so I would wish for you two to move on and disagree with it and explain why.

The reason I disagree with this is foundational. We don't agree on the terms of the conversation. It's like two people discussing a painting. You're saying, "It's an oil painting" and I'm saying "It's a painting of a donkey."

You don't care about the donkey, you just want to focus on the brush strokes. You want to say that you can 'understand' (in some sense) by simply knowing more and more about the methods and the materials, and I'm saying that this approach will miss a lot of the information that's actually available.

Quote

08-24-2010 , 03:47 AM

#132

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Or if you would actually explain what specifically you're referring to and how you know these things...

Throw in repeating myself every 2 minutes and I could be an American talkshow host.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I don't see any problem in focusing on the donkey, or the universe for that matter (physics is the true science after all).

However somebody saying "Ceci n'est pas une ane", when looking at a painting of a donkey is often forgetting that a donkey as they experience it, is in itself a representation.

And if you want to discuss representation, then you do so by representation. This isn't very difficult to understand or complicated to do...computer programmers do this all the time.

Quote

08-24-2010 , 03:51 AM

#133

we're all fishes

banned

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 454

In an interview recently, Dawkins said that if he does become "religious" it would not be him, but the drugs (for treating cancer not psychedelics) in him causing him to do that. This certainly weakens his stance.

Quote

08-24-2010 , 09:23 AM

#134

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by we're all fishes

That was Hitchens. What he was saying is that if you hear him talking about finding god or religion as his illness worsens, its because he would be delusional from the medications, and that it would not be his well reasoned, concious opinions.

I'm not sure why you would find the comments to have weakened his stance on atheism/

Quote

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last