Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 1 of 577 (553302)
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, primarily, what is an atheists fundamental starting point, and is this starting point valid? To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
This topic would primarily focus on the philosophical implications of the underlying belief of a given worldview, and would basically avoid scientific evidence, not because of fear that the evidence will support a given worldview over another, but because it is hard for the facts to convince someone that their worldview is wrong, because those facts are interpreted in different ways depending on that particular person's underlying philosophy. So this battle is a battle of the underlying assumptions of theism and atheism.
And lastly, this discussion will not be fought from a neutral standpoint, for two primary reasons.
1. The Bible commands us not to. (Matt. 7:24,26; Matt. 12:30; Rom. 14:23; Heb. 11:6)
2. Neutrality is ultimately impossible.
I will not go in to detail to explain why neutrality is impossible, but statement #2 rests on the fact that atheists (who claim to be neutral) are in no way neutral, and if they were neutral, they could not believe anything.
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise, and why do you believe in these entities? This question is, of course, directed towards atheists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 04-02-2010 5:25 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 4 by DC85, posted 04-02-2010 5:43 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 5:48 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2010 5:53 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 6:05 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 04-02-2010 6:08 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2010 6:10 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 11 by CosmicChimp, posted 04-02-2010 6:20 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 15 by hooah212002, posted 04-02-2010 7:06 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2010 7:30 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2010 7:58 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2010 8:26 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2010 12:15 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 33 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 12:30 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 56 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 2:44 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 57 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 2:47 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 213 by dwise1, posted 04-27-2010 11:25 PM sac51495 has replied

AdminSlev
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-28-2010


Message 2 of 577 (553305)
04-02-2010 5:13 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Underlying Philosophy thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 577 (553306)
04-02-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


sac51495 writes:
what is an atheists fundamental starting point
As far as I can tell, there is no fundamental starting point for atheists - unless you want to say that being born is a fundamental starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 4 of 577 (553308)
04-02-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


Welcome
this topic would primarily focus on the philosophical implications of the underlying belief of a given worldview, and would basically avoid scientific evidence, not because of fear that the evidence will support a given worldview over another, but because it is hard for the facts to convince someone that their worldview is wrong, because those facts are interpreted in different ways depending on that particular person's underlying philosophy. So this battle is a battle of the underlying assumptions of theism and atheism.
I don't think you can find a fully philosophical explanation of morals or beliefs from people who don't have beliefs. I have little choice but to point toward science for explanations.
I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism
There is none... atheist is simply defined as "not theist" or rather a person who doesn't have belief in a god or gods. This covers variety of people .
laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
Evolution explains some ideas that we hold as morals such as the sense of fairness. Not killing or stealing I would also point toward evolution as most social animals also instinctually "know. " not to do these things because it would cause problems in the social group. obviously it wouldn't be in the best interest of an individual to kill others who it depends on.
Here is a study done that shows monkeys have a sense of fairness of treatment.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html
Most other morals can be subjective however I personally look at it this way.
Immoral: Anything that causes any kind of pain or suffering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:45 PM DC85 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 5 of 577 (553309)
04-02-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


Evolution of Brains?
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise, and why do you believe in these entities?
Entities seems to be the wrong word if we are talking about logic, morality etc. but I think I get what you mean.
I guess the short answer is that human concepts of things like logic and morality are the result of human brains evolving in the natural world. The universe (esp at the macroscopic scale we experience it) seems to operate in a consistent and logical manner. We need to be able to think logically to understand that world around us in even the most basic sense. What would an illogical world look like and how could a thinking creature survive in it? I am not even sure we can imagine such a thing really.
The evolutionary origins of morality are similarly rooted in having evolved in the natural world. The natural world consisting of our fellow humans and our evolution as a social species.
Is this the sort of thing you meant?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:58 PM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 577 (553311)
04-02-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


sac51495 writes:
I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, primarily, what is an atheists fundamental starting point,
What is the underlying philosophy of atheism? None.
What is an atheist's fundamental starting point? Birth.
sac51495 writes:
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities.
No.
sac writes:
Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
One doesn't need to know that or have any opinion on it in order to be an atheist. You managed fine before you first heard of the idea of a god, and before you started to believe in one.
sac writes:
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise,......
In my opinion (I can't speak for other atheists) laws of logic, ethics and morals are made by us.
and why do you believe in these entities? This question is, of course, directed towards atheists.
Because we've made them, therefore they exist in the sense that ideas exist. Did you mean "believe" or "agree"?
But the most important point is that there isn't an "underlying philosophy of atheism" itself. Different atheists may have very different philosophies, or no philosophy at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:13 PM bluegenes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 577 (553313)
04-02-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


I smell Van Tillian presuppositionalism. True, natural laws are missing from the list of the usual suspects, but the refusal to accept even the possiiblity of a neutral position is all too typical.
Let me start by pointing out that atheism is not a worldview. At most it is a belief, and by some definitions it need not even be that. It is a feature of a worldview, not a worldview in itself.
The laws of logic are easily explained without invoking a God. They are simply semantic rules, formalisations of basic concepts embedded in language, that enhance our ability to reason. By applying these stricter rules to our statements we can tease out the details implicit in them.
Explaining why we would possibly need a God for logic to apply is a rather more difficult task. So, perhaps sac54195 can explain why he believes that is true and how his worldview accounts for logic.
(I am hoping that - unlike every other presuppositionalist I have debated with - he will not evade that issue).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:39 PM PaulK has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 8 of 577 (553314)
04-02-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


no belief
I will not go in to detail to explain why neutrality is impossible, but statement #2 rests on the fact that atheists (who claim to be neutral) are in no way neutral, and if they were neutral, they could not believe anything.
Which is basically why a great many atheists, myself included, literally believe nothing. We accept that which has evidence and reject that which doesn't. Today's evidence can be changed and with it would go our acceptance. You cannot rule our science saying that it taints the worldview when science the the most important part to a secular worldview, not only to atheists but to agnostics, deists & many moderate theists. Neutral is such that anything for which evidence is lacking but has some positive points leaves only one alternative, skepticism. Acceptance or rejection will come when further evidence is found to either substantiate or debunk the hypothesis.
As for morals, what do deities have to do with morals when what is considered moral today may be considered immoral tomorrow. At one time slavery was considered moral in this country, so was keeping women as second class citizens, today both of these would be considered immoral by anyone who is not a delusioned bigot.
Edited by bluescat48, : sp

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 9 of 577 (553315)
04-02-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


Hi Sac, welcome to EvC!
I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, primarily, what is an atheists fundamental starting point, and is this starting point valid?
Well, as has been mentioned, this question itself follows from a false premise: that all or even most atheists arrive at atheism for the same reasons.
Atheism casts an extremely broad net. There are some atheists who believe in the supernatural, simply not deities. There are atheists who think that deities are impossible; there are others who are simply not convinced that deities exist.
There are even atheist religions - Buddhism is perhaps the larges one around today, but various forms of animism and nature worship don't believe in gods.
It's simply not possible to ask what the "underlying philosophy of atheism" is, because there is nothing that ties atheists together aside from a lack of belief in deities.
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
How could these "entities" arise in a Universe that is governed by a deity?
Etics and morality are human constructs. We make them up, based on our own personal and cultural values. That's why so many cultures hold such different taboos - you and I might think cannibalism is reprehensibly immoral, but there are other cultures where this is not the case. Morality does not exist outside of the mind - it's something we make up so that society can function, and so that we can all live safer, happier, healthier lives than if we were all completely amoral.
Note that children are not born with morality. It's something they learn. They have no sense of "property," for example, and so taking and sharing mean nothing to them until they are taught by their parents.
There are many different ethical systems:
One is Authoritarianism - an Authority dictates what is "good" and what is "bad," and that's that. Think the Ten Commandments and the Jewish Law. YHWH, in this case, acts as the Authority. If he says murder is bad, then it's bad. But then if he says to kill your son as a blood sacrifice, killing your son is good.
Another is Utilitarianism - the relative "good" or "bad" of an action depends on its net effects in terms of harm or benefit. For instance, killing my neighbor would do him (and society) harm, and so it would be "bad." Donating to charity helps individuals and society as a whole significantly by harming myself slightly, and so it is "good." Utilitarian ethics is all about trying to maximize the benefit while minimizing harm done.
There are many others. Sometimes they arrive at the same conclusions (both Christian Authoritarians and Utilitarians would agree that murder is bad, for instance) for completely different reasons. There is no singular "entity" we can objectively identify as "morality" or "ethics."
This topic would primarily focus on the philosophical implications of the underlying belief of a given worldview, and would basically avoid scientific evidence, not because of fear that the evidence will support a given worldview over another, but because it is hard for the facts to convince someone that their worldview is wrong, because those facts are interpreted in different ways depending on that particular person's underlying philosophy. So this battle is a battle of the underlying assumptions of theism and atheism.
There is no basic underlying assumption to atheism, any more than there is a basic uderlying assumption to simply not believing in Santa Claus.
Do you believe in Thor, as an acutal living deity? I presume not. Does your lack of belief rest on some "underlying assumption" that Thor must not exist? Or are you simply not convinced due to lack of supporting evidence?
And lastly, this discussion will not be fought from a neutral standpoint, for two primary reasons.
1. The Bible commands us not to. (Matt. 7:24,26; Matt. 12:30; Rom. 14:23; Heb. 11:6)
2. Neutrality is ultimately impossible.
I will not go in to detail to explain why neutrality is impossible, but statement #2 rests on the fact that atheists (who claim to be neutral) are in no way neutral, and if they were neutral, they could not believe anything.
...if you're not going to talk about it, why bring it up? I'll just respond by saying I don't accept any of what you just said here. Perhaps you'd like to open a different topic to discuss those issues, since you don't want to talk about them here?
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise, and why do you believe in these entities? This question is, of course, directed towards atheists.
"Abstract entities" like morality and ethics do not exist as objective entities at all. In other words, there is no ethical system that exists outside of the human mind; moral judgments are always subjective, and are the result of an individual's judgment and personal system of ethics. Marrying a 12-year-old is reprehensible on our society, but it is accepted in some societies, and was commonplace in even Western society in the past. Homosexuality is decried as a horrific crime by some groups, while other groups consider it to be perfectly normal and healthy.
Why would we assume that such things need to come from a deity? We as human beings seem to be perfectly capable of making them up on our own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 6:17 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 30 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:19 AM Rahvin has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 577 (553317)
04-02-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
04-02-2010 6:10 PM


Origins Of Logic
You covered morality but I am interested to know your thoughts on the origins of logic (or I would say - the origins of the human concept of logic). Which was the other "entity" mentioned specifically in the OP aside from morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2010 6:10 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2010 6:26 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 04-02-2010 6:54 PM Straggler has not replied

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 11 of 577 (553318)
04-02-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
Is this an evidence list for the presence of god(s)? If it is then you have no faith. Faith is a blind faith - faith in the absence of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:27 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 577 (553320)
04-02-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
04-02-2010 6:17 PM


Re: Origins Of Logic
You covered morality but I am interested to know your thoughts on the origins of logic (or I would say - the origins of the human concept of logic). Which was the other "entity" mentioned specifically in the OP aside from morality.
Logic is essentially just a formalized way of telling whether a statement is consistent. I don't think that logic "exists" as some sort of "entity" outside of a human mind. I consider it more like mathematics - a human concept that simply serves to represent aspects of reality.
I don't see how a deity is required to establish that if a statement contains two mutually exclusive concepts, that statement is not consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 6:17 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:33 AM Rahvin has not replied

hotjer
Member (Idle past 4544 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 13 of 577 (553321)
04-02-2010 6:26 PM


The term "atheism" might be misleading in the first place. Atheism is not an actually a -ism, but we referer to that term because people, hopefully, know what it indicates.
if you ask an atheist, agnostic or any other person who does not believe in a moral/ethic giving God, such thing as morals and ethics are regarded as social matters.
To explain it with a simplified example:
If only one person exists in the world, such thing as moral og ethic that regards human, are irrelevant. But as soon as we have more than one person, we might talk about what is right and wrong to do to each other. Therefore, atleast I think, morals and ethics are social matters.
Some might speculate about such thing as suicide: is it social matters? I think the answer is yes, mostly; you do not want close people to commit suicide.
But basicly, atheism do not work under any assumptions other than atheist might think that they cannot deny God but need evidence the existence of such "thing", the idea of God is unlikely, or to denying the existence of God. Somewhere between these two poles. Just if really want to find some sort of assumptions.
At "worst", atheists assume one thing. But as its core, atheists do not assume anything sicne: what is the idea of God anyways?

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 14 of 577 (553325)
04-02-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
04-02-2010 6:17 PM


Re: Origins Of Logic
Straggler writes:
You covered morality but I am interested to know your thoughts on the origins of logic (or I would say - the origins of the human concept of logic).
Kinda anti-climatic. But I think the origins of logic are based in trial and error.
People have sought answers in many ways:
-relying on authority
-relying on majority
-relying on personal gut feeling
-relying on logic alone
-relying on logic based on objective evidence found in reality
Each has varying levels of difficulty to grasp and use and varying success.
I don't think logic was "discovered" as it was more "stumbled upon" as people realized what didn't work...
Still doesn't really answer the question very well, but I felt like rambling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 6:17 PM Straggler has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 15 of 577 (553327)
04-02-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


the underlying philosophy of atheism.
What is the underlying philosophy of people who don't collect baseball cards?
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities.
In a nutshell: we are a social species and want to further our kind. It does mankind a world of good to treat each other with respect in order to attain that goal.
1 man alone will be ripped to shreds by Earth.
A group of humans can tame the land and benefit from it.
because it is hard for the facts to convince someone that their worldview is wrong, because those facts are interpreted in different ways depending on that particular person's underlying philosophy.
Facts are facts. They are not swayed by opinion. You are entitled to believe, for example, that the earth is flat. You would be wrong, of course, no matter what your underlying philosophy is, due to the facts we have learned of that tell us otherwise.
(just note that I strictly used the flat earth as example material only. I do not intend to drag this discussion on a neverending journey about the flat earth)
1. The Bible commands us not to. (Matt. 7:24,26; Matt. 12:30; Rom. 14:23; Heb. 11:6)
I, personally, don't give a shit what "the" bible says. It also says to kill your children if they misbehave/backtalk, but we don't do that, do we?
I will not go in to detail to explain why neutrality is impossible, but statement #2 rests on the fact that atheists (who claim to be neutral) are in no way neutral, and if they were neutral, they could not believe anything.
Atheism doesn't believe anything. An atheist individual may choose to believe in something, but not due to his/her atheism.
Perhaps i would point out that in my opinion, staunch atheism is almost as surreal as the position of staunch religiosity, in that you claim to be absolutely certain of something which we, as humans with our current knowledge, are unable to be certain of. This is why there are so many levels of atheism and agnosticism.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024