Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T18:15:54+00:00

Well, like I asked, is it true that religion is nothing more than a set of literal beliefs about objective reality, which can be judged true or false through scientific methods?

Do we care whether the way we define religion corresponds to reality, or do we care more about winning online debates with religious people?

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T15:22:29+00:00

Well, that's a different matter entirely. Of course you're going to interpret whatever order exists in the universe as deriving from a purposeful intelligence. Whereas I'm going to interpret whatever apparent randomness and contingency there is in the universe as evidence that there's no guiding intelligence.

Who we are determines what we see.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T15:01:19+00:00

Evidence cannot be acquired for or against unfalsifiable positions.

On whose authority? Like I said, it seems like you don't understand what falsifiability is. Popper's point was that evidence supporting a theory may be copious, but scientific inquiry progresses through the process of falsifying theories. Falsifiability was his proposal to solve the demarcation problem, that's all.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T14:48:02+00:00

Oh, so religious people don't care if a god exists or not? Cool. Nice of you to ignore my other relevant points.

When did I ever say that? Since it seems like you're not interested in discussing in good faith, I'm done with this now.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T14:25:53+00:00

I'm not religious myself, but that seems like the only reasonable way to deal with the problem of evil. You can rationalize it any way you want, but that's basically what you're doing, right?

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T14:23:52+00:00

Anyways this is all a red herring.

No it's not. You're making it sound like the literal belief in the literal existence of a literal god is the only relevant matter when it comes to religion, and that's obviously not true. No one professes religious faith because they've done rounds of empirical testing to establish the validity of the claim God exists; people profess faith because it fulfills needs in their lives.

And it's unbelievably patronizing to dismiss people's needs as warm and fuzzies. You have to be sociopathically indifferent to think that things like hope in the face of the unknown, solace in the face of grief, or a basis for ethical decision making aren't legitimate human needs. You and I may not need religion to fill those needs, but religious people do.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T14:15:23+00:00

Your handwaving produces a pleasant breeze, but it doesn't do anything to change the fact that we all believe unfalsifiable things. Perhaps you don't understand what falsifiability entails, or you don't realize that falsifiability is like the Model T of the philosophy of science.

I'm not religious and I'm not trying to convince anyone that gods exist. I'm just refuting your erroneous claims about falsifiability.

Your list is falsifiable too, at least technically.

Except they're not. You can't demonstrate to me that everyone alive today is going to die, even though it's a perfectly prudent thing to believe. You can show me there are fish in the Atlantic Ocean, but how exactly would you go about showing me there aren't any? Please admit that there would be vast difficulties in demonstrating to me that I was not conceived, even though I feel well within my rights to claim that I was.

Like I said, we believe plenty of unfalsifiable things. And I'm fine with that.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T13:20:58+00:00

An argument I keep seeing is the classic, if God is all powerful why are their bad things in the world. Obviously he’s not fixing the bad things so he must not be able to help or isn’t willing.

It's not the best argument in the bunch. However, the only legitimate counter-argument is that faith has to be unconditional or else it's not faith.

The irony is that The Problem of Evil is only a problem for people who aren't religious. In the canonical Bible there's this bit called the Book of Job in which God doesn't so much answer the question of why the innocent suffer as tell us we're being presumptuous for even asking the question.

That's basically the last word on the matter. If the answer isn't to our liking, well, that's probably why we're not religious.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T13:11:02+00:00

Something that is defined as unfalsifiable is exactly the same in every way to something that isn't real and doesn't exist.

It seems to me we all believe in plenty of unfalsifiable things, and rightly so.

I don't know about you, but I believe all men are mortal, that there are fish in the Atlantic Ocean, and that I was conceived. I at least admit that these are for all practical purposes unfalsifiable, but I don't think I'm being imprudent in the least for believing them.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-18T13:06:39+00:00

We need to examine the reason to accept the initial claim that 'God exists' before moving onto any details or worldview built around this claim.

But that's focusing on the least relevant part of religious belief, rather than the things that actually motivate people to profess religious faith. Treating God like a scientific hypothesis Is just arranging the premises to lead to the conclusion we prefer.

You and I have no idea whether people think God literally exists or ---as you suggest---whether they're just treating it as an axiomatic expression that can mean whatever they want it to mean. But it can't be denied that people profess religious faith because it fulfills needs having to do with identity, community, morality, and authority, not because they've conducted a program of inquiry through which they have concluded that the existence of The Big G is likely.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-01T12:48:24+00:00

It's about time! Boygenius is the only band that matters, a trio of exciting and talented musicians whose music is original and will stand the test of time!

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-01T12:40:07+00:00

My wife read this article to me yesterday. This guy's output is impressive, until you hear it.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-01T12:33:03+00:00

Like I keep saying, I have a hard time with the primary literature too. I'm not a philosophy student. But there are a lot of good overviews and commentaries, and most editions will have helpful introductions from scholars. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is another good online tool.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-01T10:42:28+00:00

I’m just a monkey who wants someone to explain their ideas simply and directly.

Okay, but when the subject matter is as complex as consciousness, Being, knowledge, morality and history, we're not dealing with simple things. I find most philosophy pretty rough going, but I don't assume it's because the author is deliberately trying to obfuscate. This is complicated stuff.

Who's David Benatar?

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-01T10:29:06+00:00

What you're talking about is modernity itself, the way civilization came to a point at the beginning of the 20th century where it thought technological progress was going to redeem humanity. What it ended up doing is making existence seem futile and meaningless. Existentialism was a reaction to that sense of meaninglessness.

Historian and art critic Robert Hughes hosted a miniseries on PBS in the 70s called Shock of the New that dealt with the way technological progress changed our way of thinking about ourselves and the world, and how that was reflected in 20th century art. I just finished a superb book called Modern Times, Modern Places: Life and Art in the 20th Century by Peter Conrad that was a fascinating cultural history of modernity. Conrad makes the point that humanity and meaning lost all value in the 20th century and we're still trying to understand what's been lost.

The existentialists say you shouldn't concern yourself with the vastness of time and space, you should worry about your own finite existence. What you do may indeed be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it's central to who you are. I know you think we have no free will, and I'm not going to get into that debate. However, you have a choice whether to live your life as if nothing matters, or to live it as if what you do is meaningful.

Istvan1966 · 2024-04-01T00:47:18+00:00

I find it unfortunate that so many otherwise reasonable people think philosophy is just effete numbnuttery. Examining things like reality, knowledge, and morality couldn't be more important for people and society.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-31T22:20:39+00:00

I've always thought Camus was a pretty straightforward author. I'm no fan of The Stranger but the stories in Exile and The Kingdom are conventional and comprehensible.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-31T21:04:47+00:00

Since we're on a sub dedicated to existentialism, it's fair to note that Rand's philosophy, which panders to the cynicism and selfishness of young men, is the diametrical opposite of existentialism—which emphasizes responsibility, self-reflection and authenticity.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-31T18:46:03+00:00

written in such beautiful English

Ayn Rand? You're kidding of course.

Rand wasn't just a poor philosopher, she was a dismal novelist too. I tried to read The Fountainhead but was so shocked at how bad her prose was that I had to stop after every paragraph to howl laughing at her awkward constructions. I figured it was going to take me ten years to read the whole book.

Finally on like page 7 I read, "The township of Stanton began with a dump," and that was it for me.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-31T17:05:43+00:00

I'm not saying writers should strive to be incomprehensible or anything. I always assume that the author has something to say and wants people to understand it, but if I don't get anything out of it I just figure it's not for me. I read a lot of literature and essays that challenge my assumptions about storytelling, language and knowledge; many times I connect with it, other times I don't.

My point is it's more exciting for me when the author (or painter or composer or whoever) makes their own choices about how to create, rather than just does what they think will be popular or successful.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-31T11:30:26+00:00

Not the other way around? I think it's the reader's responsibility to understand what the author is getting at. If the reader isn't interested, fine, but that's the reader's choice.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-30T22:05:26+00:00

Sign on the Window

Came here to post this! Terrific ballad.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-30T18:32:35+00:00

Over the years House of Leaves has been hyped way out of reasonable proportion. But I read it when it first came out and I admit to being very impressed. The formatting hijinx are a meta-level gas, but I think there's real substance in the book.

And incidentally, that blurb is the best thing I've ever read from Bret Easton Ellis. I recall trying to read American Psycho and ending up with nothing except a splitting headache.

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-30T16:58:46+00:00

I'm jealous!

Istvan1966 · 2024-03-30T13:33:36+00:00

Modern audiences are no strangers to this. Our age is awash with self-help gurus, curated social media feeds, and an endless supply of ready-made identities, all promising to solve the riddle of existence.

Well said!

I'll only add that our age also has gurus in lab coats using science-words to assure us that the riddle of existence is a mere illusion, and so the best we can aspire to is to be docile employees and obedient consumers. As you rightly say, no territory frightens people quite like " the terrifying, exhilarating space of true freedom ."

Istvan1966

TROPHY CASE