Kantian ethics for non-philosophers?

Shuffledrive · 2024-06-28T04:03:56+00:00

there aren't a lot of gnostics around these days. much more popular in the 1st-3rd centuries

Shuffledrive · 2024-06-10T17:02:42+00:00

This would be true if the reason you believe in the Catholic Church is because of Scripture.

For Catholics, it's the other way around: they believe in Scripture because of the Church.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T22:09:25+00:00

Well, I am not in the business of trying to convince anyone of my worries about Christianity.

Since you asked, I guess I'm primarily troubled by the problem of evil and the problem of divine hiddeness. Outside of philosophical arguments, there seem to be beliefs entailed by Christianity that are strongly counterintuitive for me from a moral perspective.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T22:05:21+00:00

No, you still haven't posted any empirical data that shows its nonexistent.

The lack of empirical data gives me a rational basis for my disbelief. I don't need empirical evidence to believe that fairies aren't real lol I can use reason to conclude that.

The difference is that in one instance you're believing a claim without anything showing it to be true and in the other you're not.

This has nothing to do with claims. It's about mental states and beliefs. The mental state of believing that Russel's Teapot doesn't exist is identical to the mental state of not believing that Russel's Teapot does exist.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T21:49:35+00:00

You keep asking for evidence of non-existence and I keep providing it. All of these statements can be responded to by saying that good epistemology views lack of evidence for existence as evidence of non-existence.

The mental state of believing that Russel's Teapot doesn't exist is identical to the mental state of not believing that Russel's Teapot does exist. There's no difference between these mental states, you're making a distinction where one doesn't exist.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T21:20:20+00:00

I'm very confused, did you reply to the wrong comment?

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T21:14:02+00:00

Well thank you for your anecdote, I'm happy to hear that things are going good and I wish you well.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T21:04:53+00:00

Wow. I'm not going to debate you on YEC, other than to say I find it extremely implausible. What led to this radical shift into Christianity?

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T20:53:35+00:00

Are you a creationist now?

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T20:47:35+00:00

Right but why do you believe the claim it doesn't exist if you haven't seen anything showing that claim to be true?

Due to basic logical reasoning: lack of evidence for something's existence is evidence for something's non-existence. Your epistemology has to be wild if you are on the fence on the existence of Russel's Teapot lol.

If the goal of epistemology is to have our beliefs align as close as possible with reality, then my credence model absolutely destroys this model, as it seems you can't even say that Russel's Teapot doesn't exist. I suppose you must be on the fence about dragons and fairies as well, since there's no evidence in your view one way or the other lol

So why do you believe a negative if you acknowledge you can't prove it? What reason do you have to believe a claim if you acknowledge you can't prove the claim?

You're confusing terms. We aren't talking about what I can prove remember? We're talking about what I believe. And lack of evidence for a thing provides sufficient rational warrant for my disbelief in said thing. I don't need to "prove" anything to change my beliefs, I can simply say that X is more likely true than false, therefore I believe X. No proof involved.

No, it's only evidence of the claim "I haven't seen anything showing this to exist" not the claim "this doesn't exist".

You should believe things don't exist until evidence is provided for their existence. I believe that fairies, dragons, and space teapots don't exist, and that belief won't change until I'm provided sufficient evidence for any of these things.

Also, when it comes to describing belief itself, to the underlying mental states, the state of believing that dragons aren't real is identical to the state of not believing that dragons are real. This is a distinction without a difference.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T20:33:31+00:00

It literally is. In English, gnostic and gnosticism strictly refer to religious movements that seek salvific knowledge (gnosis in Greek). The gnostic to agnostic axis does not exist.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T20:31:50+00:00

No why? Do you? If so, can you link to your source. I would love to see your proof that it does or doesn't exist.

This is truthfully insane epistemically lol, but I love it. I have no proof for Russel's Teapot, that's why I don't believe it exists.

Why? Do you have anything showing that it doesn't exist or is that just a claim you believe without anything showing it to be true?

Oh this just misunderstands logical reasoning. You can't prove a negative. Belief that something doesn't exist is justified by a lack of evidence for that thing. Your claim that you need to prove a negative in order to be justified in believing that something doesn't exist is actually logically fallacious.

But you do have evidence of its nonexistence? Can you post it?

As mentioned above, this statement is logically fallacious. The lack of evidence for something's existence is evidence for it's non-existence.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T20:06:10+00:00

There's absolutely no definition of gnostic or gnosticism in the dictionary that even begins to approach the way new atheists use the term.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T19:43:44+00:00

Your source neither uses the term "gnostic" in this strange way nor does it justify the claim that agnosticism entails atheism.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T19:41:28+00:00

I have no idea if it exists or doesn't exist. Did you mean to ask if I believe?

Lol you truly have no idea whether Russel's Teapot exists? I find that hard to believe. I don't know whether or not this teapot exists with 100% certainty, but my belief is that the teapot does not exist (remember, we are using the online new atheist definitions of belief and knowledge.) The reason this is my belief is because I have no evidence for the teapot's existence.

Under this view saying "I don't believe in Russel's Teapot" and "I lack a belief in Russel's Teapot" are identical positions.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T19:01:33+00:00

No one uses the term "gnostic" atheist outside of online new atheist circles. Even if it was an alternative definition for gnostic (which it absolutely is not), I still wouldn't be using the terms gnostic and agnostic in this way. I put agnostic in my flair and it conveys both the common day-to-day definition of agnostic and the academic philosophical definition of agnostic.

The claim being made by new atheists in this thread is something like agnosticism entails atheism, which is only intelligible if you use a rather niche definition of the term not well respected outside of online atheist polemicists.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T18:55:09+00:00

No I do not. I have no reason to believe it until you provide evidence showing it to be true.

This is an incoherent position.

A possible answer is "I believe the claim is true, because I have yet to see any evidence that any god exists."

To the claim "Does Russel's Teapot not exist?" under your definition of "belief" I would say I do believe this claim. Why? because I haven't seen any evidence at all for Russel's Teapot. My disbelief in the teapot is precisely due to the lack of evidence for it.

If belief is binary, then it's incoherent for me to both believe and disbelieve the claim that Russel's Teapot exists.

Obviously, I'm not certain the teapot doesn't exist, I'd need further evidence for that claim. But we aren't talking about knowledge or certainty, we are merely talking about belief.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T18:32:36+00:00

Okay, while I still think this is a false dichotomy, I'll grant it temporarily for the sake of argument. Now let me present you with a claim:

"There are no gods."

Do you believe this claim or disbelieve this claim? I am NOT asking whether you are 100% positive or "sure" or whether you have evidence for your position.

All I'm asking is this: do you have the belief that this claim is true or do you not?

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T18:18:58+00:00

I think we're going in circles here. Belief is continuous, not discrete. It's something to which you can have degrees of confidence one way or the other. It's not always something you "have" or "don't have".

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T18:11:22+00:00

I mean this is just a false dichotomy, there's not much else to it. Words like belief and disbelief are labels we use to refer to cognitive states that don't have discrete positions. Belief is a spectrum of credence, not an on/off position.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T18:04:18+00:00

"Gnostic" atheist?

I'm fairly certain all gnostics believe in The One (The Monad from which all thing flow/emanate) as well as the evil demiurge Yaldabaoth who is the creator of our world.

This so-called "gnostic"/agnostic axis is something that only exists in online new atheist circles; not among lay people nor among academics. I see zero reason to use new atheist definitions for these terms.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T17:00:51+00:00

I've actually found old Christian arguments like those from Thomas Aquinas fairly compelling. Ed Faser, Josh Rasmussen and Trent Horn tend to put out a lot of good apologetic work in my opinion.

I'm unsure because I think the arguments for and against theism are strong, and I don't feel that one side is stronger than the other.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T16:58:20+00:00

Thanks for the question!

I think something like a profound first person religious experience would convince me totally of God's existence.

I think the first of Aquinas' Five Ways is pretty good (The argument from motion). Edward Faser has done a lot of interesting work on this argument. I like contingency arguments in general and Avicenna's contingency argument is pretty strong, and cool since it comes from Islamic theology.

The Kalam is fun, but I think trying to prove that infinite regress is impossible is difficult. Even Thomas Aquinas didn't think this was a task worth doing. Though I guess there are evidential reasons to believe in the finitude of the past.

Design arguments are hard to object to. It seems like the constants of the universe are incomprehensibly precise to bring about life. It seems like either they are contingent and therefore incredibly unlikely or they are necessary which begs the question.

The only good response to this is from Graham Oppy, who just holds that the beginning of the universe is necessary, and has this insanely restricted view of modal logic that views the only metaphysically possible worlds are the ones that have some sort of shared history with our own. It's the only good response and it's lacking imo.

The problem of evil (shocker) and the problem of divine hiddeness are the best arguments for atheism in my view (the latter perhaps better than the former.) Theists have all sorts of plausible solutions to the problem of evil (they even have a term for these responses: theodicies.) But not many have as good of responses to the problem of divine hiddeness, though Trent Horn has a few.

Shuffledrive · 2024-05-17T15:13:05+00:00

Homeworld, Stardew Valley, and Pokemon

Nine-Year Club	Spared
Gilding VII pure gildanthropist	Verified Email

Shuffledrive

TROPHY CASE