T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
What’s the source of your understanding of the terms?
- Status
D
dmar198
Guest
Is it incoherent because one or more of the words in the definition are incoherent? Or is it incoherent because those words are incompatible with each other, like “square circle”? Or both? (Or something else?)
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
Randy Carson said: Strong or positive atheism holds that God does not exist with certainty.
Weak or negative atheism merely holds that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist.
I, AnlytcPhil said: That can’t be right because many Christians hold that. They say “There is not enough evidence to prove that Yahweh exists”, “so we believe in Yahweh on faith”.
Thinking Sapien then quoted my first five words "That can’t be right because …)
T. Sapien, Do you agree with what I said to Randy that many theists say the equivalent of “There is not enough evidence to prove that Yahweh exists, and so I believe in Yahweh on faith”? That was what I was referring to when I said to Randy what you quoted “That can’t be right…”. Randy had said that about atheists, and I was telling him “that can’t be right” because I have heard Christians say that.
And then you asked: What’s the source of your understanding of the terms?
One of my sources for "strong atheism is this site: strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/
I can give others, but I like to go slow and just take one thing at a time. You can read that one and comment if you like.
Weak or negative atheism merely holds that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist.
I, AnlytcPhil said: That can’t be right because many Christians hold that. They say “There is not enough evidence to prove that Yahweh exists”, “so we believe in Yahweh on faith”.
Thinking Sapien then quoted my first five words "That can’t be right because …)
T. Sapien, Do you agree with what I said to Randy that many theists say the equivalent of “There is not enough evidence to prove that Yahweh exists, and so I believe in Yahweh on faith”? That was what I was referring to when I said to Randy what you quoted “That can’t be right…”. Randy had said that about atheists, and I was telling him “that can’t be right” because I have heard Christians say that.
And then you asked: What’s the source of your understanding of the terms?
One of my sources for "strong atheism is this site: strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/
I can give others, but I like to go slow and just take one thing at a time. You can read that one and comment if you like.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
In general, I say an utterance is incoherent if I can find no reason to believe that anybody can get any sense out of it. The famous linguist Noam Chomsky came up with this example of an incoherent sequence of words: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. I label Chomsky’s utterance ‘incoherent’ because I can find no reason to believe that anybody can get any sense out of it.
Strong atheists claim that they know of no reason to believe that anybody can get any sense out of what are given as definitions of “Yahweh”. Again I use “Yahweh” rather than “God” to distinguish “God” as used in prayers by Christians and Jews, from “god” as used. for instance, in speaking of Greek and Roman mythology to refer to Zeus, Apollo, etc., or any of the so-called pagan gods.
D
dmar198
Guest
I think I understand what you mean by incoherent. I’m trying to get at something deeper, I hope. The form of definition you gave seems to use terms which all have coherent meanings – at least to me. I’m wondering if your problem lies in the terms of the definition, or in their combination, or both, or neither. Look at it this way: your definition uses three words,“infinite, omnipotent spirit.” Suppose we used three words that describe a boot: “thick, heavy shoe.” These words describing a boot obviously have coherent meanings and no contradiction is created by combining them. Thus, “boot” is a meaningful word. I assert that “infinite, omnipotent spirit” also uses three terms with obviously coherent meanings and no contradiction is created by combining them. If these two premises are true, it seems to follow that God is just as meaningful a word as boot. Do you disagree with one of my premises, or am I missing something else?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
One source is fine. I appreciate the reply. I read the section on Strong/weak atheist and the ANC.
Some nuances aside there exists self identified atheistic and theistic people that say that there is enough proof/evidence/information to support their position on the God-proposition as fact and make i knowable. There also exists self identified atheistic and theistic people that say there is not enough proof/evidence/information to support their position and make the question of the existence of God unknowable. I’ve seen some label those that think the existence of God to be unknowable but have faith that he exists labeled as “agnostic theist.”
Where we are in disagreement is a the apparent conflation of the positions claiming to know that something doesn’t exists with saying that something is meaningless.
That agrees with my understanding and how I usually see the words used; expressing confidence, certainty, know-ability, or lack of it. His usage is compatible with how I usually see the terms used.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
Suppose there were a person who had been so sheltered from reality that she had no idea what I meant by “a think, heavy shoe”. I could then go to my closet floor and come out with a thick, heavy shoe and point out to her why I label it “a shoe”, why I label it “heavy”, and why I label it “thick”. But I can’t come up with anything to show her what “spirit” means, let alone one that is “infinite”. [The word I used was not “omnipotent”, but “omnipresent”. I could probably explain “omnipotent” (able to do any task) to her but not “omipresent” (everywhere all the time).] But the key word here is “spirit”. I could not show her a spirit, so I cannot cause her to understand why the word “spirit” makes any sense. I’d like for you to read this article by Father Ronald Rolheiser:
ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WG5nthma_-Y
about the ineffability of Yahweh. Near the bottom he tells us that Christians (and I suppose Jews and Muslims as well) rely on what he labels “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” to know that “Yahweh” (or “G-d” or “Allah”) is coherent. Strong atheists have no “dark knowledge” or “gut sense”. This apparently does not occur to people I label “weak atheists”. Maybe weak atheists do have “dark knowledge” or “gut-sense”.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
I gave the examples the words “unicorn” and “mermaid” as coherent words for things that do not exist. I gave the examples or contradictions “married bachelor” and “round square” as words (or word pairs) which can’t be said to refer to things that either exist or don’t exist. If you say “Round squares do not exist”, how could you explain to someone what you were saying doesn’t exist? I don’t see how you could. Or maybe the sentence “The theory of relativity is blue”. Could you explain what that meant to someone? I think not.
I had said:
That agrees with my understanding and how I usually see the words used; expressing confidence, certainty, know-ability, or lack of it. His usage is compatible with how I usually see the terms used.
I hope you will also read this article by Catholic Father Rolheiser:
ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WG5nthma_-Y
and we can discuss “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” he mentions at the bottom of the article. If he were to lose his “dark knowledge” and “gut sense” then wouldn’t he become what I label ‘a strong atheist’?
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
You make a good point about labels. Two people may have the same exact beliefs and/or disbeliefs, yet use different labels for themselves. Indeed, some people who label themselves “ignostics” or “theological noncognitivists” may refuse to label themselves as “atheists” while others do. This gets too much into linguistics and semantics. What I’d really like to be discussing is beliefs and lacks thereof, rather than just discussing only what labels we choose to put on various people.
I’d also like to discuss whether there is such a thing as ‘the illusion of belief’, where a person deep down does not believe something, but tells himself that he believes something so hard that he ‘believes he believes’ it. Maybe someday somebody will do a thread on here entitled “the illusion of belief/disbelief”. Many theists believe that atheists have only ‘the illusion of disbelief’, where they tell themselves ‘God does not exist’ so strongly that they believe that they believe that but they don’t really. Then the question arises: Are they believers or disbelievers? Would they say “God knows their REAL beliefs”? Could this be what Pope Francis had in mind when he said all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven? Food for thought.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
Where did everbody go?
P
PseuTonym
Guest
I agree that there’s an issue here that needs to be resolved.
Another problem is the notion of defining a proper name.
Question:
Given a specific human being, how could you determine what are the “defining characteristics” of that actual human being?
PseuTonym’s answer:
Given a name and enough contextual information that a specific human being has been identified, we might be able to get some non-controversial information, but it seems to be a matter of subjective judgment to extract the characteristics that are allegedly “defining characteristics.” Somebody once pointed out that if Polonius had actually existed, then he might have suggested renaming the play “Hamlet” to something like “The Tragic Death of Polonius.”
P
PseuTonym
Guest
“Married bachelor” is an inconsistent definition, not a name.
Given conflicting information about the assassination of JFK, you could claim that the attempt to refer to the assassination of JFK fails on the grounds that the sequence of words “the assassination of JFK” is meaningless. In contrast, all reliable accounts of the killing of Polonius are consistent with each other.
Link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connally#Kennedy_assassination
If we are going to resolve problems lexically, then it seems that reality is intractable, and that we should stick to fiction, because for fiction there is an agreed-upon text.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
One big difference you’re missing is that there are lots of pictures of Sherlock. A. Conan Doyle had drawings of Sherlock and Watson so we know what they look like. Sherlock wore a cap with a bill on both front and back. He smoked a saxophone type pipe, and he carried a magnifying glass. He’s easy to imagine. But when strong atheists say that when they try to imagine “God” they’re stuck because they do not know how to imagine anything that “infinite spirit” could refer to. Father Rolheiser in that article says “God cannot be imagined”. Strong atheists say to that: “Then all you’ve got is words and emotions, nothing to think of or imagine for the words to mean.” That’s what they say. But they don’t have Father Rolheiser’s "dark knowledge or his gut sense. ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WHCCfRma_-Y
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
P
PseuTonym
Guest
What is the connection between pictures and meaning? You can probably find pictures of the god “Poseidon.” Does it follow that “Poseidon” is more meaningful than the phrase “oceanic phenomena”?
Why couldn’t we focus on behavior rather than appearances? After all, the words and actions of Sherlock Holmes play an important role in the stories. Suppose hypothetically that the same entity is responsible for both the lawfulness of nature, and also the occasional miracle. Then wouldn’t we have a lot of information about the behavior of that entity?
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
Strong atheists would say both “Poseidon” and “oceanic phenomena” are meaningful. Poseidon is a finite sized material flesh and bones super human, not an “omnipresent incorporeal infinite spirit”. Strong atheists would say “Poseidon is easy to imagine but ‘God’ doesn’t refer to anything that can be imagined. They say if you speak ‘God’ or “Yahweh”, you’re not saying anything”.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Non-cognitivism is, IMO, a dodge employed by those who like to think they have found a clever way to avoid discussions they don’t want to have.
It’s like a chess player who thinks that by learning some obscure opening or defense, he will have a better chance at winning a game. Unfortunately, the reason that these lines are obscure is because grandmasters know that they are unsound, and they focus their energies on the better openings and defenses.
Similarly, professional philosophers and theologians know that “god” is a meaningful term and that it is possible to have fruitful discussions about the entity that term represents. They don’t waste their time (or anyone else’s) by simply denying that such discussions are meaningful or even possible.
It’s like a chess player who thinks that by learning some obscure opening or defense, he will have a better chance at winning a game. Unfortunately, the reason that these lines are obscure is because grandmasters know that they are unsound, and they focus their energies on the better openings and defenses.
Similarly, professional philosophers and theologians know that “god” is a meaningful term and that it is possible to have fruitful discussions about the entity that term represents. They don’t waste their time (or anyone else’s) by simply denying that such discussions are meaningful or even possible.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
How are you able to determine that theological noncognitivists aren’t just like RC Father Rolheiser in this article? –
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14388015
– except that they don’t have the “dark knowledge” or the “gut sense” that this RC priest speaks of in this site, the last two paragraphs of which I’m copying and pasting below:
We all know many things that we cannot imagine, conceptualize, or articulate. Inside us there is something the mystics call “dark knowledge”, namely, an inchoate, intuitive, gut-sense within which we know and understand beyond what we can picture and give words to. And this isn’t some exotic, paranormal talent that fortune-tellers claim to have. The opposite; it’s our bedrock, that solid foundation that we touch in our most sincere and deepest moments, that place inside us where when we are at our best we ground our lives.
God is ineffable, unimaginable, and beyond conception and language. Our faith lets us bracket this for a while and lets us picture God as some idolized super-hero. But eventually that well runs dry and our finite minds are left to know the infinite only in darkness, without images, and our finite hearts are left to feel infinite love only inside a dark trust.God is ineffable, unimaginable, and beyond conception and language. Our faith lets us bracket this for a while and lets us picture God as some idolized super-hero. But eventually that well runs dry and our finite minds are left to know the infinite only in darkness, without images, and our finite hearts are left to feel infinite love only inside a dark trust.
Randy Carson:
Well of course everybody, including all strong atheists and theological noncognitivists and ignostics, believes that “god” spelled with a small “g” is a meaningful term. Nobody. even strong atheists, would accuse writers of Greek mythology of speaking meaninglessly when referring to Zeus as an imaginary god of the ancient Greeks.
That’s why I changed “God” to “Yahweh” so people wouldn’t get confused between “god” small g and “God” capital “G”, as you apparently are doing here. I mentioned in one post that having a god named “God” is like having a horse named “Horse”. Anyway it’s “God” spelled with a capital “G”, as Christians speak in their prayers that strong atheists claim is meaningless, not the word “god” with a small “g” which is synonymous with “deity” spelled with a small “d”. So instead of spelling “God” with a small “g” as you did above, let’s change it to “Yahweh”. So let’s make it “Yahweh” or “Allah”, OK?
P
PseuTonym
Guest
Can you draw a picture that shows the whole history of the world except for the falling of meteorites? That sounds very difficult, and perhaps impossible. So, given the criterion that we must be able to picture an event, it sounds as though there should have always been a bias in support of claims about meteorites having fallen.
However, in that case it’s not clear why Thomas Jefferson disbelieved in meteorites, or why anybody would have thought that there was anything sacred about the Black Stone of Mecca, or Kaaba Stone.
A
AnlytcPhil
Guest
If you will name any part of the history of the world you want a picture drawn of, I can find an artist that can draw it – and if it’s an activity, I can find a computer animator who can create a video of it.
Strong atheists would never label ‘the history of the world’ as “incoherent”. Why? Because they can imagine themselves sensing any part of it you can name. Note the difference between the words “imaginable” and “imagined”. There are lots of things that have never been imagined, but strong atheists believe everything is imaginable, whether it exists or not. Strong atheists claim: “If you are speaking and sounding as though you are talking about something, but you can’t imagine anything that you could be talking about, then you aren’t talking about anything, but only making noises with your mouth.”
Strong atheists say “Nothing imaginable has the label ‘Yahweh’”.
- Status