'Sincere' seekers (for Ron)
Michael W. Fisher mwfisher@cts.com
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:25:49 -0700 (00906773149, 000001bde8c2$afcba420$9d495ecc@mwfisher.cts.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: bridean On Behalf Of Ron Criss, sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 9:58 AM
> RON
> I would love to read your extimony. I think agnosticism is defensible,
> but atheism is a form of blind faith.
>
Hmm. From a past exchange (some may remember ole' Walt Nusbaum) :
Walter Nusbaum wrote:
Michael,
It is amazing that the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries of
philosophy would not have this insight of yours. Why do you
suppose that historically atheists have defined 'atheism' as the
denial that God exists? By the way, a-theist, no matter how you
want to break it down still asserts a metaphysical position. It
clearly DENIES supernatural phenomena.
* * *
MWF
Which only goes to show that one ought not try and "do"
philosophy from a dictionary. My "Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
devotes some 14 pages of double column 8 point type to the topic
of "Atheism. The subheading "Definition of 'Atheism' " consumes
some 24 column inches alone.
Some highlights from the article.
From the heading, the first subheading after the
introductory paragraph, "Hostility to Atheism",
". . .One could fill many volumes with the abuse and
calumny contained in the writings of Christian apologists, learned
no less than popular. The tenor of these writing is not simply
that atheism is mistaken but also that only a depraved person
could adopt so hideous a position and that the spread of atheism
would be a horrifying catastrophe for the human race. "No atheist
as such," wrote Richard Bentley in EIGTHT SERMONS (Cambridge,
1724), "can be a true friend, an affectionate relation, or a loyal
subject." In the preface to his THE TRUE INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF
THE UNIVERSE (1678) Ralph Cudworth made it clear that he was
addressing himself not to "downright and professed atheists" but
to "weak, staggering and skeptical theists." Downright atheists
were beyond the pale, for they had "sunk into so great a degree of sottishness" that they evidently could not be reached. . . ."
The article goes on to describe numerous injustices
against professed atheists, such as Shelly who was expelled from
Oxford (of your dictionary) and some years later judicially
deprived of the custody of his children specifically on the
grounds that he was "likely to inculcate the same [atheistic]
principles upon them."
The sections concluding paragraph starts with:
"A comprehensive article on atheism would, among other
things, trace the history of the persecution of real and alleged
atheists, of the changes in public attitudes, and of the gradual
repeal of discriminatory legislation. It would also inquire into
the psychological sources of the hatred of atheists that is
sometimes found in otherwise apparently kindly and sensible men. .
."
However, the author lacked space and had to confine his
remarks to the aforementioned 14 pages of double column 8 point
type (on 7 1/2 X 10 inch pages)
Under the heading "Definition of "Atheism", I'll quote
from one paragraph:
". . .According to the most usual definition, an "atheist"
is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the
sentence. "God exists" expresses a true proposition. ON our
definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God,
regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the
claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People
frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common
among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in
earlier centuries, to reject position on the ground THAT THEY ARE
MEAINING LESS [emphasis added-mf]. Sometimes, too, a theory is
rejected on such grounds as that IT IS STERILE, OR REDUNDANT OR
CAPRICIOUS, [emphasis added-mf] and there are many other
considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to
constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion. An atheist in
the narrower, more popular sense, is IPSO FACTO and atheist in our
broader sense, but the converse does not hold. . . .
<big jump>[assorted theistic positions and "belief"
described, including a metaphysical God, an infinite
"anthropomorphic" God, and a finite "anthropomorphic" God. To be
brief]
"The broader definition here adopted enables us to
classify together philosophers whose attitudes toward belief in
God are exceedingly similar, although their detailed reasonings
may not always coincide. Rudolf Carnap, for example, regards
metaphysical theology as meaningless, while treating belief in an
infinite as well as a finite anthropomorphic God as "mythology,"
implying that both are false or probably false. In our sense, he
can be classified as an atheist without further ado, and it is
doubtful that believers would consider him less hostile than
atheists in the narrower sense. It is also worth observing that
our broader definition receives a good deal of backing from the
actual writings of philosophers and others who regarded themselves
as atheists. Many of them were by no means unaware of the fact
that the word "God" has a number of uses and that what may be a
plausible justification for rejecting one kind of belief in God
may be quite inappropriate in the case of another. Charles
Bradlaugh, for example, made it very clear that in calling himself
and atheist he did not simply maintain that there is no God. In
his "Plea for atheism," he wrote:
'The Atheist does not say "there is no God," but he says
"I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the
word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct
affirmation . . .The Bible God I deny; the Christian God I
disbelieve in; but I am not rash enough to say there is no God as
long as you tell me you are unprepared to define God to me."
Me again.
What's the difference between the above position and
agnosticism? I'll jump back up a few column inches with one final
quote:
"A person is an atheist in our sense if he adopts an
attitude of REJECTION [emphasis added-mf] toward all three
theistic positions previously stated-belief in a metaphysical God,
in an infinite anthropomorphic god, and in a finite
anthropomorphic God. He will count as a believer in God if he
maintains that "God exists" expresses a true proposition, where
"God" is employed in one of the three ways described. A person
will be and AGNOSTIC [emphasis added-mf] if he does not
accept any of these three claims BUT AT THE SAME TIME SUSPENDS
JUDGMENT CONCERNING AT LEAST ONE OF THEM [emphasis added-mf]. It
will be observed that on our way of drawing the lines, agnosticism
and atheism remain distinct positions, since suspension of
judgement and rejection are different attitudes."
And THAT should clear up most of the
definitional problems.
Just reread Carnap's and Bradlaugh's positions a few times
and review such material as I have quoted until the light goes on.
My position is essentially that of Carnap and Bradlaugh.
Metaphysical God ["creator" "designer" whatever] =
nonsense
Yahweh/Jesus = mythology
Others on a case by case basis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
(Walt's reply to the above and my further response)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(written at 1:00am local, so bear with me if I ramble)
Walt Jr.;
I am not arguing that there aren't people who argue for atheism
being 'a lack of belief.' My argument was that there was a reason
why atheists have historically defined atheism as an
assertion/claim that there is no God.
MWF
And I am not arguing that there are not those who go along with your narrow definition.
I just don't really, speaking philosophically and not just
as an emotive outburst, don't care.
I agree much more with Carnap and Bradlaugh, and what you
want to define me to be is quite irrelevant.
The only organization I belong to as a member and not just
a subscriber is the First Unitarian Church of San Diego. You may
well know that the Unitarians DO NOT HAVE A CREED. In the church
are assorted "pagans" (the UU pagans put on various activities
through the year), as well as those who would describe themselves
as liberal Christians. And some of us non-simple atheists.
The only real rule in the UUA is mutual respect for each
other. Period.
And my claim is that of Carnap and Bradlaugh. Yahweh/Jesus
is myth, and the metaphysical "God of the philosophers" is mere
nonsense.
If not, then define it in such a way it makes sense.
Walt Jr.;
Even Paul Kurtz in his Encyclopedia of Philosophy (vol. 1)
defines atheism as maintaining that there is no god.
MWF
Fine. I am not Kurtz, nor have I joined any Kurtzian
worship group and signed any creedal statement stating I accept
the teaching/authority of Kurtz in all matters.
He has his opinions, I have mine.
YOU are the one who has to regularly reaffirm a commitment
to a creedal statement somebody else wrote.
I haven't, I won't, and I will damn well change my mind
anytime I think the evidence warrants it--and not unless the
evidence warrants it.
Period.
Walt Jr.
It is an assertion. B.C. Johnson in his "The Atheist Debater's
Handbook" says this about atheists: "...the atheist may CLAIM TO
KNOW that God does not exist." =
MWF
As above. I never heard of Mr. Johnson before, and I have
not agreed to accept a thing he says.
I DON'T BELONG TO ANY CREED WALT. I MAKE UP MY OWN DANMED
MIND.
AND I SAY THAT THE WORD "GOD" IS NOTHING BUT NOISE
SIGNIFYING NOTHING, AS SUCH IT IS NONSENSE AND I REJECT NONSENSE.
Walt Jr.
Now, why do you suppose that men such as Kurtz and Johnson are so
misguided and yet you are so well guided?
MWF
Maybe I'm smarter than them. Maybe Carnap and Bradlaugh
are smarter than them. Or maybe, since we none of us belong to any
organization which says we MUST agree on such definitions, we are
actually each free to define the silly word, at least as it
applies to each of us, for ourselves.
If that is too confusing for you, too bad.
Kurtz is a grown man and can make up his own mind.
I can surely make up mine.
And the article from my Encyclopedia describes not only my belief much better, but seems to give a far more workable and
useful meaning to the word.
If its too much work for you, well as I said, too bad.
You Yahweh/Jesus is myth from the dawn of civilization,
and the God of the philosophers is nothing but inchoate nonsense
not worthy of belief.
Deal with it.
Walt Jr.;
Give it up Michael, atheism has changed its face because it
could not prove a universal negative,
MWF
More like the theists keep shifting what they say they are
willing to defend.
I have articulated a position which easily encompasses, as
the author noted, the narrow (and silly) version of the definition
you want to try and bind me with, but also includes those such as
myself who deny that there is any God which matches anything ever
articulated by man, and very probably nothing that would be
universally recognized by any AS a God if he appeared de novo
one day.
Walt Jr.;
therefore, it was time to restructure just exactly what atheism
is.
MWF
Well, just like I said Walt. "Atheism" is "A--theism".
Non- theism. It is defined only by the territory the theist first
stakes out as his, assuming his notion is coherent enough to have
a definable shape.
Once the theist made his God so vacuous that the word no
longer stood for anything, then the A-theist I suppose needs to
redefine just what it is that he is denying.
Since neither you nor anyone else has been able to come up
with a coherent definition of God, then what I am refusing to
grant assent to is a belief in nonsense.
Which seems awfully rational to me.
Walt.
You continue to say that atheism is not a system...
MWF
Absolutely correct. If there were no theists in the world,
then I would be but an epistemolgist/moral philosopher and nothing
more. It is only when there is such a thing as theism around that
I need to take any position on the assertion.
I am also an A-UFOist, and A-Loch Ness Monsterist, and an
A-psychicist. I am not an A-San Diego Bay Monsterist because no
one has asserted that there is a monster in our bay.
I need only deny nonsensical positions which are asserted.
Yahweh/Jesus is asserted; a vague "creator" is asserted. Ergo
since both are silly for some of the same as well as different
reasons, I will assert a denial of affirmation of the existence of
either. The first as mere human myth, and the other rejected as
inchoate nonsense.
Walt Jr.
this is one of the most incredibly ludicrous statements I have
heard you make.
MWF
Well, it seems I have good company, and nothing you have
said has shown why a metaphysical conception of God is
coherent/intelligible or why Yahweh/Jesus is more than myth.
All you have done is complain that I won't accept your
particular narrow definition. You have found a couple of atheist
philosophers who happen to, at lest on the surface, seem to agree
with you.
But I do not accept their definitions, and they are not
binding on me since we are not all of us members of some doctrinal
body in which we recognize some authority capable of binding us.
Atheism is the denial that certain Gods exist, or that the
Metaphysical houses of cards of the Gods of the philosophers are
unintelligible nonsense.
Walt Jr.
Why don't you just be honest with yourself about this Michael?
Atheism makes the following claims:
1. There are no moral absolutes.
MWF
That is not a positive claim of the atheist. Its contrary,
that there are moral absolutes is the claim of certain theists.
Who have done a miserable job of defending that thesis, at least
as it must be appurtenant to a god.
There are atheistic systems of belief which never the less
assert moral absolutes. Confucianism springs to mind. Taoism is
much fuzzier.
Walt Jr.
2. There are no immaterial entities that intervene in the world.
(i.e. angels)
MWF
Inchoate unintelligible nonsense. What is it that you are
asserting? That something which cannot interact with the world can
non the less interact with the world? That is self contradictory
and ergo nonsense. If the something can never the less assert some
force against something material, then it is causing a material
change in something--which contradicts the immaterialness and
reduces once more to nonsense.
So the above sentence actually asserts nothing.
Walt Jr.
3. There is no afterlife.
MWF
This is short, but none the less just as unintelligible as
the above. What is this "afterlife"? Life but _after_ life? But if
one is still alive, then one has never died so where is the
"after"? Is this something, as above, "immaterial"? Then
how do you know it? What does it mean to be alive but immaterial?
Once again you descend into the realm of the inchoate and assert
statements that mean nothing.
Walt Jr.
4. The origin of life was guided by natural processes.
MWF
That is an assertion of science, not philosophy or
"atheism". It is equally compatible with a deity of some kind.
Several of our posters are deists who would never the less concur
with that statement.
Walt Jr.
5. The origin of the universe was guided by natural law.
MWF
Fallacy of composition/argument from ignorance.
In actual fact, the only intellectually completely honest
answer is "insufficient data". This seems to be one which
particularly irritates theists, but tough.
There simply is not enough information to answer the
question.
Walt Jr.
6. Miracles do not occur (def. anomalous events that supersede
natural law)
MWF
Hume's comments in section X of the Enquiry are as applicable as ever.
Walt Jr.
7. Survival is the ultimate goal of living things.
MWF
Fallacy of division.
Is it? Or is it just reproduction. Do living things even
have ultimate goals? Does a fern? Does a virus?
Is it only men and women who have ultimate goals? If so,
then just how are we limited by biology to survival only? The
ultimate goal of many is to produce art. Of some to reduce human
suffering.
Of some to discover what makes the universe tick.
Once consciousness enters the picture, biology gets
overridden and we choose our own goals.
The ultimate goal of my dog seems to be to curl up in my
lap.
Walt Jr.
8. Rationality is a product of biochemical reactions.
MWF
Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy of division. "Greedy
reductionism", or a parody thereof.
It makes no more sense to claim that rationality is the
product of biochemical reactions than it does to claim that the
result that Deep Blue achieved in defeating Kasparov was just a
product of electrical power generation.
It is also the same fallacy as would be committed if one
were to claim that since neither and of pieces of metal nor
hydrocarbons, (whether long chain polymers or ring aromatics or
some other form) can fly, then nothing assembled from those
components could fly. And yet airplanes, composed of just those
substances, do fly, indeed every hour of every day hundreds of
planes are in the air all over the world. Yet the reasoning
offered by Walt is exactly the same. It is fallacious and the
conclusion is necessarily invalid.
9. Emotions are biochemical reactions.
MWF
As above. Fallacy of Division etc.
10. There is no free will. All things are biochemically
determined.
MWF
False cause. Fallacy of division. Fallacy of Composition.
As well as unintelligible.
Just what is free will Walt? Is it a product of mind? If mind
does not arise from matter, then where is it at? If it is that
Immaterial stuff again, then you have descended yet again into
unintelligibility as well as the problem of mind body duality of
Descartes. Even if mind is somehow separate from material things
(and it's not) just what is the free will thing supposed to be?
Surely not sheer randomness, but then if the mind is following any
kind of rules, then it ought to be predictable, whatever it is
that the mind is part of.
Utterly unintelligible once again. Once again your
assertion is but nonsense.
Walt Jr.;
Shall I continue?
MWF
To what point Walt? The longer you go on, the more
egregious the fallacies you commit. If you were to continue on any
longer you would start looking really silly.
Walt Jr.
Sure, some atheists would take issue with some of the above
statements, however, they would be hard pressed to defend their
objection.
MWF
Odd, I didn't find it all that difficult, at least where
it made any difference. Fallacies do not make valid arguments, and
I've been spotting these a couple hours past my bedtime after a
long day.
And many of the assertions would seem to be indirectly
necessary if the universe is not the plaything of some fiendish
deity. And so what? If the only meaning or purpose you can find in
your life is hoping that sugar daddy in the sky will make it all
better after you die, then what kind of life are you living? What
kind of purpose is that?
Walt Jr.
In fact, the above assertions all fit by NECESSITY within an
atheistic framework.
MWF
Sorry Walt, but fallacies do not by any stretch of the
imagination render anything necessary.
The ones which seem not to be fallacious flow not from a
"belief" that there is no god, but by simple logic if the universe
is not a made thing. If no critter intentionally made the
universe, then yes it arose via natural processes.
If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad.
And if there are no moral absolutes, then that renders the
job of the moral philosopher all the more important--for then we
are responsible for our own rules and the results thereof.
Perhaps you are afraid of that responsibility, I am not.
One of the things that a lawyer can do is try and make new law
which will have a positive affect on the society he or she lives
in--as our professors delight in reminding us.
So by choice of profession, I have already taken on part
of that responsibility.
Maybe you should grow up and assume some real
responsibility for your society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some additional commentary by Douglas Kruger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for forwarding the post. I read it and liked it. I would
only have added a few things here and there, as noted below. Fisher does
a great job.
> Walt Jr.;
> I am not arguing that there aren't people who argue for atheism being 'a
> lack of belief.' My argument was that there was a reason why atheists
> have historically defined atheism as an assertion/claim that there is no
> God.
DOUG
Historically, this is FALSE. Atheism was not distinguished
from agnosticism until Thomas Huxley's essay "Agnosticism" in 1889.
Many of those who are now called deists were called atheists. Since
atheism is defined in contrast with theism, if theism is defined (as it
sometimes is) as the belief that there is an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent god who is active in the world, and deists deny the latter
clause, they were considered atheists.
> Walt Jr.;
> Even Paul Kurtz in his Encyclopedia of Philosophy (vol. 1) defines =
> atheism as maintaining that there is no god.
DOUG
The standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Paul
Edwards (who is an atheist, and who wrote the article on atheism) (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company and The Free Press, 1967) has
atheism defined as:
"one who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his
reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false
proposition."
(v. 1, pg. 175)
Edwards explains a number of other definitions, even ridiculous
ones like Fichte's: an atheist is "the person who, instead of following
the voice of conscience, always calculates the consequences before
acting in a moral situation" (Ibid., pg. 175).
Edwards explains that "it is common among contemporary
philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to
reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless" (Ibid., pg.
175).
Thus, Fisher is well within his rights to claim to be an atheist
and yet hold that the proposition "God exists" is, not false, but
meaningless. (If the proposition "Gods exists" makes sense then there
could be a possibility that there could be such a being but if the words
mean nothing then there is no possibility that there could be such a
being.)
> Walt Jr.
> It is an assertion. =
> B.C. Johnson in his "The Atheist Debater's Handbook" says this about
> atheists: "...the atheist may CLAIM TO KNOW that God does not
exist." =
DOUG
This is true in many senses, although I have not read Johnson's
book and I don't know what he means by this.
One can hold that god does not exist and yet hold that the term
"god" is nonsense. If the term "god" is nonsense, then it ipso facto does
not describe a state of affairs in which a particular being exists. If
there is no description of a being as existing, then there can be no being
which fits that description. If there is no being who fits that
description, since there is no coherent description, then it is accurate
to say that there is no such being, at least in some sense. After all,
wouldn't everyone agree that beings with contradictory attributes do not
exist?
> Walt Jr.;
> Give it up Michael, atheism has changed its face because it could not
> prove a universal negative,
>
> MWF
> More like the theists keep shifting what they say they are willing
> to defend.
DOUG
The current literature in philosophy of religion suggests that
Fisher's statement is accurate. For example, some theists have even
advocated no longer calling god "omnipotent" because no theologian or
philosopher has been able to come up with a coherent definition of that
attribute.
Much of the academic literature in philosophy of religion is now
devoted to defending the view that claims about god and his supposed
attributes are logically possible (that is, not self-contradictory). Many
philosophers of religion and theologians have given up even attempting
to show that such claims are TRUE and will settle for the much weaker
claim that their claims are logically possible or not outright irrational.
> Walt Jr.
> Why don't you just be honest with yourself about this Michael?
> Atheism makes the following claims:
>
> 1. There are no moral absolutes.
>
> MWF
> That is not a positive claim of the atheist. Its contrary, that there
are moral absolutes is the claim of certain theists. Who have done a
miserable job of defending that thesis, at least as it must be appurtenant
to a god.
> There are atheistic systems of belief which never the less assert
moral absolutes. Confucianism springs to mind. Taoism is much fuzzier.
>
DOUG
We needn't go abroad to find such systems. John Stuart Mill's
utilitarianism and Kant's system based on the categorical imperative
produce objective moral values, at least in the sense of objective in
which the wishes and needs of the agent do NOT affect the
determination of one's moral duty. Any person in the same situation,
regardless of his of her individual desires, would reach the same
conclusion in these systems.
> Walt Jr.
> 3. There is no afterlife.
>
DOUG
The Jains, whose religion in an offshoot of Hinduism, are
atheists. Yet they believe in reincarnation. The belief in a soul, an
afterlife, and so forth has NOTHING to do with belief in gods. There is
no logical connection between the two. There can be a god without there
being an afterlife, and there can be an afterlife without there being a
god.
> Walt Jr.
> 7. Survival is the ultimate goal of living things.
>
DOUG
This has nothing to do with nonbelief in gods. Mill, Kant and
other philosophers have explained IN DETAIL what life is all about
without recourse to gods. And mere survival was not considered the goal.
Walt Jr. is speaking from ignorance here. Maybe he ought to read
Kurtz's _Living Without Religion: Eupraxophy_ or _Exuberance_.
It is easy to see how someone who reads the bible, by the way,
would not see survival as a goal. God is depicted so often as making
sure that thousands do NOT survive!
Regarding Walt Jr.'s other claims, he ought to study Fisher's
responses long and hard.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Ciao!!
Michael Fisher, aka Elfish Chimera, San Diego, California
"If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, without allowing anything else to distract
you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing,
but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word which you utter, you will live happy. And there
is no man able to prevent this."
--Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and Stoic, from his MEDITATIONS, III, 12.---