Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

I see that as grouping. Consider the list of options above. Various of them can be roughly grouped as theism and atheism, just as mice and cats are part of the larger mammal group.

The trouble with grouping is that it's not precise, and is suitable for some purposes and not others. For example, mice and cats are both mammals,
so there are many common aspects of their care, as opposed to care for birds or reptiles. But that commonality does not mean it's a good idea to put the two species together in a room.

Some of the most bitter arguments have been between parties trying to determine the nuances of a roughly shared position. A fight between lovers or family members can be more bitter than any other. Consider the rift between Israelites and Palestinians. Israelites sniped fiercely at Canaanites in the Old Testament, yet they borrowed a range of attributes from the Canaanite deity, Baal, to attribute to their own deity, Yahweh.

Grouping is a problem - but I'm not sure it is an example of grouping when some atheists at least appear to suggest that the only real choices are atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. The reality is that some people are not athiests, and yet those same people don't hold superstitious religious beliefs.

I was impressed to hear Richard Dawkins say ""You could take a deist's God, a sort of God of the physicists, the God of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, God the mathematician, God who put together the Cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and... and one could make a reasonably respectable case for that. Not a case that I would actually accept, but I think it is a serious discussion that we could have".

[Sy Borg]

Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

I see that as grouping. Consider the list of options above. Various of them can be roughly grouped as theism and atheism, just as mice and cats are part of the larger mammal group.

The trouble with grouping is that it's not precise, and is suitable for some purposes and not others. For example, mice and cats are both mammals,
so there are many common aspects of their care, as opposed to care for birds or reptiles. But that commonality does not mean it's a good idea to put the two species together in a room.

Some of the most bitter arguments have been between parties trying to determine the nuances of a roughly shared position. A fight between lovers or family members can be more bitter than any other. Consider the rift between Israelites and Palestinians. Israelites sniped fiercely at Canaanites in the Old Testament, yet they borrowed a range of attributes from the Canaanite deity, Baal, to attribute to their own deity, Yahweh.

Grouping is a problem - but I'm not sure it is an example of grouping when some atheists at least appear to suggest that the only real choices are atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. The reality is that some people are not athiests, and yet those same people don't hold superstitious religious beliefs.

I was impressed to hear Richard Dawkins say ""You could take a deist's God, a sort of God of the physicists, the God of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, God the mathematician, God who put together the Cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and... and one could make a reasonably respectable case for that. Not a case that I would actually accept, but I think it is a serious discussion that we could have".

Dawkins is much more reasonable than is often claimed. The Selfish Gene is a masterwork IMO. The deity he describes above does not contradict established scientific findings, but encompasses them. Dawkins does not actually accept it as such because it's speculative, adding another layer to an already bewilderingly complex reality, but he accepts that's it's theoretically possible at this stage.

As earlier described, there's plenty of options, once you drill down. The one I find fascinating is the notion of afterlife but without a deity, instead being the spirit of the land and the ancestors who lived there. This would fit with the anecdotal evidence of NDEs about as much as monotheism. They would have probably interpreted going into the white light as returning to the land, or maybe, the Sun.

[anonymous66]

Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

I see that as grouping. Consider the list of options above. Various of them can be roughly grouped as theism and atheism, just as mice and cats are part of the larger mammal group.

The trouble with grouping is that it's not precise, and is suitable for some purposes and not others. For example, mice and cats are both mammals,
so there are many common aspects of their care, as opposed to care for birds or reptiles. But that commonality does not mean it's a good idea to put the two species together in a room.

Some of the most bitter arguments have been between parties trying to determine the nuances of a roughly shared position. A fight between lovers or family members can be more bitter than any other. Consider the rift between Israelites and Palestinians. Israelites sniped fiercely at Canaanites in the Old Testament, yet they borrowed a range of attributes from the Canaanite deity, Baal, to attribute to their own deity, Yahweh.

Grouping is a problem - but I'm not sure it is an example of grouping when some atheists at least appear to suggest that the only real choices are atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. The reality is that some people are not athiests, and yet those same people don't hold superstitious religious beliefs.

I was impressed to hear Richard Dawkins say ""You could take a deist's God, a sort of God of the physicists, the God of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, God the mathematician, God who put together the Cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and... and one could make a reasonably respectable case for that. Not a case that I would actually accept, but I think it is a serious discussion that we could have".

Dawkins is much more reasonable than is often claimed. The Selfish Gene is a masterwork IMO. The deity he describes above does not contradict established scientific findings, but encompasses them. Dawkins does not actually accept it as such because it's speculative, adding another layer to an already bewilderingly complex reality, but he accepts that's it's theoretically possible at this stage.

As earlier described, there's plenty of options, once you drill down. The one I find fascinating is the notion of afterlife but without a deity, instead being the spirit of the land and the ancestors who lived there. This would fit with the anecdotal evidence of NDEs about as much as monotheism. They would have probably interpreted going into the white light as returning to the land, or maybe, the Sun.

How about fideism (aka soft-theism)? Two examples are Miklos Jako and Martin Gardner - both are skeptics (Gardner was very well known in the Skeptical Community). Apparently fideism does require faith, but it doesn't require any superstitious religious beliefs. 2 articles below.
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=go ... d=8818f9cf
http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/martin-gardner-token-theist.html

[anonymous66]

I mentioned earlier that many atheists also act as if there is only one way to interpret Christianity - they spend virtually all their time criticizing people whose superstitious religious beliefs cause them to reject scientific evidence, and/or make them terrible people (because they condemn interracial marriage, homosexuality, tell people that they better convert to Christianity if they want to avoid hell, etc.). Basically these atheists only criticize acknowledge Christians whose concept of God and/or the Bible make them terrible (or just foolish) people. But - there are Christians who accept that the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook (take a look at Francis Collins and his organization Biologos). Many Christians accept that Christianity is a religion that preaches that everyone will be in heaven (at least eventually) - they believe that the Good News of Christianity is that everyone IS saved. These people tend to be very liberal and accepting of things other Christians believe to be serious sins (homosexuality, etc). Not everyone who is a Christian believes that their God will condemn people to an eternity in hell if those people don't convert.

Many of the more literal minded, conservative Christians are all too happy to accept the atheist's assumption that their view of Christianity is the only valid way to interpret Christianity.

I wish we lived in a world where, when Christianity was brought up, people thought, "oh, you mean those cool people who are concerned with loving their neighbor, and being like Jesus - you know, Jesus, the guy who spent his time around prostitutes and sinners? You mean the group that loves to tell the story of the Good Samartian - that great story condemning prejudice?... You mean those people who live out their concern for the poor and disenfranchised?"

I wonder if it were the case that there were more liberal, science minded, universal salvation accepting Christians... then would atheists still feel the need to criticize Christianity?

[Sy Borg]

I mentioned earlier that many atheists also act as if there is only one way to interpret Christianity - they spend virtually all their time criticizing people whose superstitious religious beliefs cause them to reject scientific evidence, and/or make them terrible people (because they condemn interracial marriage, homosexuality, tell people that they better convert to Christianity if they want to avoid hell, etc.).

And we keep wondering why non-supertstious theists refuse to join us in condemning obviously false beliefs. Why do they always side with superstition over reason in these debates?

I don't believe the claim that such theists are not superstitious. If "non-superstitious theists" were truly non-superstitious they would side with atheists in their criticism of fundamentalism. After all, fundamentalism is ruining their churches (an issue that doesn't concern atheists). Fundamentalism harms the reputation of moderates, who find themselves lumped in with the faction that they refuse to distance themselves from.

No, such theists are clearly still superstitious, just that they are usually unsure of their position, and probably fearful of their performance in Pascal's Wager. Theist moderates lack the commitment of their fundie peers. For a long time now, they have freely allowed fundamentalists to assume leadership of their churches. If they were truly non-superstitious, they would stand up for what they see as a more correct, honest and righteous interpretation of their religious texts.

Sorry, but I suspect that the non-superstitious theist is a mythical being, postulated but not yet observed. It's one thing to claim not to be superstitious, another to actually not be superstitious. It's one thing to not overtly embrace the silliest elements of a religion, it's another to actively challenge one's assumptions.

[LuckyR]

I mentioned earlier that many atheists also act as if there is only one way to interpret Christianity - they spend virtually all their time criticizing people whose superstitious religious beliefs cause them to reject scientific evidence, and/or make them terrible people (because they condemn interracial marriage, homosexuality, tell people that they better convert to Christianity if they want to avoid hell, etc.). Basically these atheists only criticize acknowledge Christians whose concept of God and/or the Bible make them terrible (or just foolish) people. But - there are Christians who accept that the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook (take a look at Francis Collins and his organization Biologos). Many Christians accept that Christianity is a religion that preaches that everyone will be in heaven (at least eventually) - they believe that the Good News of Christianity is that everyone IS saved. These people tend to be very liberal and accepting of things other Christians believe to be serious sins (homosexuality, etc). Not everyone who is a Christian believes that their God will condemn people to an eternity in hell if those people don't convert.

Many of the more literal minded, conservative Christians are all too happy to accept the atheist's assumption that their view of Christianity is the only valid way to interpret Christianity.

I wish we lived in a world where, when Christianity was brought up, people thought, "oh, you mean those cool people who are concerned with loving their neighbor, and being like Jesus - you know, Jesus, the guy who spent his time around prostitutes and sinners? You mean the group that loves to tell the story of the Good Samartian - that great story condemning prejudice?... You mean those people who live out their concern for the poor and disenfranchised?"

I wonder if it were the case that there were more liberal, science minded, universal salvation accepting Christians... then would atheists still feel the need to criticize Christianity?

Completely accurate commentary. Most groups, especially atheists and theists, contain a wide distribution of members. Though your observations are very understandable as the "conservative" Christians are more activist, that is, politically active seeking to pass legislation (or block it, depending on the political leadership of the location) to codify their personal beliefs as the law of the land for everyone else.

If you think about it, essentially no one would argue with a Christian if his message was: "I consider abortion as murder, therefore I would encourage everyone not to have one, especially in my family, but I understand it's a personal decision."

[anonymous66]

I mentioned earlier that many atheists also act as if there is only one way to interpret Christianity - they spend virtually all their time criticizing people whose superstitious religious beliefs cause them to reject scientific evidence, and/or make them terrible people (because they condemn interracial marriage, homosexuality, tell people that they better convert to Christianity if they want to avoid hell, etc.). Basically these atheists only criticize acknowledge Christians whose concept of God and/or the Bible make them terrible (or just foolish) people. But - there are Christians who accept that the Bible isn't meant to be a science textbook (take a look at Francis Collins and his organization Biologos). Many Christians accept that Christianity is a religion that preaches that everyone will be in heaven (at least eventually) - they believe that the Good News of Christianity is that everyone IS saved. These people tend to be very liberal and accepting of things other Christians believe to be serious sins (homosexuality, etc). Not everyone who is a Christian believes that their God will condemn people to an eternity in hell if those people don't convert.

Many of the more literal minded, conservative Christians are all too happy to accept the atheist's assumption that their view of Christianity is the only valid way to interpret Christianity.

I wish we lived in a world where, when Christianity was brought up, people thought, "oh, you mean those cool people who are concerned with loving their neighbor, and being like Jesus - you know, Jesus, the guy who spent his time around prostitutes and sinners? You mean the group that loves to tell the story of the Good Samartian - that great story condemning prejudice?... You mean those people who live out their concern for the poor and disenfranchised?"

I wonder if it were the case that there were more liberal, science minded, universal salvation accepting Christians... then would atheists still feel the need to criticize Christianity?

Completely accurate commentary. Most groups, especially atheists and theists, contain a wide distribution of members. Though your observations are very understandable as the "conservative" Christians are more activist, that is, politically active seeking to pass legislation (or block it, depending on the political leadership of the location) to codify their personal beliefs as the law of the land for everyone else.

If you think about it, essentially no one would argue with a Christian if his message was: "I consider abortion as murder, therefore I would encourage everyone not to have one, especially in my family, but I understand it's a personal decision."

It seems to me that the more liberal Christians that I was considering do not just blithely condemn all abortion as murder. It seems to me that they believe that at least some abortions are sometimes justified.

So, to modify my original post -
I wish we lived in a world where, when Christianity was brought up, people thought, "oh, you mean those cool people who are concerned with loving their neighbor, and being like Jesus - you know, Jesus, the guy who spent his time around prostitutes and sinners? You mean the group that loves to tell the story of the Good Samartian - that great story condemning prejudice?... You mean those people who live out their concern for the poor and disenfranchised? You mean those people who don't just blithely condemn all abortion as being murder?

I wonder if it were the case that there were more liberal, science minded, universal salvation accepting Christians... then would atheists still feel the need to criticize Christianity?

[anonymous66]

I mentioned earlier that many atheists also act as if there is only one way to interpret Christianity - they spend virtually all their time criticizing people whose superstitious religious beliefs cause them to reject scientific evidence, and/or make them terrible people (because they condemn interracial marriage, homosexuality, tell people that they better convert to Christianity if they want to avoid hell, etc.).

And we keep wondering why non-supertstious theists refuse to join us in condemning obviously false beliefs. Why do they always side with superstition over reason in these debates?

I don't see how this follows from my quote above. Who are these non-superstitious theist you refer to? And how do you know who they might or might not side with when considering superstition vs reason?

[/quote]

[anonymous66]

I"m not trying to turn this into a world religions thread... It appears you are trying to convince us that there are only 2 possibilities - atheism or Christianity. It is actually the case that people who profess a belief in God follow a multitude of religions, and some people believe in God but follow no religion.

Two possibilities: theism or atheism. Of atheism there appears to be only one kind. Of theism there are many kinds, so inevitably a choice must be made: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Polytheism, etc. One looks them over and decides. That was the aim of Pascal to explore, but he died before he could finish his project. The reflections he did make were collected and published later as Pensees. The wager argument is included among those reflections.

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Just because someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right?

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

I agree that pantheists and deists are not atheists...

And "yes" there is more than one kind of atheist - Let's consider 2 types you may not have encountered before -

1. Christian atheist who goes to a Christian church - he may or may not let people know he is an atheist.
2. Christian atheist who attends a church regularly with other people who identify as being atheist.

Of course - some people who consider themselves to be Christian atheists may belong to both 1 and 2.

From Wikipedia -

Christian atheism is a form of Christianity that rejects the theistic claims of Christianity, but draws its beliefs and practices from Jesus' life and teachings as recorded in the New Testament Gospels and other sources.

Christian atheism takes many forms:

Some include an ethics system.
Some are types of cultural Christianity.
Some Christian atheists take a theological position in which the theistic belief in the transcendent or interventionist God is rejected or absent in favor of finding God totally in the world (Thomas J. J. Altizer).
Others follow Jesus in a godless world (William Hamilton).
Hamilton's Christian atheism is similar to Jesuism.

[Count Lucanor]

Taking a position is not an example of a false dichotomy.
Can we agree on a definition of a false dichotomy?
Here's what I have in mind.... Quote "A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions. Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

As I explained to you, once you take a position, you automatically exclude all other stances that do not reflect your own stance. This is simple set theory: if you have A, B, C and D as options, and you choose A, you automatically have made two sets: the set that contains A and the set that contains B, C and D. It has nothing to do with "forcing an extreme position". Once you have taken a position as an atheist, which involves disbelief in supernatural entities and events, all beliefs in supernatural entities and events automatically become part of the other set.

[anonymous66]

Taking a position is not an example of a false dichotomy.
Can we agree on a definition of a false dichotomy?
Here's what I have in mind.... Quote "A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions. Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

As I explained to you, once you take a position, you automatically exclude all other stances that do not reflect your own stance. This is simple set theory: if you have A, B, C and D as options, and you choose A, you automatically have made two sets: the set that contains A and the set that contains B, C and D. It has nothing to do with "forcing an extreme position". Once you have taken a position as an atheist, which involves disbelief in supernatural entities and events, all beliefs in supernatural entities and events automatically become part of the other set.

It appears you are sidestepping what I was talking about - my criticism of the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs - a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions... and are now introducing a topic of your own.

It appears that you want to talk about atheists who believe that all people can be divided into 2 groups - those 2 groups being 1. those who believe in supernatural entities and events and 2. those who don't believe in supernatural entities and events.

[Count Lucanor]

Taking a position is not an example of a false dichotomy.
Can we agree on a definition of a false dichotomy?
Here's what I have in mind.... Quote "A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions. Examples: "If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. Unquote.
What i was criticising is the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs. That is a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions.

As I explained to you, once you take a position, you automatically exclude all other stances that do not reflect your own stance. This is simple set theory: if you have A, B, C and D as options, and you choose A, you automatically have made two sets: the set that contains A and the set that contains B, C and D. It has nothing to do with "forcing an extreme position". Once you have taken a position as an atheist, which involves disbelief in supernatural entities and events, all beliefs in supernatural entities and events automatically become part of the other set.

It appears you are sidestepping what I was talking about - my criticism of the propensity of some atheists to act as if there are only 2 positions- atheism or superstitious religious beliefs - a classic example of a false dichotomy because it insists that there are only 2 positions... and are now introducing a topic of your own.

It appears that you want to talk about atheists who believe that all people can be divided into 2 groups - those 2 groups being 1. those who believe in supernatural entities and events and 2. those who don't believe in supernatural entities and events.

No, not a new topic, I'm dealing directly with your topic: what you call a "false dichotomy" cannot be a false dichotomy, because it is the result of anyone taking a stance on a subject. Once you take a stance, the rest becomes the other side, creating a dichotomy. If some people define themselves as non-believers in supernatural entities (atheists), automatically the believers in supernatural entities become the opposite of atheists. For an atheist, belief in supernatural entities involves superstition (otherwise the atheist would find such belief justified). Therefore the other side automatically is considered superstitious.

[Sy Borg]

I mentioned earlier that many atheists also act as if there is only one way to interpret Christianity - they spend virtually all their time criticizing people whose superstitious religious beliefs cause them to reject scientific evidence, and/or make them terrible people (because they condemn interracial marriage, homosexuality, tell people that they better convert to Christianity if they want to avoid hell, etc.).

And we keep wondering why non-superstitious theists refuse to join us in condemning obviously false beliefs. Why do they always side with superstition over reason in these debates?

I don't see how this follows from my quote above. Who are these non-superstitious theist you refer to? And how do you know who they might or might not side with when considering superstition vs reason?

Religious "moderates" almost always side with their fundamentalist brethren over siding with non-believers, or they stay silent, which has the same effect, by allowing fundamentalists to represent them.

So, while they allow fundamentalists to take over their churches, they complain that atheists erroneously treat all theists as fundies. A "moderate" who refuses to speak up against the fundamentalist poisoning of their religious groups has no right to complain because their actions speak louder than their claims.

[Charlemagne]

Why would it be LOGICALLY INFALLIBLE to be convinced there is no God and no judgment awaiting us at the end of life?

[Dlaw]

Why would it be LOGICALLY INFALLIBLE to be convinced there is no God and no judgment awaiting us at the end of life?

Okay, I'm sure that this is a reasonable question but, to me, it reveals kind of the simplest and best argument against Pascal's Wager. That is, that Pascal's Wager assumes facts not in evidence. If you don't have a concept of God reasonably close to Pascal's, the question can go from confusing to moot. For instance, if your religious belief is that you are conceived by a deity which conceives the entire natural environment then the wager is absurd. If you exist, God exists - actually you can flip that around. If you believe in a unitary Prophet, then the wager is maybe a bit less nonsensical but is also largely moot. If the Prophet didn't say it, it's not a rational question about the Nature of God.

These are just examples, not meant to get into the weeds about a particular religion.