Furion
Well-known member
Are you worldviewless?
A bit of perspective
- Thread starter Torin
- Start date
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Beliefs do not have the burden of proof.
Assertions do.
That's why I drew the distinction, and asked the question.
I am happy to declare that I believe that gods do not exist, and that I find the concept of religion to be an impediment to human progress. But why would I assert that gods don't exist?
Furion
Well-known member
To match your rhetoric?
Five Solas
Active member
This was stated in context of declaring a worldview, which requires burden of proof, and if one sets it forth as a claim to knowledge, obviously belief will be involved. What are they going to say. "I'm a Humanist, but I don't believe it?" Divorcing it from its context is ridiculous and bolding things does not make you less wrong. It merely highlights your error.
That's fine. But think bigger picture. What is your positive, comprehensive worldview? What is your best approximation of what the world is like? The idea of gods is a subset of that. No one's saying you have to know every single thing or even that you can. But you're likely to be a Naturalist of some variety. No big deal.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
You are conflating "believe" and "believe in".
Christianity - the worldview - is contingent upon the accuracy of assertions about objective fact, while humanism is not; it is based on an entirely subjective holding about the interests of humanity being paramount.
I am, indeed, a (methodological) naturalist, for the simple reason that nothing has been shown to my satisfaction to require the assumption of the supernatural.
As I am fond of putting it, I don't buy tools until I need them.
Five Solas
Active member
There's no escape hatch, here, 8. You divorced from context and are obscuring in an attempt to divert attention. Just let it go. It's cool.
I believe in quoting primary sources. So here are a couple of assertions about objective fact from the Humanist Manifesto, bolding theirs:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
In passing, note the use of the word believe.
Most excellent. I suggest another reason this is helpful is that it weeds out those who will waste your time, and that works from your side of the fence also.
This is so spot on... A god that is attempted to be understood just causes things like bibles or Korans to be written and all the negative cultural and psychological fallout of humans interpreting that, and then, BAM!!!!! planes get flown into buildings. If you believe in god, cool,... just sit down, shut up, and enjoy it. Or at the very least, if you want to share it, share your actual anecdotal experience of it, not your speculative projections about what it means to anybody else's eternal anything.
Last edited:
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Five Solas
Active member
So what? You're wrong. The more you try to pick at meaningless things, the more it demonstrates it:
Humanist Manifesto III
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
That's why I pointed out the word believes first. Everyone but you is using it in the sense I did. Remember, when you can't spot the worst poker player at the table, it's you.
What about when asking that God be presented for inspection? It's one thing to ask for some sort of evidence or sign that God exists, but something else to ask that one produce their gods for inspection and analysis, no?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
1. "I believe that Avengers Endgame is the best film ever made."That's why I pointed out the word believes first. Everyone but you is using it in the sense I did. Remember, when you can't spot the worst poker player at the table, it's you.
2. "I believe that Jesus rose from the dead."
Do you acknowledge the difference between these two beliefs?
Five Solas
Active member
Glad you asked, Shnarkle, as you're one of the more interesting folks around here. I don't mind any of the above from intellectually honest folk. I was just referencing those who apparently have learned to say nothing else and have not understood the nature of evidence.
For your part, and I could be very wrong going on limited data, you've appeared to me as some variety of non-cognitivist, who thinks that evidence for God is a meaningless question because we cannot even describe him such that we would even know what kind of evidence would work. Somewhere in that neighborhood close?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
I'm curious - do you think we're justified in believing that the god of the Bible does not exist?
Five Solas
Active member
I be happy to test out of Freshman philosophy if you insist on it. But first, let's settle the larger question. Here's the comment you responded to:
This does not apply to many of you, so if it does not, don't take it as such. Generally speaking, the internet is populated by a variety of low church atheists that only know how to say some form of "I don't see any evidence." (which itself is based in Philosophy, not science, BTW) The moment an atheist mans up--and many do, even here-- and sets forth a positive worldview and defends it, they no longer only cite science or verificationism. Can't be done, and that's the difference.
Big picture, though, science can never be divorced from philosophy or stand alone apart from philosophy, while philosophy, even good philosophy, occurs apart from science routinely, though it is able to incorporate it when appropriate.
Nothing about belief, et al. Simply a general worldview comment, to which you subsequently introduced the distinction between assertion and belief while missing the point about positive worldview. So the main thing here first to see is if you can provide simple agreement to something this basic. You appeared to be citing methodological naturalism earlier.
Five Solas
Active member
Depends on the theory of justification in play, but I know plenty of atheists who are. Not enough data for you yet, but I'm hopeful.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
You imputed beliefs with a burden of proof that they do not possess.
I merely pointed out how that is incorrect.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
How about "I find it both insufficiently evidenced and ridiculous"?
That's mine - the former gets lack of belief, and the latter pushes it into active belief to the contrary.
Five Solas
Active member
The whole point of my comment was about manning up with a positive worldview. How you can get no burden of proof out of that is risible. Here's the salient phrase from my comment: sets forth a positive worldview and defends it.
Five Solas
Active member
That's not a standard theory of justification. If you're going feign familiarity with epistemology then act like it. Or we can go back to speaking in general terms. Your choice.
It's a meaningless question for those who ask, primarily because whatever ideas, meanings, descriptions, definitions, etc. they, on those extremely rare occasions; do come up with are facile at best.
One doesn't have to be a non-cognitivist to ask for evidence, or for God himself to be revealed, but in order to falsify the gods, one necessarily needs to define them beforehand. One necessarily must have some standard by which to validate God's existence. Too many atheists are at a loss to come up with anything beyond walking on water, or some other trick which they also seem to think they can discern.
The intellect is a poor mediator of reality. It is derived from reality and therefore cannot be fundamental. To then assume the intellect can be just as fundamental as reality, or the basis or foundation by which one may discern reality is to plant one's feet firmly in mid air.
At best, the intellect can simulate reality, but simulations are not reality, and probably not even the fundamental interface with reality.
If one wants to meet God, it must be within the most immanent connection one can make with reality. There is no room for the intellect to mediate that connection. The intellect only provides additional obstacles to that connection.
A god that is easily understood is a god that is easily imagined, and the Ancients saw that whatever one may imagine cannot be God, but is only the product of one's imagination. The biblical authors point out that it is idolatry. Therefore only the unimaginable, ineffable, incomprehensible can even begin to come close.