Deism vs Atheism

livilou

I started this because I didn't want to take over another thread.

You have to understand that I consider myself a Christian, but some of the statements made about these two made me realize that it deserved it's own thread so maybe some of the misunderstandings could be straightened out. If you have a different view about this, please post. I've only started learning about this tonight, so I don't know that much about it yet, but I'm learning.

I found several sites that will explain the difference between the two, but I thought I would only use 2 for right now.

The first site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism. It starts with this statement:

Quote:

Historical and modern deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.

If you would like to read more, just follow the link above.

The next site I found was http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm, which goes more indepth than the other site. It has a great faq about the difference between the two.

Please post your comments on this subject. Also remember, I don't follow either one, so I'm not an expert on them.

Kaneda

One important thing to comment on the deism.com FAQ is that no, atheism doesn't "teach that there is no god". Atheísm doesn't "teach" anything.

Some atheists deny the existence of any god - and sometimes oppose the concept of religious belief altogether.

Some atheists acknowledge the existance of one or more gods - but deduce that god isn't someone to be followed, but rather opposed.

Some do neither, believing:
- it's unknown at the present time.
- it's unknowable.
- it's irrelevant.
- any combination of the above.

Some are sceptic towards organized religion, some aren't. Some are sceptic towards faith, some aren't. Some are directly opposed to religion of any kind, some aren't. Some know close to nothing about the various religions, some may know more about a certain religion than a fair percentage of the people practicing it.

I'm not quite sure I agree with deism.com's definition of deism itself either. The one thing deism and atheism have in common, which sets them apart from religions (or other religions, in the case of deism), is that neither needs to be taught. Unlike christians, buddhists, muslims, wiccans etc., an atheist or deist can be an atheist or deist without knowing it. Hence, I'm not sure you can really say that deism "teaches" anything either.

I myself is of the opinion that the existence or non-existence of a god is absolutely irrelevant (but not unknowable), I'm sceptic towards organized religion and some aspects of faith (as in, faith can be a very, very dangerous thing) but I'm not opposed to religion as such, as long as it doesn't enforce anything on me. And I like to discuss religion, if only to try to understand people who think differently.

Indi

Kaneda wrote:

Some atheists deny the existence of any god - and sometimes oppose the concept of religious belief altogether.

Some atheists acknowledge the existance of one or more gods - but deduce that god isn't someone to be followed, but rather opposed.

Some do neither, believing:
- it's unknown at the present time.
- it's unknowable.
- it's irrelevant.
- any combination of the above.

Some are sceptic towards organized religion, some aren't. Some are sceptic towards faith, some aren't. Some are directly opposed to religion of any kind, some aren't. Some know close to nothing about the various religions, some may know more about a certain religion than a fair percentage of the people practicing it.

I just wanted to highlight this little bit here, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about both atheism and deism that stems from the issue you brought up. And while you have obliquely answered the problem, I think it deserves a head on treatment.

Unlike religions - and I phrase it this way deliberately and with good reason, which I'll get to soon - atheism and deism were not "invented" by someone or something. Take Islam for example. If you believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired, then the beliefs and philosophies of Islam were invented by God (or Allah, same thing). If you believe he was not, then Islam was invented by Muhammed. Either way, someone or something drafted the concept of Islam, and it's been passed down ever since.

Atheism and deism are not religions. As Kaneda pointed out, neither one has to be taught. No one invented either. It's not like someone stood on a mountain one day and said, "People, I have a revelation for you, God doesn't exist!" and lo, the people learned and passed on his teaching. There is no spiritual leader of "Atheism" or "Deism". No holy writings. No teachings.

In fact, there is no such thing as "Atheism" or "Deism", only atheism and deism. They are not sects, cults, churches or religions. Both atheism and deism are categories, not specific items. Saying "I am an atheist" is equivalent to "I am a theist", not "I am a Christian". Or to put it another way, Catholicism is an example of Christianity, Christianity is an example of theism. Atheism is an example of nothing, it is a whole category unto itself. The same with deism. If someone says to you "I am an atheist", you don't really know anything about their beliefs, except the general category. You don't know whether they hate the idea of a god, think it is stupid, consider it illogical/unknowable or simply that they just don't give a rat's ass about the question at all.

Atheism and deism are categories of beliefs, not actual religions - just like theism is a category of beliefs, not an actual religion. You don't go to "Theist" churches, because theism is an abstract concept, not a concrete religion. Likewise, you don't "follow" atheism or deism, because they are abstract concepts representing a common factor between large groups of beliefs.

As Kaneda pointed out, there are many different types of atheist beliefs (just like there are many different types of theist beliefs). And not all atheists agree with each other. Not by a longshot. In fact, it is conceivable that two atheists could even fight about the differences between their beliefs - it is possible for their beliefs to be that wildly different, and in opposition to each other's beliefs, and yet they could still both be athiests (just like how it is possible for two different theists, a Muslim and a Christian for example, to fight about the differences between their beliefs, despite the fact that they are both theists).

There are also many different kinds of deist beliefs. Some believe that divine intervention does not and/or cannot happen, some believe it is a subtle pervasive force, others believe it can happen any time subject to the whims of the god. Some believe the god is outside the universe, others that the universe is just a part of the god, others believe the universe itself is god, and we are all parts of god.

Theism and atheism are conflicting categories:
- Theism is the belief in a superior being(s) that created and/or is the universe. (This belief in superior being(s), of course, has many forms.)
- Atheism belief a lack of belief in a superior being(s) that created and/or is the universe. (This lack of belief in superior being(s) has many forms.)

But deism does not conflict with either:
- Deism is belief in a being (not necessarily superior) that can be discovered and/or understood rationally, and that created and/or is the universe. (This belief has many forms.)

Because theism, atheism and deism come in so many different flavours, it is possible to overlap some forms of theism with some forms of deism. It is possible to overlap some forms of atheism with some forms of deism. Thus it can be tricky to pin someone's beliefs down under a single tag. The confusion is compounded by the fact that there are no well-defined "schools" of deism or atheism, though there are many well-defined theist beliefs (ie, religions).

Consider me, for example. I don't believe in any revealed god, and I don't believe that there is some omnipotent god out there poking his nose in my everyday business. I believe that if there is a god, he is not pulling the strings of the universe (I believe the term for this is a clockmaker god - god made the universe, then set it in motion, and he hasn't interfered since - just like a clockmaker who makes a clock then starts it, but doesn't interfere with its everyday operation). Thus, you could call me a weak atheist, because I do not believe in a god, but I do not rule out the possibility. You could also call me a deist (and on different days you could name different types of deism), because I do not believe that a god is controlling the universe or sending messages to us, but I consider the universe itself as being a kind of god. Possibly even created by us - the intelligent life within (ie, cosmotheism). Depends on my mood and how you interpret what I say and write, no answer is really right or wrong.

What am I really? *shrug* I'm a don't-care-ist. Call me what you want, I can't be bothered with labels, and I'm sure as hell not going to tailor my beliefs so that they fit snugly in some category or another (as is common practice with theistic beliefs - you can't be a Christian and not really believe Jesus' teachings - sure you can interpret them, but there are core precepts you have to accept to be called Christian).

That Wikipedia article is good, but that "Deism defined" site is just awful. It was clearly slapped together by someone without any great depth of thought put into it. Many of the responses are lacking in depth and detail. Some are trying to be clever at the expense of being correct (for example, that comment about how deists only give prayers of thanks and appreciation - untrue - some deists believe that if they ask god for something (and exactly how that asking is done can be widely variable - some say prayer, some day good deeds to earn karma points, etc.) it may or may not be granted).

mike1reynolds

Indi, while I hesitate to say this because you reject being labeled into any clean and neat category, I think that all of your various speculations fall under only one category – agnosticism, precisely because agnosticism is not a clean and neat category. Belief in a clockmaker God is a classic agnostic stance. You refer to it as weak atheism, but that is actually one of the definitions of agnosticism – doubt but not outright rejection.

As to atheism, while many little differences are possible, as a practical matter I have only encountered three basic categories. I’ll label them logical atheism, fundamentalist atheism and mystical atheism. In your debate with BruceTheDauber, you perfectly expressed logical atheism – God’s nonexistence can’t be proven, but persistent lack of evidence leads the logical atheist to a firm conclusion. Additional evidence could always change this, but a logical atheist has given up hope that such evidence will present itself.

While I’m sure that all fundamentalist atheists would vehemently reject this label, never the less their belief is basically a religious faith. It is an a priori conviction, not a product of logic. They are just as fanatical as any other form of fundamentalism, and just like other forms of fundamentalism, it is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate with them. BruceTheDauber is a good example of this. In his last post to you he said, “it is all a leap of faith.” While he didn’t think that he was referring to himself, it is in fact a projection of his own faith. Many theists have a logical processes and not just pure conviction, but his atheism is a product of pure conviction, so he assumes that all views of God are an inverted reflection of his own faith.

A mystical atheist is someone who strongly believes in spiritual phenomenon, utterly unlike the other two categories. Most Wiccans are mystical atheist, for example. While pantheists such as Wiccans could be referred to as theists in a sense, most living traditions that are pantheistic also embrace monotheism – all of their pantheistic gods are merely a subset of God. Hindus have Brahma, native Americans have the Great Spirit, and Druids had the All-Father. Of course not all mystical atheists are pantheistic, they may embrace any number of mystical non-materialist beliefs. Atheists who love to use Tarot cards or study astrology are also examples of mystical atheists.

Indi wrote:

If you believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired, then the beliefs and philosophies of Islam were invented by God (or Allah, same thing). If you believe he was not, then Islam was invented by Muhammed.

Just as a note, Mohammed didn’t write the Quran. In New Age terms, it is channeled material. In Catholic terms, it is one big locution – the voice of an unseen presence. Supposed it was the voice of the Archangel Gabriel. Given the rabid nature of the Quran I doubt that it was an angel, although I accept at face value that it was an entity and not mental illness.

livilou

I would like to thank each of you for your response. While it won't change my mind, it was very enlightening. I enjoy reading about how you see it all. It was educational to say the least. I never really knew there were so many different ways of looking at atheism and deism. I guess that's why I started this. I always enjoy learning new things.

Again thank you for your time and responses.

mike1reynolds

livilou wrote:

While it won't change my mind, it was very enlightening.

I certainly wouldn't want to convert you to a belief that I don't hold.

Indi

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi, while I hesitate to say this because you reject being labeled into any clean and neat category, I think that all of your various speculations fall under only one category – agnosticism, precisely because agnosticism is not a clean and neat category. Belief in a clockmaker God is a classic agnostic stance. You refer to it as weak atheism, but that is actually one of the definitions of agnosticism – doubt but not outright rejection.

Hm, I always thought that the clockmaker concept of God was a deist concept, not an agnostic one.

Anyway, heh, yeah, I suppose you're right though, I would qualify as agnostic. ^_^ For sure I believe that we do not have any real evidence for or against God. I don't necessarily rule out the possibility that such evidence may one day be found though, so I suppose I'd fall into the category of soft agnosticism.

Or maybe you could just call it apathy. ^_^'

The reason I don't often bring agnosticism up is because it is kind of a tack-on to other beliefs. I mean, you can be both agnostic and theist, agnostic and deist or agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism - to me - implies that you do not claim certainty in knowing that God exists, and you can do that while believing in God or not believing in God. It's basically tacking the phrase "... but it is impossible to know this to be true" onto anything you beleive (and not just God-concepts). An agnostic theist says "I believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". An agnostic atheist says "I do not believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". So calling yourself agnostic without further qualification is inconclusive. That's why I normally don't bother.

Maybe agnostic atheist is the best category for me? I mean, my theories of God as clockmaker and the universe itself bringing God into existence with it are really just that, theories. Although they make sense to me, and I could see myself believing such things, I don't really believe them. As a matter of honesty, I suppose I should admit that no, I don't really think there is a God - which would make me a logical atheist, by your definitions.

(Oh, by the way, I think you should word them differently. I think I get where you're going with the three categories, but even BruceTheDauber himself would argue that he came to his belief by logic and not a priori conviction - that is, logic led to the conviction (which may or may not be true). Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion), a fundamental atheist believes there is no God and may offer logic is evidence of this (the non-existence of God is a fact, and while logic agrees with this conclusion, the conclusion is not a product of logic, because the shortcomings of logic do not apply), and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)? If you word it that way, when someone says they know for a fact there is no God, and claim logic is proof of that belief, you can point out that logical deduction is proof of nothing, thus they are fundamental atheists.)

Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<)

mike1reynolds

Indi wrote:

Hm, I always thought that the clockmaker concept of God was a deist concept, not an agnostic one.

You are probably right, until livilou started this thread I had no idea that deism and theism weren’t synonyms, which sucks because when you say, “I’m a theist” it sounds like you’re saying, “I’m atheists”!

Indi wrote:

Anyway, heh, yeah, I suppose you're right though, I would qualify as agnostic. ^_^ For sure I believe that we do not have any real evidence for or against God.

Who is we?! I have proof! Unfortunately, mystical experiences cannot be shared in a manner that constitutes proof, unless you are extremely confident in someone. I also have objective evidence, but it is not like the absolute proof of personal experience.

Indi wrote:

I don't necessarily rule out the possibility that such evidence may one day be found though, so I suppose I'd fall into the category of soft agnosticism.

Well now I recant. If the clockmaker God is a deist concept, then I’d say that you’re a deist. Wasn’t Voltaire a deist? I know that he disavowed atheism, to the surprise of some since his arguments sound atheistic. But as a practical matter, what is the distinction between deism and atheism?

Indi wrote:

The reason I don't often bring agnosticism up is because it is kind of a tack-on to other beliefs. I mean, you can be both agnostic and theist, agnostic and deist or agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism - to me - implies that you do not claim certainty in knowing that God exists, and you can do that while believing in God or not believing in God. It's basically tacking the phrase "... but it is impossible to know this to be true" onto anything you beleive (and not just God-concepts). An agnostic theist says "I believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". An agnostic atheist says "I do not believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true".

I object to your definition of agnostic atheism because this creates a definition of unqualified atheism which is exclusively illogical and irrational. This would make atheism equal to fundamentalist atheism and logical atheism would have to be labeled agnostic atheism. However, one can be an extremely convince logical atheist, 99.99% certain, which is contrary to the notion of agnosticism.

Indi wrote:

Maybe agnostic atheist is the best category for me? I mean, my theories of God as clockmaker and the universe itself bringing God into existence with it are really just that, theories. Although they make sense to me, and I could see myself believing such things, I don't really believe them. As a matter of honesty, I suppose I should admit that no, I don't really think there is a God - which would make me a logical atheist, by your definitions.

Yes, your delineation of logical atheism was too precise, I suspected that this is what you are.

Indi wrote:

(Oh, by the way, I think you should word them differently. I think I get where you're going with the three categories, but even BruceTheDauber himself would argue that he came to his belief by logic and not a priori conviction - that is, logic led to the conviction (which may or may not be true). Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion)

What do you mean by shortcomings of logic in this context? The only logic here is the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Indi wrote:

…a fundamental atheist believes there is no God and may offer logic as evidence of this (the non-existence of God is a fact, and while logic agrees with this conclusion, the conclusion is not a product of logic, because the shortcomings of logic do not apply)

I disagree, the fundamentalist atheists has an explicitly illogical thought process. S/he says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Proof requires positive evidence; absence of evidence is negative evidence, not positive evidence, so it cannot be proof.

For example, Bruce compared theism to the possibility of finding a million dollar bill in his back pocket. (a) It is impossible to forget such a thing and (b) million dollar bills have never been printed. So there is overwhelming evidence that he isn’t going to find the bill. He is asserting that God is fundamentally and theoretically implausible. Proof of theoretical implausibility requires substantial positive evidence. Absence of evidence alone says nothing about theoretical plausibility.

Indi wrote:

…and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)?

An illogical component of the universe? It sounds like you are saying that mystical phenomena are theoretical implausible. Now you are venturing into fundamentalist atheism.

Indi wrote:

If you word it that way, when someone says they know for a fact there is no God, and claim logic is proof of that belief, you can point out that logical deduction is proof of nothing, thus they are fundamental atheists.)

I don’t understand, how is logical deduction proof of nothing? How else does one prove anything?

Indi wrote:

Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<)

Far from being apathetic, it seems to me that you have given this more thought than 99.99% of the population. At this point, I would say that you are a logical atheist.

Now logical atheism can be further broken down into two categories. Ones that care and ones that don’t. Do you really not care, or does it depress you? When I was an atheist it was not the disbelief in God that bothered me, it was my disbelief in Heaven and immortality. I use to say that it left a God-shaped hole in my heart, but I suppose that it was really a Heaven-shaped hole. I would argue with anyone that I could, not in order to convert anyone, I felt that if people believed in God they were better of because I was miserable, but actually I was looking for someone to give me a halfway decent counter argument. It took 9 years. (12 to 21)

BTW, I really love your expressive faces! They are so much more expressive than the icons or the two letter sideways ones and they are very distinctly cute and girlish!

Kaneda

mike1reynolds wrote:

Who is we?! I have proof! Unfortunately, mystical experiences cannot be shared in a manner that constitutes proof, unless you are extremely confident in someone. I also have objective evidence, but it is not like the absolute proof of personal experience.

The point would be, you have nothing that could convince anyone else, for or against. If you did, this discussion wouldn't take place. Mystical experiences can not only not be shared, they can never constitute proof to anyone except the person who experiences them. And even he himself really shouldn't take it as proof for a particular religious, doctrinal belief. Or as William James said:

William James wrote:

As a matter of psychological fact, mystical states of a well-pronounced and emphatic sort are usually authoritative over those who have them. They have been 'there,' and know. It is vain for rationalism to grumble about this. [... but ...] The fact is that the mystical feeling of enlargement, union, and emancipation has no specific intellectual content whatever of its own. It is capable of forming matrimonial alliances with material furnished by the most diverse philosophies and theologies, provided only they can find a place in their framework for its peculiar emotional mood.

A mystical experience is very very real to the person having it, it cannot be put into words (or even thoughts), but if you try, you'll mostly describe it in the way that meshes with the beliefs you already had - or at least a belief system you know.

And there's no objective truth to it - countless people have had this kind of experience (more than will admit it). Some find it to confirm Buddhism, some find it to confirm Islam, some find it to confirm Christianity, some find it to confirm the religion of native Americans, some find it to confirm wicca, some (myself included) find it to confirm an all-encompassing purpose and connectedness with every living thing and event throughout history, without any deity (or even spiritual concept) being involved.

Judging by the descriptions from mental patients, some have experienced the exact opposite of a "mystical experience" - a feeling of absolute disconnectedness, hopelessness, meaninglessness, horror, but still very very real. Is it truth? To them it is. Is it objective truth? Not by a longshot. It tells cascades of truth about yourself. About the rest of the world, not so much.

The really cynical people would say that the feeling of realness and truth you get from such an experience is no different from the feeling of actual recall you get when you have a deja vu. The mind is capable of giving you the feeling of memory without any memory being there. It's also capable of giving you the feeling of absolute truth without any truth being there.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Well now I recant. If the clockmaker God is a deist concept, then I’d say that you’re a deist. Wasn’t Voltaire a deist? I know that he disavowed atheism, to the surprise of some since his arguments sound atheistic. But as a practical matter, what is the distinction between deism and atheism?

Strong atheism: The belief that no god exists.
Weak atheism: The absense of belief in any god.
Deism: The view that reason and knowledge should be the basis for belief in a god. It's rarely (if ever) used along with atheism, because deists do believe in a god. But their belief cannot be based on a revealed god or "faith". This is why a lot of deists (but not all) don't believe in a personal god or a god that still interferes with the world today.

mike1reynolds wrote:

I object to your definition of agnostic atheism because this creates a definition of unqualified atheism which is exclusively illogical and irrational.

That's the reason for the term agnostic atheism in the first place. A strong atheist who also positively asserts that there is no god is irrational, yes (but you won't get him to admit it), but he/she exists just as much as the theist who positively asserts that god exists. I'd think, for some people, it isn't enough to believe, they need to know in order to justify their beliefs. And they will then create an approximation of objective truth in their mind. Which is why to a lot of religious people, any other religion - and atheism - is necessarily wrong. And to a lot of atheists, any religion is necessarily wrong. Agnosticism and atheism... They're both vague terms, even slightly more vague than theism. Live with it Wink

mike1reynolds wrote:

However, one can be an extremely convince logical atheist, 99.99% certain, which is contrary to the notion of agnosticism.

Not really. As long as you admit that you have no way to say "I know no god exists", you're an agnostic.

And your categories need to be revised. Smile

Indi wrote:

Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion)

That would end up leaving the majority of atheists out of all three categories...

mike1reynolds wrote:

I disagree, the fundamentalist atheists has an explicitly illogical thought process. S/he says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Proof requires positive evidence; absence of evidence is negative evidence, not positive evidence, so it cannot be proof.

This goes to the heart of the philosophy of science. The "logical atheist" is on a mission doomed to fail. You really should not take the question of God's existence and turn it into a scientific theory or question. The common measure of evaluating the merit of a scientific theory today, taught to (I'd hope) any student in the first year at university, was formulated by Karl Popper. The more things a theory forbids, the better the theory. For a theory to be a good scientific theory, it's not important that you can prove it, it's important that you can prove it wrong. Almost any theory about the physical world can be proven right, if you add enough auxilliary theories.

The question of God's existence as a scientific theory cannot be proven wrong. There is nothing in that theory that allows you to say, "we'll just do this, and then we'll show those suckers there is no God". You can search the entire universe, find nothing, and all you'll get out of it is an auxilliary theory that "God does not exist in the universe".

Scientific discussion of that question is quite simply futile. Which is why I also object to the term "logical atheist". You can never be an atheist by way of logic. You can be an agnostic at most. Being an atheist is a choice, which may be guided by, but certainly not based on, absolute logic or absolute knowledge.

Indi wrote:

Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<)

I see no reason to be depressed Smile

Your "lack" has nothing to do with "everything" or "yourself". It only has to do with a specific facet of your beliefs - you don't believe in God, you don't have knowledge of God, and you don't care about the answer to the question of God's existence. Hopefully, with that choice of belief, you find something else to be more important in your life. Smile

Most of the time, I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist, myself. Smile

Last edited by Kaneda on Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Soulfire

Interesting thought. I know quite a few people who have a belief in God, and some who even believe in God and Jesus but do not find their place in an organized Church. While I personally wouldn't stray away from my Church, it's an interesting tid bit.

mike1reynolds

Kaneda wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Who is we?! I have proof! Unfortunately, mystical experiences cannot be shared in a manner that constitutes proof, unless you are extremely confident in someone. I also have objective evidence, but it is not like the absolute proof of personal experience.

The point would be, you have nothing that could convince anyone else, for or against.

How do you know, I haven't stated it.

Kaneda wrote:

Mystical experiences can not only not be shared, they can never constitute proof to anyone except the person who experiences them.

You are repeating what I already said (in italics and bold).

As to your arguments for not trusting one's own experience, that is illogical, that is all that one can trust ultimately. What is more fundametal than emperical evidence? Nothing.

As to my evidence, it is based on a combination of enthropy, quantum physics, dynamical systems theory, mathemtatics and computer science theory.

(1) Maxfield proved 150 years ago that enthropy is the result of bit transfers at the atomic level.

(2) Quantum computers are based on using mechanisms already operating in the universe. The universe is already a quantum computer.

(3) Associative Memory Theory in mathematics has proven that all matrix operations form a "bidirection associative memory mechanism".

(4) In quantum physics the interaction between all particles in the universe forms a matrix operation via each of the four fundamental forces of the universe.

(5) Dynamical systems theory proves that chaotic systems self-organize.

At the atomic level the universe is a vast neural network. The assertion that this neural network could not have self-organized has no evidence to support it, whereas there is ample evidence to support the assertion that it must have self-organized.

Indi

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

The reason I don't often bring agnosticism up is because it is kind of a tack-on to other beliefs. I mean, you can be both agnostic and theist, agnostic and deist or agnostic and atheist. Agnosticism - to me - implies that you do not claim certainty in knowing that God exists, and you can do that while believing in God or not believing in God. It's basically tacking the phrase "... but it is impossible to know this to be true" onto anything you beleive (and not just God-concepts). An agnostic theist says "I believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true". An agnostic atheist says "I do not believe God exists... but it is impossible to know this to be true".

I object to your definition of agnostic atheism because this creates a definition of unqualified atheism which is exclusively illogical and irrational. This would make atheism equal to fundamentalist atheism and logical atheism would have to be labeled agnostic atheism. However, one can be an extremely convince logical atheist, 99.99% certain, which is contrary to the notion of agnosticism.

That could only true if you define an atheist as one who says "I believe God does not exist" (call that dogmatic atheism). The truth is that there is a broad range of atheist beliefs, including "I don't believe God exists, but don't rule out the possibility" (call that weak atheism), "I don't care whether or not God exists" (call that apathetic atheism), and more. It is possible to have an unqualified belief that doesn't include God, and is not dogmatic (such as "I don't care", for example).

But the reality is even greyer than that. Agnosticism - to me at least - comes in one of two forms: "it is impossible to know whether or not God exists" (call it strict agnosticism) and "it is possible to know whether or not God exists, but I don't know myself, yet" (call it soft agnosticism).

So you can mix and match definitions to get a whole wash of categories:
1.) Dogmatic atheist/strict agnostic: "I believe God doesn't exist, although I don't think it's possible for anyone to know either way."
2.) Weak atheist/soft agnostic: "I don't personally believe in God, but I would be willing to consider evidence."
3.) Weak atheist/strict agnostic: "I don't personally believe in God, and I don't think it can be proven either way."
4.) Apathetic atheist/strict agnostic: "I don't know or care if God exists, and I don't think it's possible to know for sure."

And so on.

This is why I don't bother with categorization. Categories are nebulous and subjective, and ultimately of little use to anyone.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

(Oh, by the way, I think you should word them differently. I think I get where you're going with the three categories, but even BruceTheDauber himself would argue that he came to his belief by logic and not a priori conviction - that is, logic led to the conviction (which may or may not be true). Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion)

What do you mean by shortcomings of logic in this context? The only logic here is the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It seems to be a common belief that logic can "prove" things. That is not the case. Logic can suggest, and it can be strong evidence, but it is hardly proof of anything outside of the theoretical headspace the logic is performed in. You can't prove something exists or does not exist by logic, but you can certainly offer the logical deduction or induction as a strong case for or against. In the end, logic is only as valid as the knowledge and intelligence of the person applying the logic. So unless you are infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely wise (or clever), your logic will always be suspect.

So a "logical atheist" would say something like, "Logic suggests there is no God, but I cannot know if my knowledge is complete or my logical process perfect, so the possibility exists that there may still be a God. I, however, choose to accept the logical conclusion for now."

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

…a fundamental atheist believes there is no God and may offer logic as evidence of this (the non-existence of God is a fact, and while logic agrees with this conclusion, the conclusion is not a product of logic, because the shortcomings of logic do not apply)

I disagree, the fundamentalist atheists has an explicitly illogical thought process. S/he says that absence of evidence is proof of absence. Proof requires positive evidence; absence of evidence is negative evidence, not positive evidence, so it cannot be proof.

The whole process isn't necessarily illogical, and it isn't necessarily based on absence of evidence. They could show - logically - that God is an illogical concept somehow, and thus they don't believe. Bruce's million dollar bill is a perfect example of this. It is not based on absence of evidence, it is based on absence of possibility.

But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is, and thus all other evidence of God is nonsense.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

…and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)?

An illogical component of the universe? It sounds like you are saying that mystical phenomena are theoretical implausible. Now you are venturing into fundamentalist atheism.

Mysticism is illogical by definition. If it were logical, it would not be mystical, it would be science. And I am nowhere near any dogmatic claims when I point that out. I am not claiming anything mystical is impossible or even implausible. Just illogical. Just because something is illogical, that doesn mean it doesn't exist. There are a lot of illogical things I deal with all the time. Women, for example.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<)

Far from being apathetic, it seems to me that you have given this more thought than 99.99% of the population. At this point, I would say that you are a logical atheist.

Now logical atheism can be further broken down into two categories. Ones that care and ones that don’t. Do you really not care, or does it depress you?

No, I don't really care, and it really doesn't depress me. ^_^ I'm perfectly happy with being "lacking everything guy". Leaves a lot of room for improvement, doesn't it? ^_-

But if not caring is a subset of logical atheism, that covers people that believe that God has not been proven and/or that God is illogical but that don't really care, but what about people who don't believe there is any evidence either way and don't care - that is, people for whom the idea is completely irrelevant?

mike1reynolds wrote:

BTW, I really love your expressive faces! They are so much more expressive than the icons or the two letter sideways ones and they are very distinctly cute and girlish!

Girlish?!?! T_T

Kaneda wrote:

Indi wrote:

Well now I recant. If the clockmaker God is a deist concept, then I’d say that you’re a deist. Wasn’t Voltaire a deist? I know that he disavowed atheism, to the surprise of some since his arguments sound atheistic. But as a practical matter, what is the distinction between deism and atheism?

Strong atheism: The belief that no god exists.
Weak atheism: The absense of belief in any god.
Deism: The view that reason and knowledge should be the basis for belief in a god. It's rarely (if ever) used along with atheism, because deists do believe in a god. But their belief cannot be based on a revealed god or "faith". This is why a lot of deists (but not all) don't believe in a personal god or a god that still interferes with the world today.

Hey, that wasn't me. ^_^

Kaneda wrote:

Indi wrote:

Maybe a better description would be that a logical atheist believes that logic shows there is no God (the conclusion that there is no God is a product of logic, and thus the shortcomings of logic affect the conclusion)

That would end up leaving the majority of atheists out of all three categories...

I suppose... bah, this is why I don't categorize. >_< The only people who benefit from categorization are census takers anyway.

Kaneda wrote:

Indi wrote:

Maybe I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. ^_^ (Which, considering that the a- prefix means "lack of" and I have a triple dose of it, seems to imply that my very nature is lacking everything... which is kind of depressing. >_<)

I see no reason to be depressed Smile

Your "lack" has nothing to do with "everything" or "yourself". It only has to do with a specific facet of your beliefs - you don't believe in God, you don't have knowledge of God, and you don't care about the answer to the question of God's existence. Hopefully, with that choice of belief, you find something else to be more important in your life. Smile

Most of the time, I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist, myself. Smile

Heh, thank you. ^_^

mike1reynolds

Kaneda wrote:

Not really. As long as you admit that you have no way to say "I know no god exists", you're an agnostic.

This unavoidably implies that all expressions of atheism ar fundamentally illogical, which I think is a bad definition. When I didn't believe in God I did not call myself an agnostic. Agnosticism is wishy washy.

mike1reynolds

Indi wrote:

But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...

Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical.

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

…and a mystical atheist believes there is no God but there is an illogical component of the universe (just one that's not a god)?

An illogical component of the universe? It sounds like you are saying that mystical phenomena are theoretical implausible. Now you are venturing into fundamentalist atheism.

Mysticism is illogical by definition. If it were logical, it would not be mystical, it would be science. And I am nowhere near any dogmatic claims when I point that out. I am not claiming anything mystical is impossible or even implausible. Just illogical. Just because something is illogical, that doesn mean it doesn't exist. There are a lot of illogical things I deal with all the time. Women, for example.

The fact that someone is illogical hardly makes the assertion that they exist and illogical assertion.

Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science.

I just hit a brick wall because I was up till dawn in a contentious debate with a Theravadan Buddhist on the Buddhist thread over whether or not the Buddha was an atheist, which he wasn’t. I’ll have to reply to the rest of your post after I get some more sleep. Talk too you soon!

mike1reynolds

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

BTW, I really love your expressive faces! They are so much more expressive than the icons or the two letter sideways ones and they are very distinctly cute and girlish!

Girlish?!?! T_T

Oops! The thin neck of your avatar gave me the impression of a female. I shall immediately go to the doctor in order to have my foot surgically removed from my mouth!

mike1reynolds

Kaneda wrote:

I see no reason to be depressed Smile

Your "lack" has nothing to do with "everything" or "yourself". It only has to do with a specific facet of your beliefs - you don't believe in God, you don't have knowledge of God, and you don't care about the answer to the question of God's existence. Hopefully, with that choice of belief, you find something else to be more important in your life. Smile

It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.

Kaneda

mike1reynolds wrote:

Kaneda wrote:

The point would be, you have nothing that could convince anyone else, for or against.

How do you know, I haven't stated it.

The "anyone" was obviously a typo (or rather, a wrong translation of a non-English thought). You couldn't convince everyone else, or even a large majority, because if you could, this discussion wouldn't be taking place Wink

mike1reynolds wrote:

You are repeating what I already said (in italics and bold).

Yes, in order to make the modification, that even if you could share your mystical experience, it would have no more objective truth value than now.

mike1reynolds wrote:

As to your arguments for not trusting one's own experience, that is illogical, that is all that one can trust ultimately. What is more fundametal than emperical evidence? Nothing.

Of course you can trust your own experience. But there's a difference between trusting that experience, and taking it as proof of something entirely else.

Example... You travel to the city of Prague for the first time in your life, you exit a metro, walk out into the light, and see the Old Town square for the first time. You take it all in, the people, the clock tower, the century-old buildings. Then you remember, you've been there before. Not only that, but everything sounds, smells, looks and feels the same. You have the same taste in your mouth, heck, you just had the exact same thought about the girl walking by as you did last time you were there. Except you're still absolutely certain you could never have been there, ever. In short, deja vu.

Now, there's absolutely no doubt that you remember being there before. That's a fact. But that still doesn't mean you actually were there before. Now, what's illogical? Thinking that somehow you were in Prague before, the same time of day, the same girl walking by, making you think the same thing - and someone somehow erased those memories until you, by chance, experienced that exact thing again? Or thinking your mind just gave you the feeling of remembering, without you actually remembering anything?

mike1reynolds wrote:

As to my evidence, it is based on a combination of enthropy, quantum physics, dynamical systems theory, mathemtatics and computer science theory.

Late at night, and I see jumps in logic (from universe as quantum computer -> universe as neural network, for example), so either I'm missing something, or this evidence needs to be expanded on. Smile

For now, I'll pass. Maybe in another thread? Because it sounds interesting, although it also seems to (for me) underline the feeling that the answer is irrelevant.

Indi wrote:

Hey, that wasn't me. ^_^

Fixed. Sorry, gets harder to keep things tidy, when quoting several people in one post Smile

mike1reynolds wrote:

This unavoidably implies that all expressions of atheism ar fundamentally illogical, which I think is a bad definition. When I didn't believe in God I did not call myself an agnostic. Agnosticism is wishy washy.

Don't see what you mean. Nowhere does it imply that all atheists are illogical. The only "illogical" atheists (to use your word) are the ones who aren't agnostic atheists. Where does this insisting on not wanting certain people to be "illogical" come from? Razz

If you're agnostic, you don't claim knowledge on the existence of god for one of several reasons. If you're not agnostic, you do claim knowledge. Both apply whether you're theist or atheist. It's as simple as that. "A-gnostic" = "without knowledge".

Kaneda wrote:

Some do neither, believing:
- it's unknown at the present time.
- it's unknowable.
- it's irrelevant.
- any combination of the above.

That's what constitutes an agnostic atheist, whether you like the definition or not Smile

mike1reynolds wrote:

It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.

That's a matter of debate. No, actually it's not Wink

Opinion, rather. Or viewpoint. I'm not depressed about it (that ended a loooong time ago, when I was around 15-16). I don't see Indi being so either. And Indi was the one I was replying to. Wink

mike1reynolds

Kaneda wrote:

Of course you can trust your own experience. But there's a difference between trusting that experience, and taking it as proof of something entirely else.

[..deja vu are invalid argument..]

You are assuming, among other things, that reincarnation is invalid. I have partial recall of some of my previous incarnations, so it is not possible for me to find this argument convincing. But then, all of my déjà vu experiences have been with regards to individual recognition and not place recognition.

However, I do remember seeing a network documentary about a large group of people who spontaneously remembered having been slaves together in the previous century (ironically they were all white people). Together they were able to piece together an incredibly detailed description of a tiny rural southern town on the other side of the country. Not only were researchers able to verify the historical account in tremendous detail, but an excavation in a completely unmarked location which they were able to specify by triangulated distances from land markers, proved to contain exactly what they claimed. An extremely well hidden, long berried hideout on the Underground Railroad. It was exactly as they had described, painted entirely green on the inside.

Kaneda wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

As to my evidence, it is based on a combination of entropy, quantum physics, dynamical systems theory, mathematics and computer science theory.

Late at night, and I see jumps in logic (from universe as quantum computer -> universe as neural network, for example), so either I'm missing something, or this evidence needs to be expanded on. Smile

For now, I'll pass. Maybe in another thread? Because it sounds interesting, although it also seems to (for me) underline the feeling that the answer is irrelevant.

Having a degree in mathematics I wrongly assumed that anyone would know that a Bidirectional Associative Memory mechanism is a neural network. Particle interactions are explicitly matrix operations which are explicitly BAMs which are explicitly neural networks.

Kaneda wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

This unavoidably implies that all expressions of atheism ar fundamentally illogical…

Don't see what you mean.

It’s all just labels anyway, it doesn’t really matter.

Kaneda wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.

That's a matter of debate. No, actually it's not Wink

Opinion, rather. Or viewpoint. I'm not depressed about it (that ended a loooong time ago, when I was around 15-16). I don't see Indi being so either. And Indi was the one I was replying to. Wink

Well, you were replying to his reply to me. My depression was not a matter of opinion, I was deeply depressed when I was an atheist from the ages of 12 to 21.

Kaneda

mike1reynolds wrote:

You are assuming, among other things, that reincarnation is invalid.

Nope, you're assuming that I am. Most feelings of deja vu, including the one I describe, have nothing to do with reincarnation whatsoever. Being in a place in a previous life would not give the feeling of the exact same situation - including every sense stimuli, the people walking by, your thoughts etc. If you lived in or visited Prague 30 years ago, that place looked entirely different. If reincarnation has anything to do with this kind of phenomenon, it's deja visité (which you describe in the case of the Millboro study) - knowing particular features of a place without having been there before - not the same as deja vu.

Noone here is assuming anything about the validity of reincarnation (I find it more likely than god's existence). But if you feel the need to place the kind of deja vu that 70% of the world's population has experienced at some point, as a result of reincarnation, then you'll need to add several auxilliary theories and assumptions, in order to void the "exact same situation" part of it - and that way, as mentioned before, any theory can be proven.

Quote:

Well, you were replying to his reply to me. My depression was not a matter of opinion, I was deeply depressed when I was an atheist from the ages of 12 to 21.

Which shows that different people need different things in their life. Never said your depression was a matter of opinion, but you seemed to be indicating that it's a rule to be depressed about death as termination (which an atheist doesn't even have to believe in). But I think a logical athest, to go back to your terms, if his logic spreads to all aspects of his existence, is likely to get severely depressed, yes.

Indi

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...

Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical.

Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical. In order for logic to be guaranteed to work, all information relevant to the logical problem must be known (and how can you be sure you got all of them?), all premises must be correct (usually not difficult, yet probably the most common cause of flawed logic), and the structure of the argument must be sound (normally the easiest thing to do). Some flawed logical arguments can go for centuries without being spotted and called out. To assert with certainty that any given logical argument is definitely correct is to claim omniscience. Therefore, you can never be sure your logic isn't flawed.

*shrug* Thus goes the real world, where there is no black or white, just shades of grey.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

Just because something is illogical, that doesn mean it doesn't exist. There are a lot of illogical things I deal with all the time. Women, for example.

The fact that someone is illogical hardly makes the assertion that they exist and illogical assertion.

Er... yeah. That was a joke? >_<

mike1reynolds wrote:

Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science.

Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella. One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science. Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.

Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion. There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)

mike1reynolds wrote:

Oops! The thin neck of your avatar gave me the impression of a female. I shall immediately go to the doctor in order to have my foot surgically removed from my mouth!

Heh ^_^ I have no idea who or what that avatar is. It might be a girl. ^_^ I just love the expression, and it's animated and still fits within the size limits.

If anyone can offer me any info on who or what that is, I'd be happy to know. ^_^

mike1reynolds wrote:

It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.

*shrug* Eh, you could look at it that way, or you could look at it this way, courtesy of the Judaistic religions:

You are a prisoner right now. When you die, you will go to Heaven, a place of endless joy and happiness (assuming you're doing what you're supposed to be doing to please God), but for now, you're stuck here. Suffering. Putting up with all the day to day shit you have to put up with. Just sitting around waiting for the day you die so the good times can begin. You can't kill yourself to get there quicker! Because that's a sin (unless you die a martyr, of course). You have to sit, and wait, and put up with the suffering, the misery, the ignorance, the crap, etc. etc. Just waiting until you die. Every day is another long slog of restraining yourself and behaving within the requirements set out - struggling not to sin or let your worse nature take over. Day after day. After day. Until finally you die - not when you want to, when God decides you have suffered enough - and there is release.

Personally, I think that's pretty damned depressing. ^_^

But it all comes down to perspective. I don't imagine Jews, Christians and Muslims sit around all day thinking like that. And I certainly don't sit around all day thinking, "Wow, when I die, there's nothing! O_O It's all meaningless and empty!"

I mean, hell, if there really is nothing at all - a complete cessation of consciousness - it won't really matter to me then, will it? I certainly won't be dwelling on it while I'm completely non-existent. And if there is something else after death? Bring it on. May it suck a little less than this emanation. ^_^

I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release. Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway. Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion?

mike1reynolds

Kaneda wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

You are assuming, among other things, that reincarnation is invalid.

Nope, you're assuming that I am. Most feelings of deja vu, including the one I describe, have nothing to do with reincarnation whatsoever. Being in a place in a previous life would not give the feeling of the exact same situation - including every sense stimuli, the people walking by, your thoughts etc. If you lived in or visited Prague 30 years ago, that place looked entirely different. If reincarnation has anything to do with this kind of phenomenon, it's deja visité (which you describe in the case of the Millboro study) - knowing particular features of a place without having been there before - not the same as deja vu.

Noone here is assuming anything about the validity of reincarnation (I find it more likely than god's existence). But if you feel the need to place the kind of deja vu that 70% of the world's population has experienced at some point, as a result of reincarnation, then you'll need to add several auxilliary theories and assumptions, in order to void the "exact same situation" part of it - and that way, as mentioned before, any theory can be proven.

70%?! The reason that I had such a hard time grappling with this is because I've never considered it before, which wouldn't be the case if I had encountered it with any frequency. I’ve encountered something like it, but this isn’t deja vu:

When I was a child there was a friend of the family’s who was visiting. He was diddling on the piano, playing odd sequences of chords that sounded like the foreboding music of a horror movie and I said that it sounded creepy. He abruptly stopped and said with a quizzical look on his face, “You know, I had a dream that was just exactly like this.” So I replied, “Where I was setting over here working on this puzzle?” His eyes popped out wide as silver dollars and he pointed at me saying, “And that’s exactly what you said next in the dream!!!” It freaked him out so much that it seemed to take a few minutes for him to recover.

I have this kind of experience quite commonly, dreaming about events that come to pass on a regular basis. But I wouldn’t really call that déjà vu. For example, a week before 9/11 I had a dream about seeing one of the Twin Towers laying on it’s side. Not being from NY, I didn’t recognize the criss-crossed lines of the superstructure that superimpose the grid of the windows. Also, it seemed to be made of B&W TV screens, all the surfaces were radiant, but not in color. I was being dragged up and down the length of the structure repeatedly, and there was a certain cut-off point, above that cut-off point I was in agony, terrified and sickened with a sense of mass death, every further inch seemingly like an extra mile between life and certain death. As I was being dragged down the structure and I would pass the cut-off point I would suddenly feel a tremendous sense of relief, panting and out of breath as if I had just barely survived.

I woke up six times, soaked in sweat and aching with exhaustion. I would shake my head and think, what is this stupid dream, what could this long squat building with such an odd roof (I didn’t know it was sideways) have to do with mass death? After feeling like the mood was shaken I would immediately fall back asleep (usually it takes me a long time to fall asleep), and go RIGHT back into the same dream. That has never happened to me before where I woke up from a dream and then fell asleep right back into the same dream, much less six times in a row.

A month prior I had a dream about sitting in a demolished car with Conan O’Brian in which he was so despondent and depressed that he was almost catatonic. I was vigorously trying to cheer him up, I had gone through a spell of whatching him every night in the month or two before, and so I was telling him about my favorite gags and bits of his. Each time I would think of a new bit I would slap him on the shoulder vigorously in an extremely animated fashion that would have been obnoxious in most contexts, but it was like I was slapping life into him. At the end of the dream he finally moved, slowly lifting his head. He still looked obliterated, but the fact that he was moving seemed like a tremendous improvement.

When he first came on the air after 9/11, he gave a 20 minute speech about how he just didn’t think this was going to work, it was too early. His voice was drained and emotionless, he didn’t sound like he was going to make it at all. I was aching for him, as I’m sure were most of his viewers. But when the first guest finally came on it was a woman that I really like from “This American Life” on NPR. She was able to tell her own story in a manner that was both very tasteful and yet hilarious, about her overwhelming helplessness as a comedian living in NY, who could do absolutely nothing to help, comedians were a useless commodity in the first few days. It spoke extremely precisely to Conan’s own dilemma in a manner that made him laugh at himself and in no time flat his voice had inflection again, he had suddenly snapped out of it. By the middle of the week he was doing his comedy routines with a manic intensity. If not for his first guest I could easily have seen him having an emotional breakdown and going off the air.

Kaneda wrote:

Quote:

Well, you were replying to his reply to me. My depression was not a matter of opinion, I was deeply depressed when I was an atheist from the ages of 12 to 21.

Which shows that different people need different things in their life. Never said your depression was a matter of opinion, but you seemed to be indicating that it's a rule to be depressed about death as termination (which an atheist doesn't even have to believe in).

No, I said that there were two kinds of logical atheists, ones that care and ones that don't. Atheists who d0n't believe life terminates would be a mystical atheists in my terms, not a logical atheist.

Kaneda wrote:

But I think a logical athest, to go back to your terms, if his logic spreads to all aspects of his existence, is likely to get severely depressed, yes.

Actually, I've never encountered a logical atheist that wasn't depressed about it, but I didn't want to state that as a universal certainty or requirement.

Kaneda

Indi wrote:

I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release. Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway. Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion?

Disagree?

Then I worded something wrong. But no matter. You wrote what I wanted to write, if I could write Wink

mike1reynolds

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...

Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical.

Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical.

Logic exists independent of any mind. A train of logic is either accurate or flawed, regardless of the mind that is constructing or evaluating that train of logic.

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science.

Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella.

All of which can be applied to mysticism. The scientific method in it’s most fundamental form is nothing more than a BS detector. If what you are saying is true then it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood in this category of experience. That is just a cover for the a priori assumption that a category of experience is automatically invalid, which is in fact the very antithesis of the scientific method. A priori assumptions are a classic violation of the scientific method.

Indi wrote:

One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science.

It is called replication – experiments have to be reproducible. Replication in mysticism is the reason that there are broad categories of unanimously agreed upon facts between disparate mystical traditions that have had no historical contact. Spiritual attainment is like having a multi-million dollar lab. What you are assuming is like assuming that because none of your friends have a multi-million dollar lab that no observations made in a multi-million dollar lab are replicatible. This is hubris, not science.

While having replication is great, there are broad categories of science for which it is an inapplicable criterion at certain stages in the field’s development such as early naturalism, or throughout the entirety of it’s development such as astrophysics. You are misapplying various aspects of the scientific method, acting as though they were a universal when they are not even universal in many standard scientific endeavors.

Indi wrote:

Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.

Your assumption that theoretical interpretations of mystical experiences are not theories that make predictions which are testable is a false assumption. You could just as easily apply this same kind of false reasoning to every day experience and say that the scientific method can’t be applied to every day experiences, which is of course utterly false.

The single most readily testable predictive mystical theory is astrology. There are a number of such experiments which have been conducted and produced statistically significant correlations which have been replicated. The problem is that most scientific studies of astrology have been flawed in the extreme. See my last post in the “Astrology vs. Christianity?” thread for a more in depth analysis of how a proper scientific test of astrological predictions should be conducted and a comparison of the testing criteria of studies that did and did not find statistical correlations.

Indi wrote:

Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.

This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma.

Indi wrote:

There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)

One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science.

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.

*shrug* Eh, you could look at it that way, or you could look at it this way, courtesy of the Judaistic religions:

Which is precisely why I’m not a Christian. Even when I was 12 and I was weighing the two prospects in my mind, no Judeo-Christian perspective was in the vying for the theistic argument. You don’t seem to be familiar with any of the much more mature non-Judeo-Christian takes on the purpose and meaning too life.

Indi wrote:

But it all comes down to perspective. I don't imagine Jews, Christians and Muslims sit around all day thinking like that. And I certainly don't sit around all day thinking, "Wow, when I die, there's nothing! O_O It's all meaningless and empty!"

That is because they aren’t atheists. I don’t get your point here. That is exclusively an atheist’s dilemma.

Indi wrote:

I mean, hell, if there really is nothing at all - a complete cessation of consciousness - it won't really matter to me then, will it? I certainly won't be dwelling on it while I'm completely non-existent. And if there is something else after death? Bring it on. May it suck a little less than this emanation. ^_^

You sound very fatalistic, which is another manifestation of what Kaneda and I are talking about.

Indi wrote:

I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release.

You really have to have given it no thought at all to feel this way.

Indi wrote:

Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.

Exactly.

Indi wrote:

Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion?

Even the most uneducated street people and thugs have a saying about this – “Smile now, cry later.” There are some very good reasons for thinking about tomorrow, but they are too obvious to be worth discussing.

Indi

There are some very serious comprehension problems going on here. I don't think you're comprehending half of what I'm writing, because you're answering questions that aren't there, disputing things that weren't said and making strangely random statements that have no real relationship to what I said - especially towards the end.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

But instead of accepting that the logic they ("fundamental atheists") used to show God is impossible is not perfect, they assume it is...

Imperfect, flawed logical is the definition of illogical.

Perhaps, but expecting perfect reasoning from an imperfect mind is also illogical.

Logic exists independent of any mind. A train of logic is either accurate or flawed, regardless of the mind that is constructing or evaluating that train of logic.

We're going in circles here. -_- The next thing I will say would be "how do you know that any train of logic is flawed or not, unless you have perfect knowledge? Your mind is limited, so you cannot be sure that your logic - or any logic - is perfect. Therefore, you can never be sure that a logical conclusion is correct."

But let's try to break the circle by gettings some clear positions out there. I say that assuming that any conclusion based on a logical thought process is guaranteed to be true is a mistake, because you can never be sure that your logic is not flawed.

So, why don't you answer these questions to solidify your position:
- Does a logical argument depend on all relevant premises to be considered and correct?
- If a premise is wrong, is the logic flawed?
- If a premise is missing, is the logic flawed?
- Is it possible to be sure that you are not missing any premises, or that the premises are all correct?
- Is it possible to be sure that your logic is not flawed?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Defining mysticism as inherently distinct from science is matter of arbitrary labels. My mystical beliefs and my interpretation of my mystical experiences are intimately interwoven with science.

Not arbitrary in the least - science has very clear requirements for what falls under its umbrella.

All of which can be applied to mysticism. The scientific method in it’s most fundamental form is nothing more than a BS detector. If what you are saying is true then it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood in this category of experience. That is just a cover for the a priori assumption that a category of experience is automatically invalid, which is in fact the very antithesis of the scientific method. A priori assumptions are a classic violation of the scientific method.

I have no idea what half of what you just wrote is supposed to mean. What do you think I was saying that implies it is impossible to discern truth from falsehood? All I said was that science has clear requirements for what can be called science and/or scientific. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. What does that have to do with truth and/or the possibility of detecting it? What are you answering or debating anyway?

Anyway, you've made that claim before that you're not supposed to have a priori assumptions when running an experiment. So now I say prove it. Design an experiment to measure, say, the volume of an irregular lump of rock accurately. Without using any a priori assumptions. I say it's not possible, so here's your chance to prove me wrong.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

One such requirement is that there must be a general concensus for any observations made (called intersubjectivity or something of the sort). Unless there is observer-independent agreement regarding observations of your mystical experiences, they are not science.

It is called replication – experiments have to be reproducible. Replication in mysticism is the reason that there are broad categories of unanimously agreed upon facts between disparate mystical traditions that have had no historical contact. Spiritual attainment is like having a multi-million dollar lab. What you are assuming is like assuming that because none of your friends have a multi-million dollar lab that no observations made in a multi-million dollar lab are replicatible. This is hubris, not science.

While having replication is great, there are broad categories of science for which it is an inapplicable criterion at certain stages in the field’s development such as early naturalism, or throughout the entirety of it’s development such as astrophysics. You are misapplying various aspects of the scientific method, acting as though they were a universal when they are not even universal in many standard scientific endeavors.

Er... what?

First, no, what I was talking about is not called "replication", it's called intersubjectivity, or observer-independence if you prefer. Repeatability is something else entirely.

Second, no, repeatability is not really a fundamental requirement of science.

Third, I have no idea what you think I was assuming, or what any of what you said means. None of it makes any sense in the context I was talking about, so you're going to have to explain whatever context you were working in for me to get it.

Fourth, as I said, repeatability is not a fundamental requirement of science, so your whole second paragraph there means nothing.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

Another such requirement, for theories this time instead of observations, is that they must be falsifiable. Unless it is possible to produce negative results by testing your mystical beliefs or interpretations, they are not science.

Your assumption that theoretical interpretations of mystical experiences are not theories that make predictions which are testable is a false assumption. You could just as easily apply this same kind of false reasoning to every day experience and say that the scientific method can’t be applied to every day experiences, which is of course utterly false.

I didn't say that they didn't make testable predictions. I said the theory must be falsifiable. There is a big difference.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

Science has very clear-cut and very rigid boundaries, with very, very little wiggle room for redefinition games or opinion.

This is science expressed as a religious faith, not the reality of science. The reality is that time and time again a new scientific discovery required the death of an entire generation of scientists before it was embraced. For example, geologists unanimously agree that the Sphinx must be a minimum of 10,000 years old. Yet Egyptologists unanimously reject this in favor of a 5,000 year old date, based on utterly flawed and vacuous reasoning that is just dogma.

I have no idea how you made that leap, or what relevance anything you said after has. Science is clearly defined therefore it's a religion? That's nonsense. So, since the requirements to be a lifeguard are clear and rigid, and there's very little wiggle room in meeting the standards, lifeguarding is a religion?

How on earth does the rigidity with which science defines what is and what is not science and/or scientific make it a religion?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

There are many things that get called "science" that are actually not, according to the letter of the definition of science. (Of course, you could always redefine "science" so that whatever someone wants to fit into it will fit.)

One of these is skepticism that is nothing more than automatic rejection of the unfamiliar. These kinds of skeptics like to think that their a priori assumptions are scientific, when of course all a priori assumptions are the very antithesis of science.

*blink* Who called skepticism science? Where the hell did that come from anyway? What does it have to do with anything?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

It is not disbelief in God that is so depressing, but the belief that death is the termination of all aspects of one’s consciousness.

*shrug* Eh, you could look at it that way, or you could look at it this way, courtesy of the Judaistic religions:

Which is precisely why I’m not a Christian. Even when I was 12 and I was weighing the two prospects in my mind, no Judeo-Christian perspective was in the vying for the theistic argument. You don’t seem to be familiar with any of the much more mature non-Judeo-Christian takes on the purpose and meaning too life.

You didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say I looked at it that way, or that that was the only way to look at it from a Judaistic point of view.

More to the point, I would have thought it should be pretty clear that I was being sarcastic. You don't understand humour, do you?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

But it all comes down to perspective. I don't imagine Jews, Christians and Muslims sit around all day thinking like that. And I certainly don't sit around all day thinking, "Wow, when I die, there's nothing! O_O It's all meaningless and empty!"

That is because they aren’t atheists. I don’t get your point here. That is exclusively an atheist’s dilemma.

That's because who aren't atheists? You lost me again. Who or what are you talking about?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

I mean, hell, if there really is nothing at all - a complete cessation of consciousness - it won't really matter to me then, will it? I certainly won't be dwelling on it while I'm completely non-existent. And if there is something else after death? Bring it on. May it suck a little less than this emanation. ^_^

You sound very fatalistic, which is another manifestation of what Kaneda and I are talking about.

You really don't understand humour, do you? There's a smilie face in there and all. What do I have to do, put <joke></joke> delimiters around every silly statement I make? (Note: the previous two sentences are sarcastic. They are not meant to be taken seriously.)

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

I guess I disagree with Kaneda on that point. Just because someone is required by their belief framework to accept that there is only nothingness after death doesn't necessarily imply that they would have to consider that depressing. They can view the nothingness as a release.

You really have to have given it no thought at all to feel this way.

Feel what way? Are you saying that the only way anyone can possibly feel about no life after death is to be depressed?

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

Or they can just not worry about it at all, because when it happens it won't be a concern to them anyway.

Exactly.

Wha???

First you tell me I'm fatalistic for joking about exactly that - not worrying about it. Then you tell me I haven't given any thought because I don't think it's depressing. Then you turn around and say I have it exactly right when I say they can just not worry about it?

You're not making any coherent sense.

mike1reynolds wrote:

Indi wrote:

Dwelling on tomorrow is illogical anyway, so why would a logical atheist let tomorrow depress them severely, whatever tomorrow may contain, be it good times, hard times or oblivion?

Even the most uneducated street people and thugs have a saying about this – “Smile now, cry later.” There are some very good reasons for thinking about tomorrow, but they are too obvious to be worth discussing.

I didn't say thinking about tomorrow is illogical. I said dwelling on it is.

mike1reynolds

Indi wrote:

There are some very serious comprehension problems going on here.

And a bit of hypocrisy! But then, in my opinion very few scientists hav