|
The Belief Spectrum (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, i don't buy this kind of reasoning. we might be always limited by our experience and understanding but that doesn't mean we'll always be groping in the dark for true and proper theoretical explanation.
indeed, his "theory" is incompletely true by its own definition, so rather pointless imo. |
that's exactly what he's saying - we're limited by our experience and understanding.
and that there is no true and proper explanation.
and this guy is as serious a physicist as they come
here's a thought, if you are a material realist, and you believe in oscillating universe theory, what caused the first oscillation, and when did it occur, why did it occur? This sort of thing will never be understood by any theory, because the explanation automatically requires it to be outside of the theory itself. In other words, you can always ask 'why' for every new discovery.
Within the paradox of his statement, which amounts to 'the only truth is that there is no truth' or 'I am a liar', is the essence of this unknowable thing IMO.
The theory can't explain the existence itself, but can only describe the perceived mechanics of exisence. And perception is unforunately not objective as relativity and quantum physics show us.
Think of this graph:
Imagine x is time and y is human knowledge/understanding. Where is the limit? It is an unbounded function. The more time goes on, the more massive the leaps of understanding, but there is still no limit, no final understanding. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
That is the definition of Agnosticism, not Atheism. |
i think the writer went to great lengths to illustrate that this is not the case. you stating something does not make it true. you just dont understand atheism.
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
that's exactly what he's saying - we're limited by our experience and understanding.
and that there is no true and proper explanation. |
But such limitations are often transitory in many contexts. We are surrounded by and utilise various scientific proofs every day, that rely upon fairly solid theories. We might not be able to speculate that such rules apply everywhere and at all times, but they apply now, on earth, and are repeatably tested/testable. Requiring anything more than that to speak authoritatively or dogmatically on a subject is redundant imo, making the discussion of such equally redundant.
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
for instance, if you are a material realist, and you believe in oscillating universe theory, what caused the first oscillation, and when did it occur, why did it occur? This sort of thing will never be understood by any theory, because the explanation automatically requires it to be outside of the theory itself. |
yeah, let's keep this discussion a little simpler if you want us science noobs to follow ;) |
|
|
| meriter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i think the writer went to great lengths to illustrate that this is not the case. you stating something does not make it true. you just dont understand atheism.
|
What the writer did was outline a false definition of Atheism and instead outlined the basic definition of Agnosticism. You can turn most atheists into agnostics if you talk to them for a little while. There is a difference. Atheism is disbelief, which is still a belief. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
Atheism is disbelief, which is still a belief. |
wrong. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN But such limitations are often transitory in many contexts. We are surrounded by and utilise various scientific proofs every day, that rely upon fairly solid theories. We might not be able to speculate that such rules apply everywhere and at all times, but they apply now, on earth, and are repeatably tested/testable. Requiring anything more than that to speak authoritatively or dogmatically on a subject is redundant imo, making the discussion of such equally redundant.
|
Yes, that's the point - they are transitory - but is are an infinite sequence of limitations and transitions, each with greater and greater knowledge, but the problem is there is no continuous 'end result'. So in reality there's not a real need to describe anything with such theories.
An easy way to explain this is to ask what the difference between living 4000 years ago is and living now, if we die anyways. Or another way is to ask, despite all of the advancements in medicine and government and technology, etc are we really any happier than people without these things?
The basis of everything is outside of everything, if you understand what I'm saying. It's quantum non-locality in a universal sense. Like I said, you can argue about chicken and egg forever, but in the end you have to ask what made the chicken OR the egg and why? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Ugh, dictionary definitions are meaningless within such a conversation, because they rarely encapsulate the dynamic depth of thought contained inside any 'ism'. Something basic like wiki is far more accurate, oooh, here it is
| quote: |
Philosophers such as Antony Flew[35], Michael Martin[24], and William L. Rowe[36] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[37] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[35] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[38] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[24] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[39] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[40] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[41] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility. |
| quote: |
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[30] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[31] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. |
|
|
|
| Renzo |
| If people want to be considered an agnostic, let it be known they are agnostic. I don't need someone who cannot spell 'definitely' telling me Atheism and Agnosticism are really the same thing. It's far from convincing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Yes, that's the point - they are transitory - but is are an infinite sequence of limitations and transitions, each with greater and greater knowledge, but the problem is there is no continuous 'end result'. So in reality there's not a real need to describe anything with such theories. |
Surely stuff like mathematics contradicts this? It provided examples of self-contained absolute knowledge?
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
The basis of everything is outside of everything, if you understand what I'm saying. It's quantum non-locality in a universal sense. |
This sounds kinda like plato's forms to me. Are you saying that absolute knowledge does not exist, or that human beings cannot experience it? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renzo
If people want to be considered an agnostic, let it be known they are agnostic. I don't need someone who cannot spell 'definitely' telling me Atheism and Agnosticism are really the same thing. It's far from convincing. |
Nice try. Attempt to argue with his position rather than picking apart some meaningless spelling mistake. Anyone that has bothered to follow renegade's posts would know he shows a keen understanding of anything he is interested in. you wont find a sharper mind on the whole of TA (Which is why you've resorted to spelling critiques rather than getting at the meat of his argument). |
|
|
| meriter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Ugh, dictionary definitions are meaningless within such a conversation, because they rarely encapsulate the dynamic depth of thought contained inside any 'ism'. Something basic like wiki is far more accurate, oooh, here it is |
Antony Flew, Michael Martin, and William L. Rowe are not the supreme authorities on the english language. What you presented are interpretations. I will stick with the legitimate definitions to keep from confusing ideas. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
Antony Flew, Michael Martin, and William L. Rowe are not the supreme authorities on the english language. What you presented are interpretations. I will stick with the legitimate definitions to keep from confusing ideas. |
Yeah, well im not gonna bother anymore with some ty alt that thinks dictionary.com is the be-all and end-all of intellectual enquiry. |
|
|
|
|
