Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[drogulus]

That rolls well off the tongue, eh?  But it is largely religionists judging atheists on a religious scale.
However it has nothing inherently to do with an atheist perspective.  There is no broad atheist ideology.  It is simply a matter that we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion -- not to mention the delusions foster by power-hungry religous leaders bent on political power.

   I think this is true of many atheists and most writings by atheists on the subject would support this broadly. It's not my position that removing a particular delusion or not being subject to it perfects anything else about a persons intellect or character. I've only seen one study a few years back that does indicate that atheists rate highly on various social scales and quite low on scales of pathology. There are many atheists in foxholes but very few in maximum security prisons awaiting execution. Nevertheless, I have to insist that the best position to take is not that atheism or monotheism (atheism+1) is better for you but that a person who has adopted atheism may be exhibiting the operations of a fully functioning bullshit detector rather than the crippled version believers must work with. Such a person may be resistant to various other scams as well, or not. I've seen both types. Just as the believer can do double-bookkeeping and be a brilliant scientist, an atheist can be the most awful Marxist, racist, vegetarian psychopath imaginable. Is it likely? Less likely, and it's better to have one fewer delusion. But it can and does happen.

    In any case it's better IMO to focus on the primary reason recommending atheism, that no alternative on offer has the slightest probability of being true*, that a materialist/atheist hypothesis is consistent with all scientific models, and that the alternatives are adopted precisely because they are "good for you" and by extension for society generally. Considered purely from the disinterested standpoint of economy, that is the most efficient explanation consistent with what can be known, theisms poly/mono or otherwise stink.

    Another related requirement is what I call narrative sense. The history of the Universe is an attempt to create a nonfictional story that exhibits causes and verifiable events at every point accessible to us by the data available. If we know that 2 things happened narrative sense puts one before the other consistent with the "Benjamin Button" principle that babies are not born old and die 80 years later as infants. This "assumption" is actually a feature of the verification rather that what is verified, so we don't have to argue in individual cases whether that dinosaur is 6,000 years old while the other more conventional one is 100,000,000 years old like a good dino should be.** I don't pick up 2,450 copies of the same newspaper just to be sure that they say the same thing. This narrative intelligence tells us that laws are consistent even when we're not watching, and it's woven into materialism so that causality and materialism have become the same thing (what occurred to me the other night). The efficacy of the one is tied to the other in a way not easily broken except in the willful manner of the double-bookkeeper. The lack of narrative sense in theism, where the big important thing appears before the processes necessary to build it is not just non-materialistic as the believers think but anti-materialistic in my view. Yes, some scientists are compatibilists about this but I think they are wrong for the narrative reason I give here.

    Summing up, a narrative view featuring causality is materialistic whereas the theist views narrative coherence willfully and haphazardly. If a god is needed at the beginning it's put there, and if it needs to be located in another realm to be invisible to prying eyes it's there, and the reasons and causes necessary in materialism are positive nuisances here and they will be missing, replaced by motives which are the believers own. That's the meaning of my musings the other night.  

     <sub>* I should be more careful. "The slightest probability of being true" is exactly what's wrong with theism. Sorry about that. One could argue whether this amounts to the same thing, but the correction needed to be made.

    ** What the believer (creationist) says must be verified is actually the verification under narrativity, so if we find the fossil of a new species next to the dino we say it's the same age. Same as what? As the dino that died 100,000,000 years ago. We "assumed" it.</sub>

[Catison]

Nevertheless, I have to insist that the best position to take is not that atheism or monotheism (atheism+1) is better for you but that a person who has adopted atheism may be exhibiting the operations of a fully functioning bullshit detector rather than the crippled version believers must work with.

Actually, mine is working quite well.  It just went off.

     In any case it's better IMO to focus on the primary reason recommending atheism, that no alternative on offer has the slightest probability of being true, that a materialist/atheist hypothesis is consistent with all scientific models, and that the alternatives are adopted precisely because they are "good for you" and by extension for society generally. Considered purely from the disinterested standpoint of economy, that is the most efficient explanation consistent with what can be known, theisms poly/mono or otherwise stink.

This argument is a sham.  So atheism is "consistent with scientific models"?  Give me a break.  Since when has science anything to say about God's existence or nonexistence?  It doesn't pretend to comment on these things.  And even so, even if a theory agrees with science, this line of reasoning supposes that science is truth, but without ever mentioning the reason why.  Why is science truth?  You simply aren't going to provide an answer scientifically because such an argument doesn't exist.  Science doesn't equal truth for free.  You can't deduce your way into making such a claim without bringing in some sort of metaphysical statement.  But for some reason, this is the great blindspot in the atheist BS detector.  All metaphysical statements are thrown out, except for one, "Science is true because...".  And then they go around talking about how much more rational they are.  Give me a break.

[karlhenning]

Well said. This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.

That's true, simply on the facts.

Those aside, there's Ernie's example 

[drogulus]

Actually, mine is working quite well.  It just went off.

This argument is a sham.  So atheism is "consistent with scientific models"?  Give me a break.

    I was careful on this one. My version of atheism doesn't allow me to dissent from scientific models taken as a whole as opposed to quarreling with the results in cases, an activity intrinsic to the enterprise. I'm recommending, among other things, that atheists adopt my view, and that they treat conforming to this verificationist view as essential, and viewing this connection as unbreakable. Many do, I'm sure.

Since when has science anything to say about God's existence or nonexistence?  It doesn't pretend to comment on these things.  And even so, even if a theory agrees with science, this line of reasoning supposes that science is truth, but without ever mentioning the reason why.  Why is science truth?  

    Since always by my interpretation, which was the subject of my long post. Science doesn't need to comment in this way. I was following the implications as I see them from treating causality and therefore materialism as, in a sense, primary. Truth is not identical to what is verified, according to me, but verification is the means we have to know what truths are possible to find. In that sense, to the extent that science/philosophy conform to this, they do comment and the verdict is damning. That's what I recommend from my teasing out of the consequences of either embracing or rejecting causality and its interrelation with materialism.

     

This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.

     I don't agree with this whole idea of the superhuman atheist, which I've made clear. This seems to be your whole idea, so I recommend you don't continue to attribute it to others. I'll grant some atheists do appear to think that problems will go away if religion is removed as a cause of them, but what about other causes?

[DavidRoss]

Poor Ernie.  Loves to spout off and attack other people as believing in BS, but cannot recognize his own, and is so fiercely committed to defending his unsubstantiated worldview that he cannot recognize the irrationality of atheism, even after it's been pointed out clearly and simply many times.

Theism--"God exists."
Atheism--"God doesn't exist."
Agnosticism--"I don't know whether God exists."

The theist claims knowledge of God's existence either by direct experience or by inference from the available evidence.  In the absence of such experience and unconvinced by the evidence, agnostics rationally claim not to know.  To go beyond that and claim there is no God, is to make an unsupportable statement of belief based on no evidence (indeed, contrary to the evidence cited by theists) and claiming omniscience, for only if one knew everything could one make a rational claim to know there is no God.

This ain't rocket science, people.  

[drogulus]

Why is science truth?

     I can't find anything other than verification by means determined by the question.

You can't deduce your way into making such a claim without bringing in some sort of metaphysical statement.

     You might be right, and this puzzles me. The general view is that while verification gives you true statements within a narrow frame created by the question it doesn't entitle you to say the method itself is correct because the method was not the subject of the test and is untestable except by reference to the limited applications employed. So even though we know verification works where it's used it's a metaphysical statement to say so and therefore as unjustified as saying a being in another realm inaccessible to reason made everything. The idea seems to be that all metaphysical statements being equal and equally unverifiable, the stupidest one is true. My idea is that there must be a way to distinguish the success of verification without also promoting idiocies. It's a genuine problem.

     

This ain't rocket science, people.  

     No, it isn't. Especially for young people who for some reason are able to throw off conditioning that makes the majority submissive. The myth of the atheist supergenius who employs a vast intellect to crack a nearly unsolvable problem is belied by the many moderately intelligent kids who work it out. If something is either impossible or can't be coherently presented, and moreover you learn the meaning of that special mode of communication parents or other authority figures use when they lie or talk about things they know nothing about, then it's not that difficult to figure out.

[Florestan]

    I don't agree with this whole idea of the superhuman atheist, which I've made clear. This seems to be your whole idea, so I recommend you don't continue to attribute it to others. I'll grant some atheists do appear to think that problems will go away if religion is removed as a cause of them, but what about other causes?

You should have been a lawyer: you're a master of sophistry, of turning things upside down to appear what they are not and of twisting the ideas of your opponents.

The idea that atheism leads to enlightenment, liberation from delusion and a better world and that people of faith are less enlightened, trapped in delusions and prone to violence and evil has repeatedly surfaced on this forum and it was always atheists that expounded it --- and this is my whole idea? If I have repeatedly refuted a recurrent idea, this means it is my idea? So much for your verificationist logic.

"What about the other causes?" was exactly my question. Presenting it to be yours and somehow opposed to my approach is disingenuous in the highest degree.

[karlhenning]

Ah, you've met Ernie, then?

[Xenophanes]

You should have been a lawyer: you're a master of sophistry, of turning things upside down to appear what they are not and of twisting the ideas of your opponents.

The idea that atheism leads to enlightenment, liberation from delusion and a better world and that people of faith are less enlightened, trapped in delusions and prone to violence and evil has repeatedly surfaced on this forum and it was always atheists that expounded it --- and this is my whole idea? If I have repeatedly refuted a recurrent idea, this means it is my idea? So much for your verificationist logic.

"What about the other causes?" was exactly my question. Presenting it to be yours and somehow opposed to my approach is disingenuous in the highest degree.

There is a lot of confusion here.  Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology.  They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!). If they are going to consider atheism stripped of ideology and institution, then they should compare it with belief in God stripped of ideology, just considered as a simple personal characteristic.  C. S. Lewis once recounted the story of a fellow who had had some religious experience in the jungle or desert, who used to pontificate that those around him never had met the real God.  Lewis's comment was that he had a real religious experience, all right, but it had nothing to do with his life.

So you are quite right to want to compare religions with atheist ideologies, politics, and governments.  When we look at that, it is quite clear that religions are far more benign and have killed far less people.  It's fine to criticize religions for their faults (I have criticized mine) but the secular state has proved much more deadly, with the atheist states among the worst.

[Catison]

There is a lot of confusion here.  Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology.  They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!). If they are going to consider atheism stripped of ideology and institution, then they should compare it with belief in God stripped of ideology, just considered as a simple personal characteristic. 

Good point.  I hadn't thought of that.

But it is little different, because believing in something requires you to respond to that belief in the fullest possible way.  And that might be considered a religion.  Atheism, as a non-belief, removes these type of necessary reactions (indeed, there is no basis for morals).  So they are different in that respect when brought to their complete conclusion.

[DavidRoss]

There is a lot of confusion here.  Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology.  They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!). If they are going to consider atheism stripped of ideology and institution, then they should compare it with belief in God stripped of ideology

Note the distinction between "simply not believing in God"--which some here in the voluminous prior threads on this topic have described as "soft atheism,"--and actively believing that God does not exist, which some have called "hard atheism" to distinguish it from agnostic lack of belief without certain knowledge.  Loose use of the term "atheism" contributes to the confusion over these matters, a tactic exploited by those who shift the ground on the unwary.

As always, clear definition of key terminology must be agreed on as a condition of meaningful discourse.

[Fëanor]

Note the distinction between "simply not believing in God"--which some here in the voluminous prior threads on this topic have described as "soft atheism,"--and actively believing that God does not exist, which some have called "hard atheism" to distinguish it from agnostic lack of belief without certain knowledge.  Loose use of the term "atheism" contributes to the confusion over these matters, a tactic exploited by those who shift the ground on the unwary.

As always, clear definition of key terminology must be agreed on as a condition of meaningful discourse.

Or maybe the distinction is overly fine.

Epistemologically I concede -- in fact I insist -- that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist.  It's just that I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely.  I think it was Dawkins (or maybe it was Hitchens?) who provided a handly scale of relative atheistic sensibility, but he held that if you considered God's existence highly unlikely, you ought to call yourself an atheist and not equivocate.

[karlhenning]

Epistemologically I concede -- in fact I insist -- that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist.  It's just that I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely.

Fairly spoken, for you speak of what you see (or do not) and how things seem to you.

I think it was Dawkins (or maybe it was Hitchens?) who provided a handly scale of relative atheistic sensibility, but he held that if you considered God's existence highly unlikely, you ought to call yourself an atheist and not equivocate.

That (on the part of Dawkins-or-Hitchens, I mean) is tendentious.  They want to take the honest agnosticism of your points above, and make it a tidy 'atheistic certainty'.  That doesn't quite wash.

[DavidRoss]

Fairly spoken, for you speak of what you see (or do not) and how things seem to you. [Agreed!]

That (on the part of Dawkins-or-Hitchens, I mean) is tendentious.  They want to take the honest agnosticism of your points above, and make it a tidy 'atheistic certainty'.  That doesn't quite wash.

The sophistry of folks like Dawkins all too easily misleads those incapable of thinking for themselves into believing that atheism is not only a rational belief, but the only rational belief, and so well proven and supported by fact that it is equivalent to knowledge universally acknowledged by all the smart people.  Certainly here on GMG we've seen numerous examples of weak-minded intellectuals parroting Dawkins's views as if they were somehow logically unassailable and based on fact rather than just another short-sighted system of beliefs founded on unprovable assumptions taken on faith.

Or maybe the distinction is overly fine.

Not so.  Honest recognition that one's beliefs in fact are agnostic admits of the uncertainty required for an open mind, itself a requirement for learning.  When we are convinced that we know, we close our minds to what lies outside of or contradicts that which we think we know.  It's human nature. 

[ChamberNut]

In a nutshell, it is all about faith and belief.  There isn't any proof either way.

No one can actually prove that there exists 'a' God, and no one can actually prove that 'a' God doesn't exist.

[DavidRoss]

In a nutshell, it is all about faith and belief.  There isn't any proof either way.

No one can actually prove that there exists 'a' God, and no one can actually prove that 'a' God doesn't exist.

Or, insofar as proof is a concept in logic, you can prove whatever you like, depending on the premises you choose to frame the argument.  But knowledge is not just synthetic.  Knowing that you love another is something quite different from "proving" it.

[Brian]

Note the distinction between "simply not believing in God"--which some here in the voluminous prior threads on this topic have described as "soft atheism,"--and actively believing that God does not exist, which some have called "hard atheism" to distinguish it from agnostic lack of belief without certain knowledge.

By these terms Richard Dawkins claims to be a "soft atheist," sort of. Somewhere in his book, he says that if "1" represented somebody who was absolutely 100% certain that God existed, and "10" represented someone 100% certain that God, gods, or supernatural entities could not possibly exist, he would be a "9". I would try to cite this, but I don't want to have to go through his book again that carefully.

As far as I know the only person who thinks he has got the "evidence" to "disprove" God is Victor J. Stenger.

[DavidRoss]

By these terms Richard Dawkins claims to be a "soft atheist," sort of. Somewhere in his book, he says that if "1" represented somebody who was absolutely 100% certain that God existed, and "10" represented someone 100% certain that God, gods, or supernatural entities could not possibly exist, he would be a "9".

Sounds as if he's trying to have his cake and eat it, too, claiming the force of conviction that a "10" would represent but hoping to avoid acknowledging the absurd statement of faith underlying it. 

[Catison]

Or maybe the distinction is overly fine.

Epistemologically I concede -- in fact I insist -- that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist.  It's just that I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely.  I think it was Dawkins (or maybe it was Hitchens?) who provided a handly scale of relative atheistic sensibility, but he held that if you considered God's existence highly unlikely, you ought to call yourself an atheist and not equivocate.

When I was an atheist I thought exactly this way.  This view seems entirely sensible until you pull the argument apart.  The crux of the matter comes down to this statement.

"I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely."

It depends upon how you define "objective".  If objective means that it is factual, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees it is true, then you are assuming Truth (capital T for universal) exists.  If you believe there is no such thing as Truth, then there is no such thing as right or wrong.  If there is no Truth, then if I believe God exists, He exists, but if you believe He doesn't, then He doesn't.  But God cannot both exist and not exist, so you are either talking about something else than the traditional understanding of God or you have a contradiction.  So, continuing, lets assume you are appealing, in your statement, to an objective Truth.

If objective Truth exists, then it means there is some standard upon which all arguments and evidence are judged.  For example, science is typically seen as getting closer to an objective reality.  Scientific consensus tells us how things really are, not just good ways to make calculations, right?  But this appeal has implications.  It means there is a right and a wrong.  If atoms really exist, then science is right, because there is some actual reality in which little balls of matter are really there.  Similarly, if God really doesn't exist, then the atheist is absolutely right, because out there in reality, there really is no God.  These statements cannot be made without objective Truth existing.

But where does this objective Truth reside?  How is there some standard that applies to everyone?  Somehow, out there, there is some entity or consciousness permeating us all upon which we are all judged.  That is, if objective Truth exists.  All of this brings up a question.  Who or what made this objective Truth?  Where did it come from?  Is it just some property of the universe?

It cannot be just some property of the universe because Truth is a metaphysical entity.  You cannot make a Truth-o-meter to test for objective reality.  It must be imposed from a different level.  This implies an entity outside the universe exists.  What else could have created it?

So the very act of judging is a statement of the correctness of a particular thing in relation to objective Truth, but Truth implies a God, or at least some "other" objective entity, but this is usually what we call God.

So ironically, the statement, "God does not exist" implies God exists.

[drogulus]

If objective Truth exists, then it means there is some standard upon which all arguments and evidence are judged.  For example, science is typically seen as getting closer to an objective reality.  Scientific consensus tells us how things really are, not just good ways to make calculations, right?  But this appeal has implications.  It means there is a right and a wrong.  If atoms really exist, then science is right, because there is some actual reality in which little balls of matter are really there.  Similarly, if God really doesn't exist, then the atheist is absolutely right, because out there in reality, there really is no God.  These statements cannot be made without objective Truth existing.

    So if the atheist is correct that there's no reason to think a god exists that means that there is a truth about the matter, and if there's a truth then there's a god. But if the atheist is wrong there's also a truth of the matter and there's a god. OK, Brett, that looks a little bit rigged to me. What would have to be the case for no god to be right? Evidence that supports a god? 

    My argument so far has been that materialism is self contained, that it has all the justifications it needs to prevail, and it's a misunderstanding to think it needs to be backstopped in any way. For that reason it's not vulnerable to logical refutation in this manner. The scientific/material enterprise is an empirical one and truths are not things that have existence which proves something contrary to what true propositions state. So if the atheist is correct in saying there are no reasons that support a god this truth can't be overruled by a big fat Mother Truth, a giant Noun with its own reasons and motives.