| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 01:21:10 AM · #751 |
Wow. I go to sleep and the dead horse has begat young'uns.
I'm not a philospher, nor an authority on anything. I like Gordon's "you go to school to learn to think" bit - one can have a background or training in an aspect of something, but can apply that in many ways if they've learned to think critically. If not, it would be a terribly dull world, no?
Jason, I liked the piece by Lewis. Kinda a nifty way to see things. Now if the estate includes other houses of, say, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc, and the neighbors agreed not to launch rockets at each other, that would be even better. Alas, I am a dreamer...
And as for Jason's question:
I still don't have a clear answer as to what the atheist uses to gain their security, strength, and moral compass. And an interesting question would be to ask if whatever the answer is does not represent their own "god"?
I can't speak for atheists - I don't know what I am (heh!) and certainly haven't studied either religions of the world or atheism in depth - but I kinda figure you get one shot at this life thing and you'd better make the best of it. In that sense (totally non-scientific, probably not even rational) atheists may be more inclined toward a moral compass that encourages being good to each other simply because there is no "after" - just "now".
Totally not worthy of a structured debate, I realize. Just my two cents worth.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:28:30 AM · #752 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I can't speak for atheists - I don't know what I am (heh!) and certainly haven't studied either religions of the world or atheism in depth - but I kinda figure you get one shot at this life thing and you'd better make the best of it. In that sense (totally non-scientific, probably not even rational) atheists may be more inclined toward a moral compass that encourages being good to each other simply because there is no "after" - just "now".
|
That's interesting. I've thought about it and feel in that case the "cheater" is the best off. The object is to live within a society that follows rules of order but to avoid and break the rules yourself as often as possible without getting caught. Seems like solid game theory to me. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:53:33 AM · #753 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's interesting. I've thought about it and feel in that case the "cheater" is the best off. The object is to live within a society that follows rules of order but to avoid and break the rules yourself as often as possible without getting caught. Seems like solid game theory to me. |
After all the serious high-speech postings, this is the one that lost me. "..'cheater'...to avoid and break the rules as often as possible without getting caught." Huh? |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:02:12 AM · #754 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's interesting. I've thought about it and feel in that case the "cheater" is the best off. The object is to live within a society that follows rules of order but to avoid and break the rules yourself as often as possible without getting caught. Seems like solid game theory to me. |
After all the serious high-speech postings, this is the one that lost me. "..'cheater'...to avoid and break the rules as often as possible without getting caught." Huh? |
If I felt that this life was all there was, I'd give some thought to trying to be the cheater. The problem is weighing the risk of being caught vs. the gain of breaking the rule. That risk/benefit is not always clear. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:03:39 AM · #755 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's interesting. I've thought about it and feel in that case the "cheater" is the best off. The object is to live within a society that follows rules of order but to avoid and break the rules yourself as often as possible without getting caught. Seems like solid game theory to me. |
I think the philosophical world thinks the jury is still out on that one. The prisoner's dilemma would be a good example of the common considerations to prove
'hidden' selfishness always wins (your assumption above)
to unselfishness always is the rational solution to
game theory has no application to human behaviour.
//plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/ for a starting point to why it may or may not be 'solid game theory'
The most obvious issue would be the idea of 'not getting caught' and the associated potential penalty of actually getting caught outweighing the typical advantage of 'playing fair'. Reputation/ character etc can be factored in to the standard PD calculations, though mostly as historical behavioural considerations.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 02:11:47. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:08:11 AM · #756 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I felt that this life was all there was, I'd give some thought to trying to be the cheater. The problem is weighing the risk of being caught vs. the gain of breaking the rule. That risk/benefit is not always clear. |
Cheating what? This is the part I don't understand. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:13:21 AM · #757 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I felt that this life was all there was, I'd give some thought to trying to be the cheater. The problem is weighing the risk of being caught vs. the gain of breaking the rule. That risk/benefit is not always clear. |
If I thought I could gain forgiveness in the next life, just by asking for it at the right time or sincerely repenting my behaviour or whatever the access method is, I'd probably give serious thought to cheating more in this life, too. The same dilemmas follow. Wouldn't the optimal strategy be to live as immoral a mortal life as possible, sincere in your desire to be saved at some future point, have a death bed salvation/confession/redemption and move on ?
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 02:16:01. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 09:29:10 AM · #758 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If philosophy is such an self-evident field, then why do learned institutions like Oxford decide to have them as a major? Seems sorta stupid to me. |
I don't think anyone said philosophy is 'self-evident'. But you are making an appeal to authority, when the authority in question has similarly lacking credentials. I think the reality is that what a decent university education teaches you is how to learn, at least that's what the decade I spent doing degrees taught me - nothing I do in my current job has anything much to do with what I studied over those years, yet the ability to learn, think and research is a constant. |
I can agree with that, but then tell me how the expertise Lewis has in philosophy is different than the expertise Dawkins has in zoology? |
If Lewis were to write a book on zoology, members of the field might be rightly skeptical of the conclusions and research of someone not versed in the technical elements of the field. However, the book would ultimately rise or fall on the strength of his research and whether or not his conclusions were correct (that is, repeatable, verifiable, and testable).
I take your point that study of philosophy can be helpful in avoiding the logical pitfalls that others have avoided in the past, but ultimately, like Lewis's hypothetical zoology book above, the legitimacy and correctness of Dawkins philosophy should rely not upon his prior scholarship, but on the correctness of his conclusions (again whether his arguments an coherent, verifiable and testable). You want to attack Dawkins right to speak in this milieu at all, I would prefer that you address his specific arguments. The fact that so many people who oppose Dawkins do choose to attack the messenger, rather than the message, I think speaks quite directly to the strength of his philosophical arguments.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I can't speak for atheists - I don't know what I am (heh!) and certainly haven't studied either religions of the world or atheism in depth - but I kinda figure you get one shot at this life thing and you'd better make the best of it. In that sense (totally non-scientific, probably not even rational) atheists may be more inclined toward a moral compass that encourages being good to each other simply because there is no "after" - just "now".
|
That's interesting. I've thought about it and feel in that case the "cheater" is the best off. The object is to live within a society that follows rules of order but to avoid and break the rules yourself as often as possible without getting caught. Seems like solid game theory to me. |
I would submit to you that immoral persons follow the creed you lay out above, whether religious or non-religious. The moral atheist sees that cheaters prosper and says, "Since there is no afterlife, and therefore no justice beyond this world, how can we change the world we live in so that cheaters no longer prosper." |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 09:37:53 AM · #759 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
then tell me how the expertise Lewis has in philosophy is different than the expertise Dawkins has in zoology? |
Dawkins is essentially arguing in favor of zoology which, as you put it, is his core knowledge. Lewis is arguing in favor of religion, not philosophy, thus he doesn't have a background in either discipline. Regardless, I don't agree that such a background is even necessary. Albert Einstein performed his famous thought experiment (the inspiration for relativity) at age 16, without so much as a high school diploma. Was he unqualified? Philosophy does indeed have a rich history, but you don't need a formal education in it to form rational arguments any more than you need an art degree to be an artist (even if Oxford offers postgraduate courses on the subjects). Philosophy draws its conclusions from knowledge, so if anything I'd say Dawkins has the advantage of an additional 60-70 years of major advances in cosmology, genetics, behavioral sciences and other disciplines from which to form his conclusions. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:03:17 AM · #760 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
It just occurred to me that you are just joining this thread. Upon seeing your subsequent posts below, I will wait until you finish reading the previous posts, before I decide to add anymore replys. |
Wow. That was a lot to wade through. I think I feel a little bit woozy. I believe that I'm all caught up now, Flash. |
Great. Glad to have another atheist join the discussion. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:11:37 AM · #761 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
How do you separate what is allegorical from what is literal? And if you accept that parts are allegorical, how do you justify your interpretations of what is allegorical? |
Research. Informed research.
this is an example of research that does not YET yeild a definitive conclusion Yet the circumstantial evidence is hard to ignore. If this were a Bible story, atheists would claim that since no evidence exists of her death, then this is an allegory. Christians would look at the circumstantial evidence and say; it looks like a death, smells like a death, walks and talks like a death, until it is proven it is NOT a death, I will belive it is one.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 10:36:36. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:35:52 AM · #762 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Glad to have another atheist join the discussion. |
"In fact, we are all "atheists" with respect to Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other dead gods that now lie upon the scrapheap of mythology. A politician who seriously invokes Poseidon in a campaign speech will have thereby announced the end of his political career. Why is this so? Did someone around the time of Constantine discover that the pagan gods do not actually exist, while the biblical God does? Of course not. There are thousands of gods that were once worshipped with absolute conviction by men and women like ourselves, and yet we all now agree that they are rightly dead. An "atheist" is simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. I am quite sure that we need only use words like "reason," "common sense," "evidence," and "intellectual honesty" to do the job." - Sam Harris |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:39:08 AM · #763 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Glad to have another atheist join the discussion. |
"In fact, we are all "atheists" with respect to Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other dead gods that now lie upon the scrapheap of mythology. A politician who seriously invokes Poseidon in a campaign speech will have thereby announced the end of his political career. Why is this so? Did someone around the time of Constantine discover that the pagan gods do not actually exist, while the biblical God does? Of course not. There are thousands of gods that were once worshipped with absolute conviction by men and women like ourselves, and yet we all now agree that they are rightly dead. An "atheist" is simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. I am quite sure that we need only use words like "reason," "common sense," "evidence," and "intellectual honesty" to do the job." - Sam Harris |
I've already addressed this in either this or another thread. Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:43:02 AM · #764 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:45:35 AM · #765 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:55:10 AM · #766 |
| Apparently I'm a cheater, and still don't know what that means. Pretty sure, though, that given all the in-fighting, I'll probably not explore Christianity (or Catholicism, if they are not the same) any further. I'll just quietly head on out the side door and locate the road to Hell for the continuance of my travels. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 10:58:22 AM · #767 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
Does this mean you believe in every god in existence? To make things easier, perhaps you could clarify whether or not you simultaneously believe in Allah and Ganesh?
edit: Muhammed -> Allah
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 11:01:14. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:01:25 AM · #768 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I felt that this life was all there was, I'd give some thought to trying to be the cheater. The problem is weighing the risk of being caught vs. the gain of breaking the rule. That risk/benefit is not always clear. |
If I thought I could gain forgiveness in the next life, just by asking for it at the right time or sincerely repenting my behaviour or whatever the access method is, I'd probably give serious thought to cheating more in this life, too. The same dilemmas follow. Wouldn't the optimal strategy be to live as immoral a mortal life as possible, sincere in your desire to be saved at some future point, have a death bed salvation/confession/redemption and move on ? |
Sure. With the operative words being "sincere in your desire to be saved" and "have a death bed confession". Of course that is dependent on A) your "heart" - as that is what will be judged and B)you knowing when you will die. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:05:14 AM · #769 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
Does this mean you believe in every god in existence? To make things easier, perhaps you could clarify whether or not you simultaneously believe in Allah and Ganesh?
edit: Muhammed -> Allah |
Here you begin with saying something I did not say. An atheist believes in NO god(s). A theist believes in at least one. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:05:34 AM · #770 |
Originally posted by Flash:
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
By that definition, children who haven't been exposed to religious doctrine are athiests because they believe in no god, and you're 99.99% athiest because you believe in no god but one out of thousands proposed. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:07:07 AM · #771 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
By that definition, children who haven't been exposed to religious doctrine are athiests because they believe in no god, and you're 99.99% athiest because you believe in no god but one out of thousands proposed. |
No. By that definition I am a theist. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:13:33 AM · #772 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Apparently I'm a cheater, and still don't know what that means. Pretty sure, though, that given all the in-fighting, I'll probably not explore Christianity (or Catholicism, if they are not the same) any further. I'll just quietly head on out the side door and locate the road to Hell for the continuance of my travels. |
I'm fairly certain that he wasn't calling you a cheater. The point was more that he feels that if there isn't some sort of judgment coming up, his best opinion on how to live life is to cheat as much as you can and get away with it.
On a similar tack, I always liked the quote/ definition of character
Character is what you do when no-one else is watching
I always took that no-one to include any sort of [g|G]od(s) too. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:24:09 AM · #773 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
Does this mean you believe in every god in existence? To make things easier, perhaps you could clarify whether or not you simultaneously believe in Allah and Ganesh?
edit: Muhammed -> Allah |
Here you begin with saying something I did not say. An atheist believes in NO god(s). A theist believes in at least one. |
What was it, exactly, that I said you mentioned, that you hadn't? Sorry, but I don't see it in my post. I simply asked if you in fact believe in all existing gods. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:24:29 AM · #774 |
Originally posted by Flash:
By that definition I am a theist. |
Christianity requires that you reject the possibility of other gods existing... a curious demand for the only existing god to make. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:30:02 AM · #775 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
By that definition I am a theist. |
Christianity requires that you reject the possibility of other gods existing... a curious demand for the only existing god to make. |
What does that have to do with the definition of a theist? |
|
