SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Fee-Fie-Fou-Fhum-Fideism-Falafel dept.
Commentary at Salon!
Should you believe in a God? Not according to most academic philosophers. A comprehensive survey revealed that only about 14 percent of English speaking professional philosophers are theists. As for what little religious belief remains among their colleagues, most professional philosophers regard it as a strange aberration among otherwise intelligent people. Among scientists the situation is much the same. Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.
[...] Now nothing definitely follows about the truth of a belief from what the majority of philosophers or scientists think. But such facts might cause believers discomfort. There has been a dramatic change in the last few centuries in the proportion of believers among the highly educated in the Western world. In the European Middle Ages belief in a God was ubiquitous, while today it is rare among the intelligentsia. This change occurred primarily because of the rise of modern science and a consensus among philosophers that arguments for the existence of gods, souls, afterlife and the like were unconvincing. Still, despite the view of professional philosophers and world-class scientists, religious beliefs have a universal appeal. What explains this?
[...] First, if you defend such beliefs by claiming that you have a right to your opinion, however unsupported by evidence it might be, you are referring to a political or legal right, not an epistemic one. You may have a legal right to say whatever you want, but you have epistemic justification only if there are good reasons and evidence to support your claim. If someone makes a claim without concern for reasons and evidence, we should conclude that they simply don't care about what's true. We shouldn't conclude that their beliefs are true because they are fervently held.
Another problem is that fideism—basing one's beliefs exclusively on faith—makes belief arbitrary, leaving no way to distinguish one religious belief from another. Fideism allows no reason to favor your preferred beliefs or superstitions over others. If I must accept your beliefs without evidence, then you must accept mine, no matter what absurdity I believe in. But is belief without reason and evidence worthy of rational beings? Doesn't it perpetuate the cycle of superstition and ignorance that has historically enslaved us? I agree with W.K. Clifford. "It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Why? Because your beliefs affect other people, and your false beliefs may harm them.
I am checking to see what the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster has to say about all this.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday January 20 2019, @11:56PM (9 children)
Fools say "The only true god is this one." Wise men say "Really? Prove it."
There. Fixed that for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @12:17AM (8 children)
You think that's a rebuttal of some sort? Theists use terms like "faith" and "believe" while many atheists genuinely think their beliefs are facts. The latter isn't only less wise, it's actually provably delusional.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @01:13AM (7 children)
Really? Prove it then.
You should factor in the fact that "atheist" means "the absence of belief in the existence of deities."
So, lack of belief.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 21 2019, @02:28AM (2 children)
Your language should sure start employing both the terms atheism and agnosticism and people should refrain from considering atheist as a-theist, when it's the translation of ἄθεος which is: god-less not theism-less. "Without god" is stronger than "without the belief in god". Besides, your definition of atheism is not undisputed.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @02:39AM (1 child)
You're quite right, my definition of atheism is disputed, but that's largely because atheists don't believe something, so it's really hard to lump them all under any one sign anyway.
"Without god" does describe me, I think all gods are equally ridiculous and believing in the christian god is just as silly as believing in Marduk or Jupiter.
The next atheist you argue with on the Internet might have a totally different view of course. Atheists don't have a Pope, so they can think whatever they want.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:04AM
Having said that, I have managed to come up with two clear-enough definitions such that they can be discussed if desired (I have no such desire, such discussion can lead nowhere, these were a purely academic construction). One I later discovered was considered by Einstein. As one might guess from my caveats, whilst they may be internally consistent definitions, they are both utterly useless as a starting point for anything which could be called theism (they are as useful as a basis for specifying a state that could be called "there is no god" as for specifying a state "there is some god"), and obviously in no way lend any credence to any other alternative formulation. I know of a third, it's even more tedious.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @01:13PM (3 children)
Fact [dictionary.com]. The inability to prove something true does not prove its untruth; witness dark matter, dark energy, M Theory. There, proven. You're welcome.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @07:26PM (2 children)
Ah, well from your link [dictionary.com]
I'm unsure how you prove the existence of any particular god. Also, your link fails to prove that I am delusional.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)
You're still asserting an unknown value is a negative value. Show your work.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:33PM
If you're asserting gods exist you need to show your work.
I am claiming gods don't exist. Religious people claim gods do exist, but haven't managed to prove it yet. Still, it's only been a few tens of thousands of years. There's always time.