Common philosophical ground

[drewjmore]

Is there any common ground between popular-- by which I mean amongst the common people-- theistic & non-theistic philosophies?

e.g. Practically everyone, regardless of their sectarian stripe, agrees that we exist-- I think therefore I am, etc. How far along this train of thought can philosophy go before we can no longer lump "the majority of humankind" together under a single set of 'true' beliefs?

-djm

Specifically, I'm interested in a position of common ground from which a theist and an atheist could launch a meaningful debate. On what do we all actually agree? At what point do we begin to disagree? Can we even agree upon where it is that we disagree?

[steamer]

I think therefore I am

A rock doesn't think, but it also exists (I think). I might not really exist, some demons or a god might be running an incredible simulation.

[drewjmore]

A rock doesn't think, but it also exists (I think). I might not really exist, some demons or a god might be running an incredible simulation.

Please do not bother with non-answers.
If you feel that my question is non-sense, say so.

[steamer]

Please do not bother with non-answers.
If you feel that my question is non-sense, say so.

I was merely pointing out that it may be a difficult task. Descartes thought that because he could think it meant he existed. Even if little demons were feeding his senses false input.

Descartes never considered that those little demons could be tickling neurons in his brain or that it was possible to simulate something so that it didn't know it was a simulation.

I believe the thinking as of now is that the very thing we do call "I" is a simulation performed by the brain.

ETA: To be helpful, I think we could all agree that existence exists.

[drewjmore]

ETA: To be helpful, I think we could all agree that existence exists.

Thank you!

Is that where the chain of popular 'agreement' ends?

[Valdemar]

At what point do we begin to disagree? Can we even agree upon where it is that we disagree?

At that point in which we make a leap from the natural to the supernatural.

[JamesBannon]

Specifically, I'm interested in a position of common ground from which a theist and an atheist could launch a meaningful debate. On what do we all actually agree? At what point do we begin to disagree? Can we even agree upon where it is that we disagree?
By temperament I am an empiricist so when a theist posits existence of something to me I will automatically ask "show me please" (sometimes without the please). To qualify for existence to my mind either requires a physical object or something that arises as a property of the existence of that object, e.g. human behaviour. I do not really see how this can be squared with a belief in a supernatural entity whose existence can never be demonstrated or whose properties I can never experience either directly or indirectly.

[No Robots]

There is serious division and confusion among atheists about physicalism. Physicalism is materialistic monism, the position that nothing can be said meaningfully about anything that isn't material. Most atheists are physicalists, or claim to be. But some deny it, as steamer does here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4433703#post4433703), where he claims that time is an immaterial entity. steamer's position is, of course, not held to by all atheists, as is seen in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205440). So we see that some atheists claim not to be physicalists, but their positions regarding the non-physical are sometimes not well-founded. Some atheists do have a carefully considered non-physicalist position. By and large, these idealist or spiritual atheists are condemned by aggressive physicalist atheists. So while spiritual atheists could never accept traditionalist notions about god, they yet have an affinity for the spiritual core that lies at the heart of these traditionalist notions. It seems to me that there is in fact greater affinity between religious people and spiritual atheists than there is between the latter and physicalists.

[steamer]

It seems to me that there is in fact greater affinity between religious people and spiritual atheists than there is between the latter and physicalists.

I assume that in order to know it exists you must have experienced something you've identified as spiritual. How did that experience manifest itself to your senses and emotions? How did you come to attribute the cause of what you feel to something supernatural?

I'm not at all sure that what you call spiritual isn't something that is a commonplace experience for me that I call something else and that I just assume is a normal thing for a feeling human.

Perhaps I'm missing something that is in the range of normal human experience, but even if I am I can't see that I would value it as much as a theist to begin with. Feelings reflect what we believe to be true regardless of whether those things are true or not.

[No Robots]

I assume that in order to know it exists you must have experienced something you've identified as spiritual. How did that experience manifest itself to your senses and emotions? How did you come to attribute the cause of what you feel to something supernatural?

I'm not at all sure that what you call spiritual isn't something that is a commonplace experience for me that I call something else and that I just assume is a normal thing for a feeling human.

Perhaps I'm missing something that is in the range of normal human experience, but even if I am I can't see that I would value it as much as a theist to begin with. Feelings reflect what we believe to be true regardless of whether those things are true or not.

First off, "spiritual" is not a synonym for "supernatural". I am a naturalist and I conceive of spirit as an entirely natural phenomenon. Nor is "spiritual" a synonym for "emotional". Spirit can be felt, but it can also be known and willed. It is a phenomenon of thought in general. Spirit is the ideal analog of material motion, it is the unceasing motion of reality when reality is viewed as thought rather than as matter.

[steamer]

First off, "spiritual" is not a synonym for "supernatural". I am a naturalist and I conceive of spirit as an entirely natural phenomenon. Nor is "spiritual" a synonym for "emotional". Spirit can be felt, but it can also be known and willed. It is a phenomenon of thought in general. Spirit is the ideal analog of material motion, it is the unceasing motion of reality when reality is viewed as thought rather than as matter.

If it is a normal human experience or even a rare one, why should I value it? Why should I seek to experience it? Is it like getting high? What value is that? Why call it spiritual when you know the word carries so much supernatural baggage? Any use of the word that does not include the sueprnatural is the exception.

If you are experiencing "spiritualism" that does not require anything supernatural then I don't know what my argument with you would be, nor do I see how religionists and atheists would have more in common with each other than two atheists.

[naturalist.atheist]

No Robots, how do your claims change anything?

[No Robots]

What mankind requires more than anything right now is a science of ideas, of thought. There was a great deal of work done on this in times past, but it has really fallen by the wayside. All of our serious psychological, social and ecological problems have their origins in defective thinking. It is simply a copout to say, "Well, thought is just the firing of neurons." We have to study the content of thought, how thoughts are transmitted, how they interact. This is the great work of our time.

[drewjmore]

Just got back to my desk, and caught up with this discussion. I am truly impressed with the depth here, and as a result will need an hour or two to compose my thoughts before offering further comment of my own...

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

The division point is exactly where proof of claims is requested.

"God loves you and wants you to be happy!"
"Oh? I'm pretty happy already. Who is God?"
"The creator of the universe and everything in it."
"How do you know that he created it? Can you prove that?"
"..."

[naturalist.atheist]

What mankind requires more than anything right now is a science of ideas, of thought. There was a great deal of work done on this in times past, but it has really fallen by the wayside. All of our serious psychological, social and ecological problems have their origins in defective thinking. It is simply a copout to say, "Well, thought is just the firing of neurons." We have to study the content of thought, how thoughts are transmitted, how they interact. This is the great work of our time.

Most all failures have their roots in either poor judgment, poor information, or poor reasoning. Tell me something I don't know.

But simply saying that better judgment, and better information and better reasoning will save the day is as formulaic as how to make money on the stock market (buy low and sell high). It tells you nothing about what you should do because we lack the information, reasoning and judgment to figure it out. Duh!

But we are studying thought and we have a new toy. It is much better than the old toy, because it lets us look into brains to try to figure out where thoughts come from.

Because without better information you are pretty much stuck where you are. You are forced to make decisions with the same old reasoning, judgment and information. The best you can hope for is that you get lucky.

So if you want to advocate something that has a more deliberate effect on outcomes then advocate continued research into the brain and the biology of people and life on the planet. Because it is that information that will allow us to reason and judge with better knowledge.

But you must realize that "spiritualism" has historically been a mechanism for cop out. It did what all supernaturalism does, it abdicates responsibility and tries to hand it off to a "higher power" whether there is anything there to take that responsibility or not. If we allow the supernaturalists to control the process all we will be left with is at the moment when it all goes south you will hear "Oh please help me god!"

We have to do better then that. The supernaturalists can go about their business with their ritual cannibalism, holy wars, and useless supplication but they need to get out of the way for their own sakes.

[No Robots]

And so we have two kinds of men: men of the spirit and men of the folk, men of thought and men of the hand. This is the true division in humanity.

[naturalist.atheist]

And so we have two kinds of men: men of the spirit and men of the folk, men of thought and men of the hand. This is the true division in humanity.

The hand is connected to the brain.

[JamesBannon]

The hand is connected to the brain.
And the thigh-bone's connected to the ... hip bone ... Now hear the word of the Lord. Sorry couldn't resist it.:devil1:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Is there any common ground between popular-- by which I mean amongst the common people-- theistic & non-theistic philosophies?

e.g. Practically everyone, regardless of their sectarian stripe, agrees that we exist-- I think therefore I am, etc. How far along this train of thought can philosophy go before we can no longer lump "the majority of humankind" together under a single set of 'true' beliefs?

-djm

Specifically, I'm interested in a position of common ground from which a theist and an atheist could launch a meaningful debate. On what do we all actually agree? At what point do we begin to disagree? Can we even agree upon where it is that we disagree?

The answer is a resounding NO. People generally believe in the authority of logic. But when the issue is between logic and what they want to believe, "wanna" always wins, except when people have been trained in rational thinking and intellectual honesty and these are strongly internalized as supreme values (not just important ones).

Freud was wrong about a few things. But what he wasn't wrong is that Wish is of paramount importance in the human psyche, and that the Pleasure Principle lurks behind the Reality Principle.

... or if that's too Freudian, it can simply be put in terms that human behavior is determined by reinforcement (seeking the pleasant and avoiding the unpleasant) rather than logic. That's why education is paramount. Not everyone is a stubborn "is not! is too!" style debater, so that's the hope.

[JamesBannon]

To get back to being serious for a minute we should face the fact that it's not only the religious that come up with silly ideas in our terms. Take absolute scepticism, solipsism and nihilism just to name three. All of these ideas I regard as completely nonsensical and incoherent yet they get more respect around here than someone claiming a god of whatever kind exists. However, it is very difficult to "disprove" any of these positions, they seem to be immune to any attempt to find philosphical counter-examples. One is left with falling back on vague empirical notions to point out how senseless they are.

[drewjmore]

To get back to being serious for a minute we should face the fact that it's not only the religious that come up with silly ideas in our terms...You've clearly addressed one of the many problems I feel arise during discourse among the various philosophies: there are many, and widely varied, flavors of 'ultimate truth' out there in the meme-pool. The solipsists, etc., reach practically inane conclusions through entirely rational means. Many atheistic condemnations of theism rely on the overabundance of competitive dogmas, yet the full-range of atheist philosophy does not completely avoid this weakness.

However, doesn't one who is comfortable enough in real life to engage in these dalliances have to admit several brute facts about existence? The need for interaction with the (potentially illusory) real world in the form of our basic animal needs?

I've never actually taken the time to fully immerse myself in the traditions of philosophy. However, once we've agreed with De Carte, cogito ergo sum, is it not clear that all (living) beings must accept that the 'real world' exists more or less as they directly perceive it? We all submit to the brute facts of nature. I propose that this is the next step on a path toward a common ground underpinning a (provisionally) meaningful atheist/theist debate.

...But when the issue is between logic and what they want to believe, "wanna" always wins...This is surely the case among the, so called, fundies. However, I'm essentially convinced that the majority of humans (or at least Americans, with whom I'm most intimately familiar) are prevented by their own doubts & confusion from being able to zealously defend their philosophical convictions. The common man accepts that 'the truth' is elusive, and the variety of responses to that acceptance is well-documented. These common folk (even a fair proportion of the 80-90% of the world said to have some higher-power-belief) don't buy what atheistic philosophers sell, largely because atheists generally can't agree on an ultimate truth that is any more compelling than that/those of the theists.
And the thigh-bone's connected to the ... hip bone ... Now hear the word of the Lord. Sorry couldn't resist it. In the spirit of the side-track: my favorite kids TV show is "It's a Big Big World" on PBS. They sang a version of that song which substituted the "word of the lord" line with "Can you feel the strength of dem bones!?!"


..."How do you know that he created it? Can you prove that?"...
This is one way in which a theist would like to frame The Debate. They essentially rely on the confusion and 'searching' in their common-man-target, who may be willing to accept that they have no clue as to the nature of The Truth and therefore may be willing to accept a Truth based upon the assumption of a revealed god.

It is here that many Ath vs Th debates get bogged down. The atheist cannot allow the theist to beg the question in this way, but the theist will inevitably 'lose' if they do not.

Can we identify any common ground that is fundamental to both sides from which to frame more productive discourse? Perhaps a thoroughly agnostic position arrived at from 'first principles,' as in the Cartesian musings?

What mankind requires more than anything right now is a science of ideas, of thought. There was a great deal of work done on this in times past, but it has really fallen by the wayside. All of our serious psychological, social and ecological problems have their origins in defective thinking. It is simply a copout to say, "Well, thought is just the firing of neurons." We have to study the content of thought, how thoughts are transmitted, how they interact. This is the great work of our time.I agree wholeheartedly.

If it is a normal human experience or even a rare one, why should I value it? Why should I seek to experience it? Is it like getting high? What value is that? Why call it spiritual when you know the word carries so much supernatural baggage? Any use of the word that does not include the supernatural is the exception.
If you are experiencing "spiritualism" that does not require anything supernatural then I don't know what my argument with you would be, nor do I see how religionists and atheists would have more in common with each other than two atheists.I wonder if some form of agnostic spiritualism is the proper middle-road between the warring camps. At least as a basis for further discovery.

...while spiritual atheists could never accept traditionalist notions about god, they yet have an affinity for the spiritual core that lies at the heart of these traditionalist notions. It seems to me that there is in fact greater affinity between religious people and spiritual atheists than there is between the latter and physicalists. Perhaps it is my culturally-christian background, but I can align myself with the spiritual-atheist to whom you refer with little strain. Not that I find it to be any closer to The Truth, but that it seems it would allow the most freedom for those who may wish to move gradually from one polarized camp to the other.

By temperament I am an empiricist so when a theist posits existence of something to me I will automatically ask "show me please" ... But this course leads immediately to impasse, no further discussion can be had. I'm interested in the judo approach, using the weight of the opponents arguments against them. In this case, the theist has several thousands of years of apologetic conditioning to shield themselves from your rhetoric.

At that point in which we make a leap from the natural to the supernatural. Can you be more specific about the landscape surrounding this "point"?

-djm [there's an hour shot in the ass...]

[JamesBannon]

I've never actually taken the time to immerse myself in the full traditions of philosophy. However, once we've agreed with DeCarte, cogito ergo sum, is it not clear that all (living) beings must accept that the 'real world' exists more or less as they directly percieve it? We all submit to the brute facts of nature. I propose that this is the next step on a path towards a common ground underpinning a (provisionally) meaningful athesit/theist debate. The trouble with this though is that it doesn't work because Descartes was basically wrong. Remember that Descartes had to re-introduce some kind of deity back into his "equation" in order to prevent him from being so thoroughly deceived by his own demon that he couldn't tell the difference between the real and the illusory. (I forget which meditation this was in as I don't have a copy of meditations to hand). In a way he couldn't find a way out of the impasse he presented himself with and the "brick test" doesn't work. It is always possible to retreat to the position that some demon (or god) so manipulates the world that finding the truth of the matter is literally impossible. Calvinists are famous for adopting this position which is rather ironic considering it is exactly the same position an absolute sceptic would reach.

Empiricism of course has its own set of problems to deal with especially any kind of reliance on a "blank slate" argument. We know, for instance, that a human infant is not a blank slate but has some set of "potentials" given by its genetic inheritance and such. Also, it seems to beg the question when we start talking about the problem of induction. The basic fact of the matter is that it is not possible to justify induction in any empirical framework nor is it possible to verify the truth of any non-analytic statement. The best that we can reasonably hope for is that some hypothesis can, on the balance of probabilities, be shown to be approximately true given the data we have available to us.

Deductive arguments don't help us much either. There are literally hundreds of deductive arguments on both sides of the divide that are perfectly valid deductive arguments. How do we tell them apart? Bottom line, we can't because we're straight back in the bind we've already looked at.

In short there is no clear strategy that can include both positions because they posit diametrically opposed models of reality.

[drewjmore]

The trouble with this though is that it doesn't work because Descartes was basically wrong. Remember that Descartes had to re-introduce some kind of deity back into his "equation" in order to prevent him from being so thoroughly deceived by his own demon that he couldn't tell the difference between the real and the illusory. Sure, Descartes' (thank you for not bludgeoning me with my earlier spelling) arguments get off track. However, if you start where he started (and apply more of a fuzzy-logic approach than a strict one), cogito ergo sum is perfectly rational. Strip away your pre-conceived notions about anything else: there is some ineffable 'you' thinking thoughts. This alone is evidence of existence. As steamer obliquely pointed out, it is not evidence of Descartes "I am," but something most certainly is.

As far as I'm concerned, and I'm surely not alone, Occam's razor eliminates any clever demon creating the illusion of a real world; a real world that is not simply an elaborate illusion is simpler, at least in my mind. Further, if you disagree (and if you are correct in doing so) you should be free to disengage yourself from the illusion, or seeing through it into the 'real' reality that the demon inhabits. Absurdity seems abundant in that direction.

I have a hard time accepting that my 'common man' feels that the world is merely an illusion or a test, and that the reality which the demon may inhabit offers us more than we appear to have here within the illusion. There is certainly no room for debate with someone who adheres to such a belief. Let the demons have them.

(I forget which meditation this was in as I don't have a copy of meditations to hand). In a way he couldn't find a way out of the impasse he presented himself with and the "brick test" doesn't work... I'm afraid I don't understand how the brick test fails (by which I assume you mean "I refute it thus!" {kicks stone}). I admit that is does not seem as rigorous as other types of discourse, but is there no school of thought in which the intellectual equivalent of the brick test is 'proved'?

...The best that we can reasonably hope for is that some hypothesis can, on the balance of probabilities, be shown to be approximately true given the data we have available to us.
BINGO. And so the demon dies, the real world is real enough for purposes of discussion.

Deductive arguments don't help us much either. There are literally hundreds of deductive arguments on both sides of the divide that are perfectly valid deductive arguments. How do we tell them apart? Bottom line, we can't because we're straight back in the bind we've already looked at. I'm not following your (underlined)allusions here.

In short there is no clear strategy that can include both positions because they posit diametrically opposed models of reality. Except that they don't. Even a rabid fundy has to posit a real world into which Yahweh sent his son & spirit. They may claim a greater reality to which the demon prevents us access, but the argument is demonstrably circular and thus more persuasive against their position than for it. The 'common man' doesn't buy it from the fundies.

-djm [feels undignified using that f- word]

[naturalist.atheist]

And the thigh-bone's connected to the ... hip bone ... Now hear the word of the Lord. Sorry couldn't resist it.:devil1:

Maybe in your case the hand is not connected to the brain.

Sorry couldn't resist it.:devil1:

[JamesBannon]

I'll get back to this later when I've had more of a think. I just wanted to pick up one reference.

BINGO. And so the demon dies, the real world is real enough for purposes of discussion.
If the demon dies, then so also does god. Therefore, we might as well proclaim "God is dead!" because, for all practical purposes, he might as well be.

[JamesBannon]

Maybe in your case the hand is not connected to the brain.

Sorry couldn't resist it.:devil1:
:D:notworthy:

[OldYgg]

Is there any common ground between popular-- by which I mean amongst the common people-- theistic & non-theistic philosophies?

e.g. Practically everyone, regardless of their sectarian stripe, agrees that we exist-- I think therefore I am, etc. How far along this train of thought can philosophy go before we can no longer lump "the majority of humankind" together under a single set of 'true' beliefs?

-djm

Specifically, I'm interested in a position of common ground from which a theist and an atheist could launch a meaningful debate. On what do we all actually agree? At what point do we begin to disagree? Can we even agree upon where it is that we disagree?

Topics similar to this have been brought up various times in conversations that I have been involved.

There is a sharp dichotomy between most theists and atheists.

The dichotomy centers on evidence and thought.

(Next statement not meant to be insulting, only example, but I can see where it might be taken to be insulting, and for that I apologize ahead of time)

Theists, use logic and reason in many parts of their lives. They ask for quotes when they get car insurance, evaluate risks, take their time deciding which car to buy based on their criteria. However, when it comes to religious assertions, they no longer use the logic and reason portion of their mind. They turn to a non-logic framework of authoritarian belief in regards to god, heaven, hell and in general where they think they get their morality.

Atheists, in my opinion, live their lives the same way the theists do. But when it comes to questions regarding the nature of existence, do not flinch to say "I don't really know" and "Well, that doesn't really sound plausible" in regard to the existence of god, heaven, hell and authoritarian claims of where morality comes from.

Some concrete examples:
Slavery is wrong. Both theist and atheist agree. However, the source of this premise is not founded in religion. Religion co-existed just fine with slavery unless it was the chosen people that were enslaved, then look out.

Genocide is wrong. God, performs and authorizes the attempted genocide of many people's. Symbolically speaking this isn't exactly a ringing bell of current morality. Genocide is wrong if you use enlightenment thought and consider that all people are equals - in the sense that they have a right to the future, a right to exist and a right to be who they are without, well being killed for being that person.

Suicide is wrong. Well, this depends on the circumstances, but suffice it to say that theists fall on both sides on this matter when it comes to assisted suicide. For healthy people in the prime of their lives, a theist might say that suicide is wrong because they are going to go to hell. An atheist might say that suicide is wrong because human life is rare in the universe and once dead, a human cannot contribute to the future of humanity.

Atheists and theists agree about a lot of things in every day life. Murder is wrong*, child abuse is wrong, sexual predators should be in jail, you can't drive without car insurance, you want your kids to grow up and have better lives than you do. You want your kids to go to good schools, be well behaved, have lots of friends, make accomplishments and grow mentally (boy I really hope so for my 4-year old...)

Atheists and theists alike want stable societies, because if society isn't stable then all the things you want for your children or for the future in general can't happen if hurricanes come and destroy your city, war erupts and nuclear bombs go off in major cities, if there is a worldwide famine makes it hard to eat, which makes it hard to think and do the wonderful things that humans can do.

But when it comes to definitions of words, atheists and theists disagree. Typically, when discussions revolve around morality or god, definitions of these words mean different things to different people and this in turn makes it difficult to have a discussion.

In particular it is difficult to have discussions when the definition of morality is so narrowly defined by the religious to mean "What god tells you to do?" that automatically - regardless of the actions of the atheist immoral actions, regardless of their outcome. Unfortunately, such a narrow definition of morality has its problems which are frequently overlooked by the theist, for example, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is a mandate by god. It is very clear. There are in fact witches in our society. They live quite fine. That is because morality even for the Christian is not defined by the bible or by god, but by humanity.


Another important difference between atheists and theists is the acceptance level for authority. God is given by some theists ultimate authority. God is sovereign. Therefore, any action undertaken by god is a moral action. It isn't symbolic of anything - of how to live. It is just what god did. God killed everyone because they were 'wicked'. This is ok. If you or I do those actions, then it is a capital offense. So, atheists in general, believe that if it is morally wrong to do an action, it is wrong for just about everybody in a similar position. So, if god creates a new flu virus and it kills millions of people, this is wrong (if god exists) because it would be wrong and a person would get the largest punishment possible if they performed those actions.

Inevitably, when discussions between atheist and theist about the existence of god (or the more popular Jesus incarnation) the conversation devolves to evidence, the nature of evidence and what is acceptable as evidence.

But if you looked at an atheist family (say mine) and a theist family (anybody with 2 young male children) an outsider might not see a difference between us. I mean, most likely the theist family probably doesn't even go to church on weekends. Weekends are for fixing the house and yard up.

Old Ygg

*except of course it is war time. Technically speaking, if you are planning to kill someone, accomplish killing that person, this is murder. If a god exists, I'm not sure exactly how he'll distinguish between murder in wartime and murder out of wartime. This is further blurred by the fact that sometimes murder during wartime is not appropriate. Does god make this determination as well? Are you going to hell if you say "I was only following orders." Who knows?

[OldYgg]

I think out of that whole giant posting I wrote - what I want to get at is this:

You can find atheists and theists of wide almost completely overlapping morals. The difference appears to be the source of the morality, thought, logic and science or authority, doctrine and god.

Old Ygg

[naturalist.atheist]

I think out of that whole giant posting I wrote - what I want to get at is this:

You can find atheists and theists of wide almost completely overlapping morals. The difference appears to be the source of the morality, thought, logic and science or authority, doctrine and god.

Old Ygg

I'll boil it down to simpler than that.

The difference is in what they value.

[drewjmore]

If the demon dies, then so also does god. Therefore, we might as well proclaim "God is dead!" because, for all practical purposes, he might as well be.Hmm, are you saying that a theist must believe that the 'real world' is an elaborate illusion and test orchestrated by their god? This might make an interesting poll question:

With which of the following statements do you most agree:A) I believe in a god, and that the reality I perceive is an illusion god presents to test me.B) I believe in a god, and that reality is as 'real' as that god.c) I am agnostic about god(s), but reality is real.D) I am agnostic about god(s), and reality is an illusion.E) I believe there are no gods at all, and that reality is real.F) I believe there are no gods at all, and reality is an illusion.G) illusory brownies ...There is a sharp dichotomy [that] centers on evidence and thought... My reading of the totality supporting the quoted statement is that theists simply ignore their intellect when considering questions of their faith. Is the following comment meant to alter that meaning?
...You can find atheists and theists of wide almost completely overlapping morals. The difference appears to be the source of the morality, thought, logic and science or authority, doctrine and god...Here you notice a dichotomy centered on the source of morality. There appear to be at least several such fundamental dichotomies, have you got anything approaching a comprehensive list of them?

...The difference is in what they value.What is different about the things valued by the various sides?

-djm [digs this multi-quote function]

[OldYgg]

I'll boil it down to simpler than that.

The difference is in what they value.

I would think atheists value humanity and theists value the soul.

Old Ygg

[naturalist.atheist]

What is different about the things valued by the various sides?

For clarity I will state it thusly:

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many varied and conflicting explanations offered.

This leads me to ask the following questions:

i) What criteria of preference will we use to prefer one explanation over another?

ii) When we have made our choice should we stick with it?

[And a new question that occurred to me recently]

iii) Are there any limitations on the number or combination criteria of preference that we employ to make a particular choice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Side

i) So for a scientist the criteria of preference would be fidelity and predictive power before the fact against observable reality. IOW explanations that do the best job of not only predicting what is known but what will be found before the fact in reality. Of course in science there is not a single all powerful explanation (not that they aren't trying to come up with one) and so the current state of affairs is that there are a number of explanations that are preferred in different areas of application.

ii) This criteria for scientists is not really negotiable. But that is not to say that scientists have any problem with science speculation and just plain old scientific exploration. Without scientific exploration serendipity would not play such a large factor in the creation of new scientific explanations. And it is understandable why some people view science as being dogmatic. And that is because it is.

iii) And for scientists as a group fidelity and predictability are the only two criteria that they use. They will toss out any other criteria if the explanation does a very good job at those two.

Philosophical Side

i) As far as I can tell for this group it is a matter of personal preference, perceived consistency and presumed reason. However they do not seem to be bothered by actual fact all that much. And they certainly as a group do not see the necessity to inform their philosophies with what can be known.

ii) In philosophy everything appears to be negotiable.

iii) Philosophy as an enterprise doesn't actually select, it accretes. Plato's ideas of forms of 2,500 years ago are just as legitimate as Feyerbend's notion of anything goes.


Supernaturalist Side

i) The criteria of preference for this group is most definitely emotional. There are a variety of emotions that are appealed to that range from fear to love to just about all the emotions. In the end people find the religions they are emotionally comfortable with.

ii) And although the criteria is supposed to be a trap door in principle, in practice within most religious traditions it has come to the point where orthodoxy is only practiced for a handful of hot button issues, like abortion, gay marriage, or stem cell research. And many people change their religion as often as they change their underwear. Some do it a lot and some seldom do it. And if there is very strong orthodoxy then it is usually classified as a cult.

iii) And in this group there appears to be many people that claim to use the criteria of preference of science and religion. But obviously not at the same time. On Sunday they are supernaturalists and on Monday through Saturday they are naturalists.