Re: An atheist professor & his student

On Feb 10, 3:02 am, Jabba <jabbathechand...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-snip-

I think we agree that these things all seem to be, but I'm not sure
why our agreement means anything -- is reality democratic?

Ok - do we need to wait for an atheist to weigh in on how she answers
those questions?

Sure... but what are you getting at?

I'm interested in how she holds those as warranted beliefs, and then
comparing that to the god question.

You, I gather, do not claim those as warranted beliefs (more on that
below).


B. On the other hand, the religious people also take this on faith (2)
as well, since you kind of have to before you can say that the book
you read about what you should believe is real, or refers to real
stuff, or that you didn't just dream this...etc.

Given A,  it would be hypocritical of an atheist to claim they take
nothing on faith.

Sorry, no, that's not what I'm saying (although, as I pointed out
above, it is evident that SOME atheists have some faith(2) beliefs -
naturalism was my example).

Fixed it for you...

No problem, but care to take a straw poll on how many atheists accept
philosophical naturalism?  ;-)

Well, first we'd have to come up with a definition we could all agree
with. Your Carl Sagan quote is cute, but hardly represents a
sophisticated philosophical position.

Well, we'd at least have to come up with a definition that could be
polled (it doesn't really matter if we all agree with it).

Lifted from philosophy pages... Naturalism: Belief that all objects,
events, and and values can be wholly explained in terms of factual and/
or causal claims about the world, without reference to supernatural
powers or authority.


I'm saying that whatever epistemology an atheist uses to justify her
knowledge in these things will simultaneously apply to belief in God

I must be rusty, since I thought that was my point.

(and if it can be reasonably avoided, I'd be curious to know how).

I think the atheists would say that even if they are just brains in
boxes, they still don't have any sensory evidence of "God." How do you
connect the questions epistemologically?

How did this atheist in question come to the conclusion that she is a
brain in a vat?

Ha. Hardly anyone comes to this conclusion!! Some of us come to the
conclusion that we can't say definitively one way or the other, but
not really the same thing, right?

No, not the same thing.


Now let's see if I can avoid that hypocrisy. What if I don't have
"faith" (1, 2, 3) that the real world exists, or that my brain is in
my body, etc, but instead, have decided that it makes sense to act as
if the world exists and that it wasn't created last Thursday until
proven otherwise. This is similar, but quite distinct to your meaning
number 2, right?

You'll need to specify what you mean above, bro. You say it makes
sense to live as if these things are true. Makes sense in what way?

Well it's funny -- if I act like my brain is really in my head, and
that other people also have minds, etc, my life continues along a
normal and predictable path. For the most part, acting as if my brain
is in a vat makes no difference on a practical level. In fact, the
only real difference is that my apparent fellows all seem to believe
their brains are in their heads, so believing otherwise could cause
some conflict with the consensus reality.

I don't take a position on whether the world is real or not, whether
I'm dreaming all this or not, whether you are another person like me
or a trick of the ether.  I also don't take a position on whether God
exists or not, or whether the universe is all that there is (although
I am personally convinced that we have no idea what is included in
"the universe"). All I've basically got is a set of hypotheses, and
some models that sometimes help me, and sometimes hinder if the truth
be told.

As wittgenstein said,  whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent
-- although I hope he didn't mean actually not talking....

(good to talk to you again, btw)

right back at you 'bro.

You don't count it as knowledge that there is a real past, other
minds, and an external reality? (I'm a little confused, because you
stated above that these things 'seem' real to you - and then later you
state that you do not take a position). If you can clarify, that may
help me understand what you are saying.

I don't understand your confusion... As I apparently sit here and
apparently type this, it "seems like" there is a history I remember,
and that my brain is firmly behind my eyes.

I say it subjectively seems like this to me. However, I'm well aware
that logically, I can't prove that my brain isn't in a vat. I don't
think it can be proven that I'm not living in the world of the Matrix
right now, and I don't think it can be disproven.

It's spelled Pyrrhonism.

If I understand you correctly on the other -- when you say that it
makes sense to live as if these things are real you are saying that
your experiences meet the expectations of those sets of assumptions?

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding conflict with others
(because if I understand your point, then we are begging the question
by assuming there are "others" to have a conflict with).

If I were an "academic" skeptic, then yes, I'd be asserting that we
can't ever know whether there are other people or not, so it would be
begging the question. My position is a little different -- I am NOT
asserting that we cannot know things about the world, nor am I
agreeing with a "dogmatist" like yourself (it's merely the technical
term here, not a personal jab). I withhold my judgment on the matter
-- ie don't take a position.

And yet you behave as if you have taken the positive position. Can you
clarify this? You had said above that it makes sense to you to live as
if the affirmation of these postulates is true. I'm thinking you mean
that your experiences meet the expectations of these assumptions, but
I'm putting words into your mouth here.

How do you mean that it makes sense to live this way?
.

Relevant Pages

  • God=G_uv Emergency Message to Stew Dean
    ... Therefore objective reality is human perceived reality. ... God is the difference between our perception and our potential ... So god is not something - but the difference between two things? ... Think of the brain as a loaf of bread and the ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: God=G_uv & 20 Questions
    ... specifically of course, Brain Growth. ... entire reality "all at once". ... all be God in the flesh at that point. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • God=G_uv Emergency Message to Stew Dean
    ... Therefore objective reality is human perceived reality. ... God is the difference between our perception and our potential ... So god is not something - but the difference between two things? ... Think of the brain as a loaf of bread and the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Johnny cant understand God=G_uv?
    ... A modification of reality caused by a brain is "Easter Bunny", ... God is "All that is stupid and ignorant". ... God is the emotionally laden label you use for superstition, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... Maybe Truth is an ideal, ... In my theology that's backwards - people don't exist without God. ... Faith is what people use when they want to believe something, but can't find any evidence to back it up. ... The lie could be checked against reality, but if the liar controls the media and holds all the guns, it might be difficult. ...
    (alt.guitar)