The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
KN,
If dubious beliefs aren’t “epistemically problematic”, then what is?
Is it epistemically problematic to believe that Joe Biden is the POTUS? Yes.
Is it epistemically problematic to believe that watering your car will make it grow? Yes.
Is it epistemically problematic to believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Yes.
None of those beliefs are justified.
It was already epistemically problematic. It becomes morally problematic when the belief starts negatively affecting others — and the negative effects certainly aren’t limited to official policies.
keiths:
KN:
You’ve indicated otherwise:
Veridicality makes a big difference, according to you.
keiths, I agree with you that there’s an instability in KN’s attempt to have, but not endorse, his cake. Language doesn’t really mean anything if it’s taken as non-referential in the manner that KN seems to want. That’s another way of saying it’s essentially intentional. And that includes ethical language. It either somehow refers to values or is simply false.
Like religious language, it doesn’t really refer to feelings. We may not want to choose, but…..
Do you really what to go into this? Is not there something more interesting to discuss?
If you must know. I’ll try and break it down for you. I warn you it will involve a little more deep introspective thought than most folks are willing to engage in.
It all starts with the philosophical concept of the Logos. Are you familiar with it? It has to do with the comprehensibility of the universe. I hold that to be nonnegotiable starting point.
Would you consider the comprehensibility of the universe to be a valid presupposition to build a worldview on?
If not what are your alternative presuppositions and how do you justify holding them?
Are you ready to defend yourself and not just lob attacks?
peace
No, that’s still begging the question by my lights, because that’s still allowing linguistic acts with the pragmatic function of declaratives to govern your conception of what linguistic meaning is.
No doubt declaratives are important, of course — and I happily say that the semantic content of declaratives is determined by both inference and reference. I’m less enthused about the idea that the same is true for all linguistic activity. For one thing, it seems to imply that either that poetry is non-linguistic or that poetry is meaningless, and both seem obviously wrong.
I think that if we can figure out what ought to be said about the semantics and pragmatics of poetry, we’ll have all the resources we need for understanding my views about the semantics and pragmatics of religious discourse.
But how does the comprehensibility of the universe support your particular God and not someone else’s? Or no one’s?
I don’t deny the existence of meaphors, jokes, poetry, etc., but I think they’re all derivative, and even they seem to require a kind of reference to be understandable. E.g., I mentioned elsewhere that a pock, a measle and a mump walked into a bar. They didn’t really. Taken literally, that was false. I wasn’t lying though; it was a joke.
I’m guessing blue.
Hidden in here is a gem of insight that, taken up into my own idiom, is quite right: that there can’t be any disclosive discourse without some assertoric discourse. No culture can talk about sky-spirits or animal spirits if it lacked the semantic resources for securing successful reference to actual bears or buffalo, and drawing appropriate inferences about where they are likely to be found and under what conditions they are safe to hunt.
But that doesn’t address my main point, which was about the semantics and pragmatics of disclosive vocabulary as distinct from assertoric vocabulary, even though no culture can have the former without also having the latter.
Well, I think you’re wrong about that. In fact, I get the distinct impression that you haven’t even tried watering your car to see if it will grow. Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.
KN, you have had some really neat posts lately. Thank you.
Perhaps he wants to argue that the comprehensibility of the universe is itself only comprehensible if God, or something like God, exists.
We’ve all seen this before — it involves a dogmatic assumption that the principle of sufficient reason must be ontological real and not just a good methodology for inquiry, together with a drastic (if not total) failure to appreciate the resources available to naturalists for a non-theistic alternative.
I’m in favor of a ‘wall of separation’ here between rational discourse and disclosive or poetic discourse. Trying to make sense of the latter in terms of the former is going to end in tears for all concerned. It just can’t be done, and we have a long string of failures in rational theology to show it. “You can’t there from here!”
Gawd, that’s awful. Groan. 🙂
Thank you. I’m trying to carve out a space for religious liberals like myself and Elizabeth in between atheists and theists.
At the assertoric level, with regards to religion, I’m still a strong agnostic: I think that neither evidence nor reasoning will ever be able to show that God does or does not exist. And my metaphysics is still roughly naturalistic, though I think the main arguments for naturalism are problematic, and what was right in naturalism really just boils down to the epistemic authority of science over other discursive practices.
However, what I’m interested in trying to do here is think through the value and significance of disclosive discourse in terms other than epistemic terms. “Existential” seems as good a term as any.
I think of this distinction between assertoric and disclosive discourse as being something like Carnap’s distinction between statements and expressions, but freed from the problematic semantics of the Given on which Carnap grounded that distinction.
Apparently your notoriously-deficient sense of humor can be bypassed by seriously deficient humor. 😉
Typical,
“Good” christian in all sincerity poisoning the well by asking the other person in advance to confirm their intention not to “just lob attacks”.
If you were actually a decent person, you would assume that keiths himself is a decent person, and a sincere participant in these discussions, and it would never occur to you to preemptively question him about his potential attacks.
Oh, yeah, yeah, I know you’ve got lots of excuses for your bad behavior. You feel picked on here. You’ve been burned before when you “wasted” your time explaining your particular theology to someone who didn’t end up getting it. You notice that keiths is often quick to point out flaws and contradictions in other’s arguments and you draw the inference that he will do that to you, too, so it’s “reasonable” for you to try to pre-empt that with your question.
But it’s still shitty behavior on your part. And you wonder why we don’t take christian morality seriously. Because, it turns out, you’re an absolutely typical example.
NO peace.
You remembered I said that. 🙂 That’s the sweetest thing I’ve seen in years!
I think I identify somehow with self-deprecation.
ok, back to open warfare!
I’m sure keiths is a very nice person and that his propensity to hound people from thread to thread is probably just a pathology.
And his claim that I started this thread to avoid a post of his in another thread that was made hours afterwards probably just reflects a healthy sense of ego.
fifth,
No need to drag things out. Just state your argument, I’ll state mine, and we can delve into details as needed.
It’s at least partially comprehensible. Whether it is fully comprehensible — at least to humans — is an open question. In any case, as llanitedave points out, it’s a big leap from “the universe is comprehensible” to “the Christian Bible is the true word of God.”
You must be confusing me with Mung. 🙂
I don’t hesitate to defend my positions.
hotshoe, to fifth:
Yes, and without apology. This is The Skeptical Zone, after all.
That would be a correct inference. 🙂
Patience please.
If you want to explore this I’m game but it will take some thinking on your part. don’t expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter in the very first post
Is the comprehensibility of the universe a reasonable presupposition? If not do you have an alternative starting point?
peace
fifth:
Just make your argument, fifth. We don’t need a long, drawn-out dance.
It’s a good reason to believe that we evolved in this world, capable of adequately modeling enough to act as good generalists.
Nothing else seems to follow from our ability to understand our world as well as we do. It’s worth noting that it took thousands of years of civilization to move from largely animistic-type explanations to largely scientific explanations.
Glen Davidson
Because it’s not an argument it’s the starting point from which we argue. If you don’t have a solid foundation rational argumentation is impossible.
If the universe was not fully comprehensible how would you ever know? We will move on as soon as you give a coherent answer.
I promise to get the the Christian God pretty quickly but you need to do some thinking here on your own
peace
you are making inferences and I’m asking about presuppositions. Do you understand the difference?
peace
Of course I understand the difference, that’s why I don’t fall for worthless presuppositions.
Maybe you could learn the value of presuppositions vs. the value of a reasonable inference.
Glen Davidson
KN,
A positive step toward maintaining that separation would be to abstain from using assertoric language when you don’t want your statement to be taken as assertoric! (And then objecting when listeners naturally take it as assertoric.)
It’s quite easy to avoid confusion. Let’s take the Messiah example. You wrote:
Anyone in that situation who actually wanted to avoid confusion would not say “I believe the Messiah will come.” Instead, he or she would say “I don’t actually believe that the Messiah will come, but I’m committed to living my life in a certain way.”
It’s obvious, isn’t it? If you want to be understood, then say what you mean, rather than something completely different.
The problem, I think, is that you want your language to be taken assertorically. Only if challenged will you fall back on the “oh, my language is disclosive, not assertoric” excuse. It’s a “plausible deniability” maneuver.
If my presupposition is “worthless” please provide an alternative one and be prepared to justify your answer.
We need a solid foundation or rational argument is impossible. What is yours?
peace
fifth,
Then state your foundation and state your argument. We don’t need a drawn-out dance.
keiths:
fifth:
I’m not claiming that the universe isn’t fully comprehensible. I’m saying that we don’t know that it is fully comprehensible.
Now, If the universe were fully comprehensible, how would you know? Let’s not wait for a coherent answer from you.
I’ve never had any trouble keeping up with you. Make your case, and I’ll do just fine.
Ive already stated my foundation I’ve yet to hear yours
I understand what you are saying I’m asking how you would ever know if it was not fully comprehensible
I am assuming that the universe in fully comprehensible. That is what is meant by presupposition.
You are not making that assumption so you need to provide an alternative a a starting point.
What is it?
peace
Observation, logical thinking, and rational discourse.
It’s what we actually have to start from, and it’s how we come to make sense of our world.
There are presuppositions about our abilities to tease out meaning, true, but many presuppositions (notably most proximate magical ones) in fact are discarded while others prove themselves to be worthwhile. We do have to start somewhere, but we can’t simply stand on a single presupposition and count on it, we have to hone our observations and thinking, learning what works and what does not.
Glen Davidson
fifth,
It doesn’t matter, because my argument doesn’t depend on it.
Yours, on the other hand, does depend on the universe being fully comprehensible, or so I gather. Is that correct?
So you simply assume that the universe is fully comprehensible, instead of asking yourself if it is.
It’s not wise to base your argument on a dubious assumption, fifth.
fifth,
My argument is simple: The Bible is far more likely to be a fallible human creation than it is to be the infallible Word of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Christian God.
See how easy that was? I can fill in details as needed, but that’s the basic argument.
Why not do the same? Lay out your argument in broad strokes, and we’ll delve into details as needed in the course of our discussion.
Would anybody mind if I asked you two to stop for minute and explain what “fully comprehensible” means? (As Fifth assumes that the universe has that property and keiths indicates that he does not need to make that assumption, presumably you both know the answer to this question.)
I guess I don’t think there’s any such thing as what you’d call “disclosive” or non-assertoric vocabulary: there are non-assertoric arrangements of words and unusual contexts for them, though. E.g., “John is going to the store” uses the same vocabulary as “Is John going to the store?” but one asserts something and the other does not. And “A mump walked into a bar” might occur in a context which was such that nobody would think that anybody believes that a part of the mumps can actually walk.
When petrushka sings a psalm in church, for example, there’s no reason to believe he’s actually trying to assert various propositions about the historic David or anything like that.
Not quite right, I think.
Since fifth is making that presupposition, presumably he has to know what it means. Otherwise there would be no value in making that presupposition.
However, keiths is not requiring that presupposition. So I don’t see that keiths has any need to know what it is presumed to mean.
That’s quite right — but we need to have also an account of what he/she is doing, and not just what she/he is not doing.
keiths,
Keiths, are we perhaps miscommunicating because you thought that the example about the Messiah was what I myself imagine the divine to be like?
KN,
No, I picked that particular example because you had specified what it would mean to say “I believe the Messiah will come” in a non-assertoric way.
The assertions are assertions, but they are fiction. Not entirely unlike performing in a play or musical theater.
ok. let’s put that to the test.
It’s your position that I believe the bible is the infallible word of God. What is your position based on? What objective empirical evidence are you relying on?
fifthmonarchyman: Would you consider the comprehensibility of the universe to be a valid presupposition to build a worldview on?
If not what are your alternative presuppositions and how do you justify holding them?
keiths: It’s at least partially comprehensible. Whether it is fully comprehensible — at least to humans — is an open question.
fifthmonarchyman: If the universe was not fully comprehensible how would you ever know?
keiths: Now, If the universe were fully comprehensible, how would you know?
So somehow we go from fifth asking how keiths knows the universe is only partially comprehensible to fifth claiming the universe is fully comprehensible. How did that happen?
fifth, I think what keiths is saying is that he need not have a basis for rational argumentation. But he expects you to have one. Or maybe he thinks skepticism is a basis for rationality.
petrushka is lying to himself when he doesn’t believe what he is saying/singing. But it seemed he stopped doing that (at least, singing in church) years ago.
Can anyone here imagine KN singing: “Be Thou my wisdom and Thou my true word”?
petrushka says this hymn is one of his favorites. If only to sing it involved really meaning it, what difference would that make? Can petrushka still be ‘angry at God’ while singing it?
Embed Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2rwgfUv0qU
How do you feel about ‘Angel is the centerfold’ Gregory? Please don’t lie to yourself.
Before you get to your argument you need to tell me what your starting point is.
looks like we have two questions now
1) If the bible was not the word of god how would you know?
2) If the universe was not fully comprehensible how would you know?
OK
3) What does your argument depend on?
So far it seems that your argument is starting from mid air. I’m asking to know what your foundation is do you have one?
pea
I agree, if my assumption was dubious how would I know?
peace
My argument will consist in teasing out what it means to say that the universe is comprehensible but before we can get there we need to know what Keith’s presupposition is.
peace
Gregory,
Indeed. I really am the Walrus (goo-goo-ga-joob!).
Allan Miller,
In what ‘church’ do you sing that in a choir, Allan?