In the previous thread, Jet Black made the following comment in response to one of my comments:
Atheism is a statement about gods, not a statement about nature. You just seem to be making them synonyms. This is precisely the same trick that creationists and religious people often try to play; implicitly claim that a bunch of things are synonymous, reject one, and then by induction, you reject them all.
I disagree. Here’s why:
Here is part of my response:
So I think to adopt the word atheism without also acknowledging that that label involves the rejection of an entire paradigm of naming and understanding, an entire meaning generation function used by others, is a sort of a cop out.
If you are going to reject an entire paradigm, then you are just playing coy not to acknowledge adoption of a different paradigm. F=ma.
Theism is a model entirely supported on some notion of God. Take out God and you take out the foundation of the paradigm. You are left without the ability to name almost anything. To say that atheism is a rejection of God is not like rejecting a superfluous element of a model, it is rejecting the reality of the whole thing. Terra firma itself, love, duty, faith, causes, effects, affects, death, life, meaning, what actions produce what responses. All of it. The central element which determines some part of nearly all behavior.
To say that atheism is not a statement about nature seems either superficial or disingenuous somehow. It is exactly like someone not believing in physics. Exactly. And that is where materialism, I think, runs into the potential of religion and is in fact the current religion which has supplanted the older ones for the masses who simply accept the best information available as truth and go about their lives without looking again. To consider anything unassailable truth ignores that naming conventions almost entirely define truth.
For example, it can be true that God causes floods. However, it can’t be true if you also accept thermal exchange equations as truth. One or the other. Both are equally valid truths but one is vastly superior at predicting the weather so that’s what we tend to default to.
But really, neither should be assumed to be the final word because a new naming convention, a new paradigm, will almost certainly make the current physics seem rudimentary and childlike eventually. But for now they work better than throwing virgins into volcanoes or praying to Jesus to regulate flooding.
Under our current naming convention, we can dissect the entire universe into fields. Without the invention of the telescope, that would be not just absurd, but less useful than following religious conventions which at least helped us remember when to plant the corn.
I think that atheism is indeed a statement about nature. Thoughts?