My @Quora comment on an answer to Question with assumptions: Why are only women in Muslim countries found guilty of adultery stoned to death but not Muslim men who seek sex from their wives and others and can marry and divorce as many as they want? :
Monthly Archives: April 2015
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why doesn’t God provide scientific proof of His existence?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why doesn't God provide scientific proof of His existence? :
My @Quora comment on an answer to Why doesn’t God provide scientific proof of His existence?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What makes radical Islam different from the religion of Islam?
My @Quora comment on an answer to What makes radical Islam different from the religion of Islam? :
My @Quora comment on an answer to What makes radical Islam different from the religion of Islam?
Have you ever been in an extraordinary situation were something happened and you thought, “That’s a movie moment”?
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Thanks for the A2A, Ken!
I have many movie moments in my 60+ plus years of living. I'll put one here and I might put others in the comments to this answer.
Back in 1995 or so, I was working as a very busy network administrator in Pasadena, California. I had to go pick up my fiancée in Chicago and bring her and her possessions back to Pasadena to get married and start our new lives together. I asked for two weeks off but my boss balked at that, saying it was a bad time to take off (and, in honesty, it was). The most I could wrangle from him was two days. I figured that, if I left right after work on Friday, I should be able to pull it off and get back by Wednesday — if I really hurried up.
My car wasn't big enough to carry all her stuff, so I reserved a large-sized passenger van from a rental agency and took it right after work, on Friday, and high-tailed it for Chicago. The van had a big, powerful, engine. It had no problem doing 110 mph for long stretches of time on the wide-open roads of the desert. I figured I was bound to get a ticket but figured I'd just have to risk it.
I was racing through Arizona, when two highway patrol cars pulled me over. An unmarked car also pulled over with us. It seems the unmarked car was driven by an off-duty officer who had notified the highway patrol of my location. The off-duty officer was very agitated but the officer in charge was nice enough. He said he clocked me at 110 mph and that he could take me to jail instead of giving me a ticket. He asked me why I was driving so fast and I explained my situation to him. He seemed sympathetic, which pissed off the off-duty officer. The officer in charge wrote me up for going 75 mph and said he would issue both a BOLO and an APB for me and my vehicle and that, if I was caught speeding while in Arizona, I'd be taken to jail. I didn't know if he was bullshitting or not, I was just glad I could continue on to Chicago.
I tried my best to drive legally but when I saw the border to New Mexico was only 20 miles away AND the highway was divided by a low barrier AND it was a lonely stretch of road with no cops in sight, I gunned the motor and took it up to 120 mph. At that rate, I'd be in New Mexico in just 10 minutes.
Just then, I saw a highway patrol car coming the opposite way. But, since the highway was divided, I just smiled and kept my speed at 120. And wouldn't you know it? Right there was a turn-around gap in the barrier! I looked in the rearview mirror and saw the highway patrol car make a U-turn through it and come after me. I hoped I could make it to the border before the cop caught up with me.
Up ahead, in the right lane, was a semi truck. And in front of the semi truck was a white van that looked just like mine. It was actually a different model but it looked like mine. The driver of the van was wearing a white tee shirt and sunglasses, just like I was! I pulled in between the van and the truck then, hastily pulled off my shirt and took off my sunglasses.
The highway patrol car came up along side me. He looked at me, then he pulled up along side the other van in front of me and looked at him. He slowed down and I came along side him again. He looked at me and I gave him a friendly smile and a raised eyebrow as if to say, 'Why are you looking at me?'
He raced ahead of us and took another U-turn at the next turn-around gap in the barrier. I couldn't believe it! He could have pulled over both our vans or he could have pulled over the semi truck too; just to find out which van was the one he was looking for. But he simply let it go.
When he disappeared in the distance behind me, I gunned the engine again. As I passed the van in front of me, he waved and gave me a big smile and the semi truck driver blasted his horn. I waved at them as I drove off. In just a few minutes, I was safe, in New Mexico.
Why do we think we need existential beliefs? (…, Therefore I am)
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Thanks for the A2A, Baba!
I think, therefore, I am. Cogito ergo sum. It is self-evident.
Your own existence is confirmed by self-awareness. You may doubt anything else but how do you doubt that your mind is doing the doubting? You experience through sensory perception . . . which is useless without a brain to integrate and interpret them. So even your own senses are dependent on your brain/mind. Your self-aware consciousness is the bottom line of your reality.
The foundation of knowledge is built on the self-evident, beginning with your own existence. From there, other things become self-evident. If I can reach out and touch someone, that person must exist too. If I'm a person that exists and am self-aware, this other person I grasp in my hands exists and is self-aware.
I'm no child psychologist, so I don't know what stages we go through as we acquire knowledge and a worldview but its seems self-evident that the first things we learn and internalize are self-evident.
Language factors prominently in how we think. Distinctions and discernment can't be adequately shared without language. One of the most fundamental distinctions is between the subjective and the objective: what is 'in your head' versus what is 'out there', tangible in reality. Discerning the difference, at first blush, doesn't seem inherently difficult but I've recently become increasingly aware of how language complicates discernment.
What I've been noticing is that people use language imprecisely; they shift indiscriminately (as suits their argument?) between different definitions of a word or they use reasoning that applies subjective concepts to objective things, or vice versa. Confusion invariably ensues when you conflate multiple definitions of the same word or when you conflate the subjective with the objective (or vice versa).
For instance, agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is about objective knowledge. Atheism is about subjective belief. In effect, agnostics claim God is not objectively knowable and atheists claim God is not subjectively believable. Knowledge deals with facts. Belief deals with opinions. I can't count the times or ways that people treat agnosticism as if it were a claim of subjective belief or that people treat atheism as a claim of objective knowledge. They arrive at completely bogus conclusions because they were imprecise with their language.
The distinction between subjective and objective might seem simple, or even self-evident . . . but, in practice, it gets complicated by abuse of language. The remedy is to be mindful of consistency: don't mix and match definitions of words and don't mix and match subjective and objective concepts.
I think, therefore, I am.
How you think determines who you are.
Why do we think we need existential beliefs? (…, Therefore I am)
Why atheists almost always lose to William Lane Craig ? (even though his arguments are claimed to be flawed)
Answer by Jim Ashby:
I've only seen a few of Craig's debates. He always held his own: very prepared. But there was only one that I felt he unequivocally won. That was the one he had with Sam Harris a few years ago.
It was the 2-hour debate, titled “The God Debate II: Is Good from God?”, held at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
And guess what? Harris really was embarrassingly destroyed by Craig! What a disappointment.Craig started off with the premise that objective morality can only exist if God exists and, alternatively, if God does not exist, objective morality can not exist.
Harris then presented his premise that science can identify objective morality by determining what contributes to the well being of conscious creatures.
Craig rebutted with a scholarly evisceration of Harris’ premise that cited: the absence of moral objectivity in atheism; the subjectivity of human flourishing; the is/ought distinction; and more.
As Harris walked up to the podium for his own rebuttal, I realized that he CAN’T rebut Craig because he agrees that there is an objective basis for morality: namely the application of science to the question of human flourishing (well being). And sure enough, Harris didn’t counter a single Craig rebuttal. Instead, he launched into his usual attack on the Bible and its morality.
In disgust, I stopped watching when Craig came back to the podium and rightly pointed out Harris’ lack of a rebuttal.
Harris was so invested in his flawed thesis that “science can solve moral problems” that he was forced to agree that morality is objective. The fact is that Craig is right! Objective morality can only exist if God exists: if God does not exist, objective morality can not exist. The scientific method might be the best method we have to understand nature but morality is about value judgments: not exactly science's forté. After all, science, in the end, is still a human endeavor.
The atheist position should have been that morality is subjective, not objective. But even if one were willing to entertain God's existence, Craig was arguing divine command theory, which was dismissed centuries before Jesus came along, by the Euthyphro dilemma ("Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"). Euthyphro's Dilemma stemmed from a famous conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates that took place just before Socrates stood trial for impiety and corruption of minors. Surely, Harris is familiar with it. I think he didn't use it because it didn't fit his pet thesis.
Euthyphro's Dilemma can be rephrased as: "Is an act moral because God wills it or does God will it because it is moral?" If it is moral because God wills it, then it is arbitrary or capricious: without basis in reason. Anything God commands, no matter how horrendous, would be moral. If you uphold the divinity of the Bible, then you are forced to accept that God's will is arbitrary. But if God wills a thing because it is moral, then morality is independent of, and external to, God. If morality is independent of God, we don't need God as a moral intermediary: we could bypass God to access morality directly. Indeed, God is not omnipotent if he is constrained by an external morality.
But that's an old argument which makes pretty clear to me that morality has to have its reasons. Thanks to advances in human understanding, particularly evolution, we have a perfectly human explanation for morality that does not require God at all. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw': it has only a prime directive: survive. There is no good or bad, right or wrong, in nature. Morality is an entirely human construct – by, for and about humans – and, as such, must be subjective because humans can never be perfectly objective: as Craig points out, that would require a perfect God – an infallible authority.
As an atheist, Harris should have had a 2-pronged strategy: 1.) point out the lack of perfection in the biblical God and 2.) provide a naturalist understanding of morality; admitting up front that it is subjective and relative but, in the end, far superior to the flawed morality of an imperfect God.
The naturalist understanding of morality asserts that we have evolved empathy as an impetus to cooperation. Combined with personal experience, empathy leads most of us to a "Golden Rule" sense of morality. From experience, I know what hurts me: with empathy, I know the same things likely hurt you too. Experience and empathy is all we need to decide most moral matters. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . because we need each other to survive and prosper." We are complex social animals, so this rule of thumb isn't sufficient for every moral decision but it is fundamental to most. Without this impulse for cooperation to counter our impulse for violence, we would probably squander the intellectual prowess responsible for our survival advantage.
It's a fallacy (with obvious religious motivations) that “we can not be moral without God”. Our morality is part of the human condition and existed long before Moses. Morality is not a dispensation from God: it is subjective and personal and, because it is informed by experience and empathy, develops as we mature. As a matter of fact, we ALL use our personal morality to overrule Biblical morality. And by ALL, I really do mean ALL: believers and nonbelievers alike. This fact is amply demonstrated by our universal rejection of slavery and the subjugation of women (well, maybe not the Muslims so much). Even though God/Jesus condoned the subjugation of our fellow humans in both the Old and New Testaments, we ALL overrule God's morality with our own and reject such human subjugation. Not only is God NOT the source of morality but he stands corrected by us all. WE decided what is moral. WE decide what is religiously worthy. NOT God.
You need to ask yourself: "If we overrule God, why do we need him at all?"
This subjugation of our fellow humans is a failing of Biblical morality that can't be reasonably addressed by apologetics. This is critical for all believers to understand. THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either God is perfect or he's not. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it's not. Either God is the source of morality or he isn't. Even a believer, if he’s honest with himself, must admit that if God's morality grows outdated, it was never perfect and timeless to begin with. The alternative is to claim that God is right and that the subjugation of our fellow humans is NOT at all immoral – that it is, in fact, desirable. But we ALL know that's an untenable position. We all know that is WRONG. We will not reverse our hard-earned moral progress to align it with God’s morality.Empathy is a human trait that spawns a number of other human traits just as naturally as it spawns morality. Empathy also spawns human dignity and worth, cooperation and compassion. We can live reasonably moral lives without God but not without empathy.
Why do some atheists use the phrase “lack of belief” to categorize their theory? Isn’t their theory actually a belief and shouldn’t “lack…
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Thanks for the A2A, Kevin! I actually have a lot I want to say in my answer.
Here's how dictionary.com defines atheism:
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.The first definition is expressed in the affirmative (belief). The second definition is expressed in the negative (disbelief). Belief in no gods is the same as disbelief in gods. There's no difference.
Atheism is all about (dis)belief. Here's the definition for belief:
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.A belief is an opinion or conviction (strongly held opinion). Belief, opinion, conviction: these are all subjective concepts. So 'true' atheists do NOT make any objective claims about gods . . . that's what agnostics are for.
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge insome area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.Whereas atheism is all about (dis)belief; agnosticism, as the definition clearly spells out, is all about knowledge. The words used in definitions #1 and #2 of the word, 'agnostic', are objective words: unknown, unknowable, knowledge, experience. Agnosticism is an objectively realistic stance on the existence of gods. Atheism is a subjectively realistic stance on the existence of gods.
It needs pointing out that definition #3, 'a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic', describes people who are undecided or neutral about the existence of gods. 'Neutrality' implies a CHOICE to not take a stance . . . while 'indecision' suggests that the person really doesn't know (for whatever reason) what to think about the existence of gods.
Of these two stances (neutrality and indecision), neutrality necessarily conflates objective knowledge with subjective belief. What is it that neutrality avoids taking a stance about? BELIEF, of course. If the stance were about knowledge, then it would fit the primary definition and neutrality would be irrelevant. The claim of neutrality violates rational integrity by conflating the objective with the subjective. People sense the equivocation inherent in this timid version of agnosticism and often (rightly) think that 'neutral agnostics' are 'sitting on the fence'.
Sorry, but those last two paragraphs were necessary to deal with a meaning of agnosticism that too many people (both theists and atheists) view as the only meaning. That version of agnosticism does not apply to most agnostics here on Quora: agnostic atheists.
Atheism and agnosticism are two sides of the same freethought coin. One side is subjective: the other side is objective. Both sides are rational and reasonable. Most atheists are, more accurately, agnostic atheists. They value honesty and shun certainty.
But, thus far, I've focused on the nonbelievers and have ignored the believers. The main difference between theists and atheists in public forums is that the vast majority of theists won't admit the possibility there is no God. They have faith. In contrast, atheists readily admit there might be a God. Their belief is provisional (upon evidence). They repeatedly remind theists of the provisional nature of their belief when theists try to paint atheism as a faith. That's a lame-ass false equivalency that theists desperately want to foist upon atheists. Sorry, theists, but faith is what most distinguishes theists from atheists. Having faith means having a closed mind: belief without (and despite the lack of) objective reason.
Most theists are gnostic theists, not agnostic theists. There appears to be very few theists — gnostic or agnostic — who don't feel the need to defend their faith and, indeed, who can even recognize that the phrase, 'defend their faith', is an oxymoron. Faith is belief despite objective reason: it can't be defended. Those who do attempt to defend faith are taking a gnostic position; a claim of subjective knowledge. An intangible knowledge, in the heart and soul, as opposed to objective knowledge from the world around us. This special 'knowledge of faith' conflates the subjective with the objective. It's a fundamental category error . . . another oxymoron. The faithful can't point to anything external to confirm their 'special' knowledge, so the only place left for the 'knowledge of faith' is (where else?) within. The 'special' knowledge of faith is impervious to reason because it's not based on reason. That's why we say: 'If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.'
Does Judaism reject the concept of “belief” and require knowledge of God instead?
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Words mean what they mean. In your question details, you say,
the only word that appears applicable in the Torah is emunah, which is faithfulness to an concept that you know to be true
You're conflating the subjective (faithfulness) with the objective (know to be true). Faith is belief without objective reason. It doesn't get any more subjective than that. The words, 'know and true', address facts and reality. They're objective words.
Okay, now consider the phrase, 'faithfulness to a concept that you know to be true'. A concept that you know to be true is knowledge; it doesn't need faithfulness because you already know it to be true. Faithfulness is irrelevant to knowledge. Being inconsistent with the subjective and objective — mixing and matching them — is a sure way to confuse yourself and others. Ascribing the subjective to the objective, or vice versa, is the most common category error I see. It's rampant: not just with theists but with people in general, including atheists. If you want to be coherent and objective, you need to be mindful of this very fundamental category error.
With the above in mind, God is a subjective concept. There's nothing external to you that you can point to that will confirm God's existence. If there's nothing external to you to support the concept of God, where do you suppose support comes from? Your imagination. The God meme is totally in your head.
So Judaism CAN'T require knowledge of God. There's none to be found 'out there'. What Judaism CAN do is require that you know scripture. Scripture is a real, objective, thing; God is not. Judaism wants you to have faith that scripture is the word of God because you then must assume God exists in the first place. It's circular reasoning. That's the faithfulness Judaism seeks. Begging the question with circular reasoning is the hallmark of faith.
Does Judaism reject the concept of "belief" and require knowledge of God instead?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Is it okay to forgive a cousin who molested you when you were seven?
My @Quora comment on an answer to Is it okay to forgive a cousin who molested you when you were seven? :
Can Christians accept “lack of evidence” as the stated reason for atheists to not believe in gods?
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Because they know it's an eminently, transparently and absolutely reasonable explanation. If they accept it, the charade is over. What's to argue? There is, in fact, no evidence. If there were evidence, then believers would hope we actually do cite 'lack of evidence' so that they could then jump all over our explanation with the actual evidence. That should be enough proof for you that there really is no evidence.
I'll prefer the term, 'objective reason', over the word, 'evidence', from here on out and I'll be addressing believers directly.
Objective reason includes evidence, unassailable logic and proof. When you have no objective reason for your belief, what can you do about it? I think the options boil down to variations of two basic positions:
- Claim that your belief is based on faith and, thus, does not require objective reason.
- Resort to fallacious reasoning in an effort to claim objective reason(s).
Position #1 is honest. Position #2 is dishonest.
As I'm wont to do, I remind you now that faith is belief without objective reason. If you accept your faith for what it is, you really shouldn't contradict it with vain attempts to claim objective reasons when there are none. It makes you appear as if you don't really have faith after all . . . or that faith does not satisfy you. The dishonesty does not put your faith in a very good light. I admire honesty, so I would accept position #1 without objection. But I will always challenge those who take position #2: they'll need to put up or shut up.
If your priest or pastor told you that belief boils down to faith, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Because it's true. But if an atheist tells you your belief boils down to faith, most of you can't stand it. Interesting, don't you think?
I've only seen a few believers (mostly Muslims) on Quora take position #1. Almost all believers here take position #2. And they always fail. Look at the questions we get over and over. There's logical fallacies inherent in ALL of them: false equivalency, category error, red herrings, begging the question, etc. It appears that their favorite logical fallacy is false equivalency, aided by another logical fallacy: category error. The category error conflates the subjective (belief/opinion) with the objective (knowledge/certainty).
For instance, "Atheism, like theism, is based on faith because atheists deny that God exists." This false equivalency relies on a subtle category error — substituting the objective case of the word, 'deny', for the subjective words, 'don't believe'. But, of course, atheists don't deny God's existence outright (i.e., as an objective fact). They merely make the subjective claim (i.e., opinion) to not believe in God's existence. An ostensibly objective denial needs to be objectively substantiated — but a subjective belief does not: it's just a subjective opinion . . . albeit, in this case, one convincingly supported by the abject lack of evidence.
Can Christians accept "lack of evidence" as the stated reason for atheists to not believe in gods?
Atheists: Do you really think that if there were a god, his presence would be constant, revealed and indisputable? Do you really think th…
Answer by Jim Ashby:
If there's a God, he can do anything he wants. He doesn't need justifications. He has no superiors or peers. If he has a predilection for infanticide or genocide . . . who's to stop him? If there's a God, you're at his mercy.
The God Hypothesis is not good for you or anybody else. In other words, you're barking up the wrong tree.
The real question is: What is it that suggests to you there is a God?
The real answer is: There's nothing 'out there', external to you, which you can point to that suggest there is a God or anything else supernatural. If there's nothing out there that suggests a God exists, where else could the suggestion come from?
Your mind: God is an idea, planted by family, friends and society at large, when you were too young to question it. You internalized it before you understood it. They were infected with the God meme and, now, you are too. I know. I was similarly infected once.
God is imaginary. Totally in your head.
Is atheism a belief?
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Atheism is disbelief that gods exist. This negation of the existence of gods could be rephrased as an affirmation of the nonexistence of gods , "Atheism is the belief that gods don't exist." Belief . . . disbelief . . . it's the same either way.
Take a look at this graphic:
Each of these four quadrants (Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist) represents an approach to God. All four approaches assert two specific claims: the first is a subjectivebelief claim; the second is an objective knowledge claim. The left (agnostic) half makes no false claim of objective knowledge: the right (gnostic) half, on the other hand, does makes false claims of objective knowledge. Where claims of objective knowledge are concerned, the left half is honest; the right half is dishonest. Both theists and atheists can, potentially, make either honest or dishonest claims to objective knowledge.
Although the graphic doesn’t mention the subjective versus objective, I am emphasizing them here because, when people mix and match the subjective and the objective in their thinking, confusion invariably ensues. To avoid confusion, it helps to be mindful of the distinction between the subjective and the objective in one’s assumptions, ideas, concepts and word selection. So, to make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s define, from Dictionary.com, how I’m using the words, ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.
subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
objective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
With the groundwork established, we can now do away with some common mistakes that confuse or conflate the subjective with the objective or vice versa.
Knowledge is a form or subset of belief:
Words have multiple meanings. To avoid confusion, it helps to be precise and consistent with word selection. Yes, I believe what I know to be true. But the words, ‘believe’ and ‘belief’, are not synonymous: they’re related but not the same. Knowledge and belief are distinct from each other because knowledge is objective but belief is subjective. If I had objective support for a belief, it would no longer be a belief; it would be knowledge. In one limited sense, knowledge can be considered a form or subset of belief. We believe what we know but that doesn’t mean the words, ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’, are interchangeable.
Believers can’t back up their beliefs with evidence:
This notion is confused because it’s conflating the subjective (beliefs) with the objective (evidence). Subjective belief claims don’t need to be backed up with objective evidence. If you could do that, they wouldn’t be subjective beliefs now, would they? Disbelievers can’t back up their subjective disbeliefs with objective evidence either! Belief . . . disbelief . . . both are subjective. But evidence is objective. Once again, conflating the subjective with the objective invariably leads to confusion.
Subjective belief claims and objective knowledge claims necessarily have different means of support: subjective reason or objective reason, respectively. Subjective reasons would be things like logical arguments, statistics, expert opinions, etc. Objective reasons would be evidence, proof, unassailable logic, etc. But belief claims don’t have to have support at all. People can believe anything they want for personal or emotional reasons . . . or no reason at all. However, valid reasons are nice to have.
Atheism is a religion:
Religion is a system of beliefs. Atheism isn’t a system of anything. It’s just the disbelief in the existence of gods; the belief that gods don’t exist.
Many atheists balk at the notion that atheism is the belief that gods don’t exist. They insist atheism should only be defined in the negative (disbelief) rather than the positive (belief). But, to me, that’s ridiculous. Belief is the subjectiveaffirmation of something: an opinion or conviction. Disbelief is the subjective negation of belief in something: like belief, it’s also an opinion or conviction. When I say ‘atheism is the disbelief in the existence of gods’, I am subjectively negating belief in the existence of gods. When I say ‘atheism is the belief that gods don’t exist’, I am subjectively affirming that gods don’t exist. In other words, I can negate a positive or I can affirm a negative. They accomplish the exact same thing. It’s easy enough to illustrate this fact:
If I say, ‘Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods’, how many gods am I claiming?
That’s right . . . zero.
If I say, ‘Atheism is belief that gods don’t exist’, how many gods am I claiming?
That’s right . . . zero.
It makes no difference whether I negate the positive or affirm the negative.
Atheism can legitimately be defined as the belief that gods don’t exist. But that doesn’t make it a religion. And neither does it make any objective claim of fact. It’s a subjective belief claim: an opinion or conviction. Atheists with a knee-jerk reaction against the notion that atheism is a mere subjective belief, opinion or conviction are confusing or conflating the subjective with the objective. Sorry guys but atheism is not an objective claim of knowledge or fact. If you think it is, then prove it: what’s the knowledge or fact you possess that nobody else does? Is it not easy enough to defend atheism? Don’t we have plenty of valid reasons? Why do you want to make it easier than it already is? That’s lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
Flip it around. If a believer says he believes in God but does not claim his existence is an objective fact, he is merely expressing his subjective belief, opinion or conviction that God is real. He’s not making any objective claim of fact. He may not have a reason at all. But if he claims or pretends to have knowledge of God then he’s a gnostic theist making claims of knowledge he can’t possibly possess and is just as dishonest as a pretentious gnostic atheist.
Do atheists think that certain religious guiding principles that have stood the test of time, like the Seven Virtues and Seven Sins, have…
Answer by Jim Ashby:
Most of the Seven Virtues precede Christianity, so I wouldn't call them 'religious guiding principles'. Guiding principles, morals, ethics, etc. are value judgments — which people have been making since there have been people. There has always been the tendency or attempt, by certain religions, to hijack the human condition and usurp credit for mankind's highest ideals.
With that in mind, here's what the Seven virtues wiki has to say:
The four cardinal virtues, from ancient Greek philosophy, are prudence, justice, temperance (meaning restriction or restraint), and courage (or fortitude). The three theological virtues, from the letters of St. Paul of Tarsus, are faith, hope, and charity (or love). These were adopted by the Church Fathers as the seven virtues.
As an atheist, faith is not a virtue. Hope is good if you take it to mean 'a positive attitude' but not if it means 'wishful thinking'. Prudence is acting wisely but has negative connotations to me when associated with sex. Yes it's best to be wise about sex but that doesn't mean that being 'prudish' is wise. Given the importance of one's sex life, I question the wisdom of 'saving oneself for marriage'; especially in modern times (with availability of birth control methods and condoms to mitigate transmission of STDs). Temperance is similar to prudence in as much as a major part of both is self-restraint. One should not restrain oneself too much. Boldness can be a virtue too.
The rest I'm fine with. So, to answer your question, virtues are value judgments and, as such, are subject to interpretation and to change over time.
The Seven Deadly Sins, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish . . . and it stinks to high heaven! Here's what the Seven deadly sins wiki has to say:
The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins or demon actions, is a classification of vices (part of Christian ethics) that has been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. In the currently recognized version, the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Each is a form of Idolatry-of-Self wherein the subjective reigns over the objective.
By and large, cardinal sin is one of the most pernicious concepts (if not the most pernicious one) in the toolbox of Catholic religious indoctrination.
Sin, as virtually everybody understands it, is a biblical concept: disobedience to God. Sin is in our genes. We're born to sin. We're all miserable wretches, unworthy of heaven except by faith in Jesus. Biblical sin hijacks the human condition — born ignorant and, thus, fallible — and twists it, making us guilty by default. Sin is inescapable. It turns us against ourselves by teaching us that our very nature is shameful.
As if biblical sin weren't pernicious enough, cardinal sins kick it up a notch. It takes seven specific human instincts and emotions and squashes them so that we're unlikely to recognize the lie of sin. Yes, as social animals, some of our instincts need to be tamed . . . but not squashed.
Pride, for instance, is an emotion we feel for ourselves and our loved ones when we do good or accomplish something. Pride is a good thing unless, like anything else, it's taken to excess. Well, you know what that means! Pride is the first thing that needs to be squashed: if people take credit for the good they do, God's influence is diminished. Any confidence in ourselves leads us away from God. Before you know it, pride will lead us to think for ourselves . . . and we can't have that! All credit must go to God. And all blame is on us.
Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony are instincts or emotions that everybody experiences. Hype them. Exaggerate them. Condemn them as sins . . . and you've made sure people won't experience them for what they are. If we are to learn from our mistakes, it's essential that we recognize things for what they really are. By demonizing the Seven Deadly Sins, we're more likely to stay in thrall to God.
And clergy can breathe easier.
And I quote:
“You’re trying to separate belief from assertion where I don’t think any meaningful distinction exists.”
NO. That is NOT what I’m doing or trying to do. I’ve actually spelled it out, so I don’t know why you would use this watered-down version except to water-down my claim. Here’s what I said (and I quote):
“It’s the difference between an objective claim of knowledge and an subjective claim of belief.”
Semantics are getting in your way. Since you’re clearly not comprehending me, let’s start from the beginning. I’ll be referring to this graphic a lot . . .
Notice the text in all four quadrants. They each contain two descriptions: the first (belief) is subjective; the second (knowledge) is objective.
Some words are strictly subjective. Some words are strictly objective. Some words are more ambiguous and might be applied either way.
For instance, these words are strictly subjective: belief, opinion, judgment, feeling. These words are strictly objective: knowledge, fact, evidence, proof, certainty. These words are ambiguous and need context to determine if they’re being used subjectively or objectively: deny, reject, negate.
When you mix and match the objective with the subjective in assumptions, concepts and words, you WILL get confused. I see it all the time. Atheists want to avoid bald claims that gods don’t exist, so they think they need to be careful not to say that ‘I believe gods do not exist.’ Completely missing the fact that it’s a statement of belief, not fact. THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
Conflating the subjective with the objective is a common mistake often stemming from sloppy semantics. People often mix and match words and meanings. Take, for instance, Craig Good’s claim that, “atheism isn’t always a belief that there are no gods“. After repeated requests for clarification, he finally provided this explanation:
Guy A says, “I believe there are no gods.”
Guy B says, “I have no belief in any gods.”
Both guys are atheists. One of them doesn’t have a belief that there are no gods. You guess which one. I give up.
How is ‘belief there are no gods’ any different from ‘no belief in any gods’? If you believe there are no gods then you don’t believe in any gods. And vice versa. There is no substantive or qualitative difference in either version. If you can’t see that, I’m afraid your level of discernment isn’t sufficient enough to understand how conflating the objective with the subjective leads to confusion.
The confusion, in Craig’s case, manifests in his desire to avoid saying there are no gods. But saying ‘I believe there are no gods’ is NOT the same as saying ‘There are no gods’. The first is a TRUE claim of subjective belief, the second is a FALSE claim of objective knowledge. The unqualified claim that there are no gods is a claim to knowledge or fact that one can’t possibly possess. This is what Craig wants to avoid, but he fails to do so because he’s conflating the subjective with the objective.
Craig, in his Atheism FAQ, makes several erroneous assertions. But he does, however, agree with the graphic above. And I quote:
“Since atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal, it’s possible to be an agnostic atheist (no knowledge, no belief), a gnostic atheist (claim to knowledge, no belief), an agnostic theist (no knowledge, but believes in god(s), or a gnostic theist (claim to knowledge, and believes in deities.) This doesn’t mean that all four are equally likely. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which of the aforementioned can ever possibly be rational.”
Craig claims to be an agnostic atheist. In doing so, he’s claiming to distinguish between the subjective (atheism) and the objective (agnosticism). However, he’s not consistent.
And in your case, you’re making the same mistake as Craig. And I quote:
“If you hold a belief that no gods exist, then it’s not really a lack of belief, is it?”
Do you see what you did? You truncated your comparison by cutting off your sentence at “lack of belief”: you’re missing the “that gods exist” part. I think you did that subconsciously because, if you had completed the sentence, you’d see how silly your claim is.
If I hold a belief that no gods exist, that also means I lack belief that gods exist. It’s merely a rephrasing by shifting the negative from one side to the other. If you believe leprechauns don’t exist, you don’t believe leprechauns exist. If you believe Santa Claus is not real, you don’t believe Santa Claus is real.
My @Quora comment on an answer to While the possibility of God existing is actually extremely small, isn’t it also faith to say that you …
My @Quora comment on an answer to While the possibility of God existing is actually extremely small, isn't it also faith to say that you 'know' God doesn't exist? :
AtheistExile 