Do you object to people making statements on LJ etc or do you think it makes it open to debate? I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'making a statement' as you said you objected to it.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate. It is a statement of fact. The issues surrounding are open to debate, but then they always are. So I'm unclear now whether you are counting my opening statement as:
Opening issues up for debate? Objectionable? Neither?
If neither, then...what is your point? (I don't mean this in an argumentative way. I just seem to be agreeing with a lot you're saying, or we've identified key points were we Just Don't Agree, and am wondering - well, what your point is!)
Do you object to people making statements on LJ etc or do you think it makes it open to debate? Definitely the latter. If they hadn't wanted debate they wouldn't have left the "make a comment" feature turned on.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate. I don't think I ever disagreed with your feelings (or, indeed, respond to your original post - I replied to later comments). I did question it, because I was curious as to why you feel the way you do.
Your original post was particularly clearly inviting debate - the "Oh No she didn't" bit was clearly laying down a challenge. It wasn't until your original response to Sian that I decided to respond, because I disagreed with some of your statements there.
So if we go back there, I believe my original points were "it's not fundamental atheism, it's wishy-washy agnosticism." and "I think it's good for influencing cultural norms away from the eeeeevils of religion."
I actually really didn't anticipate quite the level of debate here. The 'oh no she didn't' was intended in a light hearted vein (more 'look I disagree with the popular viewpoint hee hee I 'm going against the flow' than 'You're all wrong, you bunch of bastards and I'll prove it') I thought it was quite possible that no-one would comment at all. Of course the issues are therefore open to debate. However, I think it's a slightly off-kilter debate because I knew, understood and largely agreed with all the 'counter points' that were being made. Whereas I wasn't sure if people were aware of the opposing side beyond that of religious fundies.
You said that 'making statements about it that cannot be backed up is where my objections lie.' which is where I wanted clarification - you seem to be now saying that you feel that this make it open to debate, which to me is a different thing to 'objecting', and you're quite right.
I think the thread reopened because of the logic argument. I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with. It then went off at a tangent re the making statements thing because we don't actually seem to disagree with each other on this point I think we fundamentally disagree here or at the very least inherently don't understand each other. Fine. Where would the world be without disagreement?
I think our core assumptions being different means we could skirt around this for years; we are approaching the whole thing from different angles which is why we are coming up with different opinions, but it also why we are arguing different points, which is where it's got confusing I think.
Whereas I wasn't sure if people were aware of the opposing side beyond that of religious fundies.
I do agree with you that ordinary believers are sometimes demonised because it's assumed that they're "as bad" as the extremists. And I also agree that we ought to be careful about randomly offending people - society tends to work better when people are at least reasonably polite most of the time.
I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with. Maybe I can clarify this using Ari's Sudoku puzzle example: Let's assume that we both finish our sudoku puzzle at the same time and then compare our answers, to discover that they are different. There are three reasons why this might be so: 1) One (or both) of us might have made a mistake in our logic. 2) We started off with different puzzles. 3) There wasn't enough information to work it out and one (or both) of us guessed a number.
In the case of (1) then going over the logic should allow us to reach the same conclusion as each other.
In the case of (2) then knowing the starting point of each others puzzles would at least allow us to say "Oh, I see how you got to your finished version." - i.e. if someone says to me "I saw God. And now I believe in him." I can see the logic behind their conclusion, even if their initial starting point is not the same as mine.
In the case of (3) then the problem is that we guessed. If you guess then you cannot claim to have the right answer. Some people are happier with a full sudoku board that they've made stuff up to fit, but if you're being intellectually honest then you're going to have say that "These 74 cells are right, and the other 17 are unknown at this time." and to me this is where a lot of religion goes wrong. They say "Look, we don't understand X, Y or Z, so it's perfectly reasonable to say 'God did it.'" rather than simply marking it down as "We have no way of knowing.", and I can't see any way that is justified. You seem to feel differently about this.
Does that clear up my position?
Oh - and I largely feel that these conversations happen better in person, because it's easier to draw things, or throw in silly jokes, and I come across as less arrogantly patronising :->
Thanks for this analogy because it does help me to define what I think is the crux of my argument, and, I also think part of the whole reason we are going round in circles.
(4) You had different objectives.
You (you the fundamentalist - atheist or religious) might 'point out' to the other person has 2 5s in one row. They might similarly point out 'yes but you have only 1 nine in that column'. Or maybe 'but where are your blank spaces?' Or you notice their bottom row is all made up of pictures.
The fundamental difference between life and sudoku puzzles (other than not being able to buy a handy book of lives for £3 in Smiths) is that the former comes with no instruction page. Presuming an equal society, the meaning and objectives of life surely have to be determined by each individual? No one has the right to say 'this is the objective of being alive' (to me god is part of that 'meaning and objective of life' which is why I earlier stated the God is a subjective experience.)
One person's lifoku puzzle might have an objective that by the time it's finished, it is as beautiful as possible. Someone else's may be to be as compassionate as possible, someone else's, as logical as possible. Or as blue as possible, or contain at least 25 bees. And even that is putting it incredibly simply.
If people are trying to apply their objective to your puzzle, of course you are going to disagree. For a religious person to claim that their puzzle is the only correct finished version of the puzzle is, as you say, absurd. But the same therefore has to apply to an atheist.
To me, what this slogan does (and I would apply the same to a 'God is probably the river. Stop worrying.') is just to take someone else's Lifoku puzzle, show them the humanist one instead and tell them to 'stop worrying' about their puzzle. It doesn't even cite the humanist objective or how the puzzle was completed (this slogan on a building you could walk into and discuss things, or even an larger citing of the HA website would significantly decrease my offence (I have less problem with the tube cards)). That's why I find it elitist. I take offence at any campaign which discourages independent thought.
Does that clear up my position? Absolutely. Does this clear up mine?
One person's lifoku puzzle might have an objective that by the time it's finished, it is as beautiful as possible. Someone else's may be to be as compassionate as possible, someone else's, as logical as possible.
Absolutely. And if someone wants to say "I believe in God because a universe with God in it is more beautiful to me." then that's _fine_ by me. Or if they wanted to say "A life with God in it has more compassion, so I shall have one of those." that'd be fine too. But I could have sworn you said that different people could reach different opinions through logic - and now you seem to be seeing that you have different conclusions by valuing compassion or beauty above logic.
Sorry yes I shouldn't have use beautiful compassionate and logical as examples. If the aim is to be beautiful, then certain actions and beliefs are therefore logical. This is in reference to your seeming to say that belief in God is illogical and the fundamentalist atheist viewpoint that this belief is illogical and therefore Wrong. 'My aim is to be happy. To believe in God makes me happy' This is logical.
The different people could reach different opinions through logic is a slightly different point. To use real life examples.
I am a little bit hungry. I have here in front of me a penguin bar and a kitkat.
Logical: I will eat the penguin. Logical: I will eat the kitkat.
I am pissed off with the smug religious slogans on buses. I am an atheist.
Logical: I will put my own slogan on buses so I too can feel smug. Logical: I will desecrate the buses. Logical: I will engage the writers of the slogan in discussion Logical: I will ignore the buses
I was filled by an overwhelming sense of peace and unity in church today. The priest was blessing me. Logical: There is a God. Logical: A calm and quiet atmosphere is beneficial.
Different people can reach different conclusions through logic. What is illogical is the belief that these conclusions are the only possible conclusion.
I was filled by an overwhelming sense of peace and unity in church today. The priest was blessing me. Logical: There is a God. Logical: A calm and quiet atmosphere is beneficial.
Actually, neither of those are logical conclusions to draw. One could form a _theory_ that a priest performing a blessing increases the sense of peace and unity in the church - but one would have to then perform experiments in which (say) the priest was replaced by an actor, a priest performed a blessing in a place that was not a church, people who didn't know what a priest was were blessed, etc. to isolate the cause. What you have at the moment is a bunch of unknowns and lack of knowledge.
In the other examples both the kitkat and the penguin will reduce hunger - there's no logical difference between them. And it's also qualitatively different from your other example - if it was "Believing in God will make me happy.", "Believing there are no Gods will make me happy" then logically speaking either one would be a good answer _to increase happiness_.
The first two examples are all about "what is the right action to achieve my goals?" whereas the third one is "what is the truth?" - multiple actions may achieve a goal, only one thing is true.
if it was "Believing in God will make me happy.", "Believing there are no Gods will make me happy" then logically speaking either one would be a good answer _to increase happiness_
Yes. I suppose I presume that one of most people's core desires is to be happy. Maybe that was inaccurate, in which case I should have been more specific and listed 'I would like to be happy' as one of the logic inputs.
The first two examples are all about "what is the right action to achieve my goals?" whereas the third one is "what is the truth?" - multiple actions may achieve a goal, only one thing is true. I would argue that the action in the third one is believing something.
only one thing is true. I disagree. You said yourself earlier that there everything is opinion and nothing is fact. Does this mean truth does not in fact exist?
I believe it does but that truth is subjective. I accept that you may well disagree with me but this is inherently impossible to prove or disprove through logic as to prove that only one thing is true. To prove that is is, one of the input criteria must be 'only one thing is true' and vice versa.
Given that I believe this, I believe that people must discover their own truth. So I disagree with them being told not to worry about it.
You said yourself earlier that there everything is opinion and nothing is fact. Does this mean truth does not in fact exist?
Every _statement_ is opinion. If I say "The earth is round." then I'm stating my opinion. If I want to be taken seriously with my opinion then I must be willing to present my reasons for believing this. However the facts are not subjective - the earth is either round or flat (or some other shape).
I believe that things happen - that either the world _was_ created in seven days by an omniscient creator, or it was not. I can't see how both could be true at the same time. It's not a matter of opinion - there is a correct answer.
Our access to that truth is imperfect, and based on a variety of things, such as length of time, information sources, etc. Which means that our opinions about it will be imperfect and subjective.
However, I also believe that we should therefore own up to our lack of knowledge, and say "We have theories about the origin of the world. This one has these things backing it up, and these gaps. This other one has these other things backing it up, and these gaps."
What I don't believe is that the actual events are subjective - I can't see how they can be. There is one true account of the universe- one can be ignorant of it, but one cannot claim that one's view of it is as right as someone else's without having at least as much proof as they have.
Well a lot of the above is like we have a different view of the world, which in my view is something that cannot be logically debated. (It's like when I argue with Ari that our chair is red/pink. She thinks it's blatantly orange. We just have to agree we are seeing something different) Which in itself is kind of my point, which is why this is a very spirally debate.
Our access to that truth is imperfect, and based on a variety of things, such as length of time, information sources, etc. Which means that our opinions about it will be imperfect and subjective.
I think the only thing I really don't understand is why this applies to religious people but doesn't apply to atheists; why 'don't tell me to believe in God' is fine and logical and sensible (which I would say it is) at the same time as 'I can tell you not to worry about whether there is a God or not' is fine and logical and sensible. It seems to be a double standard.
You don't perhaps don't see the slogan as saying that, but as saying 'don't worry that you are going to be damned to hell for doing what you feel to be right'
To me, my interpretation of the slogan is the more obvious one. To you, yours is. The point is that they are both logical interpretations.
Does that make sense? Can you consider my offence at the slogan to be logical?
They're both _reasonable_ interpretations, certainly - neither of them is certain, and I suspect that if you asked the person who came up with the original they would either have a third interpretation, or not a specific one - having come up with some thing that "just sounded good" to them.
Andy: Which means that our opinions about it will be imperfect and subjective. Lizzie: I think the only thing I really don't understand is why this applies to religious people but doesn't apply to atheists; Oh, it does. I think atheists are more likely to be right - but I dislike their certainty. Which is why I'm an agnostic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 03:20 pm (UTC)Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 03:30 pm (UTC)Did I do it wrong?
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-12 03:58 pm (UTC)Do you object to people making statements on LJ etc or do you think it makes it open to debate? I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'making a statement' as you said you objected to it.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate. It is a statement of fact. The issues surrounding are open to debate, but then they always are. So I'm unclear now whether you are counting my opening statement as:
Opening issues up for debate?
Objectionable?
Neither?
If neither, then...what is your point? (I don't mean this in an argumentative way. I just seem to be agreeing with a lot you're saying, or we've identified key points were we Just Don't Agree, and am wondering - well, what your point is!)
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 09:03 am (UTC)Definitely the latter. If they hadn't wanted debate they wouldn't have left the "make a comment" feature turned on.
Technically, the statement I made at the opening post is not open to debate.
I don't think I ever disagreed with your feelings (or, indeed, respond to your original post - I replied to later comments). I did question it, because I was curious as to why you feel the way you do.
Your original post was particularly clearly inviting debate - the "Oh No she didn't" bit was clearly laying down a challenge. It wasn't until your original response to Sian that I decided to respond, because I disagreed with some of your statements there.
So if we go back there, I believe my original points were "it's not fundamental atheism, it's wishy-washy agnosticism." and "I think it's good for influencing cultural norms away from the eeeeevils of religion."
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 10:04 am (UTC)You said that 'making statements about it that cannot be backed up is where my objections lie.' which is where I wanted clarification - you seem to be now saying that you feel that this make it open to debate, which to me is a different thing to 'objecting', and you're quite right.
I think the thread reopened because of the logic argument. I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with. It then went off at a tangent re the making statements thing because we don't actually seem to disagree with each other on this point I think we fundamentally disagree here or at the very least inherently don't understand each other. Fine. Where would the world be without disagreement?
I think our core assumptions being different means we could skirt around this for years; we are approaching the whole thing from different angles which is why we are coming up with different opinions, but it also why we are arguing different points, which is where it's got confusing I think.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 11:08 am (UTC)I do agree with you that ordinary believers are sometimes demonised because it's assumed that they're "as bad" as the extremists. And I also agree that we ought to be careful about randomly offending people - society tends to work better when people are at least reasonably polite most of the time.
I stand by entirely that it is possible to come up with two logical answers to the same question - something which you seem to be agreeing with at points and then disagreeing with.
Maybe I can clarify this using Ari's Sudoku puzzle example:
Let's assume that we both finish our sudoku puzzle at the same time and then compare our answers, to discover that they are different. There are three reasons why this might be so:
1) One (or both) of us might have made a mistake in our logic.
2) We started off with different puzzles.
3) There wasn't enough information to work it out and one (or both) of us guessed a number.
In the case of (1) then going over the logic should allow us to reach the same conclusion as each other.
In the case of (2) then knowing the starting point of each others puzzles would at least allow us to say "Oh, I see how you got to your finished version." - i.e. if someone says to me "I saw God. And now I believe in him." I can see the logic behind their conclusion, even if their initial starting point is not the same as mine.
In the case of (3) then the problem is that we guessed. If you guess then you cannot claim to have the right answer. Some people are happier with a full sudoku board that they've made stuff up to fit, but if you're being intellectually honest then you're going to have say that "These 74 cells are right, and the other 17 are unknown at this time." and to me this is where a lot of religion goes wrong. They say "Look, we don't understand X, Y or Z, so it's perfectly reasonable to say 'God did it.'" rather than simply marking it down as "We have no way of knowing.", and I can't see any way that is justified. You seem to feel differently about this.
Does that clear up my position?
Oh - and I largely feel that these conversations happen better in person, because it's easier to draw things, or throw in silly jokes, and I come across as less arrogantly patronising :->
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 02:36 pm (UTC)(4) You had different objectives.
You (you the fundamentalist - atheist or religious) might 'point out' to the other person has 2 5s in one row. They might similarly point out 'yes but you have only 1 nine in that column'. Or maybe 'but where are your blank spaces?' Or you notice their bottom row is all made up of pictures.
The fundamental difference between life and sudoku puzzles (other than not being able to buy a handy book of lives for £3 in Smiths) is that the former comes with no instruction page. Presuming an equal society, the meaning and objectives of life surely have to be determined by each individual? No one has the right to say 'this is the objective of being alive' (to me god is part of that 'meaning and objective of life' which is why I earlier stated the God is a subjective experience.)
One person's lifoku puzzle might have an objective that by the time it's finished, it is as beautiful as possible. Someone else's may be to be as compassionate as possible, someone else's, as logical as possible. Or as blue as possible, or contain at least 25 bees. And even that is putting it incredibly simply.
If people are trying to apply their objective to your puzzle, of course you are going to disagree. For a religious person to claim that their puzzle is the only correct finished version of the puzzle is, as you say, absurd. But the same therefore has to apply to an atheist.
To me, what this slogan does (and I would apply the same to a 'God is probably the river. Stop worrying.') is just to take someone else's Lifoku puzzle, show them the humanist one instead and tell them to 'stop worrying' about their puzzle. It doesn't even cite the humanist objective or how the puzzle was completed (this slogan on a building you could walk into and discuss things, or even an larger citing of the HA website would significantly decrease my offence (I have less problem with the tube cards)). That's why I find it elitist. I take offence at any campaign which discourages independent thought.
Does that clear up my position?
Absolutely. Does this clear up mine?
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 03:21 pm (UTC)Absolutely. And if someone wants to say "I believe in God because a universe with God in it is more beautiful to me." then that's _fine_ by me. Or if they wanted to say "A life with God in it has more compassion, so I shall have one of those." that'd be fine too. But I could have sworn you said that different people could reach different opinions through logic - and now you seem to be seeing that you have different conclusions by valuing compassion or beauty above logic.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 04:18 pm (UTC)The different people could reach different opinions through logic is a slightly different point. To use real life examples.
I am a little bit hungry. I have here in front of me a penguin bar and a kitkat.
Logical: I will eat the penguin.
Logical: I will eat the kitkat.
I am pissed off with the smug religious slogans on buses. I am an atheist.
Logical: I will put my own slogan on buses so I too can feel smug.
Logical: I will desecrate the buses.
Logical: I will engage the writers of the slogan in discussion
Logical: I will ignore the buses
I was filled by an overwhelming sense of peace and unity in church today. The priest was blessing me.
Logical: There is a God.
Logical: A calm and quiet atmosphere is beneficial.
Different people can reach different conclusions through logic. What is illogical is the belief that these conclusions are the only possible conclusion.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 04:21 pm (UTC)Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 04:39 pm (UTC)Logical: There is a God.
Logical: A calm and quiet atmosphere is beneficial.
Actually, neither of those are logical conclusions to draw. One could form a _theory_ that a priest performing a blessing increases the sense of peace and unity in the church - but one would have to then perform experiments in which (say) the priest was replaced by an actor, a priest performed a blessing in a place that was not a church, people who didn't know what a priest was were blessed, etc. to isolate the cause. What you have at the moment is a bunch of unknowns and lack of knowledge.
In the other examples both the kitkat and the penguin will reduce hunger - there's no logical difference between them. And it's also qualitatively different from your other example - if it was "Believing in God will make me happy.", "Believing there are no Gods will make me happy" then logically speaking either one would be a good answer _to increase happiness_.
The first two examples are all about "what is the right action to achieve my goals?" whereas the third one is "what is the truth?" - multiple actions may achieve a goal, only one thing is true.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 07:53 pm (UTC)Yes. I suppose I presume that one of most people's core desires is to be happy. Maybe that was inaccurate, in which case I should have been more specific and listed 'I would like to be happy' as one of the logic inputs.
The first two examples are all about "what is the right action to achieve my goals?" whereas the third one is "what is the truth?" - multiple actions may achieve a goal, only one thing is true.
I would argue that the action in the third one is believing something.
only one thing is true.
I disagree. You said yourself earlier that there everything is opinion and nothing is fact. Does this mean truth does not in fact exist?
I believe it does but that truth is subjective. I accept that you may well disagree with me but this is inherently impossible to prove or disprove through logic as to prove that only one thing is true. To prove that is is, one of the input criteria must be 'only one thing is true' and vice versa.
Given that I believe this, I believe that people must discover their own truth. So I disagree with them being told not to worry about it.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-14 11:02 am (UTC)Every _statement_ is opinion. If I say "The earth is round." then I'm stating my opinion. If I want to be taken seriously with my opinion then I must be willing to present my reasons for believing this. However the facts are not subjective - the earth is either round or flat (or some other shape).
I believe that things happen - that either the world _was_ created in seven days by an omniscient creator, or it was not. I can't see how both could be true at the same time. It's not a matter of opinion - there is a correct answer.
Our access to that truth is imperfect, and based on a variety of things, such as length of time, information sources, etc. Which means that our opinions about it will be imperfect and subjective.
However, I also believe that we should therefore own up to our lack of knowledge, and say "We have theories about the origin of the world. This one has these things backing it up, and these gaps. This other one has these other things backing it up, and these gaps."
What I don't believe is that the actual events are subjective - I can't see how they can be. There is one true account of the universe- one can be ignorant of it, but one cannot claim that one's view of it is as right as someone else's without having at least as much proof as they have.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-14 02:10 pm (UTC)Our access to that truth is imperfect, and based on a variety of things, such as length of time, information sources, etc. Which means that our opinions about it will be imperfect and subjective.
I think the only thing I really don't understand is why this applies to religious people but doesn't apply to atheists; why 'don't tell me to believe in God' is fine and logical and sensible (which I would say it is) at the same time as 'I can tell you not to worry about whether there is a God or not' is fine and logical and sensible. It seems to be a double standard.
You don't perhaps don't see the slogan as saying that, but as saying 'don't worry that you are going to be damned to hell for doing what you feel to be right'
To me, my interpretation of the slogan is the more obvious one. To you, yours is. The point is that they are both logical interpretations.
Does that make sense? Can you consider my offence at the slogan to be logical?
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-14 03:35 pm (UTC)Andy: Which means that our opinions about it will be imperfect and subjective.
Lizzie: I think the only thing I really don't understand is why this applies to religious people but doesn't apply to atheists;
Oh, it does. I think atheists are more likely to be right - but I dislike their certainty. Which is why I'm an agnostic.
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-14 05:35 pm (UTC)Badminton tomo? Hoping to make it if I can pull myself away from the internet long enough to get my work finished :).
Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-14 05:49 pm (UTC)Re: Some questions and some requests for clarification
Date: 2009-01-13 09:11 am (UTC)