When does philosophy become drivel and why?

[OrphanPip]

Ya, I'm not fond of Harris' ethical naturalism. I concede that science has the ability to help inform moral action, when it comes to the welfare of living things, but it does not necessarily guide us towards any moral decision. I have always agreed with Gould's approach of keep science and religion separate things. Science is a useful method for understanding natural phenomena, it is not a useful guide to how we should treat others. An explanation of how things are does not necessarily inform how things should be.

[The Atheist]

There still remains a case for 'Philosophy of Science' and 'Epistemology', but since these subjects are dominated by postmodernism, produce confusion, and promote ignorance instead of answers, I come to the above stated conclusion.

Anytime we should ever meet up, I will buy you the biggest beer/whisky/whatever, that you've ever seen, let alone drunk.

Ya, I'm not fond of Harris' ethical naturalism.

While I agree with Sammy on lots of things, I dislike him with an intensity I can taste. To me, nothing is more morally reprehensible than someone who understands that we are nothing more than strings of molecules then supports violence in any form.

I concede that science has the ability to help inform moral action, when it comes to the welfare of living things, but it does not necessarily guide us towards any moral decision. I have always agreed with Gould's approach of keep science and religion separate things. Science is a useful method for understanding natural phenomena, it is not a useful guide to how we should treat others. An explanation of how things are does not necessarily inform how things should be.

As usual, Harris goes too far, and the reviewer's metaphor of a snowed-in village is entirely apt. As you say, you can't get an ought from an is, but I do think Harris is largely right. Gould just liked playing Pascal's wager.

If religion had ever been right about something, I think there would be some use to the approach, but in the light of 10,000 years of evidence to the contrary, I can't accept NOMA as a valid method.

We can use the scientific method to validate morals and ethics, just not in the way Harris thinks we can.

One thing I do like about Sammy being brought into a conversation is that one of my oldest and best online friends is a neuroscientist, complete with PhD, a massive list of publications and international recognition in the field - unlike Harris. Again unlike Harris, the field led him into theism and he is now a committed Roman Catholic.

[Cunninglinguist]

Whist The Atheist and I are diametrically opposed in our beliefs, (they call it mutual respect), he has an excellent point. Atheism is a LACK of belief, and there it should be allowed to stay. Accepted, respected, but not dismissed.

I must beg to differ. The lack of belief position is agnosticism. When you assert any claim about God (in the general sense of the term), whether he does or does not exist, you're reasoning will always fall prey to the problems of induction, which ultimately show us we only put faith in the inferences about reality that we find intuitive. We might be brains in a vat, but we have faith in the assumption that we arent...unless youre agnostic.

We're left arguing Spinoza's "god" which is a kind of Monty Python-esque default god for people who don't want to admit to atheism.

I've never seen any point in it myself - what use is a god who doesn't actually do anything?

On the contrary, Spinoza's God does everything.

[The Atheist]

I must beg to differ. The lack of belief position is agnosticism.

No, and there's even an entire thread dedicated to the subject.

Agnosticism is quite different. If you're unsure of the difference, Google will be your friend.

When you assert any claim about God (in the general sense of the term), whether he does or does not exist, you're reasoning will always fall prey to the problems of induction, which ultimately show us we only put faith in the inferences about reality that we find intuitive.

And there's the reason for your error. I have bolded the relevant part.

Atheism doesn't make any assertions or claims about god/s. You cannot make claims about something you have no evidence for.

You've fallen into the usual trap of presuming that atheism means "No god/s exist", which is just wrong. Some atheists say that, but other atheists believe the world is run by alien lizards disguised as humans. Atheism means "I do not believe in any god/s"

If in doubt, please refer to the thread, which is here.

We might be brains in a vat, but we have faith in the assumption that we arent...unless youre agnostic.

I'll come back to this one when I figure out how to have faith in an assumption.

On the contrary, Spinoza's God does everything.

Uh, no. Spinoza'a position was deism, which assserts that the god does not intervene in the physical universe. A non-interventionist god by definition does not "do" anything.

[Vautrin]

The actual reason or inspiration for this thread was honestly something quite different than what has been discussed here thus far, which is fine.
What more or less inspired me to make this thread was my reintroduction to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics; more specifically his discussion of friendship and its three basic forms. I didn't mention this at first because I didn't want the discussion to become solely about that topic.

Friendship is a very complicated thing if we really attempt to objectively understand it and accurately explain why we keep the company we do. How this relates to my question concerning when philosophy becomes drivel has to do with the idea of examining and defining our friendships using Aristotle's points on this issue.

Essentially, what I'm getting at is when it comes to the people in our lives, such as friends and acquaintances, can philosophy be helpful or is it too general to be effective and, therefore, rubbish? If you were having a dispute with a friend would you ever conceive of using Aristotle's writings - or any other philosopher - on friendship as guidance in solving the problem? Would it seem too unnatural or even robotic to find solutions for real life problems from an antiquated philosophy book?

I personally think Aristotle hit the nail on the head with his ideas on friendship. I can see using his ideas in reexamining certain friendships and even when forming new ones. However, I can also see how it would seem ridiculous or even Machiavellian to consciously use his categories of friendship when dealing with actual people. Therefore, his ideas are very useful or very worthless depending on how one uses them.

So I guess I just answered my own question. Philosophy becomes drivel once you stop using it as one of many tools in expanding your thinking and start using it as a blanket answer for everything. The same would apply to all other fields.

[Cunninglinguist]

Uh, no. Spinoza'a position was deism, which assserts that the god does not intervene in the physical universe. A non-interventionist god by definition does not "do" anything.

I suspect you've only read about Spinoza from secondary resources or your memory is just defective, so read this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)/Part_1
by my understanding (and it takes no great interpreter to reach this understanding) Spinoza's God is the physical universe. Nice try, though.

Atheism argues God doesnt exist in the same way I argue there's not a tiger behind me right now (even though I might argue there's a monkey), but all three are inductive arguments and ergo fall prey to the problem of induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

The book where Hume describes the "problem of induction":
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Enq..._Understanding

Some atheists say that, but other atheists believe the world is run by alien lizards disguised as humans

You put a smile on my face But if you say these so called "atheists" don't make any claims about God's existence (or lack thereof) then I'm pretty sure you're just misusing the word or trying to conveniently change the definition.

p.s.
Since these things are off topic I will send my responses hereafter via private messages

[The Atheist]

I suspect you've only read about Spinoza...

No.

I stated that Spinoza's god was non-interventionist, and even your link shows that my position is 100% correct. The naturalistic stance that god is "all of creation" isn't at all unusual, and I don't even bother arguing against it; a god that does not intervene in the physical universe may be ignored, and that is one axiom I stick to.

The only part we're discussing here is whether his god physically changed the universe at his will. If you want to find something Spinoza wrote that suggests he believed in an interventionist god, then please present it - nothing else is relevant.

The point is quite subtle, but important.

Atheism argues God doesnt exist in the same way I argue there's not a tiger behind me right now (even though I might argue there's a monkey), but all three are inductive arguments and ergo fall prey to the problem of induction.

No, this is your category error - atheism has nothing to do with induction. Your analogy of the tiger is an excellent starting point, because it is so obviously wrong.

You state "There is no tiger."

The atheist does not state "There is no god."

You put a smile on my face But if you say these so called "atheists" don't make any claims about God's existence (or lack thereof) then I'm pretty sure you're just misusing the word or trying to conveniently change the definition.

I'm assuming the "linguist" in your name is only there for comedic effect, because a linguist, of all people, would know that language is defined by usage, not Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster.

There is, however, considerable irony that a non-atheist tries to insist on a meaning for atheist. It's usually the theist's prerogative to try to persuade people that atheism is a position of belief. The irony in that is deep enough to export to China.

Since these things are off topic I will send my responses hereafter via private messages

Please don't. The ideal place would be in the thread I linked, but this one will do.

I started the thread to help alert people to the fact that the kind of fallacies you're stating here are actually fallacies, so I'd much rather they were recorded publicly.

The runaway winning number one fallacy is that atheism says "there is no tiger/god".

[Vautrin]

This thread reminds me very much of Youtube. You know when the video is about say...The Solar System and when scrolling down to the comments the viewers are arguing back and forth about the the Holy Crusades. Haha!

I'll do the honors.....
Oh wait, I missed a spot....

There we go!

[Cunninglinguist]

No.

I stated that Spinoza's god was non-interventionist, and even your link shows that my position is 100% correct. The naturalistic stance that god is "all of creation" isn't at all unusual, and I don't even bother arguing against it; a god that does not intervene in the physical universe may be ignored, and that is one axiom I stick to.

The only part we're discussing here is whether his god physically changed the universe at his will. If you want to find something Spinoza wrote that suggests he believed in an interventionist god, then please present it - nothing else is relevant.

The point is quite subtle, but important.

The pertinent aspect Spinoza's God is that he is the physical universe. This is shown in his definition of God as "a substance of infinite attributes" and his many proofs on why there can only be one substance. And if we take Spinoza's definition of God he is impossible to ignore - it is pretty clear that he is not an “intervening” one in the sense that you’re using the word, but I dont think Spinoza would have claimed his God did or did not intervene, he is too abstract. however there is an argument to be made that since he is a substance of infinite attributes and the only substance in existence he can do everything (i.e. manifest as any “modification” possible) or that he does everything.

The point is important, I think, while discussing Spinoza in general - we wouldn't want to make him seemed grouped with all the rest of the theists.

No, this is your category error - atheism has nothing to do with induction. Your analogy of the tiger is an excellent starting point, because it is so obviously wrong.

You state "There is no tiger."

The atheist does not state "There is no god."

I'm guessing you didn't read the article? Though I've read the wiki article and find it equally qualified but easier to read, here's a more credible resource for your liking:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

The atheist has everything to do with induction, the agnostic has nothing to do with induction. This is in accord with popular and dictionary definitions of the words.

I'm assuming the "linguist" in your name is only there for comedic effect, because a linguist, of all people, would know that language is defined by usage, not Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster.

A word gains its meaning through both de facto usages and de jure definitions. To start, your definition poses a few key problems, as far as I can see. You state an atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, however you must then go about more fully defining God, what are his attributes, etc. etc.. Are muslims atheists because they believe in Allah? Are all pantheists also atheists because they do not accept any single God? And by this definition all agnostics are atheists because they do not accept any God. If you define him as an entity separate from reality then Spinoza is also an Atheist, and if you include Spinoza's definition then God becomes as impossible to refute as it does your own existence. Are aliens atheists because they do not know of God? No, this is aburd. If anything they'd be agnostic. If I don't actively believe in widgets because I've never heard of widgets that doesn't make me an awidgetist. To be an atheist it is necessary to actively deny the existence of a God. The entymology suggests that this is the case, too. Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Also your definition, I'm pretty sure, does not conform with the general de facto, if you like, definition. All the atheists I have met with deny God in the popularized sense and define themselves as atheists by such a denial.

There is, however, considerable irony that a non-atheist tries to insist on a meaning for atheist. It's usually the theist's prerogative to try to persuade people that atheism is a position of belief. The irony in that is deep enough to export to China.

I do not know where you get this idea that I'm a non-atheist, for I'm pretty sure I have not said that anywhere on these forums. It is equally usually the atheists prerogative to try to presuade that atheism not a position of belief as to render them immune to attacks. But, as sufficiently shown by the previous links in this and the last post, it is. Once again, it is pretty clear, by both dictionary and non-dictionary definitions, a lack of belief is agnosticism.

Please don't. The ideal place would be in the thread I linked, but this one will do.

I started the thread to help alert people to the fact that the kind of fallacies you're stating here are actually fallacies, so I'd much rather they were recorded publicly.

The runaway winning number one fallacy is that atheism says "there is no tiger/god".

If that's your wish then I will honor it, though I think it would facilitate the course of the argument.

I don't see how you've shown that any of what I'm saying is a fallacy, how any conclusions haven't followed from a premise or how any of my arguments are unsound (i.e. that either I've had invalid inferences or false premises). And from this observation I'm lead to believe that you either don't know what exactly constitutes a fallacy or that you're trying to lie to the forum readers in faith that they also do not know the definition and cannot judge the arguments by themselves, or both. If any allusion at all to an actual fallacy was made it was my point that you were equivocating on the definition of atheism presumably as to render your position immune to any arguments attempting to show its shortcomings.

[The Atheist]

The atheist has everything to do with induction, the agnostic has nothing to do with induction. This is in accord with popular and dictionary definitions of the words.

I see you're still insisting on being wrong here - which is good in a thread about why philosophy is drivel. You cannot even grasp that a lack of belief has nothing whatsoever to do with induction.

This could not be any simpler, and the thread on the subject has all of the links necessary to show why you're simply making a category error.

A word gains its meaning through both de facto usages and de jure definitions. To start, your definition poses a few key problems, as far as I can see. You state an atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, however you must then go about more fully defining God, what are his attributes, etc. etc..

This is why I wonder why I bother replying - you continually miss points I have repeatedly made - in this case, you have missed my obvious and repeated use of the singular/plural "god/s" to show that atheists do not believe in any gods.

An atheist trying to define god would be even worse than a non-atheist trying to define atheism.

To be an atheist it is necessary to actively deny the existence of a God. The entymology suggests that this is the case, too. Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Again, you are trying to enforce your own definition onto something you clearly know nothing about. Outstanding that you choose a philosophical resource to help you deeper into the hole, though.

Seriously, I have to chuckle at the article you linked to.

Second sentence: "I shall here assume...."

Philosophy wins again!

Also your definition, I'm pretty sure, does not conform with the general de facto, if you like, definition. All the atheists I have met with deny God in the popularized sense and define themselves as atheists by such a denial.

This again displays your own lack of knowledge on atheism, because that position is rare.

I do not believe there is a single atheism group with more than half a dozen members which would agree with you. Internet Infidels, skeptic societies, humanist groups and atheist groups all agree that atheism is a lack of belief, not a denial.

If you bothered to take time to do some actual research rather than linking to philosophical papers, you'd actually see how wrong you are.

Is it simply a case that "all the atheists you've met" are about 16 years old and angry at god?

I do not know where you get this idea that I'm a non-atheist, for I'm pretty sure I have not said that anywhere on these forums.

Things become obvious from context - and it is painfully obvious that you are not an atheist. If you were, you would be quoting Dawkins and agreeing with me, instead of trying to imbue philosophy papers with authority.

You speak of "all the atheists you've met" without giving a number. I can display written and electronic evidence that I have actually conversed with thousands of atheists in writing over the course of thirty years.

I have met plenty of atheists - albeit a small minority of the whole - who will state "there is no god", but you will not find one that agrees with you on what the meaning of atheist actually is.

On the other hand, I have also conversed with hundreds of theists and agnostics who have tried to insist that your incorrect meaning is valid.

I'm comfortable with the premise that you are in the second group.

Once again, it is pretty clear, by both dictionary and non-dictionary definitions, a lack of belief is agnosticism.

Ouch.

See, this is what happens when you use a philosophy paper as evidence. I'm assuming the bloke who wrote it failed, because it's so wrong as to be laughable.

He claims agnosticism was introduced by Thomas Huxley!



Even your beloved Wiki will tell you agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.

All this is helluva funny to me - after the arguments I've had with agnostics at this place. Pity JBI isn't here to help you out on what agnosticism actually is.

I don't see how you've shown that any of what I'm saying is a fallacy, how any conclusions haven't followed from a premise or how any of my arguments are unsound (i.e. that either I've had invalid inferences or false premises). And from this observation I'm lead to believe that you either don't know what exactly constitutes a fallacy or that you're trying to lie to the forum readers in faith that they also do not know the definition and cannot judge the arguments by themselves, or both.

Lying? Nice.

A simple description of "fallacy".

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.

I have explained ad nauseum why your reasoning is incorrect, and I repeat yet again, that there is considerably more evidence in the atheism thread to show why you have a misconception on the subject.

Note that I was not talking about logical fallacies, just a plain old fallacy; being wrong.

If any allusion at all to an actual fallacy was made it was my point that you were equivocating on the definition of atheism presumably as to render your position immune to any arguments attempting to show its shortcomings.

No, but nice try.

As a rationalist, I could not take the position that "god/s do not exist".

[OrphanPip]

I don't understand how there can be so much confusion over such a simple issue.

Atheism is the disbelief in gods. This includes a range of ideas, from those who disbelieve in gods because they think it highly unlikely that gods could exist to those who believe, with religious intensity, that gods absolutely do not exist.

Agnosticism is the position that the question of whether gods exist or not is unknowable and thus it is impossible to favor one position over the other.

[Cat Square]

I had a philosophy of religion professor who used to say Agnostics were 'fraidy-cats, "Just take a position!" he would say, man I loved that old curmudgeon.

[The Atheist]

I had a philosophy of religion professor who used to say Agnostics were 'fraidy-cats, "Just take a position!" he would say, man I loved that old curmudgeon.

I have been known to use that kind of approach myself!

[Cunninglinguist]

Things become obvious from context - and it is painfully obvious that you are not an atheist. If you were, you would be quoting Dawkins and agreeing with me, instead of trying to imbue philosophy papers with authority.

...

On the other hand, I have also conversed with hundreds of theists and agnostics who have tried to insist that your incorrect meaning is valid.

I'm comfortable with the premise that you are in the second group.

By your definition I am an atheist, I am a practical atheist; and actually what I think has happened here is just miscommunication.

I would qoute dawkins for some things, and I greatly appreciate him for turning so many individuals onto evolution, but some of the things he says about religion are wrong.

...

Let us talk about implicit/negative/practical atheism vs. explicit/positive/theoretical atheism. The former is defined by having the capacity to have theistic belief but not while simultaneously making no claim that the statement “there is at least one God” is false. The latter is defined by claiming that the statement “there is at least one God” is false.

First we have the chief criticism of explicit/…/theoretical atheism, which has been mentioned formerly, i.e. the problem of induction, as Hume shows us, which sufficiently proves that the statement “God does not exist” is not provable, though maybe more intuitive than its reciprocal statement “God does exist.” This thereby renders explicit atheism a faith; a belief that God does not exist just as it is a belief that Russell’s tea pot or the invisible pink unicorn on Jupiter does not exist. And the pedestrian and academic definitions both include explicit atheism and as explicit atheism is a faith it would not be accurate to categorize all atheism as a lack of belief. This would be to commit a “categorical error” as you say.

Next we have the query of whether or not atheism should refer exclusively to explicit atheism or to both explicit and implicit, and why. The second we might suppose is convenient as it allows us to classify virtually all people into two camps, atheism and theism (I suppose one could be a practical agnostic, too); however, this only classifies them by their actions, not their convictions. That is, one is either an atheist because they act as a pragmatic atheist, though are not necessarily a theoretical one, or one is a theist because they act according to what they believe are “divine” standards. But having a definition so broad comes at the expense of equivocation and therefore has dubious suitability. For example the informal fallacy:
1. A baby is born an atheist (according to d’Holbach)
2. A baby does not make any theoretical claims about God.
3. Ergo atheism is a lack of belief.
The fourth inference in this line of reasoning is usually something like: as this is the case atheism cannot be criticized on theoretical grounds. And there are many other fallacious arguments of this sort, and I suspect that most explicit atheists will keep committing this fallacy of equivocation, as it makes theoretical atheism appear infallible, but is clearly not as we have both settled.

If truth is anything to aim for then the polysemous and imprecise applicability of the word is an inconvenience. What is convenient is what reduces ambiguousness; hence the word atheism ought to not be utilized in a polysemous mode but either as exclusively meaning implicit or exclusively explicit atheism; and, to me, the latter seems more apt. Apparently it is the former for you.

Another criticism of using atheism as an umbrella term is that it carries connotations that those who are defined as practical atheists but are not theoretical atheists might not want. Using it as an umbrella term labels many agnostics and skeptics as atheists, it labels the alien-lizardist as an atheist, and the baby as an atheist. I have a few friends that are philosophical skeptics that would not want the sobriquet of atheist. I don’t see anything wrong with classifying the baby as a theoretical nothingist (not ‘nothing’ but ‘nothingist.’ Labeling something as just nothing implies it does not have the capacity to believe).

Ouch.

See, this is what happens when you use a philosophy paper as evidence. I'm assuming the bloke who wrote it failed, because it's so wrong as to be laughable.

He claims agnosticism was introduced by Thomas Huxley!

He coined the term.

Even your beloved Wiki will tell you agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.

I dont think I ever denied that.

I have explained ad nauseum why your reasoning is incorrect, and I repeat yet again, that there is considerably more evidence in the atheism thread to show why you have a misconception on the subject.

Note that I was not talking about logical fallacies, just a plain old fallacy; being wrong.

I don’t know where you got that definition of a fallacy. As for your argumentation, maybe you should commit to being more explicit and explanative instead of filling up your replies with ad hominem. Then perhaps we could reach a consensus that much more quickly?

No, but nice try.

As a rationalist, I could not take the position that "god/s do not exist".

OK, by my definitions that qualifies you as a (theoretical) agnostic and an apatheist or practical atheist or an implicit atheist, if you like.

[The Atheist]

By your definition I am an atheist, I am a practical atheist; and actually what I think has happened here is just miscommunication.

I find that difficult to believe as your opposition to the obvious appeared deliberate rather than reuslting from a mistake, but I'll have a look.

I would qoute dawkins for some things, and I greatly appreciate him for turning so many individuals onto evolution, but some of the things he says about religion are wrong.

Given that no two versions of the same religion actually agree with each other 100%, I think the few errors he makes are overstated.

Let us talk about implicit/negative/practical atheism vs. explicit/positive/theoretical atheism.

I can't imagine why it's going to be helpful. As I've already said, even David Icke is an atheist, and he's barking mad; divisions of atheism aren't all that relevant, so I'm not bothering to go down that track.

As long as we agree on what the word means I don't care what divisions you make or what you name them.

If truth is anything to aim for then the polysemous and imprecise applicability of the word is an inconvenience. What is convenient is what reduces ambiguousness; hence the word atheism ought to not be utilized in a polysemous mode but either as exclusively meaning implicit or exclusively explicit atheism; and, to me, the latter seems more apt. Apparently it is the former for you.

Sorry, but that is just word salad.

I have pointed out why the meaning I use is correct, and hiding it behind verbosity and assertions about truth will not change the fact that your position is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect.

You're still just arguing the same point.

Another criticism of using atheism as an umbrella term is that it carries connotations that those who are defined as practical atheists but are not theoretical atheists might not want.

No. You're trying to separate varieties of atheists that only you categorise as a means of re-stating that which has already been shown to be false.

If people are so soft as to worry about sharing a term with someone because their personal doctrines might differ, then they should either harden up or find another noun.

Atheism isn't a doctrine, despite your attempts to build it into one.

Using it as an umbrella term labels many agnostics and skeptics as atheists, it labels the alien-lizardist as an atheist, and the baby as an atheist. I have a few friends that are philosophical skeptics that would not want the sobriquet of atheist.

That's fine, nobody is going to force them into an atheist bracelet or make them wear a scarlet A on their chests.

I also know a few philosophical skeptics that dislike the word. That makes me like it even more, but that's just me.

Regarding Huxley, again it seems you chose to mis-read what I wrote. Huxley may well have coined the word but he certainly did not invent agnosticism. Not by a long way.

I don’t know where you got that definition of a fallacy.

That's an odd answer. See if you can find a dictionary that does not have that as a definition for "fallacy".

Here are a few to start with:

Yahoo
MacMillan
Merriam-Webster
Cambridge
Collins
Encarta
Wordsmyth

There are lots more.

As for your argumentation, maybe you should commit to being more explicit and explanative instead of filling up your replies with ad hominem.

There are two parts to this:

1 I have no need to be explicit when I've repeatedly pointed at a thread where all of the required information is already posted. I dislike repeating myself at the best of times. You had the option from the very start to write in that thread, but no doubt because it disagrees with your position you felt it necessary to inflict the argument on everyone.

2 The assertion of ad hominem is demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to get into an argument on the subject as both of our posts stand in evidence.

OK, by my definitions that qualifies you as a (theoretical) agnostic and an apatheist or practical atheist or an implicit atheist, if you like.

Fortunately, other than yourself, nobody is going to take much notice of your definitions.