Marcelo Gleiser recipient of the 2019 Templeton Prize said:What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”
An interesting interview:
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
I disagree. Once you have a hypothesis, there is no need to have evidence against it. You only need to have evidence for it.
As for his first point,the declaration is against theistic claims. Rather than claiming "I don't believe even though I have no evidence", it is actually " I don't believe your theistic claims because you haven't proven it"
"Prize winning physicist" is a being used very loosely here.
Yes, but this is the old agnostic about werewolves point again and is, I think fundamentally, a semantic point.That sounds more agnostic to me than atheist arguments. I know many, many atheists over the years that outright stated "there is no god" not "you haven't proven your assertion to me".
Regarding the hypothesis you may only be looking for evidence for a hypothesis but if experiments turn up hard evidence against the hypothesis then of course a scientists should discard or re-formulate.
This is a Sixth form debating society point of order.This is a useless ad hominem. Do you have any comments on the content of the comments?
"The Templeton Prize is an annual award granted to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works".This is a useless ad hominem. Do you have any comments on the content of the comments?
Yes, but this is the old agnostic about werewolves point again and is, I think fundamentally, a semantic point.
I am technically agnostic but that results in an atheistic position regarding the god hypothesis due to current evidence. I am technically agnostic about ...say, evolution, but the overwhelming evidence means I subscibe to the theory of evolution.
The only truly rational position to absolutely everything is agnosticism, but it is an artifical position and would make conversation rather tricky.
This is a Sixth form debating society point of order.
His inference is clear surely?
That sounds more agnostic to me than atheist arguments.
I know many, many atheists over the years that outright stated "there is no god" not "you haven't proven your assertion to me".
Regarding the hypothesis you may only be looking for evidence for a hypothesis but if experiments turn up hard evidence against the hypothesis then of course a scientists should discard or re-formulate.
gnos·tic
/ˈnästik/
adjective
the·ism
- 1.
relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: theism
Agnostic and atheistic are two different definitions, one pertains to knowledge and other to beliefs.
- belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
"there are many different forms of theism"
With regards to polar bears existence, I am a gnostic theist.
With regards to evolution, I am an agnostic theist
With regards to Unicorns/Wolverines/God, I am a agnostic atheist
agnosticism is the default knowledge position, as mentioned in previous posts. Theism should be derived out of the gnostic position.
If they claim so, then take up arguments with them rather than generalizing it. I can defend their viewpoint, but I don't feel I have to.
Yes. But I don't have to actually go and look for "evidence against" as was claimed in the initial quote.
Based on your textbook definitions you can't be a "theist" regarding polar bears unless you consider polar bears to be "a god or gods."
Same with evolution with the added caveat that you would need to define exactly what you mean there since "evolution" can mean many things to many people - its not mutually exclusive to belief in "god or gods" either.
An underlying problem is it seems you are using necessary and sufficient conditions to define categories. The whole schema can be problematic outside the basic Judeo-Christian paradigm with its explicit definitions of God.
If you subscribe to a theory because you believe the evidence mounted then you aren't really agnostic about it because you aren't basing something on faith.
Also "evolution" is rather broad anyway and if this was a philosophical conversation you'd have to operationally define what you even mean specifically by evolution.
There is no other noun to describe 'belief", so I used theism in that context to say, I know/believe in polar bears and I don't know but believe in Evolution{Scientific theory of evolution through natural selection}.
How so?
The two headings are either Creation or Evolution.
Creation relates to something (God) who had the necessary powers to create or make something happen by design.
Essentially creation as defined in Genesis.
Evolution relates to the organic way in which things develop from one form to another.
For our Universe, it developed naturally following the event we term the Big Bang.
For life this happens as a result of natural selection.
Now. The Bible sets out the creation process in a matter of a few paragraphs. If you happen to believe this then you have to take those few words on trust because there is zero supporting evidence of creation.
Infinitely more evidence, all of which has been scientifically tested and proven as fact is available for anyone to read. All of which demonstrates in absolute detail how everything we know came about. Not by design but because of the laws of science and physics dictate that they must happen that way.
If you subscribe to a theory because you believe the evidence mounted then you aren't really agnostic about it because you aren't basing something on faith.
Also "evolution" is rather broad anyway and if this was a philosophical conversation you'd have to operationally define what you even mean specifically by evolution.
This is a false dichotomy though. I've met people who believe in God and evolutionary processes. They simply believe what science calls evolution is the way God's process works.
Or a Deist might say God designed the laws of physics in the first place.
A pantheist might say God is the laws of physics we know and dont know.
Etc.
I wouldn't because I'm not attempting to win a pedantic debating award. I was clearly using an example of a well known and established scientific theory and think that it is reasonable to post on a football forum without defining all terms.
(Football ; popular team sport played with eleven players and a ball, also known as Association Football). I fear you have a debating chamber style of discourse and rather than attempt to understand and discuss another's points attenpt to find technical flaws. I fear the expression "Strawman" may appear soon.
Nonetheless:
Agnosticism is simply not claiming to know that which you cannot without evidence to support it. At the basis of scientific understanding, any new evidence that supplants previous evidence would result in a potential change of opinion. Therefore it is strictly impossible to ever not be technically agnostic about anything, but it would be almost dishonest to state, for instance, that I were agnostic regarding the god hypotheses, as I have no reason to believe the hypothesis.
Therefore, even with strong evidence, I must be technically agnostic. I would, however, be being peculiarly pedantic if I declared my self so about, say, the the existance of the platypus, which I have never seen alive. Or werewolves, which I cannot be utterly certain do not exist but clearly I would, if asked, declare did not.
To conclude, whilst I am strictly agnostic regarding gods or godesses of all sorts, I would describe myself as atheist. Therefore, it is not a statement of belief, rather a statement of non acceptance of hypotheses with weak or non existant evidence.
Yeah it doesnt really work for that. If you go copy and paste a dictionary definition then at least use the word correctly. Don't mangle meanings of words.
How so? First you have tell me whether you use necessary and conditions to define categories.
Let me try different angle. Would you consider Yoda an atheist ?
I am totally lost at what you are get at
Priests used to impregnate virgins at the time and they were often named as in Angel names.Mary got railed by some dude (probably one of the three wisemen), fell pregnant and to cover it up, made some bullshit story about immaculate conception and suddenly the mythical story of jesus is created.
Let me try different angle. Would you consider Yoda an atheist ?
Nah, he's more Buddhist than anything elseI don’t know much of Star Wars universe, but I believe he is.
I don’t know much of Star Wars universe, but I believe he is.
"The Templeton Prize is an annual award granted to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works".
The prize was originally awarded to people working in the field of religion (Mother Teresa was the first winner)..."
There.
In short I don't find the textbook definitions of theism or atheism meaningful because they are too rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Ok let me try to wrap this up because I'm not spending my weekend talking theology (that was my friends thing not mine haha)
In short I don't find the textbook definitions of theism or atheism meaningful because they are too rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
By that I mean if a Wiccan, Buddhist, Deist, scientific materialist, new age pantheist, Taoist, Shaman, Native American medicine man, DMT tripper that believes in 11th dimensional space elves and Yoda are all classified as "atheists" then that term really loses a lot meaning. It starts to look too much like an expanded 'Jew vs gentile' type dichotomy. I understand that some in the West like to classify religions as theistic or atheistic but I would submit that is a flawed distinction because it is based on mapping Judeo-Christian cosmology onto completely different spiritual/supernatural systems. Its defining everything in relation to Judeo-Christian tradition rather than defining things based on their own terms.
One example was someone who was a Buddhist as well as a philosophy grad student. If asked the question "Do you believe in God?" his answer would be "That is a meaningless question". He doesn't even accept the question itself as valid. So someone that rejects the entire question outright cannot accurately be categorized as theist or atheist.
On a related note, I've had friends argue that even within Judeo-Christian tradition they are "True Neutral" agnostic. I've heard/seen debates where people insist they must be theistic agnostic or and only or atheistic agnostic. They disagree and assert they are True Neutral Agnostic.
This leads back to what I mentioned about Nagarjuna and Buddhist logic.
If someone's answer to the Western God hypothesis is (3) or (4) then that person is not really theist or atheist.
- P
- Not-P
- Both P and Not-P
- Neither P nor Not-P
Its just an entirely different foundation for spiritual cosmology just as Native American spiritualism has a different foundation that renders the question almost meaningless.
I don’t see how you can make the question meaningless.
Even if we were to agree that the god definition was only rooted to the hydro-Christian tradition, I don’t see how the answer cannot be binary. You may disagree on the definition, but you either believe or don’t, given the definition.
So in your question of, “whether yoda is atheist”?,I said yes, because he certainly will not believe in Krishna/Jesus/Mohammed.
And in a similar way, a Buddhist is also an atheist given that they don’t believe in the existence of the “other gods”.
Because it depends on how you define "god/Gods".
And no. I know Buddhists that would again disagree with you vehemently about them being "atheist" simply because they deny your question as meaningful. Its your world view that is binary not their beliefs.
And I said, I choose to you your same definition of god as the Judeo Christian myth.
So if I were to ask a Buddhist, “do you believe in the story that Jesus walked on water”? Is that still meaningless?
Yes.
Again, I'll just say label people's spiritual beliefs as they label themselves not in relation to the specific Bible definition of an omnipotent, omniscient gaseous vertebrate of astronomical heft.
Why?
This man believes Earth is fixed
The comments in this post are typical of American religious views
https://www.facebook.com/30845466418/posts/10157249245706419/
Why American specifically? The world is awash with religious nutters, but America is a big country and posts with titles like that attract more religious freaks than anything else
My fellow Americans, shows how stupid we act as well.
