h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*grin* Could it be true?

Have we found the cure to endless discussion about religion?

26199

Actually, I think what's at issue here is the need people feel to identify themselves with their rejection of theistic cosmologies. In a sense this echoes your green-cheese argument, Douglas, but I would suppose that there is more to a developed understanding of the universe than a 'belief' that a giant, invisible super-powered vertebrate is making the cogs of reality go around.

If I label myself as someone who irrevocably, unconditionally rejects and despises the articles of Sumerian pantheism, does that then make me an 'atheist?'. A larger focus than the rejection of this or that faith is the only way you will get where you're going if ontology is a field of interest to you. I might point out that Taoist or Confuscionist scholars, for example, are not atheists, nor are they really theists.

I take issue with your use of the term 'common sense' Douglas. Common sense is what tells us that the earth is flat. It's a rallying cry for pseudointellectual bigotry. Uncommon wisdom may be what you mean.

As for belief, it was Robert Anton Wilson who characterized it as 'a form of brain damage'. I've written an entry on the topic but for now I'd just like to point out that anyone who believes anything is overstepping their bounds. Again, people really hate admitting they don't know very much. This includes just about everybody, 'atheist' or otherwise.

Given how little we all know, you would think we could find more things to agree on. Everything's a consensually hallucinated epiphenominal manifestation of fractally shaped quanta of information anyhow. Or maybe we just need to wear more hats.

I have to say that I do not agree with the definition of 'common sense'. The definition you are giving it is one of intinctive logic, i.e. the sea is flat, therefore the earth is as well. That leaves no space for thought. What about the horizons? Don't you think that 'common sense' is merely reaching sensible conclusions from the data available?

Nope, I don't. For one thing, reaching sensible conclusions based on available data requires at least a modicum of intelligence, and also a certain amount of training and effort. None of these traits are what I would term 'common'. Even at h2g2, a gathering of ostensibly above-average intellects, I see an awful lot of dreck and crap masquerading as real opinions. 85-95% of people are morons, face it. Thus what most people would term 'common sense' I prefer to think of as 'the IQ 95 approach'.

Secondly, I think there is a strange assumption lurking here that infers that a 'sensible conclusion' is also by definition an inarguable fact. I take issue with this assumption, 'common' as it may be. I think that any critical rationalist (to borrow a label from Ian Barbour), or anyone who has given any thought to such topics as the quantum uncertainty debate should realize that what we like to deem 'facts' are in fact 'perspectives'. In this specific instance, to provide an example, we might suppose that Douglas's assertion that the moon is composed of smashed regolith as opposed to green cheese is in fact a wholly sensible conclusion. But it might be argued that both Douglas and the green cheese advocate are way off base, that the moon is actually composed of whirling particles with vast spaces between them which have merely been bonded by an electromagnetic force to provide the illusion of solidity to any observer at a certain scale of reality. Douglas' model is certainly more useful and 'sensible' to 99% of us than the green-cheese model, but it that does not necessitate accepting it as fact, because it is actually simply a perspective based on douglas' scale of observation. Similarly, when it comes to a discussion of theism and what not, I find myself saying 'well yes, god is probably not a wrathful judaic war-diety, but at the same time in a universe that includes consciousness as part of its superdetermined matrix I have a hard time thinking that we can safely dismiss consciousness as being somehow causal to the imminantization of what we term to be 'reality'.
So I wind up having a bit of a problem with the whole 'atheism' thing, because in my view it winds up being just another boring bunch of people who think they have figured things out with some degree of certainty running on at the mouth about how clever they all are and too bad about those poor saps who are 'unsaved' er i mean 'unenlightened' as of yet. Atheism, like theism, is a commitment to a cosmological model, a belief. As such, it is of necessity delusional; humans don't know enough yet to make any such commitment in good faith. I think an agnostic is someone who says 'well, I might be wrong but I THINK (not believe!) that this is the case, and I'll be happy to revise my thinking on this issue when I have more information.'

If this kind of thinking ever becomes mainstream, I'll be quite happy to label myself a proponent of common sense.

"Atheism, like theism, is a commitment to a cosmological model, a belief." - I disagree. Atheism is simply an uncommitment to one particular cosmological model, or rather, a commitment to a disbelief. If you peruse the threads that have spawned from this article, you'll find atheists that have their own cosmological constructs that are rich in variety. Those constructs, however, are not a representation of atheism. Atheism is simply a disbelief in a conscious entity guiding and controlling the universe. From our discussions, I believe that you fall into that category.

I think you're making the assumption that anyone who rejects theism must necessarily be an evolutionist. Evolution is one of many alternate theories of the nature of the universe, and I can say with confidence that the Darwinian theory has yet to be proven nor even satisfactorily researched. There are gaping holes in it. As it does a better job of explaining the universe than any other theory (to me, at least), I accept it generally at face value, but I expect it to do a better job of proving itself, or I will dump it and move on. However, that is not a typical atheist view. Apart from the rejection of the benevolent deity, there are no typical atheist views.

TG: 85-95% of people using this system are morons? My, my, we are arrogant, aren't we? Unless, of course, you class yourself in that category.
No, a sensible conclusion is not an inarguable fact. In fact, very few things are. 'I think, therefore I am' is a pretty good example.
I totally disagree with your view on atheists. We do not belive that we have all the answers.
GB is right, evolutionists are not necessarily atheists, and vice versa. I have met very few religious people who do not believe in evolution. But I have to say, I do not think that there are huges gaps in evolutionary theory. There are gaps, yeah, but they're not that big!

Firstly, may I say that I agree with Patriarch about the definition of common-sense. (I can't believe this has become another definition argument!). I don't see common-sense as being the logic of the masses. It's using whatever information is available and coming up with the most reasonable or sensible conclusion. So if you knock on a door and there is no answer, you think there is nobody there, not that a wormhole has opened inside the room and created a vacuum which prevents the sound from travelling.

Atheism does not involve "a commitment to a cosmological model". That's the difference. By not believing in a set of religious beliefs it is up to the individual to understand how the universe is and how it became. And as an Atheist I often change my cosmological model. At one point I was convinced in one theory, but then I ammended it. As you said, "I'll be happy to revise my thinking on this issue when I have more information.". But I am still an atheist. I totally reject the fact that there is an omniscient sentient being out there. That's what makes me an atheist and not an agnostic. Evolution may be the typical atheist belief, but there is nothing to say that an atheist is to believe in evolution, nor is there anything to stop them from altering their beliefs regularly. However, an atheist states that he thinks, believes or is convinced there is no God; an agnostic would not dismiss God.

I too once stated that 95% of us are ignorant idiots. I dismissed that fact but it seems rather pleasing . I however did sort of class myself in the 95% catagory. But now I see otherwise:

100% of us are "morons", as you put it. But only a small percentage of us accept that fact .

Belief, disbelief, I've said it before and I'll say it again; two faces of the same damn coin. Who cares what the flying f**k you happen to '(dis)believe' about anything? The universe is infinite, your brain is finite, the knowledge you possess is therefore infinitely close to nothing. My point is not to defend the notion that a flying white robed super-jew is the ultimate power in the universe, but simply to say that the rejection of such a notion on the grounds of 'common sense' (which 89% of people don't seem to be able to apply to this particular topic, judging from polls i've seen) is not in and of itself cause for celebration. To whit, your point that atheists profess a 'disbelief in a conscious entity guiding and controlling the universe' neglects 2/3 of the world's religions. Confuscionists and taoists are not atheists. Hindu scholars understand that their 'gods' are symbols of universal forces, and their view is that the universe is created by a mindless 'dance' of perspective. Just because the villagers in the field turn these theories into baseless superstitions doesn't necessitate throwing out the baby with the bathwater in one's rejection of the model which does have its applicabilities. At any rate, I don't want to argue about what an atheist is or isn't... we could probably agree that atheism is a festering carbuncle on my aunt's back if we wanted to. Your definitions indicate to me that you haven't thought through your perspective, howver; you have gotten 'stuck' on your rejection of judaeo-christian tritheism and see people in terms of whether they agree or disagree with it. Well, just like douglas and the green-cheese advocate, from a certain perspective, you are both wrong


I don't know where you got that evolutionist crap from, but I certainly don't recall bringing it up. Evolution is not really a theory of the nature of the universe so much as a theory specifically related to progress of terran biology, which is not of great interest to me, so I don't have much of an opinion about it except that it is probably a useful model like any other scientific theory. Still, it makes me wonder where you inferred that I had some interest in biology as a possible soloution to an ontological issue.

Well, as I've said, we can agree that 'common sense' is a pussy zit ready to pop if we really wanted to; words are just sound-symbols, and the definitions are all in our head. So by offering my a different interpretation of it I suppose you are taking a stance that I cannot argue with; it means what it means to you, and it means what it means to me. It seems to me that as patriarch pointed out you are really discussing 'intuitive logic' but then why not just call it 'intuitive logic'? Common sense has become a media catchphrase used by people on the far right and far left (at least in my particular area it has, and i imagine elsewhere in north america as well) as a rallying cry to various causes which they wish people would just subscribe to without thinking too much. Again, as Mark Twain once said, 'the problem with common sense is that it isn't very common'. Whatever is common sense to you is probably gibberish to someone else, somewhere.

You condradict yourself. By fuonding itself on the rejection of an admittedly not terribly useful (and tragically outdated) cosmological model that happened to dominate western culture for several thousand years, atheism is almost by definition a fideist mode of thinking about the universe. Your 'belief' and/or 'disbelief' are simply not demonstrable; and the universe, as it were, doesn't much give a damn what you happen to believe about it. When you loosen up a bit about the whole 'true and false' bit and realize that you haven't got a bug's chance in hell of figuring out what is real and what's not, you'll probably resort to labeling models by their relevance and usefulness (the critical rationalist approach) and not by your preexisting commitment to believing or disbelieving every stupid idea that you happen to stumble across.

It might not be evident to you fellows, but I feel very much like I am back arguing with Christians about the need to keep an open mind towards the universe. To me, the fact that you have simply made a different kind of fideist commitment which you will flock to defend against heresy is pretty self-evident. Agnostic doesnt mean 'keeping an open mind about the potential that a giant earwig/jew/elephant or whatever is running the universe'. It means knowing that you know nothing - that you are without knowledge. It means waiting for the universe to unfold itself before you. The difference is significant; Thomas Kuhn, author of 'The Structure of Scientific Revoloutions' urged a vigorous intellectual agnosticism (in the truer or more useful sense of the term) on all practitioners of the scientific method. The fact that very few of them listened just affirms what I've long thought - people really hate admitting they don't know very much.

You misunderstood; my contention was that 85-95% of people in GENERAL are morons. I'm not sure how you inferred that I meant this system in particular, I thought I was pretty clear about recognizing that this system is used by a crowd of ostensibly intelligent folks. Anywyas, yes I am arrogant, with good reason, and no, I don't class myself as a total moron. Note, however, that I will readily admit to not knowing very much.

A little note about the whole descartes thing. Anyone else ever noticed he got misquoted? 'Cogito ergo sum' means 'cognizance is all' doesn't it? I sort of take that to mean something different than 'i think therefore i am'.

I don't think I said atheists believe they have all the answers. I was making the (perhaps semantic) point that atheists think they have at least one answer, which is by definition logically demonstrable to be a form of fideism, the same method of model-building and interpretation used by those committed to various western religious faiths. So feel free to disagree; how many god-fearing Christians have you seen agreeing with someone slamming their faith? Same old, same old.

I didn't mention evolution did I? I don't think I made that assumption. Did you read what I wrote? What makes you think I'm dumb enough to infer ontological meaning from some red-herring debate between a bunch of biologists and baptists 80 years ago?

The assumption that atheists would behave the same as a number of theists in the respect that they think they know it all, and are trying to convert the rest to follow their example, is a generalization based on a lack of knowledge.

Atheists are in general the people that do not take anything they are told for granted, not even from themselves or eachother. How would you expect such people to believe they are the truly enlightened ones?

In fact, where most believers pretend to have ultimate knowledge and try to convert others, atheists do not pretend anything like that. In stead, they are searching for knowledge without accepting something as convenient as a god to explain anything that they can not immediately understand.

I agree here, Mr.C.

And I think it's even worse. Absolutely very few really apply that moronic quality to themselves as well as to the people surrounding them. And still fewer yet are wise enough to not judge their brethren for being morons

And no, I am not going to say that I know of only one to fit the last category, no matter how much I'd love to boast my enlightened sense of awareness in this respect

*opens a window for some fresh air*

Bah!

Ok, here we go...
Maybe you could call common sense "intuitive logic", but I am not sure it would imply the exact same meaning. Common sense seems to be a Hague soundbite for "the following policy will contain nothing useful whatsoever". But anyway...
"You condradict yourself" - nope, you contradict me. The fact of being atheist is to reject the God-based cosmoligical model, not replace it with another one. It is up to the individual atheist to discover what he is to think is right and that perception is bound to change. And yes, it is obvious to me that I will not be able to prove my model any more than a Christian can prove his, and therefore I am not totally confident of my model. But I refuse not to come up with the most sensible understanding just because it cannot be proven. I will not just sit back and not question these questions just because I will not find a definative answer.
I acknowledging that I am nothing, that I have limited knowledge. But just because my knowledge is limited does not mean I should not state a belief based upon that knowledge. And as that knowledge increases I will amend my beliefs. By not stating a belief and keeping 'open-minded', agnostics do allow for "a giant earwig/jew/elephant" running the universe - as it is not 'within our understanding', we should not rule it out .
You seem to view atheism as being a rigid religion. But the fact is the only thing that makes someone an atheist is the rejection of a sentient-omniscient being. Forces may or may not be out there, other beings might also be popping about. It is hard to judge what is out there, but the one thing all atheists have decided is that there is no such s-o God being; but if logic in such a being is put forward, it would be judged and the belief perhaps changed.

Er uh so let me see if I see your point here... it's alright to generalize about theists but not about atheists? Heh. Face it; every conclusion anyone ever reaches is in some respect a generalization based on a lack of knowledge. I have noticed at any rate that your last two paragraphs contain a large number of generalizations (some of which are demonstrably based on a lack of knowledge, not to mention vocabulary).

It seems, for example, that you have misunderstood the entire thrust of the discussion thus far. For the sake of argument I will repeat myself again, and then, if you still feel the need to see me repeat myself again, you can reiterate everyone else's argument without offering any valid counterpoints, which seems to be a standard debating tactic here.

My point was that fideism takes many forms, and both theism and atheism (as described by Gargleblaster) are by definition demonstrably fideist model building attempts. What you are describing as 'atheism' is in fact called 'critical rationalism' and is an entirely seperate issue from whether one rejects or accepts theism as a useful model. You may feel uncomfortable being called on such seemingly minor point, but as i find myself arguing against five people at once who all have different ideas they want to cram down my throat about what an atheist REALLY is, I have decided screw it, I can be as stubborn as anyone about pissant semantics. Atheist means 'without theism', no more, no less. You people can stop trying to define atheism for me now, I've been there done that got the goddam t-shirt.

I hope this endless repitition of the same (not very interesting) points can finally come to a close and that anyone else who might feel the urge to jump into the discussion will at least have something new to add to it.

Actually Mr Cynic I think this is the least moronic point I have seen made around here recently. Kudos.

My vocabulary may be limited, but did it never occur to you that some of us are not native english speakers? Apart from that, I'm not going to respond to insults in any way, thank you.

I'm not sure that you are saying anything new here. You seem bent on reiterating the point that atheists by necessity are in the right for holding to 'sensible' assertions. My point (all together now) is that one man's sensibility is another man's foolery, and that committed rejection of theism, like committed acceptance of theism, is both a red-herring ontologically and a fideist idealogical cult. No, there is no invisible, gaseous vertebrate ruling the universe. But so f*****g what? There's no magic snot goblin hiding in my closet either. Figuring that out doesn't make me feel so good about myself that I want to join a f*****g clique and have a little name for myself and my friends. I figured it out, got on with my life, studied metaphysics, and discovered some interesting ideas about the nature of space-time that suggest that maybe consciousness is not what we think. So, does that make me an atheist? Whatever; my point is that I'm exploring the universe as best I can, not just getting hung up on the denial of pagan superstitions and then gloating for the rest of my life about my capacity for figuring out the obvious.

You seem to think I am coming at this from the angle of 'let's keep an open mind to stupid possibilities'. On a less personal note, this is not something that I am necessarily a fan of. What I am saying is that if you can avoid arriving at any kind of decision, keeping an open mind to the non-stupid possibilities becomes a lot easier in the long run. As the famous process philosopher and metaphysicist Alfred North Whitehead said, almost all new ideas worth anything seem foolish when we first hear of them. If you have already made up your mind about what is foolish and what isn't than you risk missing something important when you come across it.

I notice that you do invoke belief in making your argument. Again, the universe, in particular the part of it reading your argument at the moment, doesn't give a flying flushed f**k what you happen to believe or disbelieve (no offense). Belief, whether it is in God or no-god, is something we resort to when we want something to be true, but it isn't. Pull your head out of your ass and go out and start thinking about, talking about, and hoping for things. It will get you a lot further than belief ever will.

Twophlag: You need a nap. There's no reason for you to be this offensive.

Actually I think the astute observer will notice that I was attacking his argument, not him. It is unfortunate that he chose to take offense to this, but then again I tend to find it insulting and boring when people jump into a discussion like this with nothing interesting to say about it, so I suppose all is fair.

There's a difference between saying 'you are stupid' and 'your argument is stupid'. I'm sorry if there are some people who find the latter to be tasteless, and I would invite them not to talk to me