Of Epistemology and the Varieties of Atheism

[rug]

March 28, 2014
By Aidan Kelly

I’ve been working for the last 60 years on the complex of issues concerned with what we know—or think we know—and how we know it, which, of course, enlarges into the issues of the nature of consciousness, the differences and relationships between knowledge and belief, and the nature of reality—insofar as we are aware of reality, as distinct from what we think is reality. I think I’ve made a little progress.

Lately there have been some well-publicized “debates” between proponents of doctrinaire positions on science and Creationism. I use the quote marks because these exchanges have been as inconclusive as when stupid people yell at each other on the Jerry Springer show. Here I hope merely to encourage a few people to become somewhat more sophisticated about their own beliefs.

I have several times discussed the Popper/Gurdjieff argument that the scientific method can deal with only disprovable hypotheses, and that religious beliefs must instead comprise nondisprovable hypotheses. That is, any assertion about the existence, nonexistence, or characteristics of the divine is inherently nondisprovable, and therefore cannot be investigated by means of the scientific method, although practical corollaries deduced from such assertions may be amenable to it.

In the present context, what I mean is that when a “scientist” (such as Mr. Richard Dawkins) asserts that he can prove scientifically that God (or any other version of the divine) does not exist, he is speaking, not as a scientist, but as the devout believer in a particular philosophy. He is, in fact, being as ignorant and deluded as a man who thinks he can build a perpetual-motion machine, or who believes the Earth is flat, or who, for that matter, thinks that the parable of Adam and Eve was a front-page story in an ancient version of the New York Times. Now, dear reader, if that statement hurts your feelings, I am not sorry. You have the opportunity to grow up.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/aidankelly/2014/03/of-epistemology-and-the-varieties-of-atheism/

[djean111]

1. Just as condescending towards atheists as Dawkins is towards theists. Pffft!

Neither can prove the other wrong.
Neither can prove themselves as right.
At first I was a wee bit offended by the "Now, dear reader, if that statement hurts your feelings, I am not sorry. You have the opportunity to grow up." - but then I found the whole piece amusing.
The author is merely preaching to his choir.

[rug]

2. Yeah, there are striking similarities.

[Brettongarcia]

3. This author says things that are scientifically untrue. He's unaware of "phantom limb" pain

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)

He rightly notes later that the evidence he offers for God is not quite fully there. But then he is wrong when he suggests that he can offer religious knowledge that is not "hallucinatory" /cf. delusional. Finally his argument is exactly, dramatically wrong:

"There is ample evidence for the existence of the divine. It is not the sort of evidence that a devout rationalist demands, but it is also not hallucinatory.. It is not reasonable to demand that evidence must be perceptible to anyone in the vicinity. For example, one of my adult students, Mark, about age 50, recently trusted me enough to tell me this story. He was suffering from an agonizing spinal disorder that could not be corrected surgically and that made walking almost impossible. One evening, as he was lying in bed, in too much pain to sleep, Jesus walked into his room and placed his hands on Mark’s stomach. The pain vanished. Jesus smiled at him, turned around, and walked out. Mark has walked without pain ever since. Does that prove the truth of orthodox Christianity? Not at all.

Neither the presence nor the absence of Mark’s pain was an hallucination; that fact cannot be explained away."

Well, Actually psychology has long known that feeling of pain can be rather delusory. Often for example an amputee will feel pain in his lost limb. But the sensation of a limb, and pain in it, are clearly, precisely, hallucinatory or delusional.

Likewise the feeling of "pain" in the spine can be quite delusional. Which explains why just changing something in his mind makes this "physical" reality disappear.

Once again a religious writer rejecting the arguments of science, simply doesn't know enough science or factual knowledge. Actually his best example proves exactly the opposite that he is trying to prove. His best example - a feeling of bodily pain say, in general - is well known in psychology to be precisely, often, an hallucination.

Or in other words? a delusion.

See " Psychosomatic" illness too.

Or finally? Maybe the minds of the writer and his friends are too under-informed to know that bad posture can hurt your back; pushing that tummy back in can help realign the spine.

[edhopper]

4. Do you actually think

there was anything valid in this post?

[djean111]

5. Nope.

Not one thing.

[rug]

6. As a matter of fact, yes.

Epistemology is not well understood.

Try not to ask me how I know.

[longship]

13. Well, rug. One does not want to tread too deeply into the demarcation problem.

There is a lot of blood shed on that issue, much of it in academic philosophy departments.

So I do not blame you for being shy about epistemology. I avoid anything remotely resembling it. That's why I deny Gould's NOMA. It treads on turbulent waters.

But sometimes the gap is broad enough where one can have a say. I support methodological naturalism, not as a philosophy, but as a description of methods that have worked for centuries.

Although I highly suspect that the universe is a place that is here entirely by natural processes, I cannot prove it. Some theists would try to shove God into the gaps, but that has never worked out very well and has often set up conflict, often bloody.

So I prefer to put it this way, the demarcation probably exists. When the universe starts telling us when something is not natural, we may begin to learn where the line is. The thing is, nobody has seen that yet.

Until that time, I live my life as if the universe is entirely natural. That's simply my choice. Some may choose to choose to opt for the gaps. And they may be right. But that's the difference between our epistemologies.

I am fine with that, at least as long as they do not dispute knowledge just to preserve a perceived gap, sometimes already filled.

I know it's crude, but that's what I've got. It's also why the demarcation problem is such a mind job.

[rug]

14. The demarcation line is entirely arbitrary.

The more fundamental question is the acquisition of knowledge and knowledge itself.

The scientific method itself is a part, but not the sum of epistemology. That's the point here.

I prefer the metaphor of ships passing in the night to magisterial asserting jurisdiction.

[longship]

15. You've got it.

I could not have put it better.

Arguing it is always a fool's errand. Probably would get one a bloody nose, or something. Those poor undergraduate philosophy majors. The department lounge probably has blood all over the walls.

1. Stay out of the corners, especially when there are no defined corners.

2. Keep an open mind, but not until your brains fall out.

Regards.

[rug]

16. Thanks.

[okasha]

17. I like the metaphor

of ships traveling in convoy.

[rug]

18. That's good but they're not always traveling in the same direction.

But likely more are than not.

[Rob H.]

7. Strawman Richard Dawkins strikes again!

He certainly gets around.

In the present context, what I mean is that when a “scientist” (such as Mr. Richard Dawkins) asserts that he can prove scientifically that God (or any other version of the divine) does not exist, he is speaking, not as a scientist, but as the devout believer in a particular philosophy.

Three things: (1) Why the scare quotes? Dawkins is an actual scientist. (2) It's Dr. Richard Dawkins, not Mr. (3) He's never asserted that he can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist. Even on the 7-point spectrum of theistic probability scale he devised, 1 being "I know there is a God" and 7 being "I know there is no God," he describes himself in The God Delusion as a 6, or de facto atheist: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

The author then goes on in the next paragraph to finger-wag about intellectual integrity, to which I can only respond, "Internet click-baiter, heal thyself."

[longship]

8. What can one say to this?

There is so much wrong with this guy's article. He certainly does not the normal epistemology of science. He cites Dawkins, likely because Dawkins is outspoken and has said things which many see as immoderate. I would add that, as a biologist, Richard Dawkins is reacting to the immoderate statements and outright deception by the creationists, who have much political power and are not afraid to exercise it. But this idiot writes things like this:

Lately there have been some well-publicized “debates” between proponents of doctrinaire positions on science and Creationism. I use the quote marks because these exchanges have been as inconclusive as when stupid people yell at each other on the Jerry Springer show.

Inconclusive? Really!? As if the creationists have an argument? I don't think so. This guy lost my sympathy right there.

Just maybe Richard Dawkins sees his discipline embattled by crowds of ignorance storming the gates. Given the low acceptance of evolution in the USA -- and increasingly in the UK as well -- who could blame him? He's pissed off, as would I if I were in his position. (Actually, I AM pissed off about these things, too. However, maybe I tend to choose my words more carefully.)

Speaking of epistemology, maybe we can get to the core of these issues, hopefully without letting personalities interfere. Science can be accurately characterized as methodological naturalism which states the methods of science can only decide on matters of things which are natural. That is not an arbitrary choice. It is what is built into the methods of science. The process of measurement, theory, replication, peer review have been finely honed throughout the centuries. They give rise to theories which are exquisitely tuned to describe the behavior of much of the universe at all scales from the smallest to the largest. Of course there are many gaps, including large ones. And the theories are necessarily imperfect, often limited to restricted domains. (The theory of gravity says little to nothing about the activity within an atom, or within the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole, for instance.)

Science is entirely aware of the gaps. Filling a gap, or overthrowing a previous theory with a new one can get one a Nobel Prize and lifelong fame. So the common claim by some religious that science belief is dogmatic and equally religious is obvious nonsense. What would it take for them to change their beliefs? All it takes for a scientist is new data.

Stephen J Gould characterizes these diverse epistemologies with the name non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). I could easily agree with Gould on this matter if it wasn't for the fact that religion and science overlap all the damned time. It's precisely this fact that pisses off Richard Dawkins and many others so much, and so often.

That is why I reject NOMA.

The intrusions of religion into science has been stated quite clearly by the wedge document, which outlines attempts to change science so that it would accept supernatural causes (i.e., God). We see this exact strategy in place in school boards and state legislatures all over the place, and we have been seeing it for decades.

Aidan Kelly is apparently ignorant of these things, which is why his entire article is utter bollocks.

Especially this claptrap:

There is ample evidence for the existence of the divine. It is not the sort of evidence that a devout rationalist demands, but it is also not hallucinatory. It is not reasonable to demand that evidence must be perceptible to anyone in the vicinity. For example, one of my adult students, Mark, about age 50, recently trusted me enough to tell me this story. He was suffering from an agonizing spinal disorder that could not be corrected surgically and that made walking almost impossible. One evening, as he was lying in bed, in too much pain to sleep, Jesus walked into his room and placed his hands on Mark’s stomach. The pain vanished. Jesus smiled at him, turned around, and walked out. Mark has walked without pain ever since. Does that prove the truth of orthodox Christianity? Not at all.

In other words:


In other words, he's not saying it's Christianity, but it's definitely Jesus!!

Bull pucky!

[okasha]

9. In other words, he says something quite different.

Aidan Kelly is a Pagan, not a Christian. You may not like the whole essay any better than you liked the excerpt, but it bears reading if you're at all interested in a different sort of theistic perspective.

[longship]

10. Well, I read the article at the link.

And, he may be a pagan, but he has a very strange view of science, and of the epistemology of science.

But, as an atheist and one educated in science, although I do not care what people believe, I will defend the borders of my (so-called) magisteria, methodological naturalism.

I generally get along fine with people of all beliefs. But I expect them to respect the knowledge of science which is at least demonstrable and repeatable. When they intrude on that, I will have something to say about it. Often I do so politely; occasionally not. It depends on the circumstances. I prefer the former.

[okasha]

11. Good 'nuff.

[longship]

12. My best regards.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Why would I keep reading a pack of lies?

Fabricating a strawman, is a lie.

Putting scare quotes around Scientist, when referring to someone like Dawkins, is lying.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Haha ha what a pile of shit in text format. Impressive, rug.

[rug]

21. And that's an impressive and stinging critique, AtheistCrusader.

Oh wait, it's not. It's a slight pile of shit in one line. I can only imagine what reflexive spasms you'd produce were you to read it.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. The entire section you excerpted is steaming with ad hom, strawmen, and a host of other

problems, so no, I'm not going to click through to the source.

POINTLESS.

[rug]

24. "I'm not going to click through to the source" sounds like you haven't read it.

That being the case, this conversation is indeed pointless.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I read what you excerpted. And that material is vile and dishonest.

Maybe you should do a better job of fronting for the source, if, perchance, the rest of the article explicitly refutes what you quoted.

[rug]

28. Maybe you should just read before popping off with a prejudged opinion about what you didn't read.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. What incentive could I possibly have to lend benefit of the doubt after you posted that vile

nonsense?

[rug]

33. The same one I had before reading your post.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. That makes absolutely no sense.

You post an excerpt from an article that is ad hom, smear, strawman, and bullshit, and you want that lede to entice me to read further? seriously?

[rug]

35. I really don't care if you read it.

But I will comment on an opinion on it made without reading it. I usually do that with ignorant posts.

[Fumesucker]

36. The part you quoted contained an explicit untruth

Dawkins has never claimed to be able to disprove god.

That's not even a strawman, there's a good chance it's a knowing lie.

Why waste time reading something that begins by not just distorting but breaking the truth?

[rug]

38. That line was in one of the first four paragraphs.

Do you know if the writer explained it?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Um, I cited the paragraph. So clearly I read it. As did multiple other posters.

Peddle nonsense elsewhere.

[rug]

39. The article is more than one paragraph and you're opining on the whole article.

That is literally ridiculous.

Go bury your head elsewhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I opined on the author's dishonesty and his output based on your own excerpt.

Reading comprehension for the win.

[rug]

41. Reading comprehension requires reading.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I read what you cited. It's dishonest as hell.

[Brettongarcia]

23. Wittgenstein just said speak of things knowable. As for the rest? Pass them by in silence

Don't try to fill in the gaps with raw speculation.

[Deep13]

26. Pretty sure that hat we know about the universe...

...precludes any purposeful or powerful divinity. Either God is real or he is not. One of those propositions must be false. And Dr. Dawkins is most assuredly a real scientist. One can insist on the false equivalency all s/he likes, but scientific knowledge is not the same as religious assumptions.

[cbayer]

27. Pretty sure that what we know about the universe...

is minuscule and precludes nothing.

God is real or not, but I don't think we will ever know. And if real, "it" may be far different than what humans have described.

Dr. Dawkins is most assuredly a scientist and has done some important scientific work, but his work on religion is not scientifically based. Religion by it's very nature is based on assumptions, whether one is arguing for the existence of lack of existence of a god. I think he would agree with that.

[mr blur]

29. Varieties? Either you believe in gods or you don't. The rest is self-serving drivel. You should know

[cbayer]

30. That is true if you apply only a very narrow definition of atheism.

But just as there are varieties of theists, there are clearly varieties of atheists.

Many articles written by atheists are posted here and their perspective on what that means to them can vary a great deal.

You are clearly one kind of atheist that is distinct from some of the other varieties of atheists that post here.

[rug]

31. Are you familiar with Atheism+?

Granted, it's not drivel so you may not, but you should really look it up.

[chrisa]

43. Is this article meant to be ironic?

If not, it rehashes the same logical black holes that we've all seen and pounded into the dust before.

1 - 'We can't prove God isn't real! He's real!' - Obvious argument from ignorance. We can't prove that purple dragons made out of fruit roll-ups are real either - does that make their existence any more likely?

2 - 'There is plenty of proof of the divine!' - That's news to me and everyone living. A personal story is suddenly scientific proof? The experience mentioned could easily be debunked. I saw a black moose standing next to my bed this morning when awakening from a dream state. Does that mean the hypogognia I experienced was actually a black moose? Our senses fail us time and time again.

3 - 'Since space goes on forever, there's no heaven!' Who has ever offered that argument? This sounds like a strawman being built to make atheists look silly.

4 - 'Occam's Razor' - Occam's Razor would not lead to the assumption that a sudden healing was caused by a miracle. It would do the exact opposite. Furthermore, as consciousness has been proven to be a function of the brain, how can consciousness exist anywhere but the brain?

5 - 'Pagans' - If a Pagan believes in God(s), they are by definition not Atheists. Calling Pagans Atheists because they don't believe in a particular God is like calling a married man a bachelor because he didn't marry a particular man or woman.