27 Jun 07
2 edits
"Are you a Republican or a Democrat?"
"I'm neither. I'm apolitical."
"Don't be silly. You gotta be one or the other. Let me explain it to you. Now Republicans stand for something. Democrats don't know what they stand for. They're all over the place."
"Really, I'm apolitical."
"So you're a Democrat. If you're not a Republican, you're a Democrat. If you don't stand for the Republican party, that makes you a de facto Democrat."
"No really, I'm apolitical."
"Do you vote Republican?"
"I don't vote at all"
"Well, if you don't vote Republican, that means your actions show that you're a Democrat. You're an implicit Democrat. You're probably one of those 'weak' Democrats. You just don't understand how it works."
"No really, I'm apolitical."
"So why'd you change your stance?"
"Stance? I haven't changed my stance."
"All right, I'm gonna tell you how it works. Now, you're born not knowing what you stand for. That makes you a Democrat. It's your natural state to not know what you stand for. So unless you become a Republican you remain in your natural state. If you haven't changed your stance, why are you apolitical all of a sudden?"
"I've always been apolitical."
"Well, I'm going to put you down as a Democrat. It's obvious you don't know what you stand for."
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDictionary definitions generally reflect common discourse. They do not necessarily reflect technical or other specialized discourse. Descriptive dictionaries are not designed to prescribe proper usage, but to report general usage. New definitions of words arise as general usage changes.
[b]"Are you a Republican or a Democrat?"
"I'm neither. I'm apolitical."
"Don't be silly. You gotta be one or the other. Let me explain it to you. Now Republicans stand for something. Democrats don't know what they stand for. They're all over the place."
"Really, I'm apolitical."
"So you're a Democrat. If you're not a Republican, ...[text shortened]... don't know what you stand for."[/b]
Recently I submitted the dictionary definitions (from Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary) of the word “axiom” to Dr. Scribbles, an expert in logic. Scribbles found all three of the dictionary definitions inadequate (or worse, inaccurate) for logical discourse.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65825
I have since confirmed his opinion in my own reading.
There is nothing inherently wrong about challenging dictionary definitions, or attempting greater definitional clarity. There is also nothing wrong with debating in order to clarify one’s own thinking by having it challenged—unless one dislikes having one’s pre-formed opinions (and definitions) challenged. For my part, I have not yet made up my mind about whether or not I agree (and to what extent) with either Starrman or Palynka—that is why I am arguing.
_________________________________________
I will revise your scenario somewhat:
A: Do you believe in voting in the general election?
B: I’m agnostic on the subject.
A: What does that mean?
B: It means that I do not have sufficient information to form a belief about whether or not one should vote.
A: Do you vote?
B: No.
A: Then your lack of information means that you do not believe that you ought to vote?
B: No—I am agnostic on the question...
A: But you are a de facto non-voter.
________________________________________
Proposition: D or ~D. There are Dardyvarts or there are not Dardyvarts.
“How can I decide if I don’t know what a Dardyvart is?”
“Then you are agnostic on the question of Dardyvarts?”
“That’s absurd—”
_________________________________________
I do not pretend that these scenarios (quickly cobbled together) show anything other than the relevance of the discussion. As I said before, one may label oneself one way, but behave in quite another—even without thinking about it. One may label oneself a theological agnostic—for valid intellectual reasons (such as those Palynka offered) or not: one will conduct oneself in daily living by assuming implicitly either G or ~G. I still maintain (subject to further debate) that one can be an intellectual agnostic, but not a pragmatic agnostic.
I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.
27 Jun 07
6 edits
Originally posted by vistesd[/i]
Dictionary definitions generally reflect common discourse. They do not necessarily reflect technical or other specialized discourse. Descriptive dictionaries are not designed to prescribe proper usage, but to report general usage. New definitions of words arise as general usage changes.
Recently I submitted the dictionary definitions (from [i]Webster&# ...[text shortened]... an intellectual agnostic, but not a pragmatic agnostic.
I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.
You're right. You should have spent more time on your scenarios. The first one is binary in nature, so is a different animal. I must say, I have no idea where you were trying to go with the second one.
As to the belief in the existence of God, I think you'll find that there are two natural demarcation points, not one. By using three main groupings instead of two things become much more straightforward.
1) Those who affirm the existence of God.
2) Those who deny the existence of God.
3) Those who neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.
The demarcation points for the first two groups are pretty straightforward and clean. This leaves the third group. It might be useful look at the third group by describing them in terms of their belief as to the probability of the existence of God going from very high to very low. The first two groups require no such ranking. You can then dispense with trying to figure out definitions for 'strong atheist' and 'weak atheist' and where the demarcation line lies. You can also pretty easily sub-categorize the three groups in terms of reasons for their beliefs.
Now you can use whatever terminology you want for these three groups. As for me, I'm going for 'theists', 'atheists' and 'agnostics', so that the rest of the english-speaking population can understand what the hell I'm talking about.
Unless you guys are the leading authorities on this subject, it strikes me as extremely arrogant for you to be assigning your own definitions to terms already having commonly accepted definitions and belittling those who aren't buying into it. I've read nothing here that would lead me to believe that you are such authorities. Ditto the whole notion of 'de facto atheists'.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat utter rubbish. The fact that something once existed doesn't prove that it exists now.
If you had them once, then there is no absence of evidence.
But please continue to make a fool of yourself. It's entertaining.
Edit: And you do know the difference between existence and evidence for existence, don't you? Good.
My keys could have been melted down. They could even have been shot into the sun, and the component atoms well on their way to becoming Uranium. Who knows?
As for your argument, well, I have no physical evidence of my keys existence, except their past existence. Does that mean that live dinosaurs still roam the earth somewhere?
Seriously man, where did you learn how to argue a point? You're not very good at it.
27 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe first one is binary in nature, so is a different animal.
[/i]
You're right. You should have spent more time on your scenarios. The first one is binary in nature, so is a different animal. I must say, I have no idea where you were trying to go with the second one.
As to the belief in the existence of God, I think you'll find that there are two natural demarcation points, not one. By using three main grouping that you are such authorities. Ditto the whole notion of 'de facto atheists'.
My argument has been that, from a pragmatic point of view, so is G or ~G.
It is a bit like the man who says he loves his wife, even while he is beating her up. He may well be convinced in his own mind that he does; he may have feelings that tell him he does; perhaps if he described his thoughts and feelings to me, I would conclude that he is, in fact, talking about love—but it doesn’t look like love. (Maybe he has a different definition of love. 😉 )
I must say, I have no idea where you were trying to go with the second one.
That one was not aimed at you. I thought of it in terms of Palynka’s mention of “ignosticism,” with the issue of whether or not a coherent definition of God can be had, and just threw it in. The point is just that one cannot be agnostic about that which one does not understand, even if the other criteria mentioned for agnosticism hold. A person might claim to be agnostic (say, under your definition) without having given thought to the coherence of their definition of God. A trivial point that is just a dot on an i.
Now you can use whatever terminology you want for these three groups. As for me, I'm going for 'theists', 'atheists' and 'agnostics', so that the rest of the english-speaking population can understand what the hell I'm talking about.
Part of the whole point of this discussion is that people quite often do not know what they are talking about, even when using commonly defined words according to standard rules of grammar. (I’m not sure that any of us are immune from that; I don’t pretend to be.)
I think for example that cosmological arguments of the type: “Everything has a cause, so the universe itself must have a (external) cause,” fall into this category. The sentence makes perfect grammatical sense; all the words have common definitions, so that people can comprehend them straightforwardly. The problem is that the universe is not a “thing” that contains all the other things (like bugs in a jar). Nevertheless, this is a very common argument for the necessity of a god as first cause.
I do not say that a claim of agnosticism necessarily falls into this category. I do say that the simple claim, “I neither affirm nor deny the existence of God”, could fall into this category—and is therefore worth examining. I also think it is worth examining because I think that even a claim of agnosticism ought to have valid grounds.
Have you never made a claim that you thought was perfectly straightforward, and that you understood all the entailments of that claim, only to discover that you did not? I have.
Palynka’s option (4) may well entail a valid claim of agnosticism. I’m not convinced yet, but I may be.
(Neither Starrman nor Palynka have shown themselves to be either unintelligent or overly pedantic on here, and I find it difficult to simply dismiss a bone that they are willing to spend so much effort chewing over. You think we are all being overly pedantic. As a friend of mine once said: “If you can define every word you ever use, at least you’ll always know what you’re talking about.” 🙂 )
EDIT: If I had followed the dictionary definitions of "axiom," I'm sure that a lot of people would have "known" what I was talking about: we simply would've been wrong.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfWhich is why I think an athiest is more honest than a agnostic, since
Let me try to be more clear: I would think a weak atheist would think evidence to substantiate the claim about God may exist, it is just that they haven't heard it yet, or may never, not that it is impossible though.
An agnostic thinks there can [b]never be such evidence, not waiting for it, it is unknowable, as in not enough to sway them either way, ever.[/b]
as you put it an angostic will never be moved, because they reject the
chance. An atheist though they reject the view at the moment at
least are engaged in the discussion where they can if they see enough
change their views.
Kelly
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI do not think he making a fool of himself, his point is that the keys
If you had them once, then there is no absence of evidence.
But please continue to make a fool of yourself. It's entertaining.
Edit: And you do know the difference between existence and evidence for existence, don't you? Good.
are not there to be seen, therefore an absence of evidence. I think
your belittling him for his point is small thinking on your part.
Kelly
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe point there is that those terms are lay-terms for general everyday use, they simply do not meet the requirements of the kind of debates we have here. For example if you lump all atheists into one group you come up against problems, consider the following scenarios:
[/i]
You're right. You should have spent more time on your scenarios. The first one is binary in nature, so is a different animal. I must say, I have no idea where you were trying to go with the second one.
As to the belief in the existence of God, I think you'll find that there are two natural demarcation points, not one. By using three main grouping ...[text shortened]... that you are such authorities. Ditto the whole notion of 'de facto atheists'.
One
A: Worship God!
B: God doesn't exist
A: Prove it
B: I don't have to, there's no burden of proof on a position of denial
Two
A: Worship God!
C: God doesn't exist
A: Prove it
C: Okay, using an argument from evil I find that the 3-O God of the Christian bible to be logically contradictory and thus inconsistent, such a being cannot exist.
The two atheists in these scenarios have vastly different viewpoints, the first is weak, the second is strong. If we are going to have any meaningful discussion about atheism we need to be sure that the implications of the atheist view are congruent with the topic at hand and clearly, in the example above, they would not be. Ignoring this, clearly we do not lump all theists together, there are polytheists, monotheists, pantheists; were we to have discussions about god from only one standpoint, namely that there is a single group which are all theists, we would be trivially stunted in our ability to discuss the issue. It strikes me as extremely arrogant for you to be both denying investigation into the ratification of terms and to claim that such a simple terms are adequate for our purposes.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're missing the point, if they are known to exist already, through previous experience, then there is no absence of evidence for their existence.
I do not think he making a fool of himself, his point is that the keys
are not there to be seen, therefore an absence of evidence. I think
your belittling him for his point is small thinking on your part.
Kelly
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat's a question of induction, not of existentialism. 'How can one be sure that anything pervades through time when one doesn't maintain experiential contact with it', and 'how can one know that something has the property of existence' are not the same argument. One is about observation, the other ontology.
What utter rubbish. The fact that something once existed doesn't prove that it exists now.
My keys could have been melted down. They could even have been shot into the sun, and the component atoms well on their way to becoming Uranium. Who knows?
As for your argument, well, I have no physical evidence of my keys existence, except their past exi ...[text shortened]... re?
Seriously man, where did you learn how to argue a point? You're not very good at it.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanStarr: I just put this together; I’m not as adept as you, but what do you think?
The point there is that those terms are lay-terms for general everyday use, they simply do not meet the requirements of the kind of debates we have here. For example if you lump all atheists into one group you come up against problems, consider the following scenarios:
[b]One
A: Worship God!
B: God doesn't exist
A: Prove it
B: I don't have to, ...[text shortened]... e ratification of terms and to claim that such a simple terms are adequate for our purposes.[/b]
________________________________________
Proposition: G or ~G, or Undecided (U).
(1) In order to rationally decide G or ~G, one must have a coherent understanding of G.
(2) In order to rationally decide G or ~G, one must have sufficient information in order to make a rational choice.
(3) If one claims that one believes a proposition to be true, but behaves in a manner that does not accord with that claim, one is either being dishonest or self-deceptive.
(4) Person P claims (1), but denies (2), stating that she does not have sufficient information to decide the issue.
(5) Thus, P claims U.
(6) It is impossible for one to actually behave in a manner that does not accord with either G or ~G.
(7) P behaves in a manner that accords with ~G (or, alternatively, G).
(8) P is being either dishonest or self-deceptive.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanDo you see the keys? I had experiences, but I don't count them as
You're missing the point, if they are known to exist already, through previous experience, then there is no absence of evidence for their existence.
evidence, if you want to go that way you just opened the door to
call God real do the the experiences of millions of people who have
claimed a relationship with God. They/we may be witnesses, but I
would not call them evidence.
Kelly