"But you raise a good point. An atheist should really be arguing why we should have any notion of kindness or compassion. Why we should have any notion of self sacrifice."

We're self-aware and rational and therefore I find it easy to put myself in the position of the other person with the (wry) observation: "there but for the grace of god go I". It's part of human nature. (You might like to read A Theory Of Justice by John Rawls)

We're biologically driven by genetic predispositions too. There are kinship bonds, explainable by gene survival. We are naturally gregarious, leading to social bonds outside the family even though we ought to be competing for resources. I can easily see why that tendency would be selected for to improve chances of individual or familial survival too.

The overall point I'm making whatever the details is that there are plausible explanations for these things in our reality and so it doesn't provide supporting evidence for a god at all.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Bob,

"The incompleteness theorems refer specifically to well ordered axioms derived using the natural numbers and set theory."

Sorry but you don't understand the what you're talking about here.
The above sentence is confused and meaningless. I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but I have a lot of experience in this area and you clearly don't and are pontificating about something you should be showing humility towards. What do you actually mean "axioms derived using the natural numbers"?

Pretty much anything can (with enough time and effort) be reduced to a formal system (natural language, card games, political ideologies...even, potentially, the entire universe).
Godel invented recursive predicate calculus to make his proof, this does not mean that his proof is only applicable to, say, the computer language LISP.

Try doing a bit of research on it. Try reading what I wrote about it earlier in the discussion.

Also it would be nice if you answered the question I put to you earlier.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Bob

"A lack of clarity about decision points in your arguments also worries me."

Please apply your points pertinently to the ongoing discussions, please. I don't find it productive to jump around answering each new tangent that somebody chooses to create, especially when that person has yet to answer and questions put back to them, and has not engaged in the ongoing discussion.

"There is no intrinsic reason why religion should be involved. A group of atheists can be just as moral as any religious group "

er...that's sort of the point we're arguing about. I say that it is provably false. Read what I've been describing as the consequences of Godel's proofs from the begining of this discussion and if you have questions on it I'll be happy to answer.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

doh....I did use the word "altruism"...that's what you were quoting.

Rough night.

OK...well as per the other discussion...yes I do question whether true altruism can exist, but I was using it in the soft tense (no immediate or obvious reward).

Doing something for the benefit of another because you believe in an external axiom that tells you that loving your neighbour is the way ahead, and doing it for the vaguest of rewards (faith that you and your life will somehow be better for it), is what I consider to be soft altruism.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"The incompleteness theorems refer specifically to well ordered axioms derived using the natural numbers and set theory."

I think if you're going to write this in the same post in which you accuse me of a lack of clarity, you should have to explain it.

an axiom is a rule or proposition (often held as self-evident)...so why would we be using "the(sic) natural numbers" to derive it? And what,pray-tell, is a "well-ordered axiom"? What would be a not-well-ordered axiom?

Also you probably aren't aware, but far from using set theory to "derive axioms" (is that really what you meant?), Godel demonstrated that set theory is false. That it can produce bad results.

If a normal set is a set that contains other sets, and an unusual set is one that contains an instance of itself, then what is the set (N) of all normal sets? If N is normal then it should contain itself, but then it becomes unusual and is no longer the set of normal sets. It's an impossible situation...

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David Jones,

I never used the word 'altruism' here, did I? In fact in the other forum I questioned whether true altruism could exist or whether it was a tautology. I didn't move any goalposts...you're the one doing that I think.

But the logical facts remain.

"I think you're also overplaying Game Theory and altruism as that's a well-known and contested area"

Game theory is contested? How so? I don't think game theory is a natural groove for mankind to fall into because I think mankind has recourse to external axioms. I merely postulated that it was the natural course for those that rejected such axioms.

David....I wish you would stop making all these assumptions about what I'm saying and try to engage a bit more meaningfully. Go back and read what was written in the "26 pilgrims" forum. Read what I've written here. Just please have a bit more respect towards the effort I'm making to engage with you.

It really is like I'm talking to a different person here.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

doh....I did use the word "altruism"...that's what you were quoting.

OK...well as per the other discussion...yes I do question whether true altruism can exist, but I was using it in the soft tense (no immediate or obvious reward).

Doing something for the benefit of another because you believe in an external axiom that tells you that loving your neighbour is the way ahead, and doing it for the vaguest of rewards (faith that you and your life will somehow be better for it), is what I consider to be soft altruism.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

John
I am still not convinced that you are making proper use of Godels theorems. The incompleteness theorems refer specifically to well ordered axioms derived using the natural numbers and set theory. How do they apply to moral frameworks, unless you can quantify a moral framework in some way?

A lack of clarity about decision points in your arguments also worries me. On what basis do I select my God? Having selected my God, does that mean that I am effectively an atheist in respect of all other gods? The idea may be good, but the process is also important. Do the universal truths which you are seeking allow for more than one God? If so on what basis?

Altruism, ethics, and morality are group dynamics. They are intended to smooth the operation and preserve the integrity of the group. There is no intrinsic reason why religion should be involved. A group of atheists can be just as moral as any religious group

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

"Without physiological (evolutionary) reward, and especially without initial external axiom, rationality leaves little room for altruistm, as game theory demonstrates."

If people are interested in heavenly reward then it's hardly altruistic to behave in ways that support that. You've just moved the goalposts. Altruism in that case would involve sacrificing one's soul (in your terms), I expect.

Moreover altruism is not limited to sacrificing one's life, just one's interests. People behave in an 'altruistic' way for indirect benefits, such as a stable society. It also looks as though you're assuming morality is entirely a rational thing. I imagine there's a biological driver involved which provides non-rational impulses.

I think you're also overplaying Game Theory and altruism as that's a well-known and contested area. It's all very well for arguing in evolutionary biology about leaving a Hobbesian State of Nature but moral philosophy is a different thing again.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

"unless I've misunderstood your earlier point, you're saying that a moral framework as a formal system must exist because of Godel's theorum if we accept that we have a moral drive"

No, I'm not suggesting that Godel's theorems show that a framework must exist. Godel only proves that no such framework can be both TRUE and COMPLETE. That is to say that it is only logically consistent if it is INCOMLETE, i.e. makes use of an external axiom.

And a framework does not necessarily need to be naturally occuring. A computer program is a good example of a formal system, and predicate calculus is often used to prove the correctness of computer code.

But you raise a good point. An atheist should really be arguing why we should have any notion of kindness or compassion. Why we should have any notion of self sacrifice. Without an external axiom, which we believe in as a matter of faith, such notions do not seem particularly rational.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

John, you keep insisting, so I have to reply (I hope it gets published):-
-- You ask whether I disagree with the statement: "The chance of god is zero or negligible".
The answer is NO. But John, this has zero to do with"belief".
-- The dictionary definition which you keep recommending to me says belief means accepting as true without positive proof. I would add "or without acceptable evidence".
-- Well, as an atheist I don't have that sort of "belief".
-- After careful consideration and examination of the facts, however, I do indeed come to the reasonable conclusion that god is an imaginary figure. I see no
evidence to suggest that he exists. This is not a "belief" in the religious sense. In fact, it's the very opposite of belief, because it IS based on evidence.
-- If you wish, John, YOU can believe in Santa Claus too in the same way as you believe in a god. But not me.
-- So, John, don't try to saddle me with "belief". I reach conclusions based on acceptable evidence only.

alan, cologne,

David,

"unless I've misunderstood your earlier point, you're saying that a moral framework as a formal system must exist because of Godel's theorem if we accept that we have a moral drive"

No, I'm not suggesting that Godel's theorems show that a framework must exist. Godel only proves that no such framework can be both TRUE and COMPLETE. That is to say that it is only logically consistent if it is INCOMLETE, i.e. makes use of an external axiom.

And a framework does not necessarily need to be naturally occuring. A computer program is a good example of a formal system, and predicate calculus is often used to prove the correctness of computer code.

But you raise a good point. An atheist should really be arguing why we should have any notion of kindness or compassion. Why we should have any notion of self sacrifice. Without an external axiom, which we believe in as a matter of faith, such notions do not seem particularly rational. God and love represent the external axiom for me

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"I think it is wrong and irrational for anyone to conclude that the chance of God is zero or negligible, and that's the foundation of the conversation that I'm having. Until such a fundamental understanding is reached it makes useful conversation about religion all but impossible. "

Oh, I disagree. There's lots to say about religion that's very useful without getting hung up on that. You make a proposition and so it needs to be supported by a convincing argument at least. Until you do that, the proposition is merely an assertion.

I've put out lots of comments about the meaning of 'negligible' and making real world decisions in our previous conversations. Those stand unchallenged as far as rational atheistic decisions are concerned.

Also, when you say negligible you mean 'zero' as far as I can see otherwise your statements about certainty are suspect. I think the chances of the proposed gods existing are small enough that the hypotheses are dismissable, hence I'm an atheist.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

For the sake of argument, there may not be a moral framework for us to discover, we may have to invent it. Nevertheless my point was that because of Godel's proofs it becomes apparent that whatever framework we develop cannot be both TRUE and COMPLETE. (and I don't understand your point about multiple vs single frameworks...it amounts to the same thing).

If you begin only with apparently self-evident internal axioms (you want to be free of pain, fear etc), then I believe they will produce unsatisfactory results. How do you convince someone to self-sacrifice for another without an external belief? e.g. "Treat others how you wish to be treated" is incomplete...because why the hell should you treat others that way, always? It's irrational on its own.

Which is why I believe that the only rational way to behave without recourse to external axioms, (and ignoring instinct), is according to Game Theory.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"I'm sure that you noticed that they all approach the task by suggesting predicates, goals and formal systems for connecting the two."

Yes. However, unless I've misunderstood your earlier point, you're saying that a moral framework as a formal system must exist because of Godel's theorum if we accept that we have a moral drive. You then propose a god as the provider of the external axiom required for that. That's a statement about reality not about a work of philosophy.

I'm saying that's fallen at the first hurdle because it's missed the founding unstated assumption in most works of moral philosophy: there is a single, coherent moral framework to find and explain!

If there isn't a single, coherent moral framework to find then Godel's theorum doesn't apply because morality isn't a formal system. There's no need for a provider of an external axiom because it's all within our reality. You may not find the result 'satisfactory' but that doesn't logically undermine it.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

In the hope that my last post on differentiating between faith, atheism and agnosticism will be published, here's a final word on the matter which I couldn't include due to the limit on characters.
-- Clearly defining these three concepts, and carefully differentiating between them in discussion, is what I aim for.
-- However, my definitions say nothing at all about the existence or non-existence in god, or the rightness or wrongness of religious belief or non-belief.
-- That's why I hope the definitions can be accepted by us all.

alan, cologne,

Bob -
"My questions show that the foundations for this discussion have not been laid"

??
Apropos of what? I'm asking you a specific question about what you wrote:

"If you come to me with a belief I will ask you three questions.

1 is it true
2 is it harmful
3 how does it benefit you and your church. "

Once again my question was: What relevance does anything other than #1 have when it comes to believing in something?

The obvious answer is "nothing", which is why I question your motives for framing the question in such a way.

I'm interested in truth, and as such I think it is important to challenge the assumptions being made by atheists here. I think it is wrong and irrational for anyone to conclude that the chance of God is zero or negligible, and that's the foundation of the conversation that I'm having. Until such a fundamental understanding is reached it makes useful conversation about religion all but impossible.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Alan
"The atheist does not believe. The faithful do."
The atheist does not believe in God, obviously. But that isn't the belief I'm alluding to, so your statement is a misdirection. The atheist BELIEVES that God does not exist. That the chance of God is zero or negligible. Alan, do you disagree with this statement? It's my BELIEF that Santa does not exist. It's patently absurd for you to tell me this is not a belief.


"-- The agnostic wobbles between believing one moment and not believing the next. He can't make up his mind."

So one moment the agnostic is a theist, the next an atheist??
It just depends when you look? And you accuse me of dodgy logic and verbal semantics? Why don't you just look it up in a dictionary? Didn't I supply definitions from the dictionary earlier? Why are you posting such a thing?

And by the way, it is perfectly possible to 'know' something without being able to prove it. Why not?

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Alan
"-- So please don't keep on insisting that I'm an agnostic or a believer or indeed anything other than an a-theist."
"-- Belief - like a book on a table, it is either there or not there. That's logic - binary, if you like"

Do you or do you not believe that there is no God?
Do you or do you not believe that the chance of God is zero or negligible?

"-- Your 6-sided dice example if flawed. It should only have two sides, like a coin - for the two possiblities of the existence of belief in a person, or not. "

Why don't you engage it instead of merely alluding to it? It makes no difference whether I use a coin or a dice...the point remains the same. If I toss a coin, a smart person would be agnostic about the result.

One person may believe fervently that it will come up heads (God). The atheist may believe fervently that it will come up tails, thinking that there is a zero or negligible chance of the result being heads.

The agnostic will acknowledge the chance of either. QED

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Bob -
"My questions show that the foundations for this discussion have not been laid"

??
Apropos of what? I'm asking you a specific question about what you wrote:

"If you come to me with a belief I will ask you three questions.

1 is it true
2 is it harmful
3 how does it benefit you and your church. "

Once again my question was: What relevance does anything other than #1 have when it comes to believing in something?

The obvious answer is "nothing", which is why I question your motives for framing the question in such a way.

I'm interested in truth, and as such I think it is important to challenge the assumptions being made by atheists here. I think it is wrong and irrational for anyone to conclude that the chance of God is zero or negligible, and that's the foundation of the conversation that I'm having. Until such a fundamental understanding is reached it makes useful conversation about religion all but impossible.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan
"The atheist does not believe. The faithful do."
The atheist does not believe in God, obviously. But that isn't the belief I'm alluding to, so your statement is a misdirection. The atheist BELIEVES that God does not exist. That the chance of God is zero or negligible. Alan, do you disagree with this statement? It's my BELIEF that Santa does not exist. It's patently absurd for you to tell me this is not a belief.


"-- The agnostic wobbles between believing one moment and not believing the next. He can't make up his mind."

So one moment the agnostic is a theist, the next an atheist??
It just depends when you look? And you accuse me of dodgy logic and verbal semantics? Why don't you just look it up in a dictionary? Didn't I supply definitions from the dictionary earlier? Why are you posting such a thing?

And by the way, it is perfectly possible to 'know' something without being able to prove it. Why not?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"You appear to be assuming morality must be a formal system. If so then why? "

It is what we make it. As a philosophy student, when you studied moral frameworks, whether it be utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics or even game theory, I'm sure that you noticed that they all approach the task by suggesting predicates, goals and formal systems for connecting the two.

Of course we can talk about morality in a more informal sense, but that won't necessarily help us discern the faults and weaknesses, nor prove the the strength of a particular framework.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"I'd bet you started from Christian belief and worked backwards to select various concepts and propositions sympathetic to your worldview"

There you go again. When I was first debating with you you were much more intellectually honest and straight forward. It seems these days you are more comfortable casting aspersions than tackling the issues at hand.
Your point above could be reversed for yourself, or any opponent. It's a low quality comment. If you're tired of the demands of the discussion then take a rest...don't descend into this nonsense.

That's pretty depressing.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"society...its rules and mores... the basis for a fairly universal morality"
Isn't that a tautology?

Without physiological (evolutionary) reward, and especially without initial external axiom, rationality leaves little room for altruistm, as game theory demonstrates.
Rational behaviour based only upon Earthly reward would appear to negate the ability of anyone to rationally sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a stranger. There would be no personal reward. In order to maintain his belief in equality, Kant was forced to rely upon the concept of an external, objective law, a heteronomos, which he eventually decided was Christianity.
And with his incompletness theorem, Kurt Godel mathematically proved Kant's conclusion. True and full cooperation for the betterment of mankind involves individuals being receptive to an external axiom, lest we defer to personal selfishness.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Going beyond claiming to be atheist and truly abandoning the idea of God, or any external axiom, will produce profoundly terrible results. The logical conclusion would be everybody acting according to the dreaded 'Game Theory', perhaps minimally alleviated by atavistic evolutionary traits. We'd behave worse than chimps because of our rootless rational capacity. So when you talk about 'good' what do you mean? If you refer to an external axiom, then why? and how is it different from the concept of God as love? Have you really abandoned the external axiom?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"Haven't you been reading my posts? We had a huge discussion on this on another forum and I've restated it here."

Yes. I've read all of them. It's mere wishful thinking. In fact, I'd bet you started from Christian belief and worked backwards to select various concepts and propositions sympathetic to your worldview rather than finding Christianity as a revelation from those concepts.

Try your 'heuristic argument' on someone else. I've previously taken it apart in public to my own satisfaction and found it wanting in a number of respects. I wrote structured replies as I have done here looking at the different meanings of belief. Given sufficient detail rather than the very broad strokes you provided, I've no doubt I could shred it with a more philosophical analysis.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"You can say you refute anything,"

I refute it for the reasons I have given in the past. You appear to be assuming morality must be a formal system. If so then why?

We're a self-aware, gregarious, species capable of empathy. Most of us have a moral sense. We are products of society and inherit its rules and mores.

There's the basis for a fairly universal morality with scope for differences of interpretation between people and societies. All nominally explainable in the real world. No metaphysical nonsense or Godel concepts required.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"For example, the Greg Lorriman definition of atheism is intended to define atheists as irrational by claiming it means a certainty in the non-existence of god. Hopefully, that's been trashed for most people now. "

Not for me. Haven't you been reading my posts? We had a huge discussion on this on another forum and I've restated it here.

Atheism (the conclusion that the chance of God is zero or negligible), as opposed to agnosticism is irrational. The main reason for this is the heuristic argument.

John McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

Atheism and agnosticism mean different things to different people, and there are overlaps and flavours of each. I think it's mostly irrelevant unless someone wants to do some sleight of hand.

For example, the Greg Lorriman definition of atheism is intended to define atheists as irrational by claiming it means a certainty in the non-existence of god. Hopefully, that's been trashed for most people now.

Another example is trying to equivocate over the sort of beliefs the religious have, and the sort of beliefs atheists have. They're different sorts of things as hopefully I've shown below.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

"I am not absolutely certain that an interested creator is nonexistent"

That seems pretty solidly agnostic to me.

You continue with: "That would be irrational"

My entire heuristic argument was that it is irrational to be atheist because the chance of God existing is non-negligible. You appear to be agreeing with this. I simply never tried to convince you of anything more.

"As for your assertion that 'we cannot have a satisfactory moral framework without external axioms', I refute that."

You can say you refute anything, that 1+1=2, that a straight line can be represented by two dots, etc... the mathematical proof of incompleteness is there. Read "Godel's proof" by Nagel or Newman.

Ultimately I came back to Catholicism because of the profoundly compelling nature of Jesus' philosophy. Perhaps I'm genetically built to be an optimist. I think you have to be a pretty messed up cynic to follow Dawkins.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

My questions show that the foundations for this discussion have not been laid. The basic question which should be settled is, at what point does belief become certainty? This question is the same for the believer, the agnostic and the atheist. I think their response is a secondary consideration. We should also be interested in how their conclusions were reached and why. Are all parties looking at the same evidence? Or does the believer claim to have evidence that is not available to the other two parties? If so what is it and how reliable is it?

As an agnostic I am atheistic about any evidence I have seen in a long life. But I realize that my life span is not significant in the sum of all things

However I do agree with Alan. Some one up there loves John. Many of my submissions are ignored.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Alan, Perhaps you are right, in a certain respect.

Perhaps I was wrong to say that belief is not binary. One either believes or doesn't.

However, the opposite of belief would still be non-belief (or unbelief), NOT disbelief.

It does not change the fact that ATHEISM is not mere unbelief. Atheism implies unbelief but contains m more meaning. Atheism is unbelief together with the belief that the chance of God is zero or negligible.

Since you state that belief is binary, agnostics must surely be in the non-belief camp (if they believed they would be theists, wouldn't you agree?).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John - another way of showing, quite simply, how your logic is flawed is as follows:
-- You claim I'm mistaken in thinking that "belief in god is binary, it isn't: there is a don't know / not sure option."
-- You are wrong.
-- The logical mistake you are making is confusing two different things, believing and knowing.
-- logical opposite of believing = not believing (no middle way),
-- logical opposite of knowing = not knowing (no middle way).
-- A person can believe or not believe - binary.
-- A person can know or not know - binary.
-- The atheist does not believe. The faithful do.
-- The agnostic wobbles between believing one moment and not believing the next. He can't make up his mind.
-- As far as the existence of god is concerned, neither believers, atheists nor agnostics "know".
-- Long-windedness, verbal acrobatics, semantic trickery and dodgy logic - I've heard too much of this from priests, popes and preachers. It may deceive some, but not me.

alan, cologne,

John, I am not absolutely certain that an interested creator is nonexistent. That would be irrational. However, practically, I have no doubt worth talking about. Hence, I'm a practical atheist.

I imagine for many atheists, a proposition about a god or gods has to be made before we truly take a stance. Afterall, how can we take a stance on something undefined?

Deism is more plausible simply because it is so vague and because it is probably forever speculative. However, theists always fail to make a case for theism from deism because of the lack of supporting steps. As deism requires nothing from us, I don't really care about it.

You completely failed to convince me (and the others) with your heuristic argument for a god after many, many posts and so there's no point rehashing it for me.

As for your assertion that 'we cannot have a satisfactory moral framework without external axioms', I refute that. Though, of course, it may just turn on what *you* find satisfactory.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John - how do you manage to get so many comments published? I go to great lengths to explain where your thinking is flawed, and I'm waiting and waiting ... so here goes again:-
Please note:
-- The logical opposite of having a belief is NOT having a belief. OK?
-- So please don't keep on insisting that I'm an agnostic or a believer or indeed anything other than an a-theist.
-- Belief - like a book on a table, it is either there or not there. That's logic - binary, if you like
-- The agnostic is in the subjective position of not knowing whether to believe or not. He has two (2) choices, to believe or not to believe. And he wobbles between the two. No middle.
-- Your 6-sided dice example if flawed. It should only have two sides, like a coin - for the two possiblities of the existence of belief in a person, or not.
-- You ask about the chance of throwing a 6? Six to one against, I think.

alan, cologne,

David,

We were talking generally about agnostic and atheist, not specifically with regards to a particular description (say Christian trinity).

I think you are conflating the point about atheism requiring specific thought and belief (that the chance of God is zero or negligible), together with the notion that such a belief is irrational, and/or based on faith.

They are two separate points.

The former point should not be contentious, in my opinion. The latter I can understand is contentious and relates to my heuristic argument that I put to you on a different forum.

From all the posts I've read from you, it sounds as if you are by and large agnostic. That you are not certain that the chance of there being supreme being that created us and understands us.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

Nice post. You seem to accept my differentiation between atheist and agnostic which is necessary to have the kind of discussion you're proposing. I want to have that discussion.

The reason I've been harping on about unbelief and disbelief, is that it seems Dawkins et al have been attempting to subtly redefine these words to limit, or make more difficult such a discussion as the one you bring forward. At the very least Dawkins has seemed to be trying to reduce the onus on atheists to explain their position.

As I've said to you on another forum, it has been proven that we cannot fully and correctly explain our reality exclusively through "scientific explanation". Indeed science is founded on articles of faith. In the same vein we cannot have a satisfactory moral framework without external axioms. Finally I think that there is a very sound argument that God is a non negligible possibility using the 'heuristic argument' which I've explained to you elsewhere.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Bob,

Sorry if you think I've been uncivil. I was merely asking you to engage rather than list assertions.

I haven't asked you to convert to Catholicism or Islam or anything else. What I am trying to do is raise the quality of debate a little. When agnosticism and atheism are conflated then we get false conclusions. Semantics matter here.

Since you guys are so evangelically preaching that atheism is the rational belief (the belief that the chance of God is zero or negligible), I am challenging that.

The scientific realm is inherently limited. Hence what we can empirically test is inherently limited. There are many concepts which remain entirely in the philosophical realm and have to be treated as such. Some of these philosophical concepts are ludicrous (the flying spaghetti monster, santa)...some are not (the perfect circle, the flow of time). By and large I think the former group tend to be based on factual knowledge where as the latter do not.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Instead of this focus on the various things we mean when we talk about beliefs, we probably ought to be focusing on the propositional position of atheists.

I imagine most atheists are interested in understanding our reality through scientific investigation. Beyond the Big Bang, if it is meaningful to talk about 'beyond', is an unknown. Concepts are models to help make sense of our reality. Values, aesthetics, etc come from our nature. And so on.

Other than the current state of knowledge and related concepts, what propositions are atheists as a class putting forward to explain our 'purpose'? None, I'd say. However, when the plethora of propositions about various gods are put forward we assess those propositions and come to a decision on them.

This is why we are without theistic belief. We have no propositions in this area. There's nothing for theists to assess in return. Our position is the default one: our reality is as it appears until we find out otherwise.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John, you are having trouble with names again. Please be more careful with your attributions. I have not said those things.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Bob -

"If you come to me with a belief I will ask you three questions.

1 is it true
2 is it harmful
3 how does it benefit you and your church. "

Out of interest, what relevance does anything other than #1 have when it comes to believing in something? I ask because your posts seem entirely politically based, as opposed to having an intellectually honest search for truth.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan,

The mistake you are making is saying that belief in God is binary, it isn't: there is a don't know/not sure option.

Imagine I'm rolling a dice.
Do you think I'll roll a six?
Say X is you're belief that I'll roll a six.
Say Y is belief that I WILL NOT roll a six.

Y implies NOT X
NOT X does not imply Y
Why?
Because what if you don't know what I'll roll? What if you don't even know that I'm about to roll a dice?

The implication is one directional. This is called a 'hypothetical syllogism', and it's illogical to reverse "If X then NOT Y" by saying "If NOT Y then X".

non-existence of X does not imply existence of Y.

But if Y is belief that the existence of God is zero or negligible, and X is belief in God, then Y implies NOT X.

In other words an atheist is without belief in God, but being without belief in God does not imply atheist. A brick is not atheist.

An agnostic can be without belief in God, but not know or not believe that the chance of God is Zero or negligible.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan,

"The absence of belief. That's the real opposite of belief. "
Yes: UNBELIEF. Unbelief is implied by atheism, just as sickness is implied by leukemia. However unbelief does not imply atheism. Atheism is unbelief together with belief that the chance of God is zero or negligible. It is disbelief.

Alan, you should understand that I do not belief in Santa. I can say that I have disbelief in Santa. As for the flow of time I have UNBELIEF, because I am not convinced in its reality outside of our own perception. However I don't have the logical evidence to discount its possibility entirely, so I do not have DISBELIEF with regards to time. I am atheist wrt Santa, agnostic wrt Time.

"Agnostics..are not sure whether they believe or not". So they could believe but not know if they believe? I don't think so...you're being sloppy. agnostics have neither belief nor disbelief

I don't know what Aquinas thought about it, but he could handle basic formal logic so I think we'd agree.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

John

Unlike you I will try to keep this civil. We are discussing the relationship between agnosticism and religion. You seem to be hung up playing with the word belief. Let me see if I can help. If you come to me with a belief I will ask you three questions.

1 is it true
2 is it harmful
3 how does it benefit you and your church.

These questions help me to evaluate your belief. I think all of them are necessary. Religious faith is belief based and subject to interpretation. This makes it a wide open field for con men and charlatans. It is also possible that because it requires so little evidence it is dangerous.

Your church, like many others, is required to spread the word, therefore you are ethically obliged to see that these three conditions are met. I don't think there is anything metaphysical about this. But then again being an agnostic I don't have a problem admitting that there are things I do not know. So perhaps the metaphysical is less important to me.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

I'm without a belief in, say, the proposition of the Christian god. I have assessed it and found it highly unconvincing so I reject it for all practical purposes. One could say I'm very skeptical of it. I doubt the truth of it. Ultimately, I disbelieve.

The proposition *may* be true of course. It's just not supported by anything like enough evidence in my assessment, the concepts are too bizarre and ungrounded, and the alternative explanations for our condition are more plausible.

Does this mean I have a belief akin to religious belief? No. The sort of dispositional beliefs people have in the everyday world are linked to knowledge. They are not highly speculative and they don't have the breadth of a religious belief.

Disconnecting belief and knowledge means that speculation is ungrounded. This is what we see with religious belief. One can conceptualise to the Nth degree. There are no limits. This is why such certainty of belief is irrational.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John - I'm glad we were in that same demonstration. But now to our disagreements:-
-- Logic is always relevant. But it's not illogical if I say the questions you put to me are irrelevant to the question of belief.
-- I still can't accept your differentiation between atheism and agnosticism. It's not a question of un-belief or dis-belief. It's just no belief at all. The absence of belief. That's the real opposite of belief.
-- Actually, though, it doesn't matter to me how you choose to define atheism. I am an a-theist, and I know why. It's because I know (for sure) that I don't believe in any supernatural deity.
-- Agnostics, on the other hand, are not sure whether they believe or not. It's as simple as that. Why all the fuss about it?
-- John, one parting shot: If you were able to ask, say, Thomas Aquinas if he believes in the "time flow" or discrete mathematics, what do you think the answer would be? And you believe (here I presume) in what he preached?

alan, cologne,

Bob, David,

Thanks for deciding in advance what I intended to say about superstrings/flow of time etc.
Thanks for completely bypassing any dialog with me and telling David what you think I meant by it.

All completely inaccurate, but then don't let trivial facts get in the way of your bluster.

Alan, I'm glad you enjoyed SF. I wonder if you were in the same protest as me in Feb 03.

I'm not so glad that you continue to miss the point about belief.

Belief in God is not binary. It is not yes or no, there exists an unbelief. In fact the LOGICAL opposite of 'BELIEF' in God in "UNBELIEF" which is not the same as, but implied by, DISBELIEF which you as an atheist hold.

Since you claim to understand the difference between agnostic and atheist then this should make sense to you. An agnostic is without belief in God. An atheist is also without that belief with the addition of belief that the chance of God is zero or negligible.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David,

I wans't messing with anyone's head, but merely trying to show differences in unbelief and disbelief by means of demonstration. Please have the courtesy of engaging with me before making such assumptions.

But, since you mention it, there is no empirical evidence for the flow of time (or indeed any of those concepts, with the possible exception of Santa). Perhaps you think it is thus wrong to buy into such a concept.
I agree with your defintion of atheist but not the conclusion:
"Hence, there is nothing traditionally religious in this approach and it doesn't involve faith or certainty"

the certainty is that the chance of God is zero or negligible (disagree??)
the faith is often based on poor understanding of the scientific realm, but sometimes it's just plain irrational and non-thought out.

Dave, I seem to remember you having gotten further than this on the other forum.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan

"All these mathematical and biological references and totally irrelevant anyway. They are red herrings"

By mathematical I presume you mean the discrete maths I used (formal logic) to demonstrate the error in your thinking.

Logic isn't irrelevant here, Alan. It's actually quite important unless you're really not at all interested in pursuing the truth.

David, from past discussions I'd come to expect a bit more from you but it appears you've gone down the path of partisanship, polemicism and trolling. That's indeed a shame.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan,

So you don't believe in santa clause and you're not sure about superstrings, or the flow of time oe McCluskey waves.

So you're without belief in all of them, but the only one you are certain does not exist is Santa. You're agnostic about the rest.

Can you see the difference? You have a believe that the chance of Santa being real is zero or negligible. That is not a belief you apply to superstrings, time, or McCluskey waves. Yet you're without belief in all of them.

Belief in santa is not the logical opposition of belief that he has zero or negligible chance of existing. The implication runs only in one direction.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

What is the confusion here?

Atheist is more than simply "without belief", it goes further and means being certain of the negative.

Being only "without belief" and not believing in the negative is agnostic.

How many times, how many ways must this be said before you guys stop shouting on auto-pilot and start thinking?

Agnostic = without positive belief
Atheist = Without positive belief
Atheist = belief in the negative

Is it really so hard?
There's none so blind as he that will not see.

Creedon, Cork, Ireland

If we reject the antecedent, however, must we reject the consequent? Also, if we accept the consequent, must we accept the antecedent? Consider these two arguments:

* If Peter has leukemia, he is seriously ill.
* Peter doesn't have leukemia.
* Therefore, He is not seriously ill.



* If Peter has leukemia, he is seriously ill.
* Peter is seriously ill.
* Therefore, He has leukemia.

These arguments obviously are not valid.

For "has leukemia" you can substitute "is atheist",
and for "is seriously ill" you can substitute "is without belief".

It's really not that hard.

Creedon, Cork city, Ireland

John, I've obviously got you on the run. You're asking such odd questions. No I don't think Santa exists, although I can't prove it - and neither can you! As I don't know what the other things are, I'm unable to say whether I think they exist or not.
-- John, being agnostic is not the same as having an open mind.
The agnostic wobbles. He's not sure whether he believes in the existence of god or not. The atheist IS quite sure that he doesn't believe in the existence of god. I'm an atheist. Can you understand this difference?
-- PS. John, I love San Francisco. We had a great time there, even demonstrating against Bush's intention of invading Iraq.

alan, cologne,

Bob, thanks for your comment. All these mathematical and biological references and totally irrelevant anyway. They are red herrings. Asan atheist, I have no belief in god. That's easy to understand, and sheer common sense. No mathematical concepts needed.
-- If the faithful want to believe in their absurdities, that's OK by me.But if f they try to make me into a believer or an agnostic, I reply as follows:-
-- Wobbly agnostics don't know whether they believe in the existence of god or not.
-- Atheists like me know very well that we don't believe in the existence of god. That's the difference.
-- And as for the faithful - well, if you believe wine changes to blood and bread into flesh, you're gullible enough to believe anything, including the fairy tales of priests and popes.

alan, cologne,

David Pitan: "I believe in God through Christ Jesus and I have a relationship with Him - dialogue as with a person."

That's certainly different to the experience all the many Christians to whom I have spoken report to me. Is his grammar good? Does he speak with a regional accent? Does he answer with riddles or speak plainly with instructions and the like?

I'm intrigued! Especially if he can provide the lottery numbers for next week.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

A bit more on belief: the belief an atheist has about the non-existence of a particular god is really an acceptance that sufficient investigation has taken place to assess the existence of the god and found it unindicative of its existence.

He has reached an understanding about the proposition. If new evidence or a new way of explaining the god comes along then a new investigation may be required. Hence, there is nothing traditionally religious in this approach and it doesn't involve faith or certainty. Yet a decision has been reached.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Alan
I think John is playing with your head. The three scientific examples do not require belief. They are mathematical conveniences which allow us to make meaningful patterns and connections with the information we have now. The model is not absolute and never accounts for all of the available data. We may get new information that cannot be fitted into the model. Then we must either change the model or develop a new one. We know that the model does not account for all of the available data. The flow of time may also be an artifact of the human brain.

A religious belief is different. It can be absolute and leave no room for interpretation. It is not open ended and therefore not subject to change. Also there is not much point in questioning it. You either believe it or you don't.

It's another example of John using the same word to mean very different things.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

There's a significant difference between having a belief to the point of certainty without supporting evidence, and a working belief or opinion because of a lack of supporting evidence.

Of course, we all have various beliefs for which we haven't assessed the evidence ourselves. However, we know that the evidence is there to be assessed should we wish.

Religious belief is not like that. The evidence is not there. The concepts are almost completely speculative. Yet, most importantly, it requires enormous investment from the believer.

A commitment to a particular speculative concept is quite useful in science because it can lead to a gestalt shift in understanding. However, religious belief is a commitment to an entire worldview at once.

Taking on a largely unsupported worldview is odd enough. Taking it on given the investment required is really irrational.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I'm ambivalent about the possibility that an external 'something' created the universe. It's mostly undefined and probably defies our explanation. It could be an intelligent and interested thing, an impersonal process, or something else altogether. As it requires nothing from us, we don't need to try to take a position on it. I'm adeist by default really.

Theism is very different. It's a highly detailed concept incorporating statements about the human condition, and involves interaction with us in some instances. It tries to define our reality. Some theism expects us to believe miracles happen in our reality despite its rules. It requires significant investment from us in time and energy.

As there's no convincing evidence for the various theisms and the concepts are so detailed that the likelihood of being true as they stand is negligible for all practical purposes. Hence, I'm a practical atheist but it's a considered position not a default one.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Alan, can I ask which of the following things you think exist (simple yes/no/don't knows will do):

a) Santa Clause.
b) Superstrings.
c) McCluskey waves.
d) The flow of time.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan,

So you don't believe in santa clause and you're not sure about superstrings, or the flow of time oe McCluskey waves.

So you're without belief in all of them, but the only one you are certain does not exist is Santa. You're agnostic about the rest.

Can you see the difference? You have a believe that the chance of Santa being real is zero or negligible. That is not a belief you apply to superstrings, time, or McCluskey waves. Yet you're without belief in all of them.

Belief in santa is not the logical opposition of belief that he has zero or negligible chance of existing. The implication runs only in one direction.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan,

Instead of merely restating your assertions, could you please engage the arguments and questions I gave you?

The belief IS that God does not exist, (negligible or zero chance). Not having an opinion and actively disbelieving are both different forms of being "without belief". I don't know if your name is really Alan...so I'm without that belief. However it would be irrational of me to say that I'm sure you're name isn't Alan. I'll presume it is for now:

Alan, can I ask which of the following things you think exist (simple yes/no/don't knows will do):

a) Santa Clause.
b) Superstrings.
c) McCluskey waves.
d) The flow of time.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

John - sorry, your being illogical and you're wrong. The non-existence of belief cannot be seen as the existence of a belief. Do you agree? In me there is no belief (in the religious sense, I have to keep stressing). A belief is lacking in me. It doesn't exist in me. I have no belief (in any supernatural being). I can't make this any plainer, can I? Why, why, why can't you accept this. Does it in some way disturb you that someone can live, act morally and be quite content without any belief in god? --- And if you want a straight answer to your rather trivial questions, it is NO to Santa Clause (I'm not sure what the others mean and I don't really think it matters, as I've made my position abundantly clear). -- And John, it would be irrational of you to "believe" (unshakeably) that my name is Alan unless you can back up your belief with some kind of (credible!!) evidence. Same with god. --- (I wish my other replies to you had been publshed.)

alan, cologne,

No, John, you're wrong again, and - worse than that - you're not only putting words into my mouth, but you're also resorting to the old ploy of double-talk, e.g. the word "belief".
-- No, I don't think there's much chance of god existing. This has nothing to do with "belief" = faith? OK?
--My standpoint is much more logical than yours, since you seem to "believe" (have faith) in his existence, although apart from a few ancient, dodgily translated documents written by ignorant people, plus a few highly suspect reports of personal experiences, there is nothing to support your faith. In fact it's totally unreasonable. You know what Pascal said: It's better to be on the safe side and "believe" because if there is a god you're ok, and if there isn't a god it doesn't matter. But please note - this is a plea for opportunism and not a proof of god's existence. It explains why many intelligent persons - you too? - prefer to "believe".
-- John, get your head around that ...

alan, cologne,

Bob,

I'm not sure what to make of your post, apart from you don't like religion.

You're not really addressing any of the points brought up here on this board though.

Anyone can attempt to gain money and power using whatever methods they like, but that doesn't have any particular bearing on the metaphysical questions of our existence.

My religion doesn't make me certain of any particular physical outcome on this Earth, and certainly doesn't guarantee me wealth or power. And yes, I've seen your rants elsewhere about the supposed hoarded wealth of the Vatican, but frankly that's nothing but tabloid myth purported in much the same way as the myth of the international Jewish conspiracy in the 30s.

How about we try to keep the conversation a little more elevated?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David,

Than sorry if my previous posts seemed a bit aggressive.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David,

Well fist of all Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Secondly, perhaps kids shouldn't be brainwashed with Maths or Physics. Or Music for that matter.

Let's have Dawkins decide, on behalf of society as a whole, what is valuable and what isn't. Let's forget consensus opinion, the rights and freedoms of minorities...and let's listen to the polemicists. Isn't it odd how political correctness becomes the facist regime and the religious become the radical libertarians.

This is childish and dangerous.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Could religion have been developed by man as a primitive means to account for uncertainty? Just believe this, and follow these rules. Then everything will be all right. But along with the uncertainty come opportunities. Religion can make you an instant expert and give you power to control the way that people think. This can give you money, but more importantly it can give you status, because you "know".

The uncertainties in religion are called mysteries. Mysteries also occur in science, and the object of science is to solve them. Religion on the other hand works best when it's mysteries remain mysteries.

If, I believed in a religion then I am certain of the ultimate outcome. This is like a gambler who has a perfect system and remains confident in spite of his losses. In one case we have a blessing and in the other we have an addiction.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Yes, Alan, believing that the chance of God is negligible is a belief.

Not having an opinion, or being unsure is agnostic.

I know you can't get your head around this, but for the benefit of everyone else....etc, etc...

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"Are you saying you disagree with Dawkins position on banning parents from teaching their kids about their faith?"

I do disagree with it, if that's his position.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"How sure are you that Zeus doesn't exist?"

David have you forgotten the discussion we had on the other board or are you acting out a part here?

I don't believe Zeus exists. I believe the chance of his existence to be negligible (in fact zero since it is contradictory to my actual belief in God). So yes, it's an active, not passive lack of belief. I believe that Zeus is a fiction.

As I argued on the othe message board, I think the belief that there is negligible chance of our creation by an intelligent entity is irrational.

Hopefully you've gotten to the stage where you can now discriminate between agnostic (not knowing or not being sure) and atheist (believing that the chance of God is zero or negligible).

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

"the belief IS that God does not exist"

How sure are you that Zeus doesn't exist?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

Well fist of all Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Secondly, perhaps kids shouldn't be brainwashed with Maths or Physics. Or Music for that matter.

I don;t want state curricula to be decided by committee. Nor do I want to have Dawkins decide, on behalf of society as a whole, what is valuable and what isn't. Do you want to forget consensus opinion, the rights and freedoms of minorities...and let's listen to the polemicists? Is this what you've bevome now? Isn't it odd how political correctness becomes the facist regime and the religious become the radical libertarians.

Such trolling is childish and dangerous.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David Jones,

Are you saying you disagree with Dawkins position on banning parents from teaching their kids about their faith?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,

"Many religious schools are popular because of their academic results but I suggest investing some time in considering the social reasons why that might be so"

Why bother? You've stated your political agenda...ban religion.
You've decided the policy and now you want to find a rationalisation.

Perhaps you should put the horse before the cart.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Alan - the belief IS that God does not exist, (negligible or zero chance). Not having an opinion and actively disbelieving are both different forms of being "without belief". I don't know if your name is really Alan...so I'm without that belief. However it would be irrational of me to say that I'm sure you're name isn't Alan. I'll presume it is for now:

Alan, can I ask which of the following things you think exist (simple yes/no/don't knows will do):

a) Santa Clause.
b) Superstrings.
c) McCluskey waves.
d) The flow of time.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Well done, BJ of Florence. " You say: "non-belief is a belief", ie. the absence of a belief is the presence of a belief. -- That's believers' "logic"(?) for you!!
And by the way, it's impossible to indoctrinate somone with a belief if there is no belief to indoctrinate them with. That's logical.

alan, cologne,

As most Christians have Christian parents, most Muslims have Muslim parents, and most Hindus have Hindu parents, Dawkins is arguing for a society where children have more of an opportunity to be free.

Unsegregated schools provide the freedom for parents to influence their children with their own religious views at home while those children still have an opportunity to develop independent minds at school.

Many religious schools are popular because of their academic results but I suggest investing some time in considering the social reasons why that might be so. Unless, of course, the Christian god, the Muslim god, and the Hindu god or gods are divinely intervening in their respective religiously-directed schools.

If any of those gods are real then there should be no need to try to brainwash kids into their parents' religions so I wonder what some people are afraid of in Dawkin's state-funding argument?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Actually, BJ...whilst I agree with you that atheism as opposed to agnosticism IS a belief, I take issue with your other points. Humanism is not exculsive to atheists at all. I would hope that a Christian or a Muslim would consider themselves humanist.

Neither is evolution is not a theory exclusive to atheists. Whilst evolution may not be complete, it is the best theory we have for the empirical evidence. I doubt very seriously if "creationism", even in pre-enlightenment times was considered anything more than an allegory. Medieval Christians were more than capable of questioning the notion of night and day could mean anything before the Earth existed.

Personally I'd rather not be associated with the new Creationist movements.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

And just like religion, Atheists want to push their beliefs ("non-belief" is a belief by the way) on people and indoctrinate our children about their belief system such as evolution and humanism.

BJ, Florence,

Dawkins: ""It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?"

So going further than demanding an end to state funded religious schools, which is dodgy in itself as I personally don't believe people should be able to pick and choose in great detail how their taxes are directed. I don't have any kids but I understand why it's right and just for me to pay taxes for schools, secular or not. Religious schools in the UK are vastly oversubscribed because of their performance, so perhaps you should address that before mindlessly imposing your own political agenda on them.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"Conversely Dawkins wants to prevent parents from educating their own children in their own faith (see his open letter to Estelle Morris)."

Actually, he wanted to stop state funding for segregated religious schools. As we're all stake-holders in everyone's children, I don't think that's unreasonable.

Parents can teach want they like to children outside state institutions, of course. He just wants children to have the opportunity of learning about other cultures in a free environment to offset parental teaching.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,

But you are posting on this board, which suggests an active, not merely passive interest.

Anthony B, Keswick, UK

Russ,

Actually black holes were posited and talked about long before we had any empirical evidence for them (they still aren't proven), yet the notion was taken seriously, because in the absence of the ability to scientifically test such ideas, rational and philosophical thought has to suffice.

This is often the foundation of our greatest breakthroughs.

There are some very profound theories in physics for which there is as yet, no empirical evidence. Rational, philosophical thought has to suffice. In fact, some of our oldest and most entrenched views of the universe are widely considered amongst theoretical physicists to be very unlikely to be true, but are allowed to persist simply because we can't test them scientifically....yet rational thought leads us to discount them (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

Once again it's about recognising scientific method as a subset of rational thought, not a be all and end all.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David Jones,

As a Catholic I agree with you that I don't want irrational rules imposed on me. In fact I can go further. Whilst I think my beliefs are entirely rational, I don't believe that political policy based entirely within Catholic doctrine should be imposed on the general populace without first gaining some kind of consensus.

What you're asking for is not a uniquely atheist request at all. Conversely Dawkins wants to prevent parents from educating their own children in their own faith (see his open letter to Estelle Morris). In his quest for imposition of his own pseudo-enlightenment, he is quite deliberately attempting to lower the quality of debate with his polemic....and succeeding.

I hope, David, that you can take some comfort in the fact that a Catholic sincerely agrees with your request to be free from seemingly arbitrary and irrational rules. I'll side with you on that from whatever direction the imposition comes.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Dolan: "While some critics have labelled Dawkins and co ‘atheist fundamentalists’, the real similarity between atheism and religion today is less fanaticism than a palpable yearning to belong."

I really can't see practical atheists like me flocking to local atheist clubs every week even if someone was inclined to start them up. I don't need to belong; I just want any controls on my life, or society in general, to be argued for rationally.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Bob,

"Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?"
As a child I figured out that this was a silly question.

Someone else came up with it, but you discovered it and brought it up here. The problem with your paradox is that you haven't defined free will or absolute power, so you're trying to apply formal logic to an informal system.

In any case the fact that you can come up with such a paradox means little. We cannot progress without accepting the limitations of our perspective and the paradoxes they produce.

Here's one: "This sentence is false". S is the sentence. So S is only true if it's false. Apparently we are unable to define truth or falseness in English.

This isn't a trick. It's an example of where all of our formal systems are either incomplete or incorrect. And there's nothing we can do about it.

The only relevance it has to do with the God discussion is that it should cause those who believe science can explain everything to question that faith a bit

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Russ-

Your definition incorporates agnostics into the atheist realm: precisely Dawkins definition with his broadening of the definition.

From dictionary dot com:
atheist "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. "

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

the roots and etymology might signify "without God", but the usage has been different for a long, long time. There is good reason for the usage being different - it's more meaningful!

The broader Dawkins definition means an atheist could be an agnostic...so it leaves us wanting a word which specifically means "Believes there is no God" as opposed to "is without belief but open to the possibility".

Apparently there is confusion between the idea of passively not believing and positively not believing. A confusion that Dawkins has exploited.

I don't care what we call it as long as I am allowed to have a lexicon to express what I mean and am not forced into use of NEWSPEAK

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Russ,

"burden of proof is on the positive claimant."

Fair enough with the factual, but not with the conceptual.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

John McD

What I quoted is a well know paradox, which has existed ever since free will was postulated. I certainly do not claim to have discovered it. There have been numerous debates about it involving great religious thinkers and mathematicians, like Leibnitz. for one. So far as I know, no one has resolved it. I don't see how ill defined predicates are involved. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

If you have a well formed solution, which does not involve the trivial case of denying free will I urge you to publish it. I think both the religious and mathematical logic communities would be in your debt

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Russ-

Your definition incorporates agnostics into the atheist realm: precisely Dawkins definition with his broadening of the definition.

From dictionary dot com:
atheist "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. "

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

the roots and etymology might signify "without God", but the usage has been different for a long, long time. There is good reason for the usage being different - it's more meaningful!

The broader Dawkins definition means an atheist could be an agnostic...so it leaves us wanting a word which specifically means "Believes there is no God" as opposed to "is without belief but open to the possibility".

Apparently there is confusion between the idea of passively not believing and positively not believing. A confusion that Dawkins has exploited.

I don't care what we call it as long as I am allowed to have a lexicon to express what I mean and am not forced into use of NEWSPEAK

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

David,

Why don't you try to explain it? What is the difference between the conceptual entities that we rely upon in scientific endeavor, and the spiritual concepts of say, Islam and Christianity?

Why is the perfect circle less ludicrous than the concept of a God as love?

And yes, I understand that the attraction of Dawkin's arguments lies in the belief that ridding yourself of God will make you free. I think you're completely misguided on that, but I understand where you're coming from.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Tim Nice: "Yet I have never heard atheists accusing astronomers of acting irrationally by believing they exist."

That's a different type of belief. I'd explain more here but it's probably more efficient given the length restrictions for you to look up a philosophical discussion about certainty.

As a practical-atheist (to tighten the definition for those who wish to restrict the meaning of atheism) I have no jealousy of people with the most common religious beliefs. In fact, I find the implications of those beliefs quite hideous generally.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Oh dear. Many people here do not understand the philosophical position that "atheists" can adhere to nor what atheist means.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). No more no less that's it.

Agnostic atheists (weak atheists) take the position of not believing but not knowing absolutely, that is, I see no proof for the existence of god therefore do not believe but I cannot say for definite that a god(s) does not exist.

Strong atheists take the position that god does not exist and usually look at how unlikely the existence is.

Some atheists are likely to take the position of theological noncognitivism where the word "god" is incoherent and therefore meaningless.

It's easy to take the position of a strong atheist with regard to the monotheistic abrahamic faiths simply because there is so much contradiction in their texts and an omnimax god can be proven not to be possible.

Remember that the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.

The author does not understand.

Russ, Reading, UK

"Simple answer - jealousy. Religious people have something atheists want but can't achieve. They are not prepared to make the necessary "leap of faith" in this area, although they are quite prepared for scientists to do so in other areas."

Tim Nice

Nope. Very wrong there my friend. Most atheists would like to not have their lives interfered with by the religious. This has gone on for centuries and if you live in America there is a serious threat to the secular school system with people pushing creationism to be taught alongside evolution and given the same weight. Look at the abortion and stem cell issues in the USA. We don't need the emotional crutch and waste our time we've better things to do.

And no we cannot see black holes but we can observe the effect they have and these effects were predicted. When sensitive enough "gravitational wave detectors" are created we will have more evidence, which is more evidence than the existence of god whatever you define god to be.

Russ, Reading, UK

Alan -

I said "The scorn is reserved not for agnostics who simply do not believe, but for atheists and materialists who reject entirely the possibility of God. "

so why do you reply with "You apapear to have difficulty in differentiating between agnostics and atheists"?

I'm all for differentiating between agnostics and atheists. That's what I did. If you think this differentiation is wrong or badly phrased then let me know. It's important to get these semantics clear.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

"Atheism is a belief in the legitimacy of free thinking" - Nice quote but complete rubbish. I accept that in the past many religious adherents did so because it was a cultural thing but, certainly with the Christian Church, most people are now there because they have positively opted in, they have thought about it and decided it is right.

Atheists argue that religious people are irrational because they believe in a God who can't be proved. Compare this with the many astronomers who believe in Black Holes. They are not proven. They are a hypothesis to explain the observed evidence. But no one has ever seen a black hole. Yet I have never heard atheists accusing astronomers of acting irrationally by believing they exist. Why they difference ??
Simple answer - jealousy. Religious people have something atheists want but can't achieve. They are not prepared to make the necessary "leap of faith" in this area, although they are quite prepared for scientists to do so in other areas.

Tim Nice, Colchester,

Dolan Cummings article is strange. He seems to be more interested in group dynamics than the truths which are supposed to underpin religious beliefs. Whether you are an agnostic and atheist or a religious person ultimately you should be interested in the truth. Over the centuries as people have become more knowledgeable, they have realized that religion is arbitrary and difficult to change if you blindly follow an arbitrary line of thought, the chances are that you will end up in the corner which you cannot get out of. The current predilection for human free will is a perfect example. If humans have free will, how can the power of God be absolute? It is this kind of problem which leads thinking people to look at a non-religious approach. Religion and the truth seem to have an uncomfortable relationship.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Bob -

You think you've discovered a paradox which shows belief in God to be misguided?

You haven't. It isn't a real paradox because it's based on poorly defined predicates (absolute power, free will).

In any case, as I have already pointed out below, no formal system can be both correct and complete. I can show you genuine paradoxes based on your understanding of the rules of logic in this world. That doesn't mean we give up on rational thought and trying to figure things out, it merely means we accept and understand limitations where they lie.

Once again we are witnessing a little bit of knowledge mixed with a little bit of hubris combining to bring about a completely wrong conclusion. Poor understanding of science's place within rational thought is usually responsible for this.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

In some way, I don’t really understand why that ‘new atheists’ want to name themselves as humanists. That is because they did not reject the Christianity at all.

Humanism was created and named like that by the humanists themselves (not by anyone else) whom, as studious of 'studia humanitatis' or 'littare humaniores', were frontally against to the Aristotelian logic (learnt in the universities) and in favour of looking back to the classics in many ways (for instance, translating them and changing the kind of subjects that were learnt at uni; they add poetry, history and so on). In fact, rejecting religion, was tremendously difficult on a time were religion was already à la page and also in power. Actually, what they really did was to modify the ‘middle ages’ philosophy and way to study by means of looking back to the classics and also to early Christian philosophers such as Saint Agustin who adapted the pagan (classical) myths and thinking to religion (Christianity). Cheers!

adria , barcelona, catalonia

John McD -- I seem to think I've had to explain this before, but here goes once again. You apapear to have difficulty in differentiating between agnostics and atheists. Well, agnostics are wobbly, not wanting to commit themselves one way or the other. Atheists are not. -- Example: On 23.Sept.2007 I invented a 5-legged spotted galactic goblin in a black hole. Now logically you can't prove he doesn't exist (or can you, John)? Ok, but TO WHAT EXTENT do you believe he doesn't exist? For all practical purposes, your non-belief in him must be 99.999... )recurring) percent. -- Well, John, that's the way we atheists feel about god. Logically we can't actively deny his existence. But we're pretty damn near it. Our passive non-belief in him is total, 100%. So we see no reason to call ourselves wobbly agnostics. We are indeed a-theists, godless, without god. -- Point taken, John? -------- (You don't need Godel to understand this.)

alan, cologne,

Dolan Cummings article is strange. He seems to be more interested in group dynamics than the truths which are supposed to underpin religious beliefs. Whether you are an agnostic and atheist or a religious person ultimately you should be interested in the truth. Over the centuries as people have become more knowledgeable, they have realized that religion is arbitrary and difficult to change. If you blindly follow an arbitrary line of thought, the chances are that you will end up in the corner which you cannot get out of. The current predilection for human free will is a perfect example. If humans have free will, how can the power of God be absolute? It is this kind of problem which leads thinking people to look at a non-religious approach. Religion and the truth seem to have an uncomfortable relationship.

Bob Gibson, New York, USA

Ricardo,

It is Dawkins who has attempted to broaden the definition of atheism. What is the point of reducing it's meaning? It simply makes conversation harder.

Or perhaps it makes conversation easier for those who wish not to distinguish between 'agnostic' and and someone who believes the possibility of God is negligible at most.

From dictionary dot com (granted not the best dictionary to be using), under the definition of atheist is "An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine"

So once again, why broaden the definition? With a more specific definition you can express yourself just as easily. You can call your self atheist, agnostic, or simply within the superset of non-faithful.

Broadening the definition was one of Dawkin's dishonest tricks.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Ricardo...

not sure what point you are making by suggesting we are like machines tangled up together.
My point about the relevance of Godel's incompleteness theorems to the limitations of scientific method remain.

If you disagree with that then please explain why.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Its clear from the comments that there is some desire to make atheism a 'side', or a team, or a group.Nothing particularly religious there, that's common behaviour. I thought atheism meant 'without god'. What Godel discovered are deep properties of formal systems, recommend you ALSO read 'I am a strange loop'. Humans are machines (like all things) that to some extent can choose and modify their own operating systems. In this, we are all tangled up together. That's cool, and a bit scary. But isn't it exciting? We can do what we want, so we should really think, experiment, discuss, test, etc. about what we want.

Ricardo Vallekas, Colchester, UK

If it can't be explained by science they won't listen. Richard Dawkins doesn't want anything to do with religion and seeks to look at all the negative impacts of the word Religion the worship of many gods instead of the only true living God, the Creator of Heaven , Earth and the Universe. He's the only reason your living, breathing and thinking. God created human beings in his image so we think for ourselves. Christianity is based upon a PERSONAL DECISION to follow God and his teachings in the bible. We either choose to follow God or reject him.

Seun, Stoke on Trent, UK

Chris,

The scorn is reserved not for agnostics who simply do not believe, but for atheists and materialists who reject entirely the possibility of God.

Their 'faith' is based on an over-estimation of the domain of scientific method. Just as Kant ultimately recognised the need of an external axiom for a sound moral framework, Kurt Godel mathematically proved with his incompleteness theorems our inherent inability to explain our nature fully and also to provide a complete and true moral framework.

Most people see this intuitively, and the materialistic mindset has to be learned. It's apparently a very Western phenomenon dependent upon an incomplete and hubristic understanding of the scientific branch of rational thought.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Simon -

The whole basis of scientific methodology is based on faith.
Kurt Godel proved that with his incompletness theorems.

That doesn't mean we can't "prove" anything..but it does mean that the nature of such proof, together with its inherent limitations must be understood.

You can't satisfactorily prove your own nature, explain your own consciousness, etc. (and no neuroscientist can do so...and it takes a cosmologist or a philosopher to tell you why).

The fantastic success of scientific method has unfortunately cast a spell over many of those who don't fully appreciate what it is, what it is a part of, and what it isn't.

If we conceive of something entirely non-factual, such as a perfect circle, then it has de facto significance. Not everything non-provable is ludicrous.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA.

Atheism is a belief in the legitimacy of free thinking - as opposed to suscribing to a particular (Gods chosen of course) religious group.

Nothing else.

James, Melbourne, australia

Richard from Colchester,
Atheism is NOT another religion!!!! By definition atheists do not have their views on morality (read Leviticus for a Chistian view of homosexuality), handed to them on a plate.

Atheism of course is not just a reaction against Christianity or Islam etc, but a reaction against all forms of religiously blinkered thinking.

James, Melbourne, australia

One knows the theists are struggling when instead of backing their claims for the big friendly giant in the sky they help scorn on the atheist for not believing without evidence. What is good about atheism is that it doesn' rely on mob logic. The atheist is free to question, can apply intellectual rigor and isn't shackled by fear