Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 the ignotist and Occam arguments
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend

USA
77 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  07:01:54  Show Profile  Visit skeptic griggsy's Homepage Send skeptic griggsy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
With the ignotist argument, we find that the God notion expresses no real meaning,"hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf" and expresses the unimformative tautology that God wills what He wils. With the Occam argument,using Occam's razor granting meaning, we find that God is superfluous to explanantions, making ad hoc assumptions that are just extra fat.Add to these two arguments, the definitive refutation of the free will defense of God,[ See the tread of that name.] we have the basis of atheology.

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic.

Vegeta
Skeptic Friend

United Kingdom
238 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  07:28:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Vegeta a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Would help if you gave the definition of the arguments for people who don't know them (like me)

What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?

"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  07:42:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I for one am sick of Occam's being used as some sort of universal truth around here, its lazy.* That and the embarrasing notion that a lack of God proof is somehow a proof of the lack of God, we should all know better.

*The author of this statement recognizes the hypocracy of complaining about laziness when he himself is way more lazy than most of the SFNers.

Edit: to make myself seem less stupid.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 04/03/2007 07:45:04
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  08:17:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
BPS wrote:
quote:
I for one am sick of Occam's being used as some sort of universal truth around here, its lazy.* That and the embarrasing notion that a lack of God proof is somehow a proof of the lack of God, we should all know better.
Here here!

Edited to add this:

Right after I posted this comment, it occurred to me that I'm not totally sure if it is "here here" or "hear hear". So I looked it up and found out that it is in fact "hear, hear!" and an explanation of the meaning on The Straight Dope http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html:
quote:
The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"


Of course, if the speaker is actually asking a question, such as "and just where do you think we should open the new strip club?" it's not hard to imagine that at least one yahoo in attendance might yell, "here, here!" But this would be the exception that proves the rule.


"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2007 08:20:38
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  08:31:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Griggsy wrote:
quote:
With the ignotist argument, we find that the God notion expresses no real meaning,"hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf" and expresses the unimformative tautology that God wills what He wils. With the Occam argument,using Occam's razor granting meaning, we find that God is superfluous to explanantions, making ad hoc assumptions that are just extra fat.Add to these two arguments, the definitive refutation of the free will defense of God,[ See the tread of that name.] we have the basis of atheology.
I Googled “ignotist argument” because I had no idea what it was, and the first link listed was this: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4309631 It is pretty much this same paragraph, complete with the spelling errors and seemingly arbitrary emoticon bookends.

The second link listed was this: http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?p=347506&sid=adc95c5ceab748d547eee3339d167644

Again, spelling errors and emoticons, and this time with your name “Skeptic Griggsy”.

Mind explaining what the “ignotist argument” is in a way which is a tad more coherent?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2007 08:32:24
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  08:44:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

I for one am sick of Occam's being used as some sort of universal truth around here, its lazy.
I'm not sure that the blame should be placed on laziness, since most people learn the popular (and incorrect) use of the tool first, and there aren't too many people around who take the time to retrain others on that point.
quote:
That and the embarrasing notion that a lack of God proof is somehow a proof of the lack of God, we should all know better.
There does indeed come a time when an absence of evidence can become evidence of absence. And after tens of thousands of years of people actively attempting to find evidence of god(s), and coming up empty handed, I happen to think that perhaps that time has come. And if the reason we can't find evidence of a god is because that god wants to stay hidden, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist anyway.

But back to the OP. When I tried to Google for a definition of 'ignotist', I discovered that griggsy has been busy with this question, posting pretty much the same question on at least a dozen forums. And here is the free-will thread.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  09:59:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There does indeed come a time when an absence of evidence can become evidence of absence. And after tens of thousands of years of people actively attempting to find evidence of god(s), and coming up empty handed, I happen to think that perhaps that time has come. And if the reason we can't find evidence of a god is because that god wants to stay hidden, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist anyway.


I agree on this for most things that evidence is collected for, though just by the nature of the God question and a few other concepts, they can never be ruled out by any means.

Oh and the God question isnt a matter of practicality really, even if god has no effect on us, I still think people would want to know of its existence.


"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26007 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  10:13:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

I agree on this for most things that evidence is collected for, though just by the nature of the God question and a few other concepts, they can never be ruled out by any means.
I submit to you that "the nature of god" is entirely definitional, coming from people. In other words, there is no "nature of god" that we're given clues to by the universe itself. As such, any god whose "nature" it is to leave marks upon the world perhaps should have already been found. The only reason we can't rule it out completely is because we may not have allowed enough time for searching to have passed. But that's also true of unicorns and pixies.
quote:
Oh and the God question isnt a matter of practicality really, even if god has no effect on us, I still think people would want to know of its existence.
If "the nature of god" does indeed rest solely upon definition, then looking for god makes as much sense as looking for the concept of the number zero. Zero is defined by the man-made axioms of mathematics. One cannot go out and find or discover it, nor evidence of it.

Edited for spelling.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  12:59:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
For practical purposes, we rule out all sorts of things that have far better evidence than does the god myth. Even homeopathic medicine offers pathetic bits of "evidence" from time to time, but it is rejected by medical science as nonsense.

After thousands of years without a shred of evidence of gods, I agree with Dave that it's past time to toss out the myth. Lack of evidence is not absolutely certain evidence of lack, but it's time that supporters of both the god myth and homeopathy provide evidence or be considered false by science and reason. I hold to a theory that the striking lack of evidence for a deity is practical proof of the striking lack of a deity. Prove the theory wrong.

Occam's Razor is a fairly good rule of thumb for those who are lost without a map. It proves nothing in itself, as sometimes the truth does turn out to be complex. But as a general principle, it's a good bet when there is nothing else to go by. The Razor is like the rule of thumb that when lost in the wilderness, it's best to travel downhill, and downstream. True, the closest human settlement might be a ski chalet on a nearby mountaintop, but far more likely one will find increasing levels of human activity as one travels downstream.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  17:16:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Dave:
There does indeed come a time when an absence of evidence can become evidence of absence. And after tens of thousands of years of people actively attempting to find evidence of god(s), and coming up empty handed, I happen to think that perhaps that time has come. And if the reason we can't find evidence of a god is because that god wants to stay hidden, then for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist anyway.

There are a few things about the God myths that differs from most claims that lack empirical evidence; the main one being the amount of anecdotal evidence there is in support of a God. There is also the tenacity of the claim, given that in some form or other, it has been around for tens of thousands of years and held, in all that time, by the majority of people. This God thing is no common myth. It has literally shaped whole civilizations and continues to do so.

Another interesting thing about the God myth is that there are extremely intelligent people, and even some skeptics who are comfortable with not scrutinizing it the same as they would any other myth. Many of them are believers.

To say “the time has come” is true, perhaps, but really, the time came and went long ago. Sure, we know more about the nature of things now, but it seems to me that in the best of cases, that has only caused a shift in thinking by those who believe. For example, many believers see the advances in our knowledge about the universe, and really, all of science, as an even greater window into the mind of God. Apparently, belief in God is an adaptive trait, which may tell us something about religions tenacity.

Just saying that a God belief answers the unanswerable mysteries (at least now when some of those mysteries have been answered by science) doesn't really cover God or religious belief anymore. (And, of course Dave, I'm not saying you said that. I've really just gone off on a rant here…)

If history is any guide, and it should be, we non-believers are outlaws and probably always will be. It seems to me that we need to learn how better to deal with people of faith and faith itself to have a chance of moving forward or even making sense of what seems so senseless to us non-believers.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 04/03/2007 :  20:26:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I think there is probably going to be a "punctuated equilibrium" event happening with atheism becoming "normal" and acceptable, Kil.

Maybe Mab or one of our other Euros can confirm (or contradict) this, but I think that in some European countries, atheism is already a mainstream (non-"outlaw") belief. Certainly this is not so in North America, or even most of the world, but if it can happen in one place, the principle has been demonstrated. (On a side thought, it may actually be that the dissolution of the Soviet Union has left atheism somewhat more acceptable in the public's mind, by no longer appearing to be associated with that system.) Such an advancement of atheism would be uneven geographically, but I suspect that such a Golden Age of tolerance for atheism is coming in the near future for the US and Canada.




Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/03/2007 21:01:07
Go to Top of Page

skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend

USA
77 Posts

Posted - 04/04/2007 :  09:25:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit skeptic griggsy's Homepage Send skeptic griggsy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am glad that here there are very good replies to my comments!There is also the hiddeness argument that God hides from us so as to protect our free will, but that sounds as though he does not exist! I also find that absence of evidence is fitting to show no god and is not therefore in this subject an argument from ignorance.Theists put old garbage into new cans that we empty into the trash heap of ignorance!Thanks.

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 04/04/2007 :  17:55:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Half wrote:
quote:
I think there is probably going to be a "punctuated equilibrium" event happening with atheism becoming "normal" and acceptable, Kil.
Whether this happens or not is, IMHO, irrelevant to mankind generally improving our overall condition here on earth. Atheist societies aren't more likely to be more humane than the current secular democracies. Another thing to consider is that if what you are predicting (a rapid acceptance of atheism as the mainstream worldview of modern societies) does happen, that is likely to fan the flames of violence among the fundamentalist minorities. After all, modern fundamentalism is arguably a reaction to secular society. So what would their reaction be to a powerful majority of outright atheists? (Edited to add: And then what would be the response to that response from the atheist majority?) I cringe at the thought of it.

My preference would be a tendency toward great diversity of personal beliefs with a mainstream and overwhelming whole world acceptance of pluralism and religious tolerance (edited to add: and secular government).

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 04/04/2007 17:58:58
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 04/04/2007 :  17:56:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Theists put old garbage into new cans that we empty into the trash heap of ignorance!
We? Speak for yourself.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 04/04/2007 :  21:16:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox

Half wrote:
quote:
I think there is probably going to be a "punctuated equilibrium" event happening with atheism becoming "normal" and acceptable, Kil.
Whether this happens or not is, IMHO, irrelevant to mankind generally improving our overall condition here on earth. Atheist societies aren't more likely to be more humane than the current secular democracies. Another thing to consider is that if what you are predicting (a rapid acceptance of atheism as the mainstream worldview of modern societies) does happen, that is likely to fan the flames of violence among the fundamentalist minorities. After all, modern fundamentalism is arguably a reaction to secular society. So what would their reaction be to a powerful majority of outright atheists? (Edited to add: And then what would be the response to that response from the atheist majority?) I cringe at the thought of it.

My preference would be a tendency toward great diversity of personal beliefs with a mainstream and overwhelming whole world acceptance of pluralism and religious tolerance (edited to add: and secular government).

I never said that atheism was soon going to be a majority view in the US, just an acceptable (large minority) viewpoint. That would seem to satisfy your preference for diversity, and mine for the acceptance of atheism as a legitimate viewpoint. I would hope, however, that religion would gradually die out over the centuries to follow.

I think that indeed we'd have a more humane and peaceful world without the domination of religion. There would not be that primary drive behind wars. You may cringe at the thought of a world with a majority of atheists, but I suspect they'd be a whole lot more tolerant of the remaining religious than the latter ever were of atheists -- or of one another.

And what are the religious fanatics going to do, defensively backed into a corner in majority-atheist societies, as you vividly imagine it? Are they going to begin to resort to violence, crusades, jihads, and holy wars? Will they start blowing themselves up as human bombs? That would indeed be an unsettling new development. So we should avoid spreading atheism, because the True Believers might not like it?

Bullshit.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 04/05/2007 :  03:35:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
I never said that atheism was soon going to be a majority view in the US, just an acceptable (large minority) viewpoint.
Well, there already is a large minority of nonreligious people (about 14% in the USA), and those people are at least with the atheist on issues of church-state separation. There are probably also a heck of a lot more atheists than will admit it or use the label "atheist". And that is due to both discrimination and certain bad connotations of the word, most of which are totally made up by ignorant believers and some of which are perpetuated by a small but vocal minority within organized atheism as a movement.

quote:
That would seem to satisfy your preference for diversity, and mine for the acceptance of atheism as a legitimate viewpoint.
Agreed.
quote:
I would hope, however, that religion would gradually die out over the centuries to follow.
As long as we don't thrust ourselves back into another dark age through some global catastrophe (stay back, Al Gore!) I think that is inevitable. And if it did happen gradually, I think it would be a peaceful change.

quote:
So we should avoid spreading atheism, because the True Believers might not like it?

Bullshit.
You are twisting my words. I never said that at all. You are putting a moral interpretation ("should") on something I said when I never advocated that particular moral suggestion.

I don't think we should spread atheism. I think we should spread skepticism and critical thinking, which does not necessarily default to atheism IMO. Atheism by itself is nothing good or bad, so why would we spread it?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.22 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000