10/1/09

Daniel Dennett - Belief in Belief

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

7 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM

    Well written! Another masterfully done critique!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cedric KatesbyOctober 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM

    They seem to think that something, or someone, does not exist because they do not believe it.

    Nonsense.
    Bigfoot might exist.
    Or not.
    I don't think that he does.
    Yet that does not mean that Bigfoot does not exist.
    Same goes for aliens and tooth-fairies.

    ...since there is no scientific/empirical evidence supporting the request for scientific evidence for the existence of Bigfoot the request is self defeating.
    Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object? Do we look for physical evidence of something/someone who is not non-physical.

    If somebody makes the claim that Bigfoot exists then...they get to provide the evidence.
    If they choose to provide crappy evidence then...there's no good reason to believe in Bigfoot.
    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OttofireOctober 2, 2009 at 9:12 AM

    Scientific 'evidence' is a fleeting vapor.

    One day man evolved from apes, and the next, well, apes evolved from hominids. As the new 'evidence' is discovered, the entire worldview can change, and the previous worldview is thrown on the trash heap. However at the time, the atheist will die on the hill that science has built for them. And then they wonder why Christians laugh at their solid belief in something which will be pulled out from under their feet next week. It is like watching those that are on the diet of the week in the latest tabloid, the one that will finally work, this time.

    There is never a solid foundation in science, just opinions which are as changing as the fashion of the day. Evidence is what the atheist decides it is, at the time she/he makes the decision, and is always subject to re-evaluation at whim. Such is the belief structure of the non-believer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cedric KatesbyOctober 2, 2009 at 9:58 AM

    Evidence is what the atheist decides it is, at the time she/he makes the decision, and is always subject to re-evaluation at whim. Such is the belief structure of the non-believer.

    Which means.....?
    You don't have evidence for Bigfoot?
    Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OttofireOctober 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM

    Cedric, there IS indeed evidence.

    The credibility is suspect, but it is there.

    Now on the other hand, it might be that soon that those that hold to the materialistic/'scientific' worldview will be arguing that there is no evidence this week and next week calling everyone stupid for not holding the 'scientific' evidence that Bigfoot is not only the missing link, but the alien source for all life in the universe. Who knows, maybe it is the cause for the big bang too. It is just a 'scientific' discovery away.

    There is no foundation, nothing you can hang your hat on. In the end you are basing your worldview on the musings of 'science' priests, and echoing their dogmas, which change every time they open their mouths.

    Please, tell me something which is unchanging in the 'scientific' dogmas of your Atheism. Is there anything that some particle physics high priest cannot change with the foundation of a new quark? Is there any evolutionary discovery hidden in the ground that will destroy 'science's current theory?

    I submit that not only IS there, but you MUST stake your material atheism on it. You MUST say that we are holding to 'scientific' facts that are false, that the current edifice of 'science' is MUST come crashing to the ground in a ruin. You must say that the arguments you are making are based on false arguments and assumptions. You must agree that your argument is nothing but vapor, and thus the atheist is just full of hot air.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cedric KatesbyOctober 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM

    The credibility is suspect, but it is there.

    If it's suspect then why give it money and political power?
    Why hook up with one god as opposed to another god if it's suspect?

    ...it might be that soon that those that hold to the materialistic/'scientific' worldview will be arguing that there is no evidence this week and next week...

    Um....
    You've lost me. What are you talking about?
    Never mind.

    Look, it's really simple.
    Atheism has no dogma. There's no manual. No set of instructions. No ideology. No "worldview".

    Atheism is not believing in a god for the same reasons that you don't believe in Bigfoot or fairies or aliens.
    There's not much more to it that that.
    You don't have to like science or accept the theory of evolution or reject the idea of a soul etc. Those are all separate issues.

    As long as you don't accept the existence of a god because there doesn't seem to be any good reason to do so then...you're an atheist.

    The vast majority of people believe in their own particular gods simply because that's what they were taught to believe by their parents.
    It's not a coincidence that the Jewish god just so happens to be accepted by the children of Jews.
    How many Hindu parents end up raising Greek Orthodox children that you are aware of?

    Do you believe in Zeus?
    No?
    Well, that makes you an atheist with regards to Zeus.
    Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  7. kh123November 11, 2009 at 5:18 AM

    "Look, it's really simple.
    Atheism has no dogma. There's no manual. No set of instructions. No ideology. No "worldview"."     [And apparently no continuity of thought beyond a 4-word paragraph.]

    Atheism has no dogma. Absolutely!... Except of course to state that atheists have the omniscience to know that no omniscient being exists.

    Ah, and taking guns to school to murder classmates isn't objectively wrong - since we ruled that out too with our omniscient powers.

    And that there are no absolutes - absolutely.

    Wait - still yet another one - that actively castigating religion is mandatory, especially Judeochristianity. ("The hilllls are aliiive - with the sound of Munich...")

    Oh, right, and that everything made itself from an explosion from nothing, on its own. Because we're dealing with reality here, not belief.

    The evolution thing fits secondarily in there somewhere - since claiming that no intelligence is needed to bioengineer complex organisms from (yes, you're favorite Cedric!) Campbell's Prebiotic with Stars - that's really not a philosophical primer (excuse) for the whole atheism thing. Really.

    Wow, from so simple a non-belief system, there sure are alot of fundamental theses that go along with it. (Or feces, take your pick.) Tag on a few more culturally inherited rules, and that awesome New Atheism (here to stay!) might have to compete with the Sangha of Buddhism.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)