Comments: Heyo vs. Snow White

[Heyo]

That is a remarkably absurd statement.

It is the logical conclusion from the preceding premise. But I guess you meant that the premise is absurd.
And I slowly get that that is one of the problems in my thesis. There are pros and cons to the premise, e.g. on the pro side all of the scientific consensus but on the other hand, atheism exists almost as long as theism does and it did not manage to convince the believers despite being the rational position.
I guess I have to add an additional limitation to the premise: an objective truth will become consensus eventually if truth and consensus are goals worth to persuit.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is the logical conclusion from the preceding premise. But I guess you meant that the premise is absurd.
And I slowly get that that is one of the problems in my thesis. There are pros and cons to the premise, e.g. on the pro side all of the scientific consensus but on the other hand, atheism exists almost as long as theism does and it did not manage to convince the believers despite being the rational position.
I guess I have to add an additional limitation to the premise: an objective truth will become consensus eventually if truth and consensus are goals worth to persuit.

@Heyo, you wrote:

..., the lack of any consensus is evidence of total ignorance.

This is not a conclusion; it is a premise and is simply wrong.

Just look at our current dialogue. Clearly you and I disagree. Clearly there is no consensus.

Is this evidence of total ignorance? On whose part, yours or mine? Both?​

Now, let's turn to religion. There sometimes seems to be gazillions of them. You and I are almost certainly uninformed when it comes to most, but we can certainly agree that this aggregate manifests a perplexing lack of consensus. Lets simplify this cacaphony by selecting just two of the discordant voices: Religionist-A and Religionist-B. As with you and I, there is no consensus. Again:

Is this evidence of total ignorance? On whose part, Religionist-A or Religionist-B? Both?​

There is, I believe, another point that deserves emphasis. If there is preternatural agency, why should we expect it to be comprehensible? In the marvelous little book Flatland, the Lines and Triangles and Squares are inherently incapable of understanding the world in which you and I debate. Every single religion could be wrong on some level without falsifying God.

Sometimes a lack of consensus is simply due to the intractability of the question.

Finally, as for the following ...

Furthermore, the lack of any attempt to gain consensus is evidence that the believers know about their ignorance and the futility to look for objective evidence.

It is little more than a senseless and unnecessary ad hominem.

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo, you wrote:



This is not a conclusion; it is a premise and is simply wrong.

Just look at our current dialogue. Clearly you and I disagree. Clearly there is no consensus.

Is this evidence of total ignorance? On whose part, yours or mine? Both?​

Now, let's turn to religion. There sometimes seems to be gazillions of them. You and I are almost certainly uninformed when it comes to most, but we can certainly agree that this aggregate manifests a perplexing lack of consensus. Lets simplify this cacaphony by selecting just two of the discordant voices: Religionist-A and Religionist-B. As with you and I, there is no consensus. Again:

Is this evidence of total ignorance? On whose part, Religionist-A or Religionist-B? Both?​

There is, I believe, another point that deserves emphasis. If there is preternatural agency, why should we expect it to be comprehensible? In the marvelous little book Flatland, the Lines and Triangles and Squares are inherently incapable of understanding the world in which you and I debate. Every single religion could be wrong on some level without falsifying God.

Sometimes a lack of consensus is simply due to the intractability of the question.

Yes, that is what it's about. We have to remember what the question is to which there is no consensus: what is a god?
That is the central question of all religions and yet, there is no common answer. That may be due to the intractability of the question but the result is still the same: nobody really knows what a god is.

Finally, as for the following ...



It is little more than a senseless and unnecessary ad hominem.

Wouldn't you expect that, when somebody is interested in learning what a god is, that they'd use the best methods to do so? Set up experiments (if applicable) and debate with as many different position as possible with an intent to find a consensus? For me, the absence of such endeavours is indication that knowledge is not wanted. Belief is sufficient.
And that is OK. Everybody has the right to be wrong. You can do with your belief what you want - but you can't draw any conclusions from it or demand any privileges.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is the central question of all religions and yet, there is no common answer. That may be due to the intractability of the question but the result is still the same: nobody really knows what a god is.

Therefore? One can be a theist who fully acknowledges not really knowing what god is.

Wouldn't you expect that, when somebody is interested in learning what a god is, that they'd use the best methods to do so? Set up experiments (if applicable) and debate with as many different position as possible with an intent to find a consensus?

Or, one could recognize that there are (and can be) no "best efforts" when it comes to the preternatural other than abduction.

For me, the absence of such endeavours is indication that knowledge is not wanted. Belief is sufficient.

Infer whatever intent you wish.

 

[Heyo]

Therefore? One can be a theist who fully acknowledges not really knowing what god is.

It seems we reached consensus with just a few messages exchanged.

Or, one could recognize that there are (and can be) no "best efforts" when it comes to the preternatural other than abduction.

That would be jumping to conclusions. I'm not confident in proclaiming that gods are necessarily unknown (yet) - just that they are now.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems we reached consensus with just a few messages exchanged.

It seems to me that you do not understand post #22. Perhaps that reflects a communications failure on my part. Sorry.

 

[Heyo]

It seems to me that you do not understand post #22. Perhaps that reflects a communications failure on my part. Sorry.

Either it was #22 or #24. I guess you spoke just generally when you said:

One can be a theist who fully acknowledges not really knowing what god is.

... and not about you? Do you insist that you do know what a god is? And furthermore how do you know? And how do you know that everybody who doesn't agree with you (just about 8,000,000,000 people) has it wrong?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... and not about you? Do you insist that you do know what a god is? And furthermore how do you know? And how do you know that everybody who doesn't agree with you (just about 8,000,000,000 people) has it wrong?

We're done ...

 

[PureX]

A couple of things I think need mentioned ...

Regarding Theism/theism, and Atheism/atheism: if theism and atheism are basically personal choices held for personal reasons, I see no point at all in debating them. It'd be like debating the taste of asparagus.

And that leaves Theism/Atheism to be debated not as personal belief choices but as philosophical truth propositions. And that means the atheist side of the debate can't run and hide behind "unbelief". Because belief is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim being made. And in a philosophical debate A CLAIM IS BEING MADE under the banner of "Atheism".

These are crucial bits of information that are being constantly ignored in such debates, and thereby derail them entirely before they can even begin.

Agnosticism is actually a different debate. It's a kind of pre-debate, debate, regarding our ability as humans to logically debate Theism vs Atheism. It addresses the question of whether or not we can claim enough knowledge to even reason logically about the nature or existence of God/gods as a proposed truth.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A couple of things I think need mentioned ...

Regarding Theism/theism, and Atheism/atheism: if theism and atheism are basically personal choices held for personal reasons, I see no point at all in debating them. It'd be like debating the taste of asparagus.

And that leaves Theism/Atheism to be debated not as personal belief choices but as philosophical truth propositions. And that means the atheist side of the debate can't run and hide behind "unbelief". Because belief is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim being made. And in a philosophical debate A CLAIM IS BEING MADE under the banner of "Atheism".

These are crucial bits of information that are being constantly ignored in such debates, and thereby derail them entirely before they can even begin.

Agnosticism is actually a different debate. It's a kind of pre-debate, debate, regarding our ability as humans to logically debate Theism vs Atheism. It addresses the question of whether or not we can claim enough knowledge to even reason logically about the nature or existence of God/gods as a proposed truth.

Excellent advice. Should @Heyo and I ever consider another debate, I think it would be cool where I try to stand up for Atheism a bit more, and though it might be a bit complex, maybe I could be the positive side for Atheism and Heyo the negative side for it, and Heyo be the positive side for Agnosticism and me be the negative side for it. Such a debate would be more complex, but I think also more robust.

Edit: As an example, we could do 3-4 rounds in regards to Atheism, and 3-4 rounds in regards to Agnosticism.