Definitions of atheism. Can atheism be scientifically defined?

[Tambourine]

I couldn't disagree more. I could point out that in my opinion you have it completely backward but will instead just observe that "human knowledge" doesn't even contain a working definition for "consciousness" which is the only possible means of framing or holding any fact at all. I will observe that "human knowledge" is based in words with indefinite definitions and models which vary from consciousness to consciousness.

Yes, definitions of concepts are not fixed and vary from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. So what?

 

[Willamena]

Definitions, even of concepts, are fixed within the realm of human understanding.

 

[cladking]

Except of course the answer that there is a God, because in that field we can totally make far reaching claims based on nothing but the vague intuition of a supreme being - a notion which very definitely isn't be an artifact of the way human brains work, unlike the entirety of human knowledge.

Yes, definitions of concepts are not fixed and vary from individual to individual, and from culture to culture. So what?

You say "the entirety of human knowledge" as though it amounts to a hill of beans. For generating hills of beans it is highly effective but it ignores little facts like hills of beans were around long before any human knowledge is recognized. We actually believe agriculture was invented not by theory or knowledge but through trial and error. You see our great knowledge but appear blind to our far greater and far more reaching ignorance and that all knowledge is held by individuals in the form of models.

Each individual who holds this knowledge is believed to have "consciousness" which frames that knowledge but no understanding of consciousness can exist where no working definition exists. You are simply assuming that the concept of "God" is rooted in belief and arose in individuals like us. You assume that it is superstition but that the belief we understand enough reality to exclude the possibility of a "Creator" is apparent. You assume that no religion can be correct unless they all agree and can be shown experimentally while ignoring the fact that the non-existence of God can't be shown experimentally. And all the while with no working definition of God or consciousness.

Most ancient beliefs were founded in superstition and misunderstanding but modern beliefs are founded on quicksand. They are founded on the belief that reality can be understood by induction and experiment. I might agree that experiment is effective but only so long as models are understood to be based on language and definitions rather than reality itself.

 

[cladking]

Definitions, even of concepts, are fixed within the realm of human understanding.

Every dictionary will disagree with you.

Even scientific terms like "momentum" tend to be modeled differently by different individuals and every application of the term is dependent on a frame of reference.

Can an airplane take off from a conveyor belt running the same speed in the opposite direction?

 

[Willamena]

Every dictionary will disagree with you.

Even scientific terms like "momentum" tend to be modeled differently by different individuals and every application of the term is dependent on a frame of reference.

Can an airplane take off from a conveyor belt running the same speed in the opposite direction?

Dictionaries provide word usage, not so much definition.

I propose that those strivng to make their models conform to "momentum" are reaching for common definition.

 

[Tambourine]

You say "the entirety of human knowledge" as though it amounts to a hill of beans. For generating hills of beans it is highly effective but it ignores little facts like hills of beans were around long before any human knowledge is recognized. We actually believe agriculture was invented not by theory or knowledge but through trial and error. You see our great knowledge but appear blind to our far greater and far more reaching ignorance and that all knowledge is held by individuals in the form of models.

Did we arrive at the idea of a monotheistic God through trial and error?

Each individual who holds this knowledge is believed to have "consciousness" which frames that knowledge but no understanding of consciousness can exist where no working definition exists. [...]

You are confusing the signifier for the signified here.
Understanding can exist on several levels, and not all of them require explicit definitions.

Also, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth where they don't belong. I don't really care about people's religious beliefs. My misgivings were with a certain inconsistent application of epistemic relativism that curiously always seems to stop short of questioning the existence of God concepts.

 

[cladking]

Dictionaries provide word usage, not so much definition.

I see precious little difference between "word usage" and "definition". Every word and its usage has shades of meaning as well as multiple meanings which must be estimated and guessed by the listener.

I propose that those strivng to make their models conform to "momentum" are reaching for common definition.

Your point is well taken here. Most individuals are trying to make their models and definition conform to other people and experiment. There is "progress". But there is still the simple fact that ALL models are framed in language rather than in reality. There is still the fact that there are shades of understanding of even simpler scientific terms like "momentum".

 

[Tambourine]

I see precious little difference between "word usage" and "definition". Every word and its usage has shades of meaning as well as multiple meanings which must be estimated and guessed by the listener.



Your point is well taken here. Most individuals are trying to make their models and definition conform to other people and experiment. There is "progress". But there is still the simple fact that ALL models are framed in language rather than in reality. There is still the fact that there are shades of understanding of even simpler scientific terms like "momentum".

And our notions of the Divine do not exist outside of language, any more than anything else we talk about.
Even the nominally Unspeakable must be framed in language in order to be understood.

 

[cladking]

Did we arrive at the idea of a monotheistic God through trial and error?

No. This came about as more "evolution" than anything else. The number of (G)gods believed in by most people is irrelevant to the number that exist(s). But herein lies the problem; this Quantity is unknown because of lack of empirical evidence and definitions just as "atheism" is undefinable because there are as many forms of "atheism" as there are "theism".

Understanding can exist on several levels, and not all of them require explicit definitions.

I don't disagree but all science is based on experiment and all experiment must be repeatable. "Understanding" that isn't repeatable certainly has value to the individual but not to "science".

 

[cladking]

And our notions of the Divine do not exist outside of language, any more than anything else we talk about.
Even the nominally Unspeakable must be framed in language in order to be understood.

I'm not certain of your points here.

Certainly there are no referents in reality for many things but even taxonomies, beliefs, and thought are designed to reflect what we perceive as underlying reality. We speak of "rabbits" and while there is really no such thing there are most assuredly many individuals who munch young $20 saplings and have floppy ears. One could say there is no referent for "rabbits" because "rabbits" don't exist in reality but there are numerous individuals which fulfill the "definitions" for "rabbit".

If God exists then there is "Divine" outside of language. Whether God or gods exist or not then many of the terms used by religions may well have real world referents as well.

 

[Tambourine]

No. This came about as more "evolution" than anything else. The number of (G)gods believed in by most people is irrelevant to the number that exist(s). But herein lies the problem; this Quantity is unknown because of lack of empirical evidence and definitions just as "atheism" is undefinable because there are as many forms of "atheism" as there are "theism".

I don't disagree but all science is based on experiment and all experiment must be repeatable. "Understanding" that isn't repeatable certainly has value to the individual but not to "science".

That's an extremely narrow definition of science. Not all science is based in the experimental methods, and not all observations are repeatable in practice. What most sciences do however is to devise models or hypotheses which are then tested against empirically observable reality, and it is from this testing of hypotheses (which is in many ways an evolution of the "trial and error" method) where scientific understanding is derived.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm not certain of your points here.

My point is that when taking a position of epistemic relativism, you cannot cherry pick which phenomena are epistemically relativistic and which are epistemically absolute. If rabbits don't exist, then neither do gods.

Except we can observe the social construct of "rabbit" as having a relationship to observable physical phenomena.

 

[cladking]

My point is that when taking a position of epistemic relativism, you cannot cherry pick which phenomena are epistemically relativistic and which are epistemically absolute. If rabbits don't exist, then neither do gods.

Except we can observe the social construct of "rabbit" as having a relationship to observable physical phenomena.

I'm not talking about any sort of "relativism".

I am averring that modern language can not be used to make any true statement of any kind because every word has different meanings and shades of meaning. I am saying NO taxonomy has a referent in reality so there are neither "atheists" nor "gods". I might add that this is not necessarily a detriment to communication because communication is more the exchange of ideas than mere words.

We all know what a "rabbit" is and generally there is little disagreement on whether (the) referent is actually a "rabbit" or not. There is far more disagreement on a referent for "atheist" and virtually no agreement on a referent for "consciousness" as well as no working definition. It is impossible to define "atheist" if it's impossible to define "consciousness. The reality is that we use language to format thinking and to frame models. We compare sensory input not to reality as we each perceive but rather to the models constructed with language.

 

[cladking]

That's an extremely narrow definition of science. Not all science is based in the experimental methods, and not all observations are repeatable in practice. What most sciences do however is to devise models or hypotheses which are then tested against empirically observable reality, and it is from this testing of hypotheses (which is in many ways an evolution of the "trial and error" method) where scientific understanding is derived.

There is one known science and observation and induction are beyond its metaphysics. These necessarily introduce beliefs into the scientific method.

This isn't so much to say induction and observation can't lead to fact or understanding, just not to theory.

 

[joelr]

Please tell me, do I understand the following correctly. I am opened to productive discussions.

These definitions of atheism are equivalent:
Non-belief in the existence of True God,
Belief in the non-existence of True God.
The True God is not an idol, the idol is man-made and wrong understanding of god.

No. A common definition of atheism does not have any belief in a god or against a god. It's simply that there is no good evidence for any gods. There could be a god but we do not know.
It isn't as hard as it's sometimes made out to be. How you see Zeus or Odin is how we see your God.

Thus, atheism is the method of science. Thus, the science has an anti-religious agenda, for example,

Science does not use atheism as a method. How would that even work?

There are many theisms in the world. And only one atheism. One of the theisms is the most adequate description of God. Let us call it True Theism. The theisms share one common truth: God's unique name (identifier) is the holy word God, and God is existent. The atheism has no valid knowledge of God. The atheism talks about satan only, that is why atheists are angry at god, who done crimes in the Old Testament. It is the satan, not True God. NB! Word God in Old Testament refers to True God.

Or all theisms are myths and have nothing to do with any god and are stories passed on through religious synchretism.
Atheism does not speak on Satan. As an OT professor will tell you the modern Satan is a character written into the OT during the Persian invasion and many tenants of the Persian religion were blended into Judaism:

"During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids. Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu, the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance."
"The idea of Satan as an opponent of God and a purely evil figure seems to have taken root in Jewish pseudepigrapha during the Second Temple Period,"

So to that end he is just the bad guy in a fictional narrative. The Persians also had an Adam and Eve, a savior, judgment day and all sorts of now popular concepts.

Although in the OT God sends Satan to do his dirty work several times so what you are saying doesn't track?

"Yahweh sends the "Angel of Yahweh" to inflict a plague against Israel for three days, killing 70,000 people as punishment for David having taken a census without his approval."
"Yahweh sends a "troubling spirit" to torment King Saul .."

"Yahweh consents; the satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn Yahweh"

 

[Willamena]

I see precious little difference between "word usage" and "definition".

That's sad...; but then, word to my brother.

Every word and its usage has shades of meaning as well as multiple meanings which must be estimated and guessed by the listener.

Denotation and connotation. None of which figures into definition, which is a precise and consice statement of the meaning of a word.

Unless you want to suggest that words have no meaning...

Your point is well taken here. Most individuals are trying to make their models and definition conform to other people and experiment. There is "progress". But there is still the simple fact that ALL models are framed in language rather than in reality. There is still the fact that there are shades of understanding of even simpler scientific terms like "momentum".

Language is more efficient without so-called "progress." Just the endeavour to teach someone what a "myth" means without referring to falsehood is a challenge.

All such models are framed in language. It's not like there is an alternative.

 

[cladking]

None of which figures into definition, which is a precise and consice statement of the meaning of a word.

No. Every word has many meanings and if you look up one of the definitions you'll find the definitions are composed of words with more definitions.

We must try to determine the meanings of words as we read or hear them on a real time basis. We normally don't even notice we're doing it. And we don't notice everyone's definitions are different and that every listener takes a different meaning. We don't notice that models, thought, and consciousness are formatted in language; words. There are no two identical atheists but the most common "type" (if "types" exist at all) would include those who believe in the non-existence of God with a religious fervor.

 

[Tambourine]

There is one known science and observation and induction are beyond its metaphysics. These necessarily introduce beliefs into the scientific method.

This isn't so much to say induction and observation can't lead to fact or understanding, just not to theory.

Would you not categorize astronomy, geology and biology as sciences?
Do you believe these fields are incapable of creating theories?

 

[cladking]

Would you not categorize astronomy, geology and biology as sciences?
Do you believe these fields are incapable of creating theories?

Yes and no.

Some observation and some inductions can be be very solidly consistent with math and theory. In these cases there is every reason to elevate the results to theory but only so long as it is not forgotten that they are founded in language and belief. We can be pretty certain that such theories would stand the test of experiment but until one is devised it should be considered something like "provisional theory". I believe that in the next half century science will find it had some basic components wrong. And many more basics that are dependent on perspective and definitions rather than nature or reality. This is probably why we are hung up on the unified field theory. We must get past errors in our models to move forward.

 

[Tiberius]

Can an airplane take off from a conveyor belt running the same speed in the opposite direction?

Nope.

Because it doesn't matter what speed the plane is moving relative to whatever surface is under the wheels, all that matters is the air moving over the wings.