As of the present moment then I consider skepticism an irrefutable position. — TheMadFool

I think you are acknowledging the problem that this sentence presents, but I am not sure. To me context is important. Being skeptical as an activity, since positions are actually activities, can be good or problematic. It depends. I could spend 40% of my day wondering if my wife is as nice as I generally assume. I think that's way too much. That I once in a while consider that there is a problem I am not willing to look at in the relationship, that she is responsible for, could be useful. Running around telling people our love is perfect might also be problematic. To me without presenting a context, an assertion like the one I quoted above isn't clear and probably is misleading, since it avoids the whole issue of application. But perhaps this is what you meant by 'the problem of the criterion'. And I do appreciate the probing, exploratory feel of your post.

This isn't true: we may doubt, even radically so, but we can, without the slightest difficulty, walk, talk, play baseball, etc — TheMadFool

Not at the same time. If you doubt and play baseball at the same time you will play it worse. That's pretty much scientifically demonstrated. If you are engaged in the activity of doubting while doing a vast range of things, you will perform them at a lower level.

I think there are a couple of reifications going on here. 'I am a skeptic.' or 'Scepticism is irrefutable' have open and hidden reifications. In fact being skeptical is an activity and no skeptic engages in it all the time, and good for them not going this. In fact if all they were was skeptical they could certainly never decide skepticism was a good thing, since they would be engaged in an infinite regress. For the purposes of their skeptical evaulation of something, they would have to accept certain things as given: such as my memory is generally accurate, my evaluations of logic and evidence are generally accurate. And so on. I think there is a confusion of an occasional epistemological position taking with what one is all the time. or what one is doing all the time. These are actions, not states. And if you take the action of being skeptical while doing all sorts of things, you are in for all sorts of problems. If you very rarely are confident in your assumptions, you will have all sorts of problems. I can walk on the baseball field or into an office or an argument and be confident, not doubt myself - and professionals must do this to perform well. Later at other times they can reflect on their decisions. Only very rarely needs they wonder if we are actually brains in vats or if some other assumptions might be false. I certainly don't want my surgeon mulling over that stuff if she's performing a tricky bypass on my heart or even second guessing as a rule her decisions. Confidence is a must for all sorts of high skill stuff. But here's the thing, so many things we do and take for granted are high skill activities, many we have tremendous trouble managing to get machines to perform.

I think people often imagine their philosophical positions in the abstract. Here in situ we be skeptics all the time, and on many issues we need not have any doubt the vast majority of the time. Some details and portions are good to reflect over

at
other times.

But in action, confidence is a must.

I am complex. Belief is not binary. I can be totally confident in a situations and then later be skeptical about the assumptions even though they worked so well.

Ergo, being confident is always a flaw for, as the skeptic reminds us, certainty is impossible. — TheMadFool

I suppose it is possible confidence is problematic is one is specifically waxing philosophical. But in general there are many situations where confidence improves your chances of success. Even something as simple as the act of walking requires confidence that the ground is there, that you can manage to walk, and so on. And the more challenging the walk, the more important fundamental certainties are. Which would include confidence in one's own ability to notice anomalies in the terrain that might be dangerous. There are all sorts of skills/activities where one does not want to have thinky doubts while performing them, this can be dangerous. Of course if you do not have enough skills to be safe, then doubting the wisdom of certain acts is healthy, but once engaged lack of confidence can be problematic. There's a difference between pondering potential metaphysical exceptions and what might be illusions on certain occasions. The action of investigating ontology or whatever when one has the luxury of a safe environment and no physical goals and one is interested in doing that is not at all appropriate in many types of situations. A baseball players making sure to include some Zeno inspired doubt about the possibiity of motion while standing and the plate waiting for a pitch is reducing his or her chances of getting a hit. Factory workers would be increasing their risk of injury. And so on.

Humans must have a diverse set of heuristics and context is important. Asterisks and doubt are not appropriate things in many situations. Confidence is pretty much a must for any type of new knowledge creation or top range performance. Likely it is good in times of training and mulling to have moments of epistemological caution about certains specific conclusions - is my training program the one best fitting me? or whatever - but if one is trying to invent something new, especially paradigmatically knew fostering doubt is something that needs to be set aside for long long periods of time. And to truly excel, you need to have high volumes of periods where you are confident.

If you pay taxes, as an adult, then you know that that money is more than likely going to be used, at some point to kill people. Could be via black op groups that right now operate in dozens of nations, could be in a war that will likely not be about peace and justice, but have other motivations. One can just trust that present and future administrations will only use black ops and wars against military targets with no civilian collatoral kills, but this would be naive. Any taxpayer is assuming a consequentialist stance, right off the bat. The innocents killed with my tax dollars were killed for the greater good - I think even that is not correct, but it means that deontologist stances are very hard to hold as a taxpayer. Then one must have a great deal of faith after that shift to consequentialism in the intentions of administrations. And every single war kills foetuses and the women they are inside.

This problem also arises for purchaser of products and services, given the behavior of many corporations.

People seem to be very focused on women taking responsibility for sex, but generally not so interested in what their tax dollars and purchases contribute too when it comes to innocent lives.

He said it here....

than to suppose that some magical wholly new metaphysical thing starts happening when otherwise inert matter gets arranged in just the right way (or else than even we humans somehow don’t even have the first person experience we think we do — Pfhorrest

IOW simpler to assume consciousness is a facet of matter in general rather than an emergent property of some matter. We lack, currently a direct measure of consciousness, though we do have measures for behaviors and functions. We have assumed, for example, within the scientific community in Western culture that only humans, then grudgingly only perhaps primates, then slowly other mammals were conscious. Only in recent years has it been accepted that perhaps many animals more distantly related to us have consciousness in some way and the boundary is now hovering around plants in that community where there is some acceptance that they may be conscious. Before this of course other parts of Western culture just (and I would argue correctly) assumed that animals were conscious: animal trainers, pet owners, indigenous members of Western societies, children and more. There the presumption of consciousness at least with animals worked extremely well and was a better axiom than the one held by the scientific community. IOW there are a few default positions, all matter, all life, only very complicated organisms with nervous systems like us. I think the last is based on bias. Right now however we do not have a way to reconcile the issue. It is very hard to falsify any of these positions, though I would not say any of them are unfalsifiable, since technology may change that over time. We can test for memory in some things - which is a cognitive function that may or may not be hinged to conscoiusness. We can test for behavior. But we cannot directly test for consciousness in anything we cannot communicate with, problem of other minds and all that. Right now in the epistemologically scientific community with its default (and not demonstrated default) position that complex neural networks are must for consciousness, the set of organisms that are considered conscious has been expanding for decades. And as I said now even the possibility that plants are conscious is being taken seriously despite their not fitting that default. So, even in a group that has a very rigid a priori, the set has been expanding. Even up to the early 70s asserting in professional contexts as a scientist that animals were conscious was a position potentially damaging to one's career. I sometimes wonder if the influx of women scientists was part of what shifted the extremely rigid default agnosticism present before that, when science was actually behind and clearly almost solipsistically behind the positions of a number of other groups in Western society and then also beyond.

That's certainly part of the truth. And education and parenting also play roles. All part of how people are raised. But the media are making money off doing less and less journalism but calling the news that. And they know that they are passing on products, like advertising, where cognictive science experts are, for example, helping companies manipulate children. There's a lot of blame to throw around, but the media companies are certainly justified - as more well off adults with more education than their average audience and as people making money of slimy crap - in receiving a chunk of it. This does not let anyone else off the hook.

LOL
but it's your net confidence and how well your confidence fits the context - your skills in particular area, you ability to assess threats and more - that matter.

And I was urging against that kind of response to the OP. — bongo fury

It seemed that way. But I think simply labeling something woo is rude and contentless.

As it happens, though, doing ontology, in the straightforward sense of inferring domains of objects to serve as the potential targets of our word-pointing, i.e. doing semantics, would be my suggestion for roughly where to look for the emergence of consciousness in (e.g.) human infants. — bongo fury

I think that could have been shortened to 'I think consciousness emerges in human infants and not in any simpler organisms.' In my posts here I have been arguing that the people I responded to were reacting to various cognitive functions, memory for example, that may or may not correlate with experiencing. It is not woo to point this out. I was not asserting that viruses must be conscious or a pantheism. So, thank you for finally actually describing your views, even if you have failed so far to actually respond to my posts in any substantive way. And using 'metaphysics' as a pejorative, to me, doesn't seem to fit with the kind of intelligence you just showed in this last post. I know a lot of people use metaphysics as a pejorative - not realizing that everyone has metaphysical positions - but that last post tells me you must know better. Most of what is happening in this thread is speculative. I was raising an issue about what might be being (problematically) assumed, especially given our history of bias in relation even to mammals. You disagree with me. Fine. This 'I was urging against that kind of response' is a fancy way of saying you don't want people to disagree with you or who approach the issue another way to post their opinions. Using 'woo' is lazy ass posting and rude. Tossing metaphysics in after that was poor use of the term, since it is a blanket pejorative use for a whole area in philosophy that even you have assumptions within. On your third post, you can't even bother to respond to my arguements, but presume I should have noticed your earlier desire in a post of yours in the thread I was not responding to. You'll have to forgive me if I ignore any further posts of yours in the thread.

Well, sure, most people in the thread are making assertions, claims, guesses about ontology.

Woo. — bongo fury

?

What’s the purpose of the brain and sensory organs then? Leaf, branch, tree, forest… what is conscious there, and what makes the boundary between my consciousness and that of the chair I’m sitting at, or the house I’m in, for example? — Zelebg

Matter is interconnected in life forms, and perhaps other batches of matter. A body functions as a unity. Of course perhaps on another level it is connected to other or all matter, but Cognitive functions arise from the complexity of the interconnection inside the organism and also the sense organs. But this does not mean that consciousness is limited to such organizations. Functions are not the same thing as consciousness.

If that were the case and consciousness were a property of matter rather than a large, functioning nervous system, then consciousness would persist post-mortem. — Txastopher

The cognitive functions need not persist. This likes memory, or that this particular batch of atoms, all together, is conscious as a unit, end, but this need not mean that consciousness ends.

I disagree. All organisms are similar in the sense that all of them are subject to the same physical laws of nature. However, when subjected to those physical processes, they may come to posses certain traits and abilities that differentiates them from each other. — StarsFromMemory

And they do have traits and abilities that differentiate them. But consciousness may not be a trait in this sense, it may merely be a facet of what gets called matter. Since we can't detect consciousness, but we can detect behavior, and because we have a bias in granting consciousness to things like us, we tend to grant it to organisms and those like us, and always with great reluctance. Not long ago in science animals, even, were considered machines without consciousness or scientsts at least had to remain agnostic about it.

That would imply that consciousness is a result of evolution and can be explained by neuroscience. That is what I have come to believe. — StarsFromMemory

Actually nothing in what you wrote implies that consciousness is the result of evolution. Because certain things can be the result of evolution does not mean all things are.

I don't think consciousness is a some fundamental property of all creation. I think even the most rudimentary forms of consciousness are only in organisms that posses a nervous system and as the complexity of the system increases, it becomes more and more aware. — StarsFromMemory

Yes, this is what you think. And I can see the appeal of it and it might be true. Or it might not.

(What it becomes more and more aware of depends on the part of the nervous system that has become more sophiscated) — StarsFromMemory

The complexity of the nervous system may allow for more cognitive functions, but this may not be coupled at all to being conscious. For all we know a mussel has just as intense experiences as we do, but it does not have anything like our range of cognitive functions. And scientists, after long bias, are beginning to consider that plants are conscious, despite the lack of nervous systems. They have memory, react to pain, communicate, even across plant species, make choices (albeit much slower than we do in general, but not always), and have across whole plant reactions that look very much like nervous system reactions despite not having one. There is absolutely no reason to assume they are not conscious. Note my wording.

Odd that you liked that. You bring anger directly to discourse as an agnostic. You seem very angry. I was criticizing in this thread his approach, which it seems to me is masked aggresssion, which he is now calling tough love. it seems like a couple of angry people, you and him, who judge the directness of the anger of those atheists who are publically angry. No, that doesn't even work, since you are directly angry in your threads. I didn't realize you had a problem with people being angry. Or is it just other people? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

double

That was a thoughtful post on my part related to your posts, me trying to get what you are doing in this thread, given the many approaches possible from the OP. Was I incorrect that you were trying to reduce anger in public discourse over issues around atheism and theism, for example? If I was incorrect, my apologies. If I was correct about that, the points I made in the previous post still stand. Being condescending and mind reading someone in the way you did is just being a cool contributer to the aggression. Condescension and mind reading are aggressive tactics.

Tough love was a term developed for caregivers of at risk children then spread as part of authoritative parenting. So you are continuing a condescending attitude with a guiding heuristic that is condenscending. It doesn't matter what his posts say.

One can be tough and not accept certain types of behavior, stand your ground and speak truthfully to someone without being condescending and without pretending to read their minds.

I was not suggesting you be nice to him. It's not a binary situation, where you are are all nicey nicey or you respond with what you are calling tough love. There are many ways of responding, and given your seeming to have the goal of reducing anger, I was suggesting that your approach is a poor one.

Is your approach off limits for discussion?

I am trying to see if the thread itself is trolling. I have some criticisms of the science of the OP, which you did not respond to in my first post, though you thanked me for that post. And so I extended them here in a later post you did not respond to....

I guess one possible source of anger - which some on both (all the) sides engage in, is poorly supported generalizations. In a thread with the intention, it seems, from later posts, to be about reducing animosity, we have an OP summing up the emotional state of a large group of people, with no evidence at all. This would likely anger people in any group that gets summed up. Bill O'Reilly is not a sociologist. It's his impression. The way news works and what becomes popular, angry commentators are going to rise to the top faster than people looking to build bridges. The people who decide to press their ideas in the public realm are more likely to be aggressive in general. That's often a good quality to elbow yourself to the front. There could be all kinds of biases that would lead those who think atheism correlates with anger to think they know this. But, really, we have no evidence, scientific evidence for example, or survey evidence, that atheists are angrier than theists or the norm of shopkeepers. So, maybe a first step would be not to accept the generalization nor spread it. I can't see how it could possibly do anything but piss off whatever group this kind of generalization gets aimed at. And then they are in a Catch 22.

IOW we are just supposed to accept the generalization based on the evidence of Mr. O'Reilly. Many people have the impression Christians are per se angry. Impressions. Is it true, however, in either case?

Theoretically you are judging people for being angry for a long time. What do you do in your thread that is in some way trying to remedy this or deal with such people with tough love?

Generalize about them with poor evidence: a la O'Reilly as evidence. When it is pointed out that this is poor evidence focus on other issues. You also deal with someone who is angry with condescension and mind-reading. When it is pointed out that perhaps your approach is just as much a part of the problem, this is called trolling. It seems like trolling to me to generalize about people without evidence, then when they get angry, condescend to them. When criticisms are aimed at your approach, call that trolling and never respond to those criticisms.

How convenient.

I've had run ins with god is an atheist. I am not his pal, nor do I share is worldview in a number of ways, not being an atheist.

Condescension is not going to defuse anything, and it itself is a form of aggression. And that would seem to be important to you, given your supposed goals. Since you and your behavior/stance seem to be a taboo subject in the thread, I'll leave the thread to you. I find the immaculate to be poor discussion partners.

If you were a true atheist, you would care less about this kind of stuff. But, apparently, your belief system is weak. Why can't you just say the EOG is false, rather than project your apparent frustration and/or vengefulness and/or resentment. Get over it. — 3017amen

I haven't read his posts, but if the idea is to defuse tensions a post like this is a bad approach. You are telling someone that they are not a true X. Then telling them what they should feel. Then telling him his belief system is weak. And then that he should have his feelings. That seems like baiting to me. Trigger anger while judging anger.

Why not just get over his anger if he has that more than others?

Why tell other people to just move on, rather than move on yourself. So he vents a little in a philosophy forums. Just move on yourself. Live the value yourself.

If he hits someone, then call the cops or whatever.

What is so triggering for you about emotions? Is your belief system weak?

See, how ridiculous that is.

I guess one possible source of anger - which some on both (all the) sides engage in, is poorly supported generalizations. In a thread with the intention, it seems, from later posts, to be about reducing animosity, we have an OP summing up the emotional state of a large group of people, with no evidence at all. This would likely anger people in any group that gets summed up. Bill O'Reilly is not a sociologist. It's his impression. The way news works and what becomes popular, angry commentators are going to rise to the top faster than people looking to build bridges. The people who decide to press their ideas in the public realm are more likely to be aggressive in general. That's often a good quality to elbow yourself to the front. There could be all kinds of biases that would lead those who think atheism correlates with anger to think they know this. But, really, we have no evidence, scientific evidence for example, or survey evidence, that atheists are angrier than theists or the norm of shopkeepers. So, maybe a first step would be not to accept the generalization nor spread it. I can't see how it could possibly do anything but piss off whatever group this kind of generalization gets aimed at. And then they are in a Catch 22.

I wholeheartedly agree with the aphorism: "question everything" — Wheatley

What if over the long run this heuristic is detracting from life, but it's hard for you to notice because your focused on the trees and not the forest.

There are dangers to being confident. — Wheatley

There certainly can be. There are dangers in not being confident. There is a lot of 'it depends' in this. But I think it is a good goal to be confident. Not some armoured version of it, where feedback and mistakes and threats cannot be noticed.

You said the debate on the meaning of "atheism" was not relevant. — David Mo

Did I? What did I say it was not relevant to? or that it was not relevant to whom? I did make a very specific suggestion to a person when he or she (not sure) finds him or herself in a very specific situation. A very specific possible version of a discussion of the meaning of these terms with certain demands. At least, that's what I was doing in what you quoted in your first post to me.

I hope that my answer is now clear. — David Mo

Somewhat.

I don't really understand what you are saying here, nor how you are taking my quote which was about a specific response to a specific type of situation. I don't know what you are referring to with 'it' in the second to last sentence. And I don't think I have said anywhere that your position or you support theism. I found this response in general confusing.

Well, with that definition of fundamental, yes, it's not fundamental,with most other current cultures. I just look out at a world no where near agreement on a wide range of issues and that includes around killing. I don't see convergence on a wide range of issues - and on many killing related issues as remotely close, because what I would call fundamental moral differences exist. Ones that cannot be reasoned away. IOW one cannot argue that really you and I want the same thing, we just have different means. Let me show you how my means are more effective in getting what we want.

To me the following quote, which sent us along this line, is Pollyanish....

In this discussion of morality, the definition of subjectivity that I'm concerned about is the one that asserts that morality is opinion, feelings, taste and hence doesn't lead to objective moral truths. As I said before even if morality is about personal feelings, so subjective, the causal patterns in re these feelings are sufficiently generalizable, i.e. the causes of happiness and sorrow seem to be similar for all people irrespective of cultural, social, economic, variations, that it allows us to be rational about what must follow thereof; in other words, we can be objective about what sort of moral theory is consistent with, morality's essence, our feelings. For example, there's a universal dislike for murder - we feel offended by it - and this can be the basis of the objective moral truth thou shalt not kill. — TheMadFool

I don't see people having similar reactions to all sorts of types of killing and violence in general. I see this as part of enormous intractable divides around war, abortion, home as castle right to kill intruders, regarding society care for its poor, in relation to medical care, in what is allowed in terms of intelligence services behavior, in what justifies a killing in the courts, in what police are allowed to do in terms of violence and more. I see groups that are not offended by killings that other other people are and that this is regular and even correlates with things like Trump supporters vs. Trump haters. It also correlates with laws in different countries, even within Western nations - Scandanavia vs. US, for example, around a wide range of potential killings.

It's good you clarified what you meant by fundamental. But when I read the above I feel like you are glossing over how deep this divide goes, whether we call a divide at that depth fundamental or not. I do not see a common base that we can then simply use deduction to help the difference converge. I think we have a fundamental bunch of divides that mean that people react quite differently to the same events.

He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry. — 3017amen

If someone is publically identifying as an atheist and then talking about religious people or religion, then they are likely to be angry because religion has had so much power over minds and society. There are likely many instances where atheists come into public view in other contexts and either you just do not know they are atheists or even if one does for some reason, they are not coming off as angry. They are then speaking aobut other issues. Vocal side-takers in society are often angry, period, regardless of what the issue is or what side. And I say this as a theist. Religious people have to understand how much power religions have had in society and the vast amount of power abuse those religious have perpetrated. Religions are also responsible for intra-psychic violence which a lot of atheists (and theists) assume is part and parcel of believing in God. Theists who thinks these facets of religions are not intra-psychic violence - because guilt and shame are seen as good or not even noticed by them - will obviously not call these facets that. If religoius people, and especially liberals ones, cannot understand the incredible anger generated by the religions, my suggestion would be to find an atheist and ask them and really try to listen. Say that you are going to listen first, so perhaps they will be calm about it.

And that's the toilet calling the bathroom sink white having Bill OReilly say atheists are angry. He was a bully, often angry and screamed over guests on his shows apart from the things he did to women and people lower down on the staff of Fox and elsewhere.

He was, both publically and privately, an aggressive prick. And now he sees this as a quality of atheists? Maybe he's coming out...

I don't see those as exceptions, I see them as fundamental disagreements. Ghandi, certain Buddhists, MLK, Quakers have fundamental disagreement around violence and killing. It's not an exception, it's across the board. Deontologists vs. consuentialists have fundamental disagreements. IOW it is for many Ds not possible to justify killling certain people regardless of the consequences. Whereas Cs can accept killing if in the end it leads to less innocent people dying. There are fundamental disagreements about what is a person, what is innocent and then how to prioritize various 'things we want to avoid or attain..'

However, as far as I know, killing an innocent defenseless person is murder in all cultures. — TheMadFool

Not in war time, at least for some. Others see no reason to create an exception when a government decides X is the enemy and must be fought. All sides even in what one side thinks is a just war will kill innocent defenseless people. Though I am not sure why innocent people with kevlar vests and MMA training are morally more OK targets. Like they are walking down the street and I don't shoot the guy with the suit, but the guy who looks pretty tough (and is training in MMA ((I can see by his black belt) and I see his kevlar vest sticking out of this collar so my shot has to be a head shot) so killing the second guy is less morally reprehensible.

And now we have another word 'innocent' that is interpreted differently, also, in different cultures. And then even what amounts to killing someone. Do economic killings via say excesses of capitalism or lack of access to medical care count as killing. How about via problematic additives in food or lead in the wall paint or through th legalization of guns and the side effects of this in certain neighborhoods. I don't think we have any agreement about this. Is an embargo ok if it (seems to) lead to deaths of children, even if the boycotted regime could perhaps deal with the embargo in a way that protects the children but we know he won't. And if you think this isn't murder, it is called murder by people as other my other examples.

And then let's not even think about abortion.... even the word 'person' is up for grabs in what seems to you like a sentence we can all agree on. And then Peter Singer and other vegans grant personhood also wider than some others.

Do the definitions above conflict with my belief that there are moral truths, here being interpreted as those moral tenets arising from the simple fact that we all share a great deal when it comes to emotions, especially happiness and sorrow, which form the foundation of morality? — TheMadFool

I think it is better to say universal morals. Your sense of what you mean may be fine, but moral truths sound like objective things, to me at least. Or one could work from your verb converge, to converged morals, since we are not likely to have universal morals any time soon.

For example, there's a universal dislike for murder - we feel offended by it - and this can be the basis of the objective moral truth thou shalt not kill. — TheMadFool

Sure, but there are so many definitions of murder, what is a wrongful killing and I think, at this point in history at least, we are making a huge assumption that really, deep down, we all want the same thing. Different cultures AND different individuals inside single cultures have a different sense of what makes a killing OK. We also have deontologist and consequentialist divides. IOW when killing someone who is not directly guilty is allowed, for example. Like in bombing even military targets when some civilians will or may get killed. And then honor killings, or total quaker pacifists, or home as castle justifiable killing for thief break-ins versus cultures that require even escalated responses, and much more. And these are not going to be resolved by logic, because I think at base they are based on fundamental differences in worldview AND temperment. Maybe deep down we really all want the same thing, but it's a maybe. And right now we are dealing with intractable splits in many areas. It looks like we all don't like murder, but actually that is based on the equivocation that the word 'murder' represents. It means radically different things to different people and that's not even bringing in vegans.

Language definitely isn't a machine. But if I use the definition of atheism that says "no belief in God," than having no believe in God is sufficient to be an atheist (aside: I don't think it's very useful to extend the term to include babies; "no believe in God" is incomplete - it's "capable of beliefe, but no belief in God"). So when I'm saying I'm an atheist under that definition, then I'm implying he's one, too, under that definition. — Dawnstorm

Sure, you are. But people use the term in a couple of ways, so there is no reason for him to accept that label when he has a perfectly good label. If you want to think of him as an atheist because that is your definition, I think that makes sense. But in a discussion with him, it seems to me a rather civilized and polite thing to accept his even more clear self-label. Otherwise I begin to suspect something else is going on.

I'm not insisting he use this definition. But if he's insisting that he's not an atheist period, I just don't know how to respond to that. — Dawnstorm

Why not let it go. He believes in using history to determine the actual meaning of a word. He feels that there were political intentions between a shift from what we could call now the positive atheist, who believes there is no God, and the negative atheist who merely lacks a belief. He's rather not potentially contribute to what he considers and obfuscation. And, in fact, regardless of how one determines the meaning of a word, if he were to call himself an atheist many people would misunderstand. And here he is using agnostic, which works quite well.

Basically, I would have to grant him the right to use his definition, while he doesn't pay me the same courtsey. — Dawnstorm

Ah, but there's a third option. Resist his defining of you, allow him to define himself. I have argued with him around his campaign to get everyone to use the word the way he thinks it should be used by telling them they are wrong. I think it's fine if he tries to get us to move to what he considers a more rational schema, but I have issues with saying those who use atheist differently are wrong. I am in the current use camp. IOW I resist on this issue both sides for telling the other they should lable themselves X. There would be situations where I would argue against self-labeling. 'I am a medical doctor' would be an example where I would have certain specific criteria that might not be met. In this case, I am happy to have him call himself an agnostic.

I can't call myself an atheist. — Dawnstorm

I think you can. And I had a discussion with him in this or another thread where I argued this case, and in fact, he listened quite respectfully. I don't think I changed his mind, but it seemed like he heard me and considered it. The word does have a mixed history as far as its meanings, so this is all not too surprising given the charge around the issues. But I think people need to let others choose their self-labeling on it, especially if the labels are, in the end accurate.

Or, another issue is getting played out underneath and it's better, I think that the discussion shift to that one.

You can see my post where I challenged his approach to others here.....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387688

And his response, here....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387688

The ideal situation is that we all agree on what the terms mean, but right now that is not on the table. The next best is we respect each other's self-labeling and perhaps argue in favor of more specific and clear definitions.

My message would be the same to you: as long as you have a self-label that is reasonable given current usage, keep using it and resist someone telling you to use another. And if it reaches a deadlock, I would suggest no longer discussing it. No one can force anyone to change.

Thank you. — Frank Apisa

You're welcome. If you look at his next response to me, he keeps mis-contexting my responses and misinterpreting them.

Someone has to give. — Dawnstorm

I don't think so. Language is not a machine.

But if it's a win-lose debate about which term is more "rational", I'm not interested. Language isn't a formal system like maths, anyway. — Dawnstorm

Yeah, that's where I've been disagreeing with Mr. Apisa, and in part because of that, I think he can define himself in a way he feels is most clear. And he wants to use the term agnostic, which sure seems correct. If he doesn't want to be called an atheist, well, jeez there must be something more important to fight against. A man who uses an accurate term to describe himself, rather than a term that might be misleading, because there are certainly people out there who use the term, and no incorrectly (also) to mean people who believe there is no God. Many use it to mean that one simply lacks a belief in God. Dictionaries often include both. I think he should label himself as he likes
and
we
lose
nothing.

No one, not a single atheist or theist or tree loses anything if he calls himself an agnostic.

It seems to me that the real fight is somewhere else and it is all getting jammed through this keyhole.

That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. — DingoJones

Oit really seems to me you are not reading me carefully or paying attention to the context. He said, originally to me that

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist." — Frank Apisa

Get it? he is talking about a subjective feeling of importance he attaches to a word. I argued, in relation to his subjective not liking a term being used for him, that many theists would probably have strong reactions to the word theist. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. But either way it
nothing
to
do
with
what
you
keep
bringing up.

I never said.....

That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. — DingoJones

I know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me.

You were telling him to “resist”, I took that to mean you agreed the label didnt include him. So I was directing those questions at you, not him. — DingoJones

The label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting.

A Christian is a type of theist, its not “too broad” a description its a broad description. — DingoJones

I didn't say it was too broad, just that Christians would find it too broad. I doubt vast majority would ever identify first as a theist and see if the other wanted clarification. Even Christian is too broad for many: they'll want to get in which large category, like Protestant, and then down into their specific church. Being merely a theist could still be really quite seriously the wrong thing to be given which kind.

Resist what? Why? — DingoJones

He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred.

That god has been successfully ejected from morality, to say nothing of the fact that god never really figured in it as explained above, doesn't imply that there are no moral truths. — ChatteringMonkey

OK, good. I did a trace back through our posts and I think it was your use of the phrase 'moral truths' coupled with the mentioning of objective processes in determining morals, that led me to believe you were saying something opposed to that last sentence.

Well, I didn't mean to say you think/claim that subjectivity is bad in any way for morality but you replied to my claim that moral convergence among various moral traditions was an indication that morality is objective by saying that morality is subjective as if to say that that precluded any objectivity on the issue. — TheMadFool

I did specifically mention that one can work with objectivity once one has subjective axioms. So I acknowledged that facets of working out a morality can be objective. But this does not mean that the conclusions (or moral rules) are objective. The sum of the process is still a set of rules that are subjective. Say, we all decide that violence is bad. WE don't like it. Then we can turn to science and parenting studies, etc. to see if there are ways to reduce violence. And then we come up with some moral guidelines. Like say corporal punishment has been shown to lead to violence, so we now want to stop corporal punishment.

But none of this would show that corporal punishment (or any violence is bad) because the foundation is subjective.

I am not saying this makes such investigations a waste of time at all, or anything of the sort. But even with objective elements in the process of working out morals, we still end up with subjective morals. But if we all agree, this doesn't matter, since we would now have a system that meets our collective subjective desires. It just wouldn't be objective morals.

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist." — Frank Apisa

I think most Christians, for example, would find theist way too broad. They'd want to get specific fast.

There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist." — Frank Apisa

I would resist their labeling you that way. I don't think they get to label you, nor do I think they have any ground to insist you label yourself that way. The term covers meanings that do not fit the same person. Resist.

I think there's a general tendency to look down on subjectivity; — TheMadFool

Not on my part. But I did want to point out what would be subjective and what is subjective. Subjectiviity is the best part of my life. Not relevent in you case since you were speaking in general, but often I notice how this or that is sold as objectivity as a power move. Some of the most subjective and unempathic forces out there claim objectivity as a way to try to get others to back down. I gots no problem with subjectivity. Amongst other things, accepting my own, helps me suss out these power mad fools who are happily destroying the planet and our souls.
Now that sounds like I am taking an objective moral stand, at least potentially. But in fact, I just have a strong affection for this planet and life, so I dislike what they are doing. Further I see what they are doing is as painting their choses processes and goals as objective, when it is just a bunch of people with their preferences.

In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.

The more honest version of "I 'believe' (in) God"...is, "It is my blind guess that at least one god exists...and that god is the GOD I worship."

The more honest version of "I believe there are no gods"...is, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist.

Really think about it...and you will see I am correct. — Frank Apisa

I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming text

Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe. — Frank Apisa

, that is without qualitifications. Perhaps the trick is to not say I believe, but just tell people how things are. Then one has evaded the categorizing of one's statements.

Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe. — Frank Apisa

and here we have, it seems, a kind of dismissal of people's thinking in two decades. Like, well, that means we can dismiss their thinking, case closed. Her implied.

So another strategy is, don't use 'I believe', but rather imply an argument and dismiss a couple of hundred years of thinking.

So, the two strategies, here at least, to avoid using the potentially misleading I believe, is to just state things are the case and to imply vast swathes of conclusions without supporting them.

In both strategies we avoid the word believe, so all is peachy.

Of course, people are often quite correct. They believe what they are saying, whether it is based on guesses or a significant batch of evidence. And they are kind enough, those who know the distinction, to be making it clear they do not 'know' what they are asserting is the case. But, yes, it is what they think is the case. And this correct use of the word is bad, since people have different epistemologies for arriving at beliefs, for some reason.

So they start off a conversation with what is likely a true statement: a belief they have about some facet or purported facet of reality. From there one can ask them 'on what grounds'? We all know that people believe things that are not the case or are believed in on what we consider the wrong grounds. But now we know their position.

Is there anyone who hears the phrase 'I believe' and assume that what comes next must be strongly supported information? I don't think so. I am never misled by this beginning, unless they are lying about what they believe - but that would hold for 'guesses' also, as a possibility. I don't feel like I have been told the slightest bit about the rigor of their epistemology in general or in this particular case. I do feel informed about what they believe. What they think is the case. And this is useful information. Or, if it isn't, it doesn't become more useful if they use the suggested alternative phrases.

I certainly don't feel compelled to bow down to the solidity of their epistemology because they used the word 'believe'. And they don't when encountering other beliefs, positions, opinions. It's letting us know what they have decided is the case. If I want to know the grounds, well, now we have a conversation on that.

And I don't even think it really works like that, simply deducing morality from desires or preferences in some kind straigtforward logical way. There's a lot more that goes into it. — ChatteringMonkey

No, in reality even if we could agree on core values, how we see these playing out and prioritized are going to have individual and cultural differences. And the means itself will also have values in it. We want to all make kids safe. Peachy. Seems like a shared core value worldwide, except for certain people generally considered pariahs in most cultures. But then bang, the means of achieving that (let alone what that actually means) requires even more agreement on stuff that gut feelings and culture have their way with. And then how that core value is prioritized in relation to other core values, such as developing adults from children who are experts, or not undermining their strength and independence.

Just thought I would throw in that we have the Quantum Zeno effect now...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

and this is actually used by birds in navigation, so it is not just restricted to the particle world...

The quantum Zeno effect is used in commercial atomic magnetometers and naturally by birds' magnetic compass sensory mechanism (magnetoreception).[37]

from the article.

There is objectivity in the convergence of ethics. — TheMadFool

The objectivity could be said to be in the deduction from subjective desires and preferences. The axioms in the system you describe would be subjective, which means the foundations of eveyr conclusion, thus moral idea, would be subjective also. The process of deriving a universal morality might have much that is objective in it. IOW if we generally agree we don't want children harmed, we can from that vague axiom derive logically certain conclusions (not that humans will ever agree on these but hypothetically). Still the axiom, hence the entire morality, has a subjective foundation and is subjective, if universal in this hypothesis.

For example, let's say humans are a blight on the universe. Let's say we do terrible things to other species and prevent lovely species from evolvling into the great sentient creatures that are a potential product of life. We do this in our blundering way and the very fact
that we take care of our kids
is part of what leads to futhering our pernicious kind - or a kind that in the end has pernicious effects.

There is no objective goodness (or badness) in the thriving of our species, because there is nothing outside us to make it objective, unless one believes in a God, for example. What is subjectively good, even if it is for every human, may not be good in general, as many species on earth might testify if they could.

The difference is that critical rationalism has built into it that that is the right way to proceed. — Pfhorrest

Not if you think that every belief needs to be criticized. That is, the quote I have quoted. That is an utterly unrealistic demand.

] The justificationist at least nominally says "don't believe anything at all until it's justified from the ground up".

I just don't see that, not in practice. Scientists are justificationists in general, and they must know that not all assumptions have been demonstrated and they are revisionist at least in theory.

Critical rationalism on the other hands says you don't have to justify everything from the ground up before you're warranted to believe it. You're warranted to believe anything you want, unless you've found something that demands you reject it. — Pfhorrest

Right but if we have that sentence I quoted as part of the system you might as well be a justificationist. You have an endless job the moment you have a single belief. If I meet a person who works with justification who says that every belief must be justified, I will 'harrass' them just as I am you. And it has happened. If I mean a critical rationalist who makes a statement like that, well, you see what happens. And this is not just me being a pedant. I have a mixed epistemology. I use intuition, justification, and critical rationalism. I decide sometimes to let things slide that may or may not be working.

I find most purists to be, bascially, putting them necessarily in the position of being hypocrites. If your critical rationalism did not have that statement, well, then I would have much less to say. But as long as you have that endless critique generator in there, I think it is unrealistic. In fact I don't believe, I will go so far to say, that you follow that quote. In fact I know you don't because you can't. I don't see why you can't withdraw that quote because it does not fit with what you are saying here or the supposed advantage over justificationism.

Any purist, whether empiricist, Rationalist, critical rationalist, and likely others, I disbelieve. I do not thing they live up to their system not can they. Any pure version of those is inhuman and unachievable. and that sentence puts you in that category.

That by itself is compatible with justificationism: you could question everything, and demand conclusive answers before you let yourself believe anything, rejecting all beliefs that can't be conclusively justified yet. — Pfhorrest

Actually you could not do this. It's the cognitive equivalent of hitting yourself with a hammer you can't even believe exists. You cannot believe the criteria of justification. You can't decide anything even to not decide. It's gibberish.

But my second principle, "liberalism", says not to do that: you are free (hence "liberalism") to think whatever you like, until you find reason not to. — Pfhorrest

A sentence that does not go with the sentence I won't quote again but have four times. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THAT SENTENCE.

That by itself would be compatible with fideism, e.g. a religious person would say "so I'm free to believe in God then, thanks!" — Pfhorrest

But that, obviously, would be to abandon rationalism: just "believe what you want lol no rules". — Pfhorrest

I don't think that holds. But it's another issue and we can't seem to get around that sentence.

So, this is what I see. Four times I mentioned that sentence. You haven't really defended that sentence. What you have done, as far as I can tell, is defend a critical rationalism that does not fit with that sentence. When you describe that critical rationalism it sounds much better and I would say is almost defined by not having to follow that sentence.

You could have made a case for why that sentence fits, responded to my issues with that sentence and shown how I am wrong. But instead you are silent about it.

So, I have to stop here. I might have found a defense of that sentence weak or frustrating (or been convinced) but this just makes me think you just don't want to retract anything. But it ends up like I am dealing with someone who doesn't even notice what I am responding to. You may think you explained that sentence, but you did not. You didn't put your responses in relation to that sentence. You didn't counter my critique of that sentence. In fact you said things that precisely do not fit with that sentence and did not mention it. I'm gonna drop this now. Done.

There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist." — Frank Apisa

Fair enough. Resist. There are some who would say that atheist agnostic is possible. But I think that agnostic has a particular meaning, generally around the potential for positive knowledge of God. So, to me it is a fairly precise term (not completely, since some people use it to mean they are not sure, but still, in general in philosophy forums it means what I am guessing you mean by it). I see no reason for you to be placed in a category you think does not fit, especially given what you take atheist to mean.