The death penalty is irrelevant, converting to a religions happens regardless.

By the way the numbers of Muslims who convert to atheism is significant also. They also are threatened by death. What do we conclude here?

Visions and dreams? Big deal. I have heard many of these stories from Christians who have converted to other religions too. Some of them I have met and interviewed.

I forgot the muslim + Jesus --- look here are loads of these: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muslim+convert+to+christian — Iris0

I don't need to see this I already assumed it was converts. Just as there are Christians who convert to Buddhism following an 'experience'. And Christians who convert Islam.

I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again "I know that that's a tree," pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: "This fellow isn't insane. We are only doing philosophy."
—Wittgenstein On Certainty

But (as I already suggested in another post in this thread) humans seem to experience God - have done and still do. — Iris0

Well to be fair, many, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens too.

And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT? — Iris0

Muslims and Jesus? You sure? Islam describes Jesus as a profit who was not the son of God nor did he get crucified. Don't forget the Hindus who experience Brahma and Vishnu too.

These testimonies do beg a question: if they are true then what? — Iris0

You're on a philosophy forum. If they are true.... then your life changes forever, no? Belief can be yours too.

That tells us a little about why you think others believe things, but not really about your views on God. I guess your response leaves a couple of possible interpretations. 1) that you think human knowledge is fallible and therefore God is a possibility or 2) that you think human knowledge is fallible and God is just the name we give to what we don't understand.

I am new - and friends (hold on now) I am Swedish (dumb and slow) so enlighten me and pardon my bad English... — Iris0

You ask a lot of questions which is fine, especially if they are genuine - but how about giving us something to actually chew on? In relation to the subject of God, what do you believe and why?

I'm sure the Buddha would appreciate it.

A disputant in search of an argument? — Wayfarer

Let's hope so for all our sakes.

Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion — Nyanoponika Therea, Buddhism and the God Idea

II was expecting this.

If atheism is only about a lack of belief in a God or Gods, then what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with? — Christoffer

I suggest you read about secular humanism, this is the worldview you seem to have in mind.

Your other ideas might make a good new thread for those wanting to explore atheism more fully. I just wanted to explore the definition, a job I believe has been covered.

So a Buddhist atheist can therefore exist? — Christoffer

Buddhism is often described as an atheistic religion.

If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I? — Christoffer

A theist in denial.

:up:

American Atheists definition of atheism:
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system

You don't seem to know what the true Scotsman fallacy is. If I define atheism as having a foundation of logic and rational reasoning instead of just a lack of belief in God, that incorporates everyone with a belief that doesn't have a logical foundation for it. Hence, it includes these people. The Scotsman fallacy is if I just say "they aren't true atheists" and don't provide any foundation for that claim, which I have. — Christoffer

Goodness. You are providing your definition of atheism which includes an epistemology and it sounds like you can see that. Your definition is more of an ideal atheist: as you see it.

A no true Scotsman fallacy happens when someone hears a description of the characteristics of X and argues that 'they're are not X' (because the description doesn't suit the person's preferred understanding and argument).

I'll remind you of what you said:

Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. — Christoffer

You don't own the definition of atheism. If someone says they are an atheist and they don't believe in god, they are an atheist. Period. They may be an untheorized atheist, but so what? Atheism may have an ideal form (humanism and skepticism) but that's not what we were talking about.

About 50% of atheists I have met at freethinkers forums/events over 40 years and the like have no or little interest in logical foundations. They may be inchoate but they are still atheists. I was an atheist for 20 years before I ever examined reason and logic.

Having a debate about why so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow.

Whatever these people say about themselves, they are not atheists. — Christoffer

You are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Atheism is without theism. It pertains to one claim only (theism) and is not a system. It says nothing about any other irrational beliefs the person might hold. You're conflating a belief with an epistemology. The ideal atheist may well be a secular humanist who privileges reason and holds to no superstition but that is a wholly separate matter.

:grin:

In reality, I don't know what it is like to be a bat and never will. But nor will I know what it is like to be a little girl, a gay man in '50s Utah, a gorgeous Hollywood star, autistic, dyslexic, left-handed, or a dwarf. I will never know what it is like to be you, Wayfarer, Nagel, or Trump. — Kenosha Kid

The 'what is it like to be' schtick leaves me a little cold. I'm not sure what it is like to be me, let alone Nagel's winged mammal.

Thanks. Very thoughtful. I'll mull over this. I'm fairly sure Wayfarer will say this misses his nuances.

This implies that atheism is only in opposition with the concept of "God" and the belief in one or a pantheon. But I wouldn't call someone who believes in astrology an atheist. It's the same kind of belief system, just not focused on the concept of God. — Christoffer

In my view you make a common mistake by trying to include a whole world view under the rubric of atheism. It only pertains to theism, nothing more. Over 30 years I've certainly met more than my share of atheists who believe in fortune telling and astrology. The idea that logic or reason is involved is a myth. This pertains to those atheists who are theorised.

I don't think that's entirely accurate but it is true for some atheists. There are, of course, many different kinds of atheist, with different approaches and views. Some believe in astrology and hold superstitions. Some are logical positivists. And many are untheorised. They don't really know why they don't believe in god (which is generally a cartoon conception), they just think it's nonsense. Atheism is not accepting the proposition that a god exists, and in some stronger cases it is believing that no god exists. It doesn't come with other presuppositions, unless the person is also a secular humanist or into philosophy.

:up:

Bitbol’s article is an easy read. — Wayfarer

Won't open for me. Looking for it.

That's essentially a well worded and educated version of my assumptions.

What do you understand by this:

But the observing subject is not anywhere to be found in the objective domain, so in no sense can be derived from or imputed to the properties or attributes of objects. — Wayfarer

e form of idealism I subscribe to, on the contrary, is not denying that material objects possess empirical reality - deny it at your peril - but saying that reality comprises both the observed object and the observing subject. But the observing subject is not anywhere to be found in the objective domain, so in no sense can be derived from or imputed to the properties or attributes of objects. That is the only way to loosen the Gordian knot. For a beautiful exposition of this principle, see It is Never Known, but it is the Knower by Michel Bitbol. He is a philosopher I learned of through this forum, and one of the best discoveries I have made here. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that so many of these discussions keep coming down to this point and few people seem to fully engage with it or remember this is your key point of difference. It's a point I read and understand but I don't think I actually 'get' it. I need to mull over it and try and get through Bitbol.

But the observing subject is not anywhere to be found in the objective domain, so in no sense can be derived from or imputed to the properties or attributes of objects. — Wayfarer

Can you put this into ordinary English?

I'm not sure what Wayfarer has in mind but the subject reminds me of Gore Vidal's famous quote to his acquaintances - "When I die, I'm taking all of you with me."

:up:

In short - the world is not simply given. — Wayfarer

I certainly wouldn't have thought so. I am not even sure what counts as 'the world'.

Ultimately, we are not apart from, or outside of, reality. That is why the purported division of subjective and objective has no absolute foundation. That principle is made explicit in Kant and Schopenhauer’s philosophy, and I don’t accept has been superseded by anything that science has discovered since their day.

But, it’s exceedingly hard to grasp what exactly this means. As Magee says in his book on Schopenhauer, humans are generally born with an instinctive sense of realism, the problems with which only become clear after considerable intellectual effort. Understanding the way the mind constructs the experience of the world from the elements of experience combined with the faculty of reason does not come naturally. That is why so few people, even philosophers, are inclined to accept it. On the whole, they don't see it, and since idealism fell out of favour they're not open to it. (It's one of the main reasons I discontinued undergraduate philosophy.)

In short - the world is not simply given. It is in some fundamental sense projected by the observing mind. The sense in which it exists outside of or apart from that mind is an empty question, because nothing we can know is ever outside of or apart from the act of knowing by which we are concious of the existence of the world in the first place. This doesn't mean the world is all in my mind, but that the mind - yours, mine, the species and cultural mind of h. sapiens - is an inextricable foundation of the world we know, but we can't see it, because it is what we're looking through, and with. — Wayfarer

Is it not possible that this is wrong and some version of realism might be the case instead?

Fascinating but very nebulous and how would you ever establish what is the case? There are so many theories about how human beings construct their 'reality' you almost need to choose one on faith... It's almost competing with postmodernism in the multifactorial construction of 'reality' stakes, except, presumably idealism has a foundation... is a foundation. If you can establish which version.

I discontinued undergraduate philosophy after being told by the professor that I was there to parrot back what he said, and not to learn. Incidentally he was a physicalist, objectivist. I went on instead to study Zoroastrianism, particularly the Gathas... go figure.

The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.

Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power. — baker

Nicely put.

I feel like a similar level of critique works against the materialist though. They want to think they are special. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting - can you provide an example of a materialist wanting to be special?

An idealist or skeptic can at least hold the materialist model as a useful if often unreliable tool, without falling into traps like claiming qualia isn't real, based solely on data received as qualia, while transmitting said argument to others solely through means that they will experience as qualia. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I hear you. Although I have to say qualia is not an idea that resonates with me - it seems to be such a nebulous concept.

t sounds to me like qualia is serving a function for the idealist much like materialism is for the empiricist. In both cases we have the the claIm for an intrinsically real object whose pure self -identity can be located independently of its interactions with an outside. — Joshs

That's a nice quip.

From Rorty:
“ Dennett wants to say that it is as silly to ask whether beliefs are real as to ask whether his lost sock center is real. I quite agree, but not for Dennett's reasons. My reason is that it is silly to ask whether anything is real - as opposed to asking whether it is useful to talk about, spatially locatable, spatially divisible, tangible, visible, easily identified, made out of atoms, good to eat, and so on. — Joshs

Some of the things Rorty says about 'reality' and futility of trying to locate things 'as they are' are quite seductive. When Rorty says 'We know how to justify beliefs, we don't know anything about truth.' you can sense his antipathy towards the remnants of Greek philosophy (esp idealism) that still tempt us.

I can't tell if Rorty is a significant thinker or hopelessly lost.

Very interesting and I note that Dr Susan Haack asserts a cogent defence of 'innocent realism' her nod to naive realism, so disparaged by some QM speculators.

As a physics lecturer, you must be aware of these and many other similar ideas expressed by modern physicists. — Wayfarer

Is idealism primarily speculation based on the 'observer problem' - can anyone say it's a certain conclusion?

I'm unaware of a good idealism. Could you provide an example? — Kenosha Kid

Not remotely. But I'm not a philosopher. I'm just curious. My sympathies are with physicalism and empiricism and I find it interesting how confident people are in their views on things unseen or unknown. Nevertheless it may well be us that is wrong on this. :razz:

Taste is a funny thing. I notice also that I have a strong preference for black artists doing jazz and blues but almost never white ones. Didn't plan it that way. Chicago blues is great and I often alternate Mahler with Howlin' Wolf.

:up:

How does one discern 'good' idealism from 'bad' and how does this play out in a quotidian life?

You made some hints but I was hoping for a more qualitative elaboration.

Are idealists necessarily more susceptible to a bunch of unverifiable tosh? How does one discern 'good' idealism from 'bad' and how does this play out in a quotidian life?

What difference does/can it make to a person's life to hold an idealist position?

I can't think of anything they can't both say using their respective definitions. — khaled

Interesting. Is this worth developing? Transmigration of souls? Platonic realm of forms?

That's a meaty question. :D It's also not quite innocent, though. — Moliere

It's a sincere question. When a claim is made, like most, I prefer to understand what the evidence for that claim might be. I have no theory of physicalism but it seems to me there is no good evidence as yet of an alternative. I can't provide an example of any non-physical entities because I am not making the claim that such things exists. Hence my question.

It makes a big difference to me but I guess if you have determined that physicalism is always a variety of Richard Dawkins I can understand the antipathy.

The point about physicalism or materialism, is the claim that the only real existents are material existents - those entities knowable to the physical sciences, either actually or potentially. Everything else is purported to be able to be reduced to physical things and physical laws. — Wayfarer

I think many physicalists are slightly more nuanced than this and would say we currently don't have reliable evidence not to accept physicalism as the best hypothesis, but recognise alternative traditions and that religion is deeply rooted in human behaviour.

Or in Susan Haack's words, that we try to accommodate the grains of truth in various anti-realist positions—and to keep our own, modest metaphysical claims free of unnecessary and indefensible epistemological accretions.