Atheism - Shadows of Doubt

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lorizael
This is why I don't believe a good atheist should make such a claim.

On the other hand, a naughty atheist is not under such strict constraints.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'd counter with the claim that knowing a language is the same (more or less) as knowing a system of axiomatic symbol manipulation. Vocabulary/grammar in one language may not precisely map to vocabulary/grammar in another language, but that just means that the symbol manipulation is a bit more complicated than a simple one-to-one mapping. Plus, there are different states of "knowing" a language (which explains the numerous Engrish translations one might come across).

How does this detract from my assertion that this is a clear example of knowledge being a seperate and distinct concept than belief?

Whereas "knowledge" about swimming is not much different than the "knowledge" that Pavlov's dog "learned" (except that the swimmer consciously learned the "knowledge" in question, whereas Pavlov's dog wouldn't have learned its "knowledge" without the intervention of Pavlov). There isn't a lot of conscious thought that goes into swimming; it would be absurd for an olympic swimmer to have to reason through each breach/stroke, and so it's absurd to claim that "knowing how to swim" is a demonstration of "knowledge" in any epistemologically valid sense of the word, any more than claiming that Pavlov's dog's "knowledge that a ringing bell means that one is about to be presented with food" is a demonstration of "knowledge" in any epistemologically valid sense of the word.

I already stated that you don't have to justify or think about what you know, ever. I do not "reason" through every word I use. When trying to pass on a complex idea, certainly, but most of the time people really don't reason out what they say. The words come fully formed to the mind. I there is an individual in front of me and I want them to move, I hardly stop to reason which vocabulary word is best. I simply say "move." There was no "reasoning" involved. It was almost as reflexive as that Pavlovian reposnse. Of course, If I did not know the word move and the concept it is tied to, I could not possibly utter the word.

And to return to the Olympic swimmer, while certainly they do NOT reason out each stroke in the pool, they only reach this level once they have trained their bodies and ingraned that knowledge to the point that it is not necessary to think about it. You say so yourself. I fail to see why a mechanical action with your body is removed from the realm of "knowledge."

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
How does this detract from my assertion that this is a clear example of knowledge being a seperate and distinct concept than belief?

Axiomatic symbol manipulation systems don't exist in the real world, which is why they're distinct from "knowledge" in the traditional epistemological sense of the word (i.e., "knowledge" = "true justified belief"). I can devise any arbitrary axiomatic symbol manipulation system, but doing so doesn't expand my or anybody else's "knowledge" of the real world unless I map the ASMS to the real world (at which point I encounter an infinite regress and/or a surrender to fuzzy logic). In other words, I can come up with some arbitrary axiomatic system and claim "knowledge" of that axiomatic system, but this amounts to a hill of beans unless I can somehow demonstrate that this axiomatic system has some mapping to the real world.

It was almost as reflexive as that Pavlovian reposnse.

So Pavlov's dog "knows" that the ringing of the bell is indicative of food? I argue that you degrade "knowledge" by equating it to "conditioning." With sufficient conditioning a dog can associate practically any stimulus with any response, but does this mean that the dog "knows" the "truth" behind the association of this stimulus/response?

And to return to the Olympic swimmer, while certainly they do NOT reason out each stroke in the pool, they only reach this level once they have trained their bodies and ingraned that knowledge to the point that it is not necessary to think about it. You say so yourself. I fail to see why a mechanical action with your body is removed from the realm of "knowledge."

Again, if you consider "knowledge" to be equivalent to "conditioning," then this ceases to be a debate about epistemology and instead becomes a debate about the differences between Pavlov's dog and a (supposedly) sentient human. If the dog's "knowledge" is equivalent to the human's "knowledge," then you've bastardized the terminology to the point that any meaningful debate is doomed to failure.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

Axiomatic symbol manipulation systems don't exist in the real world, which is why they're distinct from "knowledge" in the traditional epistemological sense of the word (i.e., "knowledge" = "true justified belief"). I can devise any arbitrary axiomatic symbol manipulation system, but doing so doesn't expand my or anybody else's "knowledge" of the real world unless I map the ASMS to the real world (at which point I encounter an infinite regress and/or a surrender to fuzzy logic). In other words, I can come up with some arbitrary axiomatic system and claim "knowledge" of that axiomatic system, but this amounts to a hill of beans unless I can somehow demonstrate that this axiomatic system has some mapping to the real world.

Well, fortunately for me or not, I am not working here with the agreed upon definition of kowledge in epistemology. You can know the lines of a play, even though doing so does not expand my 'knowledge' of the material world. And I can verify this by opening up a book and looking for those lines. If that is fuzzy logic, call me fuzzy.

So Pavlov's dog "knows" that the ringing of the bell is indicative of food? I argue that you degrade "knowledge" by equating it to "conditioning." With sufficient conditioning a dog can associate practically any stimulus with any response, but does this mean that the dog "knows" the "truth" behind the association of this stimulus/response?

Except you are the one making the equation between training an animal by stimulus and an individual learning a physical set of tasks. I never agreed to accept that comparison, and I don't.

Again, if you consider "knowledge" to be equivalent to "conditioning," then this ceases to be a debate about epistemology and instead becomes a debate about the differences between Pavlov's dog and a (supposedly) sentient human. If the dog's "knowledge" is equivalent to the human's "knowledge," then you've bastardized the terminology to the point that any meaningful debate is doomed to failure.

A swimmer does not learn to swim by stimulus conditioning. Therefore I reject the Pavlovian comparison you are making. And individual who want to learn to swim must use their reason and faculties to be able to manipulate their body in a way that will allow them to carry out the task of swimming. I think a dog CAN learn, that animals do have knowledge. This is distinct from conditioning. An animal for example can learn how to manipulate something, much like Chimps can learn to use basic tools to get at food. That chimp gained knowledge. And if I "bastardized" the debate now, so be it. I don;t consider myself a consciousness chauvinist.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, fortunately for me or not, I am not working here with the agreed upon definition of kowledge in epistemology. You can know the lines of a play, even though doing so does not expand my 'knowledge' of the material world. And I can verify this by opening up a book and looking for those lines. If that is fuzzy logic, call me fuzzy.

That's not fuzzy logic, that's circular logic. "I know the lines of the play because the book dictates the lines, and I justify my knowledge of the play by comparing it to the book I used to learn the play." Huzzah, you've associated meaningless symbols with meaningless symbols. Nobody can prove that your association is incorrect so long as your association is meaningless.

Except you are the one making the equation between training an animal by stimulus and an individual learning a physical set of tasks. I never agreed to accept that comparison, and I don't.

Then what's the difference? You've already admitted that the human doesn't reason through every breath/stroke while swimming, so how is the unconscious act of swimming any more "knowledgable" than the unconscious act of the dog drooling at the sound of a bell?

A swimmer does not learn to swim by stimulus conditioning.

Then there's conscious thought involved in the act of swimming?

And individual who want to learn to swim must use their reason and faculties to be able to manipulate their body in a way that will allow them to carry out the task of swimming.

Same question as above.

That chimp gained knowledge. And if I "bastardized" the debate now, so be it. I don;t consider myself a consciousness chauvinist.

I don't think you've "bastardized" the debate by claiming that non-humans can acquire knowledge. Rather, you've "bastardized" the debate by equating conditioned reflexes with knowledge. If no conscious thought goes into the act of swimming, then do you mean to claim that knowledge is unconscious, and yet at the same time claim that knowledge is not conditioned? Where between "conscious thought" and "unconscious reflex" are you placing knowledge?

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

That's not fuzzy logic, that's circular logic. "I know the lines of the play because the book dictates the lines, and I justify my knowledge of the play by comparing it to the book I used to learn the play." Huzzah, you've associated meaningless symbols with meaningless symbols. Nobody can prove that your association is incorrect so long as your association is meaningless.

Why does knowledge need meaning? information has no meaning, it just is. It exists, It needs no justification, meaning, or purpose.

Then what's the difference? You've already admitted that the human doesn't reason through every breath/stroke while swimming, so how is the unconscious act of swimming any more "knowledgable" than the unconscious act of the dog drooling at the sound of a bell?

Then there's conscious thought involved in the act of swimming?

For one, the human being must decide to swim. The action is not automatic. With Pavlov's dogs, you ring the bell, they drool. Period. You throw a swimmer in the water, and they must decide to swim. They could also just float (if they know how), or stand in the pool. While each stroke is not a conscious act, the engaging in the activity as a whole is. And they can only carry out that choice, to swim, after learning and training in the methods of swimming, such as, for example, breaststroke or backstroke, or whatever other stroke is necessary.

Have you ever swum? I have, and there are certainly times when I realize that my stroke is inefficient, or the rhythm is off, and I conciosuly change the way my body is moving. It takes an immense amount of training to effortlessly swim without any thinking about how you are swimming. You call the training conditioning. The problem with the Pavlov comparison is that it was not the dogs conditioning themselves. It was someone else conditioning them. There is a fundamental difference between self-conditioning and being conditioned from the outside. Before you can self-condition you need to have information about how to self-condiction yourself, plus the result of this self-conditionning, to say nothing of the whole intent part of it.

I don't think you've "bastardized" the debate by claiming that non-humans can acquire knowledge. Rather, you've "bastardized" the debate by equating conditioned reflexes with knowledge. If no conscious thought goes into the act of swimming, then do you mean to claim that knowledge is unconscious, and yet at the same time claim that knowledge is not conditioned? Where between "conscious thought" and "unconscious reflex" are you placing knowledge?

You can train youself to the point that you can use knowledge without having to think about it. I don't equate knowledge with exclusively conscious thought. I know 1+1=2. Fine, call this part of a meaningless axiomatic symbol manipulation system, but if you show me 1+1 = and ask me to fill the end, I would not really consider the bain fuctions that will alow me to write 2 as being a particulalry conscious thought.

[monolith94]

Originally posted by GePap
Yup. Something intellectually stimulating will make plenty of people sleepy.

What's intellectually stimulating about that? All I heard was a whole bunch of nonesense - i.e. if god exists why is there evil in the world? It's a dumb question.

[Nostromo]

It sure sounds dumb the way you formulate it.

Its the classic problem of evil, a problem that preoccupied believers and unbelievers alike. The problem comes from three claims that are generally made about God: that He is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

Take the Shoah, for example. If God is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't He stop it? Maybe He couldn't stop it. Then He wouldn't be omnipotent. Maybe He didn't want to stop it. (Maybe He's the old testament jerk we all know and hate.) Then its not clear how we can say that He's benevolent. Or maybe He wasn't aware that it was taking place. Then He wouldn't be omniscient.

One classic answer, of course, is that God gave us freedom to choose. But its not at all clear whether we are free or not.

And it doesn't explain why there's natural evil, stuff like the Tsunami and Katrina.

If a survivor of the Holocaust would ask me such questions, I wouldn't say that he's asking dumb questions. They're perfectly legitimate questions. Maybe they're a bit naive, but they're not dumb.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lorizael


To get into a little bit of semantics here, there is technically a difference between the statements, "I believe there is no god," and, "I do not believe there is a god."

The first case asserts that you have proven a negative, which is just stupid. This is why I don't believe a good atheist should make such a claim. The second expresses a lack of belief on the matter, which I do think is slightly different from agnosticism.

Specifically, this type of atheist acts as if there is no god, but cannot say for sure that there is, in fact, no god. Thus belief, in a more classical, less post-moderny and semantic way, is not required.

But, as I said, for all practical purposes, this person does not believe in god. The only difference between this person and a hardcore atheist who screams about 9/11 and the god delusion is that in a debate, the person who does not believe, rather than believes not, will be able to present a more rational argument in favor of their case.



Oh no. A random internet poster, through his clever wit alone, has exposed my hidden insecurities.

This is pretty lame. I'd like to drop this part of the debate.

I'm not holding anything against you here, and I'm not hurt by the fact that you disagree with my beliefs. In fact, as I stated before - in this thread and elsewhere - I'm not even an atheist. It just so happens that, at one point in my life, I adhered to both of those atheistic philosophies I described above. I was also agnostic at one point, among other things.

So, I play devil's advocate when those beliefs are brought up, because I happen to know something about them. When you manage to attack the beliefs I actually care about successfully... well, let's just say I'll be surprised.

Ok, one quick point, because I have to go. I don't disagree with your beliefs about God. In fact, I believe that you are quite free to believe in God or not. I have never attacked your belief in God. In fact, I've specifically tried to avoid that aspect of the conversation. I will admit that my initial post here was baiting for a specific kind of person. It was a troll, if you will.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Why does knowledge need meaning? information has no meaning, it just is. It exists, It needs no justification, meaning, or purpose.

Then you're using a worthless definition of the word "knowledge."

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by nostromo
It sure sounds dumb the way you formulate it.

Its the classic problem of evil, a problem that preoccupied believers and unbelievers alike. The problem comes from three claims that are generally made about God: that He is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

Take the Shoah, for example. If God is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't He stop it? Maybe He couldn't stop it. Then He wouldn't be omnipotent. Maybe He didn't want to stop it. (Maybe He's the old testament jerk we all know and hate.) Then its not clear how we can say that He's benevolent. Or maybe He wasn't aware that it was taking place. Then He wouldn't be omniscient.

I would say the correct answer to this question is to think of omnipotence in terms of actuality rather than possibility. God is not omnipotent because he can do whatever he wants, he's omnipotent because he caused everything that happened.
Then comes another problem: if omnipotence precludes will, how can you call God benevolent? This is where Spinoza would argue that benevolence is a trait of the revealed divine, but not something you can infer from reason. And since the Revelation, according to him, is a positive moral system (and not an ontological treatise), it should not be an object of rational knowledge, but merely an educative tool.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

Then you're using a worthless definition of the word "knowledge."

NO, I am using a definition. The "worth" of a definition exists only in whether everyone in the debate agrees to that definiton. There is no other way to measure the "value" of a definition.

[loinburger]

It restricts the definition of "knowledge" so that it only effectively covers a minuscule subset of the subjects that the rest of the english-speaking world considers to be within its purview, and at the same time you haven't avoided an infinite regress (e.g., you have no way of verifying that you're not simply talking to a Chinese (or in your case Spanish) box when verifying your knowledge of Spanish). In other words, your definition is weak, and yet still carries with it the problems associated with stronger definitions. Its only conceivable benefit is that it draws a non-fuzzy distinction between belief and knowledge, but the price you pay isn't worth it.

[Sava]

You're using a worthless definition of "worthless".

[loinburger]

You're using a worthless worthless of worthless!