Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fundamentalists are those who deny the existence of mystery, or condemn meaning-making that fills the gaps left by mystery, when such meaning-making substantially affects only voluntary subscribers, and when there is no objective truth regarding such gaps.
Einstein seemed concerned about "transcendence" and felt it important to have -- whether by his lights ("music of the spheres", awe of nature) or some other. By this I take him to mean some method of rising above the human condition, having hope and the like. What I think he failed to understand is that this is entirely possible for at least some people to do without some kind of emotional catharsis or reliance on filling the gaps with anything other than an honest admission that nothing is known in that area.
I would submit that many are needlessly threatened by gaps that aren't filled with "something".
But ... I certainly support the right of people to fill gaps in their knowledge with whatever placeholder they feel they need to fill them with, so long as they don't claim it as objective truth that others are to be disparaged for not subscribing to, and it doesn't materially effect anyone but themselves.
What I think he failed to understand is that this is entirely possible for at least some people to do without some kind of emotional catharsis or reliance on filling the gaps with anything other than an honest admission that nothing is known in that area.
On the contrary, I think you fail to understand that which you are thinking does that for those "some people" you referred to is the same in every important way as that to which you are thinking Einstein was referring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I would submit that many are needlessly threatened by gaps that aren't filled with "something".
Which qualifies as "condemn[ing] meaning-making that fills the gaps left by mystery".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
But ... I certainly support the right of people to fill gaps in their knowledge ...
No one is talking about gaps in their knowledge. Mysteries aren't gaps in individuals' knowledge. They are generally gaps in humanity's capability to have knowledge. They include unknowns, sure, but more so are unknowables. Please pardon me if it needles you, but we're talking about things you don't know - no one does, or could.
The rejection of the notion that there are substantive unknowables in the universe is something we sometimes see from fundamentalist atheists.
The implicit quandary is illusory: Consistent rejection and condemnation of intolerance is not, itself, intolerance. Similarly, consistent rejection and condemnation of dogmatism is not dogmatism.
Again, I agree, but it is the religious who are at fault here in Faith -based insistence that they are right. Atheism simply does not accept those claims.
Quote:
No one calls atheists who defend the right of everyone to make their own meaning and value what they each individually choose to value "fundamentalists". The fundamentalists are those who deny the existence of mystery, or condemn meaning-making that fills the gaps left by mystery, when such meaning-making substantially affects only voluntary subscribers, and when there is no objective truth regarding such gaps.
Mordant has answered you well enough. Einstein had no time for organized religion and his insistence on a sorta god that Orders the universe remains unvalidated. This belief of his led him into his greatest blunder - rejecting Quantum mechanics.
Atheism does not have some 'Fundamentalist' - type dogma about mysteries and the unknown or even gods. It simply - correctly - does not believe the claims made on the basis of faith. The evidence is not good enough. That it must be accepted on faith in speculations is irrational and basing that faith on the claims of religion, theology and holy books is the dogmatism you speak of. It is all on the religious side. We simply consider the claims made (continuously) and the evidence put forward for them. So far, none of them have convinced those of us who remain atheist.
I know one at least who became a sortagod -agnostic, and sadly adopted speculations about the unknown as evidence. He was a sad loss. Anthony Flew was another and the poor old fellow was frankly bamboozled by the specious arguments of Behe.
P.s To comment on your reply to Mordant, I utterly reject the idea that we are dogmatic about the unknowns. We do not accept speculations (including those proposed as divine revelations) as evidence of anything. That includes your claim that they are 'unknowables'. Aside from some technical irrelevance about 100% proof (which I would credit you with ignoring as much as I do) there has been so much discovered that was once thought unknowable, that nothing can be regarded as for ever unknowable. To insist on that is irrational and smacks of dogmatism.
Thus again we are simply not accepting claims about unknowns without persuasive evidence - including that they are 'Unknowables'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2016 at 03:37 PM..
I have zero problem with an answer of what something is as We don't Know or Our best guest is or We are pretty sure it is either this or that.
I have heard Tyson and Dawkins explain how something might work but it is not anything more than speculations or a hypothesis at this point.
I do have problems with others saying that even though there is no evidence against X and X answers all the questions about the subject we should also consider A even though A does not answer all the questions just because it would be open minded to consider every alternatives even if they do not stand up under inspection.
Which qualifies as "condemn[ing] meaning-making that fills the gaps left by mystery".
Hardly. It's simply an observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
No one is talking about gaps in their knowledge. Mysteries aren't gaps in individuals' knowledge. They are generally gaps in humanity's capability to have knowledge. They include unknowns, sure, but more so are unknowables. Please pardon me if it needles you, but we're talking about things you don't know - no one does, or could.
That is also what I was talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The rejection of the notion that there are substantive unknowables in the universe is something we sometimes see from fundamentalist atheists.
I don't know where you get this notion that atheists have a tendency to claim there are not substantive unknowables. You and I may disagree on exactly where that boundary lies between "currently unknown" and "likely unknowable" but it certainly exists. I don't for example expect humanity to ever be able to form a perfect and comprehensive view of reality when we exist WITHIN it. I doubt that humanity will ever be able to exit this reality and view it from the outside in any meaningful way, assuming we would even be able with our limited perceptual and intellectual equipment to make sense of what we saw. So the exact structure, underpinnings and workings of reality will never, I suspect, be directly observable from a 100,000 foot overview like that. And this suggests inherent limitations on our understanding.
However, a thing that is unknowABLE is also by definition unknown. And when faced with the unknown, no one has the right to assert things about it other than that it is unknown, unless it is just something that they decide for various reasons to personally embrace that is personal, subjective and non-binding on others.
Yes indeed. It is a funny ol' situation where on one hand our science (which is the best source of valid data we have) is twitted by the Faithful as 'always changing its' mind' or saying "we don't know' and also supposedly being dogmatic about what is in the textbooks.
It really in because the Theist (not to say Bible -based) mindset constantly projects their modes of thought onto us and then, while berating us for being as Faith -based and dogmatic as they are, mocks us for freely admitting that we don't know for sure.
Again, I agree, but it is the religious who are at fault here in Faith -based insistence that they are right.
Fundamentalist atheist insist their correct, as well, and about things beyond that which is known and knowable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Mordant has answered you well enough.
And I have answered him well enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Atheism does not have some 'Fundamentalist' - type dogma about mysteries and the unknown or even gods.
Yet fundamentalist atheism does have fundamentalist dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
P.s To comment on your reply to Mordant, I utterly reject the idea that we are dogmatic about the unknowns.
You can choose to ignore the reality, but folks in the middle watch the two extremes and know the reality for what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Hardly. It's simply an observation.
There is no reason to make such an observation except to imply impugnment. As has been the case in the past, fundamentalist atheism yet again doesn't recognize its own expressions of intolerance - just like fundamentalist theists.
(Then you went on to say, in a nutshell, that you're right and everyone who sees things differently is wrong. Uh huh. No fundamentalism there, eh? If you say so. )
Every time fundamentalist atheists try to rationalize their dogmatic insistence that they aren't fundamentalist, they simply underscore the reality more strongly.
I see nothing fundamentalist about listening to someones claim and noticing they have no substantiation for it.
There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is a god or an after life. Least of all from anyone on this thread. Therefore I do not accept the claim that either of those things exist.
If someone wants to label me "atheist" because I have acknowledged that fact, they are welcome to do so. If they however want to label me "fundamentalist" for acknowledging that fact.... then they simply have an issue with basic linguistics. One I do not share but am happy to help them through.
Fundamentalist atheist insist their correct, as well, and about things beyond that which is known and knowable.
And I have answered him well enough.
Yet fundamentalist atheism does have fundamentalist dogma.
You can choose to ignore the reality, but folks in the middle watch the two extremes and know the reality for what it is.
....
Mordant has come back again as I will leave you to him.
Your Fundamentalist atheists argument is circular. I would say that, since atheists -or atheism as a rationale, at least - does not make irrational statements of the kind you wished on them, therefore there is no 'Fundamentalist' atheism. There may be a few who think like that, But I can't recall any.
This 'reasonable middle' argument again. We could discuss this, but it is an old argument and the supposed position of not knowing with two Fundy extremes claiming to know beyond all doubt is a rather irrational one.
Logically, if you don't know, you don't believe until you do. That's the logical basis of atheism. We do have a good case for arguing against the god of the Bible -claim and some good points to ague against First cause. Against that, the believers have nothing but faith -based certainties and gap for God argument. Neither are rational. But only Bible and dogma literalism lead to Fundamentalism. Atheism has no Bible or Dogma. Science is a reliable basis for arguing (or the best we have, anyway) but both atheists and believers know that it is always 'changing its mind' as they say.
So where is this atheist Fundyism? I'll tell you.It is in the fact that we are no longer silent. We are speaking out against organized religion and its influence and the religious don't like it. So 'Fundy' atheism is in fact "New" atheism, which is the same as the old except that we are no longer afraid to go public. Both terms were coined as terms of abuse which provided a handy stick to beat us with.
I will give you a friendly tip. Now you know better about us, you will drop this Dogma about atheists claiming to know for certain about unknowns. I haven't talked about "Fundamentalist agnostics" for sometime, but the term can be used, where appropriate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He was a sad loss. Anthony Flew was another and the poor old fellow was frankly bamboozled by the specious arguments of Behe.
)
