An old issue has been cropping up in my thinking and reading just lately. Some years ago I had to correct a bad habit of conflating the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of people who identify as atheists and/or materialists and/or humanists and/or skeptics. I was told - usually by one of those who so identify - that an atheist is not necessarily a materialist and so forth. Additionally, my son insists that a humanist is not necessarily an atheist and says that I could call myself a humanist (or secular) because I don't accept religious teaching or traditions.
Fine, but this leaves me confused. When I go to humanist web sites I am in no doubt (nor are the people who express opinions there) that humanist is identical to atheist. None of them would be caught giving any credence to notions such as the afterlife or psychic phenomena. Likewise, I have never spoken or read anything by an atheist who claims to be anything other than a materialist (or some closely related ism like a physicalist or a naturalist).
As far as I know, the skeptics here and others I've come across on the Skeptiko forum, all identify as skeptics and also as atheists. An example of a "spiritual" atheist has been suggested several times: that being a buddhist because Buddhism has no theology; no God. I believe that Susan Blackmore claims to be such a buddhist. However, when I have listened to buddhists either in my personal life or in videos online, they all talk of spiritual realities. They believe in some form of afterlife and/or reincarnation cycle. I found a website specifically for "
Secular Buddhists" such as Blackmore and this quote comes from their guidelines for newbies:
Quote:The most common topic people ask about is Rebirth. So, for the record . . . most secular Buddhist do not believe in literal rebirth after death. In fact, I don’t know of any secular Buddhists who believe in rebirth.
Secular Buddhists have a variety of ways of approaching teachings or text where they see mention of past lives, future lives, or reincarnation in general. Some just ignore the passages and move on. Some of us choose to look at the topic as a metaphor for the many ways the feeling of self and ego arise, the rebirth of greed, hatred, etc. And some feel that either these passages about literal rebirth were added to the Pali canon at a later time, or that the writers misunderstood or mistranslated the teachings, or that Buddha was victim to the times he was born in, or that he put a lot of weight in meditation experience. Some even feel rebirth is contradictory to the teachings.
Amazing, the lengths these guys will go to to hang on to their materialist dogma. They claim to be buddhists yet reject the central core of the teaching of the Buddha himself. Contrast the above that to what an actual buddhist writes about rebirth.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth...birth.html
Quote:Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition. The earliest records in the Pali Canon (MN 26; MN 36) indicate that the Buddha, prior to his awakening, searched for a happiness not subject to the vagaries of repeated birth, aging, illness, and death. One of the reasons he left his early teachers was because he recognized that their teachings led, not to the goal he sought, but to rebirth on a refined level. On the night of his awakening, two of the three knowledges leading to his release from suffering focused on the topic of rebirth. The first showed his own many previous lives; the second, depicting the general pattern of beings dying and being reborn throughout the cosmos, showed the connection between rebirth and karma, or action.
So, it seems to me that those who identify as materialists, humanists, secular or skeptics (at least the kind of skeptics we here are familiar with) are all atheists and are all proselytising that dogma. Otherwise, I would be happy to call myself a humanist if my views on the afterlife or parapsychology would be found perfectly acceptable by other so-called humanists but I doubt that, going by what they say on their UK website:
Quote:Here you can find resources about why many humanists believe it is the finite nature of our lives that makes our lives meaningful, and that humanists believe something of us does survive our death (our genes, works, and shared ideas and experiences).
It always seems a bit strange to me that, although "atheist" is often used as a catch-all description of the opposition by proponents, there seems to be very little mention of God in these discussions. For example, looking at the poll I made about evolution, no one at all voted for the option involving God:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-po...-evolution
(2018-03-18, 08:55 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Try to stop using labels, just talk about the actual specific stuff/issues.
Is field theory a label, Max ?
(2018-03-18, 06:51 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]An old issue has been cropping up in my thinking and reading just lately. Some years ago I had to correct a bad habit of conflating the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of people who identify as atheists and/or materialists and/or humanists and/or skeptics. I was told - usually by one of those who so identify - that an atheist is not necessarily a materialist and so forth. Additionally, my son insists that a humanist is not necessarily an atheist and says that I could call myself a humanist (or secular) because I don't accept religious teaching or traditions.
Fine, but this leaves me confused. When I go to humanist web sites I am in no doubt (nor are the people who express opinions there) that humanist is identical to atheist. None of them would be caught giving any credence to notions such as the afterlife or psychic phenomena. Likewise, I have never spoken or read anything by an atheist who claims to be anything other than a materialist (or some closely related ism like a physicalist or a naturalist).
As far as I know, the skeptics here and others I've come across on the Skeptiko forum, all identify as skeptics and also as atheists. An example of a "spiritual" atheist has been suggested several times: that being a buddhist because Buddhism has no theology; no God. I believe that Susan Blackmore claims to be such a buddhist. However, when I have listened to buddhists either in my personal life or in videos online, they all talk of spiritual realities. They believe in some form of afterlife and/or reincarnation cycle. I found a website specifically for "Secular Buddhists" such as Blackmore and this quote comes from their guidelines for newbies:
Amazing, the lengths these guys will go to to hang on to their materialist dogma. They claim to be buddhists yet reject the central core of the teaching of the Buddha himself. Contrast the above that to what an actual buddhist writes about rebirth.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth...birth.html
So, it seems to me that those who identify as materialists, humanists, secular or skeptics (at least the kind of skeptics we here are familiar with) are all atheists and are all proselytising that dogma. Otherwise, I would be happy to call myself a humanist if my views on the afterlife or parapsychology would be found perfectly acceptable by other so-called humanists but I doubt that, going by what they say on their UK website:
I've more often (than in everyday life) bumped into people who describe themselves as humanists, during funeral receptions when you're having a chat and a drink afterwards or whatever. Naturally, you can't generalise but the story you get seems to be fairly consistent. I won't repeat the arguments, they're fairly predictable. "Belief is irrational and illogical. I'd love to believe, but I don't (believe) in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy for the same reasons ...and so on.
They don't tend to make remarks about sincere religious belief (such as life after death) in those situations of course, but their demeanour is usually that of the 'quiet enlightened' among the 'victims' of superstition.
When I was younger, I used to tackle them but trying to persuade a humanist (with a few whiskies in him) that there is more to a human being than just the body is not the wisest move.
(2018-03-18, 12:11 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I won't repeat the arguments, they're fairly predictable. "Belief is irrational and illogical. I'd love to believe, but I don't (believe) in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy for the same reasons ...and so on.
The irony though is that it is simply exchanging one belief for another. Now if they said they were a "don't know", that might be somewhat more rational.
(2018-03-18, 08:55 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Try to stop using labels, just talk about the actual specific stuff/issues.
Have you tried that? I have and it is almost impossible because you have to direct your argument against something. The label is a description that others will recognise. You and most of us here know what we mean by materialist. We know that it isn't the kind who like to own cars and fill up their expensive homes with lots of stuff. We know that we are talking about people who reject the idea of something beyond the physical. The same people also reject, by default, anything spiritual - especially religious beliefs - so I'm saying that the labels atheist/humanist/naturalist/skeptic/secular describe the same worldview.
The point was about the interchangeability of these labels, not the rights or wrongs of using labels. It makes it easier for me to understand you if you describe your worldview. You don't want to write an essay every time someone asks you that so there are terms which might broadly fit your worldview. If not, then you have a problem because you have to précis your ideas repeatedly. And I'm using you as an example here because, after years of reading your posts, I still have no clue where you are coming from. All I know is that you have some nebulous (to me) theory about electro-magnetism which you have failed to explain adequately and/or I have failed to grasp.
(2018-03-18, 09:38 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]It always seems a bit strange to me that, although "atheist" is often used as a catch-all description of the opposition by proponents, there seems to be very little mention of God in these discussions. For example, looking at the poll I made about evolution, no one at all voted for the option involving God:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-po...-evolution
This is an important point, Chris. And the reason, if I understand the point you are making, is that proponents often have to jump through hoops to explain that they are not arguing from religious motives. While the media and many atheists seem happy to characterise the debate as a religious one - God versus science - proponents are not, at least here, happy with that characterisation. Most of us are not religious. Most of us, if we use the word God, do not have a religiously taught concept of what God is. Many of us will agree with atheists about the iniquities of religious power throughout history.
This is especially important in the evolution debate because there, more than anywhere, the charge of religious motivation is most prevalent. Time and again it is pointed out that the Discovery Institute is run and funded by religious groups. The proponents here who lean towards ID have had a long and almost impossible battle to separate the religion from the science or the philosophy involved in the argument. I might talk about the complexity of DNA and how unlikely it seems that such a complex molecule should arise by chance, even in the billions of years available. The response will often be: so you believe God did it? The more arrogant the atheist, the more accusatory the charge: so you think God did it in seven days?
I am not an atheist. Not because I believe in the God of religion but because I believe there is more to reality than the physical world apparent to our physical senses or scientific measuring devices. I believe in, for want of a better term, a spiritual reality. There are many in the world who share my beliefs and who object to being labeled as religious by skeptics, materialists, etc., - in short: atheists. The theistic emphasis in the word atheist has, to an extent, been lost. This was my point from the start of this thread. Atheism should define a view which rejects theism (belief in God or gods) but it has come to be that catch-all which has usurped all of those other descriptive labels I have mentioned. I suspect that atheists will not be happy until science itself is included in that list.
(2018-03-18, 09:00 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I agree labels are shorthand, they are convenient, and quick... but they do have real problems... some really bad ones, such as when they are used in a social way to define groups (as you are doing here)... this is because of the way the brain/mind (whatever you want to call it when combined) seems to work. There isn't an easy solution to this, the very fact these labels are easy, quick, useful and require less cognitive processing, means the alternative I'm suggesting is not as quick, is not as easy, and requires more cognitive processing. However this harder, slower way is more accurate, rejecting these labels, will over time, allow you to build up a more accurate picture of a subject. The use of these labels does feedback on your future understanding of a subject, that's why they are useful. But it's also why they can be a big problem.
You can read a basic primer about labeling theory on Wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory There are some easy examples given, and some nice quotes which may mean something to you if you read through, which I hope you will.
I'm not sure it's the right place to go through my ideas here, suffice it to say (shorthand and inaccurately), I believe we would understand our everyday experiences as little more than join-the-dot like patterns of firing in our brains, just like a children's join the dot picture puzzle book. But I say we should think about those patterns of firing, as able to be added up, so that we can sum *all* matching past patterns to the present. That's what makes up our experience. Basically, alike patterns of brain activation in space-time get summed to what we experience as the present, and it doesn't matter whether these past patterns are ours, or somebody elses. We can also sum future matching patterns. All this can happen because information is probably not really organized the same way we experience it (3-dimensions of space, and 1-dimension of time), instead it might - for instance - be organized in only 2-dimensions, and experience might be the result of a collision. Our experiences would thus be just our way of understanding the information released by the collision of two 2-dimensions.
It was my intention to bring attention to the misuse of labels, not really to encourage them. While they do have a place, as I outlined above, I don't believe they should be the defining exposition of a person's views; rather to give context to opinions. I do agree that labels can be misleading and used as pejoratives - as I tried to explain above with the point about proponents being miscast as religious which is clearly a deliberate straw man in some debates. The other point was that it would seem that atheists like to give the impression that they are aligned with others who identify as skeptics or humanists, etc., when, in reality, the only difference is the label. They are the same group of people.
Incidentally, I don't think the same can be said of so-called proponents who appear to range from the religiously minded to some very scientific or mathematical types. Proponents often disagree philosophically so I, for example, would argue in favour of idealism while others might be dualists or panpsychists. The impression often promoted by those who would attack the views of proponents is that they (we) are anti-science. This, of course, is completely bogus.
As for your views, I am still somewhat confused about whether you are saying that the brain alone is responsible for all we experience. That is the issue which is most debated here and I get the impression that your theories are somewhat tangential. Stephenw seems just as keen to promote his preference for Information Theory and I have similar problems deciding where that leaves us on the mind-brain question. However, these issues are probably for another discussion.
(2018-03-18, 07:07 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]This is an important point, Chris. And the reason, if I understand the point you are making, is that proponents often have to jump through hoops to explain that they are not arguing from religious motives. While the media and many atheists seem happy to characterise the debate as a religious one - God versus science - proponents are not, at least here, happy with that characterisation. Most of us are not religious. Most of us, if we use the word God, do not have a religiously taught concept of what God is. Many of us will agree with atheists about the iniquities of religious power throughout history.
I think it's useful to make the distinction between atheist and materialist, because logically I think you can be the first without being the second (and it seems that quite a few people here are that, if the word atheist is strictly defined).
Conversely, I think it's useful to keep the distinction between theist and non-materialist. And as you suggest, the people who don't accept the scientific method aren't identical with the non-materialists either.
(2018-03-18, 11:49 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to explain, but there is no question to answer in my view, they are one and the same. Brains are not separate from my experience of the world. If you took the top of somebody's scull off, and looked inside, you would see a brain, and our perception of that brain itself is processed into space-time, exactly the same as the rest of world is formed into space-time, there is no difference. What is processed into space-time appears to be information that is stored in some different way. That information appears to get added-up to the moment, using [what we understand as] temporospatial patterns (i.e. in spacetime), and processed into this experience of reality (spacetime), and this appears to be our current way of understanding. It makes the questions as to whether the brain is separate from mind, or that mind is perfectly isolated inside the brain, redundant.
I gave your post a like because I appreciate you attempting to explain it for us. Whether or not I agree - or even follow what you are saying - is, of course, another matter.
