Atheist Realism?

[Pete]

But that is not a perfect method so you have to conclude that you cannot know the reality by this method.

Right, that's what I said.
You can't know reality with absolute certainty by any method.
You can only infer it inductively through your perceptions.

I only read you you said that for you there is an objective reality

Read it again. I said that it is axiomatic that objective reality exists, that I behave as though it exists even though I have no absolute proof that it does.

It is not just calling reality god, It is showing that "god" is for some people (some theist) what for other (some atheist) "reality" is

There are those who don't distinguish between pantheism and atheism, who consider that an unconscious god doesn't deserve the label "god" at all.... which would make people who adhere to pantheism not theists.

Are you happy to call an unconscious thing "God"?
What about the pagan view?
Would you be happy to call a lump of rock "God"?

it is like showing that "dog" for some people (english speaker) is "chien" for other (french speaker)

It's more like showing that "dog" for some people is "cat" for others who can't tell one from the other.

 

[stretched]

It is a matter of choice, I can ask you as well why are you not calling it god?

There you go!

Why? As has been said umpteen times in the thread the word "god" carries "baggage", unlike the word "reality"

 

[Pete]

Here's an old riddle, usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

[ronan]

Right, that's what I said.
You can't know reality with absolute certainty by any method.
You can only infer it inductively through your perceptions.


Read it again. I said that it is axiomatic that objective reality exists, that I behave as though it exists even though I have no absolute proof that it does.

behave as though it exist, infer it inductively: does it not means thta you believe in its existence?

and if you really do not believe in this reality then you are an anti-realism, so you are a real atheist.
And I would like to ask you: how something (your perceptions) can come from nothing?

There are those who don't distinguish between pantheism and atheism, who consider that an unconscious god doesn't deserve the label "god" at all.... which would make people who adhere to pantheism not theists.

Are you happy to call an unconscious thing "God"?
What about the pagan view?
Would you be happy to call a lump of rock "God"?

The difference is that for the rock a pagan will attrivute *(consciousness) that atheist (at least the one I am talking) do not grant

It's more like showing that "dog" for some people is "cat" for others who can't tell one from the other.

I have to repeat:
for some theists god is the ineffable encompassing reality that some atheist believe exist behind our senses.

what the big deal?

 

[ronan]

There you go!

Why? As has been said umpteen times in the thread the word "god" carries "baggage", unlike the word "reality"

reality carries baggage, read one post i posted earlier
there are many kind of realist: structural realist, particle realist, field realist, transcendental realist, naive realist...

 

[ronan]

Here's an old riddle, usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

again:

for some theists god is the ineffable encompassing reality that some atheist believe exist behind our senses.

It is really close minded to say that all theist believe that god is not the encompassing reality that some atheist believe is behind our senses, especially when one theist tell you that (in a repetitive fashion)

It is not a big deal, just forgot the divide between theist and atheist
come on!

 

[ronan]

Right and it apply to reality as a whole (which is what I am talking about, not specific thing..)

What do you mean by reality as a whole ? I know of no such thing. I can only know some part of reality subjectively. Anything beyond that is beyond my experience and, therefore, unknowable by me in any sense.

reality as a whole is the reality behind our sense not just the all the thing that you see (which as you said is only a subjective view)

My point was not about the limit of the sense but because of the senses, namely the first case, that because of the senses I have a subjective view and I cannot know reality in itself. But in fact it is more than that and I follow Hume for that (from which Kant get inspired): We have only impression in our mind and from that we cannot infer anything about reality as a whole or in part.

Are you saying my mental impressions, in Hume's sense, are not inferences ?

Yes, for Hume you cannot even say that they are inference because for him you cannot even say that there is a reality (Kant disagree), me too, because for me something (perceptions) has to come from sonmething

because as you will see it is not so simple (the unknowability is not so sure)
Please note that ineffable means : impossibility to express (I used the word because of its weaker meaning that will become evident later)

If something is impossible to express, how do you expect to discuss it. Remember what Wittgenstein said ? " What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence "I regard that as sound advice.

we can still talk about it in the following way: it is ineffable and it is what many theist think about god.

Ok, I think most of you now understand what I was trying to say about theist/atheist.

I will use the word realist from now on to refer to people who call themselves atheist or theist who believe in the existence of something behind their senses that is not what they perceive with their mind. This something I will call it reality because I feel that if I use god, many here will not want to follow me (and I think now you understand that we can use both word knowing to what it refers)

If you use god, as has already been pointed out, this term is not interchangeable with reality. Most thists would argue that god created what we call reality and that he therefore stands outside it. You are in danger of conflating theism with pantheism, Best define your terms more clearly because, at the moment, you have fallen between two stools.
Let's start by recalling something:

no as I show there is SOME theist who associate god with the encompassing reality (shared by people believe in the existence of an inefable reality)

Hume was arguing that we cannot know the reality. He is considered as the most skeptic philosopher.

But is it really impossible to know about reality?
Hume could have been more skeptic: we cannot know that we cannot know.

Hume is best described as a "mitigated" sceptic.

Hume take the path that we cannot know, let's take the other path: we can know.

First let's be clear about Hume's position if you wish to argue against it. Talking of taking another path is not good enough. You must show Hume to be in error. Do that and we can proceed !

I show he was in error: he assume that there was only one path!

How can we know?
sense are known to be not reliable because of subjectivity and error.

So what else?

Enlightenment? (I imagine some will start laughing but be careful, enlightenment also is a word with many baggage) let's define it just as that: the way to know reality

Then going back to the debate between theist and atheist: we can redefine them even if even atheist should be considered theist because it is about ontology not about epistemology but let forget that to make everybody happy in this thread (I know it won't be possible but I try)

theist (the special kind we believe in the existence of something behind the sense) : believer in the existence of reality an believer in the possibility to know this reality (while keeping the inefability, I can come back later on this, it is not so important for my point)

atheist (the special kind we believe in the existence of something behind the sense) : believer in the existence of reality an believer in the impossibility to know this reality

(I will not be able to answer this thread for some time, at least not atthe rate I was doing these last days, I will be busy for some weeks,)
I will probably recreate a thread on this specific topic if I see that this post will be misunderstood (which I am afraid will be)

Can I suggest that you answer the above questions before we proceed; the alternative is more confusion.

give arguments, I just make a proposition, it is like this that we start to debate,

 

[ronan]

Very well, but the word 'God' implies an intelligent being.. at least to the vast majority of people.
I think this is much more misleading than using the word 'reality'.

Sometimes I feel you did not read the thread:

I am talking about SOME theist (and if you read the thread I argue that they are not few and that often they are the gurus but not the creator of institution themselves) and SOME atheist

 

[Pete]

ronan,
Is reality conscious?

 

[kenworth]

are you getting around to replying to me?

 

[Pete]

I am talking about SOME theist

You've yet to provide an argument that gives these so-called theists any credibility.

 

[ronan]

are you getting around to replying to me?

please read carefully what I said, I start to be tired to repeat myself:

here is the answer though:

so because you think god and reality are the same i must?

If you don' t want to learn the language of some theist it is your choice like it is your choice to want to learn that "dog" is "chien" in french.

i think this might be where you are getting confused.
as a result of everything i have said i admit that in my opinion only a perfect, "filterless" being (ie. god) can perceive objective reality.
this does not mean that i believe in god.infact....i dont.
i dont think that anything is capable of perceiving objective reality.

I am not talking of the kind of god you are describing (exterior to reality, which for me is not consistent), It show that you did not understand my point

where do you get the idea that god and reality are the same thing?

I read some work from Advaita philosophy as well as text from Meister Eckhart (a christian mystic) as well as other text found on the net that shows me that finally what many atheist call reality is what these mystic refer to when they talk about god.

 

[ronan]

ronan,
Is reality conscious?

That' s a good question, in fact how can consciousness arise from something that is not conscious?
I think the arguments from Nagel, Chalmers, Jackson seems to say that it is not possible

and it could be another distinction between who call themselves atheist (even if it would not be a good word because they still believe in the existence of reality (so the "a" of "a"theist should not be there)) and theist (I am still talking about the particular kind of theist and atheist)

You've yet to provide an argument that gives these so-called theists any credibility.

The credibility is the same for atheist who believe in the existence of reality behind our senses which is quite credible

 

[ronan]

ronan,
Is reality conscious?

That' s a good question, in fact how can consciousness arise from something that is not conscious?
I think the arguments from Nagel, Chalmers, Jackson seems to say that it is not possible

So I would say yes (I am expecting lot's of "It is nonsense!" )


Ok I cannot imagine one theist that does not believe that god is not conscious. So I agree now: all of you (I mean the one who recognize themselves here) finally are not theist because as I said for the stone (in one post about pagan view), if consciousness is a property of god and that some people believe in a reality without this property they are not talking about the same thing.

Sorry for all this debate, I realize my mistake. But I think we get a better insight about the divide between atheist and theist (at least the kind we were talking (at least me ) sorry for loosing your time if I did.

The belief in the consciousness of reality/ god would be a criteria of beign a theist or not


But now, with the argument of Chalmers, Nagel and Jackson, I would say that theist (of the kind I am talking) have strong argument in their favor

You've yet to provide an argument that gives these so-called theists any credibility.

The credibility is the same for atheist who believe in the existence of reality behind our senses which is quite credible

 

[kenworth]

please read carefully what I said, I start to be tired to repeat myself:

here is the answer though:


If you don' t want to learn the language of some theist it is your choice like it is your choice to want to learn that "dog" is "chien" in french.

I am not talking of the kind of god you are describing (exterior to reality, which for me is not consistent), It show that you did not understand my point




I read some work from Advaita philosophy as well as text from Meister Eckhart (a christian mystic) as well as other text found on the net that shows me that finally what many atheist call reality is what these mystic refer to when they talk about god.

well by the same token,you are definately an atheist because what you refer to as "god" is just reality to me.

 

[ronan]

well by the same token,you are definately an atheist because what you refer to as "god" is just reality to me.

Yes but (at leats before the last post) atheist contain "a" which mean not believe in

while you believe in reality

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I don't 'believe' in the existence of reality. I know reality exists. It is an observable.

Edit: I am assuming by 'believe' you mean faith-based acceptance and not evidence-based.

 

[kenworth]

Yes but (at leats before the last post) atheist contain "a" which mean not believe in

while you believe in reality

im sorry,i have no idea what you are talking about

 

[ronan]

I don't 'believe' in the existence of reality. I know reality exists. It is an observable.

Fine, you are not part of the atheist I was talking , namely the transcendental realists (Kant's view)

You mean reality is chair, dogs, women, men, cats, carrots... ?
Then you are what is called a naive realist
if you mean electrons, protons, you are one kind of (an old school one) scientific realism
if you mean something else, then I would like to hear from you

You also mean that there is nothing that generate our perception, that it comes from nothing
don't forgot that maybe you are dreaming!

 

[ronan]

im sorry,i have no idea what you are talking about

now if you saw my last post I am finnaly agreeing with you that even the theist and atheist I was talking are different because theists believe in a reality that is conscious while atheists do not

But before, (because I believed they were referring to the same thing when using the word reality (for atheist) and god (for theist):

atheist (again the one I was talking) BELIEVE in reality/god
theist (again the one I was talking) BELIEVE in reality/god

You see there is NO NEGATION OF BELIEF here so the "a" of "a"theist should not be there.

That's not a big deal

In fact rethinking now:

imagine an extraterrestrial civilization (who have a view of reality different from atheist/realist from earth and that believe that they do not believe in god (god being what their past religions were talking about)) coming to hear about the different believes on earth, they would probably put both atheist/realist and all theists in the same class: theist
Why? Because they realize that earth belief does not match their belief of reality and for them what is not their reality is god (old naive view of their past religion)