Jan Ardena:
"No true Scotsmen fallacy"?
Not from me. I'm not arguing that there are no True atheists. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am, however, saying that not everybody who calls themselves an atheist is necessarily an atheist in practice. I have seen similar sentiments from you regarding theists, so I'm sure you can understand my position.
Atheists tend to accept, that for them, there is no evidence for God, yet theists believe in God. Could it be that the atheists haven't thought their position through?
How does the existence of theists impact at all on whether atheists have thought things through? What's the relevance of that?
Because I don't think it's true, obviously.
Not only is that irrelevant, it is pure speculation which if taken seriously, can impede critically thinking about the actual proposition.
I'm quite happy to discuss the proposition. Nevertheless, it is good to bear in mind an author's potential biases, isn't it? Just as you make a point of mentioning Shermer's atheism. You will, of course, bear in mind
both biases, and not ignore the theistic one just because you happen to favor that position. Right?
If it is true, that there really are no actual atheists, despite what we may think, wouldn't you want to know?
It's a silly proposition, for reasons I have already explained.
It would be difficult to come to knowledge, if you poo-poo the findings, without taking it seriously.
I'm taking it seriously enough to discuss it in this thread.
Micheal Shermer is a professional atheist. I wouldn't trust that he is being mutually objective.
The book I referred to is not primarily about religious beliefs, but about how we come to believe anything at all. Shermer is certainly not free of bias, but your saying that his bias affects his arguments is "pure speculation which if taken seriously, can impede critically thinking about the actual position", as you say. So, Shermer deserves as much of a reading as the author of the article you posted, does he not?
No doubt he attributes that to theists, or religious people, and not to atheists.
Perhaps if you read the book you'll be in a better position to judge that. Right now, you're just guessing. And, as it happens, you're wrong.
He believes that the smart, rational people, are atheists.
No. He believes that smart, rational people can be either theist or atheist.
His findings, while they be factual (for the sake of argument), they are more than likely to be loaded with presuppositions.
To be fair, he draws on research by other people to make his case; it's not just his opinion.
Perhaps you ought to read the book and judge for yourself the extent to which any presuppositions have coloured the arguments he makes.
I might add that, in the same book, Shermer argues for a rather radical approach to free market economics - something which I am in disagreement with him about.
There, I think that his own preferences and presuppositions do colour the arguments he makes, and I think that this weakens the argument. But this is only a small part of the book and it is not representative of the entire content.
That's one way of looking at it. Of course all these speculations could be absolutely wrong.
Only they aren't just speculations. As I said, there's quite a lot of actual scientific research into how and why we form beliefs, which Shermer draws on to make his case. Like I said, it's worth reading the book. You should, if for no other reason than to know your enemy (if you want to look at it that way). As I said, it is not primarily concerned with religion, theist or atheism. Reading it might make you more aware of certain cognitive biases that you possess yourself.
The reality is that we have to work things out for ourselves. We can incorporate that idea, and try to observe ourselves, and see if we fall into that model. We could eventually believe that this correct, when we consciously observe ourselves.
The problem is, what is going on when we're not not observing ourselves, ourselves being embroiled in the moment.
I agree. Being aware of this means that we can also devote time after the fact, as it were, to reconsider (or to rationally consider, perhaps for the first time) the ideas we have adopted. We can be careful not to be too quick to dismiss evidence that challenges our adopted views, but to try to consider it without bias.
Theism isn't about making conscious decisions to believe in the "supernatural", it just looks like that when you say it out loud.
My point is quite the opposite - that we
unconciously choose what to believe, most of the time. Belief comes first, then the rationalisation.
I believe that theism is natural for humans.
That's what I said.
Theism is not concerned about God's existence. It only becomes an issue when one is asked to prove that God exists.
Right, because theists
just believe, and the question of God's actual existence doesn't arise until later.
Can one prove that they love their child?
How would you measure that, in order to get to the fact.
We've discussed this before. Prove it to whose satisfaction? There are many outward, objective signs that a parent loves his or her child. Of course, it's always possible that caring for, feeding, clothing, paying for, talking with, and spending time on the child indicates something other than love, but I'd say that,
prima facie, lacking any disconfirming evidence, it looks like there's love there.
For others, there is a nature that simply kicks in when you have a child, which means you automatically, unconditionally, love your child.
We have strong instincts to nurture our children. But there's also a proven genetic component to theistic belief - perhaps as much as 40-50% of a person's inclination to believe in God can be shown to be genetic.
But how can you prove that in a mainstream way? What exactly is the mainstream looking for?
In the case of nature vs. nurture effects, the methods of investigation are well established. Think about how
you would go about it, if you don't already know.
If you don't possess that nature, but you want to find out if it actually exists, or you want to find out what it is. How are you realistically going to do that? What if you arrive at the idea that it is false, or just an evolutionary mechanism? What about the people who have it, but due to their experience, disagree?
For a start, you need to deal with tangibles rather than intangibles. You need to look at what people do and say. If you want to find out about a trait that you don't share, you need to observe that trait in other people who do have it. You need to compare the physical differences (if any) between those who have it and those who do not. You also need to look into the environmental influences on those who have it vs those who don't.
It's not all a matter of opinion. There is quantitative data to be had about this stuff.
