Well, but then you were still missing the point. I would suspect that mathw is well aware of the reasoning that people use to come to those conclusions. What I understand them to be worried about is how anyone in their right mind would use that as a basis for judging somebody, in this case the pope.
Your response is like if someone asked "why would anyone hate black people for their skin color", and you would explain the doctrines of white supremacists. Yeah, of course they have doctrines that say they should hate black people. But who in their right mind would follow those doctrines?
When talking about religion, you can do it in two different ways:
- Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven".
- Grownup talk. You try to find an argument which holds both for believers and atheists. That's how a discussion about religion between atheists and believers should be conducted, particularly on a site like HN who values discussion.
Since mathw was wondering why his Christian friend doesn't like Pope Francis, I showed him some contradictions between what the Pope says and does, and the Catholic faith. And I said: "That's the reason why many Catholics don't like the Pope, probably you friend has similar feelings", answering his question.
My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.
> - Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven".
I don't really subscribe to the categories "childish" vs. "grownup". The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion. Saying the former to a believer might not be productive, and in that sense childish--but this is obviously not a forum necessarily for talking to believers, so there is nothing wrong with expressing this perfectly rational assessment of the situation.
> My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.
Yes, but you are still missing the point (unless I am misinterpreting their question).
The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true" (and maybe by extension: what could one possibly do to to get them away from such epistemologically damaging behaviour)? Explaining what the doctrine is simply is not an answer to the question that's being asked.
> The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion.
No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief.
Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.
On the other hand, I think that the right thing to do, is to bring the discussion on a physical (rather than metaphysical) level, so we all can contribute.
> The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true"
Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:
> I haven't asked him for details [...] But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching.
It turns out, as I showed, that there is something more central.
> No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief.
> Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.
No, that's probably just a confused interpretation on your part.
When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"?
Presumably, you won't. And why not? Presumably because you recognize that "Harry Potter is a work of fiction" is not to be taken as a statement of absolute certain fact. You recognize that this is an expression of a tentative albeit pretty likely to be true rational conviction. That is how people use language. Unless you are specifically talking about the philosophical intricacies of epistemology, that is precisely what that kind of sentence means, and there is no problem of the kind that you seem to be seeing.
> Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:
Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement to be well aware that all those horrible things are also part of christian teachings, and this being more of a slightly sarcastic comment on the fact that Christianity generally gets the reputation of being a "religion of love", despite the overwhelming evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
> When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"?
If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.
You can play a lot with words and philosophical concepts, and concoct funny situations by stretching semantics.
You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.
And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.
> Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement
I am responsible for what I say, not for what you expect or assume. Even less for what you assume from other people's comments.
> If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.
Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?
> You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.
Erm ... that's ... just wrong?
First of all, the claim that holding either of those positions as true requires faith is itself a claim and as such itself requires evidence. While I haven't ever seen anyone holding a belief in a god for any reason other than faith, that does not logically necessitate that faith is required to accept the proposition. Evidence for the existence of the god would very much be an alternative, and I haven't so far seen any argument why evidence would be categorically impossible (unless you happen to be using some definition of "god" for which that happens to be the case). Just because we don't have any evidence as of yet does not mean that therefore evidence is impossible.
But more importantly, you seem to be implying that anyone is making the claim that "there is no god". That's essentially just a strawman. I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists. Not accepting a proposition does not require faith, nor any justification, other than the fact that I am not convinced of the correctness of the claim.
> And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.
> Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?
This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.
> I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists.
Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.
Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.
And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.
I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.
Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.
> This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.
Well, it is very unfortunate that you are that fast to judge other people, as that prevents useful communication.
When I am talking to you, I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent your position, which is why I try to avoid assumptions about what you mean by words, and instead ask you to define what specifically it is that you mean if I think it's ambiguous, as is good tradition in philosophical debate.
Also, I don't really see how even the possible fact that I don't know a term that you are using should be a reason to not explain your position in a way that I would then understand.
> Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.
If you prefer that terminology, I don't mind using it that way in our conversation. Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary (as you presumably are well aware, given that you seem to imply that you are somewhat well-versed in at least the basics of philosophy), so what matters is that we understand what the other means, not whether we are using the objectively correct terminology (which is not a thing anyway).
But regardless of what terminology you prefer, I think it would still be useful for you to be aware of how other people use language. Which is why I am telling you that the position that I described is as a matter of fact the position of the majority of those poeple who label themselves as atheists. You might disagree with them about whether that is what they should label themselves, but that still is what they do label themselves as, and that still is their position. At least as far as the common definitions in that community are concerned, atheism vs. theism is orthogonal to agnosticism vs. gnosticism, all four combinations are possible.
> Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.
> And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.
Well, in order to respond to that, I would still need to know what you specifically mean by "metaphysical (entity)".
> I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.
Anything specific that you think I lack understanding of?
> Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.
Please don't waste my time with purely semantic arguments, as you should be well aware that those are vacuous. If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.
> If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.
That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.
Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.
How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?
The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...
And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.
And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.
> That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.
So, you think that one loses an argument when one expresses a correct idea using the wrong word (assuming there is such a thing)?
> Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.
Great example!
"It takes 4 bytes to transmit a 32 bit integer."
Agree or don't agree?
> How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?
Why would it matter? As long as what he is explaining is understandable and interesting, why would I terminate an interesting discussion just because someone is using non-standard terminology?
> The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...
Which is precisely why I tried to make sure we agreed on a definition for the purposes of this discussion.
Also, I really think it would be in your own interest to recognize that my definition of atheism is actually a widely accepted definition, or you'll end up unnecessarily just plain misinterpreting what all those people who use that definition are saying.
> And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.
I'm not sure, but the way you word this suggests to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how definitions work, as "definition of a concept" is not really a meaningful phrase (though you might be using it colloquially, which is why I am not sure).
Concepts are abstract ideas. Definitions are assignments of concepts to labels (words/phrases). For exmaple, "water" is commonly defined to mean "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms". Here, "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms" is the concept, "water" is the label, and the definition is the convention to use that label to refer to that concept.
As such, it doesn't really make sense to speak of "redefining a concept". You cannot redefine "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", that's a category error. You only can redefine the labels. So, one could, say, redefine "water" to refer to "piece of furniture consisting of one flat surface at the top with four legs". Under that definition, "a water is a piece of furniture" would be a perfectly sensible and true statement. It's questionable whether the definition would be useful, given that the word "table" exists and is commonly accepted to refer to just that concept, but that doesn't make the statement in any way wrong, at best it makes it awkward.
> And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.
Why do you think that I don't know what a metaphysical entity is? Someone not being sure of which of a variety of possible definitions is implicitly being assumed by some speaker is not the same as them not having any clue of the topic at hand, is it?
Your response is like if someone asked "why would anyone hate black people for their skin color", and you would explain the doctrines of white supremacists. Yeah, of course they have doctrines that say they should hate black people. But who in their right mind would follow those doctrines?