Religions > Atheism > Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist")
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MG" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 12:35:17 PM |
| Object: |
Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods. The truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
If an atheist did not understand the term "god or gods" then they could
not understand what belief it was that they lack, that makes them an
atheist. So they could not believe that they were an atheist.
Now... there are a lot of little tricks that some atheists try to get
out of this. None of them work.
The most popular is to argue like this:
A: "Someone tells me that 'pog is red' - but I can believe them without
understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a constitutive term is
not required for a belief involving that term."
Nope - what you believe is that "the entity named 'pog' is red" - and
that is a different belief from believing "pog is red". The difference
occurs because of what philosphers sometimes call "referential opacity"
in "intentional contexts". Belief is what is sometimes called an
intentional context (so is desire, hope, etc.). This means that you
cannot substitute co-referential terms and guarantee preserving truth
value. A good example, is that Oedipus believed "Jocasta will be my
wife", but he did not believe "my mother will be my wife", even though
Jocasta was both his mother (he had no idea of that) and his wife to be.
He desired to sleep with his wife, but did not desire to sleep with his
mother, even though his wife was his mother.
Another try is this:
B: "Someone tells me that 'pog exists' - but I can lack a belief that
pog exists without understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a
constitutive term is not required for a lack of belief in the existence
of whatever it might be they think they refer to."
Correct - but that is not the issue! Yes, you can lack a belief without
understanding the meaning of a constitutive term of that belief. BUT you
cannot *believe* that you lack that belief without understanding which
belief it is that you lack, and for that you need to understand it's
constitutive terms.
Another one:
C: "The word 'god' is used in so many different way by different
religions, most of them completely contradictory, that the term is
completely meaningless to me. But I lack a belief in any of them (or at
least all the ones I've come across) so I believe I am an atheist but
the term 'god' remains meaningless to me".
This is an interesting attempt but only because it raises several
interesting issues concerning langauge and meaning.
Firstly, it confuses a multiplicity of contradictory meanings with
meaninglessness by assuming that we have one word when we have, in
effect, either 1) many senses of the same word or 2) different words
(the choice between these two descriptions is ultimately arbitrary).
For example, the word "wicked" means (roughly) "something bad". It also
means (roughly) "something good". Both uses are current in English and
they clearly contradict each other. Have we, therefore, a meaningless
word "wicked"? No. Have we two words with different meanings, or one
word with radically different senses? Yes - you decide which description
you prefer. But you can't claim that it is meaningless just because it
gets used by different people in different contexts in many different
(often contradictory) ways.
Secondly, (if we assume each usage is internally consistent) the only
way one can judge two different words as contradicting each other would
be if one understood both meanings. Hence each would be meaningful.
Thirdly, the usage of the term "god" does allow us to form a *clear
enough* "god" concept to to form a judgement about when we lack a belief
in the existence of such things. Any atheist who says that they have no
idea what "god" means is either being disengenuous or is confused about
what it is for a term ot have meaning - generally, its the latter.
Another attempt....
D: "Every definition of 'god' that I've come across is self
contradictory in some way. I lack a belief in the existence of
self-contradictory entities, so 'god' is meaningless and I believe I am
an atheist."
More interesting issues...
Fourthly, (and this is very contentious) a self-contradictory deginition
is not meaningless. A sentence or concept is not meaningless if it is
*understood* and in order to determine that a sentence or concept is
self-contradictory it must be understood what is being said.
If I define "pog" = "a triangle with four sides" some people will say
"that is meaningless" - when what they actually mean is "that is
impossible - there can be no such entity - when I try to think of such
an entity I cannot". None of these is the same as the sentence or
concept being meaningless. The very fact that someone can make such
judgements about "pog" demonstrates that they understand what "pog" means.
I say this is contentious because many poeple think that all meaningfull
concepts must be possibly instantiatable. I'm not convinced, especially
because mathematicians frequently prove that certain entirely meaningful
and clearly defined concepts are not instantiated.
Fifthly, it is a mistake to think that to understand a concept term it
must be stated in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
Relatively few entirely meaningful concepts in ordinary languages are
amenable to strict definition. Try defining "game" and you'll see what I
mean. Try defiining "love", etc. Meaningful terms do not require
definition. If they did langauge learning could not even get started,
for to learn the first word we would need to already know words in which
the meaning of the first word would be defined.
I expect I'll get the same responses I have in the past when I've
mentioned all this.
And just to make it clear - I lack a belief in the existence of gods.
Goober.
.
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
26 Jan 2005 03:12:23 PM |
|
|
I admit that the term 'god' is an arbitrary term that when used in the
affirmation of the concept itself always requires a noncog's
presumptiveness. It is an extremely vague word. However, it is also
true that it's frequent usage grants it much relevancy. It's vagueness
requires a large amount of content be associated with it. It's
irrational origins are not relevant to the number of ideas to which it
can infer. It's subjective nature is not justification for dismissing
it when the degree of relevant context to which it can be applied is
the very thing being addressed.
There is also some presumption required to make an absolute distinction
between the terms 'belief' and 'knowledge'. They do have very
distinctive and exclusive meanings in the general sense. However, when
used in the context of what we are debating, they attempt to justify
the importance of NOT being presumptuous when being inclusive. Their
relative opposition in meaning when used in this way is counter to the
rational they try advance.
This observation in almost all other cases not very relevant. It is a
subtle distinction that seems very captious. However, when advancing
our convictions the terminology we use has to convey the importance of
objectivity.
I'm getting tired of having to convince atheists of the need to not be
too absolute in one's convictions. Subtle distinction driven by
cynicism is a pointless diversion in most every case. This is not one
of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
27 Jan 2005 01:48:39 PM |
|
|
Freethink:
I admit that the term 'god' is an arbitrary term that when used
in the affirmation of the concept itself always requires a
noncog's presumptiveness. It is an extremely vague word.
If someone were to ask me about my attitude towards the sentence "a god
exists" I would ask them first to clarify what they mean by a "god" in
that context.
If they meant, roughly, the Abrahamic deity described in the
Torah/Bible/Koran, I would say that I take the sentence to convey a
proposition which I believe to be false. Thus, I am an atheist with
respect to that sort of god.
If "god" is to be taken to mean, roughly, the deity promulgated by the
Classical Deists, I would say that I do not (and probably cannot) know
whether the sentence conveys a truth, though I would admit that it
conveys some propositional meaning. Thus, I am an agnostic with
respect to this sort of god.
If "god" is taken to mean "a timeless & spaceless supermind" I would
say that I cannot understand what meaning might possibly be conveyed by
"a god exists" since my understanding of "exists" is inherently
spatiotemporal. Hence, I am a noncognitivist with respect to this sort
of deity.
All of this is just to make the point that whether one is to be
considered an agnostic, atheist, or noncog really hinges on the
definition of god under consideration. Since I happen to be an atheist
with respect to 99.44% of the god-concepts which I've known people to
actually give a shjt about, I call myself an atheist in general, and
refrain from organizing agnostic meetups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
27 Jan 2005 05:20:05 PM |
|
|
"tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.info" <tergiversant@yahoo.com> said:
Freethink:
I admit that the term 'god' is an arbitrary term that when used
in the affirmation of the concept itself always requires a
noncog's presumptiveness. It is an extremely vague word.
If someone were to ask me about my attitude towards the sentence "a god
exists" I would ask them first to clarify what they mean by a "god" in
that context.
If they meant, roughly, the Abrahamic deity described in the
Torah/Bible/Koran, I would say that I take the sentence to convey a
proposition which I believe to be false. Thus, I am an atheist with
respect to that sort of god.
If "god" is to be taken to mean, roughly, the deity promulgated by the
Classical Deists, I would say that I do not (and probably cannot) know
whether the sentence conveys a truth, though I would admit that it
conveys some propositional meaning. Thus, I am an agnostic with
respect to this sort of god.
If "god" is taken to mean "a timeless & spaceless supermind" I would
say that I cannot understand what meaning might possibly be conveyed by
"a god exists" since my understanding of "exists" is inherently
spatiotemporal. Hence, I am a noncognitivist with respect to this sort
of deity.
Thank you both for a well thought out exchange. The above paragraph
triggers something I have wondered about before; In "God exists" it
isn't just "god" that needs to have an assigned meaning, "exists"
needs it too. Assuming that what is intended by theists is not the
same sort of this-world spatiotemporally located existence as we
normally mean WRT the existence of objects like a Buick, we need to
know what they do mean. Can we form a meaningful concept of "exist"
that is not spatio-temporal, meaning the space time we see as the
abode of Buicks et al? What is that concept? Is it another space-time
that or a thing like space-time? Wouldn't its existence need also to
be asserted? Where did it come from? Or is it "part of god" such that
god is both in it, and is it?
The above leaves for later discussion another aspect of the meaning of
"exist". Some philosophers reserve the assertion of a god's existence
to mean that the thing asserted to exist in this sense, participates
in causal relationships or chains. This is a distinction they make
between real and abstract. This excludes from consideration the idea
that when the existence of god is asserted, all that is meant that it
exists only as a concept or principle, which can be said to exist but
not in the same sense intended by theists.
All of this is just to make the point that whether one is to be
considered an agnostic, atheist, or noncog really hinges on the
definition of god under consideration. Since I happen to be an atheist
with respect to 99.44% of the god-concepts which I've known people to
actually give a shjt about, I call myself an atheist in general, and
refrain from organizing agnostic meetups.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
22 Jan 2005 01:46:16 PM |
|
|
I think I'll poke my head out now. I couldn't keep up and have much
confidence in what I would have posted. I appreciate everyone's input
here. This has been a good experience for me what with having to look
up terms, philosophers and read more on philosophy in general.
My current understanding on the relationship between belief and
knowledge seem to give Christopher's atheist definition integrity. I
guess my purist cynicism makes me want to blend the two together.
Atheists must accept an understanding of the word 'god'. They can think
anything they want to concerning it. They just have no belief in it. At
least, that is what I see as the outcome of this.
I don't like the dismissal of god concepts. As an agnostic who thinks
proving or disproving a minimal god concept is not possible, I am still
included in that definition. But do you see how irrelevant that
definition is to me? If you look at a concept of God being an
omni-actualized sentience. A sentience that is infinite in every way.
There is not really much that can be empirically made evident is there?
Mathematics include the concept of infinity. However, I only know
infinity as the figure eight on its side. What could any of us know of
an infinite actualization of anything?
I don't think the newer definition is good politics either.
Thanks for the insight!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
14 Jan 2005 10:59:42 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:35:17 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
The answer is "yes"
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods.
It's not a mistake.
the truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
False.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
And?
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
god-belief.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
Non sequitur.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
15 Jan 2005 11:17:54 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:35:17 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
The answer is "yes"
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods.
It's not a mistake.
the truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
False.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
And?
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
god-belief.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
Non sequitur.
Don
(4) is a condensed version of my conclusion. Now you may think my
conclusion is irrelevant to some other argument, but since I'm not
engaged in some other argument, I wouldn't care whether it was a non
sequitur to such an argument. Of course, if you are speaking in relation
to the argument above that I am trying to establish, then you can hardly
claim that my conclusion is irrelevant to my conclusion.
In any case, your views, however lacking in reasoned argument, are noted.
Goober
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
15 Jan 2005 01:39:15 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:17:54 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:35:17 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
The answer is "yes"
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods.
It's not a mistake.
the truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
False.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
And?
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
god-belief.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
Non sequitur.
Don
(4) is a condensed version of my conclusion.
So?
Now you may think my
conclusion is irrelevant to some other argument, but since I'm not
engaged in some other argument, I wouldn't care whether it was a non
sequitur to such an argument. Of course, if you are speaking in relation
to the argument above that I am trying to establish, then you can hardly
claim that my conclusion is irrelevant to my conclusion.
I certainly can.
In any case, your views, however lacking in reasoned argument, are noted.
As are yours, especially lacking in reasoned argument.
Hint: you might want to kill your faux-superior 'tude, especially
since your argument is *****.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
16 Jan 2005 01:35:41 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:17:54 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:35:17 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
The answer is "yes"
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods.
It's not a mistake.
the truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
False.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
And?
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
god-belief.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
Non sequitur.
Don
(4) is a condensed version of my conclusion.
So?
You seem to like throwing in "so?" or "and?" as though you are
petitioning for a justification of its relevance. The justification or
relevance of the claim is obvious from what immediately follows it.
Since (4) is a conclusion of my argument it is, ipso facto, relevent
(nay, *essential*) to my argument. So accusations that it is a non
sequitur can only be met with incredulity or derision.
Now you may think my
conclusion is irrelevant to some other argument, but since I'm not
engaged in some other argument, I wouldn't care whether it was a non
sequitur to such an argument. Of course, if you are speaking in relation
to the argument above that I am trying to establish, then you can hardly
claim that my conclusion is irrelevant to my conclusion.
I certainly can.
As should have been obvious, I meant that you cannot claim it with any
coherence. It it not coherent for you to say that a conclusion to an
argument is irrelevent to that argument. That's simply absurd. The
conclusion to an argument is *essential* to that argument - it is as
relevant as it is possible to get.
In any case, your views, however lacking in reasoned argument, are noted.
As are yours, especially lacking in reasoned argument.
Then I can only assume that you haven't read my post. It contains
explicit premises offered in support of explicit conclusions. That
constitutes a reasoned argument. Whether you have any grounds to think
that it is a *bad* argument remains to be seen.
Hint: you might want to kill your faux-superior 'tude, especially
since your argument is *****.
Hint: until you actually bother to *address* my argument by *explaining*
either 1) why you hold a premise of mine to be false, or 2) why you hold
an inference of mine to be invalid, rather than simply giansaying it
(which is what you're doing) - until then, your assertion that it is
"*****" must be dismissed.
Goober
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
16 Jan 2005 02:20:38 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:41 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:17:54 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:35:17 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
The answer is "yes"
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods.
It's not a mistake.
the truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
False.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
And?
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
god-belief.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
Non sequitur.
(4) is a condensed version of my conclusion.
So?
You seem to like throwing in "so?" or "and?" as though you are
petitioning for a justification of its relevance.
Yes, I am. You seem to think that your syllogism is valid. Silly
you.
The justification or
relevance of the claim is obvious from what immediately follows it.
Since (4) is a conclusion of my argument it is, ipso facto, relevent
(nay, *essential*) to my argument. So accusations that it is a non
sequitur can only be met with incredulity or derision.
False. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
Now you may think my
conclusion is irrelevant to some other argument, but since I'm not
engaged in some other argument, I wouldn't care whether it was a non
sequitur to such an argument. Of course, if you are speaking in relation
to the argument above that I am trying to establish, then you can hardly
claim that my conclusion is irrelevant to my conclusion.
I certainly can.
As should have been obvious, I meant that you cannot claim it with any
coherence.
I certainly can and do.
In any case, your views, however lacking in reasoned argument, are noted.
As are yours, especially lacking in reasoned argument.
Then I can only assume that you haven't read my post.
I did. It was garbage.
Hint: you might want to kill your faux-superior 'tude, especially
since your argument is *****.
Hint: until you actually bother to *address* my argument by *explaining*
either 1) why you hold a premise of mine to be false,
Hint: until you show your argument to be true, your argument is a
load of *****.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
16 Jan 2005 10:23:56 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:41 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:17:54 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:35:17 -0800, MG
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
The answer is "yes"
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods.
It's not a mistake.
the truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
False.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
And?
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
god-belief.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
Non sequitur.
(4) is a condensed version of my conclusion.
So?
You seem to like throwing in "so?" or "and?" as though you are
petitioning for a justification of its relevance.
Yes, I am. You seem to think that your syllogism is valid. Silly
you.
I await your demonstration of that.
The justification or
relevance of the claim is obvious from what immediately follows it.
Since (4) is a conclusion of my argument it is, ipso facto, relevent
(nay, *essential*) to my argument. So accusations that it is a non
sequitur can only be met with incredulity or derision.
False. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.
I await your demonstration of that. Until then, your accusation is
dismissed.
Now you may think my
conclusion is irrelevant to some other argument, but since I'm not
engaged in some other argument, I wouldn't care whether it was a non
sequitur to such an argument. Of course, if you are speaking in relation
to the argument above that I am trying to establish, then you can hardly
claim that my conclusion is irrelevant to my conclusion.
I certainly can.
As should have been obvious, I meant that you cannot claim it with any
coherence.
I certainly can and do.
I await your demonstration of that my arguments to the contrary [snipped
without acknowledement] are unsound.
In any case, your views, however lacking in reasoned argument, are noted.
As are yours, especially lacking in reasoned argument.
Then I can only assume that you haven't read my post.
I did. It was garbage.
I await your demonstration of that.
Hint: you might want to kill your faux-superior 'tude, especially
since your argument is *****.
Hint: until you actually bother to *address* my argument by *explaining*
either 1) why you hold a premise of mine to be false,
Hint: until you show your argument to be true, your argument is a
load of *****.
I note that you above concede that I present an argument. The burden now
falls on you to demonstrate (not merely assert) that it is not "true".
Until you demonstrate that my argument is unsound, your assertion
remains unsubstantiated and is dismissed.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 06:42:59 PM |
|
|
MG wrote:
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means
I am atheist, and as I understand it, the term, 'god' denotes some
empty, meaningless, metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact you
can point out, can you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
21 Jan 2005 09:06:48 AM |
|
|
Long wrote:
MG wrote:
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means
Quote my sentences unaltered. There is no point responding to you until
you learn not to misquote or deliberately misrepresent my claims.
My claim reads:
"4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist."
Since you have neither quoted the entire sentence, nor even indicated
with ellipsis that you have snipped the remainder of the sentence that
significantly and radically alters the meaning of the quoted text, your
actions constitute deliberate misrepresentation.
Goober.
I am atheist, and as I understand it, the term, 'god' denotes some
empty, meaningless, metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact you
can point out, can you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 06:51:39 PM |
|
|
Long wrote:
MG wrote:
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means
as I understand it, the term, 'god' denotes some
empty, meaningless,
"Denotes" and "meaningless" make your supposed understanding a
contradiction in terms, and thus a nullity, Septic. But then, you are
the completely confused and contradictory old idiot fool of
alt.atheism, as always, with no evident understanding anyway.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
14 Jan 2005 06:46:43 PM |
|
|
MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com> said:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods. The truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
If an atheist did not understand the term "god or gods" then they could
not understand what belief it was that they lack, that makes them an
atheist. So they could not believe that they were an atheist.
Now... there are a lot of little tricks that some atheists try to get
out of this. None of them work.
The most popular is to argue like this:
A: "Someone tells me that 'pog is red' - but I can believe them without
understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a constitutive term is
not required for a belief involving that term."
Nope - what you believe is that "the entity named 'pog' is red" - and
that is a different belief from believing "pog is red". The difference
occurs because of what philosphers sometimes call "referential opacity"
in "intentional contexts". Belief is what is sometimes called an
intentional context (so is desire, hope, etc.). This means that you
cannot substitute co-referential terms and guarantee preserving truth
value. A good example, is that Oedipus believed "Jocasta will be my
wife", but he did not believe "my mother will be my wife", even though
Jocasta was both his mother (he had no idea of that) and his wife to be.
He desired to sleep with his wife, but did not desire to sleep with his
mother, even though his wife was his mother.
....
This Jocasta example is not pertinent to the question of meaning, for
reasons I give below. But your underlying premise is, IMO, correct in
the sense that the person who says that "God" is a meaningless if
pronounceable combination of letters, is restricted in how he can
express his beliefs, even in his own mind.
I expect I'll get the same responses I have in the past when I've
mentioned all this.
Well, I'll try to be different.
And just to make it clear - I lack a belief in the existence of gods.
Then you apparently believe "gods" is a word, or you wouldn't use it
as such.
Goober.
The issue does not have to do with referential opacity or
co-referential substitution, but with *absence* of reference. This
concerns denotation, "that which makes a word a word."
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
(see http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/Theory.html)
Because "pog" does not symbolize and communicate a meaning, no person
can have beliefs about "that which 'pog' symbolizes and communicates
or denotes. We have beliefs about that which a word denotes. (Of
course, we can have beliefs about the word, such as that it has so
many letters, but it is not an instance of referential opacity to
concern oneself with the denotation instead of the word.) In the case
of "pog" there is nothing denoted about which to have beliefs. Put
simply, "pog" is not a word, so cannot be the subject in a proper
sentence that has a predicate, like "pog is red" -- and this is
because "pog is red" is not, technically speaking, a proper sentence,
having no word as a subject. It is linguistically and semantically
identical to "is red". Not being a sentence, it cannot state a
proposition, and not being a proposition, it cannot state a belief.
Since we think in words, if it cannot state a belief, it cannot be
held as a belief.
A person *can* know this. He can know that he cannot have beliefs
about that which "pog" symbolizes and communicates, his justification
being that it does not symbolize or communicate anything. So he can
know, and believe, he is an a-pogist of the weak, if not the weakest,
variety. ;-)
But there are certain things he cannot believe, or say, in expressing
his a-pogism. I explain this next, in the context of atheism.
I will use "God" in the following but the same could hold for "god" or
"gods".
If "God" is like "pog" in not symbolizing or communicating or
denoting anything, a person can know, and believe, he has no beliefs
about that which is symbolized and communicated and denoted by "God"
-- for the reason that there is nothing symbolized or communicated by
"God" about which beliefs can be had.
But in this situation the person who holds that "God" is meaningless.
cannot, strictly speaking properly say, even to himself, "I lack
belief in God" because this is not a sentence. It is identical to "I
lack belief in". How can he properly express his situation? I'll leave
that as a question.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
14 Jan 2005 11:12:00 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:givfu0pnf64j77nh4qvjdjlrr5g6bqv1mj@4ax.com...
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
Um...actually a "pog" is a fad toy from the early and mid 90's. Kind of a
disc that you bounce and knock other pogs around...sort of like marbles.
But all your points are valid anyway.
Maybe use a word like "plagzixa".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
14 Jan 2005 11:38:05 PM |
|
|
"Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymail.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:givfu0pnf64j77nh4qvjdjlrr5g6bqv1mj@4ax.com...
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
Um...actually a "pog" is a fad toy from the early and mid 90's. Kind of a
disc that you bounce and knock other pogs around...sort of like marbles.
But all your points are valid anyway.
Maybe use a word like "plagzixa".
My plagziga thinks that won't work either. ;-)
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
15 Jan 2005 11:06:34 AM |
|
|
Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:givfu0pnf64j77nh4qvjdjlrr5g6bqv1mj@4ax.com...
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
Um...actually a "pog" is a fad toy from the early and mid 90's. Kind of a
disc that you bounce and knock other pogs around...sort of like marbles.
But all your points are valid anyway.
Maybe use a word like "plagzixa".
Ahh phooey! I picked on "pog" because it's often used in child language
experiments precisely because it was/is supposed to be a meaningles word
to the children.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
16 Jan 2005 07:03:49 PM |
|
|
In article <csatfq$6aq$2@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:givfu0pnf64j77nh4qvjdjlrr5g6bqv1mj@4ax.com...
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
Um...actually a "pog" is a fad toy from the early and mid 90's. Kind of a
disc that you bounce and knock other pogs around...sort of like marbles.
But all your points are valid anyway.
Maybe use a word like "plagzixa".
Ahh phooey! I picked on "pog" because it's often used in child language
experiments precisely because it was/is supposed to be a meaningles word
to the children.
Goober.
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,77402,00.html
Scroll down to 17. and 18.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
17 Jan 2005 02:55:06 PM |
|
|
In article
<lodited-33C641.11034916012005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <csatfq$6aq$2@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:givfu0pnf64j77nh4qvjdjlrr5g6bqv1mj@4ax.com...
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
Um...actually a "pog" is a fad toy from the early and mid 90's. Kind of a
disc that you bounce and knock other pogs around...sort of like marbles.
But all your points are valid anyway.
Maybe use a word like "plagzixa".
Ahh phooey! I picked on "pog" because it's often used in child language
experiments precisely because it was/is supposed to be a meaningles word
to the children.
Goober.
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,77402,00.html
Scroll down to 17. and 18.
Which kind of dance do you do with this: fox-trot, shimmy, rag,
Charleston or black bottom? My guess is black bottom:
http://www.streetswing.com/histmain/z3blkbtm.htm
"The Dance featured the slapping of the backside while hopping forward
and backward, stamping the feet and gyrations of the torso (pelvis)
while making arm movements to music with an occasional 'Heel-Toe Scoop'
which was very erotic in those days."
Hey, this is a joke, you goober. :-)
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
18 Jan 2005 04:00:44 AM |
|
|
Hi Ted,
Yes - that link gave me a chuckle. My present "nom de guerre" comes
initially from a cartoon character when I was a kid, via an old
schoolfriend. "Goober" is the kind name one would expect to find in the
jazz scene. One can imagine a jazz band: "Goober and the Off-Beats".
I glanced at an interesting looking chat you were having about David
Chalmers and consciousness. Did I mention I went to dinner with him
once. Very nice chap (although he didn't get back ot me on my paper).
Thesis is very nearly finished. Am teaching intro ethics at the moment -
lots of fun but quite a bit of work as well - you'd enjoy my course, I'm
sure.
ttfn
"Goober" - a.k.a MG
Ted King wrote:
In article
<lodited-33C641.11034916012005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <csatfq$6aq$2@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:givfu0pnf64j77nh4qvjdjlrr5g6bqv1mj@4ax.com...
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
Um...actually a "pog" is a fad toy from the early and mid 90's. Kind of a
disc that you bounce and knock other pogs around...sort of like marbles.
But all your points are valid anyway.
Maybe use a word like "plagzixa".
Ahh phooey! I picked on "pog" because it's often used in child language
experiments precisely because it was/is supposed to be a meaningles word
to the children.
Goober.
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,77402,00.html
Scroll down to 17. and 18.
Which kind of dance do you do with this: fox-trot, shimmy, rag,
Charleston or black bottom? My guess is black bottom:
http://www.streetswing.com/histmain/z3blkbtm.htm
"The Dance featured the slapping of the backside while hopping forward
and backward, stamping the feet and gyrations of the torso (pelvis)
while making arm movements to music with an occasional 'Heel-Toe Scoop'
which was very erotic in those days."
Hey, this is a joke, you goober. :-)
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
18 Jan 2005 01:37:24 PM |
|
|
In article <csi1m1$aa3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote:
Hi Ted,
Yes - that link gave me a chuckle. My present "nom de guerre" comes
initially from a cartoon character when I was a kid,
"Goober and the Ghost Busters"? (Hmm. That's American - was the
inspiration for your nickname British?)
via an old
schoolfriend. "Goober" is the kind name one would expect to find in the
jazz scene. One can imagine a jazz band: "Goober and the Off-Beats".
:-)
I glanced at an interesting looking chat you were having about David
Chalmers and consciousness. Did I mention I went to dinner with him
once. Very nice chap (although he didn't get back ot me on my paper).
You did mention that you had met him; I think it came up in a discussion
we were having about consciousness.
I've been reading the exchange you have had with Jim07D5. The bit about
extensional and intentional "meaning" was fascinating. One of Jim's many
strengths is how well he pays attention to the subtleties and
implications of how we express our notions. I tend to get so caught up
in just figuring out what the heck the issues are and finding *any* kind
of words outa my head to try to express what I'm thinking that I usually
don't notice the deeper issues involving a chosen mode of expression. I
guess I need to read more Quine, Kripke, Wittgenstein and, of course,
Russell.
One of the people contributing to that thread on consciousness, Publius,
strikes me as someone with a pretty deep and broad background in, or at
least well read in, philosophy. Another contributer, Dianelos, has an
interesting notion of how we should define "exist"; he says that which
exists is that which explains his experience (at least that is what I am
understanding him to be saying). I've been going 'round with him about
this because it seems to me that he is missing a fundamental ontological
notion by defining "exist" in what seems to me to be purely epistemic
terms. I can't figure out if I'm misunderstanding him, just off base in
what I'm saying, or if I might even be right.
Thesis is very nearly finished. Am teaching intro ethics at the moment -
lots of fun but quite a bit of work as well - you'd enjoy my course, I'm
sure.
ttfn
"Goober" - a.k.a MG
Good news about your thesis. How many more hoops do you need to get
through before you are finished (with the official "Degree" part)? I
don't doubt that I would enjoy the ethics course, and no doubt, learn
quite a lot.
Did you have a chance to do much backpacking last summer?
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: OT: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to bean atheist") |
22 Jan 2005 09:00:00 AM |
|
|
Ted King wrote:
In article <csi1m1$aa3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote:
Hi Ted,
Yes - that link gave me a chuckle. My present "nom de guerre" comes
initially from a cartoon character when I was a kid,
"Goober and the Ghost Busters"? (Hmm. That's American - was the
inspiration for your nickname British?)
I vaguely recall an American cartoon character. Can't recall the "and
the Ghostbusters" bit. The catch-phrase was "ridiculiculiculous"
via an old
schoolfriend. "Goober" is the kind name one would expect to find in the
jazz scene. One can imagine a jazz band: "Goober and the Off-Beats".
:-)
I glanced at an interesting looking chat you were having about David
Chalmers and consciousness. Did I mention I went to dinner with him
once. Very nice chap (although he didn't get back ot me on my paper).
You did mention that you had met him; I think it came up in a discussion
we were having about consciousness.
I've been reading the exchange you have had with Jim07D5. The bit about
extensional and intentional "meaning" was fascinating. One of Jim's many
strengths is how well he pays attention to the subtleties and
implications of how we express our notions. I tend to get so caught up
in just figuring out what the heck the issues are and finding *any* kind
of words outa my head to try to express what I'm thinking that I usually
don't notice the deeper issues involving a chosen mode of expression. I
guess I need to read more Quine, Kripke, Wittgenstein and, of course,
Russell.
Give the Quine a miss - usually technical and dry - even when the ideas
are interesting and important. Kind of like a Chablis. Kripke should be
read - "Naming and Necessity" is brilliant and clear and easy reading -
a oak-barrelled chardonnay of a philosopher, imo. Wittgenstein I love:
deep and complex, but he's an acquired taste. Perhaps a Rioja or a
Chianti. Russell is a classic Bordeaux - no question. An incredible
combination of complexity and graceful presentation.
One of the people contributing to that thread on consciousness, Publius,
strikes me as someone with a pretty deep and broad background in, or at
least well read in, philosophy. Another contributer, Dianelos, has an
interesting notion of how we should define "exist"; he says that which
exists is that which explains his experience (at least that is what I am
understanding him to be saying).
Very dubious idea imo.
I've been going 'round with him about
this because it seems to me that he is missing a fundamental ontological
notion by defining "exist" in what seems to me to be purely epistemic
terms. I can't figure out if I'm misunderstanding him, just off base in
what I'm saying, or if I might even be right.
Thesis is very nearly finished. Am teaching intro ethics at the moment -
lots of fun but quite a bit of work as well - you'd enjoy my course, I'm
sure.
ttfn
"Goober" - a.k.a MG
Good news about your thesis. How many more hoops do you need to get
through before you are finished (with the official "Degree" part)? I
don't doubt that I would enjoy the ethics course, and no doubt, learn
quite a lot.
Did you have a chance to do much backpacking last summer?
I've two chapters more to complete. That's submitted to my committee,
and if passed, an oral exam to follow. Then revision's, and that's it.
Backpacking was two wonderful weeks in the Canadian Rockies (again). One
trip by myself for a week through a wilderness area (no trails, bridges,
roads, campsites, or any permanent signs of human interference), and
another week through Assiniboine Provincial park in B.C. I saw a grizzly
bear with two cubs up close and personal. It was just wonderful.
Goober
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
22 Jan 2005 04:23:28 PM |
|
|
Thanks for marking this as OT; I probably should have done that.
In article <cst4m0$6fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote:
Ted King wrote:
In article <csi1m1$aa3$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote:
Hi Ted,
Yes - that link gave me a chuckle. My present "nom de guerre" comes
initially from a cartoon character when I was a kid,
"Goober and the Ghost Busters"? (Hmm. That's American - was the
inspiration for your nickname British?)
I vaguely recall an American cartoon character. Can't recall the "and
the Ghostbusters" bit. The catch-phrase was "ridiculiculiculous"
Probably the most redeeming quality of the show. :-)
via an old
schoolfriend. "Goober" is the kind name one would expect to find in the
jazz scene. One can imagine a jazz band: "Goober and the Off-Beats".
:-)
I glanced at an interesting looking chat you were having about David
Chalmers and consciousness. Did I mention I went to dinner with him
once. Very nice chap (although he didn't get back ot me on my paper).
You did mention that you had met him; I think it came up in a discussion
we were having about consciousness.
I've been reading the exchange you have had with Jim07D5. The bit about
extensional and intentional "meaning" was fascinating. One of Jim's many
strengths is how well he pays attention to the subtleties and
implications of how we express our notions. I tend to get so caught up
in just figuring out what the heck the issues are and finding *any* kind
of words outa my head to try to express what I'm thinking that I usually
don't notice the deeper issues involving a chosen mode of expression. I
guess I need to read more Quine, Kripke, Wittgenstein and, of course,
Russell.
Give the Quine a miss - usually technical and dry - even when the ideas
are interesting and important. Kind of like a Chablis. Kripke should be
read - "Naming and Necessity" is brilliant and clear and easy reading -
a oak-barrelled chardonnay of a philosopher, imo. Wittgenstein I love:
deep and complex, but he's an acquired taste. Perhaps a Rioja or a
Chianti. Russell is a classic Bordeaux - no question. An incredible
combination of complexity and graceful presentation.
No wonder I have so much trouble understanding those guys - wine gives
me headaches. Well, at least red wines do, so I just gave up on wine
drinking altogether. I notice, though, that you listed wines that come
in white blends, so I guess I don't have a good excuse not to go for it.
I'm pretty sure I'll still get headaches, though. :-)
One of the people contributing to that thread on consciousness, Publius,
strikes me as someone with a pretty deep and broad background in, or at
least well read in, philosophy. Another contributer, Dianelos, has an
interesting notion of how we should define "exist"; he says that which
exists is that which explains his experience (at least that is what I am
understanding him to be saying).
Very dubious idea imo.
It could be I misunderstood him, but alas, I may never get to the bottom
of it because he seems to have quit posting. In fact, that whole thread
seems to be dwindling out. That's too bad. It was one of the most
stimulating discussions I've seen in aa in a long time - at least
stimulating to me since it was just about the right level of depth and
complexity that I could handle most of it and grow a little in my
understanding.
I've been going 'round with him about
this because it seems to me that he is missing a fundamental ontological
notion by defining "exist" in what seems to me to be purely epistemic
terms. I can't figure out if I'm misunderstanding him, just off base in
what I'm saying, or if I might even be right.
Thesis is very nearly finished. Am teaching intro ethics at the moment -
lots of fun but quite a bit of work as well - you'd enjoy my course, I'm
sure.
ttfn
"Goober" - a.k.a MG
Good news about your thesis. How many more hoops do you need to get
through before you are finished (with the official "Degree" part)? I
don't doubt that I would enjoy the ethics course, and no doubt, learn
quite a lot.
Did you have a chance to do much backpacking last summer?
I've two chapters more to complete. That's submitted to my committee,
and if passed, an oral exam to follow. Then revision's, and that's it.
Oh, that's all! Whew. Still sounds like plenty. But the end is much
closer than the beginning.
Backpacking was two wonderful weeks in the Canadian Rockies (again). One
trip by myself for a week through a wilderness area (no trails, bridges,
roads, campsites, or any permanent signs of human interference), and
another week through Assiniboine Provincial park in B.C. I saw a grizzly
bear with two cubs up close and personal. It was just wonderful.
Goober
That sounds great. I used to go alone sometimes out into the Sierras on
journeys like that. I recall that day by day I would talk fewer and
fewer words in my head. After being out away from everything I'm pretty
sure I would sometimes go for quite a while where I didn't think much of
any words at all. Just the air and sun and ground and plants and bugs
and breath. A "just being there" zone. But then a turning point always
came for me after enough days when I would begin to desire to talk with
people and have things "back in civilization"; and the next thing I knew
I was back to an internal conversation full of words again. Do you
experience anything like that on your backpacking journeys?
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
15 Jan 2005 11:04:50 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com> said:
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods. The truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
If an atheist did not understand the term "god or gods" then they could
not understand what belief it was that they lack, that makes them an
atheist. So they could not believe that they were an atheist.
Now... there are a lot of little tricks that some atheists try to get
out of this. None of them work.
The most popular is to argue like this:
A: "Someone tells me that 'pog is red' - but I can believe them without
understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a constitutive term is
not required for a belief involving that term."
Nope - what you believe is that "the entity named 'pog' is red" - and
that is a different belief from believing "pog is red". The difference
occurs because of what philosphers sometimes call "referential opacity"
in "intentional contexts". Belief is what is sometimes called an
intentional context (so is desire, hope, etc.). This means that you
cannot substitute co-referential terms and guarantee preserving truth
value. A good example, is that Oedipus believed "Jocasta will be my
wife", but he did not believe "my mother will be my wife", even though
Jocasta was both his mother (he had no idea of that) and his wife to be.
He desired to sleep with his wife, but did not desire to sleep with his
mother, even though his wife was his mother.
...
This Jocasta example is not pertinent to the question of meaning, for
reasons I give below. But your underlying premise is, IMO, correct in
the sense that the person who says that "God" is a meaningless if
pronounceable combination of letters, is restricted in how he can
express his beliefs, even in his own mind.
I expect I'll get the same responses I have in the past when I've
mentioned all this.
Well, I'll try to be different.
And just to make it clear - I lack a belief in the existence of gods.
Then you apparently believe "gods" is a word, or you wouldn't use it
as such.
Goober.
The issue does not have to do with referential opacity or
co-referential substitution, but with *absence* of reference. This
concerns denotation, "that which makes a word a word."
I should apologise for the length. But you've given a patient and highly
sophisticated answer and it deserves a patient and sophisticated
response. Having read through your post, I think I've identified where I
think you go wrong.
You seem to suggest that denotation is that which makes a word a word.
That strike me as obviously false. For example, "to" is a word, but it
does not denote. Neither does "unicorn". This may be due to some
difference in our respective meanings of "denote". To be clear, I use
denote as a synonym for "refer" - and I take that to be standard
philosphical usage. In any case, not all words refer. A word can be
meaningful regardless of whether it denotes (i.e., refers) of fails to
denote.
Taking "pog" as meaningless if pronounceable combination of letters,
we see that pog is not a word -- it does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning (see "word" in dictionary.com). It does not denote anything
(see http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/Theory.html)
If "pog" is meaningless *to a hearer* then it does not function as a
word *to that hearer*.
Because "pog" does not symbolize and communicate a meaning, no person
can have beliefs about "that which 'pog' symbolizes and communicates
or denotes.
I think I should make clear - I assumed it was clear - that when I talk
about atheist claims that "god" is meaningless - I mean meaningless *to
them*. I am talking about meaningless in the sense where an individual Y
fails to extract meaning from a component C of an utterance by X. That
component C is meaningless *to Y*. Such, I take to often be the case
where a theist says "god exists" to those who insist that the string
"god" lacks a meaning to them. That does not, of course, imply that C is
meaningless *tout court*. It may just be that Y does not understand X's
language. It may be that X has failed to explain their term.
In any case, meaninglessness in the sense I am talking about does not
justify such claims as "Because "pog" does not symbolize and communicate
a meaning, no person can have beliefs about "that which 'pog'
symbolizes and communicates or denotes."
Simply because "pog" does not communicate a meaning to X, it does not
follow that no person can have beliefs about pogs. Hence it does not
follow that "pog" is meaningless.
In other words, I am arguing that someone who believes that they are an
atheist must understand what a god is (given the definition of atheist
that I've mentioned). You may be supposing something else - that the
word "pog" has no meaning for *any* utterer. Either way, I argue that so
long as "atheist" to you means someone who lacks a belief in a god or
gods, then if you believe that you are an atheist you must attach some
meaning to "god", since the meaning of that word (to you) is a
constitutive element of your belief that you are an atheist.
We have beliefs about that which a word denotes. (Of
course, we can have beliefs about the word, such as that it has so
many letters, but it is not an instance of referential opacity to
concern oneself with the denotation instead of the word.) In the case
of "pog" there is nothing denoted about which to have beliefs. Put
simply, "pog" is not a word, so cannot be the subject in a proper
sentence that has a predicate, like "pog is red" -- and this is
because "pog is red" is | | |
