Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vanarbulax]

Some time ago, a Pew Survey on religion revealed that 21% of Atheists believe in either a Universal Spirit or in a God.

Then they do not know they definition of atheist. The problem people have is that people seem to attach groups or ideas which have a large majority of atheists behind them to the definition of atheist. Atheist has no other meaning than not believing in god(s). Being rational, logical, left-wing, right wing, libertarian, authoritarian, stupid, smart are not defined under the term atheism.

The reason that Atheism is so strongly tied with ration thought and science is that unseen god(s) is not disprovable and thus believing in it is as rational as believing in anything else we can neither confirm or deny exists. That being said plenty of scientists/rational thinkers are theists whether that be through tradition, a true belief in god(s) or for any number of reasons (the "unlikelyness" of the universe, the fact that humans seem to have a fairly inherent belief in god for the most part or some other evidence or interpretation of evidence lending more likelihood of god(s). e.g a "religious moment", belief in personal connection or a structure of something being a sign).

The problem then is how god(s) are going to be included in DF. If they are observable beings then athiests don't really have a leg to stand on. Whereas if they are meant to be "behind it all" and not directly observable (e.g a thunderbolt being from the thundergod) then athiest just means that they don't believe in a god and might take offense in trying to be indoctrinated  but apart from that other personality traits take over since atheists don't share a universal ethics system (I have fellow athiest friend who I disagree with on almost any cultural/moral issues).

EDIT: Also things like Demons and Magic don't necessarily have to be in conflict with atheism. As long as these things are part of the observable world and have a method by which they work then it's part of the natural world no the supernatural. For example if I were to go to the middle ages with a magnet and a coil of wire and rotate one around the other and produce electricity it would be called magic since there's no immediately observable method by which this happens but it doesn't make it supernatural.

[codezero]

The reason that Atheism is so strongly tied with ration thought and science is that unseen god(s) is not disprovable and thus believing in it is as rational as believing in anything else we can neither confirm or deny exists.

Well science and mathematics in particular are based on axioms, which we inherently can't prove or disprove. Ask a scientist enough questions and he'll eventually tell you 'because the axiom says so'.

I think the idea that atheism is more rational is merely popular sophistry. Popular in some cultures at least, Rabbis (sp?) are considered pretty rational.

[Draco18s]

Deists (such as most of the Founding Fathers of the US, most famously) basically believe that god created the universe then went AFK.

I laughed.

[Tormy]

Hey there's a really fun topic about this

Yeah, this has been discussed already...well sort of. 

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Wouldn't it be Enlightenment?

These are dwarves.
Surely it should be Endarkenment movement.

[Alex Encandar]

In the past, science and religion have co existed, even merged. Go wiki Thoth, the egyptian god of science and writing.

Since science can be part of religion, I would say that atheism is covered by an option not to be religious and doesn't need any thing done to it.

[G-Flex]

I think you can't judge DF (or any older) religion in such modern terms as we're trying to here.

Also, "Enlightenment"? I get the idea of having religions or philosophies in DF which don't involve deities/powers/demons, but why a single generic stand-in for all of them?

DF religion isn't particularly limited to gods anyway. Goblins worship demons, who are living creatures, in the flesh, and elves seem to worship forces of nature.

[Servant Corps]

Also, "Enlightenment"? I get the idea of having religions or philosophies in DF which don't involve deities/powers/demons, but why a single generic stand-in for all of them?

Mostly because I haven't thought of that. That's actually a good idea, let procedural generation create new philosophies.

[Sunday]

Well science and mathematics in particular are based on axioms, which we inherently can't prove or disprove. Ask a scientist enough questions and he'll eventually tell you 'because the axiom says so'.

I think the idea that atheism is more rational is merely popular sophistry. Popular in some cultures at least, Rabbis (sp?) are considered pretty rational.

This is kind of disingenuous, and an argument heard all too often by Intelligent Design proponents.  The one major leap of faith that each and every scientist/mathematician makes is that the world is can be explained by observation and experimentation.

Sure, technically one can say "The second law of thermodynamics is just a theory."  But that ignores the fact that it is a disprovable theory that explains things that we see every day better than any other theory yet proposed does.  Basically, it has been tested innumerable times of many different levels and has yet to be found wanting.

Contrast this with religion which - while it can explain pretty much anything ("It's God's will") - can be neither supported nor disproven in any way.  Meaning that religion is completely outside the purview of science. 

Sorry for the minirant.  That particular claim (that science is basically "just another religion") really irks me.

Edit: Rereading your comment, you were merely stating that atheism is not inherently more rational than religion.  I agree with this part of your statement - atheism is the lack of faith and rationality has nothing to do with either presence or lack of faith.  That said, my argument against the 'science is based on faith' statement still stands.

[G-Flex]

As far as science being no more rational than faith is concerned, consider this:

Religion (generally) tends to give report the absolute truth about something. Science does not.

The point of empirical science is never to find absolute truth. It's to simply model the world and predict events and behavior in a useful manner. When our current scientific model does not predict or explain things properly, we attempt to revise it such that it does. Religion, for better or for worse, tends to do the opposite, giving absolute truth with a variable amount of regard for whether or not it's a useful predictive tool.

This is a pretty important distinction to make.

[Servant Corps]

Erm, remember that, in my idea, the Enlightenment Movement is about "Reason" and "Logic". Not about Science. There's a difference. Reason and Logic may include trying to find out how the world works (in other words, Science).

They may also be focused on creating brand new governments, such as Democracy, Fedualism, etc. ... or creating theories that explain how the Drawf Race is more civilized than the Elf race ... or how to teach new drawfs on how "think for themselves" and be effective. That's not really totally Science. The Enlightenment Movement is about creating a better society, and that isn't really a scientific action that could scientifically create the 'perfect society'.

[codezero]

Warning: If you're reading this thread for anything DF related, don't read this post. . Seriously.

An axiom is defined as a theory that doesn't need to be proven or disproven, so it's a matter of faith. So is atheism, no one can really prove the existence or otherwise of God(s), so it's a question of faith. Sure you could disprove individual arguments for the presence of a god, but that makes you no more rational then the person who supplied those proofs, maybe just more right.

No matter how many proofs you layer on top of an axiom, it's still going to be based on faith at the lowest level, and what scares me is the belief people will put in anything 'proven' by such scientific means. In the modern day world, religion is far more tolerant of criticism to itself than science - aka 'fact'.

Also, emperical science isn't useful in any way, in diluting itself of absolute truth it's saying "Ok, don't bother refuting this, it's just emperical observation, but hey look what it proves!". It's such an immature tactic to say that a theory is not open to argument before proposing it. And if it can't stand up to argument, it's worthless.

But these are my own biases, I once repeatedly questioned my friend, a mathematician, about how .999r = 1 , eventually he exclaimed, "Maths isn't 'truth'! It's just based on axioms/rules". Let's hope true scientists and mathematicians don't rely on axioms and suchlike.

Regarding your idea Servant, there is a lot of reason behind religion too. What is Theology for instance? And what about the works of Thomas Aquinus and Pascal? etc.

Sorry.

[vanarbulax]

Again sorry not DF related. I promise this will be my last arguement post.

But these are my own biases, I once repeatedly questioned my friend, a mathematician, about how .999r = 1 , eventually he exclaimed, "Maths isn't 'truth'! It's just based on axioms/rules". Let's hope true scientists and mathematicians don't rely on axioms and suchlike.

Maths is an arbitrary system based on a few basic rules an then used to predict an reveal. You can easily have different rules and turn out with a different system like non-euclidean geometry which changes the nature of parallel lines.

The thing about science is that it's all about predicting and explaining what happens in the world and how. Anything which isn't observable isn't considered to be useful to model. And yes as someone pointed out before science isn't "the truth", any good scientist will tell you it's the best approximation we can come up with. If there is inconsistencies between the currently accepted model and what actually happens and change is need and this has been done in almost every major scientific discovery. This science doesn't say a theory is "absolutely right" but if something is more precise and simplistic. For example ancient astrologers had worked out a system where the sun does revolve around the earth and they could predicate celestial movements fairly accurately but the system was so convoluted and had slight inconsistencies that a model of the earth revolving around the sun became accepted as more accurate.

Also about atheism being less rational becuase no one can prove the existence or non-existence of God(s) then surely it is as rational to believe anything else which can't be disproven. I could say that there's a giant invisible hippo under my bed which you can't interact with in anyway, you'd call me illogical for believing in it but I can use the same arguement that you can't disprove it therefore you can't pass any judgment. No-one's disproved the existence of fairies either.

[Sareth]

I doubt this would happen in the time DF is set in. The only way to explain things happening was religon. Nobody was atheist back then.

[Osmosis Jones]

Basically, this is in response to codezero, if you're not interested, don't read it

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

An axiom is defined as a theory that doesn't need to be proven or disproven, so it's a matter of faith.

Here is an axiom for you. I propose that 1=1.
I don't need to prove that, because it defines the system I use, not because of faith. If I say 1=2, than I could still perform all math we have today. I'd just need to rewrite it so that it is in base 2. E.g. rather than 0, 1, 2, etc. we would have 0, 2, 4 (assuming all relations relative to 2 stayed constant, so 4 still equals two plus two etc).
An axiom is basically setting up the background for the theory, the language you use to construct it in, and without it, you can have no theories, just as you can have no language with out some basic elements of communication.

So is atheism [an axiom]

Athiesm is not an axiom, it is a conclusion arrived at via application of a variety of arguments and logical tools. Athiesm arises out of a logical approach (whether or not said approach is valid is irrelevant to the discussion, and given that there are numerous methods of reaching this conclusion, too tedious to go through right now. Read the wiki.)

Also, emperical science isn't useful in any way

You do realise that penicillin is the result of the "worthless" "emperical (sic)" method?

... in diluting itself of absolute truth it's saying "Ok, don't bother refuting this, it's just emperical observation, but hey look what it proves!". It's such an immature tactic to say that a theory is not open to argument before proposing it. And if it can't stand up to argument, it's worthless.

The irony implicit in the second sentence of this statement aside, no scientist has ever stated that a theory is beyond argument, as the minute they do so, they are no longer a scientist.
Science is the search for the most accurate description of what is going on around us, and if a theory is proposed that is both more accurate and more efficient than the existing theory, the existing theory is replaced (though the original theorist may not be too happy about it, we scientists are human after all).
As such, science does not claim absolute truth. It can't. It can only say this is the best example of what happens and why. However, this method has given us everything from antibiotics to space travel, and so much more in between. Virtually all of it, I would consider worthwhile.

But these are my own biases, I once repeatedly questioned my friend, a mathematician, about how .999r = 1 , eventually he exclaimed, "Maths isn't 'truth'! It's just based on axioms/rules". Let's hope true scientists and mathematicians don't rely on axioms and suchlike.

Ummm... 0.999 repeated does not equal one, and no mathematician worth the name should ever tell you that (well except for computational ones, but that's because of rounding errors). Any mathematician should, however, tell you that, as you increase the number of 9s appended to the digit, it will tend towards one, without ever reaching it.
In mathematical parlance, it limits to 1 as n (the number of nines) approaches infinity. Basically, it means you can tack on as many 9s on as you wish, it will just become increasingly closer without ever reaching 1.

Also about atheism being less rational becuase no one can prove the existence or non-existence of God(s) then surely it is as rational to believe anything else which can't be disproven. I could say that there's a giant invisible hippo under my bed which you can't interact with in anyway, you'd call me illogical for believing in it but I can use the same arguement that you can't disprove it therefore you can't pass any judgment. No-one's disproved the existence of fairies either.

I believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster myself, and tomorrow is his holy day... YARRRRR!





On topic, I suppose you could put athiests in, but it wouldn't really achieve much if there were actually gods who could come along and stomp you flat.
However, I'm all for the inclusion of, say, Refusers, people who won't worship any god (maybe because they see them as detrimental to their race, maybe because they all have stupid names, it doesn't really matter), but will not actually claim the gods are imaginary.