Print

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

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Tiruin]

Are we moving away from the thread title or...
It's been about the same [very subjective] thing instead of introspective tests for quite a long while.
^{By which, I mean I skimmed and see statements presented as facts instead of a collective opinion. Instead of arguing with one another, set up a base point to argue upon.}

[Criptfeind]

I'm not totally sure what you mean by that. This is the test we are taking and in some way arguing about if that is what you mean. You should take it, it's fun!

[Gnorm]

The Philosophical Health Check test is—if you ask me—a load of crap. It gives you a bunch of poorly worded statements, gives you a positive and a negative option with neither middle ground nor context, and then it tells you that your views are "in tension." I answered yes to "Proper sanitation and medicines are generally good for a society" and to "Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural," and it goes on and on about telling me that "chemotherapy isn't natural" or "just because something 'is' doesn't mean it 'ought' to be." These so-called philosophers couldn't philosophize their way out of a paper bag.

[GavJ]

That's proper, general philosophical practice. I was trained to usually argue against the VALIDITY of an argument when possible (even if the premises are true, whether they are or not, the conclusion still doesn't follow) which is what they're doing. In this case, soundness of the argument is much easier to undermine (homosexuality is completely natural), but it's still less devastating than if you ARE able to establish invalidity instead.

[Eagle_eye]

"chemotherapy isn't natural" or "just because something 'is' doesn't mean it 'ought' to be."

The first is a necessary consequence of a definition of natural that excludes human creations, while the second is accepted as true by pretty much everyone working in ethics, and has been since the 18th century, at least, as an extension of the idea that you can't arrive at normative statements through deduction unless you start with a normative axiom. As for why it's a conflict, if you think homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, that means you think that something being unnatural is sufficient for it to be wrong. Chemotherapy is unnatural in the normal sense of natural. Thus, if unnatural implies immoral, chemotherapy is immoral. Either you have reasons other than the question of whether it's natural to oppose homosexuality, you think chemotherapy is wrong, or your beliefs are inconsistent.

[GavJ]

Yes, mentioning the 2nd part is awkward and unnecessary, but the main thrust is a good and valid argument. All that needs to be pointed out is that chemotherapy is unnatural, thus if unnatural = wrong, chemotherapy is wrong, the end. Expounding on normatives is unnecessary and distracting fluff, but it doesn't make them wrong.

[Helgoland]

"You only have faith you had a hamburger for lunch."
"You only have faith you are wearing pants right now."
"You only have faith that you own a car."
"You only have faith that you are talking to me."

Yes, you can do that. It's called solipsism. It's generally recognized as consistent. And as boring, because it allows no interesting deductions. Most people agree that the external world has an existence independent of our own, so we usually take that as axiomatic.

Agnosticism in the sense of "I believe it is objectively unproveable that God exists or that he does not exist" certainly is a faith, unless you constuct the concept of 'God' in a way that implies his unproveability. However, most agnostics just say 'I dunno, and I don't think it matters all that much', which is not faith, but disinterest.

[GavJ]

Generally people (including many/perhaps most philosophers) use "agnostic" to mean simply a lack of any belief one way or the other about any of it, due to absence of evidence.

Anything about making strong claims or claims at all about what CAN or CANNOT ever be known are rarely part of it and would misrepresent most agnostics.



You can argue that using evidence to believe things is itself a form of faith, however that would be inconsistent with your own behaviors, unless you are currently curled in a fetal position dying of thirst and starvation because you don't believe in water, etc. So nobody really takes you seriously arguing that outside of a devil's advocate for people to briefly consider then forget about. Anybody alive and thriving in the world today evidently already agrees that evidence is a proper basis for belief, by their actions every moment of every day.

[TD1]

That's proper, general philosophical practice. I was trained to usually argue against the VALIDITY of an argument when possible (even if the premises are true, whether they are or not, the conclusion still doesn't follow) which is what they're doing. In this case, soundness of the argument is much easier to undermine (homosexuality is completely natural), but it's still less devastating than if you ARE able to establish invalidity instead.

The old synthetic and inductive arguments?
"The premises may be correct, but they in no way connect to what is stated in the conclusion..."

[Criptfeind]

I know that right. I was just saying that's why it's ridiculous and I don't think calling Atheism faith (Well. I mean, for some people it certainly is. But whatever) is correct. And that saying "The scientifically valid position is agnosticism" is like saying the "The scientifically valid position is maybe you had a hamburger for lunch. But who knows." It might be technically correct on some level, but it's basically pointless and clearly we don't do that. And to call everything faith is equally pointless and useless. Especially when you explicitly mean it in a religious sense.

[Helgoland]

Let's define 'faith' as 'claiming knowledge of things that cannot be known' while allowing knowledge to be gained from experience. Thus atheism is faith, agnosticism is not, and knowledge about what I had for lunch (a bowl of delicious lentil soup) is not a matter of faith either, unless you have no way of reading what's inside the parentheses.

[TheDarkStar]

Let's define 'faith' as 'claiming knowledge of things that cannot be known' while allowing knowledge to be gained from experience. Thus atheism is faith, agnosticism is not, and knowledge about what I had for lunch (a bowl of delicious lentil soup) is not a matter of faith either, unless you have no way of reading what's inside the parentheses.

By that definition, you have faith that you actually had that for lunch and that your brain wasn't altered by aliens.

Anyway, I also dislike this test, especially the ones where it gives two resolutions to a conflict in its description.

[Darvi]

Please leave the solipsism out of the internet, it just causes more problems than it solves. Or so I think.

[Criptfeind]

Let's define 'faith' as 'claiming knowledge of things that cannot be known' while allowing knowledge to be gained from experience. Thus atheism is faith, agnosticism is not, and knowledge about what I had for lunch (a bowl of delicious lentil soup) is not a matter of faith either, unless you have no way of reading what's inside the parentheses.

I don't understand. I'm sorry. I don't understand the difference between relying on experience for what you had for lunch and for if there is not some supernatural being. In both cases I could be wrong, but the best I can do is work with what the world has given me.

On the other hand, this conversation has made me realize that if there was a genuinely crazy person who believed in the supernatural, I wouldn't call what they had faith. Which is interesting to me at least. But that realization doesn't bother me.

Please leave the solipsism out of the internet, it just causes more problems than it solves. Or so I think.

I think the whole point, at least my point, of why atheism is not faith is to avoid solipsism.

[wobbly]

Besides technicalities about whether atheism is a belief system or not, I think of Atheism as a faith when I meet a certain kind of obnoxious Atheist. The type that matches a certain kind of religious preacher I don't like. They have the "true" belief. Anyone who disagrees is "evil" or more likely they'll say "the source of all problems in the world". Their not prepared to question their beliefs or think about it. They simply know "the truth". Anyone who's religious is either "stupid" or "a fool" to them. When an atheist acts like a religious zealot, then I think it's fair to regard that type of Atheism as a faith or religion.