Notre Dame de Paris est en feu

https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2019/04/15/incendie-en-cours-dans-la-cath...

>2 mamzel: That about covers it. I just...can't.

Jean Passepartout must have been out of town?

I know that it's only matter. A physical thing. Not alive. Unable to love me back; but I have such a lump in my throat, and a sadness in my heart; and it is only by sheer will alone that I have been holding back these silly tears.

"The structure has been saved". One firefighter seriously injured.

>6 -pilgrim-: I was really hoping no-one was going to get physically hurt. This makes what has happened a real human tragedy, which is very sad indeed.

@ChrisFranjola
"They should have raked Notre Dame" - D.Trump #NotreDameFire
2:52 PM - 15 Apr 2019 from Los Angeles, CA
https://twitter.com/ChrisFranjola/status/1117908587135639552

Relieved to know they've gotten it under control, but I can't imagine the damage. And my thoughts are with the injured.

>6 -pilgrim-: Notre-Dame de Paris is gone, regardless of what 'structure' remains. :(
Her great organ is surely no more either, along with countless works of art, sculptures and the rest.
These facts are irrefutable.

The only way to begin to heal will be to find a way to re-build.

I accept that, in my lifetime, I will never again gaze upon her completed form. But to stand witness to her reconstruction; to watch a gleaming new skeleton take shape, will be a true marvel.
Like stepping back in time.

How to make this possible will be a challenge in so many ways. But we owe it to the generations that follow.

Notre-Dame is more than a religious symbol to a certain faith, she is an archetectual work of art and as such belongs to humanity as a whole.
She is also the beating heart of Paris.

We have to put things right.

>9 Sylak:
27 years ago I stood watching as one of the great cultural inheritances of my country burned. The damage was nowhere near as extensive as what I have seen on video tonight, but I know the pain of seeing historic treasures lost.

I remember, too, standing as a child beneath the great rose window of Notre Dame. Tonight, on my screen, I saw flames through the same stone lattice work.

All Europe mourns France's loss.

But you are right - Notre Dame will stand again. She must.

God's will.

Ditto the 25,000 people who starved to death today.

https://www.worldometers.info/

>9 Sylak: >10 -pilgrim-: We are not exempt from the work of centuries. Perhaps that is as it should be. Things will be as they must.

BTW, did Nostradamus predict this? If so that would be, like, super ironic.

>11 JGL53: I get what you are saying. It's just a material thing - true.
But, as you have pointed out, the world is filled with misery and horror.
Great works of art, especialy those built by large groups of people, do remind us of our ability to create rather than destroy. Without physical reminders of our potential to build things together which seem impossible to the individual, it is harder to visualise solving matters like world hunger bacause the task seems insumountable too.

Notre-Dame fire: What the cathedral means to the French (BBC)

Notre Dame fire: What has been saved (Daily Mail)

After watching the livestream footage of the fire lsst night, I am amazed at how much has survived. My admiration to Fr Jean-Marc Fournier, chaplain of the Paris fire brigade, and all who risked their lives to save these historic treasures for the French people.

This morning I heard of many organizations pledging financial support to rebuild the cathedral. Did I miss the news that the Vatican was one of them?

#17--you probably did. I get that this has more than just religious significance but the Vatican is notorious for letting others carry their water for them when it comes to paying for anything. For me it certainly didn't help reading this book about them and Operation Gladio. The Vatican Bank should be abolished. It's a den of thieves. If someone wants to believe and thinks the Roman Catholic church is the best way--that's all well and fine AFAIC and I was brought up catholic and if I were to return to something they would probably be it. I just wouldn't be giving them any money. I'd give it to some other charity.

> 18

It's not just the catholic leadership it is the sheeple. E.g., a recent scientific poll revealed that 37 per cent of U.S. catholics are reevaluating their affiliation and are considering dropping out of catholicism.

This raises an interesting question: WTF is wrong with the 63 per cent who have decided fer sure to hang in there? What about the phrases "child rape" and "cover-up" does this majority not understand? Are they just plain stupid, or are they sniveling cowards, or are they actually in favor of child rape themselves - do they just believe that a grown man shoving his penis in an underage boy's rectum or mouth is no big deal?

Through study I have come to a pretty good understanding of the so-called Big Bang theory, the Singularity, Planck time and Planck length and all the rest. Sean Carroll's books written for the layperson are highly recommended.

But human psychology is apparently something I have little if any understanding of, excepting my own. Fuck god - it is people and what goes on inside their pumpkin heads that is the real mystery.

So - what in the name of any god (that may or may not exist) is the deal with these millions of alleged decent law-abiding people? There must be some answer to this shitload of engendered cognitive dissonance. WTF could it be?

I ax you.

Cathédrale de Notre-Dame de Paris, on the Île de la Cité, as seen through a telephoto-camera-lens close-up view from the southeastern perspective, from the Left-bank side at approximately 80 metres east-southeast of (48° 51' 3.48" N Latitude, 2° 21' 3.43" E Longitude) the Pont de l'Archevêché (near the Péniche Henjo; bankside near the level of Rue de Pontoise) | Photo source/credit: by Gpesenti; at This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. | 25 June 2014

There is an important lesson here.

How many times have we taken things (and people for that matter) for granted - putting off visiting them till 'another time' which, with all the best of intentions, may or may not happen at the end of the day.

I never, for a moment, imagined that I would see the destruction of something as 'timeless' as Notre-Dame-de-Paris.

It is inconceevable to imagin the great pyramids obliterated to rubble - sure, some day perhaps, long after the human race has either gone extinct on Earth or left for the stars. But, nothing is eternal. Even the stars sometimes go out unexpectedly (Kepler's supernova).

On the subway train this morning I noticed a guy looking at a photo on his phone; the photo showed him standing in front of the Paris Cathedral of Notre-Dame. I suppose a lot of people are going to have another look at their photos from such a visit.

However, as recently as 1845-1863, the cathedral lacked a spire while under renovation-work.

(See La cathédrale Notre-Dame pendant les travaux de 1845-1863 : la sacristie est terminée mais la flèche pas encore rétablie - « Le quai de Montebello et le chevet de Notre-Dame » (détail), Émile Harrouart, vers 1860 )

The human race has lost too many cultural treasures in the last few years.
Notre Dame, France
Buddhas of Bamyan, Afghanistan
National Museum, Brazil
Syrian and Iraqi museum sites (so much was lost...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_ISIL )

Happily the cathedral can be rebuilt (again). (Resilient things they are!)
The Buddhas were rebuilt somewhat?
Some museum treasures were at least captured digitally /3D scans?

Kudos to heroes such as
firemen who tried to save the cathedral*,
museum director who tried to save Syrian and Iraqi antiquities, and the
"bad-ass librarians" who saved the manuscripts of Timbuktu ( https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/badass-librarians-joshua-hammer-timb... )

* ETA: An American (firefighter?) gives blow-by-blow description of what his Parisian counterparts were up against. It could have been even worse in terms of human and cathedral loss, and other buildings nearby...

Gregg Favre @GreggFavre | 10:50 AM - 15 Apr 2019:
https://twitter.com/GreggFavre
After my last tweet, I got a couple DMs asking firefighting related questions about the #NotreDameFire.
I -like most of you- are watching from a world away. But if you’re interested in some profession specific things I’d note/be concerned of, you can follow this thread.

I was so relieved to hear the rose windows survived.

True believers might want to avoid the following observation:
Much more than the news that the crown of thorns survived. I have read a number of books which describe the medieval period as a time when hucksters sold anything which purported to be something belonging to one saint or another when it was just dug up out of an old cemetery. That the crown of thorns turned up in the 13th century makes it very suspect in my view. Just my opinion, folks.

>24 mamzel: Weren't the rose windows removed during WWII to avoid the risk of their being destroyed in an air raid? They were reinstalled after the war, of course.

Well, hopefully the cathedral can be rebuilt and restored to its former glory.

This, YES, THIS IS worth BIG, BIG, Money... (*)





But this, well, THIS is Not worth much more than an "Oh, well...' the poor you have with you..."
to walk past and do nothing about...

_____________________________________

(*) after only three days "Nearly 1 billion has already poured in from ordinary worshippers and high-powered magnates around the world to restore the fire-ravaged Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris" ... ("Nearly $1 billion has already poured in from ordinary worshippers and high-power magnates around the world to restore Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris after a massive fire" | ABC News

Some Russians offer flowers, money, expertise. Though others will not be able to resist making mischief, I suspect:

‘In our genes’: Russia joins fundraising efforts to restore Notre Dame after devastating fire
16 Apr, 2019

...Russia’s Culture Ministry said it will be organizing a Notre Dame fundraiser with national museums and “caring citizens,” who wish to help France restore the cathedral after its fiery destruction.

...The French Embassy in Moscow also said it will soon provide details for people wishing to contribute on its website.

“People have been showing up at the embassy with flowers, and some left cash,” a spokesperson for the embassy told the news agency Moskva. “We want to turn it into a more centralized campaign.”

President Vladimir Putin offered to help France with knowledge and skills of Russian art restoration experts, should Paris accept them...

https://www.rt.com/russia/456719-notre-dame-fundraising-russia/

ETA__________________________________________________________________________

Some unable to resist snark:

Russians Deal With Notre Dame Tragedy With Horror, Kindness, And “I Told You So”
L Todd Wood | April 16, 2019

https://tsarizm.com/news/eastern-europe/2019/04/16/russians-deal-with-notre-dame...

Wouldbe copycat...

Sad to see police presence at places of worship. Around one-year anniversary of Parkland shooting, I was saddened to see police parked prominently outside a synagogue in Gainesville, FL. Apparently police had reason to think the synagogue and its people would benefit by having a police car so visibly displayed...

Given the deep sadness at burning of Notre Dame, hope police presence THERE. I suspect ill-wishers will wonder how much it would take to topple unsupported walls? Will heightened security presence be yet another unwanted product of the fire?
.
.
.

Man who carried gasoline and lighter fluid into St. Patrick's Cathedral in custody (1:27)
CBS This Morning | Apr 18, 2019

A man is in custody after trying to enter the historic St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, carrying gas cans and lighters. It comes just two days after flames ravaged the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Mola Lenghi reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H84aWgwrCL0

>26 proximity1: could not imagine what proximately had to bring to this thread...I am not surprised that the Trump supporting purported leftist has conflated poverty and architectural history in the cheapest way imaginable. Had we been mourning the death of a nuclear silo, I could see his point...

>27 margd: Given the painstaking reconstruction of the Amber Room at the Hermitage, and the complete rebuilding of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, the Russians certainly have relevant expertise.

I hope international cooperation becomes a reality on this. Notre Dame is more than just France; it is part of our common cultural heritage.

Here are the locations of the four nearest fire stations to the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris-- I know them all having passed them so often in my walks --

48 Rue du Cardinal Lemoine, 75005 (distance from Notre Dame Cathedral: 729 m)

Quai de Conti, 75006 (distance from Notre Dame Cathedral: 877 m)

7 Rue de Sévigné, 75004 (distance from Notre Dame Cathedral: 925 m)

11 Rue du Vieux Colombier, (distance from Notre Dame Cathedral: 1380 m)

each is within not more than two to three minutes by truck--or less--from the cathedral. So a question occurred to me soon after I learned of the fire: How was it possible that it became so developed before responding companies of the sapeurs-pompiers arrived and began to fight the fire?

A news story reports that a computer glitch caused a false signal, with an erroneous indication of the location of the fire's origin;

"Firefighters lost valuable time in reaching the blaze at Notre Dame after a computer glitch sent investigators to the wrong part of the cathedral, according to French reports.

"An initial fire alarm sounded at 6.20pm local time but after failing to find a blaze, security services at the landmark dubbed it a false alarm, according to sources cited by Le Parisien.

At 6.43pm, almost 25 minutes..."

(The Daily Telegraph (London) )

_____________________________

"Le Parisien donne une autre information d’importance sur l’enquête : vers 18h15, lundi, une alarme incendie a clignoté sur les écrans de contrôle, mais un dysfonctionnement informatique aurait indiqué un mauvais endroit aux agents de sécurité. Lorsqu’ils ont identifié l’incendie, en ayant probablement perdu du temps pour constater les flammes, celles-ci faisaient déjà 3m de haut. Là aussi, l’entreprise qui a conçu le logiciel de localisation des incidents va se retrouver sous le feu des questions de la justice."

A billion dollars. Yeah, boy.

It is mega-obvious now that christianity, like all religions, is analogous to Play Dough - you, we, I, them - can each in turn make of it what we will. E.g., there are christians who believe that "god hates fags." Quote the OT and prove them wrong, lol - or quote the N.T. to prove them wrong and then have a different N.T. verse quoted by a homophobic christian to prove YOU wrong, lol.

Jesus said the poor will always be with us. That seems rather uncaring and resigned. But elsewhere he is quoted as saying the best christians sell all their worldly goods and give the proceeds to the poor. Funny - that idea of Jesus seems mega-unpopular, lol. Back in the day I had a rather naive third cousin, a young woman, who did do exactly that. Her parents had her committed. Was Jesus nuts too? - well, that is debatable, lol.

Where in the bible does Jesus command surviving disciples to spend huge amounts of time, energy and money building and maintaining gigantic awesome stone structures as monuments to his awesomeness? If he did so command then did god command it as an added inducement for humans to bask in his reflected glory - an ego thing for god - or did he command such because he perceived the need for these elaborate endeavors to evoke and maintain human inspiration, the mere thought of an all-powerful god not sufficing for inspiration, ditto the magnificent glories of god's natural world - plants, animals, mountains, rivers, oceans, rainbows, etc.?

I don't know the name of the wiseacre who should be credited with the witticism "Religion is a mental disease. Atheism is the only cure." - but he/she has summed it all up in a nutshell.

To believe that "Religion is a mental disease. Atheism is the only cure"
is to accept the doubtful scenario that large segments of Europe and
West Asia went through an era of mass mental illness, back in the
centuries when Christianity was catching up, numerically, with the
supposed "paganism"* of the past. Numerically the new Christians
were heavily from the common people, including slaves, and not heavily
from the educated. "PaganISM" is impossible to say in Classical Greek
or Latin. Our English word "pagan" comes from a Lation slang usage
meaning, essentially "rural, hickish." So one reason "paganism" "failed"
was that it didn't really exist -- certainly not as Church, or movement,. and
barely even as an "ism".

> 33

I do admit to using certain words rather loosely, ditto references to certain ideas, in which I may wax somewhat poetical, lol.

So, as another e.g., I also view people who believe sincerely in astrology as having a mental disease - more of a layman's definition, sure. TITS (that is to say) I think there must be something rather off with someone who believes there is something to astrology. Such seems rather ipso facto to me, and ditto homeopathy and a whole host of other popular insanities, inanities and asininities. Flat-earthism also really comes to mind here, lol.

Though it has been around in its modern form for several hundred years science (the scientific method) seems beyond the intellectual capacity of untold millions, including millions here in the good old western civilization part of the world. If someone is just ignorant of what even constitutes evidence of a particular understanding of the workings of empirical reality then I think that is a form of mental disease, no matter how "functional" the person may be in his or her daily life or how "normal" someone is adjudged by his/her fellow "abbynormals", lol.

Sure, primitive animists can also live long lives, by their standards, in the middle of jungles or deserts, bare-assed and only able to count up to three, but I don't think they should be our go-to bottom standard regarding psychological competence of humans qua humans.

The "ghost in the machine" idea has been rendered so non compos mentis by enumerable scientific investigations and demonstrations now that profound ignorance is the only excuse left to the hoi polloi for trafficking in such superstition.

Can we all do better than profound ignorance? Apparently most of us can not.

Survivors of the fire are alive and buzzing:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/europe/notre-dame-bees-fire-intl-scli/index.html

>34 JGL53: What is your position on Continental Drift: for it or against (not the fact of it, rather the right or wrong of it).

> 36

It is neither right nor wrong, it is a mere scientific fact, just like an oblate spheroid planet - or the germ theory of disease -or matter and energy being the same thing, i.e., E=MC(squared) - or evolution by natural selection - or the atomic theory of matter - or the standard model of subatomic particles, the Higgs field, quantum field theory itself, etc.

Circa 2019 any relatively informed and educated person should probably be relatively familiar with all of the above otherwise we may be dealing with a decided lack of smartitude - if you know what I mean, lol.

As to morality, ethics and values the epistemology of all such has been debated for millennia. I have my personal take on it. Sam Harris wrote an entire book on it. If interested you might check out his book if that interested. I myself am not interested enough in the subject to read his book but I hear it does add something to the debate:

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211/re...

I'm here to say that Continental Drift was wrong, that it was morally wrong, never should have happened. The land should have stayed put.

As for Notre Dame, well, most US Americans would not have heard of the building if it weren't for a certain hunchback. On the other hand, the one known constant in human civilizational history is exploitation, which means that ALL extraordinary structures were built through exploitation. I am lucky enough to live a 2 hour train ride from Venice, which has literally hundreds of beautiful buildings, and I am always amazed at what I see when I go there. In Europe, there are thousands of buildings that equal Notre Dame in craft, design, and beauty, ALL owing their existence to exploitation (Braudel's apt encapsulation of Venice's style of statecraft: 'Agile and dangerous capitalism', suggesting the predecessort to the US). Every ugly apartment block owes its existence to exploitation. So I am happy that at some points in history, architectural genius was employed so that I can see great looking structures every day of my life (my little Slovene city, Izola, was of Venezian construction).

> 39

You remind me of the late Christopher Hitchens, also quite eloquently outspoken about his personal awe and profound admiration engendered by great architectural creations, regardless of the motivations, beliefs or moral failures of their creators. He was especially appreciative of the Parthenon which was no doubt built using slave labor.

I myself am less awed than either of you regarding the grandeur of very grand architectural buildings and monuments. I am much more drawn to the immensity and grandeur of Nature (non-human Nature, that is).

As to plate tectonics and all other significant non-human happenings in the universe, proximal or distal, humans have interpreted pretty much all such events as having invisible powerful spirits working behind the scenes, with either good or evil intentions regarding humans desires or best interests. I see this interpretation as ego-maniacal, imaginary and just plain wrong. It seems I am a member of a minority view on that, nevertheless, as the shibboleth goes, one is entitled to one's own opinion (amended recently with the corollary "but not to one's own facts".)

lol.

BTW, regarding the so-called yellow vest movement in Paris, in protest of spending one billion dollars on a building while people suffer in poverty - I do not condone the rioting, looting, and arson being carried on allegedly in the name of social idealism. Senseless violence is never the answer. We must instead have sensible violence, if violence is indeed needed.

lol.

>40 JGL53: Allow me to assure you that I see no design, nor mini dwarf-like shibbolurkers pushing plates anywhere in nature. Volcanos, admirable spouters, enthrall me and I don't by any means suggest they are animated by spirits seen or unseen (they are, occasionally, AS IF animated--I mean, they go fucking nuts now and then); nor do I cast anything but nets towards the tidal, wave or oscillatorily regular...but Continental Drift just really gets under my skin.

(Had a visit from a Frenchman tonight--he's been studying up on international humanitarian crisis something or other in Lyon, where he said the most gillet of jaunes is a US American, long lived in France, who is something of a Trotskyite and strong support of the yeller jackies. My friend, however, simply said his feelings were mixed, but we didn't get around to why: he's generally pleased at the exciteability of the French worker as opposed to most elsewhere.)

>38 RickHarsch: >42 RickHarsch:

"What do we want?"
"Pangaea!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now!"

On the lighter side:

The hives of bees on the cathedral's roof survived.

The Onion reported that the fire was caused by the faulty 12th century wiring. (Teehee!)

>43 davidgn: Thanks, Dgn: I knew someone, somewhere was with me!

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not rebuild Notre Dame AND help the poor? Besides, France has high unemployment, and restoring the cathedral should create a few jobs. Plus, it's the most visited tourist attraction in Paris, so it must be worth something to the Parisian economy.

Notre Dame is a cultural icon to Paris and France generally. I doubt, if the Statue of Liberty fell over in an earthquake, Americans would just shrug and leave it there, insisting the money would be better spent on helping the homeless.

>46 madpoet:

Well said. What is the cost of a single French nuclear missile? Probably enough to rebuild Notre Dame and help the poor.

>46 madpoet: Well said. Although the damage to Notre Dame is a blow to France's Catholics, it is simply administered by the Catholic Church in trust for the nation. Considered as simply a place of worship, it is neither unique nor essential. But it is an embodiment of the cultural heart of France, and it is its unique heritage that explains why atheists were in tears as it burned.

A national monument belongs to everyone, not just to the organisation entrusted with its running. And its destruction has economic as well as social implications. Paris, like London, has a sizeable tourist industry. Rebuilding a major attraction makes economic as well as spiritual sense.

>46 madpoet: & >48 -pilgrim-:

"Why does it have to be either/or? Why not rebuild Notre Dame AND help the poor?"

There is "help" for "the poor". But not 1b Euros worth of help and certainly not one billion Euros devoted to the objective of getting homeless people off the streets.


So, then, good question. It's just that these wealthy business families have never felt so moved to donate upwards of one billion Euros to help fight homelessness. Why not? You'd have to ask them. Personally, I suspect that, however they may rationalize the answer, it boils down to "we just don't really want to because, after all, if we did really want to, we could."

>49 proximity1: I think you might want to consider the systemic nature of such ills as homelessness and egregious disparities of income. The 'wealthy business families' need not be.

>49 proximity1: Do really believe that charitable donations would solve the problems of poverty and homelessness? Are the roots of these issues not rather in the systemic social inequalities, and the fact that the more fortunate majority remain indifferent to how their fellow citizens are living?

Because the roots of chronic poverty lie in social attitudes, I think that anything that builds a sense of national identity (expressed in a positive sense, not in a negative hatred and denigration of other nationalities, as we see in many places now) is a good thing. Because it is a sense of shared identity that will make callousness towards one's fellow citizens less tenable.

In the UK, we have seen cuts to the social welfare budget go from something that governments apologise for, to something that they boast about.

The British Welfare State was an ideal founded in the sense of communal identity and solidarity forged during the Second World War. Shared heritage should be a more positive foundation than war, on which to build a sense of communal responsibility.

>51 -pilgrim-:

"Do really believe that charitable donations would solve the problems of poverty and homelessness? Are the roots of these issues not rather in the systemic social inequalities, and the fact that the more fortunate majority remain indifferent to how their fellow citizens are living?"

Whatever I believe about the propriety of it, I'm pointing out what ought to be obvious --but isn't and that's very much part of the problem.

Charitable donations could, of course, make a great deal or all of the necessary difference--provided these were large enough and also helped lead to needed and important changes of the type your comment points out.

Whether this ought to be done by charitable donations is a different and also important matter. My personal view is that homeless people ought not have to rely on the generosity of wealthy voluntary donors' gifts just so that there are no people involuntarily sleeping on the street.

There is a lot about your comment with which I agree.

ETA:

But the most powerful forces now dominating social relations in, well, in London, whatever is going on to the contrary elsewhere, make the prospect of this:

" build(ing) a sense of national identity... Because it is a sense of shared identity that will make callousness towards one's fellow citizens less tenable ..."

are exceedingly dim and virtually nil.

London is a place which exhibits a ubiquitous exclusion of the poor, penniless and unemployed, above all, the homeless poor, from access to or welcome in places where others may freely go unchallenged and without immediate suspicion of their intentions.

This morning I went into a large building which holds the offices of a major international commercial & investment bank. One of its executives, an extraordinarily considerate fellow, had stopped and spoken with me on the street; at the end of a short conversation he went on to his office a short distance away. Some time ago, he had stopped spontaneously on his way to work and said hello to me; some several days after that he again stopped in the course of passing and shared with me some newspaper articles about a topic of interest about which we'd spoken previously. With just his first name, I went into the office building to try and return the newspaper with my annotations on the pages. You'd have thought that a warship had sounded "Battle-stations!" "General quarters!"

This is entirely typical of what homeless people face. In a normal week, a normal month, there are hundreds of humiliating episodes of greater or lesser injury to one's sense of worth and belonging.

As a society, I see London fail spectacularly every single day. London drips with exclusion of those whose lack of material possessions marks them out as "to be shunned, avoided, refused and denied." That is the very working-ethos now of this morally-wretched city. The fact that, in a metropolis of many millions of people, one can find some very rare, very exceptional people such as the banker I mentioned is in no way redeeming, excusing or exculpatory.

>52 proximity1: I'm pointing out what ought to be obvious --but isn't and that's very much part of the problem.

I usually find that what is blindingly obvious to one person is not to another. That's why we engage in conversations, so that I can understand what is obvious to you and you can understand what is obvious to me. Neither is necessarily right or wrong, and neither is necessarily the definitive answer.

>52 proximity1: "With just his first name, I went into the office building to try and return the newspaper with my annotations on the pages. You'd have thought that a warship had sounded "Battle-stations!" "General quarters!""
The unintentional hilarity of this will keep me in the clouds for a week. Oh were they ever right to sound the alarm.

>52 proximity1: That isn't just London. You'll find that just about anywhere, in the posher districts at least. The homeless, or just scruffily dressed, are often treated with suspicion.

I think the reason rich donors are more willing to give to something like rebuilding Notre Dame is because it is a sudden, unexpected disaster. Homelessness and poverty are, sadly, something which we have become accustomed to. It explains why so little was done to help Detroit: because it wasn't the result of a hurricane or other natural disaster, but a slow, gradually accelerating decline that happened over decades. Oh, that and the fact that the city is mostly African-American.

Close down the tax havens. That would give governments hundreds of billions of dollars to help the poor.

"I think the reason rich donors are more willing to give to something like rebuilding Notre Dame is because it is a sudden, unexpected disaster."

Fucking puh-leeeze!
_______________________

Rebuilding the roof of the cathedral is pure "Win-Win" for the Super-Rich. There is no "down-side."

A social-justice threat to their immense undue privileges and their wealth? Nope.

Blow-back in the form of disgruntled peers who are anything but pleased to see portions of the wealthy elite putting the status-quo into question? Nope.

Risks that others who also suffer disproportionately for no defensible reason--just because this happens to serve the selfish interests of the rich and powerful--shall wake up and ask, 'Hey, we're also in need of help How about us?' Nope.

Great and enduring halo-effect from lavishing money on a completely "safe" project to restore one of the city's most important tourist-draws--with brilliant "Made-for-Mass-Media" public-relations opportunities to play local hero (when, in actual fact, one is a socially-rapacious scumbag shit) ? Check.

Tax write-offs for challenging and changing the fundamentals of the political order to place the poor in a completely different and lasting relationship which allows them to find or recover something of a rightful part in their own lives? None.

Tax write-offs for throwing money at the restoration of the cathedral? Check.

_____________________

"That isn't just London"

Right. And just for the record, no one claimed otherwise. It's, of course, practically everywhere. But London's version--protestant-ethic-Hell--is especially vile and vicious. London is right in the upper-ranks of the A-List of the worlds most disgusting and shameless moral shit-holes.

There is nothing here to be vaingloriously proud about--



but this sort of image gives the greedy assholes in tailored suits goose-bumps of pride. Isn't it beautiful! ? What a wonderful place, London. Fuck that.

"suspicion" ? !

Is that a joke? There's no "suspicion". There's immediate and unquestioned open contempt and a look which says,

"No, now, come on! Really? You thought you could actually come in here! What the fuck is even wrong with you? You're, uhm, how to put this, homeless . Now please go have a nice day before we call the police and have you thrown out."


"Close down the tax havens."

Doh! Of course! Memo to Barack Obama--no wait--- memo to Hillary Clinton--uh, never mind--memo to Joe Biden,

Joe, we've got to close these-----

"That would give governments hundreds of billions of dollars to help the poor."

Right. And of course they'd take that windfall and say, "Gee, now we can really kick the shit out of poverty and homelessness. This is just what we've been waiting for!"

"Oh, that and the fact that the city is mostly African-American."

Right. Black people are just so especially disadvantaged today. Tell me: do we eliminate Black-poverty down to the final one-one-hundredth of one percent of its numbers before we can turn to a more general approach to this problem? Or would that be fucking racist?

'Their own' multi-millionaire and billionaire executives (or the odd president of the United States) just don't really do that much to help them out.

But, hey, they can watch Oprah on color television. There's a great deal of feel-good fantasy in that.

>56 proximity1: I don't think the French people, as a whole, could stand to see Notre Dame de Paris remain unrebuilt. It would be too much of a blow to national pride.

So, isn't it better that billionnaires (who can afford it) are covering it, rather than the French government paying (and possibly diverting funds away from their social welfare budget for that purpose)?

>55 madpoet: The homeless, or just scruffily dressed, are often treated with suspicion.

This is very true and I've personally had it happen to me.

I work nights in a supermarket, so between breaking down the pallets and then packing out, there's all kinds of stuff that may be leaking, or just have the residue of other stuff that leaked on it. As such the clothes I wear can get pretty dirty, and I don't bother buying new until what I use for work is practically falling apart.

Before I punch in every night, I'll sit out front near the entrance to have a cigarette and relax a bit. I often get the "side eye" from people going in, and have had a few instances where a customer expressed "concern" about me being there to the front end person when they got inside. Once the FEP realizes the customer means me, they explain I'm just waiting to start working and that the beat up clothing is my typical work attire.

>57 -pilgrim-:

In fact, of course--as your observation, perhaps unintentionally in this instance, directs our attention to notice--it's simply the case that whatever the French people wanted or didn't want to do about it, the cathedral is bound to be restored to some modern equivalent of its former condition; restoring the roof, by the way, is what had already been undertaken and was going on when the fire broke out. (I've considered the possibility that the fire wasn't accidental but happened from a plan adopted deliberately because it offered advantages in work-efficiency--cost-shifting aside, though that possibility not only might have been, but, if this hypothesis was correct, almost certainly would have been imagined and looked for.)

If, for example, there was some ground-swell of popular opinion in favor of leaving the building as it is--after all, the Colosseum in Rome wasn't restored to its originally-functioning conditions but it is 'maintained' as a tourist-site in a state of ruin--that would never prevail over wealthy elites' preferences for a restored roof. That's beside the fact, of course, that the cathedral is and has been for centuries a regularly-used site of Catholic Sunday worship--but really, if it were 'just another catholic church' there surely wouldn't be this sort of response on the part of these magnates.

I don't think anyone seriously imagines that, given this sudden generosity by these French multi-billionaires, the government now considers that it has a windfall of about one billion Euros which it can direct toward the relief of poor and homeless people--money which it should have otherwise had to spend on the cathedral's restoration. But some inside and outside the government might indeed think that there's now money available for projects which are much more on the wish-lists of projects most desired and pleasing to the types who resemble the wealthy elite donors themselves but which weren't high(er) on the priority list before this.

So, to answer your question,

"So, isn't it better that billionnaires (who can afford it) are covering it,"...

my view is that things which are national-priority-needs ought to be budgeted and provided for through regular civic-collected tax-money. Rather this than voluntary 'charity,' and done openly because that is how a system of real or semi-representative government (pseudo-self-government) should have to work. Besides, again, strictly and legally, Notre Dame de Paris belongs not to the Paris Archdiocese but to the French government. In other words, these costs, if they're worthy, should be paid out the public-purse and, for that very reason, the wealthy ought to be paying their fair shares into that public-purse---as today and for quite some time now they have not had to do.

This supposedly generous act by itself--as I think was recognized it would -- goes far to preclude and avoid this matter becoming more urgent and pressing in the public dialogue.

________________________

Italy | Romans revolt as tourists turn their noses up at city’s decay |
Rubbish, potholes and metro closures contribute to anger among visitors and citizens alike

Rebuilding an historical architectural masterpiece and the stratification of the social order are two very different issues.

We wouldn't need nearly as much charity from the rich if we were taxing them like we should. It's for them that we've really dismantled social safety nets worldwide. It's because of them that we get austerity so they can buy more yachts and castles. It's because of them we're going to have fucked up schools, roads and bridges whilst their kids go to tony prep and private schools and drive around in Lamborghini's. And it's hardly like the RC church can't afford to fix Notre Dame--one would think they would have insured it anyway but for the wealthy it's just like free good guy points to throw money at this and the RC church is more than happy to keep its check book closed. To me they should be rebuilding their own shit--they're not fucking paupers.

>61 lriley: In general principles, it is usually the owners of a building that insure a building, rather than the caretakers.

Notre Dame is owned by the French government, in trust for the nation, not the Roman Catholic church.

I agree with both you and proximity1 that is disgraceful that governments use charity to subsidise the failure of their own duty of care towards their citizens.

But I am being pragmatic here. Maybe governments ought to tax the rich more (I would agree with that); but I don't see that actually happening any time soon.

And in the messed up world that we actually inhabit, I would rather see repairs being funded by those who care about the cultural and religious significance of the building, and can easily afford to pay, than to see the French government divert funds from their other responsibilities.

Because cynical experience tells me that welfare budgets are more likely to be the target than, for example, defence expenditure. (Actually raising the money by increasing taxes for the rich? I simply don't see that ever happening. What politician will risk alienating the people who donate to their campaign funds?)

#62--well I didn't know that Notre Dame is owned by France so that is worth knowing. It would seem to me then though since the RC church having use of the building it should be out front in rebuilding it. I'm a people before things person. Maybe Proximity looks at things that way (or somewhat similar)--maybe he doesn't. I'm not speaking for him (he can do that for himself)--Proximity and me are not what I would call friends or even friendly at all. But there is this idea that say the owner of Amazon or Apple can give so much money to charity and that makes everything okay but it doesn't. To me it would be better if those plutocrats understood that amassing humongous fortunes while millions of people are living with almost nothing is not right but that's not the way it is and that's why we have to go after them and yeah for me it's an us vs. them thing. They are maybe not 'The Enemy' but they are an enemy. As far as the Roman Catholic church--it has a lot of wealth and a lot of insight into what's wrong but then it does nothing about any kind of rectification apart from words. There are reasons why people look to it anymore--reasons even apart from its pedophiles.

>62 -pilgrim-:

"But I am being pragmatic here. Maybe governments ought to tax the rich more (I would agree with that); but I don't see that actually happening any time soon."

Right. And for the same reasons, it's idle to suppose that the government might actually take some large part of a billion Euros ("saved" because it's not necessary to spend this from tax-money on the cathedral's restoration) and devote it to relief of the poor and homeless.

Instead of that, it would go into spectacular (and, yes, beautiful) building projects such as this one, not only a marvel to look at and to photograph but also somewhat practically useful. The question, however--which was never seriously considered--is,

"Weren't there much more important human needs which ought to have come before building this?"

https://www.archdaily.com/901892/v-and-a-dundee-kengo-kuma-and-associates

£80.11m*

the Scottish government: an initial £25m and
then a further £12.61m as part of a Growth Accelerator Fund.

The Heritage Lottery Fund : £12.5m,

Creative Scotland: £4.5m

the Dundee Waterfront Project £4m.

Dundee City Council: about £6.5m

and the UK government: £5m.

private fundraising: £15m

Of course there were. And these are still going unaddressed.

___________________________________

Though I don't know this for sure, I doubt that the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris is even insurable against loss from fire, water-damage, etc. It's priceless and so incredibly fragile--because it's so ancient, which is why it's priceless--that there have almost certainly been untold numbers of false fire-alarm signals which, when investigated, proved either without discoverable cause or were due to something which was very quickly extinguished before ever becoming a serious hazard.

Private insurers just wouldn't write a policy on the cathedral at a rate which could be reasonable and affordable for the government to pay.

____________________________________

* Some may object that £80.11m just isn't that much money in the public-finance scheme of things. These people have never had to live on the street or have such a life as their only future prospect.

>63 lriley:

Pope Francis allocates $500,000 to the relief of migrants in Mexico.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48081483

Personally I would rather see the Church spending its money in the way Jesus instructed - in giving to the poor, and relieving the homeless - than in rebuilding a French national treasure.

A place of worship can be a centuries old cathedral or a tin shack. Notre Dame is invaluable because of its cultural heritage and beauty, not because a cathedral needs to take such a form.

I respect very much the craftsmen and artists who spent their talents in serving God and their community to create our great places of worship. Many still do.

But nowadays I do not think many are brought to faith by magnificent architecture. So great building projects should not be a church's priority.

>64 proximity1: I agree with you that Notre Dame was/is probably uninsurable. Such questions were raised after the Windsor Castle fire, as to why it was not insured, and the answers were similar to those you have sunmarised.

As to the rest:

Do I think that the French government will put more money into its social welfare budget because of this? Probably not. But I fear that without those donations it would have taken money from that budget - and I am relieved that that will (presumably) not happen.

The question of whether spectacular public works projects are ever justified is a valid one.

The standard answer is that city development promotes "growth". It certainly does generate jobs, it may generate tourism, which will generate more jobs, and it perhaps might improve civic pride and thereby reduce vandalism etc. (repairing things that were deliberately broken bleeds off council funds that could otherwise be spent elsewhere).

Will this work in Dundee? I don't know the city well enough to have an opinion on that. Given that some of its residents are known to describe it as "the arsehole of Scotland", I understand why the council feels that something has to change.

The creation of jobs will not "solve" poverty. There are issues like affordable housing, a living wage, appropriate social support for those with mental health problems - and many, many more.

But that the lack of available jobs adds to poverty is undeniable. If employment is there for those who can work, then (theoretically) there is more money available to help those who cannot.

There is a disgraceful level of poverty in "rich" countries. It is a huge problem - which too many people are willing to ignore. There is a tendency now to blame the poor for being poor.

We need something to change social attitudes. Maybe "civic pride" is a mirage. But maybe it is also worth trying for.

>66 -pilgrim-:

"Probably not. But I fear that without those donations it would have taken money from that budget - and I am relieved that that will (presumably) not happen."

No doubt. If it were not for these uber-wealthy people's grants, the government would surely resort to tax-money to pay for the restoration. (And this is one of the things which prompted me to speculate about the fire's having been deliberate; that's because it's not only not that hard to imagine the government foreseeing that, in the case of a fire (which took off the roof--which was being renovated) there'd very likely be a big and wide emotional impact which could incite wealthy donors' gifts of restoration-money, it's not that hard to imagine that, having conceived of the possibility, that the government might adopt the idea for all the reasons which leave us not surprised to learn of new cases of corruption in public life. And, extrapolating a bit, it's not completely inconceivable--though it's of course a great deal more outrageous--that the donors could have been sounded out and their gifts arranged for in advance of the fire because it would present a big public-relations bonanza.)

"The creation of jobs will not "solve" poverty. There are issues like affordable housing, a living wage, appropriate social support for those with mental health problems - and many, many more."

Yes, I agree very much with all that. And it's a shame but I suspect that not that many people understand this. For them "jobs" is the very definition of "what to do about 'poverty.' "

"But that the lack of available jobs adds to poverty is undeniable. If employment is there for those who can work, then (theoretically) there is more money available to help those who cannot. "

True. But now I think there is a growing tendency for people to respond to "Would you like to work?", by "What kind of 'work' would this be?"

"There is a disgraceful level of poverty in "rich" countries. It is a huge problem"

in our opinions and those of a certain number of others, sure, but, as you immediately pointed out:

"- which too many people are willing to ignore."

Exactly. It's not so much that or only that they're 'willing to ignore' as it is that their "ignoring it" is a positively and a very integral part of their just 'getting through the work-day,' week, month, etc.

There are extremely few jobs in which an inordinate concern for the ravages of poverty is conducive to moving onward and upward in the organization. Most ways of effectively attacking and reducing poverty also come with serious costs--direct or indirect--for the comfy, wealthy, status-quo.

In debating with proximity1 and lriley, I have struggled to articulate the reasons for my conviction that, despite the pressing social needs, Notre Dame is still important.

Yesterday I read a quote from Alexander Chee that seems to express it:

Destroying art is practice for destroying people.

I don't know why this should be so, but experience teaches that this seems to be true.

Indifference to beauty and culture seems to go hand in hand with a deadness of soul that permits callous indifference to the welfare of one's fellow man.

>68 -pilgrim-:

I'm not at all opposed on some principle or opposed categorically to the restoration of the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris any more than I'm opposed on principle to the expenditure of tax-money on other historic sites and monuments--whether this is in France, Britain, the U.S. or elsewhere.

My points have to do with tax-policy, fairness in bearing the burdens of public finance and in setting spending priorities.

Then there's the religious aspect of this monument and the fact that it is, after all, a "working church" in which people worship. I'm an ardent defender of the separation of "church and state"; but, in France, there isused to be no such thing. On the contrary, church and state are were once formal partners and Catholicism was for centuries the state-sanctioned religion. (Ed. I think I must have been thinking of Britain--rather than of France--when I wrote that. Britain has a weak "sort-of" separation of church and state. That is, it's a fairly secular society (unless one counts market-capitalism as a religion) with a nominal state-religion, The Church of England) France, of course, has a real secular society with separation of church and state; but its character and usefulness has been put under a stress-test by the growth over the past forty years in the numbers of Muslims who, whether immigrants or born in France, clearly have no use for the separation of church and state. By that, I don't mean that there are simply no muslims at all who have any feeling for the virtue of the separation of church and state; rather, there are so few of them in comparison to the rest that they are in no position to make a great point of this virtue within their own religious circles and so they don't. And that's a big problem.)

That makes this issue an especially tricky one. When it comes to "destroying people," making their lives needlessly miserable, shamelessly abusing them and seeking to place and keep them in mental-bondage, organized religion has very few if any rivals over the long historical view.

None of that is intended to detract from the beauty and historical importance of the cathedral. I passed it numerous times every week for almost fourteen years--so, literally many hundreds or several thousands of times. I would expect it to be correctly and carefully restored with due care for its architectural history.

France has deliberately maintained the key artisanal crafts of medieval building-construction--stone-cutting, glass-making, wood-working and carpentry--so that certain historic architectural monuments can be spared the fate of becoming hybrids of ancient and modern buildings. There ought never be escalators and video-games in Notre Dame.

>69 proximity1: " I'm an ardent defender of the separation of "church and state"; but, in France, there is no such thing."

Au contraire, il y a la loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Églises et de l'État. The 9 December 1905 law on the separation of church and state codifies the French concept of the secular state (laïcité) which is very much a foundation of modern France. I am sure you are aware of that, having lived there so long. You are also probably aware of some oddities (from an American point of view) in this concept in France, but it would only be correct to say that the concept of the separation of church and state in France differs from the American perspective. It is clearly incorrect to say "there is no such thing".

>68 -pilgrim-: Can you tell me where you got that Alexander Chee quote? I went to school with a poet named Alexander Chee and I wonder if that is him.
I like the quote, though others need to be added so that, for instance, it is understood that modern wars do extraordinary damage to extraordinary historical architectural buildings of all kind--there was a great piece on Yemen in this context recently (Guardian?)... So the problem is that indifference to art is inhumane and conspires to violence.

>71 RickHarsch: It was from his essay collection, How to Write an Autobiographical Novel.

The starting point for that particular essay was his reaction to Donald Rumsfeld's comments along the lines "What do a few old pots matter?" in response to questions about the U.S. bombing in Iraq. (Sorry about the lack of verbatim accuracy; I don't have the book in front of me at present.)

>69 proximity1: After your comments in >64 proximity1:, I would never have suggested that you were immune to the appreciation of great architecture.

We differ on the value of organised religion though. Although any organisation, once large enough, attracts the power-hungry, and is therefore at risk of subversion for the personal ends of an elite, most religions, at core, preach the value of the human individual.

It has been the great atheist philosophies that have been most overt in their willingness to sacrifice the individual to their goals.

>72 -pilgrim-:

Well, of course any fanatical dogma will do as a substitute for religious fanaticism and, so, it's true that Communists of the late 19th and early 20th century were supremely naive and stupid in their assumptions that, just because religion was, as they said, "the opiate of the people," it was the only such opiate— or this was perhaps never a sincere concern, all that they really wanted being the removal of a rival for their own authoritarian control of the mass population (no pun intended). And, so, they took their dogmas and made from them what was tantamount to a religion. Granted.

I think it's less the size of an organization than its inherent power that makes for the danger. Large often meant and implied "powerful." Today, size and power are not so commonly or necessarily paired.

RE: "It has been the great atheist philosophies that have been most overt in their willingness to sacrifice the individual to their goals."

"Overt" or "covert", once a person's—once millions of people's—freedom of conscience has been effectively eliminated one way or another, whether these people are then overtly or covertly sacrificed to the power-structure's goals hardly matters. The point is that the sacrifice to the power-structure's goals is no less complete and practically inescapable whether one's conscience is shackled by an external force or one puts the mental shackles on one's self.

I'm hard-pressed to tell who is the less free: the person who knows he dare not exercise any freedom of conscience or the person who simply never develops any freedom of conscience or any desire to exercise any such even if he were to possess it.

(01: 30: 15 )

Sam Harris: "One more question for you... What most concerns you about the cultural changes we're seeing around us—particular our interaction with technology and how our lives are changing month over month?"

Shane Parrish: "I think one of my concerns is just how we're being manipulated without our awareness or consciousness to it, and how availability of material shapes what we see. We don't 'follow' (FB, Twitter) people we don't agree with; we don't tend to seek out information that's going to disconfirm our beliefs. The internet facilitates the acceleration of "more" of what "you are" and "more" of what "you think". Where we're possibly headed with the future is that you and I will (turn to) The New York Times and we'll read the same article but that article will actually be written differently based on your "browser" and my "browser"—it's going to know that Sam Harris is there and Shane Parrish is there; you lean this way (while) I lean this way, and the phrasing and the framing of that article—even though the core of it might be the same, like the 'stats'—might change. And I think that that worries me a lot in terms of where we're going." ...

>72 -pilgrim-: Thanks, and I'll be damned, that's him. I had no idea. A book I have to buy.

>74 proximity1: You seem to have missed Karl Marx's point when he described religion as the "opium of the people". In his day, opium was the commonly available painkiller for the majority.

Marx was contrasting a palliative that relieves suffering, with his own recipe for to the suffering of the poor, which was revolution.

History has shown that his 'surgical' solution itself caused a lot of pain, and no lasting relief.

He was not claiming that a religious philosophy was itself harmful; he was describing it as useful in helping those who suffer to bear their suffering.

The question that Marx was raising was whether we should be content to merely help people bear pain, rather than put an end to their suffering.

His challenge is valid, but his proposed method failed. We need to make a better world, rather than be content with one on which poverty and injustice exist. Physical pain and illness may not so easily relieved. But even there, the question of how has no easy answer.

All philosophies (religious and otherwise) have their fanatics. The problem lies not so much with the philosophy as with the mindset of the follower.

I agree with you that freedom of thought is essential. But it recommending it, you have to accept the right that this must include the right to choose a philosophy with which you disagree.

>73 -pilgrim-: most religions, at core, preach the value of the human individual. It has been the great atheist philosophies that have been most overt in their willingness to sacrifice the individual to their goals.

Yeah, no. Subordination of self to God is not fundamentally different from subordination of self to State.

Focusing on Christianity, the religion I'm most familiar with, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." What could be more individual-obliterating than a commandment like "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" has echos in earlier Christian statement like the Guilford Covenant in 1639, and certainly seems to derivable from this commandment.

Certainly in practice, I'd rather be in a peasant in 1970s Soviet Union instead of a serf in 1870s Russia; at least someone cared enough to give me an education and I'm not considered anyone's property. Or heaven forbid, a slave in 1770s Georgia, where it would be outright illegal for me to have an education and I basically lack any human rights.

It's but one branch of Christianity, but having left Southern Baptists, I'm quite familiar with the idea that the most important thing is to save their souls; anything individual is unimportant.

>77 prosfilaes: You may dislike a religion for concentrating more on the welfare of a person's soul than on their body, but the fact remains that the religion considers the salvation of each individual soul to be important (that is ond of the messages of the Parable of the Prodigal Son).

As compared to, say, the Confucian ideal that it is better to punish an innocent man than let a crime go unpunished, because the individual is u important, and it is necessary for the good of society that the community should experience the closure of their being retribution for the offence.

As to the choices you give of 3 unenviable positions: well, the later one is always better in the sense that mechanization means that the hard labour of those at the bottom of society is slightly less hard.

But that aside, I would consider being a peasant in 1930s Soviet Union to be the worst option (by the 1970s there was more freedom of religion, so that the comparison is less complete).

For the serf more than for the kolkhoznik there was the possibility of education and achieving wealth comfort. The kolkhoznik wad tied to his kolkhoz as firmly as the serf had been to the land - neither could leave without permission, only the identity of the masters had changed.

But if, as a serf, I was flogged, it would be because of my own actions. Whereas in the Soviet Union I would stand a real risk of execution or punishment not on my own merits, but because of who my relatives were and their actions.

When you write of Georgia, I am unclear as to whether you are referring to the country or the American state. But the law you refer to violates the Pauline injunction to treat your slave "as your brother"; it cannot therefore be regarded a Christian law (even if the men who enacted it considered themselves to be Christians).

I set very little store by names. What is important is the actual degree of liberty and rights afforded: and the most basic of these is the right to exist.

What could be more individual-obliterating than a commandment like "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"?
I really don't see what you mean here.

Unless you consider selfishness as a necessary trait? It is my impression that a selfish society does not lead to happiness for the majority of its individual members.

>77 prosfilaes: It's but one branch of Christianity

Precisely. And while I concede that the dominant strands of Christianity in many parts of the world are pretty dysfunctional, be aware that there are many Christians who follow other much healthier strands.

What could be more individual-obliterating

Concentrating on the dignity of the human person, as many strands of Christianity does, includes a recognition of the human person in relation to others, as part of a community (or society), and therefore is in tension with the modern western (and particularly US) ideal of complete and unfettered individualism. I have human rights as an individual, but I also have responsibilities as part of society. The African concept of ubuntu has a better balance, in my view. "I think therefore I am" is modified by "I am because we are". I exist not primarily as an autonomous individual who can form voluntary associations, but rather I exist as part of society, in relationship to others, and I develop my autonomy from and within that.

>76 -pilgrim-: whether we should be content to merely help people bear pain, rather than put an end to their suffering.

Which, in Christianity, is developed in liberation theology, a strand of Christianity which was prominent in South America and has found its place elsewhere, including Africa, and within marginalised groups - black theology, feminist theology, etc. But Christianity also recognises that not every problem is instantly solvable, and alongside trying to deal with structural and systemic injustices we need to accompany and stand in solidarity with those who suffer. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

>78 -pilgrim-: the fact remains that the religion considers the salvation of each individual soul to be important

And communism considers that the needs of every person to be important.

But if, as a serf, I was flogged, it would be because of my own actions. Whereas in the Soviet Union I would stand a real risk of execution or punishment not on my own merits, but because of who my relatives were and their actions.

If a serf was flogged, it could be for any reason, as abusive as you could imagine. It could be because your owner got up on the wrong side of the bed, or simply enjoys flogging people. (And that's what every abuse victim says; "if I had just not burned his toast", she says, "he wouldn't have had to hit me.")

For all the problems of the Soviet Union, I don't recall people getting prosecuted because of their relatives.

it cannot therefore be regarded a Christian law

No questions about whether the Soviet Union in the 1930s was actually following the philosophy of Marxism in any way, but Christians forming a society ruled by Christians in the way they're taught in church are not Christian. That's special pleading. Either atheist philosophies and Christian philosophies should be measured free of how they work in practice, or they get tied down with the reality, but you don't get a double standard.

What is important is the actual degree of liberty and rights afforded: and the most basic of these is the right to exist.

Then communism (which puts importance on the need for food) trumps any religion that puts the salvation of the soul above food. (I'd point out that the complaints about Mother Teresa include that she used money intended for hospitals for purely missionary work. This is not just about some American churches.)

I really don't see what you mean here.

You are one person, with billions of neighbors. If you love them all equally, you will do nothing for yourself. You will be no more an individual than one of your cells gets to be an individual.

Unless you consider selfishness as a necessary trait? It is my impression that a selfish society does not lead to happiness for the majority of its individual members.

Yes, selfishness is a necessary trait. Nobody cares about you like you do, and nobody knows what's wrong with you like you do. A lot of people get mentally and even physically ill when they spend too much time taking care of other people and don't stop and take care of themselves.

I don't see your distinction here between religious philosophies and atheist philosophies. Marxism says that every person's needs shall be met, which obviously implies a respect for the individual. In practice, Christian nations have killed huge piles of people in the name of their various causes.

>77 prosfilaes: Marx was discussing the versions of religion that he was contemporary with. There is no intrinsic conflict between Marxism and Christianity; many liberation theologians have been Marxist.

>76 -pilgrim-:

You seem to have missed Karl Marx's point when he described religion as the "opium of the people". In his day, opium was the commonly available painkiller for the majority.

Marx was contrasting a palliative that relieves suffering, with his own recipe for to the suffering of the poor, which was revolution.

History has shown that his 'surgical' solution itself caused a lot of pain, and no lasting relief.

He was not claiming that a religious philosophy was itself harmful; he was describing it as useful in helping those who suffer to bear their suffering.

The question that Marx was raising was whether we should be content to merely help people bear pain, rather than put an end to their suffering.

His challenge is valid, but his proposed method failed.

... ...

I'm scratching my head and wondering where and how my post suggests in some way that any of this was other than crystal clear to me--from the very first.

I didn't miss any of these points. Marx, a revolutionist, if we're to take his writings at face-value, posed himself the question (among many others) "Why do the people (oppressed masses in particular) not revolt!?"

One of his surmises was that, they, being rather religiously-minded, were intellectually sedated to the point where their inclinations to revolt weren't operative.

I really didn't need a primer to grasp that.

... but his proposed method failed. We need to make a better world, rather than be content with one on which poverty and injustice exist. Physical pain and illness may not so easily relieved. But even there, the question of how has no easy answer.

All philosophies (religious and otherwise) have their fanatics. The problem lies not so much with the philosophy as with the mindset of the follower.

Actually, in this particular case, it was the philosophy itself that was fatally-flawed. I don't mean by that Marx didn't have any good and valuable insights. I mean here, in this reply, though I hadn't gone into this above, that, in his expectations based on presuppositions about human-nature, his philosophy foolishly posited (at least) two distinct types of people; here, I'm only concerned with these two which, yes, is a slight oversimplification (but I have no interest in entering into any long, detailed discussion of the finer points of Marxist theory): an owner-class and a worker class.

In fact, of course, workers, given the opportunity, will assume all the worst traits of the owner-class almost if not quite just as soon as they somehow become "owners" and have the same power over workers as their former masters, now their tea-drinking peers.

... "you have to accept the right (i.e. freedom of thought) that this must include the (others') right to choose a philosophy with which you disagree."

"How long!? Oh, Lord! How long!"

Really--you just haven't been paying attention to my posts if you think I needed this admonishment. It's now over two years that I've banged on the essence of democratic practice being an obligation to regard a legitimate electoral outcome as just as binding on the losing parties : that, win, lose or draw, when voters have a fair shot at casting their ballots as they intend, the results are not just to be "accepted," they're to be respected as part of democratic principles' application. Denouncing supporters of one's candidate's opponents as incorrigible idiots is a betrayal of democratic good-faith; and Trump's die-hard opposition is positively dripping with that.

I do, in fact, grasp these things.

So, thank you, but, really, my posts are quite clear and there is nothing in them to suggest that I didn't already see and agree with what you wrote.

>80 prosfilaes:
And communism considers that the needs of every person to be important

That is precisely what Soviet communism does not do. It makes no plans for the well-being of the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie; it embraces class warfare with the intention of exterminating certain groups in order to provide equally for those who are left.

If a serf was flogged, it could be for any reason, as abusive as you could imagine

I never claimed that the reason would be a good one - I happen to believe that there are NO good reasons for flogging anyone - only that it would be personal.

And actually, legally, it could not be "for any reason". Flogging was a sentence passed by the local equivalent of a magistrate. The problem lies in the fact that since the master was the magistrate, and his sentences were reviewed only by his peers (i.e. other serf-owning landowners), abuses of the system were common place. However, the most flagrant abusers were (eventually) brought to account by their fellow landowners, and imprisoned for their crimes. Serf abuse was a crime; it is just that the serf's successful access to justice was rare.

For all the problems of the Soviet Union, I don't recall people getting prosecuted because of their relatives

Then I suggest you research further. I recommend A Childhood in Prison, the autobiography of Pyotr Yakir. He was arrested, convicted, and sent to a labour camp at the age of 13 on the formal charge of "being a relative of an Enemy of the People (vrag narodi). His mother was also convicted of the same charge.

To give a fictional example, consider the foreman of Ivan's work brigade, who was serving his second sentence for being "the son of a kulak" in A Day in the Life of Ivan Denusovich.

I don't have my copy of the Criminal Code of the USSR for that era with me at present, but I assure that "being a family member of a vrag narodi was a specific crime with its own Article under the Code, and its own assigned tariff of punishment. Knowledge of, or complicity in, the offences of that family member was not necessary for conviction.

No questions about whether the Soviet Union in the 1930s was actually following the philosophy of Marxism in any way

Because I do not consider the philosophy of Karl Marx to be an example of an atheist system. Elimination of religion was a creed of Soviet communism.

Marx himself was personally atheist, but he did not require it of others. His view of religion was sympathetic - although he happened not to think any religion was true - and he considered religion to be a matter of individual choice. Marxism is compatible with Christianity (and, as far as I can tell, many other religions).

Then communism (which puts importance on the need for food) trumps any religion that puts the salvation of the soul above food.

That is only true if you take the short-term view; it requires the presupposition that this life is the only one.

Even if that assumption happens to be correct, communism does not address all needs: it cannot comfort the dying, for example.

And to consider people's salvation exclusively, whilst ignoring their physical needs, offends against that injunction to "love thy neighbour as thyself" with which you have so much trouble. Because that obliges one to feed one's neighbour whilst praying for him, unless you stop eating yourself. (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Sikhism have similar injunctions.)

Yes, selfishness is a necessary trait

Selfishness is the religion that prioritises the welfare of the strong over that of the weak.

It is as incompatible with Marxism as it is with Christianity.

Christian nations have killed huge piles of people in the name of their various causes.
And Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did not?

Atheism is a young philosophy. But appears to be slaughtering people at a greater rate per year of its power than any religion did.

Actually those who manipulate any philosophy to serve their own megalomania are not a good guide to the merits or otherwise of that worldview.

>82 proximity1: If I have misunderstood what conclusions you drew from Marx, then I apologise.

I share your view that the greatest problem with Marxism is thst it has proved to fail.

It expects altruism.

>84 -pilgrim-:

"It expects altruism."

Well, yes, exactly.

Fortunately, there are often a few people, here and there, ready, from time to time, to act altruistically.

The rest of the time they can be otherwise quite similar to "everybody else" because it usually happens that they are.

>85 proximity1: Altruism certainly exists. The danger lies in assuming that it is a universal motivation.

>82 proximity1: So, thank you, but, really, my posts are quite clear

They were really quite clear to you, but clearly they were not clear to someone else.

>87 John5918: I want to "like" that comment.

in post 82, where Proximity1 claims his posts are quite clear, he has a 71 word sentence with no less than 6 parenthetical thoughts in it. I think it is not proximity1 who should be the judge of how clear proximity1 is.

Also, on the point at issue, I feel that proximity1 is actually saying something subtly different to what Pilgrim was saying. I thought Pilgrim was saying that Marx was arguing that people did not revolt against their hardship because the opium of religion relieved them of the sense of pain at the hardship. That might be summed up in a rephrase of "religion is the anaesthetic for the masses." Proximity1 seems to be saying that Marx argues that their minds are dulled by the opium of religion. Proximity1 says they are " intellectually sedated" whereas Pilgrim is perhaps arguing that the sedation they feel is only against the pain of injustice.

These are not very far apart, of course, and maybe I have misunderstood one or another of these positions - but rather than outrage at being taught to "suck eggs," I would like to see a consideration of:

1. to what extent do these positions subtly differ; and
2. to what extent are they representative of Marx's actual position.

ETA:

Here is the long sentence:

I mean here, in this reply, though I hadn't gone into this above, that, in his expectations based on presuppositions about human-nature, his philosophy foolishly posited (at least) two distinct types of people; here, I'm only concerned with these two which, yes, is a slight oversimplification (but I have no interest in entering into any long, detailed discussion of the finer points of Marxist theory): an owner-class and a worker class.

After reading it a few times, I think this is what it reduces to:

I mean that his philosophy posited two distinct types of people: an owner-class and a worker class.

>81 -pilgrim-: Here in ex-Jugo a lot of excellent research is ongoing regarding religion and the state. The country provided an excellent laboratory for leftist or left leaning religious folk, and the state was variable in its tolerance and sometimes even its encouragement.

As for Uncle Karl, I think he would find it bizarre that what he wrote is still being discussed as the product of Karl Marx, and not one of a few important studies of history and economics of the 19th century.

>88 sirfurboy: I cannot speak for proximity1, of course, but you have understood my position correctly.

>89 RickHarsch: I had in mind the worker-priests of Latin America when I wrote that, and Jesuit liberation theology.

I would be interested in learning more about the Yugoslav experience. I believe the range of theologies there was wider too?

I have always been happy Not to be a christian and Not to be a communist, or anything like either one, so a pox on both their houses.

Whatever good either of these ideologies have ever done could surely have been achieved without the ideology, somehow, some way, one would think.

But - apparently some very bad actions can never be utterly avoided by any political/philosophical system, e.g., western secularism has achieved freedom and goods far beyond that achieved by christianity or communism yet it has produced great abuse of large numbers of many cohorts of people, up to and including attempts at genocide.

All in all I still think I will stick with western secularism until a more "perfect" system is invented. lol.

>91 -pilgrim-: Yes, it was, but less is known about it. The research is fairly recent, as far as I know. I've edited several papers by historians on the subject.

>92 JGL53: I don't know--wherever you go Yugo.

> 94 "I don't know--wherever you go Yugo."

- But avoid at all costs becoming a Yugoslav. Freedom is the thing.

Then, again, perhaps we should not superordinate the idiomatic over the grammatical for rhetorical effect.

In any case here is your apothegm for the day:

"I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free." -Nikos Kazantzakis

>83 -pilgrim-: That is only true if you take the short-term view; it requires the presupposition that this life is the only one.

If there were an eternity of suffering and joy ahead, then it would be moral to kill every child while they were still in the age of innocence, to prevent them from going to hell. And yes, you can assume that I'm making the presupposition that this life is the only one.

communism does not address all needs: it cannot comfort the dying, for example.

Or torment the dying with fears of what might come after, or torment the living with the threat that their loved ones (atheists, suicides, Jews) may have gone straight to Hell. If it worked, Communism could well have provided palliative care for the dying, something, again, Mother Teresa is accused of neglecting. Communism could provide hope that their children will grown strong and supported in a better, happier, world, something an astonishing number of religions make no promise for. Many Christians groups believe the world is going to Hell in a handbasket before the second coming of Christ.

Selfishness is the religion that prioritises the welfare of the strong over that of the weak.

No, it's not. Selfishness is not a religion. Selfishness is a bit of a loaded word, but people acting for themselves and their families seems essential for things getting done and getting done well.

Atheism is a young philosophy. But appears to be slaughtering people at a greater rate per year of its power than any religion did.

The EU is murdering people? I must have missed that. I'm not a fan of China's system, but comparing it to the Holocaust committed by Christians*, the Thirty Year War killing 10% of Europe's population, the Bengal Famine of 1943 (where the UK let four million starve), the Irish Potato Famine (a million dead or fled, 5% of the UK's population, and 25% of Ireland's, while Ireland was exporting food for the English), the Atlantic slave trade, WWI, etc., seems inaccurate. Scaling for the growth of the population seems important in comparison; no war in Europe involving the pagan Romans killed anywhere near the number who died in the Thirty Year War, or the Christian intercene parts of WWI and WWII. On the other hand, the Great Leap Forward famine killed about the same percentage of China's population as the Irish Potato Famine did of the UK, around 5%.

* I don't care about Hitler's beliefs; Hitler never personally killed anyone after WWI. The Germans that did the killing were solidly Christian at the time.

> 83 pilgrim - "Atheism is a young philosophy...Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao... slaughtering people at a greater rate per year of its power than any religion did."

1. As to atheism being a young "philosophy" - No, it dates back at least fifteen hundred years. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_"in_Hinduism

2. Atheism is not a "philosophy" unless you use the word synonymous with materialism, which is more accurately an ontology, not a philosophy, i.e., materialism does not dictate any particular moral or political viewpoint - such is up to the individual materialist/atheist. Most extant atheists in the U.S. are not communist, or anything like a communist. If one should not generalize about christians then one should not generalize about atheists.

3. Self-identified atheists in the U.S. are underrepresented in prisons, and on average have higher I.Q.s, educational achievements and incomes.
Thus there is no historical correlation between atheism and any kind of bad trait. Correlations between bad acting and religious piousness is at best debatable and at worst fairly obvious. I.e., Nazis were for the most part religious (catholic and lutheran) and communists, if indeed all atheists, have only been doing their dirty deeds from 1918 - 1991. Religionists have been killing each other in the name of god for two thousand years and counting.

IOW, pilgrim, you are most obviously a very crappy apologist for religion in general and christianity in particular.

lol.

Addendum to the above: It occurs to me that pilgrim is a fundamentalist or literalist christian and that is the sum total of his personal problem with "atheism" and "atheists".

Like all fundamentalists he needs a course in liberal progressive or rational christianity. There is such a thing and the actual "good news" is that atheists and christians can all be good buddies because the differences are actually trivial. It is all in how one looks at the situation. Perspective is everything.

I recommend this guy and this website. Reading this rather long essay can expand the mind and ease the (apparent) unnecessary tensions that plague many if not most folk whatever their label. So everyone have a nice day. -

https://leewoof.org/2015/02/02/do-atheists-go-to-heaven/

>98 JGL53: liberal progressive or rational christianity. There is such a thing and the actual "good news" is that atheists and christians can all be good buddies because the differences are actually trivial. It is all in how one looks at the situation. Perspective is everything.

Indeed.

>97 JGL53: slaughtering people at a greater rate per year of its power

Pretty much a red herring in my view. Regimes/institutions have used violence, whether politically or religiously motivated, and individuals of all religions and none have been complicit in violence, even when it has been against the core teachings of their religion or ideology. It's not about religion or atheism, and neither has a better record than the other when it comes to using violence. Slaughtering one person is one person too many.

>98 JGL53: It occurs to me that pilgrim is a fundamentalist or literalist christian and that is the sum total of his personal problem with "atheism" and "atheists".

Is this observation based on some previous discussion with Pilgrim? Or is it just a guess based on your perception? If the latter, is it not the case that you are taking a perceived problem the writer has with atheism and then using that to pigeonhole him or her into a camp (fundamentalism)? Isn't that stereotyping? The line looks ad hominem to me.

I think you are correct to point out that atheism is not a single coherent philosophy, and that there are many philosophies that come under the heading of atheism. Nevertheless pilgrim, it seems to me, has made a good point that there are abuses in any philosophy. At the time of writing his book, Dying to Win, Robert Pape was able to demonstrate that the largest number of suicide terrorist attacks had come from a group, the Tamil Tigers, whose philosophy was Marxist and officially atheist.

There is no point playing a numbers game here. As Pape demonstrated, religious *difference* is exceedingly often exploited by those who promote terrorism or violence. We ought to recognise, however, that the issue is not what religion (or non religion) actors hold to, but rather that this is a case of in-group bias. That is a bias common to all humans. in groups and out groups are easily cast in terms of religion, skin colour, language, nationality, or anything else that you can persuade people to form an identity around.

As johnthefireman says, the rate of slaughter by any particular group is a red herring. It is the in group bias that is the issue.

> 101

Your point is that there are bad actors on all sides - that no one major ideology seems much more efficient than its competitors in producing only good actors and very, very few bad actors. That is a good point with which all observers can and should agree.

Though I accept the label "atheist" (less so the label "materialist") and am actually, more precisely, an anomalous/agnostic/neutral ontological monist, I must refer everyone back to the religious website I mentioned in my above post #98.

If all christians were of this variety then there would be no debate but trivial arguments left in the atheist vs. christian situation - any exchange of ad hominem would thus be rendered ridiculous. Too bad that is not the way it is.

I could sum up in a paragraph or two what this progressive or liberal or rational christianity thing is but it would really be best for an interested person to take the time to read the essay on the linked website - also several other essays on offer there are really quite good in addressing the most important point of all.

>101 sirfurboy:
"I think you are correct to point out that atheism is not a single coherent philosophy, and that there are many philosophies that come under the heading of atheism"

Atheism is not a philosophy at all. You believe in God, whatever that entails, and I don't. In fact, I think the concept is incoherent. That's it. I'm not defined by your beliefs. I just don't share them. Disagreeing with you does not, in itself, constitute a philosophy. Anything else you attribute to my "beliefs" is bullshit you're bringing to the table yourself. (Please understand I'm using the royal "you" in this post)

>103 mikevail: "Atheism is not a philosophy at all."

No, that goes too far, and can only be true if you very carefully define the term "philosophy" so as to exclude it. I think in the natural understanding of the term "philosophy", someone who has thought about the issues of theism and non theism, and arrived at a belief system that has no place for a god or gods has done philosophy. I have already conceded that this may not be the same philosophy as someone else, but it is clearly philosophy on the natural understanding of the term,

Googling the term "philosophy throws up this dictionary definition:

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
2. a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

Atheism as philosophy definitely fits with definition 1. I think you, perhaps, are arguing it is not a philosophy under definition 2 only. That is to say, you do not hold that atheism per se is a guiding principle for behaviour. Even that is debatable. Having arrived at an atheistic world view, you are still presented with fundamental questions about the nature of reality that may then, in the absence of a god, lead you to logical conclusions that lead to a theory of ethics.

Nevertheless you could point out that atheism does not inevitably lead to any one theory of ethics, as evidenced by the various different ethics of different atheistic philosophers.

Still, we need not debate whether definition 2 applies to atheism as definition 1 clearly does. If a study of reality and existence leads one to a view there is no god, or at least that no god interacts with the human in any relevant way, then this is atheism and it is philosophy.

You really make the point yourself when you say: "I think the concept \of theism\ is incoherent."

You have thought about the nature of our knowledge of, the reality of, and the existence of a god or gods and concluded that the concept is incoherent. You have been doing philosophy. Philosophically speaking, you are an atheist.

Which is why Atheism is included in standard texts on philosophy. See for instance:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Atheism and Agnosticism

>102 JGL53: You said:

I must refer everyone back to the religious website I mentioned in my above post #98.

If all christians were of this variety then there would be no debate \...\

I read the article with interest and will happily read more by the same author. As you have noted, there are various streams of thought in Christianity. However, I think there is a danger is saying something like "If all Christians were x..."

The problem is that if you go into a church of an evangelical or even a fundamentalist persuasion, and if you get to know the people there and ask them why Christians commit acts of terrorism, or argue for wars, or were involved ion colonisation or slavery or all manner of other evils, I am pretty sure you will hear the answer: "if all Christians just followed the teaching of Christ faithfully none of these things would have happened."

And perhaps they are right.

Indeed I am sure they are. If all Christians truly took seriously the command to love our neighbour as ourselves, to do unto others as we would have done to us, and to treat all men, including our enemies, as our neighbour, then there would be no history of violence in Christianity, and much more good would have been done.

This is not a liberal/evangelical issue though. It is something deeper and inate in all sides of the debate. For instance, in the 18th century, when the abolition of the slave trade was being argued for by evangelicals, it was opposed by liberal minded Christians of the day, and there was some remarkable sophistry employed (by other evangelicals as well as the liberals) to justify maintaining that trade.

Having met a very hateful fundamentalist, and debated with him at length in the past, I can see how such a person justifies violence, hate, distrust etc. I could see his pride in his identity as a member of a very particular sect of Christian fundamentalism. His in group bias was on display in the way he called most Southern Baptists "liberals". This man was a proven liar. He seemed to see no problem with lying, even when called out on it, because those calling him out were in the out group.

To me the issue was a very human one. He loved his in group. I saw no evidence he cared about anyone else. He was not wrong because he was a fundamentalist though. He was wrong because he was an arrogant hate filled and mendacious little man. Such men may be fundamentalists but they could be liberals, atheists, muslims, hindus... anyone really.

Which is not to preclude the importance of rational debates, so please do keep quoting the thought of the corespondent above, or anyone else. I will be happy to read what they have to say.

>103 mikevail: Atheism is not a philosophy at all.

>104 sirfurboy: Still, we need not debate whether definition 2 applies to atheism as definition 1 clearly does. If a study of reality and existence leads one to a view there is no god, or at least that no god interacts with the human in any relevant way, then this is atheism and it is philosophy.

Definitions may clarify a discussion, but they will not moot an argument like that. I'm not clear on what exactly "this" and "it" refer to in your second sentence, but "a is c" and "b is c" does not imply "a is b", and responding to "{it} is not a philosophy" with "it is philosophy" seems to be changing the topic of discussion, as those are two different things.

>105 sirfurboy: For instance, in the 18th century, when the abolition of the slave trade was being argued for by evangelicals, it was opposed by liberal minded Christians of the day, and there was some remarkable sophistry employed (by other evangelicals as well as the liberals) to justify maintaining that trade.

I'm skeptical of the historical nature of your divisions there. The Quakers seem to have lead the charge against slavery, and the first English Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded by nine Quakers and three Anglicans. I'm pretty sure your division into evangelical versus liberal is ahistorical, and neither the Quakers nor the Anglicans fit neatly into the evangelical box.

As for some remarkable sophistry... the Bible is pretty clear; both the Old Testament and the New Testament have rules about how to treat slaves, and no rules against having slaves. I see the argument of the underlying message of love being more important than the cultural framework in which the Bible was written, but it seems like one-sided history to blame the pro-slavery Christians for remarkable sophistry.

>106 prosfilaes: nine Quakers and three Anglicans

Am I right in thinking it was the evangelical wing of the Anglican church, what we (used to) call Low Church?

the Bible is pretty clear; both the Old Testament and the New Testament have rules about how to treat slaves, and no rules against having slaves. I see the argument of the underlying message of love being more important than the cultural framework in which the Bible was written

And this reflects the difference within Christianity between "bible literalists" and those who believe it is a collection of documents which need to be interpreted - exegesis, hermeneutics, textual criticism, lingustics, culture, etc.

>106 prosfilaes: You say: " responding to "{it} is not a philosophy" with "it is philosophy" seems to be changing the topic of discussion"

Then look at the quote from me in message 103 that was being responded to:

"I think you are correct to point out that atheism is not a single coherent philosophy, and that there are many philosophies that come under the heading of atheism"

So when mikevail says " Atheism is not a philosophy at all" he either is simply agreeing with my statement (in which case why did he write it) or he is arguing that Atheism is not philosophy, in which case my answer stands.

He can clarify which he meant, if he wishes, but I don't think there is equivocation here.

Regarding your comments to #105, the 18th century Quakers were not liberals. They, along with Methodists (who, for most of that period, worked within the Anglican church) were considered "enthusiasts". Evangelicals who also worked for the abolition of slavery included John Newton, and of course, John Wesley, who was moved by studying the views of Quakers on that point (Quakers, as I say, not being far removed from his own "enthusiastic" position). Wesley became outspoken on the issue and many methodist evangelicals stood with him. There are plenty of other names I could mention here, but hopefully you see the point: truth and right behaviour is not the exclusive preserve of one wing of the church.

As for the fact that the Bible does not argue against having slaves, this is true. The natural place to find this would be in the epistles, and yet Paul tells slaves to serve their masters well and sends Onesimus back to his master, Philemon. Philemon is, in fact, a very interesting letter, but without getting in to that, we recognise that the concern of Paul and other NT writers appears to have been spreading the gospel, not fomenting an uprising against the current social order.

Yet that is not the sophistry I meant. If you read some of the arguments made in favour of the slave trade in the 18th century, there were arguments made that taking people out of Africa and sending them to Christian lands enabled them to hear the gospel, and was thus a social good. The evangelical George Whitefield took service from a slave when he travelled to America (he did not bring her, she was there already), and again seems to have justified it by saying she would be left destitute if set free (that is from memory - I believe that was Whitefield's argument but haven't read it in a long time, so I may have misremembered. Reader caution advised ;) ).

reading John Newton is a good antidote to this though. Newton wrote a lot, and he was unequivocal on the evils of the slave trade - a trade he had first hand experience of.

>108 sirfurboy: the concern of Paul and other NT writers appears to have been spreading the gospel, not fomenting an uprising against the current social order

In the context that they were expecting the Second Coming of Christ to happen imminently, probably in their own lifetimes, so changing the social order of the time certainly wasn't a priority for them.

>109 John5918: Yes indeed.

I might point out at this juncture the great psychological difference I think is apparent between the religiously pious vs. the secular or non-religious.

The religious (theists) take religion seriously - they were taught to take (a particular set of) supernatural suppositions very seriously and that is what they do and will do until the day they die. In a sense that is how their brains work, for better or worse.

The non-religious, who utilize various labels - agnostic, atheist, secularist, scientific rationalist, etc. - have of course been exposed to religion all their lives, usually, just like theists and, after analysis, have concluded religion/supernaturalism is all man-made and not to be taken seriously. The best that atheists can or will do is to identify theists as having the burden of proof, with atheists needing only to utilize the Missouri state motto "Show Me". lol. Of course atheists never hold their breath waiting for theists to come up with a winning argument - ANY winning argument.

One other point - I believe it was philosopher William James, a theist, who pointed out quite bluntly that debate between theists and atheists is a waste of time - the abyss between them is just too great. Plus, another reason James advised theists to eschew debates with atheists is that he feared that theists would run the risk of losing their faith.

Probably good advice, I'd say. lol.

One last point - in case there is confusion on the "knowledge" issue, the goal is not absolute knowledge of anything - that is impossible, unless one is god, lol. The goal is to determine, as best one can, the most plausible explanation and then going with it, and thus rejecting all the less plausible arguments - well, that is the method for those who settle on atheism, at least, lol - that is why they ARE atheists, in fact. lol.

I might put it this way:

1. The empirical argument for god/the supernatural is non-existent - to date.

2. The psychological argument for god/the supernatural is based in utter false logic - to date.

3. Atheists should just move on. Time spent waiting on any theist to pull a magical rabbit out of his ass is time wasted.

lol.

>104 sirfurboy:
Well, it appears you still insist on defining my beliefs in terms of your theology. You have a set a beliefs about God and I don't share them. You might also have a firm conviction about the virtues of representative democracy. If I disagree have I somehow constructed a complete political system? A materialist and a polytheist have something in common. They're both atheists. Are their "philosophies" similar?
At one point you cite the definition of philosophy as:

"1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

Later you redefine the definition:

"You have thought about the nature of our knowledge of, the reality of, and the existence of a god or gods"

A bit of sleight of hand there. Again, bullshit you're bringing to the table yourself.

>112 mikevail: A materialist and a polytheist have something in common. They're both atheists

Is a polytheist an atheist? Surely someone who views reality through the narrative of multiple gods is not an atheist any more than someone who views reality through the narrative of a single god? Or were you being ironic?

>112 mikevail: "Well, it appears you still insist on defining my beliefs in terms of your theology. You have a set a beliefs about God and I don't share them."

Ironically you have that totally backwards.

Please can you show me where, in any of the above discussion, I have shared any of my beliefs about the existence or the non existence of God?

So why do you assume (and you twice assumed it) that I have a set of beliefs about God that you don't share? I don't know what beliefs we share and have not attempted to define your beliefs at all. All I know about your beliefs is what you have chosen to share. And what you know about my beliefs must be based on what I have shared. Yet I have carefully avoided stating an actual position, so it appears it is you who is reading things into my words and not the other way around.

You seem very het up about the proposition that atheism might be, in any sense, philosophy. I do not udnerstand why. As I have shown, atheism is philosophy, and yet I said up front in the message you chose to reply to that it is not a single cohesive philosophy. It would be wrong to say "X is an atheist, thus he believes Y" unless Y were simply the tautologous.

Was there sleight of hand in what I said?

I think if you take a step back, stop assuming I am somehow opposed to you, and think about the very wide definition of what constitutes philosophy, that you would agree that it is, in fact quite reasonable.

Let's look at what you object to:

"1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

Later you redefine the definition:

"You have thought about the nature of our knowledge of, the reality of, and the existence of a god or gods"

The existence or non existence of a god or gods is a question of the fundamental nature of existence too.

I would like to see you walk into a philosophy department of your nearest University and say "thinking about the nature and existence of God is not philosophy."

I mean, surely you are aware that this would be covered in philosophy 101, no?

Why does it matter to you that it should not be?

Oh and yes, if I have thought carefully about the virtues of democracy and such like, then this too is philosophy. After all, philosophers have thought about that very thing since 550 BCE. Are you unaware that you can actually study political philosophy? See, for instance, An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff.

But again, what does it gain you to deny these things are philosophy?

Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today.

G.K. Chesterton

>111 JGL53: "I might point out at this juncture the great psychological difference I think is apparent between the religiously pious vs. the secular or non-religious."

I might respectfully suggest that this could be an example of in group bias.

Why?

Well, because as soon as we start speaking about the psychology of a whole group, as though it were universal (or even general) in that group and lacking in another, we are almost certainly moving beyond the evidence. We are extrapolating from perception but probably not the reality.

Havng said that, there might be generalities we can argue for, and for this reason:

We start with an understanding that humans have cognitive biases, and that there are also variations in human character in various ways (for instance the liberal/authoritarian spectrum, or introvert/extrovert). We might then argue that certain types of people are drawn to certain things (e.g authoritarians will be drawn to certain political extremes). Yet, we cannot argue that all at those political extremes, by definition, are authoritarian, nor that all authoritarians are drawn to those extremes. There is a bias (perhaps a strong bias) - that is all.

So perhaps you are right if you detect a bias towards psychological types in religious and non religious groups. That would appear to be quite likely - but if you then assume that the psychological bias is more than that, I think you go beyond the evidence.

To take one example: you suggest that all religious types believe a set of propositions because they were taught to. Yet you ought to be aware that this is not always the case. More importantly, it ignores the fact that the same can be true in reverse. If someone is brought up in a household that rubbishes religion, and they rubbish religion, is it not equally true that they are just following what they were taught?

Of course anyone can think more deeply about the issues, and the fact that you are in agreement with your parents and those around you need not be a reason to *reject* what they say. You may reflect and come to the conclusion that they are entirely right, but we should not allow ourselves the hubris of supposing that we are right because we do not have the cognitive biases of the other group. We all have those biases. We are all, fundamentally, much the same.

>114 sirfurboy: the very wide definition of what constitutes philosophy

The definition? There's no such thing as "the" definition of any word. We had a twentieth century for a reason, people! Learn from it. Meaning is hard, and insisting that there's one meaning for a word handed down from above is a good way to avoid communication.

One of my formative experiences with philosophy was scanning William James for Project Gutenberg and discovering that he felt it useful to ramble about Zeno's Paradox as if it were an open problem, despite the fact that it was solved by Leibniz and Newton hundreds of years before James was born. (Modern physics has a few things to say about it, but that was at least post-James.)

Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out.

Philosophy is merely wankery, opinions from people who have decided that they can form reasonable opinions by sitting on their asses and bullshitting, and that those who actually look at the world are inferior and uninteresting. The Greeks could haver about atoms, but without actual study, they didn't know anything useful.

I've learned to have more appreciation for philosophy over time. But philosophers who act like they are "the" real thinkers, the go-to source for any subject, they still trigger that frustration. I'd rather have a political scientist who has looked at how people actually behave, instead of a political philosopher who might espouse "liberty" and then come up with a political system assuming some model of "rational" human that in reality would devolve into a brutal mess of petty warlords.

>116 prosfilaes:

"Philosophy is merely wankery, opinions from people who have decided that they can form reasonable opinions by sitting on their asses and bullshitting, and that those who actually look at the world are inferior and uninteresting. The Greeks could haver about atoms, but without actual study, they didn't know anything useful."

Been juggling atoms lately?

Merely wankery? There's an extreme bias there that betrays a dearth of knowledge regarding what it is to be human, particularly in biological terms.

>116 prosfilaes: "The definition? There's no such thing as "the" definition of any word."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Of course, context is key. The definition here was the one I had quoted from the dictionary. I could have quoted many, but note my caution at the start of this digression:

>103 mikevail: mikevail: "Atheism is not a philosophy at all."

No, that goes too far, and can only be true if you very carefully define the term "philosophy" so as to exclude it. I think in the natural understanding of the term "philosophy", someone who has thought about the issues of theism and non theism, and arrived at a belief system that has no place for a god or gods has done philosophy.

So, here you are, attempting to side with an opinion that atheism cannot be considered philosophy, and you are doing so by doing exactly what I cautioned against: defining the term "philosophy" in such a way as to exclide it, and justifying this defiance of the natural meaning of the word by arguing that the last century taught us that there is not just one definition for a word!

Don't you see the problem here? It is clear I am justified referring to atheism as a philosophical position, because I have demonstrated that it is exactly how it is widely understood. It is included in many a dictionary of philosophy, and the question of the existence of God is an important one in the history of philosophy. Your arhument - your argument - is now that we must not allow that atheism be considered philosophy becuase your understanding of the definition of the word excludes it. So read what you wrote above again. You said: "insisting that there's one meaning for a word handed down from above is a good way to avoid communication."

Now take that to heart.

So I repeat my question to you that I put to mikevail: why don't you want Atheism to be considered a philosophical position?

Looking at the rest of your post, I might suppose that your problem with this is that you have little respect for philosophers. Yet philosophy is by no means the exclusive preserve of philosophers. Anyone who thinks on the great questions of life, and comes to a *reasoned* position on those, is doing philosophy.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

When Shakespeare wrote those words, he did not imply Horatio was a great philosopher. Indeed, the implication is that Horatio's philosophy is lacking, incomplete. Yet it is still philosophy.

Why is it important to you that Atheism not be considered in the context of philosophy at all? What exactly is your problem here?

>118 sirfurboy:

You seem to want atheism to mean one thing, and that thing be "a" philosophy. But atheism is first and foremost (as mikevail pointed out) a basic rejection of theism--nothing more is necessary for someone to be an atheist. No single "philosophy" is entailed by it. Atheists can be apolitical or anywhere on the political spectrum, ethical or not, vegetarians or omnivores, chess players or samba dancers, nice or nasty... and philosophers--or not.

This semantic muddling has obscured the original thrust of the argument (yours and pilgrim's), which was plainly to indict atheism as a monolithic ideology that oppresses and murders on even a larger scale than religions did and do.

But there is no atheist "holy book", no singular set of doctrines, under which masses of atheists could (or would) organise to persecute like religions and political extremists do. And regarding the role of atheism as an element of political ideologies, I'm not aware of any where it was other than instrumentalised to help promote other goals.

>119 LolaWalser: "You seem to want atheism to mean one thing, and that thing be "a" philosophy."

No, read up.

Message #103 (mikevail) reads:

>101 sirfurboy: sirfurboy:
"I think you are correct to point out that atheism is not a single coherent philosophy, and that there are many philosophies that come under the heading of atheism"

Atheism is not a philosophy at all.

My first comment was to agree that atheism is not a single definable philosophy, a point I have made several times since.

My point, however, is that any considered rejection of theism is still philosophy. My point is only that mikevail is wrong to say that atheism is not a philosophy at all when I had already agreed with a response (to an entirely different writer) that atheism is not a single philosophy. So, everything you say simply agrees with me where I came in. You are not wrong, but you are not answering my position when you write that.

So when you say: "This semantic muddling has obscured the original thrust of the argument (yours and pilgrim's), which was plainly to indict atheism as a monolithic ideology that oppresses and murders on even a larger scale than religions did and do." I trust you see that you are making the same error that mikevail made in #114 above. You, like him, have imputed views to me that I neither expressed nor do I hold.

There is muddling here but the muddling is not semantic. The muddling is coming from people who want to disagree with me for some reason (apparently because they think they know what I think, but have not said), without actually reading what I am saying.

Having said that, I do not hold that against you. That is the nature of the format of this forum. You would have to read a good number of messages to have understood all that in context, and yet most people jump into a thread without reading back. So I understand why you may have missed that context. I hope that clarifies things for you.

>120 sirfurboy:

Actually I did read all the posts by you and mikevail and don't think I misunderstood the context. You're now engaged in what back in the day was called "meta"--when the conversation abandons discussing the subject for a discussion of the discussion--and these can get epic!

I'd prefer to get back to the subject, but part of the problem is that you obviously don't see how you may have confused others. (I don't hold it against you, we are all crystal-clear--to ourselves. ;))

For one thing, you have used "philosophy" to label anything from an idea or reaction (atheism at its most reductive, in the form mikevail pointed out) to the process of thinking and a system of thought.

For example, you wrote:

I think in the natural understanding of the term "philosophy", someone who has thought about the issues of theism and non theism, and arrived at a belief system that has no place for a god or gods has done philosophy.

This is presuming far too much. There is no single process through which people arrive at atheism, and whether the outcome is always or unambiguously a "philosophy" is debatable. But I'd give heed to what people are telling you about their own opinions. Some atheists may view their atheism as a "philosophy"; others may not. You are certainly welcome to interpret it as a philosophical stance in any case, within your own worldview.

>121 LolaWalser: "Actually I did read all the posts by you and mikevail and don't think I misunderstood the context. "

Then I don't know how you got from: "atheism is not a single coherent philosophy, and that there are many philosophies that come under the heading of atheism" written by me to "You seem to want atheism to mean one thing, and that thing be "a" philosophy."

I mean, if you did not misunderstand the context, perhaps you can lead me through that one. What statement of mine was so unclear that you thought I had said, at any point in this discussion, that atheism must mean one thing?

Perhaps you can answer where others have not. Why are you so resistant to the idea that reasoning ones way to atheism is doing philosophy? What is the negative conotation of doing philosophy that is the stumbling block to you and others here? Because to me this is simpy the patently obvious being denied for some reason I cannot fathom.

You say: "There is no single process through which people arrive at atheism," which is clearly correct, but not a problem. Of course, some people may arrive at atheism through a completely unreasonable, unthinking process, but I believe I dealt with that by stating "someone who has thought about the issues." It is that consideration that is, at its essence, philosophical, being that it is a consideration of the matter of the existence or non existence of a god or gods.

The word atheist - or atheism - was created by religious people way back when as ad hominem, firstly as a put-down of anyone who did not share some "one true religion", e.g., christians accused muslims of being atheists, and vice versa.

The word "atheist" is nowadays almost always used to indicate someone of no religious faith, who views all supernatural claims as ipso facto metaphorical and not literally true, beyond all reasonable doubt. And we now have millions of people who self-label as atheists as a sort of red badge of courage.

Obviously the definition of the word "atheism" depends on the attitude/personal philosophy of he or she who is defining it, i.e., self-identified atheists think atheism is rightly defined as a fine and dandy attitude while the religiously pious types/theists think the word necessary points to a host of very bad things and "atheism" has no redeeming social value, lol.

Loggerheads - so the word is useless in debate since opposing sides just talk past one another - each knows the true definition of the word "atheism" and is convinced the other side is dead wrong regarding the definition - just as each side is convinced the other side is dead wrong per se, lol.

So fuck it. Fuck the whole god damn word game. Just quit playing.

How about (philosophical) materialism vs. idealism? I.e., matter is primary vs. something called "spirit" is primary. Take your pick.

From a pragmatic standpoint I am a materialist. So, how is that wrong-headed? In theory I have no problem with Bertrand Russell's neutral monism. Again, point out where I - and Russell - went wrong. Give examples.

That is my "atheistic" challenge to theists. I am going to guess, as usual, theists have nothing. They are too unlearned and prejudiced to even understand the concept of burden of proof, and certainly do not grok that they suffer under it, lol.

So far in human history the only "argument" we ever got from theists have been threats, intimidation, brain-washing of children, Extreme Intolerance (murder and mayhem), special pleadings based in wish, hope and fear, plus every single kind of identified demonstrable false logic ever invented by the human imagination.

>122 sirfurboy:

What statement of mine was so unclear that you thought I had said, at any point in this discussion, that atheism must mean one thing?

It's not a question of a single statement, but of your categorical rejection that atheism may not be something as reductive and minimal-content as the form mikevail repeatedly pointed out. Again, over and over, you insist on pressing someone to tell you that "atheism" is a "philosophy". If we could all agree that "atheism" is a broad term that can denote a reaction, an idea OR a philosophy, we could rest and have a nice drink! :)

Why are you so resistant to the idea that reasoning ones way to atheism is doing philosophy?

I am not resistant to this idea at all (and don't think I've demonstrated otherwise here?) because (and again), you define "philosophy" so broadly it can mean anything, from colloquial to technical usage. What I said was that "reasoning" such as you described ("someone who has thought about the issues of theism and non theism, and arrived at a belief system that has no place for a god or gods has done philosophy.") is not necessary for arriving at atheism.

What is the negative conotation of doing philosophy that is the stumbling block to you and others here?

I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, but I think you got it all bass-ackwards here. Presumably few see "negative connotations" to doing philosophy; it's the conclusions you seem to want to impose through symbolic adoption of your terminology.

It is that consideration that is, at its essence, philosophical, being that it is a consideration of the matter of the existence or non existence of a god or gods.

If I may point out, here again you are specifying and therefore narrowing down what type of thought gives rise to atheism. I'd have more to add but unfortunately must rush off now. À bientôt!

>114 sirfurboy:
"Please can you show me where, in any of the above discussion, I have shared any of my beliefs about the existence or the non existence of God? "

No offence, I'm using "you" as a rhetorical device here.

"You seem very het up about the proposition that atheism might be, in any sense, philosophy. I do not udnerstand why"

Because it suggests a set of principles or a system of thought that presents an opposing worldview to theism. When I say "I've heard your (rhetorical device) shit about God and I'm not buying"; I'm not offering an alternative. And this, in part, is my answer to JTF's question in 113. Strictly speaking, with regards to Islam, a polytheist would be atheistic. He doesn't accept that particular theism. I can only refute one at a time. Listening to an argument in favor of a particular worldview and deciding on it's merits would fall under critical thinking. This may be a part of the process of philosophizing but doesn't itself form a philosophy. You can refer to Materialism, Natrualism, logical positivism as athieistic philosophies but that would emphasize a small part of their collective principles. There are plenty of quadrilaterals but if you're talking about a square, it having four sides is probably the least interesting thing about it.

I also admit I don't find your broad definition of philosophy very useful. I think it likely would include astrology, sports fandom, and Last Thursdayism

>121 LolaWalser:
"For one thing, you have used "philosophy" to label anything from an idea or reaction (atheism at its most reductive, in the form mikevail pointed out) to the process of thinking and a system of thought."

Thanks LolaWalser this nicely sums up what I'm prattling about.

>123 JGL53: Yes the word atheist was invented as a pejorative, although its older than that. Socrates was considered an atheist (for not believing in the state gods). This charge was also levelled against early Christians (who rejected polytheism) so that Justin Martyr said:

Hence, are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned.

Monotheists were rare, of course. The Jews were monotheistic but were better tolerated as they had been doing it for a long time. The Romans respected old things, but had less time for the new monotheism, it seems.

But there is also a long tradition of taking pejorative terms and making them your own. Just because a term was coined pejoratively is no reason why we should avoid it.

Another example I already mentioned in this thread. Enthusiasm came into English as a pejorative term in for the sense of "excessive religious emotion through the conceit of special revelation from God.” The term, prior to that, comes from French with a sense of inspired by or possessed by God, but was pejoratively used of the “enthusiasts”, who came to adopt the term as their own.

There are many other examples, and I don’t see why the term “atheist” should be viewed pejoratively, except inasmuch as it is used by one group to define another group as “not them.” To that extent, any term would have the same effect.

>124 LolaWalser: "Again, over and over, you insist on pressing someone to tell you that "atheism" is a "philosophy"."

No, again and over again I insist on pressing someone to accept that it is not the case that atheism (that is, specifically, atheist thought) is not philosophy. It is the statement that it is not philosophy that I objected to, and your tacit acceptance that it can be philosophy simply makes my point for me. Then you object that this is a meta discussion, but it is you that waded into it by stating exactly what I said to start with! So if we are going round in circles, it appears to be because you are not very clear about what you are in disagreement about!

Symbolic adoption of terminology? What? Surely an attempt to define atheism as not philosophy is an attempt at symbolic adoption of terminology. Again, you seem to be the one with this backwards.

To recap:

1. I state that I agree with an earlier poster that it is wrong to suggest that atheism is a single philosophy. I do this because it is equally wrong to make statements such as "because atheistic philosophy says X, therefore they believe Y". I object to such arguments because they look like strawmen. I think it is generally better to listen to what someone actually holds to be true, rather than telling them what they hold to be true and then refuting it for them.

2. Another poster says that in fact atheism is not philosophy at all.

3. I disagree, saying that is too much, and on a plain understanding of the term "philosophy", considered atheism is philosophical in nature. I back this up by pointing out that it is an area of study in philosophy and with reference to philosophical dictionaries.

Nothing I have said has argued that we must exclusively thinl of atheism as philosophy. However, if I say to someone "your philosophy of life is atheistic", nothing I have seen here has moved me in the slightest to suggest I mispoke in arguing that such a persons views on the non existence of god are not, by their nature, philosophical. Of course they are.

If person P is an atheist, is there any reason I should not think of his views as being his philosophy on life and the existence of God? Why?

What is the point you are trying to make here?

>125 mikevail: "No offence, I'm using "you" as a rhetorical device here."

No offence taken. However you may want to reconsider that rhetorical device. It looks rather more like you were assuming that I hold certain views that I have not stated (and I hope very much that I, in fact, do not hold the views you expect! :) ) If you are replying to me and using the term "you", then I and other readers will assume you mean me.

"I also admit I don't find your broad definition of philosophy very useful."

And I don't find your view that atheism is not philosophy very useful either. I ask your problem with it and you say:

"Because it suggests a set of principles or a system of thought that presents an opposing worldview to theism. "

Do you mean philosophy suggests a set of principles and soe we should oppose the term? Or are you saying atheism suggests a set of principles and that this is not philosophy? But what is a system of thought then? Why object to callin that a philosophy? What is your objection to the term?

>127 sirfurboy:
"If person P is an atheist, is there any reason I should not think of his views as being his philosophy on life and the existence of God? Why?"
Because all you know about P's views is that he's not buying whatever theism someone's trying to sell him.

>128 sirfurboy:

"Do you mean philosophy suggests a set of principles and soe we should oppose the term? Or are you saying atheism suggests a set of principles and that this is not philosophy? But what is a system of thought then? Why object to callin that a philosophy? What is your objection to the term?"

I mean philosophy suggests a set of principles and atheism does not. I've been saying that and I believe LolaWalser has as well. As an atheist I don't say, "I believe there is no God". I say, "I am not a theist". Again, whatever else you assume about my beliefs you're bringing to the table yourself.

>127 sirfurboy:

Nothing I have said has argued that we must exclusively thinl of atheism as philosophy.

That's your opinion, which clearly isn't shared at least by me and mikevail. Instead of banging at us for supposedly misunderstanding you while continually elaborating on and changing your position, why not simply do that, explain yourself in more detail without these masses of "never said that", "show me where I said that" etc. Please let's cut the meta.

So, mikevail already explained the point I would have made too (again). "Philosophy" is too loaded a term--at least for many people, and possibly most--to apply to a simple negation. In a casual conversation like this, between randomly assembled strangers, and moreover in the context where atheism was already brought up as the culprit for the crimes of Stalin etc., it doesn't do to assume everyone will be pleased to see it defined a "philosophy".

Because, again, atheism at its most basic is simply a negation of some theism. It is negative, content-poor, and does not entail any specific philosophy, ideology, behaviour etc.

The process of arriving at atheism may be through some reasoning, which may be actually philosophic, but neither is a necessary condition. Lots of people--possibly the vast majority of actual atheists--simply weren't raised as theists. That was the case with me and my brother, for example (and our mother and her brother). And once out of my atheist childhood, like Laplace, still "I had no need of that hypothesis".

Neither should you confuse a scientific worldview as an atheistic elaboration and a logical and necessary outcome of the "basic atheism". Like most scientists, I too happen to find in science excellent rebuttal to run-of-the-mill theisms. Nevertheless, there are plenty of scientists who profess faith of one kind or another and find ways to reconcile, at least for private purposes, scientific knowledge and religious doctrine.

>118 sirfurboy: It is clear I am justified referring to atheism as a philosophical position, because I have demonstrated that it is exactly how it is widely understood.

You are clearly not a "harmless drudge", as Johnson put it, because any lexicographer would rip their hair out at the mere thought of trying to figure out how the word "philosophy" is widely understood. As shown also by your use of the phrase "the dictionary", at least when not referring to the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives us ten different definitions for the word philosophy, at least in its first edition. And by using the quote:

"Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today."

you demonstrate a complete lack of respect for how philosophy is widely understood, and instead prioritize the pompous arrogance of someone using "philosophy" as an excuse to dismiss everyone else's ideas.

And your sentence is absurd; you have never referred before on this thread to atheism as a "philosophical position".

When Shakespeare wrote those words, he did not imply Horatio was a great philosopher. Indeed, the implication is that Horatio's philosophy is lacking, incomplete. Yet it is still philosophy.

Wherein you conflate sense 9(a), "the system which a person forms for the conduct of life", with other senses of philosophy.

why don't you want Atheism to be considered a philosophical position?

Why is it important to you that Atheism not be considered in the context of philosophy at all?

It's interesting how some things hold completely opposite stereotypes at the same time. For me, on one hand I hold the stereotype of a philosopher as someone who carefully takes apart assumptions and biases and works carefully to put together what we know and what we don't know. On the other hand, a philosopher sits on their ass and rambles abstractly, never minding the facts or even clearly separating out their definitions, like someone hopped up on certain drugs, but more pompous and less interesting.

In this case, you're assuming something in your questions that isn't true, and bringing up issues that haven't been discussed.

Atheism can certainly be considered in the context of philosophy. How does that have anything to do with "atheism is philosophy"? Atheism can also be considered in the context of politics or sociology or psychology.

I don't really care if atheism is considered a philosophical position, but as I said above, that's not something you mentioned before this post.

>129 mikevail: "Because all you know about P's views is that he's not buying whatever theism..."

And is thus, philosophically, an atheist.

"I mean philosophy suggests a set of principles "

Why?

Some philosophy suggest principles, some does not. There is nothing intrinsic to the concept of philosophy that necessitates such.

>130 LolaWalser:

I said: "Nothing I have said has argued that we must exclusively think of atheism as philosophy."

Your reply: "That's your opinion, which clearly isn't shared at least by me and mikevail."

So you do think atheism should be considered exclusively as philosophy?

My problem with you is that you jump into the conversation and reverse what I have said whilst claiming you have understood the context and saying it is me, not you who is changing position, and then you have the gall to complain about a meta conversation, as though it were not you prolonging it?

To you, philosophy is a loaded term. To me it is just a term. I do not understand why you see it as loaded. If you feel it is loaded, I might be happy to avoid it in conversation with yourself. That does not alter the fact of the matter is, which I have already demonstrated. Atheism is philosophy. It is taught as such. It is such. I will add that theism is also philosophy. The question of the existence or non existence of a god or gods, wherever it is considered and by whom, is philosophy. Nothing you or others have said has even touched on changing my view on that because, other than some general feeling that you seem to have that the term is loaded, there is clearly no reason not to regard it as such. That is simply the end of the matter.

>131 prosfilaes: My point in quoting a definition was merely to show how the term is understood and that the description is wide. By referring to the OED you reinforce my point, thanks.

The Chesterton quote was meant to be a humorous riposte in the context of what was said at that point in the conversation. It ought to be clear that I have no disrespect for the discipline of philosophy, but hey, go ahead and impute to me whatever views you like. People like doing that.

On the Hamlet quote, you again make my point. Thanks. I am not trying to say there is one and only one definition of philosophy. I am saying that by the natural understanding of the term, atheism is philosophy. That is so because the term covers a wide variety of things.

"I don't really care if atheism is considered a philosophical position, but as I said above, that's not something you mentioned before this post."

See message 104. Click the link.

>134 sirfurboy: That is so because the term covers a wide variety of things.

Thus atheism is set, since set has far more meanings in the OED.

The Chesterton quote was meant to be a humorous riposte in the context of what was said at that point in the conversation. It ought to be clear that I have no disrespect for the discipline of philosophy, but hey, go ahead and impute to me whatever views you like. People like doing that.

No, you don't disrespect philosophy; you join Chesterton in disrespecting everything else.

I am saying that by the natural understanding of the term, atheism is philosophy.

"The natural understanding of the term". I don't know what that means. Again, I feel you're trying to have a debate about definitions, but don't want to bother defining things.

My understanding of the words "atheism is philosophy" is that they are slightly ungrammatical in a way that leaves them meaningless in this field of the argument. As I said above, "a personal philosophy of life" and "the field of study of philosophy" are separate things, which you are carelessly conflating.

>134 sirfurboy: "you join Chesterton in disrespecting everything else."

I believe I have treated you and others with respect in this debate. Could you show me where I have not? If you have preceived disrespect from me, I would certainly like to correct that impression.

"I feel you're trying to have a debate about definitions, but don't want to bother defining things."

And yet I provided you with a definition in message #104 above.

My point about the fact that there are more definitions is simply that it strengthens, not weakens, my point that there is nothing wrong with speaking of atheism as (a) philosophy. I have, incidentally, been avoiding the indefinite article merely to attempt to avoid having to rehash the point I made at the start: that there is no *single* philosophy of atheism - there are many. A good friend of mine is a nihilist. Nihilism is one atheist philosophy, but there are many others, Nevertheless anyone who has thought about the issues of the existence of a god or gods, regardless of whether they develop that to a theory of ethics or not, has done philosophy as per the definition above.

So if you say there are other definitions, that does not matter. By many of those other definitions, atheism is philosophy too. But even if it is not by *some* definitions, that does not mean it is not philosophy. You understand, of course, that it only need be so for one definition for it to be so. It is so by at least one widely accepted definition. As a matter of standard usage it is so.

Really, this should be the end of the matter. There is nothing more to say. Message 104 seems to have settled the matter. Not one of you has countered the above by anything more substantial than a suggestion of a negative perception to the word philosophy.

There is a negative perception to the word "socialism" in the USA, but that does not mean that someone who holds to a socialist economic philosophy is not a socialist. It is a simple matter of language.

And look, there is that troublesome "philosophy" word again too. Socialism is a political philosophy. It is other things too, but it is as nonsensical to say that atheism is not (a) philosophy as to say that socialism is not.

And that is what I objected to when I wrote message #104.

As an addendum to the above, I recall a similar argument to the above that I had many years ago with a Christian. That Christian presented an argument to me that I suspect others will have heard too, as I have heard the suggestion several times since. She told me that Christianity is not a religion.

I asked why she would say that, and she proceeded to argue that religions are all about rules and ethics and religious practice. Christianity, she told me, was all about relationship with Christ.

I pointed out that, regardless of the relationship aspect, Christianity still had religious practice. She was from a non conformist charismatic church that eschewed liturgy and such like so rejected all such practices as basically "not Christian". She felt they distracted from true Christianity. So I asked if she prayed. Yes, she said, so I pointed out that this was surely religious practice. No, she said - this was part of relationship with Christ.

The argument went on, and I would not do her tenacity justice if I tried to replicate it here, but the point is that she is still wrong. Christianity is a world religion, and I doubt that anyone here is going to dispute that. Only by defining the term "religion" exactly as she wanted it defined, could my friend argue that Christianit was not a religion.

The fact is that even the Bible does not define religion as she did:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 1:27

I understand that her problem with the word "religion" was that she did not agree with religious practice for its own sake, and wanted to point to this relationship aspect of Christianity that she believed to be unique to that religion. Yet she was wrong. Christianity is a religion.

Other Christians (in fact it may have been the same one - I forget now) argued that atheism is a religion. I am unconvinced by those arguments too. On any generally accepted understanding of religion, atheism does not qualify. There are no central beliefs or tenets, no meetings nor religious practices. One can certainly posit an atheistic religion (Shinto perhaps qualifies) but it would be wrong to speak of atheism itself as religion.

It is interesting to me that people will jump through hoops to try to argue such things. What does it gain to say Christianity is not a religion? To my friend, I presume it was that she saw religion negatively and wanted her belief to be understood positively. To me, it would be better that she presented her faith positively and showed that religion need not therefore be viewed negatively. That is more productive than arguing black is white.

Likewise the attempt to cast atheism as religion was clearly an attempt to cast an out group in a way that is apparently negatively perceived, or else allowed for straw man arguments about "how much faith is required to be an atheist".

To me, the intersting thing here is that there are three people who think that the concept of atheism being (a) philosophy is so negatively perceived that they should argue that it is not so. Three people literally want to argue that atheism is not a philosophy, in defiance of the natural understanding of the term, because to concede that it is (a) philosophy is to cast it in a negative light.

That, to me, is quite remarkable.

>118 sirfurboy: -- >137 sirfurboy:

Snore-z-Z z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z...

>138 proximity1: See, you can't keep the pretence going that you don't read my postings after all. :)

>136 sirfurboy:
" Nevertheless anyone who has thought about the issues of the existence of a god or gods, regardless of whether they develop that to a theory of ethics or not, has done philosophy as per the definition above."
Someone claims that the secrets of reality lie in the interpretation of the compression ratio of the engine in a particular 1970 AMC Javelin. In refuting this, I have somehow constructed a philosophy.

"Nihilism is one atheist philosophy, but there are many others"
One aspect of Nihilism is that it rejects the idea that there is proof of a "higher creator". Another aspect is that human existence has no objective purpose. The bunion on my foot is part of human existence making Nihilism a orthopedic philosophy?

>133 sirfurboy:

You know, at this point I'm beginning to think you are deliberately wasting everyone's time.

So you do think atheism should be considered exclusively as philosophy?

No. As you well know (because I honestly don't think you are actually this thick). I think that it is not true that ""Nothing (you) have said has argued that we must exclusively think of atheism as philosophy." I think that mikevail's and my impression that you insisted on defining atheism as philosophy, to the exclusion of the simple negation that mikevail told you it was for him all the way at the start, is well-founded.

To you, philosophy is a loaded term. To me it is just a term. I do not understand why you see it as loaded. If you feel it is loaded, I might be happy to avoid it in conversation with yourself. That does not alter the fact of the matter is, which I have already demonstrated. Atheism is philosophy. It is taught as such. It is such. I will add that theism is also philosophy. The question of the existence or non existence of a god or gods, wherever it is considered and by whom, is philosophy. Nothing you or others have said has even touched on changing my view on that because, other than some general feeling that you seem to have that the term is loaded, there is clearly no reason not to regard it as such. That is simply the end of the matter.

Yes sir, Humpty Dumpty sir. Enjoy your solipsistic universe, sir. Tell yourself you've "won" something here, sir.

>137 sirfurboy:

Three people literally want to argue that atheism is not a philosophy, in defiance of the natural understanding of the term, because to concede that it is (a) philosophy is to cast it in a negative light.

Assuming the "three people" are mikevail, me and prosfilaes, if this is how you paint our arguments after everything that was said on the topic, I don't see how you can expect anyone normal to want to engage in a conversation with you again.

>142 LolaWalser:

You know, from your first message, you have come across quite aggressively, and not holding back with the insults. The implication that I am not normal is more crass than you may have intended, and yet it is interesting, is it not, that you jumped into a discussion without holding back on the insults. So let's consider the meta analysis. What does this tell us about where you see me with relation to yourself that you are so willing to do this?

I think you have mistaken me for someone you do not like very much.

Now, it is apparent you think I have misstated your position by your answer in 142. I think I see where that must have occurred by a process of eliminatiuon, because most of this is all very clear. Let's restate:

#103 mikevail says atheism is not a philosophy (in reply to an earlier discussion where we were in agreement that one cannot treat atheism as a single, coherent philosophy that is the same for all).
#104 I say that I believe this goes too far because thinking about the existence or otherwise of a god or gods is, by nature,philosophical as per a (quoted) accepted definition of philosophy, and also it is taught as philosophy in pretty much any undergraduate course on the subject, and listed in a quoted dictionary of philosophy.

Although you complain about things like "symbolic adoption of my terminology", those are all sgtraw men. The substance of the argument is in 103 and 104. A proposition, its refutaton. No argument has been made that atheism should *not* be taught as philosophy. What you or I want here is irrelevant to what is. It is an abuse of language to say that atheism is not philosophy when it so patently is.

Except here is where you will feel you have been misquoted. Because I implied that the reason you do not want atheism to be considered philosophy is some negative association/negative light cast by the word, and looking up, that is not quite what you said. You said:

"Because, again, atheism at its most basic is simply a negation of some theism. It is negative, content-poor, and does not entail any specific philosophy, ideology, behaviour etc."

On re-reading this statement, my characterisation is indeed not quite accurate.

Nevertheless your statement is wrong.

"atheism at its most basic is simply a negation of some theism"

And I see others have tried to cast it as simple negation too.

That is not atheism though. A simple negation of a proposition "there is a god", if it is devoid of thought and deeper consideration, is indeed not philosophy, but it is not spoken by an atheist, it is spoken only by a parrot.

You see, you can (and philosophers do) define atheism in terms of theism, but to arrive at a conclusion on the subject, you must necessarily think about the question of the exisstence or non existence of a god or gods. And then we are back to the definition in 104. We are back where we started. As soon as you apply actual thought to that negation, you have done philosophy.

You will note, if you look up, that I mentioned the need for thought an consideration in my earlier posts too. You cannot be an atheist without considering the question, and you cannot consider the question without treating it philosophically, whether you know it or not and whether you thought of it or not.

Now, a question. Are you ready to rush out another angry reply because you still think me so dumb, so abnormal, so in need of correction that nothing but angry words will do?

Read what I said about in group bias. Consider: which group would you put me in? Are you sure you are not reacting negatively to me because you have placed me in an out group? I am sure you don't think so. But humour me and think about that for a minute.

>141 LolaWalser: "No. As you well know (because I honestly don't think you are actually this thick)"

Actually it turns out that I am indeed this thick.

But then, I can take comfort in the wise words of someone recently: "part of the problem is that you obviously don't see how you may have confused others. (I don't hold it against you, we are all crystal-clear--to ourselves. ;))"

Thank you for clarifying what you were saying. Yet I am at a loss to see why you are of the opinion that I am saying that we must think of atheism as only philosophy. To say something is X does not preclude that it is also Y and Z. Not unless those other things are mutually exclusive, of course.

As for the Humpty Dumpty reference, you have that backwards. Humpty Dumpty says:

'"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."'

Yet I have argued the opposite: that we should not so try to limit the application of the word so as to make the statement in message #03 true. Rather, we look at what the word means in all its richness in language, and accept that it is applicable in this case. "Atheism is not (a) philosophy" is a false statement *unless* we say that the word "philosophy means exactly what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less".

>140 mikevail: "Someone claims that the secrets of reality lie in the interpretation of the compression ratio of the engine in a particular 1970 AMC Javelin. In refuting this, I have somehow constructed a philosophy."

Not comparable, because the 1970 AMC Javenlin's fundamental existence is presumably not in doubt. Also, you may attempt the refutation, but perhaps they are right. It sounds plausible to me. ;)

Nevertheless, in refuting this, did you construct a logical argument? did you probe the axioms of the argument? Did your questioning consider th the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence?

If so, then yes, you have met an accepted definition of philosophy (see #104 above).

"One aspect of Nihilism is that it rejects the idea that there is proof of a "higher creator""

Rightly so. All such proofs are fallacious. But that is just my view :)

". Another aspect is that human existence has no objective purpose. The bunion on my foot is part of human existence making Nihilism a orthopedic philosophy?"

Lol.

A non sequitur, but an amusing thought.

>143 sirfurboy:

For what it's worth, I didn't enter the discussion feeling any aggression toward you and still don't feel in the least hostile. (If anything, I found myself agreeing with you a lot in the Brexit discussion in the Brits group. And here, in >124 LolaWalser:, I offered common ground: "If we could all agree that "atheism" is a broad term that can denote a reaction, an idea OR a philosophy, we could rest and have a nice drink!") >142 LolaWalser: wasn't meant to be snarky, I am genuinely puzzled by your attitude and tactics in this conversation, and I sincerely think they'd be offputting to anyone--allow me to retract "normal"--looking for a debate in good faith.

I think it's best if I reserve further comment on the personal remarks.

That is not atheism though. A simple negation of a proposition "there is a god", if it is devoid of thought and deeper consideration, is indeed not philosophy, but it is not spoken by an atheist, it is spoken only by a parrot.

It's not philosophy, but as I said before, it may be interpreted/labeled/considered a philosophical stance. The point is that no more is necessary for someone to be an atheist. One doesn't have to build a whole "philosophy" from there. There are already philosophies and worldviews available that may support this atheist outlook, without inevitably leading to it. (Remember what I wrote re: science and scientists.)

You see, you can (and philosophers do) define atheism in terms of theism, but to arrive at a conclusion on the subject, you must necessarily think about the question of the exisstence or non existence of a god or gods. (...) You cannot be an atheist without considering the question, and you cannot consider the question without treating it philosophically, whether you know it or not and whether you thought of it or not.

Not necessarily. I mentioned already that one can be brought up atheist simply by omitting theist indoctrination. It's how I became atheist. (It may be relatively rare in North America, but is fairly common in Europe or places like China.)

To be sure, over the years I have often discussed atheism with people (practically always online ;)), read atheists classic and modern, but, believe it or not, never with an attitude that I have to make up my mind on whether I will believe in god/gods or not. I simply don't believe. I have no need for that hypothesis. I am satisfied, because I must be, that questions science can't answer, or the science of my day can't answer, will for me remain without answer.

I can live with that.

Again, I'm sorry if this conversation has upset you, I had no intention of doing that, and hope everyone's tempers will calm down. From my point of view we (collectively) unfortunately never got to discuss something interesting--maybe next time.

P.S. Haven't read past the message I replied to and at the moment can't catch up.

>146 LolaWalser: Thank you. It would seem, then, that I read more aggression in your words than you put there. That is a problem with non verbal communication, and I am glad that is cleared up. Likewise, I apologise if you have taken my posts as more aggressive than I had intended.

"If we could all agree that "atheism" is a broad term that can denote a reaction, an idea OR a philosophy, we could rest and have a nice drink!"

And yet we can (broadly) agree just that. I never denied that atheism could be a range of things. I am a little confused how it can be "reaction". I am not clear what you mean by that. I also don't know how an idea is necessarily different from a philosophy, if that idea is about fundamental questions. Yet I have no problem with a statement like "atheism is an idea". In some contexts that would be a perfectly plausible thing to say. It was just never my intent to oppose such a thing. I merely wanted to oppose the proposition that atheism is not (a) philosophy. My argument has been narrowly focused on that one statement, and any frustration I feel is that we are 42 messages into that discussion, and still talking about what, to me, is surely a settled matter.

All along I have been careful to say that one must actually consider the questions to meet the definition of philosophy. So, in message 104:

"If a study of reality and existence leads one to a view there is no god, or at least that no god interacts with the human in any relevant way, then this is atheism and it is philosophy."

So in your experience you say you are an atheist essentially because that is how you were brought up. But did you never consider whether god might or might not exist? Not at all? Because I asked those questions from early childhood.

Note that you don't have to study Anselm's ontological argument to be doing philosophy. You do it, without realising you are doing it, when you consider the question at all in a rational manner. So, if I ask you a question, and if you consider the answer, you are doing philosophy. You are also just answering the question. Here goes:

How do you know there is no God?

I think you can answer that question, because I think you have thought about this. If you never thought about it, you will do so now, if you provide any answer. And that then meets the definition of philosophy. As soon as you start thinking about and answering those questions to your own satisfaction, you are doing philosophy.

Maybe some atheists never do that. Yet every atheist I know seems to have done so.

P.S., I know that's a trick question. That's why you have to think about it more deeply and philosophically ;)

>136 sirfurboy: I have, incidentally, been avoiding the indefinite article merely to attempt to avoid having to rehash the point I made at the start:

Which doesn't work with English. A uncountable noun (one that can be used without 'a' or 'the') usually has a different meaning from a countable noun, even if they're spelled the same. Again, you're not being precise with semantics.

But even if it is not by *some* definitions, that does not mean it is not philosophy. You understand, of course, that it only need be so for one definition for it to be so.

That's absurd. If you only need one definition for atheism to be philosophy, then you only need one definition for atheism to not be philosophy. If you want a consistent logic, that is NOT (A AND (NOT A)), you need to have one consistent definition of philosophy.

the word "socialism" in the USA, but that does not mean that someone who holds to a socialist economic philosophy is not a socialist.

Why would it mean that? You didn't use the word "socialism" at all! Generally speaking, someone who asserts a socialist economic theory is a socialist, but then we've just moved the question to what is a socialist economic theory.

And look, there is that troublesome "philosophy" word again too.

And look, you shoehorned in a polysemic word and tried to exploit that polysemy again.

That's my problem. You didn't go from arguing "atheism is a philosophy" to a coherent position, you went to the incoherent "atheism is (a) philosophy" and didn't carefully lay out what you were arguing. Atheism is a part of certain philosophies, and is studied by philosophers. That doesn't mean that atheism is philosophy.

>148 prosfilaes: Which is not a problem, because the citation I placed in #104 still applies. As atheism is philosophy, an atheistic position is a philosophical position, i.e. a philosophy, QED.

As I say, I was avoiding the indefinite artcile to attempt to avoid the need to repeat that there is more than one atheistic philosophy.

"That's absurd. If you only need one definition for atheism to be philosophy, then you only need one definition for atheism to not be philosophy."

No, that is not how either logic or definitions work. You have a class of things that are philosophy. How do you define things that are in the class? How do you define things not in the class?

To define the things not in the class, you use NOT (Definition of all things in the class). You are arguing differently. Consider the class of forks. There are three or four pronged forks for eating (various types of these) and there are tuning forks. Are tuning forks also forks? Well yes. They are forks, and we are concerned with forks. So they are in the class of forks.

Now if you say "all forks are for food" then that is false. You could say the definition of a fork is that it is used for food, but that is not THE definition of a fork. It is, rather, a description of a sub class of fork. It is a description of those forks used for eating. i.e. the class of food forks. It does not mean that a tuning fork is not a fork. When we consider the class of forks, tuning forks are forks too.

So too with philosophy.

"You didn't use the word "socialism""

We are speaking an inflected language. The derivational morphology of socialist from socialism is obvious. I don’t think you missed the point. Allow me to recast though. "There is a negative perception to the words "socialism" and thus "socialist" in the USA, but that does not mean that someone who holds to a socialist economic philosophy is not a socialist. It is a simple matter of language."

"And look, you shoehorned in a polysemic word and tried to exploit that polysemy again."

Frustrating, isn't it? Many words are polysemous of course, but that is the issue. As I said at the start, you can only argue that atheism is not a philosophy if you carefully define that word to mean something that fits what you are trying to say, and ignore all the polysemes. That, I argue, is illegitimate. I am not trying to say that: because the word means one thing, that all meanings therefore apply. There is no trick here.

>147 sirfurboy: So in your experience you say you are an atheist essentially because that is how you were brought up. But did you never consider whether god might or might not exist? Not at all? Because I asked those questions from early childhood.

I went to Sunday school, but it all seemed like story time to me. I never really believed it happened and I don't remember ever struggling with the idea of whether God exists or not. By the time I got to high school I just didn't believe. You really have to let go of the idea that everyone thinks in the same way that you do.

>150 jjwilson61: But if you are simply not convinced, and have not actually given any consideration to the question of God's existence or non existence, then why would you identify as an atheist? Isn't that more akin to what we would normally call agnosticism?

To be clear, these terms are tricky - and it may be that it is the term "atheism" we have not defined very well here. Agnosticism (as a distinct philosophy from atheism) is not simply being unconvinced. Agnosticism in a philosophical sense is also propositional: the view that the question of the existence of God (or gods) cannot be answered rationally. Thus I was interested in LolaWalser's answer to my question. Lola said: "I am satisfied, because I must be, that questions science can't answer, or the science of my day can't answer, will for me remain without answer."

That, even moreso, looks like philosophical agnosticism, and not atheism at all. However it may not really be everything Lola has to say on the subject so I will wait for more on that.

But yes, if you are unconvinced, and yet simply do not consider the question of the existence of a god or gods, then you have not met the threshold I set here:

"If a study of reality and existence leads one to a view there is no god, or at least that no god interacts with the human in any relevant way, then this is atheism and it is philosophy."

If one sees no point in doing the study in the first place, this is not atheism, and it is not propositionally anything either. It would appear to be a psychological state of agnosticism. The question is perhaps uninteresting or perhaps you consider it unanswerable.

Do you self describe as an atheist, though? Why?

> 150 - jjwilson61

Very good post, i.e., very good points.

Each of our experiences is uniquely unique, is it not?

Me - as I look back I see my "personal religion" evolving in terms of, well, evolution - a psychological/rational evolution, as it were (I hesitate to use the word "spiritual). Thusly:

1. Up to age 9 - just scared shitless of winding up in Hell. I knew I didn't know anything so what I was being told might be true - it probably was since everyone I knew said they knew it was true.

2. age 15 - after some travel and much reading of comparative religion literature, I groked that the various religious traditions were man-made, for various and sundry reasons. I became a mild-mannered deist - even before reading The Age of Reason.

3. age 20 - became the stereotypical agnostic since I began to see the materialist view as also plausible. So, god and spirits were not of this world and if they did exist in the great beyond, that is total mystery.

4. age 27 - finally realized all dualistic (supernatural vs. natural) concepts were implausible and dismissable, with prejudice, to use a legal term. Decided to go with materialism/atheism until something better came along - in terms of plausibility, you know.

5. age 27 to now (age 70) - Well how about that? Nothing else more plausible ever came along. lol.

6. 70 to my eventual demise - Some people, including celebrity types, have been reported to convert to religion from atheism late in life. Apparently this does happen. Will it happen to me? I think the odds are really low on this - something on the order of me winning a billion dollar lottery - or me deciding I am a woman trapped in a man's body and then opting for a sex-change operation.

lol.

Of course, if in future I were to suffer organic brain disease/disorder then all bets are off, I'm afraid, regarding my "beliefs".

>153 RickHarsch: keep the brain in order, or else write up a living will that allows that if you become a believer you must take up with your new religion with a vengeance, join a violent religious group and go out with a bang. Preferably in D.C.

>151 sirfurboy: There's where you get the distinction between the academic definition of agnosticism and how it is commonly understood. If I told most people I was agnostic, they'd believe that I just can't make up my mind, and it opens up the possibility that I'm open to be proselytized. So, if asked I tell people I'm an Atheist because that is what I am for all practical purposes. Only a philosopher would nitpick the difference.

>147 sirfurboy:

I never denied that atheism could be a range of things. I am a little confused how it can be "reaction".

So in your experience you say you are an atheist essentially because that is how you were brought up. But did you never consider whether god might or might not exist? Not at all? Because I asked those questions from early childhood.

So, perhaps the missing element here is the issue of education. We don't each of us reinvent the wheel, we are educated. My education allows me to recognise which propositions are worth addressing, which questions are worth asking, and which are not so (to my mind, of course).

Note that you don't have to study Anselm's ontological argument to be doing philosophy. You do it, without realising you are doing it, when you consider the question at all in a rational manner.

Not every question can be considered at all. You may have heard of the concept of Not Even Wrong? I think the physicist Lee Smolin even wrote a book with that title. A lot of scientific study and research goes on identifying questions that can be fruitfully asked. "Is there a god?" is not a good question. Conceptualising "god" as some unknowable, undefinable, absent Prime Mover certainly removes that concept from any hope of probing and exploration, from any answer.

Thinking this isn't thinking about whether this "god" exists, it's thinking about what makes a good question to ask about this concept.

I think you can answer that question, because I think you have thought about this. If you never thought about it, you will do so now, if you provide any answer. And that then meets the definition of philosophy. As soon as you start thinking about and answering those questions to your own satisfaction, you are doing philosophy.

Heh, you are so on a wrong track here, I hardly know where to pick at what angle to dispel the confusion... I'm neither afraid of nor wholly ignorant of "doing philosophy". I think for a living, my highest degree pronounces me a Philosophiae Doctor, and I have even in the past described scientific research as practical philosophy. If I demur to being called unqualifiedly a philosopher or having my atheism described as "philosophy", or the process by which I arrived at it as "doing philosophy", it's because I have different notions to yours of what this means.

>151 sirfurboy:

Agnosticism (as a distinct philosophy from atheism) is not simply being unconvinced. Agnosticism in a philosophical sense is also propositional: the view that the question of the existence of God (or gods) cannot be answered rationally. Thus I was interested in LolaWalser's answer to my question. Lola said: "I am satisfied, because I must be, that questions science can't answer, or the science of my day can't answer, will for me remain without answer."

That, even moreso, looks like philosophical agnosticism, and not atheism at all. However it may not really be everything Lola has to say on the subject so I will wait for more on that.

In settings like these I'd tend to disregard the issue of difference between atheism and agnosticism because there's practically no difference vis-à-vis believers. To fundamentalists anyone who doesn't believe what they do is an "infidel".

Also, it's one of the most boring, sterile debates of them all.

>155 LolaWalser: You say:

Not every question can be considered at all. You may have heard of the concept of Not Even Wrong? I think the physicist Lee Smolin even wrote a book with that title. A lot of scientific study and research goes on identifying questions that can be fruitfully asked. "Is there a god?" is not a good question. Conceptualising "god" as some unknowable, undefinable, absent Prime Mover certainly removes that concept from any hope of probing and exploration, from any answer.

Thinking this isn't thinking about whether this "god" exists, it's thinking about what makes a good question to ask about this concept.

Are you talking about Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong"? Good choice, if so, and yes, I think that makes your point nicely. String theory is very popular, but beyond our ability to test experimentally. A possible understanding of the fundamental nature of reality sits in theory papers and popular science, but eludes our ability to verify experimentally. Other big questions of physics will always elude us.

It is not just physics either. The halting problem, for instance, is a well known problem in computer science that cannot be solved. We know it cannot be solved. Turing proved that. Gödel's incompleteness theorems show a limitation in any formal system of logic that is rather devastating. Some questions cannot be answered now. Some questions just cannot be answered.

But what you have here, looks to me like a description of philosophical agnosticism. It is not atheism at all if you say the question of the existence of a god or gods is unknowable. That is agnosticism. Philosophical agnosticism no less.

If you click the link in message #104 above, and read the definition of agnosticism there, I wonder whether you might think "yes, that is what I think". I should be interested to know if it is so.

>157 sirfurboy:

Right, "Not Even Wrong" questions, assertions etc. arise in many situations.

Re: agnosticism, don't know if you noticed >156 LolaWalser:...

I'd agree that agnosticism is the most "proper" intellectual stance toward unanswerable questions, and I have frequently explained in the past that I'm agnostic on some issues, but atheist on other. (I think this is a common position among atheists, basically taken for granted.) However, this nuance isn't always worth making outside a circle where one can be confident people share one's definitions. Typically, agnosticism is misinterpreted as giving an equal chance to the propositions at hand. So that instead of hearing me say "I think X is as improbable as pigs flying, but I admit I don't know it's impossible", they hear "it's quite possible pigs may fly".

We should also remind ourselves that for the vast majority of believers "god" isn't merely (or at all) this remote, unknowable, undefinable "Prime Mover" etc. but rather a force intervening in their lives, to which they attach lore and doctrine of all sorts. And that is subject to outright atheist rejection easily enough. To illustrate:

Did a "god" cause the Big Bang? Can't be sure I can even shape the question well, can't test, can't know. Result: agnosticism.

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead? Was the Qur'an recited to Muhammad by an angel? Does reincarnation exist? Believers say yes, I say no. Result: atheism.

Not only is the question of the alleged difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism" a boring and useless concern, I'd say there is a good chance that those individuals actually interested in debating that alleged issue may have their heads up their respective asses. I am not saying definitely that they do, I am just saying there is a very good chance that they do.

My free advice? - Just try moving on. There are plenty of other fish to fry.

Fried fish: Christian symbolism or mere cliche?

> 160

Other, bigger, or many "fish to fry", or "there are other fish in the sea", and other similar fishy apothegms have been around many years and I am not aware of a direct etymological connection with the christian fish symbol, it being two millennia of years old, so I've been told.

Here are some speculations on the fishy origins:

https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/807.html

In any case I think the christian fish symbol, whether metaphorically fried, baked, or sautéed, is being served up on toast by more and more mean, nasty secularists each and every passing day.

Fish are cold-blooded, hard-scaled or slimy, and rather dumb. So the cliché turns out to be an ironic parody - a two thousand year old ironic parody.

Well son-of-a-gun. Ina gadda da vida, baby. Slap my face and call me Sally. Butter my butt and call me a biscuit. Etc.

Well gall my hedgehog combover! Maybe the fish grew legs?

>158 LolaWalser: "don't know if you noticed"

Oops, no I missed that as you must have posted while I was writing. Thanks.

"I'm agnostic on some issues, but atheist on other. (I think this is a common position among atheists, basically taken for granted.)"

Common, yes, but by no means universal.

"However, this nuance isn't always worth making outside a circle where one can be confident people share one's definitions. Typically, agnosticism is misinterpreted as giving an equal chance to the propositions at hand. So that instead of hearing me say "I think X is as improbable as pigs flying, but I admit I don't know it's impossible", they hear "it's quite possible pigs may fly"."

That made me smile - because yes, I see exactly what you mean. Agnosticism is easily misinterpreted, of course, just as you say. Philosophical agnosticism, however, is not what most people probably think it is. I have heard many suggest that agnosticism is just saying someone is undecided. To them it is a state of mind to be corrected, as you say.

Philosophical agnosticism, however, is to say that no proof of the existence or non existence of god is possible. All such proofs are impossible (or perhaps just "all proofs offered to date are fallacious"). I am of the view that they are, in fact, impossible. A logical proof for the existence or the non existence of God is, in my view, necessarily fallacious.

Strangely, though, agnosticism does not necessarily imply atheism. Cornelius Van Til and Søren Kierkegaard would be two (quite different) Christian thinkers who were basically agnostic. I can't think of non Christian examples off hand but I suspect there are a number. These are exceptional cases though - I would not wish to make it seem otherwise.

"Did Jesus die and rise from the dead? Was the Qur'an recited to Muhammad by an angel? Does reincarnation exist? Believers say yes, I say no. Result: atheism."

Not sure I agree there. A muslim does not believe Jesus rose from the dead. A Christian does not believe the Quran was recited by an angel. So not believeing those doctrines makes you a non believer of that religion, but not necessarily an atheist.

Either way, it is interesting, is it not, that your views really are quite nuanced? :)

> 163

If you really want to confuse yourself you should also consider concepts like Fideism and Apatheism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Then you can move on to Monism and Nondualism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

> 162

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=YezZXNHhMtWt0PEPoZuj0A0&q=dar...

>149 sirfurboy: No, that is not how either logic or definitions work.

Definitions work by defining something and then talking about it. One rule of mathematical logic is that if p => A and p => NOT A, then NOT p. If you can prove A and NOT A (like the Russell set), then you've proved that your logic is inconsistent.

When we consider the class of forks, tuning forks are forks too.

Why would we want to consider the class of forks, as you've defined it? What interesting things can be said about it? Are forks material things? Not necessarily. It has at least eighteen definitions. Maybe it is material thing, since at least one definition of "fork" is a material thing, and it's also human body part, and chess move. It is part of itself (a forklift (a fork) has forks.)

"There is a negative perception to the words "socialism" and thus "socialist" in the USA, but that does not mean that someone who holds to a socialist economic philosophy is not a socialist. It is a simple matter of language."

And again, if we agree that someone holds to a socialist economic position, then we basically agree they're a socialist. That does not answer the question of whether Joe Biden is a socialist, or whether Elizabeth Warren is a socialist; you've just moved the point where you use the concept of socialism.

you can only argue that atheism is not a philosophy

So you're back to arguing that atheism is a philosophy? That's my problem, you're not arguing a coherent position, and you keep changing what you're arguing for.

>166 prosfilaes: "Definitions work by defining something and then talking about it. One rule of mathematical logic is that if p => A and p => NOT A, then NOT p. If you can prove A and NOT A (like the Russell set), then you've proved that your logic is inconsistent."

This is a bit of a rabbit hole, but one I am happy to jump down, because it is an interesting subject and we are clearly not talking about a cathedral fire any more.

So, although I know where you are going with this, you have jumped a few steps. You don't specify which mathematical logic you are talking about. There are many, but something like this rule is true for many formal logics. Your notation looks like you are probably referring to the Boolean algebra, but let's restate it in first order predicate calculus, which is a good choice because that is what most people probably mean by mathematical logic.

In first order predicate calculus (I can't produce symbols here so will write in full):

There EXISTS NO x such that P(x) implies Q(x) AND P(x) implies NOT Q(x)

Or to put it another way, the proposition P has no existential import in such a case where Q and NOT Q are simultaneously true. It is what is known as a counterfactual. Back to Boolean algebra, and what we have in the truth table for implication is the recognition that from the counterfactual, a contradiction can be obtained.

Some real world examples:

"All unicorns have one horn."

"No perpetual motion machines have been patented." (i.e. actual working machines. Not machines that prove not to be perpetual motion machines).

And the confusing thing is that even though we might agree with the above two statements, it is also true that:

"No unicorns have one horn."

"All perpetual motion machines have been patented."

If you think about it, those are true too.

I remember a nice summer day some years ago when I was sat in our garden with my daughter. My daughter loved unicorns and was drawing a picture of one. I recall looking at her picture and telling her how beautiful it was. "But," I said, "why is it pink? Unicorns are not pink, are they? I have never seen a pink unicorn before."

"Don't be silly, Daddy," she replied. "All unicorns are pink."

And I had to admit that she was correct. Here then, in case you have wondered, is proof I can admit when I have something wrong. :)

However, in first order predicate calculus we ignore the issue of contradiction that you are referring to, by simply denying that the proposition has any existential import. We deny the validity of arguing from the counterfactual.

Consider the counterfactual presented not so much as a description and more as a promise, in the following:

If when I knock this door, it is answered by a bear, I will run away. (bears scare me).

Now if I knock the door and it is answered by a bear, I run away (argument was true) or I don't (argument was false. I broke my promise to run away).

What if the door is answered by a kindly looking person? I am free to run away or not, and I have not broken my promise, so the argument is true under what turns out to be an arbitrary but helpful rule of material implication whether I run or not. But so what? There was no bear. No one really believes they have learned anything about my bravery in the face of bears when I was not confronted by the bear.

This is just a cursory look at the question which is dealt with fully in the excellent If P then Q by David Sandford.

*

But, in fact, I think you are referring to something else. The principle of explosion, or ex contradictione quodlibet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

If you can show A and NOT A (and the Russell set is indeed a common example of this) then you can prove anything trivially because of the simple proof:

0. A
1. A OR B
2. NOT A
3. Therefore B

So A AND NOT A => B

And by the same argument it implies C, D, E ... even if C is defined as NOT B.



As I said, it is considered illegitimate to argue from the counterfactual, but the Russell paradox is an example of something else, known as a dialetheia . A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation are true. Thus Mark Colyvan famously proposed a remarkably simple proof of the Fermat's last theorem as well as the Riemann hypothesis here:

http://www.colyvan.com/papers/waoim.pdf

see page 24 for the five line proof (that copy/paste mangles only slightly):

Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT): There are no positive integers x, y, and z, and
integer n > 2, such that x^n + y^n = z^n.

Proof: Let R stand for the Russell set, the set of all sets that are not members
of themselves: R = {x : x∉x}. It is straightforward to show that this set is both
a member of itself and not a member of itself: R∈R and R∉R. Since R∈R, it
follows that R∈R or FLT. But since R∉R, by disjunctive syllogism, FLT.

Needless to say, he did not win the Millennium prize for applying the same argument to solving the Riemann hypothesis!

Is my logic inconsistent in the presence of dialetheism. Well, it need not be. That is one of the reasons we have paraconsistent logics. A paraconsistent logic works by abandoning the disjunctive syllogism or the disjunction introduction, so that the argument above no longer follows in a paraconsistent formal logic.

For instance, in a paraconsistent logic, inference may not necessarily mean entailment. However, there are various paraconsistent logics, that follow various methods to achieve paraconsistency. Their usefulness is that they allow us to reason logically about dialetheias. They are also a better logical model for considering human reasoning, because all humans hold many inconsistent things to be true, and if we used only formal logic, the absurd logical inference would be that we necessarily hold everything to be true.

*

Now absolutely none of that is relevant to my previous message. Let's actually look at what else you wrote:

You asked: "Why would we want to consider the class of forks"

Why wouldn't we? Forks are interesting too.

"\forks\ have at least eighteen definitions."

Indeed. Polysemy again. But you can no more say a tuning fork is not a fork than you can say atheism is not a philosophy. That is the point. You said, and I quote: "That's absurd. If you only need one definition for atheism to be philosophy, then you only need one definition for atheism to not be philosophy."

That statement is fallacious, as I have shown. Tuning forks are not eating forks, but they are forks. Because a tuning fork does not meet a definition of an eating fork ("a small object with three or four points and a handle, that you use to pick up food and eat with" - Cambridge English Dictionary definition 1) does not mean that it is not a fork. Because it certainly is a fork by another definition.

It is fallacious to say "If you only need one definition for atheism to be philosophy, then you only need one definition for atheism to not be philosophy." Extra credit question: name that fallacy :)

All the above discussion about contradiction is irrelevant. Unless, of course, a definition said "for all forks, forks must be three pronged, or else they are not forks". But good luck finding a definition like that in a dictionary for forks or for philosophy.

So, having again dismissed your objection, we see that the fact that atheism can be a philosophy by one definition of philosophy is enough. We can only say it is not a philosophy by taking a very specific definition of philosophy that deliberately excludes it, which was a point I made in message #104 above and argued would be illegitimate.

We might also note that atheism as a philosophy is not as controversial as tuning forks (or perhaps river forks) as forks. I wonder if you quoted all the definitions of philosophy you say you found, how many of those would apply to atheism in whole or in part.

"That does not answer the question of whether Joe Biden is a socialist..."

But it maybe leads to an understanding of why Joe Biden may not self identify as a socialist. That was the point.

"So you're back to arguing that atheism is a philosophy? That's my problem, you're not arguing a coherent position, and you keep changing what you're arguing for."

No, I answered that in the message you were replying to, message #149. You chose not to quote that part, but it is the very first line of the message so you can't have missed it.

>163 sirfurboy:

Not sure I agree there. A muslim does not believe Jesus rose from the dead. A Christian does not believe the Quran was recited by an angel. So not believeing those doctrines makes you a non believer of that religion, but not necessarily an atheist.

I offered those examples as representative of beliefs of various religions, none of which *I* believe are true, which makes *me* an atheist in regard to those beliefs, faiths, believers etc. Theist perspectives on other religions weren't the subject.

Either way, it is interesting, is it not, that your views really are quite nuanced? :)

I suppose it's nice you find that interesting, but it's not news to me. ;)

>167 sirfurboy: "I offered those examples as representative of beliefs of various religions, none of which *I* believe are true, which makes *me* an atheist in regard to those beliefs"

Okay, you are using "atheist" in a different manner to the way I understand the term.

>169 sirfurboy:

Yes, I'm afraid this was the case from the beginning. :) What does "atheist" mean to you?

>170 LolaWalser: Atheism is, I think, a lack of belief in a god or gods. The link in message 104 has a much fuller definition whilst noting the difficult in tying the word down. It offers a good working definition.

When I say you are using the word differently, it is because I would see no way you could be an atheist with respect to certain beliefs. You either lack belief in a god or gods, or else you don’t. You are an atheist or you aren’t. You can’t be an atheist with respect to Christianity or Islam only.

When talking about a certain religion, if you hold that the tenets of that religion are false, you are - in my view - a non believer of that religion, but you are only an atheist if you reject out of hand all belief in a god or gods.

I think you are using it as an opposite of belief, and the two definitions are largely co-extensive, but not quite. I think the opposite of belief is non-belief. Atheism goes further because it rejects the assertion there is a god or gods out of hand, rather than just rejecting individual religions.

>171 sirfurboy:

When I say you are using the word differently

Er, no, I didn't say that, YOU did. >169 sirfurboy: "Okay, you are using "atheist" in a different manner to the way I understand the term."

I merely agreed that that might be the case.

Actually this: "Atheism is, I think, a lack of belief in a god or gods." works for me.

You can’t be an atheist with respect to Christianity or Islam only.

I happen to be an atheist in respect to any theist religion I know of, but I'd prefer not to judge what sort of atheist someone else might be.

I think the opposite of belief is non-belief. Atheism goes further because it rejects the assertion there is a god or gods out of hand, rather than just rejecting individual religions.

I don't know whether "out of hand" has some special significance for you... Otherwise, personally I see no point to these distinctions.

>172 LolaWalser: I am not sure what distinction you are making in the first few lines there, but it does not matter. The point is, when you say:

"I happen to be an atheist in respect to any theist religion I know of, but I'd prefer not to judge what sort of atheist someone else might be."

I would understand all atheists to be atheists with respect to all religions. One cannot be an atheist with respect to one (theistic) religion and not another. They would just be a different type of theist. If someone does not reject the belief in a god or gods, they are not an atheist.

As an aside, historically Christians were called atheists because they rejected belief in the official gods of Rome. Monotheism was unusual and novel monotheism was described as atheism (the Romans seemed to respect Jewish monotheism because they had been doing it a long time). However, that usage does not capture the modern sense, and has not (to my knowldege) been used for millennia, nor ever in the English language.

>167 sirfurboy: No, I answered that in the message you were replying to, message #149.

It's a standard obfuscation to say you're not arguing for something to avoid discussing a subject, and then argue for it or even take it as a given when it's convenient to switch back. If you don't want to argue that "atheism is a philosophy", then don't argue for it.

Extra credit question: name that fallacy :)

Extra credit question: learn why using smilies and offering extra credit questions comes across as smug and smart-ass to people you're having a discussion with.

But it maybe leads to an understanding of why Joe Biden may not self identify as a socialist. That was the point.

No, that was not the point. You keep arguing that "atheism is philosophy" instead of asking people why they don't like the identification.

I wonder if you quoted all the definitions of philosophy you say you found, how many of those would apply to atheism in whole or in part.

In part? So Satanism is Buddhism, cats are dogs, and books are toilet paper, because the definition of one would apply in part to the other?

Atheism is not "An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism", which is the general uncountable sense of philosophy. Can it be a part of philosophy? Yes. But it is not philosophy. This might even offer a clearer answer as to why people have a problem with the statement; I'd say that pure abstract reasoning had little to do with my turning to atheism. My thought patterns were empirical in many senses; if there is a god, why don't we see more direct evidence of them?

>174 prosfilaes: "It's a standard obfuscation..." I am sorry you think so, but you still did not return to the part of the message you omitted that answered your question. Isn't that a standard obfuscation too?

I apologise for using a smiley when calling out your fallacy. I was attempting to be light hearted on the matter. Apparently I got that wrong. Nevertheless the first time you stated the fallacy I deliberately did not call it out as such but attempted to show you how the reasoning was in error. You persisted, so it was necessary to point out that what you presented is the well known error of denying the antecedent.

So consider two propositions, P1 and P2, such that P1 => Q and P2 => Q. If P1 OR P2, then Q. However, P2' does not imply Q'.

Examples and more can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

The statement:

"That's absurd. If you only need one definition for atheism to be philosophy, then you only need one definition for atheism to not be philosophy." is thus fallacious. Message #104 has one perfectly good definition that fits the bill. Nothing more need be said on the matter. Your last paragraph introduces a new definition again, but that is irrelevant. As long as it is philosophy by just one definition, it is philosophy. And, for the avoidance of doubt, as long as it is a philosophy by one definition, it is a philosophy.

This page contains a perfectly valid usage of the term atheism as a philosophy:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-philosophy-of-atheism

No one claims that is the only thing that atheism can be. Atheism can be a belief, badge of honour, a warning, a party, etc. But it is also a philosophy. So again, and I don't know how many times this needs to be said, the original statement that atheism is not a philosophy goes too far. It says something that is demonstrably false unless you so carefully define the word "philosophy" when you use it that you exclude the other meanings that are widely used by people such as Emma Goldman (above), and taught in philosophy classes all over the world. This exclusion of the other meanings , many of which do apply, would be illegitimate.

Now this horse is well and truly flogged to death. Perhaps we can go back to talking about contradictions and counterfactuals. They are much more fun!

I said: But it maybe leads to an understanding of why Joe Biden may not self identify as a socialist. That was the point.

You replied: No, that was not the point.

Yes, it was my point, but apparently I did not write it in a way that allowed you ti see that. My point is that Joe Biden is either a socialist or not by the definition of socialist, regardless of how he self identifies. How he self identifies may be affected by a negative perception he sees in being called a socialist, so perhaps he does not want to be called such. Yet the reality of the matter is he is or he isn't.

To be honest, I don't know whether Joe Biden is a socialist! So let's just posit another politician, completely fictional, with no similarity to any real person. Let's call him Bernie. Bernie ascribes to socialist economic theories, and is thus a socialist. He may, however, try to argue that Berinieism is not socialism. He might do that, because he needs votes and does not want the negative perception of socialism to chase voters away.

In part?

I meant as in the discussion in my much quoted message #104, definition 2, which could apply to atheism but could be argued either way.

>175 sirfurboy: you still did not return to the part of the message you omitted that answered your question. Isn't that a standard obfuscation too?

As atheism is philosophy, an atheistic position is a philosophical position, i.e. a philosophy, QED.

You mean that sentence? You're claiming that every philosophical position is a philosophy? Again, your care in making your arguments is quite lacking.

To be honest, I don't know whether Joe Biden is a socialist!

How do you not know that? Given what you've said, if there's a definition of socialist that applies, he is a socialist. For example, a socialist believes it's okay to tax people; I'm sure some libertarians have offered just such a definition. Therefore Joe Biden, and Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, are socialists.

Yet the reality of the matter is he is or he isn't.

No. Complete and total fail. Again, he is by some definitions, and he isn't by others, just like basically every other major politician ever. But if we're going by your rules, he certainly is.

>176 prosfilaes: "You're claiming that every philosophical position is a philosophy?"

Consider:

A: Have you considered the question of the existence of a god or gods -- (i.e. a philosophical question as per definition 1)
B: Yes, my position is there is no god. -- (i.e. B adopts the atheistic position)
A: Ah so you are philosophically an atheist?
B: Yes, mine is an atheist philosophy.

I made that up, but it is not an unreasonable exchange. Why would it be? Where has A or B erred. Maybe you think in the last line. Maybe you think "philosophically an atheist" is not identical with "holding an atheist philosophy". I don't see why you would argue that, why you would even want to argue that, nor what it gains you. To me, it is the first line that is important. Once we are clear that the question of the existence of a god or gods is a philosophical question, the others all follow.

I said: To be honest, I don't know whether Joe Biden is a socialist!

How do you not know that?

because I am not American, and all I really know about Joe Biden is that he was the previous vice president of the USA. That makes him a Democrat, but in the American two party system, it is certainly not the case that all Democrats are socialists. I was admitting to my ignorance.

For example, a socialist believes it's okay to tax people; I'm sure some libertarians have offered just such a definition. Therefore Joe Biden, and Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, are socialists.

And you accuse me of lacking care in making arguments!!

A libertarian seeks to define a socialist as someone who believes its okay to tax people? Nope.

A libertarian may argue that it is not okay to tax someone, this is true. However they would clearly only include socialists as an example of such. They would be well aware that Ronald Reagan et al. thought taxation was legitimate. The question of whether it is okay to tax someone is a definition of their own point of view, and not of just one of many opposing points of view.

You will no doubt try to say "but if one definition applies..." but no one thinks that "okay to tax someone" defines socialism or socialists. If you can find standard usage that shows otherwise (i.e., shows that people uncontroversially hold that anyone who believes taxation is okay is necessarily a socialist) then fair enough. The arbiters of what is standard usage in a language are the compilers of dictionaries, so you know where to go for that definition.

And just a reminder, as you conveniently ignored this:

This page contains a perfectly valid usage of the term atheism as a philosophy:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-philosophy-of-atheism

This page, among many others shows that atheism is a question of philosophy:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/

This page shows the same thing but also discussed definitions nicely, and shows that atheism can be both philosophy and a psychological state:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Now look, you have argued this over and over, but you are getting nowhere. If atheism is not a philosophy OR if atheism is not philosophy, this can hardly be a new question. If it is the case that atheism is not philosophy, there must be an authority who has argued as such, no?

GIYF.

Turns out this whole argument comes about because of something Sam Harris wrote:

“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

Sam Harris is wrong though, as discussed above. His examples are wrong too. Astrology and Elvis are not fundamental questions about existence, whereas the existence of a god or gods is. We do have a word (several in fact) for people who would reject the truth claims of astrology, alchemy and the viability of Elvis. We have sceptics. We have the philosophy of rationalism and other such philosophies, and, of course, we have empiricism - a philosophy so pervasive that most of us no longer realise we hold to it.

"It is simply an admission of the obvious" neatly ignores the fact that the claim about the existence of deity may be obvious to him, but is clearly not obvious to all. A slip that his readers will usually miss, because they already agree with him. He also claims that we should not even have the word atheism at all. So if atheism is not philosophy, we might as well say there is no such thing as atheism.

Sam Harris may claim atheism is not philosophy and many people might quote him, but his is a minority opinion.

Why did he make the point? Simple. That is rhetoric, not argument.

>175 sirfurboy: I admit that I'm skimming most of your posts, but it seems to me that you're being too simplistic. In general if a word has multiple definitions then the "actual" meaning isn't the union of all the definitions. Instead the definition in play depends on the context of the conversation. So my atheism could be a philosophy in the sense of "my personal philosophy is to make hay while the sun shines" while at the same time not being a philosophy of the academic variety.

>178 jjwilson61: Absolutely correct, yes.

At the start of this line, message #104, I said:

"No, that goes too far, and can only be true if you very carefully define the term "philosophy" so as to exclude it. "

Which admits that it is possible to define the term so as to exclude it, because (as I said in message 104) there is more than one definition of philosophy in play.

Having said that, I have shown that atheism is studied in academia as philosophy, and I have shown that people, including atheists, happily refer to "the philosophy of atheism".

But your point is nevertheless correct. What it would be absolutely illegitimate for me to do is say "because it is so by definition 1, therefore the consequences of definition 2 apply" where definition 2 does not fit.

But I am not trying to do that. I am not trying to make any claims for atheism based on the word.

>173 sirfurboy:

I would understand all atheists to be atheists with respect to all religions. One cannot be an atheist with respect to one (theistic) religion and not another.

Your second sentence here modifies the first one with that parenthesis in the sense I was thinking about--there are non-theistic (arguably) religions, sometimes described as philosophies, or understood as such by their adherents. I think we agree on this.

As an aside, historically Christians were called atheists because they rejected belief in the official gods of Rome. (...) However, that usage does not capture the modern sense, and has not (to my knowldege) been used for millennia, nor ever in the English language.

Right, there are two aspects to the issue of naming--what we perceive ourselves to be (and therefore what we may call ourselves), and how others perceive us and how they label us. I mentioned before that fundamentalists (of any theistic religion) are known to qualify believers of other faiths as "infidels", whether meaning "not of our faith" or "godless"--or both. I don't think this practice or habit of mind has died out, although it may be more present in some circumstances (places, traditions) than other.

In my experience, in places where there is an iron custom of professing a faith and no freedom of thought to speak of, "atheism" doesn't compute at all. The idea that someone may not believe in god at all is still shocking to many people.

(Getting further off topic... witness the need, in actual or semi-theocracies, to interpret homegrown atheists as under influence of alien powers--as if it were literally inconceivable a rejection of theism may spontaneously arise in their tradition as well.)

>180 LolaWalser: "I don't think this practice or habit of mind has died out, although it may be more present in some circumstances (places, traditions) than other."

Indeed. It was what I was alluding to, also, when I spoke about in group bias. See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

This is something that never will fully die out, and can be found in any group - even a group that defines itself as merely not part of the panoply of other groups. It is a part of who we are as human beings. It is something we can guard against though.

It seems to me that fundamentalism is usually defined by oppositionalism. The term has changed over time, of course. Christian fundamentalism was a very specific term referring to a movement that sought to defend what it believed to be fundamentals of belief. What that movement became has allowed the characterisation to be applied elsewhere, but it means different things in different places.

The christian fundamentalism, however, set the scene. It was a movement that sought to defend what it saw as five fundamental views from liberal interpretations in Christian thought. These fundamentals were:

1. The infallibility of scripture (divine inspiration)
2. The virgin birth
3. The penal substitution theory of the atonement
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The historicity of the miracles of Jesus

Yet none of these are clearly fundamental in any way. 4 comes closest. Both 4 and 2 are in the Nicene creed so have a long history of orthodoxy, but probably only the resurrection is truly a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and even then, there has been discussion about what a bodily resurrection actually means, with early thought often favouring a spiritual resurrection. (see, for instance, the excellent Early Christian Doctrines -JND Kelly.)

Number 3 is a doctrine not fully expressed in Christian thought until the time of Calvin. The infallibility of scripture may have a long history but in the form defended by fundamentalists, it took someone like BB Warfield (see: The inspiration and Authority of the Bible - BB Warfield) to codify what was meant (and even then the fundamentalists often seem to have misinterpreted him).

Also remarkable is what the list leaves out. The creeds all start out with belief in God. That list says it is not even a fundamental belief! Why worry about the miracles of Jesus if his Lordship is not even a fundamental?

The list of the fundamentals of Christian fundamentalism tells us nothing about the fundamentals of Christianity. It rather tells us exactly what the fundamentalists wished to stand against. Those five "fundamentals" were directly chosen to oppose what the fundamentalists saw as the encroachment of liberalism.

Because they defined themselves in opposition to something, I think they created for themselves the in group bias and the aggressive approach we now associate with fundamentalism, and that we call fundamentalism in other religions and elsewhere too.

Incidentally, interesting what you say in your last couple of paragraphs. Maybe that, too, shows how in group bias easily shifts blame to out groups, because they cannot conceive that there is anything wrong with their own beliefs.

Well, for my part I wouldn't go as far as to presume that the existence of atheism proves there is (or that someone thinks there is) something wrong with a belief/beliefs. It seems to me that the notion of "wrongness", if applied to a religion as a whole and not some particular, specific tenet, loses relevancy. That is, while I have no problem thinking that the proposition that Jesus died and rose from the dead is wrong because dead people can't return to life, extrapolating from that to the "wrongness" of the entire religion isn't straightforward, imo. To believers faith is more than a system of propositions.

Atheism is certainly seen as a challenge to faith, but I think the political and social significance of that challenge matter more than the intellectual side. I think we dispose of the intellectual challenge fairly quickly by what you said, philosophical agnosticism. Intellectually honest people, be they believers or atheists, have no recourse but to recognise that we cannot know whether "god" created the universe, and downstream from that insoluble question, all the major religions are therefore building houses of cards. Intellectually honest believers know that they cannot know that their religion is true.

So that debate is short. But most ordinary people don't care more for intellectual honesty than they do for what their faith does for them. For them, and therefore implicating us all, the real battle with atheism takes place in the realm of the social and the political, not the philosophical.

>182 LolaWalser:

Thanks, Lola. That post makes a lot of sense to me - as you know, I come from a religious perspective. As you say, we cannot know God rationally or scientifically. To me religion is a narrative that helps us to navigate life.

>183 John5918:

As you say, we cannot know God rationally or scientifically.

Errr... I'm not against finding common ground, but that's not what I meant. I said we can't know whether "god" created the universe (i.e. whether god exists--I'd assumed the usual equation of these propositions), which next means we can't know that religions that include that premise are true.

As a believer, you make a leap of faith that god exists. That's the step that sets us apart. None of the assumptions after that one matter as much.

>184 LolaWalser:

Thanks for clarifying. Can't disagree with you there.

>177 sirfurboy: A: Have you considered the question of the existence of a god or gods -- (i.e. a philosophical question as per definition 1)

1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Why is that a philosophical question and not the existence of the Higgs boson or the age of the universe? It's certainly not necessarily part of an academic discipline. From the other side, if someone avers the existence of a god by personal contact, I don't see that answer as a philosophical one; if Thomas says he traveled with a guy who healed people by touching them and raised Lazurus from the dead, therefore he met God, that's an answer from personal experience, not philosophy.

A libertarian seeks to define a socialist as someone who believes its okay to tax people? Nope.

A libertarian may argue that it is not okay to tax someone, this is true. However they would clearly only include socialists as an example of such. ... no one thinks that "okay to tax someone" defines socialism or socialists.

"Extreme antisocialist groups, such as the Future of Freedom Foundation, consider any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation to be socialist." The Everything Guide to Understanding Socialism One might as well say that no philosopher would be so stupid as to claim that everything thought-out was philosophy, but whoops, you already brought up that quote. Words that are used as attacks tend to lose clear meaning.

If you can find standard usage that shows otherwise (i.e., shows that people uncontroversially hold that anyone who believes taxation is okay is necessarily a socialist) then fair enough.

People don't uncontroversially hold anything about socialism. That's part of the point, that words don't have nice neat meanings, and controversial words thrown as political slurs tend to lose all meaning.

The arbiters of what is standard usage in a language are the compilers of dictionaries, so you know where to go for that definition.

Look up linguistic descriptivism. Dictionaries haven't tried to be arbiters of standard usage in 50 years. 50 years. And if you had ever tried to define anything non-trivial, you would understand that definitions often but vaguely encapsulate what people mean by a word, and a lot of time that's because what people mean by a word is not clearly defined at all.

This page, among many others shows that atheism is a question of philosophy:

So if an encyclopedia of war contains an article on Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill is a question of war?

Turns out this whole argument comes about because of something Sam Harris wrote:

Or because of an objection to how philosophers tend to claim all thought as their field and have a bad habit of ignoring and disrespecting empiricism and other ways of finding out about the world.

>186 prosfilaes:

I asked "Where has A or B erred."

Your reply was to quote and challenge this line:

A: Have you considered the question of the existence of a god or gods -- (i.e. a philosophical question as per definition 1)

And that settles the matter in question at that point. The "a philosophy", "is philosophy" distinction is a red herring. You find the point of contention exactly where I find it. The question is only whether the existence of God or gods really is a matter for philosophy. Is it a philosophical question?

You quibble with definition 1, but now we are agreed where the point of contention lies, so the matter is simply dispensed with.

The question of the existence of a god or gods is uncontroversially a matter for philosophy, as I demonstrated in the original message on the matter, message #104, and as I showed again in messages #175 and #177. Each time I quote these, you simply ignore them. You simply do not address them (except with the Churchill quote I place at the end of this message, but which fails to consider what they say at all), and yet there is your answer. The matter is settled.

Atheists have been calling their position a philosophy since at least 1916:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-philosophy-of-atheism

And they still do, when they say things like "Atheism is a philosophy born of reason":

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/op-ed/aspirational-atheism

The Internet Encylopaedia of Philosophy has an entry for atheism:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/

As does the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

You will study atheism on any philosophy course pretty much anywhere. Here is the atheism syllabus for Sacramento state, chosen entirely at random. The syllabus is from their module, Philosophy 192.

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mccormickm/AtheismSyllabus.htm

And as I said before, if there were really any doubt about whether atheism were a philosophy or not, you would expect there to be good resources and arguments on that, but in fact, all we find is my previous quote from Sam Harris, where he is making a rhetorical point in his 2005 Atheist manifesto. The question appears to have been entirely uncontroversial before 2005, and it is only readers of the Atheist Manifesto who are now arguing the point.

Yet, as I said, Sam Harris is wrong. I explained why he is wrong, and you again chose not to quote that part of my message.

It is time to stop kidding yourself. This is a silly waste of time. You are refusing to deal with the very clear refutation of the position you have adopted. You keep trying to score points on this or that part of the argument, but the matter is settled. It is just patently obvious from the above that the question of the existence of a god or gods is very much a philosophical question. And so what? Why does it even matter?

I do not understand why you keep coming back to this question. You have not explained what your problem with this is. Why should anyone even care that atheists always have and still do call their views "a philosophy"? Do you think universities should stop teaching atheism on their philosophy courses? Do you thing Stanford should edit their definition of atheism to somehow make some point? How so?

*

I will address a couple of points you make, not because they add anything to the above, but because it is only fair I clarify my position on them.

"Extreme antisocialist groups, such as the Future of Freedom Foundation, consider any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation to be socialist."

Right, so what this tells you is that, to the Future of Freedom Foundation, schools (for instance) are a socialist operation. That definition does not actually say they think I am a socialist for being content with government funded schools. I don't see any evidence that they would argue that.

Yet if I am a socialist to the members of some hypothetical group F because I believe in government funded schools, then I have no problem with that. Indeed it often amuses me when people in the US use "socialised medicine" as a term of abuse for a national health service, yet don't argue for the end of a "socialised school system". Amusing as that may be, all it tells you is that by their definition, to members of F only, I am considered a socialist. That tells you something about group F, not about the definition of socialism.

It also makes the point that F may seek to demonise an out group (F') by labeling them all with a term they consider pejorative. The term may apply, and it may not, but here we are interested in the question of why they would do that. That was the point of this illustration, and you have just made that point for me.

Members of F' may wish to argue they are not socialists, and may wish to then narrow down the very wide definition of socialism adopted by group F. So of course, there could be debate about what is a socialist. This, I posit, is why people might argue that they don't want their view to be considered philosophy. Perhaps they see that term as pejorative.

In fact this whole line is dismissable. No one in this debate actually has argued that the term philosophy is pejorative. I have asked you repeatedly why you don't want atheism considered philosophy and you have not answered. Lola did answer and denied it was because the term was pejorative, so the socialism analogy, whilst interesting, turns out to be irrelevant.

As we have seen above, it is not some extreme religious group telling us that atheism is a philosophy. If it were, we might say "to group R, it is philosophy, but I don't think so because x,y,z, and because no one in R' actually thinks it is so".

It is not just religious people using this definition. It is atheists themselves (quoted above). It is professors of philosophy, it is my next door neighbour. It is everyone. It is not a controversial position, except to Sam Harris and to people who think that Sam Harris' rhetorical point should act as an actual definition, excluding all the others. As I said at the start, Sam Harris' point (I did not realise it was his point, but it is) can only be true if you so carefully define the term "philosophy" as to exclude all the other definitions.

This is what the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy has to say about Sam Harris et al., btw:

If atheism is usually and best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist, then what, one might wonder, should philosophers do with the popular term, “New Atheism”? Philosophers write articles on and have devoted journal issues (French & Wettstein 2013) to the New Atheism, but there is nothing close to a consensus on how that term should be defined. Fortunately, there is no real need for one, because the term “New Atheism” does not pick out some distinctive philosophical position or phenomenon. Instead, it is a popular label for a movement prominently represented by four authors—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—whose work is uniformly critical of religion, but beyond that appears to be unified only by timing and popularity. Further, one might question what is new about the New Atheism. The specific criticisms of religion and of arguments used to defend religion are not new. For example, an arguably more sophisticated and convincing version of Dawkins’ central atheistic argument can be found in Hume’s Dialogues (Wielenberg 2009). Also, while Dennett (2006) makes a passionate call for the scientific study of religion as a natural phenomenon, such study existed long before this call. Indeed, even the cognitive science of religion was well established by the 1990s, and the anthropology of religion can be traced back at least to the nineteenth century. Shifting from content to style, many are surprised by the militancy of some New Atheists, but there were plenty of aggressive atheists who were quite disrespectful to religion long before Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. (Dennett is not especially militant.) Finally, the stereotype that New Atheism is religious or quasi-religious or ideological in some unprecedented way is clearly a false one and one that New Atheists reject. (For elaboration of these points, see Zenk 2013.)

You say: Dictionaries haven't tried to be arbiters of standard usage in 50 years.

I expected you would quibble with that. Yet you have confused "arbiters of standard usage" with "arbiters of standard language". Dictionaries follow usage. Usage is king. If people use a word in a way, and if that word is understood by the readers, and if it is found in sufficient sources of sufficient quality to satisfy the dictionary compilers, then in goes the word with that definition.

The arbitration here is the work the dictionary compilers do in tracking down and evaluating the sources where the word, with that meaning, is found. Once they agree that a word is in standard usage, to the satisfaction of their selection criteria, they then try to carefully capture the definition of the word as it is widely understood.

That is why the definitions are useful. They are what people understand by the term. They are a description of the standard usage of the language. In some cases the definitions are caveated because they mean different things to different people. In other cases they are widely understood. The most common and widely understood definition is usually listed first, and compilers of dictionaries are in a position to know which definitions are most common, because that is their job.

Oh, and sometimes they even include examples of the term as it is widely used. See for instance the Cambridge English Dictionary entry for atheism, which includes this gem of an example:

"Atheism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism

You say: So if an encyclopedia of war contains an article on Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill is a question of war?

What does that even mean? A man cannot be a question of war, because a man is not a question. He can be a man of war, or a warrior though, and even though many might think a warrior must actually be a combat soldier, it is not controversial to consider Churchill as a warrior. See:

Churchill Warrior: How a Military Life Guided Winston's Finest Hours - Brian Lavery

You say: Or because of an objection to how philosophers tend to claim all thought as their field and have a bad habit of ignoring and disrespecting empiricism and other ways of finding out about the world.

LOL! But... but...

Empiricism is a philosophy!

/me screams and runs away in horror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism.

>187 sirfurboy: The question is only whether the existence of God or gods really is a matter for philosophy. Is it a philosophical question?

Once again, you work to blur fine distinctions. It certainly is a question that philosophy takes up, but that doesn't arrogate it exclusively to the realm of philosophy.

The "a philosophy", "is philosophy" distinction is a red herring. You find the point of contention exactly where I find it.

I doubt that, because again, you have no "point" of contention; you have continually rephrased the field of discussion, including in the first two sentences I quote above.

Amusing as that may be, all it tells you is that by their definition, to members of F only, I am considered a socialist. That tells you something about group F, not about the definition of socialism.

For all your arguing about philosophy, you don't seem to have studied it. There is no "the definition" of socialism; there's but a web of not necessarily consistent understandings. Linguists and psychologists have found that humans don't really tend to use definitions, tending to have prototypes; an ostrich is a bird, but a robin is more of a birdy bird. Even if we assume that a person has a consistent meaning for a word they use, that doesn't mean there's one unified definition. Lexicographers would not agree, because group F are people using a word, therefore their definition of a word has to be accounted for in the understanding of the definitions of socialism.

I expected you would quibble with that. Yet you have confused "arbiters of standard usage" with "arbiters of standard language".

An arbiter is "A person or object having the power of judging and determining, or ordaining, without control; one whose power of deciding and governing is not limited." Dictionaries do not govern or decided; they just record.

So if an encyclopedia of war contains an article on Winston Churchill, Winston Churchill is a question of war?

What does that even mean?

Exactly. Then why was that a valid argument when you used it?

I have asked you repeatedly why you don't want atheism considered philosophy and you have not answered.

And yet you quote my answer.

Empiricism is a philosophy!

Duh. Who cares? It's not a philosophy that philosophers tend to embrace. People who embrace the philosophy of empiricism tend to head for science, not philosophy as a field of study.

>188 prosfilaes: "Once again, you work to blur fine distinctions."

No, you are re-opening a settled matter, and again and again and again you are simply deleting the clear refutation of your position without comment.

The original claim in dispute is:

"Atheism is not a philosophy at all." (see message #104).

You claim I have rephrased the discussion, but no. The point at issue is and has always been that one. My argument from the start and in every message is that this statement goes too far. Although I admitted it was not a single philosophy in the message preceding that quote, the writer of that said it was not not a philosophy at all. Yet it is, and that is the point that I demonstrated as early as message 104. Now you grudgingly accept it is a subject "philosophy takes up", and yet for some reason you still won't agree it is a philosophy at all. This despite the fact that Atheists themselves have been calling their position a philosophy since at least 1916:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-philosophy-of-atheism

And they still do, when they say things like "Atheism is a philosophy born of reason":

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/op-ed/aspirational-atheism

The Cambridge English Dictionary lists the common example sentence:

"Atheism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism

And you can go to a university and study the philosophy of atheism in very great depth from ontologies to ethics, although, as I said in the message before the start of this rather wearisome debate, it would be wrong to say there is a single atheist ontology, or a single atheist theory of ethics. Yet although we can see there are many atheist philosophies in the fullest sense, it is clear that there was never any controversy that atheism is a philosophy in some sense. If atheism is a philosophy in any manner that is meaningful (and the above links show clearly it is so, which is why you won't comment on them), then it is clearly false to say "atheism is not a philosophy at all.." QED.

Yet you won't let this go. You don't seem to notice that this is an absolute refutation of your argument. It is done. It is over. The point at issue is, and always has been, the statement "Atheism is not a philosophy at all." Do you actually, honestly, still believe that? or are you just answering here because you want to pop in a few more ad hominem arguments, distractions, attempts to derail the discussion, or logical fallacies? At what point do you concede that, as a simple matter of fact, the statement "atheism is not a philosophy at all" is wrong, unless you so carefully define what you mean by philosophy that you exclude all the other meanings that people have held for the term when they have said "atheism is a philosophy" from time to time?

Right now, you remind me of the black knight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Atheists still speak of atheism as a philosophy? I do not yield!
Emma Goldman wrote about the philosophy of atheism? It's just a flesh wound!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman

So look, I respect your tenacity. I enjoy your messages, and usually agree with what you have to say elsewhere. Some of your arguments here have been good, and your digression into logic touched on a fascinating topic. But the time does come when you have to say "enough is enough" and "I am not going to win this one." I suggest, for you, that time is now. I think you spotted a potential flaw in my argument (equivocation). I think I very adequately addressed and answered that, but you must surely see that whether you agree on that or not, the point of issue: "atheism is not a philosophy at all" is answered. It is done. It is time to sit back, take a deep breath, and move on.

*

More definitions:

You wrote: 'An arbiter is "A person or object having the power of judging and determining, or ordaining, without control; one whose power of deciding and governing is not limited."'

First hit from Google's dictionary:

a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
"the Secretary of State is the final arbiter"
synonyms: adjudicator, arbitrator, judge, umpire, referee, assistant referee, linesman, line judge;

a person whose views or actions have influence in a particular sphere.
"an arbiter of taste"

So when I said the compilers of dictionaries are arbiters of usage, I was using the term primarily with the sense of definition 2 there, although also definition 1 inasmuch as they are the ultimate authority of what goes into their dictionary. Nevertheless, and before you go off trying to argue for one specific definition over the others, I would simply point out that I have clarified exactly what I meant by the term, and described how dictionaries are compiled. Any argument now is simply over whether I was right to use the term "arbiter" when describing the process of judging against selection criteria, and that argument is easily forestalled. Inasmuch as it allowed you to think I was saying something other than what I meant to say, the choice was sub optimal (even if that is, in part, because you seem determined to assume the worst interpretation for each thing I say). I trust the clarification has settled the matter.

Then, on the Churchill is a warrior, not a question of war issue, you say: Exactly. Then why was that a valid argument when you used it?

I never said that the question of the existence of a god or gods was a man of philosophy.

Syllogistic logic could show you where you went wrong with that one!!

When I pointed out: Empiricism is a philosophy!

You replied:

Duh. Who cares? It's not a philosophy that philosophers tend to embrace. People who embrace the philosophy of empiricism tend to head for science, not philosophy as a field of study.

LOL! When in a hole, stop digging. I already pointed out in this thread that empiricism is so widely embraced, in the academic field of philosophy and everywhere else, that most empiricists do not even realise they hold to the philosophy. And you prove the point:

People who embrace the philosophy of empiricism tend to head for science

People study things for many reasons, but here you imply that those holding to the philosophy of empricism tend to be scientists. Not so, because you perhaps do not realise how endemic the philosophy of empricism is, at least in Western philosophy. And let's not equivocate over the term philosopher. If a scientist is an empircist (as they almost all are) they are also a philospher inasmuch as they hold to the philosophy of empricisim. In the general sense of one who holds to a philosophy, they are philosophers, although I have avoided the term because that would confuse them with the academic field of philosophy, of course.

Did you think we were argung that only philosophers could be atheists? The term "philospher" is one you keep bringing up, but it is not the point at issue. Empiricism is a philosophy. And, just to throw more straw on the fire, science was once termed and can still be considered to be "natural philosophy"!

So it is not true that "atheism is not a philosophy at all" but that does not mean that atheism is only the preserve of the academic field of philosophy.

No one ever suggested otherwise.

>189 sirfurboy: But the time does come when you have to say "enough is enough" and "I am not going to win this one."

Perhaps the problem is the whole concept of one party or the other having to "win this one" rather than simply seeking a better understanding of the other's point of view? Why does anyone have to "win"?

>190 John5918: "Why does anyone have to "win"?"

Indeed. They don't have to. Which is why sometimes it is good to take a deep breath and move on.

I would say, however, that I have indeed gained a much better understanding of why some people are saying now that atheism is not a philosophy (not here so much, but from reading around the subject). I had not been aware of (or had forgotten) those words in "the atheist manifesto," but it appears that many have taken them to heart and this argument that atheism is not a philosophy has been taken up in various places.

I would just say, "beware of people who say they do not hold any beliefs*". It seems to me that there is an agenda there. A manifesto maybe.

*I think it best I caveat that by "belief" I mean "a proposition or its negation that is held to be true". I don't mean religious belief.

What atheist manifesto?

>192 LolaWalser: https://samharris.org/an-atheist-manifesto/

>193 sirfurboy:

Aha, thanks. I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that people who don't think of atheism as philosophy have picked up this notion from Sam Harris. It's really not such an exceptionally difficult or extraordinary way of thinking about atheism as you seem to think. I hasten to add, however, that I'm still not clear on why mikevail's original statement caused such confusion in the first place, so all this is probably futile...

Maybe consider this as a starting point: that it's not about one side or the other being flatly right or wrong about atheism, but that the perspectives are so different they appear to be at odds, when it's more that the premises and emphases are different.

If atheism were that elephant in the Sufi tale, in which five blind men grab at the different parts of the animal and describe a wildly different object--that's what this conversation reminds me of. :)

>194 LolaWalser:
"Aha, thanks. I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that people who don't think of atheism as philosophy have picked up this notion from Sam Harris"
Absolutely, I know who Harris is bit I've never read anything he's written nor listened to any of his podcasts. I doubt if many atheists rely on him to do their thinking for them.

>191 sirfurboy:
"I would just say, "beware of people who say they do not hold any beliefs*". It seems to me that there is an agenda there. A manifesto maybe."

In a nutshell, this is what I'm saying;

Person A says "I follow Christian Theistic philosophy and believe its tenets to be true "

Person B says "I reject that truth"

This is an athiestic position. If you disagree we can stop here. You know nothing else about B. Are you confident that you can state B's philosophical beliefs? Does B adhere to the philosophy of Atheism?

>194 LolaWalser: " I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that people who don't think of atheism as philosophy have picked up this notion from Sam Harris."

I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but I cannot find any record that anyone claimed atheism is not a philosophy prior to 2005. Sam Harris' books and writings are popular and polemical, and so his ideas have spread widely, much as Dawkins ideas have. Dawkins spoke a lot about "memes". The thing about memes is that we often have no idea where they came from when we repeat them. The proposition "atheism is not a philosophy" is a meme, so someone repeating it now might have no idea it originated with Sam Harris. That does not mean it didn't.

But I could be wrong on the origin of the term - I just see no evidence that I am. All evidence I have found points back to publication of his atheist manifesto as the first such usage in print.

You also said: "Maybe consider this as a starting point: that it's not about one side or the other being flatly right or wrong about atheism, but that the perspectives are so different they appear to be at odds, when it's more that the premises and emphases are different."

But, of course, I agree with that. Mikevail's original statement was "Atheism is not a philosophy at all" and I said this can only be true if you define the word "philosophy" in such a way as to make it true, by excluding the other definitions and understandings of the word that have been used from time to time (by atheists themselves no less).

From one perspective it is certainly true that atheism is not a philosophy. If we say a philosophy is ontology, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, brought together in a single coherent world view. then atheism is merely a single proposition in a larger philosophy (such as nihilism). But that is not the only way the term is understood, and inasmuch as any inquiry about questions of existence is philosophical in nature (and we have clear evidence that it is), atheism can be considered (and is considered) to be a philosophy.

This ought not to be controversial, but Sam Harris' atheist manifesto is making a polemical point which is, ultimately, wrong. I discussed it in message 177 in case you skimmed past that (I am well aware most people will have skimmed a lot!) He is not just saying that we should not call the question of the existence of God "philosophy". He says that those who answer the question "I do not believe that proposition" are not doing philosophy, because that is the default position. This appears to be what mikevail is asserting in message 195 above too (although with an interesting new twist I will discuss in a second - perhaps he is not saying that at all).

But consider: there is a jar filled with coins. Person A looks at the jar and says "I believe there are an odd number of coins in the jar". B looks at the jar. If B asserts A is wrong, and there are an even number of coins in the jar, then B has taken the opposite position to A, and is expressing a belief as surely as A is. The default position for B to take is not "there are an even number of coins" but "I have no way to know whether the number of coins are even or odd". B might also take a neutral position by simply saying "I do not care about this question".

Note this is true even when the probability that A is right is low. If A estimates the number of coins to be 897, and B says A is wrong, then B has asserted the position "it is false to say the number of coins is 897". B, in that scenario is likely correct, but may be wrong. To take no position on this question, B must say "I do not know whether A is right or wrong". B could also do some mathematics to estimate the probability that A is wrong, but that estimate turns out to be non trivial. Is the jar deceptive? How good are people at estimating the average? Are estimates normally distributed around a mean and is the mean guess close to the actual value? Has A already secretly counted or weighed the jar to determine the answer? Without further work, all we have is a finite probability that A is wrong. An assertion that A is wrong based on the probability is still taking a position. The null position is simply "I don't know how many coins are in the jar". and thus "I don't know if A's assertion is right or not".

Some kind of agnosticism, or an apathetic approach to the question is the default position. Atheism, be it strong atheism or weak atheism, is taking a position. A philosophical position.

But some people might consider an apathetic position to be a form of atheism. Some have given the apathetic position a label now. JGL53 quoted it above. Is apatheism atheism? Just as philosophy has more than one definition, so does atheism. Inasmuch as you admit apatheism to be atheism, you may argue that that form of atheism is not a philosophy. Even then it may go too far to add "in any way" now that apatheism has been named, but someone with a truly apathetic approach to the question, who does not even consider the question, is not doing philosophy.

That might be Sam Harris' point, but it is not a point readers can own. If they are reading the atheist manifesto, they are almost certainly considering the question. Sam Harris is making a polemical point but he is mischaracterizing his own position when he does so.

In any case I caveated my discussion above and spoke only of those who had considered the question and arrived at a view that there is no god nor gods. That excluded apatheism and agnosticism.

Agnosticism has various forms too. Some forms are philosophical, and others are perhaps closer to apatheism. The view that the question of the existence of a god or gods cannot be proven nor disproven is a philosophical form of agnosticism. It has addressed the question and arrived at the view that the question of existence of deity is unanswerable.

So to this:
>195 mikevail: you wrote:

In a nutshell, this is what I'm saying;

Person A says "I follow Christian Theistic philosophy and believe its tenets to be true "

Person B says "I reject that truth"

This is an athiestic position. If you disagree we can stop here. You know nothing else about B. Are you confident that you can state B's philosophical beliefs? Does B adhere to the philosophy of Atheism?

I do disagree it is (necessarily) an atheistic position and clearly so. Person B could be an atheist, but he could also be a Hindu, a Muslim, A Buddhist etc., so rejection of Christian theistic philosophy does not make someone an atheist.

We can rephrase it without the word "Christian" and it is better, but it is still messy because we are not clearly defining the propositions(s) being rejected.

To be a theist of any persuasion, one must accept the proposition "deity exists". If that is proposition P, then P' is "it is false that deity exists".

(Here I use "deity" as a short hand for either of the propositions "god exists" and "gods exist". That appears to conflate two propositions, but we could also restate as "a god exists" because, if there are multiple deities, then it is necessarily true that there is at least one deity. Thus it is reducible to a single proposition. It could also be understood as the proposition that the number of gods is non zero).

So we have a proposition P held by all types of theist. We have P' held by an atheist. That is the very definition of an atheist: one who rejects the proposition P above.

Your phrasing is clear. "I reject P" is "I accept P'" (i.e., "I accept NOT P"). In rejecting P you are saying "it is false that P", which is the same as P'. Yet you may not have intended that. It is possible to say "I do not accept P" and yet not accept P'. You don't reject P, you merely do not accept it. You may say "the truth of either P or P' is unknowable", or maybe you say "I have no interest in even considering whether P or P' is true". See above, about how these are not atheistic positions.

So if B rejects the proposition P, you ask "Are you confident that you can state B's philosophical beliefs?" and my answer is no, not in full. All I can say is that in rejecting P and asserting P', person B is philosophically an atheist.

Proposed roof design captures past (bees, rooster statue, even the French Revolution when Cathedral housed a farmers' market), as well as the future--in making good and beautiful use of the Cathedral as inspirational source of renewable energy. Use of crystal recalls but doesn't seek to be the old roof: reminds me of the searchlights where the World Trade Building once stood. (See illustrations at website.) Preservation is great, but this design is thrilling! IMHO.

Architect creates stunning solar powered re-design of Notre Dame spire made with crystal glass that has a garden at the top the 850-year-old cathedral
Chris Dyer | 7 May 2019

Vincent Callebaut came up with the innovative new eco-friendly proposal for the destroyed Notre Dame spire
The architect re-designed the 850-year-old cathedral roof that collapsed during the blaze that gutted the site
His plans include a special crystal glass roof on the curved spire that would feed electricity into the building
Leftover energy could then be re-distributed to nearby buildings for free and fruit and veg could also be sold

...award-winning architect (Vincent Callebaut) has unveiled his grand plans for the fire-damaged Notre Dame cathedral spire which would make it solar powered and even include a garden to grow 21 tonnes of fruit and vegetables each year.

...producing more energy than it consumes...through a special crystal glass on his incredible curved spire, which would absorb light and use it to power the building

...Describing his futuristic design, Mr Callebaut said: 'As we start thinking about Notre Dame's reconstruction, questions arise as to how we can architecturally summarise the human intelligence of our era and depict the prospects of Catholicism.

'How can we write the contemporary history of our country, but also that of science, art and spirituality together? It is not enough to reproduce the past as it used to be; we must project ourselves towards a desirable future. Thus, we seek to present a transcendent project, a symbol of a resilient and ecological future that offers the city of Paris a set of solutions.'

Mr Callebaut's incredible plans include a 'thermal buffer space' in the rooftop spire, which would store hot air in the winter to insulate the building and has vents to allow fresh air in during the summer months.

He has even planned for the iconic rooster statue, which stood proud atop the spire before being dented during the collapse, to be returned to its former position once again.

Mr Callebaut, of Paris, said: 'The idea is use this new architectural 'graft' to turn Notre Dame into a positive energy building, designed to produce more energy than it consumes.

'The rooster located and found in the rubble the day after the disaster will crown the spire again; in this position, it should remain the 'spiritual lightning rod' and protector of the faithful.'

Other proposals include architects Studio NAB who come up with the concept of turning the damaged roof into a giant greenhouse.

It would also come with an apiary that takes the place of the spire to house the 180,000 or so bees that survived the devastating blaze.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7002291/Stunning-solar-powered-design-N...

>189 sirfurboy: "Atheism is not a philosophy at all." (see message #104).

You claim I have rephrased the discussion, but no. The point at issue is and has always been that one. My argument from the start and in every message is that this statement goes too far. Although I admitted it was not a single philosophy in the message preceding that quote,

Then you conceded that statement. It is not a philosophy. If this is a win or lose situation with that as the statement, you lost. The words "at all" may have rhetorical effect, but they have no actual impact.

That's why I keep coming back to this argument, because you conceded that point, and you argued all sorts of reframings, but then you come back and claim you won that point.

Now you grudgingly accept it is a subject "philosophy takes up"

I've always accepted that. See >131 prosfilaes: and >148 prosfilaes:. That's obvious.

Not so, because you perhaps do not realise how endemic the philosophy of empricism is, at least in Western philosophy.

Again, words don't have one clear meaning. Every human, every thinking creature, believes in what it sees, in some sense, follows the philosophy of empiricism. But, philosophers, e.g. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ , still find it useful to talk about empiricism and compare it to other philosophies that people might hold. People who believe what is important is what can be seen and measured tend to go to fields of seeing and measuring, and people who believe that one can find important stuff sitting on one's ass tend to go to fields where seeing and measuring aren't part of the curriculum, like philosophy.

"Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today. "

is an example of an anti-empiricism statement, by placing "thought that has been thought out" as superior to all other forms of understanding, and implicitly dismissing observation as irrelevant.

And let's not equivocate over the term philosopher. If a scientist is an empircist (as they almost all are) they are also a philospher inasmuch as they hold to the philosophy of empricisim.

So when I complain that part of my problem with philosophy is that philosophers try to appropriate other fields of knowledge, you appropriate everyone to be philosophers. (A definition that my dictionary labels archaic, and Natural Philosophy historical.)

Ronald Reagan was a socialist. He signed the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, and Social Security is socialism. That's a reasonable definition, that the line between capitalism and socialism is when the government starts redistributing money. It is, however, one completely useless in American politics and casual discussion. If the words philosopher or philosophy or empiricism are to have meaning, they must separate something from something else, and something interesting for the field of discussion.

>198 prosfilaes:
The following is utterly vacuous:

"Ronald Reagan was a socialist. He signed the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, and Social Security is socialism. That's a reasonable definition, that the line between capitalism and socialism is when the government starts redistributing money. It is, however, one completely useless in American politics and casual discussion."

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh make their livings by such distortion, but people who think freely do not. '...the line between capitalism and socialism is when the government starts redistributing money.' Never mind the fact that lines are where and not when, the call for simpletons to support one's argument is an embarrassment.

Useless? Indeed.

>198 prosfilaes: Atheism is not a philosophy at all.

Is this really all coming down to what the meaning of 'a' is? The above statement could either be read as "Atheism can never be considered a philosophy" or "Atheism isn't 'a' philosophy, it can be part of many philosophies, or even no philosophy".

Let's say we dip both ends of a long stick in fresh dog crap and call one end of the stick "theism" and the other end of the stick "atheism".

What if pantheism is true?

If we are to pick a non-falsifiable belief then why is pantheism the ugly stepsister? Who fucking died and made theism/atheism the only viable choices?

Let's say that I am a pantheist and that I shit on both theism and atheism equally.

Are there any motherfuckers here who wish to step up and argue against pantheism?

And what would your argument be based upon?

>198 prosfilaes: "Then you conceded that statement. It is not a philosophy."

Not so fast. That is a non sequitur. From the start I made the point that it is not a single philosophy, and objected to the statement that it is not a philosophy at all. Why? Well because there are many philosophies that come under the name. Even if we just limit that to strong atheism and weak atheism, you will see the point. So if someone claims to be an atheist, I am not entitled to infer from that statement any belief or world view (beyond the philosophical position on the existence of deity). See the context of the discussion preceding message 104 to see why I felt it necessary to say that.

"The words "at all" may have rhetorical effect, but they have no actual impact."

On the contrary, they very specifically intend to exclude that atheism can be considered a philosophy by any definition, which is why I only needed to demonstrate that it is philosophy by one accepted definition for it to be called a philosophy.

Again, words don't have one clear meaning.

Yep. Of course, that doesn't excuse you for saying things like "because of an objection to how philosophers tend to claim all thought as their field and have a bad habit of ignoring and disrespecting empiricism and other ways of finding out about the world." as though empiricism were not a philosophy too. It is a philosophy - first and foremost, and, indeed, an important part of the philosophy of science.

To which someone might say "but science is not a philosophy at all" - and then we would start all over again, until we came to the realisation that this too is false. That is why you can also study the philosophy of science, or why "physics and philosophy" is a real subject that actually makes sense. (see, for instance, https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/physics-and-philos... ).

As for your repetition of this: "People who believe what is important is what can be seen and measured tend to go to fields of seeing and measuring, and people who believe that one can find important stuff sitting on one's ass tend to go to fields where seeing and measuring aren't part of the curriculum, like philosophy."

That, I am afraid to say, is nonsense. I didn't go into science because I thought what was important was seeing and measuring things. Moreover, in theoretical physics, mathematics, computational sciences etc., there is a lot of important work that comes from a process you describe as "sitting on one's donkey". Likewise, people do not go into philosophy because they don't think what can be seen and measured is important. You are guilty here of stereotyping. You also continue to act as if philosophy is the exclusive preserve of philosophers (presumably sitting in their ivory towers, cogitating and eating lunch, and with insufficient chopsticks to go round). That too is an error in my opinion.

I don't know why you are bringing the Chesterton quote back at this point. It does not appear to be relevant except inasmuch as it fuels your stereotyping. Stereotyping evidenced by statements such as: "philosophers try to appropriate other fields of knowledge". That may tell us something about you, but it tells us nothing about whether atheism is a philosophy at all.

And again, of course, what is most telling is what you chose to ignore in the previous message.

>201 JGL53: Could be that pantheism is one of the theisms.

>203 RickHarsch:

And what about panentheism? That one is arguably compatible with Christianity.

Deleted duplicate post. Funny, usually it doesn't allow a duplicate post.

>204 John5918: I think all good religious folk believe in panentheism. It's the adult part of religious belief.

>196 sirfurboy:

I didn't follow your exchange with prosfilaes so mean no reflection on that.

The way I see it, you overcomplicated enormously what is to me (and I suspect to mikevail as well but I'll stand corrected if not) a simple matter--and this, most of all, because you won't really listen to us. :)

"Atheism is not a philosophy" obviously strikes you, as it did not me, as some sort of extraordinary claim and now it seems you've even gone looking for its genealogical traces as a "meme". But I've (for example) been an atheist for more than a couple of decades before Harris published that "manifesto" (assuming the age of ten as the point when I knew consciously that I did not believe in god and the word "atheist") and did not, during that period, think of atheism as a-philosophy-OR-NOT-a-philosophy, at all. This discussion has turned an ordinary statement about atheism into an artificially isolated philosophical, logical proposition. You seem to assume more people are interested in philosophy per se than seems warranted to me.

If I say "my grandpa's philosophy is neither a lender nor a borrower be", I'm hoping the statement will be understood in the spirit, the register in which it's expressed, and not be taken to task for supposedly thinking my grandpa's like unto Kant and Schopenhauer.

It's this lack of recognition of register, of context, that I think has bedevilled the conversation from the start. I tried to explain why the context (atheism=Stalin) might have prompted the assertion that atheism isn't a philosophy. But then this assertion was taken out of context and treated like a logical proposition. It's not a problem of logic--or at least, it wasn't then. :)

As far as I'm concerned what Harris says is recognisable as a common atheist attitude, not some watershed idea we have been waiting for him (or whoever) to enounce so we could pick it up. He's not proposing something new, he is expressing something well known. Why is he saying what he is saying? You yourself recognise he is writing a polemic and that his statement belongs to some context other than abstruse philosophy.

Why is he, in this instance, this context, saying that atheism is not a philosophy? Because his polemic is talking about atheism not to philosophers but a bunch of ordinary people most of whom are NOT atheists (87%, he says, claim
never to have doubted the existence of god) and need to be disabused of a ton of prejudice and misconceptions about atheism. That it's not a "religion", Satan-worship, ideology or philosophy in the sense most ordinary people think of these things, as schools and systems of thought, political agendas and what not. That it's not difficult or "special", that everyday facts of life, plainly in view of anyone with open eyes, contrast starkly enough with what religion teaches.

His aim is to encourage a sceptical attitude among people, not give an academic view of "everything that the term "atheism" may mean".

>201 JGL53:
Are there any motherfuckers here who wish to step up and argue against pantheism?

OK, sure. Here goes:

There are many flavors of ice cream. But it's still ice cream.

>207 RickHarsch:

I think all good religious folk believe in panentheism. It's the adult part of religious belief.

I agree. I've seen and experienced serious good done in this spirit. I would be dishonest not to own it.

Do I contradict myself? Could be. OK. As a good guy said: Very well then, I contradict myself.

I don't eat much ice cream. But i'm not going to get bent out of shape by people who do.

Still, though not much of a consumer, I believe that some flavors are better than others...

^

Lots of different expositions of panentheism abound but here's the first that came up on google:

"....pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe."

Criminy, maybe I am the stupid one on this forum, as I'll be god damn if I can see the difference. to wit:

God is all. That is plain enough. Then god is all, including but not exclusive to the universe - i.e., god contains the universe but extends further - into parts unknown to humans.

OK. What we call The universe is really only Our universe - i.e., there is more, unknown to us humans. And all, and I mean ALL, known and unknown, is god. Thus, god = The Universe - and use what fancy-ass terminology you likes but hit don't make no god damn difference nohow.

So then god is The Universe, IF we mean The Universe to mean all. Thus and therefore panentheism is redundant to pantheism. With six you get eggroll and with panentheism you get an extra "en". BFD and lol.

Here's the logical conundrum of run-of-the-mill theists - they claim to believe in god's existence and will further admit god must be omniscient to be god and even insist that "god is omniscient" and get insulted if someone disputes this belief.

Then they immediately turn around and say god created all sorts of stuff distinct and different from itself. So then god, logically, cannot be omniscient. Apparently they believe in a distinct and limited god like Zeus or Apollo or Loki or Quetzalcoatl or whatever. Thus their god is really a demigod.

In a nutshell:

God does not contain all? Then god is not god - and is a mere demigod, with demigods always being cheaper by the thousand, lol.

God does contain all? Then pantheism - or panentheism, if one prefers fancier jargon.

Addendum: I want to give a shout out at this point to my Zoroastrian friends. Like the Late Rodney Dangerfield they seem to get no respect. Are they just chopped liver or potted plants? I don't think so. Their belief in duotheism is logically consistent and morally/ethically appealing - unlike western monotheism, the donald trump of religions. lol.

>210 JGL53: I think it was originally yet another attempt by Christians to catch up in their philosophy to the Hindus.

>208 LolaWalser:
The way I see it, you overcomplicated enormously what is to me (and I suspect to mikevail as well but I'll stand corrected if not) a simple matter--and this, most of all, because you won't really listen to us. :)

I agree that the question has been massively overcomplicated. To me the rebuttal in message #104 is simply the last word on this matter. The proposition "atheism is not a philosophy" can only be true if you take a very narrow definition of philosophy that makes it true, ignoring all the richness of the term, and the ways in which atheism has, from the start, been called a philosophy as much by its proponents as its detractors, and for very good reason.

In 1916 Emma Goldman published her article, "The Philosophy of Atheism". This can be freely read here:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-the-philosophy-of-atheism

There is nothing more to say on this than it is incorrect to say, as mikevail said, that "atheism is not a philosophy at all".

Yet I reject that I have overcomplicated this. I have simply reasserted and defended what to me (and apparently to you) is a statement of the plain obvious. Am I guilty of not listening? I don't think so. I did skim through posts last week when short of time and thought at the time that you were saying the same as the others. However I have come ti understand (through listening to you) that your position is different. Mikevail's position appears to be close to Sam Harris. Your position is actually closer to mine, and I think any differences we see are over approach and use of language.


"Atheism is not a philosophy" obviously strikes you, as it did not me, as some sort of extraordinary claim and now it seems you've even gone looking for its genealogical traces as a "meme". But I've (for example) been an atheist for more than a couple of decades before Harris published that "manifesto" (assuming the age of ten as the point when I knew consciously that I did not believe in god and the word "atheist") and did not, during that period, think of atheism as a-philosophy-OR-NOT-a-philosophy, at all.

This discussion has turned an ordinary statement about atheism into an artificially isolated philosophical, logical proposition. You seem to assume more people are interested in philosophy per se than seems warranted to me.


I made no such assumption. I answered the replies as appropriate and in kind. Some people read my replies, most probably do not. I don't assume anyone is interested - I am simply replying to points being made.

But how ordinary is the statement "God(s) do(es) not exist"? Because that is, in fact, the one and only defining question of the philosophy of atheism. Beyond that, all further development can fork and grow, but the central proposition of atheism is just "there are no gods". (Strong and weak versions of that statement exist, but fundamentally that is the question).

The tricky word in that statement is not, as it turns out, "God/gods/deity" (although yes, that is quite tricky too). The real problem word is "exists". As soon as we talk about existence, we are in the realms of philosophy. We don't need to know that. We don't need to care about it. Yet we are.

The meaning of, which is to say, the exact definition of existence is probably the single most important and fundamental topic of ontology. There are whole books on the subject and long discussions about what it even means to discuss the subject. A question of existence, whether it be of God, us, or anything else is a philosophical question.

So, having understood that, how on earth could any discussion of whether it is true to say "atheism is not a philosophy at all" not be philosophical in nature?

It's this lack of recognition of register, of context, that I think has bedevilled the conversation from the start.

It is not just a matter of register. It is not just someone saying "my philosophy on life is enjoy yourself". We have clear evidence that the term "philosophy" is applied to atheism in a much more formal register. Look at these from Emma Goldman's treatise on the philosophy of atheism:

The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator.

So we have ontology and metaphysics now.

See also:

The philosophy of Atheism has its root in the earth, in this life; its aim is the emancipation of the human race from all God-heads,

Or she says:

Only after the triumph of the Atheistic philosophy in the minds and hearts of man will freedom and beauty be realized

Now it is interesting. Many people have taken issue with Emma Goldman over many things. She was a controversial figure, and you can imagine the response of religious people to the above quotes and other arguments she makes. Yet, to my knowledge, no one ever disputed with her that atheism was a philosophy at all. They didn't because that would be clearly in error and a waste of time.

But again, it is not register that is the issue here. Atheism has always been considered a philosophy in some formal senses, and only in one sense is it clearly not a philosophy. That one sense is the one we both excluded at the start, which is why we don't think that because one atheist group is, say, stalinist, that this is anyway representative of them all.

I tried to explain why the context (atheism=Stalin) might have prompted the assertion that atheism isn't a philosophy. But then this assertion was taken out of context and treated like a logical proposition. It's not a problem of logic--or at least, it wasn't then. :)


All arguments are problems of logic, whether we know it or not. One simply cannot argue without logic. It makes no sense to argue with someone who says that since unicorns are up, we are all sideboards. :)

However, I think you are objecting to the use of formal logic here. If so, as I said above, I am simply answering the points put.

In message #148, prosfilaes presented an argument that was a well known logical fallacy (denying the antecedent - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

I therefore responded: No, that is not how either logic or definitions work.

which is why prosfilaes, not me, introduced formal logic, by saying:
>166 prosfilaes: Definitions work by defining something and then talking about it. One rule of mathematical logic is that if p => A and p => NOT A, then NOT p. If you can prove A and NOT A (like the Russell set), then you've proved that your logic is inconsistent.

The riposte was, in fact, irrelevant, but it is an interesting side subject so I enjoyed writing message >167 sirfurboy:. Formal logic may not interest you, but to anyone interested in the subject, it is a fun digression into counterfactuals, material implication, paraconsistent logics and the Russell paradox. None of which say anything about atheism. That is simply a digression.

Beyond that message I don't think we have any formal logic. There are logical arguments - but all arguments must be logical if the inference made is necessary. An invalid argument leads to a fallacious conclusion, by definition. (And by fallacious, we mean it may be right, it may be wrong, but our argument gives no grounds to believe one or the other).


As far as I'm concerned what Harris says is recognisable as a common atheist attitude

Do we have any evidence the attitude was common before he wrote it?

You yourself recognise he is writing a polemic and that his statement belongs to some context other than abstruse philosophy.


And inasmuch as the polemic is illogical it should be rejected in the same way as every irrational polemic should be rejected.


Why is he, in this instance, this context, saying that atheism is not a philosophy? Because his polemic is talking about atheism not to philosophers but a bunch of ordinary people most of whom are NOT atheists


Nope, most of whom ARE atheists. His atheist manifesto is written to and for atheists, and his polemic will only strike a chord with people who find themselves broadly in agreement with him.

>212 sirfurboy:

But how ordinary is the statement "God(s) do(es) not exist"? Because that is, in fact, the one and only defining question of the philosophy of atheism.

This is your construction, this is YOUR argument. Mikevail didn't make that statement; I didn't make that statement.

What mikevail said was that atheism is saying "I don't believe that" to theism. Nothing more, nothing less. I have said from the very start that atheism is negative, empty, a denial and nothing more. Nothing more is necessary for a person to be an atheist.

As far as I can see, the discussion seems incapable to move productively from this point.

>213 LolaWalser: This is your construction, this is YOUR argument. Mikevail didn't make that statement; I didn't make that statement.

It is not my construction. It is literally the definition of atheism. You will recall in my last message that I said I thought your position was not so dissimialr from mine, and that our differences are about approach and use of language.. What I meant by that is that your definition of atheism is very broad. Your own position is, from what we discussed, closer to some form of agnosticism. We also discovered that you don't simply not believe, but your views have some nuance that we only began to explore.

Inasmuch as someone does not disbelieve in a god or gods, but simply does not believe, it is likely thay hold to some form of agnosticism - either as a psychological state (the question is unexamined), or as a philosophy (e.g. the view that the question cannot be resolved by logic or reason).

This is not some strange definition I am adding in late. In message #104 I quoted a source that starts of by defining what we mean by atheism. It says:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

The Encyclopaedia Britannica makes a similar point:

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

Some have cast the net more widely with the intention of capturing agnosticism within the scope of atheism. One can understand, perhaps, why they might do this but it is, in my view, illegitimate to do so for one very good rason. An agnostic who is philosophically agnostic can be religious. They can believe in a god through faith, and not through reason, having agreed with other agnostics that reason does not answer the question.

Those who simply do not examine the question and express no belief or disbelief in the question were excluded from consideration early on, when I specified we were only talking about people who had thought about the issue.

And then, to the question of whether "I don't believe that..." implies "I believe it is false that..." - if we have excluded agnostics, and thus are only talking about actual atheists, then my message to you, >196 sirfurboy: pertains. You did not reply to that one, but take a look at the part about the jar full of coins. Believing a proposition is false necessitates belief in the inverse proposition. The only way to simply not believe is to take no position on the question (whether it is because you think no position is possible, or because you don't care about the question).

>214 sirfurboy:

It is not my construction. It is literally the definition of atheism.

You're not arguing with dictionary definitions, but with people. It was a person who told you that atheism isn't a philosophy, but his saying "I don't believe that" to some theist statement. That person did NOT state "God/s don't exist/s". That's the key point.

Again, and I hope for the last time, I kept prodding you to acknowledge context, to consider WHY someone says "atheism isn't a philosophy". Weirdly, you seem to think it more likely that at least two adults, mikevail and me, don't know the meaning of atheism, philosophy, our own opinions, or how we came by them. Our ignorance seems to you more plausible than that you are missing our point of view.

Please don't take it as a slight if I don't address the bulk of your recent posts (I did read them). It's just that I honestly don't see the point. Perhaps a break from this discussion would help refresh the perspective? :)

>214 sirfurboy: I honestly don't mean to be flip, but as I read much of what is posted here and like to respect the poster until the point where it is no longer possible, I have to ask you: why do you care about this distinction so much? Complaints are sometimes made about long posts, but my only complaint about a long post is when it is noxious, dishonest, or in some way abhorrent. Yours are on a subject I don't care about either way; but I am curious about, let's call it your passion for this question.
(If it matters, I am an atheist...if it doesn't, I'm still an atheist.)

>215 LolaWalser: “It was a person who told you that atheism isn’t a philosophy...”

Yes. Actually, he said atheism isn’t a philosophy at all so it is irrelevant whether his view of the word is that it means something more than the standard definition, because it still includes the meaning of the standard definition. If he had said “to me personally, atheism is not a philosophy,” I would probably have ignored the comment. That would be a statement about his views, not about atheism as a whole and everywhere. However, the statement was a universal. He said atheism is not a philosophy at all. As we have seen, and as I said at the beginning, that statement goes too far unless you are very careful to define things in such a way as to make the statement true, excluding all the other meanings of the word philosophy. And, as it happens, of atheism too (although you would have to exclude the most literal definition of the word in that case).

I did not say you don’t know the meaning of atheism. I said that when you use the term atheism, you appear to mean something more by the term than I do. That is not a problem. Language is rich like that. That is why it is necessary to define our terms, and why in message 104 I did include a link to the definition I just quoted.

So it is wrong to assume that atheism, as defined in the sources I quoted, does not involve belief in a proposition. It does. That is the essence of what it is.

I also said that some cast the net more widely. Although I would not use the wider definition, for the reasons stated, it is clear that some would include (at least some) agnostics in their understanding of atheism. I have shown why I don’t include those when I speak of atheism, but it does not change the argument, because we only need consider those atheists who hold to the negation of the proposition to see that the statement “atheism is not a philosophy at all” is false.

I understand you are feeling frustrated. Please know that I do nt intend to frustrate you, or in any way belittle your views. I am just showing that one single proposition, made in one message, is false. That is no sleight on you or your beliefs. Really it isn’t.

>216 RickHarsch: " I have to ask you: why do you care about this distinction so much?"

The thing is, I really don't! To me it is a very long and convoluted argument about the obvious. There are other questions I am much more interested in, and I am frankly astounded how long this one has been going on. However, I like exploring issues, so if people are coming back with answers, questions, clarfications and points of view, then I want to consider them. I had a couple of questions when this kicked off:

1. Why would anyone even want to say that atheism is not a philosophy at all?
2. To what extent is the assertion right?

I was not aware of (or had forgotten) the Sam Harris reference I unearthed earlier. No one else quoted that, but what has interested me is how there does appear to be a new idea - dare I say a doctrine of a new movement in atheism - that atheism should not be considered a philosophy at all. Yet it is almost a self refuting one. If all atheists must now believe this new proposition, then we start to move towards a fuller definition of atheism as a philosophy with an orthodox understanding.

Of course it is not that. It never was. There is no atheist orthodoxy, and my use of the term "doctrine" is, in any case, a loaded term. Yet it is funny how ready people are to accept a point of view because it comes from the lips of someone they generally agree with.

So all questions turn out to be more complex on examination. If we cannot settle on something as simple as this, why would anyone think that an answer to the question of the existence of a god or gods is simple?

Doesn't this give us pause for thought?

>218 sirfurboy: Thanks. It doesn't give me pause for thought, but I think I understand you better. This touches on an issue, or falls within the scope of an issue you care a lot about. That explains the indefatigability.

Atheism is obviously in a different category from the various theisms, which probably is all anyone needs to know about this whole argument. If you believe what a Roman Catholic believes, that certainly narrows the scope. What atheists believe is harder to pin down. Another difference is that most believers in some particular religion were raised within that religion. Most atheists arrived at their position in their own way. And most religions are to some degree evangelical, their religion at the very least a centripetal force in their lives. Atheists as far as I know don't find that commonality much to talk about. Atheists generally don't meet. They generally don't have rituals attached to their position vis a vis god God or a god. Religious folk meet.
As for atheism being a philosophy, obviously it can be a very important one, and obviously it is some part of a worldview. But for some, clearly it's the result of a simple thought process and little more than that, and not much part of the mental process.

>202 sirfurboy: From the start I made the point that it is not a single philosophy, and objected to the statement that it is not a philosophy at all.

Is two apples an apple? No. It may be weird to say that two apples is not at all an apple, but it's not wrong.

"because of an objection to how philosophers tend to claim all thought as their field and have a bad habit of ignoring and disrespecting empiricism and other ways of finding out about the world." as though empiricism were not a philosophy too.

Are you claiming that white supremacy is not a philosophy, or that philosophers approve of it? Just because something is a philosophy, doesn't mean that philosophers respect it or use it as a philosophy in guiding how they act themselves.

That is why you can also study the philosophy of science,

So what. That doesn't make science a philosophy. You can study the mathematics of quantum physics, but that doesn't make quantum physics mathematics.

If you want to say that all thought is philosophy, then say so. It will get ignored, but at least it will be a clear claim.

Moreover, in theoretical physics, mathematics, computational sciences etc., there is a lot of important work that comes from a process you describe as "sitting on one's donkey"

And mathematicians aren't scientists. Computer scientists are questionably scientists, but to the extent they are, Donald Knuth said "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." That is, he knew that he had to get off his ass and test the code before knowing it would work. And ask many physicists of what they think about string theorists, or other physicists who work from a desk and don't worry about experiments.

I don't know why you are bringing the Chesterton quote back at this point.

Did you try reading the context? You claimed that everyone is an empiricist.

Also >187 sirfurboy: I do not understand why you keep coming back to this question. You have not explained what your problem with this is. Why should anyone even care that atheists always have and still do call their views "a philosophy"? Do you think universities should stop teaching atheism on their philosophy courses? Do you thing Stanford should edit their definition of atheism to somehow make some point? How so?

But whenever anyone tries to explain what their problem is, you are hostile and dismissive.

You also continue to act as if philosophy is the exclusive preserve of philosophers (presumably sitting in their ivory towers, cogitating and eating lunch, and with insufficient chopsticks to go round).

In general, mathematics is done by mathematicians and science is done by scientists. This is not to say that non-mathematicians can't do mathematics, but most people might touch on it only in school. One can define mathematics in a way that humans and even other species engage in it, but the more usual and helpful definition is mathematics is what mathematicians do.

Likewise, you can blow up philosophy until it covers human thought, until we can discuss animals and how they philosophize, but a more usual understanding is that philosophy is what philosophers do. That is, 90% of humans don't philosophy, 9% do some marginal proto-philosophy, and 1% actually do some sort of philosophy.

Once you have philosophers, philosophy is what philosophers do. That's how meanings usually work. To assimilate science into philosophy, for example, means that scientists are philosophers, but not real philosophers. What they do is not as important as what people who actually get to call themselves philosophers do.

So, yes, philosophy is what philosophers do. It is not an exclusive preserve, but the cashier wondering if she should take from the register to buy food for her kid is not really doing philosophy.

>220 prosfilaes: 'So, yes, philosophy is what philosophers do. It is not an exclusive preserve, but the cashier wondering if she should take from the register to buy food for her kid is not really doing philosophy.'

How the hell would you know?

>217 sirfurboy:

So it is wrong to assume that atheism, as defined in the sources I quoted, does not involve belief in a proposition. It does. That is the essence of what it is.

Here you go again, telling us what we're to think and how we are to think.

You are no doubt familiar with Russell's "teapot" argument. How do we know there isn't a teapot orbiting a celestial body some place in the universe, how can we categorically reject the possibility of its existence? Do you disbelieve in Russell's teapot? If you don't agree or think or believe in this teapot, are you actually bothering to make a positive statement, that is, a statement positively asserting something, "The teapot DOES NOT exist"? If that seems to you like going too far for something too absurd to consider seriously, well, that's exactly what the question about god/s existence sounds like to an atheist.

I do NOT have to positively believe that god/gods does not exist, any more than I have to positively believe that there is no mile-long swizzle stick from outer space lying on the bottom of Loch Ness. I am allowed to assert my atheism, my a-teapotism, my a-swizzlestickism, simply by noting that I, for my part (and peace be upon my theist, teapotist, swizzlestickist co-citizens) believe no such thing.

I prefer not to. I have no need for that hypothesis. If someone gets evidence pointing to the existence of the teapot or the swizzlestick, I will reconsider my stance. If my research points to a necessity for the teapot or the swizzlestick to exist, I will reconsider my stance.

In the meantime, I am without the space teapot, Nessie's swizzlestick, and any and all god/s any theist can throw at me all week and a half.

>222 LolaWalser: Here you go again, telling us what we're to think and how we are to think.

I would never be so bold. You must think as you will. How we categorize your view, however, is a matter of language and usage.

However on the specific of your objection here, I think I see where you are going with this, because I have heard people say things like: "an atheist must have much more faith than a Christian/Muslim etc., because an atheist claims that they have proved there is no god anywhere in the universe." And, of course, that is not usually a good description of what we mean by the proposition "there are no gods".

You will recall I wrote this (I have added some emphasis):
But how ordinary is the statement "God(s) do(es) not exist"? Because that is, in fact, the one and only defining question of the philosophy of atheism. Beyond that, all further development can fork and grow, but the central proposition of atheism is just "there are no gods". (Strong and weak versions of that statement exist, but fundamentally that is the question).

What did I mean by strong and weak versions? I did not define it there - I was just flagging up that there are a range of interpretations. I recall saying something about it earlier in the discussion, but probably did not label the types as strong or weak there either, so let me define what I meant now, in the context of Russell's teapot.

Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof that a teapot is orbiting a celestial body does not lie with the sceptic but with the one making the extraordinary claim. He thus says that in saying "there is no such teapot", he is entitled to assert that proposition, because he is presented with no evidence of the teapot. If the teapot cannot be observed, discovered and interacted with by him in any way, and the one making the claim can offer no good evidence for the teapot, he is entitled to believe there is no such teapot. This is the weak form I refer to when I say there are strong and weak forms of that statement. It is weak, not because the argument is weak, but because it does not concern itself with the necessity of proving a teapot cannot exist. It is an inductive argument.

The strong form goes further (and is generally less popular, although you often see people jumping from weak to strong form and back without realising it). The strong form of the argument is that it is a necessary belief that no teapot exists. If you can find a deductive proof that demonstrates the impossibility of celestial teapots, then you have proved that the teapot does not exist. If the celestial teapot is impossible, then the celestial teapot does not exist. There are plenty of these deductive proofs, and anyone who holds to atheism because they argue that God's existence is impossible believes in the strongest form that God necessarily does not exist. As long as their proof is sound, the deduction is sound. This is necessary inference.

I have stated already that I believe all arguments for the existence of and the non existence of God are flawed, so I reject the strong form of atheism out of hand, but plenty of people do ascribe to the strong form. The weak form is, to my mind, the sounder formulation, but without getting into its merits or otherwise, we can recognise that someone who says "there are no gods" under the weak form is asserting a proposition as surely as someone who says "there is a god/there are gods".

Why? Well turn it on its head. Does anyone who believes in a god or gods actually know, categorically, without any doubt that they are right?

Well, there are ontological proofs of the existence of God. If a proof were sound, it would lead us to the necessary conclusion that a God does exist. Thus Russell actually once said: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" by which he meant that the existence of a god was therefore necessary. An unhappy state of affairs for him, so after further consideration, he proposed a subtle argument against it, and said: "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."

For Russell knew that there had to be a fallacy or else the existence of God is proven. I agree with Russell. There is a fallacy. I don't think any a priori arguments for the existence of God are sound, and I think that is also true of many/most religious people. If you ask them why they believe, I doubt you will ever hear anyone say "I was convinced by the ontological argument".

So most believers believe for other reasons. Their arguments are inductive. They argue from experience or whatever. Again, without getting into the arguments or considering their validity, it is clear that none of these arguments absolutely and categorically prove God's necessary existence. If they say "God spoke to me" and even if that were an audible voice, we could posit psychological arguments against that, or argue it may have been trickery or deception. Speaking of deception, Descartes demonstrated his own existence through Cartesian doubt, but his remarkable cogito ergo sum comes to a crashing halt at that point. It allows us to travel no further.

So when we say someone believes in the existence of a god or gods, we mean that in exactly the way we say someone believes that no gods exist. One is the opposite of the other. Both are propositions. Theists believe one, atheists believe the other. Someone who has simply not considered the question believes neither proposition, but an atheist believes a proposition in the same way a theist believes a proposition.

>220 prosfilaes: "Is two apples an apple? No. It may be weird to say that two apples is not at all an apple, but it's not wrong."

You have two apples. You look at one of them. Is it an apple at all? You look at them both - in what sense are they not apples at all? How has their plurality divested them of the quality and essence of appleness?

You will recall this was exactly the line of sophistry I wished to forestall when I said: "So when mikevail says " Atheism is not a philosophy at all" he either is simply agreeing with my statement (in which case why did he write it) or he is arguing that Atheism is not philosophy, in which case my answer stands."

Or to rephrase that in the light of the above 100 messages:

So when mikevail says " Atheism is not a philosophy at all" he either is simply agreeing with my statement (in which case why did he write it) or he is arguing that no instance of Atheism is a philosophy, in which case my answer stands.

That doesn't make science a philosophy.

The scientific method is a philosophy. It merits a rather long treatment in the philosophy of science. Philosophy underpins science, and again, this is not controversial. To what extent, for instance, does science tell us what is true? that is a deeply philosophical question.

Do we talk about science as a philosophy? Not much, these days - although we used to. But would it be true to say "science is not a philosophy at all"? Well that would be poorly phrased, because we are not clear what we are talking about and "science" is a very broad term. Still, it would be false, because there is a philosophy of science, among other reasons. If we narrowed the question and said "the scientific method is not a philosophy at all" that would be clearly and completely wrong.

And mathematicians aren't scientists

Not an empirical one, no. A good friend of mine is a Fellow of the Royal Society. His field is mathematics, and the application of his field is widely used in science and engineering. The field (rheology) can also be considered a branch of physics, which most people would accept is a science, even though what he does is mathematics. Rheology also involves measurement and observation.

As I said to you before, people choose their fields for a variety of reasons, and your stereotyping of "People who believe what is important is what can be seen and measured tend to go to fields of seeing and measuring, and people who believe that one can find important stuff sitting on one's ass tend to go to fields where seeing and measuring aren't part of the curriculum, like philosophy" is just a nonsense. It is an ad hominem attack on an academic discipline. A mathematician, as I have shown, can certainly care passionately about what is seen and measured. Again, you are guilty of stereotyping.

On Chesterton:
"Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today. "

is an example of an anti-empiricism statement, by placing "thought that has been thought out" as superior to all other forms of understanding, and implicitly dismissing observation as irrelevant.

Actually Chesterton's views on philosophy, and particularly on philosophers are a lot more nuanced than you suppose. It was his view that the thinkers and popular philosophers of the day, though very clever, were saying things that were nonsensical. He made his points with an enjoyable dry wit, even if you don't agree with him. Let's have the remainder of the quote now:

But man is always influenced by thought of some kind, his own or somebody else’s; that of somebody he trusts or that of somebody he never heard of, thought at first, second or third hand; thought from exploded legends or unverified rumours; but always something with the shadow of a system of values and a reason for preference. A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test.

I think there is rather more wisdom there than you assumed.

But whenever anyone tries to explain what their problem is, you are hostile and dismissive.

I am sorry you have read hostility into my replies. I assure you none was intended. I have several times said that I have respect for your views, often finding myself in agreement with you, and I was not just saying that. I do not know how you have assumed hostility. I have not resorted to the kind of name calling, foul language and accusations of lying that are the stock in trade of our resident hostile poster. (I think we both know to whom I refer).

But as we are talking about hostility, it was not me who said:

>116 prosfilaes: Philosophy is merely wankery, opinions from people who have decided that they can form reasonable opinions by sitting on their asses and bullshitting, and that those who actually look at the world are inferior and uninteresting.

Or:

>131 prosfilaes: "You are clearly not a "harmless drudge" and:

you demonstrate a complete lack of respect for how philosophy is widely understood, and instead prioritize the pompous arrogance of someone using "philosophy" as an excuse to dismiss everyone else's ideas.

and:

you join Chesterton in disrespecting everything else.

So if we are talking about hostility, you might want to ask yourself who is the hostile party here.

In general, mathematics is done by mathematicians

You seem quite caught up with the idea that philosophy is primarily the preserve of philosophers, and that (along with your stereotyping of philosophers) seems to lie behind a desire to deny that atheism is a philosophy. Yet I never said that philosophy was the exclusive preserve of philosophers. We are all capable of considering a philosophical question such as the existence of God/gods, and we all do.

And here you illustrate the point, when we consider the statement "in general, mathematics is done by mathematicians" which is blatantly false. In general, we all do mathematics all the time. Much of it is arithmetic of course, but everyone uses mathematics more than they know. Moreover many of us will need mathematics in some depth for our work. Whether it is the mathematics of statistics and probability, or trigonometry, calculus or whatever. Mathematics is everywhere.

Indeed, earlier today I did some mathematics for the pure fun of it. We can see a peninsula from the sea front here, and much of the land on the peninsula is low and below the horizon, so that it looks like a series of islands. That set me thinking today - how do I calculate the distance to a mountain on the peninsula if I stand at sea level and it just pokes above the horizon, and I know the height of the peak?

My solution for that equation, done purely for fun today, is that the distance to the mountain, d= (r+h)sin(acos(r/r+h)), where h is the height of the mountain, and r is the radius of the earth. There may be a simpler solution, but that seems to work. It works in reverse too. How far away can I see the sea level horizon if I stand on a point at height h? If I stand on the mountain and see a yellow strip of sand on the horizon, how far away is it? It is the same answer.

Now I did that calculation even though I am not an academic mathematician. I can do maths for fun, for work, for life without ever entertaining the idea that I am a mathematician any more than the next person.

I do note, however, that although I derived that equation myself on a piece of paper earlier today, I could only do so because I know some trigonometry. As soon as I turned the problem into a diagram of a right angled triangle, with a tangent to the "circle" of the earth, it became a simple pythagorean puzzle. I did not work out the sine function from first principles.

Pythagoras was the mathematician who thought this all out. Others have refined things since, and I just applied some principles. The same is true in philosophy, I suppose. Philosophers may figure some things out, and we may use their principles, but we never suppose that the philosophers own the whole domain of philosophy to the exclusion of others. We all do philosophy all of the time. We are all but dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants in any field of human endeavour.

So when we say someone believes in the existence of a god or gods, we mean that in exactly the way we say someone believes that no gods exist. One is the opposite of the other. Both are propositions. Theists believe one, atheists believe the other. Someone who has simply not considered the question believes neither proposition, but an atheist believes a proposition in the same way a theist believes a proposition.

No.

And that's MY last word on this matter.

You misquote me, omitting both important parts of what I wrote and the context.

Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out.

Philosophy is merely wankery, opinions from people who have decided that they can form reasonable opinions by sitting on their asses and bullshitting, and that those who actually look at the world are inferior and uninteresting. The Greeks could haver about atoms, but without actual study, they didn't know anything useful.

I've learned to have more appreciation for philosophy over time. But philosophers who act like they are "the" real thinkers, the go-to source for any subject, they still trigger that frustration. I'd rather have a political scientist who has looked at how people actually behave, instead of a political philosopher who might espouse "liberty" and then come up with a political system assuming some model of "rational" human that in reality would devolve into a brutal mess of petty warlords.

That is, I responded to wit with wit, and then clarified.

>224 sirfurboy: You have two apples. You look at one of them. Is it an apple at all? You look at them both - in what sense are they not apples at all? How has their plurality divested them of the quality and essence of appleness?

You look at the statuette of two apples, when you wanted a statue of The Apple. "This is not at all an apple!" you cry! Is that not true? Again, you dodge the literal and careful meaning of the words when it is useful to you.

It was his view that the thinkers and popular philosophers of the day, though very clever, were saying things that were nonsensical.

I've read some Chesterton, and noticed that he's one of those authors for whom the villain always disagrees with the author's opinions. Of course he thought they were saying things that were nonsensical; they disagreed with Chesterton, did they not?

And here you illustrate the point, when we consider the statement "in general, mathematics is done by mathematicians" which is blatantly false.

>220 prosfilaes: In general, mathematics is done by mathematicians and science is done by scientists. This is not to say that non-mathematicians can't do mathematics, but most people might touch on it only in school. One can define mathematics in a way that humans and even other species engage in it, but the more usual and helpful definition is mathematics is what mathematicians do.

Which is a failure to understand the proposition given to you. You may dislike a definition, but that does not make it false. "Mathematics is what mathematicians do" is a definition, one that many people would accept and functionally use. Surveying might use mathematics, but it's not doing mathematics.

Again, if your goal is to establish that atheism is too (a) philosophy, I don't think you have swayed anyone, but feel free to claim victory. I'm pretty sure we've all learning that trying to explain why people might disagree is fruitless.

>226 prosfilaes: "You misquote me, omitting both important parts of what I wrote and the context. "

No, you misquoute me, omitting what I wrote and the context. I was merely pointing out a hostile tone with examples. A point you did not even address, and deleted the examples. Is the hostility intentional? Why?

You look at the statuette of two apples, when you wanted a statue of The Apple. "This is not at all an apple!"

Continually you cattempt to change the terms of debate. It was apples, not statues. Apples doesn't work for you so now it is statues. Let me refute the statues one. You will remember that in an argument you may only use the terms in the conclusion that are found in the premises, so:

You look at the statue of two apples, when you wanted a statue of an apple. "This is not at a statue of an apple at all!" you say.

Yet clearly it is. It is a statue of an apple and another apple. The statuesque-appleness of the one apple is in no way reduced by the statuesque-appleness of the other. Your sophistry here is unconvincing. As we both know, the argument being made is that atheism is not a philosophy at all. We recognise there is more than one atheistic position, but inasmuch as all are about the ontological proposition that there are no god/gods, they are all and each a philosophy.

You keep shifting the terms of debate here, but when I asked before you ignored the question. Do you actually still believe it is true to say that atheism is not a philosophy at all?

In what way was Emma Goldman wrong to write of The Philosophy of Atheism? Why did no one pick her up on it? Did no atheist notice, for a whole century, that she had made a glaring error?

On Chesterton, I added in the rest of the quote for context. You deleted it without comment or recognition of the point he was actually making.

"Mathematics is what mathematicians do" is a definition, one that many people would accept and functionally use. Surveying might use mathematics, but it's not doing mathematics.

Your definition is ok for defining a mathematican, but rubbish for defining mathematics. Mathematics is, as I pointed out, something we all do. Surveyors are doing mathematics every time they do mathematics. And the point I made, of course, is that mathematicians are the giants we stand on when we use matehmatical principles and theorems that they have derived so that we don't have to derive them for ourselves.

So too with philosophy. We all can do philosophy. The question of the existence of a god or gods is not the exclusive preserve of philosophy, and in saying atheism is a philosophy, there is no sense in which we mean that it is only a topic of academic discussion, best left to professionals. Yet we all use foundations and frameworks created by someone else. The point made by Chesterton in the section you omitted to mention. You see, the points were connected.

Again, if your goal is to establish that atheism is too (a) philosophy, I don't think you have swayed anyone,

You are reframing the debate again. I only wished to persuade you and a few others that it goes too far to say "atheism is not a philosophy at all" unless you so carefully define the word "philosophy" so as to make it mean exactly what you are trying to prove.

That is the statement I started with, and I stand by. I have discovered that atheists always have and continue to agree with that. I have discovered that Sam Harris said the opposite in a polemic, and I have explained why Sam Harris is wrong. You did not address those points at all, but repeatedly deleted them without comment. Are you surprised you have not swayed me?

By the time we get to, "You misquote me" and "No, you misquote me" in a conversation which has been going on for nigh on 200 posts and which has featured some remarkably long individual posts, I wonder whether we haven't perhaps exhausted the possibilities of any further understanding of each other's positions? Or, if anyone is hoping to "win" the argument, or prove the other one "wrong", then it all seems rather pointless.

>225 LolaWalser: "No."

Then I will have one more go. Your statement that: "I have no need for that hypothesis" can only mean one of two things. It either means you are not interested in considering the hypothesis (which is a psychological state of agnosticism) or it means you see no reason to accept the hypothesis, because your evaluation of the truth claim of the existence of a god or gods is that it is false (this is atheism, but it is a proposition. "it is false that X" is the same as the propostion "not X"). See the discussion in >196 sirfurboy: of coins.

If there is a jar of coins and one person says the number of coins is even, then the falsification of that proposition implies that you believe the number of coins is odd. The inverse of the proposition is also a proposition.

"I have no need for the proposition that there are an even number of coins" is an agnostic position, but only inasmuch as you do not assert the proposition is false. You simply say "I do not care about this issue. Even or odd makes no difference to me. I am agnostic on this question." You can also be agnostic even if you care about the question, by saying "even or odd is unknowable without opening the jar and counting. I thus take no position on this question".

So again, on language: the accepted and most widely used definition of atheism is that it asserts the proposition "there is no god/gods". I have suggested that your own definition appears wider. If you truly have no need for the proposition, and you do not assert the proposition that God does not exist, but just leave the question open, then this is what most people would call agnosticsim. If you self identify as an atheist, that is up to you. It does not change the fact that it is STILL wrong to say that atheism is not a philosophy at all. Under your definition, your own atheism may not be a philosophy, but under the most widely used and arguably most accurate definition of atheism, atheists do assert an ontological proposition - and you do not exclude them from being atheists - so it is false to say that atheism is not a philosphy at all. Some atheism is most certainly a philosophy by some definitions of philosophy. We don't have to go any further than that to recognise that it is false to say "atheism is not a philosophy at all".

>229 sirfurboy: If there is a jar of coins and one person says the number of coins is even, then the falsification of that proposition implies that you believe the number of coins is odd. The inverse of the proposition is also a proposition.

The problem is the person is waving around the jar saying "this is an even number of coins" and the other person is saying, "uh...you are holding a jar of cotton balls."

>229 sirfurboy: Yeah, no. You just aren't getting what we're trying to say and there doesn't seem to be any point in trying further.

You're some of the typingest folks I ever seed.

Are you, too, longing for the days of ink smears and postal delays?

>231 jjwilson61: I don't think you are all saying the same thing. In your case, in particular, I thought we were broadly in agreement or at least mutual understanding.

You said: I went to Sunday school, but it all seemed like story time to me. I never really believed it happened and I don't remember ever struggling with the idea of whether God exists or not. By the time I got to high school I just didn't believe.

So I asked whether this was not a form of agnosticism (insofar as you have simply decided not to contend with the question) Your reply:

There's where you get the distinction between the academic definition of agnosticism and how it is commonly understood. If I told most people I was agnostic, they'd believe that I just can't make up my mind, and it opens up the possibility that I'm open to be proselytized. So, if asked I tell people I'm an Atheist because that is what I am for all practical purposes. Only a philosopher would nitpick the difference.

Which tells me that you self identify as an atheist, but may in fact be an agnostic who takes the atheist label as it is convenient. Of course, I don't know you, and when you say you simply do not believe, it may be that you imply that you actually are an atheist. Perhaps you do literally believe there is no god. You can answer that question, I can't. Yet if that is the case, despite not noticing any struggle in your own life, you have, in fact, come to a conclusion on the issue. To the extent you believe there is no god/gods, you meet the common definition of an atheist.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, nor tell you what you believe or not. It is simply a matter of being one or the other. You either believe the proposition "there is no god/no gods" or else you don't take a position on the question, and simply refer to yourself as an atheist because you do not which to be proselytised. You are making a statement 'I am uninterested in the resolution of this question'. So >229 sirfurboy: refers.

And yet, it makes no difference which it is, because the very fact that atheism is defined in one very clear, very common and very accurate way as being the position of asserting the belief that there is no god nor gods, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the statement "atheism is not a philosophy at all" is false. Inasmuch as atheism can be understood to be a position on the ontological question of the existence divinity, it is a philosophy.

Now maybe you feel I still don't get it. But the fact is I have tried very hard to understand and correctly represent your views here. I understand that you do not feel you thought about the issue and rejected evidence. The human brain, of course, is amazing at sifting much more information than we are ever aware of, so I won't be so bold as to attempt to tell you what you believe or how you arrived there - but suggest it may have been much more complicated than it seems. Yet it seems to me that you have misunderstood my position, still. So could I ask you to do one more thing before you give up: Could you summarise what you believe my position is? That would be helpful for me to see why we appear to be talking at cross purposes on something that appears to me to be obvious.

Also, I would be curious how many people here honestly believe, after all this, that it is true to say "atheism is not a philosophy at all". If you just want to say something like "I believe that, yes", I promise not to write any long post directed at changing your mind on it. But please do think about that statement carefully and answer honestly. You cannot refine and rephrase the question. We understand that we are not saying that all versions of atheism lead to the same thing. The question is just "does it go too far to say that atheism is not a philosophy at all?" Yes or no?

>230 southernbooklady: , >232 krolik: and >233 RickHarsch: LOL :)

>230 southernbooklady: How do you know there are not coins behind the cotton balls?

>228 John5918: Certainly when we are just repeating points already made, there will be no further progress. But to summarise, see my last paragraph above. I wonder how many people still think it does not go too far to say "atheism is not a philosophy at all." How many people would seriously reflect on that question and say "yes, that is a fair sstatement. Atheism is not a philosophy at all." I know in asking the question I risk some people saying that just for the hell of it. I won't assume anyone who does not answer is therefore in agreement with everything I said either. I am just curious how many people honestly do agree with that statement.

>235 sirfurboy: I think it is fair to say that for some people it is true that, for them, atheism is not a philosophy at all. I think--and you can trust me because i really don't care AND am not hostile--that for me atheism is part of a worldview, and if pressed to say whether it is a philosophy or not I would say that for me it is part of a philosophy, but not a distinct, separate strand.

>235 sirfurboy:

Looks to me as if there are still people who say atheism is not a philosophy at all, and I have to say, does it actually matter what they call it?

Atheism is a stupid word.

Argue with that, mofos.

>237 John5918: "Looks to me as if there are still people who say atheism is not a philosophy at all,"

Let's see what people say on that first. RickHarsch does not go as far as to say, in >236 RickHarsch:, that he believes "atheism is not a philosophy at all." He says he will use different language - that atheism is part of a philosophy for him which is a perfectly good usage - but he does not say he thinks it would be correct to categorically say "atheism is not a philosophy at all". That is the question. Does anyone here actually believe that?

You are right that ultimately it does not matter, yet I am interested if anyone is willing to unequivocally say that atheism is not a philosophy at all.

#239--it seems to matter to you. In just this thread you've must have thrown at least 10,000 words into the subject.

>239 sirfurboy: I also said that for some people atheism is not a philosophy at all. I believe some have said so here.

>241 RickHarsch: After the initial comment, have they? I asked a couple of people that exact question on more than one occasion and none actually said so from what I recall. I am wondering if we are arguing about argument rather than arguing about the substance of the argument.

Allow people to say that to them atheism is not a philosophy. I know people who have said that. The only fair answer is that atheism is a philosophy, of course, as is existentialism, as is phenomenology, but that for the individual it is possible to be an atheist and not consider it a philosophy. In other words you can put an atheist in a course about atheism as a philosophy and have the whole thing be alien to them.

We are most definitely discussing the substance of the argument.

>243 RickHarsch:

Yes, I understand that, and of course that was never the issue. I restated the point at issue in, at least, messages 104,108,118,120,189,196,212 and 229. At no point did I dispute that any atheist may not consider their view to be a philosophy. It is the absolute statement that I found nonsensical.

It does look, however, like no one is willing to assert the absolute statement as true after all.

>240 lriley: I make it nearer 25,000.

As the unattributable quote has it:

If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.

>244 sirfurboy: It does look, however, like no one is willing to assert the absolute statement as true after all.

I'm always a little wary of absolute statements, although I have no opinion on this particular issue.

I am absolutely certain this thread sucks Pangolin ass.

>247 JGL53: And where the hell have YOU been?

>248 RickHarsch: Watching it burn. (Floating referent intentional).

An article in Le Monde today claims that former employees of the company Elytis, charged with fire protection/security, had raised concerns with management in the past about inadequate staffing, failure of organisation and systems. The two man team had been reduced to one, and the one on duty at the time of the fire was new, had not had a full tour of the cathedral and was not clear on what locations were where. The equipment did not function correctly either, and the low staffing had meant fire safety sweeps could not be carried out. Contractors were allowed to do work without fire safety certificates, and those bringing this to the attention of Elytis were warned against bringing the company into disrepute, and endangering their cintract with the cathedral.

https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2019/05/31/a-notre-dame-les-failles-de-la...

Article may be partially inaccessible as some Le Monde articles require a subscription (but you can usually read the first few paragraphs for free). Let me know if you want me to fill in the details of anything missing.

How about a swimming pool on the roof? FAZ reports on some unusual concepts for the reconstruction of Notre Dame, and the dismay of those seeking a traditional reconstruction. The man in charge of reconstruction also warns that there remains a danger that the vault will still collapse.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - Ein Schwimmbad auf dem Dach

Also in Le Monde, there was an article raising concern that changes in the heritage law to aid reconstruction may, in the long term, be highly detrimental to heritage.

Protection du patrimoine : « Le feu qui a détruit Notre-Dame va-t-il permettre l’effondrement du vieil édifice législatif ? »

So much for billionaires.

Small donors, not French tycoons, help pay Notre Dame works
https://www.apnews.com/d69824caa68b4d24b13e91fed77dd953

“The big donors haven’t paid. Not a cent,” said Andre Finot, senior press official at Notre Dame. “They want to know what exactly their money is being spent on and if they agree to it before they hand it over, and not just to pay employees’ salaries.”

>250 sirfurboy: Dollars for building, peanuts for maintenance--the tragedy of cathedrals, roads, state pensions...

I came back to this old thread to see whether as anyone had posted a link to the Ben Okri's poem in response to the fire:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p077gh2l

It has certainly been an interesting debate whilst I have been gone!

Notre Dame fire: row as general tells architect to 'shut his mouth' (Guardian)

The French government has rebuked the army general charged with the rebuilding of the fire-ravaged Notre Dame Cathedral after he told the chief architect to “shut his mouth”, in a sign of tensions over the cathedral’s future appearance...

Notre Dame Cathedral ‘not saved yet’ and still at risk of collapse (Guardian)

The French general appointed to oversee the reconstruction of Notre Dame Cathedral has said the iconic building is still at risk of collapse more than six months into the efforts to restore it.

Gen Jean-Louis Georgelin said the cathedral is “not saved yet” and has to undergo a delicate operation to remove fused scaffolding around the spire, destroyed by a devastating fire last April.

“The cathedral is still in a state of peril,” Georgelin told the French broadcaster CNews. “There is an extremely important step ahead, which is to remove the scaffolding,” he said.

Georgelin, who has described the conservation and restoration of the cathedral as “an immense challenge”, added that the condition of the ceiling vaults was not fully known and he could not guarantee they “won’t fall apart”. However, he said initial observations on the current state of the 12th-century edifice were “reassuring”, adding: “We feel quite confident”...

What a dumb lout. Truly a product of Vatican 2.

>257 Kuiperdolin:

What a strange interjection. I'd be interested to hear who you think is a "dumb lout", what they have done to make you think so, what on earth this has to do with Vatican 2, and indeed what is a "product of Vatican 2".

I'm obviously talking about Georgelin and his salon roughneck routine. That sort of unsavory character would never have been made an oblate before Vatican 2.

>259 Kuiperdolin:

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining. At least your rather opaque comment is now somewhat more comprehensible, even though I disagree with it.

>197 margd: solar design for new roof

This stadium in the Netherlands has 4,200 #solarpanels on its roof and is 100% #solar powered.
We have the solutions. Demand your government implements them...
0:39 ( https://twitter.com/MikeHudema/status/1224025800896368641 )

- Mike Hudema @MikeHudema | 12:44 PM · Feb 2, 2020

Notre Dame fire: Fragile old lady of Paris waits for rescue (BBC)

The restrictions in place to deal with coronavirus have meant that all restoration work here has stopped...

Notre Dame rebuild resumes today (The Tablet)

The general in charge of reconstruction work at Notre Dame cathedral has said rebuilding will resume today and progress stage by stage as workers repair the fire damage while respecting social distancing...

Another reopening: Notre-Dame de Paris’s parvis
Te Economist Espresso | June 6, 2020

This week in Paris, the parvis* of Notre Dame cathedral at last reopened...Dangerous lead dust produced by the fire covered the ground outside, making the square in front of the cathedral unsafe...deep-clean operation...Parisians can get up close with the remains of the building...a small but hopeful step...

https://espresso.economist.com/d4180fd599207086faf95544d33a17e0

* par·vis /ˈpärvəs/ -- an enclosed area in front of a cathedral or church, typically one that is surrounded with colonnades or porticoes (Oxford).

Notre-Dame fire: Work starts to remove melted scaffolding (BBC)

The delicate work of removing melted scaffolding from Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris has got under way...

Notre Dame spire must be rebuilt exactly as it was, says chief architect (Guardian)

The spire of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris should be rebuilt exactly as it was before fire engulfed it last year, France’s chief architect for historic monuments has told the commission that must decide how the building is to be restored...

Notre Dame: Cathedral's spire will be restored to 19th Century design (BBC)

The spire of Notre Dame cathedral, which was destroyed in a fire last April, will be restored according to the original Gothic design. French President Emmanuel Macron announced the decision, putting an end to speculation that the spire would be rebuilt in a modern style...

Ancient tombs and sarcophagus unearthed beneath Paris’ Notre Dame (Guardian)

Several tombs and a leaden sarcophagus likely dating from the 14th century have been uncovered by archaeologists at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris as work continues on the building’s reconstruction after its devastating 2019 fire. The burial sites “of remarkable scientific quality” were unearthed during preparatory work for rebuilding the ancient church’s spire at the central spot where the transept crosses the nave, France’s culture ministry announced late Monday. Among the tombs was a “completely preserved, human-shaped sarcophagus made of lead”. It is thought the coffin was made for a senior dignitary in the 1300s – the century after the cathedral’s construction...

‘Extraordinary’: ancient tombs and statues unearthed beneath Notre Dame Cathedral (Guardian)

An archaeological dig under Notre Dame Cathedral has uncovered an extraordinary treasure of statues, sculptures, tombs and pieces of an original rood screen dating back to the 13th century. The find included several ancient tombs from the middle ages and a body-shaped lead sarcophagus buried at the heart of the fire-ravaged monument under the floor of the transept crossing. French experts have described the discovery as “extraordinary and emotional”...

Smelly antifa Sorbonne thugs claim the deed. Empty provocation or credible brag? Either way Obama-tier trash.



https://twitter.com/luc_lhl/status/1514551836115673090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

>269 Kuiperdolin:

Just wondering how you link a protest in France to Obama? And is this directly related to the topic of this tread, the fire at Notre Dame?

As I said, and posted, they claim to be the ones behind the fire.

Who, Obama?

No the "French" antifa. Why are you obsessed with Obama?

Why did you mention Obama in your post if it has nothing to do with him?

It's a well-known reference to illustrate moral, spiritual, and intellectual bankruptcy. I might as well have said Biden or Sartre. I myself am very knowledgeable on many subjects, but if I start mentionning Haxo or Cadorna the userbase courted by Timspalding is never going to follow.

But if you insist on talking about Obama (and dodging the question of why your side is bragging about burning Notre-Dame), we can fruitfully compare his reaction to that of his successor Donald Trump.

One proposes action : "So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!"

One centers himself and his putative offspring playacting devotion in a cathedral emptied of the faithful for his convenience :

How do you do fellow Easter worshippers?

>275 Kuiperdolin: your side is bragging about burning Notre-Dame

Thank you. Now I understand what your reference to Obama was about - US identity politics - although I think it is misplaced. As it happens I don't have "a side" - that's another pernicious facet of identity politics and culture wars - and nobody I know or who is in any way remotely connected to me is "bragging about burning Notre-Dame".

>275 Kuiperdolin: It's a well-known reference to illustrate moral, spiritual, and intellectual bankruptcy.

Of the person using the comparison. It's so utterly black and white and partisan.

and dodging the question of why your side is bragging about burning Notre-Dame

Are you going to answer why your people are bragging about burning Notre-Dame? I'm an American and he's British in South Sudan. By any traditional splitting of the world, they're your people, not ours. I sure as heck didn't go to Sorbonne.

One proposes action : "So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!"

In response:

Hundreds of firemen of the Paris Fire Brigade are doing everything they can to bring the terrible #NotreDame fire under control. All means are being used, except for water-bombing aircrafts which, if used, could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral.

What's the point in proposing action when there's already action being taken by people who know more about what to do than the proposer?

One centers himself and his putative offspring playacting devotion

I'm not going to take lectures on moral, spiritual, and intellectual bankruptcy from someone who casually slanders people because he disagrees with them. As if someone is less of a person for taking and loving children who don't happen to be his blood!

I'm quite tired of this line about "playacting devotion", and I think most of my fellow American Democrats are as well. Yes, Hillary Clinton and Obama are frequent churchgoers for decades, and can talk about the faith, and in Obama's case wrote about how it affected his life; but they're playacting devotion. Trump has seen the inside of church; one of his three marriages was in a church, after all. He doesn't do a good job of playacting devotion, but somehow he's genuine.

>275 Kuiperdolin: "I myself am very knowledgeable on many subjects"

This is good advice for authors: show, don't tell.

>275 Kuiperdolin: Obama's "putative offspring"??? !

It always seemed to me that the Roman Catholic Church could and should pay for the repair and restoration of this church of theirs.

>276 John5918: You're welcome. But "not having a side" between good and evil is in itself picking a side.

>277 prosfilaes: I didn't go to Sorbonne either so your post is irrelevant. Leftists always say they're "international" and want more foreigners so they don't get to wash their hands of what foreign leftists do. As for the Obama worship... cringe.

>281 Kuiperdolin: Leftists always say they're "international" and want more foreigners so they don't get to wash their hands of what foreign leftists do.

The converse of that would be that the right-wing always talks about nationalism, so they don't get to wash their hands of the fellow nationals. But that would require a discussion, not a zinger.

As for the Obama worship... cringe.

Facts don't enter your world much, do they? "Four legs good, two legs bad", and no further thought needed.

>282 prosfilaes: What would he want with facts? Everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias, this is why so-called conservatives (don't get me started on imbeciles who call themselves conservatives and have not a clue in the world what the word means) prefer their fantasy world, where they get to just say things and magically make them true by saying them - and they don't even have to be coherent, as we've seen here. "Putative offspring"? Does he even know what the words mean, or are they just pretty sounds to him?

Feh, arguing with this one is a dead loss. Never made a lick of sense yet that I've seen, and I can't really imagine that he's ever going to.

>278 sirfurboy: well you don't say much but you do show something, so good job

>279 margd: it means offspring that are thought to be his (from Latin puto, to think)

>284 Kuiperdolin: You know what it implies.

>281 Kuiperdolin:"not having a side" between good and evil is in itself picking a side

You are the one who brought up the concept of a "side" (referring to "your side", ie my "side"). I choose not to buy into your construct of "sides". But it should be clear to everybody from many of my posts that I do not support violence, no matter which "side" is carrying it out.

It would be worth defining good and evil. Evil does not simply mean anything which is opposed to your political ideology, or your "side".

>280 lriley: If you had an ounce of historical knowledge you'd know the Chatedral does not belong to the Church, so good job playing yourself

>281 Kuiperdolin: Read another book. And there's no proof they're my "fellow nationals" either. Lots of foreign scum in the universities (and there's not even proof they're from the university). Not so much in more demanding schools of higher education.

>285 margd: Yes it implies Obama is a cuckold, like many other Demonrats.

>287 Kuiperdolin: It makes no difference what country you come from, your personal attack on all those from outside of your country based on the accident of their nationality crosses a big red line.

>287 Kuiperdolin: it’s still an active RC church, is it not? Why should people of other faiths or no faith have to pony up to fix it then? Funny how right wingers, libertarians are all for government handouts when it comes to things that have a special place in their fucking hearts…..and then hand the rest of us the line that ‘Socialism is bad’. You want government tax money for free so as to support your culture war bullshit agenda. What do you think this is about? You’re just a bunch of phonies and hypocrites.

Why don’t you set up a Go fund me if you feel it’s so important?

‘They said it was impossible’: how medieval carpenters are rebuilding Notre Dame (Guardian)

Project leaders at Guédelon Castle tell how their woodwork savoir faire is proving a godsend for mission to restore Paris cathedral roof... Here, in a forest clearing in northern Burgundy, history is being remade to the sound of chisel against stone and axe against wood, as 21st-century artisans re-learn and perfect long-forgotten medieval skills. The Guédelon project was dreamed up as an exercise in “experimental archaeology” 25 years ago. Instead of digging down it has been built upward, using only the tools and methods available in the Middle Ages and, wherever possible, locally sourced materials. Now, in an unforeseen twist of fate, Guédelon is playing a vital role in restoring the structure and soul of Notre Dame cathedral...

Notre-Dame: Renovators rush to complete refit by 2024 (BBC)

When President Macron said they would get Notre-Dame de Paris up and running inside just five years, everyone laughed. They're not laughing now. The promise to save the devastated cathedral in so short a space of time seemed back then like a typical bit of Macronian bombast. But on the fourth anniversary of the conflagration, the prospect of a Notre-Dame refitted by the end of next year no longer seems so absurd. "We made an undertaking in front of the whole world that we would have our cathedral finished inside five years," says Jean-Louis Georgelin, the retired army general in charge of reconstruction. "Our reputation is at stake. That is why we must unite all our knowledge, our efforts, our savoir-faire to achieve this goal"...

>291 John5918: OK, but I was there a couple of weeks ago and there is still quite a lot missing! But good luck to them. I hope they make it.

A nice short video on YouTube of hymn-singing in the cathedral of Notre Dame. It was posted two years ago, but it's not clear when it was made, whether before or after the fire. The hymn is from Taize.

Laudate Dominum - Catedral de Notre-Dame de Paris

New Notre Dame rooster marks pivotal moment in cathedral’s restoration (Guardian)

The installation by a crane of a new golden rooster on Notre Dame, reimagined as a dramatic phoenix with licking, flamed feathers, goes beyond being just a weathervane atop the cathedral spire. It symbolises resilience amid destruction after the devastating April 2019 fire – as restoration officials also revealed an anti-fire misting system is being kitted out under the cathedral’s roof...

An interesting YouTube video: Restoration UPDATE: Meet The NEW Notre Dame