Simon Belmont wrote:But Stak, many atheists would say that atheism is not a belief or a belief system. I've had atheists here tell me that not football is not a sport, and not believing in a god is not a belief system.
SB wrote:If it can be thought of or conceived, it exists. If God can be conceived, God exists.
it's more like, being real is better than being imagined and God is the best thing imaginable, so he must be real.
I can conceive of the FSM as "God" and call him the creator and he might be real or might just be a figment of my imagination, but since I can imagine greater and greater entities -- say with FSM+1 noodles -- then though the FSM could be real and could have created the earth, he can't be God. Continuing with this line of reasoning, once I reach the endpoint of imagining an entity with all the best attributes, such that I can't imagine any better and I'm left with the vexing question of whether or not this entity exists, since it would be better for such an entity to exist than not to exist, if it doesn't exist, than what I'm imagining isn't God; the similar entity that does exist is God.
EAllusion wrote:I don't think atheism is poorly justified without a reasoned response to the ontological argument. If one has not heard of the ontological argument, one is still warranted in being an atheist. The same is true of, say, not believing in quantum mechanics. If you haven't heard an appreciable case for it, you are warranted in not believing it.
But, Stak might say, to exist in our society means one has to be willfully ignorant to not have heard of those cases. In most cases, I agree. However, willful ignorance is a moral problem. It a violation of one's duty to be informed. It doesn't speak to how well justified you are in your beliefs.
Finally, I think there's some ambiguity in what Stak means by having a reasoned response to the ontological argument. I can think of two kinds of replies that don't explain what's wrong with the argument per se, but I think are valid reasons for rejecting it.
1) Ontological arguments are oft subject to parody. The first famous reply to the Anselmian ontological argument, Gaunilo's perfect island, doesn't tell you what's wrong with the argument. It just says that if the argument works, then a plethora of things we ordinarily consider absurd could also by argued for by parity. There are a variations of ontological arguments that I think can be parodied and rejected on those grounds.
2) I think people can be justified in rejecting or accepting ideas not because they themselves fully understand the issue at hand, but through vicariously relying on expertise. This has to be done carefully - people make all manner of mistakes because they misjudge how to evaluate consensus and expertise - but I think it is a necessary and ordinary part of how we reason. I don't crack open a chemistry textbook and perform every single empirical experiment that undergirds the theory found therein to believe the material. I make rational judgments about how to trust what I read.
I think a mistake people frequently make is assuming if that if they can't figure out where some argument goes wrong - let's say a 9/11 controlled demolition argument - then they have to begrudging believe it. That's simply not the case. One has to have humility about their capacity to evaluate arguments and take into account what others think and why. And likewise with ontological arguments, its status in contemporary philosophy is quite relevant.
Gaunilo(n)'s "perfect island" was not a valid counter argument when he first proposed it and the intervening years have done nothing to improve it.
Gadianton wrote:I can conceive of the FSM as "God" and call him the creator and he might be real or might just be a figment of my imagination, but since I can imagine greater and greater entities -- say with FSM+1 noodles -- then though the FSM could be real and could have created the earth, he can't be God. Continuing with this line of reasoning, once I reach the endpoint of imagining an entity with all the best attributes, such that I can't imagine any better and I'm left with the vexing question of whether or not this entity exists, since it would be better for such an entity to exist than not to exist, if it doesn't exist, than what I'm imagining isn't God; the similar entity that does exist is God.
Good observation.
Is there an "endpoint" though? Our endpoints morph as we gain more knowledge and understanding of which attributes would be needed to be "perfect." Once, for example, we realize how much hunger there is in the world, we add the attribute of eliminating that problem.
Side note: How's your book coming along? Will there be an audiobook version read by you?
Well, I think the argument is meant in abstract. The argument can be incredibly vague about the "attributes." I think it's a very important argument if one's interest is in grappling with pure logic. As far as linking it to an actual religion, good luck. I don't think it's all that interesting to try and figure out what attributes count etc. and what perfection really is.
As far as the book goes, and thanks for asking by the way, it has expanded and the word count officially makes it a novel by any measure I've seen. But I have reasons to hold back on it. Basically, I don't want to rush it because I think it's too bad ass to rush and I plan on dumping some money into it etc., so need to make it count; I also have some in real life stuff to sort out first which will delay it as well.
In the mean time...
I am about 1/5 or 1/4 of the way through another novel (and that is with 3 weeks of writing). That's right, Simon! You can rejoice, because this one you will be reading shortly, as it will be "published" serially on a blog. This one I will not be paying for editing or anything else, I honestly think it's a f*ing great story, not as good as Enoch, but due to it's nature, which will be revealed in the coming weeks, it is much faster to write. As part of the master plan for Enoch, this other one is sort of the guinea pig where I can get feedback and try a few different things.
Gadianton, I hope you realize that when I ask about your writing projects I am being very sincere. I really want to read "Enoch" and now that I know you have an online writing project, I'm interested in reading it too. Anyone who can write an entire novel is, in my book (pun intended), a very patient and hardworking person who deserves to have his or her work read.