Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

PG,

"God" is such a broad brush term, though. It might be helpful to specifically identify what kind of god we're talking about in order to accept or reject its existence. Otherwise we run the risk that anything can exist, and then that in of itself negates the role of a god. It all becomes a sort of absurdity

- Doc

[Lem]

....but in my books it's arrogant to assert that things that billions of people believe and hold dear are all obviously stupid or wicked....

Interesting. At no point has my atheism ever involved thinking that every theist believed in stupid or wicked things, so I can only assume you are referring to some other specific atheist group.

...all religions in general are obviously stupid or dishonest or malicious...

Again, several more things my atheism has never suggested.

...Breezy, broad-brush scorn for "religion" as a general thing...

Wow! Again, scorn such as you describe is NOT within my definition of atheism!

...the same fear of being wrong oneself that makes one shout about how wrong everyone else must certainly be...

Hmm. Again, my atheism is what I believe, and not in any way a statement about how others are wrong.

I feel like there is something else going on here, unrelated to the opinions an atheist might have. It seems from this post as though you feel others don't have the right to believe as they wish, but based on your previous posts I can't see that being true. Maybe you are just upset about something in particular, because I really can't see why you think being an atheist automatically entails such disdain and hatred for others. It really doesn't.

[Doctor Scratch]

I admit that I found the Mopologetic Haymond to be rather charming--his obsequiousness notwithstanding, of course. He was really drooling over Nibley back in the day. It is interesting that this is the path he followed, and I agree with you, Aristotle, that there is something vaguely "tragic" about the whole thing. I recall seeing Haymond surface in the comments at "SeN," and he was treated in a remarkably dismissive way. Haymond literally helped the Mopologists to *launch* Interpreter: the website wouldn't be there without Haymond, and yet he's basically spat upon by the Mopologists?

In any event, I'm glad to hear that he's exploring uncharted territory. I hope he's doing well.

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[Physics Guy]

I feel like there is something else going on here, unrelated to the opinions an atheist might have. It seems from this post as though you feel others don't have the right to believe as they wish, but based on your previous posts I can't see that being true. Maybe you are just upset about something in particular, because I really can't see why you think being an atheist automatically entails such disdain and hatred for others. It really doesn't.

I complain when other people talk about "religion" as if it were one definite thing. I'm at least this far consistent, that I don't suppose atheism is one thing, either. I don't imagine there is any official atheist creed (or anti-creed?) to which anyone who self-identifies as an atheist must somehow subscribe.

So it has never occurred to me that any of my complaints about people who have scorn for religions they don't even know carried any implication at all that I imagined all atheists to be like that. Maybe I slipped once or twice, but I'm pretty sure I've used a lot of "some" constructions—not because I'm being careful not to offend but because "some" really is what I'm meaning to say, not "all". "All" would be obviously silly. The only thing that I reckon must be common to all people who call themselves atheists is some lack of belief in some form of God, but since "belief" and "God" are both vaguely defined concepts this common feature is itself pretty vague.

I don't mean to say anything much about atheism in general. I'll pedantically criticise assertions which are tantamount to claiming that everyone should recognise atheism as a superior viewpoint; I think that's just naïve. But I have no criticism for anyone who personally finds it more plausible than the alternatives, even to the point where they think and live as if they were certain, like Asimov. Not believing in God is an obviously reasonable position, at least for many values of "belief" and "God".

I'm a theist the way Asimov was an atheist. I'm not certain that God exists—I don't see how anyone can be—but I say I believe in God for the same reason that Asimov said he believed there was no God. I just have very little interest in the possibility that God does not exist. Occasionally it occurs to me but I see no reason to think about it often. It seems unlikely to me, and it doesn't seem to matter all that much for how I want to live my life, anyway, because I mainly look to God for help in living the way I'd still want to live if there were no God. So I generally think and try to live as though I were sure God existed, even though I'm not actually sure.

I'm not trying to fight atheism. There shouldn't be any implicit chapter title over any of my posts stating that atheism is bad. An assumed context in which everything I say is to be taken by default as some kind of dig against atheism is going to misinterpret a lot of what I write. I'm willing to defend myself if anyone calls my theism unreasonable or something, but I think it would be silly for me to set up as a defender of God. If there is a God, then they're God. They don't need me to defend them.

[Physics Guy]

"God" is such a broad brush term, though. It might be helpful to specifically identify what kind of god we're talking about in order to accept or reject its existence. Otherwise we run the risk that anything can exist, and then that in of itself negates the role of a god. It all becomes a sort of absurdity.

"God" is a broad term, all right, and for some kinds of discussion it would indeed really help to pin the definition down better before going further.

But that can get absurd quickly, too. Never having had pets as a kid, I've acquired a couple of dogs in middle age, and I often wonder about their doggish thoughts. (I'm not sure they do think, exactly. But in one of his books Umberto Eco suggested that even stones think: they think, "Stone. Stone. Stone." So dogs must think, for some values of "think".) Sometimes as I'm walking the dogs I'm thinking about multiple scale analysis. I'm pretty sure the dogs have no idea of that, even though it's important to me. If there is a God then I think our ability to be precise about God must be pretty darn limited.

In the bits of medieval philosophy and theology that I've read, I've been struck by what seems a general medieval delusion that one can establish truth by appealing to definitions. I figure they just had a good handle on that form of deductive reasoning, and didn't know a heck of lot else, so for them the whole world looked like that nail. But the problem I see is that something like fire, for example, is not whatever we define it to be. It's what it is, even if we don't know exactly what it is. Some scenarios may have seemed logically possible according to medieval definitions of things, but are actually logically impossible for what the things really are—like fire burning in vacuum, for instance. Other things seemed logically impossible, like deviations from Euclidean geometry, but we have since learned that space actually is non-Euclidean.

[Lem]

I feel like there is something else going on here, unrelated to the opinions an atheist might have. It seems from this post as though you feel others don't have the right to believe as they wish, but based on your previous posts I can't see that being true. Maybe you are just upset about something in particular, because I really can't see why you think being an atheist automatically entails such disdain and hatred for others. It really doesn't.

I complain when other people talk about "religion" as if it were one definite thing. I'm at least this far consistent, that I don't suppose atheism is one thing, either. I don't imagine there is any official atheist creed (or anti-creed?) to which anyone who self-identifies as an atheist must somehow subscribe.

So it has never occurred to me that any of my complaints about people who have scorn for religions they don't even know carried any implication at all that I imagined all atheists to be like that.

that's what I thought!

I'm not trying to fight atheism. There shouldn't be any implicit chapter title over any of my posts stating that atheism is bad. An assumed context in which everything I say is to be taken by default as some kind of dig against atheism is going to misinterpret a lot of what I write.

Which is not what I did, so I apologize if it came across that way. I was specifically only asking about this one post, as I stated in your quote of me above, exactly because to me it felt out of character with your general stance. Thanks for the clarification.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

PG,

Thanks for the thoughts. Perhaps God, if it does exist is 'meta'. If that's the case then that pretty much makes it whatever we want to fit our needs. I sometimes vacillate with regard to some kind of, I dunno, larger-than-us intelligence(s). I admit I have that God gene in my brain that tries to intuit something bigger or more mysterious than the self or this reality. Sometimes this is an electric universe, sometimes it's a psychedelic recursion, sometimes this is a simulation and we're other worldly beings plugged into a learning program, sometimes we're just subroutines of a greater A.I. 'experiencing' infinite versions of everything, and sometimes the Universe is God and we're all connected maaaaaan.

Sometimes we're just physical organisms that live and die with a very limited perception of this world - I'm legit jealous of the mantis shrimp's visual range.

So. Again. I dunno. I default to atheism because theistic claims aren't probable or reliable to any degree or are ridiculous if scrutinized. Perhaps for believers not thinking about it too much is the sweet spot. I witnessed a Christian fellowship having a hug box session at a cafe the other day, and they seemed really happy to be meeting up and praying and visiting. I can't begrudge people for wanting the affirmation of group worship, so maybe God is just the power of the group for some.

- Doc

[Themis]

I'm a theist the way Asimov was an atheist. I'm not certain that God exists—I don't see how anyone can be—but I say I believe in God for the same reason that Asimov said he believed there was no God. I just have very little interest in the possibility that God does not exist. Occasionally it occurs to me but I see no reason to think about it often. It seems unlikely to me, and it doesn't seem to matter all that much for how I want to live my life, anyway, because I mainly look to God for help in living the way I'd still want to live if there were no God. So I generally think and try to live as though I were sure God existed, even though I'm not actually sure.

Asimov still has the advantage. He just has to worry about how he thinks is the best way to live and believe, not how a God, one doesn't know exists, might want one to live or believe.

[Kishkumen]

Acknowledging the existence of something that goes by the appellation God does not necessarily entail being anxious about God’s thoughts. In classical theism, I would not presume to imagine what God’s thoughts are.