Pearlists shouldn't call themselves atheists
Not an originally my idea, I got it from a thunderf00t video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw
To summarize the idea proposed in the video:
When asked what sport someone plays, "not hockey" isn't really an answer to the question.
Same as when asked "what do you believe", the answer "not this god and not that god either" isn't an answer to the question either.
Socrates “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” could be stretched to Descartes “I think; therefore I am.” , but not any further without making assumptions.
These assumptions could be:
1 The universe is real
2 It's possible to learn something about the universe
3 ideas about the universe with predictive value are more valuable than ideas about the universe with no predictive value.
(assumption nr 3 wasn't mentioned in the video but seemed logic to me)
A way to find the more valuable ideas, is to apply the scientific method based on physical evidence and reasoned logic.
For those who do believe in the scientific method based on P.E.A.R.L. (physical evidence and reasoned logic), the answer "I'm a PEARList", might be a more sensible option to answer this question than "I'm an atheist".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw
To summarize the idea proposed in the video:
When asked what sport someone plays, "not hockey" isn't really an answer to the question.
Same as when asked "what do you believe", the answer "not this god and not that god either" isn't an answer to the question either.
Socrates “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” could be stretched to Descartes “I think; therefore I am.” , but not any further without making assumptions.
These assumptions could be:
1 The universe is real
2 It's possible to learn something about the universe
3 ideas about the universe with predictive value are more valuable than ideas about the universe with no predictive value.
(assumption nr 3 wasn't mentioned in the video but seemed logic to me)
A way to find the more valuable ideas, is to apply the scientific method based on physical evidence and reasoned logic.
For those who do believe in the scientific method based on P.E.A.R.L. (physical evidence and reasoned logic), the answer "I'm a PEARList", might be a more sensible option to answer this question than "I'm an atheist".
Comments (17)
Unless the context is clearly religious, who would respond to "what do you believe" with a comment about gods?
If the context is clearly religion, then "I don't have any religious beliefs" would answer the question just fine, just like if someone were to say, "I don't play any sports."
Otherwise I'd expect someone to respond to "what do you believe" with a question of their own--"what do I believe about what?"
I don't see why a pear list couldn't be an atheist. Not only that, I don't see why a pear list couldn't also be ambiguous about the extent he was certain about being an atheist.
It's always a good idea to bear in mind that the prefrontal cortex is only one player in the game; there is also that thundering powerhouse of the limbic system. Nobody operates purely on pear lists.
I say that I'm an atheist, but just to be factual, just to tell folks what my view is. (I'm an atheist in your #2 (which implies #1) and #3 sense.) I'm not implying anything value-judgment-related in relaying the fact that I'm an atheist. I'm just relaying a fact.
I don't quite get what you're saying there.
Since to a pearlist, the scientific method is the god to believe. It's the god of scientific naturalism at least. Supernatural proporties are optional to constitute as a god, not manditory.
I don't play any sports is a valid answer for someone who actually doesn't play sports. But 'not soccer' is not a valid answer to the question when given by a person who plays hockey for sports. Wich in many cases is the equivalent answer self proclaimed atheists give when asked about their beliefs. They seem to conflate the question with another question : "do you believe the same as I believe",
(to be fair, many people might actually have intended to ask that question rather than the first question, so it may not be unwarranted in all cases)
I can't say I've knowingly run into that, but maybe some people do that. I don't know.
I share your observation,I like to discuss with atheists (not debate), and it often bogs down in the atheist unable to clarify wich of the 3 positions they take, or even worse, they uphold position 4.
To clarify my position ill adress all the first 3 (though I think we already agree on all 4):
1 not an answer to the question, the question wasn't about the belief of the one asking the question, the question was about the belief of the one asked
2 the only position I accept as possible defendable, however, in order to do so, one must have studied the religions of over 6000 gods that have been believed in by humans. I never meet a self proclaimed atheist that actually done so.
3 supernatural/non-natural qualities are optional to constitute as a god, not manditory. Hence this argument is not an argument for atheism but for scientific naturalism.
Quoting tim wood
I agree, a scientist should at least believe in the science he/she practices. Additional believes are optional as long as they don't undermine the scientific method practiced by the scientist.
I assume you didn't watch the video, or you would already know the answer to this question, but I'll be more specific:
What do you believe about the universe?
You seem to apply a narrower definition on the word religion than I am. To clarify my position think of the most broadest definition as in the oxford dictionary:
" 1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’
1.1 A particular system of faith and worship.
‘the world's great religions’
1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’ "
If it qualifies for any of these three the context of the question is a religious one in my vieuw.
One thing I'd say I believe about the universe is this: it's big.
So what about the 3 more specific follow up questions?
1 Is it real?
2 Is it possible to learn something about it?
3 Are ideas about the universe with predictive value are more valuable than ideas about the universe with no predictive value?
Yes, of course to the first two.
Re the last question, yes, although valuing things is subjective.
Perhaps I should have stated it as:
"3 Are ideas about the universe with predictive value more usefull than ideas about the universe without predictive value in order to learn something about the universe?
of course this question does only apply if you already said yes to the former two.
Sorry for responding abit late to this part. No disagreement on my part. What you stated makes sense as far as I understood it correctly.