12 Jun 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, my atheism is based on a lack of evidence. I hold the view that the supernatural is lacking in supporting evidence and thus should be held to be false until such evidence is presented. I therefore deny the existence of god, the afterlife, the supernatural etc.
Do you reject the afterlife?
I suppose if you are a true sceptic you would. But if you just hate religion then there is no necessity to repudiate an afterlife.
12 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanArgumentum ad ignorantium from Wikipedia:
Yes, my atheism is based on a lack of evidence. I hold the view that the supernatural is lacking in supporting evidence and thus should be held to be false until such evidence is presented. I therefore deny the existence of god, the afterlife, the supernatural etc.
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person erroneously regards the lack of evidence for one view (or alternately, regards their personal bias against the view) as constituting evidence or proof that another view is instead true. In reality this is not valid evidence or proof, as further described below. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of proof, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.
Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).
Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
Something is currently unexplained (or insufficiently explained), so it was not, or could not, be true.
Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": not having evidence for something is not proof that that something does not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that another alternative is instead the case--it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.
Edit: Emphasis is mine.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThat's all very well and good, but it's not at all what I am presenting. The two key points are:
Argumentum ad ignorantium from Wikipedia:
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
...[text shortened]... in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.
Edit: Emphasis is mine.[/b]
1) Putting an alternative theory forward as more likely because there is insufficient evidence of the first. I am not doing this.
2) Making a decisive ascertion on a theory. You may notice that I put 'until such evidence is presented' in my first post. I remain in denial until there is supporting evidence to warrant a change in view.
The pieces you have presented are concerning the process of argument. All I am doing is stating a position I hold. If the way you are suggesting we apply these fallacies were true, there is nothing that could be held as belief based on induction and this would clearly undermine the very process of human understanding. Also, it would render the notion of ID/creationism useless. I am not ascerting truth, I am denying an unsupported position.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by Starrman1) Putting an alternative theory forward as more likely because there is insufficient evidence of the first. I am not doing this.
That's all very well and good, but it's not at all what I am presenting. The two key points are:
1) Putting an alternative theory forward as more likely because there is insufficient evidence of the first. I am not doing this.
2) Making a decisive ascertion on a theory. You may notice that I put 'until such evidence is presented' in my first post. I ...[text shortened]... of ID/creationism useless. I am not ascerting truth, I am denying an unsupported position.
Isn't that what atheism is -- a position of denying the existence of God? Basically you are committed to a "~A" claim. Both "A" and "~A" are logical positions that posit truth-claims.
When using "absence of evidence" as a premise, agnosticism, not atheism would be the neutral ground. IIRC, even Bertrand Russell took up the “official” position of agnosticism in his debates with theists.
2) Making a decisive ascertion on a theory. You may notice that I put 'until such evidence is presented' in my first post. I remain in denial until there is supporting evidence to warrant a change in view.
Wouldn't this be like an American remaining a democrat until convinced of republicanism?
If the way you are suggesting we apply these fallacies were true, there is nothing that could be held as belief based on induction and this would clearly undermine the very process of human understanding.
Induction formulates general principles from particular facts. The whole point is that facts are established by evidence, not the lack of it -- ergo the fallacy.
I am not ascerting truth, I am denying an unsupported position.
Denial is itself an assertion of truth.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNo athiesm is not a "~A" claim any more than a dark place is defined by the fact that it has no light. Yes it is dark but that is not what defines it. There could have been light there, there could have been matter, there could have been radio waves.
Isn't that what atheism is -- a position of denying the existence of God? Basically you are committed to a "~A" claim. Both "A" and "~A" are logical positions that posit truth-claims.
Do you deny the existance of the spaghetti monster? Do you consider that to be a truth claim? Do you consider your denial of the spaghetti monster equivalent to your claim for the existance of God?
12 Jun 06
The truth is we'll probably never know, but look at it this why. Death is merely a change and just because we can not fathom that which may rest beyond it, doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing there at all. Take an unborn fetus for example. The fetus may have the same instinctive reaction to its birth as when we die. For the fetus the womb is the world and its existence there is “life”. When it leaves it verges onto the change, the change we call death, the end of a life. Yet now we are here and can now comprehend the world beyond the womb, having seen it, we now look at that transaction as birth, coming into a new concept of life.
My point is that we are bound to think of the end of this life as "death" the end of all, because we are unable to fathom what may lurk beyond it. However, maybe when we're there we will see the whole process as another birth, each time our essence gaining more and more knowledge about the existence we belong to.
Just an idea?
12 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat the...!! "Dark" infers a relative absence of light. What do you mean by "dark place" not being defined by the absence of light? Do you not define temperature by the presence or absence of kinetic energy? How else would you define "dark"?
No athiesm is not a "~A" claim any more than a dark place is defined by the fact that it has no light. Yes it is dark but that is not what defines it. There could have been light there, there could have been matter, there could have been radio waves.
Do you deny the existance of the spaghetti monster? Do you consider that to be a truth claim? Do you consider your denial of the spaghetti monster equivalent to your claim for the existance of God?
Without redefining atheism, could you provide a definition of atheism, where it is not a "~A" claim?
Do you deny the existance of the spaghetti monster?
I consider it highly unlikely.
Do you consider that to be a truth claim?
No.
Do you consider your denial of the spaghetti monster equivalent to your claim for the existance of God?
N/A.
12 Jun 06
Originally posted by dottewellCareful. You're treading towards aflyingspaghettimonsterism!
Would you be comfortable saying:
"I believe there is no flying spaghetti monster"?
Yes, but this would be because I'm committed to the exclusive claim of Christianity -- I would not be arguing from the absence of proof, but rather use the theistic "proofs" of Christianity to end up excluding the FSM by the law of non-contradiction.