JB 1-2
- What did the word "atheism" conjure up for Baggini in his schooldays? Did it conjure similar associations for you? Or does it still?
- The atheist's disbelief in god is usually accompanied by what other rejection, and what affirmation?
- What reductive 'ism do atheists usually not embrace? Which
- Do you have any problem with the claim that love exists, even though it is not identical with some physical substance or "stuff"?
- What kind of absence of evidence IS evidence of absence?
- What natural human tendency leading to extraordinary but poorly evidenced claims did David Hume point out?
- What do you think of the claim that all religions are paths to the same truth?
- What do you think of Russell's statement about alternately deploying the labels atheist and agnostic depending on his audience?
- Do you agree that atheism is not a faith position?
- Is Pascal's Wager rigged?
So, I'm not sure I understood the description Baggini gave for eliminative materialism. Maybe because I didn't know there was such a thing as eliminative materialism prior to this reading, but I understood eliminative materialism as a belief that our minds simply do not exist? Where a physicalist might say that our minds are simply an extension of the brain or that emotions are an extension of chemicals and neurons firing, a eliminative materialist would say that there simply is no mind? Its a very difficult idea to grasp. I'd love to discuss this -ism in class if possible, it might help me understand it better.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the first posted question-
Baggini was raised in what he calls a "mild" form of indoctrination. I too was raised in such an environment where repetition and reinforcement were the method of assimilation to religious teachings. I'm not sure about the roots of Christianity, but Islam's roots were in a pagan society that, according to the Quran, persecuted and fought against the creation of this monotheistic religion in their society. So, within the Quran there are many verses that essentially curse the pagans and associate a disbelief in Islam with immorality, paganism, and a betrayal of god. So, naturally my image of atheists and disbelievers in god was horrific growing up. so similarly to Baggini, I too still see the word atheism as a barely perceivable smudge that, once noticed cannot be forgotten. There is an associated underlying guilt with the idea of this word.
Eliminative materialists think mind is a "user illusion" predicated on the operations of a material brain, or a "facon de parler," a folk-psychological manner of speaking that names nothing ultimately real. In other words, they would reduce all such talk to the physics of neurology. They're a modern version of the old crude materialism that says nothing exists but atoms and the void.
DeleteLess extreme materialists (physicalists) take a non-reductive approach, and treat our mind-talk as naming real experiences and functions that become possible by virtue of brain physics but are not identical with it.
What comes first- theism or atheism? It seems logical to think atheism comes first but it seems to me that you cannot create a rebellion against something from nothing. Is atheism a movement against theism, or is it the case that theism is creation of something from nothing, insofar as it puts God on the stage where there was previously no belief in a deity. Is atheism a reaction or a starting point?
ReplyDeleteBaggini's point is that there were non-believers in god before there were believers, just as there were non-Nessies before there were believers in the monster. There was just no occasion to name them. Non-belief was the default, there was no object of belief for them to resist or overcome. Movements require resistance.
DeleteBut atheism required theism in order to become an ideology. Prior to that, as Baggini states, there was nothing special about a lack of belief. I just find it interesting that the idea of atheism, as it is used now, seems largely reactionary to the idea of theism. Chicken and Egg situation, it seems. Sure there was an egg (atheism) before the Chicken (theism) but it is only through the foundation of the Chicken that the Egg can be created. Am I reading way too much into this?
Deletei think i see what you're getting at. I took his point to meaning, without the knowledge of a god, you're in a sense automatically existing as if there isn't a god.
DeleteIf you're familiar with southern baptist theology: I've been told by preachers that newborns that die without being told about god automatically go to heaven. Why? because they never had the chance to know God.
that's how i understood it anyway
I'm very intrigued by the idea that all religions are or are not the same. I know that I have said that phrase before without a philosophical meaning-- I just think god based religions are strikingly similar and have similar if not the same end goal (a heaven or afterlife of peace). However, I thought Baggini brought forth a good point that had just never crossed my mind: "religions flatly contradict one another."
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I'd be interested in hearing other's perspectives on the idea.