Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

3-16am.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#141

Post by [deleted] »

svieira wrote: post #98
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of meaning and purpose. After all, the atheist says "there is no need for another uncaused cause because ..." - that "because" serves the purpose of religion. I would argue that one cannot be an atheist without that "because". An agnostic can act in the fashion of an…

[deleted]

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#142

Post by goto11 »

svieira wrote: post #98
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of meaning and purpose. After all, the atheist says "there is no need for another uncaused cause because ..." - that "because" serves the purpose of religion. I would argue that one cannot be an atheist without that "because". An agnostic can act in the fashion of an…

Even if you say you don't believe in Santa Claus, you would still believe in Santa Claus. Because the gifts must be coming from somewhere, and if we call that somewhere Santa Claus, then everyone actually believe in Santa Claus despite their claim not to.

Is that a fair representation of your viewpoint?

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#143

Post by goto11 »

dpoochieni wrote: post #91
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

Perhaps in the US, but I don't think this is the case in say China. Communism is atheist but not known for environmentalism. Atheism does not imply scientism or rationality either.

People seem to have a really hard time grasping that atheism does not imply any particular world view or ideology beside believing in zero gods.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#144

Post by eivarv »

harperlee wrote: post #140
eivarv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even this charitable interpretation doesn't make much sense: The only thing "atheists" have in common is that they have a lack of belief – we have no idea what they actually DO believe (people come with various philosophical persuasions, after all). The other way you propose of defining religions is so general and vague that it borders on meaningless, and doesn't deal with the fact that different people have differen…

I think it makes sense: even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs; both in the ‘individual facts’ way (you can’t be rational about everything all the time), and in the ‘cosmovision’ way (ideas about what to do with one’s life, etc.). The OP was just being a little bit provocative while calling those beliefs a religion, which I think can be allowed; at least for the fact that there are a bunch of people that are r…

    even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs
They might, but my point is that they are different - meaning that you therefore can’t categorize it as a religion (not to mention that these answers don’t have anything to do with atheism in and of itself).

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#145

Post by goto11 »

thisiszilff wrote: post #118
eivarv wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't be serious. Actual religions have sets of ideas (rules, creation-myths, alternative epistemologies, etc.), whereas atheism has none. The term literally means "without god(s)" (which was a defining feature of religions by those who coined the term). It is an absence of belief (at least in the way the term is commonly used; There are "atheistic religions" in the sense that they don't have a deity). Atheism is…

The charitable interpretation is that most people -- even atheists -- will have a belief system that is functionally equivalent to a religion. > Atheism is to religion as being silent is to speaking – and you're essentially claiming it's just another way of speaking. Another way of saying it is that religions (as we know them) are answers to questions, you can get rid of those answers, disagree with them, etc. but th…

> Another way of saying it is that religions (as we know them) are answers to questions

Perhaps, but atheism does not answer questions like how the world is created. You can be atheist and believe in big bang or believe that the universe have always existed or something else, or you can just not care. Atheism just eliminates some particular answers like "a god did it".

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#146

Post by mannykannot »

keiferski wrote: post #67
NikolaNovak wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal, perhaps cynical perspective: religious people expanding definition of "religion" into meaninglessness. In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices. It is NOT a synonym for all belief, philosophy, ethical framework, world paradigms, etc. If it does become a synonym, then we'll simply need a NEW word to distinguish between "belief in…

> In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices. That is simply not true. "Religion is a modern Western concept.[12] Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

"Religion is a modern Western concept. Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages."

Ah, so there are entire cultures that are atheistic. Your argument has just achieved circularity!

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#147

Post by mannykannot »

ZainRiz wrote: post #84
NikolaNovak wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal, perhaps cynical perspective: religious people expanding definition of "religion" into meaninglessness. In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices. It is NOT a synonym for all belief, philosophy, ethical framework, world paradigms, etc. If it does become a synonym, then we'll simply need a NEW word to distinguish between "belief in…

> In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices. Rather, in modern, western English we consider "religion" to mean that. Islam for examples uses the word 'Deen', the meaning of it includes how you looked at the world and your entire way of life. Deen means basically exactly the stuff you say religion is not a synonym for :)

If Deen - or any other concept - posits one or more dieties as creators of the universe, then atheism is explicitly not the same; on the other hand, if it does not, then it is irrelevant to the claim that atheism is a religion.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#148

Post by mannykannot »

dragonwriter wrote: post #88
NikolaNovak wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal, perhaps cynical perspective: religious people expanding definition of "religion" into meaninglessness. In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices. It is NOT a synonym for all belief, philosophy, ethical framework, world paradigms, etc. If it does become a synonym, then we'll simply need a NEW word to distinguish between "belief in…

> In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices. "Religion" isn't a word in "most languages". "Religion" in English and the closely-related terms in closely-related languages may mean (or at least strongly imply) something like that (though with a god or God, specifically, not merely "a supernatural entity") simply because of the dominant belief…

I think NikolaNovak is making the point that advocates of the "atheism is a religion" view equivocate over what it is that atheism is supposedly a case of.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#149

Post by mannykannot »

brlewis wrote: post #82
jhbadger wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Reincarnation is every bit as supernatural as Christian Heaven, and there are accompanying practices that are supposed to influence the outcome of that via karma.

I did not think impersonal entities were what the gp post was talking about; apologies if they were. But even including impersonal supernatural entities, the wikipedia page I cited shows that's not a defining characteristic.

It does not follow, from the claim that belief in supernatural entities is not a defining characteristic of religion, that the rejection of supernatural entities is a religion. You might be able to argue that they are orthogonal issues, but then a lot of religious people would disagree vehemently with you!

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#150

Post by dragonwriter »

dpoochieni wrote: post #131
dragonwriter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? No, neither factual belief in climate change (in general, or more specifically anthropogenic climate change) nor ideological belief in environmentalism is eschatology ("the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind") to start with, and even if they have a…

Now you're just repeating definitions. I'll ask you this, why would any one give a damn about "anthropogenic climate change" if they did not have some theory in their heads about "the final destiny of humankind"? Cause I hope they do have a theory that connects to their personal values, otherwise they are just following blindly. PS. did you just make up "factual belief"? I mean it is a tautology on many levels. But l…

> I'll ask you this, why would any one give a damn about "anthropogenic climate change" if they did not have some theory in their heads about "the final destiny of humankind"?

Because they have some concern about the quality of life people experience in the future, independent of any concept of the final destiny of humankind.

> Cause I hope they do have a theory that connects to their personal values, otherwise they are just following blindly

I'm not sure what your point is, unless you are unable to separate the idea of having values from eschatological theory. While certainly these can (and often are) ties together in religion, values can exist without any eschatology.

> did you just make up "factual belief"?

No.

> I mean it is a tautology on many levels.

It can't be a tautology because it's not a proposition, much less one that is true by definition. You might mean to say it's redundant, but it's not that. A factual belief is a belief on a question of fact, as opposed, e.g., to a question of values.

Post reply on HN