Notes on Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart
"The practicality of life requires that we each believe something" (p. 2). What an unsupported assertion. We do not have to replace God with an alternative belief. We certainly can, but why would he assume it was "required"? Or, does he mean that we have to have values (justified?) that we live by? We can't just say "anything goes?" If that's what he means, that seems more supportable.
Harvard Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists Society (name has been changed to Harvard Humanists, atheists and agnostics, https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~secular/?page_id=32 .
Perspectival Realism, the concept that our experiences and perspectives are central to how we form beliefs abou tthe world, assumes (p. 23)
1. An external reality exist
2. Our senses perceive this external reality
3. Language and thought are tools for describing and understanding what our senses perceive. In language and thought are included all tools that are used to communicate meaning (p. 27). Does he include computers here? He includes math, statistics, semantics, logic
(Limits I perceive: our senses seem to only perceive some of this reality and only in some ways. That is we can't perceive everything that is in our reality; and some of what we perceive we perceive with limitations due to our biology. So what makes God not likely to be one of the things we can't perceive? There are no measurable ways to prove it false)
Perspectival Realism assumes that we can never be objective because objectivity requires us to remove ourselves from any one perspective, which is like saying removing ourselves from ourselves: to quote Thomas Nagel, "the view from nowhere" (p. 34).
These beliefs all rest on assumptions. We cannot prove without a doubt that they are true but our experience demands that they are.
"A truth or fact is imply an accurate account of reality" (p. 24). Facts exist, it is their interpretation that differs.
Provides ten non-commandments
1. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief
2. We can perceive the world only through our human senses
3. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world
4. All truth is proportional to the evidence
5. There is no God
6. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
7. There is no universal moral truth
8. We act morally when the happ8iness of others makes us happy
9. We benefit from living in and supporting an ethical society
10. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these
The map is not the territory (See Ron Giere for more discussion). What we are doing is trying to get the best map we can. That means testing our hypothesis, looking at multiple perspectives. We could assign numbers to our beliefs depending on how firm the evidence is that we have. Metaphorically, the locations on our map would be numbered showing us which territories were more firmly established and which we were less sure of.
How do we weigh questions that observation and evidence simply cannot answer like: do we have a soul? We can use Ockham's razor: simple is better and more specifically the belief that explains the data and with the fewest assumptions is probably the right one.
Make the argument that all of us are motivated by our desire to pursue life happiness. I don't think that captures motives well. People do things because they want to get back at the world or make someone pay and I don't think it's useful to call that their individual life happiness.
Other HUmanist sites and articles
thehumanist.com
When identity trumps the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?_r=0
Harvard Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists Society (name has been changed to Harvard Humanists, atheists and agnostics, https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~secular/?page_id=32 .
Perspectival Realism, the concept that our experiences and perspectives are central to how we form beliefs abou tthe world, assumes (p. 23)
1. An external reality exist
2. Our senses perceive this external reality
3. Language and thought are tools for describing and understanding what our senses perceive. In language and thought are included all tools that are used to communicate meaning (p. 27). Does he include computers here? He includes math, statistics, semantics, logic
(Limits I perceive: our senses seem to only perceive some of this reality and only in some ways. That is we can't perceive everything that is in our reality; and some of what we perceive we perceive with limitations due to our biology. So what makes God not likely to be one of the things we can't perceive? There are no measurable ways to prove it false)
Perspectival Realism assumes that we can never be objective because objectivity requires us to remove ourselves from any one perspective, which is like saying removing ourselves from ourselves: to quote Thomas Nagel, "the view from nowhere" (p. 34).
These beliefs all rest on assumptions. We cannot prove without a doubt that they are true but our experience demands that they are.
"A truth or fact is imply an accurate account of reality" (p. 24). Facts exist, it is their interpretation that differs.
Provides ten non-commandments
1. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief
2. We can perceive the world only through our human senses
3. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world
4. All truth is proportional to the evidence
5. There is no God
6. We all strive to live a happy life. We pursue things that make us happy and avoid things that do not.
7. There is no universal moral truth
8. We act morally when the happ8iness of others makes us happy
9. We benefit from living in and supporting an ethical society
10. All our beliefs are subject to change in the face of new evidence, including these
The map is not the territory (See Ron Giere for more discussion). What we are doing is trying to get the best map we can. That means testing our hypothesis, looking at multiple perspectives. We could assign numbers to our beliefs depending on how firm the evidence is that we have. Metaphorically, the locations on our map would be numbered showing us which territories were more firmly established and which we were less sure of.
How do we weigh questions that observation and evidence simply cannot answer like: do we have a soul? We can use Ockham's razor: simple is better and more specifically the belief that explains the data and with the fewest assumptions is probably the right one.
Make the argument that all of us are motivated by our desire to pursue life happiness. I don't think that captures motives well. People do things because they want to get back at the world or make someone pay and I don't think it's useful to call that their individual life happiness.
Other HUmanist sites and articles
thehumanist.com
When identity trumps the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/upshot/when-beliefs-and-facts-collide.html?_r=0
Comments
Post a Comment