Yet to encounter
Another goofy item. (I know. Like counting sand on the beach, pointing out all the goofy things people say. I know. But we all have our recreations. This is mine. It keeps me out of bar brawls. One day I’ll tell you about my louche past, but not now, not now.)
While reading Johann Hari’s quote of Richard Dawkins, “In the absence of any evidence whatsoever for a belief , we should assume it is untrue”, I am reminded of the conversation between the Astronaut and the Brain Surgeon. To counter the Surgeon’s belief in God, the Astronaut says, “In none of my travels throughout the Universe, have I encountered any evidence indicating the existence of God, and so I think you are wrong.” “Funny that”, replies the Brain Surgeon. “In all my neurosurgical experience, I have yet to encounter any evidence proving the existence of a thought”.
But God as commonly understood isn’t the same kind of thing as a thought. A giant person who created everything and is good and all-knowing is not the same kind of thing as a thought. That’s not to say that it’s impossible to think of the source of the universe as a thought – or a thinker, and the universe as a thought; it’s an interesting idea; but it’s not the usual meaning of the common English word ‘God,’ so the neurosurgeon’s reply is not all that relevant unless both parties had already agreed that they were talking about God as thougt or a source of thoughts. But that can’t be the case for this particular anecdote, since it wasn’t said, so the neurosurgeon’s reply is irrelevant.
And that “joke” is wrong – we knpw that “thoughts” occur when certain electrochemical signals are transferred in the brain.
They can to some extent, be observed, using modern scanning techniques.
Sounds like more religious claptrap to me ……
‘They [thoughts] can to some extent, be observed, using modern scanning techniques’ – GT
Not, I would humbly submit, the thought itself, but maybe the result of the various firings and interrelationship of various neurones at that particular brain state in that infititesimal fraction of a second that comprised the emergent doodah we think of as a thought – then it’s gone.
It’s still religious claptrap, though – you’re right there, G.
The point of the story is that if you look in the wrong place you will never find what you are looking for. For example, Christians do not believe that God exists out in space somewhere so saying one has never found it on one’s travels through space is irrelevant.
The difference between God and thoughts is that there is no evidence that is credible of the existence of God . So the story is question-begging.
If not out in space, then where?
Even non-fundamentalists affirm that “He ascended into heaven.” . . .
On a positive note;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html
After all the atheist bashing in the UK press recently, that makes for happy reading.
I would agree with OB that the analogy is mistaken, in that the existence of thoughts is immediately, intuitively obvious in the way that the existence of God is not (to me, at least. Someone of a more mystical bend of mind could perhaps argue that it is).
It is quite apt, however, in that whatever we may find evidence for is constrained by the frameworks in which we interpret the universe and everything in it – as Paul Powers mentioned.
It is quite risky to raise “God as commonly understood” in the argument, because it may be considerably more abstract than, er, commonly understood. Goodness and omniscience are surely attributes commonly attributed to God – but gigantic size? I think the religious conception of God may be somewhat more abstract than that.
“because it may be considerably more abstract than, er, commonly understood.”
Well, that’s one reason these discussions tend to be so stupid and frustrating and often plain deceptive. The word ‘God’ is taken for granted and used with great confidence, but it can mean anything and everything – hence defenders can always (and very often do) shift their ground whenever atheists dispute a claim. ‘God’ is probably the single stupidest most meaningless but at the same time coercive and deceptive words in the English language (and the same no doubt applies for most other languages). I hate the damn word, and yet people keep using it, so atheists are forced to argue on theist terms.
I mean – just a phrase like ‘the existence of God’ – and talk of whether it’s intuitive or not – I literally have no idea what’s being talked about there – because there are so many versions of ‘God’ and it’s so readily adaptable for purposes of bullshitting that it’s just a useless, empty, confusion-sowing word.
I see the problem, OB, but I’m not as pessimistic as you are. Whereas it seems to you that theists often shift their ground when conceptions of God are attacked, for theists, it may often seem that strawman conceptions of God are attacked in a similar way that Hobson attacks a strawman version of atheism. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are rather noisy version of public religion pretty much guilty of everything atheism charges them with. On the other hand, many of the more public atheists do not just attack these versions of religion. They are attacking religion wholesale. On both sides, there’s the issue of the principle of charity: to attack a knowledge claim, one should attack the best, most intricate and worked-out version of it. But it applies to knowledge claims, i.e. (a version of) God, not religion as such, which is a social institution. But I am rambling.
Can atheism be called a knowledge claim? When, of course, it’s not a strawman, I mean.
Religion could exist without atheists, of course. Could “atheism,” under that name, possibly exist without prior claims to the contrary?
I suppose you could be a latent atheist. An attitude which is disinclined to accept the unsupported assertion of the supernatural.
Waiting like a frog in the baked mud for someone to suggest that the stars are god’s daisy chain.
(Christmas quiz, spot the literary reference.)
Molesworth? Is that ffotherington-thomas? Certainly sounds like the little bastard.
Can atheism be called a knowledge claim? When, of course, it’s not a strawman, I mean.
Religion could exist without atheists, of course. Could “atheism,” under that name, possibly exist without prior claims to the contrary?
Interesting question. The problem is here that atheism is both commonly defined as lack of belief in Gods, which does not entail a knowledge claim, and belief in a lack of God, which may not in and of itself be accompanied by a knowledge claim but which is usually accompanied by a particular view on the nature of the universe and our place in it. I know OB strongly objects to using “atheist” in the former sense. But it is, commonly and not necessarily in bad faith, used in both meanings. My own sympathies are with the former one. I’m generally more sympathetic to militant atheists than to moderate agnostics – just as I tend to prefer right-wing conservatives to liberals.
In the latter sense, atheism could be perhaps meaningful in the absence of any religious claims. Though I think it would widen the usage of the word “atheist” too much. My cat would, I guess, be an atheist in that sense.
Then again, does any religious claim have meaning if the converse is not at least conceivable – regardless of whether it is actually held by anyone? I would guess the same goes for atheism. So I am not sure whether religion could exist in the absence of at least the imaginability of a godless world.
Thing is, if we have animism, classical polytheism and post-classical monotheism, we’re dealing with radically different religious viewpoints, to the extent that polytheism with its manifold of powerful, but limited beings may be closer to an atheist worldview than Christian monotheism would be. So I’m not sure whether the concept of religion as such, as opposed to atheism, makes sense.
Nope, not Fotherington-Thomas. Even more annoying character.
Even more annoying. Hmm. Little Nell, Little Eva, Tiny Tim – I dunno. I’ll disqualify myself now and look it up.
Ohhh.
My cats are atheists in that sense, too – but, I mean entities capable of conceiving of a god who simply don’t, just like people don’t conceive of celestial teapots and for the same reasons.