Both a rationalist and an empiricist at the same time.

[no-one-particular]

It seems to me that Atheism amounts to a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-empiricism and that Theism amounts to a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-rationalism. Both are bizarre caricatures of what they should be. The two argue and talk past one another oblivious of the fact that it is entirely possible to be both a rationalist and an empiricist at the same time. They do not actually conflict.

As someone who is both a rationalist and an empiricist:
I agree with what theism should be. I disagree with what it is.
I agree with what atheism should be. I disagree with what it is.
Both are "missing the mark".

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Rationalism?useskin=oasis

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is any view appealing to reason (Logos) as the source of the justification required to know something beyond a reasonable doubt. (Empirically observing the sun rise again and again is not sufficient to know beyond a reasonable doubt that it will rise the next day. One much have an understanding of the 'reasons' why it rises). At issue is the fundamental source of human knowledge, and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know (see Epistemology). Rationalism should not be confused with rationalization.

Rationalism is often incorrectly contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist. The empiricist view holds that beliefs are only justified if they come to us through experience, either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. But empiricism does not claim that those beliefs are known beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore does not conflict with rationalism. The distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period, and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved.

 

[PyramidHead]

I know philosophy may seem like an interesting major, but it's not doing you any good. Get out while you still can.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I know philosophy may seem like an interesting major, but it's not doing you any good. Get out while you still can.

Come on, dude, that's uncalled for. Philosophy majors are people our society needs. Burgers don't flip themselves, after all.

...

Unless, of course, the restaurant buys some kind of burger-flipping machine. Then the philosophy degree is kind of wasted.

 

[rousseau]

I know philosophy may seem like an interesting major, but it's not doing you any good. Get out while you still can.

As far as I can tell from my dabblings in philosophy, philosophy is a way for people to make a career out of saying very little with a lot of words that are so convoluted that people can't understand what they actually mean.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What do you mean by "with"?

 

[PyramidHead]

I know philosophy may seem like an interesting major, but it's not doing you any good. Get out while you still can.

As far as I can tell from my dabblings in philosophy, philosophy is a way for people to make a career out of saying very little with a lot of words that are so convoluted that people can't understand what they actually mean.

I got my BA in 2005. It took me a long time to recover and stop thinking that the categories I sliced everything into were actually applicable to reality. There are plenty of philosophically-minded writers who strive for clarity and relevance in their work. But the first- or second-year philosophy student, armed with just enough jargon to think he's worked out something important, can be insufferable.

 

[rousseau]

As far as I can tell from my dabblings in philosophy, philosophy is a way for people to make a career out of saying very little with a lot of words that are so convoluted that people can't understand what they actually mean.

I got my BA in 2005. It took me a long time to recover and stop thinking that the categories I sliced everything into were actually applicable to reality. There are plenty of philosophically-minded writers who strive for clarity and relevance in their work. But the first- or second-year philosophy student, armed with just enough jargon to think he's worked out something important, can be insufferable.

Yea I don't want to completely write off the entire school of thought, but after doing a Bachelor of Science I feel like many philosophical ideas stand in the shadow of science. So much of what I learned re: biology, evolution, physics are incredible ways of understanding the environment. Whenever I try to read any philosophy I always end up just reducing it to deeper physical theories and give up trying to parse endless, complicated text that I'm not confident I'm going to glean much meaning from.

That said, I'm sure there is loads of excellent, practical philosophy out there.

 

[PyramidHead]

As to the OP, what do you consider to be atheism and theism NOW, and what do you mean when you say what they SHOULD be? And how did you come to use those words in such a way?

 

[Wiploc]

As far as I can tell from my dabblings in philosophy, philosophy is a way for people to make a career out of saying very little with a lot of words that are so convoluted that people can't understand what they actually mean.

I thought studying philosophy was a way to feel good about yourself. As in, "Hey, it turns out that I'm smarter than Socrates!"

 

[jonJ]

I know philosophy may seem like an interesting major, but it's not doing you any good. Get out while you still can.

As far as I can tell from my dabblings in philosophy, philosophy is a way for people to make a career out of saying very little with a lot of words that are so convoluted that people can't understand what they actually mean.

Philosophy is the sound that words make when the meaning has been squeezed out of them.

The really interesting thing about philosophy is that the whole discipline was shown up by Wittgenstein in the 1930s, and should have vanished at that moment; but philosophers quietly agreed among themselves to ignore him and go on doing whatever it was they were doing before. It's taken the rest of the world about eighty years, but they've finally caught on to the fact that Wittgenstein was right.

 

[dystopian]

I thought studying philosophy was a way to feel good about yourself. As in, "Hey, it turns out that I'm smarter than Socrates!"

That would require you to know nothing at all, including knowing that knowing nothing makes you wisest of all; which would mean you can't know that you're smarter than Socrates.

 

[Perspicuo]

I would never study philosophy, as my first major anyway. I'd go for anthropology, English, journalism or psychology. Then and only then I would allow myself to try philosophy out.

 

[Underseer]

It seems to me that Atheism amounts to a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-empiricism and that Theism amounts to a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-rationalism. Both are bizarre caricatures of what they should be. The two argue and talk past one another oblivious of the fact that it is entirely possible to be both a rationalist and an empiricist at the same time. They do not actually conflict.

As someone who is both a rationalist and an empiricist:
I agree with what theism should be. I disagree with what it is.
I agree with what atheism should be. I disagree with what it is.
Both are "missing the mark".

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Rationalism?useskin=oasis

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is any view appealing to reason (Logos) as the source of the justification required to know something beyond a reasonable doubt. (Empirically observing the sun rise again and again is not sufficient to know beyond a reasonable doubt that it will rise the next day. One much have an understanding of the 'reasons' why it rises). At issue is the fundamental source of human knowledge, and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know (see Epistemology). Rationalism should not be confused with rationalization.

Rationalism is often incorrectly contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist. The empiricist view holds that beliefs are only justified if they come to us through experience, either through the external senses or through such inner sensations as pain and gratification. But empiricism does not claim that those beliefs are known beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore does not conflict with rationalism. The distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period, and would not have been recognized by the philosophers involved.

Ah, the old "both sides are exactly as bad" argument. People make this argument thinking it will make them seem more reasonable and less biased, when it generally does the opposite.

• Person A says that leprechauns are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that fairies are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that elves are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that vampires are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that orcs are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that werewolves are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that unicorns are definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that bigfoot is definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that Chupacabra is definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that Harry Potter is definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that Cthulu is definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.
• Person A says that Thor (comic book version) is definitely real. Person B does not accept person A's claim. Both A and B are just as delusional and extreme according to you.

Can you spot the pattern yet? Do you think it is reasonable to say that A and B are just as extreme?

Do you accept any of the above claims as true, partially true, or likely to be true? If not, why are you such an extremist?

 

[steve_bnk]

Sigh...yet again atheism is not a belief or a philosophy.

Religion and some aspects of philosophy both serve the same purpose, non scientific ways to develop an emotional paradigm of reality and finding meaning.

Philosophy ad religion have the same metaphysical problem, definitions and meaning.

The Abrahamic religions resolve the problem by inventing an all powerful god from which all truth is derived.

Lacking such an entity modern philosophy is reduced to endless unresolvable debate on meaning akin to theistic discourse.

When Natural Philosophy evolved into modern empirical science philosophers lost a meal ticket. What was left was debating philosophical definitions.


There are no justifications. Things that work and things that do not in given situations.

 

[Underseer]

Sigh...yet again atheism is not a belief or a philosophy.

Religion and some aspects of philosophy both serve the same purpose, non scientific ways to develop an emotional paradigm of reality and finding meaning.

Philosophy ad religion have the same metaphysical problem, definitions and meaning.

The Abrahamic religions resolve the problem by inventing an all powerful god from which all truth is derived.

Lacking such an entity modern philosophy is reduced to endless unresolvable debate on meaning akin to theistic discourse.

When Natural Philosophy evolved into modern empirical science philosophers lost a meal ticket. What was left was debating philosophical definitions.


There are no justifications. Things that work and things that do not in given situations.

Do you believe that goblins are real?

If not, why are you so extreme? Why can't you just take a more rational approach and find a more reasonable middle ground between believing goblins are real and not believing goblins are real?

Sorry. I'm using you to make fun of the original poster, which is doubly bad, but I can't help myself. The fundamental argument is so bad that I'm simply not sure how to respond.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sigh...yet again atheism is not a belief or a philosophy.

True, but if nop had said:

It seems to me that Atheism results from a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-empiricism...

then it wouldn't have seemed nearly as condescending.

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if it does take a bit of faith to believe that God does not exist, but in that case you could call it a 'reasonable faith'.

 

[KeepTalking]

It seems to me that Atheism amounts to a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-empiricism and that Theism amounts to a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-rationalism.

Undoubtedly, some atheists are what you are calling hyper-empiricists, and they would be better characterized as strong atheists. You certainly cannot apply this to all atheists, however, as we weak atheists simply withhold belief in god(s), given the lack of evidence for said belief. This position is both empiricist and rationalist. I have more trouble with your contention that theism is rational, much less hyper-rational. Perhaps there are some very few Eastern religions that may come close to rationalism, but most religions, and especially the Abrahamic religions we encounter mostly in the west, eschew reason and appeal to authority and divine revelation. This is far removed from rationalism.

The two argue and talk past one another oblivious of the fact that it is entirely possible to be both a rationalist and an empiricist at the same time. They do not actually conflict.

Yes, and those I know who embrace both rationalism and empiricism are usually either atheists or agnostics.

As someone who is both a rationalist and an empiricist:

As both a rationalist and empiricist, how would you label your system of belief? Are you an agnostic?

I agree with what theism should be. I disagree with what it is.

I agree with you there. Theism should be a relic of the past, and it should not be as widespread as it is in the modern world. But I wonder what you think it is, and what you think it should be. You never really get around to telling us that in this post.

I agree with what atheism should be. I disagree with what it is.
Both are "missing the mark".

What do you think atheism should be, and what do you think it is? Once again, you fail to make this clear.

As noted previously, I am also interested in what you think the middle ground you are staking out is, and what it should be called if it is not atheism nor theism.

 

[Perspicuo]

Atheism is no more a philosophy than bald is a hat. No-- wait...

 

[steve_bnk]

True, but if nop had said:

It seems to me that Atheism results from a grotesquely exaggerated hyper-empiricism...

then it wouldn't have seemed nearly as condescending.

Don't have a clue what you are saying. Humor me and connect the dots.

Considering the threads on the old forum I am sure you are aware of addressing the misuse of the term atheist my sentiment is just what I said....a long sigh of disappointment.

There is no overarching atheist code or belief. Humanism has several versions oi a manifesto, and humanism can be theistic.