Abd comments on Uncritical Supercriticality - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 December 2007 04:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (159)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: chaosmosis 03 November 2012 03:19:28AM *  -1 points [-]

It was not asserted as such (remember, I wrote that I was "a little ashamed"). Consider it dicta, but it does contain an argument about atheism, one which I'd expect would be well-known, here. Perhaps someone will point me to consideration of it.

It's a bad argument against atheism. Atheists don't just disbelieve in any particular God, they disbelieve in all of them. Of course, if you redefine God to mean "potato", then atheists will believe in God. But that's a bad use of language, and the default assumption is to use the word in its normal context.

In the original conversation, it was just "God." But the problem is the same. What is this thing that is being disbelieved? The words "God" and"gods" have very different meanings for different people, even among people who supposedly are part of the same "sect." What is it, precisely, that is being accepted or rejected? Or is the concept being accepted or rejected at all, is this just another form of "I'm right" and "You and people like you are wrong," which, like any such expression of identity, bears no relation to any reality other than personal?

Any beings which have supernatural powers or knowledge aren't believed in by atheists. This would include everything that is normally considered a god, and a few extra things too.

What I confronted with that student -- this was about 18 years ago -- was his assumption that he knew what I believed. If I "believe in God," I must think this and that and the other thing.

No, you confused him. That doesn't mean he understood this point.

What God do you believe in? Your point only makes sense if your understanding of God differs from the conventional one(s) in some important respect, which it probably doesn't.

Do I "believe in God"? That would be a fair question, eh? It wasn't asked. Nor have I been asked it here. Nor have I been asked to define my terms, -- what is "God," after all? -- and what I've indicated about it has not been heard (by anyone who responded). Hint: it's related to that capitalization issue. You've seen enough to be able to say what I believe, if you've been paying adequate attention -- or you will if you pay it now.

Are you basically a deist?

Chaosmosis, is there anything that you do "believe"? We need, of course, a definition of "believe."

Definition of believe: "to accept as true or real". I don't believe with certainty in anything. (Technically, my intuitions are certain about certain things. Other parts of my brain disagree with their confidence though.) I slightly believe in everything, in that anything is possible because I'm fallible. But for everyday purposes, I believe that I am a human, that the sky looks blue sometimes, that rain is wet, and about ten million billion other things.

People can argue with each other for years, getting nowhere, because the terms being used are never specified so that fundamental disagreement -- if it exists, sometimes it does not, and I have some suspicion that it never exists outside of psychopathology -- can be identified.

Sure.

Comment author: Abd 03 November 2012 04:20:41AM *  -2 points [-]

What God do you believe in? Your point only makes sense if your understanding of God differs from the conventional one(s) in some important respect, which it probably doesn't.

I pointed to the Mu'tazila in another post to connect my position with an old tradition, one which is frequently thought to be heretical. The real story is that the Rationalists were very successful, early on, which might say something about the compatibility with the "proof-texts" of Islam, i.e, the Qur'an and the stories of the Prophet, but they asserted their power to attempt to crush contrary opinion. No surprise, they then lost power, and were in turn crushed.

To be fair, it was not the rationalist theologians who did this, it was their powerful supporters, who made the reserved and rational interpretations into a state-enforced dogma. Perhaps we could say that they did not adequately restrain their supporters.

Many "Muslims" would consider my comments heretical, I've run into this. I was considered to be too accommodating to "non-Muslims," who, they believed, were doomed to Hell if they did not "accept Islam." This got to the point that when I recited and translated a section of the Qur'an to a group of visiting Christian seminary students, the imam of the mosque was waving frantically at me to try to get me to stop. His religious affiliation trumped any concept that our responsibility might be to convey what was actually in the Qur'an. He was mostly ignorant of it. Small mosque, in a small town, a big fish in a small pond.

Definition of believe: "to accept as true or real". I don't believe with certainty in anything. (Technically, my intuitions are certain about certain things. Other parts of my brain disagree with their confidence though.) I slightly believe in everything, in that anything is possible because I'm fallible. But for everyday purposes, I believe that I am a human, that the sky looks blue sometimes, that rain is wet, and about ten million billion other things.

Great. Could we say that you believe in your experience? I would put it a little differently. You trust your experience. But for what?

In any case, can we distinguish between experience and what is concluded or expected from it?