5 ms·

> he cites a consensus in personal belief in atheism and agnostics among philosophers... as a good reason for philosophy not accepting the existence of God...

> he cites a consensus in personal belief in atheism and agnostics among philosophers... as a good reason for philosophy not accepting the existence of God... It seems incredibly unlikely someone would cite the popularity of agnosticism to establish the certainty of atheism, so I am fairly confident that was not the move he was making. Looking back at the prompt: > "Your colleague David Chalmers has fretted that “there has not been large collective convergence to the truth..." Pretty sure he was just giving a counterexample: a convergence which he happens to believe to be true, along with compatabilism for free will. He's not making some appeal to popularity to resolve the issue. After reading it I'm not even sure whether he considers himself an atheist or agnostic.

FabHK 8y ago
> I'm not even sure whether he considers himself an atheist or agnostic. Presumably he wouldn't cite the convergence towards atheism as an example of convergence to the truth if he'd consider it mistaken. So that assumption is safe, I'd think.
- brownbat 8y ago
  > Presumably he wouldn't cite the convergence towards atheism if he'd consider it mistaken. Same could be said of agnosticism, which he also specifically mentions. Probably an atheist if you're just listing that as a more probable position things could "converge" towards-- I was really just surprised at brobdingnagians' confidence in Maudlin's religious views, based on a passing reference to the entire body of philosophers, from which inference brobdingnagians later levels a charge of hypocrisy, because elsewhere Maudlin discloses an unevidenced belief when pressed on another (nonreligious) matter without even indicating how strongly he holds that possible hunch. Thought it was worth an aside that brob might not have perfectly pinned Maudlin down.
13415 8y ago
The two are not mutually exclusive, you can be an atheist or theist agnostic, but also a positive or negative atheist. You probably mean the colloquial use of agnostic fornegative atheist - the position of someone who does not believe that a god/supernatural being exists -, in contrast to positive atheism, the position of someone who believes that there is no god/supernatural being. There is no problem with this colloquial use, I just wanted to clarify that the "professional" terminology does not match it.
- brownbat 8y ago
  > You probably mean... I was just quoting someone else's use, I didn't really mean anything by it. I've read about Anthony Flew's framework, but it still seems like unnecessary architecture to me, since I still haven't encountered situations where lay terms fail to describe someone's position in a reasonable way. But you know, come to think, if there's one thing religion has taught me-- people can self describe however they like, and there's no sense fighting them on it. If people want to be called just plain atheists, or negative atheists, or double plus agnostics, or pastafarians, that's fine, I can go with whatever everybody's preference is.

FabHK 8y ago

> I'm not even sure whether he considers himself an atheist or agnostic. Presumably he wouldn't cite the convergence towards atheism as an example of convergence to the truth if he'd consider it mistaken. So that assumption is safe, I'd think.

brownbat 8y ago
> Presumably he wouldn't cite the convergence towards atheism if he'd consider it mistaken. Same could be said of agnosticism, which he also specifically mentions. Probably an atheist if you're just listing that as a more probable position things could "converge" towards-- I was really just surprised at brobdingnagians' confidence in Maudlin's religious views, based on a passing reference to the entire body of philosophers, from which inference brobdingnagians later levels a charge of hypocrisy, because elsewhere Maudlin discloses an unevidenced belief when pressed on another (nonreligious) matter without even indicating how strongly he holds that possible hunch. Thought it was worth an aside that brob might not have perfectly pinned Maudlin down.

13415 8y ago

The two are not mutually exclusive, you can be an atheist or theist agnostic, but also a positive or negative atheist. You probably mean the colloquial use of agnostic fornegative atheist - the position of someone who does not believe that a god/supernatural being exists -, in contrast to positive atheism, the position of someone who believes that there is no god/supernatural being. There is no problem with this colloquial use, I just wanted to clarify that the "professional" terminology does not match it.

brownbat 8y ago
> You probably mean... I was just quoting someone else's use, I didn't really mean anything by it. I've read about Anthony Flew's framework, but it still seems like unnecessary architecture to me, since I still haven't encountered situations where lay terms fail to describe someone's position in a reasonable way. But you know, come to think, if there's one thing religion has taught me-- people can self describe however they like, and there's no sense fighting them on it. If people want to be called just plain atheists, or negative atheists, or double plus agnostics, or pastafarians, that's fine, I can go with whatever everybody's preference is.