On 12/18/2014 09:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Oh, God, I know I shouldn't touch this topic. But ...., I can't help myself. > > First I need to know how to distinguish metaphysics from theism. Once I know > that, I think I can answer your question.
Well, I suspect you don't need anyone to tell you the difference between the word meanings. But since e-mail is cheap, I'll do it anyway. Theism is simply a particular type of metaphysical assertion. In general, a metaphysical assertion is any claim about the supernatural. Personally, I include untestable physical theories in that set, though most people won't. So, string theory is a metaphysical claim, to me. Theism is the metaphysical claim that there exist some sort of unified, interactive, agents with super powers. That's normally thought of as the Xtian God but would include the members of the typical pantheons like Mercury or Cthulhu. Although I'd prefer a (non-self-report-based) test for [a]theism, I'd be thrilled with a test for any metaphysical belief. Is there a way we could test someone to see if they believed in loop quantum gravity? Or if they believe in witches? On 12/18/2014 08:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:> On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote: > The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. "But if you think that > you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory either." > > The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas the > atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. On 12/18/2014 11:50 PM, Carl Tollander wrote: > I would class theism as one class of arguments about coherence and identity > that may fall on some non-scientific value spectrum (not very high, I don't > think). Most certainly *not* about testability in the phenomenological > sense that the essay addresses. The a-theist or non-theist is not > disbelieving, or buying into the sucker-punch question 'why don't you > believe'; their attention is simply elsewhere. So, it seems both of you (Marcus and Carl) agree that there might be some test implied by the presence or lack of any participation in theism-related acivities. E.g. if some person is never witnessed engaging in anything related to theism, then they are atheist ... or most likely or mostly atheist. And at the other end, if a person is often engaged in theism-related things, then they are a theist. If we then apply this test to people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, we can safely conclude that they are theists, as would be all of the outspoken "atheists" who claim to be atheist. Similarly, those many Catholics I know who only go to church on Christmas Eve or Easter and avoid talking about God or the Pope as if such discussions would burn them, would be atheists. That test reminds me of Shakespeare's ""The lady doth protest too much". I don't buy that as an effective test, though. My favorite example is Raymond Smullyan, who seems to be mostly a pantheist, but (at least in one of his books) talks about his affinity for universal consciousness. Regardless, he's the type who will engage in seemingly _any_ belief set, as a game, for long and absolutely deep, intensive play. And he can and does do this without committing to any actual belief in the tenets, grammar, or conclusions to which the game might lead. Since he's both a math- and a meta-math-ematician, we can't really test him with the above test. Engaging in "artificial logics" is his job. But I tend to find that everyone has a little bit of Smullyan in them, which is why I brought up horror movies. Anyone who likes fiction, whether they know it or not, enjoys playing with artificial logics. The coherence (or lack thereof) of any given game doesn't really detract from the game play, at least not to expert game players. It simply helps the game player classify a particular game and then choose to play it when the mood strikes. When you're in the mood for something like Battlestar Galactica, you can't just replace it with an episode of the Outer Limits. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella But now I'm living on the profits of pride ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
