Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism"

[mfbukowski]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:17 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

There are a lot of things we believe without proof too.

Here is the problem:

Statement X:

"A statement cannot be true without objective evidence"

Rebuttal of Statement X:

"There is no objective evidence for statement X; therefore by it's own standard, it cannot be true"

There was a movement in philosophy in the middle of the 20th century which held a belief based on faith  in Statement X.

That movement was called "Logical Positivism".

Virtually NO ONE in contemporary philosophy now holds that opinion in totality.

Except on this board,of course. 🙃

If you don't believe me, my evidence  for that statement can be affirmed easily.

Just google "death of logical positivism" and see how many hits you get.

Read a few.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

It used to be part of the missionary discussions back under the old "Commitment Pattern" program. It was clearly a "Build On Common Beliefs" intro to a discussion about God. That being said, I'm of the opinion that Hamilton is substantially blowing out of proportion its importance relative to the subject at hand.

Exactly. The proof is that the language about “a higher power” and “may be known by other names” wasn’t in the Spanish version of the discussions and in fact may have been unique to the English version.

Translating back to English, the Spanish discussions said:

Like the majority of people, we believe in God. We know God lives and want to share with you what we believe about him.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here is the problem:

Statement X:

"A statement cannot be true without objective evidence"

Rebuttal of Statement X:

"There is no objective evidence for statement X; therefore by it's own standard, it cannot be true"

There was a movement in philosophy in the middle of the 20th century which held a belief based on faith  in Statement X.

That movement was called "Logical Positivism".

Virtually NO ONE in contemporary philosophy now holds that opinion in totality.

Except on this board,of course. 🙃

If you don't believe me, my evidence  for that statement can be affirmed easily.

Just google "death of logical positivism" and see how many hits you get.

Read a few.

 

 

I realized many of those articles are too technical for non-philosophy folks, so there is always wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#:~:text=Carl Hempel became a major,observation statements or protocol statements).

On the other hand there is a 1 hour class on the subject that will be too technical for amateurs, but nails it.

 

The problem is the teacher's Brit. accent and his pomposity.

But if you start around minute 30 or so, you will get what is most valuable for this discussion.

Honestly guys, positivism has been replaced by postmodernism which is VERY RELIGION FRIENDLY.

We really need to get over the LDS fear of philosophy- the world has changed, and nowadays philosophy is our friend!! 

The justification of morals and emotions as fully "rational" and relational is now pretty much universally accepted!!

This could be our moment if we just get educated in these areas

Edited May 12, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

may have been unique to the English version

No. It's 大多數的人相信有一位至高之神，雖然他們可能用不同的名字來稱呼祂 in Chinese.

[Damien the Leper]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:02 PM, smac97 said:

I have listened to a number of recorded statements by Christopher Hitchens and find him to be an interesting and intelligent fellow.  

As some of you may know, Daniel Peterson, whom I admire, was not a fan of his:

• 2007 FAIR Presentation (video and transcript)
• 2007 FARMS Review: “God and Mr. Hitchens”
• May 17, 2016: “Christopher Hitchens was shaky in his atheism, new book suggests”
• April 3, 2019: Christopher Hitchens gets it wrong, yet again.
• February 12, 2020: “God and mr. hitchens, again”
• April 29, 2020: For your “Christopher Hitchens Memorial ‘How Religion Poisons Everything’ File”
• May 29, 2020: On the late Christopher Hitchens

DCP, it seems, took particular exception to Hitchens' poison penned God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  The same goes with William Hamblin, who in 2009 wrote a review of the book: The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible.  In it Hamblin characterizes Hamblin as an "antitheist," which I think is apt insofar as Hitchens situated himself as affirmatively opposing theism.

Anyway, I just saw this video of Hitchens on YouTube:

A homespun transcript:

Despite this, it seems like atheists rather frequently "positively" deny the existence of God.  And in a Latter-day Saint context, our critics often "positively" deny the foundational claims of the Restoration.  For example, @Teancum has recently declared our beliefs to be "a lie," that "there were no gold plates. It is a total fabrication.  A lie."  Then there are the endless references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seem to be positive denials dressed up as ridicule and scorn (see, e.g., here, here).  From our own @HappyJackWagon : "I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

So what is going on here?  Am I wrong in my assessment?  That atheists may seem to - as Hitchens does above - rhetorically distance themselves from affirmatively (or "positively") denying the existence of God, but then nonetheless affirmatively/positively deny the existence of God?

Thanks,

-Smac

The label of "Agnostic Atheist" is a great description. A person is agnostic because they don't know if God exists. The same person is also an atheist because they don't believe God exists. There is a disastrous idea that knowing and believing are somehow the same thing or overlap to a great degree. They do not and cannot.

[Teancum]

On 5/11/2023 at 4:33 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Ok explain to me how Harris is not a small-minded bigot like the article demonstrates. You think racial profiling isn't racist?

If you want to have a Sam Harris thread feel free to start one.

[Teancum]

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

 

I have long recognized that former Latter-day Saints resent being told by strangers that they left due to sin (or wanting to sin).  It's an ugly and baseless stereotype in that context.

Some do.  Some don't.  My parents, while they raised us kids LDS, were never active from their age of 18 on. I suspect it had a lot to do with the WoW.  Though my dad was ultimately ordained an Elder 5 years before he died which in and of itself is an interesting story.  But yes stereotypes are not a wonderful thing.

 

 

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

Similarly, current Latter-day Saints resent being told by strangers that they remain in the Church only because they were born into it,

I believe my point wa and is you likely would not have joined the church as someone born into another faith tradition.  Like it or not is is a simple fact that most people stay in the religion they are born into. It is a statistical fact.  And if they are a believer they believe their birth faith is the bes and most correct.  I do not argue that is why you or others stay.  And on a positive note the doctrine of the church does encourage its members to study, pray and ponder and to receive their own personal witness.  I do not know whether or not other faith traditions emphasize that as heavily.  So no I am not arguing this at all. 

 

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

 

or because they are ignorant, or because of social pressures, etc. 

Now you are putting words into my mouth.  I have argued neither.  But I can say as one who stayed active for a fair amount of time after I no longer believed it was primarily due to social issues. And I know others that are similar.

 

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

 

These too are ugly and baseless stereotypes in that context.

I objected to your characterization of me.  I was correcting your false characterization of me.  

Clearly you misunderstood me.  Hopefully I have clarified.

 

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

Yes, I have that liberty.

Sure you so.  Do you feel special is saying so?

 

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

First, you did not ask this before.

Second, I don't know what you mean by "accept."

I think you do.  You tend to like to be coy at times.  It is a pattern of your posting style.

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

Third, if you mean "Do I, Spencer Macdonald, believe that 'other Mormonism offshoots' have within them the restored Priesthood and its requisite keys, and/or do I believe them to be a continuation of the same institution as was organized by Joseph Smith in 1830," then no.

See you did understand.  So why not?  Why it their version of Mormonism wrong and yours correct?  See this is the problem with claimed revelation.  They think they are right and you are not.  So who is?  You both use the same methods for personal revelation.  You can't both be correct.

 

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

Fourth, if you mean "Do I, Spencer Macdonald, believe that 'other Mormonism offshoots' believe in and worship a numerically and ontologically distinct entity generally referenced as 'God' or 'Heavenly Father' and His Son, Jesus Christ," then also no.

Well the sects of Mormonism are similar I believe in how they view God.  A better example is Orthodox Christianity.  Their God is certainly very different than yours. To the point they think you worship a false God and false Christ.  And they won't accept your baptism as valid, nor will you theirs.

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said:

 

I don't know what you mean by "accept any Hindi Gods."  Are you referencing orthodox (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, etc.) or heterodox (Charvaka, Ājīvika, etc.) schools of philosophy?

Broadly speaking, I subscribe to a framework in which various individuals, groups, cultures, societies, etc. have varied perceptions about God, with concomitant variations in correctness in those perceptions.  So it's not so much a matter of me "accept{ing} any Hindi Gods," as much as my assessment of the accuracy of those perceptions.  Joseph Smith famously said: 

As between my Hindu brothers and sisters and my atheist brothers and sisters, I think the former are closer to the truth of things relative to the existence of God.

As I understand it, Hinduism harbors within it diverse beliefs regarding the creation of the universe.  A common belief is that there is an ultimate reality, often referred to as Brahman, which is beyond conceptualization and is considered the source and essence of all existence. Brahman is seen as formless, eternal, and beyond human comprehension.  Within this framework, some Hindus believe that various deities, known as gods and goddesses, play a role in the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the universe. These deities are considered manifestations or aspects of Brahman.  Further, there are varied concepts of the individual's relationship with "Brahman."

There are many foundational precepts within various Hindu traditions which I find noble, uplifting and true.  There are also precepts that are erroneous.  So a "correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes" is a mixed bag.

Hinduism worships a plethora of gods. And is very different than your view of God.  You both cannot be correct.

On 5/11/2023 at 5:53 PM, smac97 said: