Possibilianism

[Cerpin Taxt]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens.

I don't think it is responsible to automatically regard every logical possibility with equal degrees of seriousness. I'm giving ""Possibilianism" the benefit of the doubt that there's more substance to it than that, but I'm struggling to see what it is.

 

[SilentRavens]

The "social" definition is nonsense. I reject established religious dogma but I am clearly not an atheist. Just because the biggest trolls that enter every discussion they claim to be disinterested in say it is defined differently doesn't mean it is. For the sake of reasonable communication everyone must adhere to the same definitions, which is why we have a dictionary.

Is it though? Dictionary definitions change overtime to reflect current usage of words. In any case, I was just pointing out that most of the "emotional rejections" going on here (to cop Perknose) have to do with different perspectives on what atheist means. In a technical sense you're correct, we should all be adhering to the dictionary definitions, but...people say things like "irregardless" all the time too.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The "social" definition is nonsense.

All definitions are "social definitions."

I reject established religious dogma but I am clearly not an atheist.

You are a theist because you believe in a god. I'm not a theist because I do not believe in a god. Therefore I'm an atheist.

Just because the biggest trolls that enter every discussion they claim to be disinterested in say it is defined differently doesn't mean it is. For the sake of reasonable communication everyone must adhere to the same definitions, which is why we have a dictionary.

It surprises me very little that you think dictionaries are the arbiters of "true definitions."

 

[slayer202]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." --Christopher Hitchens.

I don't think it is responsible to automatically regard every logical possibility with equal degrees of seriousness. I'm giving ""Possibilianism" the benefit of the doubt that there's more substance to it than that, but I'm struggling to see what it is.

don't give it any credit.

who has a problem with the basic idea? I'm having trouble of finding anyone who might. certainly agnostics and atheists wouldn't have a problem, they are very open to the idea that we don't know everything, and the universe is an amazing place and surely one day we'll find some amazing things(they will be explainable though, and nothing in the sense of a "god" as we define him)

hell, even sane religious people don't have a problem with the idea. possibilianism isn't mutually incompatible with any of these viewpoints, though this eaglefuck guy wants to pretend he's taking up some new way of thinking...and idiots are buying into it. there is no point...

and don't bother with malak, he's either just a troll, or the dumbest person I've ever seen

 

[SilentRavens]

That's not what it's about at all. Possibilianism is closely aligned with atheism, but has some subtle differences(mainly due to imprecise language imo). It's not saying that superstition is as valid as science, but that it has a value >0 until proven wrong.

I finally watched the talk, and it was pretty good, but it hasn't swayed me from apatheism. I agree with him in principle, but still don't think it's worth talking about until someone brings evidence to the table, or at least some kind of working experiment. In the end, it's what everyone should believe, but it doesn't require a new term, or any term as far as that goes. Just keep your eyes, and head open, and the truth will follow.

My personal take on this is closer to Ixskllr's opinion than anyone else's view. While possibilianism seems nice in its ability to encompass new ideas, it doesn't gain us anything other than some philosophical satisfaction. Considering that it feels similar to working in Group Theory, I think it has a certain amount of mental masturbation in it. Essentially possibilianism is a mental exercise in suspension of judgement that is done simply because we can.

Of course, group theory as abstract as it may seem actually has a great number of uses and is still very relevant in modern mathematics. I don't feel the same can be said of possibilianism.

 

[nick1985]

If I couldn't see usernames, I would have guessed Alkemyst was the OP

 

[darkswordsman17]

Perknose is funny when he gets worked up about something. Of course, the last time I've seen him act this way was when he was pulling the same stunts against people that weren't buying the claims that people were living for years without food or water or emitting waste.

Look, you can label people whatever you want, argue semantics if you want to, but most people that claim atheism or agnosticism are just doing it to exhibit their non belief/non practice in man fabricated deities and religions. Most people, regardless of their beliefs, don't have any compulsion to delineate their exact beliefs or non-beliefs, let alone try to label it and argue specifics about it. Its all just pointless frivolity with no real purpose.

Possibilianism should just be called Schrodinger's-cat's-balls-ism. Because we can't know for sure if the cat licked his balls or even if he had balls, but if he did then he could have, and he might be doing so right now. But he might have just licked one ball, not both, or neither, and both. Also he might be dead. And alive. We should be open to accepting that he both did and did not lick his ball(s) that do and do not exist, before, after, and during his death and life.

 

[slayer202]

Perknose is funny when he gets worked up about something. Of course, the last time I've seen him act this way was when he was pulling the same stunts against people that weren't buying the claims that people were living for years without food or water or emitting waste.

Look, you can label people whatever you want, argue semantics if you want to, but most people that claim atheism or agnosticism are just doing it to exhibit their non belief/non practice in man fabricated deities and religions. Most people, regardless of their beliefs, don't have any compulsion to delineate their exact beliefs or non-beliefs, let alone try to label it and argue specifics about it. Its all just pointless frivolity with no real purpose.

Possibilianism should just be called Schrodinger's-cat's-balls-ism. Because we can't know for sure if the cat licked his balls or even if he had balls, but if he did then he could have, and he might be doing so right now. But he might have just licked one ball, not both, or neither, and both. Also he might be dead. And alive. We should be open to accepting that he both did and did not lick his ball(s) that do and do not exist, before, after, and during his death and life.

:thumbsup:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've thought about this some more, and it's become clear that the following is pretty ridiculous upon further scrutiny.

You're allowed to be as closed-minded as you wish, but it is not scientific to completely and smugly dismiss any possibility you do not possess the data to to completely exclude.

Nothing in science is ever "completely exclude[d]," ergo every person that accepts evolution or gravity or the kinetic theory of gases or heliocentrism, et cetera ad nauseum is apparently "close-minded" and "smug," according to Perknose.

You can rank possibilities according to probability, of course, but being completely closed-minded without proof is to be just as silly and superstitious as any religious fool, yo.

"Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science does not deliver proof. "Scientific proof" is the fodder of sophomoric armchair philosophers, and I think we've pegged you for precisely that.

Perhaps with an additional decade of maturity and life experience you'll outgrow your factually unsupported idiot certainty, or you could read up and maybe accelerate the process.

It is deliciously amusing that you'd lambaste anyone for immaturity after suggesting that a person who hasn't "completely exlude[d]" every possible factual alternative via "scientific proof" is "close-minded" and "smug."

Phyisican, heal thyself!

 

[shortylickens]

Wait......

I'm confus.

Is moonie agreeing or disagreeing with perk?

 

[Inspector Jihad]

well atleast i'll still thank perk for posting this nonsense. would have been better if he wasn't such a dickhole about it and would have asked for a discussion rather than saying anyone that disagrees with it is stupid. but then again, trolls gotta troll.

 

[Moonbeam]

Surely if something tastes disgusting it isn't good to eat. Surely our sense of taste trumps reason.

Taste of disgust
Confronting morally abhorrent beliefs literally leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Religious Christians who wrote down passages from the Muslim Koran or Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion rated a tart lemon drink as tasting substantially more disgusting after these tasks than before them, psychologists report in an upcoming Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Reading from the Bible did not produce the same effect. Participants who were allowed to wash their hands after copying objectionable passages reported no taste differences, indicating that physical cleansing symbolically restored spiritual purity, say Ryan Ritter and Jesse Lee Preston, both of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

 

[Moonbeam]

In other news:

Tight versus loose cultures
Cultures may respond in profound ways to natural disasters and human-caused threats. Using survey responses from 33 nations, an international team of scientists finds that “tight” cultures with strict rules about social behavior and little tolerance for nonconformity have frequently had to deal with dense populations, scarce resources, natural disasters, territorial attacks by neighbors and epidemic diseases. “Loose” cultures willing to let people do their own thing typically have faced few threats, the scientists report in the May 27 Science. Tight cultures are more likely than loose cultures to have unelected rulers, limited civil liberties and widespread religious beliefs.

This completely accords with my oft made assertion that liberal is only possible for children who grow up with physical and psychological safety and conservative thinking arises out of fear.

 

[Pheran]

Again, I really wish you'd read the OP. The neuroscientist David Eagleman begins his defintion of possibilianism with the FACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE statement that:

Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism,

This is exactly where the problem starts. See, I don't really disagree with anything that Eagleman says except for this. He is of course right about the science and such. But he does this weird semantic twist on atheism that seems to be so common - he acts as if atheism is some kind of absolute faith that there can never be any kind of God, which is not my definition of atheism at all.

Atheism is not faith that there's no god. I "disbelieve" in god by default because there is no evidence, the same way I "disbelieve" in pink unicorns because there is no evidence. However, if such a time comes where compelling evidence is presented for either god or unicorns, I will likely change my viewpoint. Does this mean I'm a "possibilian" about pink unicorns as well?

By his definitions, I suppose I am a possibilian, insofar as "possibilian" winds up being an unnecessary term for being a scientific atheist.

 

[Kev]

Lol, here's a brief remedial reading comprehension refresher for you, too!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31809909&postcount=90

And you're the one calling everyone overly emotional. The only person I see with ridiculous emotional reactions in this thread is you.

 

[Kev]

Well said? How can it be well said. The post shows you exactly what is wrong with it. Look, see where he said, "I just think this possibilianism is fucking retarded, because it is." Anybody can see that statement is fucking retarded because it is. Let me amend that. Anybody with a fucking functioning brain can see that. Sorry if I sound so certain.

So I guess you only read that one sentence in his post and completely missed the rest that put it in context?

 

[Malak]

which is not my definition of atheism at all.

By his definitions, I suppose I am a possibilian, insofar as "possibilian" winds up being an unnecessary term for being a scientific atheist.

Your definition of atheist is inaccurate, hence the new label. It is necessary only for discussions like this where people insist on redefining a term already established.

 

[sandorski]

Your definition of atheist is inaccurate, hence the new label. It is necessary only for discussions like this where people insist on redefining a term already established.

False.

 

[Nik]

This thread is highly amusing.

 

[nick1985]

This thread is highly amusing.

Indeed it is.

 

[Moonbeam]

The term "value" should be given more scrutiny. The effects of people believing in superstition aren't benign or neutral. Think stem cell research, or teaching christian intelligent design in classrooms, or any kind of militant theism. It does not at ALL seem valid to me to extend the blanket of scientific open mindedness to a realm of thought that is inherently non-rational or meta-physical.

Basically, religion is a "bad" thing to me any way you slice it and I find it annoying when intelligent people try to accommodate irrational paradigms with constructs like "possibilism." Maybe you can help me think of a single religion that seeks to *prove* itself wrong so that it may better refine it's concepts or beliefs because I can only think of ones that are resistant to scrutiny and totally reliant on baseless word of mouth.

Again, I dont like possibilism for trying to extend intellectual legitimacy to dangerously irrational faith systems.

But you can only think and believe what you think and believe when in fact you don't know much. You think that because folk turn religion into something dangerous, that is the fault of religion. But the purpose of religion is to open the mind to possibilities that go beyond what you imagine, to inform you that there is a truth beyond reason, that there is a state of being that is perfection. Because you are imperfect you do not believe because to believe would inform you of your current imperfection. You therefore reject religion. Religious people do the same thing in a different way. They say they believe but turn what they believe their religion to stand for into shit.

So you are just like the religious. They make religion dangerous and you go along with them. The truth remains hidden as it always will be. The purpose and meaning of religion can only be known to those who know it. Truth is hidden because of the apparent unlikeliness of it's possibilities. Truth is only for those who suspend judgments of the intellect and open their hearts.

Truth is for the deeply curious and the profoundly unhappy. Only a more powerful motivation than the fear of ego death can lead one onto the Path.

Most folk will not go near the edge. Truth is for those who jump or fall.

To destroy certainty is to destroy the ego.

Atheism is nice. An atheist doesn't believe in gods. Just carry it a bit further. Don't believe anything at all. Stop all thinking and be. Every time you think, you think what you think you think is the bees knees.

Religion isn't dangerous. It is a cure that operated when the teacher was alive and has since become subject to the mechanically of the disease. The only dangerous thing is ignorance of what religion is. Atheists and the religious are both ignorant about that.

 

[slayer202]

Wow moonbeam, no offense, but I truly think you need mental help asap

 

[Kev]

I kinda missed moonbeam posting in ATOT, he stays in P&N too much. I like reading the first halfs of his posts, going cross-eyed, and then skipping the rest.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's not what it's about at all. Possibilianism is closely aligned with atheism, but has some subtle differences(mainly due to imprecise language imo). It's not saying that superstition is as valid as science, but that it has a value >0 until proven wrong.

I finally watched the talk, and it was pretty good, but it hasn't swayed me from apatheism. I agree with him in principle, but still don't think it's worth talking about until someone brings evidence to the table, or at least some kind of working experiment. In the end, it's what everyone should believe, but it doesn't require a new term, or any term as far as that goes. Just keep your eyes, and head open, and the truth will follow.

The problem with spiritual knowledge or wisdom vs scientific knowledge and the proving of theories is that in the case of the latter the object of observation is external and in the former internal. Thus it is that what you learn internally can never be proven to anybody who does not do the experiment himself. So when the Buddha sat under the Bo tree and ended suffering, there is no evidence that he did except maybe his smile and the compassion he demonstrated for others. This is that business of we will know them by their fruits.

Again, the truth is known only to those who know it. There is doubtless medical tests that can be run to show that aspirin has effects on the brain, but the effectiveness of aspirin as a pain killer is known only internally. You know it works when you have a headache and it cures it. Similarly, when you have a certain kind of flash of intuition, call it cosmic consciousness, just for fun, and all your existential anxiety and pain disappears in a flash, you know you are on to something. When the doors of the heart open and love floods out, there is no doubt at all that you have arrived, so to speak.

 

[slayer202]

I kinda missed moonbeam posting in ATOT, he stays in P&N too much. I like reading the first halfs of his posts, going cross-eyed, and then skipping the rest.

Ahh, so he's always like this. He sounds serious too. Scary