endlessness said:
Theism is.. Agnosticism is... Atheism is...
IMO it seems like a very convoluted and biased way of defining those terms according to what fits your beliefs. I'd rather take the dictionary definition:
Agnosticism:
- a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
- a person who does not believe or is unsure of something"
Atheism:
- a disbelief in the existence of deity
- the doctrine that there is no deity
Theism:
- the belief that God exists or that many gods exist
Or in other words, only agnosticism does not make claims or suppositions. Theism means belief in gods. Atheism is disbelief in god (or belief that god doesnt exist).
the one associated with atheism is essentially the approach of science
I completely disagree, and I think you are really misrepresenting what science is. Science makes no philosophical claims and takes no stance on existential beliefs. Science is simply a method, a systematic study which allows us to notice patterns in our particular reality and make predictions. To say science is atheist is to twist it to fit your agenda.
the realm of that universe, dream or simulation must exist within a greater realm of some sort; ultimately some sort of “foundational” realm must exist which is not itself contained within some greater realm.
How do you know? You suppose so, and yet you don't know. I don't trust bipedal primates to tell me what the universe ' must' or 'must not' be.
In other words, in the absence of evidence or reason to suspect otherwise, it is pointless to speculate that reality is not essentially as it seems to be.
That is bordering a logical fallacy: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And remember, you are just talking about what reality 'seems to be' to
you.
I agree that those are the dictionary definitions, and that they are correct definitions. I am also saying that these positions are particular applications of more general heuristics. After all, if the dictionary contained all information about every word it contain, it would be more of a super-encyclopedia than a mere dictionary!
When I say that the heuristic associated with atheism is essentially the approach of science, I stand by that. I am not saying that all scientists are atheists, or that "science" says there is no god. What I AM saying is that the same approach that science uses to determine the "reality" of a thing, i.e., "a very general and very reliable heuristic, which essentially disregards and dismisses the existence of any arbitrary and unfounded entities, whether they be gods, angels, unicorns, leprachauns, or whatever, until such time as their existence is demonstrated," is exactly the same approach that an individual takes when he/she takes on an atheistic stance. I will also say that while I am an atheist, like any good "scientifically-minded" person, I would certainly change my view in the light of demonstrable evidence to the contrary. As an atheist, however, I sincerely doubt that such evidence will ever come to light.
Regarding my statement that there is some sort of ultimate "foundational realm of existence:" We live in a house, on a street, in a city, in a state, in a country, on a continent, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe, in a multiverse. (Or something like that. The exact details don't need to be argued over.) After the multiverse...does there need to be anything beyond an infinite number of universes? If I added a SECOND multiverse to the first, it would simply be one infinity plus another...resulting in infinity. In a sense, this foundational realm of existence is the existentially infinite "set of all universes." There can be nothing beyond this. This set, or more properly speaking, perhaps, its primary members (those universes which are not themselves contained in other universes), is the foundational realm of existence.
Regarding the "absence of evidence issue:" You mentioned I was "bordering on logical fallacy" when I stated "In other words, in the absence of evidence or reason to suspect otherwise, it is pointless to speculate that reality is not essentially as it seems to be." I did NOT state that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I chose my words carefully and deliberately. Of course "as it seems to be" also presupposes "as it seems to be to ME," because we are ALL subjective beings.
While each of us necessarily has a subjective nature, however, we all also have the capacity for objectivity, although many unfortunately cripple themselves intellectually by denying or rejecting that capacity. They misunderstand or misinterpret the role of objectivity, often mistakenly thinking that objectivity requires the rejection of one’s subjective experience, or that our subjective nature precludes objectivity. The reality, however, is that objectivity can co-exist with subjectivity.
Objectivity is a special mode of thinking which one can and absolutely should adopt, within the framework of one’s inherently subjective experience of reality; objectivity does not replace subjectivity, but “overlays” and augments it. This becomes clear once one understands that the very essence of objectivity is self-honesty. To be completely objective is to be completely honest with oneself. It is only by putting forth the disciplined effort required to honestly integrate all of the information available to oneself that one’s thoughts will be in harmony with reality. This entails honestly accepting the facts of reality whether one likes or dislikes those facts, and honestly evaluating the reasons why one feels the way one does about such facts. It entails believing in things because they are epistemologically justified, i.e., “proven,” rather than because they are psychologically appealing, i.e., “feel good.”
Other animals don’t really have the capacity to lie to themselves that humans have. It is absurd to imagine, e.g., a cat or dog lying to itself. This is not because they are somehow “morally superior” to humans, but simply because they don’t have the conceptual abilities required to deal with concepts in the ways that humans can, and it is just these conceptual consciousness which are at the heart of what we refer to as “free will.” Not having such free will, or the conceptual abilities which are at its foundation, other animals do not have the option of self-deception but must deal with reality as it is presented to them, according to the nature of the individual animal; however, self-deception and self-honesty are a matter of choice for humans.
Reality was not invented by humans, but humans are required to deal with reality in order to survive. Self-honesty or objectivity as a mode of thinking was not invented by humans, but was discovered or identified by humans as the means for most effectively integrating and surviving within reality. This is analogous to the way that humans discover or identify rather than invent universal mathematical truths. The techniques of objective thinking are metaphysically defined by the nature of reality. Objective thinking works because of the fundamental nature of reality
