Comment by zakk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zakk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"?

If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.

You can play a lot with words and philosophical concepts, and concoct funny situations by stretching semantics.

You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.

And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.

> Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement

I am responsible for what I say, not for what you expect or assume. Even less for what you assume from other people's comments.

> If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.

Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?

> You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.

Erm ... that's ... just wrong?

First of all, the claim that holding either of those positions as true requires faith is itself a claim and as such itself requires evidence. While I haven't ever seen anyone holding a belief in a god for any reason other than faith, that does not logically necessitate that faith is required to accept the proposition. Evidence for the existence of the god would very much be an alternative, and I haven't so far seen any argument why evidence would be categorically impossible (unless you happen to be using some definition of "god" for which that happens to be the case). Just because we don't have any evidence as of yet does not mean that therefore evidence is impossible.

But more importantly, you seem to be implying that anyone is making the claim that "there is no god". That's essentially just a strawman. I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists. Not accepting a proposition does not require faith, nor any justification, other than the fact that I am not convinced of the correctness of the claim.

> And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.

Luckily, no faith on my part.

> Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?

This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.

> I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists.

Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.

Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.

And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.

I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.

Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.

> This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.

Well, it is very unfortunate that you are that fast to judge other people, as that prevents useful communication.

When I am talking to you, I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent your position, which is why I try to avoid assumptions about what you mean by words, and instead ask you to define what specifically it is that you mean if I think it's ambiguous, as is good tradition in philosophical debate.

Also, I don't really see how even the possible fact that I don't know a term that you are using should be a reason to not explain your position in a way that I would then understand.

> Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.

If you prefer that terminology, I don't mind using it that way in our conversation. Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary (as you presumably are well aware, given that you seem to imply that you are somewhat well-versed in at least the basics of philosophy), so what matters is that we understand what the other means, not whether we are using the objectively correct terminology (which is not a thing anyway).

But regardless of what terminology you prefer, I think it would still be useful for you to be aware of how other people use language. Which is why I am telling you that the position that I described is as a matter of fact the position of the majority of those poeple who label themselves as atheists. You might disagree with them about whether that is what they should label themselves, but that still is what they do label themselves as, and that still is their position. At least as far as the common definitions in that community are concerned, atheism vs. theism is orthogonal to agnosticism vs. gnosticism, all four combinations are possible.

> Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.

> And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.

Well, in order to respond to that, I would still need to know what you specifically mean by "metaphysical (entity)".

> I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.

Anything specific that you think I lack understanding of?

> Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.

Please don't waste my time with purely semantic arguments, as you should be well aware that those are vacuous. If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.

> Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary

> If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.

That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.

Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.

How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?

The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...

And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.

And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.

> That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.

So, you think that one loses an argument when one expresses a correct idea using the wrong word (assuming there is such a thing)?

> Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.

Great example!

"It takes 4 bytes to transmit a 32 bit integer."

Agree or don't agree?

> How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?

Why would it matter? As long as what he is explaining is understandable and interesting, why would I terminate an interesting discussion just because someone is using non-standard terminology?

> The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...

Which is precisely why I tried to make sure we agreed on a definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Also, I really think it would be in your own interest to recognize that my definition of atheism is actually a widely accepted definition, or you'll end up unnecessarily just plain misinterpreting what all those people who use that definition are saying.

> And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.

I'm not sure, but the way you word this suggests to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how definitions work, as "definition of a concept" is not really a meaningful phrase (though you might be using it colloquially, which is why I am not sure).

Concepts are abstract ideas. Definitions are assignments of concepts to labels (words/phrases). For exmaple, "water" is commonly defined to mean "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms". Here, "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms" is the concept, "water" is the label, and the definition is the convention to use that label to refer to that concept.

As such, it doesn't really make sense to speak of "redefining a concept". You cannot redefine "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", that's a category error. You only can redefine the labels. So, one could, say, redefine "water" to refer to "piece of furniture consisting of one flat surface at the top with four legs". Under that definition, "a water is a piece of furniture" would be a perfectly sensible and true statement. It's questionable whether the definition would be useful, given that the word "table" exists and is commonly accepted to refer to just that concept, but that doesn't make the statement in any way wrong, at best it makes it awkward.

> And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.

Why do you think that I don't know what a metaphysical entity is? Someone not being sure of which of a variety of possible definitions is implicitly being assumed by some speaker is not the same as them not having any clue of the topic at hand, is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com