Pragmatic Atheism

[Hutch Hogan]

Hey all, 

I'm posting my rationale behind my position of atheism as a means of explaining the reasoning behind the position that I take.  This could end up as a very long post, though not as long as this topic deserves. 

Firstly, one of the most important things to do with this discussion is to list the 3 basal assumptions.  When discussing reality, these three assumptions are key. 

Assumption 1:

I assume that the phenomenon (the world as I perceive it through my senses) and nounomenon (the world as it exists) are one and the same. 

Assumption 2:

I assume that the world is intelligible (that we can learn things from interacting with the world). 

Assumption 3:

I assume that models with predictive capability are of more value than models without predictive capability.

From these assumptions, when we talk about models of reality, we have to ask "How useful is this model to us?"  So here, conflicting models are going to be pitted against each other in terms of how well they explain previous observations, and how well new observations are explained. 

Now here is something that needs to be pointed out: 

Even if something is true, it may not also be useful or predictive. 

 

To explain this, consider if we found a text from Gaul explaining the existence of invisible rays of light that penetrated through matter, and the author had called them X-rays.  

Today, we can observe X-rays and have experiments involving X-rays, but in the days of Gaul, they could neither observe, or experiment with X-rays. 

So under this pragmatic system, it would be unreasonable for the author to believe in X-rays because there was no predictive model, no evidence.  

So now let's bring this back to atheism and theism:

A theistic god has not been observed, nor has its effects been observed (such as Einstein's gas experiment where the effects of particles were observed as opposed to the particles themselves). 

The religious model does not have predictive value over non-belief (i.e. prayers are answered just as often, if not less often, than prayers are left unanswered). 

So within this pragmatic system, theism may be correct, though it is unuseful and unsubstantiated to believe in pragmatically. 

This explanation is still in need of work and I don't doubt that there are contentions with it.  Though refining this will help me better explain it to others. 

Thanks for your time, 

Hutch

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

If the theory has predictive value it is pragmatic in that it is a useful guide for the thing it describes.  If the theory is demonstrably necessary, than it is pragmatic in that is useful in a theory sense and may be used as a foundation bit in the future. 

Pragmatic does not mean empirical, it can also refer to ideas.  

let me paraphrase (paraphrase because it is in Dutch, I don't know if there is a english version) an exerpt from Hans Joachim Störig's history of philosophy in which he first explains William James' (the founder of pragmatism) view.

"Pragmatism is a mindset in wich we avoid all fundamental principles, categories and necessities, and where we only focus on the results, consequences and facts." Ergo: Kant's critique is completely based on fundamental principles on which epistemology should function and can therefore not be accepted in this pragmatical system. "When using pragmatism we shouldn't ask: is this logical/is that true?, but what are the practical consequences of this philosophy for our lives and our interests." Ergo: any other rationally built system based on some fundamental principles of truth should only be used if it is good for us != predictive. That you accompany predictive value to pragmatism is only because you yourself use a empiristic system of value. A pragmatist would not object against the existence of God, he would say that if it helps our lives/helps us live ethically, then it's OK. The fact that you do protest against this is because you aren't pragmatical, you are empirical. You object to the existence of a metaphysical entity, not because it's existence would have bad consequences, but because you don't think that we can't deduce his existence from the material world.

Then he explains Dewey's system, instrumentalism:

"Dewey looks solely at natural sciences and the practical experience. He rejects everything that transcendents this. Thought is an intrument for the act.Thought only has an instrumental value. Life does not have as final cause the perfection; it is a neverending process of perfecting, growing and improvement." Another little know fact is that Dewey did somewhat base his pragmatism on Kant's work. And he says that there is a difference between noumenon and phenomenon. And when we accept that there is a difference, then there can be a God. And if the existence of such a God has practical or ethical value for a person, then he should be able to believe in it. Because it are only the effects of something that count, not the reality of the thing itself.

Then we have European pragmatism which I don't think you will agree with at all, because here Vaihinger says that you may use fictions to explain the practical world even if they are contradictory, and that the existence of God and the soul are possible in this way. As long as it's practical, it's good. 

What you say is more empirical of nature: If you make a observation A, then you can use induction to formulate a hypothesis about what you observe, after this you can deduce the consequences of this hypothesis and make a prediction, when you have made a prediction you can test is, and after the testing you have to evaluate you results and possibly make a new observation. <--- this is based around predicting what happens in the world. Pragmatism is only about the practical value of theory, not about the predictive value.

Ergo: If you really used pragmatism then you couldn't say that you didn't believe in God because it isn't predictive, you could only say that you didn't believe because it doesn't have practical value. And then it would become a discussion about the ethical and metaphysical values of religion and God.

[Hutch Hogan]

The problem with this is that this is equivalent to saying that Canada and the Soviet Union were both socialized countries, since the Soviet Union was poorly managed and evil.  Therefore Canada is poorly managed and evil. 

There are varying levels of pragmatism.  Perhaps Neil Tyson can explain the problem with ism's a bit more:

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

No the problem is that your system isn't pragmatism but materialism. You just don't really understand what pragmatism is.

[Hutch Hogan]

I understand what pragmaticism is. The focus of this philosophy is what is useful for understanding what we can know about this world.  That is a pragmatic desire for knowledge.  

Currently, one of the outcomes of this pragmaticism is materialism because there is no necessitation in for the existence of something that's immaterial to explain our existence. 

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Not really, pragmatism could just as well say that you may rationally believe in God because this may be emotionally beneficial for you as an individual. And because this might explain the world in a way you can understand it. This kind of personal fiction is completely acceptable in a pragmatic system of thought. You however use, accoring to me, a empiristic system. You seek that which is useful for understanding the world in a context wherein our knowledge is based on the material world and mostly focussed on acquiring a posteriori knowledge with which to create synthetic systems of a priori knowledge. This has certain aspects of pragmatism, but should really be defined as -- or so I think -- empirism.

[Hutch Hogan]

Not really, pragmatism could just as well say that you may rationally believe in God because this may be emotionally beneficial for you as an individual. And because this might explain the world in a way you can understand it. This kind of personal fiction is completely acceptable in a pragmatic system of thought. You however use, accoring to me, a empiristic system. You seek that which is useful for understanding the world in a context wherein our knowledge is based on the material world and mostly focussed on acquiring a posteriori knowledge with which to create synthetic systems of a priori knowledge. This has certain aspects of pragmatism, but should really be defined as -- or so I think -- empirism.

I'm still having problems with you're reasoning.  Firstly, you're conflating pragmaticism and utilitarianism.  

I would agree that if a utilitarian found a use for a religion (i.e. making him sleep better at night), he could be philosophically consistent in accepting religion for fulfilling the use.  Though I would argue that the pragmaticist isn't not able to benefit in the same way because having a god that makes you sleep better at night is still impractical. 

And secondly empiricism is not the starting point of the philosophy, nor is necessarily the outcome.  It is simply the outcome at present. 

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

I'm still having problems with you're reasoning.  Firstly, you're conflating pragmaticism and utilitarianism.  

I would agree that if a utilitarian found a use for a religion (i.e. making him sleep better at night), he could be philosophically consistent in accepting religion for fulfilling the use.  Though I would argue that the pragmaticist isn't not able to benefit in the same way because having a god that makes you sleep better at night is still impractical. 

No, although in this case it has many things similar with utilitarianism. Pragmatism, being based on instrumantalism, will tell you that even science doesn't really grasp the nature of the universe and it's laws, but merely makes them understandable for humans. In the same manner it is completely fine to have a personal fiction (religion/God) in order to explain this world. You could in this way explain more personal things, or why there is anything at all. And this would be entirely pragmatically acceptable. It would however not be empiristically acceptable, because emprirism requests that hypothesis and proof of hypothesis.

[Hutch Hogan]

I'm getting that feeling that you aren't paying attention to my posts again. Sorry. 

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Sorry, what did I do wrong? I merely want to point out, as William James, one of the classical pragmatists pointed out, that ideas -- even metaphysical ones, or ones that aren't rationally proven but just believed -- become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relations with other parts of our experience. He would see no reason to object to a God or metaphysical being as long as it doesn't clash with other vital beliefs or concepts. In this case you can very well have a God as individual fiction without it not being pragmatism.