1. Comment #113731 by maton100 on January 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

It would have been nice if there were actual questions. The reporter sounds like the woman on "delicious dish" (aka Public Radio International).

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #113762 by MelM on January 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Chris Rodda, the author of "Liars For Jesus", is a woman and not a man as stated in the first part of the audio.

Here is a link to a piece where she takes on some of the fake history "Whereas's" in House Resolution 888 (which I call "The Declaration of Theocracy".

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/4/24725/53989


Other Comments by MelM

3. Comment #113768 by 82abhilash on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm

You know what I think. I think the founding fathers valued independence above all. Some of them did believe in some form of deity but even they felt that the decision to worship must be made by person of his/her own free will, not compromised in any way.

That is why they worked so hard to maintain neutrality in religion. In fact their notion of independence included economic independence as well. Something which is lacking the US today, is it any wonder that the religious right are trying to hijack the economic machinery?

Other Comments by 82abhilash

4. Comment #113770 by Ole on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

If you only want to listen to the interview with RD, scroll to the midle of the audio.

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

5. Comment #113777 by notsobad on January 20, 2008 at 2:05 pm

The restaurant advertising after the interview offers a very unhealthy menu.

Other Comments by notsobad

6. Comment #113789 by mejdrich on January 20, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I really appreciate Dawkins finally responding to Sam Harris's ideas about not using the "atheist" word.

w00t!

Other Comments by mejdrich

7. Comment #113791 by MelM on January 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm

I agree 100% with Dawkins about saving the word "atheist". The concept is clear and there is no cognitive need for another word. If we don't use the word, you can bet that the religionists will keep on using it and they'll also keep on loading it with all the negatives they can think of. Nobody will be fooled by "brights" and it'll just look like we're trying to hide something. "Brights" is also bad because it's such an obvious piece of spin and it's just setting ourselves up for joke makers and sarcasm.

I think it's important that we counter the religionist view that "atheist" is some icon of evil. Why? Well, if the New Atheism can accomplish anything, it must make the issue of atheism vs religion controversial. People should have to think about which way to go and not have the "atheist" boogeyman in the back of their heads. In the long run, the only way to end religion is to define and defend reason. Religion is a weed that can only grow where the concept of reason is dead as a value in the general culture. Arm people with reason and an awareness of what irrational thinking looks like and religion will die. Even in some of the debates, if just one logical fallacy were mentioned, at least something would be accomplished. Frankly, I don't think the New Atheism is up to the task; so, I'll be pleased if it can just make religion controversial and throw doubt into a few religious people. Best of all would be to influence high school and college age young people.

Other Comments by MelM

8. Comment #113796 by Steve Zara on January 20, 2008 at 3:26 pm

The concept is clear and there is no cognitive need for another word.

The problem is that for many people the concept is not clear. Atheism has associations. Personally, I am happy to keep the word (not that I am in any position to change things), but as Dawkins and Harris both say, I think we need to work hard to ensure that atheism is removed from any associations at all. I think we should be wary of using phrases like "as atheists, we think..." or "as atheists we should...". Atheism in itself is not a basis for anything else, unlike more substantial positions like rationalism and materialism.

Why do I say this? Because if we make it clear that atheism has no "baggage" associated with it we are then in a position to question the "baggage" that is added to bare theism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #113801 by MelM on January 20, 2008 at 4:04 pm

It turns out that Dawkins wasn't the only person tricked into an interview for "Expelled".
From a Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins[38] and NCSE head Eugenie Scott, who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", with a blurb[39] which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused.[40][41][42]

On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."[40] Richard Dawkins said "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front"; and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, said "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."[2]

Other Comments by MelM

10. Comment #113807 by Storeo on January 20, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Although there are certain difficulties with what people associate with the world 'atheist' I think its a price one has to pay. Looking back over history it is evident that when false, but vastly popular myths were predominent (racism, homosexuality being immoral, women being inferior etc), the people spearheading the campaigns to raise consciousness regarding those issues had to do it under a banner, ie the suffragettes, the gay pride movement etc. It was the case then that such banners were polluted with negative connotations by people who espoused ideas to the contrary. Unfortunately it is the case, and always has been, that when a group of people want to change the norm they have to do so under a banner, the effectiveness of doing so outweighs the negative connotations that invariably become attached to it.

Other Comments by Storeo

11. Comment #113814 by Elles on January 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm

I just love it when people call in, and instead of asking questions, just talk about themselves.

Congrats to the Minnesota Atheists on getting their radio show started.

Other Comments by Elles

12. Comment #113817 by Ed-words on January 20, 2008 at 4:51 pm

In a 2002 biography of

Isaac Asimov by his wife,

his belief was that

"atheist" was too negative.

He preferred "rationalist".

Other Comments by Ed-words

13. Comment #113821 by LorienRyan on January 20, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Theists reaction to the word 'atheist' is probably not so much to do with the atheists themselves as it is a threat to their belief system, which in many cases takes precedence over rational thought.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

14. Comment #113822 by Mitchell Gilks on January 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I'm still with Sam. I don't mind identifiying myself as an atheist as long as the term is well defined about the single issue of whether there is or isn't a god. That is all.

Any other subject, or idea I am talking about that does not involve that single issue then I am not interested in calling myself, or being called an atheist. It is irrelevent to that single issue.

This is my major beef with people that use the term. Then enter into subjects that are unrelated, without outlining that the new subject is now outside of the bounds where "atheism" has relevence.

Too many religion people (and people that think saying "agnostic" makes them neutral (*rolls eyes*)) think that atheism is an ideology religion, social or political movement, or movement of any kind. This is my opinion is why the polls always have so few people claiming to be atheists.

I will answer to it in a single instance, but argue it's relevence in any other.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

15. Comment #113835 by Storeo on January 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Too many religion people (and people that think saying "agnostic" makes them neutral (*rolls eyes*)) think that atheism is an ideology religion, social or political movement, or movement of any kind. This is my opinion is why the polls always have so few people claiming to be atheists.

I understand your point. I constantly have to be correcting people who say 'Atheists are as bad as fundamental Christians,'....'Atheism is just another religious ideology' et cetera

Countering these ill-informed claims, (something which proves to be laborious & time-consuming), with rationality and reasoned arguments is the best remedy. Unfortunately it does not have the immediate effect of introducing a new positively connotated word, however its just the situation the minority always faces when trying to overhaul the status quo.

Other Comments by Storeo

16. Comment #113847 by Enlightenme.. on January 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I rather feel that as an ex-protestant, becoming an atheist has actually meant rather more - I've had to learn to replace a whole lot about life that once was informed by that way of interpreting the world.

To give just one example - I was quite homophobic into my 20's, it was more prevalent then, and I just went with the instinctive gut reaction that 'it is against nature', backed up with the prevailing view that it was a sin.

I'm not saying directly that becoming an atheist changes that, but opening up your mind to reason comes with atheism doesn't it?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

17. Comment #113863 by Frankus1122 on January 20, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Theists reaction to the word 'atheist' is probably not so much to do with the atheists themselves as it is a threat to their belief system, which in many cases takes precedence over rational thought.

In a 2002 biography of Isaac Asimov by his wife, his belief was that "atheist" was too negative. He preferred "rationalist".

Countering these ill-informed claims, (something which proves to be laborious & time-consuming), with rationality and reasoned arguments is the best remedy.

I'm going with Rationalist.
My rational thought leads me to atheism. Atheism shuts down other peoples' minds and has, as mentioned, negative associations. Rationality on the other hand is harder to be against.
Steven Pinker has a view on this at the BigThink website.
http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/1132

Other Comments by Frankus1122

18. Comment #113868 by JamieR on January 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I love Richard's accent I'm English but i don't sound like that :( maybe its because I'm from Yorkshire

Other Comments by JamieR

19. Comment #113875 by dragonfirematrix on January 20, 2008 at 9:11 pm

The radio broadcast with Dr. Dawkins helps me to stay emboldened to profess my Secular Humanism (Atheism version) locally.

It is a task to speak-out against religion in the Lynchburg, VA area, but Dr. D., Sam, and other great intellectuals provide the means to do it right.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

20. Comment #113879 by Steve Zara on January 20, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I love Richard's accent I'm English but i don't sound like that :( maybe its because I'm from Yorkshire

Nothing wrong with a Yorkshire accent! However, I do think Richard has a good accent for broadcasting - his voice comes across very clearly. That can be a problem with some English regional accents I find.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #113901 by 210karman on January 21, 2008 at 1:22 am

I was especially pleased to be introduced to the name "Robert Ingersoll" by this broadcast. I checked the complete works via the link provided by the radio station and almost immediately found this gem from "God In the Constitution" 1890.

....in reference to science, man's knowledge, man's inventions etc

"These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience - - and for them all, man is indebted to man.

Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist that this, the Republic, is "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Wow!!

Other Comments by 210karman

22. Comment #113935 by d4m14n on January 21, 2008 at 3:14 am

I love Richard's accent I'm English but i don't sound like that :( maybe its because I'm from Yorkshire

Yes, his accent is a winner. There's his famous joust with the Liberty University students who invaded Randolph Macon college. I think at least one of Richard's antagonists admitted to being bowled over by his accent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

(And I too am afflicted with a Yorkshire accent. I think most Americans would struggle to understand me!)

Other Comments by d4m14n

23. Comment #113993 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2008 at 7:13 am

Good to hear Richard standing up for the term "atheist"; I'm right with him on that. The key problems with Sam's position:

- it assumes a situation which isn't here yet: the "Utopia" where it isn't necessary to say we don't believe in gods. We're not there yet. When we are, we can stop calling ourselves atheists.

- it mistakenly asserts that no other group identifies themselves by what they are against, or don't believe in. As I've pointed out before, this simply isn't true, and I've listed numerous examples of organisations and groups who do indeed identify themselves in this way.

- it asserts that it is inherently bad to identify yourself by what you stand against, yet never advances a sound argument for why this is so. I have no problem identifying myself as an anti-Nazi and I'd be interested to hear someone tell me why I should have a problem with it.

- it is essentially advocating surrender or evasiveness in the face of criticism (valid or distorted) from the religious (and, sadly, others). It says that because the word can give negative impressions we should simply give it up rather than correct those impressions. I do not find this impressive or palatable. "Atheist" correctly, succinctly and accurately describes what we are, and the fact that some people attach false or negative associations to it should only encourage us to put them straight, not to run cravenly from the word they have misappropriated.

- it won't help. It is naive in the extreme to imagine that simply not using the word "atheist" will magically remove the negative connotations of disbelief, or stop believers criticising us, attacking us, or misrepresenting us. The only thing that will stop that is if we keep our mouths shut, crawl back into the closet of meek, silent disbelief and return to the weak (and dangerous) attitude of, "I will publicly respect your belief no matter how idiotic I privately consider it". The reality is that as soon as we criticise belief or start using rational argument to dismantle it, we will be pegged as atheists or we will be subject to fallacious attacks whether we, or those we criticise, actually call ourselves atheists or not. To imagine that a mere change of identifier will remove or alleviate this innate problem is, as I say, absurdly naive.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

24. Comment #114009 by Riley on January 21, 2008 at 7:59 am

Jack,

One major problem with the term "atheism" is that non-belief is the null hypothesis already. The null hypothesis position doesn't get replaced with another name in other cases of non-belief. Why should the null hypothesis with respect to god-belief be a special case?

I think in just about every case that you've listed, you've misrepresented the reasons behind why Sam doesn't like the use of the term "atheist", and the character of the alternatives that he advocates.

Many a political group would agree with the assertion that: "it is inherently bad to identify yourself by what you stand against". The anti-abortion movement for example, became the "pro-life" movement and as such succeeded in ways it probably never would have by simply being "anti-abortion". That doesn't mean it's not possible to define yourself by what you're against, but in most cases, it's less effective politically to do so. But like I said, you're not really getting to the reasons why Sam and others argue against use of the term "atheism" by bringing this point up.

Sam's reasons and arguments, as I understand them, go much deeper. He's saying among other things that for us to organize under the moniker of "atheism" we both risk the danger of associating "atheism" with a world-view (which it is not, or at least shouldn't be), and worse, we make it seem that the "god hypothesis" claim is on equal footing with the non-acceptance of that claim; we're creating the appearance that the two sides share an equal burden. We know that the burden of proof is entirely on the people claiming "God", not at all on those asking for proof to support that claim. Let's define our position accordingly -- the term "atheist" undermines that position.

As per Sam's example: there is no need for the term "a-astrologer". Requiring proof before accepting the astrology claim needs no special name. If we were to assign non-belief in astrology a special-case terminology, the effect would be to lend apparent credibility to the astrology claim, as is the case already benefiting the "God" claim.




Other Comments by Riley

25. Comment #114016 by glittergulch on January 21, 2008 at 8:11 am

This show is a mess.

Other Comments by glittergulch

26. Comment #114086 by passutoba on January 21, 2008 at 10:52 am

great that its up and running.....can hear lots of heavy breathing through my headphones though, which is a bit disconcerting!

Other Comments by passutoba

27. Comment #114103 by Enlightenme.. on January 21, 2008 at 11:27 am

The correlate of anti-abortionism or anti-nazism would be anti-theism.

Atheism simply means non-theism.

I would quite happily take the label anti-theist if it wasn't a little open to misinterpretation as being 'against theists' rather than a self-descriptor indicating 'I am against theism idealogically'.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

28. Comment #114209 by the great teapot on January 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm

God damn it, why do I always forget when I log in that the page refreshes and I lose the audio link.
Oh well.
Regarding the difference between the reaction in England or the UK and America to the God delusion, while I can not speak for America I can only assume that the reason the reception is cooler in the Uk is that only the "nerds and slightly odd people" believe in god in the Uk these days. ( I am being a little unkind ,I know) and therefore his book is not so much a breath of fresh air but merely a mirror to what most of us already took for granted. This is probably due to the earlier efforts of Richard, David Attenborough , Leakey, Terry Nutkins ,Bill Oddie and Michael Palin and the countless more too numerous to mention. All of whom had killed off any belief in me even before they made me say school prayers. Thank Python.

Other Comments by the great teapot

29. Comment #114289 by Mitchell Gilks on January 21, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Enlightenme, I am happy to hear that have seen the light as it were. I honestly lack you perspective. I Have never been a believer, oddly enough because I was raised in a fundementalist christian family. I remember going through the motions as I did for the whole of my youth. However, I never gave it a second thought. I remember attempting to pray a couple times around the ages of 10 or so along, but everytimeI tried I felt a mixture of silly and insane. So I only even tried the couple of times.

I Would argue however that reason implies atheism, not the other way around. I have net quite a few bandwagon atheism, that were anything but rational.

What you said about having to change your views and ideas was not a result of atheism per se. It was a result of leaving your demonination, and it's prescriptions behind. This whould be true if you left for another religion, or not become a deist.

I also grew up with a prejudice toward homosexuals that I am not proud off. At least you had a reason, (although I droped mine before my 20s) my as a result of just the way kids acted and adults acted that I knew. I never met anyont that was anything except homophobic, so I was as well before I thought about why.

My only point is that we can all be for stuff, support causes, hold positions and have ideas. All of which are uninvolved with atheism. For someone who held so much stake in theism, and considered it so important for a lot time it may still remain a big issue for you. However, for me I consider it no more so when I am making decisions and taking stances and veiw points then I consider what the stars may think I should do.

So I am a non-astologer when talking about astrology, and a atheist when talking about theism. Any other subject I fail to see the relevence.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

30. Comment #114452 by robotaholic on January 22, 2008 at 8:21 am

look- instead of trying to think of another word (which will just get hijacked to mean something negative) just stick with atheist and change the public understanding of the word through coercion- and reasonable argument-

and the truth is there isn't anything that unites us at all - we're all just people who don't believe in god/gods - so stop trying to think of a positive label just because of aesthetics

Other Comments by robotaholic

31. Comment #114491 by Snowman on January 22, 2008 at 10:01 am

Has there ever been more obnoxious breathing by a group of radio hosts? I love the idea of an atheist broadcast, but that was terrifyingly amateurish. For the love of FSM, they need a new sound engineer.

Other Comments by Snowman

32. Comment #114520 by Riley on January 22, 2008 at 11:04 am

robotaholic wrote: we're all just people who don't believe in god/gods - so stop trying to think of a positive label just because of aesthetics"

... or even better, stop altogether using a label to describe that which doesn't need a special identity.

"Supernatural" is another example of a term that we should stop using. It's a meaningless a term. The word "supernatural" makes it sound as if there is something there not to believe in. There isn't even a there there, and we have come up with a name for it!

Rational people shoot themselves in the foot when they uncritically adopt the language of non-sense believers.



Other Comments by Riley

33. Comment #114522 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 11:11 am

"Supernatural" is another example of a term that we should stop using. It's a meaningless a term.

Indeed. I think this is an excellent point. There are things that exist, and things that don't.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #114530 by robotaholic on January 22, 2008 at 11:23 am

There isn't even a there there, and we have come up with a name for it!

that doesn't make sense-

Other Comments by robotaholic

35. Comment #114548 by Riley on January 22, 2008 at 11:51 am

The phrase: "there is no 'there' there" is not universally understood I guess. That it doesn't make sense is kind of the point anyway.

explanation:
The "supernatural" is basically defined as: that which is separate from everything that is, and yet has impact on that which is.

The "supernatural" is a self contradictory concept (if it impacts existence, then it is part of existence); as such, it's sensibly meaningless. I think it adds nothing to our language except confusion.

note: I don't define "supernatural" as something outside of "nature" because that assumes there must be something that isn't "nature" (i.e. the cosmos) ... and that begs the question. "begging the question" is the core problem caused by the terms we use in our non-sense believing culture.

Other Comments by Riley

36. Comment #114748 by Enlightenme.. on January 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Mitchell,

I know it sounds odd now, kinda cart before the horse, but I feel that what held my hand out of belief was my emotions, not really reason, I grew up in UK thinking that the orangemen (of Ulster) were 'our side', when I started to realise just how much of a nutter Paisley was I felt something was wrong as it dawned on me he wasn't the opposition, but a part of this 'our side'. I was dead lucky in my view that the environment was right for me to feel something was wrong before I was even able to reason my way out.
I was well on my way thanks to the I.R.A (uvf,uda &c &c)
This all came before much later analysis that this is not about religion as it is just a sectarian tool.

I also grew up being excited by planes, cars, dinosaurs & 'tommorrows world', & thence sciency stuff, and vividly remember the logic of the dino extinction/which god? map on RD's X-mas lecture making an impression on me, this certainly helped complete the job, and much more now with reason.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

37. Comment #114759 by MPhil on January 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Steve Zara

"Supernatural" is another example of a term that we should stop using. It's a meaningless a term.

Indeed. I think this is an excellent point. There are things that exist, and things that don't.

I agree that the term refers to nothing (course I do), but there's a real problem of language here.
"There are things that don't exist" is a wonderful example of a nonsense sentece. I'm sure you are aware of that, Steve... just wanted to point it out nevertheless.

"There are things" is a phrase that puports to pick out entities from the set of 'everything in existence' - and then "...that don't exist" denies their existence.

That's a real problem... how can you say that something does not exist? In order to successfully say of something that it does not exist you would have to refer to it and then deny that the predicate "exists" is true of it. If there is no such thing, then you cannot successfully refer to it.

Furthermore - is existence something that can be predicated of things? I don't think existence is a proper predicate.

The eminent philosopher Wilard van Orman Quine discussed that problem in detail in his famous paper "on what there is" - a very good read. (available in the superb collection of 9 of his essays entitled "From a logical point of view")

To quote him:
"I cannot admit that there are some things McX [a ficticious opponent] countenances and I do not, for in admitting that there are such things I should be contradicting my own rejection of them.
It would appear, if this reasoning were sound, that in any ontological dispute, the proponent of the negative side suffers the disadvantage of not being able to admit that his opponent disagrees with him.
This is the old Platonic riddle of nonbeing. Nonbeing must in some sense be. Otherwise, what is it that there is not?"

I won't spoil the fun of thinking about a logical solution to this problem by telling you how he attempted (and succeeded IMO) to solved it :)

Indeed, many analytical philosophers hold that metaphysics is a problem of language.
____________________________
Sorry, I'm just in a good mood right now, so I thought I'd post my thoughts. If they should bore anyone - feel free to ignore me :)

Other Comments by MPhil

38. Comment #114816 by youmemeyou on January 23, 2008 at 12:25 am

"Kareem Zreik
While I genuinely respect what people had to say, I think the first three callers should have asked questions instead of just calling into comment!"

There's nothing wrong to calling into comment. However, phrasing a comment in terms of a question serves two purposes. First, it serves to drive the exchange of conversation. Secondly, it requires the discipline to focus the conveyance of the message.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

39. Comment #114840 by Steve Zara on January 23, 2008 at 2:44 am

"There are things that don't exist" is a wonderful example of a nonsense sentece. I'm sure you are aware of that, Steve... just wanted to point it out nevertheless.

I wasn't that aware of it, although I realised it was clumsy, so your post is interesting.
I was trying to use language in a blunt Feynman style, and I tripped up.

However...

1. The One Ring forged by Sauron does not exist.

2. The Largest Prime Number does not exist.

3. A reasonably powerful axiomatic system that is both complete and consistent does not exist.

I am not sure that (2) is a "thing", and am pretty certain (3) isn't. But (1) seems like a "thing" to me.

How would you have phrased this? Perhaps I should have talked about ideas rather than "things"?

I have to say that if you philosophers start tripping us up like this every time we try and put what seems like a simple sentence together, it is going to be very distracting - but huge fun!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #114849 by Peacebeuponme on January 23, 2008 at 3:18 am

I would say that The One Ring exists in some sense - as part of a story. I think...

Somebody may own a weapon in World of Warcraft. That could be referred to as a "thing" even though it doesn't exist in the physica sense.

I await for Steve, MPhil and Epeeist maybe to sort this out for me!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

41. Comment #114926 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 7:36 am

Steve Zara
1. The One Ring forged by Sauron does not exist.

2. The Largest Prime Number does not exist.

3. A reasonably powerful axiomatic system that is both complete and consistent does not exist.

I am not sure that (2) is a "thing", and am pretty certain (3) isn't. But (1) seems like a "thing" to me.

How would you have phrased this? Perhaps I should have talked about ideas rather than "things"?

Peacebeuponme
I would say that The One Ring exists in some sense - as part of a story. I think...

I would certainly agree with that. One philosopher used "minimal existence" as a technical term for this. So yes, the ring is a "character" in a story - and in context of that story we can say of it that it is true that it was forged by Sauron and wrong that it was forged by Gimli. Outside of the context of the story such sentences as "Gimli forged the One Ring" would of course be without referent and therefore not truth-apt. So, we can talk about it that it has minimal existence as being part of story in the context of which there are true statements about it and there are false statements about it. We can of course also, as Peacebeuponme suggests talk about the ring as an idea in the mind of Tolkien and his readers etc - there are a few other problems of course (eg if materialism is true, then specks of print on paper - ie Tolkiens Book - have no meaning per se, then meaning must be constructed in the brain of the writer and reader, then talking about the story must be reducible to talking about neuronal activity)

But you're still thinking in the wrong category - namely of how things exist or can exist. Yes, two - if it existed - is either a platonic form, or a concept, 3 - if it existed - would also be either a platonic form or a concept and one - if it existed - would be a magical ring.

You seem to be thinking about "What of these 'things' deserves to be called a thing?" I think this can be remedied. When talking about allegedly metaphysical entities (platonic forms even) like numbers or theories - a materialist ought to talk about systematic concepts (since everything needs to be reducible to the physical - the only 'place' where we can find theories and mathematical entities would be in the function and systematicity of neural activity.)

The "One Ring" and the "Weapon in WoW"-problem can be solved either by talking about concepts (which would be tedious and rather superfluous) or by talking "from within the framework of the story"


The real problem I was trying to raise consciousness about is: How can we phrase a sentence to express the nonexistence of something without contradicting ourselves?
So it's a problem of linguistics, of logic and of thinking.

When you deny the existence of Pegasus for example, you would usually say "Pegasus does not exist". But "Pegasus" is a proper name. If "X does not exist" has to have a meaning, then "X", being a proper name, has to refer to something. But if there is no such thing it does refer to, then the sentence doesn't make sense, because there is no value for the variable "X".

Of course you can say - well, then "Pegasus" refers to the concept of Pegasus. But surely that concept does exist, so if by using the word "Pegasus" you mean the concept, then "Pegasus does not exist" denies the existence of that concept.

The basic problem is that denying the existence of something seems to require that we use existence as a predicate AND a quantifier, and that gets us into deep trouble.

Take
"The thing which is a winged horse and was ridden by Bellerofon does not exist"

First we pick out an individual by that thing which... and then we deny its existence.
But if there is no such thing, then the phrase "The thing which is a winged horse and was ridden by Bellerofon" fails to pick out an individual - it grasps at nothing.

To phrase it in formal language:

(exists x)[Is.a.winged.horse.x (and)Was.ridden.by.Bellerofon.x (and) Does.not.exist.x]

So the problem is not whether the "thing" can be called a thing, whether it is properly physical or a platonic form or a concept within a story... the problem is that with

"there are things which do not exist", "there are things" contradicts "which do not exist" because "there are" already says they exist.

The same thing is true for proper names.
"Pegasus does not exist" is meaningless, because the proper name has to pick out something (whether physical or metaphysical, doesn't matter), and then the predicate ascribes an attribute to that. But if Pegasus does not exist, the name "Pegasus" fails to pick out anything, so there is nothing of which it can be said that it doesn't exist and the sentence becomes meaningless.

Quine's solution to that problem was making every proper name and every description into a verb.
"Pegasus" would become "being-a-winged-horse-and-having-been-ridden-by-bellerofon" or some other definite description - but AS A VERB. So in short:

"There is nothing which pegasises"

This sentence merely states that all things fail to satisfy the predicate "pegasises" - and the problem doesn't even arise.


So much for today. Tune in for our next episode of "Philosophical puzzles" - but remember to get your alcoholic beverages ready beforehand.
Cheers!

Other Comments by MPhil

42. Comment #115984 by Gridfire on January 25, 2008 at 7:44 am

Going back to the point of Supernaturalism, I think we may be missing a major PR trick here.

In everyday terms when we talk about the word "Natural" we associate it with the correct order of things, "Natures Bounty", natural products only containing natural ingredients and suchlike.

If we associate ourselves with Naturalism (and all Atheists ARE Naturalists) then we can coopt these meanings for ourselves.

The flipside is that the normal colloquial expression for "Not-Natural" is not Supernatural. It's UN-Natural, and noone really likes things that are un-natural do they?

Christians like to label Stem-Cell research, abortion, genetic engineering and other practices they object to "Un-Natural". How about we turn the tables here and point out that their entire belief system is un-Natural?

In my view this is a slightly more direct and publicly understandable version of the "Things either exist or they don't" argument.

My first post!
Thanks

Other Comments by Gridfire

43. Comment #115989 by Steve Zara on January 25, 2008 at 8:00 am

(and all Atheists ARE Naturalists)

No, they aren't.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #116064 by Skep on January 25, 2008 at 12:41 pm

"32. Comment #114491 by Snowman on January 22, 2008 at 10:01 am
Has there ever been more obnoxious breathing by a group of radio hosts? I love the idea of an atheist broadcast, but that was terrifyingly amateurish. For the love of FSM, they need a new sound engineer."

All agreed. This show can't last long with the on air talent and production values it has. It was almost excruciatingly amateur. It isn't enough to be atheists and have something to say, the radio show has to be produced to professional standards. This show sounded worse than the non-broadcast podcasts I subscribe to.

While it was great to hear Dawkins, the woman who "interviewed" Dawkins sounded really odd, more like she was lecturing him or reading off cards or something.

And Robert Ingersol! To hear the great orator's work read rather than performed did it an injustice.

I wouldn't mind a show produced by the Minnesota Atheists, I just don't think I want to hear a show performed by them.

Other Comments by Skep

45. Comment #130661 by quicksilver on February 21, 2008 at 5:55 am

Ben Stein's presence in media for me confirms that Hollywood is indeed owned for the most part by right wing globalists bent on monopolizing the distribution of information. In "Jimmy Neutron" he displays his closest relationship with science, and that of course is a talentless pittance.

Other Comments by quicksilver

46. Comment #130667 by irate_atheist on February 21, 2008 at 6:25 am

44. Comment #115989 by Steve Zara -

(and all Atheists ARE Naturalists)

No, they aren't.

I'm not, either. Too many laws against it and, at home, the heating bills would be horrendous in winter.

Oh. Naturalist. Oops.

Other Comments by irate_atheist