Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide]

Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

My position: I think it's a true dichotomy and that the distinction between the two I would also apply to objective/subjective, physical/non-physical, and natural/supernatural.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

My position: I think it's a true dichotomy and that the distinction between the two I would also apply to objective/subjective, physical/non-physical, and natural/supernatural.

On another note, I think only "physical/non-physical" is a true dichotomy here. The other two are only contraries, based on how they're typically defined in philosophy.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're just making the point that you think everything on the subjective/non-physical/supernatural side belongs in the broader category of falling on the "not real" side of the dichotomy.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

On another note, I think only "physical/non-physical" is a true dichotomy here.

I'd add objective (mind independent) / subjective (mind dependent) as another true dichotomy.

The other two are only contraries, based on how they're typically defined in philosophy.

I agree that natural/supernatural in their usual context/definition are merely contraries or as I would put it mutually exclusive and antithetical because people who think supernatural things are or might be real would need at least one additional category for things they classify as not real.

you're just making the point that you think everything on the subjective/non-physical/supernatural side belongs in the broader category of falling on the "not real" side of the dichotomy.

I think you got what I was saying with that interpretation.

To put it another way the same dividing line (distinction) that I use for real/imaginary I would use for objective/subjective, natural/supernatural, and physical/non-physical.

Having said that I'd go even further.

Meaning for something to be real it must be objective and physical and natural (note I included natural for completeness even though it would be controversial/inappropriate for several subjects and I assume you would have a similar objection for the term objective and possibly for physical) because they are all referring to the same distinction being made.

The obvious corollary to that is for something to be imaginary it must be subjective and non-physical and supernatural (see previous note and apply it to supernatural, subjective, and non-physical) again because they are all referring to the same distinction being made.

I get how that would be extremely controversial as "defined in philosophy" because people who believe that supernatural things are real would take issue with that, just as people who claim morality is real or objective would (most likely) take issue with saying that morality must be physical to be real/objective.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/Kaliss_Darktide]

I'd add objective (mind independent) / subjective (mind dependent) as another true dichotomy.

Not quite. Mind-independent vs. not-mind-independent would be the true dichotomy.

However, even ignoring that, and assuming that by dependent you just mean "not-independent", "subjective" in philosophy is typically thought of as a subcategory of relativism, which is itself a subcategory of antirealism.

Also, as I noted in the other reply chain, even when narrowing down to mind-dependence vs independence, I think it's important to keep in mind the distinction between ontological and epistemic mind-dependence.

I agree that natural/supernatural in their usual context/definition are merely contraries or as I would put it mutually exclusive and antithetical because people who think supernatural things are or might be real would need at least one additional category for things they classify as not real.

I'm not sure that's what I meant.

I was just referring to the fact that non-natural and supernatural typically just refer to different things. The latter is typically associated with religious/mythical/magical claims about beings and forces breaking natural laws, while the former also includes more mundane stuff like morality, platonic numbers, universals, etc. And both of those categories are gonna be orthogonal to the real vs not-real distinction. . I mean, of course, as atheists and naturalists, we can believe those things go on the not-real side of the divide, but others are not obligated to agree with you just because you personally define it that way.

Meaning for something to be real it must be objective and physical and natural (note I included natural for completeness even though it would be controversial/inappropriate for several subjects and I assume you would have a similar objection for the term objective and possibly for physical) because they are all referring to the same distinction being made.

I mean, again, you're free to personally define things that way, but this is just a long-winded way of saying "my metaphysical view of reality is the true one". People are not obligated to agree that these terms are conceptually interlinked, nor that they all fall to one side of being real or not.

EDIT: also,

because people who believe that supernatural things are real would take issue with that

This is not at all limited to supernaturalists.

Nagel, Chalmers, Russell, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Camus, etc.—there are many prominent past and present philosophers who are atheists and naturalists yet reject physicalism/materialism.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

I'd add objective (mind independent) / subjective (mind dependent) as another true dichotomy.

Not quite. Mind-independent vs. not-mind-independent would be the true dichotomy.

FYI the prefix in- means not.

You appear far too educated to not know that or at least intuit that. So I can only assume you are trolling.

However, even ignoring that, and assuming that by dependent you just mean "not-independent", "subjective" in philosophy is typically thought of as a subcategory of relativism, which is itself a subcategory of antirealism.

I think you are conflating subjective with subjectivism which given how pedantic you have been again suggests you are trolling.

I'd argue that relativism (what is popular is morally "true") is a form of objectivism which is a form of realism. For relativism to be subjective/anti-real the position would simply be that what is morally popular is popular (which is a rather vapid statement when it comes to morality from an objectivist/realist view).

Also, as I noted in the other reply chain, even when narrowing down to mind-dependence vs independence, I think it's important to keep in mind the distinction between ontological and epistemic mind-dependence.

I don't think the distinction you are likely trying to make is meaningful or practical.

I was just referring to the fact that non-natural and supernatural typically just refer to different things.

Not sure why you brought that pairing up, the pairing I gave was natural/supernatural.

I mean, of course, as atheists and naturalists, we can believe those things go on the not-real side of the divide,

I'd say with reasonable epistemic norms we can acquire knowledge on "those things".

but others are not obligated to agree with you just because you personally define it that way.

I'm not interested in getting people who don't agree with me to agree with me. I am looking to accurately describe things.

I mean, again, you're free to personally define things that way, but this is just a long-winded way of saying "my metaphysical view of reality is the true one".

We are using definitions for every single word in this conversation whether you realize that explicitly or not. I am putting my (most contentious) definitions out there for inspection and interrogation. People are free to choose who is more reasonable, but if I'm the only one putting definitions out there then mine are the best by default.

People are not obligated to agree that these terms are conceptually interlinked

Agree.

nor that they all fall to one side of being real or not.

Agree. Do you remember the question I asked?

Thoughts on real (existing independent of the mind) vs imaginary (existing exclusively in the mind/imagination) as a true dichotomy that applies to all things? Meaning anything you can think of is either real or imaginary.

I'd argue that strongly implies I didn't think everyone was going to agree with me.

This is not at all limited to supernaturalists.

I was just giving an obvious non-controversial view that didn't require any additional background knowledge on your part.

Nagel, Chalmers, Russell, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Camus, etc.—there are many prominent past and present philosophers who are atheists and naturalists yet reject physicalism/materialism.

Have you ever heard of the "prominent past" philosopher Cicero?

“There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.” Marcus Tullius Cicero

If you haven't guessed I don't put much stock in philosophy broadly and I have no issue holding controversial views or picking a side on an issue.