Delta Atheism

[Skepsis]

"Scientia" means "knowledge." In no way does that word imply a pragmatic choice of what to study.


If you really valued knowledge, you'd study such things for the sake of studying them alone. I'd say "it's not about WHAT, it's about WHY" or the like, but it would just sound like I'm spewing rhetoric.

This is to say nothing of understanding people's psychological motivations, which are absolutely relevant and very evident in their philosophical beliefs, including the reasons for one's atheism. Your original post said nothing specifically about the link to socionics - it could be interpreted as you not caring for the philosophical underpinnings of one's atheism, which hints at an extremely unscientific mindset.

I do not deny that people have different psychological motivations, only that cognitive functions exist in the first place, hence they cannot be the cause of one's philosophical perspective. Motivations are rather irrelevant to one's philosophical perspective, unless one is using that philosophy to manipulate and control others; they have more to do with what one believes to be true, such as a worldview. There are no psychological motivations for atheism. Someone either believes in a deity or they don't.

As to the valuing of knowledge. Not all knowledge is equal. Some branches of knowledge are more true than others. It is important to know enough philosophy to discern the difference.

[Grendel]

I do not deny that people have different psychological motivations, only that cognitive functions exist in the first place, hence they cannot be the cause of one's philosophical perspective.

True though that may be, what we call "sociotypes" are still based upon traits observed in others, and many such traits are recognized in formal psychology. Your intrinsic psychological traits will absolutely affect your philosophical perspective to some degree.

Motivations are rather irrelevant to one's philosophical perspective, unless one is using that philosophy to manipulate and control others; they have more to do with what one believes to be true, such as a worldview.

What you believe to be true can and will influence what motivates you, or at least how you respond to these motivations. Also, I'm talking about the philosophical beliefs of others, not oneself.

There are no psychological motivations for atheism. Someone either believes in a deity or they don't.

Every motivation is psychological on one level or another. Psychology is as much the source of philosophy as it is of every other action you take, and you're a fool to deny that.


And again, it's outright asinine to say anything of this magnitude is JUST a matter of "is or isn't." There is almost always so much more beneath the surface.

[Skepsis]

True though that may be, what we call "sociotypes" are still based upon traits observed in others, and many such traits are recognized in formal psychology. Your intrinsic psychological traits will absolutely affect your philosophical perspective to some degree.

Socionics is not only not a trait theory, it is not recognized as a valid theory within branch of Psychology. The Big Five is a trait based personality theory and is widely recognized as considerably more valid.

What you believe to be true can and will influence what motivates you, or at least how you respond to these motivations. Also, I'm talking about the philosophical beliefs of others, not oneself.

I'm not denying that belief can motivate one's behavior. I am skeptical that the cause of one's belief, or lack thereof, is the result of cognitive functions, as is being assumed with *insert quadrant* atheism.

Every motivation is psychological on one level or another. Psychology is as much the source of philosophy as it is of every other action you take

The first sentence is true. The second is false. Philosophy is how we have come to understand psychology. An incorrect philosophy may lead to insufficient understanding of the field known as Psychology. Maybe you are conflating motivation and belief? These are two different concepts. Even according to socionic theory, cognitive functions cause belief prior to motivation. For instance, Ti may cause a belief in a logical universe which may motivate one to pursue a field in the sciences. A person does not have to hold belief because they are motivated to have that belief. That doesn't make any logical sense. A person may be motivated to behave in a certain way or take up a particular philosophical stance because of the beliefs they hold. Beliefs are formed by a combination of experience, culture, education, etc. In other worlds, the beliefs one holds cannot be accounted for by socionics. They are much more complex than that.

And again, it's outright asinine to say anything of this magnitude is JUST a matter of "is or isn't." There is almost always so much more beneath the surface.

Name a valid psychological motivation for atheism then. A need for a psychological motivation for atheism sounds like a theistic confirmation bias.

[Grendel]

The first sentence is true. The second is false. Philosophy is how we have come to understand psychology. An incorrect philosophy may lead to insufficient understanding of the field known as Psychology. Maybe you are conflating motivation and belief?

Probably. And not so much "psychology" or "motivations" as "psychological biases." And when I say "motivation" I'm talking less about conscious choice and more about unconscious tendency.

Don't think, for a moment, that anyone has ever been free from psychological bias, no matter how logical or self-evident his conclusions may have been.

In other worlds, the beliefs one holds cannot be accounted for by socionics. They are much more complex than that.

Yet, as you stated, you apparently don't care for the telltale causes of these beliefs, just the simple boolean of belief vs. disbelief. That shows a severe lack of curiosity, one not becoming of a person who likens himself to science.

Name a valid psychological motivation for atheism then.

Horrible past experiences with religion that justify an alienation from it in reaction? People can reach the same conclusions through different processes. There are types of Atheism other than Agnostic Atheism. And frankly it sounds like what you're trying to promote is actually Apatheism.

[Skepsis]

Probably. And not so much "psychology" or "motivations" as "psychological biases." And when I say "motivation" I'm talking less about conscious choice and more about unconscious tendency.

Don't think, for a moment, that anyone has ever been free from psychological bias, no matter how logical or self-evident his conclusions may have been.


Yet, as you stated, you apparently don't care for the telltale causes of these beliefs, just the simple boolean of belief vs. disbelief. That shows a severe lack of curiosity, one not becoming of a person who likens himself to science.



Horrible past experiences with religion that justify an alienation from it in reaction? People can reach the same conclusions through different processes. There are types of Atheism other than Agnostic Atheism. And frankly it sounds like what you're trying to promote is actually Apatheism.

You seem to be taking my username too seriously! I just like the word Scientia and thought it would make a good name. I am not calling myself knowledge or likening myself to science, lol.

Please reread my original post in this thread, I was being facetious. We have been taking what I said in the wrong direction than what I originally intended. I was poking fun at the cognitive function explanation for everything theory. My main objection was toward the assumption that socionics was a sufficient justification for a lack of belief and that this leads to an objectively different kind of lack of belief than anyone else's. I may be guilty of overgeneralizing atheism out of a lack of understanding which direction our conversation was turning.