Agreed. Where he is wrong is in equating “having a world-view” with “having a religion”. The two are not the same and it’s foolish in the extreme to suggest that they are.
The dictionary lists this for use #3 for religion:
”a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”
In this sense of the word, many people, including atheists, do have a religion deeply rooted in their worldview.
A concrete example is people who fervently believe that FOSS is the only good way to make software, and that proprietary software is evil. Many of those people are unwilling to even consider the merits of the latter. In this sense, those beliefs very much qualify as “religious” in this sense of the word.
No, this is bullshit. FOSS advocates don’t have faith in the one true RMS or whatever you’re trying to peddle here. They have a principled stance derived from logic. You’re free to disagree with them, but you can’t just paint them as religious because they have a stance you disagree with!
Those logical conclusions must inherently flow from philosophical axioms that comprise the person’s world view. Two of the most fundamental axioms that lead to supporting FOSS are not supported by everyone. Namely:
What is “good” exists independent of human convention (i.e. Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethical belief system)
Humans should endeavor to be morally good (i.e. Altruism vs. Egoism)
Those axioms cannot be logically derived from some fundamental truth - they must come from one’s own personal belief system, i.e. their “religion” (definition 3).
Someone following Kantian ethics and Altruism morality (whether or not they’re aware of the names) will probably end up favoring FOSS. Someone who has a more Utilitarian and Egoistic world view will probably be okay with proprietary software.
This is all kind of a moot point because I don’t think this sense of the word is what Musk was referring to - he was probably using it as sense 1 sarcastically and mockingly.
Those axioms cannot be logically derived from some fundamental truth - they must come from one’s own personal belief system, i.e. their “religion” (definition 3).
You’re re-defining religion here, because even if fundamental axioms are arbitrarily chosen, it doesn’t mean they are adhered to based on faith. I don’t have faith in my principles. I think they are good due to the evidence I’ve seen for them, but if I saw evidence for problems with my fundamental axioms, I’d adopt new axioms. This is fundamentally different from believing in something due to faith.
it doesn’t mean they are adhered to based on faith
If not “faith” then what? Note that “faith” doesn’t need to mean some higher power; it just needs to be something you believe without evidence. Any “evidence” you claim to have experienced to support your worldview must inherently be interpreted through an existing lens of one’s own world view, which circularly depends on one’s axioms. You fundamentally cannot have a worldview without some amount of faith in something.
More concretely, the only thing one can prove a priori is “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). Any further cognitive reasoning requires faith in one or more axioms about the world, e.g. “the world exists independent of my own perception”.
Because I haven’t been convinced by something better. That’s it.
Note that “faith” doesn’t need to mean some higher power; it just needs to be something you believe without evidence.
According to what definition? Let’s look at Merriam Webster, since you’re basing your whole argument around their definitions:
1
a
: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company’s president
b
(1)
: fidelity to one’s promises
(2)
: sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith
2
a
(1)
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2)
: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b
(1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2)
: complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
especially : a system of religious beliefs
the Protestant faith
None of these apply to me, or other FOSS advocates I know. I don’t have a strong conviction towards my basic axioms, since as I said, I simply haven’t come across better ones.
More concretely, the only thing one can prove a priori is “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). Any further cognitive reasoning requires faith in one or more axioms about the world, e.g. “the world exists independent of my own perception”.
And thus you completely devalue the terms “faith”, “religion” etc., because according to you literally everything past “Cogito ergo sum” is faith. Every word you wrote is faith. Everything you think beyond your basic capability to think is faith. It’s fine if you want to decide for yourself that this is how you view these words, but it’s not how other people use them, because they simply have no utility the way you use them.
It’s conceivable but a stretch to say that some people have those beliefs to the extent of a religion. However to say they’re actually a religion would be simply bizarre… nobody thinks Richard Stallman created the earth or something.
Agreed. Where he is wrong is in equating “having a world-view” with “having a religion”. The two are not the same and it’s foolish in the extreme to suggest that they are.
Perhaps it’s not “having a world-view” he’s equating with it, but something more specific.
The dictionary lists this for use #3 for religion:
”a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”
In this sense of the word, many people, including atheists, do have a religion deeply rooted in their worldview.
A concrete example is people who fervently believe that FOSS is the only good way to make software, and that proprietary software is evil. Many of those people are unwilling to even consider the merits of the latter. In this sense, those beliefs very much qualify as “religious” in this sense of the word.
No, this is bullshit. FOSS advocates don’t have faith in the one true RMS or whatever you’re trying to peddle here. They have a principled stance derived from logic. You’re free to disagree with them, but you can’t just paint them as religious because they have a stance you disagree with!
Those logical conclusions must inherently flow from philosophical axioms that comprise the person’s world view. Two of the most fundamental axioms that lead to supporting FOSS are not supported by everyone. Namely:
Those axioms cannot be logically derived from some fundamental truth - they must come from one’s own personal belief system, i.e. their “religion” (definition 3).
Someone following Kantian ethics and Altruism morality (whether or not they’re aware of the names) will probably end up favoring FOSS. Someone who has a more Utilitarian and Egoistic world view will probably be okay with proprietary software.
This is all kind of a moot point because I don’t think this sense of the word is what Musk was referring to - he was probably using it as sense 1 sarcastically and mockingly.
You’re re-defining religion here, because even if fundamental axioms are arbitrarily chosen, it doesn’t mean they are adhered to based on faith. I don’t have faith in my principles. I think they are good due to the evidence I’ve seen for them, but if I saw evidence for problems with my fundamental axioms, I’d adopt new axioms. This is fundamentally different from believing in something due to faith.
If not “faith” then what? Note that “faith” doesn’t need to mean some higher power; it just needs to be something you believe without evidence. Any “evidence” you claim to have experienced to support your worldview must inherently be interpreted through an existing lens of one’s own world view, which circularly depends on one’s axioms. You fundamentally cannot have a worldview without some amount of faith in something.
More concretely, the only thing one can prove a priori is “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). Any further cognitive reasoning requires faith in one or more axioms about the world, e.g. “the world exists independent of my own perception”.
Because I haven’t been convinced by something better. That’s it.
According to what definition? Let’s look at Merriam Webster, since you’re basing your whole argument around their definitions:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY lost faith in the company’s president b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions acted in good faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith
None of these apply to me, or other FOSS advocates I know. I don’t have a strong conviction towards my basic axioms, since as I said, I simply haven’t come across better ones.
And thus you completely devalue the terms “faith”, “religion” etc., because according to you literally everything past “Cogito ergo sum” is faith. Every word you wrote is faith. Everything you think beyond your basic capability to think is faith. It’s fine if you want to decide for yourself that this is how you view these words, but it’s not how other people use them, because they simply have no utility the way you use them.
Oxford English Dictionary:
faith: …. a strongly held belief or theory. “the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe”
Once again: my axioms are not strongly held beliefs. How often do I have to repeat this?
I have a degree in Philosophy. You are redefining words to make your argument. That’s not how good arguments work.
I view it more like: don’t let proprietary software manufacturers fuck you over, not something about morality.
It’s conceivable but a stretch to say that some people have those beliefs to the extent of a religion. However to say they’re actually a religion would be simply bizarre… nobody thinks Richard Stallman created the earth or something.