Do atheists understand abstract language?

Post Reply New Topic

Dictionary definition of abstract:

1 a: disassociated from any specific instance <an abstract entity> b: difficult to understand : abstruse <abstract problems> c: insufficiently factual : formal <possessed only an abstract right>2: expressing a quality apart from an object <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract>3 a: dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical <abstract science> b: impersonal, detached <the abstract compassion of a surgeon — Time>4: having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content <abstract painting>

In other words an abstraction deals with a quality or a group of qualities separate from the source of the abstraction. That source can be real or imagined. All human communication can only present abstractions since it is both impractical and usually impossible to deal with a collection of real objects or phenomena. There are abstractions of dogs, stars, bridges, individual people etc. which are presumed to be real. All human sensory apparatus functions by monitoring the world through abstractions since sight, sound, smell, taste, feeling, are accepted by the human nervous system as abstractions.

Of course atheists understand abstract language! Have you ever read Greek Classical Philosophy? Or Shelley and Byron? Or Voltaire? Those guys understood abstract language.

Being atheist isn't an abnormality of the brain, it's a decision that folks come to based on the evidence available to them at the time... I understood abstract language when I was an atheist, nothing changed in that regard when I changed my mind.

Perhaps some atheists don't understand abstract language, but then, neither do some Jews, or Christians, or Hindus. For example, I know Christians who are hyperliteral when it comes to their understanding of the Book of Daniel or Revelation, etc... do they understand abstract language? The evidence would suggest not. But that doesn't make them atheist.

We all just have different mechanics of mind. That's all.

Some of the most complex abstract thinkers were atheists.

I totally agree.

But there are many atheists whose objections to god, to belief in god, and criticisms of people who believe in god, are based on finding no objective proof for the existence of god, ( as if this in itself is enough to show how "silly"/imbecile/stupid/self-deluding/hypnotised/weak/illogical even insane, people are to believe in god ), at the same time as believing in a huge number of other things, ( like "love", "truth", "justice", "good", etc ), for which there is no objective proof/evidence either.

Their attitude shows a total lack of understanding of abstract language, of what it is.

But I completely agree that this does not apply to all atheists, and that many, perhaps most, believers, don't understand abstract language either. I suspect that the "exaggerated" thread title was motivated by frustration and exasperation with the small group of ( very vocal ) atheists on WP who seem to think it is more logical/enlightened to believe in love, justice, truth, etc than it is to believe in god, and repeatedly accuse believers in god of a variety of personal failings.

.

That's okay. Thanks for explaining.

I think I understand abstract language, in the sense I have my own subjective understanding of abstract terms...although I am unable to verbalize many of them. I would say I enjoy abstract language since I enjoy poetry, but philosophy is difficult for me to digest. I would have to say my difficulty with abstract language would be the same as with all language. Words have so many meanings, I am often unable to determine their intent. I tend to ruminate over words, giving them different tones and inflections, therefore many different meanings. I never know what anyone really means.

I think that can be a feature of understanding too much, rather than too little. You know... most people narrow down the options of what a word means, depending on context, and they can miss subtleties and nuances. Poetry works, in part, by holding the multiple meanings in tension, so you're forced to confront them all at the same time.

Sometimes I get overwhelmed by layers of meaning in words... it's not that I don't understand them, it's that they don't filter through in monochrome.

Hummm... does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

COMPOSING

My thoughts, when fashioned into words,
Words which twist and interlock
And echo on themselves in rhyme and beat,
When sounded, ring like choruses of bells,
Or waves that swirl and separate and meet.

Words and thoughts, when married into form,
When joined and folded into shapes
Wherein their grasp holds to each other tight
And yet extends a reach into the world
Engenders sorcery to make a magic light.

So, complete, these origamis of the mind
Encage, engage a coterie of notions
That weld into a small totality
Like a perfect little paper boat
To be launched onto an endless sea

Hey Sand! I think we have proof that you understand abstract language! I particularly like "encage, engage."

There must be a poetry thread around here somewhere?

I apologize if I overdid it. I just thought the point should be made.

I don't see how the poem is evidence of an understanding of abstract language. It shows that someone knows how to use it, like I use a computer, but I very definitely don't understand computers.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 25 May 2009, 11:36 am, edited 3 times in total.

If you're going to use a word, at least try to use the accepted definition.

This one.

And understanding abstract language involves more than "using" it. Otherwise I could say I understood computers.

.

Using abstract language well absolutely indicates understanding. I am having serious doubts about your linguistic accomplishments.

I disagree.

I could be extremely proficient at using a wide range of computer functions, but still have no idea how it worked. Use of language is the same, especially use of "abstract language".

.

I laid out several of my poems for your examination which were replete with abstract language. To claim I don't know how the language worked does not stand up to examination. You simply do not know what you are talking about.