Theists: Tell us about atheists

[Az]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about atheists. My hope is that theists and believers can express what they think they know about atheists and their concerns and maybe, just maybe some atheists here can address them. What have you heard about us. What is it you think we believe. Do you have any questions about us. Feel free to explore.

To any atheists responding to this thread. Please keep it civil. The goal here is to clear up misunderstanding and misinformation. We begin with the assumption that there is a misunderstanding.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thank you !

I think this is a good opportunity to clear up misconceptions.

I have no idea when I first heard of atheists. Here are my concepts of them. Please feel free to correct and enlighten me.

1. Atheists are idealists. They feel that, since there is no life after death, it is very important to get things right here and now.

2. Atheists feel that there is no proof of the existance of a supreme being. They do, however, rely on the latest scientific theories to explain the world and our relationship to it.

3. Most atheists appear to have some aquaintence with some sort of religion, usually from childhood. They appear to believe that theists' ideas of God are set in stone and aren't merely concepts that change and evolve over a person's lifetime.

Thank you for this opportunity for me to learn more about atheists.

[Az]

10. Some responses

First off I am just one example of an atheist. If any others have some insite on these issue pipe in.

1. Atheists are idealists. They feel that, since there is no life after death, it is very important to get things right here and now.

I have an atheist friends that are nihilists. Getting things right is the furthest thing from his mind. My position is quite a bit different. I don't know that there is a right or wrong. But I can work towards making things better or worse. For the record I choose to work towards making things better.


2. Atheists feel that there is no proof of the existance of a supreme being. They do, however, rely on the latest scientific theories to explain the world and our relationship to it.

Proof. Its a funny word. Those who embrace science wince whenever they hear it. Its not really their word. Science likes evidence and theories. Proof is the mathematicians word. Oh and the brewer.

To some atheists science is a credible means to know the universe. We aren't going to know the totality of it over night. It won't happen in my life time :cry: But it is something that we can improve.

Thus using this criteria its not that an atheist sees no proof of a supreme being. It is in fact that they see no or insufficient evidence to support the claim of a supreme being. You find the right evidence and you will turn any atheist (well nearly any, we have our fanatics too).


3. Most atheists appear to have some aquaintence with some sort of religion, usually from childhood. They appear to believe that theists' ideas of God are set in stone and aren't merely concepts that change and evolve over a person's lifetime.

This one strikes a little closer to the heart I suspect. In my case I was raised with religion zero. In other words my parents were agnostic/atheists. Religion really wasn't an issue to them. I struck out on my own to explore religion and philosophy.

Most atheists do seem to come from religious backgrounds though. But once they severe their ties they become isolated. Frankly atheists don't have the best social organizations. We don't have social nets to help us when we fall. We don't have individuals watching out for us in our social circles. Thus we tend to learn to fight for ourselves.

This isolation leads to ignorance. Little or no interaction with more open minded theists leads them to believe that the vocal theists that do seem to have their minds set in stone are the typical variety of believer. They never meet up with theists that are seeking answers and are willing to change their minds on issues. This is in part why I created this thread.

One of the key issues I see as a problem in the near future is that religious fundamentalists are going to leverage our societies natural tendency to isolate groups that do not naturally form strong social bonds. They are going to use this and create oppression built upon ignorance.

It took centuries of struggle and misery for people to realise that they had to get along with people they did not agree with in order for our growing and diverse society to survive. This marvel is being lost due to natural flaws in the post modern ethos. There is no natural tendency to promote tolerance built in. It is expected but not pressed. Thus groups that do not support the ideas of tolerance can find ways to increase their reach while modern society wanes.

The only way it seems to me to combat this tendency is to force communication between vying sides. Destroy the walls of mistrust and ignorance regarding the various sides. Show each other that there is far more in common than differ. That we each are struggling in our own way for a better world not just for ourselves but for everyone around us.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. I appreciate the sincerity of your answers

You have helped me to understand atheists better. I find this passage you wrote quite interesting:

To some atheists science is a credible means to know the universe. We aren't going to know the totality of it over night. It won't happen in my life time :cry: But it is something that we can improve.

You see, that fits in with my belief as well. To my mind, the mystery of knowing the universe is stimulating and exciting. My present concept of God is that God IS the universe, the sum total of everything, including the scientific laws.

I think it is important that everyone have a refuge, a group with whom they can find a place of peace and rest, to be comfortable to be themselves. It saddens me that many atheists feel isolated and alone. Know that you would always be welcome to talk with me, and to come and visit me if you are ever in the Arkansas Ozarks. My husband and I play music and sing a lot, and enjoy talking with people about different things without trying to make them agree with us.

[Az]

25. Here is what I believe about science

If God exists science will lead us to his front door. I think this was also the belief of the church when science first started making discoveries. The Church for a long time was the single greatest benifactor of science. But when they started coming up with answers that the Church did not like the rift was born.

I have a favorate story about Isaac Newton as told by Richard Dawkins. It seems that when Newton figured out what made up light by passing it through a prism and producing a rainbow he alarmed many people. They claimed he had forever detroyed the beauty of the rainbow by unweaving it.

But its beauty is not destroyed. In fact in understanding it we have gained insight into even greater marvels and wonders. We have discovered new beauty and still have the rainbow to gaze upon.

I am an odd atheist in some ways. I seek out beliefs. I try to see how others see the world. I try to peace together how their views can be fit to my views. I try to find what wisdom there may be within their ideas.

One aspect of my philosophy is that all religions that survive gather with them wisdom. It may not be based on an absolute truth as they think it is but there is wisdom to be found there.

By peacing together all these nuggest of wisdom and insites of science over time a coherant picture of what is going on begins to form. That is my quest.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. A very good quest

I believe intuition plays a role in both belief and in science, in that people get a feeling (hard to describe more fully) that they should explore a subject in a certain direction rather than another. I don't believe intuition has ever been scientifically explained. Has consciousness? Just what things have consciousness? Only humans? What about animals? What exactly is self-awareness? These are fields that are yet to be explored.

I watched a movie years ago called "Mind Walk"-very interesting, as it was basically a long conversation about science and how scientific discoveries could change the way people view the world and the world's problems, if only people would look at these discoveries and grasp the magnatude of them. The part of the movie that struck me the most was when the scientist told the politician that, at a sub atomic level, there was no seperation-no "you", no "me". That to me spoke of the unity of all things, which segues right into the philosophy that states "There is nothing but Unity". That Unity can be- and is-called by many names. The Tao. Wakan Takan. Allah. God. In this way, I see a union of scientific and spiritual thought.

[LostInAnomie]

2. I spoke to a theist the other day who made the claim...

... that atheists live a joyless existence. I asked her why she felt this way since I live a happy life, and her response was "It is only a short lived happiness. When that fades away all that is left is the thought that there is nothing. No hope for salvation. No grace of God. No seeing loved ones who have passed away. Nothing."

I don't think it is really possible to get past thinking like that.

[indigobusiness]

15. I have some issues with that perspective, as well...

though I think I understand it.

Personally, I can't even conceive of an atheistic pov at this point. Though there was a time when a spiritual path just seemed like wishful thinking. And, given some religious views as an only option, I might choose to reconsider atheism.

Sentimental religious views leave me cold.

For me, issues like redemption and salvation are built into the fabric of being, not bestowed by some entity. The archetypes and models of religion are lessons of more abstract aspects of the mystery of being and spirit. Forming comfortable and pat determinations to ease the psyche lead only to delusional concepts of religious significance. IMHO. That said, I believe that anyone who diligently seeks will find understanding beyond what they could hope to comprehend, when they began.

For me, I just think atheists, for the most part haven't been given the opportunity to comfortably use the tools of religion for self-discovery. Which, I fully understand. Religion can be a huge turn-off.

One thing that tells me something: I've known atheists that eventually came around to sprituality, but never have I met the reverse.

[opiate69]

??

"I've known atheists that eventually came around to sprituality, but never have I met the reverse."

What exactly do you mean by "spirituality"? Because just about every atheist I know (myself included) have explored religion and spirituality pretty thoroughly and come to the inevitible conclusion that the evidence simply does not support the assertion that there is some sort of supernatural puppet master pulling the strings.

[Az]

21. In the debate groups

I found that most of the atheists were fallen members of the clergy or people that had sought to be a member of the clergy. They felt the draw but once they were exposed to the deeper parts of the belief their faith fell away and they saw the teachings in an entirely new light.

[indigobusiness]

36. Many people are indoctrinated into religious worlds

they did not come to on their own or never truly believed. These are the ones that usually fall out.

There is something missing in the atheistic view of religious meaning that is not easily conveyed and cannot be forced or come by unwillingly. It takes earnest effort and humility to grasp. This is never achieved in a court of public opinion. No one will grasp it who isn't willing to wrestle with it...with an open mind, and an open heart. As long as it is seen as a delusional con-game and not something natural, it is a lost cause.

[Az]

37. Being raised with no beliefs

I can only describe what others have told me. I have questioned them in some depth on this issue and I have to say I believe them. Numerous individuals I have been on debate teams with have expressed that at one time they were ardent believers and felt called to the clergy. Once there they found the entire construct fell apart before their eyes.

Now this may not represent the typical atheist nor does it necissarily mean any of the atheists you have known came about their position by this means. I am just suggesting that there is not one path to atheism.

[indigobusiness]

42. Surely. I would never suggest otherwise.

My experience is only my own, and I have never known someone who (I was convinced)had found a true path and was ever betrayed or felt fooled by it. Some people I know, though, who are on a spiritual path are being fooled, in my eyes. That troubles me beyond words.

[Az]

46. Then you know my pain

It troubles me to no end to percieve another being fooled. Sociecial decorum forces me to remain mute concerning my pain as long as no direct harm is being caused. But this does not diminish my sense of loss.

[indigobusiness]

48. Trust me, I do.

I know it well.

[opiate69]

39. Hmm..

"....they did not come to on their own or never truly believed."

And, there are many who did truly believe, but through painful self-evaluation, saw the folly in said belief.

" It takes earnest effort and humility to grasp."

So, we atheists simply lack the desire to learn the truth which you seem to be the keeper of? That's a rather obnoxious assumption.

" No one will grasp it who isn't willing to wrestle with it...with an open mind, and an open heart."

Like the open mind most theists have? The ones who will maintain their faith in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is based on misinformation?

[Az]

40. Painful

That is the word that most often comes up when friends that left their beliefs use to describe the process. This is in part why I do not directly target a person's belief system. The pain of transition and loss of belief is too intense. I do not have the right to bring this to another. Should they find themself in its grip I will give what comfort I can and try to guide them. But to bring it uninvited to them is too much.

[indigobusiness]

44. I'm trying to convey to you

subtle concepts that cannot be understood from a judgmental perspective. If you don't choose to try to understand what I mean...you won't and never will. That is your choice. I was making an effort to bargain in good faith. I have none of the intentions or motives you suggest.

[trotsky]

63. Well put.

Some theists on here have complained quite vocally when any atheist, even in jest, suggests that their beliefs aren't rational, or that they haven't truly thought about their religion.

And yet comments like this about atheism - implying that we either didn't 1) try hard enough, or 2) try in the "right" way. How is that not supposed to be equally insulting?

[goodboy]

132. nice. nt

[OffWithTheirHeads]

31. exactly!

I'm sorry, but some "guy in the sky" is not very likley

[indigobusiness]

34. That's a superficial and silly concept.

Comic book versions don't count.

[indigobusiness]

32. Puppetmaster is not the idea. Spinoza's idea of God

is much more easily reconciled rationaly.

Einstein even saw it that way.

[opiate69]

35. Puppetmaster may well have been a poor choice of words

on my part, but the point still stands. Your post pretty much claimed that the average atheist is ignorant of religion/spirituality, when in fact, I'd say most of the atheists I know have a much better understanding of reigion than many theists.

[indigobusiness]

38. No, it is a good choice of words. It describes a particular view.

If you know Spinoza, as you must (being well acquainted with religious issues), you surely know this. He turned the puppetmaster concept on ts ear.

Most people of spirit spend their lives studying these concepts diligently. I've never known an atheist that did. Or known one who had anything more than a superficial grasp of the deeper significance, regardless of their overall intelligence. Their arguments never address the real issues, in my experience.

[Maat]

65. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean that you

believe that he/she/it is pulling strings. In my faith, we are all equally divine, and God/Human-Interconnectedness/Goddess is an special energy within each of us that we can take advantage of to achieve our goals. This is in keeping with the book, 'Conversations with God,' in which the main point is that God wants you to experience your choices and does not place value judgments on them.

[Zhade]

58. Well, you've "met" me here.

I used to be a wannabe-fundie (but never could get past all the inconsistencies in the bible or modern biblical teachings), and now I'm an atheist who nevertheless seeks to discover the nature of reality (witness my entheogens thread, which you contributed wonderfully to).

[sybylla]

75. That is precisely why I drive my fundie sister-in-law nuts

Though we rarely spoke about religion, my 20 years of friendship with her tells me she sees the world of atheists exactly as your theist describes.

I have experienced several difficult events in the past 20 years and at each of them she has stood at my side, almost excited in my despair because she expected me to turn to religion at my darkest hours. I have been a perpetual disappointment to her and I believe it is at the core of why she and I are no longer close. A happy, content, strong and independent atheist is far too disturbing to her world.

[rogerashton]

3. Well, my dad was an atheist.

He was honest and upright, decent and good. He was troubled by his mortality but too committed to truth and reason to believe things that he considered untrue and unreasonable, although they might be comforting.

I suppose that by the standards of most orthodox, I also am an atheist, but internally it is not that simple and I don't think of myself that way. Dad believed that things are simple. I respect his atheism as I respect the man he was -- atheism was part of this good, strong man.

[indigobusiness]

47. Your father sounds like a man

easily respected. And you are lucky to have had him to respect.

[Wat_Tyler]

4. I'm a bit of a Gaian, really.

Without getting all hippy about it, my sense of spirituality comes from the earth beneath my feet.

[InvisibleBallots]

5. well, I'm not a theist exactly

Like George Carlin said, on the God issue I'm neither atheist nor agnostic - I'm acrostic, the whole things puzzles me :)

In real life, all the atheists I know are just normal people. Online, it seems, atheists often come across as anti-religious bigots. No, I don't mean calling religion "mythology" - I mean personal smears and attacks against religious people as an entire group (overt, outright bigotry) and smearing of individuals. They use the exact same language that racists used against people they don't like - stupid, immoral, dishonest, deluded, perverted, etc.

I don't think this is a typical characteristic of atheists, just a typical characteristic of jerks. In fact, it seems most of these people are from Christian families, and hate their parents for making them go to church. Maybe something in Christianity turns a portion of those people into anti-Christians.

One thing, however - many athiests like to say that their ideology is different than religious ideology - but often, they exibit the same "blind faith" in their history and leaders as the religious do. Atheists can be just as illogical and irrational as religious people.

I think we need a category that includes both religious and non-religious ideologies - I just use "ideology". I mean, religious ideologies like Deism can look just like athiesm or agnosticism.

[trotsky]

62. Huh?

often, they exibit the same "blind faith" in their history and leaders as the religious do

The thing about atheism is, there is no "history", and there are no "leaders" who are sacred or whatnot. There is no piece of history that is so crucial to atheism that without it, the system collapses. (Unlike Christianity - Jesus, or Islam - Mohammed, etc.)

Atheism is the default position we all start with - it is only after others teach us about gods that we believe in them.

If you are referring to your threads about Fomenko, the people disagreeing with you there are doing so out of the lack of factual verification for Fomenko's theories, not because you are attacking secular history.

[InvisibleBallots]

67. it works like this trotsky

Atheists are human beings. Like many human beings, many of them have blind faith in their own ideologies, their own version of history, and their own leaders.

[trotsky]

68. My question remains.

There is no specific ideology to atheism, no "history" crucial to atheism, and no "leaders" that are held unquestioningly in high regard. Where are you getting this from? Your own preconceptions of what atheism is?

[InvisibleBallots]

69. I'm not interested in the abstract

Sure, atheism is the default position, we're all born atheists. Okay, there are no "leaders" necessary to atheism, no history that is important to lack of belief. I agree.

Neither does not believing in God make you any more rational nor intelligent nor open minded nor interesting than people who do believe in God.

"Where are you getting this from? Your own preconceptions of what atheism is?"

Look, I don't believe in God. I'm sure you were hoping to corner a theist and prove how your ideology is superior. You'll probably want to find someone else. Sorry to disappoint you. :) :hi:

[InvisibleBallots]

70. hmm, maybe I will take back part of that

I'm not really sure that atheism or at least a rejection of the supernatural is the "default position" - it seems to me that human beings have a built in tendency maybe to think in terms of the supernatural - I once speculated it has something to do with dreaming.

Obviously, no one is born with a complex theology of "God" but perhaps a tendency to believe in a demon haunted world.

[Az]

72. Projection

When we are born our consciousness is fleeting. It takes time for us to distinguish the difference between ourselves and the rest of the universe. We start out essentially one with the universe in a sense. Eevantually we start to realise that the stuff that begins where our fingertips end is something else.

Sensing our own consciousness we begin to pick up on the idea that some of these other things in the world around us may have an identity as well. Once we grasp this notion we begin to project identity on everything around us. Whether it is experiencing an identity of its own or not.

Early man likely went through this process and began assigning identity to forces of nature and elements around them. Percieving patterns it would seem as if there was a personality behind this identity they had assigned nature.

This in turn lead to rituals in an attempt to appease the more troublesome identities. Which in turn lead to notions and conjecture of supernatural concepts.

Thus we can glimpse that ideas of supernatural entities and such are not the first concept that springs to mind. In fact the mind initially is a blank slate. The simplest definition of atheism. They have no belief in god because they have no concept of god.

Thus the process is as such:


Simple atheism (born of ignorance), conceptualization of identity, projection of identity, association of identity with objects that may not have the biological capability of identity(spirits), Establishing communication with other individuals with identity (learning), introduction to soically developed concepts of god, rejection or acceptance of god concepts.

[trotsky]

73. Mmmf mmph phmmm

Sorry, my mouth was full from having words stuffed in it. Better now.

I don't hope to "corner" anyone, just correct people when I see them misspeak, and in this case, it was you regarding atheism. There is no ideology to atheism, there is no "history," and there are no special leaders. Thank you for acknowledging that. That is all. :hi:

[InvisibleBallots]

74. I never claimed there was

I was referring to the ideologies that athiests hold. They, as individuals, can be as blindly attached to their ideologies as much as any theist, and much of their ideologies are as irrational as any. In fact, I was quite clear about it, so I'm not sure why you chose to argue with the strawmen, but hey, I understand the appeal! :) :hi:

[phaseolus]

6. Pretty much all I know of atheists is what I see on DU

...and judging by the ones represented here I think of atheists in general as intelligent, thoughtful, rational, all-around good people. I'd MUCH rather hang around with them than most of the Christians I meet.

- lapsed Lutheran

[RoeBear]

9. Why do some atheists want

the name of God removed from public buildings. If the word means nothing to them why are some so intent on getting rid of it?
Same with nativity scenes.

[InvisibleBallots]

11. it seems to me

that any and all ideologies are acceptable, EXCEPT for anything that is religious in nature. Many purely secular, athiest people enjoy the Christian traditions of nativity scenes, and many non-religious people can appreciate the wisdom in some religious sayings and scripture.

But Athiests-Supremacists want only their ideologies represented in the public sphere, and to banish everyone elses.

Saying that a Nativity scene on a public lawn is a illegal mixing of Church and state is nonsense in my opinion.

Then there is this tricky bit - "all religions/ideologies must get equal time". You have a town that is all Christian, and one Pagan. Many would argue, then, that if there is some sort of public display of Christmas, that one athiest MUST get "equal time" and get to put up some Pagan display. It's as if the majority must always cater to the minority - even minorities of one.

Let me be clear - the Fundies who are trying to put the 10 Commandments in courthouses and the like ARE, in my opinion, trying to promote an illegal mixture of Church and state, and the Republicans that are complaining about "taking the Christ out of Christmas" are 100% full of shit, and using the issue to divide people.

I just think that plenty of people are playing right into their hands.

[asthmaticeog]

18. May I pick a couple of nits?

"Then there is this tricky bit - "all religions/ideologies must get equal time". You have a town that is all Christian, and one Pagan. Many would argue, then, that if there is some sort of public display of Christmas, that one athiest MUST get "equal time" and get to put up some Pagan display. It's as if the majority must always cater to the minority - even minorities of one."

That's why the seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution, so there are no hairsplitting arguments about minorities of one. Keeping religion ENTIRELY out of the equation (without stepping on people's rights to observe, of course) isn't just a way to prevent religious tyranny, it's simply wise and pragmatic.

Also, pagans are theists, not atheists.

[InvisibleBallots]

20. I'm not really sure of that

"That's why the seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution, so there are no hairsplitting arguments about minorities of one."

Is that actually why the writers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, to avoid hairsplitting arguments about minorities of one? If this is true, perhaps you can find evidence of this in the debates during the Constitutional Convention?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm

"Also, pagans are theists, not atheists."

Yes, of course. Did I say otherwise?

[InvisibleBallots]

52. oops, I did mistakenly call Pagans Athiests

My mistake. Too late to edit it now.

[rogerashton]

53. Note, for example, the difference between the

Massachusetts constitution and the US constitution. If Jefferson meant for the US constitution to embody freedom of worship (as distinct from freedom from religion) he could simply have used Adams' language -- as he did in other cases. But in this case he did not.

[Zhade]

60. THANK YOU.

It frightens me when even DEMS start disbelieving in the obvious Constitutionality of separation of church and state!

[Az]

12. The name God does not mean an individual to an atheist

This doesn't mean that the name doesn;t carry any social implications.

Christians were thrown to the lions because they would not swear fealty to the Roman gods. The thing is the Roman gods weren't really a matter of believing in them. What they really represented were the moral values developed within the society encoded in the stories about the gods. Thus by refusing to swear to the gods they were in effect refusing to live by their moral codes.

Its kind of the same thing for atheists and God. This is our nation as well as the Christians. The mottos and oathes should represent something everyone can stand by. The statement One Nation Under God is patently false. For if Under God is present then it is not One Nation. But rather a nation divided.

[asthmaticeog]

14. The Constitution.

I have no problem with nativity scenes on private property, giant menorahs in front of synagogues, "Merry Christmas" signs in shops, whatever. No reasonable person should, private property is private property, and the owner or tenant of that property has the right to use it as a platform for expression, within reasonable zoning and nuisance laws. But if taxes are paying for it, or it's on public land or in a public building, it's an establishment of religion. Many currently argue that it's not, but a couple centuries of case law says otherwise, and rightly so, IMO. A nativity scene on the grounds of City Hall is a tacit government endorsement of Jesus' divinity, and aside from being unconstitutional, is incredibly disrespectful to non-Christians who pay taxes to that municipality. (Swap in menorah or statue of Shiva for nativity scene if you wish, it makes no difference, really.) It has nothing to do with getting rid of the word God.

[Winamericaback]

28. My personal view on this..

I don't mind religion, in fact I think it is necessary in our society. Without the hope of something more there would be chaos. I just choose not to embrace that. Like many other atheists I explored religion when I was in my late teens and early twenties. I joined a baptist church and was a youth leader for 3 years but after research and deliberation I came to the conclusion that I just don't think there is a God. To ME is just isn't rational but I don't begrudge anybody their point of view or their belief :)

What I do begrudge is religion merging with government. It bothers me to see any form of religion be it signs or commandments displayed in federally funded buildings. Believe what you want in your church and in your homes but don't ask me to help pay for it with my tax dollars. And don't ask me to stand by while our constitution is being torn to shreds.

Religion in government was NOT what the founding fathers wanted. Whether they were deists or Christians they realized that religion just didn't belong there and they acted accordingly. If people want to merge church and state against the wished of our founding fathers than I say we fight the NRA and get rid of the guns or get them registered. (that is a whole other rant ;) )

Also, there are many religions out there it is UN American to only respect one, that goes against the whole melting pot theory. That is what posting signs does, it favors one religion over all others only because people believe that it is right. Part of Liberalism is respecting ALL beliefs even if you do not personally share them.

And again a nativity is a Judeo-Christian symbol that should not be state sponsored.

If you mean, private business I still don't like it because again it only allows for the worship on one religion and is a form of discrimination.

[Zhade]

59. Simply put, to respect the Constitution.

You know, the whole "separation of church and state" and "government will not impose any religious faith on the public" thing.

Assuming you would allow for Christian symbology in government, then surely you realize you must allow Allah on the dollar, or shrines devoted to Mithra beside the nativity scenes, right?

Keep religion and government separate, and you avoid the entire dilemma of deciding which faith system is "real" and which is "fake".

[imenja]

7. shouldn't the atheists explain their own views?

if the goal is understanding?

[Az]

13. That is what will result

But the goal here is to figure out what misunderstandings there are on the part of theists about atheists. What an atheist thinks a theist thinks of them may be wildly mistaken. This is not just for the theists to learn. It is also for us atheists to learn what the theists may be thinking instead of what we are assuming they think.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Atheists don't believe in God or gods or other supernatural beings, or,

more specifically, they don't believe that such beings exist.

Some claim no one can be an atheist, only an agnostic, but I think if people can believe in God, people can just as well NOT believe in God.

No one can prove that there is a God or that there isn't a God.

Everyone must choose to believe or not to believe for himself/herself.

Many believers go through a period of agnosticism or atheism in their lives, just as many nonbelievers have believed at one time.

Az, there is a lot of conflict between atheists and theists on this board, but if all the nonbelievers were like you, there would be none, since you never attack believers.

[rzemanfl]

23. God could prove there was a God.

If there was one. He/she/it either chooses not to or doesn't exist. Or they could, etc.,

[Rowdyboy]

17. As a Christian, my views on atheists are firm

They're human beings who believe differently from me. Some are liberal, some conservative, some funny, some assholes-in other words, they're like everyone else-individuals who differ.

Anything else is just cheap stereotyping, and that is really just not right.

on edit: some have deeply held, and meticulously thought out ideologies. Others just plain don't believe-just like "theists"

[catbert836]

19. I like atheists, they're some of the best people I know

They're more tolerant and understanding and bear less resentment to other people generally. If there's one flaw with them, it's a tendency to be frank to the point of hurting others... but that could be considered a strength by others, no doubt. I disagree with atheists, but I think we could all agree to disagree if we really wanted to. I have no problem or grudges against atheists in general, there's actually more theists I have problems with than atheists.
Just my $0.02.
On edit: Thanks for the thread. That's the best way I can think of for a mutual understanding.

[InvisibleBallots]

22. I've always wondered about something

"They're more tolerant and understanding and bear less resentment to other people generally."

Negative stereotyping against some group is almost always considered wrong. Why is positive stereotyping some group any better?

I just don't see that atheists are more tolerant and understanding and less resentful of other people. In fact, I think that atheists are just as, and no more, tolerant and understanding and less resentful as everyone else, generally.

[catbert836]

24. Wow. I'm now fighting on the side of atheists.

Anyway, I do believe atheists are more tolerant and all that. Why? Because the ones I've met and know personally are. Maybe that's because they are, and maybe its because I haven't been exposed to less tolerant atheists who are less tolerant. So maybe you're right. I don't know.
As for positive stereotyping, it isn't necessarily a bad thing just as long as we all do it to each other. :grouphug:

[InvisibleBallots]

26. and here I am defending the religious

politics makes strange bedfellows, or something like that :)

[Az]

27. Let us say this

An atheist may be quick to cut down anothers belief but they are just as quick (if not quicker)to jump to their defense to believe whatever it is they believe.

Personally I see nothing gained by knocking anothers belief. There is the psychological aspect of padding one's own ego at the expense of another. But this is an individual thing and open to both sides.

[catbert836]

29. Hmmm. You're right.

And what about theists?

[Az]

33. Each individual is unique

One of my favorate quotes is by Andre Gide.

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. - Andre Gide.

When someone proclaims they have the truth without question that is exactly what I do. Question.

I suspect many theists do the same. But there are of course extremes. Those that believe that theirs is the only truth. Anything beyond their position is evil. How do you tolerate evil?

It is for this reason that I marvel at theists(particularly Christians) that are able to hold strongly to their beliefs and tolerate others views. Particularly when those views are in direct competition to theirs and arguably evil by their standards.

I wish I understood the mentality of this status better as it would do the world no end of good if more could embrace it. But it eludes me. There seems to be a dire aspect contained within the tolerance. Particularly where notions of damnation come into play.

If there really were a Hell (aside from the quaint little town named Hell here in Michigan) I would want those that believe the right path to avoid Hell to make every effort possible to help me avoid it. I understand the fundamentalists in this way. It is the tolerant Christians I fail to understand. How can one profess to love others and not make every effort to save them from a fate unimaginable?(assuming you believe that is the fate of nonbelievers)

It is a puzzle to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Well, for the most part, the tolerant Christians don't believe

that all non-Christians are going to hell. :-)

[Az]

49. Thats comforting

I suspect this applies more to those that put thought into the matter. But so many in society rarely seem to put any thought into what they believe. They simply seem to act on raw concepts without much introspection.

I was recently struck by a conversation with a Christian woman. She was not in any way a fundamentalist. She seemed to fully respect the right of others to believe whatever they may. All well and good. But the blind side seemed to be that she was completely unaware that fundamentalists did not think the same way.

[catbert836]

55. I too believe atheists can get into heaven

A God who is all-merciful and compassionate would forgive those who don't believe in Him.

[catbert836]

57. Because trying too much just turns people off.

If we made every attempt possible to save people's souls, it probably would not help because most people would get annoyed and go away. We tolerant Christians have reached the view that it dosn't help to try and save people. People instead must save themselves, because we can't do it for them.
As for people of other faiths (and this is only my opinion), our path is not the only way to God. It's that simple. The Vatican (despite its bad history of oppresing other's beliefs) has said this: "If there is a Muslim, and he or she is loyal to the tenets of Islam and is generally a good person, than he or she has enough of the idea of God to get into heaven". The same, I think, goes for atheists.

[Zhade]

61. A little confused here.

(First off, kudos to you for your attitude. I greatly respect it.)

In one post, you say that non-believers will go to heaven, yet in the post below it you say people must "save themselves".

If even non-believers get into heaven, why do they need "saving"?

[catbert836]

64. It's actually very simple

They don't need saving, which is why we try not to "convert" people to Christianity. Wait... I did say that, didn't I? Scratch the second one, that's not what I meant. What i meant to say was we try to have a "live and let live attitude" about non belioevers. Not all not-believers, like believers, will get into heaven. It's more if you're a good person or not. Atheists and Believers alike who are generally bad people will probably not go to heaven.

[RUDUing2]

66. I would agree with you...just as with any other group you have

atheist who are secure in their beliefs and accepting of others beliefs..because of their own security they don't have the need to try and belittle others beliefs or force their beliefs on others..

then you have the ones who are insecure in their beliefs....just like every one else (christian, hindu, pagan, etc)..these people either change their minds when presented w/different viewpoints, try to force everyone else to believe their way (by *showing* them the error of their belief and/or thinking), or refuse to listen to anyone else because that person could not possibly have anything to say (and besides listening and showing that person respect might make you question your beliefs)....

Atheist are no different then anyone else...I know ones who are wonderfully tolerant and open and ones who are incredibly narrowminded and meanspirited...and every shade of grey in between..

[vixengrl]

30. I think there might be such a bear as an evangelical,

fundamentalist atheist. And their disbelief can become for them and their immediate environment what belief can be for others. I think what's problematic for "people of faith" (what a phrase! PC, you suppose?) is that what they see of non-believers are the people who are definitely committed to trying to push back supernaturalism in the public sphere--the people who are against school prayer and "under God" in the pledge and so forth. They see these atheists as being somehow a threat to their way of life. They think of atheists as people who want to "take away" something from their culture.

I'm not exactly a person of faith or a person who is of any one belief system--I call it agnostic paganism because I suspect there's *something* sacred, divine, out there, but I never knew what to call it, so I call it by many names. But my husband is very clear about his atheism, and I respect his view because of how he came to it and because he is an ethical and moral person, a deeply caring and humane person. To him, the worst thing in religion is how it limits people's ability sometimes to think for themselves. But he doesn't believe that religious people aren't smart or don't think. I find that some atheists are not kind in their view of believers, and show it. The language can be dismissive of faith issues, and I understand how it can look to someone outside of atheism--because I sometimes believe. It can appear that the message is, "You are foolish, or dreaming. Wake up and smell your mortality as being just another helpless animal, without free will or any such piffle to cling to. Curse God, and die."

And yet! A freethinker not too far from us got death threats because she wanted the Ten Commandments taken down from a public building. Death threats. What about "thou shalt not kill?" There are athiests who are strict moralists--knowing this is the only life they will ever know, and knowing it can be lived proudly and with dignity, or cringing in slavery to desire and ignorance. There are secular humanists who treasure human life, who want nothing better than to teach and heal and make a positive difference in people's lives. And alas, there are religionists who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. This isn't about all atheists, or all religionists. It's more to say I suppose there are good and bad people of all kinds--and it's by their deeds you would know them.

But it only takes a couple folks of the bad kind to give people a negative impression.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Without looking at anyone else's answers, I'll say

that I've noticed three types of atheists:

1. People who were brought up that way

2. Natural empiricists: They're temperamentally disinclined to reject anything that can't be proved by the scientific method

3. The walking wounded: These are the people who have been hurt by abusers wearing religious masks. They're the ones who are most likely to get snarky.

From 1984 to 2003, I lived in Oregon, the state with the highest percentage of avowed atheists and the one with the lowest level of formal religious affiliation. I couldn't tell who was an atheist and who was a theist unless the topic turned to religion or I saw them in some obvious context like a church service.

[Az]

45. I would add a few

There are those that come by it through their own natural exploration. Sometimes parents are not so keen on indoctrinating kids into beliefs.

And then there are those that start down the path of belief but as they grow more and more in it find they cannot reconcile aspects. Eventually this cognitive disonance shatters their beliefs.

I have known a number of the walking wounded as you call them. It is sad that many come to atheism by this means. But there is a cruel social irony at play here.

People who have abusive personalities often realize this nature of themself. They understand that some aspect of them does not fit into society. They see themself as evil. This is not a state of mind most seek. Thus they try to afix themself to those things in society they percieve as the opposite of themself. Thus many seek the clergy. And this is where the saddest part of the irony kicks in.

Once in the clergy they find themself transformed to a figure of respect and trust. Prior to this they may have been able to keep their unsocial drives in check. But with this mantle of trust comes a new trouble. Access. Suddenly the temptations that were once distant are made available. And they succumb.

The loss of belief is painful. It is nothing I wish on another. But to lose one's faith by the hands of abuse is truly tragic. I am at a loss to imagine a worse path to losing faith.

[stevebreeze]

50. I fit into none of those categories.

I was raised Lutheran. When my pastor, during catechism class told me that my best friend who was a Catholic was going to hell. This was because he believed slightly different then I was told to. I got to thinking what about people like American natives before the arrival of Columbus? What of them? They had no chance to at the knowledge of God I was told was imperative to salvation. What of them they are going to hell because they don't believe what they had zero chance of ever knowing?

II question everything, is there a being supreme to us humans? Of course the human race as a whole would count as such. Is religion necessary? For some I think it is. If not for finding religion my bother would likely still be on drugs, or dead. Many need religion to moderate their behavior or to give them guidance through the world. I don't hate religion, but I don't' want it stuffed down my throat.

I agree with Tom Paine-"I am a citizen of the world and Mankind is my religion"

[indigobusiness]

51. Spinoza--Known as both the "Greatest Christian" & the "Greatest Atheist"

Spinoza


Baruch Spinoza

Benedictus de Spinoza (November 24, 1632 - February 21, 1677), named Baruch Spinoza by his synagogue elders and known as Bento de Spinoza or Bento d'Espiñoza in the community in which he grew up. Along with René Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz, he was one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy. He is considered the founder of modern Biblical criticism. His magnum opus was the Ethics.

Born in Amsterdam to Spanish-Portuguese Jews, he gained fame for his positions of pantheism and neutral monism, as well as the fact that his Ethics was written in the form of postulates and definitions, as though it were a geometry treatise. In the summer of 1656, he was excommunicated from the Jewish community for his claims that God is the mechanism of nature and the universe, and the Bible is a metaphorical and allegorical work used to teach the nature of God, both of which were based on a form of Cartesianism. Following his excommunication, he adopted the first name Benedictus (the Latin equivalent of his given name, Baruch). Since the public reactions to the Theologico-Political Treatise were not favourable to Spinoza or his brand of Cartesianism, he abstained from publishing his works. The Ethics was published after his death, in the Opera postuma edited by his friends.

Known as both the "Greatest Christian" and the "Greatest Atheist", Spinoza contended that "God" and "Nature" were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications. He contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism.

Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say "no" to what happens to us but the possibility to say "yes" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

[Stunster]

56. Atheists

Unfortunately, most of the atheists I've personally encountered have been imbued with either an explicit or an implicit belief in scientism--roughly the view that the only possible valid forms of knowledge or rationally warranted belief are those yielded by the methods of the natural sciences; and that the only real entities are those which are posited by the natural sciences. Scientism is not itself science, and it's not proven or provable by science. It's a philosophical worldview. There are many strong philosophical arguments against scientism, and most of the atheists I've encountered have not been familiar with or particularly good at understanding the philosophical critique of scientism.

An abiding memory is seeing Richard Dawkins debating on a TV show with the philosopher Mary Midgeley, the biologist Stephen Jay Gould, and the neurologist Oliver Sachs. At one point, Midgeley's face was a picture of baffled and highly embarrassed horror, as it was becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins really didn't have a clue about the philosophical problems with scientism, nor even some of the notions that are common to philosophy of science 101. She was sitting there with an expression on her face that suggested she was thinking, "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about"---and I could sympathize with Midgeley, as I too was shaking my head in disbelief at Dawkins' apparent philosophical illiteracy.

Thankfully not all atheists are philosophically naive adherents of scientism. There are non-scientistic versions of naturalism which are not as vulnerable to criticism as scientism is. With these people it's possible to have interesting and fruitful discussions about the nature and origins of life, consciousness, reason, morality, meaning, and the apparently fine-tuned structure of what Brian Greene has called The Elegant Universe. When these sorts of atheists say that they find no evidence for theism, I do scratch my head a bit, since to my way of thinking, evidence for theism is fairly readily apparent if you're prepared to define evidence in a non-scientistic way.

It strikes me at any rate that all the phenomena associated with reason and with value, as well as the intelligibility and order of the physical universe, are such as to suggest an 'inference to best explanation' type of reasoning (what the American philosopher C. S. Peirce called 'abductive inference') that quite naturally posits the theistic hypothesis as the best candidate explanation. And if it's ok for physicists to abductively infer such intrinsically invisible theoretical entities as the electromagnetic field, or curved space, or even the invisible laws of physics themselves to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and other physical phenomena, then I don't see any great difficulty in principle in abductively inferring, as the ultimate reality or ground of being, a physically invisible, mind-like, rational, moral consciousness, and then comparing this hypothesis with competing hypotheses which offer alternative explanations of the same phenomena (such as materialist, or Platonic explanations).

I often think that some atheists are operating with a concept of God which is not one that I, as a theist, would regard as adequate for my own thinking about God. And so I find myself saying, well, if that's what you mean by the term 'God', then I don't believe in that 'God' either. When we talk about, and more importantly experience Reason, or Goodness, I personally find it literally incredible that these phenomena can have arisen, or be adequately explained, on the basis of chance movements of impersonal matter-energy, and am immediately disposed to think that Reason and Goodness must be ontologically ultimate in some way. And I guess I just don't see what's so hard to accept about that. And since we never encounter reason and value phenomena independently of mind, then I hypothesize as a reasonable explanation thereof, that the rational moral minds we are familiar with must bear some relationship of analogy to that ontological ultimate Reason/Goodness.

Some atheists I've encountered seem to think of God as being like a ghost, or a fairy, or a mythical man in the sky. But I want to say that God for me is better understood as eternal, uncreated Reason and Goodness---a pure, unlimited Rational and Moral Consciousness that pervades the entire world but exists independently of it, and transcends it. To say that such a reality makes no sense and does not exist, to me must mean that reality makes no sense or is ultimately unintelligible. And that idea itself---the ultimate unintelligibility of reality---to my mind, makes no sense. That is one reason that I find atheism literally impossible to believe. It suggests instead that material reality is all there is, and it just happens to be here or is necessitated by some impersonal cosmic law, for no reason or purpose, and somewhat surprisingly is such as to produce life, consciousness, rational thoughts, moral experience, consciousness of profound beauty, and profound experiences of meaning and love and value---but all by accident, not by conscious, rational design. To me this suggestion is far more irrational than the idea that if you see a sign that says WELCOME TO SCOTLAND while riding on a train from London to Glasgow, it most likely got to be there by some random, accidental amalgamation of atoms, rather than by the deliberate causal act of a rational, and hence moral, and hence personal being.

Perhaps more conceptual work is needed on both sides. Even from a scientific viewpoint, I think more and more we are finding that notions such as 'information' are fundamental and irreducible. Philosopher David Chalmers talks about matter being information from the outside, and consciousness being information from the inside. One can think of God as self-subsistent Reason--one can conceptualize God as unlimited, pure information communicating itself to itself, which just is, or which eternally generates, Consciousness, and therefore also Value. It generates Value (goodness, love, beauty, etc) because this unlimited self-communicating, self-revealing information is eternally united in harmony with itself, and thus is eternally One and Whole. (These concepts are also partly inspired by and suggestive of St Augustine's theology of the Trinity, which he suggests we try to grasp on an analogy with the operations of intellect/knowledge and will/love of the mind.) And if one runs with Chalmers' idea that information is matter from the outside, the reason we don't see God is not so much that God isn't physical---it's rather that God is infinite. There's just too much information for anyone looking at it from the outside to be see it---finite minds can only fully comprehend finite information. But inside it, it's infinite consciousness--God fully comprehends Godself-and thus all of reality is ultimately intelligible, because God is an unlimited act of rational understanding (or self-communicating information). (By the way, Chalmers is not a religious believer or theist.)

None of the above constitutes conclusive proof of God's existence in some mathematical or rigorous logical sense. But so what? Do we need conclusive scientific proof, or mathematical proof, or logico-philosophical proof that there are minds other than our own, who make welcoming signs for people travelling to Scotland, and with whom we can form meaningful relationships, and to whom we have moral obligations---that we should love our children, for instance?

Now, I think that some atheists can come with me this far---that it is at least not irrational to believe that something akin to Reason has some ultimate ontological status. But they refuse to identify this with God or with a Personal Mind. I call these atheists, Platonists. Again, I think that we experience reason only in association with minds, and never as an independent Platonic entity. And we never experience Platonic entities (such as mathematical equations) just by themselves causing anything. We experience our own minds as causal---we decide to lift up our arm, and up it goes, etc. So further philosophical argument can be adduced. But if I get an atheist to the point of being a Platonist, I'm usually content with that, and will stop there, because I think the only thing that will definitely take you beyond atheistic Platonism into full-blown theism and religious faith is religious experience.

The common kinds of fundamental moral experience are, to my mind, akin to the type of non-scientistic reasons we all of us have to believe certain things that are of fundamental importance to our lives. And there are plenty of similar kinds of reason for thinking that theism is a rational belief system in this sense. But more structured logical reasons can also be given. Another abiding memory is listening to Alvin Plantinga give a lecture at Oxford about 17 years ago entitled "Two Dozen (Or So) Theistic Arguments", and I was pleased to find that the notes for that lecture are http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html">available online.
[br />But, in my own case, I've had two life-transforming, utterly extraordinary experiences of God. So I don't need the arguments, and I have a better reason for believing in God than for accepting any form of atheism, be it old-fashioned materialist, or New-Agey Platonic. As a theist looking at atheists, I feel like someone who's had great sex, and is then talking with some virgins.

[InvisibleBallots]

71. this post deserves its own thread

You should repost it, it's quite interesting.

[lazarus]

76. This is interesting

You create a concept called scientism, vaguely explain it, then state, "There are many strong philosophical arguments against scientism..."

I'm very interested in hearing these strong arguments against scientism, whatever that might be. Maybe you could clarify that, as well?

Oh, and I feel like someone who's had great sex, and is talking to people who just masturbate. :D

[Stunster]

77. Yes, it is interesting

Scientism says, "science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality." This statement, however, cannot itself be verified by the methods of science. So the first problem is scientism's self-referential incoherence. The statement of scientism is not itself a scientific statement. Its claim that the only way to arrive at true knowledge is through empirically verifiable procedures involvign sensory perception cannot itself be verified through empirical verifiable procedures involving sensory perception.

The next problem is that scientism commits the logical fallacy of petitio principii, commonly known as 'begging the question'. It is like a blind man who claims that only through hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling can one know anything for certain about the world. Using only his four senses, though, he obviously cannot prove that there is no fifth sense--the sense of sight. Well, suppose there is a way of knowing reality, or some aspect of it, which is non-sensory or not amenable to the methods of the natural sciences, perhaps because it involves a non-physical reality. One couldn't establish that there wasn't such a non-sensory way of knowing by showing that it could not be detected by the senses. That would be like a mathematician who claimed there was no number greater than 100 because his calculator only went up to 100.

The next problem is that scientism has too narrow a conception of experience for which it then fails to provide adequate warrant. Sensory experience is far from being the only kind of experience we have. We also commonly have moral experience, aesthetic experience, and the experience of rational thinking. Scientism epistemologically privileges sensory experience. But that privileging is not itself justified by anything we sense. Just from having sensory experiences one couldn't prove that sensory experience ought to be given epistemological privileges over other types of experience.

It might be objected that it is justified, because sensory experiences we have had before tend to be repeated under appropriately controlled conditions. This, of course, is inductive reasoning. But notoriously, Hume showed that there is no way to justify inductive reasoning on the basis of past sense-perception without circularity. Just because the chicken has always been fed at 9am every day up till now, doesn't justify the chicken in thinking that today, the farmer won't ring its neck. Analogously, just because inductive reasoning has served us well in the past doesn't prove that it's going to serve us well in future---unless you are already assuming the validity of inductive reasoning. The problem of induction is a large topic in philosophy of science, and scientism just naively ignores it, or assumes the problem away. (Hume's account itself, however, is not without problems of circularity, since he uses causation to explain induction, and induction to explain causation).

But perhaps the biggest challenge to scientism now is the New Mysterian position recently developed in the philosophy of mind. That's another huge topic in philosophy of mind. The New Mysterians say that science, and human cognition more generally, is intrinsically and forever incapable of solving what Chalmers has called 'the Hard Problem of Consciousness. But rather than give up on materialism, they say that even though consciousness can't be fitted into a materialistic worldview, we should just have faith that materialism is true anyway. Naturally, theists find such a position amusingly ironic.

[lazarus]

78. Again

That's a wonderful strawman you've constructed, and you've destroyed it quite handily. Huzzah!

Using something that you claim to be invalid to then prove that thing invalid is quite clever. I use it all the time with religion and, particularly, the Bible. :D

Science is nothing but a process. Your entire post betrays a basic lack of understanding of what science actually is. It is nothing but a process used to discover new things.

Your mathematician example, for instance, is bogus. No mathematician would do that. It actually applies to your own philosophy, in reality. Because the tools currently used (e.g. the mathematician's calculator, current science, etc) can't answer every question, you assume that they won't be able to in the future.

This ignores the fact that science is a process that grows over time. At one point, humanity couldn't figure out how diseases were transmitted. Then science helped us discover bacteria, and virii.

Science can't answer a problem a group has come up with? Maybe not yet. But the past can tell us something about the future. And a brief search turns up an extensive library of papers on consciousness. Science hasn't given up on it.

Here's what the past tells me about the future:

Science will continue to grow, and human understanding will grow along with it.

Religion and mysticism will continue to offer up the same answers, changing only when science overruns it, if then.

The problem, in the end, isn't that science or "scientism" (again, clever invention) have "too narrow" a world view, or are materialistic. The problem you will have is using your "other senses", as it were, to actually contribute something concrete to human knowledge.

There is no other experience than sensory. Anything else is ineffable, and therefore useless to anyone other than the person having the experience.

[sybylla]

79. Begging the question - for starters

Your assumption that there are things we cannot know because we cannot sense them is a logically fallacy in itself. The list of things we know now and yet cannot sense personally is impossibly huge.

We know bats "see" using sonar. We cannot possibly sense that. We know pit vipers can "see" in infrared. We don't have the senses to know that. We know magnetic fields exist yet we cannot feel them, see them, taste them, hear them, nor smell them. But we know they are there: we can predict how they behave, we can create them, we can use them and we can kill them.

Your response is indicative of someone who does not appear to understand the scientific method. And in truth, you give science far too much credit in regards to atheism. Science is not the alternative to theism; Science is not the opposite of religion. Contrary to rumor, science has not been adopted by atheists as some kind of acceptable substitute for religion. It really has little bearing on most of us except to use it to torment biblical literalists. Hence, your focus on science renders your entire thesis meaningless to most of us.

Regardless, your take on Atheism is interesting and goes a long way toward explaining the thinking of some Theists on the matter.

Thank you for your contributions.

[Stunster]

80. You didn't understand my post at all

Your assumption that there are things we cannot know because we cannot sense them is a logically fallacy in itself. The list of things we know now and yet cannot sense personally is impossibly huge.

I never made that assumption. So your next paragraph is also beside the point. I am in no way criticizing science in any part of my post. I am criticizing the scientifically unwarranted belief that only science can yield genuine knowledge about reality. That belief is not itself a part of science, yet it is routinely trotted out by atheists as if it were a scientifically established fact, which simply demonstrates their philosophical illiteracy.

I am well aware that science isn't a competitor to theism. I think you should direct your advice on that score to atheists, since they are far more typically guilty of making that mistake.

In philosophy, scientism, materialism, and naturalism are routinely distinguished from science. Philosophers can see that they are not science, but philosophical positions. I am not criticizing science. I am criticizing those philosophical positions. And that is relevant to atheism, because a lot of atheists are atheists because they adopt those philosophical positions. If the argument between theism and atheism could be decided by empirical science, then the issue would be different. But, as I pointed out, if the issue is whether there exists a reality that cannot be detected even in principle by empirical science, then citing the fact that it's not detectable by empirical science is irrelevant---unless you can demonstrate that everything real must be so detectable. And that's not the sort of thing that even can be demonstrated by empirical science.

Most of philosophy is really about whether materialism can possibly be true. Trying to give adequate, convincing materialist accounts of

1) mathematics

2) logic

3) rationality in general

4) the nature of thought

5) the phenomenal properties of perception

6) the phenomenal properties of sensation

7) knowledge

8) meaning

9) free will

10) morality

11) aesthetic value

12) consciousness in general

13) the laws of nature

and even of

14) material objects themselves

has proved an arduous task, and there is no consensus that it has been, even remotely, successfully accomplished or even has any prospect of success.

Notice how important the items mentioned on this list are to daily human living. The average person usually doesn't think of any of them, except 14, in materialist terms. And ever since Berkeley, there have been serious doubts levelled about materialist understandings of material objects---giving rise to various forms of phenomenalism (even among non-theists such as Russell and Ayer, as well as the in whole phenomenological tradition of Continental philosophy). So when atheists say that nearly all of us nearly all the time think and act as though materialism is true, I say, "WTF?". Materialism didn't even become a widely held belief until the 19th century. And it has taken a few hard blows in the 20th century, not least from science itself (an enjoyable account is THE MATTER MYTH by Paul Davies and John Gribbin, the first chapter of which is entitled 'The Death of Materialism').

On some interpretations of quantum mechanics, consciousness is invoked to 'collapse the wave-function' and thus generate the stable world of material objects that we seem to see. How ironic that materialism's fundamental science---physics---might need to be supplemented by a component of consciousness (which philosophers such as Chalmers and McGinn have argued is either ontologically or epistemologically irreducible to the material).

I point all this out not to declare adherence to any particular philosophical theory or any particular interpretation of quantum physics, but merely to show how extraordinarily controverted all these issues are. Yet most atheist arguments presuppose that materialism is true, or suggest that it's 'obviously' true. To which my response is, :eyes:

None of this of course is a criticism of science itself. That would be like thinking that a materialist who was trying to give a materialist account of morality was criticizing morality. No, that's just a category mistake.

[haele]

82. I think you're falling under a philosophical exercise of

confusing the way that art works with the way that science works, and trying to create some form of defined values to assign to both.

It's a common exercise used in college logic courses to identify the various methods of critical evaluation. Art is a way to experience, it is individual in nature, and it's value can only be gaged by the reactions it creates within the individual at the time that it is experienced. "I don't know what you call art, but I know what I like". What works in Art for me may not work in Art for you. Art does not need to be replicated the same way twice, it allows for experiencing variations and nuances that require no explanation that is falsifiable.
Science is a process, not an experience to come to a universal experience that can be replicated and proven time after time after time. The process of Science requires a logical explanation and study. "X" will always have a constant value "X" in the science; "X" cannot be "not X"; and if an individual decides that the value is to be changed to "Y", the value also becomes "not X" - it cannot remain "X", because it is now falsifiable as "X".
If you want to experience "X" as "Y", it still does not change the fact that "X" is "X", unless you change a component of "X" and make it "not X".
That does not make it any more important that "X" be "X" - you've changed "X" to "not X", right? But you cannot claim to be scientific and that "X" remains "X" when you've decided to experience it as "not X". You have now become artistic rather than scientific.
A good diagnostic "brilliant" doctor may be able make successful artistic leaps of faith in diagnosis that another equally good but "geeky" diagnostic doctor may make through a scientific method of falsifiable testing.
It does not really matter which doctor you use, unless one of them makes a mistake, no?
The main difference is that if the doctor that makes diagnosis on intuition, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in subsequent cases. One cannot determine at one point where a mistake might have been made or where the diagnosis was determined. It's very difficult to duplicate an individual's mind, their emotions, their thought processes, their observations and the impacts those observations make on their decisions.
The doctor that uses falsifiable testing will have a template to fall back on to determine the variants in past and future cases. That doctor will also always have proof to fall back on where a mistake may have been made or where the determination as to what was wrong was made - and can make a record that other doctors can follow in similar cases.

Whether or not the sum of your experience ends the same whether you use scientific logic or artistic experience, you cannot use the same value of definitions for both.
The way you describe "Scientism" strikes me as a philosophy - an Art rather than a Science. In it's own way may be somewhat accurate to describe a particular experience of certain people's reactions when faced with a philosophical problem, but really, from what I've tried to follow in your posts, you're describing several forms of Cynicism - which has long-established definitions within Philosophy in general. Much like the process how I understand "Dianetics", "Christian Science" and various other pop or religious philosophies to have evolved. I also find it rather odd that a group that practices the Arts Philosophic is labeling a group that they are showing evidence of conflict with.
The cynic in me reacts in a way to think that perhaps this group is afraid that the other group is "dissing" them and they feel they are - or want to be - victims of this other group? Hmmmm.....
But then, I'm a Pagan myself, with a very broad background in mysticism. I'm an Artist. I'm also a Scientist in other ways in that if I'm going to be doing anything that leaves physical evidence, I use the scientific process to come to my conclusions. Otherwise, I could very well hurt or kill people who may not happen to have my personal worldview and can't anticipate why I did what I did.

Be careful that you aren't mistaking Cynicism with Skepticism which has it's own definitions and is closer to the philosophies that use logical progression and falsification tests. A scientist can be Cynical, they can be Enthusiastic, they can be Aesthetic - but to follow the scientific process, the scientist is required to be Skeptical - even if that skepticism leads them past their personal beliefs.

Haele

[Az]

81. Only?

Science is a process. Its not the only process. But it has proven its worth over time. There may be individuals that believe that the pronouncements of scientists are the equivalent of preists and prophets. But these individuals understand science poorly then.

Science gains what power it has from its very simplicity. Collect evidence. Form a theory. Test it. Repeat. Its not the only method but it is a very good method.

As to the study of the mind. Yes it is convoluted. But here is the key to science. The real power of science comes from being able to say "I don't know yet". We don't know what makes up the mind yet. But science as a process may one day lead us to answers on this topic.

There was a movie made not too long ago called Sleepy Hollow. Tim Burten put a spin on the usual story of Ichobod Craine and made him a scientist instead of a teacher. Craine lived by the scientific process. When faced with something that fell outside his knowledge he did not abandon the process. Instead he applied it to the environment presented before him and in this way won the day.

The philosophy of science contains within it a core that some mistake for faith. It comes from the solipsitic problem presented by our minds. We cannot determine beyond doubt that what we are experiencing is real. Thus science seems to take the nature of reality on faith. This is not true though.

If presented with evidence that the world behaves in a manner other than what we currently suspect the scientific process demands that we discard our current understanding and replace it with our best understanding of what is true(as best as we can perceive it). Science can be used to understand the nature of things whatever they may be.

Individuals sitting around pondering the nature of the mind can never determine whether their ideas are correct or not without applying some measure of the scientific process. Unfortunately some choose to use their emotional feelings towards ideas and impulses to try to force their ideas on others.

Science is like a plodding mountain climber scaling the heights of Mount Truth. Mystics and dreamers can scale the mountain in leaps and bounds but may never look where they are stepping. The scientists will often find these dreamers far ahead of them on the mountain. But they will also see them plumeting from the heights as they make mistakes they cannot correct. Science can make missteps, but it always prepares for them and can recover itself with little loss of progress.

Religions and philosophies are great carriers of wisdom and knowledge. They have something that science doesn't have. Vast amounts of time. Over time evolution of social constructs forces out those ideas that have no merrit. What is left behind are ideas and concepts that help to build a better society around the religion or philosophy. Science takes responsibility of the course and direction while religions leave it to forces its believers do not understand.

Science is not the only path. But it may be the most responsible path.

[Stunster]

83. I didn't say one word against science

What I criticized was scientism, which is a philosophical worldview.

By all means, learn science, do science, support science, celebrate science.

But philosophy asks the meta-questions, such as,

1) is science the only way of knowing reality?

2) is anything that can be known at all, knowable by science?

3) are the only entities that exist the ones that are discoverable in principle by science?

The first thing to notice is that these questions themselves cannot be answered by science. Scientism would say that the fact that they cannot be answered by science indicates that the questions are meaningless. But the statement, "The only meaningful questions are those that can, in principle, be answered by science" is not itself answerable by the methods of empirical science. The criterion of meaningfulness is self-referentially incoherent. It fails to satisfy itself. That's just one of a number of logical criticisms of scientism. The empirical method is one method of rational inquiry. Yes, it's a process---empirical data, theory construction, prediction, experiment, theory revision, further testing, replication, refinement, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But, it involves a certain kind of limit. The method requires that observational results be generated and compared with predicted observational results. Empirical testing is crucial. But that means that at some point, one requires observation. Science is a continually revised predictive theory about sense-perceptions under controlled conditions. Fine. But, to conclude from this that the whole of reality must be detectable or inferrable on the basis of experimentally controlled sense-perceptions is logically unwarranted.

This is not a criticism of science. It is a criticism of scientism. Now many scientists are not themselves adherents of scientism. But a lot of self-professed atheists appear to have an explicit or implicit belief in scientism---they make observability and repeatability under controlled experimental conditions the sole criterion of knowledge and reality. But assume for a moment that some realities are not observable or inferrable from observational data, nor predict observational phenomena. Then of course, science won't detect those realities. To rule out of court the possibility that there are such realities because they are not scientifically detectable is to commit the logical fallacy of petitio principii---you've begged the question. You have assumed, not shown, that if something is not scientifically detectable, it's not real. Well, if there are realities which are not scientifically detectable, then of course one won't detect them by science. But it's stupid to the point of moronism to say that one has shown they are not real because they're not scientifically detectable. It never ceases to amaze me how commonly this species of stupidity is to be found within the atheist camp.

One doesn't prove that numbers are not real by showing that they emit no electromagnetic energy, or have no detectable mass, etc. One doesn't prove that free will is not real because it has no shape or color. One doesn't prove that ideas and thoughts and the meanings of propositions are not real because we can't see them. One doesn't prove that moral obligations or moral goodness are not real because they have no repeatable, experimentally controlled, predicted observational consequences. One doesn't prove that the property of logical validity of an argument is not real because it's not empirically testable. One doesn't prove that other people's conscious minds don't exist because there's no good scientific theory of consciousness, and (quite possibly) none available even in principle (as many philosophers have strongly argued).

None of this is to say there's anything wrong with science. It just says that not being detectable, provable, inferrable, explainable etc in scientific terms may well be compatible with still being real, and that to use science as a sole criterion of reality or knowledge is, to date, rationally unwarranted. There are, in fact, a great deal of experiential data---especially the non-sensory phenomena associated with reason and value--which appear strongly resistant to understanding and explanation by scientific method. That's not the fault of science. But it is a reason not to make science the be-all and end-all of rational inquiry. In other words, we have reason to believe that there may be aspects of reality which are not amenable, even in principle, to scientific investigation.

Now, theists hold that God is not knowable even in principle by the scientific method. So, saying that God doesn't exist in reality because God is not knowable by the scientific method implies that a criterion of existing in reality is being knowable in principle by the scientific method. The implied criterion is constitutive, not of science, but of scientism. Scientism says that for something to be real, it must satisfy that criterion.

Scientism is a philosophical worldview. It's not itself a scientific truth. And I've been criticizing, all along, not science, not the scientific method, but scientism---that philosophical worldview. I've been suggesting that its criterion of knowledge and reality, is rationally unwarranted, and that in particular it involves a logical fallacy---petitio principii. It systematically begs the question of whether there are or can be realities and ways of knowing about them which are not even in principle objects of scientific inquiry, or part of the scientific method.

There are data available within human consciousness which prima facie do not satisfy the scientistic criterion, and there are reasons for thinking that they couldn't satisfy that criterion, and yet that they are still indicative of something real. Free will and moral obligation are a couple that spring to mind immediately, but even consciousness itself seems to be unamenable to scientific treatment (the whole mind-body problem which continues to rage in philosophy). There are some very smart people (e.g. Colin McGinn, David Chalmers) who have provided very powerful, very serious arguments as to why consciousness is not even a possible object of natural scientific understanding. And Descartes famously argued that nothing is more indubitably real than our own consciousness. So if science can't even cope with that, there are good reasons indeed not to adopt scientism as a philosophical worldview. Of course, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't do science, or that science isn't a Good Thing, or that science is invalid. It just means that science may well be limited to knowledge-in-principle of something less than the whole of reality.

There are other reasons why insisting on scientific method in every case may be misguided. This is a large topic, but you might wish to read the last 10 or so paragraphs of the lengthy article available here:
http://www.origins.org/articles/alston_naturalism.html

[Az]

84. I would challenge this notion

I believe (faith statement)it is short sighted. I am at a loss to see a reason that science cannot lend itself to solving the deeper philosophical problems in time. As our understanding of the mind and nature increase we can begin to discern the very patterns that lie at the heart of our philosophies and moralities. We begin to see that things we believe are beyond explanation do in fact have explanations.

If we manage to pierce the nature of the mind this gives us insite into the very means by which we formulate thought. If we find this to obey certain laws and patterns we can from this fathom the more complex issues that you take issue with.

Science may not be able to challenge these questions you have now, but the nature of science is to constantly create new tools with which to peer into the darkness. Why presume that science can never answer these questions without trying?

[Stunster]

85. Well, here's my faith statement

Physicists, in trying to understand mindless physical stuff, notice that it obeys astonishingly elegant mathematical rules. It's not just random chaotic stuff. It is intelligibly ordered. In fact, intelligible order appears to be irreducible even within physics. But intelligibility is logically inseparable from the concept of rational mind, because being intelligible just means being understandable by a rational mind.

Rock bottom in the physical universe, we find this property of being
understandable by a rational mind attaching to everything we find.
Personally, I think the most rational inference to make from this fact
is much more suggestive of theism as the best ultimate explanatory hypothesis, than materialism.

It might be different if I had any confidence that materialism could explain the existence of rational minds. Some people have a blind faith that it can. I think they're making a fundamental logical mistake. I think that there is a failure of reasoning in thinking that materialism can explain consciousness or reasoning. It's not just a question of not having enough data, or needing to do more experiments, etc. It's not a question of a 'God of the gaps'. I'm suggesting that explaining the existence of rational conscious mindedness is not even possibly the filling in of some contingent gap within our current scientific knowledge. I'm suggesting that to think so is to make a category error. It's like trying to discover the color of ideas. It's barking up the wrong tree with a big wooooofff!

I think analogous remarks apply to the question of finding a scientific explanation of morality and other forms of value.

[Az]

86. So continue the process

If it turns out there is some intelligence guiding things then it must originate in some way as well. It must (or may) be the result of a process itself. If that is the case then science can still follow its tracks.

I do disagree with the case you are presenting (which is perfectly ok, recognition of disagreement is indicitive of areas that still require research). It seems to me as if it is jumping to conclusions without sufficient information.

Yes there are some interesting numbers and factors in operation in this universe. But we do not get to jump to the conclusion that there is some guiding hand in operation until we eliminate all possibilities. And we have yet to even explore this to the depth it requires. It is still in the far more likely category that there are an infinite number of universes each with their own settings and ours just happens to be one of the inifinte number that have settings happily conducive to life (and more importantly consciousness).

Yes some things may be suggestive. But we have a tendency of projecting our own consciousness onto other things. We have been doing this since we realised we had a mind ourself. Its natural to expect that with the perception of new patterns we are going to continue the process of projection and place an identity on these new patterns. Nothing new under the sun.

[Stunster]

87. Likely categories

It is still in the far more likely category that there are an infinite number of universes each with their own settings and ours just happens to be one of the inifinte number that have settings happily conducive to life (and more importantly consciousness).

I could not disagree more. The Multiverse Hypothesis is intellectual desperation bordering on suicide, in my opinion. In order to avoid positing one intrinsically unobservable entity, the proponent of this hypothesis posits an infinity of intrinsically unobservable entities (if the other universes were observable by us, they wouldn't be other universes). Talk about a violation of Ockham's Razor! And of course, since the other universes posited are not observable, the hypothesis is not subject to the standard empirical and experimental criteria of science, so it is not itself a scientific hypothesis.

I strongly recommend a book entitled ANCIENT FAITH AND MODERN PHYSICS, by Stephen Barr. It's a careful, thoughtful, very well-written analysis of why major findings in science itself may suggest why the scientific materialist worldview may itself be inadequate.

One thing about Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker: essentially what he's saying is that the watch needn't have a consciously intelligent designer because it might have been made by a large, completely automated watchmaking factory (which is the analogue of the universe).

But if we came across a large,completely automated watchmaking factory, wouldn't that make us more, not less, inclined to believe that it got to be there not by chance, or some impersonal cosmic law, but by conscious intelligence? At least, every time I time I see a big watch-manufacturing plant, that's the inference I tend to draw. Nor do I think I'm being irrational. So even if we can explain the evolution of life in essentially Darwinian terms, we have no observable basis for extrapolating the natural selection mechanism to the universe itself. It is essentially for this reason that the Multiverse Hypothesis was proposed. And I've stated why I'm unimpressed with the proposal.

[Az]

88. The problem of positing a creator

Is it does nothing to solve the issue of initial conditions. A creator begs the question where did the creator come from. And thats just for starts. There is the entire range of questions from why what and where to consider. The essential problem with positing a conscious creator is it does not solve the problem and adds to it in the end.

Of course with no compelling evidence present in either direction we have only our faith based arguments at this juncture. I follow my scientific methodology in the hopes that one day it may enlighten me and others.

Incidently the infinite universe theorum was not formed to answer the issue of an anthromorphic universe. It was put forward as part of a contiguous hypothesis based on its own merrits. While we do not yet have the math or evidence to verify it, it is still a valid hypothesis.

Oh and incidently. Occam's Razor is a guideline. Not a law.

[lazarus]

89. Heh

Az, nobody seems to understand. It's turtles all the way down. :evilgrin:

[Stunster]

90. How does positing no creator answer your question?

The human race not having a mom doesn't entail that the human race
just happens to be here or has no explanation. Saying that the world
has no cause doesn't entail that it has no explanation. One could
try to explain the existence of the world by saying that its existence
is necessary. It exists, because it has to. That is actually an
explanation. That's one route.

But notice that going this route undercuts the usual atheistic objection, "But who made God?" Because if your preferred alternative is that something ontologically ultimate needn't, indeed, can't (because ontologically ultimate) have a cause or further explanation beyond itself, then you've conceded that this is not an appropriate question to ask about whatever is proposed as being ontologically ultimate, whether that be God or just the physical universe itself. They're both on the same footing in that regard---it makes no sense to ask what caused the ontologically ultimate reality.

But it doesn't follow that one type of thing cannot be more intrinsically intelligible than another type of thing, and I'm suggesting that mind or rational consciousness is intrinsically more intelligible than mindless physical stuff. If reality is ultimately intelligible, then God is a better candidate for being the ontological ultimate than mindless physical stuff. One reason for thinking this is that physicists, in trying to understand mindless physical stuff, notice that it obeys astonishingly elegant mathematical rules. It's not just random chaotic stuff. It is intelligibly ordered.

In fact, intelligible order appears to be irreducible even within physics. But intelligibility is logically inseparable from the concept of rational mind, because being intelligible just means being understandable by a rational mind. Rock bottom in the physical universe, we find this property of being understandable by a rational mind attaching to everything we find.

Personally, I think the most rational inference to make from this fact
is much more suggestive of theism as the best explanatory hypothesis,
than materialism. It might be different if materialism could explain
the existence of rational minds. Some people have a blind faith that
it can. I think they're making a fundamental logical mistake. It's not just a question of not having enough data, or needing to do more experiments, etc. They're making a category error. It's like trying to discover the color of ideas.

Whether you're a materialist or a theist, your rational inquiry into the nature of reality will come to the bottom of the ontological pile. And what do you come up against---well, materialism says you come up against something whose sole nature consists in necessitating the instantiation of the actual physics that obtains in the universe. But such a nature, if it is truly ontologically ultimate, is, I'm suggesting, inherently unintelligible because the thing (impersonal cosmic law, cosmic computer code, fundamental stock of mass-energy, whatever), is devoid of purpose, of value; and, because it's mindless, it's also devoid in itself of sense, meaning, and reason. I.e. it needs minds at least as sophisticated as ours to detect things like sense, meaning, and reason---and I simply don't remotely understand the concept of something possessing sense/meaning/reason if there is no mind to grasp that fact about it--which on the materialist hypothesis, there wouldn't have been at the Big Bang or whenever. I just find that idea completely unintelligible.

Mind, by contrast, is intrinsically intelligible, and that's because mind is the locus inhabited by purpose, value, sense, meaning, and reason.

Now we might not know how the mind arises from the brain, etc. But
even if we don't know that, we do understand our own minds in the sense that we understand our own mental contents. We understand thoughts and emotions, reasons and meanings, numbers and logic, principles and values, we understand what it is to understand, because we are directly acquainted with it every time we understand something.

Mind can also understand matter. But matter can't understand mind. Nor
do abstract entities understand anything, but rather are the objects of the mind's understanding. Mind can design things, from a shovel to a spaceship to a software program.

Seems to me, then, that if you're looking for the nature of the ultimate ontological and explanatory reality, mind has a lot more going for it than the materialist alternative.

And that's why most people believe in some kind of God, I suspect.
The only thing that logically accomodates intelligibility is understanding. And understanding is a inherent property of mind, not of material objects or of abstract entities. Atheism fails as an
understanding of the world precisely because what it does is to deny
that there is anything ultimately understandable about it. It is
saying, in effect, that there is no ultimate understanding to be had,
and thus, that at bottom, reality is unintelligible. Now reason itself rejects this. Reason by its very nature demands that the objects of
reason, including reason itself, be intelligible, and rejects the
unintelligible as being not truly real. In other words, it makes
intelligibility, not merely sense-perceptibility, as a basic criterion of reality.

Nihilistic celebration of unintelligibility goes against the grain of our own rational nature, or against reason itself. One can still choose to go that route. But the only rationally intelligible route to choose, is the road that leads to mind as being ontologically basic and as being implicated even in the most basic structures of the material universe , because that, I contend, is the sole way to secure the ultimate and complete intelligibility of reality.

Let me quickly pre-empt one objection. It will be objected that
human minds cannot understand God. But that does not threaten the
intelligibility of reality, because on the theistic hypothesis, God
understands God---and hence everything is understandable, even if it's
not understandable by everyone.

[Az]

92. We don't know

This is a critical admission. And one that many fail to make. We do not know if there is a god or not. Conversely we do not know if the universe is materialistic or dualistic in nature either. Nonscientific methods give us appelations and dogmas about this. But the scientific method gives us a means to try to find an approximation of the truth. Without a method of determining the truth all we have is individuals insisting that they are right.

Science starts with the simple position of "We don't know". It then builds from there.

This leads into your pre-emptive objection. How do you know we can't understand the mind of god? Because someone told you so? I see no evidence that the mind of god can't be understood(well technically I see no evidence for god's mind let alone god :evilgrin:).

The position of science is not that there is no god. This is not even a theory of science. An individual that does not believe in god and applies the scientific method may proclaim that they see no or insufficient evidence to support the claim that god exists. But this is as close as science comes to denying the existance of god.

And again. If god does exist the scientific method should quite readily lead us to his/her/it's door if not a deeper understanding of him/her/it.

[Stunster]

95. Non-scientific assumptions

You're making two assumptions, neither of which is scientifically verifiable:

1) That if something can be known, then it can be known scientifically.

2) That if something can be known, then there is no other way of knowing it (or about it) other than by science.

But suppose there is something real which a) cannot be known scientifically, and b) can be known in some other way. Well, in that case, both your assumptions would beg the question. Insisting on the scientific method as the only way of knowing something, and on the whole of reality being knowable scientifically, systematically begs the question against the possibility of there being, inter alia, purely spiritual beings. The point is not to insist that there are such beings, but rather that reason itself tells us that rational inquiry may have a broader scope than just scientific inquiry.

That's the first point. The second point is that science itself is making progress in our understanding of the universe, and what the physicists are finding is that the universe is, as Brian Greene puts it, 'elegant'. The literature on all this fine-tuning of the laws of physics now is vast.

There are a couple of ways to think about this. One is that the universe is fine-tuned, but that it might not have been, and it just happens to be this way by chance. I think Sir Fred Hoyle (he of Steady State theory of the universe fame) compared this to a wind sweeping all the parts of a Boeing 747 through a yard and, by chance, forming a perfectly complete, working Boeing 747. One can also compare it to a situation in which one will be killed unless one draws out the shortest straw from a barrel containing 10 billion straws, and then drawing the shortest straw. If that's what happened, it would be more rational to believe that the situation was 'fixed', or set up, or designed in such a way that you would draw out the shortest straw, than that you really did draw out the shortest draw by chance.

It is because of this rational fact that the Multiverse Hypothesis was proposed. If your straw-drawing is just one of 10 billion straw-drawings going on, and then you happen to pick out the shortest straw, then it's not surprising that you did---one of the 10 billion drawings would likely result in the shortest straw being drawn. Analogously, one of the 10 billion (or some similarly large number of) universes would likely be as fine-tuned as this one apparently is.

But the Multiverse Hypothesis is a) unscientific because the other universes are unobservable by definition, b) a gross violation of Ockham's Razor, and c) ad hoc. It posits a very large or infinite number of unobservable entities in order to avoid positing one unobservable entity. To be honest, I think it smacks of intellectual desperation, if not intellectual bad faith.

The other alternative is to say that for reasons which have yet to be discovered, the laws of physics obtaining in our universe are the only logically possible ones that could obtain, and that they necessarily obtain. They are, on this hypothesis, necessarily self-instantiating. I find this alternative a good deal more attractive than the Multiverse Hypothesis.

However, most physicists seem to think that other alternative sets of physical laws are coherent (e.g. Paul Davies, Martin Rees). They would work physically. They just wouldn't produce an interesting universe, or one that could sustain life. So, that's one problem. Another problem is that the same laws might apply to different initial conditions, producing radically different universes. But I think there is another, harder problem with the idea of a necessarily self-instantiating set of physical laws, and that is that such a set would seem to be a Platonic sort of thing. It would not be in spacetime itself, since spacetime itself would be an effect of the instantiation. Hence it would something spaceless, timeless and not itself a physical object (since the concept of a physical object again presupposes the instantiation). Perhaps we can imagine a set of equations or a software program along these lines. But equations and software programs are, arguably, necessarily the objects, or contents, of thought. We never encounter them and find it hard to imagine them existing as freestanding abstract entities---especially since we never seem to find them exhibiting causal powers (we do, by contrast, find our minds apparently exhibiting causal powers---we decide to lift our arm, and up it goes).

But even if we could make sense of this Platonic universe-creating necessary physics-instanting software/equations, we'd be positing something spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical and responsible for creating an intelligibly ordered universe. But if you're going to go that far, why not go as far as theism? We know that there are minds. Why not then posit a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical Mind as that which is responsible for creating the universe? That would seem to me to be at least a reasonable hypothesis, if the Platonic one is.

[Az]

96. I think you may be missing my point

Entirely possible though as this is a complex subject.

I fully agree. The notion that science may be able to delve into everything that is, is itself not a scientifically based conclusion. Its a faith statement. I am comfortable with it. I am willing to let it go should I find it wrong.

I am not insisting that science is the only method of gaining knowledge. I am quite aware of a multitude of philosophies and beliefs that are arrived at through a host of other methods. Some of them even have merrit.

Science merely provides us a path to see if there is a reason for that merrit. It doesn't provide the merrit itself. Science can discern that treating others as we would treat ourselves is an excellent model to live by. But other systems got there first.

Just because science can explain a thing does not mean it has dismantled its beauty or esoteric value. This is the same conundrum Newton faced when he unraveled the rainbow. People believed that he had destroyed its beauty and value forever with his meddling. Yet it remains as beautiful as ever and we have even discovered new beauty hidden within that would never have been found without his unraveling of the rainbow.

Insistance that science cannot explain everything is just as much a faith argument as believing it can. When you boil everything down to its absolute basics we cannot even state that we are able to avoid a faith based statement about reality itself. Science starts with what we have before us and proceeds from there. Should we discover something new then science is simply one method to understand the new thing. Probably not the fastest. Not the most satisfying. But it is a usable method. It is the tortise to the world of hares running around out there.

[Stunster]

98. I have nothing against science

I hope that's clear.

But I don't think that the notion that "science probably cannot explain everything" is properly described as a faith-based statement. Colin McGinn, a philosopher, has argued on philosophical grounds that science cannot explain consciousness, even in principle. (There are other philosophers who take a similar position, but he's perhaps the most prominent one currently who holds this view.). Other philosophers have argued against naturalism/materialism more generally (e.g. the latest book I bought is World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism, by Michael Rea, (Oxford University Press, 2002, paperback edition 2004). The point is not to say that McGinn or Rea are necessarily correct in their views. The point is that they put them forth on the basis of rational arguments---their conclusions are the products of reasoning. Hence, I think it would be misleading to say that they simply hold these views by faith. Ironically indeed, McGinn's position is that we must take naturalism on faith, even though we cannot know even in principle how it can be compatible with the existence of consciousness. (He gives reasons for the 'cannot know' part of that statement).

Here's a bit of blurb on Rea's book:

Philosophical naturalism, according to which philosophy is continuous with the natural sciences, has dominated the Western academy for well over a century, but Michael Rea claims that it is without rational foundation. Rea argues compellingly to the surprising conclusion that naturalists are committed to rejecting realism about material objects, materialism, and perhaps realism about other minds.

[Az]

99. And I disagree with him

Much of my study of late has been on the nature of the mind. And I would differ with his take on the matter greatly. I suspect many get caught up with a stagnant take on the state of science. They forget that it advances. Often beyond our wildest imaginations. Operative phrase here "beyond our imagination". We cannot fathom where and what science may reveal to us. To presume that it cannot find some notion out is entirely a faith based statement.

This does not mean it will be able to ferret out everything. But we can take neither position until we have tried.... forever. In other words we can never truly close the book. Even if we suspect we have the absolutely right answer we still have to remain open to new evidence.

[Stunster]

91. Some other tacks

Do you tell biologists to give up biology in favor of physics because
biological explanations are more complex than physics explanations? Or
economists to give up economics because physics provides simpler explanations of the price of oil?

You're assuming that science itself is completely reductionistic, but that itself is far from being established. It's certainly not clear that from a complete knowledge of physics, one could predict the emergence of higher level properties such as life or consciousness or culture. For one thing, there are serious doubts about whether determinism is true (cf. quantum mechanics, etc). For another, it's possible that higher level properties supervene on physical properties
in virtue of laws that are not themselves laws of physics. And that's just for starters.

So harking on with this complaint that theism posits something of a higher order of complexity is like complaining that mathematicians posit sets to explain numbers.

Nor do I need to accept that God is more complex than the world. In
classical theism, God is a simple, not a composite being. God is immaterial substance, i.e. is not composed of parts. Matter, by contrast, always seems to possess a complex essence, with a variety of measurable properties such as position, velocity, momentum, angular momentum, etc. Simplicity is really a vague, not a well-defined, notion, and I suspect that when used to characterize explanations, it's inherently subjective. But when we use it to characterize, not explanations, but beings, then I think that rational consciousness is less obviously complex (in the sense of being composite or divisible into discrete parts or properties) than is material reality. It's certainly not obvious that mind is more ontologically complex than matter. (Certainly Descartes didn't think so.)

But even if mind or God was more ontologically or explanatorily complex than material reality, one would still have to show why a correct explanans of any given thing has to be less complex than the explanandum. It seems to me that in science, we often explain something by positing something more complex than the thing being explained. For example, we see an apple fall from a tree. When along comes Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity, do we say, "YOU'RE WRONG, ALBERT. YOUR THEORY IS A LOT MORE COMPLEX AND HARDER TO UNDERSTAND THAN A FALLING APPLE!"????

No, we don't, is the short answer to that. Same with explaining WELCOME TO SCOTLAND signs by reference to conscious rational minds acting purposively.

More on verificationism

In the mid-20th century, inspired by the popularization of the philosophical ideas of the 'Vienna Circle' by leading English atheist philosopher, A. J. Ayer, in his book LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC, a number of atheist-minded intellectuals proposed as a criterion of meaningfulness in a proposition that it must be either analytic (i.e. true or false in virtue of its meaning), or else empirically verifiable.

"A statement is meaningful only insofar as it is true or false by
definition, or else is empirically verifiable. All statements failing to meet this criterion are meaningless."

Alas and alack, the aforementioned statement of the logical positivist
criterion of meaning failed itself to satisfy the criterion.

But when I first learned of it, I remember proposing a different objection, and that was this:

If Christianity is true, and there is an afterlife in which the existence of God is confirmed by experience, then there is a way to allow the criterion to stand and still hold Christian belief to be meaningful. But if atheism is true, and there is no afterlife, then we won't be around to know that it's true. So there's a sense in which atheism is not meaningful, by the criterion on offer---there's no way to confirm it by experience. Or rather, atheism is only meaningful if it's false---that is, if it is confirmed in an afterlife experience that God does exist.

Now I suppose one can come up with other forms of afterlife or personal immortality in which the question of God's existence remains open, or even is somehow disconfirmed---though it's hard to imagine how the latter possibility might be realized. Maybe in Buddhistic nirvana states, one attains eternal peace and a state of blissful consciousness in which one is aware that there is no God. Then again, one might not. It's hard to say for sure.

But if there's no afterlife, it's certain that there can be no
verification that atheism is true. Which suggests that insofar as we're inclined to accept the logical positivist criterion of meaning, professions of atheism are not meaningful if 'atheism' includes the denial of an afterlife. Which leads to the odd result that if atheism is true, it's not verifiable. Which leads to the even odder result that if atheism is true, and the logical positivist criterion of meaning is correct, then atheism is meaningless.

Of course, the easy way out of this logical quagmire is to deny the logical positivist criterion of meaning, which is what most sensible people ended up doing anyway.

Electromagnetism and setting children on fire

I'm having a quick re-read of the first chapter of THE MATTER MYTH,
by Davies and Gribbin (entitled 'The Death of Materialism'). I was
struck by this passage:

"After all, the electromagnetic field is also an abstract entity that
we cannot directly observe. One can point again to the fact that the
relativistic field theory is simpler than the alternative. But whereas
the issue seems clear-cut in the case of the Earth going around the
Sun, the question of whether the ether, or the electromagnetic field,
or neither, is 'really there' seems altogether more subtle."

It occurred to me that scientists posit a completely invisible entity
(the EM field) to explain what we observe. The positing of the EM
field is the result of an abductive inference to an invisible,
intangible, unfalsifiable theoretical entity as that which best
explains various phenomena we do observe. In a sense, it predicts
those phenomena, though the phenomena were observed long before the
theory of an EM field was posited. But the theory essentially tells us
that *given the EM field, these phenomena are to be expected*.

It strikes me that theism is also an explanatory theory, positing an
intrinsically invisible, intangible theoretical reality, and theistic
theory predicts---i.e. tells us to expect---certain phenomena, though
of course the phenomena were observed long before theistic theory was
proposed. What phenomena are those?

--That the physical world exhibits profound mathematical order and
intelligibility.

--That the world will contain conscious rational minds endowed with a
causally efficacious and significantly autonomous will.

--That the world will exhibit the phenomenology of moral experience.

--That the world will contain religious experience.

--That the world will exhibit other (non-moral, non-religious) forms
of value (such as aesthetic value, pleasure, joy, fulfilment, etc).

Now, one can try to assess other theories, competing with theism (as
one can propose alternative theories to the EM field theory to explain
EM phenomena), which claim to account for the aforementioned
phenomena. But, as the New Mysterians and other philosophers of mind have noted, the central phenomenon of consciousness (without which the rest of the phenomena either don't arise or cannot be known about) has proven intractable to materialist explanation. So it appears that theism is at least a decent candidate for a basic explanatory theory of actually a wide range of observable or intelligible phenomena. That the physical world should be so finely ordered by intelligible mathematical laws and relations, (the efficacy of math for understanding the physical world famously struck one noted scientist as 'unreasonable', because we were able to work certain things out in
our minds which were only later confirmed by empirical investigation
to be true of the physical world--suggesting that a mind had already
designed the physical world or that it was the product of a rational
mind); and then that it should produce from this physical order life,
consciousness, and all the phenomena associated with reason and value,
invites the construction of a theory, or the positing of a theoretical
reality to account for it all, in a way analogous to how electric and
magnetic phenomena invite the construction, on the basis of abductive
inference, of an overarching theory which posits a theoretical entity
---the EM field---to account for EM phenomena.

Another intrinsically invisible, intangible, theoretical entity
famously posited by science is curved space, to account for gravitational phenomena, as proposed by Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. Would it be a good answer to Einstein to say of curved
space that it doesn't explain anything? That we can make do with
the observed fact that bodies fall to the center of massive objects,
without having to postulate unobservable purely theoretical entities
that cause the bodies to fall in that way, especially counter-intuitive ones like curved space?

So, I'm going to make a prediction based on my theistic hypothesis,
which I don't think can be explained on a materialist hypothesis: that
if you were to be promised an abundance of material wealth, pleasure,
plastic surgery to make you attractive, and brain surgery to make you
hyper-intelligent, and an abundance of medicine to ensure that you'd
have a long, healthy life---all provided for free on condition that
you burnt alive a few dozen small children--- you will feel a strong
sense of moral obligation not to burn those kids.

According to materialists like Dawkins, your genes are selfish, right,
and selfish genes all there really is to you, right? So, if that's
so, let's test it, and here's a test for what you will experience
under certain conditions.

Of course, what I expect to happen is that Dawkins & Co. will qualify
and refine their selfish gene theory so that it will accord with your
moral revulsion. Naturally, I find that supremely ironic. Their theory has to be so jiggered about with that it can never be falsified---the very thing that they accuse theists of doing.

But then, maybe science and theology aren't so completely different after all.

[Az]

93. Knowledge vs Belief

Atheism is about what a person believes. Not what they can verify, prove, provide evidence for, establish, demonstrate, or otherwise. Atheism is not an organised philosophy any more than theism is. There are groups of both that are organised. But Atheism is merely a state of mind.

As to science. It's fields are not isolated or entirely reductionist. There are miriad of interdisciplinary fields. One form of study feeds another. And it goes in both micro and macro directions. Science is entirely scalable. It even goes into socio/philosophical aspects.

It is unreasonable to expect that just by examining a grain of sand we could come up with the theory of evulutionary psychology. But if we include all fields of experience and the culmination of studies we can find that they are connected. Perhaps not in an immediate way. But fields of study will connect them to one another.

As to your theory re selfish genes and Dawkins. Dawkins himself has spoken out against this very notion. He is a strong opponent of social darwinism. We are social creatures. Our drives are not just based on our selves. We have ties and associations with our fellow humans and by proxy all of life. Thus we naturally reject benefits to ourself which destroy those around us. They have meaning to us.

The idea of the selfish gene does not mean that the forms it creates are individually selfish. In fact it can come up with quite extrodinary methods involving generousity and even self-sacrifice in order to assure the gene line if not the individual. A cooperative group will always beat a group of individuals that cannot cooperate.

This is even replicated in religions and philosophies. It is self evident that a religion or philosophy that does not spread will not survive. Thus they seek to form and create strong environments that are able to propogate their social structure to other groups. One would expect to find strong organisational structures within such constructs. If we examine the world religions we find certain themes repeated in the more succesful ones. Namely ideas that lead to stronger societies. Ie treat others as you would treat yourself, don't steal, don't kill, show respect to elders, etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. You have built much more into your 'theistic theory' than you've told us

because where did all this come from?

theistic theory predicts---i.e. tells us to expect---certain phenomena, though of course the phenomena were observed long before theistic theory was proposed. What phenomena are those?

--That the physical world exhibits profound mathematical order and
intelligibility.

--That the world will contain conscious rational minds endowed with a causally efficacious and significantly autonomous will.

--That the world will exhibit the phenomenology of moral experience.

--That the world will contain religious experience.

--That the world will exhibit other (non-moral, non-religious) forms of value (such as aesthetic value, pleasure, joy, fulfilment, etc).

Yes, the first idea was your justification for your theist idea. But after that, there's no reason to believe that having a original creator implies that other minds will be created, or that they will have moral, religious or any other values. Those are in no way predictions of theistic theory. I can't even see that they are predictions of any religion - that would imply that the Christian God, for instance, had no choice but to create humans.

I don't agree with your statement that 'reason' demands that for something to be real, it must be intelligible at that moment, either. I, and I think most people, easily accept that the Sun existed before intelligent life developed on Earth.

[Stunster]

104. Are you perhaps conflating ethical monotheism with deism?

By 'theism', I mean ethical monotheism, not deism. And by 'ethical monotheism' I mean above all the idea, common to the major monotheistic faiths, that God is infinite spirit, and all-loving, all-good. And it seems to me that an all-loving, all-good infinite spirit who wanted to create a universe would want it to contain more value, rather than less. And a universe containing beings endowed with rational, moral consciousness, and an ability to appreciate value in all its forms would be preferable to such a God, than one which did not, because such a universe would thus contain more value, or be more valuable.

An infinite, good, and loving Spirit would want its creation to contain love. Or to put it in somewhat Kantian terms, rational beings, because their ends qua rational beings essentially involve knowledge and love, would will that they be knowers and lovers of, and known and loved by, other rational beings--which implies that they will that there be other rational beings. If you willed that rational beings not exist, this would not be something that you could consistently will to be a universal maxim, since to will anything requires that at least one rational being exists. In Kant's terms, this inconsistency of will would make it immoral. And an ethical God would not be immoral.

But this does not mean that God was compelled by anything outside of himself to create rational beings, since his rational will, again in Kant's sense, is autonomous. It is not determined by a cause outside of or existing independently of itself.

The other thing I'd say is that the sense of 'prediction' here is comparative and probabilistic. That is to say, I'm suggesting that, compared to the materialist hypothesis, the existence of rational minds and ethical value and aesthetic and religious experience is more to be expected, given theism. It is less surprising, and in that sense more probable to occur, on the theistic hypothesis than on the materialist hypothesis. I'm not saying that the inference is a strict deduction. But I think it does fit the model of abductive inference as outlined by C. S. Peirce and developed by later thinkers.

As regards the Sun existing before there was any intelligent life to understand it, that does not tell against the point I'm making, which is that the Sun (and anything else we can coherently conceive of) is intelliGIBLE---such as to be understandable by a rational mind. And if theism is true, then God understands the Sun, and God is always around to understand it. This criterion of intelligibility for something to be real includes the theistic God him/herself, even though our finite minds may well be unable fully to comprehend God, because ex hypothesi God understands God. So God is intelligible---to Godself.

I find it hard to make much sense of deism, to be honest. Here's part of a longer post I sent on a thread about Antony Flew's recent movement from atheism towards something of a deist position, which spells out some of my thinking about deism v theism, and may address some of the issues you're raising:

....So, it is easy to see why Flew should now feel compelled to admit the existence of an intelligent creator. He does not, however, think that this being is involved in our lives, and prefers to conceive of God deistically, rather than theistically.

But surely there is reason to believe that an *intelligent, rational* creator God *would be* involved with his creatures? Are there any examples of human beings, acting as intelligent, rational creators and designers, *not* being involved with the things they make or design? Hardly any, and if there are such cases, we would be strongly inclined to say that the act of design/creation would be *irrational* in those circumstances. A person who made things for no reason would be considered at best odd, if not insane. A person who made things simply to look at them would be odd. Ah, but what about artists---isn't that what they do? Well, actually, artists make things so that *other people* can look at them. If the artist makes things which only she will look at, it is usually only done in the context of preparing art for the public---practice drawings, first drafts, etc. The ultimate goal is to share the artist's art with others.

Of course, some people make things just for their own amusement. But in such cases, they *interact* in some fashion with the thing they've made---they play with it, or use it in some way, because they derive enjoyment from doing so. But what enjoyment would someone derive from creating a universe, whose most interesting inhabitants one would then choose not to communicate or interact with in any fashion? Why would a rational being go to the trouble of making rational beings, but then not have anything to do with those other rational beings? Even in our own fictional accounts of creating supposedly rational entities like Frankenstein or the 2001 Space Odyssey computer, there is always interaction between the creator and the creature. Sometimes there is even some kind of emotional relationship.

I submit that it would be a lot more natural if a divine creator interacted or communicated somehow with his creatures, and decidedly odd if he did not.

A further consideration is that the universe is not just an arena where scientific physics plays out. It's also a moral arena. Why should that be? Was it just an accident that the intelligent designer god whom Flew now posits made the universe, and then had morality come into the world as an *unforeseen, accidental by-product*. I don't think that's plausible.

All the rational creatures we're familiar with are also moral agents---agents, that is, who are capable in principle of entering into moral relationships. Why would a rational creator not be also a moral agent? And if the creator is a moral agent, that would mean that the creator would have an understanding of moral value. But moral value arises precisely in relationship with other moral agents. Hence, a rational creator who is also a moral agent--as one would expect him to be (and certainly Kant would insist that all rational beings are ipso facto moral beings)---such a creator would know that moral value would arise in the creator's relating meaningfully to the rational moral creatures he has made.

Now of course, one might object that this is all only what we would expect, and reality might be different. But on the hypothesis that there is a rational, intelligent designer/creator of the world, our expectations in this regard are ultimately the result of that creator making the world and us the way the world and we are. Our expectations in this regard would, in short, have been 'put there' by the creator. Why would the creator do such a thing if the expectations were invalid or bore no relation to reality? The only reason a creator would do such a thing would be malicious desire to deceive us.

What is the likelihood that an intelligent, rational creator of the universe would be malicious? Well, on some theories of morality (notably Kant's), to be rational entails being moral. Or to put it another way, immorality is a species of irrationality. But if a Flew-type god is highly or supremely rational, which seems implicit in the notion of being the creator of the whole world, and therefore of all the rational minds within it, then on Kantian grounds we should doubt that the creator is malicious.

Even leaving Kant to one side, there seems to be a contradiction or at least a strong incongruity between Flew's obvious admiration for the (apparently) extraordinarily intelligent design of life-systems in the universe, and the idea that the being responsible for this design is malicious. For one thing, it seems possible that a being with malevolent creative intentions would have made life-systems much more frustrating or painful than they naturally seem to be. Among sentient creatures, pain is the exception rather than the rule. Normal, healthy sentient beings are satisfied, and the very notion of 'normal health' indicates that the overall nature of the design of life is not malevolent, since it suggests that health, not pain or illness, is the norm. One just needs to look at most kids in a school yard at break-time to see that they are happy to be alive. Why would a malevolent creator not make their lives worse?

It will, of course, be objected that there is a great deal of suffering, pain and disease in the world, not least among children. But is this really and mainly the fault of the way nature is designed? Or is it really and mainly because of human choices? Recent studies, just to take an almost random sample of many, suggest that exposure to benzene is harmful, and that chronic stress is linked to cellular aging:

Benzene Exposure Linked to Blood Changes

Fri Dec 3, 3:22 AM ET
By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer

WASHINGTON - Blood changes, including a steep decline in disease-fighting white cells, have been found in workers persistently exposed to low levels of benzene, a common industrial chemical known to pose a leukemia risk at high concentrations.

Wed Dec 1, 1:49 AM ET

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Chronic stress appears to shorten the life of the body's immune cells, and may compromise the body's ability to fight off disease, US researchers said.

....Thus, a good deal of human illness appears to be due to choices which we ourselves make, rather than something necessitated by nature. Of course, if determinism is true, then the creator is causally responsible for our choices. But the truth of determinism is far from being established, and in any case determinism seems incompatible with what we know about nature from quantum mechanics. And if we are responsible for our own choices, then that means we are responsible for our bad choices---both morally bad choices, and ones that are merely imprudent or mistaken.

Furthermore, most sentient beings cling to life. Among humans, most people appear to prefer life to death, and this seems almost universally true of other sentient beings. People in general seem to be glad that they are alive, even grateful. There are exceptions. But that's the point---they're exceptions. A malevolent creator would surely have seen to it that they were not exceptions, but rather the norm. Though why a putatively rational, intelligent creator would purposely create beings whose normal inclination would be towards suicide is itself a question that seems to negate its own premiss.

On the whole therefore, we seem to have little reason to suppose that the rational/intelligent creator god posited by Flew would act from malice. Hence there'd be little reason to suppose that the creator would purposely try to deceive his creatures as regards their expectations. And among our expectations is the expectation that any rational creature is likely also a moral agent who will therefore know that moral value arises in and through choosing to relate and interact as a rational/moral being with other similar beings, if one can. Hence there seems little reason to doubt this expectation (since there seems little reason to suppose that the creator would be a malicious deceiver), and hence we are probably justified in expecting that the creator of the world would choose, if possible, to relate and interact with us.

What evidence is there that the creator has chosen to do so? Well, it strikes me that there is a colossal amount of such evidence, if we consider simply the tremendously widespread phenomenon of religious experience. By that term I include everything from a natural disposition to believe in the existence of a divine being, to special experiences of apparent communication with such a being. The former has been the norm for a long time in most cultures---few cultures or civilizations have been 'naturally' atheistic, or at least naturally disposed to believe that there are no supernatural beings. On the contrary. And the latter type of experience is well attested in the mystical literature of all the world's major religions. At least some of these accounts have more than the ring of truth (in the sense that the mystical writer appears to be sincerely telling the truth about what she has felt, seen, or otherwise experienced), and many of them are compelling in other ways too, especially the ones linked to dramatic and impressive moral transformations for the better. Certainly this kind of transformation has long been held by the mainstream theorists of the major religions to be a criterion of authenticity with respect to the claimed experiences (other criteria include such things as the experiencer's consistency, known capacity for honesty, integrity, and modesty, lack of interest in profiting financially, general psychological health, etc). Other religious experiences include a not insignificant number of cases of people claiming to have witnessed healing miracles.

And there is of course a very large body of monotheistic literature attesting to religious experience of a transcendent God who desires us to understand the centrality of the moral life, and desires to forgive us for, and save us from, our moral failures and other bad choices. In short, many people claim to have experienced some kind of interaction with the creator.

Flew would dismiss all this. But it's surely important to see that, a priori, there seems little reason to doubt that a rational, intelligent creator would also be a moral creator and would therefore *desire* moral interaction with those of his creatures who were themselves moral beings. And it's surely important to see that, a posteriori, there is an enormous number of people who claim to have been the recipients of, and to have engaged in, moral interaction with the divine creator of the world.

Since I myself have had two extraordinary experiences of interacting with God, and many ordinary or everday religious experiences (such as feelings of peace in prayer, or being moved by the love of God and neighbor exhibited by others), I find it hard to accept that what seems to be quite likely on a priori grounds---namely, that a rational creator of the world would also be moral and would desire moral interaction with his creatures---is not also something that we have good reason to believe has actually occurred, in fact, quite frequently.

[Az]

105. Um

The sun is intelligible... Explain to me how anything following a simple process would not be intelligible?

I hate to say this but it seems your entire argument boils down to believing what you want to believe. You certainly wrap it up nicely but in the end you tend to rely on personal opinion. I am not trying to anger you with this observation. Rather I am merely trying to suggest how your argument is coming across.

Its clear you are very dedicated to this issue and I have no reason to wish you discomfort with it. But your arguments are not carrying any weight despite the attempts to associate them with heavy names. When addressing an individual you cannot rely on authoratarian arguments. You have to present the evidence to them as they require it. Failing to do so will result in them not accepting your argument. Whether you are right or wrong. Deriving a sense of accomplishment from their lack of acceptance based on your opinion that they simply are not up to the task is even more delusional. It is your task to explain things such that others may understand. Lack of ability to do so suggests your own lack of understanding of the matter.

[Stunster]

110. Um

Let me say it to you, with knobs on:

I hate to say this but it seems your entire argument boils down to believing what you want to believe. You certainly wrap it up nicely but in the end you tend to rely on personal opinion. I am not trying to anger you with this observation. Rather I am merely trying to suggest how your argument is coming across.

Its clear you are very dedicated to this issue and I have no reason to wish you discomfort with it. But your arguments are not carrying any weight despite the attempts to associate them with heavy names. When addressing an individual you cannot rely on authoratarian arguments. You have to present the evidence to them as they require it. Failing to do so will result in them not accepting your argument. Whether you are right or wrong. Deriving a sense of accomplishment from their lack of acceptance based on your opinion that they simply are not up to the task is even more delusional. It is your task to explain things such that others may understand. Lack of ability to do so suggests your own lack of understanding of the matter.

[Az]

111. Fine

I believe I understand you and it saddens me that we cannot progress. Please contact me when we may discuss matters without crossing swords.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. Up until now, your posts in this thread had seemed to tend towards deism

in that you were arguing that something must have created the universe and its laws; and that the 'fine-tuning' argues for a desire to see a universe as we have today - ie atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies etc. You can sort of extend this argument to say that the universe was also designed to favour life as we know it - the ability to form long chain molecules. You also said you believe in God as an all-pervasive moral goodness, not a ghost or man in the sky. So you seemed a bit deist, a bit pantheist. You also seemed to be arguing that any existence depended on this 'Reason', not just intelligence or moral entities such as ourselves: "a pure, unlimited Rational and Moral Consciousness that pervades the entire world but exists independently of it, and transcends it. To say that such a reality makes no sense and does not exist, to me must mean that reality makes no sense or is ultimately unintelligible". So I couldn't see how your theory was meant to imply separate conscious minds, as opposed to just matter (it seemed to be an extension of the "things must be observed to be real" ideas of quantum physics).

However, your arguments for an involved deity are now coming to the fore (I see in another thread that you are in fact Catholic). But while your earlier arguments were trying to use reason, now you seem to be projecting your own feelings on to how God would think - that because humans tend to enjoy the existence of their creations (though they don't often keep altering them), that God must do the same - and that all we see must be because of his desire for goodness (which you infer because humans have an idea of 'goodness' - although that idea can vary). You seem to be creating God in your own image.

Your arguments are reminiscent of Douglas Adams' puddle metaphor:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in--an interesting hole I find myself in--fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

http://www.toomuchsexy.org/adams/

[Stunster]

112. If we're going to have rational arguments

about anything at all, then we have to employ reason---as we find it, in us.

So we'd have difficulty arguing to any conclusion that didn't conform to the ideas that our reason suggests to us. Now, it may turn out that our reason has more resources within it than was once thought to be the case---e.g. quantum physics, relativity, string physics, etc---are often, and with some justification, considered to be counter-intuitive. But once you understand those theories thoroughly, you see that they must be right (or so our best physicists assure us). The math, logic, and empirical perceptions involved in building those theories are ours, thought up and reasoned about by us, using our mental resources.

But I don't think it would be a fair criticism of physicists, on the basis of the foregoing observations, that they merely describe the world only in terms that are amenable to the mathematical understanding of which they happen to be capable---that they are, as it were, projecting their own mode of thought on to the object of their inquiry, or that they are reading into the world they investigate, items derived from their own parochial/provincial mind-set. Or at least, I don't think that would be an uncontroversially, or obviously, fair criticism.

It wouldn't be fair, because it's impossible to do otherwise, in any form of rational inquiry. The exercize of reason implies judgements that necessarily conform to our own form of rationality.

So it's not just God that we judge in terms drawn from our own rational image. It's the whole world. This is why it has been possible for someone like Einstein, or Gell-Mann, to think up aspects of how the world must be, just by pure thought, even before empirical investigations tended to confirm their thinking. (E.g. the 'top' quark was discovered years after it was postulated). These guys might have been accused of creating the world in the image of their own mathematical thinking. And maybe you would do so. But most people would marvel at their brilliance.

So, I'd suggest it's not necessarily the case that pure thinking, in terms of the mental resources available to us, can never be a pretty reliable guide to reality. If we assume that they were right (which I think they were), and knew they were right (as I think they did), before the experimental confirmation, then we have cases, it would seem, of knowing significant things about the world just on the basis of careful deployment of our own mental resources. A fortiori, we seem to be able to have important moral knowledge on a similar basis.

If your argument is meant to be by way of a more general epistemological skepticism---or a general argument against the possibility of metaphysics, then let me know. I've posted fairly extensively already elsewhere on this forum as to why I think both types of argument are rationally unwarranted. But as presently formulated, your argument seems, at best, to be too vague and too broad.

[Az]

113. This issue is being clouded by emotions

I wish to let it subside for now. Let us both regain our composure on the subject before rejoining the discussion. Suffice to say that we are missing the point each of us is trying to make at this time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. I'm not arguing against using reason as best we can

and I know that some hypotheses will not yet be confirmed. Many theories may also be generalisations. I don't expect anyone's philosophy to answer major questions of life with watertight evidence and reasoning.

But I feel your arguments about the relationship between God and humans - that he surely wants to create beings capable of love, that he wants to interact with them - are projections of your own goodness, which ignore the callousness that many other humans show. You say "since there seems little reason to suppose that the creator would be a malicious deceiver"; but at times people can be malicious with other creatures - shouldn't those qualities be reflected in a God too? Our morals have been quite flexible over the years. More than that, a creator God would have powers far beyond ours, and would, before we (or other created beings) came along, have had no other being to interact with. How can we assign the same feelings to him as we show in our current society?

Perhaps my argument is just skepticism: that we can't speculate about anything than would be so different from us. I actually feel that we don't have any evidence for an involved God, loving or otherwise, and so that assuming his existence is a waste of time. We'd be better basing our ethics on our observations of human society, past and present. Thoughts about a deist god may offer solutions to questions of the existence of the universe, but don't offer any guide to ethics, or our future.

[Stunster]

115. I'm talking about something different

What you are doing in your response is observing the various facts about how humans behave. That, though certainly interesting, is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our experience of moral normativity----about the way we experience these natural facts about behavior as involving further normative properties, and in particular whether we are correct in thinking that one can make valid normative judgements about those facts; and why, within our moral experience, we tend to think of the normative properties as objective in some significant way.

Darwinian evolution has to explain both morality and immorality on the same evolutionary basis. Trouble is, this gives us no principled or objective way of justifying morality. The contrast between morality and immorality becomes vacuous. If something is adaptive (such as killing weaker members of the species) then that becomes the 'right
thing to do'. In order to avoid this conclusion, the evolutionist has to say that it's not 'really' adaptive. But all this does is to make the supposed contrast between adaptive and non-adaptive behavior vacuous when it comes to morality. So either the evolutionist preserves a non-vacuous contrast between adaptive and non-adaptive behavior, but at the price of sacrificing a non-vacuous contrast between morality and immorality. Or vice-versa.

Most philosophers of a scientific naturalist bent see this all too clearly. The honest ones then become strong anti-realists about morality. Which conflicts with our convictions about morality, as
they readily admit. But that's what I said--they bite the bullet. They admit that if scientific naturalism is true, then our deepest moral convictions are not true. I now give a more extended argument as to why this is inconsistent with scientific naturalism's basic presupposition in favor of the validity of the data of consciousness.

Science is systematically incapable of justifying our moral
convictions adequately. The 18th century Scottish philosopher David
Hume and the 20th century English philosopher G. E. Moore both showed
how it is impossible to deduce any moral conclusion simply from a description of all the natural facts about the world, even construed broadly enough to include subjective experiences (such as experiences of pain). One might point out that shooting a bullet into someone's
head has a high probability of resulting in the person's death. But
it doesn't follow logically that one ought not to shoot the bullet.
One might be able to show that setting small children on fire will
most likely cause them to experience severe pain. But this does not
prove just by itself, as a matter of logic, that one ought not to set
small children on fire. That conclusion would only follow logically
if one added a further premiss of an evaluative rather than merely
descriptive nature, for example, "Causing severe pain without a good
reason is bad."

Some have argued that the terms 'good' and 'bad' can be given a
reductionist analysis and/or definitions in terms of purely
descriptive features of the world. One attempt to define 'good', for
example, is to say that it just means, 'desired (or desirable) upon
reflection.' But the Holocaust was desired upon reflection by senior
Nazis. It would only be possible to exclude the Holocaust from being
judged good if the 'reflection' itself was to include moral
reflection. But then you'd have a vicious circle. Even if one
could refine one's attempt at defining 'good' so as to exclude such
counter-intuitive outcomes without circularity, there would still
arise the question, why *ought* we to do what we desire or find
desirable upon reflection? Why is *that* something that binds our
conduct? Why is it morally wrong to do things which we don't desire
upon reflection? We may not, upon reflection, desire to spit at
strangers (they might harm us if we do). But just because our
rational instincts tell us to do or not do X, why is it morally
obligatory to pay attention to our rational instincts?

Many naturalistic thinkers will answer the last question by saying
that *all there is* to moral obligation and value is the functioning
of rational instincts and desires. The first problem with this reply
is that instincts, dispositions, and desires vary tremendously among
humans--some are instinctively aggressive, others instinctively
deferential and compliant, some are extremely egoistic and cruel,
others loving and altruistic. They vary from ethnic cleansing to
caring for lepers. The second problem is that if reason (the
'rational' part of 'rational instincts') is only instrumental---that
is, if reason only enters the picture as the process by which agents
deliberate about and choose between various possible *means* to their
various ends, then the naturalist is left having to face the fact that
some people's ends are truly horrifying from a moral point of view.
But in that case, one can't reduce morality to the ends people are
disposed to pursue. If, on the other hand, reason enters into the
picture by actually adjudicating which *ends* ought to be pursued and
which ought not to be, then one is back in a vicious circle. One has
smuggled moral reason and moral judgement in to sort out the varying
ends between which the naturalist, contemplating a factual description
of the great variety of people's dispositions and desires, must choose
in order to give any remotely plausible account of the content of
morality.

The biological perspective is simply that people have different urges
to do different things. But biology provides no criteria for deciding
why one set of urges should be labelled more `moral' than another.
We would be left describing the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime as
yet another `interesting' manifestation of humankind's factual
dispositions.

Similarly, the attempt to derive morality from evolution is logically
flawed. Evolution is simply a descriptive theory. Morality is a
*prescriptive* theory---it prescribes certain kinds of conduct for
humans, and PROscribes others. But if evolutionary biology is to
explain morality, it must show the link between morality and adaptive
behavior. The trouble with this is that a very large range of human
behavior is agreed to be immoral, while evolution has to hold that
nearly *all* behavior derives from the adaptive features of our
genetic makeup. From this it would follow that much, perhaps even
all, immoral behavior is adaptive. But then adaptiveness cannot be
that in terms of which moral behavior is defined, or that from which
specifically moral (as against immoral) behavior springs.

Some naturalists are prepared to bite the bullet about this. That is,
they are ready to say that there is no such thing as morality in any
robust sense. There are just human wants, and human inclinations to
talk a certain way about them. Morality, if the term is to be
retained at all, simply refers to whatever happens to be the majority
of, or most commonly possessed, sets of dispositions and ways of
speaking with regard to inter-human conduct.

The problem with this view is that it falls foul of naturalism's most
basic starting point---human experience. Naturalism privileges
science as a form of knowledge because it relies on the most immediate
data yielded by our consciousness of the world. Among these data are
most certainly the deliverances of our sensory and perceptual
abilities. We experience a patch of green and call it grass. We
hear a sound and interpret it as indicating a wave is moving at a
certain speed through a large body of air molecules. We look at a
dial and determine by its measurement the mass of a subatomic particle.

But these are not the only kind of data of consciousness. There is
also the utter conviction that shooting defenceless innocent children
as they attempt to escape is something we are morally bound to
condemn---that it is *prohibited* to act thus, whether anyone wants to
or not. There is the absolute certainty we find our conscious mind
giving us that leaving a man to die of thirst in the desert while
driving off in a full water-tanker is an abhorrent act of callousness
that violates an ineluctable moral obligation (unless one is racing to
save the lives of others who would die if you stopped to help---in
that case one's obligation is different--saving the others--but it's
still an obligation).

In other words, naturalism rests its case on the sheer force and
given-ness of sensory experience. But that force and given-ness is
at least, if not *more*, present in the case of people's consciousness
with respect to major moral duties and moral values. One is *more*
ready to attribute an experience of green to optical illusion or
bodily malfunction (such as color-blindness) than to give up as
illusory the idea that one must not kill kids or leave dying men in
the desert. One is *more* ready, in a laboratory, to attribute the
position of the dial to a random electrical disturbance rather than
the properties of the object being studied, than one is to attribute
the notion that we should not rape our grandmothers to a mere lack of
desire to do so.

Naturalism, in order to dismiss morality as a projection or illusion
with no real objective claim upon us, ends up having to deny the
validity of the only thing that would even render itself
(naturalism) plausible in the first place---the deliverances and
character of the subjective conscious experiences of human beings.

Naturalism is therefore false because it has to be. Not 'has to be'
in the sense of wishful thinking that it is not true. No, 'has to
be' in the sense of violating the demand of reason that what *is* true
cannot be so multiply incoherent and self-refuting.

[Az]

116. That is no where near what anyone is saying

Come, let us end this discussion. There are too many emotions stoked against each other. Nothing good can come from furthering this conversation at this point. We will flail upon each other with words of defiance and neither side will listen. Is this the course you wish? I would rather this end in the hopes that one day we can continue the conversation with tempers eased. This is doing no one any good.

[Stunster]

117. You're funny (n/t)

[Az]

120. True but looks aren't everything

:D

[goodboy]

133. Great post! Repost this please....

[TreasonousBastard]

94. First question is "What is an atheist?"

There are hard and soft atheists, agnostics, and others. All of them fit into some mold of "non-theist" but they are hardly alike.

I would only have a problem with the more radical of the "hard" atheists, who claim absolutely that there is no God at all. This cannot be proven any more than that there is a God, and so is simply another matter of faith. I am every bit as impressed with their line of thought as I am with fundie Christians or Muslims telling me their way is the only way.

Everyone else pretty much ranges from "There may or may not be a God, but I haven't seen any evidence either way." to "I really don't care whether there's a God or not."

Even "theists" can't agree on whether or not there is a God, and certainly can't agree on what that God might be. Buddhists are as spritual as it gets, but divinities don't figure all that high on their list of priorities. Confucians, Taoists, and many other Eastern religions don't seem terribly interested in gods. Gnostic and mystical Christians don't claim to have any particular knowledge of God, except that he's there somewhere.

I personally have to respect anyone who asks the questions, and seeks a path. I can discuss, and perhaps advise, but I can't judge the path anyone else takes. I am only responsible for my own.

[lazarus]

97. here's my problem with agnosticism and "soft atheism"

I haven't been given any reason to entertain the idea that there may be a god. None.

It's not like global warming, until recently still a topic that could be debated. What I see is people positing something with no evidence whatsoever, then asking me to "keep an open mind" about it.

Why should I? Should I "keep an open mind" about the existence of Spock? Or of Darth Vader? Or anything else that appears to have just been made up?

The number of people who believe in something has no bearing on the validity of that belief. Without a reason to even consider the possibility of a gods' existence, I'll go on stating there is no god, just as I state there is no Santa Claus, and there is no Darth Vader.

If evidence turns up, I'll gladly consider it. I always have an open mind for new evidence. But until such evidence turns up, I have no reason to waste time keeping an open mind about a god's existence, or worrying about staking out some position demonstrating that open mind.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

101. I certainly have no personal issues with atheists, but as a believer,

I must ask the atheist: If you believe that there is no God, how do you explain the complexity of the universe, or the human species? How do you define what is good or evil, meaning, where did you get your conscience? What hope do you have beyond this life? Just questions I think every atheist ought to ask himself or herself.

[Az]

102. Good questions all, here goes

Complexity? But the universe is very simple. Little bits of energy/matter. Singular little particles. Admittedly there are an aweful lot of them. And that is where the complexity comes in. Or rather chaos. Very simple rules applied in very large and complex systems creates situations that we simply cannot fathom without a lot of effort.

Thus from these simple little things arise complex processes. And that is the real magic. Humans and life aren't just things. We are things in action. It is the process that makes us something other than just a rock. Life is the matter and energy of the universe dancing.

Good and Evil. This is another of the big questions. Our awareness of self is singular. I experience me and only me. I do not experience your life. And yet we come to learn that there is a reasonable expectation that you have experience and a sense of self just as I do. Thus we learn to project the idea of identity on others similar to ourselves. We extend to them the same basic desires and fears that we have. In this way we can come to understand that things we would consider harmful or bad to ourselves likely are just as harmful and undesired to others.

But then why should we be concerned about others? Well we are social creatures. This means that not only do we depend on each other for survival but that we are also wired to be concerned about our friends and family (extended tribe). But we have gone a bit beyond the simple confines of tribal existance. We have learned that people even as distant as the other side of the planet (and even those off planet) are more our allies than enemies. Thus we can extend our concept of right and wrong to include them as well. And as a benefit behaving in this way helps to teach them that they are our friends rather than enemies as well. Some call this the golden rule. But it has been around far longer than that title has.

Hope beyond life? For self not much beyond the notion of a reiterating universe. But even that is a false hope because existance seems to be based on continuity and any break in it would be loss of self. But being the social critters we are we have feelings about those around us. Thus we hope for the best for them after we pass. There is also for those of us of a more philosophical bent the notion that our ideas and teachings will live on. But hope for self after death is kind of an oxymoron. Death is the end of the dance for this particular refrain. Once my body stops functioning in a way that maintains my brain in a coherant fashion I cease to be.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

118. An interesting outlook.

As for your first response, there are precise processes and laws that govern the universe. These could not have been sustained by simple chance. There has to be a governing force that keeps everything in order.

The second answer, is equally interesting, but answer me this: Where do you get your self-awareness from?

The third response is very Epicurean of you. The hope for us believers comes from a belief in the eternal reward, of a life lived justly, even if this life is full of strife.

Anyway, good talking with you.

[lazarus]

119. Why not?

You say, "These could not have been sustained by simple chance."

Says who? Based on what criteria? So far, we have a sample size of one. Give me another universe to compare this one to, and we can start talking about chance.

As for self-awareness, it's all a chemical process. Or not. I prefer to wait for science to come up with the answer than to just give up and claim some creator I have no evidence for did it. Science is constantly finding answers to questions, while religion is constantly just saying "God did it." I'll take science.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

123. Science and religion are not necessarily adversaries.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'll wager that any rational thinker (which I'm sure you must be), who looks at the whole case for Creation in general, versus the case for atheism, that Creation wins every time.

[Az]

125. Thats a mighty large assumption

Spectacular even. Are you dismissing countless scientists (yes I know some believe but many don't). The breadth of that statement is quite astounding. I would be willing to concede that both sides have interesting issues. But wow. Its even self refuting. Would you like to restate it? I have no desire to hold you to a statement that was made in error.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

127. No, I'm sticking with my audacious statement.

[Az]

128. Ok, then please defend your statement

If I understand what you are saying you seem to be insisting that every rational person accepts the creation story as true instead of the findings of science (including theories of cosmological time lines, big bang, evolution and a host of other theories).

Is this what you are saying?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

135. No. I'm saying that if every rational person were to

approach the Bible/Creation story with an open mind, and observe the whole picture, then they would come to believe in the biblical account.

[Az]

137. I like to think I approach the issue with an open mind

And I am going out on a limb and presuming I am rational. And I in all honesty can say I do not find the creation story at all convincing. I could get a rather cumbersome list of individuals who are quite reknowned in various fields that do not agree with the creation story either. I can even suggest a couple of nobel peace prize winners.

All this is not to say that the creation story is not accurate. Simply that your supposition that anyone with an open mind would accept it is flawed.

Let me offer you this. This is a list of some scientists named Steve who do not agree with the creation story and support the theory of evolution.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

PS on edit, there are currently over 500 scientists named Steve who have signed the list.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

140. OK. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

[Az]

141. Many people do

And manage to be able to discuss all manner of issues.

Yes clearly we disagree. Any expectation on either side to convince the other of their errors in a simple conversation such as this is expecting way too much. Instead we can use such exchanges to get a better image of who we are. Atheist and Theist discussions need not be combative. They don't need to have a winner. But it makes for a more informed world if we know each other better and can learn to trust each other in ways.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

149. Indeed. You are quite correct.

[trotsky]

131. You mean bigoted statement.

And if you want to get ticky-tacky, there is nothing "rational" about positing a creator. Theists are quite comfortable putting their god "above" or "beyond" reason, and since rational means based on reason... by definition, belief in god is not rational.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

134. Now who's being bigoted?

Look, I'm not questioning the reasoning ability of anyone. I'm just saying that God as the architect of Creation, is the only thing that makes sense to me, as far as the origins of the universe go. Is this a rational view, in the sense that I can prove it with empirical facts? No. However, as I've said before, it's the only thing that adds up.

[trotsky]

146. Just turning the tables around. Doesn't sound very nice, does it?

Glad you noticed. Also glad you corrected yourself and said it's a rational view *to yourself*, which is definitely a step back from your insulting statement above.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

150. No problem. I realized my error in trying to force my way of thinking,

upon others.

[lazarus]

130. The problem is

That you're completely wrong. Wildly wrong.

For instance, the case for atheism is that there is no evidence of a creator.

The case for Creation is what, exactly? That you can't imagine the universe without a creator? Great.

And thunder is the angels bowling.

Give me the case for Creation that is so persuasive.

[Az]

121. The universe, the mind, and reason

Lets start off with the notion that neither side has all the answers yet. So we can honestly say we don't know ... yet.

This idea of laws governing the universe is a recent trend moving through the creationist community. And insisting it must be so when there are ample theories around to explain it really doesn't make sense. Let's sort through all the theories before we jump to the one that requires an infinitely powerful being to exist. It just seems to be the hard way to go about things creating an infinite being and all. Who knows. In the end we may find out that he/she/it is really hiding out there somewhere.

Selfawareness. It seems to come from my brain. I used to think my brain was my favorite organ. But then I realised which organ was telling me that(Emo Philips). The brain is a pretty complex thing. More complex that we can currently understand. Perhaps it is complex enough to give rise to a mind.

As to your reason for adhering to the rules you do. I would ask you. Do you do it for the reward or do you do it because those actions are who you are? It seems to me behaving in a certain way in expectation of reward may not be the most honest way of living.

Are you suggesting that your own natural inclinations are evil? What is the nature of this reward you seek? If your nature is evil and you must work to adhere to goodness, how is eternity in a place not designed to your sense of good going to affect you? Maybe you are not as evil as this struggle makes you seem.

Let me say that I believe that you would still be a good person even if you didn't have these rules placed upon you by this offer.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

122. I seek the "struggle," not for the reward itself,

but there is a rational expectation of the reward. I feel we ought to do good, because that's what we're called to do. As far as human nature goes, it's not a new concept that while man has the capacity for good (and I believe that most decent people are basically good), human nature is flawed, and as a consequence, we have a capacity for evil. God's Grace gives us the capacity to rise above our fallen nature, and achieve the best in ourselves.

Oh, and are the laws of physics relatively new?

[Az]

124. I just reread what I said

Eesh. Messed that one up. So sorry.

What I meant to say was that the notion that the laws are fined tuned is a recent trend running through the creationist arena.

The trouble with positing God as the creator of the universe is it doesn't really answer the question asked. It just steps us back a level. Instead of wondering where the uninverse came from we are now stuck wondering where God came from. And God seems to be a bit more complex than a simply little old universe. So we are actually a bit further away from understanding anything from this conjecture.

Don't you think idea of God is a little more tuned that the universe?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

126. We don't have to wonder where God came from.

He is, and always was. It just seems to me that everything has to have a cause. God being being the architect of the universe, and more importantly the human person, gives us purpose, value, and worth. It may seem arrogant to some, but I don't think its arrogant to embrace the peculiar and dominant state of man, made in the image of God.

[Az]

129. But that answers nothing

You said clearly: Everything has to have a cause. You use this as the crux to insist that God must be the cause of the universe. But you never indicate what caused God. You have answered nothing. We are still left with an mystery. And you have increased the problems many times over.

I understand it is what you believe. I am merely trying to convey why your argument does not convince those that do not already believe in a god.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

136. I guess you're right,

in that I cannot convince of the existence of God. I cannot prove His existence scientifically. I guess there is always a measure of faith that has to be involved. I cannot force your mind, to accept, what you must come to on your own.

[Az]

138. We aren't looking for proof

Merely evidence. I like to use the story of doubting Thomas as an example. When Jesus rose again and met with some of his disciples Thomas expressed doubt that it was him. He asked for evidence to show him it really was Jesus. Jesus let him touch his wounds.

Doubt is clearly acceptable. And evidence was clearly given when asked. We merely ask for evidence such as Thomas requested. Something we can base our thinking on. As it stands now the only thing we can have faith in is what you claim. And unfortunately your word or anybody elses is simply not enough. As strongly as you believe God exists there are people that believe other gods exist. I hope you see and understand the dilema.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

139. Yes I do.

As for evidence, my argument posits that the creation itself is evidence for God's existence. I realize we don't see eye to eye on this, but that was my argument. I realize that simply standing on Biblical authority isn't evidence enough (for you, I mean). For me, it seems that the universe itself, and a lot of faith, is evidence enough for me. I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I really understand your concern, though, and I appreciate the debate.

[lazarus]

103. We usually have

Most atheists started out atheistss (as all humans do), were indoctrinated into a religion of some form, then broke free. As part of that process, we asked ourselves those questions, a lot.

I believe Az made some good responses. Just to add my own spin to it:

I don't need a god to explain the complexity of the universe. The universe just is. Reality is. I would, in turn, ask why you need to add a creator that is outside the universe to the whole thing, and why the question of who created the creator never comes up.

I got my conscience the same place you got yours. Indoctrination.

For instance, how do you know that cannibalism is wrong? Society frowns on it, that's how. Nobody had to sit you down and say, "Don't eat your friends." But you weren't born knowing it was wrong. You absorbed it through society.

That's how we all develop our morals or ethics, unless we're strong enough as adults to reevaluate what we've been taught and discard those things that are superfluous or illogical.

Hope beyond this life? This life is plenty exciting to me. Is life so boring or miserable that you must focus on the next one?

As someone else once said, we'll find out soon enough. Why worry about it now?

[progressoid]

106. Ummm, no offense, but why ask a theist?

That's like asking a man what it's like being a woman. Even if you find some incredibly intelligent and insightful men that can answer with some degree of accuracy, wouldn't it be better to ask women?

[Az]

107. The better to clear misunderstandings

Ask a man about a woman with a woman standing there prepared to correct the misunderstandings and you may learn something. Stand around staring at each other all day imagining the worst of each other and nothing is gained.

An atheist offering information with no prompting may misunderstand the beliefs that theists have about them. Thus unprompted information may gather little or worsen the situation. The best course is to bring the misconceptiong out into the open where they can be dealt with in a proper manner.

[progressoid]

109. ok

[elshiva]

142. Atheists are human beings

as a panentheist I can make no other pithy observation.

[Az]

143. Ouch

Oh wait.. thats a good thing.... er right? :evilgrin:

[elshiva]

144. Yes that is very good, indeed

I am saddened by the ouch. I did not intend to inflict any pain. I just mean to say just cos I am a panentheist, a believer that Spirit dwells within all matter, it does not give me any special insight into atheism. I am grateful for atheists, life would be boring without atheists. We're all just humans in the end, some of us are decent, some of us are good, some of us are terrible in our deeds. We are entitled to have our own beliefs.

[Az]

145. It was meant as humor

As in the ribbing you would give to a good and trusted friend. No harm felt.

Favorite quote about atheists from Terry Pratchett in the book Small Gods. "The gods like the occaisional atheist. It gives them something to aim at."

[Astarho]

147. Athiests are people

just like the rest of us. The thing that sets them apart from everybody else is a belief: that there is no god. You could split semantic hairs about whether they just don't believe in the Creator of the monotheists, or the various gods of the polytheists or the spirits of the animists or some combination of the above, but the result is the same.

Just like other people, they come in all ranges, from saints to assholes. Some are as apatheic about their lack of faith as some of the theists are as apathetic about their belief. Or they can embrace their godless belief as any fervently as any religious extremist.

[youngred]

148. Atheists

are just like you and me :-). Taking a rational and logical view of the world see nothing which to them indicates the existance of a god or gods believe that there is none. They have reached a different conclusion than I have, and that is more than fine with me :-) I believe the person you are IN this world is more important than whether you believe in a God, a gnome or a purple unicorn