AgnosticWeb.com - Atheism

Atheism (reply)

Carl — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:32:11 +0000

In case anyone still has an appetite for more on the god/science debate, here is more. The article is from Scientific American about Stuart Kauffman. But there are ten pages of comments after it, and some of them are interesting. I haven't read all ten pages yet. - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sacred-science

Atheism (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:18:35 +0000

Discussions of "atheism" cause me increasing irritation. I'm with Sam Harris in thinking that it is an unhelpful term. I'm a rationalist, and that leads me to the conclusion that most of the many types of "god" espoused by the many types of theists have no reality. So I suppose am an "atheist" in respect of those concepts. - This discussion group is made up of people who do not believe there is a divine force, who do believe there is a divine force, and those who don't know either way. English terms force us to discuss atheism, agnosticism and theism. Perhaps 'atheism' is being perceived as being delivered as a derogatory term. That should not be so. I consider myself a rationalist also, but I have reached a different conclusion than George from the same evidence. He is just as correct as I am. We will never know the 'entire truth' that underlies our reality as we are allowed by our brains and bodies to perceive it. Quantum uncertainty blocks the path of discovery and there are no proposals among scientists that there is a way past that wall. And I agree with George that the helterskelter theologies of the many religions create enormous uncertainty as to the 'truth',and suggest that none of them is any closer to the truth than those of us thinking for ourselves as we offer our opinions here.

Atheism (reply)

Carl — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:56:29 +0000

A suggestion to approach the atheism discussion is to substitute the word "agent" for god, with the understanding that it represents singular or plural without the awkward "agent/agents" usage. Since an agent can be animate or inanimate, it could be Jehovah or the primordial soup of yore. Next would be a list of necessary attributes that the agent must have. A start: 1) ability to create a stable universe, 2) ability to set the physical constants such that they produce energy and matter, galaxies, stars and elements, 3) ability to produce matter that could support life and conscious intelligence. Another list could be attributes the agent might possible have. 1) intelligence, 2) consciousness, 3) intent or will, 4) interest in the details Another list could be unlikely attributes such as 1) jealousy, 2) favoritism, 3) interest in sex with virgins. I don't know if the idea has possibilities, but I will submit it.

Atheism (reply)

George Jelliss — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:47:57 +0000

Discussions of "atheism" cause me increasing irritation. I'm with Sam Harris in thinking that it is an unhelpful term. I'm a rationalist, and that leads me to the conclusion that most of the many types of "god" espoused by the many types of theists have no reality. So I suppose am an "atheist" in respect of those concepts. - Questions of soul and survival after death are a separate question aren't they? There also I find the evidence unpersuasive. Does that make me an "asoulist" or "antimetempsychosist" or something? - Questions of whether there is something beyond the physical universe are philosophical or metaphysical questions that are also not necessarily connected to belief in gods, and turn largely on what you mean by "physical" and "universe" and "beyond" and "something".

Atheism (reply)

dhw — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:03:19 +0000

I asked George if there was anything in Dawkins' explanation of atheism that he disagreed with. - George: Yes there is. Try inverting what Dawkins wrote. Sorry, George, but that still doesn't tell me which aspects don't apply to your kind of atheism. - I don't want to prolong this discussion if it causes you irritation, but although the rest of your posting is clear enough, I still can't see what you object to in Dawkins' list. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you could humour me and tell me which of these statements you disagree with: - An atheist believes: 1) There is nothing beyond the natural, physical world. 2) There is no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe. 3) There is no soul that outlasts the body. 4) There are no miracles ... except in the sense of natural phenomena we don't understand. 5) If something appears to lie beyond the natural world, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. - Meanwhile, though, I'm very interested in the implications of your final paragraph, which incidentally seems to tie in with 1) and 5), but don't take that as a criticism! - You wrote: What does it mean to talk about something "beyond the natural, physical world"? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical. - BBella has talked of sounds and vibrations within the universe, and of a NDE or OBE, and David has also done much research into the latter field. We know that animals sense things which are beyond our human perception. String theory suggests that there may be anything up to eleven dimensions. The implication of all this may be that experiences we cannot comprehend now ... e.g. ESP, OBEs etc. ... are nonetheless real, but only accessible to senses that have in some way been heightened. This does not, of course, in any way mean that every experience of the so-called supernatural is real, but it does mean that theoretically there is no limit to how far we might extend our concept of the natural world. Once again we need to be open-minded about these phenomena, although I agree with you when you say "methods of reason and experiment are the only reliable ways we know of for explaining anything."

Atheism (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:13:48 +0000

dhw asks: "It would be interesting to know, George, if there is anything in Dawkins' explanation of atheism with which you disagree." - Yes there is. Try inverting what Dawkins wrote: - "A theist in this sense of philosophical non-naturalist is somebody who believes there is something beyond the natural, physical world, such as some supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, such as a soul that outlasts the body and such as miracles ... although not in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we theists hope eventually never to understand it scientifically or to embrace it within the natural." - I doubt if any theists would agree to this definition. - The beliefs of "theists" are multitudinous. So the unbeliefs of atheists must be equally multitudinous. There is no such thing as the monolithic "Atheism" that you postulate, nor is there any Evil Atheist Conspiracy that many theists fantasise about. Because there is no such thing as a monolithic "Theism". In my experience no two theists have the same beliefs. - I'm a rationalist empiricist. That is to say I base my beliefs on logic and evidence; this process, or part of it, can be called "scientific method". I do not have preconceived ideas as to what is true, or any "faith" that "science" will explain everything. The methods of reason and experiment are the only reliable ways we know of for explaining anything. - What does it mean to talk about something "beyond the natural, physical world"? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical.

Atheism (reply)

dhw — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:17:21 +0000

George wrote: In his latest new thread on "The Arts" dhw begins with: "Atheism presupposes that there is nothing beyond the physical world, which is why it puts its faith in science (i.e. the study of the physical world) to explain everything." - I'm sorry that you found this bald summary offensive, and am grateful to you for keeping your complaint separate from the arts, which was my intended focus. The comment in fact came at the end of my thread, which was an appeal for help in understanding certain phenomena that seem to defy physical explanation. It was not intended as a criticism, and was certainly not meant personally, but since you have objected so strongly, I'd like to take it a little further. - One needs to distinguish between the belief and the believer, and I will happily withdraw the word "presuppose" if that is what has caused the misunderstanding. The atheist belief is that there is no God, and theism is the belief that there is a God. You have done your research, and have decided that on the available evidence, atheism is the belief you wish to embrace. But if you still have an open mind about there being something beyond the physical world, that area of open-mindedness is not atheism. - Dawkins has given a more detailed account of what I was trying to summarize: - "An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles ... except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful." - Dawkins' combination of belief and hope (that unexplained phenomena will be embraced "within the natural") is what I meant by the atheist faith that science will explain everything. If he is right, and there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, I would have thought it was fair to say that theoretically science may eventually fulfil his hope. It would be interesting to know, George, if there is anything in Dawkins' explanation of atheism with which you disagree. - I have deliberately left in the last sentence, which I like enormously. In my experience, there is no difference between theists, agnostics and atheists when it comes to aesthetic appreciation.

Atheism (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:22:07 +0000

In his latest new thread on "The Arts" dhw begins with: "Atheism presupposes that there is nothing beyond the physical world, which is why it puts its faith in science (i.e. the study of the physical world) to explain everything." - I'd just like to respond to the implicit presumptions in this statement. I'm an atheist, but that view is a consequence of a considerable chain of thought. I do not start out by taking nonexistence of gods as an axiom. As far as possible I try not "presuppose" anything. I'm an atheist because the evidence for the existence of gods, as I have evaluated it, appears woefully inadequate. - Second dhw defines "science" as "the study of the physical world". Some people do define science in this way, but again this prejudges many issues. I prefer to regard science as the study of everything, i.e. "the world", whether "physical" or not, by whatever means are available and arguable and communicable. - Finally, to summarise dhw, he is saying "Atheism ... puts its faith in science." No it bloody well doesn't! This frankly bigoted attitude to atheists is surely something dhw should have got over by now. There are a lot of Theists who put their faith (i.,e. trust) in science, people like Ken Miller or Francis Collins or Polkinghorne for example. They evaluate the evidence differently. - I would of course argue that their reasoning is flawed, in most cases as a result of the way they have been brought up to believe in religion from a young age. But I wouldn't say something like: "Theism presupposes that there is something beyond the physical world, which is why it puts its faith in the supernatural to explain everything." !

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:41:47 +0000

Cary may be a formal student of logic. I am an informal logician, but those statements of Cary's are absolutely logical.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

Cary Cook — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:15:04 +0000

If you want fuzzy logic, you're welcome to it. I have no use for fuzz. I'm here to clarify. Unless you disagree with something I've said, I'm done.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:46:57 +0000

I applaud George's response. Read everything on all sides and then try to make your own decisions. One can do no better than quote Feynmann.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:55:42 +0000

Contrary to Cary I don't think it is possible to be absolutely 100% cast iron certain about anything. But this doesn't mean I can't be reasonably certain for all practical purposes. This is not "epistemological nihilism" as he calls it. It is just common sense. - For all I know I could be a figment of the red King's dream, or we could all be part of a computer simulation by some superFrankenstein in a parallel universe. However until evidence of this is forthcoming it is just a sensible assumption to start from that what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). - Aristotelian logic is a useful tool, but it depends on clear definitions of the terms and clear articulation of the steps in the arguments (such as one finds in Euclid). I would recommend Bart Kosko's book on Fuzzy Logic as a good read.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

George Jelliss — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:35:50 +0000

"George is absolutely correct." That's most gratifying to hear! - "Also if one does not have a science background, those authors who describe science with an agenda, literally falsifing known material /// must be understood and avoided." I also like that. - However, where David Turell puts in the name of "such as Kenneth Miller" I would put in "such as creationists" and others associated with the Discovery Institute or the Templeton Foundation. I'm sure David realises that everyone has an agenda. The reason I feel I can trust Kenneth Miller is that his agenda, being a theist, is contrary to my own, being a convinced atheist. Of course to arrive at the truth one has to read all the sources and make one's own judgment, and that's not easy. - There is a quote from Richard Feynman on this that I like: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

Cary Cook — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:57:21 +0000

By immediate knowledge, I claim 100% certainty of the following: I exist, I think, I emote, I perceive, I will. - By impossibility of the contrary, I claim 100% certainty of the following: 1. Objective truth and objective reality exist. 2. Some objective truth is knowable. 3. Some truth can be expressed in language. 4. Some declarative statements are true. 5. Logic is reliable for determining the consistency of any 2 declarative statements. - To deny any of the above is epistemological nihilism. If you are an epistemological nihilist, you deny your own justification for making any declarative statement, including your own assertion of uncertainty.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:44:13 +0000

George has stated "Having read David Warden's first post in this thread for the first time, I think my position, as an atheist, is similar to his, but perhaps even more strongly atheistic. The question for me, regarding any belief about anything, is where's the proof? To believe something is true, and even more to "believe in" it (i.e. with an emotional motivational commitment), I require overwhelming evidence, reinforced by personal experience......... I look upon this issue just the same as any other speculation, such as string theory or parallel universes or dark matter or theories that the world is run by shape-changing alien lizards. Until the evidence comes in I regard them with various degrees of scepticism." - George is absolutely correct. There are two steps. First scientific findings that can be fully accepted, not the string ruminations that go nowhere for 25 years. Also if one does not have a science background, those authors who describe science with an agenda, literally falsifing known material such as Kenneth Miller, must be understood and avoided. - Then the second step depends upon the individual. Does the evidence take one beyond a reasonable doubt? God is concealed, by definition. God will never be proven by science as a result. One has to be willing to accept a preponderance of evidence, and that willingness is the issue.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000

One of your categories referred to 100% certainty. I'm just pointing out that in reality such certainty does not exist. In practice we are justified in accepting a close approximation to 100% as being certain enough to act upon.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

Cary Cook — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:36:20 +0000

George - Your post appears under mine, but it doesn't appear to address anything I've said. Do you disagree with anything I've said? - You also bring up the fact that the term belief is ambiguous. I've started a new thread to address this issue.

Atheism: How Certain is Certain? (reply)

George Jelliss — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:05:08 +0000

Having read David Warden's first post in this thread for the first time, I think my position, as an atheist, is similar to his, but perhaps even more strongly atheistic. The question for me, regarding any belief about anything, is where's the proof? - To believe something is true, and even more to "believe in" it (i.e. with an emotional motivational commitment), I require overwhelming evidence, reinforced by personal experience. Since I have no experience of gods or ghosts, and I find the arguments and evidences and excuses put forward to believe in them completely inadequate, I just refuse to believe in them. It's as simple as that. No faith is involved. - Of course I can't "absolutely" prove the nonexistence of gods or afterlives, though I would have considerable difficulty in fitting such concepts into the scientific worldview that I accept, on the basis of evidence that I consider to be overwhelming and thoroughly consistent within itself. This scientific worldview provides a fully inclusive account of cosmology from the generalities of relativity to the particularities of atomic theory, quantum physics and chemistry and also biological evolution. I have no need for other hypotheses. - There are sufficient unsolved questions of course within this scientific worldview to keep scientists busy for many years to come. If they come up with evidence for gods or ghosts I'll be quite happy to consider it, but it seems unlikely to appear. I look upon this issue just the same as any other speculation, such as string theory or parallel universes or dark matter or theories that the world is run by shape-changing alien lizards. Until the evidence comes in I regard them with various degrees of scepticism.

Atheism (reply)

Cary Cook — Mon, 26 May 2008 05:27:00 +0000

Then your location within my definitions would depend on how God is defined. Here are some possibilities: - 1. The Supreme Being (that which created the first created thing) 2. The Creator of this universe. 3. The Guy in charge of this universe. 4. The Creator of mankind. 5. The Guy to whom mankind is accountable. 6. Any of several versions of a Being described in a body of literature regarded as Scripture - Of course anyone can assert that any combination of the above are all one Guy, but that can't be proven or disproven. - I would guess that you, as the kind of panentheist you describe, would fit into the above definitions as follows: 1. theist 2. theist 3. agnostic 4. theist 5. agnostic 6. agnostic - How'd I do?

Atheism (reply)

Cary Cook — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:15:37 +0000

My apologies for misreading you. Okay, it looks like we're off to a good start.