Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you have any examples of immaterial beings that are known to exist?

I don't think there is any basis for your dichotomous ontology

 

[Bunyip]

I wasn't objecting. I have never been involved in a study on the scientific religion, so if atheists presented a problem for the mainstream/accepted theory I wouldn't affect me. I was just pointing out that they are evidence themselves as I find this interesting and providing you with a sample study of how this is so.

Comparing them to a religion is just obfuscation. They are not a religion, unless you redefine the word out of all meaning.

So you've said. That's not an argument, and is why I am not going to present arguments as I have done just so you can dismiss them without evidence, as you just did.


I am merely reporting the science. If you have objections with that or other similar research, you can present them here if you wish, but simply dismissing the literature without being aware of what it contains is the very reason I am not going to get drawn into a debate in which I present arguments and you do what you just did. In this thread, you repeatedly stated things about the new atheist that were not in fact true, you never once presented an actual argument from them I had to present their arguments and then critique them only only to have you "clarify" your position to align with what I presented theirs to be.


Oh it's worth discussing. Were it not, it wouldn't be considered a problem in general for physicists.

I have presented an argument, one that Stenger mirrored - you have ignored it. Mainly because you know it can not be defeated.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think there is any basis for your dichotomous ontology

LOL. It is the founding assumption of theistic religions. So you think there are extant immaterial beings? If not what is there for NA to refute?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Comparing them to a religion is just obfuscation. They are not a religion, unless you redefine the word out of all meaning.

That was already done. Our concept of religion today is based off of a view of religion that developed within medieval Christianity (religion its own, separate aspect/component of the socio-cultural sphere), and doesn't fit most religions historically and many today (and it fits many today that it wouldn't had not extensive West/East contact created a dynamic whereby aspect of Eastern traditions and culture were "Westernized" such that religion came to fit the modern definition. The scientific study of religion has had to strike a sort of middle ground, allowing religion to consist of what it has typically been for as far back as we have evidence to describe it to the doctrinal/belief-system religion that is readily separated from familial, civil, communal, and other socio-cultural phenomena/processes.

I have presented an argument, one that Stenger mirrored - you have ignored it.

I recall this:

Stenger does not rely on arguments for atheism - you refer to the non-existent.

which wasn't true. If you wish to remind me of another reference to Stenger you made that perhaps I missed or misunderstood, feel free.

 

[Bunyip]

That was already done. Our concept of religion today is based off of a view of religion that developed within medieval Christianity (religion its own, separate aspect/component of the socio-cultural sphere), and doesn't fit most religions historically and many today (and it fits many today that it wouldn't had not extensive West/East contact created a dynamic whereby aspect of Eastern traditions and culture were "Westernized" such that religion came to fit the modern definition. The scientific study of religion has had to strike a sort of middle ground, allowing religion to consist of what it has typically been for as far back as we have evidence to describe it to the doctrinal/belief-system religion that is readily separated from familial, civil, communal, and other socio-cultural phenomena/processes.

Relevance?

I recall this:

which wasn't true. If you wish to remind me of another reference to Stenger you made that perhaps I missed or misunderstood, feel free.

That apparent conflict has been addressed specifically at least a dozen times.
You are yet to engage with Stenger's argument other than endlessly repeating the same objection that has been addressed a dozen times.

Can you address the argument or not?

How can an immaterial being exist? Do you have any examples of known immaterial beings?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL. It is the founding assumption of theistic religions.

It's not. It wouldn't have made any sense people even 1,000 years ago and would have been completely alien to everyone from the Greek philosophers to the early Christians. The words in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite, Hebrew, Sumerian, and other languages for things like spirit, soul, etc., tended to be based on and related to physical things like breath, air, etc. The original "elements" were 4 or 5-fold, not dichotomous (Earth= "material", but "air", "water", "fire", and/or "spirit" were all distinct and all immaterial. In the ancient East, just as with the Greeks, there was more than one "organ of thought" and the ancient Sanskrit sources relate forms of perception to breath/air.

Meanwhile, the gods were quite physical. It was vitally important to early Christians and many Christians today that the resurrection be bodily. If anything, religion (including theism) throughout the ages was more materialistic than today (recall that mind/body dualism dates to Descartes, and is less than 500 years old).

So you think there are extant immaterial beings? If not what is there for NA to refute?

I think that immaterial is a word that has lost its meaning as we have come to realize that
1) "Matter" includes things we used to call immaterial
2) There are a number of diverse reasons, from special relativity to quite simple philosophical reason to think of processes as both real and immaterial
3) There are immaterial phenomena that have causal effects on physical systems.

There are other issues, but these few suffice for now.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Relevance?

How religion is defined by those who seek to study it scientifically has to accord with how religion presents itself. Often, this has much more to do with what we would consider separate from religion, because our conception of religion is quite biased.

You are yet to engage with Stenger's argument other than endlessly repeating the same objection that has been addressed a dozen times.

Stenger made multiple arguments and I wrote an entire post on some of them. If you would like to direct me to the argument you refer to then I will be happy to address it.

Do you have any examples of known immaterial beings?

No, but I know of immaterial things that exist, and I have good reason for thinking your dichotomy is both unnecessarily restrictive but worse incompatible with modern physics.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not. It wouldn't have made any sense people even 1,000 years ago and would have been completely alien to everyone from the Greek philosophers to the early Christians. The words in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite, Hebrew, Sumerian, and other languages for things like spirit, soul, etc., tended to be based on and related to physical things like breath, air, etc. The original "elements" were 4 or 5-fold, not dichotomous (Earth= "material", but "air", "water", "fire", and/or "spirit" were all distinct and all immaterial. In the ancient East, just as with the Greeks, there was more than one "organ of thought" and the ancient Sanskrit sources relate forms of perception to breath/air.

Meanwhile, the gods were quite physical. It was vitally important to early Christians and many Christians today that the resurrection be bodily. If anything, religion (including theism) throughout the ages was more materialistic than today (recall that mind/body dualism dates to Descartes, and is less than 5,00 years old).

So what? Nobody needs to waste their time disproving physical gods. No modern theologians even argue for one.

I think that immaterial is a word that has lost its meaning as we have come to realize that
1) "Matter" includes things we used to call immaterial

Not any beings though, whicch is the topic.

2) There are a number of diverse reasons, from special relativity to quite simple philosophical reason to think of processes as both real and immaterial

Not beings though - that being the topic.

3) There are immaterial phenomena that have causal effects on physical systems.

Sure, not beings though - that being the topic.

There are other issues, but these few suffice for now.

How are they issues? None of them relate to immaterial beings existing.

 

[Bunyip]

How religion is defined by those who seek to study it scientifically has to accord with how religion presents itself. Often, this has much more to do with what we would consider separate from religion, because our conception of religion is quite biased.


Stenger made multiple arguments and I wrote an entire post on some of them. If you would like to direct me to the argument you refer to then I will be happy to address it.

It was the one YOU quoted, about how immaterial beings do not exist. You have referred to it a number of times.

No, but I know of immaterial things that exist, and I have good reason for thinking your dichotomy is both unnecessarily restrictive but worse incompatible with modern physics.

Wonderful, but you agree that we have no precedent of immaterial beings and no examples?[/QUOTE]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what? Nobody needs to waste their time disproving physical gods.

I didn't say they did. You made a claim about the "the founding assumption of theistic religions" which isn't true. I was simply noting that it wasn't true and noting the ways that it wasn't. Also, and again, your dichotomy is mostly rejected by everybody, as "materialism" has either been replaced with term "physicalism" or used as physicalists use the term physicalism: to refer to things studied in physics, rather than things made up of "material" or things that are "tangible".

No modern theologians even argue for one

Actually many do. I don't know of any theistic theologians off-hand who do, but there are certainly theologians who do.

Sure, not beings though

Once non-physical phenomena are granted, it becomes possible to posit non-physical beings without, particularly given the ways in which our notions of the physical have changed so drastically. True, it does not follow that because non-physical phenomena exist then therefore there are non-physical beings, but it and other things do allow for a stronger basis from which to argue that a non-physical being exists.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't say they did. You made a claim about the "the founding assumption of theistic religions" which isn't true. I was simply noting that it wasn't true and noting the ways that it wasn't. Also, and again, your dichotomy is mostly rejected by everybody, as "materialism" has either been replaced with term "physicalism" or used as physicalists use the term physicalism: to refer to things studied in physics, rather than things made up of "material" or things that are "tangible".


Actually many do. I don't know of any theistic theologians off-hand who do, but there are certainly theologians who do.

Fantastic, name one.

Once non-physical phenomena are granted, it becomes possible to posit non-physical beings without, particularly given the ways in which our notions of the physical have changed so drastically. True, it does not follow that because non-physical phenomena exist then therefore there are non-physical beings, but it and other things do allow for a stronger basis from which to argue that a non-physical being exists.

Great, but it remains true that we know of no such beings.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It was the one YOU quoted, about how immaterial beings do not exist.

In that case I have addressed it several times. To me the notion of this material/immaterial dichotomy is the equivalent of arguing that there exist only particles (which was the materialist view). As for the proof he quoted:
"(1) If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
(2) If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
(3) A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
(4) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3)"

Number 2 is an equivocation fallacy. The idea of a personal god has nothing to do with being a person, and therefore nothing to do with being physical.

 

[Bunyip]

In that case I have addressed it several times. To me the notion of this material/immaterial dichotomy is the equivalent of arguing that there exist only particles (which was the materialist view).

No, energy exists within materialism, not just particles. Materialist science does explore such things Legion. They are physics, not metaphysics.

for the proof he quoted:
"(1) If God exists, then he is nonphysical.
(2) If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
(3) A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.
(4) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3)"

Number 2 is an equivocation fallacy. The idea of a personal god has nothing to do with being a person, and therefore nothing to do with being physical.

Then what is it? If god is not a person and nothing to do with the physical how can his existence be relevant to anything? If he is not a person, what on earth (or off it) is he? What are you expecting the NA to argue against? A personal god that is not a person and whose existence is impossible? Why bother?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Fantastic, name one.

Apart from (probably) Spinoza, your best bet to find easy information (and theologians) is with process theology. Pantheism is related to it, but is harder to nail down.

Great, but it remains true that we know of no such beings.

Some would argue they do know. They believe they have experienced the divine. I haven't. But arguing that we don't know of such things isn't much of an argument. It's bordering on a kind of reverse "god-in-the-gaps".

 

[Bunyip]

Apart from (probably) Spinoza, your best bet to find easy information (and theologians) is with process theology. Pantheism is related to it, but is harder to nail down.

Spinoxa's god I believe in - it doesn't conflict with my atheism. Or give the NA anything to worry about.

Some would argue they do know. They believe they have experienced the divine. I haven't. But arguing that we don't know of such things isn't much of an argument. It's bordering on a kind of reverse "god-in-the-gaps".

A reverse of a fallacy does not make the original fallacy any less of a fallacy. It is moot.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, energy exists within materialism, not just particles.

Does work? Because work and energy are intimately related and defined in terms of one another. Is work material?

Materialist science does explore such things Legion.

I've very aware of what scientists, particularly physicists, explore. I'm also aware that you have just defined as material a property of a system, and better yet one that even in relativistic physics is equated with work (by equated, I mean related to energy via equations, which is they only way either are defined in physics).

If god is not a person and nothing to do with the physical how can his existence be relevant to anything?

The equivocation (and it's actually two fallacies because we go from equivocation with the use of personal to "person") revolves not around god being a person but around defining "personal' in the sense of a "personal god" only to relate it to the sense of "personal" as in "relating to persons". As for how the non-physical can be relevant, I have already given you an example of a causal mechanism or link that has no material or physical existence and the only way we are able to know of it is through the causal power it exercises on physical systems. Thus it is possible for entirely non-physical "things" to both exist and be relevant in perhaps the most fundamental way (causally).

If he is not a person, what on earth (or off it) is he?

I'm not arguing that god exists, I'm arguing that the argument against god that you pointed me to (which I provided you to start with) is fallacious and baseless. It is fallacious for reasons I specified already, and baseless because you have to ask the question you just did. The point of a proof is to not have to rely on absence of evidence. This was the tact of atheists like Russell, and for good reason. Russell would not have to defend such an idiotic proof for the same reason he didn't with his teapot.

What are you expecting the NA to argue against?

I'm not expecting them to argue much of anything, and so far they have lived up to that reputation.

A personal god that is not a person and whose existence is impossible? Why bother?

This again is a serious failing in the new atheist literature. Assume an epistemology and, having assumed it, prove it. Behe defended (and still does, somehow) his notion of irreducible complexity with just such an argument: it is impossible for X trait to evolve because it is irreducibly complex (which causes endless grief for those of us working in complexity science and have to explain that his notion is unrelated, idiomatic, and idiotic).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Spinoza's god I believe in - it doesn't conflict with my atheism.

Nothing can be conceived without god and god is the cause of all things?

A reverse of a fallacy does not make the original fallacy any less of a fallacy. It is moot.

It wasn't a reverse of the fallacy. It was the same logic as the fallacy, and both are flawed.

 

[Bunyip]

Does work? Because work and energy are intimately related and defined in terms of one another. Is work material?


I've very aware of what scientists, particularly physicists, explore. I'm also aware that you have just defined as material a property of a system, and better yet one that even in relativistic physics is equated with work (by equated, I mean related to energy via equations, which is they only way either are defined in physics).


The equivocation (and it's actually two fallacies because we go from equivocation with the use of personal to "person") revolves not around god being a person but around defining "personal' in the sense of a "personal god" only to relate it to the sense of "personal" as in "relating to persons". As for how the non-physical can be relevant, I have already given you an example of a causal mechanism or link that has no material or physical existence and the only way we are able to know of it is through the causal power it exercises on physical systems. Thus it is possible for entirely non-physical "things" to both exist and be relevant in perhaps the most fundamental way (causally).

Yes, but your example was not a being - it was irrelevant.You need an example of an immaterial being.

I'm not arguing that god exists, I'm arguing that the argument against god that you pointed me to (which I provided you to start with) is fallacious and baseless. It is fallacious for reasons I specified already, and baseless because you have to ask the question you just did. The point of a proof is to not have to rely on absence of evidence. This was the tact of atheists like Russell, and for good reason. Russell would not have to defend such an idiotic proof for the same reason he didn't with his teapot.

Not at all, it can only be said to be fallacious when you come up with a counter example - which you can not.

I'm not expecting them to argue much of anything, and so far they have lived up to that reputation.


This again is a serious failing in the new atheist literature. Assume an epistemology and, having assumed it, prove it. Behe defended (and still does, somehow) his notion of irreducible complexity with just such an argument: it is impossible for X trait to evolve because it is irreducibly complex (which causes endless grief for those of us working in complexity science and have to explain that his notion is unrelated, idiomatic, and idiotic).

 

[Bunyip]

Nothing can be conceived without god and god is the cause of all things?

Prove it.

It wasn't a reverse of the fallacy. It was the same logic as the fallacy, and both are flawed.

Exactly, so that the reverse is flawed is moot. There is no need to counter a fallacy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, but your example was not a being - it was irrelevant.

I don't have to prove the existence of an immaterial being, I just have to address the "proof" as you asked. It suffices to note that the proof rests on an a equivocation fallacy, but I chose to go further into the problems it contains. Regardless, in order to show an argument is wrong, I need not show that the converse is true. Were this the case, and it is in mathematics and logic, then I could say that there exists a non-physical god named YHWH, because in order for this to be false it must be true that there exists a non-physical god whose name is not YHWH.

scanned and cropped from Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms by Hubbard and Hubbard.

You need an example of an immaterial being.

I would need that to prove such a being, not to show that a proof that no such being exists is flawed and proves nothing.

Not at all, it can only be said to be fallacious when you come up with a counter example - which you can not.

That won't work well for you:

(ibid)