Athiesm and disproving God

[Revoltingest]

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[42] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

My question is more about how you attribute Hoyle's apparent error to his atheism (later agnostic deism) & to atheists in general. I'll wager that most cosmologists were believers, so if an overwhelming majority of them preferred the steady state theory, then this would include believers. Could it be just plain old fashioned reluctance to embrace something new & revolutionary?

Here's the thing....all people are subject to personal prejudices & agendas, both believers & non-believers. There will always be examples of each rejecting a theory because it doesn't fit their notions of how reality should behave. The most iconic example is Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics' (which he helped found) probabilistic imprecision because God doesn't play dice with the universe. And at times, these same people can rise above these limitations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

continental drift versus the origins of the universe? hardly the same league is it?!
by that measure the inventor of the chip clip should have got one too!

Point being, Lemaitre's and his unparalleled discovery, were not celebrated as others were, because it was simply not very popular, not the answer the majority of atheist academia were looking for, many of them outwardly mocked it.

Wegener first proposed continental drift in 1912. It didn't gain wide acceptance until the 1950s. Why would the supposed atheist conspiracy wait forty years to sound the death knell for creationism?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My question is more about how you attribute Hoyle's apparent error to his atheism (later agnostic deism) & to atheists in general. I'll wager that most cosmologists were believers, so if an overwhelming majority of them preferred the steady state theory, then this would include believers. Could it be just plain old fashioned reluctance to embrace something new & revolutionary?

Here's the thing....all people are subject to personal prejudices & agendas, both believers & non-believers. There will always be examples of each rejecting a theory because it doesn't fit their notions of how reality should behave. The most iconic example is Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics' (which he helped found) probabilistic imprecision because God doesn't play dice with the universe. And at times, these same people can rise above these limitations.

Hoyle and others specifically cited the theistic implications in their rejection

Yes we agree here, we all have beliefs and that's a good thing- and that's really the point, it helps to acknowledge those beliefs.

Lemaitre was able to separate his beliefs from his theory- because he acknowledged he had beliefs. Many atheists refuse to acknowledge atheism is even a belief at all- so like Hoyle, are incapable of separating it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hoyle and others specifically cited the theistic implications in their rejection

I don't doubt you. I even recall being taught the steady state theory in the 60s (but as an alternative to the by then more popular big bang theory). But you haven't made the general case, ie, that this reaction was anti-theological on a large scale. (Hoyle is a single piece of date.) Similarly, I wouldn't use Einstein's boo boo as reason to paint all believers with a broad brush...especially since Lemaitre is a counter example.

Yes we agree here, we all have beliefs and that's a good thing- and that's really the point, it helps to acknowledge those beliefs. Lemaitre was able to separate his beliefs from his theory- because he acknowledged he had beliefs. Many atheists refuse to acknowledge atheism is even a belief at all- so like Hoyle, are incapable of separating it.

I agree that the disbelief of atheism is a belief. I further agree that all should eschew the certainty which blinds us to possible alternatives. Lemaitre & Einstein both would've had personal failings, but each made some significant contributions by going where evidence & reason led them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wegener first proposed continental drift in 1912. It didn't gain wide acceptance until the 1950s. Why would the supposed atheist conspiracy wait forty years to sound the death knell for creationism?

'there was no creation event hence there was no creator', this was an extremely definitive line in the sand drawn by atheists at the time. This has long been and still is considered the definitive way to make God 'redundant' - a holy grail in certain academic circles

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

'there was no creation event hence there was no creator', this was an extremely definitive line in the sand drawn by atheists at the time. This has long been and still is considered the definitive way to make God 'redundant' - a holy grail in certain academic circles

You didn't answer my question. Try again.

Why was a supposed atheist conspiracy so reluctant to accept a theory that did so much damage to the creationist cause?

 

[McBell]

'there was no creation event hence there was no creator', this was an extremely definitive line in the sand drawn by atheists at the time. This has long been and still is considered the definitive way to make God 'redundant' - a holy grail in certain academic circles

You seem to have missed the meat of the post you replied to.

Why wait 40 years?

 

[Revoltingest]

see above, the fact that this history is so little known underscores the point.
For the greatest scientific discovery of all time, Lemaitre never got a nobel prize, and is still largely unheard of.

Significant though it be, I wouldn't rank this discovery as the greatest.
But you've invited me to do some mischief here:
If you're thinking that Xians are shortchanged in the Nobel prize department, don't forget Obama (an avowed Xian) garnered an entirely unearned & ludicrous Peace Prize.

 

[Revoltingest]

yes, they didn't like it because it didn't fit their atheist beliefs, if you don't think so- you would have had to argue the point with them, they were very explicit about it. The very idea of a creation event was considered an argument against atheism.

It shouldn't matter what belief a theory fits should it?

I don't see the big bang as a "creation event". It was certainly an event, but simply one whose origin & pre-history aren't amenable the analysis by our current understanding. We don't know what larger picture it's a part of, so it's neither an argument for or against the existence of gods.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't doubt you. I even recall being taught the steady state theory in the 60s (but as an alternative to the by then more popular big bang theory). But you haven't made the general case, ie, that this reaction was anti-theological on a large scale. (Hoyle is a single piece of date.) Similarly, I wouldn't use Einstein's boo boo as reason to paint all believers with a broad brush...especially since Lemaitre is a counter example.

Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge, but the quote in bold above is a reasonable summary. he was quite open about his atheism and reasons for objecting to creation events, as others like Bonner were. There is no petition signed by atheists I can link you too that spells it out any clearer. the fact that his pejorative term was adopted over the more descriptive term 'primeval atom' given by it's founder is telling in itself.


So you don't acknowledge atheism as a belief?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see the big bang as a "creation event". It was certainly an event, but simply one whose origin & pre-history aren't amenable the analysis by our current understanding. It's neither an argument for or against the existence of gods.

Yes I know, once proven, the overt implications that atheists complained of mysteriously vanished..!

 

[McBell]

So you don't acknowledge atheism as a belief?

What do you claim atheism is a belief of?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you don't acknowledge atheism as a belief?

I do. To elaborate, I believe there are no gods, but this is speculative because there is no way to prove such a thing. Of course, other atheists might disagree.

As the great philosopher, Harry Callahan, said....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What do you claim atheism is a belief of?

I make no claims, I'm simply skeptical of yours..

not a very productive debate is it?

 

[McBell]

I make no claims, I'm simply skeptical of yours..

not a very productive debate is it?

I have made no claim about atheism and beliefs.
So I am curious as to what claim you claim I claimed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do. To elaborate, I believe there are no gods, but this is speculative because there is no way to prove such a thing. Of course, other atheists might disagree.

Likewise I believe there are no naturalistic mechanisms that created the universe, it's speculative, no proof, we both have beliefs, we're both curious about why we're here

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have made no claim about atheism and beliefs.
So I am curious as to what claim you claim I claimed.

I'm an anaturalist, I make no claims, I have no beliefs. I simply reject any belief in any naturalistic universe creating mechanism until proven otherwise

 

[Revoltingest]

Likewise I believe there are no naturalistic mechanisms that created the universe, it's speculative, no proof, we both have beliefs, we're both curious about why we're here

Detente so soon?
No, this won't do....
You're a poopy head!

 

[McBell]

I'm an anaturalist, I make no claims, I have no beliefs. I simply reject any belief in any naturalistic universe creating mechanism until proven otherwise

You did make a claim:

I'm simply skeptical of yours...
​

What claim do you claim I claimed?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What claim do you claim I claimed?[/

You did make a claim:

I'm simply skeptical of yours...
​

What claim do you claim I claimed?

anaturalism makes no claims, what claim do you claim an annaturist claims if an anaturalist were to claim a claim?