How I Feel About Atheists

[NoRightOrWrong]

Excellent post. But I have two questions.

What in nature ensures that natural laws are being followed and the results are structured?



How can you, being a product of the same universe, conclude this? Can a carburettor in a car decide that the car cannot have a reason? Only a being/entity that knows the car as a whole say whether car came about on its own or it was designed or created as per a plan.

I may be wrong in my understanding and will gladly be corrected.

Your understanding and questions are completely reasonable and valid. They make perfect dense to me. You are not wrong in your understanding of these matters. There is no right or wrong. There is only your understanding and your view and no one can invalidate or negate them,

 

[LuisDantas]

I have not read the whole thread and I am not talking of ID. But I have a question.

Why do you think that evolution is a blind unguided process (if you do so)? Does TOE specifically stipulate that or is it a philosophical extension?

The question was not directed to me, but neither really.

It is just the logical conclusion from seeing the evidence.

 

[atanu]

The question was not directed to me, but neither really.

It is just the logical conclusion from seeing the evidence.

Does TOE stipulate blind unguided evolution?

 

[LuisDantas]

Does TOE stipulate blind unguided evolution?

That, my friend, is so loaded a question that I am surprised that you have the strength to ask it.

It does not. And then again, it never needed to.

Evidence, though, suggests unguided evolution to the point that for all practical purposes it is known as a fact.

 

[Polymath257]

Excellent post. But I have two questions.

What in nature ensures that natural laws are being followed and the results are structured?

Another potential infinite regress. The problem is that you are asking for deeper laws that insure that the laws work. But then, you can ask what insures the deeper laws work. And that has to be because of even deeper laws. All that means is that the most fundamental laws 'just are'.

How can you, being a product of the same universe, conclude this? Can a carburettor in a car decide that the car cannot have a reason? Only a being/entity that knows the car as a whole say whether car came about on its own or it was designed or created as per a plan.

Well, an *intelligent* carburettor would be able to look around and see how at least the aspects visible are directed to transfer fuel into the engine, energy to the drive train, etc. Even if the whole car isn't visible, there is a definite energy flow. Furthermore, the working of the accelerator (even from just what is visible to the engine) is enough to show that a single point of change produces large scale increased or decreased energy flow. So, even though the purpose may not be known, the design can be seen and the purpose can be seen to be related to directing energy flow to the drive train.

I may be wrong in my understanding and will gladly be corrected.

What do you think?

 

[atanu]

That, my friend, is so loaded a question that I am surprised that you have the strength to ask it.

It does not. And then again, it never needed to.

Evidence, though, suggests unguided evolution to the point that for all practical purposes it is known as a fact.

That is shut case, I understand.....from one perspective.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you think?

I keep wanting to add....
"It turtles all the way down."

 

[Polymath257]

What you see as laws of nature I see as design. When you see a tall building do you see a structure or a designed building ? It is a designed structure created by a designer. And when I see nature, all species of animals, the stars, the planets, human beings...I see designed structure that , to me, is logical to presume a designer also. And if natural law is the designer , I still see a designer who designed the natural laws to operate as such. It is perfectly reasonable and logical for natural law and an ID to both exist.

But if you look at a crystal, which has structure, we do not think that structure was designed. It happened because of the action of physical laws that serve to direct how the crystal grows. No intelligent intervention is required for this to happen. When you look at a star forming from gravitational compression from a cloud of gas and dust, no intelligent intervention is required for the formation of that star: only the application of the physical laws (primarily gravity). This happens naturally and spontaneously without any intervention at all. In other words, it is not designed.

The vast majority of the universe is like this: operating under physical laws with things happening spontaneously to form structure without any intervention of any kind. The question is whether there are cases where there *is* intelligent intervention and how to detect such. Clearly, in the building, there is intelligent intervention and we know this not only because we have the blueprints. We also know that the natural laws do not spontaneously form structures like buildings. But they do form structures like crystals, stars, and planets.

Whether it makes sense to talk about the design of physical laws is a different question. But it is clear that the *most* fundamental laws cannot be designed: a design implies a more fundamental lset of laws to actuate the design. To put it another way, even if there is an ID, by what laws was the ID able to carry out its design?

And again, I don't claim to know what I believe to be an absolute truth since we are hypothesizing. You , however, seem to think what you believe in are absolute truths and other perspectives are illogical or unreasonable. It is in this aspect that I disagree with you. We might as well discontinue the discussion. I appreciate all of your well thought out views and research but I think there is more to this than just what scientific evidence and human knowledge , logic , and reasoning can lead us in this particular topic of discussion. I know you require evidence for everything but I also don't believe there has to be physical , material evidence to explain everything. I believe innate feelings and intuition are also forms of evidence in human nature and these our things you can't necessarily prove to others. But they are valid to me and I don't require everything to be proven in order to be valid.

Well, to see if they are valid, we only need to ask if they ever or often lead us astray or into contradiction. And it is clearly the case that intuition and innate feelings do, often, even usually, lead us astray. That alone means they are fundamentally unreliable and an invalid way to seek out truth unless supplemented by something else. And that something else is also evident: testing of all ideas against observation and a requirement that all ideas can be tested.

Some things are real to people regardless of having to prove it to someone else. You may require proof for everything to be reasonable, or logical, or real, or true...but I really do not. I don't think all of life's experiences and conclusions require proof. Some things are just innately understood without the need for proof.

And that is what I fundamentally disagree with. We *know* that deepness of feeling or strength of conviction isn't correlated with the truth of the belief. All you have to do is look around and see how many people have strongly held, but contradictory beliefs.

And, truthfully, this is precisely where you leave the path of reason. Reason does, in fact, require that you have evidence to back up your beliefs and that you not rely on just 'innate feeling' as a support for them.

Of course, I require proof in regards to math and science and other academic subjects, But there many other aspects of life where I don't need proof, I just trust my feelings and intuitions.

We all have such. But those beliefs are not, then, based upon reason. They are based upon emotion. To claim them to be reasonable is the problem.

And even science can only explain so much, not everything. There is more to life's experiences and drawn conclusions than just facts and proofs. These are my beliefs based on my 45 years of experience and observation of the many facets of this so called life.

Of course. Science, for example, doesn't deal with aesthetics. It doesn't deal with morality. it doesn't deal with beauty. And those are all vitally important aspects of human existence. But thtat doesn't relate to questions of existence, which *are* scientific questions.

Just to add one more thought from a previous statement I made. I suggested that an ID may both exist and not exist at the same time. That may have seemed a little absurd. But doesn't quantum mechanics and particle theory suggest that a particle may exist in teo different places at the same time ? I don't know if this science can be proven yet or not but it is something that may turn out to be fact when once we would never have thought that.

It is a very common misreading of what quantum mechanics says. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic description of the universe, not a deterministic or a causal one. The 'wave function' for a particle tells the probability of detecting a particle at a point (among other things). That probability can be non-zero at two different points at the same time.

So my statement , according to science, if true, that a possible ID may exist and not exist at the same time may not be so absurd after all. This is what I am trying to express when I speak of the possibilities of an ID an science actually leading to some of these ideas and possibilities. If we were alive in say 500 years perhaps our discussion on this topic would be completely different in light of new discoveries ,one way or the other. This is why I take somewhat offense when you or others dismiss certain views as unreasonable and illogical when things aren't always so certain. It seems a lot of ideas are considered absurd when first proposed but later come to be accepted and viewed differently. So I personally don't accept some things as being so certain and definitive just because they are currently popular or appear to be the common opinion of the masses. And I'm not speaking of hard scientific facts but in areas of science, philosophies, and other subjects that are subjective and have room for alternative interpretations.

But not all absurd ideas need to be considered seriously. Some really are absurd. And we can make progress in our understanding by at least eliminating the truly absurd ones.

 

[Polymath257]

Does TOE stipulate blind unguided evolution?

No, but a statistical analysis of the fossil record does not support directed evolution. There *are* some trends: species in a given line *tend* to get larger over time. But this is certainly NOT an ironclad rule. And a statistical analysis is not enough to claim that NO guidance is given to evolution, just that overall none is seen.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is shut case, I understand.....from one perspective.

Hardly shut. It is just a bit foolish to pretend that the evidence is not conclusive at this point in time.

Of course, that is no more an obstacle to the belief in a creator God than anything else in nature.

Myself, I think the existence of such things as progeria and anencephalus make about as shut a case against a creator God who cares for humanity as one could want. But that clearly isn't enough for many.

 

[Polymath257]

I keep wanting to add....
"It turtles all the way down."

Except for the elephants. Don't forget them. But no ducks. They were tried, but things kept sliding off.

 

[Koldo]

Does TOE stipulate blind unguided evolution?

What would 'guided' mean in practice ?
Something like manipulating genes ?

 

[PureX]

OK, so you admit that you are using your own definition, abandoning the actual definition of the term and how it is commonly used. That's a good start.

No, I am using the logical definition. I did not invent logic, and it's not based on my personal 'whim'. But nice try at making it appear that way.

So, here is one reason why I think it is more appropriate to include those who merely lack (or are without) belief in the existence of God:

There really is no reason to believe that Atheism MUST be a position or a held belief. The word itself means "without theism". The prefix "a" means "without" or "to lack" and "theism" means "the belief in the existence of God or gods." So, why would atheism need to be a position rather than merely the absence of a position.

Again, you're trying to use dictionary definition to validate a philosophical proposition, when we all know that word usage is imprecise and often deliberately confusing. In this case you are deliberately defining a word to mean exactly what you want it to mean, even though it could very easily mean something else. And does mean something else in a philosophical context. For example, in a philosophical context, the term "theism" does not mean "belief in gods". It refers to a whole category of philosophical thought that is governed by the assumption that gods exist. Belief has little to do with it as philosophy is not about what anyone 'believes'. It's about developing various logical truth paradigms, and defending them to see how they hold up. Atheism, then, in a philosophical context, is one of those truth paradigms, based on the proposition that no gods exist. And as with all truth paradigms, it is expected to be logically defensible.

Also, the vast majority of self avowed atheists are not outspoken and they don't claim that God is an impossibility.

Who, how many, or why people label themselves "atheists" is irrelevant to the meaning of the term. Again, you are appealing to word usage, here, as your argument, and that simply doesn't stand up to logical critique. Especially in a philosophical context.

Finally, "theism" is an extremely general term. It includes deism, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, autotheism, and value-judgment theisms. It also includes the belief in an almost infinite number of different deities throughout human history. So, logic would dictate that "atheism" be even more general. It should include weak atheism, strong atheism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, etc. The only way to accomplish this is to include those who merely "lack belief in the existence of deities" in the definition of "atheism".

You are now validating my contention that atheism is a pointless and unnecessary negation of possibility. The term 'theism' refers to a whole category of philosophical possibilities, that then fall under the sub-heading of 'theology'. Atheism is the blanket negation of all of these possibilities, while offering only one possibility in it's turn. Thus, atheism offers only a paradigm of negation while theism offers a plethora of possible truth paradigms. This hardly stands as a reason for expanding the term "atheism" to include skepticism and indifference just so that it won't appear to be a blanket negation of possibility, when that is exactly what it is, and is all that it is.

So, now it's your turn. Why do you think atheism must be a position (iow, why do you think that atheism should only include strong atheists)? Why do you think it should be so specific when "theism" is so general, including belief in countless deities throughout human history?

Go back and re-read my posts. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you can't recognize my reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I am using the logical definition. I did not invent logic, and it's not based on my personal 'whim'. But nice try at making it appear that way.
Again, you're trying to use dictionary definition to validate a philosophical proposition, when we all know that word usage is imprecise and often deliberately confusing. In this case you are deliberately defining a word to mean exactly what you want it to mean, even though it could very easily mean something else. And does mean something else in a philosophical context. For example, in a philosophical context, the term "theism" does not mean "belief in gods". It refers to a whole category of philosophical thought that is governed by the assumption that gods exist. Belief has little to do with it as philosophy is not about what anyone 'believes'. It's about developing various logical truth paradigms, and defending them to see how they hold up. Atheism, then, in a philosophical context, is one of those truth paradigms, based on the proposition that no gods exist. And as with all truth paradigms, it is expected to be logically defensible.
Who, how many, or why people label themselves "atheists" is irrelevant to the meaning of the term. Again, you are appealing to word usage, here, as your argument, and that simply doesn't stand up to logical critique. Especially in a philosophical context.
You are now validating my contention that atheism is a pointless and unnecessary negation of possibility. The term 'theism' refers to a whole category of philosophical possibilities, that then fall under the sub-heading of 'theology'. Atheism is the blanket negation of all of these possibilities, while offering only one possibility in it's turn. Thus, atheism offers only a paradigm of negation while theism offers a plethora of possible truth paradigms. This hardly stands as a reason for expanding the term "atheism" to include skepticism and indifference just so that it won't appear to be a blanket negation of possibility, when that is exactly what it is, and is all that it is.
Go back and re-read my posts. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you can't recognize my reasoning.

Philosophically, atheism is a worldview absent of deities, right? Why should it necessarily be any more than that? Why must it be a position rather than the absence of a position?

 

[PureX]

Strong tendency to be "spirit blind".....misunderstanding the definition of atheism.

So you think that atheists are "spirit blind"........but you cannot offer up a proper definition of atheism.

This is a very long thread, and you have just read one post. I think you ought to reserve your conclusions until you've followed the conversation a bit further. Don't you?

And you further declare that atheists are oblivious to the exercise of intuition

To act on intuition requires that one have faith in the unverified/unverifiable. Atheists aren't big on faith, nor on accepting any unverified propositions. Or so they endlessly proclaim.

..., imagination...

Atheists generally speak of imagination as if it's an absurd and meaningless fiction. They do so because they consider the gods to be imaginary, and they have to discredit those gods. So they do it by discrediting imagination.

...and artifice...

To decipher artifice requires both imagination and intuition, and very often also requires that one "suspect their disbelief" for the sake of a greater truth. Atheist, by their own constant admission, discredit imagination, doubt their intuitions, and are not willing to suspend their skepticism for the sake of some greater possible truth.

It just got boring to entertain an imbecilic prejudice.

It is boring when all you see in the world around you are affirmations of your own bias.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a very long thread, and you have just read one post. I think you ought to reserve your conclusions until you've followed the conversation a bit further. Don't you?
To act on intuition requires that one have faith in the unverified/unverifiable. Atheists aren't big on faith, nor on accepting any unverified propositions. Or so they endlessly proclaim.
Atheists generally speak of imagination as if it's an absurd and meaningless fiction. They do so because they consider the gods to be imaginary, and they have to discredit those gods. So they do it by discrediting imagination.
To decipher artifice requires both imagination and intuition, and very often also requires that one "suspect their disbelief" for the sake of a greater truth. Atheist, by their own constant admission, discredit imagination, doubt their intuitions, and are not willing to suspend their skepticism for the sake of some greater possible truth.
It is boring when all you see in the world around you are affirmations of your own bias.

Where are you getting the idea that atheists don't believe in imagination? Can you back this claim up with any evidence? I've never heard any atheist claim that our imagination isn't real.

 

[PureX]

Philosophically, atheism is a worldview absent of deities, right? Why should it necessarily be any more than that? Why must it be a position rather than the absence of a position?

That is a position, philosophically speaking. Skepticism leading to "I don't know", is not a position, but it is also not atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is a position, philosophically speaking. Skepticism leading to "I don't know", is not a position, but it is also not atheism.

It doesn't serve you well to ignore everything that actual atheists tell you about atheism.
It's like a goldfish telling me that I'm riding a bicycle all wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

That is a position, philosophically speaking. Skepticism leading to "I don't know", is not a position, but it is also not atheism.

Why, in your opinion, is an absence of belief in deities not "atheism"? Why do you think more is required than a lack of belief in deities?

 

[PureX]

Where are you getting the idea that atheists don't believe in imagination? Can you back this claim up with any evidence? I've never heard any atheist claim that our imagination isn't real.

Atheists tell us time and time again that imagination is fiction. It's "make-believe". That it's not "real", because in their materialist truth-paradigm only physical matter is "real". Their existence is defined by the 'objectively material'. And that excludes the imaginary.