The Metaphysics of Disbelief.

[John D. Brey]

Serendipity is fortuitous or beneficial chance. We live in a universe of chaotic deterministic interactions, not random interactions. Randomness is inherently unpredictable. A chaotic deterministic system is predictable in principle, but only if you know its initial condition and all of the rules governing the interactions of the elements that comprise it. In the absence of that knowledge, its behavior is unpredictable. However, it can be modeled stochastically. That's how we are able to predict weather patterns, and no longer explain them in terms of the attitudes of capricious deities.

In claiming that water means life, NASA scientists are . . . making---- tacitly--- a huge and profound assumption about the nature of nature. They are saying in effect, that the laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being against the raw odds; that the mathematical principles of physics, in their elegant simplicity, somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity. If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: "Make life!" And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct. But if it is, it represents a shift in the scientific world-view as profound as that initiated by Copernicus and Darwin put together.​

​

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle.​

What Davies is saying in a manner attempting to keep agnostics and atheists in the game, is that what we now know about the mathematical precision necessary for thinking beings like us to arise, tells us that like it or not, there is "design" going on in the universe; well thought-out (mathematically stupendous) design artifacts such that we can only refer to John D. Brey's theory on the metaphysics of disbelief in order to try and explain why there is such a need to deny, against all the odds, and all the mathematics, a Designer. We need a metaphysical explanation not just for disbelief, but for how it can sustain itself, with a neck as stiff as bronze, in the face of all the facts?

John, everybody has an agenda, including especially you. That doesn't mean that what they say is wrong. Krauss was just being a little cute when he likened the death of stars to the sacrifice of Jesus. It wasn't a malicious swipe, because he simply doesn't believe in Jesus or God. He advocates for atheism in the same sense that you advocate for theism.

Krauss' agenda is fatalistic-nihilism with a smiley-face and a giggle attached. To understand the nature of Krauss' fatalistic-nihilism one should know that he's a member in good standing of the Council for Secular Humanism. Their Statement of Principles declares:

We deplore efforts . . . to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms and to look outside nature for salvation.​

​

We are citizens of the universe.​

​

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair.​

​

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance.​

​

But here's the problem. Krauss and Glen Starkman authored an article called, "Life, the Universe, and Nothing: Life and Death in an Ever-Expanding Universe." When we list the consequences of their scientific acumen, we see that their science is in direct conflict with their humanist agenda. Their science isn't about salvation and opposition to theologies of despair. Their science is the foundation for eternal despair. Their science predicts not the return of Christ and the arrival of a paradisal kingdom, a new heaven, and a new earth, where there are no more tears, death, pain (the theology they call a theology of despair). Their science (presumably upon which their humanistic religion is based) prophesies:

​

1 Decreasing observability.​

2 Cessation of star burning.​

3 Decreasing knowledge.​

4 Cessation of protein folding and metabolism.​

5 End of Consciousness.​

6 The end of meaning.​

Anyone who knows much about Krauss and The Council for Secular Humanism might remember a strange cult in one of the Planet of the Apes movies who, rather than worshiping at the Cross of Christ, instead had a giant nuclear missile as the altar in their sanctuary; a missile mind you that could destroy the entire world. They prayed to it even though they hadn't a prayer of their prayers being answered by it unless their prayers were in line with Krauss and Starkman's stark prophesy for the end of the world.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm not convinced that there is any metaphysics to being unconvinced that a religious doctrine is true. Is Occam's Razor metaphysics? However, I am thoroughly familiar with Noam Chomsky's work, and I assure you that you have completely misinterpreted him if you think that he is in any way promoting the doctrine of irreducible complexity, especially as used by those who attempt to criticize evolution theory--a theory that Chomsky is on record claiming to be uncontroversial. I know that you have put considerable effort into studying him in pursuit of your own particular agenda, but libraries are full of people who have devoted their lives to mistaken ideas. That doesn't make you wrong in your efforts, but it does mean that effort alone is not sufficient to guarantee being right.

This statement is a valuable part of this thread when combined with the quotations from Chomsky where he really does appear to concede that we don't know how things like wings, eyeballs, and human grammar could develop according to what we do know about their complexity and the difficulty of something seemingly arising that requires an incredible number of steps none of which appears to have a purpose without the end result.

We could add the brilliant work of the biologist Richard Lewontin to Chomsky's in order to show that these men's refreshing honesty wouldn't allow them to play along with the Neo-Darwinian explanation of biological complexity even though as agnostics and atheists they're forced to believe there simply has to be a naturalistic explanation.

In other words, if there's no God, no Designer, just nature, if that's one's core belief, then of course when they hit a road-block like irreducible complexity, they're forced to believe with all their heart and mind that though they don't have an answer for how something like the eyeball, wing, or human grammar, could develop, they can rest assured, in religious-fervor like confidence, that somehow nature found a way.

So my interest in this thread isn't to argue with Chomsky, you, or Krauss, about the science of these things. I think we are mostly in agreement there. My interest is in the nature of a core belief founded on "disbelief"? How is the secular humanist's core belief based on disbelief? How can disbelief be the foundation of belief? How can secular humanists worship at the altar of a belief in the nihilistic end of all things and do so with a sparkle or gleam in their eye believing the sons of God will go down with them in the end? They won't. And part and parcel of the metaphysics of disbelief would be to explain how, and why, the sons of God won't share the same space/time as those whose core belief is disbelief.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What Davies is saying in a manner attempting to keep agnostics and atheists in the game, is that what we now know about the mathematical precision necessary for thinking beings like us to arise, tells us that like it or not, there is "design" going on in the universe; well thought-out (mathematically stupendous) design artifacts such that we can only refer to John D. Brey's theory on the metaphysics of disbelief in order to try and explain why there is such a need to deny, against all the odds, and all the mathematics, a Designer. We need a metaphysical explanation not just for disbelief, but for how it can sustain itself, with a neck as stiff as bronze, in the face of all the facts?

Upon this theological instinct I make war: I find the tracks of it everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and dishonorable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this condition is called faith . . ..​

​

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ (Kindle Locations 272-274). Kindle Edition.​

In the first step toward the goal of this thread, establishing a metaphysics of disbelief, we have the combination of Paul Davies' statement with Nietzsche's. In other words, Paul Davies knows and argues that everything we now know implies some kind of design and Designer, such that only "faith" that there is no Designer withstands the facts that imply there probably is.

What's interesting in this is that for thousands of years there was no scientific proof of theistic belief. That belief, theistic, had to base itself on something like unfounded, or blind, faith. Those times have now reversed in the sense that now science is begining to prove the existence of design and a Designer in profound ways such that now it's the agnostic and atheist who must argue their position on blind-faith that no matter how much the facts and science give the apppearance of design and a Designer, it simply ain't so. The agnostic and atheist is now in the same position of their brothers of theistic faith: clining to faith alone, not in Christ alone, but faith alone, that we're all alone; without an everlasting future, without an all powerful God of mercy, without hope. The atheist and agnostic has a powerful "faith" in the quasi-religious doctrine of eternal despair and death.

Nevertheless, this doctrine of eternal despair could not support itself, would not be viable, if it didn't have sound, powerful, even immutable, metaphysics undergirding it. Atheism and agnosticism would be impotent in the facts of science if not for a real, and really powerful, metaphysical support system that is nearly, or maybe more than merely, immutable.



John

 

[Copernicus]

In claiming that water means life, NASA scientists are . . . making---- tacitly--- a huge and profound assumption about the nature of nature. They are saying in effect, that the laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being against the raw odds; that the mathematical principles of physics, in their elegant simplicity, somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity. If life follows from [primordial] soup with causal dependability, the laws of nature encode a hidden subtext, a cosmic imperative, which tells them: "Make life!" And, through life, its by-products: mind, knowledge, understanding. It means that the laws of the universe have engineered their own comprehension. This is a breathtaking vision of nature, magnificent and uplifting in its majestic sweep. I hope it is correct. It would be wonderful if it were correct. But if it is, it represents a shift in the scientific world-view as profound as that initiated by Copernicus and Darwin put together.​

​

Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle.​

What Davies is saying in a manner attempting to keep agnostics and atheists in the game, is that what we now know about the mathematical precision necessary for thinking beings like us to arise, tells us that like it or not, there is "design" going on in the universe; well thought-out (mathematically stupendous) design artifacts such that we can only refer to John D. Brey's theory on the metaphysics of disbelief in order to try and explain why there is such a need to deny, against all the odds, and all the mathematics, a Designer. We need a metaphysical explanation not just for disbelief, but for how it can sustain itself, with a neck as stiff as bronze, in the face of all the facts?

Scientists aren't telling us that the "laws" are contrived at all. That's the problem with your argument. You cannot accept the absence of a contriver, and, in accepting the presence of one, you don't accept the need to explain its presence. If that contriver was there to create the complex designs we observe in the universe, then what was there to create the complex design of the contriver? And, if the creator did not need to be created, then why did the universe itself need to be created? Your answer to the dilemma is a snake that eats its own tail.

All scientists can explain is what causes the phenomena they observe, and the properties of those phenomena can be explained sufficiently without the need of appeal to an intelligent designer. We observe unintelligent designs all around us in the serendipitous behavior of nature. From our study of evolution, we can explain its designs in terms of the survival of biological forms best able to adapt to the environment. If we discover a plant that doesn't need a lot of water to survive, we can attribute its "design" to the fact that plants needing more water for survival are not well suited to the environment, giving rise to those that need less. No supernatural gardener is needed to plan and implement the design of a water-hoarding cactus. That's how plants and animals get "designed" in a godless universe.

Krauss' agenda is fatalistic-nihilism with a smiley-face and a giggle attached. To understand the nature of Krauss' fatalistic-nihilism one should know that he's a member in good standing of the Council for Secular Humanism. Their Statement of Principles declares:

We deplore efforts . . . to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms and to look outside nature for salvation.​

​

We are citizens of the universe.​

​

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair.​

​

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance.​

​

But here's the problem. Krauss and Glen Starkman authored an article called, "Life, the Universe, and Nothing: Life and Death in an Ever-Expanding Universe." When we list the consequences of their scientific acumen, we see that their science is in direct conflict with their humanist agenda. Their science isn't about salvation and opposition to theologies of despair. Their science is the foundation for eternal despair. Their science predicts not the return of Christ and the arrival of a paradisal kingdom, a new heaven, and a new earth, where there are no more tears, death, pain (the theology they call a theology of despair). Their science (presumably upon which their humanistic religion is based) prophesies:

​

1 Decreasing observability.​

2 Cessation of star burning.​

3 Decreasing knowledge.​

4 Cessation of protein folding and metabolism.​

5 End of Consciousness.​

6 The end of meaning.​

​

Anyone who knows much about Krauss and The Council for Secular Humanism might remember a strange cult in one of the Planet of the Apes movies who, rather than worshiping at the Cross of Christ, instead had a giant nuclear missile as the altar in their sanctuary; a missile mind you that could destroy the entire world. They prayed to it even though they hadn't a prayer of their prayers being answered by it unless their prayers were in line with Krauss and Starkman's stark prophesy for the end of the world.​

That was quite an ad hominem tirade, and I don't want to dwell on this. Krauss could be evil and stupid but still say something that is profoundly true. It doesn't matter whether he is an atheistic giggling fatalistic nihilist or a devoutly religious benevolent builder of homeless shelters. The point is that nothingness is not the default fabric of reality from a physicist's point of view nowadays. Somethingness is the natural state of reality. Creatio ex nihilo does not require the will of a superbeing to bring about the physical reality that we observe.

This statement is a valuable part of this thread when combined with the quotations from Chomsky where he really does appear to concede that we don't know how things like wings, eyeballs, and human grammar could develop according to what we do know about their complexity and the difficulty of something seemingly arising that requires an incredible number of steps none of which appears to have a purpose without the end result.

Again, I think you misinterpret him, but you are making unsubstantiated claims about him that may be taken out of context. They don't sound remotely like anything I've heard from him or read in his numerous books and essays.

We could add the brilliant work of the biologist Richard Lewontin to Chomsky's in order to show that these men's refreshing honesty wouldn't allow them to play along with the Neo-Darwinian explanation of biological complexity even though as agnostics and atheists they're forced to believe there simply has to be a naturalistic explanation.

In the same sense that your religious faith forces you to believe that there must be a supernaturalistic explanation? I'm unfamiliar with Lewontin, and I simply disagree with your interpretation of the unreferenced Chomsky claims. You can keep throwing his name around all you like, but it doesn't really support your argument, since at best you are simply left with an appeal to authority rather than substantiation of a claim. And neither man is here to defend themselves.

In other words, if there's no God, no Designer, just nature, if that's one's core belief, then of course when they hit a road-block like irreducible complexity, they're forced to believe with all their heart and mind that though they don't have an answer for how something like the eyeball, wing, or human grammar, could develop, they can rest assured, in religious-fervor like confidence, that somehow nature found a way.

Leaving those two gentlemen aside, let's just think about how a scientist would react. Dawkins, who is a well-established biologist, simply debunks the alleged examples of irreducible complexity, e.g. the human eye or flagella. Scientists don't really doubt that those are bona fide examples of reducible complexity in that intermediate stages in their development can be found and the timescale renders their gradual emergence plausible. There may still be a religious controversy, but not a scientific one, over irreducible complexity. Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean that all the answers can't be had in principle. So saying "science doesn't have an answer" is not considered a failure of science but simply a step yet to be taken by science, just as theologians have historically considered scientific explanations of miracles no more than one steps taken backward. The "God of Gaps" argument is never considered proof that God does not exist, only that there are always gaps in our knowledge where he could exist.

So my interest in this thread isn't to argue with Chomsky, you, or Krauss, about the science of these things. I think we are mostly in agreement there. My interest is in the nature of a core belief founded on "disbelief"? How is the secular humanist's core belief based on disbelief? How can disbelief be the foundation of belief? How can secular humanists worship at the altar of a belief in the nihilistic end of all things and do so with a sparkle or gleam in their eye believing the sons of God will go down with them in the end? They won't. And part and parcel of the metaphysics of disbelief would be to explain how, and why, the sons of God won't share the same space/time as those whose core belief is disbelief.

My response is that there is no metaphysics of disbelief. One can reject belief in the existence of Santa Claus without having to come up with an entirely new theory of reality. However, what concerns you here is what Howard K Bloom addressed directly in his tour de force book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates. He did criticize atheists in general for not attempting to address that problem in their perpetual debate with believers. His answer was to turn to how scientists and philosophers have addressed the problem since the beginnings of recorded history. So his book is in part a long essay on the history of science and philosophy. But he eventually gets around to topics like quantum physics, chaos theory, and cosmology. Scientists like Krauss also do that in their videos and essays, which they use to support their atheism. Bloom has a strong scientific background, but he is more of a science popularizer than a working scientist like Krauss.