Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I find the anthropic principle lacking, but even still, it does have its uses.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To the Anti-Religious
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
I find the anthropic principle lacking, but even still, it does have its uses.
The weak anthropic principle is a basis for physics of all sorts. It is hardly lacking. But it also doesn't amount to proof of anything. Basically it just records what we know about the laws of the universe and how improbable it is that humans exist (astronomically). The stronger forms (which use the evidence from the weak anthropic principle as evidence for a creator) are much more controversial.
Personally, its been a long time since I have been able to say confidently that there is "something" out there. I don't know. But the interesting thing about the stronger forms of the anthropic principle is that it makes creation without a divine Mind or Purpose just about as unlikely as with one.
Smoke
Done here.
You could just as easily say there's no such thing as a rational person. I think we could find some degree of irrationality in everyone's life. We all do and believe some things that wouldn't hold up to rigorous rational analysis. We are simply not an entirely rational species, and I don't know if we'd really want to be.
My problem with religion is not that it's irrational. My problem is allowing the unreason of religion to spill over into other areas. It's usually when believers insist on imposing their beliefs on others, when they insist on believing that everything about their religion is literally true (Creationism, for instance), or when they try to prove their irrational beliefs, or when they don't even carefully consider their beliefs, that they lose my respect.
In other words, I think you can be a more or less rational person and believe the Bible is the Word of God in some way, but if you believe it's inerrant -- and especially if you've actually read it and still think it's inerrant -- then I do think you have a problem.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Easy, schizphrenia is a severe mental illness. OTOH, people who are pictures of mental health have experiences of God all the time.
More generally, the neurological activity of trance states has been shown to be quite different from hallucination. I suggest you look into neurothology if you're interested.
Well, properly speaking, I'm not a theist, so the general consensus among theists is irrelevant to me.
Agreed, but since I don't believe in the supernatural, this line of argument is, again, irrelevant.
Smoke
Done here.
I've said this before -- and I'll say it again -- but the best advice I ever got was from my great-grandmother: "Try to enjoy your life; it's gonna go by faster than you think. It seems like yesterday I was in my father's house."
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I meant lacking in the sense it doesn't really prove anything. Otherwise it is a pretty accurate observation to say that at some point the universe must have created the observers in it.
It can't discern if we were created by a deity or arose naturalistically. Both naturalistic and theistic explanations are compatible with the strong anthropic principle.
Not with the strong. The strong anthropic principle posits a creator of some sort.
However, it certainly doesn't "prove" anything, as you say. But then again, proof is for math and logic, not science. What it does show is that the very fact that we are around is extraordinarily improbable. At what point does it become so improbable that a divine Mind or Purpose is more probable?
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
....what?Likewise, I find "Our time is coming. The internet is our church and we will expose organised religion for what it is." to be extremely arrogant. It's not they don't hold the same view (I don't care what view you hold) but when you (generic "you", not you personally) are being ******* ish, especially to those whose only crime is to believe differently to you (again, generic you), so you think you (generic you again) can view them as inferior, then I care.
Actually, I get what you're saying. His statement was arrogant as well. Perhaps the two statements cancel out.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
There is a lecture posted up on YouTube. It is about an hour long. It's by Dr. Andy Thomson, a psychologist. He explains neurologically, culturally, socially why we believe in Gods. Search "Why we believe in Gods" and you should find it.
I'll summarize the main points, but obviously in an hour-long lecture, he goes into far greater detail and can explain his own research far better than I can.
He says that we can have something called "decoupled conversations". In your mind you can picture yourself having a conversation with your mother, even if she's thousands of miles away. That image is very realistic. Your brain can build a "model" of your mother and you can engage in a conversation with that image in your head. To primitive people, they would not be able to distinguish a decoupled conversation from a spirit or some other mythological being.
Now take that one step further. A close friend or relative of yours dies. Even though that person is dead, you can still "talk" to that person in your mind. You see how the spirituality is building now? You feel you can still communicate with him, but in reality he's just rotting into the soil, unable to hear your words.
Take that another step further. When primitive people started asking themselves "Where did we come from?", the only reasonable explanation given their knowledge was that some mythological god created them. These decoupled conversations led to a seemingly real interaction with these made up gods.
They then project images of their gods onto naturalistic things in their lives...like waterfalls or trees. They then say they interacted with god by communing with those waterfalls and trees. The only difference between divine interaction and schizophrenia is that schizophrenia is far less socially accepted.
Edit: My apologies lol. I forgot to answer the second part of that.
The supernatural world is relevant because that's where most consider God to "exist", if I dare use that word. If one doesn't believe in the supernatural but believes in a deity, then that deity must exist in the natural world, no? Therefore gathering evidence for the existence for that deity should be a piece of cake.
Last edited by a moderator:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I can't do that, I don't have any mental pictures at all.
logician
Well-Known Member
Well said, Most of our founding Fathers were adamant about keeping their religion (or lack thereof) private, because they knew first-hand the dangers of religious intolerance.
Unfortunately, this trait has been largely lost in modern day religion in America, where it seems the first thing out of politicians or many people's mouth's in a public setting is a statement of their belief in god.
It's sad that we have regressed this far, really.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I was under the impression the strong anthropic principle was that the universe must have created its observers? If that is indeed true, then naturalistic explanations (abiogenesis/evolution) are compatible, I'd think.
No, they weren't. They were all about keeping the federal government from establishing a religion. State governments could and did support individual churches.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I can't do that, I don't have any mental pictures at all.
Too bad. Time to buy a camera.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
How will that help me build up a God in my mind?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Yes they were, and this too.
The founding fathers wanted to keep religion and government separate, and the myth of the modern "Christian Nation" goes against that constitutional fact.
From the book I cited earlier:
"Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but the take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe must be old enough for it to have already done so." p16
Barrow, John D, and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
The strong anthropic principle is not "that the universe must have created its observers" but that "The universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage. An implication of the SAP is that the constants and laws of Nature must be such that life can exist. This speculative statementleads to a number of quite distinct interpretations of a radical nature.: firstly, the most obvious is to continue in the tradition of the classical Design Arguments that : There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'" pp 21-22
Actually they weren't. The "seperation of church and state" is not a part of the constitution, nor was it intended to be:
Wallace v. Jaffree
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I can't promise that I'll get to it today, but PM me a reminder or post a link in the thread. I love this stuff.
Duly noted.
Interesting stuff. I hadn't encountered this hypothesis before, so thank you!
However, the way I see it, all these hypotheses (spandrels fascinate me as well) fail to take into account the reality of mystical experiences, and that's a mistake. Now, when I say that, I don't mean that such experiences are objective proof of God, just that they happen. Anyway, all of these things strike me as logical pieces of the puzzle, but inadequate as solutions.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to rebut my own views. I can discuss others, of course, but it won't be much of a debate, as I agree with you.
Not quite. I'm somewhere between pantheism and panentheism, so my God doesn't exist IN the natural world, it IS the natural world. Now, obviously, I can provide evidence of the natural world, but I don't see how I could go about proving that it adds up to God. That's not evidence, it's interpretation.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
To be fair, theistic arguments on the universal constants and laws are the most convincing in their arsenal and a shame that more theists don't actually employ it. That would make more more interesting debates.
Even still if we as living things are the observers, how is that any different from "the universe must have created its observers"? If the universe must have properties that allow life to develop and life are the observers, the universe must have properties that must have created its observers. That is, unless by "observers", you mean some broad-based definition that involves more than "life" by itself, but I can't think of anything else beyond life that can "observe".