For some reason I managed to stumble across The Trouble with Atheism on YouTube, which seems chock full of bad anti-atheism arguments:
Unfortunately religion (or lack of it) can't influence this. Some people are just "bad", and religion can't change that. Why would you assume it could, when your next argument pretty much says it can't?
Yes they killed many. For political reasons though. Should we be only allowed to say that one type of dogma is bad?
I think it's fair to say that most atheists come to atheism from a perspective of science. And as such, no atheist would argue that TOotS is the one-true-word - we treat it like any scientific paper - as data that has some truths and some misinterpretations, but some very interesting observations that required more study. And there has been MUCH about TOotS that has been proved and disproved over the years.
No, atheism is simply a lack of blind faith. A lack of "just believing" for the sake of it. We tell people all the time it's not natural to believe in things that don't have any basis for belief (the tooth fairy, santa claus, the flying spaghetti monster) yet we blindly accept religion because the book is old.
You can't be a fundamental atheist. I'm sure as I can be that 100% of atheists would welcome some proof that there is a god that should be worshiped. And if such proof were presented there would be no more atheism. We're (pardon the pun) fundamentally not fundamentalists. We believe in proof before belief.
I'm sorry, but wasn't the earth created about 6000 years ago according the bible? Religion doesn't even begin to cover the scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe, so I don't see how you can get into a religious argument about it. Did "God" just decide in his infinite wisdom to omit that stuff from the Christian bible, or did the true authors of the bible simply have no concept of how far back the universe went?
For anyone wanting to reply to this: only reply today if you agree to comment (good or bad) on one of my photographs tomorrow.
Those are horrible reasonings.
I do not think that is entirely true though. Certainly faith has to play a part in it but I don't think I would consider what I have as a "blind" faith at all. Maybe that is just me.
I will gladly comment on your pictures. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to do that or not. I really enjoy them though and have a for a while.
Re:You are right...
Matts on 2007-04-11T03:27:09
The blind part is admittedly subjective. The belief is in your "soul" or your "heart" or in some way invisible to the rest of the world. As such it is without external validation.
A good counter example would be the sun rising every day. I don't just believe that because it has always happened (though that would be a perfectly valid reason for believing it), but because there is a whole bunch of other information about how things rotate around the sun, how the gravitational field affects those things, how fast things rotate, etc. These things are my proof of why things happen. A belief in a god provides no such thing - just a "because my book says so".
“The soviet union’s atheist regime killed 20 million”
That just takes the cake – the irony is killing me. The Nazi regime had the Vatican’s full blessing, y’know? And what about the inquisition? The crusades? Talk about living in the glass house and throwing stones.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t the earth created about 6000 years ago according the bible?
No, it wasn’t.
The funny thing about your question is, though, that most “religious” people don’t even know the Bible themselves. Such people don’t actually believe anything coherent, they just have a pile of ideas they’d like to be true because they find them comprehensible, convenient, or both.
Mind, this goes both ways – a lot of antitheists would do well to take a few lessons in epistemology. And my avoidance of the term “atheist” is deliberate: it used to mean “antitheist”, but nowadays people seem to want communicate a weird intangible “not really antitheist but more than just agnostic” notion when they use it – a classic distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.
only reply today if you agree to comment (good or bad) on one of my photographs tomorrow.
Huh?
Re:Miscellanea
sigzero on 2007-04-11T12:13:27
The Nazi regime had the Vatican’s full blessing, y’know? And what about the inquisition? The crusades? Talk about living in the glass house and throwing stones.Well 2 of those are fully Roman Catholic, and I could argue for days why they happened and why they weren't "christian". The Crusades is a good one but I don't think it was "christian" either but more "political".
I would also say "full blessing" is incorrect as well. Certainly the Roman Catholic church did bad things but I am pretty sure the Pope didn't say "Go kill millions of Jews, it's okay." and even if the Pope did say that I would say ding ding not "christian". I could go on for days about the "Pope" as well. Gah!
Re:Miscellanea
Aristotle on 2007-04-11T12:47:58
If you’re gonna get into that sort of game, I’m also going to declare “political, nothing to do with atheism” for the Soviet Union claim and then the argument disappears in a puff of smoke. Just as well, really, since that leaves the advocates of faith in a better position than if their argument was valid but wrong.
Re:Miscellanea
sigzero on 2007-04-11T13:57:32
Nah, don't do that. Most people automatically assume the crusades were "christian" and I would say historically that they were not. I would also go with your point of "political, nothing to do with atheism". Why? Sometimes people want to lump things into politics that just don't belong. Now whatever world view you hold certainly contributes but that doesn't always mean you can label something "christian" or "atheist".
I have a hard time labeling anything from that period done by the "Pope" as "christian" anyway.Re:Miscellanea
sigzero on 2007-04-11T14:01:59
Maybe I could ask this. Why do you think the crusades were "christian"?Re:Miscellanea
Matts on 2007-04-11T14:08:20
From Wikipedia:The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom,[1] with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.[2][3]Looks pretty christian to me.Re:Miscellanea
sigzero on 2007-04-11T14:17:03
I actually read that and I don't agree with wikipedia.
The original crusades (Pope Urban II) were defensive measures against almost 4 centuries of Muslim conquest and warfare.
There is a lot of history in that period. Just because the Roman Catholic church and the "Pope" were involved, doesn't make it "christian".
It is a very good study in history, politics and yes religion.
Re:Miscellanea
Matts on 2007-04-11T14:28:51
I actually read that and I don't agree with wikipedia.You should go in there and fix it then:-) Re:Miscellanea
pudge on 2007-04-11T18:49:46
Well, it is a mixed bag with the Crusades. Not as Christian as many atheists want to believe, but not devoid of Christianity either.
It's similar to the Iraq War: many people think it is a religious war, when it clearly is not, but there are certainly religious motivations and influences behind many of the people involved (on all sides).
As to fixing Wikipedia... jeez, one simple fix can take weeks to defend and then it will still be removed anyway. :-) Re:Miscellanea
sigzero on 2007-04-13T11:54:33
Well, it is a mixed bag with the Crusades. Not as Christian as many atheists want to believe, but not devoid of Christianity either.Thank you for that. It was my thought but I couldn't get it out
Re:Miscellanea
Alias on 2007-04-12T18:28:40
Indeed, wikipedia needs a more truthy version...Re:Miscellanea
Alias on 2007-04-12T13:27:09
> Certainly the Roman Catholic church did bad things but I am pretty sure
> the Pope didn't say "Go kill millions of Jews, it's okay." and even if
> the Pope did say that I would say ding ding not "christian".
I've heard that line "The Pope isn't Christian" one actually said to me a few times.
From memory, that argument actually has a formal name.
Something about fallacy by exclusion from definition... but I can't find the page for it.Re:Miscellanea
pudge on 2007-04-11T19:16:06
Well“The soviet union’s atheist regime killed 20 million”
That just takes the cake – the irony is killing me. The Nazi regime had the Vatican’s full blessing, y’know?... no. It didn't. The Vatican did not give a full blessing. It played politics and tried to stay out of it, and you could call what it did appeasement, which I suppose you could awkwardly turn into a blessing of some kind, but it was not a "full" blessing, certainly.
That said, as I mentioned to Matts, this argument is offered in response to the notion that Christians are bad (because of the Crusades etc.) and atheists are good. Dawkins spends pages going on about the Inquisition, and yet never explains the essentially atheist regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Mentioning these atheist regimes makes no sense on its own, but only in response to the claim that Christians are worse than atheists. And the point of bringing it up is not to make atheists look worse, but to make EVERYONE look bad. Yes, as you say, Christians have done terrible things. They are just as bad as atheists.
Your notes about the age of the Earth and the meaning of "atheist" I addressed in my other post as well.
Cheers.
Re:Miscellanea
Alias on 2007-04-12T18:33:11
The only data-based stuff I've seen suggested that the higher the rate of secularism/atheism (important difference between the two, but I can't recall which one it was) the higher the commitment to christian values, statistically.
That is, the stronger religious a country was, the less it followed religious morals.
Or something like that.Re:Miscellanea
pudge on 2007-04-12T18:50:30
The only data-based stuff I've seen suggested that the higher the rate of secularism/atheism (important difference between the two, but I can't recall which one it was) the higher the commitment to christian values, statistically.I've seen such studies, and they do not even attempt to control for other factors. For example -- and I know this does not hold true across the spectrum of nations, it is just an example -- perhaps a "Christian nation" like America allows more freedom than an "atheist nation" like China, and thus has more social problems like murder and abortion. Does that mean America is worse than China, or that its Christian values (in this case, freedom) have more negative results than those of its atheist counterpart? Some people in China certainly think so, but I'd disagree, as would most people in the West, who believe in freedom (regardless of their religious views).
That is, the stronger religious a country was, the less it followed religious morals.
Or something like that.
Again, this is just one example. Another may be that America has gun rights built in to its Constitution and therefore we have more gun violence, but that a. is not necessarily a bad thing (e.g. a few more people die, but tyranny is averted) and b. does not necessarily reflect directly on anything to do with religion (at least, no moreso than any other expression of liberty).
And how does one even define Christian morals? Some people claim a government committment to the poor is a Christian value, but I could not disagree more: government charity, while in some cases more effective in curtailing the actual problem of poverty, is a poor substitute for the Christian value of individual charity, and comparing the results and saying whether one stacks up better to "Christian values" is, at best, like comparing apples and oranges.
Etc.
The Origin of the Species
With my pendantry hat on, that book is actually called "The Origin of Species". It's all a little confusing given that the plural of "species" is "species", but the book is supposed to explain the origin of all species (although it prevaricates slightly on Man and doesn't really make that connection clear - for that you need "The Descent of Man")
They're trying to say that if you use duck typing atheism is a faith
I resent even having to refer to myself as an atheist; it's such a stark reminder that the normal state (statistically at least) is to be theist. Why can't the believers be called irrationalists instead?
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
phaylon on 2007-04-11T13:51:30
Because then the atheists would claim rationality. And most self-claiming atheists I met had more of a "There is no god. Period." attitude.
I'd rather have the word spread that knowing and believing are two absolute different pair of shoes. And that goes for both camps, since I personally actually see science as faith or belief. At least with those people that say that a proven theory must be how reality is. But this would become a rather large discussion
:) Re:Far from fundamentalist...
sigzero on 2007-04-11T15:13:50
Oh no, I am irrational. Ask my wife.
"Dear Lord, who made the birds and the bees... and the snails, presumably, erm, please help me, a little animal too, in my despair. I have been a sinner, but now I intend to follow the path of the saints: particularly the very religious ones." -- Rowan Atkinson (I think)Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-11T16:48:11
Because he said it better than most of us could… a transcript of Richard Feynman from The Pleasure of Finding Things Out:
If you expected science to give all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are or where we are going or what the meaning of the universe is and so on, then I think you can easily become disillusioned and then look for some mystic answer to these problems. How a scientist can take a mystic answer I don’t know because the whole spirit is to understand… – well nevermind that, anyway I don’t understand that. But anyhow; if you think of it – the way I think of what we’re doing is: we’re exploring, we’re trying to find out as much as we can about the world.
People say to me “are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No I’m not, I’m just looking to find out more about the world, and if it turns out there is a simple, ultimate law that explains everything, so be it; that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is. But whatever way it comes out, it’s nature, it’s there, and she’s going to come out the way she is. And therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re trying to do except to find out more about it. If you say, but your problem is why do you find out more about it: if you thought you were trying to find out more about it because you’re going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question, you may be wrong – it may be that you can’t get an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of nature. But I don’t look at it… – my interest in science is to simply find out about the world, and the more I find out [?that?it?is?then?] like to find out.
Ah, there are very remarkable mysteries about the fact we were able to do so many more things than apparently animals can do, and other questions like that. But those are mysteries I want to investigate without knowing the answer to them. And so all together I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large because… they seem to be… too simple, too connected to… too local, too provincial. The Earth! He came to the Earth! One of the aspects of God came to the Earth, mind you. And look at what’s out there! How can it… it isn’t in proportion.
Anyway, it’s no use arguing, I can’t argue it, I’m just trying to tell ya why the scientific views that I have do have some effect on my beliefs.
And also another thing has to do with the question of how do you find out if something is true. And if you have all these theories of the different religions, have all different theories about the thing, then you begin to wonder. Once you start doubting – just like you’re supposed to doubt – you ask me if the science is true, I say “no no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong.” Start out understanding religion by saying “everything is possibly wrong. Let us see.” As soon as you do that you start sliding down an edge, which is hard to recover from. And so what the scientific view – or my father’s view, that we should look to see what’s true and what may be and may not be true… Once you start doubting – which I think is, to me, is a very fundamental part of my soul, is to doubt, and to ask, and when you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe.
You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there’re many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little but if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t have… I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things; by being “lost, in a mysterious universe, without having any purpose” – which is the way it really is as far as I can tell, possibly.
It doesn’t frighten me.
He also once captured it this way: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
I think a lot of antitheists forget to doubt their doubt, though. That’s what I meant when I referred to epistemology. I find very few people who really grok the notion of doubting on a fundamental level; the notion of skepticism.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
phaylon on 2007-04-11T17:33:26
He also once captured it this way: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”I would agree, but my point was rather that both sides can be pretty fast on saying "we know the truth." And neither of them really knows, both just believe.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-11T17:43:53
I don’t disagree. But then, I’m agnostic, so I wouldn’t…
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-11T19:37:24
He also once captured it this way: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”He must not have known very many religious people. Nearly all of the great Christians in history have had tremendous doubt, from the Apostle Peter himself down through C.S. Lewis.
Faith is not in opposition to doubt; faith expects doubt. That is why, for some of us, the practice of apologetics is so important: because we prove to ourselves the logical consistency of belief, so we have something solid to fall back on when we doubt our faith. As Steve Taylor sang (borrowing from Flannery O'Connor): "Shivering with doubts that were left unattended / so you toss away the cloak that you should have mended / don't you know by now why the chosen are few? / it's harder to believe than not to."
Every religious person experiences doubt. Some ignore it and press on, while others explore it and either wind up in disbelief, or become stronger for it.
It's no different from science. Why did Einstein believe so strongly in his theory of general relativity? Because he doubted it, and it was put to the test (and along the way he "irrationally" held on to his theory by inventing the cosmological constant so it would make sense in the face of apparently conflicting evidence: no faith, my ass:-).
Science and religion are both just thoughts, reasons, and beliefs, except directed onto different sorts of objects.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-14T22:38:43
I had to sit on this comment for a couple of days to choose my words, even though it felt wrong right away.
You don’t give Feynman enough credit. He said religion is a culture of faith; he did not say religion is a culture of blind faith. This is the crux of the entire issue: the doubt you describe is a means, not an end. It is a stepstone to faith (whether it be stronger faith or negative faith).
In contrast, doubt is not a state to be resolved for a skeptic. The basic tenet is acknowledgement that any interesting question is fundamentally unanswerable. To excerpt the salient part of the transcript:
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there’re many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here and what the question might mean.
We cannot prove anything interesting about the world. We can prove no more than tautologies. Tautologies aren’t useless: all of mathematics is tautologies. But mathematics is not science – mathematics does not follow the scientific method. The scientific method does not produce proofs. None of the knowledge we have obtained using the scientific method is proven in any sense of the word.
In science, all we have are theories. Even electromagnetism, arguably the best understood force and phenomenon, is just a theory. We have a lot of confidence in that theory, because observations have lined up with it time and time again – but no inevitability follows from that. I would not advise that you stick your fingers in a wall plug. However, we do not have proof that you will be shocked and killed by electrity if you do, just sufficient observations that it is clearly unwise to assume otherwise.
So what was it faith in the religious sense that drove Einstein to amend his formulæ? Maybe – I don’t know what was going on in his mind. What I do know, however, is that it was clear that relativity did fit much of the data, and in many respects did so very well. To then assume that the theory is incomplete is not a stretch, nor does it necessitate faith in the religious sense. Would he have tried to salvage the theory by adding ever more complex tweaks in response to ever more striking contradictions?
Well, scientists do that. But then, Feynman went on many times and at length about the difficulty of maintaining intellectual honesty and not fooling yourself. He criticised a lot of the “science” being done as pseudoscience, done without the necessary care and checking. That is not science.
He was perfectly on the mark: religion is a culture of faith – science is a culture of doubt.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-14T23:31:17
You don’t give Feynman enough credit. He said religion is a culture of faith; he did not say religion is a culture of blind faith.But I am not saying he is saying that. I am saying, rather, that he implies that it is a faith that is without doubt (since he contrasts it to doubt). He completely misunderstands and misrepresents religious faith.This is the crux of the entire issue: the doubt you describe is a means, not an end.Neither is doubt with science an end, but a means... as you describe well through the rest of your post. It is what drives you to attempt to come up with answers, to learn more, and to become more certain. In contrast, doubt is not a state to be resolved for a skeptic.A skeptic attempts to resolve questions as much as a religious person, and he acknowledges that much cannot be answered no more than a religious person.The basic tenet is acknowledgement that any interesting question is fundamentally unanswerable.If by "unanswerable" you mean "cannot be absolutely proven," sure. But that is an odd way to put it. We have many "answers" to many interesting questions, including cures for diseases and so on, despite not having absolute "proof."
And the point of science is not to not have answers, anyway, the point is to learn. That you cannot have absolute proof is not the goal, but merely a truth to be accepted about the process.So what was it faith in the religious sense that drove Einstein to amend his formulæ?His theory said the universe was constantly expanding. Other prominent scientists said Einstein's theory must be wrong, because we "know" the universe is NOT expanding. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant, because he refused to abandon his theory, even in light of strong evidence against it.
Later, of course, he found out the universe was expanding, thanks to Hubble, and he abandoned his "fix."What I do know, however, is that it was clear that relativity did fit much of the data, and in many respects did so very well. To then assume that the theory is incomplete is not a stretch, nor does it necessitate faith in the religious sense.What you describe is indistinguishable from "faith in the religious sense."He was perfectly on the mark: religion is a culture of faith – science is a culture of doubt.You have not shown a single epistemological distinction between the two. Indeed, by your exposition on the nature of scientific knowledge and lack of proof (which I agree with, of course), you've only shown religion and science to be more similar than many atheists and scientists would care to admit.
So let's get down to it: how does scientific faith -- belief in, and adherence to, a theory -- differ from religious faith? Can you come up with any way to describe that difference, or any examples that show it?
And I do not mean to demean anyone or anything by calling scientific belief "faith." But it is faith, nonetheless. Sometimes it is like what Einstein did; the theory was so good he refused to abandon it in light of evidence against it, which is much like common religious faith.
However, sometimes it is more like the current global warming debate, where "scientists" get up and say what I think you'll agree are absolutely nonsensical statements to come from a scientist, statements like "the debate is over." That too is much like religious faith for some people, unfortunately.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Matts on 2007-04-15T00:47:34
Sometimes it is like what Einstein did; the theory was so good he refused to abandon it in light of evidence against it, which is much like common religious faith.I can't see how that's anything like religious faith at all - because with religious faith there's absolutely zero evidence. If there were evidence (and I mean that in scientific terms) then there probably wouldn't be any atheists.Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-15T04:09:50
I can't see how that's anything like religious faith at all - because with religious faith there's absolutely zero evidence.That is absolutely false.;-) evidence (and I mean that in scientific terms)Ah, *scientific* evidence. I was saying that faith in scientific evidence is similar to faith in religious evidence, so saying that scientific faith is not at all like religious faith because religion is not based on scientific evidence is question-begging. We are talking epistemology here: yes, scientific knowledge is different from other kinds of knowledge (religious knowledge is largely philsophical, while scientific knowledge is largely experimental), but in what way is that actually different, and make one less about faith than the other?
For example, let's take some nonreligious philosophy. Descartes said, "cogito ergo sum," "I think, therefore I am." I have far more faith in this being true than I have in any scientific theory that I can think of offhand, because though not necessarily obvious at first, when you think about it, it is self-evidently true (almost literally!).
Similarly, the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God is, IMO, pretty strong (and incidentally, relies significantly on scientific evidence). Not as strong as cogito ergo sum, but stronger than, well, anthropogenic global warming (not that I want to get into that discussion) .
Then there's the historical evidence for the existence of Christ and his followers, although it requires a philosophical case to accept that they said and did what the Bible said.
But though these things do not rely significantly on scientific evidence, it is still a very rational process: the dialectic of Kalam, the historicity of the New Testament scriptures, etc.
So the question, again, is what makes scientific "faith" superior? Or, what about scientific evidence, on an epistemological level, makes it superior?
I don't know that anyone's every been able to answer that question without resorting to question-begging (assuming it is superior merely because it is "scientific"), or ignoring the fact that science (as aristotle said above) does not actually prove anything, or even ignoring the fact that scientific knowledge itself is ultimately based on philosophy (e.g., the scientific method).
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Matts on 2007-04-15T17:01:58
I've yet to see religious evidence that is anything more than "I don't know the answer, so I'll assume a God". That's exactly what Kalam's cosmological argument is. I'd welcome something better than that, if you can provide something.
The scientist's answer to this is that to assume a "mystical" answer where there isn't a good scientific answer simply isn't good enough - we must strive for more knowledge to get at the answer, and for now to simply be happy that we don't know the truth to that question (or whether that question even means anything) yet.Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-15T17:57:25
I've yet to see religious evidence that is anything more than "I don't know the answer, so I'll assume a God". That's exactly what Kalam's cosmological argument is.No, you misunderstand the argument and the issues surrounding it. The argument claims there is a Cause for the universe. Then there is a second part to the argument which argues that the cause is Personal. It argues affirmatively that the universe must have been created by a personal, willfull, cause, and that no other beginning is even possible (not merely unknown).
I was not entirely clear by linking merely to that one Wikipedia page; William Lane Craig touches on this a bit in the conclusion of his kalam summary, but of course, the argument goes far deeper than that.
The way I like to explain it is that if the first cause were not personal, acting from infinity (that is, outside of time), then the universe would have been created an infinite time ago (which was already argued in the first part of the discussion to be, at best, unlikely, though I'd claim it impossible), because an impersonal cause could not decide to create the universe, and being outside of time, nothing else could cause the cause to do so either. In order for a finite universe to have been created, the cause must have decided to create it, which means it must have been a personal cause.
You can, of course, argue against this logic, but the argument is a sound and strong one.I'd welcome something better than that, if you can provide something.There's more, of course, as I mentioned. My belief in the existence of the man Jesus Christ is well-supported by the physical evidence (far moreso than any other alternative explanations), and logical deduction makes me believe that the things written in the Bible were believed, by the people who wrote them, to be true. (And don't even get me started on the reliability of today's New Testament scriptures, which are, historically speaking, the most reliable, well-attested, ancient texts we have in our possession today.)
None of this means Jesus is God, of course. But it is all significant evidence of him. The cosmological stuff, of course, has nothing to do with proving Jesus at all.
And note that I am leaving out experiential knowledge entirely. I don't discount it, and I actually value it highly, but I realize that you would dismiss it out of hand either as invalid or at the very least unconvincing, so I won't bother.The scientist's answer to this is that to assume a "mystical" answer where there isn't a good scientific answer simply isn't good enoughEven if I were doing that (which I am not), who is to say that this is wrong?
This is a classic example of question-begging. You are assuming scientific knowledge is superior to other forms of knowledge, and in order to do that, you argue from a scientific position, when instead you need to argue it from an epistemological position. And that is very difficult, since the concept of scientific knowledge itself is based on the same basic philosophies as those of religious belief.
But again, I am not doing what you say. I am more in tune with Sir Isaac Newton, whose very deep, personal, religious belief in the Christian God caused him to believe that therefore the universe was ordered, and understandable. There is no line of demarcation between religion and science. They are not the same thing, of course, but they are not opposing forces. It's like saying that words are superior to numbers, or music superior to lyrics. You may not like both, and certainly some people who like music hate lyrics and vice versa, but most of the rest of the world doesn't actually see the problem.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Matts on 2007-04-15T18:31:29
The way I like to explain it is that if the first cause were not personal, acting from infinity (that is, outside of time), then the universe would have been created an infinite time ago (which was already argued in the first part of the discussion to be, at best, unlikely, though I'd claim it impossible), because an impersonal cause could not decide to create the universe, and being outside of time, nothing else could cause the cause to do so either. In order for a finite universe to have been created, the cause must have decided to create it, which means it must have been a personal cause.I don't argue against the logic, just that the logic does not imply a God. The universe could have been pooped out by a Cosmic Squirrel. That's not a god, or an almighty being (just an almighty poop). It's just something we don't understand yet.
You can, of course, argue against this logic, but the argument is a sound and strong one.
It also flies in the face of general relativity which (without digging out "A Brief History of Time" so I'm going by memory here) equations predict an elastic time, stretching out until the singularity only to reverse once they get to that point (i.e. the big bang wasn't the start, just the end of one swing of the pendulum). That obviously implies an infinite universe which just goes back and forth in time, with no "beginning" as such, since a beginning relies on our current understanding of time.Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-15T23:28:28
I don't argue against the logic, just that the logic does not imply a God.It implies a being who is powerful enough to do it, who is capable of making the willfull decision to do it, , and who lives outside of time. Whatever you call it, it is outside of the realm of any science known to man, and it is some sort of "supreme being," and that's the point. It is a given that it doesn't describe much about the nature of this being, and I was not using it in that way.It also flies in the face of general relativity which (without digging out "A Brief History of Time" so I'm going by memory here) equations predict an elastic timeWell. Sorta. That was a theory Hawking proposed, there is no significant evidence supporting it, and as best I can tell he offered the theory specifically as a way to try to explain how we could exist without such a "supreme being." Not very convincing. Especially since Hawking's latest theory says we did have a beginning, but that the beginning was a quantum one, so every possible universe began at once. IIRC.
But yes, there is disagreement on whether the universe had a beginning.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Matts on 2007-04-15T23:49:11
It implies a being who is powerful enough to do it, who is capable of making the willfull decision to do it, , and who lives outside of time. Whatever you call it, it is outside of the realm of any science known to man, and it is some sort of "supreme being," and that's the point. It is a given that it doesn't describe much about the nature of this being, and I was not using it in that way.Well another possibility is that the universe was some sort of accidental experiment from a super-large-scale collider of some sort, built by ancient civilisations billions of years ago. And it's "colliders all the way down". Nothing supreme or supernatural about that at all, unless you consider humans to be supreme and supernatural.
But for now I'll accept your point: All hail the Cosmic Squirrel.:-) Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-16T01:34:08
Well another possibility is that the universe was some sort of accidental experiment from a super-large-scale collider of some sort, built by ancient civilisations billions of years ago. And it's "colliders all the way down".Yes, it is possible our universe was created by another universe, but then what created that one, or the one that created it, and so on? The same laws we're discussing that say you cannot traverse an actual infinite demand that at some point, there was a beginning, in my opinion.
Not that I am always right.:-) But it seems like the most rational position, given the evidence, to me. Which was really my only point. :D
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Matts on 2007-04-16T03:01:37
there was a beginning, in my opinionI agree (despite the wonderful elegance of "turtles all the way down"). However I think the beginning being a "god" is far too simple an explanation.
What's unfortunate is that if we ever do experimentally try and prove how a universe is created, we will probably instantaneously blast ourselves out of existence. Ah the sweet irony:-) Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-16T05:03:24
However I think the beginning being a "god" is far too simple an explanation.I understand that view. I just think that no other posited explanation thus far fits the evidence.
The problem is, of course, that we are extremely dumb creatures, when it comes to understanding the universe.:-) I realize I may be wrong. Still, we can only do our best to understand given what we've got.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-15T18:44:42
To assume causality past the beginning of the universe seems like a questionable position to me, not a strong one. That everything that begins to exist has a cause is a compelling claim, but to the best of our knowledge so far, at the deepest level, existence in this universe is acausal; further, to the best of our knowledge so far, the beginning of the universe was found in this deepest level.
Any argument that rests on causality, however convincing, is a castle built on sand, as far as I can tell.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-15T23:28:27
Any argument that rests on causality, however convincing, is a castle built on sand, as far as I can tell.
To assume causality past the beginning of the universe seems like a questionable position to me, not a strong one.I am not assuming anything, I am deducing it.That everything that begins to exist has a cause is a compelling claim, but to the best of our knowledge so far, at the deepest level, existence in this universe is acausalHeh, now YOU'RE the one who is assuming. Just because you can't see a cause doesn't mean it's there.Any argument that rests on causality, however convincing, is a castle built on sand, as far as I can tell.Shrug. I believe it is infinitely more reasonable than the alternative explanation, that it exists without a cause.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-16T06:01:58
You did notice that I qualified the claims as being to the best of our knowledge, so far (twice)?
:-) Maybe quantum mechanics does turn out to be deterministic rather than stochastic, once we find out enough about it. There are many scientists who are trying to formulate a deterministic foundation for QM.
I don’t see a need for such, though. I can equally well accept the current view, in which existence in the microcosm is acausal, and causality in the mesocosm and above is merely an emergent phenomenon of the incessant, unfathomably numerous interactions of the microcosmic.
Is this what reality is actually like? Many people, even scientists, find the idea unsatisfying. I’m wary of such calls for a deterministic explanation where they are demanded merely because a stochastic nature for the cosmos is counterintuitive; the human mind is ill-equipped to grasp stochastic processes and emergent phenomena because our intuition is shaped by our experience of the mesocosm. Of course, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you; and just because a theory is counterintuitive doesn’t make it more or less likely to be the correct explanation.
I really don’t know.
Which is precisely where I’m led by every examination of the matter: I don’t know. It might even be that I cannot know; but I don’t know that either. Apart from the fact that some theories sound more intuitive than others (which, as I said, is something I mistrust), there is no apparent criterion by which to choose.
Hence, agnostic.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-16T06:47:13
You did notice that I qualified the claims as being to the best of our knowledge, so far (twice)?Sure, but my point is that I disagree, that the best of our knowledge does not agree that existence is acausal.:-) I’m wary of such calls for a deterministic explanation where they are demanded merely because a stochastic nature for the cosmos is counterintuitiveBut that's not what I am doing. I think, rather, that the evidence shows that a personal cause to the universe is the only possibilty. I am open to other evidence, of course. But I just don't think, at this point, any argument has yet come up that makes me think it is possible that the universe has always existed, or that it could have sprung into existence from infinity without a personal cause (even if we say that not everything requires a cause, the same argument that states why the hypothetical cause must be personal, also provides additional reason why there needs to be a cause).
Not that I am absolutely convinced I am right, because at root, I need to recognize, as we all seem to, that we are fallible creatures, which means our ability to reason is fallible as well. That I think something isn't possible, through sound logical deduction, doesn't mean it is actually impossible. This is a given.the human mind is ill-equipped to grasp stochastic processes and emergent phenomena because our intuition is shaped by our experience of the mesocosm.I dunno. We have thousands of years of philosophy arguing for a stochastic universe. I don't think it is as foreign a concept as many think, even though the last several hundred years of our history have certainly seen that view fall into complete disrepute before being recently revived by qunatum theory.Which is precisely where I’m led by every examination of the matter: I don’t know.But again, this is not significantly different from any science, as you pointed out. What bothers me most is the epistemological double-standard that religion is subjected to.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-15T21:49:27
For example, let’s take some nonreligious philosophy. Descartes said, “cogito ergo sum,” “I think, therefore I am.” I have far more faith in this being true than I have in any scientific theory that I can think of offhand, because though not necessarily obvious at first, when you think about it, it is self-evidently true (almost literally!).
Your “almost literally” exclamation does not even need the “almost” qualifier. “I think, therefore I am” is, in fact, a tautology. It is therefore no less robust than any proven mathematical statement.
Would that more of philosophy were so… alas, this statement is a rare example. The Kalam cosmological argument, in sharp contrast, quite clearly seems to reside in Descartes’ “realm of the doubtable.”
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-15T23:28:23
Your “almost literally” exclamation does not even need the “almost” qualifier. “I think, therefore I am” is, in fact, a tautology.I was just playing a little joke with the word "self."
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Aristotle on 2007-04-15T19:19:55
His theory said the universe was constantly expanding. Other prominent scientists said Einstein’s theory must be wrong, because we “know” the universe is NOT expanding. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant, because he refused to abandon his theory, even in light of strong evidence against it. […] The theory was so good he refused to abandon it in light of evidence against it, which is much like common religious faith.
But the theory was not “good” just because it sounded rationally convincing. It was good because it rested on special relativity, which rested on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the many variations on its theme, which had shown beyond reasonable doubt that prior theories which were in contradiction with special relativity were wrong. Einstein didn’t incorporate an artificial fix just because he fancied his theory a lot.[1]
I do not have to be rationally convinced by our current theory of electromagnetism to get killed by sticking my fingers in a wall plug, assuming that electromagnetism does indeed work as we think it does, and I can easily amass enough observations to conclude that I better not try, even if I remain unconvinced.
Along the same lines, I’m rather skeptical of much of the accepted model of contemporary mainstream cosmology, because so much of it relies on so much less observation than, say, electromagnetism.
PS.: it just occured to me, after writing the above, that you chose to accentuate your argument by pointing to a belief of yours (that Jesus was real (which I believe as well; and hey, Einstein did too, despite his stated disbelief in a personal god)), whereas I chose to accentuate mine by pointing to how much I have no confidence in. Surely Mr. Feynman must have been joking…
[1] Although maybe he did. He did believe in a form of divine principle after all, though not in a personal god, which makes him a somewhat sketchy choice as an example of a scientist practicing science in a faith-like way.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-15T23:28:25
But the theory was not “good” just because it sounded rationally convincing. It was good because it rested on special relativity, which rested on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the many variations on its theme, which had shown beyond reasonable doubt that prior theories which were in contradiction with special relativity were wrong. Einstein didn’t incorporate an artificial fix just because he fancied his theory a lot.And how is that different from religious belief? I believe in Jesus for many solid reasons too. It is not just that it "sounded rationally convicing," although that is true too.Along the same lines, I’m rather skeptical of much of the accepted model of contemporary mainstream cosmology, because so much of it relies on so much less observation than, say, electromagnetism.Sure, and you should be skeptical. Just like I am skeptical of global warming, which has similar observational difficulties.PS.: it just occured to me, after writing the above, that you chose to accentuate your argument by pointing to a belief of yours (that Jesus was real (which I believe as well; and hey, Einstein did too, despite his stated disbelief in a personal god)), whereas I chose to accentuate mine by pointing to how much I have no confidence in. Surely Mr. Feynman must have been joking…Actually, I had some other beliefs that I have less confidence in (like the evolution of man), but excluded it since I didn't want to stray too far from the point.
Re:Far from fundamentalist...
Alias on 2007-04-12T18:38:33
The nice thing about science though, is that for the most part you can test your beliefs.
It's still belief, but it's belief with the option of (non-absolute) proof.Re:Far from fundamentalist...
pudge on 2007-04-11T19:18:34
Why can't the believers be called irrationalists instead?Because that would be fundamentally irrational.
