Post #291,711
8/27/07 8:13:53 PM
|
I think you're using too broad a brush.
Yet many atheists preach their conviction with a truly religious certainty, simply denying the existence of anything beyond the known borders of logic, science and observation, all of which are by their very nature severely limited in scope. There are a few atheists like that, but I think most of the ones I've come across (including yours truly) are closer to the [link|http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/31|Bertrand Russell] flavor: It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless. [link|http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/russell.htm|And]: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. There are many others, of course. :-) You're using a variation on [link|http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2007/01/pascals_wager_t.html|Pascal's Wager]. Richard Dawkin's [link|http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618680004/ref=pd_cp_b_title?ie=UTF8|book] addresses that very well, too, IMO. Have a look at [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=291631|Silverlock's latest .sig]. :-) My take (at the moment) is that Atheism addresses the question of whether there's evidence for a supernatural deity that demands our worship and will punish us if we don't give it. Atheism at a minimum comes down on the side that there is no evidence for such a deity. It doesn't address the question of whether our present understanding of physics and cosmology is sufficient to explain everything. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #291,713
8/27/07 9:14:00 PM
|
'There is no evidence for such a deity'
My take (at the moment) is that Atheism addresses the question of whether there's evidence for a supernatural deity that demands our worship and will punish us if we don't give it. Atheism at a minimum comes down on the side that there is no evidence for such a deity. It doesn't address the question of whether our present understanding of physics and cosmology is sufficient to explain everything. Now that I'll pretty much agree with. The concept of "a supernatural deity that demands our worship" is nothing but a tool of authoritarianism and there is no evidence whatever for such a deity. Those who worship such a deity fare no better than those who don't - in fact they seem to fare rather worse - though that is partially attributable to those doing worse trying to find an easy way out. In some cases I think such worship is a major contributing factor to being worse off, and I point my finger at Islam. That a God would have any use for worship seems rather unlikely - unless that God is a consensus construct of human minds and requires that worship for sustenance - or even existence - but would such an entity be a true god? I think not. On the other hand such a God could serve well as a mascot and guide for the cohesion of the culture that created Him. In that way He could be useful, but to consider him all-powerful and unchangeable would be wrong. This is how I tend to view the God of the Christians, and other God focused religions. Is there a higher form of God, one (or more) to whom human worship is irrelevant? Some say there is, others say there isn't - it depends on what kind of evidence you want to accept. Certainly science cannot prove there is, nor can it prove there isn't. So with the vengeful God theory statistically eliminated, and any higher form unproven, what is a reasonable person to do? I say to to operate within the structure of the larger human society, but keep your mind open and an eye peeled for evidence. Human knowledge is constantly expanding and ascribing limits to it (or to reality) is counterproductive. Many atheists simply deny the possibility of anything beyond what is known to science today and think themselves superior to others for that denial - and do not shrink from saying so. Those atheists are annoying. And Silverlock's signature is wrong. One must operate within some cosmology, some conception of reality, and given the limited range of our knowledge and lack of anything resembling a proof, any such concept counts as a religion. [link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #291,733
8/28/07 3:01:21 AM
|
You keep saying "it must be a religion"
...when you clearly have a different definition of "religion" to the rest of us. The reason one needs faith to believe in a god is that there's no evidence. That's what faith is. I don't need faith to be an atheist, because it's not up to me to prove that there's no god. That's not how science works. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory. It made the computers we're using to argue with, the internet that is for porn, the [link|http://www.fonejacker.tv/|herd luckerderterv] in my living room, the car I drive around in, and, indeed, all the stuff that we use today. You are free to dismiss this as religion, but you'd be wrong. It's great fun to speculate about what sort of god there is or might be, but the entire evidence for the existence of same can be found between these square brackets [], and in that light discussing whether god might be a bastard or a nice guy is like wondering whether the Millennium Falcon would beat the Enterprise in a space fight. When the evidence for a god turns up, then that's a whole different barrel of lutefisk. Many atheists simply deny the possibility of anything beyond what is known to science today and think themselves superior to others for that denial - and do not shrink from saying so. Those atheists are annoying. Who denies the possibility of anything beyond what is known today? Not me, that's for sure. When ah were a lad, I would have been amazed by the herd luckerderterv and doovd in my living room, but I could have had its operation and construction explained to me in scientific terms, and not had to regard it as "magic". One concept that seems to pervade theist thinking is that it's somehow up to the scientists to prove the non-existence of god. It's not.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #291,737
8/28/07 3:59:46 AM
|
And you keep say'n my concept of God . . .
. . has to correspond with the Christian good-guy / bad guy concept which you understand and despise - that my definition of religion is different from yours so it must be irrelevant. Heh!
The scientific evidence that there is anything at all is between these brackets []. The more scientists delve into the foundation of the universe the more they know about it and the less they find.
"I saw in my hand something the size of a pea. I asked God 'what is this' and he answered 'That is all that has ever been created'" - Hildegard von Bingen - Abbess, mystic, composer (music still performed) - died 1179. A tad ahead of the science boys, huh?
I understand and respect your science. I use it every day in many ways, probably in more ways than you do. I also understand it quite beyond BMWs and computers. I am also open to there being something in the vast gaps science leaves untouched - and that those realms should be examined to the best of our ability. You are not because you haven't read about it in Popular Mechanics.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #291,739
8/28/07 7:01:14 AM
|
Re: And you keep say'n my concept of God . . .
. . has to correspond with the Christian good-guy / bad guy concept which you understand and despise - that my definition of religion is different from yours so it must be irrelevant. Heh! Well, you keep giving it a capital G, and the word "God" in English has one very, very common meaning, so what is a chap to think? The scientific evidence that there is anything at all is between these brackets []. The more scientists delve into the foundation of the universe the more they know about it and the less they find. First sentence is meaningless. Fancy words, but ultimately sophistry. What you're basically saying is "we don't know jack", which is demonstrably not true. An assumption that there is an infinite amount of stuff to know will, naturally, bring the mathematical certainty that infinity - a finite amount = infinity, but this does not alter the obvious fact that we clearly know something. "I saw in my hand something the size of a pea. I asked God 'what is this' and he answered 'That is all that has ever been created'" - Hildegard von Bingen - Abbess, mystic, composer (music still performed) - died 1179. A tad ahead of the science boys, huh? I know who she is. I even bought her CD (Canticles of Ecstacy. It's OK, but one has to be in the mood for it). You don't have a monopoly on knowing who ancient religious nutters are. I understand and respect your science. I use it every day in many ways, probably in more ways than you do. I also understand it quite beyond BMWs and computers. I am also open to there being something in the vast gaps science leaves untouched - and that those realms should be examined to the best of our ability. You are not because you haven't read about it in Popular Mechanics. I don't read Popular Mechanics, and your assumption that you use science more than I do is just that - an assumption. I don't talk about my day job, because it's very specialised and crushingly dull to those outside the field. My scientific training includes chemistry, geography and information theory as well as the more humdrum computer programming and its ilk. You're assuming (it's that word again) that there must be something in the gaps, and your assumption leads you (and religionists and woo-woos of all stripes) to fill those gaps with products of the human imagination. The universe is more than wonderful enough as it stands to fill a chap with awe, without having to make shit up.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #291,758
8/28/07 9:56:03 AM
|
herding drunks down the hiway is scientific?
sorry couldnt help meself
geography chemistry timing and traffic
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #291,762
8/28/07 10:30:03 AM
8/28/07 11:12:00 AM
|
Hey Pete!
Herein lies the rub. When you say, "Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory" are the basis for scientific method, I absolutely agree and feel far too few people understand the importance of this body of knowledge and the idea that is open to constant revision - the best body of knowledge available at any given time. So, let's put the Big Bang Theory under this scrutiny. Any observers out there? Reproduceable? Etc... I think this is at the crux of the entire debate and the point that Andrew is trying to make. We (humans) can only observe "infinity" from our piss-ant crippled reference point (an electron spinning around the sun in an infinite universe) and our hubris won't allow many of us, even an atheist, to admit how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things (or one of the grand schemes of things, ad nauseum, ad infinitum).
Apparently, human beings have an innate need to try and understand. On this here planet, things are born and then die. They can only occupy so much space. And we limit our dimensions to what is observable. To pose a question such as "who created God" or where did the materials come from to make up "the Big Bang"? And how many Big Bangs have there been in infinite time (time without beginning and end, how could there be a "supreme" being in an infinite universe, etc. etc. etc.). It torks the brain. So we seek to find purpose through Philosophy, mythology/religion. To me, it is not about being "right" so much as it about feeling a universal connectedness. Some achieve it through notions of God or through logic, but at the end of the day, we're all full of shit and most of us feel that need. ;-)
I, for one, am equally offended by those who try to "sell me" their version of shit (with absolute conviction) than any other version. I am all for trying to find the connectedness we need (however) and try to be a bit empathetic towards those who are searching, be they religious pilgrims or physicists. YMMV. To answer your last question, is it up the scientist to prove the non-existence of God? Only if he is trying to "sell me" his or her distorted notion about Truth or Purpose, thank you very much. But, since I do like you, and I like Bertrand, here is his answer to your last question at [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot|http://en.wikipedia..../Russell's_teapot] .
YMMV
Just a few thoughts,
Danno - proving the fallacy of intelligent design daily...
Edited by danreck
Aug. 28, 2007, 10:52:37 AM EDT
Edited by danreck
Aug. 28, 2007, 11:12:00 AM EDT
|
