Subject: Re: atheism
From: Robbie (shok@netcom.com)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 01:37:03 EST
Jim said:
<< When I finished reading your last post (not the one I'm quoting), I
told myself, "Jesus, what writing, what thinking! No wonder I forgot he
was 17." I was going to send a post to that effect, and wish I had now.
>>
Well, I'm not sure what to say to that. Thank you, I guess. I tend to
get awfully complimentary comments from time to time, but it's still
pretty awkward (especially in real life). I appreciate it, though. :)
<< I'm no scientist myself. I'm on another listserve, right now,
having the same argument with people who are scientists. >>
Ooh, rough crowd. How's *that* going?
<< No, I never argued that Creation was the only alternative to the Big
Bang. That would be silly. I was simply arguing that on the grounds of
simplicity it is preferable to the Big Bang theory, and by extension,
that your rejection of theism on the grounds of simplicity was
inconsistent. >>
Rather than saying "simplicity," why don't we say "improbability."
The Universe exists. No one is disputing that (and if they are, like I
said before, I'll excuse myself from the discussion on principle). It
seems not entirely unreasonable, then, for people to wonder how it came
to be that way. Stipulating that it came to be that way through
observable natural laws seems to me as pretty reasonable, pretty
probable, and pretty believable. Stipulating that there is an entity
outside of the Universe that needn't operate within its laws, that is
all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., and that has never, to my knowledge,
demonstrated its existence or its influence, strikes me at face value as
pretty unreasonable, pretty improbable, and pretty unbelievable.
Further stipulating that he/she/it poofed the Universe into existence
only serves to compound the above.
I can know that natural laws exist (again, if this is disputed, I'll go
no further in this discussion). I cannot know that an omniscent deity
exists. This alone, makes a divine creation More Complex than a natural
one.
<< I don't invoke the deity until physical causes have run out, for one
thing, >>
Then, if you had lived years and years ago, you would invoke the deity
for everything. Living today, you invoke it for much less. If you were
to live in the distant future, I'm sure, you would be able to invoke it
for nothing at all.
Historically, man has credited God for all that man has yet to discover
the Real reason for. We slowly but eventually get around to finding
more and more Real reasons, and God is slowly but eventually seeming
more and more redundant.
<< and again, I'm not arguing for a specific view of creation. I was
arguing against the use of Occam's razor for the basis of a rejection of
theism. My argument was very limited. >>
Well I would not object to dropping the Occam's razor argument because
it's clearly going nowhere. Although I am still thoroughly convinced of
the utter complexity of any argument that includes a supernatural deity.
<< What would you accept as "a reason." This is where we began. You
have no "reason" to trust your physical senses. You can't prove this
rationally. You just have to accept it and go from there. >>
I trust my senses because they are all I have. I exist in what I call
reality and my only way of perceiving reality is through my senses. As
of this minute, this mode of living has provided for a thoroughly happy
and satisfying existence and my senses have provided me with consistent
information from day one. If reality is an illusion and my senses are
lying to me in order to maintain it, it makes little difference. I'm
happy with the illusion. Whatever "reality" exists outside of my realm
of perception exerts no influence on my existence (as my senses are
incapable of perceiving it) and as such, it is entirely irrelevant to my
existence.
I have no reason to believe in goblins or god. Perhaps they both exist
in some other "reality," but as I have no reason to believe that they
exist in the one pertaining to me, I assume that they don't. I would
accept as "a reason" anything that caters to my senses or the abilities
of reason that I use to process the information they provide.
<< I wasn't referring to Contact, but Cosmos, which was not a novel but
a documentary. It was an exposition of a philosophy. >>
In that case, I take it all back. I've never heard of Cosmos, but I'd
very much like to check it out. I wonder if it's rentable in video
stores.
<< Our evolution as social animals produced religious mandates and was
facilitated by them, and that was my point about Einstein.
See, you're still ignoring, or deeming irrelevant, vast amounts of data
-- what most people have actually believed through all of human
history. >>
Regarding "our evolution as social animals produced religious mandates,"
see my post to Lucy-Ruth. Our evolution produced an inclination which
incited the production of religous mandates. But religious mandates are
the creation of man and are not biological in nature. That's like
saying our evolution produced art and literature; our evolution gave us
a desire to create art and literature, as well as an appreciation for
them, but it did not create them, we did.
And throughout human history, people have believed all sorts of silly
things that I have no reason to believe in. Religion is only one
contribution to a very large pile.
<< Again, what are you willing to accept as a "reason to believe
something is real"? Are you going on pure empiricism? I think you
accept a great deal that you have no proof of. And you accept it on
faith, on the word of scientists. Before we started this discussion you
probably didn't have too many doubts about the Big Bang theory, and
right now you probably have few doubts about evolution. You could not
witness, and do not witness, any of this. You simply take someone's
word for it. You assume that they are being good scientists, but you do
not know. >>
Before we started this dicussion I didn't have too many doubts about the
Big Bang theory. But I'd never argued in its favor or even assumed that
it was real. I knew (and still know) very little about it. Until I
know more about it, I'm not judging it one way or the other.
And you're right about my not having doubts about evolution. But
evolution (or natural selection, to be more specific) is a logical
process explaining an aspect of the nature of sexual reproduction,
without which our understanding of biology falls apart. I've heard/read
considerable opposition and I've had numerous discussions with its
opponents but none have ever provided me with even an inkling of a
doubt; most, actually have a very limited understanding of what
evolution *IS* exactly. And you're wrong about not being able to
witness it. Antibiotics are becoming less effective. Evolution
predicts such developments. Evolution explains such developments.
Living in a time when antibiotics are failing, we are witnessing
evolution. And this is only one such example.
My "reason to believe something is real" is outlined above, so I won't
run through it again here.
And I do not accept the word of scientists on faith. If scientific
discoveries are not reproducable, they are discarded. If I do not have
the means or the desire to reproduce a particular experiment, I can rest
assured that countless others are doing just that which I am not. If
science as a whole were lying to me, it would require a conspiracy of
massive proportions. Faith is not only unnecessary, it is actively
discouraged.
<< But, Again, I don't expect you to believe without proof. I never
wanted you too. I've said repeatedly the only reason to believe in God
is because of a direct personal experience.
If all you say now is that I don't have reason to believe now, but it is
possible I may in the future, that is honest and responsible. If you
are closed to the possibility, however, and refuse to accept any proof
before thinking about it, that is bigoted, dishonest, and unfortunate.>>
I have consistently appended "as of yet" and "at this point" and "so
far" and words of that ilk throughout the duration of this discussion,
as you have noted.
I am not closed to the possibility of *anything*. I might one day be
confronted with an experience that changes my outlook forever, but I
have yet to have such an experience and although I cannot deny its
possibilty, I cannot honestly say that I have any reason to suspect it's
coming soon (or at all). Despite the fact that I currently have no
reason to believe in them, I cannot deny the possibility that something
may eventually prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God to me just
like something may eventually prove the existence of Ganesh and Vishnu
to me and just like something may eventually prove the existence of
Magic to me. And I'll certainly let you know should such an event take
place.
<< I'm not asking you to concede that My beliefs are correct. But what
you are doing, through your statements, is to require me to deny what I
see in front of me by calling it irrational (because you don't have
proof in front of you). It's like we're standing back to back, I see a
house and you see a supermarket. I say I see a house and you say, "I
have no reason to believe that."
That's Not Rational :) >>
How do you feel about people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs?
About people who have seen Bigfoot? About people who talk to people
that, as best as you can tell, just aren't there?
You probably look at them the same way I look at Theists. Maybe it'd be
nicer of me to not look at Theists that way, and maybe it'd be nicer of
both of us to not look at anybody else that way.
It's hard to do. But I suppose we can all try.
(and if I recall, you said that you'd never encountered a thoroughly
rational Atheist, implying that Atheism is inherently irrational. So
this sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.)
<< That was never in question. Do you understand mine? >>
I can understand them perfectly. I used to have them. I only did
because I was indoctrinated to and was too young to seriously question
authority, but I distinctly remember having them and can understand them
and sympathize with them thus.
<< I doubt that the homeless man himself "really" thought someone was
sitting next to him. He was just playing an old tape, so to speak. >>
Well that's purely stipulation and it's not relevent to my point. That
one particular man notwithstanding, there are people who
see/hear/experience people/things that the rest of us pretty reasonably
assume aren't there. Their existence is not a baseless assumption for
the people experiencing it, though. It's no more just for us to make
any assumptions about what they are experiencing than it is for us to
make assumptions about what Theists are experiencing.
-robbie
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-sanity is relative+-+-+-+-+-+-+| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:04 EST