Subject: Re: atheism
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 18 2000 - 09:14:24 EST
In a message dated 1/18/00 3:48:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
<< I have chosen not to defend the Big Bang theory simply because I don't
know enough about it to do an adequate job, or even to believe that it
is something worth defending. Keep in mind that I am seventeen years
old and my sum knowledge of physics comes from two semesters of a
highschool physics class, The Learning Channel, and a handful of books
that I have read. I read incessently and have done so my whole life,
but my age is against me here; I havn't yet had the opportunity to learn
many things that I would like to. My background in religion is much
more extensive than my background in science and my familiarity with the
Bible and the Lesser Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls far exceeds my
familiarity with current scientific theory on the origin of matter.>>
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.
I'm no scientist myself. I'm on another listserve, right now, having the
same argument with people who are scientists.
<<When I said that supernatural origin of the Universe was more complex, I
meant that it was more complex than a naturally occuring one. I don't
know the specific mechanisms by which it would occur naturally, and
perhaps no one on Earth does yet. But I firmly believe that "Some God
Somewhere with Indefinable Characteristics started the whole shebang and
it has proceeded according to physical law ever since" is, by mere
inclusion of a supernatural deity, infathomably More Complex than "Some
physical laws that we may still not know about started the whole shebang
and it has proceeded according to this and other such physical laws ever
since.">>
This is a value judgment. I don't see how we can argue on rational grounds
here. I'm defining complexity in terms of Occam's razor. You don't need any
further hypothesis to support your first one, so it's simple. But with the
Big Bang theory, the thesis is going to continually be modified, then
remodified, then remodified, until it is abandoned (like the Ptolemaic system
was). We see the multiplying of hypotheses taking place before our eyes.
This isn't proof of anything, of course, but just the point about complexity.
<<You seem to be saying that the Big Bang theory (which you believe is
flawed and I know very little about) is the only alternative to Divine
Creation and the only route for natural origin. I can't imagine that
this is so, particularly if it is as flawed as you imply. But one way
or another, science has been gradually discovering that we were wrong
about the things for which we have been historically crediting God; the
things that not terribly long ago were thought to be proof positive of
God's influence have gradually been shown to have natural origins (the
variety of animal species, coplanarity of planetary orbits, etcetera,
etcetera).>>
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.
<<And my biggest problem with the "simplicity" of your "God put it there"
theory is that which I was trying to express with my email analogy: you
can apply that to *ANYTHING*! If you're not going to explain your deity
(or you add the stipulation that he (he's *ALWAYS* male, isn't he? And
what would a deity need with a penis, anyway?) cannot be defined, no
less) then you could use the same method to explain anything that struck
your fancy. Saying that some Force with Indefinable Characteristics
delivers email is much less complex than a thorough explanation of
TCP/IP and networking protocols but it is unreasonable because it relies
on the existence of an Indefinable Force that we have no reason to
believe exists. I will believe in your god when you provide such a
"theory" that does not work just as well for Zeus and the Easter Bunny.>>
I don't invoke the deity until physical causes have run out, for one thing,
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.
<<If I have absolutely no reason to believe that something exists, I will
simply assume that it doesn't until I am given a reason. That is the
foundation upon which the argument of every Atheist stands and I fail to
see how it is anything short of thoroughly rational.>>
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.
What you accept -- scientism -- you accept by faith as much as theists accept
theism. This was my point from the beginning. So you can't reject theism on
the grounds that it is irrational, especially in comparison to your position.
You are irrational in the same manner.
<< No, Robbie, Sagan was not using Poetic liscense at the end of
Cosmos. He was offering a viable alternative within the context of a
very specific type of theism, one that seemed to support the scientific
analysis he had offered up to that point. >>
Whatever, Jim. It was a novel. If and when the day comes that I should
write a novel, I will not limit myself to plotlines that are consistent
with my Atheism. That's the thing about fiction; it isn't real. I've
always liked The Lord of the Rings, but I don't believe in Hobbits.
Carl Sagan was very forward about being an Atheist. I do not beleive he
ever did anything to contradict his professed Atheism or to show himself
as being anything but thoroughly rational.>>
I wasn't referring to Contact, but Cosmos, which was not a novel but a
documentary. It was an exposition of a philosophy.
<<<< Einstein, now, may have been speaking with poetic lisence -- but I
think it's also clear his rhetoric and moral consciousness was developed
from the synagogue. There's a theism behind it. >>
So what? You've said yourself that you don't believe society would
crumble into an amoral mess without religion. And even if it would, you
also said that we should only believe something because it is True (not
because it would prevent society from crumbling into an amoral mess).
If Einstein's moral consciousness was developed in synagogue, jolly good
for him. But Einstein did not believe in a personal God nor did he
believe in an afterlife. That would make him an Atheist in my book; his
references to God were not literal - which was my Point. And synagogue
is not required for moral consciousness (as I've said before, we have
every reason to believe that compassion and morality are results of our
evolution as social animals, not religious mandate), so I fail to see
the relevance.>>
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.
<< But I think it's interesting how you feel you have to shape the
plain meaning of their words to fit your belief system. Almost the way
some religious people use their sacred texts... >>
First of all, your use of the term "belief system" is a pretty good
illustration of the wall I said we were running into in my previous
post. Remember: Atheism as Non-Belief.
Secondly, I'm not shaping the plain meanings of anyone's words. I'm
merely pointing out the context of those words when they are used to
misconstrue their speakers as something other than what they were (as
theists for one thing, as not thoroughly rational for another).
Neither Albert Einstein nor Carl Sagan believed in a personal God or an
afterlife. Both Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan were Atheists. Both
Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan used religious terms and symbology to
various ends and I was making note of it, trying to illustrate that an
Atheist may do such a thing without contradicting themself.>>
I think you can argue that for Einstein (perhaps), but not for Sagan.
<<<< You seem to be saying what the Agnostics say, but from that conclude
"there is no God." Your real belief is that the data does not "prove"
anything one way or the other, the way you choose to interpret the data
is represented by atheism. Is this close? >>
You've pretty much got it. Just let me point out that the basis for my
conclusion that "there is no God" is, like I've outlined before, that
without any reason to believe in existence, I'll simply assume
non-existence as I would otherwise have to resort to the terribly
political-sounding "data isn't sufficient to make a judgment" for every
silly myth from fairies to zombies to goblins.
I do not have any reason to believe that goblins are real. So I assume
that they are not.
I do not have any reason to believe that God is real. So I assume that
he is not.
God bless logical consistency! >>
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.
You could multiply examples yourself if you were honest and thought about it.
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.
<< Here is where you are missing me. What is a baseless assumption for
you is not necessarily baseless for others. Belief is not arbitrary for
me. It is necessary in the same way, and for very similar reasons, that
I believe there is a computer sitting in front of me. You are closed to
that possibility, however. You don't address it in your thinking. Which
tells me that your atheism is more of the Other Sort. More of a
belief. >>
I don't address it in my thinking because then I will have to concede
the existence of everything that anyone believes. I apologize if this
comes off as insulting to your beliefs. >>
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 :)
<>
That was never in question. Do you understand mine?
<<Friday night I went to see a band play in the city and on the BART train
there was a homeless man who was having a conversation with the vacant
seat next to him. I do not doubt that the other party in his discussion
was very real to HIM. I'm sure that a belief in his or her (or its)
existence was not a baseless assumption to HIM. But I am not at all
uncomfortable asserting that there was only one party involved.>>
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.
<<We agree here. Except that I take that a step further. I think that
personal religious revelations are not much different than stigmata. I
think they are people interpreting Something (some psychological need or
reflex that is *not* supernatural) in light of their own belief system,
or in light of a belief system they have experience with or is socially
acceptable or encouraged in their locale.>>
How are you any different from dogmatists that declare all unbelief wrong?
:)
Oh, that's right, because you know better :)
Jim
-
* 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