Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Travis,
OK, I’ll try to take it in smaller bites.
"There is noting wrong with being a philosophical naturalist."
I don't recall saying that there was.
"There is nothing wrong with a scientist or any person having philosophical presuppositions. Everyone has presuppositions."
Scientists actually do have to be careful to inventory their presuppositions, because we do have to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible. The method actually demands it.
Theories about the origin of natural processes are a priori. Atheists seem to have tow choices: natural processes always existed, or they originatied by themselves. Either way, it is an a priori assumption.
Is the origin theory of atheists falsifiable?
Is the verification principle of falsifiability falsifiable? Yes, Popper said, “that’s the stupidest question I ever heard of”. Defensive, wasn’t he? But I will revisit the verification issue at the bottom of my response.
Your view/critique of the Bible:
The meaning of the word spirit, from Latin, is breath. So spiritual beings are beings that breath. The Hebrew word for spirit is ruach which means breath. So when the Bible speaks of a spiritual being they mean a being that breaths. After the Greek language was introduced to the Hebrews and they wrote in Greek they chose the word pneuma as a translation of ruach or spirit. You may recognize word pneuma if you ever studied pneumatics in physics.
According to the Book of Genesis when human life began they acquired ruach, or pneuma, or spirt or breath.
One of your assumptions is that “spirit” means something different that what the author of Genesis had in mind. Every time I see a living being I see a spiritual being. That is the same thing as saying every time I see a living being I see a breathing being.
Ruach, pneuma, or spirit, or breath according to Genesis was given to plants and animals. The ancient Hebrews saw thems selves, although more intelligent, essentially the same as animals. In other words, spirit (breathing) was applied to anything that was living. It was their way of distinguishing the inanimate from the animate. I see evidence of breathing beings on earth. Can you accept that? OK, I see evidence of spiritual beings. Can you accept that? If you can’t you don’t know what the word spirit means.
You see something wrong with it because you see thw word “spirit” and the Bible” through the lens of a flawed metaphysics. Your metaphysics, revealed in the definition of philosophical naturalism, defines “spirit” in a way that the Bible did not.
My first introduction to the theory of evolution was through the lens of christian critics of evolution. My (Christian) professors always insisted to read the primary source, otherwise my methods are flawed.
When you critique the Bible are you sure you know what it is you critique? It is a flawed method to try to understand something only from the perspective of critics.
The Bible is mostly literature. Would you critique Spielberg’s movie ET as it it were a science documentary on extra terrestrial life visiting earth? His movie is a story. The Bible is mostly stories and poetry, with a dash of history, and some letters, and some symbolic writing. Since the Bible is mostly literature, it is a flawed method to treat it as if it were a rational science book.
In order to prove that spirit doesn’t exist you use a meaning of spirit that couldn’t possible be true, and then attribute that to the Bible. Apparently you only read things that confirm what you already believe. If you can’t accept the idea that you might be mistaken about something, then you are not going to look for facts that might contradict your preconceived ideas. You are in the grip of confirmation bias, and you don’t know it. The definition of philosophical naturalism defines spirit in a way that is false. But you uncritically accept that definition and read it into the Bible. Then you criticize the Bible. Where is the reason in that? Where is the empirical in that?
Your meaning of the word spirit is the same as that of Fundamentalist Christians. But they are wrong. They don’t even know their own Bible, and neither do you. When you criticize your idea of spirit, your argument is with fundamentalist Christians, not me. You already know they are unreliable on maters of science, so why would you trust them on matters of their own Bible? You claim to be critical and skeptical, yet you trust them.
And speaking of false lenses, you mentioned the ancient belief of a flat earth. Ancient people who believed in a flat earth, and the sun went across the sky were empirical. They said it the way they saw it. It was plain as day, the sun went across the sky, and the earth was flat. But obviously, empirical fact, which they relied on, can be proven wrong when the horizons open up, and one is willing to shift their Gestalt.
The author of Genesis expresses a belief about the origin of the universe. It doesn’t offer any scientific theory about how that happened. And it doesn’t say God broke through some barrier to create life. What it says is a breathing God, meaning a living God, gave some dust of the earth breath, and the dust became a living being. The Bible is not a science book, so it is fundamentally flawed to treat it as such. It is the job of science to explain how the universe works. Science studies the natural processes God created, so science couldn’t possibly contradict anything I believe. Science isn’t about if God did or did not create the universe. I see evolutionary theory and abiobenesis, not as anything threatening, I see it as enlightenment about how God gave some dust of the earth, breath. And when you can accept that the word breath is the same as spirit, you will have an accurate idea of what to criticize. My personal opinion is, however, that you have no grounds to say that living things don’t have breath.
Are Origin theories Falsifiable?
The origin of the universe is a question that assumes it originated. It could have, like some atheists believe, always existed. Is the God theory of origins and the theory that it always existed falsifiable? Doesn’t look like it to me. They both look like a priori assumptions. So what do we have left to try and determine veracity? The only thing I know of is the coherence theory of truth.
Living beings in the universe look like inventions. I believe there was an inventor of natural processes that resulted in the existence of breathing beings. Those two beliefs are coherent. Moreover, the Bible, in Genesis does not contradict evolutionary theory, or abiogenesis. The bible doesn’t offer a theory about how God did it. That’s the job of science.
The idea that one persons theory of origins is better than another is a personal evaluation grounded in that persons presuppositions. My thesis in this thread is that belief in a creator God is rationally coherent with my beliefs about the known universe. Presumably Atheists believe their idea that the universe always existed is rationally coherent with what they already believe about the known universe. It isn’t impossible that both perspective are coherent, in which case, both are a matter of pure faith.
If you accept the rational coherence approach, then it is a matter of taking theories of the known universe and see if they cohere with the assumption the universe always existed.
Sometimes I read books by atheist scientists partly to address possible confirmation bias. The best book I ever read by an atheist scientist was Personal Knowledge by Polanyi. I don’t have any grounds to disbelieve anything in his book. In part of the book he explains very clearly what inventions are, and why physics and chemistry alone can not explain them. When I say a living cell is like an invention, I mean exactly what he means by invention. So to me, my inventor-invention theory of the origin of the universe is coherent and tied to the findings of an atheist scientist. By the way, he doesn’t misunderstand the Bible like you do. Reading Polanyi might help you with your inventory of presuppositions.
"OK, I’ll try to take it in smaller bites."
Much appreciated.
"Theories about the origin of natural processes are a priori."
Seems another regression to the first cause to me. There are no Scientific Theories that cover the cause of the big bang, or the natural processes that come to be as a result of it, so it would appear that you are wrong.
"Atheists seem to have tow choices: natural processes always existed, or they originatied by themselves."
No, actually, that is a false dichotomy. Natural processes did not always exist, nor do we claim to know how the big bang originated. I don't know is an acceptable answer to such a question, and does not impede ones ability to make observations and deductions about the things that do exist, not in the least.
"Either way, it is an a priori assumption."
What is? I don't know?
"Is the origin theory of atheists falsifiable?"
Considering the fact that atheism does not include an 'origins theory' this question is malformed. It is on par with "did you stop beating your wife?"
"Is the verification principle of falsifiability falsifiable?"
Huh? Why would it need to be? Falsification is a SCIENTIFIC and PHILOSOPHICAL principle, not an atheist one. However, an even more insightful question would be:
Is an empirically verifiable belief more accurate and likely to be true than one that isn't?
"Yes, Popper said, “that’s the stupidest question I ever heard of”. Defensive, wasn’t he? But I will revisit the verification issue at the bottom of my response."
Whatever. I will refrain from quoting other Christians and assuming that you agree.
"Your view/critique of the Bible:"
This should be good...
"The meaning of the word spirit, from Latin, is breath. So spiritual beings are beings that breath. The Hebrew word for spirit is ruach which means breath. So when the Bible speaks of a spiritual being they mean a being that breaths."
Then anything that respires is 'spiritual'? So trees and aerobic bacteria are spiritual?
"After the Greek language was introduced to the Hebrews and they wrote in Greek they chose the word pneuma as a translation of ruach or spirit. You may recognize word pneuma if you ever studied pneumatics in physics."
Indeed, the physics of gases, and some fluids, under pressure.
"According to the Book of Genesis when human life began they acquired ruach, or pneuma, or spirt or breath."
This statement is strange. It makes it sound as if you believe that humans existed without breathing.
"One of your assumptions is that “spirit” means something different that what the author of Genesis had in mind."
That would seem to be the main interpretation of theologians, do you deny it? Do you deny that most theological ideas of 'soul' or 'spirit' is a bit more than respiration?
"Every time I see a living being I see a spiritual being. That is the same thing as saying every time I see a living being I see a breathing being."
Not all living things breathe. Anaerobic bacteria and tardigrades do not breathe, for instance.
"Ruach, pneuma, or spirit, or breath according to Genesis was given to plants and animals. The ancient Hebrews saw thems selves, although more intelligent, essentially the same as animals. In other words, spirit (breathing) was applied to anything that was living."
Okay, a bit of a stretch considering what the spirit is supposed to do, but I suppose one could buy it if they reject all of the supernatural elements injected into it.
"It was their way of distinguishing the inanimate from the animate."
Not entirely. Fire respires, it breathes, and they did seem to consider it to be an almost living thing.
"I see evidence of breathing beings on earth. Can you accept that?"
Yep.
"OK, I see evidence of spiritual beings. Can you accept that? If you can’t you don’t know what the word spirit means."
Argument from not simply definition, but original definition. Definitions change, usage changes, under the current colloquial usage of the word spirit I would not accept it. It appears, if fact, you wouldn't either.
"You see something wrong with it because you see thw word “spirit” and the Bible” through the lens of a flawed metaphysics. Your metaphysics, revealed in the definition of philosophical naturalism, defines “spirit” in a way that the Bible did not."
No, I see it how it is used by mainstream theology and most of the people using it, and see something wrong with it. It is really strange you would make such an argument. I am not the one that created the modern definition of spirit, that would be religion and philosophers, not I. If you have a problem with the way the word is used here in modernity, then you should take it up with the people who started using it that way, not the people responding to it.
"My first introduction to the theory of evolution was through the lens of christian critics of evolution."
I'm....sorry?
"My (Christian) professors always insisted to read the primary source, otherwise my methods are flawed."
Not the best method in science. The primary, or original sources, is often the least refined and least supported versions of a Theory. That is like saying that all you need to do physics is Newtonian equations.
"When you critique the Bible are you sure you know what it is you critique?"
The bible is pretty well known, I doubt anyone doesn't know what it is.
"It is a flawed method to try to understand something only from the perspective of critics."
What is wrong with approaching anything with a critical perspective? Do you understand the Null Hypothesis?
"The Bible is mostly literature."
A great many people in your camp would completely disagree with you.
"Would you critique Spielberg’s movie ET as it it were a science documentary on extra terrestrial life visiting earth?"
If I had people insisting that it was a science documentary on extraterrestrial aliens visiting earth? Yes.
"His movie is a story. The Bible is mostly stories and poetry, with a dash of history, and some letters, and some symbolic writing. Since the Bible is mostly literature, it is a flawed method to treat it as if it were a rational science book."
You are telling this to the wrong people. We are specifically countering people who DO believe that it is inerrant and infallible. If you want us to not criticize the book as if people literally believe it, then make it to where nobody literally believes it.
"In order to prove that spirit doesn’t exist you use a meaning of spirit that couldn’t possible be true, and then attribute that to the Bible."
Seems to me that there are a lot of places in the bible it talks about the spirit as more than merely breath.
"Apparently you only read things that confirm what you already believe."
That's strange, considering you seem to read more atheist books than I do. I have never even read a book by Richard Dawkins.
"If you can’t accept the idea that you might be mistaken about something, then you are not going to look for facts that might contradict your preconceived ideas."
Nice, accusing me of setting up an echo chamber despite the fact that I am in the only part of the forum that the opposition is welcome to post. Imagine that.
"You are in the grip of confirmation bias, and you don’t know it."
P R O V E I T. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed with the same.
"The definition of philosophical naturalism defines spirit in a way that is false."
Not according to you. You define it as a natural bodily function, how is that the least bit counter to naturalism?
"But you uncritically accept that definition and read it into the Bible."
I criticize that definition a lot, actually. I am merely reacting to people that use it in a certain way, and claim that they are using the biblical definition. As someone who doesn't really CARE about the bible, I don't feel the need to investigate and correct them, as it is their book.
"Then you criticize the Bible. Where is the reason in that? Where is the empirical in that?"
Oh, yes, because that is the ONLY reason we criticize the bible, right?
"Your meaning of the word spirit is the same as that of Fundamentalist Christians."
Those are the people I generally find myself dealing with, so that is the definition I assume people mean when they use the word.
"But they are wrong."
Then, perhaps, you should be trying to correct the people perpetuating that definition, instead of a person merely reacting to it.
"They don’t even know their own Bible, and neither do you."
Two words. Holy fucking spirit. If spirit is nothing but breath, then the holy spirit is nothing but hot air.
"When you criticize your idea of spirit, your argument is with fundamentalist Christians, not me."
You got that precisely backwards. When you criticize the modern definition and idea of spirit, your argument is with most religious people, not me.
"You already know they are unreliable on maters of science, so why would you trust them on matters of their own Bible?"
I don't need to 'trust' them. It doesn't matter. Even if they are completely wrong about the bible, like some people read stupid shit into Harry Potter, it is not my job to correct their misconceptions about it.
"You claim to be critical and skeptical, yet you trust them."
It isn't about trust.
"And speaking of false lenses, you mentioned the ancient belief of a flat earth. Ancient people who believed in a flat earth, and the sun went across the sky were empirical. They said it the way they saw it. It was plain as day, the sun went across the sky, and the earth was flat. But obviously, empirical fact, which they relied on, can be proven wrong when the horizons open up, and one is willing to shift their Gestalt."
Actually, there have been empiricists since ancient Greece, so was heliocentrism, but most of the common people did not know or understand it.
You know what, all you are talking about is the bible, and how it isn't true literally. That it is simply esoteric poetry and literature meant to be taken other than literally. If that is the case, we have no fight, I think it is full of crap too.
ruach means also wind
In the original Hebrew text there is no concept of spirit.or after life, worst punishment was death.
ruach means also wind
Yes.
In the original Hebrew text there is no concept of spirit.or after life, worst punishment was death.
In Old testament times there was no concept of an afterlife. True. There was a concept of spirit, meaning, breath. The concept of spirit was introduced in the creation story in Genesis. God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into the form the breath of life and he became a creature. When you are no longer breathing, the life God gave, is gone. Period. In new Testament times they had a concept of bodily resurrection, presumably because they couldn't conceive of breathing after death and resurrection, without a body. (We are talking of ancient people here who were not stupid, but they didn't have the advantage of deeper knowledge that we have available. In my opinion we should approach them with a degree of respect even if we don't agree with them.)
Travis,
You know what, all you are talking about is the bible, and how it isn't true literally. That it is simply esoteric poetry and literature meant to be taken other than literally. If that is the case, we have no fight,
Glad you got your rubber on the road: spirit=breath=ruach=pneuma, and the Bible is mostly literature, and you have no fight with me. You are a spirited fighter.
Why do you fight with fundamentalist Christians? Eventually it will collapse all by itself. You are wasting your spirit when you could be reading Polanyi.
There are many types of theologians.
There are even atheist theologians -
Paul Tillich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
There are even atheist Christian churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
Christ followers don’t even have to believe in God.
Fundamentalism does not define Christianity. Fundamentalism isn’t that old. It is a reaction to Darwin and that was only in the1800’s. Fundamentalist Christianity didn’t exist before Darwin.
There are theologians who fight fundamentalism such as this guy:
http://www.amazon.com/Rescuing-Bible-Fundamentalism-Rethinks-Scripture/d...
Your view of nature/theology : nature vs spirit came from Thomas of Aquinas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
In order to achieve the nature vs spirit structure he had to redefine spirit away from its original meaning, breath, to some vague abstract immaterial concept that ultimately is meaningless. Prior to Aquinas there was no real nature vs spirit debate in Christianity because previously they accepted spirit as breath.
Fundamentalists misidentify spirit with soul. Soul means approximately your mind or your cognitive powers, not your breath. The concept of soul also originated around the time of Aquinas. It isn’t a biblical concept. There is no word for soul in Hebrew because they didn’t believe in it.
Theology is not a homogenous group so you can’t generalize from one to the other.
I see some progress with you, however. We went from your idea that you know how rocks form, therefore God doesn’t exist (or some idea like that), to a less virginal idea that scientists have presuppositions and you have to inventory them. That’s progress, and you are starting to look more credible.
Any atheist theory of everything needs to provide an alternative to the creator theory, otherwise it is an incomplete theory of everything.
You are in love with trying to avoid a priori assumptions in order to avoid the “you have faith too” accusation from fundamentalist Christians. That’s a love in vain. You want to be able to say you have no faith in anything, so you can show them they are wrong. If you try to pretend you do not have a priori assumptions in order to fight Fundamentalists, it will drag you down, and in some way keep you at their level. What I mean is you are both pretending: They pretend God gives them scientific knowledge through prayer and Bible reading, and you pretend you have no a priori assumptions.
I heard a story from a physics student who was late for class. When he arrived at Teller’s class he explained to the prof he was late because he was arguing with some idiot and lost track of time. Dr Teller told him, “if you argue with idiots it is impossible for an observer to tell which one is the idiot”.
I say again, if you fight Fundamentalists you are wasting your spirit/breath, and losing time that could be spent developing your soul/mind by reading Polanyi’s book, Personal Knowledge.
"Glad you got your rubber on the road: spirit=breath=ruach=pneuma, and the Bible is mostly literature, and you have no fight with me. You are a spirited fighter."
Good, so we have no fight, then.
"Why do you fight with fundamentalist Christians?"
Because, without opposition, they tend to get their way more than not. Take some of the recent changes by the Texas Board of Education, for example.
"Eventually it will collapse all by itself."
People have been saying that for centuries, yet it still IS, so it would seem some active opposition is necessary to some extent.
"You are wasting your spirit when you could be reading Polanyi."
I am not a philosopher, nor much in the way of a theologian, so I tend to avoid such topics and leave them for those better suited to them.
"There are many types of theologians."
Wouldn't know. I am not a theologian. What I know of theology comes from the ones I am exposed to, which is a rather small sample size of the whole.
"There are even atheist theologians -
Paul Tillich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich"
Well, now, that seems ironic.
"There are even atheist Christian churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
Christ followers don’t even have to believe in God."
Uh, that doesn't make very much sense to me. This makes less sense to me than fundamentalism...
"Fundamentalism does not define Christianity."
Historically, I think you will find that it has.
"Fundamentalism isn’t that old. It is a reaction to Darwin and that was only in the1800’s. Fundamentalist Christianity didn’t exist before Darwin."
People didn't take the bible literally before Darwin? I am going to need some sources on that, because it seems to me that puritans took it pretty damn literally.
"I see some progress with you, however. We went from your idea that you know how rocks form, therefore God doesn’t exist (or some idea like that), to a less virginal idea that scientists have presuppositions and you have to inventory them. That’s progress, and you are starting to look more credible."
No, you have misrepresented me. Our conversation about rock formation was in the context of discussion HOW we know things are created or occur naturally on their own. It had a sum total of zip to do with your god. As far as presuppositions concerning any subject, all humans have them, but that doesn't mean they are all equal or deserve equal weight. The view that requires the fewest assumptions is generally the best one, as far as consistency is concerned.
"Any atheist theory of everything needs to provide an alternative to the creator theory, otherwise it is an incomplete theory of everything."
There is no 'atheist theory of everything', the end, full stop. I do not, however, have to provide an alternative theory to dismiss shit people make up without any evidence.
"You are in love with trying to avoid a priori assumptions in order to avoid the “you have faith too” accusation from fundamentalist Christians."
Not really. It is an 'as bad as' kind of argument that Christians use without realizing that it simply makes them look even worse. They all but admit that 'faith' without evidence is bad, and then presume to dismiss the fact that most of my actual beliefs have evidence and theirs don't.
"That’s a love in vain. You want to be able to say you have no faith in anything, so you can show them they are wrong. If you try to pretend you do not have a priori assumptions in order to fight Fundamentalists, it will drag you down, and in some way keep you at their level. What I mean is you are both pretending: They pretend God gives them scientific knowledge through prayer and Bible reading, and you pretend you have no a priori assumptions."
There is a difference in between us. I am only about as attached to my beliefs as I am my computer, and the minute it doesn't work, I will get one that does. They are as attached to their beliefs as most of us are to our spouses, no matter what happens, they will never let it goes until it dies.
"I heard a story from a physics student who was late for class. When he arrived at Teller’s class he explained to the prof he was late because he was arguing with some idiot and lost track of time. Dr Teller told him, “if you argue with idiots it is impossible for an observer to tell which one is the idiot”."
Well, that's fucking stupid. Without opposition, idiocy often multiplies.
"I say again, if you fight Fundamentalists you are wasting your spirit/breath, and losing time that could be spent developing your soul/mind by reading Polanyi’s book, Personal Knowledge. "
Fighting fundamentalists may seem like a waste to you, but I have personally convinced some few of them to change their minds. I find it worthwhile.
Double post.
dear Apollo I ws once a theist a catholic most of my adult life, but I have switched over to agnostic.as for your post everyone knows about Richard dawkins you can see and touch and listen to him he is from oxford university in England he is always in the news, as for the idea of the supernatural we have nothing to go by and since 1859 origin of the species came out by Darwin we were further in the black. There is just no way of knowing, Science is still investigating in the fields of biology geology and genetics
skeptical,
There is nothing wrong with changing one's beliefs from this to that, and I accept that you are agnostic.
When Darwin's Origin of Species came out we were not further in the dark, we were enlightened. I believe God created the universe and all that was in it. Science is not about if God created anything or did not create anything. Science is about *how* God did it. So when science studies natural processes, they are studying Gods work. The theory of evolution doesn’t say God didn’t do it, it proposes a perspective on how God did it. It is analogous to the following: You buy a car. You are interested in cars. You want to know how was it made. So you study the car to find out more about the car. Eventually with lots of study, you would learn a lot about how it was made and how it works.
I should note that my beliefin God is not to imply that I try to validate everything theists believe. If God exists, that does not mean that everything a theist believes about God is true.
Your comment about Dawkins: The point is when someone reads a book, people automatically believe the book had author/creator. I don't have to watch TV to know he exists. Television is not a criterion for truth. If one want so seek truth in television, you have to pick and choose the programs according to your own personal criteria for truth. You have to use your own judgment in picking and choosing. So what you take as truth from watching television, relies on the validity and reliability of your own judgment and evaluative powers. Everyone criterion for truth is their own personal interpretive frame work. What a person accepts as true presupposes a faith in their framework.
So my personal framework is different from yours. You see we look at the same state of affairs and we come to different conclusions. For example, you see Darwin’s theory as leaving us in the dark, I see it as enlightenment.
So how do we explain interpreting a state of affairs differently? It is because your presuppositions, your interpretive framework, is different than mine. There are no facts external to you or me that explains why you see Evolution theory as leaving us in the dark, and I see it as enlightenment.
Some people believe the criterion for truth is outside themselves. They believe there is an external fixed objective criterion for truth. It ain’t so. Those who believe in a criterion for truth external to the person is like believing in pixies, unicorns and other fairy tales.
You see, skeptical, you and I have a different interpretive framework. When people have differences in interpretive systems, they can draw different conclusions about the same thing. It is possible, but not necessary, for people of differing systems to dialogue and perhaps through dialogue refine their framework.
It is my opinion that no harm would come if natural scientists would learn and study the Gestalt theory of perception. I think many of them assume they can transcend the laws of perception. That’s their faith. There are no facts that have only one indubitably true interpretation that can in turn resolve differing perspectives. Atheists on this site have told me “do the experiment”. But I am doing and experiment. They assume I am not experimenting. They assume they know all there is to know, but they didn’t consider the possibility that I was doing an experiment.
Knowledge is a correct inference reached within a true system. Every inference anyone makes and commits themselves to, relies on a faith in their system, and their capacity to infer. I think your belief that Darwin left us in the dark, is a correct inference reached within an untrue framework.
Indecently, the person who influenced my thinking the most was an atheist scientist. Very profound man.
Apollo,
You could create the largest word salad possible and it would very likely not convince me that your god exists. I suspect neither would it convince anyone else here identifying as atheist.
You can provide different names for things all you like. You can disagree about definitions all you like. You can argue that some people have said 'x' and play word games to show how wrong they are. You can trot out words from philosophers or scientists. You can talk about truth as if you know more about it than the next person. You can insist you know what the real problems are. You can call atheism a faith. You can say that atoms were invented.
You can do or say a thousand things. But you cannot convince me you are right and I am wrong. You cannot do that because you cannot ever, in any way, shape, or form, prove you are right about the existence of your god. Ever.
I, for one, simply choose not to abandon my skepticism.
But I am not trying to convince anyone that God exists. My thinking does not prove God exists. My purpose is different.
"But you cannot convince me you are right and I am wrong. You cannot do that because you cannot ever, in any way, shape, or form, prove you are right about the existence of your god."
I agree. Your present interpretive framework (your presuppositions) will not allow it.
"I, for one, simply choose not to abandon my skepticism."
You don't need to be skeptical to be an atheist. One of your assumptions is atheists must use the method of doubt/skepticism. Its not a reliable assumption.
Science can't provide a foundation to eliminate belief in a Creator God. Neither can it prove God exists. Both atheism and theism are taken in faith. The idea that science necessarily eliminates God from the picture is a fairy tale.
The thinker who influenced me the most was an atheist scientist. He shapes my "word salad" more than any theist did.
You believe on him, because there is other people that saw him, and you may have listent to many of them confirming his existance. Is not that you just believe in him because you want to, you KNOW due to the the collevtice kwnoledge, and the BIG AMOUT of EVIDENCE that he is a real person.
Florencia,
Of course. I am not questioning the existence of Dawkins. I am describing what made me believe he exists and it is the same for you and everyone I know. I read a book. Books are creations of the author. so when I read a book, like you, I automatically believe there was an author. The book said the author was Dawkins, and I *believed* them. based on physical clues such as my observation of the book I have a theory he exists. Its a theory since I could be wrong. As a kind atheist pointed out, some people use pen names.
My belief is that it is reasonable to believe creations/inventions have an inventor.
A living cell has an invention like character. So it is coherent (reasonable) to believe it had an inventor.
Others are welcome to assume the natural processes of universe had no origin. But that's *their* faith, for which they have *no evidence*. Many of them who assume the universe had no origin portray the theory of God that they reject as a "supernatural being". I don't believe God is a supernatural being. The atheist view that if there is a creator God, he must be supernatural is very dogmatic. Atheists who are philosophical naturalists, for example Travis, reject the "supernatural God. I do too. Travis is a cut above the usual atheist I run into.
My God is like this: Supposing we have a team of intelligent beings called engineers who design a car. Then the car goes into production. The idea the engineers had is "actualized" or "realized" upon production of the car. Since this idea of a car was actualized is it necessary to see the intelligent design as supernatural? Nope. Similarly, it is not necessary to see God as supernatural. Moreover, the intelligent designers of the car are not subject to the rules of operation of the car. They don't have to function like the car functions. Of the engineers do not have to function like their creation, then it is reasonable to beleive God doesn't have to function according to natural processes.
Consequently, philosophical naturalism doesn't speak to me. I am not trying to convince atheists to become theists. I am saying the theory God created the universe is a coherent theory. And I am saying the theory that God is supernatural, is incoherent, and on that point I agree with the views of philosophical naturalists. A refined philosophical naturalism can, I think be rationally coherent, and it has a viable theory for the origin of species and life, but it has no theory for the origin of the universe.
As to Dawkins, it is reasonable to believe he exists without ever having laid eyes on him.
It is reasonable to believe intelligent natural beings can create something that never existed before without them having to be "supernatural", for example the first automobile.
Similarly, it is reasonable to believe a natural God, a creator of the universe exists, and is at work everywhere in the universe via his the natural processes he created.
Apollo - "A living cell has an invention like character".
Says you.
------------------------
Apollo - "Moreover, the intelligent designers of the car are not subject to the rules of operation of the car."
Actually they are subject to the same rules/laws. For example f=ma holds for the cars, and it also holds for the designers of the cars.
Yeah, this guy is stretching my patience like a virgin at a gangbang. I was tempted to post this:
http://s1.postimg.org/ssizbo9wf/hlol.jpg
After you read the atheist Polanyi's book, Personal knowledge, come back and tell me why he is wrong. I believe in the atheist Polanyi. After you read it, I might discuss it with you.
In the meantime, you don't offer any coherent alternative theory of the origin of the universe. Any origin theory you may have is tied to a priori unverifiable assumptions.
So why should I believe you?
"After you read the atheist Polanyi's book, Personal knowledge, come back and tell me why he is wrong."
I don't generally read atheist literature, I am not very interested in it.
"I believe in the atheist Polanyi. After you read it, I might discuss it with you."
Can you express his ideas concisely?
"In the meantime, you don't offer any coherent alternative theory of the origin of the universe."
I don't have to. I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer. I don't need to know how a picture fell over to conclude fairies didn't do it. Theistic theories as to the origin of the universe posit an unexplained and unproven being as the cause of the universe, without any explanation how it could be so, then demands we make shit up too as an alternative. Sorry, I don't need to make shit up to discredit an assertion without any evidence, it is already discredited by its lack of any evidence.
"Any origin theory you may have is tied to a priori unverifiable assumptions."
I don't know is not an a priori assumption, in this or any universe.
"So why should I believe you?"
Should you? You don't have to. If you prefer to assume things for no good reason, go right ahead.
I believe in the atheist Polanyi. After you read it, I might discuss it with you."
Can you express his ideas concisely?
Polanyi's book is a science book. So you never read Thomas Kuhn either? I thought you were into science. In my education on science we were required to read Kuhn, and Polanyi was often referred to. Polanyi was a chemist, and Kuhn a physicist.
In my opinion should be required reading for any scientist.
No one is asking you to make shit up. You already believe a priori that stuff always existed, with no way to empirically verify that.
But I don't care if you believe that, I believe in freedom of belief.
"Polanyi's book is a science book. So you never read Thomas Kuhn either? I thought you were into science."
I am not 'into' science, I am an engineer, which kind of means I am 'in' science.
"In my education on science we were required to read Kuhn, and Polanyi was often referred to. Polanyi was a chemist, and Kuhn a physicist."
Well, I wasn't required to read the works of either, but the name Kuhn sounds familiar. However, if my memory serves, it was from Chemistry... Strange that...
"In my opinion should be required reading for any scientist."
Not sure why, as long arguments of epistemology isn't really necessary in science.
"No one is asking you to make shit up."
Actually, you are. I have repeated, numerous damn times, that I don't know how the big bang came to be. Despite this you have consistently kept at me to "propose an alternative theory" to the theistic claim that a transcendent inter-dimensional sky magician poofed it into being out of nothing. I don't particularly find it either necessary for me to have an alternative to nonsense, or particularly helpful to claim to know things that I do not. I do not know how the big bang came to be, neither does anyone else, I just take one less step by not assuming or making shit up that I can't support.
"You already believe a priori that stuff always existed, with no way to empirically verify that."
What? No. I honestly don't know where you got that from, but it smells suspiciously like feces. Perhaps it came from an area close to the colon? I never said that stuff always existed, I am in fact fairly sure it didn't always exist, but I suppose my actual position might fuck-up the strawman you are so carefully constructing once again.
"But I don't care if you believe that, I believe in freedom of belief."
People DO have freedom of belief. They do not, however, have freedom from the consequences of certain beliefs or the right to have their beliefs treated equally.
"I am not 'into' science, I am an engineer, which kind of means I am 'in' science."
You are also into atheism. And it would seem that you might want your scientific and other ideas about the universe cohere with atheism. No?
And since you are an engineer, that would help you know that to explain an invention, an apparatus, contraption, or a machine, you don't refer to the laws of physics and chemistry. You refer instead to the rules of operation that the inventor defined for the invention. In that sense, the rules of operation of the machine is above physics and chemistry (even though it relies on the laws of physics and chemsitry.)
"I never said that stuff always existed, I am in fact fairly sure it didn't always exist..."
What makes you so sure?
"but I suppose my actual position might fuck-up the strawman you are so carefully constructing once again".
What is your actual position?
"They do not, however, have freedom from the consequences of certain beliefs ..."
Very true.
"I do not know how the big bang came to be, neither does anyone else"
I agree.
"I just take one less step by not assuming or making shit up that I can't support."
Do you believe the universe has a rationality about it? For instance, can the physical universe be understood to a great extent via mathematics? and human reason? Do you think there is inherent rational coherence to the universe? If you do, then assuming something unseen might be justified if it is coherent with was is seen. Yes?
For example, in the video Jeff referred me to, the author of the video used a court room illustration. As you know in court rooms "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean there has to be a direct eye witness to any event. The event can be assumed if there is enough circumstantial evidence. Yes? I think the same thing occurs in science.
Anyway, since you have an interest in atheism and science, Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Polanyi, Personal Knowedge are right up your ally. Could help you in your fight with fundamentalists.
My personal opinion is fundamentalism, even outside religion, is a great danger to a free society. (Fundamentalism outside formal religion is ideologies and utopias.)
"You are also into atheism."
I am an atheist. As far as how 'into' atheism I am, it would appear you read more atheists than I do, so you seem to be more interested in it than I am.
"And it would seem that you might want your scientific and other ideas about the universe cohere with atheism. No?"
No, that isn't how my mind works. I am not an engineer or a scientist BECAUSE I am an atheist, but more that I am an atheist BECAUSE that is what best coheres to my understanding of the universe. If there had been a good scientific reason to think that a god was likely or even possible, I might not be an atheist.
"And since you are an engineer, that would help you know that to explain an invention, an apparatus, contraption, or a machine, you don't refer to the laws of physics and chemistry."
Actually, when explaining mock-up concepts, we must explain how it works in great detail. That includes physics or other ways that it functions. If I had to explain an internal combustion engine to someone, it would be necessary to explain the basic physics behind it, even if I didn't go so far as to work out the equations for it.
"You refer instead to the rules of operation that the inventor defined for the invention."
Not really, no.
"In that sense, the rules of operation of the machine is above physics and chemistry (even though it relies on the laws of physics and chemsitry.)"
No. What something can do, in my field of work, is more important and interesting than what it is supposed to do.
"What makes you so sure?"
Physics. Our best understanding of the big bang indicates that it is the origin of space and time, both things which are necessary for matter to exist.
"What is your actual position?"
In the first place, I never asserted that matter always existed. I merely said that I did not have to completely explain the origin of all matter in order to say how rocks form on Earth.
"Very true."
Then there should be no problems if we do not consider all beliefs equal, eh?
"Do you believe the universe has a rationality about it? For instance, can the physical universe be understood to a great extent via mathematics? and human reason?"
It would appear so.
"Do you think there is inherent rational coherence to the universe?"
Inherent? No, just because something is rational, does not mean it is inherently rational. We do not know if the cause was rationally coherent, so we can't say if the universe "inherited" these properties or if they are emergent properties. You should know the difference. One all but implies far more than the other.
"If you do, then assuming something unseen might be justified if it is coherent with was is seen. Yes?"
Oh, dear, you went all 'unseen' again. God is a bit more than simply 'unseen', it is so vague as to be incomprehensible, and so non-cognitive as to be incoherent. It does not cohere with what is seen, making it incoherent. Also, we cannot justify the unknown by simply referencing the known when we can't establish any relation.
"For example, in the video Jeff referred me to, the author of the video used a court room illustration. As you know in court rooms "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean there has to be a direct eye witness to any event. The event can be assumed if there is enough circumstantial evidence. Yes? I think the same thing occurs in science."
It can, but the evidence needs to be strong and conclusive. We don't say "X looks like it was created, so there must be fairies", do we? That is on par with what you are doing. You are asserting that something looks created without any qualification to do so, then inferring that the creator of it must be god without rational justification for it, and then pretending it is rational. It isn't.
"Anyway, since you have an interest in atheism and science, Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Polanyi, Personal Knowedge are right up your ally. Could help you in your fight with fundamentalists."
Doubt it, sounds like people who got too stuck up in philosophical epistemology to do much actual work. An epistemology without evidence is like masturbation without evidence and a paralyzed sprinter, pointless and not going anywhere.
"My personal opinion is fundamentalism, even outside religion, is a great danger to a free society. (Fundamentalism outside formal religion is ideologies and utopias.)"
Fundamentalism is and ideology, whether inside religion or not. However, like beliefs, not all ideologies are equal. I wouldn't treat a Christian fundamentalist the same as a Muslim one, as one is actually less likely to kill someone than the other.
Apollo - "Polanyi's book is a science book."
It is a philosophy book, should be taken with a grain of salt (or perhaps more than one grain).
Nyarlathotep,
It is written by a chemist, who happens to be an atheist. All scientists are influenced by philosophers.
1. Skepticism : - Descartes a philosopher.
2. Falsifiability verification principle: Karl Popper, philosopher.
3. The theory that all science is based in empirical fact comes from philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
4. the universe is constituted by atoms: the philosopher Democritus. You see if you reject an idea just because a philosopher thought of it, atomic theory would not have been worked on. So a priori rejection of Polanyi just because his book is categorized as philosophy, is not scientific.
It goes on and one and on. Science is willy nilly tied to philosophy.
It is not right to a priori reject Polnayi's work, especially if you are committed to empirical evidence for your views. Get the facts about his thinking by reading his work, then devise your critique.
Apollo - 'Get the facts about his thinking by reading his work'
I have read it, it is philosophy, not science. Just like a recipe for chicken a la king---written by a physicist---is a recipe, not physics.
Nyarlathotep,
Ok, but I am curious why you read it.
Too, "just a recipe for chicken a la king" is a bit vague, indicating you have nothing of substance to say, and no viable alternative.
"Too, "just a recipe for chicken a la king" is a bit vague, indicating you have nothing of substance to say, and no viable alternative."
No, he told us exactly what it was, and that does not require presenting an alternative. To point at my cat and call it a feline does not require that I present an alternative, that kind of reasoning is flawed. This idea that, for an idea or statement to be useful it must provide alternatives, is nonsense. If someone proved that our current model of orbital mechanics was incorrect, we would not require an alternative model before accept that it is incorrect.
If you tell me that 2+2=5, all I have to tell you is that it is wrong, I do NOT have to provide an alternative answer for you to be wrong.
He has let us, me mainly, know that it is a philosophy book written by a physicist. That is kind of like all these dentists writing creationist physics books, and makes most of us sort of cringe. I hope the author also has a philosophy degree, or appeals to him fall under an appeal to improper authority fallacy.
Apollo - "Ok, but I am curious why you read it."
I took several philosophy courses in college to escape taking foreign languages; this one was at least a bit easier to read than most because of the examples used. Nevertheless, it is still unsubstantiated wild conjecture at best. At worst it is just another philosopher whining about the natural world and arguing that everyone is wrong about everything.
--------------------------------------
Apollo - 'Too, "just a recipe for chicken a la king" is a bit vague, indicating you have nothing of substance to say, and no viable alternative. '
Travis already addressed this ridiculous statement, I don't think I need to say anything more.
"another philosopher whining about the natural world and arguing that everyone is wrong about everything."
Is everybody wrong about everything? If not, who is right?
What did you think about his demonstration that physics and chemistry can not explain inventions?
My idea of invention is exactly like the definition of invention clearly explained by the atheist and scientist, Polanyi in his book, Personal Knowledge. There isn't anything in that atheist's book that I can disagree with.
The inventor of a car does not suddenly have wheels in stead of feet, and head lights instead of eyes, and so on. So obviously they are not subject to the rules of operation of a car.
Obviously both the inventor and the car rely on the laws of physics. The rules of operation of the car are not the laws of physics that it relies on. See, for example, Michael Polanyi's book, personal knowledge for a more detailed explanation. http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Knowledge-Towards-Post-Critical-Philosoph...
Pages