The scientific need for god

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Teller's picture
The scientific need for god

What the title is suggesting is: why as a result of living in a purely scientific world we need god.
Before we carry on we must get on the same page, then the dilemma will arise.
Do you believe in free will? remember your answer.

When you throw a ball if you where to know the speed of how it was thrown and how strong the wind is and all the other factors you would know where it is going to land. Our brains are also part of the physical world. When we make choice, if someone where to know every neuron in our brain she would be able to see what we're going to eat at breakfast. Know imagine she is omniscient. If she knew everything about everything then she would be able to know what is going to happen in the next second. And on this point she would still know everything about everything and would be able to know everything in the second there after. And if this were done infinity she would know everything about the future. So we can deduce that she would know exactly how your life is going to be and she would know exactly what choices and actions you make. You could do nothing to break this cycle as you and I adhere to the laws of nature. Even if you tried to make you're choices by doing something random she would know what your method of randomness is and with enough information nothing is random (as an example you can a random number generator or coin flip can be calculated) so she would know what choice you would make.
Now my point is. You have no free will. You can do nothing to escape this completely scientific fact (this isn't pseudoscience like ID and etc...). So if I were to torture and gut seven people tomorrow (just a grotesque example to embolden my point) it wouldn't be wrong because I didn't have a choice. Hitler couldn't have been evil because he didn't even have a choice in doing what he did and thinking what he thought.

The only way this cycle isn't true is if there is something over-human (something supernatural that doesn't adhere to the laws of science).

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - When you throw a ball

vfd - When you throw a ball if you where to know the speed of how it was thrown and how strong the wind is and all the other factors you would know where it is going to land.

That actually isn't true. It only seem true because you don't have equipment sophisticated enough to measure the difference between your prediction and the outcome of an experiment. If you were to try that with objects of significantly smaller mass than a baseball, the discrepancies become much more obvious and can no longer be ignored.
----------------

vfd - with enough information nothing is random

That is actually false as well, but it is much more subtle.

Teller's picture
We are not talking about our

We are not talking about our knowledge. I know that radioactive decay is as a result of our limitations ie. Heisenberg's principle of incertitude and many other limitations on the human intellect, the most random thing. This argument actually is true if we are talking about an omniscience. You can research more about the exact reasoning from the Richard Dawkins foundation where there is a more biological reasoning to why we have no free will. The idea that free will does not exist is held commonly by scientist who research the topic.
Anyway the point is we have no free will. So how can our actions undergo moral scrutiny?

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - Heisenberg's principle

vfd - Heisenberg's principle of incertitude and many other limitations on the human intellect

The uncertainty principle is NOT a limitation of human intellect, it is mathematical consequence of the postulates of QM. What you are describing is called the clockwork universe and we do not live in a clockwork universe (that the future is perfectly predictable if the present is perfectly known, more formally stated: phase space is described by sets).

I have nothing to say about free will itself. I don't think the idea is defined well enough to even have a strong opinion about. However, I will say that even the people who pay lip service to the idea that we don't have free will, behave as if we do; which makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

Teller's picture
You got me on that point. My

You got me on that point. My fault for not doing my research poorly but maybe my next point is more intriguing.

Teller's picture
We are not talking about our

(Accidental duplicate)

Teller's picture
Another way to know we have

Another way to know we can view the idea of not having free will is a case from Russia. A grown man , 40 years old, one day rapes his daughter. He gets taken to court and he says I don't know why I'm getting these urges, please help me. The judge somehow allowed him to be medically examined. There was a tumor in his brain. They took the tumor out and the urges wen't away and he was pardoned. 3 years later he had his urges again and went straight to the doctor and found out that another tumor had grown. After the second removal he never had any of these urges. He didn't do what he did out of his free will. It was the tumor. And we can view our entire brain as one of these tumors. Our brains are completely biological. So are our thoughts, desires and memories. There is no reason that the tumor shouldn't be seen as part of his mind. And to my earlier point Hitler was born with that his brain and through his circumstances he turned out how he was. He had no choice in the matter. So why is Hitler a bad man?

Nyarlathotep's picture
I don't see how that is an

I don't see how that is an argument for or against free will. For example:

Someone chops my arm off with a machete. I don't want to scream out in pain but I do anyway? Does that mean I don't have freewill? Hardly. (edited)

I don't know how to define freewill in such a way where it can be tested, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Teller's picture
Free will is the ability to

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. Free will is an important part of philosophy. If you have a tumor in your head and chop your hand off because the tumor triggers that part of your brain. Then you didn't have the free choice to chop your arm. I'm saying your brain doesn't allow for a choice. It is just like the tumor. Now speaking in more academic terms. Before you make any decision there are neurons firing in your brain which decide what you are going to do and how you think. These neurons won't change their movement/decision based on what you would actually want because they decide what you want. In this sense there is no room left for having free will when everything is decided before you knowingly can decide it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmI7NnMqwLQ

This short video represents that

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - Free will is an

vfd - Free will is an important part of philosophy

I don't put much stock in philosophy. Even less in the philosophy of the last 400 years.
---------------------

vfd - Before you make a any decision there are neurons firing in your brain which decide what you are going to do and how you think. These neurons won't change their movement/decision based on what you would actually want because they decide what you want is.

While it is above my paygrade, I am skeptical that the brain is understand at anywhere near the level you imply.

Teller's picture
The brain is not understood

The brain is not understood and will never be understood as well as I mean. But that the understanding exists (how ever impossible for us to reach) means that the knowledge of what we are going to do exists prior to us ever knowing. Which makes free will an impossibility. I do deeply suggest not ignoring philosophy because philosophy is the basis of all your beliefs and if you can't reason why you believe what ever you like then anybody can do the same. I'm not talking about eastern philosophy. Philosophy is the science of everything that can't be empirically tested. Philosophers have know this dilemma of mine for many years and they have already answered the question.

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - Philosophy is the

vfd - Philosophy is the science of everything that can't be empirically tested

I agree, and that is exactly why I don't put much stock in it.

"Philosophy is the art of hiding the weaknesses of your arguments in your postulates" - me.
---------------------

vfd - Philosophers have know this dilemma of mine for many years and they have already answered the question.

Telling me that lots of philosophers believe something is not going to convince me of anything; in fact it is likely to do the opposite.

Teller's picture
No no no. What you say is

No no no. What you say is rhetoric, thats the idea of hiding the weakness of an argument. The word rhetoric comes from the philosopher plato who wondered why completely rational arguments don't always win a debate. An example of philosophy is this: What is right? What should I do? and philosophers rationally answer these. Ill ask a question you give me an honest answer ok? :) A guy steals a woman's purse. Is what he did morally acceptable?

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - What you say is

vfd - What you say is rhetoric, thats the idea of hiding the weakness of an argument.

That is my observation from dealing with philosophers and their arguments. They are almost universally wishy-washy, with postulates you could drive trucks through.
-----------------

vfd - Ill ask a question you give me an honest answer ok?

As opposed to the dishonest answer you presume I was going to give?
-----------------

vfd - Is what he did morally acceptable?

I have no idea, the answer would clearly depend on what moral code was being used, and the situation; just for starters. Even with those details it would be possible to have disagreement between people. For example: maybe he needs it to feed hungry people. How hungry do these people need to be before it is acceptable? 17 "hungries"? Please. We might as well count the number of angels than can dance on the head of a pin.

Teller's picture
Yeah and answering these

Yeah and answering these questions are therefore important. If you say , reasoning why something is wrong, is useless then I'm allowed to gut as many people as I please because there is no need reason why my action is right or wrong. You say you do not partake/believe in philosophy yet that is completely false notion. You say you're atheist and you have no doubt political views those are philosophical subjects. For an example if I were to call someone a "n word" you would say that is wrong. And you would reason why it is wrong and that reasoning is philosophy (the ethical part of philosophy). And about the statement of philosophers being wishy-washy. Nietzsche said: "God is dead. We have killed him." How wishy-washy is that? If you have ever talked about justice, fairness, freedom, government and knowledge then you have directly talked about some of the great topics of philosophy.

Nyarlathotep's picture
You say you do not partake

You say you do not partake/believe in philosophy

When did I say that?
-----------------------------------

Nietzsche said: "God is dead. We have killed him." How wishy-washy is that?

Extremely. Consider what it implies:

  1. that god existed
  2. but somehow died, which of course contradicts A

So not only is it not testable, it is self contradictory. And if you think I'm taking it too literally, that it is just a figure of speech; then that seems like an admission that it is wishy-washy already.

Teller's picture
What Nietzsche meant and did

What Nietzsche meant and did explain was that we humans have demolished the idea that god exists through our rationality (It was the era of enlightenment and a lot of people were starting to question the existence of god). My point is to say that all of philosophy is wishy-washy seems like to much of hollywood stereotype. Science if non empirical topics does not mean supernatural and gods. It means answering questions like why should we be good and what is good. How should someone act. Does the end justify the means(killing an innocent man to save 100 innocent mean)? Why shouldn't we believe in a lie (ie. god, conspiracy theories and etc) even if it makes life easier! There are right and wrong answers to these questions even though they are not empiricaly provable.

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - https://www.youtube.com

vfd - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmI7NnMqwLQ

In 10 seconds of watching that video I spotted a problem with makes it doubtful on the topic of free will. Can you see it? The host even mentions it. Watch it again very closely.

Teller's picture
Im sorry I dont understand

Im sorry I dont understand

Nyarlathotep's picture
It's turning the light on

It's turning the light on after he moves his hand. Also it doesn't know which one he is going to push. Just for starters.

Teller's picture
I know this free will debate

I know this free will debate is very interesting but I will concede because the debate above is way way more important

Truett's picture
Hi vdr, I understand what you

Hi vdr, I understand what you're talking about. I agree with some points but differ on important others and disagree with your conclusions. For the record, science does not need or require god. Note: Keep in mind that I'm not a neurologist or physicist, so these points are my understanding of what we currently know.

First, about free will: A large and growing body of neuroscientists do not believe we have free will as it is currently imagined. Neuroscience has pretty well demonstrated that we don't make decisions the way we sense that we do. But our decisions are still made within ourselves, and responsibility for our actions still reside within ourselves, albeit a different sort of responsibility than expected. Neuroimaging demonstrates that in test conditions we choose a hamburger over hotdog before we think we've actually decided. A researcher can tell what we are going to choose before we think we've chosen anything. Neuroimaging demonstrates that when asked to name any town on earth that we choose Tacoma over Cairo or Boston or Santa Cruz in a manner we don't expect and before we think we've made the choice. And that we reject instead of approve of a proposition in a manner different than how we expect, but it is still us making the choice. It just happens more deeply within us, sooner than we feel, and outside of the cognitive selection manner we sense that we use.

This has ramifications on criminal justice, but people have every bit as good of reason for that person to be restrained from harming others as they did before. What changes is our punitive manner of punishment and correction. If somone murders, there might be a means of rehab and there might not, so that is where our focus should partly lie. But we also have to ensure that the person doesn't murder someone else due to the same neurologic forces. So custody is still needed, but not retributive justice that seeks to make a person "pay" for their crime.

On the ability to theoretically know everything that is about to happen from an omniscient level, I disagree. That would require instant information transfer across spacetime. Information travels at the speed of light, not instantly. While we can have quantum computing that appears to operate outside this limitation due to quantum entanglement, at the newtonian (or macro) level there is a real limitation of light speed. Your theoretical goddess is not getting information instantly from across the universe, so she wouldn't know what you and I are going to do one second from now. Your ball throwing experiment works at the newtonian physics level for the same reason we can put a rover on the surface of a speeding asteroid, but not at the quantum level as described by the standard model of particle physics due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle you mentioned. The uncertainty doesn't work the way you think it does, as Nyarlathotep stated. What it means is that we can't know quantum events with certainty, we only know their probability. We know the percentage of uranium atoms that will lose a neutron due to decay within a given time frame, but we can't know which exact atoms will decay. Just the percentages. This was deeply frustrating to Einstein and was part of the brilliance of Richard Feynman, the nobel laureate who completed the Standard Model of particle physics. Your argument assumes we can know everything in a predictive fashion, but people smarter than us have proven otherwise. So your goddess can't know with certainty what you argue she would know. The physical laws of nature don't support the omniscience you've proposed.

Since you brought up evil and Hitler I will give my view on that. Evil as many imagine it does not exist. There is what improves well being and reduces suffering and contributes to the flourishing of conscious beings, what is neutral to these concerns, and what is contrary to these concerns. Anything that causes suffering or reduces well being can be said to be evil, but that is in my view just labeling something with a new name. There is obviously no malevolent force or state of being that is innately evil, but rather what is harmful. Hitler was a sociopathic megalomaniacal mass murderer who was doing what natural forces within himself were driving him toward. He probably had little to no control over himself in the sense we think of, but it was him doing it and he had to be stopped all the same. Not as punishment for him, but to reduce suffering and enhance well being to the greatest extent possible.

Recognizing the neurologic basis for how our brains make decisions does not eliminate morality at all, but it changes how we view concepts like punishment, deserved misstreatment, and the thing we call evil. And the omni-aware goddess is using physical laws that don't exist. That's called supernatural, and I reject that out of hand.

Teller's picture
I completely agree with you

I completely agree with you (that was actually a really neatly laid out argument). However I have a question. Would you define morality as whatever decreases suffering (Utilitarianism)? Or was that a place holder for what ever moral system is the right one?

Truett's picture
Vfd, I am not sure that

Vfd, I am not sure that objective morality exists. The Stanford neuroscientist Sam Harris has argued that it does and explains that if a universe existed where every conscious being sufferred as much as possible for as long as possible and we knew it and could do something about it, it would be objectively moral to act on their behalf. If that is correct, then the flourishing of conscious life is an objective concern of morality and there is a basis for the objectivity that seems so important to us. But whether there is or not, our morality is always variable in human societies. It is right now, within religious communities and across them. The hope that there is an objective set of right and wrongs so that we have an absolute basis for meauring the morality of a given decision is beyond illusive. Perhaps in childhood it is objectively immoral to stick one's hand in the cookie jar when told not to, but the larger world of reality doesn't work that way, with the possible exception of what effects a decision has on the flourishing of conscious life. By the way, I specify conscious life because rocks and hydrogen atoms and photons of light do not suffer or experience well being, so how one treats a rock does not effect its flourishing.

My point then is that a hard set of rights and wrongs does not appear to exist in the universe. That intelligent humans want a repeatable litmus test to serve as arbiter for our notions, decisions and actions does not mean that one exists. Reality is not compelled to provide us with what we prefer. We have to determine what exists and deal with it, regardless of desires. Different moral systems exist on earth and support the flourishing of conscious life to varying degrees, with some better supporting flourishing than others. Two might perform as well as each other but be substantially different in how they operate. The effort to determine a single, universal system is desired but one might not exist. The hope that an umpire in the sky will superimpose a rulebook for all to follow might be desirable to many, but that has no effect at all on what actually exists. We absolutely must limit ourselves to reality. Wishful thinking won't bring that longed for umpire and rulebook into being.

Teller's picture
So you are supposing

So you are supposing existentialism?
Let me explain quickly; An object like a pair of scissors is first thought of (that thinking is the essence of the scissor) and then it is built. The good scissor would be the one closest to the essence of it. Now existentialism states that this is the core reason why our life has no meaning (There is no intrinsic meaning that is given to us by god or a creator). They say that our existence precedes our essence. First we came to be and only after that we tried to define our essence; even though no preexisting essence of us exists.
(On a personal note, I subscribe to this idea :) ) This however does not mean morality and right or wrong can't or don't exist.
Now I can't completely agree with Sam Harris.
Reason: if we said suffering bad- no suffering good then a lot of dilemmas arise. Imagine there is a monster with an unbelievable amount of suffering and every human he guts and eats alive gives him double the amount of "unsuffering" as the humans suffering. He is then permitted to kill all humans. Another problem there is a ship with 20.000 people and one with 10. They are both sinking and you can save one which one would it be? Lets see if you choose 20.000 and one of those 20.000 is a new-Hitler or at least his great great granddad. His life would result in millions of deaths. And one woman on the other ship would be the one to cure cancer. Because time is infinite you would never be able to know the exact consequences of your actions. Therefore you can't every definitively know what is the good decision.
That''s why I say suffering cant be the basis of morality. At least in the Utilitarian way of thinking.

Truett's picture
Vfd, I think that you've

Vfd, I think that you've driven into a philisophical cul-de-sac. Whether we can ascertain a more or less beneficial or harmful action has no applicability in what constitutes reality and what does not constitute reality.

I will avoid using descriptive terms like utilitarianism and existentiallism to avoid confusing my position and point. I'll say this instead: When chemical reactions led to the first self-replicating molecule, it did not take on an essence, and neither did the earliest notochord animal like Pikaia or the first tetrapod like Ichtheastega or our ancient cynodont ancestor Thrinaxodon or our early bi-pedal primate ancestor Austrolipithicus. These are all direct ancestors of humans, and they didn't have an essence and were not operating within a celestially based moral system. They were existing. We are exactly like these ancient parents of ours. We have no essence, which you acknowledge. And we don't operate within a celestially based moral system, which you don't seem to acknowledge. You are basing your argument on things that aren't demonstrable components of reality. Nothing in reality dictates that we know what is or isn't morality. It is dreadfully important to us because we appreciate life, we live in social groups where our actions effect others and ourselves, and we realize that we have duties and responsibilities to each other. This is not our essence or our morality, it is instead the circumstance of bipedal intelligent herd-like hominids operating within an environment that requires cooperation to flourish and reproduce.

You're comments recognize the reality of our circumstance but then you attempt to superimpose a non-natural external explanation to the perfectly rational effort of humans to orchestrate the best lives possible for ourselves and all lives impacted by our actions.

Teller's picture
I agree with you.

I agree with you.
Putting the nonsensical supernatural arguments away for a second. You say that we live in a world where our actions effects others. We as humans have the capability of holding back our state of nature (ie. the urge to kill).
I have only said that a god is needed in light of not having free will. This is a argument that you deflected and I accepted. (in the sense you gave a rational answer and I accepted that answer)

Moreover we both have also accepted that a rational moral system is imperative and again can be achieved by pure rationality. And we have both accepted that we must strive for the best moral laws that help us as a species.
Now I ask you one important question or actually this is more of a suggestion.
Have you ever tried finding that ethic which you truthfully believe is good? And will you follow this ethic?

If the answer to either of these questions is nay then I can be held only as responsible as you can be for your lack of thought.
However if the answer is yes or at least you have been intrigued to find out what truly is "good" then you are at a higher standard then most humans ever will be. I will also be incapable of bringing any further counter arguments to support the need for god.

Truett's picture
Here is what I personally

Here is what I personally believe: Morality and Ethics are based on the flourishing of conscious life and consist of maximizing well being and minimizing suffering to the greatest extent possible. The moral philosophy I am most closely aligned with is Humanism. It is fair to say that I am a Humanist.

A great many circumstances have presented themselves where I've been conflicted on the most ethical, right action available. This is frequently because of competing priorities of conscious beings and my realization that to aid one party is to disadvantage another. There are a great many ethical dilemmas of this sort. I value philisophers that have studiously considered what we know about ourselves and other conscious beings and attempted to aid their fellow concerned people in living lives that do honor to this brief, wonderful thing we call existence. The Princeton philosopher Peter Singer comes to mind, and the late Bertrand Russell is another, and I absolutely have to include Socrates. Then there are authors whose views I value, like Isaac Asimov and Mark Twain. Even contemporary songwriters have the occassional insight that sheds ever more light on the human condition and how we can build a better community of humans and consider our duties to our distant animal cousins.

I've shared some pretty personal thoughts and principles, so I hope this is in line with your question. What I am not is some fatalistic nihilist. Each of our lives are shockingly brief, but of infinite value. You and I exist because every ancestor of yours and mine managed to live long enough to reproduce, then frequently strove to assist one young animal who would be our next youngest ancestor. No one saw their struggles and their fear and their heartbreak and their thrilled excitement, but you and I are truly here because of them. We don't know what the future holds to unimagined generations, but we alive today will either help them or hinder them. I'm doing what I can to help.

Teller's picture
Wonderful, if I could I would

Wonderful, if I could I would give an standing ovation. It is always an immense pride to see someone who values rational thought as much as oneself.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Truett - That would require

Truett - That would require instant information transfer across spacetime. Information travels at the speed of light, not instantly. While we can have quantum computing that appears to operate outside this limitation due to quantum entanglement

I know there is a lot of misleading stuff that gets published in those popularization of physics magazines, so I thought I should clarify this tiny bit: entanglement can not be used to send information faster than the speed of light (no matter what those silly articles tell you). Entanglement always requires a classical data channel to send information (and classical data channels are limited by the speed of light).

Truett's picture
Thanks, Nyarlathotep. My

Thanks, Nyarlathotep. My understanding of the quantum level no doubt has gaps, with quantum entanglement's role in linking subatomic particles at extreme distances from each other being gap number one. I've studied what Richard Feynman has taught, along with Frank Wilczek and Lawrence Krauss. I understand from them that the "spooky action at a distance" is a real phenomenon, against the initial instincts of Einstein. While it is desperately hard to picture this effect in one's mind, the truth of it is so far proven by every experiment and mathematical model. I know too that it is due to quantum entanglement that allows us to know the state of a given subatomic particle that would otherwise be unpredictable. That is about as far as my knowledge goes. Every time I study it I can get so far and no farther in understanding it. Anything you mention to me will be helpful, and if you've run across an article or video that helps please feel free to shoot it to me. I'd love to know more.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.