|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Once again I can't keep up with all of the responses. I don't even think I have anything to add to what I've already said.
I'll just try and encapsulate my views in a simple, (the only way I know), straight-forward way. My views are subjective, and cannot be verified. 1/The way things are balanced in the universe in a way that permits life here and possibly elsewhere gives the appearance of design. 2/A single living cell is an incredibly complex combination of atoms and molecules which is in turn formed by a complex combination of particles. They have the appearance of design. 3/DNA and the genetic code have the appearance of design to the point that Francis Collins calls it "The Language of God". 4/The way that all life works in such a way that it is able to develop and reproduce itself has the appearance of design. 5/Natural selection and the evolutionary process has the appearance of design. 6/Consciousness and mind, (I realize that none of you accept this), seem to point to something other than the physical, with in the case at least of human consciousness seems to me to point to a morality that comes from something other than a material world which would again point to design. I have come to conclusion that we are the product of an intelligent designer, which should not be confused with the anti-evolutionary political movement in the US. I think that my conclusion is reasonable and rational. I also realize that other reasonable and rational people have come to very different conclusions. So be it. It helps make the world go round. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: This is a philosophically flawed view. If the proposed designer qualifies as being alive, then life doesn't require fine tuning (or you get an infinite regress), if it doesn't then why would it choose to fine tune for our sort of life rather than things like it ? I don't accept this argument. (I know, turtles all the way down. ) My sense of things is that we are locked in our 4 dimensional world which we perceive with our 5 senses. Science itself even conjectures about other universes and dimensions. Can't I have the same latitude? Certainly I am coming at it from a different perspective, and science hopes to be able to construct physical evidence for their theories, but just the same I don't see my approach as being unreasonable. Maybe change, can be measured differently in another time dimension. Maybe in another universe we can move around in time the way we move around in space in this one. Who knows?
Paulk writes: These really belong together. Natural selection is pretty much inevitable if you have anything much like life. So that doesn't really qualify. Evolution is good at producing the appearance of design (which includes single cells and DNA). So really I think you are left with the origins of life, and even that is something of an argument from ignorance. Once we go past what we know it's always an argument from ignorance.
PaulK writes: THis one seems to be just wrong. At present physicalism looks like the best option for consciousness since it explains some facts very well (the relationship between mind and brain) and no alternative really comes close. The moral argument is extremely dubious. To me morality seems to be a cultural construct built on a base provided by evolution as a social species. If there is a good argument for any alternative, I haven't seen it. You talk about the relationship between mind and brain. I know where the brain is, but where is the mind? Even so I think that you are confusing the study of mechanism and confusing that with the reason for the mechanism. It still appears to me that we have an innate sense of morality that is just naturally a part of us, that can be heavily influenced by socialization but is not formed from it. I admit that my position can't be proven but for that matter it can't be disproven. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: I am not aware that there is any rule protecting scientific arguments from criticism. To the contrary, it is expected that criticisms will be made. And any scientific arguemnt with the flaws that you have (even if you are simply proposing an infinite regress without adequate reasons) would meet with heavy criticism. So I cannot see what "latitude" you are asking for. I'm just saying that it seems to be ok for science to speculate about other universes and dimensions but when a Christian does it is called flawed reasoning.
PaulK writes: That doesn't save your argument from philosophical criticisms. If all you can do is speculate that the conclusion of your argument MIGHT be true if we make certain ad hoc speculations, you don't have a viable argument. Any philosophical argument will be open to criticism. So what?
PaulK writes: Not if we extrapolate what we do know, rather than setting it aside. At the moment abiogenesis is something of an open question, but the evidence favours a natural origin, and work continues to progress. Science may very well demonstrate how simple matter could come together to form the first living cell. (Personally I doubt it but I don't deny it's possible.) However, that still won't answer the question of why it happened at all. We can't tell scientifically whether or not it happened by pure chance or if it happened by intelligent intervention.
PaulK writes: But that is consistent with my view. Evolved instincts would make up an innate core, while the rest would be a social construct. Let's say you're right about evolved instincts, and personally I think that there is a pretty good chance that you are, the basic question still remains. Did those instincts evolve through some random happening or did they evolve by design? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
cavediver writes: When we talk about extra dimensions and "other universes" we are not doing so from pure speculation but from the constraints of theoretical research and its associated mathematics. When I say "extra dimension" I know precisley what I mean, and how this relates to current knowledge of space-time and the Universe. No-one outside the field has those contraints, and thus such speculation is erroneous from the start.
Speculation was a poor choice of words on my part. How about theorize based on evidence? The thought had occured to me as I have a sunscription to Scientific American and the Nov. issue was sitting here in my den. The headline on the front page is "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May be Interwoven With OUr Own". The last part is exactly what Christians have claimed all along, without any empirical evidence. Mind you we make other claims about invisible universe that aren't exactly scientific either. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I agree with your post and you can see my reply to cavediver above.
Put it this way though. When science theorizes about other universes and/or dimensions based on their findings, I find it encouraging when it might conceivably support my unfounded theistic speculations. There, how is that? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ya just never know eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
frako writes: Yea but then he looks at a robot on the assembly line and it has some strange hieroglyphic on it it says Ford, not knowing what that is he looks around the assembly line and finds a picture of a man with a car and the same name hieroglyphic ford. And everywhere he finds that picture it has the same hieroglyphic ford what could it be and he concluded that that spells out the name of someone connected with the assembly line. But lacking a Rosetta stone to translate the language he can never be sure but it is a reasonable guess (hypothesis) as it is based on tangible evidence. It is a metaphor you know. However, lets go with it. Let's say that there is sign on it that a group of aliens have trouble understanding. One believes that it points to someone named Henry Ford and is an example of his intelligence. Someone else says that no it isn't relative and has no meaning and that the assembly line exists on it's own and is the final product of a series of natural processes. Still other aliens say that the sign is ambiguous and so we can't know how it came into existence. However they all agree that the assembly line should be studied to the maximum degree possible in order to learn all that they can about it. Just in case you've missed it, it is till a metaphor. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
AZPaul3 writes: Since your god is not evidenced anywhere in our knowledge then its evidence must be hidden elsewhere. Since it is not in the light where we can see you have no other option than to point to where we cannot see. You say your god is somewhere inaccessible to present technologically-enhanced human cognition. To your credit you try to dress the area as one where we can never see. So, you can never be shown to be wrong. The god of the ultimate inaccessible gap in knowledge. The place of our forever ignorance. How could anyone entertain such a thing? I know, I know... faith. The point is, GDR, that without that area of ultimate forever ignorance to hide its evidence you would have no deity. The evidence of its existence will have vanished. Your theism requires that area of ignorance to survive. "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." Breaking news. Faith or not, without evidence you are nothing. Sorry to be slow getting back to you. We may not be able to prove we exist but we can know that we are able to perceive our existence. We can know that we are able to perceive our sense of self realization and we are able to perceive our environment in a particular way. Why do we perceive the universe the way we do? Why are we not able to perceive the parts of our universe that science tells us is beyond our direct perception. If all conscious life ceased to exist would our universe still exist as a stand alone universe? I can't prove that my God exists nor can I prove the nature and character that I attribute to the Christian God. Yes it is faith but anybody who thinks of it, (and in order to be an atheist you have to think about it), comes to the conclusion about one piece of evidence. That evidence is that we do perceive our existence, and we do perceive our environment in a particular way. We can ignore the whole question by just opting out and saying that as we can't absolutely know the answer it isn't worth considering and remain agnostic on the issue. Or, we can by faith conclude that there is a pre-existing intelligent basis for our existence, or we can conclude that we exist as a result of fortuitous natural processes. I can accept the possibility of an infinite universe but personally I don't have enough faith to conclude that conscious life, let alone a conscious life with a sense of morality can simply evolve form mindless particles without having a pre-existing moral intelligence at it's root.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
AZPaul3 writes: We perceive as we do because the senses we evolved were necessary and sufficient for our survival. We see in the 430 — 750 THz range because these are the peak frequencies our sun puts out. Our olfactory and gustatory senses are tuned to a great range of molecules because there were a great range of molecules around and perceiving what molecules were predators upwind and what were poison to eat enhanced our survival. No problem with that, but once again you are confusing process and agency. You are assuming that there are only additional natural processes as a root cause. It is atheism of the gaps.
AZPaul3 writes: Because we cannot perceive some dimension that may or may not be there is not sufficient reason to assume a deity. We are ignorant in that area so you are want to imagine your deity there. Because I cannot perceive the dark side of the moon this is not sufficient reason to assume an alien colony there. If we are ignorant of the dark side of the moon then we can only imagine that the dark side of the moon is something of which we are presently ignorant. I know it doesn't take a lot of imagination to imagine that but being ignorant is the only truthful statement we can make in either the "why do we perceive" case or the "can't see the dark side" case. If we could prove that another dimension/universe exists it wouldn't prove the existence of a deity. I have not claimed that it would. It would however be roughly consistent with the Christian idea that God exists all around us in ways that we don't directly perceive.
GDR writes: If all conscious life ceased to exist would our universe still exist as a stand alone universe?AZPaul3 writes: It did so for about 13.8 billion years before we imagined a concept we call universe and I see no reason it should not continue without us. Despite the "philosophers" with their extreme extensions of quantum theory, we really are not necessary for the survival and functioning of this universe. If there is no conscious being to perceive or measure particles wouldn't they just exist in an indeterminate wave form leaving a universe that doesn't look at all like we perceive it? I'm easily in over my head here as my only background involves reading several books by the likes of Brian Greene.
AZPaul3 writes: So we perceive our existence and we perceive our environment in the way we evolved to perceive. I still see no sufficient reason to assume a deity. ..on the other hand, I see no reason to believe that there is an infinite series of natural processes resulting in that evolutionary process.
AZPaul3 writes: Or, as you do, we can use this area of human ignorance to imagine a deity. If that area (or some other area) were not there, if the entire universe could be solved by an equation, there would be no place for any kind of deity. Your answer, of course, would then go to our ignorance of the outside of the universe. Not really. I would simply ask who or what is responsible for the fact that the equation exists in the first place. An equation is knowledge Is it more reasonable to assume that knowledge has mindless or intelligent roots?
AZPaul3 writes: As I surmise, human ignorance, the classic god-of-the-gaps, is essential for the survival of religion. It was developed around human ignorance, has thrived on human ignorance, grows weaker with each discovery in science and would perish without some place of which humans are ignorant. Seeing as how this is a forum with evolution in its title - let's look at that. People like Dawkins argue that now that we essentially understand the evolutionary process we have done away with the need for any deity. That is simply, again, atheism of the gaps. He has no evidence of any process that produced the evolutionary process let alone any evidence for the process that produced the evolutionary process. If you want to argue that suggesting I am using a god of the gaps argument for suggesting that ultimately God is responsible for the evolutionary process then I suggest that it is no different for anyone who wishes to fill the gap with atheistic conclusions.
GDR writes: I can accept the possibility of an infinite universe but personally I don't have enough faith to conclude that conscious life, let alone a conscious life with a sense of morality can simply evolve from mindless particles without having a pre-existing moral intelligence at it's root.AZPaul3 writes: True, but it is also true for someone that can't conceive of an intelligent moral life that is responsible for our existence.
Unfortunately for you and your imagination, personal incredulity carries no truth value in this universe. AZPaul3 writes: No need to ever appologise for this. Only when real life has been placated by our presence and our actions is it appropriate to be here. We should take all the time we need "out there." This can always wait. Thanks. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: No problem with that, but once again you are confusing process and agency. You are assuming that there are only additional natural processes as a root cause. It is atheism of the gaps.AZPaul3 writes: The gaps are our ignorance. We do not assume these gaps justify anything. They are just (temporary) lapses of knowledge. Atheism-of-the-gaps has no meaning. In this specific case, though, the process was evolution and the agency was survival. The gaps may be our ignorance but we have both come to very different conclusions about that area of our ignorance. Survival is part of the process it is not the agency. The agency is either a designer or natural processes.
AZPaul3 writes: There you go, again. We lack the knowledge. Instead of saying "we don't know" you say "maybe god". Seems there is "maybe god" in all our areas of ignorance according to religion. By extension, if there were no gaps, no ignorance, there would be no god. That state of complete knowledge will never be, of course. You jump the logic from the true "we don't know" to the fantasy "maybe something" without any justification. OK but it is exactly the same for the atheistic position. You simply involve the fantasy of maybe an infinite series of mindless natural processes.
GDR writes: If there is no conscious being to perceive or measure particles wouldn't they just exist in an indeterminate wave form leaving a universe that doesn't look at all like we perceive it?AZPaul3 writes: Where the philosophers go off the rails in the extremes, which is what philosophers seem required to do thus making them useless to reality, is that an "observation" is not limited to human intellect seeing a result, thus collapsing the wave function, but by anything, like aggregates of particles where the probability curves for each particle peak sharply at one point. Aggregates of particles collapse into classical mechanics. Yes, that supernova actually did happen even though we did not see it until 5 million years later. The moon really does not disappear when no one is looking. Yes, the universe was full of stars, planets, explosions and collisions, just like we see now, well before humans developed any capacity to observe.
quote: It seems to me that Heisenberg's quote argues against your point. It may be millions of years later that we observe it but the fact remains that we did observe it. From my minimal understanding of QM when we observe or measure a particle then at that time the history is created that brought about the final result.
GDR writes: ..on the other hand, I see no reason to believe that there is an infinite series of natural processes resulting in that evolutionary process.AZPaul3 writes: Sure, but that is what science does. It works with natural processes. It has learned a lot about evolution and maybe some day it will discover a narural process for abiogenesis and then it can go looking for the process that allowed for that. and so on infinitely. Ultimately we have to come to a conclusion about what is unknown. Are we the result of an an infinite series of natural processes or the result of an intelligent designer who is part of an multi time dimensional existence.
I might be able to go with that if it wasn't for literally trillions of verifiable observations that have only shown nature vs zero such observations for anything "beyond". This universe seems to only allow extrapolations into the unknown from the reality that is known. Even with this heavy preponderance of data indicating that only natural explanations have, and thus will, be found, isn't there a logical scientific rationale to keep open the possibility of something "beyond"? If the data were weak or sparse then maybe, but it is not. The evidence is overwhelming and exclusively in one direction so no, there is no logical scientific rationale to entertain that possibility. AZPaul3 writes: An equation is merely our symbolic representation of observed processes. Any intelligence behind it is purely the human ability to get the observations right. Why does α take on the value it does? We don't know, yet. And, again, in that ignorance you wish posit your deity. Why do you assume the processes we observe are intelligently designed? Personal incredulity? Emotional desire? The only rational response is "we don't know why α is the value it is" not "maybe god done it". I don't know. It sorta goes back to the old question which is: did we discover mathematics or did we invent it?
AZPaul3 writes: Not atheistic conclusions, GDR, just extrapolation from known natural explanations into natural explanations, where as you wish to extrapolate into La-La land. All that evidence, in the trillions of data points, all point to here, while you are, without reason, emotionally driven to want to go there. There is no path to there, GDR. It doesn't exist. An infinite regression of natural processes isn't La-La Land? The fact that intelligence exists, that morality exists, that consciousness exists or that any form of life exists at all are data points that cry out for an explanation. However the explanation is obscure to us and so we come to our own conclusions and we have come to different conclusions. I believe that our origins involve a pre-existing intelligence and you presumably believe that we are the result of mindless natural processes. IMHO your position requires a great deal more faith than mine. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
AZPaul3 writes: And up to this point there has been no god nor any need for a god. But, now, at this edge of our knowledge overlooking this chasm of ignorance, this is where religion says "god". Back to my main point. Without an area of ignorance there is no place for any flavor of god. Religion requires ignorance to survive. Or you can look over that chasm of ignorance and say that there is no god, (atheism), or opt out and say as there is insufficient evidence and and and as a result you can't choose either option, (agnostic). If you are claiming to be an atheist you are choosing to disbelieve in any deity whether it is Zeus or the Christian God. Without an area of ignorance there is no place for atheism.
AZPaul3 writes: The supernova happened whether anyone is ever there to see it or not. Just like the sound of the tree falling in the forest. The only thing QM has to say about the supernova is that an electron that finally reaches us here on earth is in a superposition of states until we observe the thing. It says nothing about the past history of the electron nor any superposition of the supernova that spawned it. It is the aggregate of observations of photons and electrons, together with our models, that tells us the reality of the supernova happening, not Quantum theory. I completely acknowledge my vast ignorance in the field but I think that there is a good parallel between QM and the tree falling in the forest. When the tree falls in the forest it produces air waves. It isn't a sound until some conscious life perceives it. In order for us to hear the noise the tree had to fall in advance of us hearing the sound. In QM the particle is an indeterminate wave until it is observed. In Brian Greene's book, (not a philosopher ), he describes a series of split beam experiments and then concludes the following, "It's as if a consistent and definite history becomes manifest only after the future to which it leads has been fully settled."However your post makes the point that atheists are philosophically limited even though personally I don't think that is actually the case. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)