Agnostic versus Atheist

[PRmerger]

One’s not obligation to have/know an explanation.

I’m not exactly understanding the sentence structure here, but I think what you’re saying is: “Why do I have to answer this question?”

And this is very, very puzzling to me…coming from a Science Advocate.

Does it not seem rather peculiar to be so complacent with “I don’t know” as your answer?

Isn’t the question of “Why?” (along with “How?”) the raison d’etre of Science?

And yet here you are saying, “I don’t know is perfectly reasonable to accept”



Not for any other query in the epistemological realm.

But for some reason, when the answer points to “Because the Christians have the answer and we don’t”, the answer is all, “Hey, we sometimes have to be ok with ‘I don’t know’, ok?”

#curiouserandcuriouser

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I am astonished that a Science Lover would object to the question “Why”.

This is reminiscent of the thread I started several months ago regarding skeptic Michael Shermer experiencing something he had no explanation for…

And rather than applying ALL OF HIS SCIENTIFIC faculties to the event, chose instead to just “savor the experience”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=971141&highlight=shermer

Yeah. Because it’s clear that when the answers point towards the Numinous, clearly the Atheistic Scientist is content to endorse*** the most unscientific of attitudes ***and coyly say, “I’m ok with not knowing why”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, I am astonished that a Science Lover would object to the question “Why”.

As of yet there’s been no objection. I’ve asked for validation for an expectation. Did the previous chart express your intended pathway for this conversation?

 

[Solmyr]

Well, I am astonished that a Science Lover would object to the question “Why”.

Only a very small child keeps on asking: “Why Mommy?” - even when there is a perfectly good and satisfactory answer. Of course with small children this is acceptable (due to their ignorance), but not with adults who should understand the reasonable reply. Moreover, there are nonsensical questions, for which there is no reply. Some of these even might be syntactically correct, but they refer to things which are simply “brute facts”.

Kid - “Mommy, why does the Moon look exactly as large as the Sun?”
Mommy - “Because their size and their distance from the Earth has the same ratio”.
Kid - “But Mommy, why are they exactly THAT far? Why not closer or farther?”
Mommy - “It just so happens. There is an explanation, but you have to learn more about gravity and the laws of physics.”
Kid - “But Mommy, why are the laws of physics so difficult?”…
…
and on and on and on… ad nauseam.

Now let’s add a meaningless GIF with ZERO informational value… and we have an interesting sample.

 

[PRmerger]

As of yet there’s been no objection. I’ve asked for validation for an expectation. Did the previous chart express your intended pathway for this conversation?

Then I must have misunderstood.

You are NOT saying “Why do I have to answer this question?”

 

[PRmerger]

Only a very small child keeps on asking: “Why Mommy?” - even when there is a perfectly good and satisfactory answer. Of course with small children this is acceptable (due to their ignorance), but not with adults who should understand the reasonable reply. Moreover, there are nonsensical questions, for which there is no reply. Some of these even might be syntactically correct, but they refer to things which are simply “brute facts”.

Kid - “Mommy, why does the Moon look exactly as large as the Sun?”
Mommy - “Because their size and their distance from the Earth has the same ratio”.
Kid - “But Mommy, why are they exactly THAT far? Why not closer or farther?”
Mommy - “It just so happens. There is an explanation, but you have to learn more about gravity and the laws of physics.”
Kid - “But Mommy, why are the laws of physics so difficult?”…
…
and on and on and on… ad nauseam.

Now let’s add a meaningless GIF with ZERO informational value… and we have an interesting sample.

Only a really, really bad parent answers the queries of the very inquisitive child with, “Because I said so. And quit asking the question, will you?”

Rather, a good parent says, “That is a very, very good question, child! How astute of you to think of it! Let’s see if we can explore the answer and why you find my answers unsatisfactory. Perhaps there is more we can discover together.”

 

[Solmyr]

Only a really, really bad parent answers the queries of the very inquisitive child with, “Because I said so. And quit asking the question, will you?”

You are projecting. And you are not the parent in the conversation… you play the role the child.

Rather, a good parent says, “That is a very, very good question, child! How astute of you to think of it! Let’s see if we can explore the answer and why you find my answers unsatisfactory. Perhaps there is more we can discover together.”

OK, let’s say that this is the answer which is given… but then the “child” says:

• “But Mommy, why do I have to wait?”
• “Because you need more education”
• “But Mommy, why do I need more education?”
• “Because these problems are difficult.”
• “But Mommy, why are these questions difficult?”

And NO MATTER what the answer might be, YOUR continuation is:

• "But Mommy… why? Why? WHY?.. WHY? "

And the merry-go-round continues. No matter what the answer WE give you, you keep on asking: “Why”? The only problem is that you are NOT a child any more… and your “emulation” of a child is incorrect and unsatisfactory.

By the way, to admit that one does not have all the answers is called HONESTY. We do NOT have all the answers. Some problems might stay elusive for a long, long time. Some problems are even incorrectly stated, and have NO answers as they are presented. But this kind of HONEST answer is countered by “Aha! So admit that science cannot supply ALL the answers!” And if that is countered by “Sure, we do not have ALL the answers, but every day we answer more and more questions”, then your answer is “So you profess ‘scientism’…, you believe that ALL questions can be answered by science”… no matter what the answer is, you continue the marry-go-round.

Going back to one of your questions: “What is the atheist explanation for the problem of evil”… the answer is simple: “There is NO PROBLEM of evil in a godless universe”. There are many evil actions, but there is no PROBLEM. A problem only occurs if and when someone stipulates a loving, caring and omnipotent God. Otherwise the answer is simple: “because ‘guano’ happens”. And if you wish to ask: “why”, then the answer is still simple: “because there is no benevolent and omnipotent God to prevent it”… and that the sad truth.

 

[PRmerger]

You are projecting. And you are not the parent in the conversation… you play the role the child.

Yep. I fully embrace that role here.

And the parent who says, “Stop asking the question. It’s already been answered. If you don’t find it satisfactory, that’s your problem” is being…

very unscientific
and a very, very bad parent.

And I will add that I find it supremely amusing that folks who putatively claim to be science advocates suddenly, coyly, (and rather transparently) say here: stop wondering why. Just accept that sometimes we don’t know.

There’s that Atheistic Double Standard that’s rearing its funny little head again.

 

[PRmerger]

Yep. I fully embrace that role here.

And the parent who says, “Stop asking the question. It’s already been answered. If you don’t find it satisfactory, that’s your problem” is being…

very unscientific
and a very, very bad parent.

And I will add that I find it supremely amusing that folks who putatively claim to be science advocates suddenly, coyly, (and rather transparently) say here: stop wondering why. Just accept that sometimes we don’t know.

There’s that Atheistic Double Standard that’s rearing its funny little head again.

BTW: I am perfectly fine with “I don’t know the answer”.

What I find bewildering is the science advocate leaving it there.

The beautiful Catholic paradigm is, “Come, let us reason together!” (Isaiah 1:18).

What a magnificent way to attack questions, no?

Would that Atheists would embrace this here.

One has to wonder why they don’t…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then I must have misunderstood.

You are NOT saying “Why do I have to answer this question?”

No, that is not what I am saying. Depending on one’s purpose it’s possible to engage in models of human behaviour that don’t touch on one’s motivations. Sometimes statistical models are used in which case little insight as to what is occurring within someone’s mind is involved. There’s no duty to use motivation theory in interacting with another, but at times it can be helpful. When interacting with another person we often build models for their behaviour and use the predictions from that model in anticipating responses and may form our actions and words from the influence of our models. Motivation can be helpful for this and other situations. There are other behavioural models that have usefulness for different situations.

Yeah. Because it’s clear that when the answers point towards the Numinous, clearly the Atheistic Scientist is content to endorse*** the most unscientific of attitudes ***and coyly say, “I’m ok with not knowing why”.

There’s probably a number of domains in which someone doesn’t put much of their already limited time. A microbologist might be okay with not knowing much about n-body celestial movements. A chemist working in textiles might be okay with not knowing much about quantum teleportation. An ethologist might not care about the molecular physics at play that make someone’s the products of someone’s basket weaving so strong. I see this as specialization. You might see this as something else. From my perspective it appears you are critical of someone not trying to be omniscient. Even a cross disciplinarian doesn’t necessarily try to know all fields in depth.

Andrew B. Newberg (neuroscientist) and Eugene G. d’Aquili (research psychiatrist) both had an interest in the numinous. They investigated it using the tools or their trade and published a few books from their research. I read one of their books years ago. Others might find it interesting.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s probably a number of domains in which someone doesn’t put much of their already limited time.

You are correct.

However, it’s a bit odd for a science advocate who’s clearly interested in the conversation to change paradigms from “Let’s find out” to “I have no idea and do not wish to pursue this further”.

Surely you can see how transparent that appears to us Believers, yes?

When the answer points to the Numinous, the quest ceases.

#weird
#obvious

 

[PRmerger]

No, that is not what I am saying. Depending on one’s purpose it’s possible to engage in models of human behaviour that don’t touch on one’s motivations. Sometimes statistical models are used in which case little insight as to what is occurring within someone’s mind is involved. There’s no duty to use motivation theory in interacting with another, but at times it can be helpful. When interacting with another person we often build models for their behaviour and use the predictions from that model in anticipating responses and may form our actions and words from the influence of our models. Motivation can be helpful for this and other situations. There are other behavioural models that have usefulness for different situations.

Yes, it’s a very interesting model.

But it doesn’t explain, as I have already stated, the WHY.

Why does our behavior follow a pattern that, at times, clearly leads to bad outcomes?

Why is there no perfect human on earth, in terms of behavior?

Why is there no perfect solution? (Chemo kills bad cells, but it also kills good cells. Chocolate tastes good but it puts cellulite on your thighs. Silicone makes your breasts bigger, but it also can cause capsular contracture, etc etc etc)

 

[Solmyr]

Yep. I fully embrace that role here.

I certainly will not disagree with this. The problem is that children don’t know the difference between sensible and nonsensical questions. They keep asking: “why is the nose of Rudolf red”? Or “why does the tooth fairy leave 25 cents under my pillow?”

The question of: “how many electrons can exist on the different electron shells?” is a sensible one. The question of: “Why are only two electrons on the innermost shell?” can be answered by using quantum mechanics and its relevant equations. But the question of: “why those equations, and not others?” is not sensible. It is a brute fact.

Your major “problem” is that one must stop somewhere with the “why”… such questions cannot form an infinite descent. Sooner or later we shall hit a “bottom”, and the only way to express it is “that is just how things are”. And it is NOT unscientific at all. It seems “unscientific” for those who are not well-versed in science. Like children.

And I will add that I find it supremely amusing that folks who putatively claim to be science advocates suddenly, coyly, (and rather transparently) say here: stop wondering why. Just accept that sometimes we don’t know.

Actually, the joke is on you.

 

[Aloysium]

The truth is that science has no explanation for what is most important in life.

The person who has a scientific perspective, thinking it can explain everything ends up having two options when faced with such aspects of life such as his/her very existence, its meaning and how it is that things can really, really hurt:

• That person may consider the universe absurd, irrational.
• The other alternative is to consider oneself absurd. There would be no why’s about one’s life and death. Such questions are apparently understood as being infantile and possibly symptomatic of psychopathy.

But, there are other ways to understand ourselves. When people ask “Why?”, they are trying to elicit meaning rather than a clarification of facts. Along these lines, one can usually gain far better understanding of who a person is, listening to their dreams as opposed to knowing all their vital statistics. People have different strengths. It appears that some of us have difficulty grasping the why’s. In the end, what is important is how we behave, the degree to which we are loving persons.

 

[PRmerger]

I certainly will not disagree with this. The problem is that children don’t know the difference between sensible and nonsensical questions. They keep asking: “why is the nose of Rudolf red”? Or “why does the tooth fairy leave 25 cents under my pillow?”

If you are a parent and you find those questions nonsensical, I pity your children.

Those are perfectly valid questions and indicate an inquisitive mind and one should nurture and encourage this curiosity. Not attempt to quash it.

And to put it back into perspective, the point remains: I am asking Atheists what their answer is.

The Christian answer to why we are how we are is: because of Original Sin.

Am still waiting patiently for your answer.

Actually, the joke is on you.

Really? How so?

It would seem that if Believers are right the joke is terrible, absolutely terrible, for the atheist.

However, if the Atheists are right, then the joke is…simply nothing for the Believer.

And if there’s simply *nothing *for the Believer at the end of life, why should she care?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes, it’s a very interesting model.

But it doesn’t explain, as I have already stated, the WHY.

Why does our behavior follow a pattern that, at times, clearly leads to bad outcomes?

Why is there no perfect human on earth, in terms of behavior?

I can’t help but find the question of perfection to be odd since I’m without an expectation that people would be “perfect.” If agents (human or not) with varying behaviour strategies were put in a dynamic environment with incomplete information and changing constraints on their behaviour and what constitutes success within that environment I would expect the success and failures of those agents to also differ.

Is this a variation of the question you asked on “the problem of evil?”

You are correct.

However, it’s a bit odd for a science advocate who’s clearly interested in the conversation to change paradigms from “Let’s find out” to “I have no idea and do not wish to pursue this further”.

I generally refer to areas of study or researchers when I think they may have an answer to a question. I suggest that you do the same if you feel that you have an a reference that may have an answer to a question. In either case whether or not someone looks into that reference is totally up to them.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t help but find the question of perfection to be odd since I’m without an expectation that people would be “perfect.” If agents (human or not) with varying behaviour strategies were put in a dynamic environment with incomplete information and changing constraints on their behaviour and what constitutes success within that environment I would expect the success and failures of those agents to also differ.

And that leads to the same question: why shouldn’t there be, in the entirety of our human experience, at least one perfect thing?

Yet we have never experienced a single item of perfection.

Why is that?

 

[PRmerger]

Is this a variation of the question you asked on “the problem of evil?”

Perhaps.

I generally refer to areas of study or researchers when I think they may have an answer to a question. I suggest that you do the same if you feel that you have an a reference that may have an answer to a question. In either case whether or not someone looks into that reference is totally up to them.

Of course.

But you certainly see the cognitive dissonance this generates in Catholics here, yes?

“I don’t know and stop asking me” should never be the mantra of a Science Advocate.

 

[Solmyr]

If you are a parent and you find those questions nonsensical, I pity your children.

Don’t be so condescending. If you did not point out that the tooth fairy and Rudolf are just stories, not to be taken seriously, then you LIED to your children. And since there is no such thing as an “innocent, white lie”, you knowingly committed a mortal sin of INTRINSICALLY EVIL LYING.

And to put it back into perspective, the point remains: I am asking Atheists what their answer is.

The answer is simple, but requires a lot of studying. I can’t do it for you.

The Christian answer to why we are how we are is: because of Original Sin.

That is just a meaningless “sound bite”.

It would seem that if Believers are right the joke is terrible, absolutely terrible, for the atheist.

Don’t try to scare me. I never believed in the monster under my bed either.

However, if the Atheists are right, then the joke is…simply nothing for the Believer.

And if there’s simply *nothing *for the Believer at the end of life, why should she care?

Because she would have squandered her life, and there is no second chance.

---

By the way, do you actually understand why the series of “WHY’s” must stop eventually?

 

[PRmerger]

Because she would have squandered her life, and there is no second chance.

This is very Catholic.

(It is always amusing to me when an atheist unwittingly spouts off Catholic teaching).