Ask the Atheist

[RobNY]

PLP:

Why shouldn’t it be arbitrary in the sense of subjective? What’s wrong with my own subjective happiness, subjective suffering? Some mental states are intrinsically good, some intrinsically bad, by virtue of the natural construction of my brain.

But why follow something that is arbitrary? You used the word, ‘good.’ But the word means nothing because it is arbitrary. It seems to me that you don’t mean ‘good,’ you mean, ‘what’s best for me.’ Which may equal good in your case, but I can’t say I agree with the definition then, because I do believe there are plenty of things that are ‘good,’ which aren’t, ‘what’s best for me.’

In any case, what is subjectively good for you may not be for other people. It is true that there are many cases where you can do something that is good for yourself, such as stealing, which is bad for another. To take your point, why shouldn’t you steal, or kill, if you can get away with it?

 

[kristinma]

PLP, have you read “Just Six Numbers” by Martin Rees.

Sir Martin Rees is Britain’s Astronomer Royal. I would guess that, like most top-ranking scientists, he is an atheist. Certainly he is quite at pains to eschew any theism in his scientific writings.

Nonetheless I think his book should give you food for thought. It deals with the way our universe seems to be “fine-tuned” to make the emergence of life possible.

Rees admits the improbability of the fine-tuning coming about by chance. How then to avoid conceding a “designer universe?”

Rees’ solution is one that is accepted by most scientists today. Our big bang was not a unique event. There were perhaps an infinity of big bangs. In some tiny fraction of universes the laws of physics and the constants of nature were just right for the emergence of life.

In other words infinity swamps a small probability.

The trouble is that there is no evidence for this “multiverse theory” and it’s hard to see how it could ever be put to any sort of scientific test.

You are left with four possibilities:

(1) It is a MONUMENTAL coincidence that the laws of physics and the constants of nature in our universe are such that life could emerge.

(2) There is some physics we don’t understand – the universe had to be the way it is.

(3) An infinite “multiverse” - which we can probably never put to any sort of test

(4) We live in a “designer universe.”

You have to take your pick.

But before you do I think you should at least understand the problem.

You may also want to read Roger Penrose’s 2004 book, The Road to Reality. How did the low entropy arise?

I suspect that Penrose too is an atheist. He is one of the greatest living mathematicians.

God bless you PLP,

Kristin

PS: I believe because I have a personal relationship with Jesus. But, then again, I’m probably nuts.

 

[khkhk]

Do atheists have morals?? God’s the author of love. And with out love, how can you decipher what’s right from what’s wrong? What do you think your purpose is for being on this planet if you don’t believe that God exists? And what will happen to you after you die? Is that just the end of you and boom you just cease to exist and you are gone???

 

[MarkR]

"Rees admits the improbability of the fine-tuning coming about by chance. How then to avoid conceding a “designer universe?”

Rees’ solution is one that is accepted by most scientists today. Our big bang was not a unique event. There were perhaps an infinity of big bangs."

But “Infinity” within any system that is subject to Change is impossible. If the past stretches back “infinitely” we never could have reached the present moment.

You’ll also notice that Dr. Rees’ “hypothosis” has crossed definitively into the realm of “metaphysics”, something atheists believe to be a non-sequitor…and there’s still that pesky question of how any effect/phenomenon that can be theorized about rationionally within a constantly changing, measurable, closed cosmos (however vast/ancient), can come about without an original Cause outside of and not contingent upon that system. Seems like the death of science as well as rational thought itself to me. “Everything can be explained scientifically except for Everything”.

PLP, just out of curiousity (and I mean this respectfully), does your atheism ever make you feel claustrophobic? To me, no matter how vast the universe/universes, whatever-- without God it’s still a box from which none of us can get out. I’d feel (and in the past have felt) as though the walls were closing in.

“God does not play dice”- Albert Einstein

 

[PLP]

Oops! I think I missed you, BlueRain.

BlueRain:

Welcome PLP

Thanks

I’d like to ask why do we as humans like to create as well? Art, movies, pyramids,stories etc.

Creating things is fun! I’ve been creating computer programs most of my life and I really enjoy it.

How has the desire and joy from creating things benefitted us in an evolutionary sense. I’m talking about creating things, not problem solving.

Evolution is full of instances where one trait is selected for and another trait “hitches a ride” because it comes from the same genes. We got these big brains, and they turned out to have a definite selective advantage. The other stuff that our big brains can do got dragged along.

But I also suspect that our creativity is precisely what gave us a selective advantage. Creative imagination is fundamental and critical to to imagining not only what will happen in the future, but how we can act to change the future for the better. I think the ability to imagine a better future, even if it’s just a way to more efficiently hunt a mammoth, gives us a huge selective advantage.

 

[PLP]

I missed you too, CatholicCid! Sorry! I’m getting to you now.

CatholicCid:

Hi PLP, great to see you posting…

Thanks

Was just wondering what your thoughts are on Miracles…

Well, I have several issues with “miracles”. First, miracles–in the sense of events that somehow “violate” natural law–are logically impossible. We don’t know natural laws a priori; we invent them to explain why we never observe something. If we’re convinced we’ve observed a “violation” of a natural law, it is the natural law (our conception of it) which must fall.

Second, to be convinced that some event does contradict a natural law, I’d want to see pretty strong support for the event actually occurring. I’ve observed billions of instances of objects obeying the law of gravity; if someone wants to tell me an event has occurred which falsifies the law of gravity, I need to be convinced pretty strongly to overturn the billions of instances I’ve personally observed.

…or situations where science has no answers to say a patient cured of cancer or a person recieving the stigmata…

When these things happen, are we just to unadvanced medically and scientifically to understand how these happen? Are they just plain hoaxes?
What are your thoughts on the matter?

Well, spontaneous remission of cancer is pretty easy. We have an immune system which does in fact fight cancer. Our immune system is killing cancerous cells all the time. It’s not scientifically surprising that some people should have a spontaneous remission.

As to stigmata, who knows? It’s likely that some instances are hoaxes, and some are psychosomatic illnesses. It’s logically possible that a god is responsible, but I’d have to see a much more thorough investigation which decisively ruled out natural causes.

Have a great day,

I will, you too!

 

[PLP]

Detroit Sue:

PLP, did you grow up with any kind of faith, or religious belief? If so, what caused you to turn away from that belief?

I didn’t grow up with any kind of faith. When I was very young, I thought God was just a more-or-less ordinary person, like the President of the United States. I figured out that was wrong pretty early, though!

Growing up, I was mostly an “apatheist”; I just didn’t give the question much thought. I went to a Quaker school for my elementary education, but Quakers don’t push theism much; it’s more about a set of moral beliefs (many of which I still retain). I didn’t give the question much thought until my late 30s when I started posting on IIDB. It just seemed natural at that time to self-identify as an atheist.

I’ve never “struggled” at all with the question of religious belief in the sense of an internal cognitive dissonance. I have, of course, always evaluated arguments rationally and with an open mind.

 

[PLP]

canadianlife:

PLP, please tell me why there is no God, why He can’t exist, and then please explain to me the countless miracles that happen constintely. Thanks!

See my post to CatholicCid. There’s a big logical issue with “miracles”, and I’m not much impressed with the support for claims of even paranormal events.

 

[PLP]

“I firmly believe those men who are willing to die for what they believe in.”

I’m not that impressed by people who are willing to die for their beliefs. I admire their courage, but it doesn’t make their belief true. In fact, the only beliefs I myself would die for are moral beliefs, which I believe are never objectively true. I think objectively true beliefs should be proven, not died for.

If I were to ask you, how is it that so many people have died for what they believe?

People appear to do this a lot. People have died for many beliefs, some good, some bad, some important, some trivial.

Then I suppose your answer might be that they were unwilling to face the fact that their existance just stops and after this life it is over.

There are things I’m willing to die for (protecting my family, protecting our freedom and democracy), and I have no belief in an afterlife. But we all have to die sometime, and I have no objection to dying well. Of course, I’d prefer to die in bed of old age, but if I have to, there are things die for rather than live with the knowledge I didn’t resist.

So my question then is not to all martyers but to those who were apostles of Jesus who died in ways so horrid that if used today we could get a guilty confession from innocent people, yet these men suffered and died for what they had seen.

I’m not at all convinced that even that naturalistic narrative of Acts is strictly historical. But even if it were, all I could conclude is that the apostles believed very strongly. But strength of belief does not, by itself, establish objective truth.

 

[PLP]

tdandh26:

if that were the case then wouldn’t the old and new testament have been written at the same time?

No. What I’m saying is that “Mark”–presumably a Pauline Christian–read the Old Testament and decided to write a narrative of Jesus’ life. In writing that narrative, he included elements which fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.

Since it is a historical fact that Judaism goes back well beyond the time of Christ, and they’re book were developed over time as well. How is it that many individuals prophesied about someone to come later.

Anyone can prophesy. As Shakespeare said:
‘I can call spirits from the vasty deep.’
‘Aye, so can I, and so can any man, but will they come when you do call them?’

Isnt it also odd that even those religions which are not Christian acknowledge Jesus as a person, such as Jews and Muslims. Plus read my previous post please.

Even many secular and atheist historians acknowlege the historicity of Jesus. It’s pretty clear that Mohammed actually existed, but that doesn’t prove the truth of Islam.

 

[PLP]

RobNY:

But why follow something that is arbitrary?

Well, I don’t “follow” that which is arbitrary. The nature of my own subjective consciousness is arbitrary by definition; I don’t “follow” it, I am my arbitrary, subjective consciousness.

You used the word, ‘good.’ But the word means nothing because it is arbitrary. It seems to me that you don’t mean ‘good,’ you mean, ‘what’s best for me.’ Which may equal good in your case, but I can’t say I agree with the definition then, because I do believe there are plenty of things that are ‘good,’ which aren’t, ‘what’s best for me.’

Indeed. That’s what arbitrary and subjective means. I do what’s best for me. You do what’s best for you. As it happens, there’s considerable scope in both of those positions for negotiation and cooperation for our mutual benefit.

In any case, what is subjectively good for you may not be for other people. It is true that there are many cases where you can do something that is good for yourself, such as stealing, which is bad for another. To take your point, why shouldn’t you steal, or kill, if you can get away with it?

First, I can never know for sure that I could get away with doing something that my neighbors violently object to. I always have to factor in at least the risk of getting caught and punished. Second, I don’t want to steal or kill. Third, people who do want to steal and kill, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks do in fact steal and kill; our prisons are full of such people.

There are, of course, things I do which other people in fact consider objectively wrong (e.g. not believing in a God). The argument that they consider these activities objectively wrong is entirely unpersuasive. The only way you’re going to get me to actually believe that I should do something is to convince me that doing so is in my own interest, either in the short or long term.

And the only way you can get me to comply if I don’t agree is to force me to do so. This is what we do with murderers and thieves: They do not agree that refraining from killing and stealing is in their own interest, so we hire police to capture them and jailers to imprison them. We don’t wait for God to take care of them.

 

[PLP]

kristinma:

PLP, have you read “Just Six Numbers” by Martin Rees.

I haven’t. I am, however, extremely familiar with the Fine Tuning argument. I’m also very well-versed in probability theory and statistics (I write software for scientific investigation, and I’m a very good poker player).

Rees admits the improbability of the fine-tuning coming about by chance. How then to avoid conceding a “designer universe?”

Regardless of the supposed probability of the physical constants, it is definitely the case that if naturalism is true, any living thing which observes the physics of its universe must find that life is supportable by natural physics. Therefore the observation that natural physics supports life cannot serve as evidence of supernaturalism. If naturalism were true and natural physics not conducive to life, there would be nothing living to make any observations at all.

This is known as the Weak Anthropic Principle. A more humorous way of putting this principle is Douglas Adams’ observation that a sentient puddle might be “amazed” that the hole it’s in precisely conforms its own shape. We are adapted to the universe; the universe is not adapted to us.

Rees’ solution is one that is accepted by most scientists today. Our big bang was not a unique event. There were perhaps an infinity of big bangs. In some tiny fraction of universes the laws of physics and the constants of nature were just right for the emergence of life.

This idea is not really “accepted” by scientists. The Multiverse hypothesis is still entirely speculative and without evidential support. And it’s offered no in response to Fine Tuning per se, but rather to the fact that our laws of physics appear to be parameterized in the first place.

The trouble is that there is no evidence for this “multiverse theory” and it’s hard to see how it could ever be put to any sort of scientific test.

Hence it is entirely speculative and metaphysical.

You are left with four possibilities:

(1) It is a MONUMENTAL coincidence that the laws of physics and the constants of nature in our universe are such that life could emerge.

Well, it’s not a “coincidence” at all; there is only one fact (the parameters of the laws of physics). To have a coincidence, you need to have two facts to coincide.

(2) There is some physics we don’t understand – the universe had to be the way it is.

(3) An infinite “multiverse” - which we can probably never put to any sort of test

I don’t know that we can’t ever put these to scientific tests. In fact, if we could somehow find a way to create baby universes, that would be excellent evidence for the Multiverse.

But even so, my attitude towards ignorance is, “I don’t know, let’s go find out.”

(4) We live in a “designer universe.”

If we are in fact in a “designer” universe, the designer appears to be very much constrained; it appears that all it could do is pick physical constants. And there’s no evidence such a designer even picked out the optimal constants for life. A ~10[sup]30[/sup] ly[sup]3 universe for just terrestrial life seems unthrifty.

You have to take your pick.

But before you do I think you should at least understand the problem.

I have indeed studied the issue in some depth.

You may also want to read Roger Penrose’s 2004 book, The Road to Reality. How did the low entropy arise?

According to my friends who know physics much better than I do, low entropy is a natural consequence of the inflation of the early universe. Inflation is pretty well evidenced.

I suspect that Penrose too is an atheist. He is one of the greatest living mathematicians.

God bless you PLP

Good wishes to you!

PS: I believe because I have a personal relationship with Jesus. But, then again, I’m probably nuts.

You seem lucid to me.

 

[PLP]

khkhk:

Do atheists have morals??

Yes, yes we do.

God’s the author of love. And with out love, how can you decipher what’s right from what’s wrong?

But I do have love; I just disagree that God is the author. I can tell pleasure from pain, and I have empthy, the ability to internalize others’ feelings. Such is the basis, in my opinion, for human morality.

What do you think your purpose is for being on this planet if you don’t believe that God exists?

I don’t think there is any external purpose for human existence.

And what will happen to you after you die? Is that just the end of you and boom you just cease to exist and you are gone???

That’s what I strongly suspect. I don’t know for sure, but I’ll find out in due time.

 

[PLP]

MarkR:

But “Infinity” within any system that is subject to Change is impossible. If the past stretches back “infinitely” we never could have reached the present moment.

This conclusion presumes that “now” is a physical concept, that there is a physical “now” which must actually traverse time to get to “here”. That’s a very dodgy premise in my book.

You’ll also notice that Dr. Rees’ “hypothosis” has crossed definitively into the realm of “metaphysics”, something atheists believe to be a non-sequitor…

Few atheists are metaphysical logical positivists. Metaphysics is meaningful, it’s just not scientific. I’ve not read Rees’ views, so I can’t comment on them directly, but the Multiverse hypothesis is definitely speculative; it’s certainly not evidenced. But all scientific hypotheses start out as speculation.

and there’s still that pesky question of how any effect/phenomenon that can be theorized about rationionally within a constantly changing, measurable, closed cosmos (however vast/ancient), can come about without an original Cause outside of and not contingent upon that system.

The alternative of an “original Cause” is just as pesky: What caused the Cause? If causality is logically necessary, you cannot have any uncaused entity; if it’s not logically necessary, you don’t need an “original Cause”.

Seems like the death of science as well as rational thought itself to me. “Everything can be explained scientifically except for Everything”.

At some point, you just have to say Everything (whatever that is) just is.

PLP, just out of curiousity (and I mean this respectfully), does your atheism ever make you feel claustrophobic?

Not at all. My atheism doesn’t cause me any distress at all.

“God does not play dice”- Albert Einstein

“God not only plays dice, sometimes he throws them where we can’t see them.” – Bohr(?)

 

[carol_marie]

Have you ever prayed to God & asked Him to give you faith - even though you don’t believe… just sort of thrown it up there just in case?

Aren’t you the least bit worried that you might be wrong & when you die you’ll spend eternity in hell? Not even a teeny tiny bit?

 

[mikew262]

PLP:

What, am I running for president? Only my wife knows for sure.

Is your wife an atheist?

 

[carol_marie]

What do you think of atheists who fight to get any mention of God removed from the public - like the Pledge for example. Would you ever take up a cause such as that?

 

[JPMaximilian]

PLP,
Why should I do what is good? You mention prison and police, but what if I am in a position where I know for sure that I can do something and get away with it? What if I don’t care if someone else feels pain or displeasure? If morality is subjective I think that puts us in a dangerous place.

I think you said earlier that you’d never know for sure you could get away with something. But let’s use probablility. I could probably steal a lolly pop from an infant and get away with it, I wouldn’t know 100% sure that I wouldn’t get caught, but I think that we do lots of things (some would say everything) based on probability (as you know from your experience with probability theory). So if it is probable that I will probably get away with something, why not do it to get more pleasure? I mean, I really like lolly pops, and that kid isn’t going to miss it.

I don’t know that I am not going to die next time I drive into work, it’s even plausible that I will get into a car wreck and die. But based on probability, it is probably that I will probably not get in a car wreck and die if I drive carefully and wear a seatbelt.

 

[JPMaximilian]

PLP:

First, I can never know for sure that I could get away with doing something that my neighbors violently object to. I always have to factor in at least the risk of getting caught and punished. Second, I don’t want to steal or kill. Third, people who do want to steal and kill, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks do in fact steal and kill; our prisons are full of such people.

There are, of course, things I do which other people in fact consider objectively wrong (e.g. not believing in a God). The argument that they consider these activities objectively wrong is entirely unpersuasive. The only way you’re going to get me to actually believe that I should do something is to convince me that doing so is in my own interest, either in the short or long term.

And the only way you can get me to comply if I don’t agree is to force me to do so. This is what we do with murderers and thieves: They do not agree that refraining from killing and stealing is in their own interest, so we hire police to capture them and jailers to imprison them. We don’t wait for God to take care of them.

I don’t know one way or the other, but there very well could be plenty of people not in the jails that have gotten away with things. Our prisons could just be full of the criminals who are bad at not getting caught. Also, how can you be sure of anything without assuming that your reason and senses correspond to some reality and that they can lead to truth.

 

[MarkR]

Do you notice how you close the system based on the fact that God is not physically, scientifically observable, quantifiable, qualifiable or measurable and then immediately have to throw those concepts out the window? Religion is critisized for being “speculative” while atheists speculate all over the place in order to prove there’s no God. You say above that every human action is the effect of a physical or environmental “cause” (thus denying Free Will and personal responsibility) and then eliminate this ironclad principle when it applys to the entire system and as it begins to close in on, to hint at God.

Anything subject to change is subject to time (now, then). Time happens because Change happens and has nothing to do with “traversing”. Only that which cannot possibly change (God) because he is absolutely self contained/self sufficient and therefore absolutely necessary and non-contingent provides the concept of Infinity with any coherant basis.

You’re right! The Multiverse hypothesis is definitely speculative, in fact St. Augustine speculated about it in the late 4th century, but he had the logical capacity (freedom) to speculate. With all due respect, you don’t. You can deny that atheists are across the board positivists but as soon as you do your entire worldview and all reasons for denying God vanish. It’s kind of a pick and choose, ideological positivism. Mention God and there’s an instant Big Bang of “scientific,acrobatic speculation” that says no God Lol. The first and greatest atheist who tried to overcome this dilema was Nietzsche with his Superman. He died insane and the only Superman I know of is a long in the tooth comic book character. Even he’s had his day.

I think that the currency for atheism is high today because most people have been sold a bill of goods that there have been recent scientific observations and breakthroughs that have raised “new questions”. There haven’t been (quite the contrary). In fact everything we’ve been discussing is as old as the hills. There’s also a massive effort through academia, pop culture, mass media, etc. to codify it so as to establish and enshrine the religion of the Autonomous Self. It’s become quintessential group think. I have a feeling that you suspect, or begin to suspect the same which is why you’re posting “Methinks he doth protest too much”. You’ll find the answers and you’re in my prayers

“God not only plays dice, sometimes he throws them where we can’t see them.” – Bohr(?)–

“God”?? The quote sounds a lot to me like “Eye has not seen nor ear heard…”–St. Paul