Atheism is irrational

[Mirdath]

I think she doesn’t want her bubble to be burst, so that she can continue living an immoral life with a minimum of guilt. But she has admitted that if she does return to church, it will most likely be to the Catholic church.

It may appear so on the surface; but it’s equally possible she has deeper reasons for leaving the faith. In my case, for instance, I simply realized I didn’t believe any more – I’d lost that ability somehow. Rather than torture myself over it and simply go through the motions, I left to try to find fulfilment as best I could. I don’t feel I’m any less a person for missing whatever it is that inspires faith in God, and while some things I’ve done are certainly immoral according to the Church I feel no guilt for many of them – not saying I’m perfect, understand, but that my own (very strict, actually) code of ethics differs from the Church’s moral teachings. Leaving the faith doesn’t have to be about trying to excuse licentiousness.

My tactic at this point is to keep her talking to me, and when the opportunity arises to give her a nagging little question that will make her go “hmmm.”

The Socratic method is still one of the best

I’m glad you two are still talking, even if religion only comes up occasionally. All the advice I can offer essentially boils down to two points: one, don’t push it on her, and two, don’t just talk – listen to her, she may have things to teach you as well. Sitting down sometime and discussing your views (after a mutual promise to refrain from evangelization) might open both your eyes some I regularly debate Catholic family members on religious topics, all in fun and good spirit – we respect each others’ differing viewpoints even while we’re trying our best to poke holes in them

 

[adventistnomore]

Big Chill: The acceleration will slow and eventually stop. Galaxies, stars, planets and everything else will die a slow heat death.

Big Crunch: The acceleration will slow, stop and then gravity will take over and begin to collapse everything back into a singularity.

The only models you listed rested on the (now abandoned) notion that the universe is decelerating. However, current scientific theory suggests that the universe began accelerating 5 billion years ago.You should include the Big Rip, which rests on the hypothesis that the acceleration of the universe will continue indefinitely.

 

[Suat]

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Ahimsa]

The only models you listed rested on the (now abandoned) notion that the universe is decelerating. However, current scientific theory suggests that the universe began accelerating 5 billion years ago.You should include the Big Rip, which rests on the hypothesis that the acceleration of the universe will continue indefinitely.

Don’t forget the “Big Blossom”, in which the universe will produce offspring, baby universes.

 

[Nan_S]

As an atheist, I highly caution you against using this line of thinking. Number 4 only holds if you assume that the rate of expansion will continue to increase. No scientist is claiming this. There are some ideas of what will happen:

Big Chill: The acceleration will slow and eventually stop. Galaxies, stars, planets and everything else will die a slow heat death.
Big Crunch: The acceleration will slow, stop and then gravity will take over and begin to collapse everything back into a singularity.

No scientist believes that the acceleration will continue until the speed of light is reached. If your daughter is interested in science, then presenting these arguments will not help.

The Big Chill theory presumes that at some point the acceleration will reverse itself. In the entire billions of years old history of the universe since the Big Bang that has not happened. The acceleration has continued to increase, and there is no evidence of any force that could cause the acceleration to decrease. Anyone who says there could be such a force is engaging in pure speculation. Therefore, it is more reasonable to state that the acceleration will continue.

The Big Crunch theory builds on the speculated force that could slow the expansion and adds the element of gravity. It presumes that by the time the acceleration stops the astronomical bodies will still be close enough to start pulling on each other and begin a contraction. Yet we are already close to the point of no return for gravitational attraction, with no evidence of a slowing force.

In the alternative, the Big Crunch theory speculates that sufficient gravitational force to begin a contraction exists in dark matter. Current theorists, however, are acknowledging that the still-unproven existence of dark matter was only inserted into equations to fill otherwise unbreachable voids, and starting to wonder whether believing in dark matter is even reasonable.

They are nice theories, but there is no tangible evidence behind either one.

Nan

 

[ribozyme]

The Big Chill theory presumes that at some point the acceleration will reverse itself. In the entire billions of years old history of the universe since the Big Bang that has not happened. The acceleration has continued to increase, and there is no evidence of any force that could cause the acceleration to decrease. Anyone who says there could be such a force is engaging in pure speculation. Therefore, it is more reasonable to state that the acceleration will continue.

The Big Crunch theory builds on the speculated force that could slow the expansion and adds the element of gravity. It presumes that by the time the acceleration stops the astronomical bodies will still be close enough to start pulling on each other and begin a contraction. Yet we are already close to the point of no return for gravitational attraction, with no evidence of a slowing force.

In the alternative, the Big Crunch theory speculates that sufficient gravitational force to begin a contraction exists in dark matter. Current theorists, however, are acknowledging that the still-unproven existence of dark matter was only inserted into equations to fill otherwise unbreachable voids, and starting to wonder whether believing in dark matter is even reasonable.

They are nice theories, but there is no tangible evidence behind either one.

Nan

Well, this answer to this question will be determined if we know a precise value of the equation of state.

 

[cheddarsox]

I’ve been reading along, and find this a very thought provoking and relevant discussion.

I happen to be of a faith that rides the fence of theism, pantheism. Many pantheists consider themselves atheists, because they do not believe in a deity, a “person” god, other pantheists, believe the order of the universe, which serves the same roles as a deity, minus the “personal” aspect, is Divine, though not a god.

There is order inherent in the system, there is a cause, but my experience leads me to believe that the intelligence and reason in the universe is not like that of humans. I reject the notion of “person” deity because everything I see in the universe is counter to such a notion. This universe is not designed or run by anything that thinks the way people do, or reasons the way people do. I have faith in, and honor the order in the universe, that is my “god”, so to speak. Most Christians I encounter tell me I am an atheist because I do not believe in the Christian God, or even a pagan deity. But I do not experience my faith as an atheist, I am fully convinced that there is a cause, and order to the universe…a purpose? maybe, but not a human reasoned purpose.

I feel very theistic, I have a deep appreciation and awareness of the magnificence and complexity of which I am a part. On the other hand, I can understand a great deal of where atheists are coming from. I find myself “arguing” their side more often than the theists side…because the theists seem to argue almost exclusively for the existence of a god that is not supported by most people’s life experiences.

I’m not sure if that is due to the fact that for monotheists it is either their concept of what god is, or no god, those are the only two options they can conceive. In a dualistic mindset, there is no place for other concepts. If someone claims to honor something other than the Christian God, they are usually told they are in cahoots with demons.

I posit that there is another option of a different understanding of god, that is rational and supported by what we know of the universe.

cheddar

 

[Nan_S]

Well, this answer to this question will be determined if we know a precise value of the equation of state.

Thanks for the link. It led to this description of The Big Rip which says, in part:
“Once universal expansion has ripped apart structures even at Planck length, no interaction at all is possible, the entropy of the universe is at maximum, and time therefore effectively ends… In the last minutes, stars and planets will be torn apart, and an instant before the end, atoms will be destroyed. The authors of the hypothesis calculate that this end would lie at approximately 35 billion years after the Big Bang, or 20 billion years from now.”

A universe of finite duration, ending when time comes to an end and all matter is ripped apart and destroyed. A non-infinite universe, leaving behind nothing that can be re-formed into a future universe. And we are to believe that there was no cause for the existence of a universe that emerged from nothing and will leave nothing behind?

What will have an end must also have had a beginning. And a cause.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

*On the other hand, I can understand a great deal of where atheists are coming from. I find myself “arguing” their side more often than the theists side…because the theists seem to argue almost exclusively for the existence of a god that is not supported by most people’s life experiences.
*
This is a peculiar statement to make.

Since there are a lot more theists than atheists, the opposite would seem to be true … that atheists argue almost exclusively for the non-existence of God, which is not supported by most people’s life experiences.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Here is Thomas Jefferson’s take on the irrationality of atheism:

(Excerpts, letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823)

“I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I could never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin…. (Here Jefferson goes on to talk about the French atheists.) The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of
the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.”

 

[Atreyu]

Nan S, your physics is a little bit off:

1. The passage of time is fixed relative to us, here on earth, at 186,000 miles per second.

That’s the speed of light, not the “passage of time”. Although it is true that under the laws of Special Relativity, that any two observers that are in inertial reference frames (where one observer is not accelerating with respect to another) will experience the passage of time at the same “rate”.

But to someone on a rocketship accelerating to a speed greater than the motion of the earth, the passage of time they experience is less than what we experience. An astronaut traveling at, say, half the speed of light for a few months, would return to earth to find that thousands or even millions of years had passed here.

Your figures are off by a lot, but the ideas are pretty much right here.

1. If a person or an object could accelerate to the speed of light, their experience of the passage of time would completely cease.

This is impossible, as it would literally take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

1. The universe is flying apart, and the rate that it is expanding is accelerating.

OK.

1. At some point, the rate of expansion of the universe will reach the speed of light. When that happens, time ceases for everything and the universe as we know it comes to an end.

I am almost certain that this cannot possibly happen. As I said before, it takes an infinite amount of energy for massive particles (particles with mass) to accelerate to the speed of light.

Therefore, it is reasonable to project that the universe will have an end.

I do indeed believe that the Universe will have some kind of end; I just don’t agree with the physics you have used to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Atreyu]

See, I would think that saying a first cause created the universe would be ‘how’. ‘Why’ would be something like ‘because he was bored’.

Right, but the simple fact of God’s existence provides an initial answer to the “why”. What I mean by “initial” is that I haven’t delved into God’s own motivation for creating the Universe - as I would class that under characteristics of God. So what I am saying is, if God exists, then that provides a reason why the Universe exists. If there is no God, then there should be no Universe. Why would the Universe come into existence for no reason at all? The question doesn’t even make sense.

Yes, I am saying that not everything has to have a reason.

Well I think I can agree with that, but I would insist that the Universe must have a reason for its existence. I think this is the fundamental point that we disagree on.

See, we can agree on some things . I remember something similar from Feynman:

Yeah I think that’s the quote I was thinking of!

Absolutely fascinating subject though. What field are you in?

I love quantum mechanics. My research at the moment is in the field of “reciprocity”. This is a term coined by Max Born in the 1930’s, but it hasn’t had much success since then. Anyway, we’re trying to resurrect the theory. It is a higher-dimensional theory of mechanics, somewhat in opposition to String Theory. String Theorists need to explain why they cannot observe their higher dimensions, but we don’t: they are momentum and energy. Just as time is linked to space via a fundamental constant (the speed of light, or maximum rate of change of position) and an opposite sign in the metric of Minkowski space, so is energy and momentum linked to space and time via a new fundamental constant, the
maximum rate of change of momentum, or maximum force (which I’ll denote by b). So the infinitesimal “distance” between two events becomes (for everyone else’s benefit, this is simply the higher-dimensional version of Pythagoras’s theorem):
ds² = (1/c²)dq² - dt² + (1/b²)((-1/c²)de² + dp²)
where I have used e for energy, and only one spatial dimension q and momentum dimension p (usually you use three spatial and momentum dimensions). This isn’t the complete story, but just a bit of an introduction. If you’re interested in looking further, try looking up math-ph/0606015 at the arXiv.

 

[Atreyu]

I favor apologetics as purely an informative exercise – present your view, then allow people to make their own informed choices. Antagonizing someone’s current viewpoint is not likely to make them happier to listen to the rest of what one has to say.

Yes I agree. I am somewhat new to apologetics, and I have a long way to go!

If I do search further, it’s not going to be in attempts to prove God through logic. That’s a dead end, and antithetical to the concept of faith. It makes a fun intellectual exercise to prove, disprove, rebut, ad infinitum, but no more than that.

Yes OK, but I still think that we can learn a lot from such exercises. I wonder if you would be interested in reading a book, called God, Chance and Necessity, by Keith Ward.

This has not been shown. A flawed logical argument for the existence of a deity has been presented; it does not make belief any more or less reasonable.

What was flawed about the argument, specifically?

Atheism is the negative position. One cannot prove something’s absence; one can only attempt to prove the positive exception, existence, beyond doubt or rebuttal – which we agree is impossible. It really only happens in math. And if the positive is impossible to prove, that leaves us with the negative as the simpler, more reasonable position by Occam’s Razor. The question ‘how did we get here?’ remains intact without introducing an unprovable, potentially infinite variable, deity; therefore the Razor cuts divinity out, leaving us with a less complex (if only barely) problem.

I disagree with your use of Occam’s Razor. Let’s go back to the court case situation. We have a body that has been stabbed to death, and a knife with a suspect’s fingerprints and DNA on it. A policeman happened to see the suspect fleeing the scene with blood all over him. In this situation, it is impossible to prove that the suspect killed the person, but the much more reasonable position is that the suspect did kill the person. Of course, it depends on the evidence.

Going back to our topic, it is impossible to prove the existence of God from the First-Cause Argument. Yet, the Argument is most easily solved by the existence of an uncaused God (or Gods). If we take this as a premise, then my conclusion is that it is more reasonable to be a theist than an atheist, by Occam’s Razor. I believe this is a valid argument; it is just not necessarily sound (depending on whether or not you agree with my premise). Do you agree that my argument is valid (if my premise is true, does the conclusion follow)?

 

[Mirdath]

Yes OK, but I still think that we can learn a lot from such exercises. I wonder if you would be interested in reading a book, called God, Chance and Necessity, by Keith Ward.

One of the chief ideas behind the book is arguing with Richard Dawkins, or so saith Amazon. I prefer to ignore Dawkins entirely on theological matters, he’s a brilliant jerk and arguing with him indicates the arguer is just as extreme in the opposite viewpoint.

What was flawed about the argument, specifically?

We’ve already gone over that.

I disagree with your use of Occam’s Razor. Let’s go back to the court case situation. We have a body that has been stabbed to death, and a knife with a suspect’s fingerprints and DNA on it. A policeman happened to see the suspect fleeing the scene with blood all over him. In this situation, it is impossible to prove that the suspect killed the person, but the much more reasonable position is that the suspect did kill the person. Of course, it depends on the evidence.

I used it absolutely correctly. Your example here is not the Razor; it is induction. The proper use of Occam’s Razor is to simplify a scientific experiment by removing unnecessary variables. The question ‘how did we get here?’ is simpler without introducing God, Ahura Mazda, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and as far as science can tell, no experiments on the subject are made any less valid without those factors.

Here’s the Razor itself: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Wikipedia gives this translation: Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. There’s no other way to interpret this. Saying ‘the simpler, vaguer answer is the more reasonable by Occam’s Razor’ is simply wrong. Adding God to the mix eliminates no variables and even confuses the possible answers. It’s no valid use of the Razor, just a cop-out.

Going back to our topic, it is impossible to prove the existence of God from the First-Cause Argument. Yet, the Argument is most easily solved by the existence of an uncaused God (or Gods). If we take this as a premise, then my conclusion is that it is more reasonable to be a theist than an atheist, by Occam’s Razor. I believe this is a valid argument; it is just not necessarily sound (depending on whether or not you agree with my premise). Do you agree that my argument is valid (if my premise is true, does the conclusion follow)?

Non sequitur. A theological argument is not an experiment or even a scientific thought-experiment. You can use the Razor on the question ‘why does stuff exist?’ but not on a logical argument for that ‘why’. You’re talking about a first cause – you’ve already gotten rid of ‘why’, you’re discussing ‘how’.

How does one ‘solve’ the Prime Mover anyway? It’s a set of postulates from which an expected conclusion is drawn, no more. Since you anticipate the conclusion and already possess the postulates, no experimentation is necessary or even possible. Take the conclusion and work back to the postulates and you have induction. But there’s no way to experiment for God, and if it were so, it would utterly destroy Faith. People would Know; they’d have no choice.

 

[Suat]

Right, but the simple fact of God’s existence provides an initial answer to the “why”.

Agreed, if he exists, then that is sufficient to provide the ‘why’.

Well I think I can agree with that, but I would insist that the Universe must have a reason for its existence. I think this is the fundamental point that we disagree on.

Yes, I also agree with that, and I will even admit that I do not think that a reason for existence can ever be proven to exist or not to exist.

If you’re interested in looking further, try looking up math-ph/0606015 at the arXiv.

I will have to do that. Thanks .

 

[Nan_S]

That’s the speed of light, not the “passage of time”.

Oops. I can’t believe I let that one past. Must be my latent dyslexia cropping up its ugly head.

Thanks for understanding what I meant to write.

Nan

 

[Atreyu]

One of the chief ideas behind the book is arguing with Richard Dawkins, or so saith Amazon. I prefer to ignore Dawkins entirely on theological matters, he’s a brilliant jerk and arguing with him indicates the arguer is just as extreme in the opposite viewpoint.

He refutes several atheistic authors in this book. You seem to be implying that doing this makes Ward a jerk too, in some way? Well Dawkins is a very popular author, and so it is the duty of Christian apologists to refute his works!

We’ve already gone over that.

Remind me.

I used it absolutely correctly. Your example here is not the Razor; it is induction. The proper use of Occam’s Razor is to simplify a scientific experiment by removing unnecessary variables. The question ‘how did we get here?’ is simpler without introducing God, Ahura Mazda, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and as far as science can tell, no experiments on the subject are made any less valid without those factors.

Here’s the Razor itself: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Wikipedia gives this translation: Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. There’s no other way to interpret this. Saying ‘the simpler, vaguer answer is the more reasonable by Occam’s Razor’ is simply wrong. Adding God to the mix eliminates no variables and even confuses the possible answers. It’s no valid use of the Razor, just a cop-out.

The Wikipedia site also states: “In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.” This was the sense in which I attempted to use the razor. I make no claims to being an expert in logic or rhetoric, and so it is entirely possible that my terminology is incorrect. Yet I still maintain that my naive interpretation of the razor still applies. The uncaused first cause is the simplest answer to the First Cause Argument.

Non sequitur. A theological argument is not an experiment or even a scientific thought-experiment. You can use the Razor on the question ‘why does stuff exist?’ but not on a logical argument for that ‘why’. You’re talking about a first cause – you’ve already gotten rid of ‘why’, you’re discussing ‘how’.

Theological argument? I prefer metaphysical argument. I suppose I have been confusing two issues by introducing the why of existence, along with the existence of a first cause. Yet these two topics are very closely linked, wouldn’t you agree? A first cause without cause explains the why of the existence of the Universe. Without this first cause without cause, the why of the existence of the Universe is left completely unexplained. I find this position intellectually dissatisfying.

 

[Atreyu]

Oops. I can’t believe I let that one past. Must be my latent dyslexia cropping up its ugly head.

Thanks for understanding what I meant to write.

Nan

No worries! I remember watching an episode of CSI where Grissom (don’t know how to spell his name) said “terminal velocity is 9.8 metres per second”. Of course, he was getting a bit confused with the acceleration due to gravity, which is 9.8 metres per second squared. Terminal velocity is subject to the aerodynamics of the body involved.

At least your gaffe (I hope you don’t mind me calling it that) wasn’t on international television…

 

[Mirdath]

He refutes several atheistic authors in this book. You seem to be implying that doing this makes Ward a jerk too, in some way? Well Dawkins is a very popular author, and so it is the duty of Christian apologists to refute his works!

It may; I have no interest in the advancement or refutation of Richard Dawkins, is all.

Remind me.

Right here

The Wikipedia site also states: “In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.” This was the sense in which I attempted to use the razor. I make no claims to being an expert in logic or rhetoric, and so it is entirely possible that my terminology is incorrect. Yet I still maintain that my naive interpretation of the razor still applies. The uncaused first cause is the simplest answer to the First Cause Argument.

Less complicated = fewer variables or elements. Not a deus ex machina, which is all the ‘God did it’ view presents. Naivete is no excuse.

There is no ‘answer’ to the First Cause argument – it leads up to an already-assumed conclusion. It’s designed to ‘prove’ that the Prime Mover exists, of course the existence of a Prime Mover seems easiest to believe if you mistakenly consider it a thought experiment instead of a self-fulfilling logical exercise. The entire argument is inductive, so Occam’s Razor can’t be used on it at all. You can only use the Razor in experiments; it wasn’t designed for and does not apply to anything else.

Theological argument? I prefer metaphysical argument. I suppose I have been confusing two issues by introducing the why of existence, along with the existence of a first cause. Yet these two topics are very closely linked, wouldn’t you agree? A first cause without cause explains the why of the existence of the Universe. Without this first cause without cause, the why of the existence of the Universe is left completely unexplained. I find this position intellectually dissatisfying.

A first cause without cause may explain the why, but it completely dodges the question of how – as do other purely metaphysical arguments. If the how and why are so closely linked, that’s entirely unsatisfactory.

Nor are they necessarily near relations. Those wondering how search for physical clues to what happened at the origin of the universe; those wondering why search within themselves for a greater meaning to life. People can do both, but it doesn’t bring them any closer together.

 

[Atreyu]

Right here

The link didn’t work, was it supposed to be to a specific post? Just tell me what number it was.

Less complicated = fewer variables or elements. Not a deus ex machina, which is all the ‘God did it’ view presents. Naivete is no excuse.

There is no ‘answer’ to the First Cause argument – it leads up to an already-assumed conclusion. It’s designed to ‘prove’ that the Prime Mover exists, of course the existence of a Prime Mover seems easiest to believe if you mistakenly consider it a thought experiment instead of a self-fulfilling logical exercise. The entire argument is inductive, so Occam’s Razor can’t be used on it at all. You can only use the Razor in experiments; it wasn’t designed for and does not apply to anything else.

Well I’ll try not to make the same mistake again.

A first cause without cause may explain the why, but it completely dodges the question of how – as do other purely metaphysical arguments. If the how and why are so closely linked, that’s entirely unsatisfactory.

Nor are they necessarily near relations. Those wondering how search for physical clues to what happened at the origin of the universe; those wondering why search within themselves for a greater meaning to life. People can do both, but it doesn’t bring them any closer together.

Surely the how is a scientific question, and pretty much completely out of bounds for metaphysics and theology! Why should that be such a big surprise?