Atheism & Morale (split from INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM)

[dolffn]

Ken:

Dismas,

That all sounds very interesting, but it doesn’t apply to athiests. They don’t think and act like you say they do.

The athiest doesn’t have to reject the supernatural because he has no explanation for it. He lacks an explanation for the natural, so why should that inhibit him from a belief in the supernatural?

All the athiest does is reject a belief in god. Everything else is available to him.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I would probably refrain from using the phrase supernatural to refer to it. Spritual probably could be used , or perhaps extradimensional. Supernatural implies that a natural “thing” is being directed and controlled by something outside of nature. What you are considering is perhaps describing another layer of nature that would more fully describe the entirety of nature if it was understood by us.
Of course this idea frees an athiest to make up whatever scenerio they want to fit their idea of spirituality, which can’t be very fulfilling. Personally this seems much more of a stretch in the context of history and science, especially considering that known supernatural incidents seem, as I perceive them in my life, to point towards the existence of God and His purpose for His created people. Perhaps after measuring different theories of spirituality against observable science and history, an atheist may find the theory that best fits is the one and only God.

 

[Ken]

dolffn:

I understand what you are trying to say, but I would probably refrain from using the phrase supernatural to refer to it. Spritual probably could be used , or perhaps extradimensional. Supernatural implies that a natural “thing” is being directed and controlled by something outside of nature. What you are considering is perhaps describing another layer of nature that would more fully describe the entirety of nature if it was understood by us.
Of course this idea frees an athiest to make up whatever scenerio they want to fit their idea of spirituality, which can’t be very fulfilling. Personally this seems much more of a stretch in the context of history and science, especially considering that known supernatural incidents seem, as I perceive them in my life, to point towards the existence of God and His purpose for His created people. Perhaps after measuring different theories of spirituality against observable science and history, an atheist may find the theory that best fits is the one and only God.

Sure. Spiritual or supernatural probably carry too many connotations of God.

 

[Ken]

paul2:

Have you opened a science book in the last 50 years? We have a pretty good explaination for all things natural. However, the supernatural is something that science cannot deal with, as science deals with the natural world. The issues is, why assume a supernatural explaination if there is a good natural explaination? All atheists aren’t alike, i’m sure you’ll find a few that believe in all sorts of strange things.

The books take us back to the big bang, and stop. That’s great progress, but still doesn’t give a full explanation. Cosmologists are furiously working away to figure it out. They don’t think we have the full story either.

 

[kjvail]

The view that morality is that which brings the most happiness to the most people is called utilitarianism.

utilitarianism.com/

The Catholic view of utilitarianism:

newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm

Utilitarianism is hedonistic it therefore suffers from the same flaws as other hedonistic philsophies:

The fundamental errors of Hedonism and the chief unanswerable objections to the theory may be briefly summed up as follows:

(1) It rests on a false psychological analysis; tendency, appetite, end, and good are fixed in nature antecedent to pleasurable feeling. Pleasure depends on the obtaining of some good which is prior to, and causative of, the pleasure resulting from its acquisition. The happiness or pleasure attending good conduct is a consequence, not a constituent, of the moral quality of the action.

(2) It falsely supposes that pleasure is the only motive of action. This view it supports by the fallacy that the pleasurable and the desirable are interchangeable terms.

(3) Even if it were granted that pleasure and pain constitute the standard of right and wrong, this standard would be utterly impracticable. Pleasures are not commensurable with one another, nor with pains; besides no human mind can calculate the quantity of pleasure and pain that will result from a given action. This task is impossible even when only the pleasure of the agent is to be taken into account. When the pleasure and pain of “all concerned” are to be measured the proposal becomes nothing short of an absurdity.

(4) Egoistic Hedonism reduces all benevolence, self-sacrifice, and love of the right to mere selfishness. It is impossible for altruistic Hedonism to evade the same consummation except at the cost of consistency.

(5) No general code of morality could be established on the basis of pleasure. Pleasure is essentially subjective feeling, and only the individual is the competent judge of how much pleasure or pain a course of action affords him. What is more pleasurable for one may be less so for another. Hence, on hedonistic grounds, it is evident that there could be no permanently and universally valid dividing line between right and wrong.
(6) Hedonism has no ground for moral obligation, no sanction for duty. If I must pursue my own happiness, and if conduct which leads to happiness is good, the worst reproach that can be addressed to me, however base my conduct may be, is that I have made an imprudent choice.

newadvent.org/cathen/07187a.htm
Utilitarian morality underlies the two greatest tyrannies of the modern world - Communism and Naziism.

 

[OfTheCross]

It always surprises me when athiests bring up people killing eachother over religion/God. How did atheistic humanism (that term admittedly is an oversimplification) fare when it was implemented upon the masses in the 20th century? More innocent blood was probably spilled in the 20th century as a result of atheistic humanism than in all the truly religious conflicts
in all of human history. (Starvation in the Ukraine, Stalins war on his own people, The killing fields in Cambodia, this list can march on and on.)

I don’t think atheists are evil. Many of them probably live more moral lives than many theists. I just think that ideas have consequences, and forms of atheism when holding positions of power have shown the true consequences of their philosophy.

Peter John

 

[AnAtheist]

OfTheCross:

It always surprises me when athiests bring up people killing eachother over religion/God. How did atheistic humanism (that term admittedly is an oversimplification) fare when it was implemented upon the masses in the 20th century? More innocent blood was probably spilled in the 20th century as a result of atheistic humanism than in all the truly religious conflicts
in all of human history. (Starvation in the Ukraine, Stalins war on his own people, The killing fields in Cambodia, this list can march on and on.)

I don’t think atheists are evil. Many of them probably live more moral lives than many theists. I just think that ideas have consequences, and forms of atheism when holding positions of power have shown the true consequences of their philosophy.

Peter John

:yup:
“forms of atheism” is the clue. The only common attribute atheists share is, they don’t believe in gods. Atheism alone has no political agenda. Same applies for religion.
For example: When Muslims and Hindus fight over their beliefs in India that is surely a religious conflict, in which Catholics are not involved. Yet Catholics are religious.
When you replace “atheism” with “atheism and religion” in your last sentence you cover the whole problem, when men force their ideology upon others.

 

[wildlifer]

This quote pretty much sums up my feelings as an atheist regarding purpose.

Every movement that has changed the course of humanity was the result of the actions of a great many people. The leaders who sparked the beginning of a transformation were formed by their experiences, including their encounters with numerous individuals who influenced their thoughts. Each movement succeeded due to the participation of others; and like the snowflakes that lead to an avalanche, not only is there a point where just one more triggers the event, each and every tiny snowflake equally contributes to the cause of the effect. The catch-phrase “one person can make a difference” is perhaps more accurately restated as “one additional person can make a difference”. Everyone is the sum of their experiences, and every effect is the sum of its causes.

Knowledge is to be passed from generation to generation, and mankind has advanced because each generation does not have to begin anew. The capacity to retain and perpetuate knowledge is part of our programming, and since every type of life-form, and each attribute, is genetically designed as a complementary component of our biosphere, the contributions each person makes are a part of the natural order of things. Man exists for a reason: because we fulfill a role within nature. The ability to preserve knowledge also exists for a reason; for it is a characteristic ensuring the survival of our species.

…
Blind obedience is the chosen path for most people, but for the ones who have the ability and desire to fulfill the mental component of our programming, it is poison to the spirit. A large segment of the populace feels that their lives are inconsequential, with no purpose or worth; this attitude so deeply ingrained that even their religious vision of a mystical reward, which is supposed to make up for enduring a trivial existence, condemns them to an equally pointless eternity of groveling before an ethereal master.

A sense of personal value comes from knowing that everyone makes a difference. It may not be obvious that you have changed the destiny of someone you have encountered, and any noticeable consequence may not occur until long after your death; but you are constantly a contributing cause of future events. If this realization were widespread, all organized religions would have beliefs similar to Buddhism, where being a component of “God” engenders worth, rather than token subservience.

Earlier we addressed the subject of how a living thing can physically perish, but does not end. Energy and matter cannot be destroyed; the material constituents continue on in other forms, and the energy is dispersed. The animating life-force is no longer detectable, but as evident with bacteria, it remains available to “dead” organisms for millions of years. All of the components of life are essentially eternal, and the defining property of life, intent, is perpetual in that it endures ceaselessly in all life-forms as a generic attribute; in the same way that your individuality remains intact despite the fact that many of your cells die each moment. Because of this, we must see our own substance as everlasting in the sense that our physical components continue as part of existence-in-general, and that which is spiritual remains a constituent of the human identity. Your individuality, like that of any particular brain cell, may have ended in a material way; but its contribution to the consciousness of the whole is alive in the greater entity.

…
Your effect is perpetual, and being that it becomes an ever-increasing component of the human consciousness, as people you influenced continue to pass the changes you made in them onto others, you become immortal in the sense that your mental/spiritual essence remains part of the physical substance that constitutes humankind as a whole. It is obviously ever-changing, which is no different than the process which occurs during your own material existence, and just as your current perception of the events that formed your past have evolved with the passage of time, the memories being held by brain cells that did not exist during the actual events, your essence lingers in the future within the cells of others.

...

For the majority, there is no “higher purpose” comprehensible to them, there is only a relatively thoughtless existence; which does, of course, fulfill a purpose, and hence is actually their “meaning of life”. A small segment of humanity is aware, either consciously or subconsciously, of how mankind functions as a unit, and has the capacity to direct the behaviour of the masses. Of such people, there is a constant conflict between those who are enlightened, and concerned with goals that supersede the life-span of a single individual, and those who only grasp the obvious, and focus on superficial, material pursuits.

Here

 

[Columba]

AnAtheist:

There is discussion going on in the thread INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM about atheism and morale. I think it is time to split this for readability, I don’t know how much response levels this forum software can handle. It deserves a separate debate too.

To recapture my arguments, how a set of morals can be established without divine interference:

1. Humans are gregarious animals and not lone wolfs. To survive humans need to cooperate. Unsocial behaviour harms the herd, thus lowering the chances of survival. Morale keeps the individuals in line thus helping the herd to survive. Basic evolution after all.
2. The simple principle “treat other people, like you want to be treated” is reasonable and egoistic. Since nearly nobody wants to get murdered, raped, kidnapped, etc. it is quite logical that a human society invents laws against those deeds. On the other hand one wants to survive illness, have a good life when aged, etc. thus no wonder, that human societies have invented systems to care for that.

I apologize if some of these questions have been asked already, or if I’m in over my head (I’m new to some of this postulating…but I really am enjoying some of the conversations). Here is some things I’ve been wondering:

If we assume there is no God, that all things exist essentially by “accident”, by certain atoms and cells being in the right place at the right time, then how is it that there is not complete Chaos? What is the fabric that brings order to existance? How is existance possible, period?

You speak of a certain idea being “Reasonable” and “Egoistic”. If all existance is an accident, where do we find the common ground for “Reason” (In other words, where does the ability to “reason” come from and how is it there are commonalities between beings)? Or for that matter, the idea of Ego?

Another thought:

If, as you say, there is a basic need to survive and that alone is what drives us, why is it that a news story of young teens beating up an old lady on a weelchair and putting her in a coma for her milk money make us sick? Would we not have a drive in us that would say “Surely this is Darwin’s Theory doing it’s thing”. Animals would have no over-riding principle that places value in a “person” or “Being” for their own sake, and therefore this situation would be seen as benificial to the race. We as humans do not. Why?

And if your answer is that you do, in a sense, see the benifit of such a scenario, then be careful, because then you’ll have to justify why Hitler was correct and why you agree with him.

Thanks for your thoughts and questions!!

 

[AnAtheist]

Columba:

If we assume there is no God, that all things exist essentially by “accident”, by certain atoms and cells being in the right place at the right time, …]

Ah, the “argument by design”. It is the most valid of all arguments for the existence of a diety of some sort. I guess a lecture about spontanous self-organisation and how gravity forms structures out of chaos would exceed the borders of this forum, I throw in these points. If you like, you can use them for further investigation. Or ask me for details.

Columba:

You speak of a certain idea being “Reasonable” and “Egoistic”. If all existance is an accident, where do we find the common ground for “Reason” …]

Intelligence is surely an attribute that helps survival of the fittest (to speak Drawin-talk). Therefore reasoning can have evolved. As for the go, I don’t think, humans are the only animals (or living being, if you like that term better) on this planet capable of developing an ego. I am quite sure, all primtes have an ego,. Guess most mammals too.

Columba:

Another thought:
If, as you say, there is a basic need to survive and that alone is what drives us, why is it that a news story of young teens beating up an old lady on a weelchair and putting her in a coma for her milk money make us sick? …]

1. Do not mix evolution and social darwinism. That is wrong, no matter whether a supporter or a critic of either theory does that.
2. Your assertion of animal behaviour does not apply to any species. Again, primates and most mammals have elaborated social structures. They care for other members of their herd, pack, flock. Yet, they lack some of the means of course, hospitals for example.
3. As for how that all may have evolved, see my other posts in this thread.

Columba:

And if your answer is that you do, in a sense, see the benifit of such a scenario, then be careful, because then you’ll have to justify why Hitler was correct and why you agree with him.

I have no idea, what Hitler and his ideology has to do with atheistic concepts of morale.

1. Teens beating up an old lady would have ended in jail in Nazi Germany far quicker than today (as long as that lady wasn’t Jewish perhaps, and anti-semitism was not Hitler’s invention).
2. Hitler was NOT an atheist. He probably wasn’t christian either, though he was catholic on paper and was never excommunicated as far as I know, at least he didn’t act very christian. But Hitler strongly believed in higher powers, namely fate, divine influences and in an afterlife. That is hardly atheistic.
3. As for the social darwinism in Nazi ideology, see above.

Hope that helped, feel free to ask for more…
**

 

[JimO]

AnAtheist,

I hate to jump in late on a thread but I have a genuine question. I’m sure you have heard this before and I have discussed it with other atheists, but I am interested in your opinion. Going back to the “beginning” of our universe, there are only a few options for how we got to where we are that our minds are capable of even comprehending:

1. Matter and/or energy have always existed;
2. Matter and/or energy came from nothing; or,
3. Matter and/or energy were created by an infinite being.

All three of these require belief in something that cannot be comprehended by the human mind. This “belief” Christians call faith (or at least a form of faith). Are there other possibilities that you hold to or would you agree with these as the basic possibilities? Obviously, theists hold to #3. If an atheist holds to either #1 or #2, how is that person’s belief system any more rational than the theist’s?

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Columba]

AnAthiest,

Thanks for your reply.

AnAtheist:

I guess a lecture about spontanous self-organisation and how gravity forms structures out of chaos…

You are using words such as “organization” and “Structure”. I see how gravity would help create order from chaos, but gravity relys on Laws, laws of natural order (such as physics) must have a source outside of the existance they give boundries and definition to, otherwise you fall into the same type of trap you accuse my protestant brothers of falling into (The Bible is true, because the bible says so…etc) → “Gravity is a law that brings order because there is a law of gravity” In regards to self-organization, how does matter and energy “know” what organization is? Is there a law that defines this? If there is, we fall into the same trap again. Perhaps I don’t understand the theories that well. Some expansion would be appreciated. Thanks!

AnAtheist:

Intelligence is surely an attribute that helps survival of the fittest (to speak Drawin-talk). Therefore reasoning can have evolved. As for the ego, …

I think you may have misunderstood my question here. It was more of an extention of the first arguement: Esentially I am asking how is it we have common rules of reason, common rules of thought. Where do the laws or rules that govern the evolution of thought (reason) come from?

AnAtheist:

1. Your assertion of animal behaviour does not apply to any species. Again, primates and most mammals have elaborated social structures. They care for other members of their herd, pack, flock. Yet, they lack some of the means of course, hospitals for example.

I agree, there are many species (Mammals, Primates in particular) that have very developed social structures. However, there is a aspect of the root of love that draws a line (in my mind, feel free to argue this point) between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom: Self-Sacrifice. Or, a more preferable term: Sacrificial Love. Yes, I agree, there are many examples of animals defending their young, etc. I propose these examples are based in the survival instinct, in the “continuation of the species” drive. What I am refering to is the ability to CHOOSE, the ability for humans to choose to elevate others above themselves. To willingly put themselves in seemingly “lower” social status, or even lower physical welfare, in order for others to live better than they have. I don’t believe this is a trait evident in any other species. It is also one of the main ways that the Human race is set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

AnAtheist:

I have no idea, what Hitler and his ideology has to do with atheistic concepts of morale.

You’re right, and I shouldn’t have mentioned him because he was a distraction to the inital argument.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[AnAtheist]

JimO:

1. Matter and/or energy have always existed;
2. Matter and/or energy came from nothing; or,
3. Matter and/or energy were created by an infinite being.

I “believe” in #2. (I’ve put “believe” in “”, because it is not to be confused with religious belief. Many problems in these debates arise, because we use a word with several meanings and we all interpret it differently.) And there is a rational reason for it, no supernatural out-of-the-box assertion.

1. Energy is an abstract concept to describe the state of a physical system. Energy can be gauged (interaction between things, i.e. forces are F = dE/ds, therefore E + (arbitrary constant) describes the same universe as E, that’s basic calculus). So it is a valid statement to say, the total energy of the universe is zero. Describes exactly the same universe as total energy = 10 MeV or 10^462348 kJ.
   Energy and entropy are often brought into the duscussion by theists, most of them unfortunately do not understand what is behind those terms.
2. Matter can be created from “nothing”, we do that every day in our particle colliders, roughly by E = mc^2.
3. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dE*dt > h allows for a gigantic energy uncertainty in a very small fraction of time (like when the big bang occured).

 

[AnAtheist]

Columba:

In regards to self-organization, how does matter and energy “know” what organization is? Is there a law that defines this? If there is, we fall into the same trap again. Perhaps I don’t understand the theories that well. Some expansion would be appreciated.

They don’t “know”. An overall structure is build by the way the parts work together. Take a snowflake, the water molucles don’t know anything about cristalline structure, they just apply forces inbetween them by hydrogen-bridges-bindings (I hope that’s the correct English translation, I mean non-covalent H-H bindings), yet they produce wonderful structures by themselves.
The problem is, we tend to overlook that some things are more than the sum of its parts. A TV-picture is more than a bunch of red,green, and blue blobs. The** way** they are organised contains information. That’s called “holostic view”. If you want a good book to read, I recommend Paul Davies - “God and modern physics”, it does not get too technical, understandable for a layman (in physics).

Columba:

I think you may have misunderstood my question here. It was more of an extention of the first arguement: Esentially I am asking how is it we have common rules of reason, common rules of thought. Where do the laws or rules that govern the evolution of thought (reason) come from?

We may disagree on this, I don’t think humans have common rules of reason or thought. Those rules are imposed throughout childhood, if not instinct, therefore highly depend on the society/social environment one is born into. Globalisation today somewhat blurs that, but generaly if you’re born in the US you end up christian, in India you become Hindu, etc. You get the picture.

Columba:

…] there is a aspect of the root of love that draws a line (in my mind, feel free to argue this point) between human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom: Self-Sacrifice. Or, a more preferable term: Sacrificial Love. …] It is also one of the main ways that the Human race is set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Surely, the human species is the most successful of all, because of its degree of intelligence. But IMO no human attribute is unique to humans. Ants self-sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Chimps fight wars. Some birds use tools. Not even “sin” is unique, e.g. if you regard homosexuality as a sin (which I presume), that has been observed among animals too.

 

[JimO]

AnAtheist,

Thank you for your honest answer. I’m sincerely trying to understand all sides.

Of course, my “belief” or “faith” isn’t simply based solely on “how things got to where they are.” Debates based on the physical evidence are raging on many threads.

My belief is based on experiences that I have personally had, through the deaths of family, “answered prayer”, etc. that cannot be explained through reason alone. My own experience has left me in a place where I cannot not believe - if that makes any sense.

Also, I have no delusions. I realize that I will never likely make a statement or argue a point that will cause the other person to suddenly say, “You know, you’re right, I’ve been wrong all these years - I believe!” However, given that this forum is unique in that it has given a whole group of amateur Catholic apologists (like myself) the opportunity to “get in the game,” some of the threads have become crusades for instant conversion. I understand the motivation of the Christian in this matter.

What puzzles me are the atheists who jump into threads out of nowhere trying to point out how foolish we “ignorant” Christians are. I’m not referring to you because your posts have been on threads where atheism is the subject, but what motivates one who does not believe in God or an afterlife to try to convince those who do that they are wrong. Frankly, it smacks of “misery loves company” in some cases. What is your take?

Jim

 

[AnAtheist]

JimO:

What puzzles me are the atheists who jump into threads out of nowhere trying to point out how foolish we “ignorant” Christians are. I’m not referring to you because your posts have been on threads where atheism is the subject, but what motivates one who does not believe in God or an afterlife to try to convince those who do that they are wrong. Frankly, it smacks of “misery loves company” in some cases. What is your take?

I see two reasons, why atheists try to do their own “missionary” work among theists in general and christians in particular.

1. Everybody likes it when a large number of other people agree to one’s own opinion. Well, in a democracy it is vital for someone who has a political agenda to convince others.
2. Defiance. As an atheist you get so much proselytising from christians (mostly protestants, granted), that at some point you simply want to strike back.

I acted that way myself in the past, but at some point I realised that the real problem with religion is not the belief but missionary zeal connected to it. I mean forcing your belief unto others. Since I can’t practice what I despite, I have stopped the convincing and merely try to make christians understand that not all atheists are psychopathic, child-sacrifying satanists (someone who believes in Satan, isn’t an atheist of course, I wonder why some people don’t get that), or mass-murdering Stalinists. In other words to correct some misconceptions about atheism.

The biggest misconception of course is to treat atheists as a homogeneous group, the only common attribute atheists share is disbelief in gods. That of course leads to similar worldviews, esp. how the universe or life came into being.

 

[JimO]

AnAtheist,

Again, thanks for your honest and charitable response.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Columba]

AnAtheist:

They don’t “know”. An overall structure is build by the way the parts work together…they produce wonderful structures by themselves.

I must not be stating my questions right because you still haven’t answered my question, really.

Let’s look at it this way: Humans created the Periodic Table of the Elements (applying our ability to reason to the ways of science). We did not, however, create the laws that enable us to predict how certain chemical and atomic reactions will occur (or, the laws that dictate the makeup of that table). We have “discovered” them.

Yes, you’re right, a molecule does not “understand” anything about crystiline structures, but there is something that dictates that a Hydrogen particle and another Hydrogen particle will be likely to bond. What is that something?

I’m still hoping you can illustrate how you get out of my previous statement about the law of gravity and it’s relation to chaos vs. order.

AnAtheist:

The problem is, we tend to overlook that some things are more than the sum of its parts…

I agree. Not sure what you are trying to argue here. If anything, you seem to be leaning more toward my side of the arguement with this statement…maybe I’m misunderstanding you. (Thank you for the book reference, I’ll look into it for sure).

AnAtheist:

I don’t think humans have common rules of reason or thought.

Your examples are speaking of social and religious ideologies, which I agree are different from culture to culture. I am talking more along the lines of Linguistics, and the laws that dictate common understanding of abstract concepts (such as this conversation we are having ) Can you comment on that?

AnAtheist:

IMO no human attribute is unique to humans. Ants self-sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Chimps fight wars. Some birds use tools. Not even “sin” is unique, e.g. if you regard homosexuality as a sin (which I presume), that has been observed among animals too.

Ants do not have a choice in the matter. They are programmed to do so. Chimps fight for territory because they have been programmed to do so for the sake of their lives. Birds are incredibly intelligent (in some cases), and have the ability to learn, this I don’t disagree with.

I do disagree with humans not being different, however. The one thing that sets humans apart from all other animals is the ability to choose. The ability to become master of the animalistic tendancies within us, not to be ruled by them. The Catholic belief of Sin only exists because of our ability to choose, to exercise our abstract intellect (the one that has the ability to say “Who am I?”). You don’t see dogs lined up at a confessional. You don’t see a lioness turning to her cubs and saying “I wanted to apologize for eating your brother. I know I did wrong.”

Thank you for your engaging discussion.

 

[AnAtheist]

I think, I now know, what you’re after. In essence you say, science (which I was using to argument so far) just tells how things work out, not why they work out the way they do.
Plus, someone had to construct or create all those ways, otherwise they won’t work out so nicely as they do. Right?

You identify the creator and the cause with a divine being, or more conviniently with your particular god.
That is some mix-up between the “intelligent designer” and “first cause”-argument, and I grant you, the ID-argument it is the most valid I have heard so far, while the 1st clause has some validity.

If you look into quantum mechanics, some thing do not have a cause (well ,you might argue, we are just unable to detect it). The whole universe can be one big quantum fluctuation.

Besides, imo it is a valid question to ask, if this universe has been created, who created the cretaor? I know, that theists argue, that question makes no sense, because god is by definition not created, but I can apply that reasoning to the universe and its laws as well, which theists find unsatisfactory due to some reason I don’t comprehend (well, if I did I’d be probably one ).

Suffice and unsatisfactory to say, I don’t chase the “why” as you don’t chase “why a god” or a “meta-god”.

Columba:

I do disagree with humans not being different, however. The one thing that sets humans apart from all other animals is the ability to choose. The ability to become master of the animalistic tendancies within us, not to be ruled by them. The Catholic belief of Sin only exists because of our ability to choose, to exercise our abstract intellect (the one that has the ability to say “Who am I?”). You don’t see dogs lined up at a confessional. You don’t see a lioness turning to her cubs and saying “I wanted to apologize for eating your brother. I know I did wrong.”

Interesting point! Im my non-christian view choosing has nothing to right or wrong. Hardly anybody chooses to be evil. I have one extreme example: Do you believe, a common Nazi on 9.Nov 1938 thought ‘Well, today I am evil and burn some Jewish shop.’ or ‘Today I am doing something good for my race and burn some Jewish shops.’?

Right/wrong are principles defined by the society. If you do something wrong, you’ll get punished for it, if the society works. Humans have higher sophisticated society than all other species due to our higher level of understanding what surrounds us. Getting someone to admit he’s wrong, is surely more effective. As is fear of eternal, unescapable (is that a word?) punishment. But just because it is more effective, doesn’t make it true.

 

[Peg]

I have often pondered the idea is religion really necessary. Because I have faith, I believe it is, but how does that affect someone who is an Athiest and behaves morally?

The conclusion I finally came to is that one can be good without turning to God, but one cannot be Holy. Which means set apart. As I Catholic, we are taught that it is through baptism that you enter into the New Covenant with God through his Son, Jesus Christ. Before I am baptised into this Covenant, nothing I do has any merit before God. It is only through baptism that I become a new person in Christ. The point here is that two persons can do the very same action and one merits because of baptism and the other does not. Why? That is the revelation that God gave to man through Jesus. It is a revealed truth. If this is TRUTH, then it makes all the difference in the world wether you are baptized.

 

[dolffn]

AnAtheist:

I “believe” in #2. (I’ve put “believe” in “”, because it is not to be confused with religious belief. Many problems in these debates arise, because we use a word with several meanings and we all interpret it differently.) And there is a rational reason for it, no supernatural out-of-the-box assertion.

1. Energy is an abstract concept to describe the state of a physical system. Energy can be gauged (interaction between things, i.e. forces are F = dE/ds, therefore E + (arbitrary constant) describes the same universe as E, that’s basic calculus). So it is a valid statement to say, the total energy of the universe is zero. Describes exactly the same universe as total energy = 10 MeV or 10^462348 kJ.
   Energy and entropy are often brought into the duscussion by theists, most of them unfortunately do not understand what is behind those terms.
2. Matter can be created from “nothing”, we do that every day in our particle colliders, roughly by E = mc^2.
3. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dE*dt > h allows for a gigantic energy uncertainty in a very small fraction of time (like when the big bang occured).

Maybe you can point me in to some info on how a vacuum that has not been acted upon in any way can give rise to matter. I am familiar with research into the production of fermions and anti-fermions using photons. I am not familiar however with any theories on how matter can arise in a vacuum without any outside “action” being involved. Thanks for any info you might have,

~Mike