Atheism & Morale (split from INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM)

[AnAtheist]

dolffn:

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

Particle/anti-particle pairs are produced (and annihilated shortly after) in the vacuum all the time without any outside action, so-called virtual particles.
If you want to get REALLY DEEP into it I recommend Bjorken & Drell “Relativistic Quantum Fields” (you need at least three years of physics and mathematics courses at the university level to understand that though).

A not that sophisticated book is R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton and M. Sands: “The Feynman Lectures on Physics,Vol. III: Quantum Mechanics”, quite easy to read.

Some good laymen books are of course the ever popular “A brief history of time” by Stephen Hawking and “The first three minutes” by Steven Weinberg (the latter is less popular but much better imo).

None of the books will give you a satisfactory answer, if you insist that something (or someone) MUST have started all this, Neither can I.

 

[Columba]

AnAtheist,

I think we are on the same page now.

AnAtheist:

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.

This statement is a statement of faith. You have faith (or a belief) that there is a non-personal, non intelligent, non-deitacal beginning and sustaining of the universe (your “quantum fluctuation”) (this captures atheism in a nut-shell, I think…please correct me if you disagree). I have a belief that life, indeed, existance itself, is begun and sustained by a being that defines all that is, by who he is (My God has used the phrase “I AM” to define himself).

I put forward that you cannot DIS-prove the existance of God any more than I can prove it. THEREFORE, you have just as much faith, or belief, as I do. In fact, I would argue that you are probably a more zelous apostle of Athiesm than I am of Catholicism (shame on me )

if this universe has been created, who created the cretaor?

This becomes a circular argument, because once you define the “meta-God” as you put it, you have to re-issue the challenge all over again, and say “who is the Meta-meta-God?” etc. etc. Eventually, you must have someone (or something, if you prefer) that provides a point of reference, if you will. Existance needs to start FROM something. Even a vacuum needs a beginning. Your arguement doesn’t follow the logic of the proposition.

I am splitting the thread because my response was too long…see my next post.

 

[Columba]

Part 2!!

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.

I agree, his society provided the propoganda and “programming” to make that Nazi believe he was doing something right.

But your last sentance:

…But just because it is more effective, doesn’t make it true.

The word “true” seems to counter your arguement of “right/wrong are principles defined by the society”. If society defines right/wrong, you can not use “truth” as a backup to an arguement. On one hand, you propose relatavism, on the other, you appeal to a standard outside of culture and society (even instinct).

If there is a Truth, then all that exists is defined by that truth (not only covalent bonding, but morality as well).

I am guessing that you believe that the Nazi was wrong in what he did. If I follow your arguement, who are you to say that he was wrong? That was his (relatavistic) truth, was it not? Who are we to say the the gas chambers of Auschwitz (forgive me if I spelled that wrong) were evil, if their society says that was right? By your line of reasoning, WE (the human race) have no right to hold judgement to that action.

Most of the known world was repulsed and sickened by such actions, and saw them as inherently evil. Many of these were not Christian nations, and the Catholic take on this would be that there is a natural law in all humans that is, (for all intensive purposes) the “imprint” of the likeness of God, and the ability to know (even if only at a subconcious level) what is right, and what is wrong. This of course can be suppressed, and even (almost) totally abliterated by the “programming” of our societies, and the ideals it cherishs, and this of course is what happened to the Nazi in your example. This is also what is happening to our societies today (in the developed nations) → Abortion, Euthenasia, cloning, etc. The cycle is beginning again only on a bigger scale, and we must appeal to the fact that there MUST be a right and a wrong, and that it is something outside of ourselves, otherwise, we are lost.

This is why I am Catholic. Because I believe truth to be a God-man named Jesus Christ, who came as he did so that we might KNOW that Truth, (and the truth will set you free). This is something unique to Christianity, a propostition not found anywhere else.

If we as humans are incapable of knowing truth, then we can not (and should not) be held accountable to it. If the truth HAS been revealed, then I will do everything in my power to understand it (and test it!! Which is why I wanted to start this conversation with you!..I have to admit, it was selfish…I am always looking for ways to test my belief and understanding…)

Your thoughts?

 

[AnAtheist]

Columba:

This statement is a statement of faith. You have faith (or a belief) that there is a non-personal, non intelligent, non-deitacal beginning and sustaining of the universe (your “quantum fluctuation”) (this captures atheism in a nut-shell, I think…please correct me if you disagree). I have a belief that life, indeed, existance itself, is begun and sustained by a being that defines all that is, by who he is (My God has used the phrase “I AM” to define himself).

There is one difference though: My “faith” has empirical backup. We have a theory about how the universe began, from that we extrapolate how the universe would like today and compare.

Columba:

I put forward that you cannot DIS-prove the existance of God any more than I can prove it. THEREFORE, you have just as much faith, or belief, as I do.

Well, nobody can disprove the existence of a non-existing thing. But an existing thing from be proven, e.g. by “Look, there it is.” If you want to see the big-bang (start of the universe), hold a piece of metal in the air and measure the background noise. I’d say that makes my need for unproven belief a bit smaller.

Columba:

This becomes a circular argument, because once you define the “meta-God” as you put it, you have to re-issue the challenge all over again, and say “who is the Meta-meta-God?” etc. etc. Eventually, you must have someone (or something, if you prefer) that provides a point of reference, if you will. Existance needs to start FROM something. Even a vacuum needs a beginning. Your arguement doesn’t follow the logic of the proposition.

I know what you mean, but just to clarify it is not “circular”. A circular argument refers to itself , like “The bible is true because the bible says, it’s true.”
The 1st cause argument states (like you did in the above paragraph), that everything must have a cause (or must come from something), and to avoid an infinite chain of causes, it postulates a 1st cause, which is then identified with God.

1. The assumption can be questioned. Why MUST everything have a cause? In quatum mechanics we observe otherwise.
2. The 1st cause needs not necessarily be (a) god. I can identify it with the big-bang, with a meta-god, the Titans,… It is just a question of where to put an end in the otherwise infinite chain.

 

[AnAtheist]

Columba:

I agree, his society provided the propoganda and “programming” to make that Nazi believe he was doing something right.
But your last sentance:
The word “true” seems to counter your arguement of “right/wrong are principles defined by the society”…]On one hand, you propose relatavism, on the other, you appeal to a standard outside of culture and society …].

I have not very well formulated my last sentence. What I meant was, that religion provides an effective way of imposing “good” behaviour on its followers, more effectively than a secular law on people who don’t fear eternal consequences. Fear of Hell is a powerful tool, but that doesn’t make it “true” in a sense that it exists.
I do not see a contradiction between relativism and an outside standard set by evolution and social development, which is so loose that it allows for relativism.

Columba:

I am guessing that you believe that the Nazi was wrong in what he did. If I follow your arguement, who are you to say that he was wrong? …]By your line of reasoning, WE (the human race) have no right to hold judgement…].

Who am I to say? I don’t want to be executed for my politcal agendas, my race, my non-religion, my beliefs, my thoughts. That makes Hitler’s behaviour wrong from my perspective, and I have every right to judge that wrong, or evil if prefer that term.
Maybe we cannot judge about absolute measures of right and wrong, because those terms are meaningless (even Yahwe changed his “absolute” standards at least twice according to the bible), but we have every right for self-defense, esp. when we were Jews among Nazis, native Americans among white invaders, “witches” among christians, Caanites among Jews,…
Wasn’t it your God who said, you should not judge? (Luke 6:37)

Columba:

Most of the known world was repulsed and sickened by such actions, and saw them as inherently evil. …], and we must appeal to the fact that there MUST be a right and a wrong, and that it is something outside of ourselves, otherwise, we are lost. …]
If we as humans are incapable of knowing truth, then we can not (and should not) be held accountable to it. If the truth HAS been revealed, then I will do everything in my power to understand it (and test it!! Which is why I wanted to start this conversation with you!..I have to admit, it was selfish…I am always looking for ways to test my belief and understanding…)

Basically we disagree here on the same question as with the beginning of the universe. You ascribe that to your god, while I see natural causes for it.
Comparing one own’s belief to contrasting beliefs surely helps in understanding it, and hopefully to understand people who belief otherwise better. I have stated that before, I find Christianity so odd, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I should start a new thread on that topic, then we can have some lively discussion on your belief.

 

[dolffn]

AnAtheist:

Particle/anti-particle pairs are produced (and annihilated shortly after) in the vacuum all the time without any outside action, so-called virtual particles.
If you want to get REALLY DEEP into it I recommend Bjorken & Drell “Relativistic Quantum Fields” (you need at least three years of physics and mathematics courses at the university level to understand that though).

A not that sophisticated book is R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton and M. Sands: “The Feynman Lectures on Physics,Vol. III: Quantum Mechanics”, quite easy to read.

Some good laymen books are of course the ever popular “A brief history of time” by Stephen Hawking and “The first three minutes” by Steven Weinberg (the latter is less popular but much better imo).

None of the books will give you a satisfactory answer, if you insist that something (or someone) MUST have started all this, Neither can I.

Thank you for the book recommendations, I will look into them.
I think you misunderstand my perspective. satisfaction/dissatisfaction with scientific theory is measured in my mind against my understanding of it and the totality of the knowledge that I have. And yes I feel that God’s existence makes abundantly more sense than nothing. It is interesting though that science itself is constructed of theories that are designed to predict behavior. This is a result of our understanding of our world being comprised of of causes and their effects. In my search for answers in regard to your comments on mass out of nothing, I am merely trying to gain footing on the idea of a theory that can predict a state of something starting with a state of nothing. I guess some scientists have more patience than I do and are content to sit and stare at a vacuum
Please understand I am not necessarily trying to debunk any science. I have a passion for science and spend a large amount of time studying various areas of it and the intent in my questioning is merely to gain more information and further understanding. Where we differ is, at my core, I seek to learn more about my Creator through his creations.

~Mike

 

[AnAtheist]

dolffn:

Please understand I am not necessarily trying to debunk any science. I have a passion for science and spend a large amount of time studying various areas of it and the intent in my questioning is merely to gain more information and further understanding. Where we differ is, at my core, I seek to learn more about my Creator through his creations.

Yes, I thought so. I hope, those books will help you on that quest.

 

[dolffn]

AnAtheist:

I have not very well formulated my last sentence. What I meant was, that religion provides an effective way of imposing “good” behaviour on its followers, more effectively than a secular law on people who don’t fear eternal consequences. Fear of Hell is a powerful tool, but that doesn’t make it “true” in a sense that it exists.
I do not see a contradiction between relativism and an outside standard set by evolution and social development, which is so loose that it allows for relativism.
Who am I to say? I don’t want to be executed for my politcal agendas, my race, my non-religion, my beliefs, my thoughts. That makes Hitler’s behaviour wrong from my perspective, and I have every right to judge that wrong, or evil if prefer that term.
Maybe we cannot judge about absolute measures of right and wrong, because those terms are meaningless (even Yahwe changed his “absolute” standards at least twice according to the bible), but we have every right for self-defense, esp. when we were Jews among Nazis, native Americans among white invaders, “witches” among christians, Caanites among Jews,…
Wasn’t it your God who said, you should not judge? (Luke 6:37)

But doesnt non theistic evolution lead to the idea that we are better off without people that hold back progress of survival or individual well being? What if as an athiest has a very dependant severely mentally retarded child that takes up all their time and energy pretty much throughout their life (for the moment consider they dont have the money to hire care services). They as an individual seek to gain pleasure and enjoyment for themself in life, but instead face much suffering and sacrifice for an individual who may not even have the ability to be thankful for what they are even doing for them. What would compel a person to be so self sacrificing with their finite life? Where does the logic fall, or would it be considered illogical?

~Mike

 

[AnAtheist]

dolffn:

But doesnt non theistic evolution lead to the idea that we are better off without people that hold back progress of survival or individual well being? What if as an athiest has a very dependant severely mentally retarded child that takes up all their time and energy pretty much throughout their life (for the moment consider they dont have the money to hire care services). They as an individual seek to gain pleasure and enjoyment for themself in life, but instead face much suffering and sacrifice for an individual who may not even have the ability to be thankful for what they are even doing for them. What would compel a person to be so self sacrificing with their finite life? Where does the logic fall, or would it be considered illogical?

Biological evolution cannot be 1:1 applied to social issues, I have pointed that put before. If someone does that, society will fall into the ways you imply. Sadly enough, this has happened.
I haven’t experienced the situation you mentioned, but to answer “what compels atheists in that situation?”: Compassion, love,… Atheists do have feelings (shocking revelation ). See, I know that love is an electro-chemical reaction in my brain - so what? I still love my wife, I still have that feeling. Knowing how it is produced, doesn’t change its state (or mine).
I know a rainbow is an optical phenomenon due to the wavelength dependency of the refraction index of water. I can still admire its beauty.

 

[dredgtone]

AnAtheist:

Atheists do have feelings (shocking revelation ). See, I know that love is an electro-chemical reaction in my brain - so what? I still love my wife, I still have that feeling. Knowing how it is produced, doesn’t change its state (or mine).
I know a rainbow is an optical phenomenon due to the wavelength dependency of the refraction index of water. I can still admire its beauty.

Yes shocking isn’t it? We have feelings. We can even feel compassion! Don’t attribute what it is to be human to the wrong causes. Belief can certainly be inspiration to do the right thing but we’re all inspired some way or another.

 

[ralphinal]

A couple of questions for an Atheist.

1. What are the odds that carbon-based life could come into existance? The odds that a planet could be so perfectly poseitioned and equiped to hold such life? I said carbon based life, because theoretically silicone could form bonds similar to carbon although the actual types of bonds are different.
2. On the issue of herd animals and society, I humbly offer the Swat Pukhtun. Look them up, if you will, and tell me how this fits with the idea of universal “herd animal” mentality.
3. If you say that there might be a creator who put us here, but that is no diety, then why did he put us here just to walk away forever?

 

[AnAtheist]

ralphinal:

A couple of questions for an Atheist.

1. What are the odds that carbon-based life could come into existance? The odds that a planet could be so perfectly poseitioned and equiped to hold such life? I said carbon based life, because theoretically silicone could form bonds similar to carbon although the actual types of bonds are different.
2. On the issue of herd animals and society, I humbly offer the Swat Pukhtun. Look them up, if you will, and tell me how this fits with the idea of universal “herd animal” mentality.
3. If you say that there might be a creator who put us here, but that is no diety, then why did he put us here just to walk away forever?

@ 1) The planet is not fine tuned to hold life like it is. Life has evolved, so that it perfectly fits to the planet. As for the odds - no idea. The odds of a particular hand of poker are 1:311875200, still I hold it in my hand.

@ 2) Haven’t done extensive research yet, but from a 1st look they are a tribe with a unique social structure unlike ours. Is that correct?
They do not have a heirarchical society, and have been living peacefully among themselves for the last couple of centuries, and have been basically left alone by anybody else. So there was no evolutionary pressure on them.
I fail to see what’s the point with them. Could you elaborate please?

@ 3) I didn’t say that. I don’t believe there is or was a creator. If I am wrong about that, “diety” would be an appropiate term.

 

[ralphinal]

@ 1) The planet is not fine tuned to hold life like it is. Life has evolved, so that it perfectly fits to the planet. As for the odds - no idea. The odds of a particular hand of poker are 1:311875200, still I hold it in my hand.

@ 2) Haven’t done extensive research yet, but from a 1st look they are a tribe with a unique social structure unlike ours. Is that correct?
They do not have a heirarchical society, and have been living peacefully among themselves for the last couple of centuries, and have been basically left alone by anybody else. So there was no evolutionary pressure on them.
I fail to see what’s the point with them. Could you elaborate please?

@ 3) I didn’t say that. I don’t believe there is or was a creator. If I am wrong about that, “diety” would be an appropiate term.

The odds of life are beyond calculatable. So much so, it is more likely that you will win five consecutive lotteries than find life on another planet.

In reguards to the tribe, look up C. Lindholm’s 1997 work on the Swat Pushkin family as a political training ground. Based on the idea that society needs moral norms to survive does not apply. Violence, theft, decet, and totally self seeking behavior are treated as virtues, while altruistic acts are vices.

What happened before the Big Bang? Matter can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Or, are we in an endless loop of expansion and contraction?

 

[Monarchy]

ralphinal:

A couple of questions for an Atheist.

1. What are the odds that carbon-based life could come into existance? The odds that a planet could be so perfectly poseitioned and equiped to hold such life? I said carbon based life, because theoretically silicone could form bonds similar to carbon although the actual types of bonds are different.

1 in 1 since we are here.

1. On the issue of herd animals and society, I humbly offer the Swat Pukhtun. Look them up, if you will, and tell me how this fits with the idea of universal “herd animal” mentality.

The only thing I could find about them is that they are generous and stoic, not wanting to show their emotions at all (don’t play poker with them!)
.

1. If you say that there might be a creator who put us here, but that is no diety, then why did he put us here just to walk away forever?

Just to see if he could do it? An experiment? It would make sense.

 

[Monarchy]

ralphinal:

The odds of life are beyond calculatable. So much so, it is more likely that you will win five consecutive lotteries than find life on another planet.

If just one in a million of the stars in our galaxy have planets,

and if just one in a million of the planets are positioned correctly for life,

and if just one in a million of the correctly positioned planets has the correct building blocks for life present,

and if just one in a million of those planets have life,

and if just one in a million of those planets with life have intelligent life,

Then there are hundereds of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone.

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Again, thanks to all for the contributions.