Collapse Of Atheism

[solarwind23]

… Continued

Moral conscience/moral behavior in human beings is in my opinion far better explained by cultural/biological evolution than by God.

As far as the design argument is concerned, look into fractal math if you don’t already know it. Very simple basic rules can lead to incredibly intricate designes.

Who knows, maybe God is the necessarily existing set of these very basic rules (perhaps in a timeless multiverse that doesn’t need to be caused due to its existence outside of time) that lead to all of these complexities we observe.

Consciousness/free will are really matters for science. There is strong evidence that we are not the only conscious beings on this planet, apes and dolphins display self awareness/empathy etc. albeit to much lower degrees than us. It seems that whatever consciousness is, it is strongly related to our brain, that it can be destroyed when the brain is damaged etc.

The argument from miracles is not an argument to me. I have yet to see a “well documented miracle.”

Desire/religious experience etc. aren’t huge arguments either. There could be a spiritual dimension to human life, but that doesn’t mean there is a personal God. The Buddhist tradition as far as I know is atheistic but spiritual nonetheless.

As for desire, who doesn’t want to live forever in heaven? I can see the immense appeal of a religion that promises eternal life and eternal happiness and a God who loves every single person.

However, I think there is far more evidence that human beings are just another form of life on this planet, that we are the most sophisticated in intelligence/consciousness, but not alone and that apes share this to some extent. There is more evidence that our conscious selves end when the brain ceases to function, whether it be through brain damage or death. There is no evidence that our selves, our memories, who we are etc. continue to exist after the brain ceases to function.

I think there very well could be a God of some kind, but I don’t think he pays any more attention to us than he does to chimpazees. Look at the immense size of the universe! We’re like a speck in it. What’s so special about us? Whoever said that atheists are arrogant should note how arrogant theism is. That we, a step-up from apes living near a star that is one of what, a hundred billion in a galaxy that is also one in a hundred billion, existing for but an instant in time (ever seen those 24 hour clock analogies for the age of the earth and how we’ve existed for only a second or a minute or something on it?) in the 15 or so billion year old universe are somehow the center of creation and special to God?

Now that is the pinnacle of arrogance.

Tell me, in all the time you prayed, did God ever talk back?

 

[Hitetlen]

solarwind23:

Now that is the pinnacle of arrogance.

Tell me, in all the time you prayed, did God ever talk back?

I quoted just a snip, because your post would have been too long. Everything you said in these posts is very well argued.

I just want to point out that the churches themselves complain about decreasing attendance, lower tithing due to lack of interest. Especially so in Europe, where the percentage of “deeply religious” people is estimated somewhere between 5% and 30%, depending on the countries. In the Scandinavian countries it is especially low.

So it is not true that atheism is losing ground, it is on the rise, most notably among higher educated people, but in the general population as well.

 

[clmowry]

solarwind23:

Now that is the pinnacle of arrogance.

Tell me, in all the time you prayed, did God ever talk back?

All the time. Some folks just refuse to take out the ear plugs and remove the blinders.

Chuck

 

[kildare]

I’m also unable to see the video, but I doubt that this statement is true although. The question however is atheism on the decline among the intellectual elites(where it is now the norm) or is it in decline among the general public.
Firstly among the elites, I do think that atheism may have peaked in the 20th century. The idea that Man and the created universe could be easily explained away is becoming less and less popular. I think thats why we are seeing a lot of people like Richard Dawkins these days, who are despereatly trying to win back the argument, they seem, for the moment to have lost.
Secondly there is the general public to look at. In Europe at least, to the contrary, atheism is on the rise and fast becomming the norm. There are various reasons for this:

1. The people are given the impression that the scientists have already worked out all of life’s mysteries to the effect that God is no longer required.
2. Belief in God is equated with the following terms: Backwardness, Old and nonprogressive, Stupidity, Lack of independent thought. Of course in reality its the other way around although this is the perception in Europe.
3. Religion is getting in the way with the egotistical, materialistic values which everybody now aspires(free sex,no annoying kids, big car etc etc)
4. The church has been discrediited by paediophiles and new revelations in History like the ideas of the Da Vinci Code(be they wrong or right, they still have their adherents).
5. The idea that all religious people are essentially the same and all are mad warmongers(BinLaden=Bush=Sharon) is common graffiti here in Spain) and symbolises
6. Liberal politicians are now hostile to the church. Essentially
7. And most importantly is communal peer pressure. Humans are very sheepish. In Britain they snigger when they hear that Tony Blair believes in God. You dont argue with Abortion. People want to be left alone and are not going to upset the apple cart. So they forget about religion and become de facto atheists.

So the decline in religion is causing atheism to grow among the common people. In my workpace for example(my colleagues would be IT,Legal professionals, I would be hardpressed to find any that had any belief at all. Furthermore many are extremely hostile to all religion but Catholicism in particular.

 

[VociMike]

SemperJase:

What does he mean by “scientists”. Rodney Stark in his book “For the Glory of God” found that physical scientists are more likely to be believers while social scientists (socialogists) are more likely to be athiests.

So if you stack your with sample more people from the “soft” sciences, you’ll get a result like this study found.

And proportionally there are a lot more scientists in the “soft” category now than in 1914, which could account for much or all of the difference noted (which is, I think, exactly what you are suggesting).

 

[kildare]

Hi Solarwind23,

I have to say that I agree with you in doubting the premise of the video. Theres probably nothing worse than giving the faithful false hope, although my own impression of the scientific developments of the last century is that they are increasingly grey looking on the subject of God. I suppose it depends how you look at it, or how it effects you inside. For me, science on its own will never be able to convince one way or the other, it needs to resonate at a poetic level as well, for it to be true.

I touched a bit on Fractal Math in looking at the Chaos produced by feedback into vibrating systems when I was writing my Thesis. Lyponoc exponents, Poincare Maps. Amazing complexity, or what might seems like noise can come from just a tweaking of some initial conditions in an otherwise predictable system. But there still seemed to be some inherent property there that gave the system almost a life of its own. Its a humbling experience when you realise that the more we go into Science the more complicated it becomes, and it warns you not to put all your eggs in the one basket so to speak. Anyway the Chaos stuff, made me realise that sometimes its the little things, the unimportant things that make the difference, the butterfly flapping its wings in just the right spot at the right moment that sends the system into starting a huricane.

Christ said so himself when he said that the stone that the builders thought was useless and thrown away would become the foundation stone. Now dont get me wrong, I’m not trying to prove God by nonlinear dynamics. Its just that that for me the was a minor revelation.

 

[john_doran]

solarwind23:

I think there very well could be a God of some kind, but I don’t think he pays any more attention to us than he does to chimpazees. Look at the immense size of the universe! We’re like a speck in it. What’s so special about us?

well, my son is even more of a speck in the universe than the whole of humanity - does that mean there’s no reason for him to be special to me?

solarwind23:

Whoever said that atheists are arrogant should note how arrogant theism is. That we, a step-up from apes living near a star that is one of what, a hundred billion in a galaxy that is also one in a hundred billion, existing for but an instant in time (ever seen those 24 hour clock analogies for the age of the earth and how we’ve existed for only a second or a minute or something on it?) in the 15 or so billion year old universe are somehow the center of creation and special to God?

Now that is the pinnacle of arrogance.

right. so when my son tells his friends that i told him that he is incredibly special to me, he’s being arrogant?

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

well, my son is even more of a speck in the universe than the whole of humanity - does that mean there’s no reason for him to be special to me?

Your son compared to the segment humanity you personally know is incomparably greater than the Solar system compared to the Universe.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Your son compared to the segment humanity you personally know is incomparably greater than the Solar system compared to the Universe.

what difference does that make?

 

[solarwind23]

clmowry:

All the time. Some folks just refuse to take out the ear plugs and remove the blinders.

Chuck

That’s not true for me. I would love for God to talk to me. I have asked God to do so on multiple occasions. In fact, any kind of an interaction that I can know for sure is from God and not from my own emotions/mind would do!

 

[solarwind23]

kildare:

Hi Solarwind23,

I have to say that I agree with you in doubting the premise of the video. Theres probably nothing worse than giving the faithful false hope, although my own impression of the scientific developments of the last century is that they are increasingly grey looking on the subject of God. I suppose it depends how you look at it, or how it effects you inside. For me, science on its own will never be able to convince one way or the other, it needs to resonate at a poetic level as well, for it to be true.

But it all depends on what “God” is, right? If God is an uncaused first cause, then the arguments are as strong as ever. If “God” is nature, the laws of physics, and everything that exists then the arguments are as strong as ever.

But a personal God who pays attention to us and has an afterlife ready for us?

It is of course possible, but for me personally the ever increasing identification of the mind with the brain and evidence that other creatures on this planet have primitive minds suggests very strongly that whatever we are has more to do with the brain than anything else, and that once the brain dies so do we.

Can our memories, our personality, the way we think etc. survive without the brain? It seems not, because even in this life people whose brains are damaged lose a part of themselves. They can lose their memory, their ability to think etc.

What on earth goes to the afterlife? What is the soul anyway? Even if there is a personal God and even if he created us for some purpose, I think that purpose lies in this world alone.

I touched a bit on Fractal Math in looking at the Chaos produced by feedback into vibrating systems when I was writing my Thesis. Lyponoc exponents, Poincare Maps. Amazing complexity, or what might seems like noise can come from just a tweaking of some initial conditions in an otherwise predictable system. But there still seemed to be some inherent property there that gave the system almost a life of its own. Its a humbling experience when you realise that the more we go into Science the more complicated it becomes, and it warns you not to put all your eggs in the one basket so to speak. Anyway the Chaos stuff, made me realise that sometimes its the little things, the unimportant things that make the difference, the butterfly flapping its wings in just the right spot at the right moment that sends the system into starting a huricane.

Christ said so himself when he said that the stone that the builders thought was useless and thrown away would become the foundation stone. Now dont get me wrong, I’m not trying to prove God by nonlinear dynamics. Its just that that for me the was a minor revelation.

For me fractals are very interesting because they show how systems can organize themselves with very simple rules and become extremely complex and beautiful.

Ever watch schools of fish or birds swim/fly together? They move as one. But each operates according to 1 simple rule “follow the guy beside you, if he moves, move.” What about army ants, and the way they invade something and move forward in two columns with the ants carrying stuff back moving in a third column between the two. 2 simple rules: follow the scent, and if you see someone coming toward you, move to the side. (Ants carrying food back move slower and for this reason it is always the ants going to attack that move first.) Simple fractal systems have modelled mountains, trees, leaves etc.

It seems that systems can organize themselves from the bottom up. There is no need for a higher authority to make everythign work. There is no need for a designer.

There is of coruse a need for the fundamental principle, and this could very well be “God”

 

[solarwind23]

john doran:

well, my son is even more of a speck in the universe than the whole of humanity - does that mean there’s no reason for him to be special to me?

And my friends and family are extremely special to me.

But if I said that my friends and family are the centre of the universe, and the very purpose for which the entire universe was ultimately made you’d say I’m out of my mind.

The universe is huge, both in space and in time. It is hard to grasp just how huge it is. 10000000000000000000000 (10^22) stars as far as I remember. We live near 1. We’re using 0.00000000000000000001 % of all the stars.

Our species has been around for 200000 years. The universe has been around for 15000000000. This means we’ve been around for 0.001% of the age of the universe. Christianity and Judaism have been around for say, 5000 years, that’s 0.00003% of the age of the universe, and 2.5% of the age of our species.

(Could have made some computational/typing mistakes with one or two 0’s, but you get the general idea)

If God made the universe for a purpose, I think we’re just a small part of that purpose. Otherwise it would be an awful waste of space and time.

Is it so surprising that religious people back in the day didn’t like what Galileo was saying about the sun being the center of the solar system, not the earth? One can only guess how shocked they would have been to find out that our sun is only one of 10000000000000000000000 suns.

 

[clmowry]

solarwind23:

Now that is the pinnacle of arrogance.

Tell me, in all the time you prayed, did God ever talk back?

All the time. Some folks just refuse to take out the ear plugs and remove the blinders.

Chuck

 

[john_doran]

solarwind23:

But if I said that my friends and family are the centre of the universe, and the very purpose for which the entire universe was ultimately made you’d say I’m out of my mind.

The universe is huge, both in space and in time. It is hard to grasp just how huge it is. 10000000000000000000000 (10^22) stars as far as I remember. We live near 1. We’re using 0.00000000000000000001 % of all the stars.

Our species has been around for 200000 years. The universe has been around for 15000000000. This means we’ve been around for 0.001% of the age of the universe. Christianity and Judaism have been around for say, 5000 years, that’s 0.00003% of the age of the universe, and 2.5% of the age of our species.

(Could have made some computational/typing mistakes with one or two 0’s, but you get the general idea)

If God made the universe for a purpose, I think we’re just a small part of that purpose. Otherwise it would be an awful waste of space and time.

you’re looking at this from the wrong perspective: as vast a place as the universe is, it itself is an infinitessimal speck to (the christian) god. so, it isn’t difficult at all to believe that an infinite, infinitely powerful and infinitely loving god would make an entire universe just for one family of creatures he loves infinitely.

what’s more, christians aren’t just making this stuff up, or drawing conclusions from, say, cosmological experimental data - we think that god made us and loves us uniquely because that’s what he said he did. for you to suppose that such a thing would be nonsensical for a being like god to do smacks of exactly the kind of arrogance of which you accuse us, don’t you think? i mean, who are you to say what a being like god would do?

not only that, but it also sounds a lot like a child refusing to believe that anyone could possibly do something like share her, toys because she herself can’t imagine what it would be like to have selfless inclinations.

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

But there has been an unusually large number of these minds in the 20th century, which in my opinion has more to do with the times than the minds. Was Einstein uniquely brilliant? Sure, but if he didn’t exist, would perhaps another person have developed general relativity because the time was right for that idea (i.e. the type of debates going on, the type of questions raised were leading us to it)? It seems that scientific progress started out very slowly and then exploded.

…snip a lot…

If you want to criticize me for getting off-topic by posting one link to address your seeming (but not actual) support for atheism, fine. But you are getting far more off-topic by writing for two post-lengths (because of the text limit) on your opinions of scientific discoveries and your general feelings on Kreeft’s writings, which you obviously haven’t spent much time on yet.

 

[EtienneGilson]

DeFide:

opinions of scientific discoveries and your general feelings on Kreeft’s writings, which you obviously haven’t spent much time on yet.

One doesn’t have to be an atheist to think that Kreeft’s writings are to philosophy what Dr. Phil is to psychology. I would hardly compare Dr. Kreeft to any of the great Christian thinkers, even of the 20th century.

If you want to discuss philosophy and science, look into the writings of Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Stanley Jaki, Teilhard de Chardin, Norris Clarke, Henri de Lubac, Jospeh Owens, Armand Maurer, Yves Congar, Frederick Copleston, and even Hans Kung.

I turned the video off after I saw about 5 minutes of the section on cosmology. It was not only misinforming, but deliberately misleading. I particularly thought the introduction with all the wars of the 20th century misleading…and this is from a Polish/Ukrainian who had family taken out ot Katyn.

If there is any truth to the popular decline in athiesm it is due to the rise of fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or Christian. Our Catholic tradition has been saved from the jaw of the bear by the talons of the eagle.

 

[mikew262]

Atheists will always be with us. Just thank God they are in the vast minority, however vocal they are.

 

[DeFide]

EtienneGilson:

… I would hardly compare Dr. Kreeft to any of the great Christian thinkers, even of the 20th century…
.

I wasn’t comparing Kreeft to anyone.

 

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

If you want to criticize me for getting off-topic by posting one link to address your seeming (but not actual) support for atheism, fine. But you are getting far more off-topic by writing for two post-lengths (because of the text limit) on your opinions of scientific discoveries and your general feelings on Kreeft’s writings, which you obviously haven’t spent much time on yet.

You’re right, I did get off topic, but it was in response to your claims.

Why not respond to some of my claims? I’ve read a few of Kreeft’s writings and am fairly familiar with the arguments for the existence of God.

I think all of those arguments work with a deistic God, not a personal God much less the Christian God for the reasons outlined in my 2-part-because-of-5000 character limit post. Further, the most powerful fist-cause/contingency/cosmological etc. variation of the prime mover argument (originally stated by Aristotle as far as I know) can be explained by any necessarily existing, timeless thing. It doesnt’ have to be a being at all.

Care to argue otherwise?

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

…Care to argue otherwise?

Not until you actually read Kreeft. Then you can start another thread, so we don’t pull this thread off course.