Collapse Of Atheism

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

Also, I’m not so sure that Quantum physics did away with determinism. You will have to explain to me what an “uncaused cause” is. How can there be things that exist that have no cause? From what I read, theories in physics are changing all of the time, so don’t put too much stock into physical theories. Metaphysical questions are of a different order. By the way, I am a compatibalist and I agree with you that human beings are largely, though not entirely determined. Some explanation of what quantum physics is supposed to show would be helpful to me, thanks.

Well, quantum physics has been around for the past century, has been tested over and over with countless experience and so far has never failed.

One example of an uncaused event is a particle/anti-paticle pair coming into existence out of nowhere for a brief instant of time in a vacuum and then annihilating. (This effect has been measured)

One of the key notions of quantum mechanics is inherent uncertainty, that particles exist in a state of superposition until they are measured. For example the quantum picture of the electron around the atom is that it’s spread out over an area, being in several places at once so to speak. And they say it’s not just our inablity to know exactly, but an inherent property of matter.

This is the common interpretation, but not the only one. Of couse it is just a model, who knows what really happens.

By the way I am not a physicist and something like this cannot be explaiend in a post on a message board. If you’re interested you should really read a book about it

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

Well, quantum physics has been around for the past century, has been tested over and over with countless experience and so far has never failed.

One example of an uncaused event is a particle/anti-paticle pair coming into existence out of nowhere for a brief instant of time in a vacuum and then annihilating. (This effect has been measured)

One of the key notions of quantum mechanics is inherent uncertainty, that particles exist in a state of superposition until they are measured. For example the quantum picture of the electron around the atom is that it’s spread out over an area, being in several places at once so to speak. And they say it’s not just our inablity to know exactly, but an inherent property of matter.

This is the common interpretation, but not the only one. Of couse it is just a model, who knows what really happens.

By the way I am not a physicist and something like this cannot be explaiend in a post on a message board. If you’re interested you should really read a book about it

So what Quantum physics is showing then is that things really do come out of nothing. Now is that an absolute nothing in the sense of complete nonbeing? That is the metaphysical question I suppose. Also, is there a reason that the particles come into being at all? That seems to be the mystery. Why should anything pop into existence? Why shouldn’t there be just an infinite, eternal void?

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

Love, compassion, empathy. That’s what it is in my life. I do good things to help others, I don’t do evil because it hurts others, justice is about fairness: if you steal something, you should replace it.

But for me punishment is not about vengeance, but making the person learn a lesson and deterring more evil acts.

For me this has nothign to do with God, but with human beings and my genuine empathy/compassion etc.

But overall this tends to be teh same for people. It is important for people to be helped in a difficult time, people tend to care about others and help them. People see the objective evil of murder, rape, theft etc. and the pain it causes to human beings.

There are opposing tendencies in us which I think can be explained by evolution. We are at once caring, compassionate, cooperative and also selfish, lustful, desiring power. In most of us the cooperating/compassion wins out and we’re pretty kind and civil to one another.

There could very well be a God who is “good”, but I dont’ think it would be the same kind of goodness as human goodness. The things we consider good are very human and based on things good for human beings.

And I think that’s all a reasonable point of view. If what we are is a collection of intelligent animals then it seems to make sense that we prefer certain behaviors over others because they tend to bring about pleasurable states of being for ourselves. All of that is fine. So that would mean then that the end of human existence is simply to make it as pleasant as possible for as many people as possible. Is there a collective end or only individual ends? That is the question I would have.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

So what Quantum physics is showing then is that things really do come out of nothing. Now is that an absolute nothing in the sense of complete nonbeing? That is the metaphysical question I suppose. Also, is there a reason that the particles come into being at all? That seems to be the mystery. Why should anything pop into existence? Why shouldn’t there be just an infinite, eternal void?

Oh, but this isn’t an arguemnt against a first cause. There are still the laws of physics to deal with, obviously this “pop out of nothing” is all in accordance with the laws.

This was intended as an argument against determinism, against us not having any free will. There is a fundamental uncertainty about particles, there is no chain of cause and effect as there is in a classical universe.

Therefore there’s room for free will.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

And I think that’s all a reasonable point of view. If what we are is a collection of intelligent animals then it seems to make sense that we prefer certain behaviors over others because they tend to bring about pleasurable states of being for ourselves. All of that is fine. So that would mean then that the end of human existence is simply to make it as pleasant as possible for as many people as possible. Is there a collective end or only individual ends? That is the question I would have.

Well I wouldn’t say it’s the only end. I think if for example there is no God and we’re either the only or one of the many highly intelligent/conscious species, then it falls to us to understand this world and to organize it.

It seems very uplifting to me. If we’re the highest form of life in the universe, then making things good for everyone is our responsibility. If there are more intelligent aliens, we still have a role to play in our corner of the universe.

I think understanding our origins is a noble goal etc. It’s not all about making life as pleasant as possible for everyone, although that’s a part of it.

I see nothing demeaning about accepting our role in the level of organization of matter and using it to do good in the world, and to learn, and to develop.

Could be that in the end we’re a part of God, and as a species this is our role in the whole show.

From my perspective the Christian idea of God takes away from humanity. The idea that we’re sinful from the beginning. I hear religious folk sometimes say how everything good comes from God and the only thing that comes from us is sin. How is that ennobling?

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

Oh, but this isn’t an arguemnt against a first cause. There are still the laws of physics to deal with, obviously this “pop out of nothing” is all in accordance with the laws.

This was intended as an argument against determinism, against us not having any free will. There is a fundamental uncertainty about particles, there is no chain of cause and effect as there is in a classical universe.

Therefore there’s room for free will.

But what if there is a law governing the “popping into existence” of particles and we just don’t know it yet? Also, isn’t it the case that once the particles are in existence, they are governed by laws?

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

Well I wouldn’t say it’s the only end. I think if for example there is no God and we’re either the only or one of the many highly intelligent/conscious species, then it falls to us to understand this world and to organize it.

It seems very uplifting to me. If we’re the highest form of life in the universe, then making things good for everyone is our responsibility. If there are more intelligent aliens, we still have a role to play in our corner of the universe.

I think understanding our origins is a noble goal etc. It’s not all about making life as pleasant as possible for everyone, although that’s a part of it.

I see nothing demeaning about accepting our role in the level of organization of matter and using it to do good in the world, and to learn, and to develop.

Could be that in the end we’re a part of God, and as a species this is our role in the whole show.

From my perspective the Christian idea of God takes away from humanity. The idea that we’re sinful from the beginning. I hear religious folk sometimes say how everything good comes from God and the only thing that comes from us is sin. How is that ennobling?

Well, it depends on how that is interpreted. If its interpreted in an extreme sense then I would have a problem with it. But if its just saying that all that is good is made by God and sin comes into the picture when we introduce it, then I have no problem with it.

I also have no problem with the notion that we are, by nature, intrinsically disposed to evil. I think this is an essential part of being bound up with nonbeing and matter. We have an inherent drive for self preference and maintanence of our own comfort and this is the origin of evil I think. At the same time, we are given the means to overcome it so I think it is our vocation to overcome that which is imperfect and lazy in us and achieve our divinization. This is done by perfection in virtue.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

But what if there is a law governing the “popping into existence” of particles and we just don’t know it yet? Also, isn’t it the case that once the particles are in existence, they are governed by laws?

It’s possible. Scientific theories are never final. I am not a physicist either, but from everything I have read the subatomic world is anything but deterministic.

Who knows! There is a lot of evidence for the mind-brain connection though. Language, memory, vision, etc. are all in the brain. Brain disorders such as schizophrenia will give you hallucination, mess with your thoughts. Brain damage can wipe out the person inside.

I don’t see any supernatural in human consciousness.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

Well, it depends on how that is interpreted. If its interpreted in an extreme sense then I would have a problem with it. But if its just saying that all that is good is made by God and sin comes into the picture when we introduce it, then I have no problem with it.

I also have no problem with the notion that we are, by nature, intrinsically disposed to evil. I think this is an essential part of being bound up with nonbeing and matter. We have an inherent drive for self preference and maintanence of our own comfort and this is the origin of evil I think. At the same time, we are given the means to overcome it so I think it is our vocation to overcome that which is imperfect and lazy in us and achieve our divinization. This is done by perfection in virtue.

But what is so evil about maintaining our comfort? Don’t you think that sin is greatly exaggerated in Christianity? I hear so much about giving up the world, the evils of the flesh, etc. But why are all these things evil? I understnad murder, rape, torture, but doing something to be comfortable?

If there is a God, then he gave us these bodies and put us into this world to live in it, not to reject it. Maybe our very purpose is to organize our little part of the world and to understand it. Denying the world seems kind of blasphemous to me, it’s like denying the place God put us in. Denying the flesh is like denying the body God put us in. If there is a God at all.

I understand that there needs to be moderation etc. But for example in Catholicism the lifestyle of monks and nuns is highly revered. I have never understood it. I don’t see the good in what they are doing.

 

[Rejoice]

To SolarWind:

Please check out the amazon reviews of “Modern Physics, Ancient Faith” by Stephen M. Barr and seriously consider reading it. I think it is right up your alley and will address many of your concerns.

Also, if you want a direct experience of God don’t just pray to Him but also try to do what He asks of us - do it in faith even before you believe. That means go to Mass, take advantage of the sacraments (assuming you’re Catholic), read the Bible, read the Catechism and try to live out all of its moral precepts. Try to cut back on the worldly distractions that fill most of our days. Do all of this and you will know God. This is how you meet Him halfway in faith. Praying may not be enough if you are at the same time stubbornly holding onto a way of life that is directly opposed to God’s will - especially if you are aware that it is so opposed.

Continue in your search for the Truth, humbly, and you will find it.

God bless you and I will pray for you.

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

But what is so evil about maintaining our comfort? Don’t you think that sin is greatly exaggerated in Christianity? I hear so much about giving up the world, the evils of the flesh, etc. But why are all these things evil? I understnad murder, rape, torture, but doing something to be comfortable?

If there is a God, then he gave us these bodies and put us into this world to live in it, not to reject it. Maybe our very purpose is to organize our little part of the world and to understand it. Denying the world seems kind of blasphemous to me, it’s like denying the place God put us in. Denying the flesh is like denying the body God put us in. If there is a God at all.

I understand that there needs to be moderation etc. But for example in Catholicism the lifestyle of monks and nuns is highly revered. I have never understood it. I don’t see the good in what they are doing.

You make a number of good points and I can picture Aristotle making many of the same points to the early Christians. Of course, he would make the same points to his pagan platonist brethren. Pagan neoplatonism was just as negative on the body as Christianity if not more so. I suppose its a question of whether our existence is a fall into matter or is intended to be an embodiment in matter.

I would say too, by the way, that Christian attitudes toward the body and world are not uniform. In fact, they are not even uniform within Catholic theology. That being said: I see two reasonable positions:

1.) A kind of Aristotelian position/common sense that suggests that a life of virtue and moderation is best for us.
2.) A more ascetic/Platonic view that sees asceticism and rejection of the visible world as a way of attaining transcendence.

I wonder if one’s choice in the matter is governed by temperment more than anything else.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

You make a number of good points and I can picture Aristotle making many of the same points to the early Christians. Of course, he would make the same points to his pagan platonist brethren. Pagan neoplatonism was just as negative on the body as Christianity if not more so. I suppose its a question of whether our existence is a fall into matter or is intended to be an embodiment in matter.

I would say too, by the way, that Christian attitudes toward the body and world are not uniform. In fact, they are not even uniform within Catholic theology. That being said: I see two reasonable positions:

1.) A kind of Aristotelian position/common sense that suggests that a life of virtue and moderation is best for us.
2.) A more ascetic/Platonic view that sees asceticism and rejection of the visible world as a way of attaining transcendence.

I wonder if one’s choice in the matter is governed by temperment more than anything else.

I don’t know. The second view seems very insane to me if taken seriously. How can a human being reject the visible world? What would he do all day? Don’t people go crazy in prison isolation?

It seems very unhealthy to me. People need other people, people need relationships, people need interaction, people need experiences. Why would God put us in this amazing and very interesting world if he wants us to sit in dark rooms by ourselves and meditate?

Further, what is the value of a life spent that way? It almost seems wasted. That person could have been doing so many things!

I am aware of this rejection of the body and the world idea among some philosophers and gnostic sects back the first few centuries of Christianity. But all of them seem insane to me. Modern man has almost completely rejected this idea, and with good reason. Frankly I doubt that many people back in the day followed it, maybe an eccentric few.

If you give up the world i.e. everything people have thought of, everything people have come up with, the ways people interact with each other, and you give up your body and its natural desires, then what do you have left? Hard to imagine that it’s possible to live this way and remain sane.

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

I don’t know. The second view seems very insane to me if taken seriously. How can a human being reject the visible world? What would he do all day? Don’t people go crazy in prison isolation?

It seems very unhealthy to me. People need other people, people need relationships, people need interaction, people need experiences. Why would God put us in this amazing and very interesting world if he wants us to sit in dark rooms by ourselves and meditate?

Further, what is the value of a life spent that way? It almost seems wasted. That person could have been doing so many things!

I am aware of this rejection of the body and the world idea among some philosophers and gnostic sects back the first few centuries of Christianity. But all of them seem insane to me. Modern man has almost completely rejected this idea, and with good reason. Frankly I doubt that many people back in the day followed it, maybe an eccentric few.

If you give up the world i.e. everything people have thought of, everything people have come up with, the ways people interact with each other, and you give up your body and its natural desires, then what do you have left? Hard to imagine that it’s possible to live this way and remain sane.

Most Buddhists and Hindus I know who reject the visible world as being an illusion seem to be healthy and sane to me. I am not saying that I wholeheartedly agree with that, but it is possible to the visible, empirical world as the source of sufferings and woes. Such has been the view of the Platonists, Stoics, most early Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus.

 

[kildare]

DreadVandal:

Most Buddhists and Hindus I know who reject the visible world as being an illusion seem to be healthy and sane to me. I am not saying that I wholeheartedly agree with that, but it is possible to the visible, empirical world as the source of sufferings and woes. Such has been the view of the Platonists, Stoics, most early Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus.

I’m not sure.
Monism holds that there is only one ultimate reality, be it Material Monism(Atheism, i.e theer is only the material) or Spiritual Monism(we are all part of God and the world is an illusion=Eastern thought). In contrast Christian Theism says that God is a separate reality from creation, and that we are each one a separate reality, which makes sense to me.

 

[john_doran]

solarwind23:

One example of an uncaused event is a particle/anti-paticle pair coming into existence out of nowhere for a brief instant of time in a vacuum and then annihilating. (This effect has been measured)

that it comes “out of nowhere” is speculation: hidden variables theories, which are formally identical to the canonical QM interpretation, say that they don’t come out of nowhere, and that it just ***seems ***like that because we don’t have enough information.

solarwind23:

One of the key notions of quantum mechanics is inherent uncertainty, that particles exist in a state of superposition until they are measured. For example the quantum picture of the electron around the atom is that it’s spread out over an area, being in several places at once so to speak. And they say it’s not just our inablity to know exactly, but an inherent property of matter.

again, the collapse of the wave function considered as something more than a peice of mathematical formalism, is philosophy: it’s an interpretation of the math, and is certainly not entailed by it. there are a number of QM models on which there is no such collapse.

solarwind23:

This is the common interpretation, but not the only one. Of couse it is just a model, who knows what really happens.

you do not consistently talk about these things as if there are any other plausible models…

 

[DreadVandal]

john doran:

that it comes “out of nowhere” is speculation: hidden variables theories, which are formally identical to the canonical QM interpretation, say that they don’t come out of nowhere, and that it just ***seems ***like that because we don’t have enough information.

again, the collapse of the wave function considered as something more than a peice of mathematical formalism, is philosophy: it’s an interpretation of the math, and is certainly not entailed by it. there are a number of QM models on which there is no such collapse.

you do not consistently talk about these things as if there are any other plausible models…

This is why I take contemporary physics with a grain of salt when I’m thinking about metaphysical issues. I often laugh when I read one month in Scientific American how String Theory is the key to explaining everything and then 3 months later I read an article saying that String theory is falling apart. People thought that Newton had solved all the problems of physics in his day. We know better now. There is a certain degree of historical relativity in scientific theory that can’t be avoided. Science is not straightforward “objective” fact.

 

[john_doran]

DreadVandal:

There is a certain degree of historical relativity in scientific theory that can’t be avoided. Science is not straightforward “objective” fact.

yeah, no kidding, huh? i always find it slightly sad and amusing (mostly sad) how often people who have obviously read almost none of the history or philosophy of science trivialize the process to something like a single, monolithic and almost unanimous progression of theoretical development, governed by two basic norms: occam’s razor and falsification.

in reality, there are an almost bewildering array of theories to account for the phenomena, each with different strengths and weaknesses, and an even larger array of outstanding fundamental problems for which no solution currently exists. which, quite frankly, is what i find so compelling about science.

anyway. i’m just saying.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

Most Buddhists and Hindus I know who reject the visible world as being an illusion seem to be healthy and sane to me. I am not saying that I wholeheartedly agree with that, but it is possible to the visible, empirical world as the source of sufferings and woes. Such has been the view of the Platonists, Stoics, most early Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus.

Well, it is one thing to philosophically hold such a belief and quite another to live it.

I can hold all sorts of beliefs that won’t harm me if I don’t act on them!

If they really rejected the world you wouldn’t know them, they’d be sitting alone somewhere meditating.

 

[solarwind23]

john doran:

that it comes “out of nowhere” is speculation: hidden variables theories, which are formally identical to the canonical QM interpretation, say that they don’t come out of nowhere, and that it just ***seems ***like that because we don’t have enough information.

There is also the many-worlds theory, which holds that everything that is possible happened in one of the countless copies of this universe. In fact, each time you’re faced with a choice the universe splits to allow all possibilities to take place.

This is also “formally equivalent” whatever that means in the sense that it can give the same answers mathematically.

But like the hidden variables interpretation it is very unpopular and few subscribe to this view.

I was talking about the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation which is held by the overwhelming majority of phycisists.

I am not treating these implications as facts, and who knows what a possible unified theory will tell us about matter. I don’t know this. You don’t know this.

But quantum mechanics has been tested over and over, look up the EPR paradox and Aspect’s experiments.

If I’m not mistaken Bell made a theorem about measurements (this does not depend on physical theories) and the degree to which results would correlate if 1) logic works 2) information does not travel faster than the speed of light 3) the universe is “real”

Actual experiments performed exceed the limit or whatever, and one or more of those assumptions has to go.

Traditionally 3) is rejected and you get t his fundamental uncertainty/superposition/whatever stuff. “Hidden variables” theories reject 2, they say information can and does travel faster than light. But this goes against all of Einstein’s theories for which there is also plenty of experimental support.

Anyway, the relevance of all this is that the measurement theorem does not depend on any physical theory and needs to be accounted for by any theory. As far as I know anyway since I am not a physicist

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

This is why I take contemporary physics with a grain of salt when I’m thinking about metaphysical issues. I often laugh when I read one month in Scientific American how String Theory is the key to explaining everything and then 3 months later I read an article saying that String theory is falling apart. People thought that Newton had solved all the problems of physics in his day. We know better now. There is a certain degree of historical relativity in scientific theory that can’t be avoided. Science is not straightforward “objective” fact.

No, but it’s the best thing we have when it comes to understanding the nature of our universe. I would go with science over arm-chair type of philosophy any day. You can philosophize virtually anything. You can think other people and the world away with solipsism and it can all be nice and logically consistent etc.

But the true test for any system of thought is how it bears out experimentally. By their fruits you shall know them, no?

That there are many different models to accomodate the same data, or that physics is incomplete in that we don’t have unified theory, and that who knows what better models lie in the future doesn’t mean we should discount what we presently have.

What would you rather look to for truth? The musings of philosophers or theologians? There are so many of them, all with interesting ideas, interesting ways of looking at the world, and they’re all so different.

And above all there is no proof for any of their thinking. Their systems are untested, they could very well have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Various philosophical and theological systems make huge claims about the universe, about human beings etc. and the corroboration is nonexistent. In fact those systems are such that they cannot even be tested in principle.

I’ll take incomplete scientific theories which have proven time and time again to predict accurately what happens in the real world over this any day.