Is Atheism Positive?

[Brendan_64]

Then please do not complain if there’s some push back. It does rankle a little that you readily admit that your job is to effectively come around to my place to convince me that you are right and I am wrong and then whinge when I come around to yours and argue back.

I guess you think I am supposed to just sit here and listen attentively.

No need to take such a sarcastic, dismissive tone. My remarks were directed at Oreoracle who chooses to reply in a civil and courteous manner.

 

[Bradski]

No need to take such a saacastic, dismissive tone.

My apologies. I was a little clumsy. It was meant to be light hearted. But the point I was making is meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My response to Brendan applies here. I remind you that we’re discussing large demographics here. Finding a few quotes from celebrity atheists does nothing to illustrate a general trend. The last time that religion was “attacked” by science was when it attempted to Trojan Horse intelligent design into science classrooms. As long as religion doesn’t try to disguise itself as science, most people get along swimmingly.

This is disingenuous.

Religion never tries to disguise itself as science. It was the medieval monks of the Middle Ages who gave the spur to the rise of modern science.

As long as scientists do not invade the arena of philosophy and theology with their superstitious scientism, religion and science could get along swimmingly.

Intelligent design is still a plausible philosophical argument, and many scientists, including Einstein, have seen at least some kind of God behind the visible universe.

“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” Albert Einstein

 

[Oreoracle]

This is disingenuous.

Do you deny that there was a movement to pedal intelligent design in science classrooms?

The issue isn’t whether or not intelligent design is a decent philosophical position. There are any number of positions one may hold that are not scientific in nature, and although those positions may be fine things to consider in other aspects of life, they should be kept out of science class. At the end of the day, intelligent design is not a science. The Supreme Court ruled that it is creationism masquerading as science, and as such should not be taught in science classrooms.

The debate over intelligent design was, to the best of my knowledge, the last instance in which there was a widespread conflict between science and religion. The religious and scientists have always called each other names, sure, but this was the last time the conflict existed on an institutional level, with real consequences and laws at stake. I hope we can agree that intelligent design proponents were wrong in trying to hijack the science curriculum.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you deny that there was a movement to pedal intelligent design in science classrooms?

Not at all. The intelligent design advocates wanted to explore what the atheists scholars (who dominate public education) did not want to see explored, the possibility that the universe in general and life in particular was intelligently designed. That subject could always be explored without reference to any particular deity.

Even Einstein, who was not a biblical creationist, had no problem with that because Einstein was not an atheist and could see the convergence of science with the belief in some kind of intelligent design.

Whether the debate over intelligent design was properly introduced in science textbooks is not anything I know much about.

If the debate had been introduced into the curriculum of a high school course that explored some classical philosophical issues, would you have objected?

 

[Oreoracle]

Whether the debate over intelligent design was properly introduced in science textbooks is not anything I know much about.

The abridged version is this: Creationists had tried to push teachings about Yahweh in particular into the science classroom. The Supreme Court ruled against it. Later, intelligent design proponents took the same textbooks and just replaced each instance of “creation” with “intelligent design” and “creator” with “intelligent designer”. After this was pointed out, the Court ruled that intelligent design theory was religious in nature.

In case you’d like something to Google, I believe “Of Pandas and People” was such a textbook. There’s a whole Youtube documentary on the topic.

If the debate had been introduced into the curriculum of a high school course that explored some classical philosophical issues, would you have objected?

I may have accepted it conditionally. Firstly, intelligent design was not introduced in a manner appropriate for a philosophy class before the Court’s ruling. Few arguments were presented for it–it was essentially just dogmatic assertion after dogmatic assertion.

One weak attempt at an argument was an appeal to so-called “irreducible complexity”, but this idea has since been refuted. I don’t want to go into too much detail since evolution is still banned as a topic, but I just wanted to point out that intelligent design was never a very fleshed-out theory as it was presented to students in science classes.

Assuming it were a more satisfactory theory, I wouldn’t be opposed to teaching it in principle. However, I have misgivings about religious classes in high schools. Religious classes in public colleges are less biased because they have a large variety of students whose toes they must tap-dance around. Public colleges are accountable to everyone in the state. High schools are much more locally controlled, so it’s easier to just say, “Most of us in this town are Christian anyway, so let’s teach the Christian version.” High school teachers are definitely less cautious about potential religious bias in my experience.

I do find the idea that there is a “religion-neutral” form of intelligent design to be doubtful as well. How would intelligent design accommodate, say, polytheism? Are there multiple creators with possibly conflicting visions of what the world should be like?

 

[Bradski]

Not at all. The intelligent design advocates wanted to explore…the possibility that the universe in general and life in particular was intelligently designed. That subject could always be explored without reference to any particular deity.

No they didn’t. They wanted to bring in Creationism in through the back door, wearing a wig and a false nose so nobody what recognise it. What a laugh…

I thought we’s reached a point where we could talk about this in the past tense, but now you have a potential president advocating the same junk.

The Republicans are killing satire.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The Christian also is required to claim personal responsibility for his deeds. He also owns his own personal direction, and the Catholic in particular is urged to go to confession to confront in depth his own failings and seek to correct them.

Quite true…yet where the Catholic has the ability to confess a wrong-doing and so, in his mind, be absolved from further guilt of same, the atheist must contend with a concrete path to resolve his/her misdeed as there is no spiritual escape route.

Further, the atheist may not appeal to God for assistance in this, or any other matter, and so must contend with solving all such issues directly. Without God, the atheist must clearly bear full responsibility for action and/or inaction…for simply praying for the intentions of another does not exist as an actual strategy for coping with difficulty.

Whereas the Christian might feel that prayer is an action, the atheist’s activity must be completely concrete and physical.

I don’t see that the progress of science has been fettered for several centuries now. On the other hand, the progress of science without consideration of religious values such as “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you” has witnessed an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to annihilate the human race, not to mention other forms of earth spoliation attendant upon well known scientific/technological advances.

If all of the focus currently lathered upon religion were shifted so as to povide only a scientic way forward to solve societal ills it must be reasoned that the result would be an incredible increase in scientific concentration…for little else of purpose would remain.

Further, the friction created by needlessly attempting to reconcile a biblical version of events with reality would be removed from any discussion…issues such as a 6000 year old earth versus all evidence to the contrary would be eliminated in favor of more direct and steady result…

Yet whether unfettered scientific progress is a net benefit certainly should be addressed. Naturally there is a balance. The question is whether religion provides for this…? For in the instance of the nuclear weapon arsenol it must be calmly reasoned that it was a largely Christian nation that introduced same to the world…and a largely atheistic one that subsquently attempted to keep pace…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No they didn’t. They wanted to bring in Creationism in through the back door, wearing a wig and a false nose so nobody what recognise it. What a laugh…

I thought we’s reached a point where we could talk about this in the past tense, but now you have a potential president advocating the same junk.

Is this junk?

“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. **The child notes a definite plan **in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. **That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. **We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” Albert Einstein

Would you object to these remarks being introduced into a high school classroom for purpose of discussing intelligent design?

On what grounds? That Einstein was a Creationist? I don’t think so!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I hope we can agree that intelligent design proponents were wrong in trying to hijack the science curriculum.

Intelligent design is built upon the concept of irreducible complexity, which most certainly has not been refuted, and could only be refuted if science could demonstrate abiogenesis resulting from a pure chance combination of atoms and molecules, which it has not done and could never do.

Abiogenesis is not evolution, so the two issues should not be conflated. Irreducible complexity applies only to abiogenesis, not to evolution.

Evolution is a banned topic in this forum.

Abiogenesis is not banned.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Atheists are tempted to believe it’s every man (and woman of course) for himself (herself) because in their scheme of things there is no reason why they exist. In a hostile universe they have no reason to believe we are all brothers and sisters

This is perhaps true on some level. Yet the thought does also run a bit deeper. For the atheist equally reasons, “And yet given there is nothing else of meaning in the universe I will ascribe an increase of purpose to the furthering of the relationships at hand…for what else holds value?” For essentially even the advancing of one’s own place in the world is a hollow victory to the atheist…

That claim (if they make it and quite a few atheists don’t) presupposes belief in free will which is very difficult to justify if we are just naked apes

Personal responsibility is all that exists for the atheist…it is the full portion laid out for him each day.

Further, free will has nothing whatsoever to do with our joint ancestral lineage. Free will is as much associated with personal responsiblity and self-determination as it might be considered to relate to spiritual charting for the theist. For the atheist typically has no reason to suspect anything other than free will to be at play in his life.

When I drifted away from the Church as a teenager I didn’t think of my faults - which I’m sure is true of many non-believers like girls and young women who have an abortion without even considering whether it’s right or wrong. How many atheists are asked to examine their conscience regularly? In my youth it was every night before we went to sleep!

This is certainly one point in favor of religion and spiritual progression…the examination of conscience is a routine the atheist clearly lacks as a regimin. Yet after a given examination what might a theist do in principle to rectify their given faults?

1. Pray for guidance?
2. Offer up sacrifices for atonement?
3. Seek inner peace through confession?

Yet if a crisis in conscience plagues the atheist what recourse might exist for its rectification?

1. Seek out and execute a concrete solution to the problem

In that case the atheist is more likely to be mistaken and not heed anyone else’s advice because often moral problems are not subjects we want to discuss and expose our weaknesses. That is why anonymous confession to a priest is very helpful and reassuring because he is used to dealing with such matters.

It is possible. Certainly even from a psychological perspective it offers a consoling purpose.

It was the Church that paved the way for the rise of science with its doctrine that we live in an intelligible universe designed by God and we are rational beings who are capable of understanding its mysteries because we are the stewards of Creation. It is due to the secular society that the abuse of the environment has accelerated without any concern for the welfare of the human race or the biosphere.

It could equally be argued that discovery of God was merely the first in a series of scientific thought processes…

As for abuse of the environment it could be argued that many viewed a world created specifically for them to be the ideal reason to do with it as they saw fit…

I entirely agree with you! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…

Very good…

 

[Oreoracle]

Intelligent design is built upon the concept of irreducible complexity, which most certainly has not been refuted, and could only be refuted if science could demonstrate abiogenesis resulting from a pure chance combination of atoms and molecules, which it has not done and could never do.

Let’s be clear about what irreducible complexity is. Irreducible complexity is the idea that mechanisms advantageous to organisms consist of many parts and that, since all parts must be present for the mechanisms to serve their purpose, they cannot have developed incrementally. Evolutionary biologists point out that even if you subtract parts from the mechanisms, you can still be left with simpler mechanisms that are also advantageous because they serve different purposes. In other words, there could have been a progression of increasingly complicated mechanisms, all advantageous to respective stages of an organism’s evolutionary history. The Youtube documentary I mentioned earlier contains concrete examples of this.

So no, evolutionary theory doesn’t have to say anything about abiogenesis to work around the problem of irreducible complexity. It was argued, for instance, that the rotating tail of a flagellum and its “motor” were too complex to arise incrementally since all pieces are necessary for the motor too work. Biologists pointed out that, with fewer pieces, you wouldn’t have a motor but essentially a syringe-like structure and, indeed, bacteria with these syringe-like features are the ancestors of the bacteria with the flagella. The fallacy of irreducible complexity is the refusal to consider that the function of a mechanism may change as it becomes more complicated.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let’s be clear about what irreducible complexity is. Irreducible complexity is the idea that mechanisms advantageous to organisms consist of many parts and that, since all parts must be present for the mechanisms to serve their purpose, they cannot have developed incrementally. Evolutionary biologists point out that even if you subtract parts from the mechanisms, you can still be left with simpler mechanisms that are also advantageous because they serve different purposes. In other words, there could have been a progression of increasingly complicated mechanisms, all advantageous to respective stages of an organism’s evolutionary history.

The critics of abiogenesis as an intelligently designed process is that they have yet to prove that abiogenesis occurred by chance instead of by intelligent design. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. One is therefore free to conclude the unlikelihood of chance and the likelihood of design, unless of course one is an atheist who cannot imagine an intelligent designer at work behind creation, a premise that Einstein himself dismissed.

 

[tonyrey]

If you want an example of something I would consider inherently negative about religion, then there it is: dogma. Dogma is bad for the religious. Dogma is bad for communist regimes. Dogma is bad regardless of whose wielding it, be they Catholic or atheist.

Do you believe you’re not dogmatic in any respect about religion? I certainly am as far as the Chance hypothesis is concerned. It baffles me that anyone can derive rational activity from mindless molecules. For me it is the height of absurdity - and negativity. It amounts to getting something for nothing…

 

[tonyrey]

The critics of abiogenesis as an intelligently designed process is that they have yet to prove that abiogenesis occurred by chance instead of by intelligent design. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. One is therefore free to conclude the unlikelihood of chance and the likelihood of design, unless of course one is an atheist who cannot imagine an intelligent designer at work behind creation, a premise that Einstein himself dismissed.

I don’t think we even need to go beyond Design, Charlie. That is surely enough to make a sceptic start thinking… It’s the thin end of the wedge - and a very sharp one at that!

 

[tonyrey]

…In other words, there could have been a progression of increasingly complicated mechanisms, all advantageous to respective stages of an organism’s evolutionary history.

The fatal flaw in that hypothesis is that no one has ever explained what initiated the increase in complexity, let alone how it led to rational, purposeful activity… That requires a very great leap of faith!

 

[Oreoracle]

The critics of abiogenesis as an intelligently designed process is that they have yet to prove that abiogenesis occurred by chance instead of by intelligent design. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. One is therefore free to conclude the unlikelihood of chance and the likelihood of design, unless of course one is an atheist who cannot imagine an intelligent designer at work behind creation, a premise that Einstein himself dismissed.

Even if I grant you that no progress has been made in developing a theory of abiogenesis, that isn’t relevant to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution just attempts to explain the diversity of life, not how it originated.

To argue that evolution is flawed because it doesn’t explain the origin of life is like saying history is flawed because it doesn’t explain what happened before humans kept records of events. That question is outside the scope of the field. You would have to reject every theory by this standard.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The critics of abiogenesis as an intelligently designed process is that they have yet to prove that abiogenesis occurred by chance instead of by intelligent design. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. One is therefore free to conclude the unlikelihood of chance and the likelihood of design, unless of course one is an atheist who cannot imagine an intelligent designer at work behind creation, a premise that Einstein himself dismissed.

Christians have yet to prove that Jesus’s resurrection really happened and isn’t just a story in the Bible. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. Therefore it’s likely the resurrection didn’t really happen and is just a story in the Bible.

Argument from ignorance FTW!

 

[cornbread_r2]

The critics of abiogenesis as an intelligently designed process is that they have yet to prove that abiogenesis occurred by chance instead of by intelligent design. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. One is therefore free to conclude the unlikelihood of chance and the likelihood of design, unless of course one is an atheist who cannot imagine an intelligent designer at work behind creation, a premise that Einstein himself dismissed.

Christians have yet to prove that Jesus’s resurrection really happened and isn’t just a story in the Bible. This they have not proved and never will be able to prove. Therefore it’s likely the resurrection didn’t really happen and is just a story in the Bible.

Argument from ignorance FTW!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To argue that evolution is flawed because it doesn’t explain the origin of life is like saying history is flawed because it doesn’t explain what happened before humans kept records of events.

I’m afraid we are not on the same page here. I never said that evolution is flawed because it doesn’t explain the origin of life. I said these are two separate questions. The logic behind evolution is no explanation for abiogenesis because abiogenesis is not is the first living organism that did not evolve from another living organism.