Main Reason For Atheism

[TTM]

(remembering that science doesn’t address the issue).

Mind you, scientific evidence seem to me to support theism of some sort. I’m sure most of you would be familiar with the Anthropic Principle, and some of you may know about the complexity of the DNA (frequently mentioned together with the book, “Darwin’s Black Box”). So while science cannot provide proof, it can provide evidence. I think.

God bless!
TTM

 

[AnAtheist]

TTM:

Mind you, scientific evidence seem to me to support theism of some sort. I’m sure most of you would be familiar with the Anthropic Principle,

Curious, I always thought the Anthropic Principle is a good argument against the complexity/fine tune argument, thus supporting a universe without a god.
Could you elaborate, how it supports a god?

 

[SamCA]

AnAtheist:

Curious, I always thought the Anthropic Principle is a good argument against the complexity/fine tune argument, thus supporting a universe without a god.
Could you elaborate, how it supports a god?

It makes the fairly compelling – at least on the face of it – point that if the physical laws which govern our universe were different to even the tiniest degree, it would be impossible for life as we are capable of imagining it to exist. For that matter, stars and planets wouldn’t form.

I find this argument breaks down a bit when you consider the possibility that this might not be the only time we’ve ever had a universe. There might be a vast multiverse of universes. Or perhaps there’s only one at a time, but they expand and contract over and over again in an infinite cycle. If there’s an infinite – or just really, really large – number of universes, then the fact that this one is very unlikely doesn’t mean much. This just happens to be the one that shook out this way.

However, if there is a single universe, or one of a small number of universes, then it is pretty surprising. Not hard evidence, but interesting circumstancial evidence.

But it’s impossible to derive conclusions on it until we work out the single/plural universe question.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

But it’s impossible to derive conclusions on it until we work out the single/plural universe question.
There were a lot of mights, ifs, perhaps, buts in your last post. From a scientific perspective, there is only one certain universe. You are willing to posit the existence of other universes without a shred of scientific evidence, or even evidence that is not scientific … pure speculation … rather than to posit God.

Interesting that you are so confident we can “work out the single/plural universe question.” How do you know we can?

 

[AnAtheist]

SamCA:

It makes the fairly compelling – at least on the face of it – point that if the physical laws which govern our universe were different to even the tiniest degree, it would be impossible for life as we are capable of imagining it to exist. For that matter, stars and planets wouldn’t form.

I guess, I confused it with the Anthropocentric Principle.

 

[Chris_W]

TTM:

So while science cannot provide proof, it can provide evidence. I think.

Indeed. But both sides see evidence in science to support their belief systems. Therefore, I udnerstood that we had agreed in this thread (back a ways) that we would consider science neutral on God. This received no objection at the time from atheists or theists. Since that time, my question has been “so what other evidences help you form your belief system”.

So far, all I can recall viewing here are atheistic rebuttals (or attempted rebutals) of thiestic arguments or beliefs. I would like to see the arguements that atheists believe would support their belief system as well (rather than just atheistic objections to arguments posed by theists). Surely there must exist reasons that a person would choose to believe in Naturalism aren’t there?

An atheist can say theistic arguments are inadequate or flawed, but something must have moved them from the agnostic position to the atheistic position…or…posed another way, without solid reasons to remain atheistic, why would a person remain atheistic? Something must motivate the person away from agnosticism and toward atheism. Theists may have their suspicions as to what those motivations may be, but we’re not supposed to attempt to judge the hearts of others, …so only the atheists can truely answer the question.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

An atheist can say theistic arguments are inadequate or flawed, but something must have moved them from the agnostic position to the atheistic position…or…posed another way, without solid reasons to remain atheistic, why would a person remain atheistic?

You cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly one reason. There are many reasons not to believe in gods. Of course there is an uncertainty left when comes down to some god. But practically there is no difference between “there is no” and “the probalbility is so incredibly low, that I do think, there is no”.
To divide atheism in a strong and weak position, as it iso ften done in English speaking world, does not cover all aspects of atheism.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheismus#Systematik_des_Begriffs has a much better systematics of that term.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Surely there must exist reasons that a person would choose to believe in Naturalism aren’t there?

Sure. Naturalism always works.

When I boil an egg for several minutes I get a hard egg. I can pray for a hard egg or perform magical hardening rituals for weeks, that does not concern the egg. The egg is not impressed by its horoscope, I can boil it on holy ground, I can curse it, the end result will be the same.

Non-natural “things” tend to not work at all, at least they stop working when a non-believer is around. Bad aura, I guess.
I remember that self-proclaimed witch, who said she can appear in other people’s dreams and wanted to proof that to me. I am still waiting.

In short, put natural things to the test, they work, put non-natural things to the test they fail.

 

[francisca]

AnAtheist:

Sure. Naturalism always works.

When I boil an egg for several minutes I get a hard egg. I can pray for a hard egg or perform magical hardening rituals for weeks, that does not concern the egg. The egg is not impressed by its horoscope, I can boil it on holy ground, I can curse it, the end result will be the same.

Non-natural “things” tend to not work at all, at least they stop working when a non-believer is around. Bad aura, I guess.
I remember that self-proclaimed witch, who said she can appear in other people’s dreams and wanted to proof that to me. I am still waiting.

In short, put natural things to the test, they work, put non-natural things to the test they fail.

How about two men suffered from the same sickness. The medications given by the same doctor at the same hospital were the same, yet the younger one died while the older one survived ?

The younger-- naturally – was stronger, thus presumably had more chance to survive. Yet he died.

I tell you te reason : because the one who healed the older one was not the medication, nor the equipment, nor the doctor. Neither the reason the younger one died was the sickness.

Yes they both were sick in reality, yet factual reality that we observe is not always truthful. It betrays us all the time, thus we can conclude that it is not the “highest truth”.

But of course from your perspective-- as you put it in the above post-- the natural is the most faithful. Thus you put your hope in it. But if you are more careful in your observation, you might see the opposite scenario : the most clever is not always the most successful, the richest is not always the happiest, the strongest does not always win. This is because things does not happened for natural reason but spiritual.

Boiling egg result is sure in the natural, so long it has nothing to do with “life giving” reality, it is nothing but a natural thing. So the universe without our live is nothing but natural. But when we talk about our existance in it, that is the other reality that does not always play with the law of the natural, as the above example.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

In short, put natural things to the test, they work, put non-natural things to the test they fail.

But in short again, there is no natural explanation for the existence of our universe. We know at one time it did not exist. It was created … and created with a remarkable (not natural) propensity for life. Even the atheist Antony Flew (along with others) have come around to that view that there is something strangely unnatural about the design of our universe. This view has so overtaken him that he has abandoned his lifelong atheism.

What atheist might call unnatural, theists would call very simply a “miracle.” The hand of the Supernatural is at work. The hand of the supernatural, put to the test, did not fail in the creation of the universe. Since the whole universe is a miracle, everything in it is a miracle. From that perspective, we cannot distinguish between the natural and the supernatural, except to say that the old miracle seems “natural” to us because we are living in it and have known nothing but it all our lives.

The atheist never sees the hand of the Almighty tested and delivering the goods because he wears blinders. *He does not want to see. *But theists experience God’s work daily in their lives because both their heads and their hearts are open to the signs God sends that He is with us and working wonders among us all the time. The art of reading signs those signs of supernatural favor (or even disfavor) is unknown by atheists because they deny there are any such signs anywhere … the universe being ultimately meaningless and without design.

In short, you might say the atheist has put nature to the test, and nature has failed to rise above itself.

 

[Chris_W]

GK Chesterton said (paraphrasing) Modern scientists try to explain everything in nature in terms of scientific law, but what they are calling the laws of science is merely the description of how nature is observed. They can describe how a leaf is green and how it grows, but it does not answer the question of why the leaf is green and not scarlet, for example. Science is stated as if things have to be that way, but they do not necessarily. We change what we do, because we are tired of doing something else. A child is not so easily tired, and therefore tells the parent “do it again” over and over again. Nature could very easily be God simply not tiring of the way things are. Nature could be the way it is because each day God says, “Do it again.” Chesterton feels that because the world might have been something entirely different, then it must have been the will of the creator that it is the way it is.

To say that a person can generally trust nature to explain how things react is true in most circumstances. This may lead a person who sees no “proof” for God’s existence to lean toward trusting only in nature. But I maintain that this simple explanation is a long way from atheism. An inclination to trust only what can be explained by the laws of nature is still some distance from the conclusion there is no God.

What I am interested in is what moves a person from incredulity about God, to the actual rejection of God. Unfortunately, after all that has been said so far in this thread, I am no closer to having an answer to that than I was at the beginning of it.

I have still not heard a reason to believe, even if the person sperceives no compelling reason to acknowledge God, that there must necessarily be naturalistic answers for how the universe came to be. Without an answer to this question the person must necessarily admit it is possible God does exist. With this admition, the honest position must become an admition of uncertainty. I see no way around it.

Once uncertainty is recognized, a decision must be made: Either continue to be uncertain, or delve into the possibilities with an open mind. Uncertainty will result most assuredly in restlessness of the heart. But to delve into the possibility with an open mind is a risky venture…for one may discover what they would like not to know. It will change the way a life is lived, which may seem to have hard consequences, but in truth it liberates the person.

I hope and pray continually that An Atheist, Monarchy, Cheddar, SamCA, members of my family (a couple of whom are agnostic or atheist), and anyone who is questioning, will have their restlessness of heart (recognized or not) settled by the peace and comfort of an intimate relationship with our loving God and Father. May God pour out His abundant graces upon all of us, and may we all be receptive to His gifts.

With that prayer I will depart from this thread. Thank you all for your participation in this interesting dialogue and for entertaining my questions.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ChrisW

JMJ

Thank you so much for your insightful comments and patience along the way.

Since we have got to the point of repeating ourselves, I too will depart with prayers for all those who do not want to believe that God will, in His own time and way, change their hearts.

God bless us all.

Gilbert

 

[SamCA]

But it’s impossible to derive conclusions on it until we work out the single/plural universe question.
There were a lot of mights, ifs, perhaps, buts in your last post. From a scientific perspective, there is only one certain universe. You are willing to posit the existence of other universes without a shred of scientific evidence, or even evidence that is not scientific … pure speculation … rather than to posit God.

No, I’m positing them both and saying we don’t have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on the anthropic principle, either way.

Interesting that you are so confident we can “work out the single/plural universe question.” How do you know we can?

I don’t. I’m merely saying that unless we do, the anthropic principle doesn’t provide evidence one way or the other.

 

[SamCA]

Chris W:

An atheist can say theistic arguments are inadequate or flawed, but something must have moved them from the agnostic position to the atheistic position…or…posed another way, without solid reasons to remain atheistic, why would a person remain atheistic? Something must motivate the person away from agnosticism and toward atheism. Theists may have their suspicions as to what those motivations may be, but we’re not supposed to attempt to judge the hearts of others, …so only the atheists can truely answer the question.

For me, there’s a very fuzzy line between atheism and agnosticism. It largely boils down to the idea that I don’t believe in anything without evidence for its existence, be it God, the Loch Ness Monster, or psychic powers.

I don’t consider myself agnostic on the Loch Ness Monster, because I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing. But I’m not certain there’s no Loch Ness Monster. I don’t believe there’s no Loch Ness Monster, I merely suspect rather strongly.

I feel the same way about God. In the absence of any strong evidence for such an extraordinary claim, I don’t see any reason to grant it any credence.

 

[AnAtheist]

SamCA:

For me, there’s a very fuzzy line between atheism and agnosticism. It largely boils down to the idea that I don’t believe in anything without evidence for its existence, be it God, the Loch Ness Monster, or psychic powers.

I don’t consider myself agnostic on the Loch Ness Monster, because I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing. But I’m not certain there’s no Loch Ness Monster. I don’t believe there’s no Loch Ness Monster, I merely suspect rather strongly.

Exactly.

I feel the same way about God. In the absence of any strong evidence for such an extraordinary claim, I don’t see any reason to grant it any credence.

And keeping in mind that all the philosophical arguments for a creator only point to* some kind of creator*, the claims made by various religions are all very far fetched. Thus, even I would be convinced of a supernatural cause, that would lead to Deism at most. And that would not change my life, I’d still live without worshipping anything - so where is the difference?

 

[TTM]

I see that the details of the Anthropic Principle has been discussed. Well, yes, it is very well possible that it is one of infinite multiverses (for the “big crunch” theory, as I understand it, has have been disproved with evidence for an infinitely expanding universe). No evidence is a complete one, of course, but examination of the Principle does lead one to suspect some sort of intelligent activity, especially combined with other evidence such as the complexity (and therefore improbability of random emergence) of the DNA, chromosomes, and cells. Heck, it’s hard enough putting a protein together.

And keeping in mind that all the philosophical arguments for a creator only point to some kind of creator

Is this to be believed absolutely, or can this position be challenged?

To take a line from the Buddhist story - one must empty the cup first!

God bless,
TTM

 

[Booger]

Gilbert Keith:

AnAtheist
Even the atheist Antony Flew (along with others) have come around to that view that there is something strangely unnatural about the design of our universe. This view has so overtaken him that he has abandoned his lifelong atheism.

Did he really?
atheism.about.com/b/a/119216.htm
And even if he had, would that make him right?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOOGER

Even the atheist Antony Flew (along with others) have come around to that view that there is something strangely unnatural about the design of our universe. This view has so overtaken him that he has abandoned his lifelong atheism.

GO THOU AND DO LIKWISE!

 

[Booger]

BOOGER

Even the atheist Antony Flew (along with others) have come around to that view that there is something strangely unnatural about the design of our universe. This view has so overtaken him that he has abandoned his lifelong atheism.

GO THOU AND DO LIKWISE!

That’s all you have to say? How about addressing the article.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Booger

No, you address it.

Where were you when this thread was humming? Too late now. I’m all played out, but not so played out I can’t offer an atheist the last word.

Go for it.

God bless,
Gilbert