What are an atheist's assumptions?

[Mystic_Banana]

Critical thinking is a generic phenomena. Lots of engineers do not know it. It seems to me to be nothing more than the ability to recognize illogical propositions within any thought system. Evolutionists, for example, are incapable of applying critical thinking to neo-Darwinism. Cosmologists, to Big Bang theory. etc.

Etiquette is definitely not my strong point. Feel free to p(name removed by moderator)oint my occasional lapses, and I’ll do my best to correct them. Accept my apologies, please, for any offense. (I’ve decided to split from my current cherished other, and that is certain to improve my disposition.)

I know nothing about “burden of proof” except as it applies to the legal system. I’m not formally trained in philosophy, although I’ve published a book which presents one. I greatly appreciate the simple fact that a good physics theory allows one to design and build machines that work, and that a bad physics theory does not.

I extend this observation to human societies. We’ve experimented with a variety of different belief systems, many which have totally controlled a segment of human culture. This includes communist atheism. None of these seem to produce particularly effective societies. For awhile, U.S. society was looking to be the exception, but it is clearly going down the biffy, choked by its own wrong fundamental beliefs…

Therefore I conclude that no religious or atheistic belief system heretofore accepted in whole or part by any human society is correct. None produce widespread, long term good results.

By my standards, they have failed the burden of proof which I guess I’d call, efficacy.

I have to say Greylorn, I think that is a bizarre argument. Adherents are still human - and I really can’t see the US as ever having been a particularly effective example of religious society. Not since the Pilgrim Fathers and the Native Americans, anyway… even then, a society where religion is ubiquitous is still not one necessarily composed of saints. Where there’s a will…

 

[Oreoracle]

This may be a bit off topic but how come this doesn’t work for proponents of Intelligent Design? They have poked many holes in Darwinian evolution…

If I’m not mistaken, the faulty portions of Darwin’s theory have been omitted from the current theory of evolution taught in classrooms. You guys are hacking away at parts of a theory that have long since been abandoned. And just out of curiosity, do you feel that theistic evolution would be an untenable belief for a Christian to hold (untenable by Christian standards, anyway)? You’re giving off that vibe.

and have shown evidence of the *possibility * of design.

I don’t dispute that things can be designed, I just don’t see any reason to assume there is design, creation, order, or an underlying meaning for existence. Why assume it? Furthermore, the nature of this supposed designer is more of a supernature; God is said to have created the laws of nature as well as the entities affected by such. But how could God do that? The process remains unexplained even by its most devout supporters. This is why saying, “God did it” makes as much sense as saying, “the unicorns did it.” If you don’t understand the process, or even the (super)nature of the process, it makes no sense to consider ID a scientific matter. It’s simply not empirical. This is why Creationists/ID advocates are disliked: they want to push pseudo-science into science courses.

They have not come up with an alternative model because they have not yet found one, meaning that “they don’t know .” Yet they are treated as intellectually stunted and dishonest for honestly questioning a theory that does have holes.

As I stated above, the theory has been refined many times. Attacking the original theory and then claiming that the scientists of today adhere to it is a straw man argument.

What if a proposed creator did not possess omni-qualities and could be demonstrated through inference much the way the Big Bang is (and other scientific theories)? Are you philosophically opposed to the concept of a higher intelligence behind the universe or just the ones that propose such a creator possesses omni-qualities?

When you devise a viable means of inferring the supernatural from the natural world, you let me know. If you’re talking about philosophical rather than empirical inference, then I have to say that I put little stock into metaphysics. I could conjure up an argument to “prove” that only my own consciousness exists by discounting my senses as unreliable and labelling the physical world as a figment of my imagination. There is no metaphysical axiom opposed to this, nor is their a way to demonstrate that I would be incorrect. Metaphysics is mostly a load of fluff, and it really won’t help your case, in my opinion.

Why are you so convinced that we *cannot *know anything about a possible creator?

Well, you made two errors in your translation there. For one, I said that we can’t know anything about gods, not creators. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable. Secondly, I said that we can’t know that a god exists, not that we can’t know anything about him. Let’s say that God took an ethereal form and came to Earth right now. We could know by talking with him that he’s knowledgeable, but not that he’s all-knowing. By watching him, we could know that he’s powerful, but not that he’s all-powerful. We could know these things, but still fall short of fully understanding even a single property of God’s (all of his qualities are infinite, and we cannot conceive of infinity). If we don’t know of his properties, we can’t know that he’s God.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

If I’m not mistaken, the faulty portions of Darwin’s theory have been omitted from the current theory of evolution taught in classrooms. You guys are hacking away at parts of a theory that have long since been abandoned. And just out of curiosity, do you feel that theistic evolution would be an untenable belief for a Christian to hold (untenable by Christian standards, anyway)? You’re giving off that vibe.

I don’t dispute that things can be designed, I just don’t see any reason to assume there is design, creation, order, or an underlying meaning for existence. Why assume it? Furthermore, the nature of this supposed designer is more of a supernature; God is said to have created the laws of nature as well as the entities affected by such. But how could God do that? The process remains unexplained even by its most devout supporters. This is why saying, “God did it” makes as much sense as saying, “the unicorns did it.” If you don’t understand the process, or even the (super)nature of the process, it makes no sense to consider ID a scientific matter. It’s simply not empirical. This is why Creationists/ID advocates are disliked: they want to push pseudo-science into science courses.

Since Helena hasn’t posted in a couple of days here, I’ll rudely butt in instead…

I’d argue against that - I’d say it’s because it takes the possibility of knowledge of causation away from what science can proclaim authority over. Science will inevitably pursue wholly material explanations entirely because it is all science (physical science, since that is what we misapply the term to) can deal with. In doing so to such a dogmatically exclusivist degree, as, say, Dawkins would have it do, it leaps into pseudoscience itself

As I stated above, the theory has been refined many times. Attacking the original theory and then claiming that the scientists of today adhere to it is a straw man argument.

When you devise a viable means of inferring the supernatural from the natural world, you let me know. If you’re talking about philosophical rather than empirical inference, then I have to say that I put little stock into metaphysics. I could conjure up an argument to “prove” that only my own consciousness exists by discounting my senses as unreliable and labelling the physical world as a figment of my imagination. There is no metaphysical axiom opposed to this, nor is their a way to demonstrate that I would be incorrect. Metaphysics is mostly a load of fluff, and it really won’t help your case, in my opinion.

Inferring the supernatural from the natural world? Why on Earth would you need to do that? It’s regularly experienced as of itself.

Well, you made two errors in your translation there. For one, I said that we can’t know anything about gods, not creators. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable. Secondly, I said that we can’t know that a god exists, not that we can’t know anything about him. Let’s say that God took an ethereal form and came to Earth right now. We could know by talking with him that he’s knowledgeable, but not that he’s all-knowing. By watching him, we could know that he’s powerful, but not that he’s all-powerful. We could know these things, but still fall short of fully understanding even a single property of God’s (all of his qualities are infinite, and we cannot conceive of infinity). If we don’t know of his properties, we can’t know that he’s God.

Same goes for anything. We could all be brains in vats, being fed perpetual false information… you have to make certain assumptions - which we make partially logically

But in the end, a lot comes down to faith.

Still, since God (or something very much like him) seems to turn up all over the place in human experience, presents himself as such, is experienced as such, and is understood in variations on a theme, it seems we can make some degree of reasonable speculation…

Oh, and we quite obviously can conceive of infinity, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it - the word wouldn’t even exist!

 

[HelenaMT]

In a message dated 11/9/2009 10:39:49 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, Whofan1969 writes:

If I’m not mistaken, the faulty portions of Darwin’s theory have been omitted from the current theory of evolution taught in classrooms. You guys are hacking away at parts of a theory that have long since been abandoned.

I’m not really part of the “you guys” that you mentioned. I was unaware that any “faulty” parts have been removed from common use in classrooms. If that is actually so, then I have no problem with it. I have no kids so I can’t check their textbooks. Which faulty parts were you referring to, anyway?

And just out of curiosity, do you feel that theistic evolution would be an untenable belief for a Christian to hold (untenable by Christian standards, anyway)? You’re giving off that vibe.

I actually believe in theistic evolution, if by that you mean that life evolves but is or has been aided by an intelligent force, either by getting the process started, or by tampering along the way. Whether or not a Christian can hold that belief depends wholly on how you actually conceive Christanity.

I don’t dispute that things can be designed, I just don’t see any reason to assume there is design, creation, order, or an underlying meaning for existence. Why assume it?

From what I have read from ID proponents, they themselves may assume design out of personal faith, just as most other scientists assume none, but I don’t think personal assumptions have any bearing on what research actually gets pursued. If it’s really junk, time will tell. I just don’t think any avenues should be closed off from honest inquiry, and don’t think honest inquiry should be demonized because a few of the involved may be wackos. It just seems incredibly dishonest to me.

Furthermore, the nature of this supposed designer is more of a supernature; God is said to have created the laws of nature as well as the entities affected by such. But how could God do that? The process remains unexplained even by its most devout supporters. This is why saying, “God did it” makes as much sense as saying, “the unicorns did it.” If you don’t understand the process, or even the (super)nature of the process, it makes no sense to consider ID a scientific matter. It’s simply not empirical. This is why Creationists/ID advocates are disliked: they want to push pseudo-science into science courses.

The concept of supernature may just be a word that needs to be retired. I’m not sure it’s really something used by ID. If science can make observations about something, it cannot be "outside of nature. " Searching for the process can’t happen until a method is devised to show whether or not an intelligence is behind anything to begin with. I believe that is where ID stands today.

Creationists are not the same as ID proponents, by the way. Although they often share similar faiths, it would be incorrect to lump someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old with someone honestly searching for signs of intelligent design in the natural world. Intelligent design does not have to be Christian, Muslim, or any other specific version of god-worship.

Quote:
They have not come up with an alternative model because they have not yet found one, meaning that “they don’t know .” Yet they are treated as intellectually stunted and dishonest for honestly questioning a theory that does have holes.

As I stated above, the theory has been refined many times. Attacking the original theory and then claiming that the scientists of today adhere to it is a straw man argument.

I was addressing the way those who have alternate views are ridiculed and attacked. When one side says, I don’t know, but I’m looking, it’s ok. When the other side does the same, they are called flat-earthers, Creationists, etc. I believe that Michael Behe, for one, addresses current problems within current evolutionary theory. If this is not the case, maybe someone more learned than myself will explain where that’s wrong.

When you devise a viable means of inferring the supernatural from the natural world, you let me know.
If you’re talking about philosophical rather than empirical inference, then I have to say that I put little stock into metaphysics. I could conjure up an argument to “prove” that only my own consciousness exists by discounting my senses as unreliable and labelling the physical world as a figment of my imagination. There is no metaphysical axiom opposed to this, nor is their a way to demonstrate that I would be incorrect. Metaphysics is mostly a load of fluff, and it really won’t help your case, in my opinion.

I, likewise, have little use for metaphysics or philosophy if it can’t translate into anything tenable in the real world. I do not believe there is a “supernature”. If we can learn of it and it actually exists why wouldn’t it just be natural? I don’t understand the problem a lot of theists have with this way of seeing it.

 

[HelenaMT]

Well, you made two errors in your translation there. For one, I said that we can’t know anything about gods, not creators. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable. Secondly, I said that we can’t know that a god exists, not that we can’t know anything about him. Let’s say that God took an ethereal form and came to Earth right now. We could know by talking with him that he’s knowledgeable, but not that he’s all-knowing. By watching him, we could know that he’s powerful, but not that he’s all-powerful. We could know these things, but still fall short of fully understanding even a single property of God’s (all of his qualities are infinite, and we cannot conceive of infinity). If we don’t know of his properties, we can’t know that he’s God.

What properties would constitute your thinking a god was a god? I guess without agreeing on what our concepts of god would entail, that’s a pointless discussion.

The only god I am addressing would be one that adds to an understanding of life, meaning gives a rational underpinning to reality, the universe, the multiverse or whatever else defines everything that is. Not that he (or it, if you prefer) must be omniscient/omnipotent/outside nature but that he must be an intelligent force that is connected to us in some meaningful, concrete way.

Other forms of gods, such as,say, Zeus,or any other of the ancient anthropomorphic gods are more like superbeings. Knowledge of those characters can’t and didn’t really try to answer any of the where did we come from/why are we here/ what makes us all connected sort of questions. They don’t add to any understanding of reality. They are completely unnecessary.

I actually agree that there is no way to prove omni-qualities, because there’s no way to know what would really define them. So, then, your opinion on creators, not “gods”? Can they be inferred, looked for, etc? Or is that also a useless endeavor in your mind?

 

[greylorn]

If I’m not mistaken, the faulty portions of Darwin’s theory have been omitted from the current theory of evolution taught in classrooms. You guys are hacking away at parts of a theory that have long since been abandoned. And do you feel that theistic evolution would be an untenable belief for a Christian to hold?

O Wise Cookie…

The good news is that I appreciate your intelligence and your willingness to confront, to show up here and engage a serious discussion. Now, please go back and reread that compliment, before checking out the bad news.

When I was young and knew everything I learned a bad habit (which is not totally eradicated) of expressing my opinions as if they were facts, because I dearly wanted to believe them. I defended the core principles of Catholic dogma against atheists without ever bothering to read Aquinas, and argued against Darwinism without having taken so much as a high school biology class.

One day my wife pointed out that the propensity to shoot off my mouth and wrap logic around a background of ignorance was making me a laugh-object of both of my friends. Is that what you want for yourself?

So far as I can tell, HelenaMT is untrained in any sciences. Don’t know what she does, but that woman has a way of seeing core points and cutting through bs that I’d kill for. She has picked up on my tip (other threads) to read Michael Behe and has come away the more knowledgeable.

You are incorrect that the errors in Darwinism have been removed from textbooks, or from evolutionist thinking. Neo-Darwinism is merely an obfuscation of original Darwinism, and there are so many versions of it that no one can actually define it. The fundamental principles are unchanged. Mutations occur as random events, and the beneficial mutations are retained because they confer a survival advantage, eventually leading to a new species. Etc.

You are smart enough to read and understand both of Behe’s primary books, “Darwin’s Black Box,” and “The Edge of Evolution.” Don’t be afraid of the microbiology. Behe is a superb teacher. Reading them, in order written, will empower you to engage this conversation at the level of other participants,

Although you addressed HMT, my reply to your “theistic evolution” question is twofold:

1. You’ve not defined the nature of the God implied in “theistic.”
2. If you implied the omniscient, omnipotent God of Christianity, etc. of course it would be absurd to ascribe any sort of “evolutionary” process to such an entity.

(Incidentally, the clear evidence of an evolutionary process is one reason why, although I believe in a Creator, I do not believe the Creator is omnipotent or omniscient. Thinking is much clearer and easier when one admits the obvious and logical instead of trying to find ways around it.)

I don’t dispute that things can be designed, I just don’t see any reason to assume there is design, creation, order, or an underlying meaning for existence. Why assume it? Furthermore, the nature of this supposed designer is more of a supernature; God is said to have created the laws of nature as well as the entities affected by such. But how could God do that? The process remains unexplained even by its most devout supporters. This is why saying, “God did it” makes as much sense as saying, “the unicorns did it.” If you don’t understand the process, or even the (super)nature of the process, it makes no sense to consider ID a scientific matter. It’s simply not empirical. This is why Creationists/ID advocates are disliked: they want to push pseudo-science into science courses.

You make some good points.

But like most partially informed people, you seem to be operating under the principle that there are only two choices: Scientific atheism or some very old religious ideas invented by very intelligent and well meaning people who thought that the earth was flat.

There is a chance that, if you are one who follows his own mind over the opinions of others, when you gather a little more information you will see the strong possibility that both sets of ideas fail to explain the available information.

When you devise a viable means of inferring the supernatural from the natural world, you let me know. If you’re talking about philosophical rather than empirical inference, then I have to say that I put little stock into metaphysics. I could conjure up an argument to “prove” that only my own consciousness exists by discounting my senses as unreliable and labelling the physical world as a figment of my imagination. There is no metaphysical axiom opposed to this, nor is their a way to demonstrate that I would be incorrect. Metaphysics is mostly a load of fluff, and it really won’t help your case, in my opinion.

It appears that you are inferring to HMT beliefs which she has not implied. Here is her statement:

HelenaMT:

What if a proposed creator did not possess omni-qualities and could be demonstrated through inference much the way the Big Bang is (and other scientific theories)? Are you philosophically opposed to the concept of a higher intelligence behind the universe or just the ones that propose such a creator possesses omni-qualities?

You’ve badly misread or misinterpreted her. She did not use the word “supernatural.” That is something you made up, apparently for the purpose of discrediting her argument. This is a smarmy technique, one common to political liberals. I find it personally distasteful.

She clearly asked you how you would feel about a creator who was not omnipotent (and implicitly not supernatural). She asked about a creator whose existence might be demonstrated via inferential scientific evidence, exactly the way we “know” about the Big Bang. You just blew her off. I expect better of you. Perhaps after you do your homework…?

 

[greylorn]

(Reost 156)

greylorn:

I’ve decided to split from my current cherished other, and that is certain to improve my disposition.

I’m sorry to hear that.

I find it cumbersome to imagine why you would be sorry it my disposition improved. But don’t worry— it hasn’t yet.

Your explanation of “burden of proof” was clear and helpful. I agree completely. I knew the principles, but not even the casual formalism.

Although I’m not a philosophy fan, my limited studies in the field show that competent philosophers always substantiate their claims, although not always correctly. The same is true for well-intentioned thinkers in all fields, yes?

I’m an agnostic atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of any gods. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know anything about the nature of gods, including their existence or nonexistence. These positions in no way exclude one another. Their counterparts are theism and gnosticism, respectively.

So atheism and agnosticism are two different answers to two different questions. The former answers “Do you believe in a god?” and the latter answers “Can we know about gods?” Anyone who tells you that agnosticism is the midpoint between atheism and theism doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Agnosticism isn’t even on the same scale.

Offhand, I think that you are giving me a cheap IQ test. But I’ll bite.

While atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive in the logical sense of things, atheism renders agnosticism irrelevant. Suppose you declare, “I don’t believe in blivets.” Okay. Having made that declaration, wouldn’t it be a bit irrelevant to follow that up by pointing to a barrel and declaring, “I don’t think it is possible to know if there are blivets in that barrel, or to count them if they happen to be there.” ??

No fence-sitting here; we take a stand. We hold that you can’t know about the supposed properties of supposed gods. For me, this boils down to “you can’t use finite samples as evidence of infinite qualities.” Even if God came down here and started performing magic tricks, we could only say that he is powerful, not that he is omnipotent (this is assuming that we can come up with a meaningful definition of “potency”). The same goes for the other omni- qualities.

You’re not taking a stand of any sort. You are simply reiterating atheist dogma, which is no more interesting to me than religious dogma.

The classic God-concepts have been defined in such a manner that God’s properties cannot be known— except, of course, by various theologians, priests, etc. You have fallen into the old pit of arguing against the existence of a God defined by people who had no sense of logic, math, physics, or reality when they invented their definition. Their job was to define a God such that no other God could be in any respect greater.

I’ve discussed my views on omnipotence and omniscience on other threads, but don’t imagine that you’ll have the initiative to check those out.
"greylorn:

I invite you to prove your agnostic credentials by explaining why you don’t believe in Big Bang theory or neo-Darwinism.

Disbelief in certain cosmological and evolutionary theories wasn’t part of the definition of “agnostic” the last time I checked. Maybe it changed and I didn’t get the memo? By the way, “neo-Darwinism” has never been explained to me. What is it exactly? The very name and its usage makes it sound like a Christian placeholder for the collection of secular ideologies they hate, much like the placeholder for hated polytheistic ideologies: “paganism.”

Your objection is correct, and I apologize.

My conversations with genuine agnostics colored my opinions. The few I’ve met did not believe in ANY establishment theories---- they considered all religions heretofore invented by humans, Big Bang theory, and all forms of Darwinism to be logically absurd. And I agree with them, with the exception that the theories I’ve devised to explain these things actually make a certain amount of sense and do not conflict with any facts.

I kind of thought, for a moment, that you were one of those general, non-opinionated agnostics. IMO you are simply an atheist in agnostic feathers. Debating the issue seems a waste of time. Arguing about whether a spade is a shovel is a union worker’s way of avoiding moving any dirt.

The term “neo-Darwinism” does not describe a concept-set that can be explained by a dictionary. One must first read C.Darwin’s books to know what Darwinism is, then read the attempted corrections to his theories devised by Darwinists trying to cover up Darwin’s most egregious scientific errors. I’ve read only four neo-Darwinist books, and must conclude that at best, neo-Darwinist theories are to Darwin as Lutheran, Islamic, Calvinist, and Mormon teachings are to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

I keep thinking that if you read more widely, you have the quality of mind that could positively contribute to a discussion such as this.

I’m sorry that you view others as playthings. I’ve lived that way before, and you’ll find yourself disappointed more often than not.

Why do you think that I view others in such a light?