What Atheists Believe

[Tenacious D]

Without question....but sticking with the original intent of a thread (my perception of the intention anyway) it is just as much a leap to say there is nothing. Both are logical/illogical at the same time.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. And simultaneously disagree, too.

Thus, my notably apparent waffling at the conundrum which it presents.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

1. given that evolution is a relatively gradual process (as conceived) then I think the "prior" and "after" are pretty clear.

Evolution implies from one thing into another. 2. If there isn't some transformation from one thing to another then something hasn't evolved - they are completely separate entities.

3. compare this to the Singapore example - the person moved between two existing points. Where someone was didn't evolve into Singapore.

1. Only in a linear sense. If space-time is closed, then "now" for me would be indistinguishable than, say, a sheep herder in middle age France. According to what we observe, the universe is changing, expanding, etc...time and space are changing, evolving, etc...but that doesn't mean what we experience/observe is really happening. One of Einstein's famous quotes is "Reality is a special case". It applies to what I am talking about. Again, before/after, here/there...may not be what we think it is. All of that works just fine without the notion of a creator. Maybe there is a force or dimensional paradigm we don't know about right now, I can agree to that. But making the leap to say that something is an intelligent or supranatural being is huge, with little or no evidence.

2. Agree that things are evolving in the sense that we experience. I think that transformation is happening in our reality, absolutely. But taken as a whole, I see no reason that it isn't completely possible (if not likely) that the reason higher order mathematical equations start to fail is that we are trying to superimpose what we see as reality into the solution. Time (and by extension, space) is simply an illusion we are experiencing. Such a theory would make questions of "beginning", "end", and "what is after the universe" pithy. We experience time and space linearly, so we naturally asign these points to questions of the unknown. I am simply saying they may be completely irrelevant questions.

3. Correct, but that movement and existence of Singapore was relative to the person moving. Singapore was always there. For somebody in Spokane, Washington Singapore is still there, but relatively speaking, it has never been brought into existence by displacement of themselves in space.

 

[rjd970]

I understand most of this (I think) - but even if time is not linear, or extrapolate the theory to the distant reaches of a seemingly endless universe and everything is cyclical (I don't know if those things are true - but supposing that they are:

Time has a beginning, wherever and whatever form it takes. From where did it first arise?

Space - as infinite as it now appears (and may be) began somewhere, sometime - however distant or long ago it may have been.
My point being - there was a moment where neither time or space existed, and in the next, it did. From what did it originate - and went from "nothing" to "something".
Posted via VolNation Mobile

My point is that as you and I experience, absolutely it would need a beginning and end...starting point and boundary. But what we experience may not be what is.

 

[volinbham]

1. Only in a linear sense. If space-time is closed, then "now" for me would be indistinguishable than, say, a sheep herder in middle age France. According to what we observe, the universe is changing, expanding, etc...time and space are changing, evolving, etc...but that doesn't mean what we experience/observe is really happening. One of Einstein's famous quotes is "Reality is a special case". It applies to what I am talking about. Again, before/after, here/there...may not be what we think it is. All of that works just fine without the notion of a creator. Maybe there is a force or dimensional paradigm we don't know about right now, I can agree to that. But making the leap to say that something is an intelligent or supranatural being is huge, with little or no evidence.

I was making no comment about a Creator nor case for one. Simply commenting on the notion of time, prior and after.

2. Agree that things are evolving in the sense that we experience. I think that transformation is happening in our reality, absolutely. But taken as a whole, I see no reason that it isn't completely possible (if not likely) that the reason higher order mathematical equations start to fail is that we are trying to superimpose what we see as reality into the solution. Time (and by extension, space) is simply an illusion we are experiencing. Such a theory would make questions of "beginning", "end", and "what is after the universe" pithy. We experience time and space linearly, so we naturally asign these points to questions of the unknown. I am simply saying they may be completely irrelevant questions.

The very theory of evolution is that what we observe now transformed from something that existed at a prior point in time. I was simply saying that if the time is circular, non-linear, etc. then the Theory of Evolution has some problems given it is based in the notion real transformation.

I'm not saying time is linear - it may be as you suggest in this paragraph. If it is then the Theory of Evolution is simply a man-made attempt to order the inorderable and thus "rational" or "science" are illusions as well.

3. Correct, but that movement and existence of Singapore was relative to the person moving. Singapore was always there. For somebody in Spokane, Washington Singapore is still there, but relatively speaking, it has never been brought into existence by displacement of themselves in space.

Right but the ToE suggests our species exists BECAUSE a prior species existed. Through transformation that prior species essentially became us and thus we didn't exist then or it doesn't exist now.

I don't see how the ToE doesn't inherently rely on a linear conception of time - even if only for the period of time covering evolution.

 

[rjd970]

Right but the ToE suggests our species exists BECAUSE a prior species existed. Through transformation that prior species essentially became us and thus we didn't exist then or it doesn't exist now.

I don't see how the ToE doesn't inherently rely on a linear conception of time - even if only for the period of time covering evolution.

I agree with all of this. What I don't agree with is that how we experience all this linear motion and change is what is really happening.

The ToE works fine with what we are experiencing in linear time, but that doesn't mean there is a better explanation of how time works. It seems like you are trying to say I am wrong because we see change happening and our explanation of it obviously works. I am saying I agree with how we explain what we experience, but that doesn't make it the complete picture.

Think of it like Einstein and Newton. Newton was right, and Einstein didn't prove him wrong, he just provided a more complete picture of what was happening. Everything Newton said, including calculations, theories, etc...still works.

 

[volinbham]

I agree with all of this. What I don't agree with is that how we experience all this linear motion and change is what is really happening.

The ToE works fine with what we are experiencing in linear time, but that doesn't mean there is a better explanation of how time works. It seems like you are trying to say I am wrong because we see change happening and our explanation of it obviously works. I am saying I agree with how we explain what we experience, but that doesn't make it the complete picture.

Think of it like Einstein and Newton. Newton was right, and Einstein didn't prove him wrong, he just provided a more complete picture of what was happening. Everything Newton said, including calculations, theories, etc...still works.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong about anything.

I was saying that the ToE depends on time being linear. It's more than how we experience time - the very notion is that linear time exists and life transforms. I can see how we could be wrong about time being linear; that it is simply man's reality. However, the ToE says it's more than man's reality - it is real reality given the notion of transformation over time. Hell, the word evolution is change over time.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not trying to say you are wrong about anything.

I was saying that the ToE depends on time being linear. It's more than how we experience time - the very notion is that linear time exists and life transforms. I can see how we could be wrong about time being linear; that it is simply man's reality. However, the ToE says it's more than man's reality - it is real reality given the notion of transformation over time. Hell, the word evolution is change over time.

Change over time is our reality. It may or may not be real reality. That is the best I can do.

As to what really may be happening wrt to time and space, and what real reality is, nobody knows.

 

[VOLatile]

If you have spent anytime with kids, you know how inquisitive they can be. Children are like tiny detectives, the world is filled with mysteries, and they must find the answer. Unfortunately, by the time most children become adults, they will have stopped asking critical questions. My greatest qualm with religion is it's unparalleled ability to stifle human curiosity. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but religion kills the impulse to find out why the hell your cat is dead.

 

[volinbham]

Change over time is our reality. It may or may not be real reality. That is the best I can do.

I agree that there can be (and likely is) a distinction between our reality and real reality.

As to what really may be happening wrt to time and space, and what real reality is, nobody knows.

Then we are back to science simply being an explanation of what we perceive rather than explaining what truly is.

 

[volinbham]

If you have spent anytime with kids, you know how inquisitive they can be. Children are like tiny detectives, the world is filled with mysteries, and they must find the answer. Unfortunately, by the time most children become adults, they will have stopped asking critical questions. My greatest qualm with religion is it's unparalleled ability to stifle human curiosity. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but religion kills the impulse to find out why the hell your cat is dead.

For some it does but I don't think that is a requirement.

On a broader point, I personally don't think religion is necessary at all to take a pro-Creator stance. As I've argued repeatedly, the first issue is binary: Creator vs. No Creator. Religion concerns itself with the nature of a specific Creator form.

 

[therealUT]

According to fundamental natural laws, something cannot create itself. Science will never achieve a point in which this law can be demonstrably refuted. Therefore, it is rational to infer that a "force" beyond the bounds of nature and reason, both suprarational and supernatural, existed at some point prior to the the creation of the universe.

Being that this force existed before creation, why is it illogical to conclude that this force still potentially exists?

 

[volinbham]

According to fundamental natural laws, something cannot create itself. Science will never achieve a point in which this law can be demonstrably refuted. Therefore, it is rational to infer that a "force" beyond the bounds of nature and reason, both suprarational and supernatural, existed at some point prior to the the creation of the universe.

Being that this force existed before creation, why is it illogical to conclude that this force still potentially exists?

I concur. I've personally thought there was always a bit of an a priori dismissal of such force or a bias towards explaining creation without it.

 

[therealUT]

I concur. I've personally thought there was always a bit of an a priori dismissal of such force or a bias towards explaining creation without it.

I would argue that it takes just as much faith and belief without empirical evidence to state that the universe has just always been, when all laws of nature glaringly refute such a hypothesis.

Personally, I think those who hold that belief and yet challenge religious beliefs demonstrate a fundamental hypocrisy in their argument.

 

[volinbham]

I would argue that it takes just as much faith and belief without empirical evidence to state that the universe has just always been, when all laws of nature glaringly refute such a hypothesis.

Personally, I think those who hold that belief and yet challenge religious beliefs demonstrate a fundamental hypocrisy in their argument.

Which takes us full circle back to the OP - the argument that there is an underlying "belief" in atheism or at least in atheism based in scientific inquiry.

Not sure I buy it completely but lean that way.

 

[fl0at]

I was saying that the ToE depends on time being linear.

Not diving into what rjd is saying, because the concept of circular time is rather... abstract, but even a circle, if large enough, has points between one section and another that are near linear.

And again, though, circular time could still progress in direction over a given segment of the circle, exhibiting linear like function. In order to know the extent, we'd have to know the size of the circle.

Evolution can still fit, in that the segment of the circle we are currently in is so small, given the extent of time (the circle), that it appears to us to be linear.

But yea, this is more about what we perceive than what truly is; but that is the foundation of scientific theory, in that observations are made, tested and changed.

Science isn't necessarily about what something is, persay, but what is most probable based on examination. It is, in a way, the concept that the sum of the parts is not the whole.

 

[fl0at]

what is natural law? isn't that something man devised? isn't it changing as man changes?

Excellent question - but one of these others who have a far better understanding of it than I do may be able to answer it, where I cannot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Natural law is a man-made concept, much like speciation is a man-made concept. It is based on observation and experimentation and lumped into this concept that nature exhibits tendency; whether static or dynamic, I cannot say.

Natural law, unless dynamic, would not change. Merely our understanding and description. This is not the same as saying that natural law changes.

Natural law could be static, and we don't fully understand it well enough to describe it completely. As we learn more and more about the physical and natural surroundings, we adapt our understanding to fit that which is natural.

If that makes sense.

 

[volinbham]

Not diving into what rjd is saying, because the concept of circular time is rather... abstract, but even a circle, if large enough, has points between one section and another that are near linear.

Basically what I was suggesting - in this conception, prior and after do have meaning.

And again, though, circular time could still progress in direction over a given segment of the circle, exhibiting linear like function. In order to know the extent, we'd have to know the size of the circle.

Evolution can still fit, in that the segment of the circle we are currently in is so small, given the extent of time (the circle), that it appears to us to be linear.


But yea, this is more about what we perceive than what truly is; but that is the foundation of scientific theory, in that observations are made, tested and changed.

Agree, just pointing out the rabbit hole of science being a man-made conception. If time is something other than linear (at least for some point in time) then the ToE is wrong. It may make sense as an explanation but it is not a reflection of reality.

Science isn't necessarily about what something is, persay, but what is most probable based on examination. It is, in a way, the concept that the sum of the parts is not the whole.

I get that but as we work backwards to admitting that science is simply one way that man explains reality as he perceives it then we admit science is a different form of belief. It too then is a "trick of the mind" used by man to order his world.

You can see where I'm going. A complaint against belief in a Creator is that it is based on man's attempt to put order to his world (implying it is in effect a coping mechanism or some trick of the mind).

I'm not dogging scientific inquiry - just pointing out that the underlying foundation is still based on this man-limited and defined approach to explaining perceived reality.

As further proof I'm not dogging scientific inquiry, I teach it and perform it in my job as a professor. It works - I believe in it's power.

 

[volinbham]

Natural law is a man-made concept, much like speciation is a man-made concept. It is based on observation and experimentation and lumped into this concept that nature exhibits tendency; whether static or dynamic, I cannot say.

Natural law, unless dynamic, would not change. Merely our understanding and description. This is not the same as saying that natural law changes.

Natural law could be static, and we don't fully understand it well enough to describe it completely. As we learn more and more about the physical and natural surroundings, we adapt our understanding to fit that which is natural.

If that makes sense.

it makes sense but we still have the problem between natural law as real reality and natural law as perceived reality.

given the entire concept is man-made I'd lean towards it representing how we conceive our (perceived) reality.

To me the BIG question is how close is real reality to perceived reality.

 

[fl0at]

I get that but as we work backwards to admitting that science is simply one way that man explains reality as he perceives it then we admit science is a different form of belief. It too then is a "trick of the mind" used by man to order his world.

Science is a type of belief. It is just not a faith based belief. The concept of belief, that something is held to be true, is absolutely incorporated into science. Science holds that its tenants are true, or... at least true to today. Tomorrow, there may be a new truth.

You can see where I'm going. A complaint against belief in a Creator is that it is based on man's attempt to put order to his world (implying it is in effect a coping mechanism or some trick of the mind).

A complaint against a belief in a creator is more towards faith based belief than experimental based belief. You can hold a belief that is incorrect, and hold it firmly. But if it is based on faith, the belief cannot be tested or measured.

If it is based on experimentation, the belief can be measured.

Or, as I am often said to hold:
Seldom right; never in doubt.

I'm not dogging scientific inquiry - just pointing out that the underlying foundation is still based on this man-limited and defined approach to explaining perceived reality.

As further proof I'm not dogging scientific inquiry, I teach it and perform it in my job as a professor. It works - I believe in it's power.

Dog away, man. Science pisses me off on most days. Crap just doesn't make sense, there are always exceptions to the "normal," and not everything falls under the standard curve. But we still use the curve, because it is easier to lump in the 95% as "normal" than to include the 100% and turn every book on Biology into the size of a library.

And, since you are a teacher, and I am an eternal student, I will throw my favorite quote, as a jab to both you and I:

"It is disconcerting to reflect on the number of students we have flunked in Chemistry for not knowing what we later found out to be untrue.

 

[fl0at]

it makes sense but we still have the problem between natural law as real reality and natural law as perceived reality.

given the entire concept is man-made I'd lean towards it representing how we conceive our (perceived) reality.

To me the BIG question is how close is real reality to perceived reality.

How we perceive reality could be very close to reality. It could be very far from reality.

That is the question. How close to reality are our models?

 

[IPorange]

I disagree with a lot of the statements about atheism made in this thread, including by some fellow atheists.

I am not actively doing anything belief-wise, aside from believing in my own perceptions of the world around me, and observations produced through the scientific process. There is definitely some error in there somewhere, but at least with the scientific process, everything is constantly re-examined and reassessed, thus always changing (hopefully improving).

That's pretty different from dogmatic belief, imo.

 

[volinbham]

Science is a type of belief. It is just not a faith based belief. The concept of belief, that something is held to be true, is absolutely incorporated into science. Science holds that its tenants are true, or... at least true to today. Tomorrow, there may be a new truth.

Maybe it's semantics but there is an element of faith - faith that we can ultimate explain based on empirical testing. Put another way, the fundamental "truth" of science is that the scientific approach is in effect infallible - maybe overstated but it rests on faith that man can devise and conduct scientific inquiry to understand all. If it isn't such inquiry then it cannot be an acceptable explanation.




A complaint against a belief in a creator is more towards faith based belief than experimental based belief. You can hold a belief that is incorrect, and hold it firmly. But if it is based on faith, the belief cannot be tested or measured.

If it is based on experimentation, the belief can be measured.

As I've often said, this is where I see the criticism at it's weakest. In effect is is saying that science has these rules. Your explanation doesn't follow our rules so your explanation is incomplete/inferior.

Or, as I am often said to hold:
Seldom right; never in doubt.



Dog away, man. Science pisses me off on most days. Crap just doesn't make sense, there are always exceptions to the "normal," and not everything falls under the standard curve. But we still use the curve, because it is easier to lump in the 95% as "normal" than to include the 100% and turn every book on Biology into the size of a library.

And, since you are a teacher, and I am an eternal student, I will throw my favorite quote, as a jab to both you and I:

"It is disconcerting to reflect on the number of students we have flunked in Chemistry for not knowing what we later found out to be untrue.

I like the quote.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I disagree with a lot of the statements about atheism made in this thread, including by some fellow atheists.

I am not actively doing anything belief-wise, aside from believing in my own perceptions of the world around me, and observations produced through the scientific process. There is definitely some error in there somewhere, but at least with the scientific process, everything is constantly re-examined and reassessed, thus always changing (hopefully improving).

That's pretty different from dogmatic belief, imo.

are you implying that religious beliefs are constantly revisited and reassessed?

 

[volinbham]

I disagree with a lot of the statements about atheism made in this thread, including by some fellow atheists.

I am not actively doing anything belief-wise, aside from believing in my own perceptions of the world around me, and observations produced through the scientific process. There is definitely some error in there somewhere, but at least with the scientific process, everything is constantly re-examined and reassessed, thus always changing (hopefully improving).

That's pretty different from dogmatic belief, imo.

I'll beat the dead horse once more - the constant re-examination/reassessment is within the confines of a man defined and limited conception.

That is where I see the "faith" or "belief" - the power of scientific inquiry as "the way".

If we accept the premise that science is man's ordering of what he perceives then it is simply a scheme (a very good and possibly the best one).

 

[fl0at]

Put another way, the fundamental "truth" of science is that the scientific approach is in effect infallible - maybe overstated but it rests on faith that man can devise and conduct scientific inquiry to understand all. If it isn't such inquiry then it cannot be an acceptable explanation.

I disagree. I think the fundamental basis of science is that it is fallible, and is therefore modifiable. The concept of religion is infallible.

I don't know too many scientists that believe they can understand all; but those that want to understand anything, do so by testing and observing.

I don't consider that faith, I consider that experiment.

As I've often said, this is where I see the criticism at it's weakest. In effect is is saying that science has these rules. Your explanation doesn't follow our rules so your explanation is incomplete/inferior.

As I will often say, science should never ever, never, never, ever attempt to disprove religion. They are two separate beliefs with two separate rules.