Atheism is Absurd

[wayfriend]

People believe in dark matter. No one knows what the F it is. But they see it's effect, so they know there's something. Their belief doesn't depend on understanding it.

What effect do you see that makes you know there's something, which you believe to be God? And why are specific effects attributed to the theorized dark matter, rather than to God?

Well, I was trying to point out a similarity between believing in dark matter and believing in god. Which, like all similarities, works only up to a point. But I wasn't trying to claim that they were alternatives of each other.

But I could answer the first one. However, I doubt I can recall a whole lifetime of "Ah ha" moments and write them down. Still, I can say some of the things.

One of the things is that prompts me to believe in a divine intelligence is that Darwinism cannot explain so many things we find in living things. There are species variations that have no possible evolutionary path from not-having-it to having-it. And speciation has occurred far more rapidly and widely than can be predicted by the theory. Some forms of life are just so perfect for their niche that one has to wonder what else is going on.

Then there is the whole the-universe-is-to-perfect thing.

And then sometimes I wonder why is there a universe at all. If nothing existed, what force or impulse could there be to cause something to exist?

Sure, all of these things (and some others) can be answered with "it's not god, it's something else, we just don't know what it is yet". So it's not a "proof" of god. But, like I said, it's where my inclination to believe arises.

It may turn out after all that dark matter doesn't exist either. It's just a theory.

[Fist and Faith]

I gotcha.

My position has long been that either the universe exists without cause, or whatever caused the universe (a prime cause, eventually) exists without cause. Neither seems possible, but one obviously is. The universe's existence is verifiable in every way we are able to verify anything. No cause of the universe is verifiable in any way we have yet come up with. So my default belief is that the factual universe is uncaused.

[Zarathustra]

One of the things is that prompts me to believe in a divine intelligence is that Darwinism cannot explain so many things we find in living things. There are species variations that have no possible evolutionary path from not-having-it to having-it. And speciation has occurred far more rapidly and widely than can be predicted by the theory. Some forms of life are just so perfect for their niche that one has to wonder what else is going on.

I actually agree with much of this, which is why I like Nagel's book MIND AND COSMOS. There are some problems with reductionist materialism, and Darwinism in particular. But you can say this about every single scientific theory we've ever discarded--and replaced with a newer, better scientific theory. Nothing is ever explained by replacing science with non-science.

And then sometimes I wonder why is there a universe at all. If nothing existed, what force or impulse could there be to cause something to exist?

But, again, what would cause God to exist? Why would the first thing *ever* to exist just happen to be the most amazing thing that could *possibly* exist? Why wouldn't existence start out first with something much simpler? Like sub-atomic particles, and then build up from there? Why does this "the universe is too perfect to simply exist on its own" impulse never transfer to god himself? A being that is literally perfect? That is, in fact, another reason why the idea seems a little fishy to me. Too perfect. The same impulse you have have for the universe that leads you to think "no way this could just exist" is exactly what I think of god. The difference is, we know that the universe exists. Your theism amounts to an incredulity for reality, the one thing that we *know* exists. Its existence seems so suspicious to you, that you are driven to believe in something far less plausible, with infinitely less evidence. This argument for god is nonsensical inauthenticity.

It may turn out after all that dark matter doesn't exist either. It's just a theory.

No one worships dark matter. This theory is in no way similar to the god hypothesis.

[peter]

Apologies for not having been in lately on this guy's; the UK political situation is coming to a head and it's taking my time keeping up to speed and posting in this. I will be returning in due course, but it'll be a bit slow-burn for a while!

[samrw3]

I happen to believe that God exists but religion has butchered what God is most likely like. So that the God that religion/s have created is unlikeable and suspicious. But I acknowledge that there are huge unknowns and the whole thing is unprovable.

Lets take some easy ones. If God exists - who/what created him?

The known universe is at least 46 billion light years. Does God have anything to do with something that is 46 billion light years away? If so why? Why would he care?

If he is just the God of this Earth then how does he control things that may effect the Earth - or does he? If asteroid came flying on collision course would he say oh well or interfere in the course - could he interfere? Shrug - who knows.

So yeah the whole thing is a head scratcher. So why do I believe? shrug because I want to believe there is some force for good in the universe and that life has to mean something more than a brief up to 100 years of my life. I think my belief helps me be a better person. But I can understand and respect people who don't believe. I have no grudges. Not out to convince anyone. I know some solid non-believers who are much better people then people that believe in God. To each their own.

Z to address a couple of your questions indirectly. I personally don't worship God in the "traditional" sense. I respect Him and do as good as I can. Also my definition of "perfect" is probably different then most religious minds. I just think God has reached a point of no longer wanting to sin or cause or do bad. This is just one way I think religion has tainted what God is likely to be. He has become some mysterious all perfect Santa Claus like thing.

PS yeah I know Z was not addressing his thoughts to me - but thought I would throw in how I felt about two of his points

[peter]

I have read the God Delusion.

Dawkins makes a well crafted argument that in his view God does not exist and those who believe there is a God are ignorant fools.
His sarcasm and lack of tact is best demonstrated by "the spaghetti monster" concept.

What I find interesting about Dawkins and other atheists is the level of superiority and confidence necessary to proclaim a certainty with only a small sample of data. The universe and whatever may lay beyond is filled to overflowing with information that we humans don't and perhaps can't possess.
Therefore I submit that atheism requires faith.
Only an agnostic can claim the middle ground of truth.
Everyone else is guessing.

Bang on; I've recently read the chapter including the "spaghetti monster" argument and confess that it made me uncomfortable (the fact that I understand how it is being used to lessen the opposition's argument by action of ridicule notwithstanding). Its logic was difficult to argue with. But then in the same chapter he goes on to diss the agnostic position with his "namby pamby, weak-tea, pallid, lily livered, fence sitter" tirade (well, repeated from his tutor at wherever), totally failing to get that it is just as much an intellectual position as either his own or the one of the believers he holds in contempt.

The argument is simply this; how can we possibly make judgements on this question with so small a selection of the available data to hand? If the total of "all that could be knowed" was represented as, say the twenty six letters of the alphabet, then in our current state of play, we'd know less than a pinprick up the first leg of the first letter 'A'. And that pertains to our own universe, forget the infinite number that are quite possibly/probably fashioned around completely different sets of Laws, set differently and of which we can know nothing. And this assumes that the total of all that can be knowed is finite. If it's infinite (even possible for our universe alone - certainly not possible while it remains in existence I'd think due to the ultimate indeterminacy of things) then the problem is compounded even further. Yes, we understand much about our own world and our own biology - but to believe that this equates to knowledge of the full scale of existence and the manifestly different forms it might take is hubris indeed.

Against this backdrop the kind of certainty of knowledge expressed in this work seems to me as ludicrous as Dawkins himself (and it is his right to do so) clearly holds the agnostic position. And to return to the spaghetti monster, Dawkins himself in the early pages of the book says (paraphrased) " And before you say it, I know you don't believe in 'an old man up in the sky with a white beard', so let's get that out of the way!"..... but then he returns to a simplistic idea couched in ridicule that simply (for me) serves to demonstrate the narrowness of his frames of reference. He is unable to break away from the idea of "God as white bearded old man in the Sky", simply unable to move into the idea of God as ineffable - truly ineffable, not just in a trite, of the cuff expressive way - unknowable and existent in the realms beyond the most unknowable beyonds that we can conceive of (and in this sense I conceed, a waste of time to even think of, let alone spend time writing a book for or against his/her/its existence).

[peter]

One of the things that gets to me as I slowly pick away at this book, is the shockingly scornful approach that Dawkins takes toward the people who do not share his belief. The book would be so much more of a thought provoking read if he could have dispensed with his own personality in the writing of it. It still seems completely unable as a work to decide where it is going - is it an argument against the existence of God or a polemic against organised religion - and in consequence the waters it seeks to navigate are muddied and obscured, such that the destination it charts toward becomes ever more obscure.

In the latest bit of the work I've read, Dawkins pours contempt on the various attempts over the course of history to 'prove the existence of God'. The ontological argument is shredded, arguments of Paley and others in respect of 'apparent design' are denounced - and as with everything in the book, all are brought down and presented in a simplistic, almost cartoonish, characatureish fashion that denies any depth of thought, any nuance of thinking, in the people that proposed them.

This I'm sure, is one of the things that will have set me against this work on my first reading. If you are not prepared to engage your enemy at the same level of intellectual complexity as they will frame their own arguments, but instead rely on ridicule and contempt as your main armament, how can you expect to carry people with you? It assumes a level of intellectual paucity amongst the people you are attempting to convince, with the resultant effect that only those who are 'already looking for a way out' will be converted to your cause. Those like me who came/come to the work out of simple interest, with no outstanding baggage in tow, will simply be annoyed by the tone of the whole thing and buck against it in consequence.

(As an aside, I have a certain understanding of where Dawkins himself is coming from in his argument against the historical proofs of God's existence. They are indeed rarely ever even remotely successful, the arguments tending to be either circular or flawed on the basis of infinite regression - but my argument is rather "why would you do this?" Why, in a system that is clearly based in the most fundamental of ways - intrinsic to its core values - upon faith.....faith...... would you attempt to at a stroke, render this obsolete. Could the proponents not see that if they were successful then instantly everything would change? I simply don't understand why anyone who professed to the Christian faith would want to engage in this kind of logical game-playing?)

[Avatar]

Well, they tend to forget that knowledge precludes the necessity of faith...

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I've said it before. I don't see why absolute knowledge of God would be a problem. As I understand it, Lucifer was one of the main angels, so certainly knew God existed. But that didn't mean he had faith in God's plan, or greatness, or whatever. And didn't mean he couldn't choose to NOT follow God.

[peter]

Well perhaps this was the position that those who engaged in these attempts took First, but they were presumably intelligent people and must have been able to see the flaws in the logical gymnastics they proposed in order to prove the existence of God. I come back to faith as being the pillars upon which the value of their belief rested. Without that, and with the proof they sought to establish achieved, only coercement and dictatorship could remain.

[Fist and Faith]

I've always seen the idea of "you can only come to God through faith" as the most extreme example of logical gymnastics.

[peter]

Well, by its nature it was never going to be entirely rational/logical approach for sure - but I emphasize the 'value' aspect rather than the ontological.

[wayfriend]

I've always seen the idea of "you can only come to God through faith" as the most extreme example of logical gymnastics.

And yet it's literally true, isn't it? I mean, as long as God is not provable, what other ways are there?

[Fist and Faith]

Absolutely. What I mean is, it is logical gymnastics to look for a way to prove something, not be able to, then change the whole system to one that can't be proven; that can only exist without proof; that would, in fact, be invalidated by proof. I base that order of events on the belief that proof was once abundant, in the form of Jesus and others performing miracles. When those things came to an end, logical proof was needed. Which was not possible, so it changed to "you can only come to God through faith".

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Absolutely. What I mean is, it is logical gymnastics to look for a way to prove something, not be able to, then change the whole system to one that can't be proven; that can only exist without proof; that would, in fact, be invalidated by proof. I base that order of events on the belief that proof was once abundant, in the form of Jesus and others performing miracles. When those things came to an end, logical proof was needed. Which was not possible, so it changed to "you can only come to God through faith".

Maybe the problem is the nature of "Proof".

There's proof for manmade Climate Change. There's proof for Systemic Racism. There's proof for the Shoah.

But yet, some have cognitive dissonance — "selective incomprehension", one might say — when confronted with said proof.

[peter]

Surely there was a big intervening period between the end of 'the age of miracles' and the attempts to provide proof for the existence of God? Has not faith played a central role in Christianity since day one?

[Avatar]

Agreed. From a quick look, it seems Anselm of Canterbury was the first to offer an official ontological argument, although he wasn't actually trying to prove gods existence, just showing how it had become self-evident to him, around 1077, and his argument was rejected by Aquinas about 100 years later.

But Christianity is by no means the first religion to grapple with the question, Plato and Aristotle were making cosmological arguments (using "nature" to argue for the existence of gods) and the Vedas had arguments against their existence somewhere around 1,500-1,200 BCE...

--A