Atheism

[Ananda]

Only in the Worker's Paradise, Ananda, supposing we see it.

Nothing is perfect, but you can try to make it better, so why not? Also, it does work to a great degree en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[Fist and Faith]

What is frustrating isn't the "unassailable argument," but rather that I'm having an argument with people who apparently don't see a problem with making irrational arguments.

If I'm one of the people you're talking about, what am I irrationally arguing for or against?

This is why I am calling for an emphasis on rationality, because there is an important difference between beliefs/arguments which bring us closer to reality, and those that carry us farther away from it.

I once saw a religious tract that refuted evolution by asking how a non-functioning eye could be in a member of a sightless species, then evolve into today's eyes. After all, a non-functioning eye could not be an advantage that helped the individual be more successful at anything, so would not help attract mates. Yadda yadda. This tract in no way prevents the study of actual evolution. It doesn't prevent the understanding of reality in anyone other than those who believe it. And if they're reading such nonsense and believing it, then they're not going to be increasing our understanding of reality in any event. They're beliefs aren't going to bother anyone. The days when those who base their understanding of the workings of the universe on religious dogma have the power to shut down actual attempts to learn about the workings of the universe are over in a large percentage of the world.

What would be your answer to people committing atrocities in the name of religion? If that's their belief, and it's unassailable, then how do you argue against it?

I don't. I just protect myself as best I can. How do you prevent them from killing you? I'm certain they aren't being swayed by the kinds of things you're saying here. What will work?

[Zarathustra]

What is frustrating isn't the "unassailable argument," but rather that I'm having an argument with people who apparently don't see a problem with making irrational arguments.

If I'm one of the people you're talking about, what am I irrationally arguing for or against?

I've pointed out every argument that I thought was irrational, and I don't think any of yours was included. I disagreed with your point about there being no contradiction between science and faith, but the way you're making it isn't irrational. I do worry that blurring the distinction between the two causes other people to not be able to tell the difference between them, but I get the feeling that you're being charitable to people with whom you disagree, which is a more diplomatic approach than mine.

This tract in no way prevents the study of actual evolution. It doesn't prevent the understanding of reality in anyone other than those who believe it. And if they're reading such nonsense and believing it, then they're not going to be increasing our understanding of reality in any event. They're beliefs aren't going to bother anyone. The days when those who base their understanding of the workings of the universe on religious dogma have the power to shut down actual attempts to learn about the workings of the universe are over in a large percentage of the world.

That's true. But the issue goes well beyond religion. Just look at Ferguson, MI. People are 100% certain that a cop is guilty because he's white, without even knowing the facts. This is a product of irrational thinking. Irrational thinking is taught to people every time we allow it to replace a rational alternative (like, "innocent until proven guilty"). Most of the evils in the world--like racism--are the product of irrational thinking, and lack of knowledge. That's exactly what we're seeing in Ferguson, both ingredients. You can't say that such thinking doesn't hurt humanity in general, even if you can point to specific beliefs that seem harmless. Irrationality and ignorance are themselves harmful, just as a style of thinking and--most importantly--as a style of dealing with problems.

What would be your answer to people committing atrocities in the name of religion? If that's their belief, and it's unassailable, then how do you argue against it?

I don't. I just protect myself as best I can. How do you prevent them from killing you? I'm certain they aren't being swayed by the kinds of things you're saying here. What will work?

People can be educated. We need to stand up for better standards. Not every opinion is valid. We need to stop coddling people and treating them as if the previous statement is false.

[TheFallen]

Religious knowledge is synthetic a priori, scientific knowledge is synthetic a posteriori, any apparent contradictions are the result of one category's attempt to impinge upon or overrule the territory of the other. When religion did it to science, they were wrong. When science does it to religion, that is also wrong, and foolish. How can there ever be empirical answers to metaphysical questions?

Thank you Mong. That's exactly what I was fumbling to say from my mainly Devil's advocate position, except way more cogently and succinctly put. It goes to the heart of the IMO well-founded assertion that science and religion have literally no relevance to (and thus should have no impact upon) each other.

The points about the miracles of Christ are merely an appeal to credulity, it does not rest on anything more substantial than the observation that "I haven't personally seen it happen, and I don't trust the reports that it does."

Yep that kind of troubled me as an implication of Z's stance too. It's sort of an extreme logical progression of such - "Despite there being written reports on such a thing and despite there being a considerable number of people who find such reports completely credible, I'm refusing to give any credence to such". Is it too much of a stretch to compare this to an attitude that says "I've personally never experienced any evidence suggesting that a quark exists. I don't trust the reports that it does, nor do I ascribe any value to the considerable number of people who find such reports completely credible."? Down that path would lie a minimalist Cartesian Weltanschauung, where one would *only* believe what one had personally perceived or experienced. But hang on... ironically enough, isn't that presumably exactly why those who believe in a deity do so - because they're absolutely convinced that they've got personal experience of such?

Z, before you fly off the handle here ( ) bear in mind that like FnF, I also am attempting to make a case for people with beliefs that I don't necessarily share - or to use your phrase, I'm trying to be "charitable to people with whom I (largely) disagree".

But a human body, for instance, in Z's way of thinking is merely a self-assembled self-sustaining set of proteins. In what way is it fundamentally impossible to reanimate one? It isn't, and you know that if you apply your logic with rigor. There are many possibilities, none of which can be definitively eliminated absent proof.

I'm not sure Z's personal view on metaphysics is as mechanistic as that, but I'm sure he'll more fully inform. It does make me wonder about other issues that are tricky for science though - like the scientific difference between a lifeless and a live body (leaving autonomic biological processes aside). Or concepts such as consciousness, thought or mind. It's hard, nay impossible for science to deconstruct those and formulate a set of rules that defines or explains them.

For instance, suppose that Christ never existed and people made the stories up. Or, alternately, Christ had access to alien technology that merely appeared miraculous, as well as insights into the spiritual nature of creation at a level that allowed him to transcend what we conceive of as the expected limitations of mind and matter. You don't have to believe any of that, but you certainly cannot say that it did not happen in any sort of definitive way. You can simply speculate about the probabilities against it, which of course are based on the incomplete information accumulated by a field of inquiry practiced by pretentious simians who are yet barely able to control their primal instincts much less rigorously discipline their cognitive apparati.

Heh - pretentious simians, gotta love that. As per my compulsion, I'm going to drag Terry Pratchett into this discussion:-
[quote="Terry Pratchett in "Sourcery""]A magical accident in the Library, which as has already been indicated is not a place for your average rubber-stamp-and-Dewey-decimal employment, had some time ago turned the Librarian into an orang-utan. He had since resisted all efforts to turn him back. He liked the handy long arms, the prehensile toes and the right to scratch himself in public, but most of all he liked the way all the big questions of existence had suddenly resolved themselves into a vague interest in where his next banana was coming from. It wasn’t that he was unaware of the despair and nobility of the human condition. It was just that as far as he was concerned you could stuff it.[/quote]
Mong, I also support your allusion to merely being able to speculate about probabilities. I read somewhere something on probability that pointed out that it is of course entirely possible (though needless to say vanishingly unlikely) for a tornado to tear through an aeroplane spare parts warehouse and leave behind in its wake a fully assembled Boeing 747. (yes yes, Z. I realise that if such an event were to occur, it wouldn't be miraculous in the least - just a staggeringly unlikely application of well-understood and defined physical laws). But if we are to exclude the irrational and supernatural (i.e. the divine) from our thinking, maybe we don't (yet) understand enough about - for want of a better term - the spark of life to believe in even the faintest possibility of reanimation. Or maybe Christ was a time traveller - that'd explain his raising from the dead.

Alternatively, if that part of quantum that includes multiverse theory - namely that everything that can happen, MUST happen at least somewhere - is accurate, then why not reanimation in our little bubble amid infinite universes? Or indeed God? Are we "pretentious simians" really going to be bold/arrogant enough to state with rock-solid certainty that these things simply cannot exist, whether then, now or ever?

Having said all that, Z, I am mindful of your absolutely cogent point about the dangers inherent in non-rigorous or sloppy thinking, which I'd entirely support.

[Fist and Faith]

Yep that kind of troubled me as an implication of Z's stance too. It's sort of an extreme logical progression of such - "Despite there being written reports on such a thing and despite there being a considerable number of people who find such reports completely credible, I'm refusing to give any credence to such". Is it too much of a stretch to compare this to an attitude that says "I've personally never experienced any evidence suggesting that a quark exists. I don't trust the reports that it does, nor do I ascribe any value to the considerable number of people who find such reports completely credible."? Down that path would lie a minimalist Cartesian Weltanschauung, where one would *only* believe what one had personally perceived or experienced. But hang on... ironically enough, isn't that presumably exactly why those who believe in a deity do so - because they're absolutely convinced that they've got personal experience of such?

All things being equal, that's all true. But all things are not equal. The people who wrote that they have personally seen evidence of quarks are talking about the same principles and methodologies that lead to the airplane, steam engine, radio, television, internet, space stations, GPS, and a billion other things.

The people who wrote that they personally saw Jesus walk on water (Actually, I think we don't have writings from anyone claiming to have actually seen it, but from people repeating the story that was passed down?) are not discussing principles and methodologies that have lead to, or ever will lead to, anything along those lines. I'd be surprised to learn that there's ever been an invention that came about because of any particular religious dogma, or the principle of believing religious dogma. Even when people of great faith have done significant things in the scientific world, like Francis Collins with the Human Genome Project, it was using scientific principles and methodology, not anything about religious dogma. They might even feel that dogma or their personal beliefs about God are telling them to pursue this scientific project, but they don't pursue that project with dogma or beliefs.

It's a matter of which things are important to you. Believe things about the supernatural, science, or both, with second, third, or fourth hand information. Just don't think you're going to solve cold fusion with the Bible, or create a wormhole to Heaven.

[SoulBiter]

I do worry that blurring the distinction between the two causes other people to not be able to tell the difference between them, but I get the feeling that you're being charitable to people with whom you disagree, which is a more diplomatic approach than mine.


People can be educated. We need to stand up for better standards. Not every opinion is valid. We need to stop coddling people and treating them as if the previous statement is false.

Z, everything is not answered by science. I asked before and you avoided answering. Russ and his family believe not only in God but also that they visit each other outside the confines of our material world. Are they having some kind of mass family hallucination or delusion? Or are they just lying to all of us... I don't know.. just cause.

According to what you have posted, we should discount everything they say because we cant prove it, science doesn't understand it, and its not probable.

[Zarathustra]

Religious knowledge is synthetic a priori, scientific knowledge is synthetic a posteriori, any apparent contradictions are the result of one category's attempt to impinge upon or overrule the territory of the other. When religion did it to science, they were wrong. When science does it to religion, that is also wrong, and foolish. How can there ever be empirical answers to metaphysical questions?

I disagree with every sentence in this paragraph. When the writer(s) of Genesis described the earth being made in 7 days, and spelled out what was made on which day, this was not a priori knowledge. The very idea of God--as an extrapolation and idealized abstraction from human characteristics--isn't a priori knowledge. In addition, scientific knowledge often starts out with pure conjecture, and no examination of empirical evidence whatsoever (e.g. Einstein's thought experiments). Empiricism and induction is not how science is done. [Check out David Deutsch's book THE BEGINNING OF INFINITY and our discussions in the Loresraat.]

Religion started out as an attempt to explain the world. This was its "category." It was simply an unscientific explanation of the world. But its subject matter was the same as science (again, Genesis is a good example). Therefore, the two styles of explanation are in competition. The contradictions in these widely different explanations are ones of fact vs incorrect speculation. They are not apparent contradictions at all, but actual refutations.

There can be empirical answers to metaphysical questions simply because some metaphysics are incompatible with our observations of the universe ... just as scientific theories about what happened prior to the Big Bang can be tested because some imply different outcomes than what we observe. Also, some metaphysical theories can be rejected on the basis of being bad explanations of reality, or irrational thinking, without looking at empirical evidence at all.

The points about the miracles of Christ are merely an appeal to credulity, it does not rest on anything more substantial than the observation that "I haven't personally seen it happen, and I don't trust the reports that it does." But a human body, for instance, in Z's way of thinking is merely a self-assembled self-sustaining set of proteins. In what way is it fundamentally impossible to reanimate one? It isn't, and you know that if you apply your logic with rigor. There are many possibilities, none of which can be definitively eliminated absent proof.

For instance, suppose that Christ never existed and people made the stories up. Or, alternately, Christ had access to alien technology that merely appeared miraculous, as well as insights into the spiritual nature of creation at a level that allowed him to transcend what we conceive of as the expected limitations of mind and matter. You don't have to believe any of that, but you certainly cannot say that it did not happen in any sort of definitive way. You can simply speculate about the probabilities against it, which of course are based on the incomplete information accumulated by a field of inquiry practiced by pretentious simians who are yet barely able to control their primal instincts much less rigorously discipline their cognitive apparati.

Again, I disagree with every sentence here. It's not an appeal to credulity any more than a theory of a magical proton being rejected because it violates known laws of physics. The Jesus myth does not include the possibility that he alone had access to alien technology. It's a story about the Son of God. We can reject this conjecture on the basis of its alleged supernatural elements alone, just as we would reject any myth containing supernatural elements ... such a rejection is based on methodological naturalism, not appeal to credulity.

The universe is explicable. Supernatural phenomena are not. Thus, the universe is not supernatural; if it were, it wouldn't be explicable. Assuming otherwise--or even allowing for the possibility--is itself irrational, by definition, because it's allowing for the possibility that the universe isn't rational/explicable. Such a belief is in the same class as creationism, spontaneous generation, and superstition in general. It's the rejection of the possibility of scientific progress, which the past few centuries have shown is not only possible but actual. Our very existence depends upon the universe operating by explicable rules. We would not be here to debate it if that weren't the case. I can say that Jesus (the Son of God in the story) didn't exist because I do exist. And I can say that definitively.

[TheFallen]

Again, I disagree with every sentence here. It's not an appeal to credulity any more than a theory of a magical proton being rejected because it violates known laws of physics... The Jesus myth does not include the possibility that he alone had access to alien technology. It's a story about the Son of God. We can reject this conjecture on the basis of its alleged supernatural elements alone, just as we would reject any myth containing supernatural elements ... such a rejection is based on methodological naturalism, not appeal to credulity.

The universe is explicable. Supernatural phenomena are not. Thus, the universe is not supernatural; if it were, it wouldn't be explicable. Assuming otherwise--or even allowing for the possibility--is itself irrational, by definition, because it's allowing for the possibility that the universe isn't rational/explicable.

Well, hang on a second. There are plenty of phenomena within the universe that do not make sense at all, according to current scientific theory. Currently they're precisely inexplicable - currently utterly "beyond science", which could easily be viewed as another term for "supernatural". How about dark matter? Where's the missing 90% of the universe's mass? Has anyone ever detected any? Okay, from what I understand, there's a good deal of scientific buy-in to the theory of dark matter, but that's a pure and speculative hypothesis. Something's missing - ergo let's hypothesise the existence of dark matter. That's almost a religious way of thinking. The same is true with dark energy. Or how about quantum entanglement? That's the observable phenomenon where a pair of particles that have interacted in the past can be separated by considerable distance - 8 miles I think is the current experimental maximum achieved - and then, if one of the erstwhile pair is observed to start exhibiting a property like clockwise spin, the other will apparently instantaneously take on the opposite property (counter-clockwise spin). It'll apparently instantaneously "know" what its distant partner is doing. I say "instantaneously", but that may not be entirely correct - but if particle A is having some sort of undetectable effect on particle B, then the transmission transference of such effect must occur at least at 10,000 times the speed of light. That transgresses all known or postulated physical laws and thus currently falls neatly into the "magical proton" category. There'll be hundreds of other examples. Try Michael Brooks' "13 Things That Don't Make Sense" for just the tip of the iceberg.

Our very existence depends upon the universe operating by explicable rules. We would not be here to debate it if that weren't the case. I can say that Jesus (the Son of God in the story) didn't exist because I do exist. And I can say that definitively.

I'm calling bullshit on that.

Our existence does not depend upon the universe operating by explicable rules - instead it depends upon the universe operating within the limits that it does, whether these are explicable or not. The various universal constants - Planck's number, the rate of alpha decay, the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces etc etc - do not have to be understood; they just have to be the way that they are, so that matter as we know it (let alone humanity) can exist. In point of fact, we have no idea why these universal constants are as they are - they just are. On that basis, it's an arrant and actually non-scientific non-sequitur to state that because the individual can be sure that he/she exists, then it must follow that a deity or his/her/its son could not and cannot.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Religious knowledge is synthetic a priori, scientific knowledge is synthetic a posteriori, any apparent contradictions are the result of one category's attempt to impinge upon or overrule the territory of the other. When religion did it to science, they were wrong. When science does it to religion, that is also wrong, and foolish. How can there ever be empirical answers to metaphysical questions?

I disagree with every sentence in this paragraph. When the writer(s) of Genesis described the earth being made in 7 days, and spelled out what was made on which day, this was not a priori knowledge. The very idea of God--as an extrapolation and idealized abstraction from human characteristics--isn't a priori knowledge. In addition, scientific knowledge often starts out with pure conjecture, and no examination of empirical evidence whatsoever (e.g. Einstein's thought experiments). Empiricism and induction is not how science is done. [Check out David Deutsch's book THE BEGINNING OF INFINITY and our discussions in the Loresraat.]

Religion started out as an attempt to explain the world. This was its "category." It was simply an unscientific explanation of the world. But its subject matter was the same as science (again, Genesis is a good example). Therefore, the two styles of explanation are in competition. The contradictions in these widely different explanations are ones of fact vs incorrect speculation. They are not apparent contradictions at all, but actual refutations.

There can be empirical answers to metaphysical questions simply because some metaphysics are incompatible with our observations of the universe ... just as scientific theories about what happened prior to the Big Bang can be tested because some imply different outcomes than what we observe. Also, some metaphysical theories can be rejected on the basis of being bad explanations of reality, or irrational thinking, without looking at empirical evidence at all.

The points about the miracles of Christ are merely an appeal to credulity, it does not rest on anything more substantial than the observation that "I haven't personally seen it happen, and I don't trust the reports that it does." But a human body, for instance, in Z's way of thinking is merely a self-assembled self-sustaining set of proteins. In what way is it fundamentally impossible to reanimate one? It isn't, and you know that if you apply your logic with rigor. There are many possibilities, none of which can be definitively eliminated absent proof.

For instance, suppose that Christ never existed and people made the stories up. Or, alternately, Christ had access to alien technology that merely appeared miraculous, as well as insights into the spiritual nature of creation at a level that allowed him to transcend what we conceive of as the expected limitations of mind and matter. You don't have to believe any of that, but you certainly cannot say that it did not happen in any sort of definitive way. You can simply speculate about the probabilities against it, which of course are based on the incomplete information accumulated by a field of inquiry practiced by pretentious simians who are yet barely able to control their primal instincts much less rigorously discipline their cognitive apparati.

Again, I disagree with every sentence here. It's not an appeal to credulity any more than a theory of a magical proton being rejected because it violates known laws of physics. The Jesus myth does not include the possibility that he alone had access to alien technology. It's a story about the Son of God. We can reject this conjecture on the basis of its alleged supernatural elements alone, just as we would reject any myth containing supernatural elements ... such a rejection is based on methodological naturalism, not appeal to credulity.

The universe is explicable. Supernatural phenomena are not. Thus, the universe is not supernatural; if it were, it wouldn't be explicable. Assuming otherwise--or even allowing for the possibility--is itself irrational, by definition, because it's allowing for the possibility that the universe isn't rational/explicable. Such a belief is in the same class as creationism, spontaneous generation, and superstition in general. It's the rejection of the possibility of scientific progress, which the past few centuries have shown is not only possible but actual. Our very existence depends upon the universe operating by explicable rules. We would not be here to debate it if that weren't the case. I can say that Jesus (the Son of God in the story) didn't exist because I do exist. And I can say that definitively.

Z, if I had only experienced your grand intellect but not your chauvinistic attitude towards religion, I'd be very disappointed by your feeble assault upon it. Your post is so full of irrelevancies, errors and suppositions it is difficult for me to address them individually. It's as though you are placing the skewer at your breast and daring me to run you through. But let's skip all that and distill the essence: your first set of paragraphs do nothing but declaim your personal preferences rather than expound upon anything particularly rational within your approach (apart of course from the fervent rationalizations that you habitually spackle over your most deeply held convictions). Your second set of paragraphs border on hysterics, culminating in an intense but irrelevant false dichotomy that stakes itself on the tautological insistence that you exist. Yet despite your full blown Ayn Rand style fulmination, religion does not in itself threaten your ability to exist as an intellectual being.

I have news for you, Z: the universe cannot be rationalized by an intellect whose existence is itself the object of a larger nature. While that should be axiomatic, you persist with an unyielding if puerile faith in the mechanistic Newtonian universe, though such a thing is refuted by science at every turn. The universe does not even behave causally. How can it thus behave rationally?

I think I can see the problem here, Z., and it isn't one of reason versus religion. It is one of faith versus faith. You believe with considerable vehemence that reason itself will save us, redeem us, empower us, never fail us. That is your religion. And it would not be a bad religion to have, either, if it wasn't so damned strident.

[Cybrweez]

mong, you sum up some of my thoughts. Z's rationality is defined by Z. Or maybe some experts that he takes their word for. IOW, written in some book that he chooses to embrace.

And he had guilt and no peace growing up a "sincere" Christian (I'm not sure where guilt or lack of peace comes from in a sincere Christian worldview, so I use quotes), and a bad experience w/his mom. So that probably plays nothing in his rational, objective view of the world. He came upon it naturally I'm sure.

Science's explanation of the world is no different than religion, I'll agree there. It's whichever appeals to you. However, to think that suggesting how life started from nothing (aliens right?), or how humans came from "common ancestor" (we don't know what right?) is the same as observing gravity (or observing anything really) is where the dogma starts to overrule the science.

And Zar has explained why he likes such a worldview - it means he answers to no one and determines his own fate - as he's said, he is a god. Like F&F said, if God were real, he'd hate him, b/c after all, F&F wouldn't have done it that way.

Our biases help us determine what is rational. I just have a problem when someone is strident that their rationality is the rationality. It's too laughable really.

[aliantha]

Our biases help us determine what is rational. I just have a problem when someone is strident that their rationality is the rationality. It's too laughable really.

Sounds a little like the Christian churches that proclaim that theirs is the only True Path to God, doesn't it?

[Zarathustra]

There are plenty of phenomena within the universe that do not make sense at all, according to current scientific theory.

There's a difference between something being unknown or unexplained and it being inexplicable in principle. We don't view the edges of our knowledge as teeming with supernatural entities until we push back those edges with an explanation, only then learning that it was explicable after all. That's not how science works (and it *does* work, I hope we'll all agree). Science isn't possible without the assumption that the phenomenon you're investigating is explicable. It never would have found a single explanation without that assumption. It would be like trying to solve a jig-saw puzzle while assuming that all the individual pieces don't connect in specific, unique ways to add up to a single picture. It would be irrational to engage in such an activity; it's no longer a puzzle.

Now, you might put together a puzzle and realize that the picture it shows is confusing, ambiguous, abstract, whatever. That doesn't make it irrational, and it doesn't make it inexplicable. Assuming you've put it together correctly, the puzzle still fits together in a unique, explicable way that others can reproduce by trying to fit the pieces together themselves. Maybe they'll find that you forced some of the pieces together that were close matches, but didn't really fit, and then show you why the picture you got was confusion. But that's entirely different from there being no picture at all, or the process of putting the pieces together requiring divine intervention.

... the theory of dark matter, but that's a pure and speculative hypothesis. Something's missing - ergo let's hypothesise the existence of dark matter. That's almost a religious way of thinking.

Every theory in science starts out as "pure and speculative hypothesis." How could it be otherwise, until you've confirmed it? I've addressed this; I said that's where creativity comes in, and only later do scientists confirm their speculations with empirical evidence (rather than the other way around, i.e. induction via empiricism).

However, there is a vast difference between A) speculating of an unknown energy that has certain measurable PHYSICAL properties (if we could find some to measure) and B) speculating that disease is caused by the wrath of gods (for instance). Is that really so controversial or difficult?

Let's try this: taking the puzzle analogy and applying it to the distinctions I've made above, it's the difference between:

a) having a nearly complete puzzle (or nearly complete sections) and noticing the shape of missing pieces in virtue of either the inverse shape of the existing pieces (e.g. the effect dark energy has on specific galaxies), or in virtue of seeing the bigger picture the puzzle portrays, and deducing the missing pieces from that level (i.e. the general acceleration of the universe's expansion)

.... and ...

b) having a mostly incomplete puzzle and making up your own pieces randomly to fill the huge gaps, including pieces that don't fit with others in any systematic way (e.g. interlocking protrusions/cavities), or in a way that contributes meaningfully to the overall picture that is known, as little as that is. Or even worse: denying any special status to the process of fitting pieces together systematically, and holding a séance or a prayer meeting to figure out what the picture actually is.

No difference? Hardly.

Or how about quantum entanglement? ... That transgresses all known or postulated physical laws and thus currently falls neatly into the "magical proton" category.

No, it violates only one theory (general relativity) but it's predicted from another, quantum mechanics. Granted, the two theories are at odds. But competition between rational theories doesn't make either one irrational. A theory can be false or in error or incomplete without being irrational, without the phenomenon in question being inexplicable. Quantum entanglement is perfectly legitimate within quantum mechanics.

Our existence does not depend upon the universe operating by explicable rules - instead it depends upon the universe operating within the limits that it does, whether these are explicable or not.

Our existence depends upon the atoms in our bodies not flying apart or decaying in a fraction of a second. We can explain why they do not. Our existence also depends upon our genes having been replicated in a certain way by our ancestors. We can explain how that happened. Our existence depends upon the earth having a suitable atmosphere, temperature, chemical composition. We can explain how that came about.

There is not a single necessary factor of our being here that suggests or requires a supernatural explanation.

In point of fact, we have no idea why these universal constants are as they are - they just are. On that basis, it's an arrant and actually non-scientific non-sequitur to state that because the individual can be sure that he/she exists, then it must follow that a deity or his/her/its son could not and cannot.

Alright, I could have said that better. Let me clarify. When we apply rational explanation to the quandary of our existence--our universe--the reach of our knowledge has no bounds. The universe has yielded to our explanations, proven explicable through science from the sub-atomic realm to a scale of billions of light years away. The existence of things we don't understand in no way casts doubt on the reach of rational explanation. Explanations wouldn't have been needed in the first place if we already understood everything. Lack of understanding itself calls for explanation, and there's a clear difference between bad explanations, and good ones (I've gone over the criteria, let me know if you want them again).

I do *not* know for sure that deities don't exist. I'm not looking for "verified, true beliefs." I'm not looking for absolute proof (and neither is science). The goal is explanation, not certainty. My position is falliblism.

However, I do know that explanations which contain deities are bad explanations (we can go over that again, too, if you want). And we are certainly justified in dismissing the existence of entities which depend upon bad explanations.

No rational adult is agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, right? Why is that? Is that reasonable, or not?

[TheFallen]

...the universe cannot be rationalized by an intellect whose existence is itself the object of a larger nature.

Again, more succinctly put than I managed. How indeed can a consciousness in an irredeemably closed system such as our universe possibly do more than speculate wildly - and entirely unscientifically - as to what lies beyond and outside such a closed system? There's no reason to believe we could even conceive of the faintest shred of an adequate frame of reference upon which to mount such speculation - it's quite literally ineffable. Let me use an analogy - humanity exists in a closed box cosmos. Okay, by now we think we understand quite a bit about the interior of our box - but we haven't got the slightest clue as to its exterior. Is it red? Blue? is it bobbing along on a sea alongside a myriad other boxes of varying shapes, colours or sizes? Are there no other boxes? Is it the innermost one in an infinite nest of boxes? We haven't got an earthly idea, nor will we ever have... and that is indeed axiomatic.

Our existence does not depend upon the universe operating by explicable rules - instead it depends upon the universe operating within the limits that it does, whether these are explicable or not.

Our existence depends upon the atoms in our bodies not flying apart or decaying in a fraction of a second. We can explain why they do not...

There is not a single necessary factor of our being here that suggests or requires a supernatural explanation.

I'm going to ignore your points about genetic heredity and the formation of the earth with its atmosphere and focus in on your more fundamental statement - we can explain why matter doesn't fly apart. Well, yes we can, because amongst many, many other things, we have by now ascertained that the rate of alpha decay is just exactly "right" to allow for matter - to within fractions of a decimal. We of course have no idea why this should be the case - in fact the concatenation of potential variables that allows matter to exist even at the atomic level is so staggeringly improbable (about as unlikely as my previous analogy of a tornado tearing through an aeroplane spare parts warehouse and leaving in its wake a fully assembled 747) that some have claimed that this in itself must prove the existence of some sort of deity. Now let me hasten to add, I don't think that this necessarily follows at all - but I would surmise as a viable alternative that it does suggest an infinite number of universes, either temporally separated (maybe there's been an infinite number of big bangs prior to our universe with its set of matter-friendly constants finally appearing) or "spatially" separated (in some higher dimensional set-up) - if only in order to permit the vanishingly unlikely existence of one where matter itself can be.

No rational adult is agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, right? Why is that? Is that reasonable, or not?

Well, let me counter by re-introducing Descartes. Don't go blaming me me for this - you started it with your "I know I exist" anthropomorphic claim. Okay, so let's leave aside those who thoughtlessly believe in a God for reasons of upbringing or cultural tradition - they're irrelevant. But if personal experience of reality trumps all in terms of surety, as per René, what do you say to all those people - and I'm not one, remember? - who are absolutely and sincerely sure that they have personally experienced the presence of God, either directly or indirectly? That God and a belief in Him has made an experiential and substantive difference to their lives? Shared self-delusion? Communal wish fulfilment? Mass psychosis? That'd be a little hubristic, wouldn't it? Anyhow, I don't think that anyone over the age of six would claim any personal experience, either direct or indirect, of the Tooth Fairy, so I don't acknowledge the relevance of that comparison.

I must admit to being fractionally mischievous in my posts in this thread, since I personally do not avow the existence of a deity. However, I *do* allow for such a possibility - and that's taking into account all the rationality of science, plus importantly its limitations, when it comes to metaphysics. Z, as I've stated, I absolutely concur with your impassioned defence of reason and the importance of such to our species. However, my problem with your expressed stance is that to me, it's too fundamentalist (and I'm using that word with forethought). Mong called it "strident"; that may be a little harsh, but I'd say it's simultaneously close-minded, and dogmatic - everyone else must be wrong, right? But hang on - isn't such a mind-set in its nature incredibly redolent of that of religious extremism? (Not that you'd at all let such a mind-set lead you down the same paths of action that religious extremists might).

Up to this point, such is the fervour with which you've stated your position that I'd describe you as an antitheist rather than an atheist - since you've unflinchingly been more than adamant in your rejection of even the possibility of a deity. But then you make this comment, which made me smile:-

I do *not* know for sure that deities don't exist. I'm not looking for "verified, true beliefs." I'm not looking for absolute proof (and neither is science). The goal is explanation, not certainty. My position is falliblism.

I think that's almost a classic definition of agnosticism - in fact there's a large cross-over between the philosophical principles of fallibilism and agnosticism. What I'm pretty sure you're now saying is that you don't know whether a deity exists or not - it's just that your philosophy and metaphysics see no requirement for one's existence...

Heh. That's not atheism. You actually find yourself in the fold of apathetic agnosticism, my friend - welcome. I think you'll find it a refreshingly less irksome and more open-minded place to be.

[Fist and Faith]

Like F&F said, if God were real, he'd hate him, b/c after all, F&F wouldn't have done it that way.

I don't have time to look through my posts right now, but I don't think I ever said "hate". I have serious problems with some things the Judeo-Christian God is said to have done, so wouldn't worship or follow him. Doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't invite him over for cake. Maybe I could convince him to change some things.

[Zarathustra]

...the universe cannot be rationalized by an intellect whose existence is itself the object of a larger nature.

Again, more succinctly put than I managed. How indeed can a consciousness in an irredeemably closed system such as our universe possibly do more than speculate wildly - and entirely unscientifically - as to what lies beyond and outside such a closed system?

I'm not sure that's what Mong meant (i.e. speculating beyond a closed system), but our system isn't entirely closed. The conditions prior to the Big Bang affected the outcome. Therefore, we can speculate--scientifically--beyond our universe, just as we can speculate--scientifically--into the interior of stars. Neither is something that we'll ever see. But the effects ("proxies") are things we can see. And the two are linked by a chain of rational explanation that has additional effects that we can test in different circumstances, like a particle accelerator or an atomic bomb.

As for Mong's point ... why would it be surprising for our intellect to be able to understand the reality within which it exists? Given universal laws, our intellect participates in the same structures which it's analyzing. On Mong's assumption, we wouldn't be able to realize a single law of nature, much less all of them. The same reason that we can figure out one law of nature is the reason why we can keep figuring out more: we are universal explainers, able to identify universal laws. If we weren't, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation on the Internet right now. Our explanations *work.*

Think of a hologram. Every small portion contains the entire pattern. The concept of a part having the knowledge of the whole is entirely rational.

There's no reason to believe we could even conceive of the faintest shred of an adequate frame of reference upon which to mount such speculation - it's quite literally ineffable. Let me use an analogy - humanity exists in a closed box cosmos. Okay, by now we think we understand quite a bit about the interior of our box - but we haven't got the slightest clue as to its exterior. Is it red? Blue? is it bobbing along on a sea alongside a myriad other boxes of varying shapes, colours or sizes? Are there no other boxes? Is it the innermost one in an infinite nest of boxes? We haven't got an earthly idea, nor will we ever have... and that is indeed axiomatic.

I used to think so, too. It seemed so obvious. If you're willing to open your mind (or your box ), Deutsch's book will help a lot. It's the most amazing book I've read in decades. I can't recommend it enough.

We of course have no idea why this should be the case - in fact the concatenation of potential variables that allows matter to exist even at the atomic level is so staggeringly improbable (about as unlikely as my previous analogy of a tornado tearing through an aeroplane spare parts warehouse and leaving in its wake a fully assembled 747) that some have claimed that this in itself must prove the existence of some sort of deity. Now let me hasten to add, I don't think that this necessarily follows at all - but I would surmise as a viable alternative that it does suggest an infinite number of universes, either temporally separated (maybe there's been an infinite number of big bangs prior to our universe with its set of matter-friendly constants finally appearing) or "spatially" separated (in some higher dimensional set-up) - if only in order to permit the vanishingly unlikely existence of one where matter itself can be.

Well, that's a great example of taking an unknown and coming up with a rational explanation. I agree.

...if personal experience of reality trumps all in terms of surety, as per René, what do you say to all those people - and I'm not one, remember? - who are absolutely and sincerely sure that they have personally experienced the presence of God, either directly or indirectly? That God and a belief in Him has made an experiential and substantive difference to their lives? Shared self-delusion? Communal wish fulfilment? Mass psychosis? That'd be a little hubristic, wouldn't it? Anyhow, I don't think that anyone over the age of six would claim any personal experience, either direct or indirect, of the Tooth Fairy, so I don't acknowledge the relevance of that comparison.

I've had a direct experience with something that I thought was God. It occurred during psilocybin trip, but I was quite sure that this was god, at the time. Are you going to tell me this was an hallucination? Isn't that quite hubristic? No, I was under the influence of an hallucinogen.

If you'd followed our discussion of Michio Kaku's book THE FUTURE OF THE MIND, you'd remember our discussion of an area of the brain that when stimulated produces feelings of overwhelming "religious" experience. Religious people who have this area stimulated electronically think afterwards that it's direct experience with god--even though they knowingly participate in the experiment and know it's brain stimulation--whereas people who are skeptics think of it as "the wholeness and beauty of the universe," or something similar. It still feels very spiritual to both types of people. But it doesn't change their beliefs.

In the end, you first assumption is wrong: personal experience of reality does NOT trump all in terms of surety (blame me if you want ... though I clarified my position). This is why eye witness testimony is the least reliable. This is why scientists count on others verifying their results. That's why we have science in the first place, because two people can experience the same phenomenon (like pinpricks of light in the heavens) and see two entirely different things (like holes in the celestial sphere, or balls of thermonuclear explosions).

Mong called it "strident"; that may be a little harsh, but I'd say it's simultaneously close-minded, and dogmatic - everyone else must be wrong, right? But hang on - isn't such a mind-set in its nature incredibly redolent of that of religious extremism? (Not that you'd at all let such a mind-set lead you down the same paths of action that religious extremists might).

Just because I think a handful of people in the Internet are incorrect in their specific arguments doesn't mean I think I'm the only one who is right. I think you're extrapolating way beyond the evidence, based on my tone rather than my words. I'm a cocky bastard. Not dogmatic. There's a difference. I'd rather you call me an asshole than an extremist. My tone is confrontational, but my points are reasonable. As I've already said once before: let's correct our errors together ... even mine! (I get the feeling that you've skipped some pages in this debate.)

I think that's almost a classic definition of agnosticism - ...What I'm pretty sure you're now saying is that you don't know whether a deity exists or not - it's just that your philosophy and metaphysics see no requirement for one's existence...

Heh. That's not atheism. You actually find yourself in the fold of apathetic agnosticism, my friend - welcome. I think you'll find it a refreshingly less irksome and more open-minded place to be.

No, I'm an atheist. I believe there is no god. However, I admit that this is not certainty. It's belief. But rationality (when applied to the world, not logic or math) has nothing to do with certainty. It's still concerned with beliefs. Some beliefs arise through explanation and understanding, while other beliefs are placeholders and substitutions for understanding. I'm not on the fence, no more than I'm on the fence about evolution. But I'd be willing to correct my belief if evolution were proven scientifically to be wrong. Falliblism doesn't require fence-sitting, only error correction.

[TheFallen]

So Z, in the absence of certainty, you have faith that there's no God, then?

Separately...

I'm not sure that's what Mong meant (i.e. speculating beyond a closed system), but our system isn't entirely closed. The conditions prior to the Big Bang affected the outcome.

Whoa there!, "Prior"??? I'm not sure there was any "prior" as such, nor am I sure that any mundane rules of causality can possibly be seen to apply to conditions before the Big Bang that started our little universe. I don't think we're even capable of imagining a frame of reference against which to describe conditions preceding (if that word can even be used) the birth of our cosmos.

From what I remember, astrophysicists believe themselves to be ever closer to extrapolating conditions as they were immediately after the Big Bang (I think they're down to nanoseconds or something), but, much like the frog at the centre of the lily pond that always leaps half the distance to the edge of the pond, those astrophysicists will never be able to arrive at an extrapolation of conditions at the precise moment of the Big Bang, let alone anything before it. There wasn't even a "before", was there?

[Fist and Faith]

I've heard that the BB obliterated all possible evidence of conditions prior to itself, because it broke anything that may have existed down to the most elementary particles. Is that no longer considered to be the case?

[rdhopeca]

So Z, in the absence of certainty, you have faith that there's no God, then?

Separately...

I'm not sure that's what Mong meant (i.e. speculating beyond a closed system), but our system isn't entirely closed. The conditions prior to the Big Bang affected the outcome.

Whoa there!, "Prior"??? I'm not sure there was any "prior" as such, nor am I sure that any mundane rules of causality can possibly be seen to apply to conditions before the Big Bang that started our little universe. I don't think we're even capable of imagining a frame of reference against which to describe conditions preceding (if that word can even be used) the birth of our cosmos.

From what I remember, astrophysicists believe themselves to be ever closer to extrapolating conditions as they were immediately after the Big Bang (I think they're down to nanoseconds or something), but, much like the frog at the centre of the lily pond that always leaps half the distance to the edge of the pond, those astrophysicists will never be able to arrive at an extrapolation of conditions at the precise moment of the Big Bang, let alone anything before it. There wasn't even a "before", was there?

Unless there is a finite beginning and end to Time, doesn't there *always* have to be a "before"?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Well, some physicists have the idea of Planck time, the lower bound of time which can happen between connected events; this duration is only 5.39x10^-44 seconds and thus from this point of view we don't/can't know what happened before that much time elapsed.

Membrane Theory allows for conditions before the Big Bang, the presumption being that the event we call "Big Bang" is actually the collision of two or more membranes. This also allows for explanations of gravity, the weakest fundamental force despite its infinite reach--it is the "residue" of one of those membranes which happens to exist everywhere in the intersection(s) of "sets" we call "the universe".
This explanation also allows for what may happen if the membranes un-intersect with each other--it was fun while it lasted, folks--or if more membranes intersect at some point in the future--well, would you look at *that*. It doesn't matter how long such events take because time as we know it doesn't exist in some of those other dimensions: an "event" there might happen at all points in time here so it would appear to be "eternal", or it could "jump around" and show up only from time to time, sometimes even backwards (from our point of view). We will never know since we cannot examine, detect, or experiment in/on those other dimensions. This also explains supraluminal phenomena--photons or other subatomic particles may simultaneously exist in higher dimensions we cannot yet perceive and one of those dimensions might not have a temporal arrow.

[Fist and Faith]

I've also heard that time does not exist by itself. Which makes perfect sense. Einstein taught us that space and time are not two things working together, but two aspects of the same thing. So it's possible that, before the BB, if there wasn't a previous state of existence, if there wasn't anything, then there was no time. So, technically, there was no "before the BB", because, without time, there was no such thing as "before".