Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Just_An_Atheist · 05-20-2003, 11:49 PM

Let me just clarify some things, because I don't think that I was sufficiently clear on some things. First of all, in order for this to be a dilemma for *atheism*, then this would mean that atheism was in danger of being falsified in some way. And that could only be true if and only if some brand of theism is suggested. And, since I've already shown that no matter whether one is an atheist, or a theist, then one *must* accept some counterintuitive position. Since this could only be a dilemma for atheism if and only if theism were relevant, and since theism has been shown to be at least as counterintuitive as the atheistic hypothesis, there is no dilemma for atheism.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
I think it's almost stereotypical to think of something like this as a "dilemma for atheism." These faux dilemmas often begin with "Well, if you don't believe in God, how do you explain X?"

But consider this. You could fill in X with anything that isn't currently understood, or which poses a dilemma for scientists, biologists, astronomers and so forth, and assert that if you can't explain how X came about, then a God must be the answer. But God really isn't just an explanation, here, just a condition of ignorance, a sort of metaphysical spackling used to fill in whatever gaps in knowledge we currently have.

We may never know certain things... such as exactly how life began, or how the universe got "started" (or if it ever "started" at all). Or, to put it another way, these things may never be completely settled in the scientific community. There may always be new theories about some subjects. I fully expect that to be the case. But I don't see how that poses a particular challenge to "atheism," per se. More to the point, I don't see why gaps in our knowledge should persuade us into believing that invisible, undetectable entities that only reveal themselves to ancients or mystics in dubious ways are, in fact, real.

So, epistemological gaps don't pose a particular threat to atheism. They pose a threat, mostly, to those people who are unable or unwilling to accept that there always may be things which we, as a human species, cannot answer for sure. Did the universe "begin" at a certain time? Did it always exist? How exactly did life begin? All we have right now to choose from are the various religious and mythological stories, a few scientific theories, some speculation, and the rather pedestrian, honest answer: "I don't know." Is "I don't know" more palatable to most people than "God did it"? Evidently not. It is not very emotionally satisfying... not very reassuring at all. But here, we are getting into the psychology behind your assumptions about why this is particularly an "atheist" dilemma, aren't we?

once again, i am not offering theism as a solution, i am simply trying to examine the rationality of atheism by itself.

Just_An_Atheist · 05-21-2003, 09:23 AM

Isn't it incoherent to say that theism isn't relevent but that atheism is? Atheism is simply the denial (or, some might say "lack of" belief, but I don't really care about that.) of a god. If you say that you are not viewing whether or not atheism is rational, and then dismiss it's contingent nature (contingent in the sense that atheism depends on someone putting forward a definition of God that can be refuted.)

However, perhaps this could be viewed as a dilemma for naturalism, but that would only be true if it had competing hypotheses' that could explain our origins better than naturalism.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
Let me just clarify some things, because I don't think that I was sufficiently clear on some things. First of all, in order for this to be a dilemma for *atheism*, then this would mean that atheism was in danger of being falsified in some way. And that could only be true if and only if some brand of theism is suggested. And, since I've already shown that no matter whether one is an atheist, or a theist, then one *must* accept some counterintuitive position. Since this could only be a dilemma for atheism if and only if theism were relevant, and since theism has been shown to be at least as counterintuitive as the atheistic hypothesis, there is no dilemma for atheism.

the dilemma i put forward was not necessarily intended to show that atheism (naturalism) is false. the dilemma is "is atheism (naturalism) a rational world view". and so the dilemma is this; you have to be comfortable with one of these two options:

A. the universe began to exist (in which case it came from nothing)
B. the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time

i have just been trying to examine the rationality of each option, and so far each option seems irrational.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
Isn't it incoherent to say that theism isn't relevent but that atheism is? Atheism is simply the denial (or, some might say "lack of" belief, but I don't really care about that.) of a god. If you say that you are not viewing whether or not atheism is rational, and then dismiss it's contingent nature (contingent in the sense that atheism depends on someone putting forward a definition of God that can be refuted.)

However, perhaps this could be viewed as a dilemma for naturalism, but that would only be true if it had competing hypotheses' that could explain our origins better than naturalism.

you are correct. in every post where i have said atheism, you can insert naturalism.

Just_An_Atheist · 05-21-2003, 09:37 AM

Well then, I have no problemn I'm an agnostic when concerning a complete worldview (including naturalism) As of right now, I'm content to try to develope well-founded beliefs in very specific, and narrow areas. (particularly the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of mind.)

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
[B]Full stop right there. The very idea of "springing into existence out of nothing" is a contradiction within it's own language game. But that language is not the language of physics. The nature of physics is an empirical, a scientific question.

yes i totally agree, not only is it incoherent language, it is an incoherent concept.

"The nature of physics is an empirical, a scientific question."

is the nature of the meaning of your sentence empirical or philosophical? thats probably for a different thread.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 09:45 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
[Even if physics was in such a silly bind (in which case we would simply have to let such a physic die), the human ideas about deities have insufficient underlying substance, since all the key questions are whisked under a handsome metaphysical rug.

who ever said anything about a deity?

ComestibleVenom · 05-21-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq "The nature of physics is an empirical, a scientific question."

is the nature of the meaning of your sentence empirical or philosophical? thats probably for a different thread. [/B]

Philosophy, as Wifred Sellars put it, is the pursuit of how things, in the broadest sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest sense of the term.

It's thus hard to see how science could possibly escape being philosophical to some extent, as it constitutes a central conmponent of humankind's understanding of the world.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 09:55 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom

Tell me, how would you relate your, "Lawless" state to the current state of physics?

Of course you can't.

Nor would i want to. thats my whole point.

The evolution of the universe is a scientific question. The nature of time and causality, the commonality and differentiation amongst the parts of the universe are scientific questions.

once again, can the meaning of your paragraph be tested scientifically or is it not purely philosophical?

It's fun to speculate wildly, but the best sort of speculations are those disciplined by skepticism and knowledge.

am i not being skeptical and seeking knowledge?

Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. What does this mean? Nothing. It's just some wild speculation with no connection to what human knowledge actually has to offer us. I see no argument of any cogency.

you are supporting my point, i was illustrating the absurdity of just_an_atheists reasons for justifying that something could come from nothing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2003, 11:49 PM	#51
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	Let me just clarify some things, because I don't think that I was sufficiently clear on some things. First of all, in order for this to be a dilemma for atheism, then this would mean that atheism was in danger of being falsified in some way. And that could only be true if and only if some brand of theism is suggested. And, since I've already shown that no matter whether one is an atheist, or a theist, then one must accept some counterintuitive position. Since this could only be a dilemma for atheism if and only if theism were relevant, and since theism has been shown to be at least as counterintuitive as the atheistic hypothesis, there is no dilemma for atheism.

05-21-2003, 09:23 AM	#53
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	Isn't it incoherent to say that theism isn't relevent but that atheism is? Atheism is simply the denial (or, some might say "lack of" belief, but I don't really care about that.) of a god. If you say that you are not viewing whether or not atheism is rational, and then dismiss it's contingent nature (contingent in the sense that atheism depends on someone putting forward a definition of God that can be refuted.) However, perhaps this could be viewed as a dilemma for naturalism, but that would only be true if it had competing hypotheses' that could explain our origins better than naturalism.

05-21-2003, 09:37 AM	#56
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	Well then, I have no problemn I'm an agnostic when concerning a complete worldview (including naturalism) As of right now, I'm content to try to develope well-founded beliefs in very specific, and narrow areas. (particularly the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of mind.)

05-21-2003, 09:43 AM	#57
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom [B]Full stop right there. The very idea of "springing into existence out of nothing" is a contradiction within it's own language game. But that language is not the language of physics. The nature of physics is an empirical, a scientific question. yes i totally agree, not only is it incoherent language, it is an incoherent concept. "The nature of physics is an empirical, a scientific question." is the nature of the meaning of your sentence empirical or philosophical? thats probably for a different thread.

05-21-2003, 09:45 AM	#58
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom [Even if physics was in such a silly bind (in which case we would simply have to let such a physic die), the human ideas about deities have insufficient underlying substance, since all the key questions are whisked under a handsome metaphysical rug. who ever said anything about a deity?

05-21-2003, 09:55 AM	#60
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	[QUOTE]Originally posted by ComestibleVenom Tell me, how would you relate your, "Lawless" state to the current state of physics? Of course you can't. Nor would i want to. thats my whole point. The evolution of the universe is a scientific question. The nature of time and causality, the commonality and differentiation amongst the parts of the universe are scientific questions. once again, can the meaning of your paragraph be tested scientifically or is it not purely philosophical? It's fun to speculate wildly, but the best sort of speculations are those disciplined by skepticism and knowledge. am i not being skeptical and seeking knowledge? Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. What does this mean? Nothing. It's just some wild speculation with no connection to what human knowledge actually has to offer us. I see no argument of any cogency. you are supporting my point, i was illustrating the absurdity of just_an_atheists reasons for justifying that something could come from nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.