Wyrdsmyth

Scientists do not attempt to explain the world in 'purely atheistic' terms... Indeed, some scientists are theists, themselves. They attempt to explain the world in 'purely naturalistic' terms. Once again, atheism is being equivocated with naturalism and science, in an attempt to score a rhetorical point.

critical thinking made ez

So the words "I don't know" is the equivalent knowledge of "X is the answer", when X can't be proven to be the answer.

MotownMJ

Wordsmyth wrote:
"Scientists do not attempt to explain the world in 'purely atheistic' terms... Indeed, some scientists are theists, themselves. They attempt to explain the world in 'purely naturalistic' terms. Once again, atheism is being equivocated with naturalism and science, in an attempt to score a rhetorical point."

I never claimed to be characterizing scientists at all; in fact, I never even used the word "scientists." My post was a response to the original message, to illustrate that the rub can go both ways.

Wyrdsmyth

You used the word science, and in the context you link that up with explaining the world in atheistic terms, once again, equivocating atheism (non-belief in deities) with science (a method that has a working assumption that the causes in question are naturally explicable). You wrote:

Does it work both ways? In the first story, I implied that (from the point of view of some theists) an inability to explain natural phenomena is somehow damaging to a worldview that doesn't assume any gods or supernatural interventions... In other words, I was addressing the idea that "goddidit" is a better explanation than "I don't know."

In the second story, the inversion you gave, the implication was that (from the point of view of some atheists) an inability to explain "all things godly" is somehow damaging to a worldview that does assume gods and supernatural interventions. You are right in that if a theist can't explain everything about his faith or the god he believes in, some atheists are going to look at that as a sign of weakness or flaw in the theism he represents. And, some may even say, the "better science works, the more evidence there is that there are no gods."

On the surface, your inversion looks very compelling. But I've been thinking about the intuition that lies below the surface of both stories. That intuition is the more ably we can explain the world without making reference to deities, the more likely it is that no deities exist. In the first story, since the atheist couldn't explain anything about how the natural world worked, but simply was skeptical about the existence of deities, the overwhelming opinion of his peers was that theism was the superior worldview. It had more explanatory power. But in the second story, your inversion, the prevailing opinion is that since the atheists can explain MUCH about the how the world works, in naturalistic terms, and the theist can't even make his own belief system coherent -- i.e., he can't explain all the inconsistencies or esoteric details of his faith, the philosophical conundrums, and so forth -- his belief system must be false.

There is a lot going on here, so try to indulge me while I try to untangle it with a few points I'd like to make:

(1) The atheist in the first story doesn't believe in the gods of his society. But, the reason he doesn't believe in them isn't because he thinks 'naturalism' or 'science' is superior to the traditional 'theism.' He doesn't believe in the gods because he's never seen them, he's never seen any evidence of their interaction with the world. He's only heard stories and other people talking about gods, but never seen them himself. In other words, he simply doesn't take it on faith that what other people are telling him must be true, just because they believe it and it's a tradition. Yet, the atheist of this primitive society is called upon to defend his non-belief in the gods and the method of his defense is framed entirely by a debate where both sides have to give explanations of how the world works, in light of what they believe. The primitive atheist doesn't get to say he lacks belief or doesn't believe in gods because he doesn't see any gods, and doesn't think it is enough to believe something just because it's written down in old stories. He has to defend his atheism as if it is a positive system of knowledge, and of course, it fails in this regard. That's because, it isn't a system of knowledge. He doesn't have a scientific method, or a comprehensive naturalistic explanation of how the world works. He's just the guy who doesn't think that people ought to believe in something just because it has the force of tradition. But, in the end, the (a) admission of ignorance of how the world works if there are no gods and (b) the stories of gods interacting with the world, shored up by tradition, win the debate.

(2) The theist in the second story believes in god, but is unable to give answers to every possible question about God, or how god interacts with the world and so on. And his admission of "I don't know" is considered to be evidence against the existence of the god he believes in. At the very least (the atheistic questioners conclude), it shows some problems with his worldview. On the other hand, science has had quite a bit of success in making of sense of the world without making any reference to deities or spirits. For the past several centuries, especially, science has been enormously successful and has made great strides in explaining the often very complex natural systems of our world. Both of these factors, (a)the admission of ignorance by the theist of exactly how god interacts with the world and (b) the scientific view of how the world works according to physical principles and natural laws, without any necessary reference to a god or gods, wins the debate. It may be that some people argue this way, and the intuition I articulated earlier may be at work... i.e., as science grows, gods diminish. The need for them diminishes. Perhaps it is a trait that humans share -- any explanation is better than none, but when better explanations come along, we can discard the old ones.

I think the biggest disanalogy, however, is that if a theist's belief system is not internally consistent it is indeed a sign that something's wrong -- but for someone to say, "I'm not sure how precipitation works exactly" isn't a fundamental problem to scientific naturalism. Scientific theories alter to fit the facts. But often theism isn't as flexible, and when we can derive a logical impossibility from the omni-qualities of a particular conception of God, that is a serious problem that theists need to address.

So let me ask you, MotownMJ, what do you think of that intuition? The more ably we can explain the world without making reference to deities, the more likely it is that no deities exist. Is this a good intuition? Do you think it is possible that people have made up deities, gods and spirits? That they made them up to explain a lot of things they didn't understand? Is that a possibility for you?

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Technos

That reminds me of the classic question "where does lightning come from?" This question was a mystery to scientist until the 19'th century, and to theist it was explained away by "it comes from god." Even today some hard core christians criticize churches with lightning rods as "trying to evade god's wrath". I can only imagine what one would say some eighty years ago if an Atheist tried to explain that the clouds were formed by particles of evaporated moisture, clinging together by a static charge produced by their friction against particles of air, or if one tried to explain that the same static charge that holds clouds together is the cause of lightning. They'd think it was just gibberish, or condemn you as a heathen, or simply think you were trying to flaunt your knowledge. Unfortunately clouds, rain, and lightning have been replaced with stars, atoms, and the universe itself, as theist are always looking for things that are too complicated to explain with a quick three sentence answer to dumbfound potential followers and offer a simple sounding supernatural explanation. In this they often use an argument from ignorance, and refuse to even consider the facts and theories provided as possible alternative to superstition. To those who try to argue from a point of naturalism, theist often use the same tactics they used against those early pioneers of science who sought the true explanation for such events, and to defend themselves against the disasters allowed by ignorance by inventing lightning rods and storm shelters.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Technos ]</p>

Children of Raven

I don't know about you, but the rain god needs to go and kick the butt of his priests who were so darn pretentious.

MotownMJ

Wyrdsmyth:

"So let me ask you, MotownMJ, what do you think of that intuition? The more ably we can explain the world without making reference to deities, the more likely it is that no deities exist."

I would answer no, because our scientific knowledge and the existence of God address different questions in different spheres of experience.

If a god created the world according to naturalistic laws, without ever interacting with the world outside of these laws (which could never be proven anyway), why would this perfectly orderly method of creation then be evidence of his non-existence?

Science is observable. God is not. Is it possible humans invented the concept of God to explain the universe? Of course it's possible. But, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this board, there are both rational and emotional (experiential) reasons to believe in God. There are also rational reasons NOT to believe.

I personally do not rely on unexplained natural phenomena as evidence of the existence of God. Science has repeatedly found explanations to phenomena that had historically been attributed to the hand of God, and I expect it to continue to do so. But even if EVERY scientific question in the world gets answered, the question of God's existence would still lie outside of the scientific arena.

Even though we can move from explaining lightning as "God's wrath" to "the same static charge that holds clouds together is the cause of lightning," the likelihood of God does not diminish because of our expanded knowledge. (If I as a child believed that the grandmother I've never met knits me a sweater every year for Christmas, but then learn that it's actually produced at a factory and store-bought and shipped via FedEx to my house, does that diminish the likelihood that Grandma exists?)

Pangea

Your rain god story reminded me of a story I read here in the sec web kiosk:
The Fire God
by Bryan "Archon" Prim


Once upon a time, there were two tribes of hunters and gatherers that lived in a vast forest. For generations, the tribes survived and flourished by hunting animals and planting meager crops, and lived in peace with each other. One night, a terrible thunderstorm swept across the land, and the villagers in both tribes were afraid. Lightning crashed and thunder boomed, and several trees were blown over. Rain pounded down upon the huts of the people, and mothers clutched their babies within. Soon, however, the storm subsided, and the remainder of the night was more or less peaceful.

The following morning, however, a great alarm was raised; a huge fire was spreading through the forest. The fire raged across the villages of both tribes, many huts were burned and many lives were lost. Afterwards, the survivors of each village decided to come together and hold a meeting in order to decide exactly what happened and how to go about repairing the damage caused.

In an undamaged part of the forest, the two tribes came together for a day to share information. Due to the fact that neither tribe understood exactly what happened or why, the big questions during this meeting were: Why did the big fire happen? And what can we do to prevent another one?

The shaman of one tribe clearly had the most popular answers to these questions, and a large group of villagers from both tribes gather around him to hear what his views were.

"I believe this… Big Fire event… is the sign of an angry god," said the shaman. "What other possible answer could there be? We've never seen anything like this before, and the power involved is beyond anything we could ever be capable of."

Several villagers nodded in agreement… fascinated at the thought of a divine power looking down on them… angry or no. One in the back, however, spoke up… "I don't know… we have fire, and we cook with fire. How do you know that this Big Fire event was the work of an angry god?"

The shaman's jaw dropped. "How can you NOT see that it is the work of a being completely beyond our abilities and ken? Yes, we have fire now… little piles of burning wood to cook our meat, and torches to guide our hunters at night, but this BF event was clearly something that we could never be capable of. What are our embers and torches when compared to the mighty blaze that ruined leagues of forest and crops? Obviously this was done with a purpose."

"Was it?" said the villager… pushing his way forward towards the tree stump that the shaman stood upon. This villager was from a different tribe than the shaman. "What if it was a natural event, and just like our own fires only bigger?"

"Bigger?!" laughed the shaman… "My friend, this fire was GIGANTIC! Flames twice as tall as the trees! A roaring devastation that consumed trees and crops and huts… animals and US in it's wake. I say it's CLEAR that this was a sign from a god… nothing else could have caused this type of event. After all, we make our own fire, and we are intelligent. Fire does not simply happen in mid-air… have you ever seen such a thing happen? We use flint and tinder, and it is a very careful process." The gathering of people was now looking back and forth between the shaman and the villager. "Tell me, my brother… what do YOU think caused the BF event?"

"Hmm. I don't know." Said the villager.

"Then there is your proof!" cried the shaman, "there is simply NO other way to explain it… it must have been a god. Consider the events night before! A great storm crashed and pounded… the heavens were resounding with angry noises. It was a prelude. A great and powerful god is angry with us, and we MUST determine why and appease him before we all perish before his unknowable strength!"

"But we're not all dead…" said the villager, "all of us gathered here survived the BF event. If the goal of the angry god was to kill us and destroy us, then why did he kill some and spare others? Why…"

"We are not meant to understand the minds of the gods! Is it not enough that he has made his presence known to us by this terrible sign of power? Must you tempt his wrath again by questioning his purpose and his plan?? You will bring devastation upon us again!"

"Well… what do you intend to do?" asked the villager, "What does this god want, and how do we know? I think we should take some more time to look at what happened… I still don't think it was just an angry god."

"Do you have a better explanation?" sneered the shaman, "Do you have a better answer that fits what we've seen?"

"Well no. But I think we should keep looking…"

"Ah HA." The shaman stood up and raised his arms. "Here we have a man who cannot tell us anything about what happened. I, on the other hand, have a perfectly good answer based upon all the FACTS we have currently, and not the lack of facts. What shall you all believe?"

And so it went throughout the night, and when the next afternoon came, the villages were divided in their beliefs.

One village went home and built several large monuments honoring the fire god, whom they named "Archon, god of the Big Fire and Bad Breath in the Morning". They built a large temple in the center of the village, and offered sacrifices of animals and crops to the god, in order to appease him and thus spare their village from another burning. A clergy was appointed to maintain the holy monuments and the temple. Prayers to Archon were uttered nightly and before meals. Virgins were sacrificed.

The other village went home and began setting controlled fires. They discovered that a forest fire needs wood for fuel, and that a large dirt path would effectively stop an advancing wall of flame by denying it fuel. Thus, they built a firebreak around their village.

For two years, there were no forest fires. Annually, the two villages would come together in friendship to feast and to trade, and the shaman happened to come across the same villager from two years before.

"Ah ha," said the shaman, "you see… we have appeased the Fire god, and we have had no more troubles. You, on the other hand, are tempting him by not honoring him. It would grieve us terribly if you were to meet your end in a fiery sign of wrath from Archon… I beg you to follow the faith and give your village a fighting chance against his wrath."

"Nahh." Said the villager, popping a freshly jerked piece of beef into his mouth.

The following year, another storm swept across the land, and another forest fire was ignited by lightning. The Worshippers of Archon were consumed completely by the flames… some kneeling before them as willing sacrifices, some praying in the temple for Archon to spare their lowly lives. Some, however, fled to the neighboring village, where the firebreak spared lives and crops.

Many centuries later, the descendants of the same village that built the firebreak would re-invent the gods of mystery, and the tribe would again split.


Date published: 11/22/2001

Wyrdsmyth

"So let me ask you, MotownMJ, what do you think of that intuition? The more ably we can explain the world without making reference to deities, the more likely it is that no deities exist."

Good! I think we are very much on the same page then. I feel exactly the same way. It seems profoundly wrong to me that some theists argue that because some scientists and physicists and anthropologists cannot answer every possible question in nature, that is somehow evidence in favor of a particular god of a particular belief system.

It wouldn't be evidence for or against his existence. If God snapped his fingers and set off the big bang and hasn't "bent any laws" or "stuck his hand in the pot" since that occurred, then the universe would look as if no supernatural occurrences were happening within it -- even if, the ultimate cause of all events does come from a god behind the scences. This is very David Hume, is it not?

If God isn't observable, then how can there be experiential reasons to believe in God? By observable, I take it you don't just mean the visual sense, but observable as synonymous with empirical. Are you suggesting there are non-empirical, experiential reasons to believe? Accessing God not through our senses but through our minds? The question I have is this. If we can "experience" God through our minds, then how can we know it's not just our imagination? What is the criteria to separate an "experience" of God from an imagining of God?

Interesting. You don't sound like a Christian, but more like a Deist. Most of Christianity seems to be based on the miracles allegedly performed by Christ -- unexplained natural phenomena which establish Jesus as a god. Particularly the Resurrection.

I agree. Science never will, and never can disprove God's existence. However, it can by accretion take away a popular (but invalid) argument in favor of the existence of deities: the argument that "goddidit" is a superior answer to "I don't know, let's keep looking".

No, it's doesn't. In some Hume-an way, God could be "behind" the entire natural universe, and leave not a supernatural trace... But I have a real "so what" reaction to this sort of thing. It sounds like deism to me. God fired up the engine, and let it run on it's own... he may have walked away eons ago. How is that more comforting or even significantly different from not assuming the God in the first place?

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

That was beautiful. Much better than my version.

Thanks for re-posting it.