Afghan

I am sure that there is a very good answer to this. I am sure it has been debated at length in a plenitude of other threads. I haven't read them so here I go...

Whilst not all atheism would embrace the idea of a system of fundamental natural laws, a good deal of atheists attempt to understand the world in those terms. So my question is, isn't a system of fundamental natural laws just another sort of 'God'? Perhaps not one to whom the appeals of the faithful mean very much (more Job than Exodus) or one who cares very much for worship but are still talking about an unopposable agency whose 'will' still orchestrates the cosmos.

I'm not trying to demolish the atheist position here. Better and worse men than me have tried and failed. Nor do I wish to. But doesn't, perhaps, the God that you don't believe need as much definition as the God that others do believe in?

Goliath

Afghan,

A system of natural laws is, by definition, not supernatural. Therefore they cannot be a god in any way, shape, or form, since gods are supernatural.

Sincerely,

Goliath

TooBad

Well, if "god" is just a metaphor for something else, I don't think the atheist position is in much danger at all.

Koyaanisqatsi

Beside Goliath's excellent point, all you're doing is personifying natural laws. To what end?

Beyond poetic, it serves no purpose.

Samhain

No. Understanding the basic concepts of naturalism has nothing in common with a diety-figure that inspires worship. There are very distinct differences between the 'God' of theism (i.e. Christianity, Islam, etc.) and the 'God' of science and nature. The former inspires worship and establishes a worldview for followers to perpetuate, and is generally incompatible with that which we know to be objectively true through scientific and natural observation.

There are differences between establishing religions based upon a diety-entity, and understanding the natural laws of the universe, a multitude of differences which IMHO establish that the differences between atheism and theism (generally speaking) are two quite different things.

Don't worry, you haven't. I'm sure there will be plenty of others expressing opposition to this idea as well.

The problem is that nature and natural laws can be observed, and it would seem quite obvious that there is no kind of intelligent puppet-master behind the strings of the universe working for some kind 'higher purpose'. I think that many of us accept that the universe is just that, and only that, it requires no other definition or proof of being besides itself and what can be observed within it. There is no motive behind the universe, it is indifferent to our petty agendas.

Afghan

I'm not trying to personify anything. You could just as well say that atheism is an attempt to depersonify God. Yes, I admit that there is less purpose in appealing to natural laws than supernatural father-figures through prayer or whatever, but there are similarities between the two. Okay, perhaps talking about natural laws having a 'will' is somewhat prejudicial. Perhaps it would be better to say that a system of fundamental laws and an omnipotent person with specific desires would both determine the universe work in a set way.

So, to ask the question in a different way, what is it that an atheist does not believe in?

Goliath

Afghan,

Atheism is the lack of belief that any gods exist. How can I attempt to depersonify that which I don't believe to exist?

See above.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Jayhawker Soule

No. Unless, of course, you adulterate the term 'God' to denote "a system of fundamental natural laws" -- a system which is accessible to investigation, devoid of intentionality, and, therefore, wholly worthless as an object of worship.
Thanks.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

phlebas

Well, you're not being very clear.

Most of us accept that there is a set of natural laws that govern the way everything works. Few of us would give that collection of laws an intelligence or a will of its own. Grouping these laws under the term "god" is as meaningless as me grouping all the loose sheets of paper on my desk under the term "god."

It boils down to simple word games. If you wantr to tweak common definitions, then you'll likely find a lot of people who have no problem what you're saying. But, as Goliath said, in almost every case the word "god" refers to the supernatural.

Given all that, what point are you trying to make?

Jayhawker Soule

As a naturalist, I don't believe in the supernatural.