Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
I also believe that you did not create the world. There is no more evidence that a god created it than that you did. There is no more evidence that you did not create it than that a god did not. (There is, in fact, no more evidence that you are not a god than that, say, Jesus was not a god.) So, is my belief that you did not create the world a religious belief?

You are missing the point. Someone made the statement that they hold no beliefs regarding the origin of the universe; yet in fact they do believe it was not created by God.

It is not always to define what a "religious" belief is, and how to distinguish it from other types of beliefs. But your example of not believing that I created the universe is an easy one. That is not a religious belief because you already know that I'm not capable of it.

If you see an explosion, you may say it occurred spontaneously (somehow), or you may believe an entity caused it. Now let's say the explosion is the BB and you are saying it was spontaneous. OK, fine, but what is your reasoning? I submit that there is a religious belief in there somewhere. No? You certainly do not have any compelling emprically-based explanation.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You misinterpret #3. "Explaining creation" does not assume anything about creation. You are free to explain creation by saying it is infinitely old, for example.

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
This is the kind of nonsense that makes me really doubt your claim about a PhD in physics. The universe does not have to be infinitely old to exist from the beginning of time.

I didn't say it did.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Well, I'm terribly sorry about all this, but if you're going to insist that atheism is a religion for whatever daft political purpose, you have to demonstrate that atheism necessarily contains elements of one or more definitions of religion. As there are at least two ways shown thus far that atheism generally avoids being definitively religious, your argument fails. Again, I'm sorry if it doesn't seem fair to you.

Let me ask you something. What political advantages does atheism enjoy via its status as a non-religion? Is there some science being taught in public schools that is purely metaphysical in nature, inasmuch as it has little or no empirical support (as do all religions' supernatural claims)?

For the Nth time, I'm not insisting that atheism is a religion. I am asking the question as to whether atheism entails religious beliefs.

As for your question about advantage. What do you think about the recent San Diego decision on the Boy Scouts. Would the same decision have been handed down if the Scouts was an atheist organization?

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:27 AM

Physicist #3 concludes F = 1.000013*ma, and his model fits the data better than #1, but not perfectly.

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
There is no difference between physicists 1 and 3. They are just using different units.

I knew there was a reason why I had an exponent in there. Please change to:

Physicist #3 concludes F = ma^1.000013, and his model fits the data better than #1, but not perfectly.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:32 AM

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what if you are wrong. What if there is a spiritual realm and that some phenomena cannot be described by science. Then you may run into problems that simply are not solvable by your scientific methods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
How could you be aware of a phenomenon that cannot be described by science?

You are violating your own rules. You stubbornly insist on "alternative explanations" when someone dismisses God, but you postulate that there could be something that "cannot be described by science" without giving an example of it. I challenge you to construct an example of such a phenomenon and an obstacle that a scientific description could not overcome.

I'm unclear on what you are asking. Why is it that, if there exists phenomena undescribable by science, we could not be aware of it? How about love? The obstacle would be if love derives from a non material, or spiritual, realm which science does not have access to. Make sense?

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:37 AM

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence we may look at the most complex thing in the universe -- living organisms -- which defy naturalistic origin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
How come?

Because we live in a universe where things don't tend to fall together. If you believe that the DNA code or echolocation are examples of things which are likely to have fallen together, then you are clearly exercising faith.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ashe
But he consistently does not address the corrections and continues to hold the definition of atheist as a person who BELIEVES (without evidence) that God cannot exist.

I may well be wrong about atheism entailing religious belief (depending on how one defines these terms, of course), but I'm afraid you are mis stating my position. I don't doubt that atheists have plenty of evidence for their position (though the nature of the evidence is another question); and I understand atheism has its different flavors, including the weak and strong positions.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by warrenly
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
metaphysical

1 : of or relating to metaphysics
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : SUPERNATURAL
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICAL
4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery

I've highlighted in bold the definition I think Charles Darwin is referring to when he writes of atheism making metaphysical claims. This would involve an atheist making some sort of claim or theory about existence involving anything that is beyond what is perceptible to the senses. I disagree that any such claim is necessarily being made by being atheist, the atheist is exactly following the inverse of definition 2a by not believing in that which is beyond what is perceptible to the senses, no claims about existence are even necessary for that.

I found one of my k.d. lang CDs on my desk, outside of it's case. Any claim or speculation I might make about how it got there is, by that definition, a metaphysical claim, because I don't know how it got there and the reason for it being there is beyond the perception of my senses. I didn't see it materialize there or see someone place it there, I didn't even hear anyone play it or ask me if they could borrow it. My own memory fails me in this matter because the last thing I remember about it was that it was in it's case in its normal position on the shelf. What I say, however, is that it doesn't matter how it got there, the k.d. lang CD is on my desk until I put it away, providing I can find its case. However, I do believe k.d. lang herself does exist, because I can, with one of my senses, listen to her beautifully crafted songs, but this has nothing to do with how or why her CD is on my desk.

Another stupid analogy brought to you by:

Warren in Oklahoma

I appreciate your helpful definition. Yes, 2a is roughly what I'm talking about. It is a bit more complex because one must appreciate the rold of deduction -- we deduce natural laws from our observations, and use natural laws to explain things, so 2a implicitely includes the idea that metaphysical beliefs are those which cannot easily be explained by natural laws. It is not a metaphysical belief to think your CD got there one way, or another, even though you don't actually have the recollection, because your explanation is consistent with inductive and deductive reasoning, and your past experiences. These tools are not available when it comes to explaining existence.

I understand and appreciate your point about the atheist *not* making a metaphysical belief because he is *not* believing in 2a type beliefs. The question I am raising is, is that really always possible. Aren't there certain things, such as existence, which can only be explained by metaphysics. Yes, you can say the origin was in a material sense, or that it is possible that science may someday discover a material explanation. That's fine, but these are metaphysical beliefs.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 01:06 AM

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are reading more into #4 than is there. There's nothing there about metaphysics. Read it again, carefully, and you'll see there is no hidden premise. It is simply a true statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
CD:

Nope, it is a FALSE statement. This point has been clarified many times.

...So why is it so important to you to pretend that this false statement is true?

It seems to me (and obviously, to others here) that you're carrying a lot of emotional baggage into this discussion. In particular, your pre-committment to the belief, not just that God exists, but that God is plausible: so plausible that non-belief in the God hypothesis is an aberrant belief-system that requires elaborate justification.

Our position is not merely that we don't believe there is a God. We also take the position that the God hypothesis is fundamentally implausible. There is simply no good reason to take it seriously. A magical intelligent being as First Cause makes about as much sense as a magical toenail clipping as First Cause. All the intelligences (and toenail clippings) we know about are the result of billions of years of evolution, and don't have creative powers in any case (no intelligence can will matter into existence).

It's blatant anthropomorphism, nothing more.

Hmmmm. Sorry about missing all those clarifications. Can you explain just once more how #4 is false, when it appears for all the world to be uncontroversial to me? Given what you write here, I would have thought your problem should be with #5, not #4. Repeating the steps here:

1. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God.
2. The belief that there is no God is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.
3. Strong atheism is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.
4. A belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation is a belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation.
5. A belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.
6. Strong atheism is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.

You believe you have an alternate explanation (ie, evolution), so that a belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation is a belief that *does not* necessarily entail metaphysical claims.

I am a bit confused about your claim that the God hypothesis is "fundamentally implausible." You say there is no good reason to take it seriously. OK, but why does that make it *fundamentally* implausible? Sounds like you are merely claiming that there is a serious evidential problem. No?

You are correct that I believe the God hypothesis to be plausible, but your characterization of this as "emotional baggage," I think, begs the question.

But in this thread I'm not saying "that non-belief in the God hypothesis is an aberrant belief-system that requires elaborate justification." I'm merely asking the question as to whether that non belief, in fact, entails its own metaphysics.

Finally, I contend that, according to Warren's 2a definition, your explanation of evolution is metaphysical because it is unlikely from what we know of this universe.

Charles Darwin · 08-09-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I would also like to ask why you consider Santa Claus to be unlikely? There's a thread on this topic: Santaism and Asantaism

Again, you seem to be carrying a big emotional committment here. There is an obvious alternative to the concept of an intelligent First Cause: a non-intelligent First Cause (or an uncaused Universe, or indeed an infinite range of non-God-based hypotheses, including a Magical Toenail Clipping). Therefore God is no more necessary than Santa.

And Santa is more plausible than God.

I consider SC to be unlikely for the obvious reasons: too fat for the chimney, his boots would catch fire, too cold for him on the NP for those 11 months and 30 days, etc.

What I'm exploring here is not the necessity of any explanation, but the metaphysics behind it. Yes, of course there are a range of alternatives, but are they free of metaphysics?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.