Charles Darwin

Good question. I admit I don't have a precise definition. Earlier, I gave this def'n for religious beliefs:

*********
I'm not sure I can provide a hard and fast definition in an email post, but in rough and simple terms, it seems to me that fundamental beliefs about world are religious. Of course theism is an example, but isn't materialism also an example? Materialism says that matter and energy is all there is.

Can science explore, discover and analyze all phenomena? Are love, hate and consciousness just as amenable to scientific analysis as are bridges and rocks? Some people believe the answer is yes; that there is no spiritual realm. It seems to me that this is every bit as much a religious belief as the converse.

The point I'm trying to explore in this thread is that atheism (or perhaps strong atheism) -- the belief that there is no god -- carries with it, it seems to me, serious metaphysical implications. You cannot simply say you don't believe in God and that, oh by the way, you are free of religious beliefs. If you believe there is no God, then are you not very much committing yourself to some other fundamental beliefs about the world? I understand there may be folks who say, "Gee, I just don't know." I am not referring to those folks. I'm referring to folks who say they believe there is no God.
*********

Modern science cannot proceed without making metaphysical assumptions, such as uniformity and parsimony. I'm trying to use "metaphysical" in this way; that is, for assumptions or beliefs that deal with reality and are not empirically testable.

Charles Darwin

Agreed. That is a main point of this thread: Is it correct that all alternatives are metaphysical, or are there non metaphysical alternatives?



Fair enough. Sounds like a standoff.

Agreed. But my question was, given that you do not know of a physical explanation, wouldn't you agree that a conviction that one exists is metaphysical?

Charles Darwin

So by your definition, materialism is not a metaphysical belief.



It happens all the time. Consider abortion for example. Supporters are cast as religiously neutral and foes are cast as religious, regardless of argument.

Charles Darwin

You and others are saying you just don't care, or don't want to indulge in speculating about the origin of existence, or other questions which you feel we have insufficient understanding. OK, fair enough. In that sense atheism doesn't entail metaphysics.

However, your claim to be free of metaphysics might be hard to defend. For instance, you say you use science as your guide. But science itself depends on metaphysics (eg, uniformity, parsimony). Or again, when you say that you admit ignorance if the science doesn't work, I would ask: How do you know when theh science isn't working? I think you'll have to resort to metaphysics again.

Philosoft

Certainly not. You might want to read what Eudie wrote again.
Even if we stipulate, how is this a church-state issue? Roe v. Wade makes no reference to the establishment clause, to my knowledge.

Philosoft

I guess I'm not speaking clearly. Why, again, is any of this necessarily entailed by atheism?

Charles Darwin

Originally posted by Charles Darwin :
However, your claim to be free of metaphysics might be hard to defend. For instance, you say you use science as your guide. But science itself depends on metaphysics (eg, uniformity, parsimony). Or again, when you say that you admit ignorance if the science doesn't work, I would ask: How do you know when theh science isn't working? I think you'll have to resort to metaphysics again.


I was responding to the gentleman who said he is free of metaphysics because he only follows science, and then admits ignorance with the science doesn't work. I am suspecting this approach, in fact, entails metaphysics.

Shadowy Man

How was something that is infinitely old (i.e. always existed) created?

Doesn't the use of the word created imply that the thing didn't exist at some point?

Or are you saying that the universe was created, even if it happened infinitely far in the past?!?

Bumble Bee Tuna

Nope. I guess there's the difference between us- when you have something that you don't know, you make up an answer and say you know. I just say "I don't know". I don't know that science always works. I don't know the origins of the universe. I don't know if the universe even has origins. But instead of inventing an explanation, I'm content to say I don't know. Not "I don't care", but "I don't know".

But honestly I'm having trouble debating here because I don't know what you mean by 'metaphysics'. I certainly feel strange being told I'm resorting to something I have no clue about. What are metaphysical beliefs as opposed to just regular beliefs, and what metaphysical beliefs in particular am I resorting to?

-B

Charles Darwin

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.

Well I didn't use the word "created." Step #3 talks about explaining creation (substitute "the world" for creation, or "existence," if you prefer). Here are the steps again:

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.