Philosoft

Why are you worried about what the aforementioned gentleman claims? You are trying to impugn atheism as a philosophy, are you not?

Philosoft

Once again, this is wrong. Strong atheism is fundamentally a single belief. Strong atheism entails that God did not create the universe, but it does not necessarily entail an alternate explanation. In order to justify this premise, you must show that strong atheism necessarily entails a metaphysical belief that explains creation. That will require an additional logical argument, wherein your conclusion is not assumed in your premises.

Charles Darwin

Originally posted by 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.

Not sure what you mean. I don't think I've made anything up. And I'm not saying I "know" anything. I'm saying I suspect that atheism is not free of its own metaphyics.

Well it is a big subject -- too big for me to cover here (or do justice to even if I tried). Let me give a couple of examples and remarks that may pique your interest.

Here's how one philosopher explained metaphysics: "Unlike physics, in which we attempt to explain the origin of events, in metaphysics we try to explain the origin of the explanation of the event. "

Consider this example. Three physicists are given a big database of force, mass, and acceleration measurements observed over a time period.

Physicist #1 concludes F = ma, though his model does not fit the data perfectly.

Physicist #2 concludes the observed data are a complicated function of time. The function is not analytical, but is a table lookup -- his fit is perfect.

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

Can you see that each physicist is pursuing a different metaphysical approach to the data?

You mentioned that you will use science only so long as it works (or something to that effect). This concept of the limits of science is important and has metaphysical implications. Let's say you believe all phenomena are ultimately mechanistic and therefore can be described by science. Then any problems science incurs you will see as temporary. It is a research problem, not an epistemological problem.

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.

But notice that science has no way to detect this. It can never know that it has run into an unsolvable problem. For any problems it incurs can always be viewed as just a temporarily unsolved research problem.

Hence we may look at the most complex thing in the universe -- living organisms -- which defy naturalistic origin, and yet simultaneously say their naturalistic origin is a fact; only the details are yet to be ironed out (a research problem). We may look at the DNA code, something for which the naturalistic explanations are nothing more than handwaving, and reassure ourselves that it is merely a research problem. If this is not stretching science too thin, then what is?

So you see, when you say you "just follow science," that raises a host of metaphysical issues.

DMB

CD: One can imagine it possible (sorry I keep on throwing up thought experiments) that a creator god would choose to reveal itself unambiguously and incontravertibly to all humankind, so that its existence would be beyond reasonable doubt.

Presumably it might also be possible for a non-theistic explanation to be established beyond reasonable doubt, by means I cannot now specify.

I would contend that in either of these cases, there would exist a non-metaphysical explanation for the existence of the universe. In neither case should any faith be necessary.

Now what it seems to me that you are actually trying to show is that with any other case there must be some sort of faith involved. Your agenda is to show that if one rejects a particular hypothesis, then one is, openly or not, nonetheless adopting a religious stance.

In particular, you seem to suggest that accepting the methodology of science is equivalent to accepting god, since you must thereby accept certain metaphysical precepts such as uniformity and parsimony.

I would contend that most of us are aware that uniformity and parsimony are working tools rather than unassailable principles. You were the one to introduce Occam's razor to this thread. There are many formulations of Occam's (or Ockham's) razor, but I have always supposed that it is a heuristic rule. Please correct me if I am wrong. Similarly, uniformity is not something that is elevated to an unassailable principle, it is just the easiest assumption we can make in an investigation, and subject to correction.

Science essentially proceeds by trial and error. It makes predictions that sooner or later are verified or falsified. At no time up to now could it be said to be the final repository of all truth nor are we in a position to claim that it ever will be able to solve this problem or that. So we don't need to have faith in science; all we need to claim is that it encompasses methods that up to now have worked pretty well.

I don't think you have shown that most atheists even think that science will provide a believable explanation for the existence of the universe or, further, that such an explanation must exist and be findable.

Those who are sceptical about religious claims are quite likely to be sceptical about all claims. Scepticism seems to be a stance that you don't really grasp. It comes back to your OP: you have a faith in A; those who do not accept A must have a faith in ~A. It ain't necessarily so.

Charles Darwin

No, I'm not trying to impugn atheism as a philosophy, just explore its metaphysics. I'm afraid I do find atheism untenable, but that is not my point in this thread.

Charles Darwin

I agree with much of what you say here, and I am getting a better handle on your skepticism. But I'm not quite convinced there aren't some metaphysics lurking when someone says they don't believe in God. You realize that I could turn it around and say that you don't seem to grasp your own presuppositions -- the metaphysical spectacles you are constantly looking through but are oblivious to. Perhaps a better way to have gone about it would be to ask the question: "Why do you reject God?" Perhaps the metaphysical assumptions would become more apparent, but that will have to wait for another thread.

As for your points about science and its metaphysics:

1st, "uniformity" unfortunately has a couple of different meanings. I believe you are using it in a higher-level sense; that is, the aggregate effect of natural laws is often a uniform action, but may occasionally be abrupt (the classic example being in geology). But in dealing with the metaphysics of science, uniformity has more of a lower-level meaning; that is, natural laws are time-invariant, what I read in my lab notebook is indeed what I wrote yesterday, etc.

2nd, please see what I wrote to Bumble Bee about about science and its metaphysics. My point is not that it is equivalent to belief in God; merely that it has its own metaphysics.

Biff the unclean

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.
So when you use the word "metaphysics" you are saying "magic" are you?
A spiritual realm has never been seen to exist. To make a claim that it does without any supporting evidence at all is intellectually dishonest.

But notice that science has no way to detect this.
If you cannot detect something you cannot make a claim for it's existence. Like the great Ken Norris said "The scientific method is nothing more than a system of rules to keep us from lying to each other."

It can never know that it has run into an unsolvable problem. For any problems it incurs can always be viewed as just a temporarily unsolved research problem.
What you are missing here is that such a unique problem as an "unsolvable" one would AT THIS TIME HAVE NO KNOWN SOLUTION. Likewise a problem that has yet to be solved but some day will one would AT THIS TIME HAVE NO KNOWN SOLUTION.
When you make claims of magic, or as you prefer, metaphysics you are in fact claiming that you have a solution when you don't because AT THIS TIME THERE IS NO KNOWN SOLUTION. And to claim to have something that you do not is dishonest, and serves nothing but your ego.

Hence we may look at the most complex thing in the universe -- living organisms -- which defy naturalistic origin,
That's just silly, they don't do that at all.

and yet simultaneously say their naturalistic origin is a fact; only the details are yet to be ironed out (a research problem).
Since there is no supernatural�since despite thousands of years of false claims nothing supernatural has ever been observed�since every single last solitary last thing that has ever been observed is naturalistic�to throw out the entirety of human experience in favor of superstition is not sane.

We may look at the DNA code, something for which the naturalistic explanations are nothing more than handwaving, and reassure ourselves that it is merely a research problem. If this is not stretching science too thin, then what is?
But it is not stretching science too thin for you to claim that an invisible superman who lives in the sky blew on a pile of dust with his magic breath and a fully grown man popped up?

I don't understand how you can find fault with science because they admit that we have yet to learn everything? Is it the confidence that since the scientific method has worked so very well so far that it will continue to do so?
Because the "metaphysical/magical" method you purport doesn't work at all. I can't help but wonder just what causes you to cling to it so desperately when it shows itself to be an utter failure? The answers it gives you are wrong, why waste your time on it?
:banghead:

Charles Darwin

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.


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.

Biff the unclean

"Why do you reject God?"

We don't reject god. There is no god to reject.
We reject your story that there is a god because you can't back it up. All that has ever been presented is a story, never a god.

Charles Darwin

What am I clinging to it so desperately?