Synaesthesia

I agree that judging the adequacy of a system itself requires a theoretical framework. However, we must also remember that the kind of question being asked may or may not be useful. Therefore the ability of a system to deal with it may be an irrelevant criterion.

I suspect that the problem with the example of question you pose is that we don’t know how to ask it. First of all, there is no system whatsoever, not idealism nor any form of theism that has actually been able to answer the question ”Why does anything exist”.

Theism ‘explains’ the physical world as being the result of God. Where does God come from? According to most doctrines, that question is off-limits; It cannot be answered.

Secondly, although a system involving a God may well be useful for some questions, I question the place of God in any theory whatsoever. It always requires an abandonment of explanatory surplus and is of questionable theoretical value.

First of all, many tentative evolutionary and memetic accounts of human curiosity have been put forward. It clearly is aminable to scientific exploration. But I reject your assumption that Methodological Naturalism (or general ontological materialism, or metaphysical naturalsm) rely in some special way upon this phenomenon.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

luvluv

I'm admittedly posting over my head but I had heard that the constants could have been any numerical value. Do you have reason to believe differently?

And God has done a lot for me.

Vorkosigan

I'm admittedly posting over my head but I had heard that the constants could have been any numerical value. Do you have reason to believe differently?

What does that mean -- "could have been a different value." Such statements are possible only when choice is available. We don't even know if other choices are possible or not. In the total absence of information, you can't make statements about probability.

Vorkosigan

Andrew_theist

Hello E_muse,

Thanks for your words of encouragement. You mentioned concern about this thread getting off track. Actually it got off track almost from the start. I haven’t read all the replies but I haven’t seen one that actually answered the questions I asked in the original post.

My question is how many here support this view and are prepared to offer evidence on behalf of its claims? What scientific evidence or any evidence confirms the claim that our natural world is all there is? Or is this a belief statement?

As it stands now I have to assume no one supports the mission statement of this board that disappoints. On my own board I have far too many atheists take the ‘weak atheism’ dodge as I refer to it. I don’t see how anyone can subscribe to this boards credo and be anything less than a strong atheist, Vorkosigans objections aside. Someone told me there are atheists who believe in supernaturalism also but I don’t see how they could have strong objections to God.

As expected, none of the atheists were pointing out the apparent contradiction as they would if it were a Christian statement of faith.

This doesn’t surprise me either. Most of the atheists on this board are very intelligent and articulate. Nonetheless many of them fail to realize they hold a worldview and are deeply (and sometimes even more committed) to their philosophy than some believers are to theirs. What makes this all the more dangerous is the quaint delusion that they don’t have a worldview. They think they just see the world for what it is. Often they make assertions about reality as if their point of view were a foregone conclusion.

Since I have seen no one answer my original questions I will answer them. Of course it is a belief statement. It is an article of faith no less than belief in an uncreated being is. If some can hold the universe is sufficient and in no need of explanation you wouldn’t think they could be too opposed to the thought that God is self sufficient in no need of explanation. Since I admit that I have a worldview it makes me more cautious of accepting wilder claims on behalf of theism. As a result my arguments for theism tend to be conservative and even boring.

Thanks Andrew.. and God bless. I hope you hang around.

I’m not going anywhere soon. No matter how scary Vorkosigans arguments are . You going to visit my board sometime?

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Andrew_theist

Hello Jobar,

My original post was open ended enough. I asked who believed in the mission statement of this board? I am not arguing against MN or suggesting anyone should abandon it. I work as a system administrator for a large company and when trouble shooting the network or computers I assume natural causes. I don’t think MN validates belief in naturalism or materialism for that matter. When I work on computers I anticipate compliance with natural laws precisely because they were created to be consistent. Regardless of the scorn of some here on the board I think design hypothesis in some areas may lead to breakthroughs no matter the saber rattling of some here.

David Gould

Andrew,

If I did not answer your questions, I apologise. I thought I had.

Yes, I believe in the 'mission statement'.

(by thew way - I do not think 'weak' atheism is a cop out at all. That is like saying liberal Christianity is a wak washy cop out. Or maybe you think that? I am not sure what brand of theism you follow)

I think that the fact that metaphysical naturalism predicts that methodological naturalism will be the only method that is able to obtain information about the universe and the fact that thus far this prediction has been fulfilled is evidence that metaphysical naturalism is true.

This is a scientific statement and not a faith statement - in other words, it can be falsified.

It just never has been.

Like any scientific position, it is open to revision.

Vorkosigan

As it stands now I have to assume no one supports the mission statement of this board that disappoints. On my own board I have far too many atheists take the ‘weak atheism’ dodge as I refer to it. I don’t see how anyone can subscribe to this boards credo and be anything less than a strong atheist, Vorkosigans objections aside. Someone told me there are atheists who believe in supernaturalism also but I don’t see how they could have strong objections to God.

You can't see how a Buddhist can have strong objections to personal gods? You can't see how a Confucian, a believer in Psychic power or a pantheist can have strong objections to a god?

This doesn’t surprise me either. Most of the atheists on this board are very intelligent and articulate. Nonetheless many of them fail to realize they hold a worldview and are deeply (and sometimes even more committed) to their philosophy than some believers are to theirs.

We all hold worldviews. The problem is your confusion of terminology. Atheism is not a worldview bu a lack of belief in gods that is part of many systems of thought. Metaphysical naturalism is not a worldview either; there are many things it does not take into account (like social and moral proferences, for example). MN is merely a philosophical position about the nature of reality. It is otherwise too imcomplete to qualify as a worldview.

What makes this all the more dangerous is the quaint delusion that they don’t have a worldview.

On the contrary, all of us are quite aware we have worldviews. The difference is that we have a more robust view of our worldviews than you do. The quaint delusion is in your own mind.

As a result my arguments for theism tend to be conservative and even boring.

That is not how I would describe them.

Stick around. There's always a conversation going on somewhere.

Vorkosigan

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Yes, but wouldn't most other values for the cosmological constants result in a universe that could not support life as we know it?

There are two problems that jump out instantly. (1) life as we know it. Other constants might support other kinds of life. (2) Why is life important? Why is it the "problem" you're attempting to solve or explain? Why not the configuration of the solar system, snowflakes or lightning storms on Jupiter?


The life as we know it argument in lawyerese is assuming facts not in evidence. There is plenty of opportunity for life, as we don’t know it to develop right in our own solar system. Yet it appears the other planets are lifeless. Furthermore Vorkosigan fails to distinguish between the strong and weak anthropomorphism. There are several constants in fine balance needed for galaxy, star and planet formation alone. Can anyone imagine sentient life developing without such?

Life according to naturalism isn’t important. That is why it is a surprise there is any. That an uncaring universe should seem to go out of its way to be a place where sentient beings can ask why are we here? is a very valid question. I agree that Vorkosigan is being disingenuous on this issue. There is a wealth of information on this topic from scientists with no axe to grind and the sheer number of coincidences and the fine degree to which so many of them depend on seemingly unrelated ones is in a word astonishing. Enough so that some jaded atheist scientists have given design and theism reconsideration on the strength of the evidence alone. For Vorkosigan to dismiss it so easily is an extreme case of hand waving. For those who say there is only God of the gaps arguments this is inference of design from evidence. To the contrary it is explained away by naturalism in the gaps.

No, because we do not know the probability of any single outcome because we know nothing about the process involved. Outcomes are usually biased by some condition or process or rule. For example, there are 20 possible choices for opening moves in a chess game, but if you look at the games of grand masters, they tend to cluster around 3 or 4 realistic possibilities. All are not equally chosen.

How ironic! Many theists would argue that a grand master is responsible for creating the universe.

Vorkosigan

The life as we know it argument in lawyerese is assuming facts not in evidence.

Is ours the only kind of life possible? Nobody knows. Therefore, no claims that depend on that as an assumption can be made.

There is plenty of opportunity for life, as we don’t know it to develop right in our own solar system. Yet it appears the other planets are lifeless.

So far. In fact there is some tantalizing evidence for Mars, but it is very thin.

Furthermore Vorkosigan fails to distinguish between the strong and weak anthropomorphism.

That's because strong anthropomorphism is a claim that has no foundation except wishful thinking.

There are several constants in fine balance needed for galaxy, star and planet formation alone. Can anyone imagine sentient life developing without such?

There are several constants in fine balance needed for galaxy, star and planet formation alone. Can anyone imagine snowflakes developing without such?

There are several constants in fine balance needed for galaxy, star and planet formation alone. Can anyone imagine self-replicating clays developing without such?

There are several constants in fine balance needed for galaxy, star and planet formation alone. Can anyone imagine the great wall of galaxies developing without such?

There are several constants in fine balance needed for galaxy, star and planet formation alone. Can anyone imagine beetles developing without such?

We can replay this quote ad infinitum. Please submit evidence that the universe was designed for life and not some other thing in it, or some other purpose.

Life according to naturalism isn’t important.

It is neither important nor unimportant. The whole concept of relative importance of things is subjective and arbitrary. It exists in your mind.

That is why it is a surprise there is any.

Why is it a surprise? There's nothing surprising about it. It is only a surprise if you have data about life in other universes. Again, this is a variation on the "relative importance" theme. Your surprise is arbitrary and subjective; I find ball lightning much more suprising, since it occurs under conditions much rarer than those for life.

That an uncaring universe should seem to go out of its way to be a place where sentient beings can ask why are we here?

Again, why are sentient beings important? Why not beetles, snowflakes, or the great wall of galaxies. Give us a reason please!

I agree that Vorkosigan is being disingenuous on this issue. There is a wealth of information on this topic from scientists with no axe to grind and the sheer number of coincidences and the fine degree to which so many of them depend on seemingly unrelated ones is in a word astonishing. Enough so that some jaded atheist scientists have given design and theism reconsideration on the strength of the evidence alone. For Vorkosigan to dismiss it so easily is an extreme case of hand waving.

As soon as any of these scientists come up with any evidence to show that the universe was created for us, and not for something else that also requires rare conditions, or common conditions, or even created purposely, then I'll be happy to listen. But your point of view is simply "Gosh! We're damned important?" to which my response is "How do you know?" No IDer is ever able to give a reason.

For those who say there is only God of the gaps arguments this is inference of design from evidence.

No, this is wishful thinking. There is no evidence of Design, only that things in the universe conform to natural law. Which we knew anyway.

Vorkosigan

madmax2976

But I did answer you on the first page of this thread Andrew. I stated that I agreed with the notion that the natural world is all there is, but I disagreed with some of the wording in other areas. Is that not an answer?

<strong> More accurately, there are some that support the mission statement exactly as written - most likely those who wrote the statement. (They just haven't replied or bothered to read this thread)

There are some who suport the statement in part - like me, and may be confused or disagree with other parts.

There may even be some, even atheists, that disagree with most of it.

And so we find that this site has a wide cross section of different views regarding naturalism and/or atheism.

What then is your point Andrew?

<strong> Yes we know. We're just not impressed by this attack. I strongly suspect you call it a "dodge" because it is a reasonable position which you cannot refute.

<strong> I suscribe to part of it - does that mean I have to be a strong atheist, because you can't see how it could be any other way?

This constant wrangling over definitions of the "atheist" label is much ado about nothing Andrew. Myself and others don't believe in the existence of any deities - label us a non-theists if you prefer. But this nitpicking over whether we lack belief in any deities or disbelieve in any deities or don't believe in any deities or believe no deities exist, just takes away from any productive discussion.

Just ask the question - Do you believe any God or Gods exist? I'll answer no. You can apply whatever label that makes you happy. How's that? Will this really change anything? Will it make my position different than it is? I think not.

<strong> Some are more committed than others. I am fairly committed to a naturalistc view of things but am perfectly willing (perhaps even somewhat wishful) to modify my views if the evidence changes.

<strong> I would say Humanism is the worldview I adopt. This is a complete worldview in that it adopts a view of reality, morality, philosphy, etc.

<strong> No doubt there are all different kinds here. Some are very adamant, even extreme. Some are less adamant. But again, what is your point? Do you expect all atheists/naturalists to be the same? Are you trying you lump all of us in the same boat?

I for one would disagree with anyone who held that naturalism was a "foregone" conclusion.

<strong> As you have admitted you didn't read all the posts, I don't know why you put so much stock in your assessment that no one answered your questions.

<strong> Well it is a hypothesis. One which we can't actually prove, otherwise there'd be no debate. However I contend that we have much more support for our naturalistic hypothesis than you do for you theistic hypothesis - which is what the debate is all about.

<strong> False analogy. There is no question that the universe exists.(At least not here) There IS a question as to whether any deity exists. IF a deity did exist, then I would have no difficulty accepting that it too could be sufficient and in no need of an explanation. (Assuming I agreed at all with such language, which is doubtful) But thats a BIG if...

<strong> Conservative and boring are just fine. I'm looking for something convincing. So far, I find more convincing evidence for UFO's than I do for any deity. But I still don't believe aliens are traveling hundreds of light years so they can come here and draw funny circles in our wheat fields.