Mooman_FL

"For those that believe, no explanation is necessary; for those that don't, none will suffice" - Joseph Dunninger

Greetings everyone!

I have spent an eventful day reading over some of the debates and the post on this forum. Mainly the ones concerning to some degree or other of the question of god(s) vs. science. Very stimulating! I have to commend the combatants <g> on all of their respective arguments. This being said I thought I might post some of my thoughts on the subject and pose a couple of questions that I hope provoke some thought. Keep in mind I am not trying to convert as much as open debate in the manner of the ancient Greeks. First of all I would like to say that I don’t see how they are incompatible except for those that subscribe to a certain philosophy in either direction. I thought the opening quote was especially poignant considering it is a double-edge sword that cuts both sides of the fence on this subject. It is generally believed that he was aiming at theist, however theist also believe that it could be just as easily aimed at the other side.

Just to define a bit the discussion a bit I want to start by saying that in the most commonly understood view, atheism is irrational. To borrow an argument:

‘Atheism is a universal negative. Everyone who has studied logic knows that you cannot prove a universal negative. …
If you say there is no such thing in the entire universe, for example, as little green men there is no way to prove it. You would have to travel to every planet and every star and inside of every star and through every galaxy in the entire universe and come back and tell me that you didn’t see one. When you did, I could just answer “Well you missed him. While you were going that way, he was zigging this way.” To prove the little green men don’t exist you would have to examine every single part of the universe at the same time. So it is impossible to prove that there is no such thing as little green men or angels or God. Therefore atheism is a logical contradiction, and to affirm a logical contradiction is irrational.

--D. James Kennedy “Why I Believe” [Word Publishing c. 1980, 1999]

While I found Kennedy’s book interesting I have read many reviews of it that pointed out some serious food for thought in contradiction to many of his statements. However I have noticed a noted lack, in all the reviews I read, of a challenge to this one simple point. Of course his argument does depend on how you view your brand of atheism as I will mention later. Atheism is defined as follows:

a•the•ism n.

1.
a . The disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh s- in Indo-European Roots.]

- <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism" target="_blank">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism</a> noted source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Similarly agnostic is defined as follows:

ag•nos•tic n.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).

ag•nos ti•cal•ly adv.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals “ists,” as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.


- noted source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

As you can see by the above reference, to remain in the realm of rationality you must at the least be an agnostic since atheism by definition refutes a logical affirmation. To be an agnostic you must at least concede that there might be the possibility of God or gods. (Or angels or little green men) even if you choose to disbelieve it for some other reason. This is the place that the definition of agnostic and atheist over lap, which leads me to say that a new classification needs to be made for the “agnostic-atheist”. That is the only way out of the “irrationality” argument. This is not a tautological argument because I am not trying to use it to get you to agree that there is a God or gods (or angels or little green men). The argument doesn’t prove the existence, only the possibility of existence. I am simply trying provoke an examination of how you view yourself.

I will take exception however to the atheists conclusion that there is no God (or angels… etc.) on the fact of lack of evidence. After all you are assuming per science that you can quantify everything, when this is clearly not the case. We can only quantify what our senses and our brains can wrap themselves around. If man does have a “spirit” or “soul” then that obviously in concept falls out of the realm of what can be quantified. To discount that out of hand simply because it doesn’t fit with our limited senses and can’t be represented mathematically seems a bit ludicrous. The very nature of the subject demands a different method of testing before it can be discounted.

The order and “coincidences” in nature have been pushed aside as being natural. I have even seen Hawking’s argument that we observe the nature of the universe the way it is because we are here to observe it. That is the biggest statement of the obvious I have ever seen and really doesn’t address the argument in the least. It also doesn’t refute the Intelligent Design argument in the least either since if the universe was intentionally designed as it is, we would still be here to observe that fact. At the risk of starting another “Watchmaker” debate I will state that I have read “The Blind Watchmaker”. If you found a large structure on a remote planet that resembled the Parthenon in complexity and design you would have no problem coming to the conclusion that it was made by someone’s hand. You would hardly suggest that it occurred naturally due to erosion and geological forces. Why not? The sheer complexity and detail, not to mention the statistical probability would make it highly unlikely. You would as soon believe that a million monkeys wrote the works of Shakespeare. While possible, it is doubtful. Why then the total aversion to the same statistical probabilities when confronted with a higher degree of complexity in the universe? I am not saying that it is proof a gods hand, only that the idea is just as valid. Does it really violate Occam’s Razor? Or does science?

Is Occam’s Razor even so much of an absolute? After all William of Occam (Ockham) was using his statement to argue against polytheism as opposed to monotheism. It has since been latched on to and flouted as a way of writing the idea of a god out of the picture altogether. Which was hardly his belief or intent. Granted his views didn’t completely match the Catholic Church’s, but they were enough alike that the church didn’t see fit to immediately throw him out on examination. Occam’s Razor can only really be used to discount a gods hand if that god can then be shown not to exist. It simply applies to this argument to say what is the likelihood. Even Occam himself was flawed in his reasoning since he was assuming, through his own belief system that atheist refute, that there is only one god. After all, God could “have done it” for all we really know, and if he did then Occam’s Razor has failed in this case. I think the simpler and truer “razor” is modified paraphrasing of Occam I have heard: “All things being equal, the simplest answer is the most probable”. All things being equal meaning the level of evidence for the argument of both sides. By this version of the razor, the assumption that the “Parthenon” structure was created would be a valid assumption rather than being equal to the assumption that it was a coincidence. Like-wise, the same could be said of the universe given the statistical probability and level of evidence being offered for both sides of the argument. Since it has been stated that we can’t know what happened before the “Big Bang” or what caused it if anything, and we can’t know for sure whether there is a God or not… the evidences are equal. To suggest that it was all a coincidence and chance introduces unneeded complexity. Perhaps when we finally reach a high enough technological level and get to the other side of that vacuum fluctuation, we will find ourselves staring at God in wonder as he grins and says, “What took you so long?”

Recently, as I was putting my daughter to bed, she began to cry. When asked the reason she said there was a monster in her closet. That was easy enough for a rational adult to disprove. I opened the closet and showed her it was empty. To my dismay it did nothing to ease her fears. She simply said that when I opened the closet it hid. Of course I wanted to know where it hid so that I could show her there was no monster there either. She said that it “went where the monsters live”. That had me stumped. How do you disprove that? You can’t. The problem wasn’t going away either. I had to concede that there was the possibility that she was right, and she slept with my wife and me that night. Of course, for reasons I don’t need to mention, this was not acceptable as a long-term practice. The next day I bought a copy of “Monsters Inc.” for her. That seemed to relieve her fears drastically and she has slept in her own room ever since.

That story was not without a point. Was her fear of a monster a form of “God of the Gap” thinking? Most likely it was. The shape she saw was an unknown and her mind came up with an explanation for it. Whether she was right or wrong I can’t say, but I chose to refocus her in a different direction for piece of mind. After all, if there indeed was a monster in her closet, I can conceive of no way of doing anything about it given its apparent nature. Is the “God of the Gaps” reasoning strictly used by little children and theist? Or does science do it too, and is it only different when the theists are guilty of it?

What is a hypothesis, or theory? I hate lumping them both together, but in reality they are the same thing, if only at different levels. In the simplest of terms they are attempts to explain the unknown. I could be argued that they are different than a “God of the Gaps” because they are based on known principles. In reality though they are only based on what we think are known principles. After all, how many times has a hypothesis been rejected or a theory overthrown when further knowledge was gained that made them impossible? The only real difference between them and a theist’s “God of the Gaps” is that the one is based on something you can quantify and the other isn’t.

Science has often been quick to dismiss out of hand the things it hasn’t seen yet. When the first explorers of Africa came back with stories and drawings of a rhinoceros they were scoffed at by scientist. Where there was a shark attack by a great white shark at the turn of the century on the Jersey Shore, scientist said it was impossible. Something else was to blame because they claimed there were no other known unprovoked shark attacks before that. Science often makes claims that it has yet to prove by empirical evidence, and sometimes has to recant. Generally they are educated guesses but often it is flaws in that education that lead to mistakes. One of the biggest mistakes you can have is thinking that you have it figured out in the first place. For example, evolution while in theory it sounds good, it has yet to be proven. Outside of minor changes of color and height, or selective breeding which also is mostly cosmetic, the best we have been able to find to support it are fossils. With those the line is pretty much broken up like an alphabet that goes from A to Z while skipping many of the letters in between. For example you have a dinosaur, and something like a dinosaur with feathers, and a bird. It is then concluded that some dinosaurs evolved into birds. On the surface it sounds ok, and I realize that I am simplifying it a bit. To me though, it is like a scientist a few million years from now finding a fossilized platypus and concluding that ducks evolved into beavers. There is too much unknown and too much room for error but by the given method it would be a logical conclusion however faulty it might be.

Well I hope that my little &lt;g&gt; essay has given something to think about, or at least provided some amusement. Remember, I am not an expert in these fields, although I do play one on T.V. (snort). My logic may be flawed in some areas. I am not an egotist and can handle that concept. If it is I am sure someone on this board will tell &lt;g&gt;. On the other hand if you are going refute a concept that I put forth, give me credit for intelligence. Don’t reduce my concept to semantics and try to logic to death the semantics of it. Argue the entire concept and not the pieces. If I have made you think, let me know for that was my purpose. I can easily be wrong, it is the search and discussion that is so stimulating that begs for the questions to be asked. I could also just as easily be right. I will only know for sure when I die. Or if the atheist are right I won’t know because I will just cease to exist. On the other hand, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right, I fear I will get to the Gates of Heaven only to hear voices on the other side say, “SHHHH!!! Be quiet! Maybe he will go away.”

The ancient Greeks used debate in a healthy way in their everyday lives to discuss, and advance, philosophy. That is what I am trying to do here. I don’t mean to be argumentative, and I am not trying to convert. I just hope that my words inspire thought and discussion. Whether I accomplish that or not depends on how you hold your views. One can challenge another’s philosophy and still shake hands amicably afterwards, but when you challenge ones religion then swords are often drawn. The question is… are you an atheist or an agnostic? And is it your philosophy or your religion? If God (or gods) exist is it irrelevant or do we choose to ignore the significance of what it could mean? After all if some form of deity does exist, and he (or she, or it) created this universe as we find it now, isn’t the best clue to their nature the very thing they created? Why would they create it in the first place and what could be learned from it?

galiel

Given that you are a theist, isn't your statement, quoted above, a bit of a non-starter?

I am happy to engage your in a philosophical discussion, as long as you don't try to challenge my assertions while making your beliefs unapproachable. No offense, and I certainly do not want to prejudge you, but that is what every theist on these boards ends up doing: they start pretending to be interested in an open, intellectual debate, they vigorously challenge rational/skeptical opinions, and then they end up crying victim when their beliefs are challenged.

If you can assure us that your beliefs are as much on the table for discussion as anyone else's, welcome and let the games begin.

Selsaral

You post was long and covered a lot of ground, and I can't address it all. However I will say a bit on one particular point, and that is the 'prove 100%' point. Of course no one can prove there is no god. At the same time I don't think anyone can really prove, 100%, that we even exist. When I declare there is no god, that declaration is only as certain I am that I even exist, and that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't live inside my nostrils. However pretty much all rational adults immediately discard the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus as a real being. Of course no one can really prove, 100%, that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but we will say that he doesn't.

When I see the vast majority of human beings, from the dawn of time 100% positive of all sorts of crazy things, from gods, to giants, to aliens giving anal probes, to santa claus, to sacraficing chickens to fortell the future, I lump them together and disbelieve them. I disbelieve them as much as i believe I exist.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]</p>

Philosoft

Greetings from Florida, Mooman.

Hmm. Let's take this to its conclusion. If what you say is true, we should do one of two things, either:

1. Figure out exactly what it is we're trying to conceive, if the thing in question is, by definition, non-quantifiable. If it is, in fact, not something we can sense or quantify, how do we know what we're thinking of?

2. Come up with as many non-sensory, non-quantifiable concepts as possible so we can build belief systems around them. After all, why does the soul receive special consideration?

Now, neither one of these is acceptable to me, and I suspect not to you either. The only thing I can conclude is that you're working from a specific theistic framework that specifies these "concepts" without having considered very critically what they really entail.

Mooman_FL

Absolutely! As I posted before though... my only requirment is that my arguments are taken in spirit (no pun intended) and not on semantics. It is easy to take individual lines and reduce them to semantics and argue the the semantics out of existance. That defeats the purpose of a meaningful debate of the concept.

I think if I was not open to outside influence I wouldn't have visited. While this cannot be said of every theist that visits, I can say for myself that I don't view my viewpoint as being a given just because I believe it.

Even the Apostle Paul in the Bible states that we should avoid "fruitless argument". Excellent advice even if you don't believe in the spritual validity of the book in question. That being said I will say that any discussion on the question does run the risk of becoming that if certain things are not kept in mind... it is hard to debate theism from the scientific standpoint since the very nature of theism as understood defys a scientific explanation while the reverse is not true.

Selsaral

You're the kind of person that makes these forums work. A bunch of atheists sitting around patting each other on the back gets old pretty fast ...

Mooman_FL

LOL... posted my last one to Selsaral. I just wanted to clarify that before Philosoft takes my "Absolutely!" as a response to his post.

Philosoft: Not really. I have my own personal reasons for accepting the validity of the soul. By saying that we can't quantify it maybe I should be more specific in saying that it isn't quantifiable is based on a purely scientific frame of reference. I merely point out that if there is a spirit then it's nature defys decription under the current scientific principles. That is not an argument in and of itself for the existance of a soul... just a question of whether its non-existance can be assured because we are unable to quantify it.

My concept is that science requires that some things be "a given" (such as our ability to quantify all that is) much the same as theism requires some some things be a given. This is not to discount the advances of science but only to put it in perspective.

Mooman_FL

Excellent reply Selsaral... and well put. However I must say I AM SANTA CLAUS! (and the Easter Bunny too) Just don't tell my daughter that

Seriously though... I do not say anything here to convince as much as get my concept out and under critcal fire. I would be very disappointed if my ideas went unchallanged. I may find that your arguments are not enough to convince me that a major change in my viewpoint is in order, on the other hand if I walk away with even one minor thing from this discussion (besides a headache) then it has been worthwhile.

Jayhawker Soule

Welcome.

Before we get too far into this, would you tell me which God(s) you like, and whether you're atheist or agnostic towards the rest?

Mooman_FL

ROFL ResonableDoubt! I like the way you phrased that. And it is a fair question to boot.

I lean more to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God... as for whether I am atheist or agnostic to the rest... I would have to say "agnostic-atheist" since I recognize even MY beliefs are just that. (see original argument)