Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Many atheists participating on this Board have been dogmatic in holding the view that there is no evidence for the existence of God; and that religious faith is per se irrational and anti-science. One recent poster, when asked (paraphrasing) whether there was even a chance that there was a God, responded, “Not even remotely. I'm telling you I think there is absolutely no reason to believe there is one.”
The claim that there is no evidence for God and the stronger claim that there is no reason to believe in God might seem logically equivalent. However, they are not. The claim that there is no evidence for God may be true, depending upon what one counts as “evidence.” However, the claim that there is no reason to believe is more personal, and as such, it is patently false. Actually, there are many quite obvious reasons for such belief: (1) Spiritual experiences; (2) NDE reports; (3) Testimonies of third parties; (4) the Bible, etc. Now, for atheists these may not be good reasons to ground such a belief, but they certainly are reasons! Moreover, on a case by case basis, they might indeed be very compelling.
As indicated, one might adopt a purely scientific view of what counts as “evidence.” I suppose further that one could insist that “justified belief” precludes “reasons” based upon paranormal phenomena, subjective spiritual experiences, or the testimonies of third parties, ancient or modern. So, rather than argue this point, let’s ask a more difficult question: Are there any scientific reasons to believe in God? Now, we must ask, “What counts as a scientific reason to believe in something? Here, the question of rational belief involves a broader range of “reasons,” that go beyond what might be strictly called “scientific evidence.” Scientific “reasons to believe” do not necessarily require the high standard of verification, confirmation, and replication, ideally required by the scientific method. Such belief must initially be supported by facts that are more tenuous and tentative, as well as less direct, but still offer justification of belief.
When Einstein first proposed his special theory of relativity, conjoining space and time into “space-time,” it was entirely theoretical. There was literally no experimental evidence to support it. It was adopted in large part to explain and resolve paradoxes related to the constancy of the speed of light, which was already well established by experimental data. Only later did evidence accumulate in support of the theory.
A second example is so-called “string theory,” which has been a dominating research program in theoretical physics for several decades. Yet, there is literally no scientific evidence to support it. Moreover, it is doubtful that the theory is falsifiable. It’s adherents have reasons to believe it because it is mathematically consistent and provides significant power in explaining the relationship between the standard model of particle physics and general relativity.
So, why was Einstein justified in believing his theory of relativity at a time when scientific evidence was lacking? Why are string theorists so tenacious in their beliefs in a context of a lack of supporting evidence? The answer is one or more of the following: (1) the fundamental assumption that the universe is ordered, and that therefore there is an answer to the questions and paradoxes raised by the data; (2) the intuitive belief that the established data leads one to the proposed theory; (3) the belief that the proposed theory has “explanatory power” i.e. it successfully provides an explanation of the known data; (4) the intuitive judgment that no competing theory provides a “better” explanation of the data sought to be explained; and (5) the intuitive belief that the proposed theory is mathematically elegant and parsimonious.
The above criteria reveals that science fundamentally proceeds with intuitively appealing theories offered as explanations of known data. One of the greatest 20th Century theoretical physicists, often referred to as “the father of quantum mechanics,” Max Planck, called these assumptions “faith” noting:
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientists cannot dispense with. . . . [Y]ou could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality, but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasoning. It is a direct perception and, therefore, in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion, but it is the same in regard to science.” (Wilber, Quantum Questions, p. 152-154)
Without getting hung up on Plank’s controversial mystical views as related to science and religion, let’s consider whether science offers any reasons to believe in God in this weak sense; i.e. in the absence of hard, verifiable, scientific evidence. Let’s start by calling theism a “theory,” and define it simply, without a lot of ideological and doctrinal baggage, as the theory that states only that a superior intelligence (mind) (called “God”) is a transcendent cause for the existence of the universe as revealed by science. Again, by our assumption, we admit that there is no scientific evidence for such a conclusion. We are asking only whether there are any scientific reasons to believe such a theory.
With the above points in mind, consider two well established scientific principles: (1) the apparent role and implications of mind in modern quantum mechanics; and (2) the so-called cosmological anthropic principle. Quantum mechanics, considered the most correct scientific theory to date, has established beyond question that classical determinism—the logical foundation of atheism for centuries—is false. The universe is subject to random, probabilistic processes. Moreover, quantum mechanics has established such “weird” things as wave-particle duality, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, non-locality, and the “superpositions” of mathematically defined (probability), non-physical “states” of some kind. It is well beyond the scope of this post to delve deeply into any of these issues. However, what is important for our purposes is the role of mind and freewill in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. For the first time in science, it appears from the empirical evidence that mind and consciousness, through the operation of freewill, provides a causally efficacious power within the physical universe. Free choices, as exhibited through measurement, are said to “collapse the wave function” such as to establish a definitive and measurable universe which was otherwise physically ill defined, if physically existent at all. Established originally by physicist John Von Neumann as the logical implication of the Copenhagen model of QM as put forth by Niels Bohr, some involvement of mind in QM has remained the prevailing view, despite some ingenious but unsuccessful attempts by many to extract mind from QM interpretations, and re-establish materialism. Once mind is introduced as a “substantive” causal factor in the universe, a form of mind-body dualism is implied, and with it, at least the possibility of a transcendental creator.
Henry Stapp, a distinguished and highly regarded theoretical physicist, and a major player in these issues, stated:
“These processes of choosing are in some ways analogous to the process of choosing the initial boundary conditions and laws of the universe. That is, the free choices made by the human players can be seen as miniature versions of the choices that appear to be needed at the creation of the universe. Quantum theory opens the door to, and indeed demands, the making of these later free choices.”
“This situation is concordant with the idea of a powerful God that creates the universe and its laws to get things started, but then bequeaths part of this power to beings created in his own image, at least with regard to their power to make physically efficacious decisions on the basis of reasons and evaluations.”
(H. Stapp, “Minds and Values in the Quantum Universe,” in Davies and Gregersen, Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (Cambridge University Press 2010)
Although I believe the above is greatly overstated, it highlights correctly the implications of the standard interpretation of QM for theism; most importantly mind and freewill. Less dramatic statements that are also noteworthy for their respect for the implications of QM on mind and indirectly on theology, can be found throughout the literature. In short, the introduction of a role for mind and freewill into the physical world, although not scientific evidence for God, “opens to door” for the possible role of mind in the creation of the universe. This alone represents a scientific reason to believe in God in the limited sense noted above.
The cosmological anthropic principle (CAP), simply stated, acknowledges the well-established scientific fact that the universe appears to be fine-tuned to both generate and support intelligent life: The so-called constants of nature—mathematical quantities as discovered or judged by scientists to be universally constant across the universe—are singularly and jointly fine-tuned to a remarkable and improbable degree as would be necessary to allow life, particularly intelligent life, to flourish. These constants were identified by cosmologist, and popular science writer, Martin Rees in his book called “Just Six Numbers,” a book that is still highly recommended as a starting point for considering the CAP. Rees identifies six constants of nature—including (1) the strength of the electromagnetic force that binds electrons to atomic nuclei; (2) the so-called “strong force” that binds quarks to their the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus; (3) the critical density of matter in the universe; (4) the cosmological constant, also known as “dark energy,” or “vacuum energy,” which relates with gravity to the expansion rate of the universe; (5) the relation between gravity and the laws of thermodynamics; and (6) the number of spatial dimensions in our world, i.e. three—as finely tuned to support life.
Of course, Rees’ six numbers, and their intricate relationships, can be found in many other books, and this issue is widely discussed by cosmologists and theoretical physicists. The CAP is NOT controversial, it is established science. Rees, himself, states: “These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?”
In his book, “The Cosmic Jackpot,” theoretical physicist Paul Davies noted:
“On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. . . No scientific explanation for the universe can be deemed complete unless it accounts for this appearance of judicious design.”
Leonard Suskin, a theoretical physicist of high reputation, put it this way in his book, “The Cosmic Landscape:”
“This book is about a debate that is stirring the passions of physicists and cosmologists but is also part of a broader debate controversy, especially in the United States, where it has entered the partisan political discourse. On the one side are the people who are convinced that the world must have been created or designed by an intelligent agent with a benevolent purpose. On the other side are the hard-nosed, scientific types who feel certain that the universe is the product of impersonal, disinterested laws of physics, mathematics, and probability.—a world without purpose, so to speak. By the first group, I don’t mean the biblical literalists who believe the world was created six thousand years ago and are ready to fight about it. I am talking about thoughtful, intelligent people who look around at the world and have a hard time believing that it was just dumb luck that made the world so accommodating to human beings. I don’t think these people are being stupid; they have a real point.” (emphasis added) . . . Here I share the skepticism of the intelligent-design crowd: I think that the dumb luck needs an explanation.” (Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, page 5)
The above represent just two well-known and well-established scientific principles where theology comes into legitimate discussion. This is because the data of science has itself raised issues inviting theological speculation. Of course, many have suggested alternative theories that remove both mind and God from consideration. But, that is beside the point. Alternative theories that are themselves highly speculative, and unverifiable, do not either change the data, or undermine clear implications of the data as related to mind, consciousness and theology. Moreover, alternative theories do not attain a preferred status simply because they embrace an underlying dogmatic assumption that anything suggestive of mind and/or theism is per se objectionable.
The above points, offer scientific “reasons to believe” that are available to theists to support a rational faith, even though there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of God. In the above examples, the God theory encompasses explanatory power in the face of genuine scientific data that not only is in desperate need of an explanation, but by its very nature points to a universe that suggests a creative force beyond simple cause and effect relationships, or random probabilities.
Several points need to be made clear. First, your everyday theist does not base their faith on science. As such, whatever they do base their faith on is subject to critical evaluation. A belief may very well be irrational when based upon faulty reasoning, even if there are other legitimate reasons to believe that are unknown, or not considered. Second, I do not mean to suggest by all this that everyone, or anyone, should abandon atheism. Arguably, most God theories, as specifically spelled out by specific religious doctrines (dogma), have very little if anything to recommend them by way of either evidence, or objective “reasons to believe.” However, when an atheist dogmatically, and often condescendingly, states or suggests that theists must necessarily be deluded, lack critical thinking, and be unscientific, it betrays a misunderstanding of both science and religion.
Given the details of modern science, it is perhaps not surprising that many of the founders of quantum mechanics—including Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and Pauli—had a deep respect for independent role of mind, the mystical qualities of reality, and the legitimacy of faith in God.
The claim that there is no evidence for God and the stronger claim that there is no reason to believe in God might seem logically equivalent. However, they are not. The claim that there is no evidence for God may be true, depending upon what one counts as “evidence.” However, the claim that there is no reason to believe is more personal, and as such, it is patently false. Actually, there are many quite obvious reasons for such belief: (1) Spiritual experiences; (2) NDE reports; (3) Testimonies of third parties; (4) the Bible, etc. Now, for atheists these may not be good reasons to ground such a belief, but they certainly are reasons! Moreover, on a case by case basis, they might indeed be very compelling.
As indicated, one might adopt a purely scientific view of what counts as “evidence.” I suppose further that one could insist that “justified belief” precludes “reasons” based upon paranormal phenomena, subjective spiritual experiences, or the testimonies of third parties, ancient or modern. So, rather than argue this point, let’s ask a more difficult question: Are there any scientific reasons to believe in God? Now, we must ask, “What counts as a scientific reason to believe in something? Here, the question of rational belief involves a broader range of “reasons,” that go beyond what might be strictly called “scientific evidence.” Scientific “reasons to believe” do not necessarily require the high standard of verification, confirmation, and replication, ideally required by the scientific method. Such belief must initially be supported by facts that are more tenuous and tentative, as well as less direct, but still offer justification of belief.
When Einstein first proposed his special theory of relativity, conjoining space and time into “space-time,” it was entirely theoretical. There was literally no experimental evidence to support it. It was adopted in large part to explain and resolve paradoxes related to the constancy of the speed of light, which was already well established by experimental data. Only later did evidence accumulate in support of the theory.
A second example is so-called “string theory,” which has been a dominating research program in theoretical physics for several decades. Yet, there is literally no scientific evidence to support it. Moreover, it is doubtful that the theory is falsifiable. It’s adherents have reasons to believe it because it is mathematically consistent and provides significant power in explaining the relationship between the standard model of particle physics and general relativity.
So, why was Einstein justified in believing his theory of relativity at a time when scientific evidence was lacking? Why are string theorists so tenacious in their beliefs in a context of a lack of supporting evidence? The answer is one or more of the following: (1) the fundamental assumption that the universe is ordered, and that therefore there is an answer to the questions and paradoxes raised by the data; (2) the intuitive belief that the established data leads one to the proposed theory; (3) the belief that the proposed theory has “explanatory power” i.e. it successfully provides an explanation of the known data; (4) the intuitive judgment that no competing theory provides a “better” explanation of the data sought to be explained; and (5) the intuitive belief that the proposed theory is mathematically elegant and parsimonious.
The above criteria reveals that science fundamentally proceeds with intuitively appealing theories offered as explanations of known data. One of the greatest 20th Century theoretical physicists, often referred to as “the father of quantum mechanics,” Max Planck, called these assumptions “faith” noting:
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientists cannot dispense with. . . . [Y]ou could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality, but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasoning. It is a direct perception and, therefore, in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion, but it is the same in regard to science.” (Wilber, Quantum Questions, p. 152-154)
Without getting hung up on Plank’s controversial mystical views as related to science and religion, let’s consider whether science offers any reasons to believe in God in this weak sense; i.e. in the absence of hard, verifiable, scientific evidence. Let’s start by calling theism a “theory,” and define it simply, without a lot of ideological and doctrinal baggage, as the theory that states only that a superior intelligence (mind) (called “God”) is a transcendent cause for the existence of the universe as revealed by science. Again, by our assumption, we admit that there is no scientific evidence for such a conclusion. We are asking only whether there are any scientific reasons to believe such a theory.
With the above points in mind, consider two well established scientific principles: (1) the apparent role and implications of mind in modern quantum mechanics; and (2) the so-called cosmological anthropic principle. Quantum mechanics, considered the most correct scientific theory to date, has established beyond question that classical determinism—the logical foundation of atheism for centuries—is false. The universe is subject to random, probabilistic processes. Moreover, quantum mechanics has established such “weird” things as wave-particle duality, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, non-locality, and the “superpositions” of mathematically defined (probability), non-physical “states” of some kind. It is well beyond the scope of this post to delve deeply into any of these issues. However, what is important for our purposes is the role of mind and freewill in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. For the first time in science, it appears from the empirical evidence that mind and consciousness, through the operation of freewill, provides a causally efficacious power within the physical universe. Free choices, as exhibited through measurement, are said to “collapse the wave function” such as to establish a definitive and measurable universe which was otherwise physically ill defined, if physically existent at all. Established originally by physicist John Von Neumann as the logical implication of the Copenhagen model of QM as put forth by Niels Bohr, some involvement of mind in QM has remained the prevailing view, despite some ingenious but unsuccessful attempts by many to extract mind from QM interpretations, and re-establish materialism. Once mind is introduced as a “substantive” causal factor in the universe, a form of mind-body dualism is implied, and with it, at least the possibility of a transcendental creator.
Henry Stapp, a distinguished and highly regarded theoretical physicist, and a major player in these issues, stated:
“These processes of choosing are in some ways analogous to the process of choosing the initial boundary conditions and laws of the universe. That is, the free choices made by the human players can be seen as miniature versions of the choices that appear to be needed at the creation of the universe. Quantum theory opens the door to, and indeed demands, the making of these later free choices.”
“This situation is concordant with the idea of a powerful God that creates the universe and its laws to get things started, but then bequeaths part of this power to beings created in his own image, at least with regard to their power to make physically efficacious decisions on the basis of reasons and evaluations.”
(H. Stapp, “Minds and Values in the Quantum Universe,” in Davies and Gregersen, Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (Cambridge University Press 2010)
Although I believe the above is greatly overstated, it highlights correctly the implications of the standard interpretation of QM for theism; most importantly mind and freewill. Less dramatic statements that are also noteworthy for their respect for the implications of QM on mind and indirectly on theology, can be found throughout the literature. In short, the introduction of a role for mind and freewill into the physical world, although not scientific evidence for God, “opens to door” for the possible role of mind in the creation of the universe. This alone represents a scientific reason to believe in God in the limited sense noted above.
The cosmological anthropic principle (CAP), simply stated, acknowledges the well-established scientific fact that the universe appears to be fine-tuned to both generate and support intelligent life: The so-called constants of nature—mathematical quantities as discovered or judged by scientists to be universally constant across the universe—are singularly and jointly fine-tuned to a remarkable and improbable degree as would be necessary to allow life, particularly intelligent life, to flourish. These constants were identified by cosmologist, and popular science writer, Martin Rees in his book called “Just Six Numbers,” a book that is still highly recommended as a starting point for considering the CAP. Rees identifies six constants of nature—including (1) the strength of the electromagnetic force that binds electrons to atomic nuclei; (2) the so-called “strong force” that binds quarks to their the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus; (3) the critical density of matter in the universe; (4) the cosmological constant, also known as “dark energy,” or “vacuum energy,” which relates with gravity to the expansion rate of the universe; (5) the relation between gravity and the laws of thermodynamics; and (6) the number of spatial dimensions in our world, i.e. three—as finely tuned to support life.
Of course, Rees’ six numbers, and their intricate relationships, can be found in many other books, and this issue is widely discussed by cosmologists and theoretical physicists. The CAP is NOT controversial, it is established science. Rees, himself, states: “These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?”
In his book, “The Cosmic Jackpot,” theoretical physicist Paul Davies noted:
“On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings. . . No scientific explanation for the universe can be deemed complete unless it accounts for this appearance of judicious design.”
Leonard Suskin, a theoretical physicist of high reputation, put it this way in his book, “The Cosmic Landscape:”
“This book is about a debate that is stirring the passions of physicists and cosmologists but is also part of a broader debate controversy, especially in the United States, where it has entered the partisan political discourse. On the one side are the people who are convinced that the world must have been created or designed by an intelligent agent with a benevolent purpose. On the other side are the hard-nosed, scientific types who feel certain that the universe is the product of impersonal, disinterested laws of physics, mathematics, and probability.—a world without purpose, so to speak. By the first group, I don’t mean the biblical literalists who believe the world was created six thousand years ago and are ready to fight about it. I am talking about thoughtful, intelligent people who look around at the world and have a hard time believing that it was just dumb luck that made the world so accommodating to human beings. I don’t think these people are being stupid; they have a real point.” (emphasis added) . . . Here I share the skepticism of the intelligent-design crowd: I think that the dumb luck needs an explanation.” (Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape, page 5)
The above represent just two well-known and well-established scientific principles where theology comes into legitimate discussion. This is because the data of science has itself raised issues inviting theological speculation. Of course, many have suggested alternative theories that remove both mind and God from consideration. But, that is beside the point. Alternative theories that are themselves highly speculative, and unverifiable, do not either change the data, or undermine clear implications of the data as related to mind, consciousness and theology. Moreover, alternative theories do not attain a preferred status simply because they embrace an underlying dogmatic assumption that anything suggestive of mind and/or theism is per se objectionable.
The above points, offer scientific “reasons to believe” that are available to theists to support a rational faith, even though there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of God. In the above examples, the God theory encompasses explanatory power in the face of genuine scientific data that not only is in desperate need of an explanation, but by its very nature points to a universe that suggests a creative force beyond simple cause and effect relationships, or random probabilities.
Several points need to be made clear. First, your everyday theist does not base their faith on science. As such, whatever they do base their faith on is subject to critical evaluation. A belief may very well be irrational when based upon faulty reasoning, even if there are other legitimate reasons to believe that are unknown, or not considered. Second, I do not mean to suggest by all this that everyone, or anyone, should abandon atheism. Arguably, most God theories, as specifically spelled out by specific religious doctrines (dogma), have very little if anything to recommend them by way of either evidence, or objective “reasons to believe.” However, when an atheist dogmatically, and often condescendingly, states or suggests that theists must necessarily be deluded, lack critical thinking, and be unscientific, it betrays a misunderstanding of both science and religion.
Given the details of modern science, it is perhaps not surprising that many of the founders of quantum mechanics—including Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and Pauli—had a deep respect for independent role of mind, the mystical qualities of reality, and the legitimacy of faith in God.
so show us some evidence for the existence of "god".
And while you are at it please define "god"
That's quite a strawman you have built.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2014 01:19PM by Dave the Atheist.
And while you are at it please define "god"
That's quite a strawman you have built.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2014 01:19PM by Dave the Atheist.
Why are people so dead set on others believing in God around here?
It's been a drumbeat lately, and this is one place I don't really come to hear it. I get enough of it on facebook and other media.
God, as he has been explained to me by any religion, is not someone I really want to be around. That's my choice, and if I am condemned for it, that's my business.
It's been a drumbeat lately, and this is one place I don't really come to hear it. I get enough of it on facebook and other media.
God, as he has been explained to me by any religion, is not someone I really want to be around. That's my choice, and if I am condemned for it, that's my business.
lily Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are people so dead set on others believing in
> God around here?
>
> It's been a drumbeat lately, and this is one place
> I don't really come to hear it. I get enough of
> it on facebook and other media.
>
> God, as he has been explained to me by any
> religion, is not someone I really want to be
> around. That's my choice, and if I am condemned
> for it, that's my business.
Thank you Lily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People just need to get over it. Who gives a Goddamn what Atheists don't believe...get on with your own lives and get out of ours because frankly we laugh at your arguments for there being a god. Seriously.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are people so dead set on others believing in
> God around here?
>
> It's been a drumbeat lately, and this is one place
> I don't really come to hear it. I get enough of
> it on facebook and other media.
>
> God, as he has been explained to me by any
> religion, is not someone I really want to be
> around. That's my choice, and if I am condemned
> for it, that's my business.
Thank you Lily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People just need to get over it. Who gives a Goddamn what Atheists don't believe...get on with your own lives and get out of ours because frankly we laugh at your arguments for there being a god. Seriously.
(4) The Bible
Seriously? Lol.
Why not the Koran, Torah, BofM, or even Green Eggs and Ham?
Seriously? Lol.
Why not the Koran, Torah, BofM, or even Green Eggs and Ham?
I'll admit to skimming after a bit since it was so long, but I didn't see anything in there that required a god to function.
I second Dave the Atheist:
1) Define "god."
2) Demonstrate that god exists with evidence.
I second Dave the Atheist:
1) Define "god."
2) Demonstrate that god exists with evidence.
I notice that you tend to use the argument from authority as your prime logical falacy.
Max Planck:
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientists cannot dispense with. . . . [Y]ou could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality, but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasoning. It is a direct perception and, therefore, in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion, but it is the same in regard to science.” (Wilber, Quantum Questions, p. 152-154)
Why some atheists fight this concept "faith" is beyond me. Of course Science precedes upon faith.
The better question for those who oppose religion is pointing out that a scientist's faith drives them forward to know things. Rather benign. While a believer's faith, in some cases, drives them to exclude others, or, oh I dunno, claim that a piece of land must be occupied by one ethnicity/religion to the exclusion of others, especially those already on the land, so as to hasten the arrival of someone long gone and dead who allegedly promised to come back.
“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientists cannot dispense with. . . . [Y]ou could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality, but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasoning. It is a direct perception and, therefore, in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion, but it is the same in regard to science.” (Wilber, Quantum Questions, p. 152-154)
Why some atheists fight this concept "faith" is beyond me. Of course Science precedes upon faith.
The better question for those who oppose religion is pointing out that a scientist's faith drives them forward to know things. Rather benign. While a believer's faith, in some cases, drives them to exclude others, or, oh I dunno, claim that a piece of land must be occupied by one ethnicity/religion to the exclusion of others, especially those already on the land, so as to hasten the arrival of someone long gone and dead who allegedly promised to come back.
It must be hard to stop the habit of kissing authority figures' asses I guess.
I didn't read the whole thing, I just couldn't, I tried, but I didn't make it far. You're list of "reasons" has a few problems...
(1) Spiritual experiences - I've had "spiritual experiences" watching the Lord of the Rings, reading good books and doing activities that I enjoy, these experiences match exactly things that happened in church and as have been described by true believers. I have a feeling no one is going to tell me that this is proof that thousands of years ago, Orcs, Goblins, Elves Dragons, and Sorcerers ran around saving the world from a magical ring. Every spiritual experience I've heard can be attributed to a simple emotional response, either internally generated or manipulated by an external source.
(2) NDE reports - I'll put a disclaimer on this, but I've never heard of a single conclusive, independently verified case of a true "near death experience" where it can be shown that a person's essence or spirit left their body. In fact, Doctors have been able to induce a state where people have the experience of such a feeling, but it happens all in the brain. If there is an "essence" which stores a person's personality and memories that can survive without a body, why can brain trauma fundamentally alter a person's personality, likes and dislikes, the very core of a person can be changed by altering the physical structure of the brain. If a person's personality is independent of a physical structure, why would that be?
(3) Testimonies of third parties - Complete hearsay. If I say "My friend told me that his Uncle personally witnessed God being killed in a fishing accident." Do you believe me? Because if you do, you don't have to believe in God anymore, he's dead.
(4) the Bible, etc - Really? ... Wait... Spiderman's real??? After all, there are more books about him, in those books he actually interacts with people and does real good, there's even been movies about him!!! He must be real! Wait... That mean's the Goblin's real too... Crap, guess we have to take the bad with the good, after all, if it's in a book, it must be real.
I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that these aren't good reasons, so why even bring them up in the first place... Because you seem to think they are good enough.
I could go on, your misrepresentation of Einstein's "belief" in the theory of relativity (Which he didn't just make up out of nothing, it was based on a whole lot of math and models that lead to that conclusion, which then lead to testing.) Lets just say that if you want to make that comparison, please show your work, as Dave the Atheist said, "Define 'god'" then "Demonstrate that god exists with evidence"... Such evidence that can be either peer reviewed by an independent third party, reproducible or evidence that would be accepted in court would be sufficient.
(1) Spiritual experiences - I've had "spiritual experiences" watching the Lord of the Rings, reading good books and doing activities that I enjoy, these experiences match exactly things that happened in church and as have been described by true believers. I have a feeling no one is going to tell me that this is proof that thousands of years ago, Orcs, Goblins, Elves Dragons, and Sorcerers ran around saving the world from a magical ring. Every spiritual experience I've heard can be attributed to a simple emotional response, either internally generated or manipulated by an external source.
(2) NDE reports - I'll put a disclaimer on this, but I've never heard of a single conclusive, independently verified case of a true "near death experience" where it can be shown that a person's essence or spirit left their body. In fact, Doctors have been able to induce a state where people have the experience of such a feeling, but it happens all in the brain. If there is an "essence" which stores a person's personality and memories that can survive without a body, why can brain trauma fundamentally alter a person's personality, likes and dislikes, the very core of a person can be changed by altering the physical structure of the brain. If a person's personality is independent of a physical structure, why would that be?
(3) Testimonies of third parties - Complete hearsay. If I say "My friend told me that his Uncle personally witnessed God being killed in a fishing accident." Do you believe me? Because if you do, you don't have to believe in God anymore, he's dead.
(4) the Bible, etc - Really? ... Wait... Spiderman's real??? After all, there are more books about him, in those books he actually interacts with people and does real good, there's even been movies about him!!! He must be real! Wait... That mean's the Goblin's real too... Crap, guess we have to take the bad with the good, after all, if it's in a book, it must be real.
I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that these aren't good reasons, so why even bring them up in the first place... Because you seem to think they are good enough.
I could go on, your misrepresentation of Einstein's "belief" in the theory of relativity (Which he didn't just make up out of nothing, it was based on a whole lot of math and models that lead to that conclusion, which then lead to testing.) Lets just say that if you want to make that comparison, please show your work, as Dave the Atheist said, "Define 'god'" then "Demonstrate that god exists with evidence"... Such evidence that can be either peer reviewed by an independent third party, reproducible or evidence that would be accepted in court would be sufficient.
And can be condensed down to one sentence. Anyone can believe in a god or gods if they really want to; they just have to want to.
And there it is, in a nutshell.
I did want to, and tried for a long time because good people believe in god, bad people dont, and of course I wanted to be thought of as good! But it came down to the inescapable fact that I had no reason to, and if there were some kind of supreme being, it surely gave no evidence of interfering in people's lives, and no way did it have anything to do with the Abramaic religions. Any god who did wouldnt be worth acknowledging, let alone praising!
And there it is, in a nutshell.
I did want to, and tried for a long time because good people believe in god, bad people dont, and of course I wanted to be thought of as good! But it came down to the inescapable fact that I had no reason to, and if there were some kind of supreme being, it surely gave no evidence of interfering in people's lives, and no way did it have anything to do with the Abramaic religions. Any god who did wouldnt be worth acknowledging, let alone praising!
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
You spent a whole lot of time, not talking about your claimed evidence and working really hard to lower the bar of what is considered evidence.
With your impressive argument by verbosity I'm trying to cull out what you are actually presenting as evidence.
From what I can tell you are appealing to authority that two people have expressed the opinion that the universe is too ordered to have not been designed?
Initially you give a list of 4 items you cite as evidence but do nothing to back those up. However based on the list are you proposing that anecdotal evidence should be considered evidence?
Am I missing something?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2014 02:22PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.
With your impressive argument by verbosity I'm trying to cull out what you are actually presenting as evidence.
From what I can tell you are appealing to authority that two people have expressed the opinion that the universe is too ordered to have not been designed?
Initially you give a list of 4 items you cite as evidence but do nothing to back those up. However based on the list are you proposing that anecdotal evidence should be considered evidence?
Am I missing something?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2014 02:22PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.
Let me put it this way, have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? All morons.
Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2014 02:21PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2014 02:21PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The above points, offer scientific “reasons to
> believe” that are available to theists to
> support a rational faith, even though there is no
> direct experimental evidence for the existence of
> God. In the above examples, the God theory
> encompasses explanatory power in the face of
> genuine scientific data that not only is in
> desperate need of an explanation, but by its very
> nature points to a universe that suggests a
> creative force beyond simple cause and effect
> relationships, or random probabilities.
>
What, in the end, is explained?
At best this says that the Universe was created. Why? And if so, what does it mean to me? What does it mean to you?
You offer scientific reasons to believe in a Universe created by Mind, but nothing more.
The God problem isn't really about whether God exists or not, despite the megaphone repetitions of popular atheists. The problem is, if God does exist, as many millions believe, what is the nature of this God, and what does it demand of us, if anything? And, more importantly, what is the rational basis for the imputed nature of God and its demands/non-demands.
It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other if one believes or not in the God you outline. If it's there, so what? If it's not, so what?
Human
-------------------------------------------------------
> The above points, offer scientific “reasons to
> believe” that are available to theists to
> support a rational faith, even though there is no
> direct experimental evidence for the existence of
> God. In the above examples, the God theory
> encompasses explanatory power in the face of
> genuine scientific data that not only is in
> desperate need of an explanation, but by its very
> nature points to a universe that suggests a
> creative force beyond simple cause and effect
> relationships, or random probabilities.
>
What, in the end, is explained?
At best this says that the Universe was created. Why? And if so, what does it mean to me? What does it mean to you?
You offer scientific reasons to believe in a Universe created by Mind, but nothing more.
The God problem isn't really about whether God exists or not, despite the megaphone repetitions of popular atheists. The problem is, if God does exist, as many millions believe, what is the nature of this God, and what does it demand of us, if anything? And, more importantly, what is the rational basis for the imputed nature of God and its demands/non-demands.
It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other if one believes or not in the God you outline. If it's there, so what? If it's not, so what?
Human
Excellent point
Would you please stop shoving him down my throat?
"At best this says that the Universe was created. Why? And if so, what does it mean to me? What does it mean to you? You offer scientific reasons to believe in a Universe created by Mind, but nothing more."
COMMENT: Well, I grant you that it is difficult to cash in a general belief in god without some sort of divine "plan of salvation." However, once mind is acknowledged and a "creator God" is introduced, so also is purpose and meaning, even if establishing such a purpose and meaning is ellusive. So, it is not completely empty, and arguably a bit more satisfying that than the forced nihilism of atheism.
"The God problem isn't really about whether God exists or not, despite the megaphone repetitions of popular atheists. The problem is, if God does exist, as many millions believe, what is the nature of this God, and what does it demand of us, if anything? And, more importantly, what is the rational basis for the imputed nature of God and its demands/non-demands."
COMMENT: I disagree. As stated above, even if the nature of god and divine purpose and meaning are ellusive, the very existence of God as a creative force of itself suggests an underlying purpose and meaning.
"It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other if one believes or not in the God you outline. If it's there, so what? If it's not, so what?"
COMMENT: Matter to whom? It potentially matters if one is more comfortable living with the hope of a divine purpose to life. I agree that there is not much here in the way of religious dogma, but remember, the post was only designed to show that such bare faith is not unreasonable in the light of modern science.
Finally, note the reaction and resistance to this message. Some people here are invested in extreme atheism, which is unfounded.
COMMENT: Well, I grant you that it is difficult to cash in a general belief in god without some sort of divine "plan of salvation." However, once mind is acknowledged and a "creator God" is introduced, so also is purpose and meaning, even if establishing such a purpose and meaning is ellusive. So, it is not completely empty, and arguably a bit more satisfying that than the forced nihilism of atheism.
"The God problem isn't really about whether God exists or not, despite the megaphone repetitions of popular atheists. The problem is, if God does exist, as many millions believe, what is the nature of this God, and what does it demand of us, if anything? And, more importantly, what is the rational basis for the imputed nature of God and its demands/non-demands."
COMMENT: I disagree. As stated above, even if the nature of god and divine purpose and meaning are ellusive, the very existence of God as a creative force of itself suggests an underlying purpose and meaning.
"It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other if one believes or not in the God you outline. If it's there, so what? If it's not, so what?"
COMMENT: Matter to whom? It potentially matters if one is more comfortable living with the hope of a divine purpose to life. I agree that there is not much here in the way of religious dogma, but remember, the post was only designed to show that such bare faith is not unreasonable in the light of modern science.
Finally, note the reaction and resistance to this message. Some people here are invested in extreme atheism, which is unfounded.
Why would you think so? Its like saying atheists dont have morals because we dont engage in magical thinking, at least in regards to gods.
Science is a process of gathering data, finding trends, interpreting trends, confirming interpretations, and then using that as a usable model by which to understand something. A conclusion is reached (and always disposable) only after careful scrutiny and the most careful, simple, and hedged interpretation is typically the result so as to not taint the experiment with unsubstantiated assumptions. If you define god in sufficiently broad terms he cannot be disproven (at least at the present) and people have been known to believe in god and science (though it is extremely rare in highly respected scientific institutions). To believe that information needs to be interpreted carefully and that assumptions contaminate your objectivity and simultaneously believe that on the basis of an ancient book of questionable origin the god of the universe is named Jehovah and he counts your sins and helps you find your keys seems like discord to me. More interesting to me than disproving god is trying to figure out why it is seen as a logical starting place. Grafting an already formed world view onto science is completely at odds with what the purpose of science is.
onestepcloser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To believe that information needs
> to be interpreted carefully and that assumptions
> contaminate your objectivity and simultaneously
> believe that on the basis of an ancient book of
> questionable origin the god of the universe is
> named Jehovah and he counts your sins and helps
> you find your keys...
Ha HAA! Love it!
-------------------------------------------------------
> To believe that information needs
> to be interpreted carefully and that assumptions
> contaminate your objectivity and simultaneously
> believe that on the basis of an ancient book of
> questionable origin the god of the universe is
> named Jehovah and he counts your sins and helps
> you find your keys...
Ha HAA! Love it!
onestepcloser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grafting an already formed world view onto
> science is completely at odds with what the
> purpose of science is.
Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grafting an already formed world view onto
> science is completely at odds with what the
> purpose of science is.
Yes.
or wodin, or mythras or zeus in your arguments.
It's all delusion.
It's all delusion.
I feel the way about all gods as I do about snakes. leave me alone and I will leave you alone.
always worked for me!
always worked for me!
I'm an atheist with deist leanings, in part because of what's written above. I do not consider myself an agnostic, however, because:
1. There is no proof of the existence of any god.
2. All conclusions that deists reach have to make a leap of logic.
A deist looks at the complexity of life on this planet and says that someone or something must have intentionally created this. That is an emotional reaction, and perfectly understandable. It goes beyond our present ability to fully understand. We are also a species that questions, "Why?"
But just because we marvel at complexity and ask, "Why?" does not mean that there has to be Prime Cause or a Creator. We are emotional creatures. Intellect develops slowly and takes years until full, "logical" autonomy (i.e. the autonomous one can hold down a job and pay rent).
Behind each "god-proving" complexity is another complexity that caused the first, and more marveling. I'm okay with the open-ended questions without the dei. I'm also okay with the original post.
1. There is no proof of the existence of any god.
2. All conclusions that deists reach have to make a leap of logic.
A deist looks at the complexity of life on this planet and says that someone or something must have intentionally created this. That is an emotional reaction, and perfectly understandable. It goes beyond our present ability to fully understand. We are also a species that questions, "Why?"
But just because we marvel at complexity and ask, "Why?" does not mean that there has to be Prime Cause or a Creator. We are emotional creatures. Intellect develops slowly and takes years until full, "logical" autonomy (i.e. the autonomous one can hold down a job and pay rent).
Behind each "god-proving" complexity is another complexity that caused the first, and more marveling. I'm okay with the open-ended questions without the dei. I'm also okay with the original post.
Hey, too long of a post on this subject. Maybe keep it a bit more simple. Just my opinion.
No comments from OP...?
I agree with most here... the onus of proof lies with those claiming god's existence. So far, I've seen nothing to suggest the existence of a higher power, much less that this higher power is in any way concerned with anything that happens in this universe.
I agree with most here... the onus of proof lies with those claiming god's existence. So far, I've seen nothing to suggest the existence of a higher power, much less that this higher power is in any way concerned with anything that happens in this universe.
A hunch leading to a theory about what may be true, with full understanding that said theory will be tested, cannot be confused with "faith" as applied to the belief in God.
Faith is belief without evidence, never expecting or requiring any future test or peer review.
If science utilized belief without evidence, we would still be acting like the Catholic Church in response to Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun.
It appears you may be making the same mistake by labeling those with contradictory theories, also supported by anecdotal evidence, as heretics based on your faith-filled view.
Anagrammy
Faith is belief without evidence, never expecting or requiring any future test or peer review.
If science utilized belief without evidence, we would still be acting like the Catholic Church in response to Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun.
It appears you may be making the same mistake by labeling those with contradictory theories, also supported by anecdotal evidence, as heretics based on your faith-filled view.
Anagrammy
Henry,
Your posts are always verbose, mildly entertaining, delusional, and riddled with fallacy. You should sell your writings as a soporific. They quickly dull the senses. Were you on the Dry- council before becoming an exmormon? Just curios?
HH =)
Your posts are always verbose, mildly entertaining, delusional, and riddled with fallacy. You should sell your writings as a soporific. They quickly dull the senses. Were you on the Dry- council before becoming an exmormon? Just curios?
HH =)
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.