The Problem with Atheism

Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205331 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #475 – 2014-07-14, 06:07:12

Good for you, James, to have found some science that refutes God. Finally an evidence-based atheist here making an attempt to preach the gospel of atheism!

A few points on this. Quentin Smith explicitly admits that his argument only deals with Abrahamic God and is crucially dependent on what is attributed to God in that particular theology. More specifically, he mentions Swinburne, against whose cosmological argument he has apparently built his own argument. And "argument" is a technical philosophical term, not scientific. In science you have hypotheses and theories. Quentin Smith is a philosopher making a philosophical argument citing science, not a scientific point per se. So, you did not get rid of philosophy at all, and you only amounted an attack against God you hate most, instead of getting rid of God decisively.

If you overlook all that, I see how you can say "Science makes God unnecessary". It's about the same as saying "Trees make forest unnecessary" or even "This tree makes forest unnecessary".

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #476 – 2014-07-14, 06:44:38

I mostly agree with your determination, ersi… What conclusions you'd draw from it are another matter. Atheists are much more numerous than imagined, I think; and always have been. And they are -as naive reasoners- more rational than some of the best philosophers!
I'd agree, also, that mystical feelings count for something. I'm interested in the question, What?

You -I take it- aren't: You're a true believer, of some sort. Allah. Brahma. What-ever. Feel free to live your own life by whatever principles and beliefs you prefer; so long as you don't run amok, in the Name of Anything!
You can still debate various topics with me: I don't discriminate, except on terms of incoherence or incomprehensibility…

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #477 – 2014-07-14, 21:34:57

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 06:07:12

So, you did not get rid of philosophy at all, and you only amounted an attack against God you hate most, instead of getting rid of God decisively.

How can I hate something that doesn't exist? I don't even hate the idea of god, in fact, a belief in some sort of higher power can assist many people with all sorts of troubles, trials and tribulations that they're incapable of dealing with effectively on their own. What I don't like is the idea of religion taking money from the poor in the name of god and dangling the carrot of eternal life in front of them to get them to cough up the dough--it's totally unethical.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 06:07:12

A few points on this. Quentin Smith explicitly admits that his argument only deals with Abrahamic God and is crucially dependent on what is attributed to God in that particular theology.

Yes, I agree with you. The Christian religion says too much about God, thus allowing science and philosophy to poke holes in their ideas about God. Muslims say much less and in fact, Allah left the building right after his first act, and left Mohammed to be his flunky here on earth. But anyone can think up an untouchable god, not just philosophers.

Here's an interesting tidbit; a 2009 survey by PhilPapers found that 62% of philosophers are atheists with another 11% on the fence, what do they know that you don’t know? http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/

You may argue that this is those philosophers who reject the Abrahamic god, however, the question posed to them on god was quite simple:

God: theism or atheism?
1.   Accept: theism
2.   Lean toward: theism
3.   Accept: atheism
4.   Lean toward: atheism
5.   Other
Find the survey questions here: http://philpapers.org/philpapers/raw/survey.pdf For more info about the survey and the results go to: http://philpapers.org/surveys/

I doubt that you are much for surveys, but if you look closely at the participants chosen for this survey, you should find it at least a fair bunch, if not impressive.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #478 – 2014-07-14, 22:46:00

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-14, 13:34:57

What I don't like is the idea of religion taking money from the poor in the name of god and dangling the carrot of eternal life in front of them to get them to cough up the dough--it's totally unethical.

Ah! The ethical atheist complains that the poor give some of their pittance to religious organizations... (No doubt, he fantasizes he'd be a Robin Hood!)
Is this really your rationale, James?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #479 – 2014-07-15, 00:46:09

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 22:46:00

The ethical atheist complains that the poor give some of their pittance to religious organizations... (No doubt, he fantasizes he'd be a Robin Hood!)
Is this really your rationale, James?

Not at all, it's simply something that irks me. Isn't there anything that irks you--me, for example? Or am I too unworthy for you to be irked about?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #480 – 2014-07-15, 18:37:26

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-14, 16:46:09

Isn't there anything that irks you [...]?

Sure: Pretentious self-important prattling, unrelieved by humor! (See the Philosophy, Logic and Formal Systems thread, for numerous examples!)
Do you irk me? Not specially. But that's not because you're unworthy, in any essential sense: As ersi might say, there's a continuum that constitutes my attentions...and, yes, you are (mostly) at its furthest reaches! But I'd rather say what the main character in Paddy Chayefsky's The Americanization of Emily said at the movie's end...

Ca-peech?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #481 – 2014-07-16, 10:53:40

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 18:37:26

But I'd rather say what the main character in Paddy Chayefsky's The Americanization of Emily said at the movie's end... Ca-peech?

When thinking of my favorite person here, I like the line by the character Harry Block in Deconstructing Harry when Woody Allen says--"All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it".

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #482 – 2014-07-16, 11:23:26

Well... the Theist fortress seems to be well defended for the moment being.
Atheist attacks are rare, uncoordinated and ineffective.

However, it's not impossible that internal dissensions amongst the Theist troops can lead to a volte face.
As usual, that's Protestant's fault.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #483 – 2014-07-16, 11:58:48

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-16, 11:23:26

Well... the Theist fortress seems to be well defended for the moment being.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean theism is a truth or even rationally justified. Ersi's logic is tailor made for him to believe in a supernatural god because he is desperate for an afterlife. To me, wanting to live forever is not a rational thought--it is a far fetched fantasy. Would Ersi so vehemently believe in a god if there were no promise of an afterlife? Ersi may not believe in the Abrahamic god of this earth, but he still kept the main premise of religion for his own god--eternal life--which is not logical to assume.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #484 – 2014-07-16, 12:49:56

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-16, 11:58:48

Would Ersi so vehemently believe in a god if there were no promise of an afterlife?

Or if said afterlife was to be lived in perpetual anguish and pain?

What an enormous parcel of crap.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #485 – 2014-07-16, 13:41:44

Interesting enough, the belief in an afterlife isn't mentioned in the Bible anywhere before the New Testament. And even there, it is somewhat controversial.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #486 – 2014-07-16, 13:47:12

@James
The way you construe rationale for theism would be funny if it were not overly familiar and deeply wrong. Specifically, wrong about me. You are at your best as evidence-based apostle for atheism, so let's recall a small evidence-based guideline:

When referring to someone's views or opinions, back it up with what the person actually said.

Referring to someone's views and opinions without linking them to what the person actually said is sheer mind-reading. Mind-reading is inappropriate for atheists because minds are supernatural and atheists don't believe in supernatural.

For the same reason it's inappropriate of you to mention afterlife altogether. Afterlife is supernatural and you have no evidence for it. Stick with things that you have evidence for. You can bring up afterlife when I mention it, and then we'll talk evidence.

You have linked to a philosophical piece that contains an argument refuting God. This was a good start. A refutation of God is an indirect case for atheism (standing ovations). How about building a little positive case for atheism now? Can you summarise an argument that positively establishes atheism?

Let's keep this thread relevant and interesting.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #487 – 2014-07-16, 20:22:31

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 13:47:12

Let's keep this thread relevant and interesting.

Here an interesting article,

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/stephen-hawking-god-could-not-create-the-universe-because-there-was-no-time-for-him-to-do-so/

that tries to refute this Hawking statement:

You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed.

The article starts off with a bang of its own when it tries to outline Hawking’s argument--it is wrong. What Hawking actually is saying is that causal relationships necessarily entail temporality, except for the very first one. The article then goes on to use the metaphysical logic of Kant to explain that other effects don’t necessarily need a time-based cause. However, in Kant’s eternal ball-cushion-indent example the writer (and Kant, I assume), is using a metaphysical universe where eternity is a distinct factor and then trying to compare what happens there to our universe which has a finite beginning. I don’t find this kind of logic to be compelling at all.

The second point of this argument is not worthy of comment, I do hope you don’t see anything there. Point 3 could have been summed up as: a temporal cause always has a delayed effect, no matter how minute; how that is relevant to the discussion of an effect with no temporal cause, you will have to tell me. Point 4 the writer simply doesn't know the difference between ‘the law of gravity’ and ‘the theory of gravity’—look it up. The writer then goes on to say that there could be a metaphysical time that Hawking is overlooking—yada, yada, yada.

Is this article just a bad example of good logical philosophy or is this as good as it gets? While I will admit that Hawking is making somewhat of a premature leap to the nonexistence of god, there is much more on the horizon--I do hear a duck quacking, however.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #488 – 2014-07-17, 04:08:10

Thanks for the article, James.

First off, Hawking's argument is another NEGATIVE case for atheism, built explicitly to get rid of God, not to establish atheism in its own right. By this I mean, the argument references God throughout. On atheism, God should not exist and non-existents should not be worth mentioning, but the argument doesn't manage to get off at all without mentioning God.

Anyway, let's look a bit into it.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-16, 20:22:31

The second point of this argument is not worthy of comment, I do hope you don’t see anything there.

Okay, to understand what you mean by "the second point" I had to actually read the article, because you didn't list its points

You seem to mean this one:

Quote from: Theo-sophical Ruminations

2. Why is time necessary to causal relationships? A moment's reflection on the nature of time and causation should make it clear that causal relationships do not entail temporality.

Obviously, Hawking's argument crucially depends on his narrower definition of cause as the starting point that temporally produces the effect. I happen to disagree with Hawking's definition. I hold to a more elaborate and nuanced definition of cause.

Here's an example from Ghazali: When I hold a candle in my hand and I move my hand, the movement of both the hand and of the candle is simultaneous, but it's absolutely undeniable that the hand is the cause and the movement of the candle is the effect. Hence causes are not merely temporal.

Now, it's important that I cite Ghazali, a philosopher who formulated the cosmological argument the way that is relevant and immediately comprehensible even for modern Westerners. It's important because in order to refute Ghazali's argument, its premises must be shown to be false. In this case, the way Ghazali defines cause should be shown false.

Hawking has re-defined cause in a narrower way, but he has not shown that the definition used in theist arguments is false. Hence he is actually not addressing the theistic arguments at all. Hawking is going about his own autonomous business, disproving God to himself, not to theists. Hawking is basically doing monologue, not dialogue. Worse, Ghazali's common-sense example totally undercuts Hawking's re-definition.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-16, 20:22:31

Point 3 could have been summed up as: a temporal cause always has a delayed effect, no matter how minute; how that is relevant to the discussion of an effect with no temporal cause, you will have to tell me.

This is a Buddhist (and maybe Theosophical?) definition of cause and effect to argue that cause and effect are basically the same thing in atomistic sense, like beads on a thread. There's no point of calling one bead strictly cause and the other effect - they are all beads. It's relevant as yet another view of cause and effect that can rationally be held.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-16, 20:22:31

Point 4 the writer simply doesn't know the difference between ‘the law of gravity’ and ‘the theory of gravity’—look it up. The writer then goes on to say that there could be a metaphysical time that Hawking is overlooking—yada, yada, yada.

From Point #4 I take just this -

Quote from: Theo-sophical Ruminations

Hawking argues that "since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything." But wouldn't "anything" include physical laws as well?

- which is also completely sufficient by itself to overturn Hawking's argument. If Hawking's conclusion is that nothing could have caused the Big Bang, he has not managed to give any rational explanation to the universe, but a rational explanation why this should be the case is what we are after. You may - in words - accept that there's no explanation, but then you must also accept that you cannot call yourself rational and the opponent irrational.

Hawking demonstrated that his science implies that there's no explanation to the Big Bang. This can be accepted as the latest and greatest truth by those who hold that only science can give truth (this view is called scientism), but it's inapplicable to those who see a bigger picture than what science gives. This bigger picture is called philosophy. In philosophy, leaving anything unexplained is irrational, while being able to explain things is rational.

Moreover, one can take the inexplicable Big Bang with a slight modification, attribute some consciousness to it for no good reason (it's inexplicable, so no good reasons are needed!), label it God and voila - Hawking actually gave a theist argument. How do you like it now?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #489 – 2014-07-17, 06:23:41

Quote

In philosophy, leaving anything unexplained is irrational

Ersi , no offence
can you please be lesser compulsive ?
isn't that something like oxymoron?

Philosophy is for somehow to determine which are rational or irrational .

check the definition of logical fallacy --> A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning

but , i dont think philosophy is to explain everything .

nobody have debt to explain everything to everyone .
if that's happening ,
perhaps it's because of the insanity-factors .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #490 – 2014-07-17, 10:11:07

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 20:08:10

Here's an example from Ghazali: When I hold a candle in my hand and I move my hand, the movement of both the hand and of the candle is simultaneous, but it's absolutely undeniable that the hand is the cause and the movement of the candle is the effect. Hence causes are not merely temporal.

There a giant Oops! in this argument: Einstein's theory of Special Relativity… Signals are limited by the speed of light. Hence, no special pleading of "simultaneity" suffices to warrant the conclusion.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 20:08:10

Ghazali's common-sense example totally undercuts Hawking's re-definition.

Einstein's theory eliminates Ghazali's common-sense example… In other words, your "more elaborate and nuanced" definition of cause is mere subterfuge, a way of assuming (but not defending) a necessary premise. But call it, rather, a mere mistake in logic.

——————————————————

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 20:08:10

Moreover, one can take the inexplicable Big Bang with a slight modification, attribute some consciousness to it for no good reason (it's inexplicable, so no good reasons are needed!), label it God and voila - Hawking actually gave a theist argument. How do you like it now?

Yup! I like that well enough!

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #491 – 2014-07-17, 10:25:01

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-17, 10:11:07

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-16, 20:08:10
Here's an example from Ghazali: When I hold a candle in my hand and I move my hand, the movement of both the hand and of the candle is simultaneous, but it's absolutely undeniable that the hand is the cause and the movement of the candle is the effect. Hence causes are not merely temporal.

There a giant Oops! in this argument: Einstein's theory of Special Relativity… Signals are limited by the speed of light. Hence, no special pleading of "simultaneity" suffices to warrant the conclusion.

There's a much more forceful example to sustain the traditional more elaborate definition of cause: The glass is the cause of the shape and position of water, the table is the cause of the position of the glass, the floor is the cause of the position of the table, etc.

The same applies with Ghazali's example too: Whether the hand is moving or not, it remains the cause of the position, movement, or staticness of the candle.

Now try to disprove this dimension of causality that is diametrically opposite to the temporal dimension.

I was saving this so as to not shatter James' tender soul, but you ruined it.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #492 – 2014-07-17, 11:09:10

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 02:25:01

a much more forceful example to sustain the traditional more elaborate definition of cause: The glass is the cause of the shape and position of water, the table is the cause of the position of the glass, the floor is the cause of the position of the table, etc.

Yes, indeed, you've changed the meaning of cause… (You perforce must do that a lot, given your logic and your theories!) Was the glass the cause of the shape and position of the water — before it was poured? Was the table the cause of the position of the glass — when it was in the cupboard? Etc.

It's the sort of thing that seems "forceful" if one doesn't mind or notice equivocation. You would use "cause" metaphorically, and expect noone would notice?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 02:25:01

Now try to disprove this dimension of causality that is diametrically opposite to the temporal dimension.

Oh! I know: It's Redness?
—————————————————————————

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-16, 22:23:41

nobody have debt to explain everything to everyone .
if that's happening ,
perhaps it's because of the insanity-factors .

Sparta, I hope you never have to read Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality! But it's a fine example of what I called (some 40 years ago) the "physicist's paranoia" …

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #493 – 2014-07-17, 11:45:36

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-17, 11:09:10

It's the sort of thing that seems "forceful" if one doesn't mind or notice equivocation. You would use "cause" metaphorically, and expect noone would notice?

In this case it's Hawking who changed the definition of cause and thought no one would notice. Context, dude!

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #494 – 2014-07-17, 12:19:10

But let's play some more with this counter-argument that James chose for us:

Quote

Imagine C and E are the cause and the effect. If C were to vanish before the time at which E is produced, would E nevertheless come into being? Surely not! But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to E’s appearance C’s disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between C’s disappearance and E’s appearance. But then why or how E came into being when it does seems utterly mysterious, for there is no cause at that moment to produce it.

No offense to Dr. Craig (who seems a nice enough fellow, and both industrious and sincere) but he's no Zeno of Elea!

A little mathematics? He's using "continuous" in an odd sense, much as Zeno did in his story of Achilles and the tortoise. Summing an infinite series of successively halved terms gives a finite result. Similarly, Craig would have us accept mathematical continuity as physical reality — which is plainly wrong.
The "utterly mysterious" he cites stems from his own misunderstanding of the mathematical concept, together with a naive application of it.

The argument's author, Jason Dulle, continues: "Arguably all causal relationships entail some sense of simultaneity between cause and effect."

Can we dispense with his "arguably" and "some sense of"…? Good! (Because, in this case, they're weasel words!) So, he seems not to have heard of Einstein's theories of Relativity, too… But he gets it almost right, nonetheless.
What he fails to take heed of is the nature of physical reality.
—————————————————————

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 03:45:36

In this case it's Hawking who changed the definition of cause and thought no one would notice. Context, dude!

Come now, ersi, why would you expect a 20th century theoretical physicist and mathematician — to use Ancient/Medieval definitions? For terms of physics?

Dude!

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #495 – 2014-07-17, 12:34:55

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-17, 12:19:10

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 03:45:36
In this case it's Hawking who changed the definition of cause and thought no one would notice. Context, dude!

Come now, ersi, why would you expect a 20th century theoretical physicist and mathematician — to use Ancient/Medieval definitions? For terms of physics? Dude!

I wouldn't. The same way, the physics dude should not imagine he has anything relevant to say about theology. But this is precisely what he is imagining and poor James is taking him seriously.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #496 – 2014-07-17, 12:52:53

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 04:34:55

The same way, the physics dude should not imagine he has anything relevant to say about theology. But this is precisely what he is imagining

You mean Hawkings?

Well, he's not a trained theologean… (Dulle and Craig are! But neither are mathematicians or physicists…) But isn't it his universe, too? And, if there's a God, isn't He Hawkings' — to understand, as best he can?

(I do really miss the whisper mode of the old forum… Seriously, ersi, Hawkings is dis-qualified to discuss theology? Whose authority sanctions such censorship?)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #497 – 2014-07-17, 13:07:46

all i can say , Stephen hawking is fabulous .

he challenge Human race to understanding the theory of everything, to know the mind of God .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #498 – 2014-07-17, 14:03:25

I doubt, Sparta, that that's how Hawking himself sees it!

But I, personally, have no quibble to make against it.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #499 – 2014-07-17, 16:31:19

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 04:08:10

but it's absolutely undeniable that the hand is the cause and the movement of the candle is the effect. Hence causes are not merely temporal.

It depends on what you mean by cause, I suppose, but it seems to me that this is akin to saying that if you put a candle on a table and an earthquake shakes the table and hence the candle is moved, then it is the table that is causing the candle to move. How do you train a table to do that?

Btw, isn't it Ghazali who says that God is what causes cotton to burn when you put a torch to it? You gotta stop incorporating everything philosophical that you read into your belief system, it's a mess.