On 30 Jun 2014, at 07:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
> agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the
scientific method, so we really need the concept in order to
understand the status of scientific theories.
I like what Isaac Asimov, a fellow who knew a thing or two about
science, had to say on this subject:
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it.
I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it
was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist,
because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was
better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided
that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally,
I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God
doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't
want to waste my time."
So he knows that he only has enough evidence to be agnostic, but
he is emotionally convinced to be an atheist nonetheless. OK, so
that puts him on a par with religious believers who are also
emotionally convinced, though not of the same thing.
No more so that being an aSanta-Clausist.
Well there you go then. I rest my case.
Actually I think there is enough evidence to prove (in the 'beyond
reasonable doubt' sense) that the God of the bible does not exist.
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably
fail to believe that it does. I don't have proof that there is no
teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make me epitemologically
irresponsible to assert I don't believe there is one.
Atheists don't just believe that the biblical god doesn't exist,
they believe that there are no supernatural forces involved in the
operation of the universe.
Where is this written? Do you speak for all atheists, or just ones
in NZ?
While I consider this likely, I don't consider it 100% proven,
because as Arthur C Clark said, any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic, and it's at least
conceivable that there are sufficiently advanced
beings out there that they can act outside what we call nature.
That seems to really waffle. If we knew these beings could so act
wouldn't we just readjust "what we call nature". In fact that's a
general problem with saying what it would mean for some events to be
supernatural. In the past many events were thought to be
supernatural, acts of God, e.g. sickness, lightning, drought,
earthquakes,...but are now thought to be natural. So it some new
phenomena is observed why wouldn't we just assume it was natural
even if we didn't have an explanation.
I agree with you. I think we can relate this to Occam. If we have a
theory which explains a lot, and fail to explain a new phenomena, we
should not abandon the theory, unless the new phenomena does violate
the theory.
I think that "supernatural" has no meaning at all. No more than the
incompatibilist theory of free will which I think does not make sense
(I agree with John Clark on this).
Supernatural would mean violating the laws of physics, and that makes
no sense because physics, by quasi-definition, changes itself each
time she is violated.
(But comp + materialism do introduce something close to magic:
primitive matter capable of selecting consciousness, but without any
role in the computations).
For example I am not 100% sure that the universe wasn't created by
some intelligent beings with sufficiently advanced
technology to create big bangs (they may of course have evolved
naturally in another universe). I don't think it's
likely, but that's my emotional prejudices at work. I can't see
that I can claim with certainty that it's impossible, and since
these being would fit with some definitions of god (creator of the
unvierse) then I can't say it is 100% proven that god doesn't exist.
Didn't you slip from "something or someone beyond our current
explanation" to "god". You speak for atheists, what do you have to
say for religionists? Are they just worshiping some unknown
possibility. What is the god they believe in - that's the god I
don't believe in. I think you have muddled the word "god" in order
make it seem unreasonable to assert definitively that "god" doesn't
exist. But in the process you've made "god" into something quite
different from the god of religion. A mere shadow of the once
powerful Yaweh, Baal, Zeus, Thor,...
Earth was thought to be a tortoise, then we learn better.
Similarly the notion of God is the notion of an all encompassing one
unifying all things. It was thought to be a sort of father in the sky,
but we might learn better here too.
Then, the God of the materialist is the physical universe. Here too,
we might learn better.
Materialism might be right, but with comp, we get a problem of how
that physical universe can select a consciousness in a stream of
consciousness in arithmetic.
The materialist religion has a tendency to abstract from the existence
of consciousness. That's OK as a fertile methodological strategy, but
in my opinion it misses the most important things: persons. It fails
also to explain the nature of matter and where it comes from.
No problem, computer science and machine's computer science, and the
difference between, unravel a different theology than the materialist
one, which seems promising on those questions. To put is roughly:
matter looks like the derivative of mind. Or mind is the primitive of
matter (pun included).
If you are going to narrowly define atheism as not believing in the
god of the bible, then of course I will agree with you (I will even
throw in the Norse and Egyptian gods and a few others, if you
like). But that isn't what I am talking about when I say Atheism,
and I doubt it's what Asimov meant either.
You seem to be equating atheism with asserting that nothing beyond
our knowledge of nature exists. Not just failing to believe that
such exists, but having 100% confidence that it doesn't. I don't
know anyone who calls himself an atheist and who makes such a strong
statement. Dawkins has explicity said he is not absolutely certain
there is no god of any kind. Vic Stenger explicitly says he cannot
rule out a deist god.
Well, they still ignore machine's theology, isn't it? With the
original Platonist notion of God (the truth we search inward, about
which the first thing we know is that it is above us, ineffable, etc).
If atheism is the disbelief in the literal Christian god, then all
taoist, jewish, muslims, hinduists, etc. are atheists.
Why did Cantor wrote to the pope, and develop long correspondences
with a bishop, to discuss about the possible blaspheme of his naming
of the higher infinities?
Cantor was aware that his set theory was already a sort of theology.
The belief in God is a bit like the belief in some infinite. In math
it can simplifies the proofs, despite for many proofs, its use can be
eliminated.
There are two main reasons for people to believe in God.
1) because their parents told so.
2) because they look inward and get "personal evidence" (mystical
experience)
And there are many intermediates, where people believes in God because
their parents told so, and they look inward and get evidences that
they interpret as confirmation of what their parents said. Some might
look inward enough to understand that what their parents said should
be interpreted less literally, for example.
But once a religion becomes a political tool, then "looking inward" is
badly seen, and the free research is banished. Logic get quickly
abandoned too.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
