Metaphysics vs. Atheism

[King of the Americas]

*Warning this thread contains woo woo garb.

Last night on "30 Days", the show plotted an atheist in the home of staunch christians.

The show had none of the Jerry Springer-type outbreaks with one side throwing stuff or yelling at the other, but I did have hope when the atheist attended a bible study.

I couldn't help but keep thinking, maybe both of these people are wrong...

I take a Von Daniken/Hancock point of view, wherein I lack the metaphysical part of the equation. I believe the flood happened, except that I think it was a regional thing, as in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I don't believe in winged angels, but rather extra-terresterial piloted UFO's.

I like to refer to the bible as fictionalized facts...almost.

I can't swallow fanciful tales of omni-present god(s), but beings more evolved than us, playing super scientists by tagging and then releasing humans just to see what they do, sounds more than probable after watching a Discovery Channel special, and seeing humans doing the same thing to lesser evovled creatures.

Besides, I deem this view as THE compromise between the two vastly separated stances.

Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[Bikewer]

"Metaphysics" is sort of an abused term; in it's standard usage, "beyond physics", it refers to a sort of philosophical bent. "Why are we here", "what is a man", things of that nature.
Unfortunately, it's come to be a catch-all for all manner of new-agey, "spiritual", and woo-ish beliefs.

As to Aliens vs. God, or views influenced by the highly-discredited Mr. Von Danniken....
There is no more evidence for these things than there is for biblical miracles.

The bible stories (or any other scripture for that matter) may simply be seen as myths, enshrined in religion. Myths are common to all peoples on the face of the Earth, they are part and parcel of being human beings with the intellect to wonder why we are here.

 

[Filip Sandor]

"Metaphysics" is sort of an abused term; in it's standard usage, "beyond physics", it refers to a sort of philosophical bent. "Why are we here", "what is a man", things of that nature.
Unfortunately, it's come to be a catch-all for all manner of new-agey, "spiritual", and woo-ish beliefs.

As to Aliens vs. God, or views influenced by the highly-discredited Mr. Von Danniken....
There is no more evidence for these things than there is for biblical miracles.

The bible stories (or any other scripture for that matter) may simply be seen as myths, enshrined in religion. Myths are common to all peoples on the face of the Earth, they are part and parcel of being human beings with the intellect to wonder why we are here.

Yes Bikewer, I'm sure all the "credible" ex-military sources who spoke publicly on the Roswell incident were high-on acid when it happened.. and continue to be high on acid because they get paid to do it by secret organizations hoping to convince humanity that extra-terrestrial life is indeed real.

Are you saying we are the center of the Universe and that because you haven't seen a UFO or an alien, that the laws of physics which contribute to life somehow differ in different sections of our solar system/ galaxy/... and the billions of other galaxies?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

*Warning this thread contains woo woo garb.

Last night on "30 Days", the show plotted an atheist in the home of staunch christians.

The show had none of the Jerry Springer-type outbreaks with one side throwing stuff or yelling at the other, but I did have hope when the atheist attended a bible study.

I couldn't help but keep thinking, maybe both of these people are wrong...

I take a Von Daniken/Hancock point of view, wherein I lack the metaphysical part of the equation. I believe the flood happened, except that I think it was a regional thing, as in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I don't believe in winged angels, but rather extra-terresterial piloted UFO's.

I like to refer to the bible as fictionalized facts...almost.

I can't swallow fanciful tales of omni-present god(s), but beings more evolved than us, playing super scientists by tagging and then releasing humans just to see what they do, sounds more than probable after watching a Discovery Channel special, and seeing humans doing the same thing to lesser evovled creatures.

Besides, I deem this view as THE compromise between the two vastly separated stances.

Any thoughts on the matter?

Sure, considering that long long ago during my first forray into spiritualism, that was more or less my view on things. Basically I didn't want to rule out anything so I tried weaving it all into a rich tapestry of "it's all true". Unfortunatly eventually I realized I was just coming up with a comic book story. Too bad that itself wasn't enough to get me out of such things, but eventually I'd leave it all behind.

Anyway, the main problem is that your "compromise" between the two positions doens't really compromise. The hardcore faithful will see it as "the same" as any other view, including atheism, in that it doesn't agree with their faith. The atheists, well it depends on who you are dealing with I suppose. One can not believe in any god and still be a very silly sort of person after all. A skeptical sort is likely to be an atheist, but one can easily be an atheist for all the wrong reasons. I like this joke about inmates in an asylum plotting an escape as it illustrates it nicely:

"I can use this flashlight to make a beam of light and you can walk on it over the wall to freedom."

"That's insane. You'll just turn it off when I'm halfway there and I'll fall to my death!"

My main issue with your position is basically, why do you believe those events happened to begin with? There's really no point in trying to come up with an explanation for a phenomenon unless you know that particular thing is actually true to begin with.

If you have no reason to believe in all those fairy tale aspects, what makes you think the red sea actually divided at all, even if it was some natural event that is allowed by current science? What makes you think that the jews actually were kept as slaves in egypt and that some strange objects actually were flying around and were spotted?

Further, what makes you think these particular explanations are the correct ones anyway? I've heard the "those angels were aliens" explanation since I was a kid. Makes for good sci-fi but even if the guy did see something, what makes you think it was some alien space ship?

That's the reason skeptical sorts go atheist to begin with. They see no reason to believe a proposition, so they don't. It's not about a comrpomise of two beliefs held on equal footing, because they aren't. One agrees with the existing evidence, one does not.

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with your point of view if you decide you wish to believe it. I'm merely saying that it is pretty much in the same camp as any other religious belief. Says the skeptic; evidence?

(Those blasted semicolons, I usually abstain from them but allowed it in there for the sake of this joke. I never know exactly where they can be safely used...)

 

[Frostbite]

I read a bunch of books by the likes of Von Daniken, Sitchin, Hoagland and Hancock and, although there isn't definite proof to support their respective theories, I must admit I find the possibility absolutely mind-blowing.

I mean, we're only a few hundred years short of exploring other star systems, let alone colonizing other planets and tampering with whatever lifeforms we'll find there. What's to keep us from domesticating and/or genetically engineering certain species to our will, to perform whatever functions we want them to?

The universe is overwhelmingly huge. I find it plausible that there might be billions of civilizations out there, that some of them might have visited us in the past, and that some of those might have inferred with our cultural and/or biological development. I also find it plausible that, as a moderately advanced civilization, we might have been flagged as a potential member in some sort of galactic community and that, eventually, when we are ready, we'll be able to join it, and in the meantime we have been quarantined, only to be visited by occasional surveyors.

Now concerning mythological and biblical events, I see them simply as actual historical events which have been grossly misinterpreted, mistranslated and exaggerated for thousands of years. There probably wasn't a Flood per se, but perhaps a pretty dramatic increase in sea levels (1 to 10 meters) due to melting polar ice caps, for instance, and, since most ancient civilizations started near shores and rivers, they all felt it at pretty much the same time.

 

[joller]

I mean, we're only a few hundred years short of exploring other star systems,

Oh yeah? Who told you that?
So what's your idea for defeating the problem with the speed of light?

let alone colonizing other planets and tampering with whatever lifeforms we'll find there.

What life forms? We haven't found a proof of anything like that.

What's to keep us from domesticating and/or genetically engineering certain species to our will, to perform whatever functions we want them to?

the fact that currently there's no proof they even exist?

 

[Oldpossum]

Just to be pedantic, you understand, what lesser evolved creatures would these be?
It's just if some scientist is hogging a hithero undiscovered cache of lesser evolved creatures, I'd like to have some to experiment on too!
Because as far as I was aware, every living thing on the planet, has been evolving for just as long as everything else has!

Also do you have any Hypothesis, as to why these greater evolved aliens, like to subject their research subjects to anal probes?

 

[Frostbite]

Oh yeah? Who told you that?
So what's your idea for defeating the problem with the speed of light?


What life forms? We haven't found a proof of anything like that.

the fact that currently there's no proof they even exist?

I'm obviously talking hypothetically. Guess I should've mentioned that for the ones who couldn't assume it.

 

[drkitten]

I'm obviously talking hypothetically.

What's the difference between "talking hypothetically" and "spewing unsupported nonsense"?

The problem with a statement like "we're only a few hundred years short of exploring other star systems" is that there's no reason at all (that I can see) to take such a prediction seriously. I've seen far too many similar predictions -- hell, this is 2006. We were supposed to have full human-level AI and manned flights to Jupiter five years ago -- and there are too many engineering problems (like the speed of light) that we don't even have an approach to solving.....

 

[Frostbite]

Ok then, a few thousand years. What's the difference?

Also, we could theoretically beat the speed of light using singularities and other means which are of course impossible to us with our current technologies.

 

[Hellbound]

Yes Bikewer, I'm sure all the "credible" ex-military sources who spoke publicly on the Roswell incident were high-on acid when it happened.. and continue to be high on acid because they get paid to do it by secret organizations hoping to convince humanity that extra-terrestrial life is indeed real.

Are you saying we are the center of the Universe and that because you haven't seen a UFO or an alien, that the laws of physics which contribute to life somehow differ in different sections of our solar system/ galaxy/... and the billions of other galaxies?

And just because a few fame-seekers (none of which, to my knowledge, can show they were even involved in the Roswell events beyond their own say-so) say these things, this negates all the laws of physics that explain exactly how much it would cost (in terms of energy and time) for an extra-terrestrial to reach Earth, even from the nearest star (which, as a trinary, is unlikely to have a stable planetary system capable of supporting life)?

Extra-terrestrial life is possible, and I believe it to be highly likely. Extra-terrestrial intelligence, less likely , but I expect it exists. ETs visiting Earth in flying saucers? Pull the other one...

 

[Overman]

Physics, and the athiesm that goes along with it, has a labortory and can be tested.

Metaphysics, has no lab, and cannot.

 

[drkitten]

Ok then, a few thousand years. What's the difference?

None whatsoever. It's still wildly and irresponsibly speculative.

Also, we could theoretically beat the speed of light using singularities and other means which are of course impossible to us with our current technologies.

Really? Every "theory" for beating the speed of light that I've seen postulates either "exotic matter" (which has never been observed in the universe) or "white holes" (which have also never been observed in the universe.)

Why not simply assume that fairies can pilot unicorns faster than light speed and be done with it?

 

[Hellbound]

Drkitten got to it before I did.

The FTL theories out so far all rely on the existence of objects whose properties are assigned, basically, to specifically allow for time travel. None have any evidence of existence.

 

[Frostbite]

None whatsoever. It's still wildly and irresponsibly speculative.




Really? Every "theory" for beating the speed of light that I've seen postulates either "exotic matter" (which has never been observed in the universe) or "white holes" (which have also never been observed in the universe.)

Why not simply assume that fairies can pilot unicorns faster than light speed and be done with it?

Ok you win. This is my last post on these extremely boring boards. Have a nice life.

 

[Dave1001]

Besides, I deem this view as THE compromise between the two vastly separated stances.

Any thoughts on the matter?

That's an interesting approach to ascertaining reality.

 

[Dave1001]

What's the difference between "talking hypothetically" and "spewing unsupported nonsense"?

The problem with a statement like "we're only a few hundred years short of exploring other star systems" is that there's no reason at all (that I can see) to take such a prediction seriously. I've seen far too many similar predictions -- hell, this is 2006. We were supposed to have full human-level AI and manned flights to Jupiter five years ago -- and there are too many engineering problems (like the speed of light) that we don't even have an approach to solving.....

The speed of light isn't going to keep us from exploring other star systems a few hundred years from now. Aren't the nearest starsystems only light-decades away? It seems to be a reasonably plausible prediction to me.

 

[Dave1001]

Physics, and the athiesm that goes along with it, has a labortory and can be tested.

Metaphysics, has no lab, and cannot.

I don't think atheism can be falsified in a lab.

 

[Dave1001]

I'm obviously talking hypothetically. Guess I should've mentioned that for the ones who couldn't assume it.

Unfortunately, some folks here think an intelligent reply is pointing out that you haven't included dozens of lengthly footnotes with your post.

 

[Bikewer]

"Are you saying we are the center of the Universe and that because you haven't seen a UFO or an alien, that the laws of physics which contribute to life somehow differ in different sections of our solar system/ galaxy/... and the billions of other galaxies?"

I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I noted that the evidence for alien visitation was as lacking as any evidence for biblical miracles.
As for Roswell...Perhaps a scan-through of the excellent series of articles that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer over the last few years would be the best way to guage my opinion on that event.

I would note that the late Carl Sagan was a big believer in the possibility of intelligent alien life. He was one of the movers and shakers of the S.E.T.I. project.
He was also a member of a variety of blue-ribbon panels who examined the very best UFO "cases".
Sagan said flatly that there was not a shred of evidence to indicate that we had been visited by intelligent beings from another planet.