Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[tsig]

I understand far more than enough to conclude that many here are whistling out of their backsides and are simply too insecure or ignorant to admit it.




Yeeeeeeah ????

Are you unwell?

Quantum foam. Branes. Oooooh! Big, strange words. You must actually know what you’re talking about to be able to use such big, strange, words.

Let me know when you’ve come up with the TOE. Until then…dismiss all you want. Feynman could not have been more specific in his conclusion. Since your credentials so far add up to zero…we’ll just have to assume he’s the one who actually knew what he was talking about.

In the meantime…why don’t I throw in a few more quotes from the indefatigable Feynman…seeing as how you’re such a fan.

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.

One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much.

No doubt he was just joking around when he said these things.




…since you’re such an expert on intelligence…perhaps you could answer a few insignificant questions:

Do any of these laws of physics exist outside our minds? Yes or no? Why does time proceed in one direction…and not the other? How did all the physical constants come into being….and how do our minds create intelligible models of them and the various laws they instruct? Come to think of it…how do our minds create intelligible models of anything at all? Why does subjective experience exist? What possible evolutionary purpose does it serve? Does math exist anywhere outside of our minds? Yes or no? Why is it our minds have the ability to create mathematical models that so accurately reflect and configure the reality of reality?

…and I rather think that it’s your ‘wishful thinking’ that excludes the word ‘intelligence’ from the equation. If, in fact, the meaning of the word ‘information’ (to the degree that we even have a meaning…and ultimately, we don’t)…does somehow describe what it is that occurs at whatever it is that are the primary levels of reality…then it is entirely reasonable to attach ‘intelligence’ to the equation.

Why?

Processing!

There is obviously no definitive understanding of these issues…but in many areas, the definition of intelligence is….information processing. What we have…on a grand scale… with this universe of ours…appears to be laws which govern it, patterns and constants which define and orient it, purpose which directs it, and information processing which underlies it. Intelligence by any other name. Dance around that all you like….they are all perfectly reasonable conclusions.




Arbitrary definitions??? What use to anyone anywhere are arbitrary definitions of anything?

Yet another lemming spitting out the company line…” science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit, science has uncovered a fair bit.” Big ***** deal!

Is that…like…your gospel or something? Do you even have the capacity to recognize that there are some significant areas where science simply has NOT uncovered a fair bit?

Here…let me give you a hand with that one. How about another summary of our current understanding of what we are and how our brains create it. This one by the current director of the most ambitious cognitive research undertaking on the planet…the Blue Brain project. Henry Markram.

For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury. At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength. It’s ignorance all the way down.

For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need,

Note the conclusions: ‘ignorance all the way down’…’ a tiny fraction of what we need ‘.

So we've uncovered a fair bit. Goody. We also haven't uncovered a fair bit. Don't try and say it too fast...you might choke!




The most common feature of skeptic response to religious arguments is condescension. JREF reaks of it. Ironically….when the facts are in… it is blatantly apparent that science does not explain what this universe is, it does not explain how it works, it does not explain where it comes from, it does not explain what a human being is, it does not explain how a human being works, and it most certainly cannot give a human being what really matters.
Science does an awful lot of things…and it does them very well. Skeptics just can’t seem to handle the fact that there is an awful lot that it doesn’t do.

Food? Clothing? Shelter? Warmth? Science does very well with these.


The Security of living in a world ran by god that cares for you? Science doesn't do that for you.

If you had a goose that laid golden eggs would you kill it because it couldn't lay diamonds?

 

[annnnoid]

Choose your words carefully. A “valid argument” is not necessarily a true one. Philosophy has no mechanism for establishing a true premise; therefore it cannot arrive at an actually true conclusion no matter how "valid" the deductive argumentation may be. Certainly philosophy has its uses as a tool of science, e.g. it can ensure self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference. But, unlike science, it cannot, generate new truths about nature. So let’s not give it airs. Philosophy, as a process, is useful but limited.

You have this exactly back-to-front. The deduced conclusions of philosophy are just restatements of the content contained in the science-based premises. They may look new, but they only consist of repackaged existing information.

Philosophy depends upon observation-based, scientific knowledge. Aristotle also believed that philosophy was the means finding truth and creating new knowledge, but nearly every argument and conclusion he made about the physical world was wrong because his premises were wrong. Science has now put him right.

What is the basis for the hilited bald assertions?

First of all…I’d suggest you resist the urge to use the word ‘true’ when dealing with science. Science does not deal with what is ‘true’. Science deals only in models that represent degrees of accuracy.

An accurate definition of ‘true’ might be ‘perfectly authentic’. The only thing that you can (potentially) experience the perfect authenticity of is you since you are the only thing you (potentially) experience the ‘thing in itself’ of.

Science, BTW, is a branch of philosophy. It is an epistemology. Science requires philosophy to function. Philosophy does not require science to function. You can establish a philosophical premise without science. You cannot establish a scientific premise without philosophy. These are not particularly important issues. You can dispute them till you’re blue in the face but unfortunately they are facts (facts, their existence and relationships are also a function of philosophy….sorry).

Re: bald assertions…

Would you rather be in love…or have the capacity to rationally understand that there is a meaning to the word? Which condition generates greater meaning?

 

[annnnoid]

Food? Clothing? Shelter? Warmth? Science does very well with these.


The Security of living in a world ran by god that cares for you? Science doesn't do that for you.

If you had a goose that laid golden eggs would you kill it because it couldn't lay diamonds?

It is a documented fact that loneliness is well beyond epidemic proportions in many first world countries where the populations have ready access to all the science-provided basic requirements of food, clothing, shelter, and warmth.

Tick off one more not-even-useless post by tsig. 30,012 and counting.

 

[bruto]

....

What explains the almost magical ability of the 'logic' of mathematics (a thing that has no 'physical' reality) to explicitly map the 'logic' of the physical world (a thing that has no 'abstract' reality)?

Could they both originate from the same 'logic'?
Is that what the evidence suggests?

Isn't this a bit backwards? If you draw a picture of what you see, is it magic that what you see resembles the picture? If you're inventing something that explains the world, then of course, then if you're successful, it will map the world.

 

[annnnoid]

Isn't this a bit backwards? If you draw a picture of what you see, is it magic that what you see resembles the picture? If you're inventing something that explains the world, then of course, then if you're successful, it will map the world.

For one thing…nobody knows how the brain creates anything…at all. For another…nobody knows if math was invented…or discovered. If it was discovered, well, the obvious questions would be…how…where? If it was invented, how did our brains locate the specific combinations of patterns and processes that allow it to correspond so unerringly to the physical processes that it maps. Nothing is invented in a vacuum. Abstract conceptual paradigms themselves function according to patterns and processes. However little understood they are...completely arbitrary is incomprehensible. Perhaps the mind is ‘primed’ to occur within a certain paradigm (thus intelligibility of any kind) but there is no way to determine that without seeing it from outside that paradigm.

Your response merely begs the question.

 

[tsig]

It is a documented fact that loneliness is well beyond epidemic proportions in many first world countries where the populations have ready access to all the science-provided basic requirements of food, clothing, shelter, and warmth.

Tick off one more not-even-useless post by tsig. 30,012 and counting.

Do you have any links?
Why should science address loneliness, it isn't a lonely hearts club.

 

[annnnoid]

Do you have any links?
Why should science address loneliness, it isn't a lonely hearts club.

….so there is something science can’t do?

 

[Dissolution]

….so there is something science can’t do?

You've yet to show that it's a problem. You've merely claimed that it is one without providing any evidence for that claim.

 

[annnnoid]

You've yet to show that it's a problem. You've merely claimed that it is one without providing any evidence for that claim.

from a 30 sec google scan:

Social isolation kills more people than obesity does

there’s a strong link between suicide and weakened social ties

one in three Americans over 45 identifies as chronically lonely

studies of elderly people and social isolation concluded that those without adequate social interaction were twice as likely to die prematurely.

The increased mortality risk is comparable to that from smoking. And loneliness is about twice as dangerous as obesity.

Social isolation impairs immune function and boosts inflammation, which can lead to arthritis, type II diabetes, and heart disease.


...convinced?

 

[Navigator]

You asked where matter can be considered to originate. Whether or not consciousness is involved, the answer is likely that it came from what can be termed energy, as a fairly very superficial summation.

ftfy

You are more aligned with Tom Campbell on this. He calls it 'The Void'. I call it a beginning and note that beginnings are signs of simulation.

I am interested in what caused these beginnings, be they big bangs or voids.

I am more aligned with Albert re his observations of 'professional atheists' as he calls them. My observations are that there are types of Atheists and my particular type is one who is skeptical, uses critical thinking and is absent of belief regardless of which 'side' is doing the believing.

Summation: We as humans are in the conscious position where we know very little and can know very little about what is possible, but we are easily seduced by nearsighted accomplishment to exaggerate and inflate what we do know as somehow evidence which shifts possibility into 'impossible' and in this are blatantly well pleased with ourselves for that.

In answer to the Thread topic. Yes. Some who identify themselves as Atheists do act and react from the position of faith more so than logic. Does this make Atheism faith based? Yes, unfortunately it does threaten to do so the more individuals are convinced that 'being an atheist' has anything to do with parading beliefs around as certain reality and arguing those beliefs as truth.

The more I interact with Atheists the more I understand that my type of Atheism (the kind of atheist I am) are thin on the ground, or otherwise silent - perhaps because they have seen the fruitlessness of arguing beliefs. Or perhaps because they as yet are a very small minority who feel that the word Atheism is beyond repair and belongs to anti theists or as Albert called them 'professional atheists'.

 

[Navigator]

Time appears to proceed in one direction and not the other because the laws of physics (or rather, the behavior of the universe that the laws of physics attempt to describe) are asymmetrical in time. Physical changes are non-reversible. For example, if the wind blows a curtain hard enough to knock a vase over, which then rolls off the table and shatters on the floor, reversing the laws of physics wouldn't cause the vase to re-assemble itself, fly back up onto the table, roll back into it's original position and stand itself upright.

Just to jump in here, if time is really an illusion and we experience it frame by frame like a movie, then like a movie we should be able to reverse the event so that the vase shatters perfectly.

However we could not get the event to change like a producer/director cutting scenes and ordering the re writing of scripts, in this linear thing. We push play and again the wind blows the curtain causing the vase to shatter.

It is what we call the law of physics which prevent us somehow from fast forwarding or reversing and participating in past and future events let alone skipping/jumping over to relative parallel situations (directing) because our minds say so?

 

[Brian-M]

Do you not see that you are merely begging the question?

Then let me put it this way...

Math is the logical manipulation of numbers and symbols.
Nature works without using numbers or symbols.
Therefore math does not exist in nature.

Numbers are purely a human invention. If an apple falls from a tree and lands in a hole, we have one apple in a hole. If another apple falls from the same tree and lands in the same hole we now have two apples in the hole. Did nature just perform addition to work out that 1 + 1 = 2 ?

No! The number one is just our way of representing a single item or thing as a symbol, the number two is just our way of representing a thing and another thing (and the number three is just our way of representing a thing and a thing and another thing... and so on for every number). If you write out 1 + 1 = 2 in basic concepts it's actually just saying that a thing and another thing is a thing and another thing... a tautology!

That's what math is, just a way for us to describe the same information in different ways (often to transform it into a form that is more useful to us or to help us better understand the relationships between connected things).

If you have 100 cows in a pasture and each cow has 4 legs, nature doesn't perform multiplication to figure out that 100 * 4 = 400 legs, and therefore there should be 400 cow legs in the pasture. That's how we figure it out, nature doesn't need math for things to work out the way they do.

Numbers and math are human inventions designed to describe reality. It's not accurate to say that reality reflects mathematical principles, it's more a case that mathematical principles reflect the behavior of reality.

 

[Navigator]

Then let me put it this way...

Math is the logical manipulation of numbers and symbols.
Nature works without using numbers or symbols.
Therefore math does not exist in nature.

Numbers are purely a human invention.. .

Sometimes I wonder and am at a lose as to how humans think about being human.

If humans are a product of nature then in that way nature does use math. Math is a part of nature and is recognized as being intrinsically so by humans who use it to help them understand nature.

It is like saying that language is not a part of nature because with it there are symbols which altogether make language readable. But that is what math is too. Not the language of human symbols. The symbols represent a language but the math is there to begin with, within something hard for some to understand without symbols, and more importantly, to help figure things out which otherwise remain quiet hidden.

Nature does indeed work with numbers and symbols. Certainly at least the 'life' part of nature aka - Consciousness.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

For one thing…nobody knows how the brain creates anything…at all.

And this justifies your crackpot alternative theories, how? You still have yet to answer the question.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Science, BTW, is a branch of philosophy. It is an epistemology.

Science originated as a branch of philosophy, but you can't seriously argue that it hasn't grown beyond those initial constraints since then. You know the Aristotle example that keeps coming up? You might want to address it. Do you think he was right all along?

Science requires philosophy to function. Philosophy does not require science to function. You can establish a philosophical premise without science. You cannot establish a scientific premise without philosophy. These are not particularly important issues. You can dispute them till you’re blue in the face but unfortunately they are facts (facts, their existence and relationships are also a function of philosophy….sorry).

You were asked to establish a basis for these assertions, not just to reassert them. Provide examples and evidence.

Re: bald assertions…

Would you rather be in love…or have the capacity to rationally understand that there is a meaning to the word? Which condition generates greater meaning?

You're treating them as if they're mutually exclusive.

By the way, "follow your heart" is actually a terrible piece of advice, for anyone. This article does a better job of explaining it than I could:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-quoted-pieces-advice-that-are-usually-wrong/
(Profanity warning)

Read item #6. You have to strike a balance between the two if you don't want your life to end up in the toilet because you were stupid enough to ignore your responsibilities and act on your impulses. Incidentally, while it's true that the majority of people make decisions based on emotional urges, the skeptic community on JREF tends to represent the exception to that rule. You'll find that people here prefer to think things over before they jump hip-deep into something like a romantic relationship.

 

[Tassman]

First of all…I’d suggest you resist the urge to use the word ‘true’ when dealing with science. Science does not deal with what is ‘true’. Science deals only in models that represent degrees of accuracy.

I was dealing with your inaccurate claims about philosophy (not science). A philosophical argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. And, to repeat, philosophy has no mechanism to establish an “actually true” premise. It can only operate within the framework of existing knowledge.

OTOH: The Scientific Method, unlike philosophy, can acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories which can make predictions. Scientific modeling is just one way.

An accurate definition of ‘true’ might be ‘perfectly authentic’. The only thing that you can (potentially) experience the perfect authenticity of is you since you are the only thing you (potentially) experience the ‘thing in itself’ of.

The subjective truths you refer to are the least reliable form of knowledge because without a consistent point of reference “knowledge” can vary from person to person.

The most useful definition of “true” is what is demonstrably true, e.g. the speed of light. Science can’t prove this assertion but it has been empirically verified many times and experience has shown it to be provisionally true. Thus, until falsified, it is reasonable to accept the known speed of light, in practical terms, as true. Science has this capacity, philosophy does not.

Science, BTW, is a branch of philosophy. It is an epistemology. Science requires philosophy to function. Philosophy does not require science to function. You can establish a philosophical premise without science. You cannot establish a scientific premise without philosophy. These are not particularly important issues. You can dispute them till you’re blue in the face but unfortunately they are facts (facts, their existence and relationships are also a function of philosophy….sorry).

Once-upon-a-time scientific questions formed a part of ‘natural philosophy’. Not anymore! Scientific methodology slowly transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment - unlike the rest of philosophy. Science hasn't been considered part of philosophy since the late 18th century...sorry!

Re: bald assertions…

Would you rather be in love…or have the capacity to rationally understand that there is a meaning to the word? Which condition generates greater meaning?

False dichotomy! “Love” can be understood both in the experiential sense (e.g. the love of one’s partner and family) AND as an evolved biological mechanism for the furtherance of the species.

 

[Dissolution]

from a 30 sec google scan:

Social isolation kills more people than obesity does

there’s a strong link between suicide and weakened social ties

one in three Americans over 45 identifies as chronically lonely

studies of elderly people and social isolation concluded that those without adequate social interaction were twice as likely to die prematurely.

The increased mortality risk is comparable to that from smoking. And loneliness is about twice as dangerous as obesity.

Social isolation impairs immune function and boosts inflammation, which can lead to arthritis, type II diabetes, and heart disease.


...convinced?

No, especially as you've failed to demonstrate that technology can't help to address social isolation or why having an imaginary friend would help.

 

[annnnoid]

No, especially as you've failed to demonstrate that technology can't help to address social isolation or why having an imaginary friend would help.

So because I haven't demonstrated that technology can't solve the problem, I haven't demonstrated that there is a problem.

Logical fallacy anyone?

...and I've failed to demonstrate why having an imaginary friend would help.

I don't even know what to call that one. 'Stupid' I think.

One third of adults over 45 admit to chronic loneliness and I've failed to demonstrate there is any problem??????? Is English not your native vocabulary? Is loneliness regarded as an asset, or a liability? Does loneliness encourage happiness...or depression? Is happiness generally regarded to be preferable to depression?

It is also worth noting...that these numbers have been increasing.... dramatically ... during exactly the same period that technology has provided ever more opportunities for communication and interaction.

Apparently...technological solutions are not working. The 'why' of this has also been documented. But since you're so eager to get to the bottom of the issue, I'll leave you to locate the sources for those conclusions.

 

[tsig]

So because I haven't demonstrated that technology can't solve the problem, I haven't demonstrated that there is a problem.

Logical fallacy anyone?

...and I've failed to demonstrate why having an imaginary friend would help.

I don't even know what to call that one. 'Stupid' I think.

One third of adults over 45 admit to chronic loneliness and I've failed to demonstrate there is any problem??????? Is English not your native vocabulary? Is loneliness regarded as an asset, or a liability? Does loneliness encourage happiness...or depression? Is happiness generally regarded to be preferable to depression?

It is also worth noting...that these numbers have been increasing.... dramatically ... during exactly the same period that technology has provided ever more opportunities for communication and interaction.

Apparently...technological solutions are not working. The 'why' of this has also been documented. But since you're so eager to get to the bottom of the issue, I'll leave you to locate the sources for those conclusions.

Why would you think there's a technological solution to loneliness? Can you give us a hint what it should look like? A drug? A new social theory?

 

[gentlehorse]

Why would you think there's a technological solution to loneliness? Can you give us a hint what it should look like? A drug? A new social theory?

Sex-bot.