God and religion were not a part of my upbringing, my parents are agnostic/disinterested. School Christmas plays and religious instruction at a young age passed over my head – I never questioned the story of the Noachian flood, but recall being worried about the amount of mud there’d be afterwards. It was only at the age of about 16 that I realised there were religious people out there and they had an impact on my life. My AD&D group fell apart under pressure; I actually listened to the occasional sermon I had to attend; friends’ parents imposing biblical rules on their children.
So having realised there was something to worry about, I did. The Gideons gave me a bible (thank you) and I read it – didn’t do much. At about the same time, my brother was ‘born again’ and I spoke with his friends. They told me how wonderful it was, if only you made the leap of faith (and held on to it). I tried in my head – nothing.
Then university and a girlfriend who tried her hardest to help me understand. I loved her. I wanted to share her experience. We went to church together. We talked about Christ and how important he was to her. I could see how happy it made her. Still nothing clicked inside.
An attack of utter exhaustion alone on a mountainside made me pray seriously for the only time in my life. Give me strength, I need to be able to move. Please. Nothing. Gradually with the rest, I regained enough energy to walk the last few kilometres to the mountain hut. No vision or burning bush led me there – only me.
Sex, drugs, rock & roll, education, politics, friends, enemies, enthusiasm, laziness, joy, hurt, desire, love all had an impact on me then and still do to this day. Influences were and are everywhere. They all have a memory, an effect, a cause. God on the other hand – nothing.
That was over 20 years ago now. There’s never going to be a sign is there?
Since then Richard Dawkins & Pharyngula showed how agnosticism has no basis and led me to understand why that is important. Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond and a scientific education taught me some of the things that can be explained rationally. Talk.origins revealed the opposing forces of imbecility. Intellectually, I am an atheist because there is no god necessary to explain anything. Emotionally, I am an atheist because there was no god to give me the revelation I looked for as a young adult. I am an atheist because there is no god.
Blattafrax
Switzerland
Blattafrax made two main points:
1. ”… there is no god necessary to explain anything.”
Either Blattafrax thinks all questions are already answered, or s/he thinks that there will be answers which are god-independent, presumably natural. This statement is too short to tell for sure, but it certainly looks to be a position of Philosophical Materialism or Scientism or both. At any rate, s/he doesn’t justify the belief with any evidence or data, s/he merely states what s/he believes.
2. ”… there was no god to give me the revelation I looked for as a young adult”
It’s not clear why personal revelation is necessary for the existence of a first cause:
IF [ no personal revelation ], THEN [ there is no first cause ].
Of course we don’t know if Blattafrax ever considered the question of a first cause for the universe, but s/he did say that nothing requires a deity to explain it, so presumably that includes a first cause. But the issue of a first cause existing only if personal revelation is received is non sequitur.
Still, the failure to connect to the deity would be a compelling strike against the existence of the deity, if one were justified in believing that revelation automatically comes as proof for the deity's existence. It’s not clear exactly what the expectation of Blattafrax was – visions? Apparitions? But Biblically, if one were to use that standard, revelations ceased roughly 2,400 years ago with the last prophet. Surely Blattafrax did not expect to become a prophet, the expectation attached to the needed revelation must have been toned down from that sort of information dump. Perhaps it was just a warm, fuzzy feeling that was needed as reassurance. Blattafrax doesn’t say, and it seems possible that the nature of the required revelation might not have been all that clear, even to Blatafrax. Maybe Blatafrax would just know it when s/he saw it. Or possibly, Blatafrax missed it. Or possibly the revelation expectation Blattafrax has doesn’t faze the deity as being a requirement for belief.
At any rate, I was an Atheist for 40 years. 20 years is only half way there.
44 comments:
An attack of utter exhaustion alone on a mountainside made me pray seriously for the only time in my life. Give me strength, I need to be able to move. Please. Nothing. Gradually with the rest, I regained enough energy to walk the last few kilometres to the mountain hut. No vision or burning bush led me there – only me.
How does Blattafrax know he/she wouldn't have died without the prayer? He/she prayed for strength and subsequently made it. So how, exactly does this disprove God? What was Blattafrax expecting, levitation? A magic carpet? Turning into Captain Marvel? What?
Bill Vallicella, another blogger you should read, had a guest author once named Peter Lupu. He wrote an article about why he is a quasi-atheist. Unlike many atheists, he is self aware and explains several of the causes of atheism that you can see clearly in many of these posts you are examining. I can see it my old self as well.
He says: "However, the rejection of theism itself springs from several often misunderstood sources. A deep and personal disappointment with a particular religion frequently converts into a fervent rejection of theism and all that it means. A second source may begin with a genuine delight in the achievements of science which now and then, and quite unnoticeably, spills over into a materialistic metaphysics. The latter, in turn, bluntly opposes theism’s commitment to a transcendent reality. Thus, what starts as a delight in the potential of inquiry to unlock the mysteries of the physical universe migrates into an impatient and often mocking rejection of anything non-physical. Theism is a casualty of such a sentiment. "
This reminds me of a quote from E. A. Burtt, in his book The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science:
“…even the attempt to escape metaphysics is no sooner put in the form of a proposition than it is seen to involve highly significant metaphysical postulates…For this reason there is an exceedingly subtle and insidious danger in positivism. If you cannot avoid metaphysics, what kind of metaphysics are you likely to cherish when you sturdily suppose yourself to be free from the abomination?
“Of course it goes without saying that in this case your metaphysics will be held uncritically because it is unconscious; moreover, it will be passed on to others far more readily than your other notions inasmuch as it will be propagated by insinuation rather than by direct argument….Now the history of mind reveals pretty clearly that the thinker who decries metaphysics…if he be a man engaged in any important inquiry, he must have a method, and he will be under a strong and constant temptation to make a metaphysics out of his method, that is, to suppose the universe ultimately of such a sort that his method must be appropriate and successful.
“But inasmuch as the positivist mind has failed to school itself in careful metaphysical thinking, its ventures at such points will be apt to appear pitiful, inadequate, or even fantastic.”
Oh sure. Just what I need, another book. It's on order, due here Tuesday.
Good evening.
It's a little late, but I just came across this. You and your first commenter point out a few unanswered questions. May I provide answers?
Firstly, note that this was a personal account of why I am an atheist. Actually, not so much that - atheism has been the default state for all my 46 years - more why I am not a theist. But "why I am an atheist" was the remit. As it was a personal account, I didn't feel the need to provide too many details or to provide proofs and/or much evidence.
Apparently, I made two points though:
”… there is no god necessary to explain anything.”
This position is an unsurprising one and it is difficult to imagine an atheist with another point of view. But if you need to highlight it, then I am happy that you do. No, I don't believe all questions are answered. I also do not believe that there are necessarily answers to everything. Yes - I am a Philosophical Materialist in that there is nothing that we can perceive which is not material and anything that is impossible to perceive is irrelevant.
”… there was no god to give me the revelation I looked for as a young adult”
This is more interesting and was the underlying theme of what I wrote. A god that doesn't have any effect on my life might as well not exist and probably does not. Matteo suggests that I may have benefited from a god's intervention and am now denying it. A very good point and one that was intended to be seen. But also, I may have just recovered a little energy as my liver slowly converted some fat reserves into a little glucose. The god-driven explanation is indistinguishable from the natural (at this distance in time) and Ockham's razor really doesn't help a theist here.
Yes, a magic carpet would have been a start; a warm fuzzy feeling would have been good (at any point in my life); anything. What was there? Nothing, except a statistical blip of doubt on the effectiveness of prayer? In contrast, there are an almost innumerable quantity of real things that do have an effect on me. I listed a lot of the most important, but the almost trivial effects of Nutella chocolate spread, a good card game, or a 10km run are more significant than anything a god may or may not have done. Reality does have an awful lot going for it; gods, not so much detected.
You have a misconception that I give this as an argument against a first cause. I am well aware that just because an undefinable, metaphysical, undetectable, but somehow popular god doesn't want to talk to me, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, you would also have to admit that the same god that doesn't want to talk to me doesn't necessarily have to be a first cause.
And in any case, as Lawrence Krauss explains to you and as any person with knowledge of particle physics has understood since the 1930s, the whole concept of first cause is a bit 13th century. We have moved on a little since then.
Blattafrax
Blattafrax replies:
”Yes - I am a Philosophical Materialist in that there is nothing that we can perceive which is not material and anything that is impossible to perceive is irrelevant.”
And you know that exactly how? It is not possible for you to know that, especially not under the terms of Philosophical Materialism. You cannot and will not provide any material, empirical, experimental, objective data which supports that claim; it is not possible to have contrary evidence regarding the relevance of that which you cannot know, as you claim to know. Therefore, the claim cannot be true when examined under the rules of the worldview which it defends, PM, and certainly not under the rules of Aristotelian deductive logic. In other words, it is internally non-coherent, and thus it is irrational.
Put plainly, you cannot know the relevance of what you do NOT know.
”The god-driven explanation is indistinguishable from the natural (at this distance in time) and Ockham's razor really doesn't help a theist here.”
Since neither you nor any Atheist/evolutionist has any idea how a liver came into being, much less how it is that the internal communication and information systems within the liver came into being, nor do you have any idea how to deduce a liver, its information systems and feedback mechanisms, from the properties of minerals, Ockham is certainly not on your side either.
The issue, as always, is not what theists can prove materially. The issue is what it is that Atheists and evolutionists actually know that is objective knowledge. Virtually nothing about evolution is classifiable as objective, material, empirical, experimental data; it is all Just So fabrications which are fantasies created out of someone’s imagination to attempt to provide an explanation which they consider “plausible” even though they have no idea what actually happened. Virtually nothing about the non-material arena can be tested experimentally and thus there is zero objective knowledge under the requirements of PM for an Atheist to claim - especially not as FACT or Truth.
”Yes, a magic carpet would have been a start; a warm fuzzy feeling would have been good (at any point in my life); anything. What was there? Nothing, except a statistical blip of doubt on the effectiveness of prayer?”
Double blind tests on prayer have proven positive results – check my blog posts. The Atheist concept of prayer is that God is a candy machine which will automatically give goodies upon the insertion of a prayer. That is not just non-biblical, it is anti-biblical and yet it is a necessary fiction for the Atheist narrative. Prayer and its purpose are not graspable by those who hate it up front.
The Atheist making a demand on God to show himself is a logical absurdity; Atheists are in no position to make any demands of such a being. And regardless of their self-anointed elitist self-images, they are not gods either.
(continued below)
Blattafrax, cont'd:
”In contrast, there are an almost innumerable quantity of real things that do have an effect on me. I listed a lot of the most important, but the almost trivial effects of Nutella chocolate spread, a good card game, or a 10km run are more significant than anything a god may or may not have done.”
Explain then, in Philosophical Materialist terms, why the existence of the active metabolites which exchange meaningful information in order to perform complex duties necessary to the life in each and every cell you possess (through no action or volition of your own) are not important to you. Or conversely explain why and how they occurred in the first living, metabolizing cell in a complexity that cannot even be measured, much less explained.
Explain how it is that actual science - Quantum Field Theory - demands the pre-existence of consciousness (not yours or mine).
Explain why and how it is that Materialism is not, in fact, material under modern science, but that Philosophical Materialists still live in the Newtonian Mechanics age, which is now known to be a illusional special case of reality which is based on false comprehension of the nature of mass?
”Reality does have an awful lot going for it; gods, not so much detected.”
You are not scientifically oriented, are you? Scientismic, perhaps. It is now known that "reality" is nothing more than the collapse of probability waves (quantum waves) into condensed wave energy packets (“quanta”). The "reality" to which you are attached exists as an illusion of solidity (Materialism) but it is not solid, nor is it “mass”. Mass is a mathematical convention used to describe – not gravity – but inertia. Gravitational mass was made irrelevant by Einstein with his warping of space-time, proven many decades ago. Inertial mass is disproven by Quantum Field Theory, where it is explained by the resistance of a field quanta to change motion, and the resistance to increased speed increases at it reaches the speed at which the field quanta can no longer propagate: the speed of light.
Your attachment to what you think “reality” is (Material, Newtonian "matter") has no place in modern physics. Quanta and prior consciousness do.
(continued below)
Blattafrax cont'd:
”You have a misconception that I give this as an argument against a first cause. I am well aware that just because an undefinable, metaphysical, undetectable, but somehow popular god doesn't want to talk to me, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, you would also have to admit that the same god that doesn't want to talk to me doesn't necessarily have to be a first cause.”
That assertion is a logical disconnect.
IF [A deity exists but doesn’t reveal itself to me], THEN [ that deity is not necessarily a first cause].
Since the deity which you reject is the deity of Christianity (as well as all other deities) then you have actually rejected the deity which is posited to be the first cause of the university’s existence, the continuing cause for its persistence (also under Quantum Theory), AND is the deity which you are not in communication with. So if you reject the Judeo-Christian deity, your claim is false.
And in any case, as Lawrence Krauss explains to you and as any person with knowledge of particle physics has understood since the 1930s, the whole concept of first cause is a bit 13th century. We have moved on a little since then.”
Lawrence Krauss is a known liar. He has been refuted and rejected by a great many physicists. His book made a titular claim that he cannot and did not back up; only those invested in the lie still believe Krauss.
Further, the Big Bang and the necessary inflationary zone are not in any manner 13th century as your insult implies. Nor is the space warp of black holes. If you choose to invoke Many Universes, then provide your proof; otherwise, provide your proof that there is no deductive case for a first cause. You have done nothing but provide denigration out of an ideological narrative.
I suspect that your attachment to Philosophical Materialism derives from the ideology of Atheism, which necessitates it. I guarantee that you cannot prove that PM is correct, nor that Atheism is correct. I further believe that you probably are a denialist in the sense of denying, without proof either deductive or empirical, that contrary deductions and empirical findings exist and refute your claims.
Blattafrax cont'd:
Finally,
If you have either deductions or empirical, experimental, objective data which proves either PM or Atheism to be certifiable as objective knowledge, please share that with us here.
Blattafrax is about to show us how Atheists are brilliant at using logic and science to refute theist arguments.Just you wait and see Stan...Anytime now this guy will show up with a brilliant rebuttal...
”Yes - I am a Philosophical Materialist in that there is nothing that we can perceive which is not material and anything that is impossible to perceive is irrelevant.”
And you know that exactly how? […]
Well, that’s a bad start. I had expected you to have more trouble with the first half of the sentence, but it seems that this was OK with you, so I’ll be grateful for that. On the part that you highlight, it is (to me) self-evident. It is entirely possible that there are many material or immaterial (we cannot distinguish them) things that have no interaction with us and no possible interaction with us and can have never and never can in future have any interaction with us. That is practically a definition of irrelevant. Perhaps you could give an example of something that we cannot possibly perceive that is also relevant?
Put plainly, you cannot know the relevance of what you do NOT know.
I don’t say this; knowledge is not mentioned anywhere in the sentence you quote.
”The god-driven explanation is indistinguishable from the natural (at this distance in time) and Ockham's razor really doesn't help a theist here.”
Since neither you nor any Atheist[…]
I don’t see how liver evolution relates to the absence or otherwise of an uncommunicative deity, but anyway: Not true, there are many very good ideas about how the liver came into being. I’d tell you, but you would dismiss it as a just-so-story and it isn’t worth my time. I cannot now prove my breakfast came originally from a couple of fields containing cows and wheat, but that doesn’t mean that the concept should be dismissed as a just-so-story. Liver evolution from the hepatic caecum through gradual duplication and modification of FGF and BMP proteins is probably as close to correct as wheat/cow->factory/dairy->shop->breakfast is. Both are plausible to the point where it is not necessary to fill in every detail and invoke magic at any stage. I am sure you will disagree.
The issue, as always, is not what theists can prove materially. […]
Absolutely true, for your personal definitions of “FACT or Truth”. For the rest of us – in the absence of alternatives – it works, it’s testable, it’s as factual as we need it to be. There will always be an impossible standard of objectivity that you can set and the standards you apply to others are simply not useful. Also, conveniently, since you avoid discussing creators of universes and Christianity (until you decide to break this rule below), you do not need to apply those impossible standards to your preferred theories. Best of both worlds for your arguments; as useful as a chocolate internal combustion engine for the rest of us.
”Yes, a magic carpet would have been a start; a warm fuzzy feeling would have been good (at any point in my life); anything. What was there? Nothing, except a statistical blip of doubt on the effectiveness of prayer?”
Double blind tests on prayer have proven positive results […]
What? You start by citing experiments that explicitly treat your god as a candy machine and claim they support your argument and then denounce the idea as non-biblical? Which is it, are these good or bad experiments?
And as I am sure you are aware, most published experiments show no effect of prayer; some appear to show harm (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567) and some appear to show a benefit (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61047/ [This is one of my favourite papers ever – the ethics and causality-abuse involved are quite entertaining. It’s intended to be a joke, but is no more so than any of the other serious intercessionary prayer papers.]) More systematically, the Cochrane reviews are the most reliable sources of clinical opinion and are widely accepted amongst researchers and physicians – they conclude that there is no detectable harm or benefit to prayer for medical purposes. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD000368/SCHIZ_intercessory-prayer-for-the-alleviation-of-ill-health). I couldn’t read the bush-baby paper referenced on your blog without paying, so cannot assess it. If you have a PDF, I’d be interested.
I don’t hate prayer, but you are right that I do not grasp its purpose.
The Atheist making a demand on God to show himself is a logical absurdity[…]
It is a logical absurdity, so you could conclude that either I was at that point logically absurd or not an atheist. I was moderately delirious, so maybe it was the second option, even though I prefer the first. I can assure you that at that moment I did not feel in the slightest bit elitist or god-like.
”In contrast, there are an almost innumerable quantity of real things that do have an effect on me. I listed a lot of the most important, but the almost trivial effects of Nutella chocolate spread, a good card game, or a 10km run are more significant than anything a god may or may not have done.”
Explain then, in Philosophical Materialist terms, why the existence of the active metabolites […] are not important to you.
They are important and I don’t see why you ask me to do this.
Or conversely explain why and how they occurred in the first living, metabolizing cell in a complexity that cannot even be measured, much less explained.
Complexity can be measured and systems biologists spend a lot of time working on it. I am not aware of any specific experiments to do such a thing (and like any complex system it is clearly practically impossible to actually do it to the level which you will no doubt demand), and I’m not inclined to look it up, but it is certainly possible. Explaining cellular complexity is trivial though – it’s a mess of thousands of cobbled-together interacting pathways and jury-rigged work-arounds that are only there because each individually added something to the survival and/or reproductive ability of their host cell. It’s an awesome, complicated and only partly investigated seething mess on the approximate scale of Mexico City (for the smallest cells, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3910158/). Fortunately, we can explain both Mexico City’s and cells’ complexity to a level of understanding that is perfectly satisfactory.
How did it first arise? As you well know, there are many good ideas, none have particularly good evidence that they were the actual mechanisms of how the first cell arose. But all are considerably more plausible than magic – unless your magician is obsessed with creating the appearance of common descent, obviously.
In a slightly different context, Charles Darwin answers your question well:
https://books.google.ch/books?id=5NYPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA167&dq=origin+of+species+%22Organs+of+extreme+perfection+and+complication%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NLirVMjyIYLUOfDrgJgN&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Explain how it is that actual science - Quantum Field Theory - demands the pre-existence of consciousness (not yours or mine).
Well, given that “actual science” is the process of a conscious mind acting on its observations, then the consciousness has to pre-exist. Or do you mean that QFT requires consciousness to operate and you conflate science with QFT? Not sure what you mean here.
Explain why and how it is that Materialism is not, in fact, material under modern science, but that Philosophical Materialists still live in the Newtonian Mechanics age, which is now known to be a illusional special case of reality which is based on false comprehension of the nature of mass?
This is not the Materialism that I recognise. No educated and rational person would insist that Newtonian mechanics is the only valid description of our Universe.
”Reality does have an awful lot going for it; gods, not so much detected.”
You are not scientifically oriented, are you? Scientismic, perhaps. It is now known that "reality" is nothing more than the collapse of probability waves (quantum waves) into condensed wave energy packets (“quanta”). The "reality" to which you are attached exists as an illusion of solidity (Materialism) but it is not solid, nor is it “mass”. Mass is a mathematical convention used to describe – not gravity – but inertia. Gravitational mass was made irrelevant by Einstein with his warping of space-time, proven many decades ago. Inertial mass is disproven by Quantum Field Theory, where it is explained by the resistance of a field quanta to change motion, and the resistance to increased speed increases at it reaches the speed at which the field quanta can no longer propagate: the speed of light.
Wow! Have you successfully unified quantum field theory with relativity or merely observed a graviton? Well done, please show pictures and/or your working. But apart from that, how is this actually relevant?
Your attachment to what you think “reality” is (Material, Newtonian "matter") has no place in modern physics. Quanta and prior consciousness do.
I’m very sorry, but I have missed the part where I told you what I think reality is. Perhaps you can show me.
”You have a misconception that I give this as an argument against a first cause. I am well aware that just because an undefinable, metaphysical, undetectable, but somehow popular god doesn't want to talk to me, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, you would also have to admit that the same god that doesn't want to talk to me doesn't necessarily have to be a first cause.”
That assertion is a logical disconnect.
IF [A deity exists but doesn’t reveal itself to me], THEN [ that deity is not necessarily a first cause].
You appear to believe that one or more of my sentences above is meant to imply that the third is true. If you had read what I wrote correctly, then you would not believe this.
Since the deity which you reject is the deity of Christianity […]
I never posited that the Christian deity created the Universe, but you are correct that I am not in communication with that it. If you posit that the Christian god created the Universe, then it would be a good idea to present some evidence. I don’t think I have ever seen an indication that any deity is responsible, and certainly nothing that indicates the Christian deity is more likely to be responsible than any other.
And in any case, as Lawrence Krauss explains to you and as any person with knowledge of particle physics has understood since the 1930s, the whole concept of first cause is a bit 13th century. We have moved on a little since then.”
Lawrence Krauss is a known liar. […]
I don’t know why you say Krauss is a liar, but what I meant is that he sets out reasonable arguments for why a first cause is unnecessary in “A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing”. The arguments presented stand (or fall) on their own whether he is a liar or not. Which particular claim do you suggest he cannot and did not back up?
Further, the Big Bang and the necessary inflationary zone […]
Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century monk that had no idea about particle physics, it was his second argument for the existence of God that I understand you to reference with the “first cause” comment. In the 1920-30s, it was shown that particles can and do pop into existence without a first cause and in fact the Heisenberg uncertainty principle demands that they do. After that observation and theoretical explanation any argument for the existence of a creator that starts with, “Everything has a cause…” (or similar, for example “In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself…”) is demonstrably wrong.
I don’t invoke Many Universes. Apologies for the flippancy, it wasn’t intended to cause offence.
I suspect that your attachment to Philosophical Materialism derives from the ideology of Atheism, which necessitates it.
As stated above, I think you and I have a different definition of PM. Perhaps you should deal with what I write, rather than what you think I should have attached as a label?
I guarantee that you cannot prove that PM is correct, nor that Atheism is correct.
Like Richard Dawkins (maybe you have read The God Delusion?) and any non-fundamentalist, I agree that there is no definitive proof of my worldview that allows certainty.
I further believe that you probably are a denialist in the sense of denying, without proof either deductive or empirical, that contrary deductions and empirical findings exist and refute your claims.
My claim was that no deity has ever had any noticeable impact on my life, whereas many, many real factors have affected me and the person I am. Therefore it is reasonable for me to assume that gods are irrelevant to the point that they might as well not exist and almost certainly don’t. If you can give an example of “contrary deductions and empirical findings [that] exist and refute [that] claim”, I’d be glad to listen. You’ve not done so well at that so far, but maybe there’s something you’ve forgotten.
If you have either deductions or empirical, experimental, objective data which proves either PM or Atheism to be certifiable as objective knowledge, please share that with us here.
I don’t have anything that would meet your standards and never claimed to have. Then again I don’t have evidence that dogs bark; tiramisu tastes of coffee and the sun will rise tomorrow that would meet your standards either. I live in the real world, not in the philosophical nightmare that you have constructed. In the world I live in, deities are not needed to explain anything and no deity has ever contacted me to explain otherwise. The conclusion is obvious.
Thanks Stan for that opportunity. Good to think about these things once in a while.
The obvious gmail.com address would work for getting the original without deletions and better formatted if you really wanted it. I won't be too offended if you don't.
Pheonix - sorry to disappoint you.
Blattafrax,
I’ve just a brief window this evening, but I’ll get as far as I can and continue tomorrow as necessary.
The issue, as always, is not what theists can prove materially. […]
Absolutely true, for your personal definitions of “FACT or Truth”.
I do not create personal definitions: that is an artifact of Atheist thought which is entirely relative. And you have summarily deleted the actual issue which is that Atheists claim evidence and logic. That is a consistent claim, which presumably is projected as "truth". If so then there must be "true" evidence and logic which support the Atheist worldview.
"There will always be an impossible standard of objectivity that you can set and the standards you apply to others are simply not useful. Also, conveniently, since you avoid discussing creators of universes and Christianity (until you decide to break this rule below), you do not need to apply those impossible standards to your preferred theories."
This is a false representation of the conundrum you face. Atheists consistently demand objective knowledge and nothing less from theists, as you seem to have referred above: they will not accept anything other than material, empirical scientific-type evidence from their adversaries, and yet will accept any type of fantasy explanations for themselves. This is both the fundamental Atheist hypocrisy and the basic Atheist logic failure as well, the classic Fallacy: Category Error.
Let’s define “objective” from the Atheist viewpoint: in order to be considered "objective", a knowledge claim must be accompanied by empirical, falsifiable and not falsified, replicable and replicated, experimental findings accompanied by open data and experimental instructions all of which are peer reviewed.
This is hardly arguable, since it is necessary for the process and conclusion to be independently observed at will by multiple observers in order to be “objective” as a source of material knowledge.
However, since this applies only to physical entities which can be tested in the physical domain in order to produce falsifiable results a la Popper’s demarcation principle, it does not apply to non-physical, non-testable, non-falsifiable entities and/or propositions.
Thus the demand for such “objective” material “proof” regarding theist propositions is the error of the wrong test for the category: Category Error Fallacy.
To deny theist claim validity on that basis is logically non-coherent. But there is still hope for the Atheist, because there is one other path to truth (regardless of Atheist’s denial of the existence of truth): disciplined, organized Aristotelian deduction which is of valid construction, which has demonstrably true premises which are grounded in first principles, the conclusion of which passes the test of Reductio Ad Absurdum. If the Atheist can produce such an objectively valid and true deductive argument, then he can defend his worldview; otherwise not.
Again, hardly arguable, merely the stuff of Logic 101 classes everywhere.
In the absence of such a deductive stroke, Atheism is seen to be a blind belief, unsupported and unsupportable in the manner of an ideology-only, cult-like belief system. (no material evidence, no deductive logical support).
Next, the assertion of the development of the liver is based upon what David Chalmers refers to as “strong emergence”, i.e. the inexplicable production of a superior level from an inferior level, a process and conclusion which is not deducible from the characteristics of the inferior level alone. For example, the existence of proteins does not anticipate in any manner the information-flow required in a live working liver. It does not work, for example, in the liver of a cadaver, although all the material elements are still there.
Your presumption is based on the prior prejudice of Philosophical Materialism, which dictates that the non-deducible physical predicate must be accepted because of the presupposed but hidden premise of the prior narrative argument being “the liver is here, is it not, and physical process is all that is allowed, therefore there must be such a physical process”. A dictated outcome. So the argument itself is prejudicially eliminationist, having surreptitiously yet obviously eliminated all but material elements without cause other than dictated ideology.
Repeating for reference:
“There will always be an impossible standard of objectivity that you can set and the standards you apply to others are simply not useful."
This comment is an admission of the lack of any possible material support for the materialist philosophy. It merely decorates the inherent non-coherence of Philosophical Materialism. If everything is material, then it must be materially testable, via replicable, falsifiable physical methodology. Yet Philosophical Materialism cannot prove that there is no other existence which is not material, materially testable, and falsifiable - because it obviously cannot test for that materially. So PM cannot prove its own principle (PM: "it is true that all which exists is material") and so PM cannot be known to be true. PM is internally inconsistent, aka self-contradictory, aka non-coherent.
"Also, conveniently, since you avoid discussing creators of universes and Christianity (until you decide to break this rule below), you do not need to apply those impossible standards to your preferred theories.”
"
Finally, (for this evening anyway), the subject at hand is what it is that Atheists know, what they can prove, and what they can offer as objective knowledge in support of their worldview.
If the Atheist demand is to attack religion, then that is a tacit admission of having no positive case to offer in support of the Atheist worldview; rather it is the desire to engage in rejectionism in the guise of radical skepticism, frequently to the point of Pyrrhonian rejection of logic altogether.
When the Atheist attack is against an ecclesiastic convention, if it is refutable, then I sometimes deal with it regardless of the religion involved.
“Best of both worlds for your arguments; as useful as a chocolate internal combustion engine for the rest of us.”
If all you require is utility rather than a valid and true worldview, then logic and evidence are of little use to you. Consequentialist utilitarianism would seem the best description for fulfilling your apparent need. This is the path to elitism (self-endowed) that many if not most Atheists find attractive. However, in the bounds of this blog the pursuit is to determine the actual truth value, if any, of Atheist worldview claims. So far, none has been found. But I will continue tomorrow when I have more time.
Blattafrax, continued after a delay…
”Double blind tests on prayer have proven positive results […]
What? You start by citing experiments that explicitly treat your god as a candy machine and claim they support your argument and then denounce the idea as non-biblical? Which is it, are these good or bad experiments?
Contrary to Atheist claims, double blind experiments exist that show effectivity of prayer (even on animal outcomes). This is not the purpose of prayer, biblically, and it is little wonder that Atheists who make demands on an entity greater than themselves receive no gratification. They could make the same effort to demand results from the US President and get no results, too. The conclusion of non-existence due to no answer is trivially absurd. Surely that is clear to you?
” And as I am sure you are aware, most published experiments show no effect of prayer; some appear to show harm (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567) and some appear to show a benefit”
Again, the test is trivially absurd for the reason given above. (Especially the concept of Atheist testing of prayer being a meaningful process).
” I don’t hate prayer, but you are right that I do not grasp its purpose.”
OK.
” Explain then, in Philosophical Materialist terms, why the existence of the active metabolites […] are not important to you.
They are important and I don’t see why you ask me to do this.”
You went out of your way to list items of far lesser utility, an interesting point. Evolutionists claim that replication and metabolites are the important issues of life, including first life. So it’s interesting that those were not on your list.
The issue of metabolism is a deductive threat to Atheism. Especially considering that metabolism is not deducible in the sense of not rationally emergent from their elemental components. The metabolites are information bearing agents which consist of communication groups of cogent transmitters, clear channels, and cogent receivers of non-compressible information containing non-algorithmic, meaningful information – which they act on and return feedback to the transmitter for purposes of specific systemic regulation. Further there are thousands required for cellular life and health. The parallel, simultaneous “emergence” of these metabolites necessary for cell life, being non-deducible, places this phenomenon into the metaphysical realm.
But of course, only if one accepts deducibility as a logical necessity within one’s worldview. Evolutionists and Atheists do not; and as you say (as did Stephen Jay Gould), the fantasy claims and Just So Stories created are just what is needed to support the required ideology.
” Complexity can be measured and systems biologists spend a lot of time working on it. I am not aware of any specific experiments to do such a thing (and like any complex system it is clearly practically impossible to actually do it to the level which you will no doubt demand), and I’m not inclined to look it up, but it is certainly possible.”
It is interesting that you have faith in the existence of something which you choose not to provide any proof for its existence. And I claim, having investigated the issue of complexity, that your claim is false. There is no complexity calculation which predicts the emergence of non-algorithmic, non-compressible information which contains demonstrable meaning. Am I at liberty to force that conclusion upon you without evidence, as Atheists clearly do to theists? In fact, I can quote information experts on the subject, should you wish.
Further, the “methinks it is like a weasel” program which Dawkins claims has been shown to be a fraud in which he presupposes the conclusion in his premise/program. The logic failures of Dawkins are legion and well documented, yet many still cling to him as their guru.
But even more interesting is your own explanation:
” Explaining cellular complexity is trivial though – it’s a mess of thousands of cobbled-together interacting pathways and jury-rigged work-arounds that are only there because each individually added something to the survival and/or reproductive ability of their host cell. It’s an awesome, complicated and only partly investigated seething mess on the approximate scale of Mexico City”
A “mess”? “Each added something to the survival”? This is false, and here’s why: There is a very large set of absolutely necessary, independent information processing and regulation functions, all of which must be present in first life. They did not and could not have been added one at a time to enhance survival. This was acknowledged when the Metabolite Theory of first life was abandoned. Plus it rather falsifies the Peter Corning concept that complexity is the tiering of pre-existing wholes which together become greater than the sum of the individuals, because these information subsystems require the cell in order to function, and the cell requires the subsystems to be internally present in order to survive. There is a very real chicken/egg paradox in the issue of first life. This is acknowledged by evolutionists, and I can provide references if necessary. Or you could look it up.
Set Complexity:
IF [ X=An AND Bn ], Then [ EITHER (both An AND Bn must pre-exist X), OR (An AND Bn AND X are created exactly simultaneously)].
But,
IF [(Neither An NOR Bn can exist {survive} without X), AND (X cannot exist without An AND Bn)], THEN [X AND An AND Bn were created simultaneously].
This results in a rather subjective probability speculation, but the negligibility is not overcome by “Deep Time” as a proposed agent, as some evolutionists attempt to do.
The link you provide says nothing about calculations of complexity; it is calculating only content, not complexity. And further it is based on an estimated average protein length, laa, which leads to the question of how they know the average when they don’t know the number of each type of protein. Nonetheless, the study does not reflect complexity; it is a curious attempt to calculate material density.
” How did it first arise? As you well know, there are many good ideas, none have particularly good evidence that they were the actual mechanisms of how the first cell arose. But all are considerably more plausible than magic – unless your magician is obsessed with creating the appearance of common descent, obviously.”
The pejorative “magician” is unnecessary since no magician has been invoked. This investigation merely analyzes the rationality of Atheist/Materialist/Evolutionist claims. And common descent is now debunked by the ongoing lack of evidence of any single progenitor for the Cambrian Explosion. And that defect has produced the scrapping of the Darwinian and subsequent “trees of life”, grids of life, and other failed schemata, and replaced them with the “lawn”, which hardly represents a rational claim of single ancestor. What the ideology requires, common ancestor, is necessary to eliminate “common design”, which is arbitrarily eliminated. Interestingly, there is increasing interest in panspermia, which does allow for common design, and pushes the issue into outer space. So design is allowed under some circumstances.
” In a slightly different context, Charles Darwin answers your question well:”
Your reference to Darwin explaining things is perfect: the exact page where he cannot explain the eye, even remotely – “absurd” is his term – but he goes on to make up stories (not data of course, just fabricated stories) as to how things came to be. It has been said that prior to Darwin, data was essential; Darwin, however, legitimized fantasy as a “scientific technique”, and that process infects “sciences” to this day. Certain Darwin-corrupted sciences are logically indiscernible from ideological dogma.
” Explain how it is that actual science - Quantum Field Theory - demands the pre-existence of consciousness (not yours or mine).
Well, given that “actual science” is the process of a conscious mind acting on its observations, then the consciousness has to pre-exist. Or do you mean that QFT requires consciousness to operate and you conflate science with QFT? Not sure what you mean here.”
I had thought that the elimination of “yours or mine” would be clear, but obviously more needs to be said. Let’s take some quotes from Quantum theorists.
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
Erwin Schrödinger
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Planck
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Max Planck
This is the mind to which I referred, not your mind or mine.
Atheists and their derivative Evolutionists and Materialists must ignore this comprehensive science, and instead embrace the obsolescent special case Newtonian mechanics. Otherwise, their materialist ideology fails, and their worldview collapses.
Yet you say,
"This is not the Materialism that I recognise. No educated and rational person would insist that Newtonian mechanics is the only valid description of our Universe. "
Really? "No educated person?" Well, OK, then it is up to you to define Philosophical Materialism, if it is not referring to Matter as material; and explain how science works if it is not working on the concept of mass/energy. And we'll take it from there.
This is too lengthy, and I’ll stop here for a while. Comment if you wish, or wait for more at a later time, your choice.
I have to add this:
”Wow! Have you successfully unified quantum field theory with relativity or merely observed a graviton? Well done, please show pictures and/or your working. But apart from that, how is this actually relevant?”
I take it that you are willing to claim a connection to “reality” and then deny what reality consists of when it is spelled out, and further, not ever reveal what your personal theory of reality is, given that it is not that which is laid out above. That is a show stopper, a deal breaker; it is being coy in refusing to address the issue of this blog, which is to submit Atheist concepts to rational analysis.
”I’m very sorry, but I have missed the part where I told you what I think reality is. Perhaps you can show me.”
You made this statement up front:
” Yes - I am a Philosophical Materialist in that there is nothing that we can perceive which is not material and anything that is impossible to perceive is irrelevant.”
If this is not your concept of reality, as it appears to be, then what is your concept of reality?
”You appear to believe that one or more of my sentences above is meant to imply that the third is true. If you had read what I wrote correctly, then you would not believe this.”
Usually paragraphs contain sentences which explain or expand on a single thought; apparently yours do not. OK, then; your language is in need of interpretation.
”I never posited that the Christian deity created the Universe, but you are correct that I am not in communication with that it. If you posit that the Christian god created the Universe, then it would be a good idea to present some evidence. I don’t think I have ever seen an indication that any deity is responsible, and certainly nothing that indicates the Christian deity is more likely to be responsible than any other.”
The statement was this: “Since the deity which you reject is the deity of Christianity (as well as all other deities)…” And if you actually are an Atheist, then you must reject the deity of Abrahamic and all other religions. You seem to take issue with something which cannot be problematic for an actual Atheist.
But – moving on.
”I don’t know why you say Krauss is a liar, but what I meant is that he sets out reasonable arguments for why a first cause is unnecessary in “A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing”. The arguments presented stand (or fall) on their own whether he is a liar or not. Which particular claim do you suggest he cannot and did not back up?”
The entire premise of his book, including the title (designed to sell books) is false. He attempts to redefine the concept of “nothing” to mean “something which I personally redefine as nothing”. The nothing from which he claims the universe emerged is actually preexisting quantum fields; fields require space in which to radiate, and time in which to propagate, neither of which existed at the Big Bang under his own theory, and that of Penrose/Hawking etc. His attempt at fraud has been rejected by a great many physicists as I pointed out originally. Yet he persists in claiming that something is nothing in his celebrity tours with Dawkins. His credibility is shot.
Under his theory the universe did not emerge from non-existence of anything (nothing), it emerged from a preexisting, but undefined by him, existence. This is contrary to his claim of “nothing”.
“In the 1920-30s, it was shown that particles can and do pop into existence without a first cause and in fact the Heisenberg uncertainty principle demands that they do.”
That’s not the case; particle/antiparticle pairs occur when certain quantum field conditions dictate; the fluctuations in the universal quantum field produce local field concentrations which produce the “particle/waves” in an unpredictable fashion. There is a cause; it is not predictable. In no manner can this concept be used to make a claim of a universe popping into existence from nothing.
”After that observation and theoretical explanation any argument for the existence of a creator that starts with, “Everything has a cause…” (or similar, for example “In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself…”) is demonstrably wrong.”
You have drawn an incorrect conclusion based on an incorrect understanding of quantum theory, and a somewhat credulous belief in a discredited scientist.
”I don’t invoke Many Universes. Apologies for the flippancy, it wasn’t intended to cause offence.”
I rarely if ever take offense, but I do acknowledge insults when they are presented in argumentation.
”I suspect that your attachment to Philosophical Materialism derives from the ideology of Atheism, which necessitates it.
As stated above, I think you and I have a different definition of PM. Perhaps you should deal with what I write, rather than what you think I should have attached as a label?
I guarantee that you cannot prove that PM is correct, nor that Atheism is correct.
Like Richard Dawkins (maybe you have read The God Delusion?) and any non-fundamentalist, I agree that there is no definitive proof of my worldview that allows certainty.”
You have defined PM as shown above, as matter-dependent, unless you have a different definition of "perception".
Actually Dawkins is quite certain of his worldview, and he demands the universal ridicule of those who disagree with it. That is intellectual dishonesty and his claim in “Delusion” is hypocritical. He was given the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford specifically by billionaire Simonyi because of Dawkins’ fervent Materialist/Atheism. His position is quite intolerant rather than non-fundamentalist as you claim.
”My claim was that no deity has ever had any noticeable impact on my life, whereas many, many real factors have affected me and the person I am.”
And this claim either rejects or ignores as “noticeable impact”, your fundamental existence as a living entity with consciousness, intellect, will and agency, none of which are deducible as emergent from the properties of minerals.
”Therefore it is reasonable for me to assume that gods are irrelevant to the point that they might as well not exist and almost certainly don’t. If you can give an example of “contrary deductions and empirical findings [that] exist and refute [that] claim”, I’d be glad to listen. You’ve not done so well at that so far, but maybe there’s something you’ve forgotten.”
Actually your attempted refutation of Thomasian deductions failed, as shown above. You have not given any serious deductive proof of either first cause, first life, or metabolics, as examples. You defend Just So Stories as good enough and utility as a stopping point. Care to try again?
”I don’t have anything that would meet your standards and never claimed to have. Then again I don’t have evidence that dogs bark; tiramisu tastes of coffee and the sun will rise tomorrow that would meet your standards either. I live in the real world, not in the philosophical nightmare that you have constructed. In the world I live in, deities are not needed to explain anything and no deity has ever contacted me to explain otherwise. The conclusion is obvious.”
The standards are not mine, they are universal standards for objective knowledge, and the exact standards which Atheists impose on theists. The fact that the same standards are applicable to Atheist worldviews annoys Atheists, who in actuality believe what they believe without standards at all, much less objective standards. Which is one of the reasons that I left Atheism when I realized that.
That actual science “constructs a philosophical nightmare” for you is not my issue, it is yours. Since you are latched into an unprovable, closed worldview which you need to be “true”, then the logic of modern science becomes anathema, does it not? Your “real” world, despite your protestations, is merely a special case of the actual existence which is being revealed under modern science. That you reject it demonstrates the rigidity of your worldview regarding anything outside the comfort of your personal zone.
So be it; but I hope you respond to this series before you leave.
I’m not sure what you mean regarding the gmail reference, could you elaborate? Thanks.
I am not going to respond to all that line by line. Clearly we will never agree on anything to do with the origin of life, evolution or common descent and distance in interpretation of the information is too great - so I leave that where it is. But in summary, (it appears to me that) you believe an atheist would have to explain the complexity of a cell (and other similar systems) to be objectively consistent. I disagree and Darwin shows why.
“In the 1920-30s, it was shown that particles can and do pop into existence without a first cause and in fact the Heisenberg uncertainty principle demands that they do.”
That’s not the case; particle/antiparticle pairs occur when certain quantum field conditions dictate; the fluctuations in the universal quantum field produce local field concentrations which produce the “particle/waves” in an unpredictable fashion.
If you are able, could you expand on this? I am unaware of any failings in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and of any alternative explanation for virtual particle/antiparticle production. Given your certainty over the existence of quantum gravity, I am suspicious, but would like to read more if you can point me in the right direction. Google isn't helping much.
On Philosophical materialism - apologies, I made a statement that I should not have.
”Yes - I am a Philosophical Materialist in that there is nothing that we can perceive which is not material and anything that is impossible to perceive is irrelevant.”
The second half of the sentence was supposed to be the one you paid attention to. The PM part I only used because you gave me that choice and after a quick check on Wikipedia, it seemed more appropriate than the other. Obviously not.
But to attempt to clarify. By material, I mean matter and that which interacts with matter. So photons, neutrinos, etc and whatever quantum fields/superstrings (even gravitons) you care to invoke would also be included. This is the product of the last few hours thinking about it rather than a lifetime of study and I acknowledge that it may not be the definition you assumed I had. Reality is more difficult: I am aware of philosophical discussion on the nature of reality and it bores me. I cannot and do not wish to give a perfect description of reality and presume you cannot either. But a working definition is "that which exists" and I assume it is the same for you and me (more or less) and will still be there when I am gone. It is not good enough for a lot of applications (quantum physics springs to mind) but is perfectly good enough for everyday life.
On medical (and veterinary) uses of intercessionary prayer: You deleted the part of my response which pointed out the systematic review of the evidence for this (conclusion: no effect). You also implied that I denied the existence of double-blinded trials that show a positive outcome, when I explicitly pointed out they exist. I think such experiments are ridiculous and are no basis for any conclusion whatsoever. But it was you that brought up the experimental evidence for prayer, then told me God shouldn't be treated like a candy machine, then told me again the experiments prove that prayer works, then went back to saying they're anti-biblical. Give up on the prayer thing, it isn't your strongest argument.
More to come - hopefully more in line with the main topics of your blog - but I need to check my understanding of reality and objectivity is moderately consistent first.
Stan states:
Let’s define “objective” from the Atheist viewpoint: in order to be considered "objective", a knowledge claim must be accompanied by empirical, falsifiable and not falsified, replicable and replicated, experimental findings accompanied by open data and experimental instructions all of which are peer reviewed.
This is hardly arguable, since it is necessary for the process and conclusion to be independently observed at will by multiple observers in order to be “objective” as a source of material knowledge.
However, since this applies only to physical entities which can be tested in the physical domain in order to produce falsifiable results a la Popper’s demarcation principle, it does not apply to non-physical, non-testable, non-falsifiable entities and/or propositions.
Thus the demand for such “objective” material “proof” regarding theist propositions is the error of the wrong test for the category: Category Error Fallacy.
(I emboldened what I consider most significant here.)
So, as I understand you, knowledge is a basis from which we can derive conclusions and/or proofs. We cannot prove absolutely the non-existence of a deity by this means – which is something you feel atheists have an obligation to do – because deities are “non-physical, non-testable, non-falsifiable” I understand that this means that they cannot interact with our Universe in any possible (conceivable or inconceivable) way. If they could, they would be observable and thus subject to investigation and generation of knowledge, and therefore, the absence of evidence for a deity would be sufficient proof for the dismissal of the concept. In that way, deities are different from entities or concepts such as happiness (definitely measurable), malt whisky (clearly observable) or democracy (the effects of its absence or presence are comparable). In the other direction, they are also different from the Bermuda triangle (never observed reliably) or the luminiferous ether (observations of where it should have an effect fail to produce the right results). Deities are different because they are not observable; they are not observable because they are not interacting with our Universe or us. If they were interacting, then they would be observable – just to hammer in the point.
Do you want to continue to argue that it actually matters whether a non-interacting, non-observable deity is “true” or not? I assume this applies to all potential deities . How do you distinguish one from another? In fact truth of something outside our frame of reference is indistinguishable from untruth. Yes, this may be a category error, but only if your truth is irrelevant.
Alternatively, maybe you want to rethink this and decide that deities are actually observable? I suspect this is the case since you appear to see the influence of a deity in the origin of life, livers and metabolism. Also, possibly in answering prayer. i.e. you believe that deities are able to and do observably intervene in our world. In fact, you give the existence of the liver as being an observable effect of the influence of a deity. If deities influence our world, then they are observable, subject to investigation and therefore knowledge of them can be objective. Therefore, there is no category error and therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss them if there is an absence of evidence.
As I suggested earlier, there is no hope of reconciling our differing opinions on whether the complexity of a cell, liver or metabolism (plus probably a whole bunch of other things) is sufficiently well explained by natural processes or not. However, this is what the argument reduces to now (unless you accept an irrelevant god or gods). In my mind, there is no doubt that all we see is, or will be, explained by natural processes. You dismissed Darwin’s similar statement as a just-so-story, but I see the gaps in Darwin’s reasoning being filled in year-on-year. Through molecular understanding of the retinal pigments; the light detecting proteins; the machinery supporting it; the genetics behind them; the various intermediate eye structures known and being discovered; and so on. I don’t expect you to agree, but you obviously feel Max Planck is an authority on such matters, so I give you his words published after his funeral but delivered in 1937:
"The faith in miracles must yield ground, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the forces of science, and its total defeat is indubitably a mere matter of time." (Scientific autobiography and other papers, translated by Frank Gaynor, p155.)
Blattafrax,
I’m glad you are still here, the going is just getting good.
That’s not the case; particle/antiparticle pairs occur when certain quantum field conditions dictate; the fluctuations in the universal quantum field produce local field concentrations which produce the “particle/waves” in an unpredictable fashion.
If you are able, could you expand on this? I am unaware of any failings in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
The incompatibility between Einstein’s General Relativity and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle lies in the texture of space; Einstein’s space is smooth; Heisenberg’s is “foamy”.
There are some books providing layman level information, including these:
Brian Greene, “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality”, especially pgs 330 – 335;
Rodney A. Brooks, “Fields of Color” (QFT)
Frank Wilczek, “The Lightness of Being” (QFT), especially the chapter on “Grid: Persistence of Ether”
Here are a few sources, the first describes quantum foam as the “fabric of space” which provides for particle/antiparticle creation and annihilation; the foam itself is caused by “virtual particles” which actually are space, sort of twisted in a knot… sort of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production#Energy (go to the bottom for foam)
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Annihilation+and+Creation+of+Particle-Antiparticle+Pairs
The next describes what actually exists in the “vacuum” (it’s not nothing)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
And this describes “matter creation”, with the understanding that "matter" refers not to gravitational mass, rather it refers to inertial mass which is actually a field which resists changing its propagation velocity and thus requires a force to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
Blattafrax,
I am aware of philosophical discussion on the nature of reality and it bores me. I cannot and do not wish to give a perfect description of reality and presume you cannot either. But a working definition is "that which exists" and I assume it is the same for you and me (more or less) and will still be there when I am gone. It is not good enough for a lot of applications (quantum physics springs to mind) but is perfectly good enough for everyday life.
So again you are a pragmatist, and that only and without interest in the rest? OK. Got it. Then we need not discuss the rest.
” I think such experiments are ridiculous and are no basis for any conclusion whatsoever. But it was you that brought up the experimental evidence for prayer, then told me God shouldn't be treated like a candy machine, then told me again the experiments prove that prayer works, then went back to saying they're anti-biblical. Give up on the prayer thing, it isn't your strongest argument.”
Nor is the failure of prayer, yours. The response was to your claim; it is not a primary argument for theism and never was. It is a false Atheist claim, based on lack of understanding plus the need for narrative.
Moving on:
” because deities are “non-physical, non-testable, non-falsifiable” I understand that this means that they cannot interact with our Universe in any possible (conceivable or inconceivable) way. If they could, they would be observable and thus subject to investigation and generation of knowledge, and therefore, the absence of evidence for a deity would be sufficient proof for the dismissal of the concept.”
This is another very common Atheist claim: “If they could, they would be observable” But it is an assertion without material proof, for the same reason that material-only existence is an assertion without proof: the validity of each assertion cannot be proven, materially, so is merely presumed to be true, and is therefore stated as if it were actually true. It becomes cant, a necessary presupposition as if it is a first principle. But it is not. Here’s why: It is presented as a case for Materialism; but it is an assumption of a first principle of Materialism; thus the argument is circular, self-referencing, and non-coherent. So as a logic failure, it is rejected.
Claiming material-only (matter-only) existence places the burden of proof for such further subordinate claims squarely on the claimant.
” Deities are different because they are not observable; they are not observable because they are not interacting with our Universe or us.”
This is a continuation of the same issue: making an assertion as if it were true as a principle of Materialism, in order to prove Materialism, and thus having no need to provide evidence since it is “true”.
” Do you want to continue to argue that it actually matters whether a non-interacting, non-observable deity is “true” or not?”
Same argument, same logic error; however, I should point out that I have not argued FOR a deity (other than a first cause); what I have done is to point out failures in attempting to attribute certain material entities to material emergence causes, a failure which you have not addressed. If Materialism (or Matter-ism in your case) fails as an explanan, the question is why, and what does a Matter-ist propose as a compensation for that failure?
Your response is to attack what I did not claim (God did it), by presenting the standard Atheist logical fallacy which claims that it is impossible for a non-physical entity to affect physical matter – and claiming that as a presupposed materialist/matterist principle which is unarguable.
” In fact truth of something outside our frame of reference is indistinguishable from untruth. Yes, this may be a category error, but only if your truth is irrelevant.”
Let’s parse this statement.
In fact truth of something outside our frame of reference is indistinguishable from untruth.
Let’s now clarify:
In fact [It is objectively true that] truth [and thus falseness] of something outside our [everyone who ever existed or will exist] frame of reference [ability to perceive or comprehend] is indistinguishable from untruth [or Truth].
Thus the full assertion is this:
“It is objectively true that truth and thus falseness of something outside the ability to perceive or comprehend by everyone who ever existed or will exist is indistinguishable from untruth or truth.”
In this claim, the presumption of “truth” implies an objective material knowledge base (empirical, falsifiable, replicable, etc.). What is presumed “true” (objectively, materially proven without recourse to doubt) is that “everyone” will not ever distinguish either the truth or untruth of something which is outside of their ability to perceive or comprehend.
This claim of having objective, material knowledge is obviously not the case, and is false. However, even ignoring that defect, the statement is tautological and not determinative of the validity of something outside or beyond one’s ability to discern; it speaks only to the limits of the abilities of material existence to produce knowledge, not to the possibilities beyond material knowledge. So, even as tautology the assertion fails to address the issue of actuality outside the limits of material knowledge, and thus is of the genus strawman/red herring.
The second sentence of the assertion confirms this:
Yes, this may be a category error, but only if your truth is irrelevant.”
It appears to me that this is not what you meant to write, which would be this:
” Yes, this may be a category error, but only if your truth is relevant.”
The original form does not make sense.
This is an admission that the existence of an external, non-material (non-matter) truth both cannot be dismissed, and if it does exist that the materialist position is a logic error.
But to reiterate, what I have done is to illuminate portions of material existence which are not explainable under materialism/matterism. If I did not request it then, and I should have, I do now: please explain them, using your materialist/matterist limiting conditions. And please don’t defer to “I don’t care, I am a pragmatist and that has no influence on my life”; that is not an explanation, it is an escape from intellectual responsibility (which is your prerogative, but is not useful for this conversation).
” As I suggested earlier, there is no hope of reconciling our differing opinions on whether the complexity of a cell, liver or metabolism (plus probably a whole bunch of other things) is sufficiently well explained by natural processes or not.”
Actually, what will not be addressed is whether Atheism is actually based on evidence and logic, since you will not be presenting either for cell, liver, metabolism, etc. Faith (without evidence or logic) in the ideology of Matter-Only Philosophy is a requirement in order to hold that position.
” In my mind, there is no doubt that all we see is, or will be, explained by natural processes. You dismissed Darwin’s similar statement as a just-so-story, but I see the gaps in Darwin’s reasoning being filled in year-on-year.”
Then you are out of touch with actual evolutionary science. Here is another book, by evolutionary scientists, which outlines the problems and showcases new theories:
“Evolution: The Extended Synthesis”, edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Muller.
This book outlines the failures of evidence to support any of Darwin’s claims (variation, selection, common ancestory); the result was the “New Synthesis” of the mid-20th century, which added mutation to the mix. But that failed as well, and now the “Altenberg 16” (as they call themselves) have proposed new mechanisms, all of which are unproven and most of which are materially unprovable, to again take up the slack. Having eliminated variation and selection, and being unable to find any evidence whatsoever for a common ancestor, the “Extended Synthesis” places its hopes elsewhere.
What the new “Extended Synthesis” does not even mention, much less propose to resolve, are the issues of first life in terms of necessary complexity including the preexistence of functioning non-algorithmic metabolites which not only communicate and feedback but also implement the functional necessities in every living cell; the necessity for the preexistence of massive chains of accurate and meaningful information chains; the absolute absence of strong emergence theories to provide for these necessities; the quantum theories of preexisting consciousness, and the inability to deduce consciousness, agency, will, intellect, and so on.
Because the Extended Synthesis is the latest in evolutionary thought, there will have to be further attempts to explain these features of life which are ignored completely.
But get the book; it’s not possible to be up to date on evolutionary science without it.
” you obviously feel Max Planck is an authority on such matters, so I give you his words published after his funeral but delivered in 1937:”
Do you take this statement to be a refutation of his other statements regarding pre-existing consciousness? If so, under what circumstances? Once the preexisting mind is established, it is no longer a miracle, it becomes a fact of nature. Miracles are claims that certain non-deducible things happen and need no explanation – like first life (read what Dawkins says about it: indistinguishable from a miracle iirc). Which is more rational, to believe that “it had to happen materially” or “there must be more than is seen here”. The first is clearly dogma; the second is open to inquiry.
I also recommend this book:
"The Cell: A Molecular Approach", Cooper and Hausman, 6th ed, Sinauer Assoc, pubs, 2013. (textbook) Especially the sections on signalling. Pricey but worth it for those who are interested in the science. (Actual biological science, NOT evolution fantasies).
I'm off doing other things for a few days, so won't respond for a while.
But your response starting "I’m glad you are still here, the going is just getting good." misunderstands my request.
You claimed that Heisenberg was discredited. I asked for clarification, given that I had not heard of any objection to either the man himself or the uncertainty principle. I assume that you do not consider the incompatability of quantum mechanics and relativity to discredit Heisenberg. Certainly no more than it discredits Einstein. So, could you please clarify how Heisenberg and/or the uncertainty principle is discredited?
You also stated that there are known causes for anti-particle/particle pair production. I am not aware of any known cause or direct trigger. Although your references are useful, thank you, I have been reading non-technical physics books (and the occasional technical paper) for the last 30 years and am well aware of the background, which is all these references appear to be. So, do you actually have anything to back up your claim that there is a known cause of pair production beyond the requirements of the HUP? If you do, could you tell me where to find it? I am interested. (If it is addressed in the books, which is best?)
Ahhhhh...
You mean Krauss is discredited?
OK, Heisenberg's reputation remains intact, but the clarification is still needed I think. Assuming HUP is not in question. ?
Yes, I was referring to Krauss, not Heisenberg.
I don't know of any resolution between the Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity. I don't think that I said that I did, but this should straighten that out, I hope. At least one of those principles will be modified, ultimately, since they are contradictory. It might be Heisenberg's or it might not. It could well be that General Relativity will be considered a special case similar to how Newtonian Mechanics is now considered, but I am not in a position to predict with certainty anything like that.
I don't understand why you pretended to be ignorant of Quantum Field Theory if you've been studying it for so many decades.
But oh well.
BTW, the idea that the universal quantum field produces particle/antiparticle pairs is the principle that Stephen Hawking used to predict information being generated at black hole horizons, which I'm sure you already knew. But it is part of the concept you have questioned regarding whether that principle is valid. Apparently Hawking thinks so.
And Einstein claimed something like it was essential for the propagation of photons through space, and for space to even exist - he referred to it as a sort of ether, though.
Einstein:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
This condition is satisfied by the universal quantum field; the so-called "vacuum" is not empty, and either Krauss doesn't know that and is abhorrently ignorant of his own field, or he knows it and persists in lying about it.
See you when you get back.
If deities influence our world, then they are observable, subject to investigation and therefore knowledge of them can be objective. Therefore, there is no category error and therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss them if there is an absence of evidence.
Let\s see if I understand what Blattafrax is proposing:Unless God occupies space,displays properties such as mass and inertia and has an electric charge,only then can God be considered an actual entity.The problem with this type of reasoning is that it refutes the nature of God which is non-physical/spirit,and that is exactly what we're trying to flesh out.Does the non-physical/spirit exist?Atheists say "No" because it must be physical to count as existence.Circular reasoning and question begging because it prevents us from ever having to investigate beyond the physical.Having eliminated such enquiries prima facie,means all our knowledge is no longer objective but based on a priori beliefs.
I don’t expect you to agree, but you obviously feel Max Planck is an authority on such matters, so I give you his words published after his funeral but delivered in 1937:
"The faith in miracles must yield ground, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the forces of science, and its total defeat is indubitably a mere matter of time."
How is that quote relevant to this discussion?Surely it could equally apply to the miracle of first life and the "universe from nothing" hypotheses.
Phoenix,
Actually, I read that quote by Planck to specifically refer to "one-off" events such as first life and universe from nothing. It is a faith-in-Scientism position of dogma. Still a tenet of Scientism.
What it likely did not refer to would be miracles such as the original events at Lourdes and others like that; no amount of empirical investment can either prove or disprove such singularities: they cannot be falsified, and do not qualify for experimental investigation to determine objective fact. If such events could be falsified, they would have been and there would be published papers outlining the process of empirical refutation. But in the lack of such refutation, Atheists must fall back onto mere denialism under radical skepticism and pyrrhonianism, which they do willingly while claiming evidence and logic as the only basis for their worldview.
The fact that science has limits is ignored by Planck's faith statement. And by extension of the logic of materially limited experimental empiricism, science also cannot produce objective, replicable knowledge regarding the activation of first life or universe from nothing either.
There is a fundamental difference in kind between Planck's statement regarding the empirically proven need for a pre-existing consciousness (fact, having arisen from actual experiments) and his faith statement concerning future, non-specific, unlimited success for science, even outside the abilities of science. The first is objective empirical knowledge; the second is conjectural faith.
Blattafrax has asserted the faith statement as a refutation of sorts. But conjecture and fantasy is not objective fact. It is opinion of the weakest sort.
Stan
I had a look at some of the anti-christian quotes attributed to Planck,for example the one from John Heilbron's book published in 2000.It seems some biographers' quotes contradict Max Planck's autobiography which he wrote in 1937 and contains pro-God and Christian quotes but the ones from Heilbron which Planck apparently also quoted in 1937 are anti-God.Am I missing something?Heilbron claims in his book (I read 2 pages on Google books) the Church devised a conspiracy to portray Planck as a religious Christian to lure converts.
These are Plancks own words from his autobiography Religion and Natural Science:
-No matter where and how far we look,nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance.Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as many contemporaries of ours would believe or fear. They mutually supplement and condition each other. The most immediate proof of the compatibility of religion and natural science, even under the most thorough critical scrutiny, is the historical fact that the very greatest natural scientists of all times — men such as Kepler, Newton, Leibniz— were permeated by a most profound religious attitude.
-Long and tedious reflection cannot enable us to shape our decisions and attitudes properly; only that definite and clear instruction can which we gain form a direct inner link to God. This instruction alone is able to give us the inner firmness and lasting peace of mind which must be regarded as the highest boon in life.And if we ascribe to God, in addition to His omnipotence and omniscience, also the attributes of goodness and love, recourse to Him produces an increased feeling of safety and happiness in the human being thirsting for solace. Against this conception not even the slightest objection can be raised from the point of natural science, for as we pointed it out before, questions of ethics are entirely outside of its realm.
Contrast that with JL Heibron's book published in 2000:
-I do not believe in a personal god,let alone a christian god.
Deists or Atheists do not take recourse to God.So I'm skeptical of Heilbron's quote,which also makes one wonder if he hasn't devised a conspiracy himself.
Phoenix,
Thanks very much for that; very interesting, and I note the need for finding accurate quotes which are not the product of ideological corruptors. That could prove difficult.
Stan
Post a Comment