| Subject: You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/ 1/02 8:40pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Thank you." on 03/27/02 11:43am
Wade,
As I mentioned in a post below, I can't go into the symbolic logic with you. If that makes you feel that God is logical, then you're more than welcome to that belief. I'm going to focus on a couple of your other points.
>>Atheism is not a
>>theory. It simply means, "Someone who doesn't believe
>>in God."
>
>You appear to be confusing “atheism” with “atheist.”
>An atheist is “Someone who doesn’t believe in
>God.” Now it is true that an atheist can believe that
>there is no God for any or no reason. I’m not
>disputing that. But I was talking about
>atheism (i.e. the belief that there is no God).
> In that sense it can be used as a theory and be
>rationally compared with theism.
This is the first I'd heard of your making a distinction between these two terms. Apparently, we should have defined our terms more clearly from the start. Again, "the belief that there is no God" doesn't necessarily hold any things to be true _except_ that there is no God. You can call me an a-Santa Claus-ist, and you know that I have a belief that there is no Santa Claus. That's all you know. We've been through this, so I won't go into this any further.
>>You might meet one atheist who holds the theory that
>>the universe ought to be orderly. You might meet
>>another atheist who thinks the universe really should
>>be non-orderly, and has trouble fitting the actual
>>nature of the universe into his worldview
>
>If you’re talking about atheism in it’s more “raw”
>form, I think you are correct to a certain extent.
>Maybe atheism doesn’t have any specific predictions on
>the order of the universe, but that need not matter
>much as I showed in the detective example when it
>comes to comparing explanatory power.
Again... (sigh)... atheism can say "God doesn't exist" or "God may not exist" and still not be claiming to have any explanation of anything.
>>If you meet an atheist and you want to know
>>his beliefs regarding an orderly or non-orderly
>>universe, you have to ask him.
>
>>Again, "atheism" is
>>just a word that says what someone _doesn't_
>>believe... it doesn't say much about what someone
>>_does_ believe.
>
>Now you appear to be confusing atheism with simple
>non-theism. Theism says that there is a God. If you
>do not believe that there is a God, you do not
>necessarily have to accept atheism (the belief that
>there is no God). You could instead be an agnostic
>(one who professes ignorance on whether or not there
>is a God).
I think there are many varying definitions and uses of the word "atheist." I think that both the word "atheist" and "agnostic" are God-centered words. We don't have words for people who don't believe in the tooth fairy, but people still don't. Our society has strong religious underpinnings, and (call me a purist) I don't think any of these words are very useful, except in subconsciously promoting the idea that God does exist and that it is rational to believe in him.
>>Perhaps what you mean is that a person who is an
>>atheist has to explain how the universe could be
>>orderly without some being stepping in to make it that
>>way.
>
>>…<
>
>>I suppose
>>that's a fair enough question. Maybe one of the
>>atheists on the board could answer that better than I
>>can. I guess I'd just say that, at least to many
>>people, order does not imply design.
>
>It depends on the situation. The order of a computer
>and its sophisticated programs imply design, but the
>order of a snowflake falling from a sky does not (at
>least not in any direct sense). Again, it all has to
>do with explanatory power and comparison with possible
>worlds. My claim is that the type and extent of the
>order of the universe can be better explained under
>theism as opposed to atheism.
And I maintain that atheism is not a philosophy. Let's pretend for a moment that our society isn't saturated with this idea of "God," the big, invisible being in the sky. Pretend no one ever thought that such a being might exist. The default in such a society would be to just not have any belief on such a being, and if someone came along who _did_, we would call him an "invisible-being-believer" or something, but we would still be left without a name. In our society, this belief (which still seems to be a default belief until undeniable evidence for an invisible being is offered) is referred to as "atheism," but it need not be. When such a person thinks about how the universe came about, he could come up with any number of explanatory theories, and some would be more rational than others. Being an atheist does not mean you hold to a certain idea about how the universe came about.
>>You are certainly trying to make "That's the way it
>>is" sound like a pitiful explanation.
>
>It can be. Here’s one question you didn’t answer me.
>Why is it that “that’s the way it is” unsuitable for
>the data evolution explains, but just fine when it
>comes to the data I presented (e.g. highly
>sophisticated mathematical patterns in which the
>universe consistently operates)?
I'm not sure what you mean. If I'm hearing you correctly, my answer is that there are things we have the capability of explaning given our current knowledge and technology, and there are things we can't. Just because we can't doesn't mean we need to invent an invisible being. God has always been in charge of whatever science hasn't explained yet.
[snip]
>And there you have it. Why does God exist? Because
>he necessarily exists. That sort of explanation can’t
>be used with the order of the universe I described.
>Remember that the universe did not have to have the
>kind of order it does. If it did, then the order
>being necessary is itself an adequate explanation.
>But it didn’t. It could just as easily operate in a
>way that would be much less harmonious with theism.
>Why does God exist? Because he has to. This is an
>acceptable explanation if he necessarily exists.
I am necessarily not into this argument. I think you hold philosophy in far greater esteem than I do. I respect it, but I am very slow to think that it stands on anything close to the same ground science does in regards to proving things. You seem to think that science proves some things and philosophy proves some of the things that science doesn't deal with. I, on the other hand, tend to think that whatever is outside the arena of science is pretty much anyone's guess.
>>>Is it very rational to
>>>believe that our universe just happens to have
>>>precisely the right constants, to simply say, “That’s
>>>just the way it is”? That sort of belief strikes me
>>>as having terribly impotent explanatory power
>compared
>>>to the theory of a rationally orderly God creating
>the
>>>universe.
>>
>>It's interesting that you feel that coming up with an
>>invisible being to explain things has much better
>>explanatory power than anything else.
>
>It’s interesting that you feel coming up with an
>invisible process (macroevolution) has much better
>explanatory power than anything else.
I think I've said this before, but if you truly believe that the way you turned that argument back on me is fair, you are kidding yourself. Macroevolution is completely grounded in science. Your invisible being is completely not. You seem to enjoy taking my phrases and re-wording them and spitting them back at me, but it often doesn't work once you turn it around.
>>Remember that
>>Ptolemy had an elaborate explanation for the apparent
>>retrograde motion of the planets. His explanation fit
>>the data very nicely, but it was completely wrong.
>>Now, if you were Ptolemy, and I were... well... me,
>>you would be talking about how wonderful epicycles
>>are, and I would be saying, "Well, I disagree with
>>you." You would, of course, say, "Well, how do you
>>explain it then?" To which I would answer, "Well, I'm
>>not sure. I don't have enough data to decide, but I
>>definitely find your explanation untenable." Simply
>>coming up with a theory that matches the data is easy,
>>but don't expect me to accept it or even say it has
>>more explanatory power than anything else if I don't
>>find it compelling.
>
>Very well, than I’ll reject macroevolution because I
>find the explanation untenable.
I certainly can't force you to accept one of the most well-proven parts of the field of Biology. I can't make you accept gravity either. I should revise my paragraph above... if Ptolemy's explanation was the best they had, good scientists would tentatively accept it until they could prove that it was wrong. Sometimes my analogies don't extend as far as they should.
>What I’m trying to demonstrate here with the
>“macroevolution” thing is that you need to do a bit
>more to explain yourself. I could easily apply these
>things (“that’s just the way it is” for the data that
>evolution explains, “I don’t know, but I find
>macroevolution untenable” etc.) to macroevolution. I
>suspect what this comes down to is inherent
>implausibility.
It seems to come down to a couple of things:
1) you don't trust mainstream science because of philosophical objections
2) you have been exposed to enough religion in your life that the idea of God seems rational on a very deep level
>Perhaps not, but this is irrelevant to the context in
>which I used it. Atheism by itself (not necessarily
>classical atheism) can only seem explain the order
>(that I described) by saying, “that’s just the way it
>is.” The “classical atheism” thing was used as an
>example of how atheism could explain certain data
>better than atheism (albeit a specific form of
>atheism).
Hey, don't treat my example as "atheism"'s feelings on the matter. Maybe they _do_ have an explanation for the order of the universe (probably). Plus, you treat atheism as a belief system that involves theories about how the universe began, and it isn't.
>>I listed my reasons for this above. Basically, any
>>theory (as you always say) can be offered to explain
>>any data. So your theory is that God created things,
>>and the orderliness of the universe (which you seem to
>>say just means that the same actions produce the same
>>events over and over again) supports this theory. Big
>>deal. The evolutionary theory is a comprehensive
>>theory that has been tested and involves all the major
>>sciences. It has been proven over and over again.
>
>Theories cannot be proven, and yes I know your using
>the term “proven” loosely. But we must understand
>what evolution is: an explanatory theory. It explains
>why certain data exist. Theism explains why certain
>data exist as well. Theism is comprehensive in that
>it involves nearly all major sciences because of its
>support for several necessary principles (including
>the uniformity of nature). For your, “it [evolution]
>has been proven over and over again” I can just say
>that it is not proven at all, and the data evolution
>explains is a brute fact or in other words, “that’s
>the way it is.” Or I could claim that my “black
>force” theory explains the data and is just as good as
>evolution (this “black force” causes similarities in
>life forms etc. in the universe. This force is not
>Darwin’s theory, but it causes these sorts of things
>to happen all over the place) unless you can offer
>more reasons why these sorts of explanations apply
>only to theism.
Hey, that's MY "black force" theory!
>>Tell me other things about your "creator" theory which
>>fit the data better than any other theory. Again, my
>>"black force" theory is just as good as your "creator"
>>theory so far, unless you can offer more reasons why
>>yours explains the data better.
>
>This sort of thing goes back to the underdetermination
>of theories. Yes, there will always be innumerable
>ridiculous theories that can accommodate any set of
>data. I could just as easily apply the “black force”
>or “invisible unicorn” or “magic leprechaun” as the
>causal agent for any set of data, including that which
>evolution explains. Why is macroevolution better than
>“magic leprechaun” for the data? Why is the wind a
>better explanation for “invisible unicorn” for its
>data?
Exactly. The only difference between you and me is that I don't find invisible, untestable beings as likely as things which are backed by mounds of scientific data. By your logic, you are _forced_ to accept my "black force" theory as _equally likely_ to your "God" theory.
>>…the orderliness of the universe (which you seem to
>>say just means that the same actions produce the same
>>events over and over again
>
>>…<
>
>>Now I see that what you mean by "orderly"
>>is that the same actions produce the same events. In
>>other words, we can predict things.
>
>That’s not quite what I meant. Yes, “order” does
>include the uniformity of nature (in the sense that
>science’s physical laws depend upon, not in a way that
>would defy quantum mechanics) but it also includes the
>highly sophisticated patterns that our universe
>consistently operates in, the fine-tuned physical
>constants, and so forth. It was and is obvious that
>the world operates consistently in some ways (e.g.
>what goes up comes down again and again), but who knew
>that there was so much more to the world than this?
>Who knew that there was a more complex level of order
>(mathematical patterns etc.) to be learned in addition
>to mere obvious consistency of certain everyday
>things? (An example: mathematical patterns were found
>in the rate at which an object falls, even though the
>simple existence of something falling was quite
>obvious beforehand.) The theists expected it, and
>it’s one of the reasons we now have modern science.
Yes, yes... I'll leave you and Brian to argue on how modern science began. I will just say that even if something develops within a certain worldview and even _because of_ that worldview, this does not make that worldview itself any more likely.
You seem bent on proving that God is rational, but I think you're arguing with yourself more than you are with us. Good luck convincing yourself, because I don't find God's existence any more likely now than I did when we began all this. Nor do I find the tooth fairy's existence any more likely than I did. You just aren't allowed to come up with an invisible being in the sky any time you aren't sure how to explain a set of data.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 