Flaw of Atheism in Regards to Science

[Wolf]

Ahh, I knew you'd get involved in the more religious posts sooner or later, Dan. Well, in lieu of making an on-topic post, I will simply reassert my position that all religious (including atheist) beliefs are equally valid. A quick summary of why I assert this; while there may be an objectively verifiable world beyond us, our conscious existence is the only thing that we are 100% sure exists. Our consciousness, according to Jean Paul-Sartre (who, as I have minded Acriku, was an atheist -- just showing the love), becomes that which it envisions. We are certain of our conscious existence by virtue of the fact that we are our conscious existence. Therefore, our beliefs, which are incarnated in our conscious existence, are 100% real, if only for us. While there may an objectively verifiable world apart from us, we can never be totally sure of its true nature, since our universe changes by nature due to relativity. Furthermore, even if our "best guess" points in one particular doctrine of faith, this does not necessitate that this is really so. Human beings have been largely certain of a particular fact only to have some wild, seemingly random discovery throw all the "best guesses" aside. Therefore, in the absence of completely verifiable things outside of the self to believe in, I assert that we must take a leap of faith in that which we desire to believe in. The Kierkegaard concept of the leap of faith ensures our faith is unadultured by any doubt or other mitigating elements. In addition, when one chooses, from the self, not from outside influences, to believe in a certain belief, it is more likely that this belief, whatever it is, will be more fulfilling for that individual by virtue of the fact that it was an individual choice. However, I stress that this approach to religious belief only be applied to religious belief, as David Hume (another atheist, here's the love, Acriku) said, while he's telling everyone that they're not even sure if the world actually exists, he's still not going to walk in front of loaded carraiges assuming that they don't really exist, either. There are practical reasons for religious faith as well, as some religions teach a doctrine that appeals to a certain individual.

[emprworm]

* Natural - "That which is according to the laws and existence of and within our universe."

A rather puzzling definition---or, rather, series of definitions. If "natural" is to mean "according to the laws of our universe," then a hypothetical deity is automatically supernatural (contrary to some of your statements, empr). If it is to mean "existing within our universe," then that's a different story. It looks like that was the intended definition, so we'll go with that.

I simply go with the definition that it is.

[GUNWOUNDS]

*throws white towel into ring* stay down daniel ! stay down !   

      :D  ;)

[danielsh]

I don't appreciate the personal attacks, empr. If you want to attack me as a person, then pick another venue. I'm going to talk about the points that you made, because I recognize that attacking anyone who disagrees with me doesn't help to get my point across.

Did you read your first post in this thread? The definitions that I used were quoted directly from your first post. In the case of "natural," I was confused because there seemed to be multiple definitions in the one sentence. I was further confused because you didn't use either one of the two to make your arguments. I am struggling to work within your definitions here, but I'm having a hard time understanding or applying them. There were at least two definitions of "natural" in your definition; please pick one or create a new one. As to "supernatural," there is a difference between "non-natural" (your definition) and "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." The dictionary definition is much more sound, and I'm glad that we're going to use it. (Quick note: my "ghosts, goblins, and gods" comment was intended as sarcasm. I know it's hard to distinguish online.) I agree that the definitions which I quoted were completely absurd, but they weren't mine and they weren't the dictionary's. My goal was to point out the absurdity of them. Do you concede that your original definitions were absurd? If so, would you like to create new ones?

Please don't try to argue with pseudo-science. You can talk all you like about a godless multiverse, but until you prove its existence to me, I don't have to listen. That, my friend, is Atheism. That is also science. The response to any given claim is, "That's nice. Prove it." Until proof is proffered, the claim is either a theory (if some repeated testing indicates that it might be true) or a hypothesis. That is also, by the way, known as rationality---contrary to your last statement. (Ignoring the ad hominem, that is. Have I become an embittered idealist all of a sudden? Cool.)

It is impossible to say that "not natural" and "existing beyond the visible universe" are the same thing. Since the definition of "natural" that you established seemed to be "anything explained by science," you're defining anything not explained by science as "existing beyond the visible universe." That is the typical way for a religious fanatic to argue things: if science has not explained an event, God did it. But that is not a rational way to argue things, because it limits our thinking, defining us into stasis. (Which I pointed out later in that post.) The two states, under your definitions, are not mutually exclusive, therefore you cannot define one of them negatively. (I did not make that point clearly the first time around, and apologize for that.)

You launched into an abstract discussion of the fact that an understanding of "supernatural" cannot exist without the concept of "natural," which makes perfect sense. However, as I stated, the two are not mutually exclusive under your definitions.

I maintain that you do indeed assume that "natural" is static. Scientific progress is made when we witness an event that has no explanation according to the laws of our universe (which would be called "supernatural," according to your definitions, but not according to the dictionary), then study it until we have a better understanding of the laws within our universe. Science is always changing, and always ready to throw out the old in favor of the new. Therefore, as I said, to define "supernatural" as "not occurring according to the known laws of our universe" stops science from progressing and stagnates us. Indeed, that is one of the major problems with religious fanaticism, in my eyes.

I agree that Atheism and theism are mutually exclusive, so it's perfectly sensible to define one as a lack of the other. (Just a random thought: if the anti-concept didn't exist, we wouldn't need the concept, right? That is, if theism didn't exist, everyone would be an Atheist, and we wouldn't need a word for it, no?) The same did not apply to your statements. Once again, I am at fault for failing to qualify my comments about negative definitions. "Natural" and "supernatural" are not, however, mutually exclusive. But I've addressed that already.

This isn't a "semantical [sic] game," empr. This is an attempt to establish a foundation for a real discussion about Atheism and theism. We can't go anywhere until we have a set of definitions to work with, so I'm struggling to figure out what you were trying to say. And if what you were trying to say makes little or no sense, then I'm attacking it, as you cannot win an argument if you do so from an invalid premise.

[emprworm]

fine, ill cut the personal attacks.

[nemafakei]

Apologies if I've missed it: I believe a definition of what you believe to be "the universe" is also needed.

[danielsh]

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. Essentially, you are defining "supernatural" as "not explained by the laws of science." Under your definition, a supernatural event is indeed possible. However, that event does not have to remain supernatural.

Let me clarify. Imagine that I were to drop a ball, and it were to go up (away from the Earth) instead of down (towards the Earth). That would be, according to the working definition, supernatural. However, let us say that I were to then investigate the phenomenon, repeat it, study it, and find a cause for it---say, that my ball was charged with polarons (I've been playing much too much EV: Nova), a heretofore-undiscovered particle whose repulsive force was stronger than gravity's attractive force. I have thus changed the laws of science, and made the event "natural." Throughout history, there have been examples of events that seemed "supernatural" (by the working definition) but were, in fact, not "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." That's why we know more about our universe now than we did in the 16th century.

We can only argue based upon what we know to be true at this point. Any event occurring within the known universe---that is, within spacetime as we know it---must have a natural cause. Science is the study of our universe, and exists as a way to empirically and theoretically explain what is first thought to be "supernatural." There was a time when our existence on this planet was "supernatural" in both senses of the word. When Charles Darwin created his theory of evolution (a theory which can be easily proven on a microscopic level and one which only remains a theory on the macroscopic level due to the difficulty in repeated testing), our presence suddenly became a lot more natural.

An Atheist looks at a "supernatural" (working definition) event and says, "I refuse to attribute this to a deity or higher power. I will find out what Mr Scientist has to say." In this way, the Atheist philosophy is a good deal more rational and reasonable, as it makes the assumption that everything has an explanation. It refuses to eliminate any possibility but the supernatural (dictionary definition), which---by its very nature---restricts the number of possible explanations. If everyone in the world believed the Bible to be infallible, we would not know that the planet is roughly 4.65 billion years old. We would not know how we evolved. We would not know that there were other stars and planets. (Remember what the Church originally said? God is spinning spheres with points of light on them.) We would not know very much at all.

If you're going to bring the idea of multiple universes into the debate, then I believe that the definition of "natural" would have to be expanded to include them.

And I'm sorry that you interpreted my "absurd" comment as a personal attack---I was frustrated by the generalizations about what Atheists believe, considering that the Atheists here are probably in a better position to explain that :-P.

[emprworm]

"Essentially, you are defining "supernatural" as "not explained by the laws of science." Under your definition, a supernatural event is indeed possible. However, that event does not have to remain supernatural."

NO, not at all.

[danielsh]

An unexplained event would "lie beyond the laws of science," no?

I don't follow your chain of logic: If "natural" were to include other universes, then it would have to include God. I especially don't understand why you're working under the assumption that a god exists to include in any definition.

[emprworm]

An unexplained event would "lie beyond the laws of science," no?

lol of course not.  Ignorance does not determine objective reality.  an event is either supernatural (beyond the natural laws of science) or it is not.  Whether or not you know which one it is does not change the objective reality of the event.  Subjective knowledge does not determine objective existence.  A rather obvious principle, I would think.

[danielsh]

I don't understand what you're saying. If an event appears to lie beyond the laws of science, then the laws of science will change to accommodate it. We need not make the assumption that something unexplained by science as we know it should be attributed to some mystical and unexplainable entity. I've maintained that position throughout the course of this debate, and I do not think that you have refuted it yet.

[Inoculator9]

If an event appears to lie beyond the laws of science, then the laws of science will change to accommodate it.

Very apt. The very same point I made, but your talking to a very nutty person here. But, despite emprworm's very wild thoughts, lol, he can make you think ;) Rather than take up arguing the point again with him, that's all I'll say ;)

[emprworm]

I don't understand what you're saying. If an event appears to lie beyond the laws of science, then the laws of science will change to accommodate it. We need not make the assumption that something unexplained by science as we know it should be attributed to some mystical and unexplainable entity. I've maintained that position throughout the course of this debate, and I do not think that you have refuted it yet.

"mystical" has no meaning then.  If God exists, then the laws of science will change to accomodate?  What is "supernatural", if the laws of science will ensure that every event is "natural"?

natural no longer has any meaning

[danielsh]

No, it is "supernatural" that no longer has any meaning.

What is "supernatural", if the laws of science will ensure that every event is "natural"?

Non-existent, that's what. Hence Atheism.

[emprworm]

No, it is "supernatural" that no longer has any meaning.

Non-existent, that's what. Hence Atheism.

strange, because if God exists, then that means atheism is still true.

very wierd, dan

[Inoculator9]

"mystical" has no meaning then.  If God exists, then the laws of science will change to accomodate?  What is "supernatural", if the laws of science will ensure that every event is "natural"?

natural no longer has any meaning

No, perhaps God would have no meaning, at least by your logic.

strange, because if God exists, then that means atheism is still true.

very wierd, dan

I believe he makes the conclusion that since everything in the universe can be explained naturally, there is no God, while you make the conclusion that since there are things explained as supernatural, that there is a God.

[emprworm]

No, perhaps God would have no meaning, at least by your logic.

how is that?  Please explain how this is so.

I believe he makes the conclusion that since everything in the universe can be explained naturally, there is no God, while you make the conclusion that since there are things explained as supernatural, that there is a God.

i never made such a conclusion at all!  Please quote me how I said this, or where I said there are things explained as supernautral, and that there is a God.

unless you actually respond to what I say, please try to refrain from baseless accusations that only serve to push your bais against me.

[danielsh]

Well, you hit my conclusion right on the nose. Science is not limited in what it can explain, given the chance. Therefore, my conclusion is that there is no need to turn to any other mode of explanation. And extending that logic leads me to believe that there is no God.

strange, because if God exists, then that means atheism is still true.

very wierd, dan

If "God" can be explained by science, then is it still a god? Not according to what I've been taught. Perhaps we need a definition of God.