Thoughts on Atheism

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm not talking about evolution - I'm talking about more fundamental issues than that. The point is that for atheists to account for the very existence of reality, they have to resort to saying "something came from nothing". In other words, once upon a time there was absolutely nothing, and from that, everything came - of its own accord.

The onus is on the atheist to provide evidence that something can come from nothing. Unfortunately, it defies logic, and defies physics. Something can not come from nothing. Most thinking atheists are well aware of the problem, and they come up with intellectual contortions to escape it (for example, the universe is continually contracting to nothing and then expanding outwards; or there are infinite universes; or universes pop in and out of existence like bubbles inside a bigger universe; or, if they're lazy the universe has always been here) but the best they can come up with is a postulation.

Of course, the same problem exists for theists, who usually explain the problem away by saying "god has always existed, and he created the universe" - which is equally inadequate.



I think you're confused about what logic means. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun does not "defy logic". It follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics. Unfortunately, the idea that all of creation could have sprang from nothingness (or 'a singularity') does not.

The one disagreement I have with you may be over your use of the term "atheists" insofar as that implies a disbelief in God, and might further require one to disprove the arguments for God's existence. (Which, as you would know if you have ever attempted to discuss the thing with a fervently committed believer, is impossible.)

If on the other hand we spoke of agnostics, they don't have to prove anything since they assert nothing but that we don't have any final, irrefutable answers. Keats wrote in a letter to a contemporary:

[QUOTE]I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason. [QUOTE]

But the "irritable reaching after fact & reason" appears to be hard-wired into many & perhaps all of us, a condition that is liable to produce 'answers' at whatever cost, the cost at times of reason or common sense. There is a saying about Russians, that they are the most patient people until hope enters the room. Once children become aware of Christmas (in its secular practice, i.e., presents), it can never come soon enough. Similarly, I suggest, with that glimmer of An Answer to Everything, i.e. religion.

[Noisms]

If on the other hand we spoke of agnostics, they don't have to prove anything since they assert nothing but that we don't have any final, irrefutable answers.

Exactly, which is why agnosticism is the most intellectually honest belief (or lack of it). Both atheists and theists are forced to make leaps of faith by virtue of their conception of how we came to exist (and because neither of their positions is possible to prove or disprove), whereas agnostics can quite happily say "It's impossible to know".

(Which, as you would know if you have ever attempted to discuss the thing with a fervently committed believer, is impossible.)

It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.

[Noisms]

Is it a leap of faith (for and atheist) or he limit of understanding? If I have concluded that there is no god (rejecting one idea for creation) and something cannot be created from "nothing" .. a singularity.. have I simply arrived at a point where my understanding fails or do I have a dilemma as you have describe. The existence of another problem does not make any previous postulate valid or invalid. I only makes for a bad answer to the retort what then?

You still have the dilemma, because your position is still an unproven and unprovable one - just like a theist's is. You're still making a statement of faith, even if that statement boils down to "I don't believe there is a God, and nor do I believe that something can come from nothing, but I must just have reached a point where my understanding fails", because it has as much worth as saying "I believe God created the world" or "I believe something can come from nothing" or even "I believe in a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster". None of these beliefs are provable or disprovable.

[MaryLupin]

I think you're confused about what logic means. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun does not "defy logic". It follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics. Unfortunately, the idea that all of creation could have sprang from nothingness (or 'a singularity') does not.

My point was that the fact that the earth revolves around the sun did in fact "defy logic" to the vast majority of humanity during the battle between geo- and heliocentrism. In fact, it still defies the logic of the few that consider heliocentrism an "atheist plot" (no, I'm not kidding.) My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding. Finally, what the people of Copernicus' and Galileo's time thought about the "illogic" of the notion that the earth flies through the skies is accessible online and through scientific historic reading. Now we know that it "follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics," but then we didn't. It only took us what? 200 years for the majority of us to get to the place where we think heliocentrism is logical? So I expect that in another 200 or so abiogenesis will also seem "obvious."

[Redzeppelin]

My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding.

A good point; at the risk of being annoying, I will add that this idea works also in terms of God: many atheists dismiss God because they don't see "evidence" of Him, and they see the creation of the world ex nihilo by God as an event that "defies logic." The "illogical" nature of God, Christianity, or religious belief in gerneral may also be a matter of the "state of our understanding" - the difference being that - in terms of science our understanding is an empirical/observational matter of the material world; in terms of God, it is spiritual matter of the heart.

[Noisms]

My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding. Finally, what the people of Copernicus' and Galileo's time thought about the "illogic" of the notion that the earth flies through the skies is accessible online and through scientific historic reading. Now we know that it "follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics," but then we didn't. It only took us what? 200 years for the majority of us to get to the place where we think heliocentrism is logical? So I expect that in another 200 or so abiogenesis will also seem "obvious."

Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

With respect, it's akin to saying "I expect that in another 200 years or so the fact that two plus two equals five will also seem 'obvious'".

It certainly isn't any different to a theist saying "I expect in 200 years that everybody will believe in god, because it will have been proved" or, indeed, an agnostic saying "I expect in 200 years that people still won't be sure". All you're doing is moving the same argument 200 years into the future, and the same problems remain.

Besides, in 200 years time when abiogenesis will supposedly seem obvious, who's to say that in 400 years time it won't? Who's to say that in 800 years, we won't have proved that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn?

[JCamilo]

Exactly, which is why agnosticism is the most intellectually honest belief (or lack of it). Both atheists and theists are forced to make leaps of faith by virtue of their conception of how we came to exist (and because neither of their positions is possible to prove or disprove), whereas agnostics can quite happily say "It's impossible to know".

I feel tempted to argue that an Atheist I do not have to prove anything and I will be more than happy to believe in God if it is proved he exists. Also, I fall to understand the how we came to exist (I suppose you mean universe creation or life) which are unknown stuff and under study, and this is what I believe (I prefer to say I do not know) is similar to the position of the theist "I know, it is like thisinsert here the particular belief)...

This make me remember of Chesterton (this actually the Negative Capacity of Keats). Chesterton, although christian held all beliefs as possible and pointed that atheists are losing some "magic" because they did not experimented it.
However a follower of Particular faith actually does not operate with such openess - they exclude all other possibilities as well.

It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.

Dangerous generalization in my opinion but a aspect of Faith is the lack of objectivism because Faith is subjective and arguments that have the tendencies to be subjective are usually more "fanatics" but I have meet religious people who are perfectly reasonable and also atheists that are short-sighed due their fanatical trust in the science as well.

[Noisms]

I feel tempted to argue that an Atheist I do not have to prove anything and I will be more than happy to believe in God if it is proved he exists. Also, I fall to understand the how we came to exist (I suppose you mean universe creation or life) which are unknown stuff and under study, and this is what I believe (I prefer to say I do not know) is similar to the position of the theist "I know, it is like thisinsert here the particular belief)...

What I mean by that is, Atheists are faced with the problem that they can never satisfactorily answer how and why things came to exist the way they do. Even if it is proved that a singularity sprang from nothing, the question remains: why? And how? Likewise if the universe is just a bubble that popped into existence inside a bigger universe. How? Why? What put the bigger universe there? Was it just 'always there'?

Likewise Theists have to confront the question: Who or what created god? Or was he just 'always there'?

If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

With respect, it's akin to saying "I expect that in another 200 years or so the fact that two plus two equals five will also seem 'obvious'".

It certainly isn't any different to a theist saying "I expect in 200 years that everybody will believe in god, because it will have been proved" or, indeed, an agnostic saying "I expect in 200 years that people still won't be sure". All you're doing is moving the same argument 200 years into the future, and the same problems remain.

Besides, in 200 years time when abiogenesis will supposedly seem obvious, who's to say that in 400 years time it won't? Who's to say that in 800 years, we won't have proved that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn?

Aren't you being a touch literal-minded here? When the poster said that she "expects" abiogenesis to have been proven within the next 200 or so years, I don't know that she would be prepared to wager her descendents fortune on it.

But even within the community of believers, notwithstanding how much has been shed since religion began, I would bet that the concept of a divinity which has been around for many more millennia than e.g. Christianity, without any more proof of its validity, will still be clung to tenaciously by the billions who believe it now, no matter what science has turned up.

And some among those billions will still be saying, Oh sure you've proven that within your naturalistic framework, but... as if the material earth were not beneath their feet, the material sun did not pour down its material light, and the seasons did not go on turning.

[Noisms]

Aren't you being a touch literal-minded here?

Not really. I'm pointing out that you can't form a sensible argument around the idea that, just because something was proved to be wrong in the past (heliocentrism), other things will necessarily be proven wrong in the future (the fact that something can't come from nothing). It just doesn't follow; the two things are completely unrelated.

[JCamilo]

What I mean by that is, Atheists are faced with the problem that they can never satisfactorily answer how and why things came to exist the way they do. Even if it is proved that a singularity sprang from nothing, the question remains: why? And how? Likewise if the universe is just a bubble that popped into existence inside a bigger universe. How? Why? What put the bigger universe there? Was it just 'always there'?

Wait, what if I do not need such answers? I know, some people get really upset around internet debating because someone would go with the tangency : "Evolution is not proved because life demands a creator and the Big Bang is not accepted" or anything, but that is not really like what makes an atheist. I for once just accept that eventually things are going to be discovered and new misteries too and I am aware than even if some deity would prove me to be real, it can means - the possibilities are big - he had nothing to do with the gods we know today.
What we can not do is a turn over to XVII century. That Science have not answered everything is fine, but it does not mean we have to erase everything else. People bring back teological, philosophical and even scientific arguments that were buried long ago and still present the same source of evidence which wasn't satisfactory 200 years ago - they are not really asking for a exchange of ideas.

If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.

Wait, Atheism is born from Greek Philosophy, the constant development of the skeptcism. The Atheism of moderm age was an evolution cause by enlightment confront with tradition that generated romanticism which ignored even more the traditions (classicism, monarchies, the church) etc.
At given point it just seemed to be natural to be atheist since all natural laws operate without interference, it started to be hard to keep a believe in a god.
I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just confortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".
Let's remember that forms of theism include biblical literalism and others just pure deism and they are far different intelectual wise from each other.

[Orionsbelt]

I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just comfortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".

I'm not sure that this captures the idea. I think it is more I don't know what is possible than anything is possible. Since.... I find myself in this space often enough. Although I'm ready to identify myself as an official member of the "not know it crowd" I have a tendency to feel very sad to believe that science and the study of nature will answer everything. Then truly you will have entered the matrix ... at which point I will go take a genesis pill and return to my cube.

[MaryLupin]

Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

Noisms, that is not what I said. I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true. What I said was because abiogenesis seems illogical to you has about as much impact on the truth potential of the theory as did the comparable doubt of the truth potential of heliocentrism had on it. In other words, just because you cannot see the logic of this new paradigm, does not mean it isn't logical. It just means you cannot see the logic in it. The usage of another example of the same mistake in history (thinking our understanding or lack there of has some impact on what is actually true) was meant to show you that this is a common human failing. It (and declaring a theory "illogical" without actually understanding it) also demonstrates that we humans rarely learn from our mistakes either personal or global.

[Noisms]

Noisms, that is not what I said. I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true. What I said was because abiogenesis seems illogical to you has about as much impact on the truth potential of the theory as did the comparable doubt of the truth potential of heliocentrism had on it. In other words, just because you cannot see the logic of this new paradigm, does not mean it isn't logical. It just means you cannot see the logic in it. The usage of another example of the same mistake in history (thinking our understanding or lack there of has some impact on what is actually true) was meant to show you that this is a common human failing. It (and declaring a theory "illogical" without actually understanding it) also demonstrates that we humans rarely learn from our mistakes either personal or global.

Fine, but again, you're just removing the same problem to a slightly different point of debate. The Atheist says "Just because you can't see the logic in the paradigm, doesn't make it illogical"; the Theist says "Just because you can't feel God, doesn't mean he isn't there". Great, but again, nothing has been proved, and nothing has been argued.

Perhaps the word 'illogical' is confusing the issue: essentially, abiogenesis has as much chance of being proved true as any other given theory on how the universe came into being - it was created by God, it has always been there, it came from a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster - and that's what I meant by illogical; it is not logically possible to prove or disprove any of those theories - which means that whichever one you choose to believe in, you're doing so by faith (or gut feeling, or emotion).

(And by the way, it's a bit disingenuous of you to say "I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true" - in fact, you quite clearly stated that "it only took 200 years for heliocentrism to have been proved right, so I expect in 200 years abiogenesis will seem logical".)

[Noisms]

Wait, what if I do not need such answers? I know, some people get really upset around internet debating because someone would go with the tangency : "Evolution is not proved because life demands a creator and the Big Bang is not accepted" or anything, but that is not really like what makes an atheist. I for once just accept that eventually things are going to be discovered and new misteries too and I am aware than even if some deity would prove me to be real, it can means - the possibilities are big - he had nothing to do with the gods we know today.

Does that not make you an agnostic, then, rather than an atheist? The point of atheism is that there is no god: a position of faith, given that the postulation cannot be proved. Your argument sounds like the classical "we can't possibly know" stance of an agnostic.

Wait, Atheism is born from Greek Philosophy, the constant development of the skeptcism. The Atheism of moderm age was an evolution cause by enlightment confront with tradition that generated romanticism which ignored even more the traditions (classicism, monarchies, the church) etc.

I know how Atheism was born - I was talking about why people choose to believe it, which is a different thing altogether. I would argue that they do so because of emotion and feeling rather than the rational reasons they often give.

At given point it just seemed to be natural to be atheist since all natural laws operate without interference, it started to be hard to keep a believe in a god.

But don't you think, at some point, the question has to be answered as to how all those natural laws came about? Was it just by accident? In which case, what started the accident? Another accident? Ever unto infinity? It's fine if you want to believe that, as long as you understand it's a chosen belief with as much rational validity as "God created the natural laws".

I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just confortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".
Let's remember that forms of theism include biblical literalism and others just pure deism and they are far different intelectual wise from each other.

You're probably right - Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all equally comforting in their own ways, which is why everybody believes in something. But I think Agnosticism is the most - in fact, the only - rational belief, because the others rely on unprovable assertions. (That isn't to say Theists or Atheists are wrong. Either might well turn out to be correct.)