Posted on 05/25/2008 8:31:38 AM PDT by rhema
Unbelievers think that skepticism is their special virtue, the key virtue believers lack. Bolstered by bestselling authors, they see the skeptical and scientific mind as muscular thinking, which the believer has failed to develop. He could bulk up if he wished to, by thinking like a scientist, and wind up at the “agnosticism” of a Dawkins or the atheism of a Dennett—but that is just what he doesn’t want, so at every threat to his commitments he shuns science.
That story is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
Men of Truth
The story is right about virtue: The smoothly muscled skeptical-scientific mind is a gorgeous thing—picture the Apollo of Olympia, a poised young athlete in a throng of centaurs, passion-driven half-men. Science is a virtue: a perfection of the human creature gifted with a mind, a use of the mind that, says Aquinas, “perfects the speculative intellect for the consideration of truth.” But to be “men of truth,” in the words of Exodus, is to be vulnerable to truth.
Richard Dawkins speaks as a genuine scientist when he insists, “What I care about is what’s true; I want to know, is there a God in the universe or not?” Perfect. Truth is awaiting you, with its painful grip.
But on the question around which Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Grayling, Onfray, and voices still to come are now springing up—the question of God—the successor of Apollo is not the atheist or the agnostic. Both lack the great virtue of the scientist, the skeptical virtue. Here they are the hankerers after comfort, the scrawny ones who prefer their own commitments over reason.
No matter how excellent these thinkers might be on other questions, on this question they nimbly shift their allegiance: Between the life they like and
(Excerpt) Read more at touchstonemag.com ...
IMO, atheism is every bit “faith-based” as traditional religion. How can they possibly claim there absolutely is no god? Science can never prove that.
Let the solipsisms begin!
I would agree that Atheism requires more faith than a belief in a Creator, but, the atheists don’t go around claiming the earth is 6,000 years old, Jesus frolicked with dinosaurs, and Noah’s Ark was the exact dimensions listed in the bible.
Hence, they don’t get as much ridicule.
It's more faith based than belief in a Creator as they have to deny the obvious signs of His creation.
We don't. No disrespect intended, but we just find the claim that there is a God completely unconvincing. There's virtually no faith needed for that.
Also, I read Hitchen's book. Of course it is filled with his wittiness, but in essence he makes no case for Atheism, he just tears down the mainstream religions. That's ok and all, but I find it interesting that very few atheists actually make a case for their belief.. most merely point out the flaws in the mainstream religions.
“It’s more faith based than belief in a Creator as they have to deny the obvious signs of His creation.”
Circular reasoning nonsense.
True, but the word “creator” can have different meanings to different people.
It is, as it assumes that people naturally observe signs of creation, and there is no way to prove that one way or the other.
We don't. No disrespect intended, but we just find the claim that there is a God completely unconvincing. There's virtually no faith needed for that.
So then you're not sure? ie, it IS possible to convince you? But if that's the case, what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
First, this is the best article I've seen to argue against teaching ID in schools. It clearly makes the case that there is no material evidence of a creator.
What the scientific skeptic ought to say is this: “Having examined the hard evidence, we declare that route to be exhausted. The only kind of evidence for God’s existence that counts will have to be of some other kind—if there is any other kind.”
The author makes the claim that atheists and agnostics aren't scientists because they aren't skeptical about the possible existence of things for which there may be an alternative way of "knowing" other than material evidence, but of course, science is all about material evidence. Scientists expect that neutrinos exist and that protons decay, but they will not claim it as true until there is direct material evidence.
The logical and intellectual fallacy in the author's argument is that he uses his own unique definition for "exist" when applying it to god(s). In scientific and common uses, material evidence is required to state that something exists.
Although the author never tells us what he suspects this alternative way of knowing something is, he does imply a definition: "Accepting that something exists without any material evidence". This is of course a definition of "faith".
The author writes a long article quoting Pascal and Russell only to come up with the idiotic concept that atheists and agnostics aren't scientists because they don't operate on faith. He could have stayed at the "base camp" of the definition of atheism and agnosticism and saved himself several hundred meaningless words.
There’s no such thing as “agnosticism”, just people who are afraid to make a decision for themselves - you either believe in a deity or you don’t. Yes, there are some people who transit so far in the other direction that they’d never let evidence of a god shake their faith in atheism.
There was a time when matter did not exist, but there never was a time when nothing existed. Otherwise, nothing would exist now.
Perhaps, though there is a sound argument one could make that the only meaningful scientific theories are those that could, at least theoretically, be disproved. There is a theory that says electromagnetic radiation, regardless of wavelength, always travels at the same speed in a vacuum. Such theory could be disproved if it were discovered that some particular wavelength traveled at a different speed. I doubt such an 'oddball' wavelength will ever be discovered, but the theoretical possibility that it could be, combined with the fact that it hasn't, justifies the scientific theory that all wavelengths travel at the same speed.
I cannot conceive of any possible evidence that would prove that no god exists. Thus, it wouldn't matter how much evidence existed to suggest that a god does exist; the theory that he does would still not be sound science. On the other hand, the theory that no god exists would be more meaningful scientifically, since such a theory could, at least theoretically, be disproved by a god which demonstrated powers in a fashion not attributable to any explanation other than the existence of a god.
Going beyond questions of whether any god or gods exist, to questions about their nature, however, things get a little trickier. Consider the theory "there exist one or more gods, all of whom have the power and desire to conceal themselves perfectly". That theory, as expressed, could be falsified by the appearance of an unconcealed god. The exact counter-claim, "either there exist no gods, or there exist gods that cannot conceal themselves" could not by any evidence be proven false (the first part might be proven false by the appearance of an unconcealed god, but the second part could not be proven false by any means).
My own personal belief is that God exists, but that when the universe was created He decided on a set of rules He would follow in His interactions with it; He has made a few refinements to the rules over the years, generally by putting more restrictions on Himself (e.g. via the covenant with Noah). Although He has the power to change the world to be exactly as He'd like it, he decided long ago that to do certain things would be "cheating".
Imagine a more skilled person playing a game with a less-skilled person, but deciding beforehand on a certain handicap. If the handicap is well chosen, the game can provide a real and meaningful challenge to both players. If, however, the more skilled player decides he doesn't like his handicap and unilaterally changes it, then the game becomes entirely meaningless.
I could go on, but I'm straying a bit from the original topic; perhaps the latter discussion is best saved for another day.
What's wrong with simply teaching that people aren't sure how various plant and animal species came into being; there are a number of guesses, but (1) they all have some 'problems', and (2) even if a theory appeared to fit all evidence perfectly, that still wouldn't prove that things in fact happened the way the theory would suggest.
For example, suppose one observes a candelabra with four candles in it. Three appear to be unused and are 6" tall; the fourth, of similar composition and diameter, is burning but only measures 4" tall. One might reasonably guess that at some time the fourth candle was similar to the other three, but that it has burned down two inches. One wouldn't really know, however, and may very well be impossible to know for certain whether that fourth candle was, in fact, ever 6" tall.
I would suggest that evolution should be taught, with a very clear disclaimer that it seems to explain some things but that only by excessive extrapolation could it be proclaimed to explain everything.
And while we're on the subject of "matter" (and energy), consider the following analysis relating the strange workings of Quantum Mechanics to our own consciousness (it's not as crazy as it may first seem, and need not necessarily imply the existence of a creator)...
Lothar Schäfer is the author of the book, In Search of Divine Reality - Science as a Source of Inspiration, . The book is, in essence, a brilliant description of the encounter of Science and Religion, wherein Schäfer proposes “that the traditional conflict between the two disciplines is mainly one involving classical, Newtonian Science; and many of its most pressing issues have obtained an entirely different meaning by the change in world view effected by the discovery of Quantum Mechanics.”
Lothar Schäfer is the Edgar Wertheim Distinguished Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He received his Ph.D. (in Chemistry) from the University of Munich in 1965, and is the recipient of numerous awards for his scientific work. His current research interests include topics in Applied Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Structural Studies by Electron Diffraction.
In a review of Schäfer’s book, Professor Quentin Smith, Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, writes:
“Schäfer’s book is an integrative approach to Modern Science and Religion that aims to show how some traditional religious and philosophical notions can be understood or redefined in terms of modern science. The scientific explanations are reliable and the scientific interpretations of religious ideas are interesting and should be taken seriously and respectfully by even the most sober-minded adherents of the scientific world-view. Rather than science being opposed or subordinated to religion, religious views are refashioned in terms of currently accepted scientific theories. Most of the arguments of the book are based on conclusions drawn from the phenomena of quantum reality and it is one of the clearest introductory explanations of quantum mechanics on the market. Schäfer’s book is written in a lively and accessible style that will appeal to the general reader. I really enjoyed reading this book.”
On the Foundations of Metaphysics in the
Mind-like Background of Physical Reality
by Lothar Schäfer
That the basis of the material world is non-material is a transcription of the fact that the properties of things are determined by quantum waves, - probability amplitudes which carry numerical relations, but are devoid of mass and energy. As a consequence of the wave-like aspects of reality, atoms do not have any shape - a solid outline in space - but the things do, which they form; and the constituents of matter, the elementary particles, are not in the same sense real as the real things that they constitute.
Rather, left to themselves they exist in a world of possibilities, “between the idea of a thing and a real thing”, as Heisenberg wrote, in superpositions of quantum states, in which a definite place in space, for example, is not an intrinsic attribute. That is, when such a particle is not observed it is, in particular, nowhere.
In the quantum phenomena we have discovered that reality is different than we thought. Visible order and permanence are based on chaos and transitory entities. Mental principles - numerical relations, mathematical forms, principles of symmetry - are the foundations of order in the universe, whose mind-like properties are further established by the fact that changes in information can act, without any direct physical intervention, as causal agents in observable changes in quantum states. Prior to the discovery of these phenomena information-driven reactions were a prerogative of mind. “The universe”, Eddington wrote, “is of the nature of a thought. The stuff of the world is mind-stuff”.
Mind-stuff, in a part of reality behind the mechanistic foreground of the world of space-time energy sensibility, as Sherrington called it, is not restricted to Einstein locality. The existence of non-local physical effects - faster than light phenomena - has now been well established by quantum coherence-type experiments like those related to Bell’s Theorem. If the universe is non-local, something that happens at this moment in its depths may have an instantaneous effect a long distance away, for example right here and right now. By every molecule in our body we are tuned to the mind-stuff of the universe.
In this way the quantum phenomena have forced the opening of a universe that Newton’s mechanism once blinded and closed. Unintended by its creator, Newton’s mechanics defined a machine, without any life or room for human values, the Parmenidian One, forever unchanging and predictable, “eternal matter ruled by eternal laws”, as Sheldrake wrote. In contrast, the quantum phenomena have revealed that the world of mechanism is just the cortex of a deeper and wider, transcendent, reality. The future of the universe is open, because it is unpredictable. Its present is open, because it is subject to non-local influences that are beyond our control. Cracks have formed in the solidity of the material world from which emanations of a different type of reality seep in. In the diffraction experiments of material particles, a window has opened to the world of Platonic ideas.
That the universe should be mind-like and not communicate with the human mind - the one organ to which it is akin - is not very likely. In fact, one of the most fascinating faculties of the human mind is its ability to be inspired by unknown sources - as though it were sensitive to signals of a mysterious origin. It is at this point that the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Ever since the discovery of Hume’s paradox - the principles that we use to establish scientific knowledge cannot establish themselves - science has had an illegitimate basis. Hume was right: in every external event we observe conjunction, but infer connection. Thus, causality is not a principle of nature but a habit of the human mind. At the same time, Hume was not right in postulating that there is no single experience of causality. Because, when the self-conscious mind itself is directly involved in a causal link, for example when its associated body takes part in a collision, or when the mind by its own free will is the cause of some action, then there is a direct experience of, and no doubt that, causal connections exist. When this modification of the paradox is coupled with the quantum base, a large number of pressing problems find their delightful solutions.
Like the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge is counter-intuitive, and not at all like the automatic confidence that we have in sensations of this phenomenon. The basis of knowledge is threefold. The premises are experience of reality, employment of reason, and reliance on certain non-rational, non-empirical principles, such as the Assumptions of identity, factuality, permanence, Causality, and induction. Where do these principles come from? Neither from an experience of external phenomena, nor from a process of reasoning, but from a system program of the self-conscious mind. By being an extension of the mind-like background of nature and partaking of its order, mind gives the epistemic principles - those used in deriving knowledge - certainty. Since they are not anchored in the world of space-time and mass-energy but are valid nevertheless, they seem to derive from a higher order and transcendent part of physical reality. They are, it can be assumed, messengers of the mind-like order of reality.
In the same way, moral principles. Traditional societies based their social order on myths and religious explanations. By assuming a purpose in the world, they told people why things are the way they are, and why they should act the way they were supposed to act. In the “animist ontogenies” values and knowledge derived from a single source, and life had meaning in an “animist covenant” as Monod called it. By destroying the ontological base of the animist explanations, - their astronomy, physics, and chemistry, - science also destroyed the foundations of their values.
In this process Monod saw the origin of the contemporary sickness in culture, das Unbehagen in der Kultur: on the one hand science is the basis for our power and survival; on the other, it has broken the animist covenant, rendered life meaningless in the process, and disconnected the world of values from the world of facts.
The sickness of spirit and the concomitant erosion of moral standards are the great danger for the future of mankind, already apparent in the public adoration of violence and debased behavior. At its roots is the unsolved question, on whose authority are the moral principles to be based now that the authority of the animist myths has been found lacking?
For those who are willing to listen, the answer is: on the authority of mind. In the same way that the self-conscious mind grants certainty to the epistemic principles, it invests authority in the moral principles. Like the former, the moral principles are non-empirical and non-rational, - not derived by a process of logic nor verified by experience - messengers from a higher reality beyond the front of mass-energy sensibility.
Epistemic principles give us a sense of what is true and false; moral principles, of what is right and wrong. The former establish the certainty of identity, permanence, factuality, causality; the latter, of responsibility, morality, honesty. By the same process that allows us to accept, without possible verification, the epistemic principles, we can also accept the authority of the moral principles. Violation of any one of them will put us in contrast to the nature of reality. If the nature of the universe is mind-like, it must be assumed to have a spiritual order as well as a physical order. As the epistemic principles are expressions of physical order, the ethical principles are expressions of the spiritual order of physical reality. By being an extension of the transcendent part of the nature and partaking of its order, mind establishes the authority of the ethical principles.
The challenge of reality and the ability to explore it are wonderful gifts to mankind. Understanding reality requires refinement of thought. That is, it has to do with culture. It requires an effort, is not afforded by automatic, intuitive reflex. Making sense of the world takes the response to a challenge, not the complacency of common sense. It is one and the same as striving for the moral life. An important part of it is the need to become aware of the specific character of human nature, to recognize “the human mystery” as Eccles called it: the mystery of how mind and body interact, how self-conscious human beings with values emerged in an evolutionary process supposedly based on blind chance and brutality. The evidence is growing that there is more to human nature than the laws of physics or chemistry, more to the process of evolution than blind chance and brutality; that evolution is more than, as Monod wrote, “a giant lottery, and human beings live at the boundary of an alien world that is deaf to our music and indifferent to our hopes and suffering and crimes”.
The barbaric view of reality is mechanistic. It is the easy view of classical science and of common sense. In epistemology mechanism is naive realism, the view that all knowledge is based on unquestionable facts, on apodictically verified truths. In physics mechanism is the view that the universe is clockwork, closed, and entirely predictable on the basis of unchanging laws. In biology, mechanism is the view that all aspects of life, its evolution, our feelings and values, are ultimately explicable in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. In our legal system, mechanism is the view that the assumption of precise procedural technicalities constitutes perfect justice. In our political system, mechanism is the view that the assertion of finely formulated personal rights constitutes the ideal democracy. In our public administration, it is the view that responsible service manifests itself by the enforcement of finely split bureaucratic regulations. All of these attitudes are the attitudes of barbarians.
The quantum phenomena have taught us that, without naive realism, knowledge is possible. They have taught us that, without naive animism an ethic of knowledge, as Monod has called it, and a life with values are possible. Principles exist which are valid even though they cannot be verified. The discovery of the quantum phenomena has established a new covenant - between the human mind and the mind-like background of the universe - one that provides a home again to the homeless and meaning to the meaningless life. Whether or not the human mind is separate of the brain, as Sherrington and Eccles thought, I do not know. But I do not doubt that it is human only in some parts, and in others shares in the mind-like background of the universe. It is now possible to believe that the mind is the realization of universal potentia, a manifestation of the essence of the universe. Therefore, the only good life is in harmony with the nature of reality.
Morning. Is this a religious thread, or an anti-religious thread? (just joking, and you know why : )
which means that the skeptics were ‘searching’ for God. And since they didn’t find God, or material evidence, then God must not exist.
So, I ask skeptics , What were you looking for, and where were you looking for it?
If you are looking in the wrong place, for the wrong thing,
and you don’t find it, how does one consider that to be a success?
A ‘thing’ is material. The search is conducted in the material world. The ‘thing’ must ‘exist’, in the material world, to be accepted by skeptics.
God does not ‘exist’. God is not material. God is not ‘out there’. God is not in the Universe.
God is the universe.
To find God, one must look where the ‘universe’ is contained.
There is only one place, and that is in our mind.
Maybe they haven’t ‘found’ God, because they haven’t ‘needed’ God?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.