Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Irrational Atheist
WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/17/03 | Vox Day

Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7

The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.

That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.

The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.

In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.

The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.

In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.

Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 921-923 next last
To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Tribune7
...the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) claim to being rational rests on the worldview that: "all that there is" is all that exists in nature.

That worldview is not shared by many (if not most) physicists and mathematicians - the most epistemologically zealous of all the disciplines. It is also not shared by most philosophers and the general public.

Well said. I would add that the Materialist cultural filter is strong enough that whatever glimpse of the immaterial appears in nature, and such glipses do occur, is mocked, discredited or ignored by the High Priests of Secular Humanism. But they have only words.

481 posted on 11/21/2003 10:46:38 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
IMHO, the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) claim to being rational rests on the worldview that: "all that there is" is all that exists in nature.

I'm not sure of that. I could be wrong here, because I've never made any study of atheists' literature (published debates and such) but I think atheism comes in a few flavors:

1. Strong: I'm certain that there are no gods.
2. Middle: I see no evidence, therefore I don't believe in gods.
3. Weak: I have no clue one way or the other. (Is this agnostic?)
I think you are mostly speaking about the first variety. Frankly I've rarely encountered that type. Most of the athesists who post around here are of the 2nd type. Maybe some are the 3d. Or so it seems to me.
482 posted on 11/21/2003 10:46:42 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
glipses = glimpses ... Wish I could spell ... or type ... or both.
483 posted on 11/21/2003 11:00:34 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
I would add that the Materialist cultural filter is strong enough that whatever glimpse of the immaterial appears in nature, and such glipses do occur, is mocked, discredited or ignored by the High Priests of Secular Humanism.

That cultural filter is so strong that, in most cases, you couldn't pry it off with a crow bar. :^)

Sometimes I think that Darwin was right -- and that the adherents of materialist opinion/ideology are a separate line of human development, a new species altogether! :^) Unfortunately, I'm not sure that willfully self-imposed narrow-mindedness will translate as an increase in survival fitness in the long run....

But of course, Phaedrus -- I'm just joking....

Thanks so much for the ping!

484 posted on 11/21/2003 11:01:55 AM PST by betty boop (God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world. -- Paul Dirac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Thank you so much for your insight and for the kudos!

I would add that the Materialist cultural filter is strong enough that whatever glimpse of the immaterial appears in nature, and such glipses do occur, is mocked, discredited or ignored by the High Priests of Secular Humanism. But they have only words.

I agree that the information we receive has been highly filtered. Most disturbing to me is that anomalous data may either not be addressed at all, footnoted or glossed over.

WRT to the mocking – there is more poison in the handle than the point.

485 posted on 11/21/2003 11:04:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It requires much more faith -- not reason -- to be an atheist than to believe in a creator. . . .Justify this statement.

I'm defining atheist as someone who rejects the possibility of forces that can't be measured while recognizing reality. This requires the atheist to believe the world around us came about solely through radom reactions between matter and energy. The probabilities of this occuring are low. So low, in fact, you need a faith much blinder than mine to accept them.

Now, you can make an argument that there is an undiscovered (measurable) force that will make this explanation sensisble. But that's faith, and it's faith based on nothing more than a deeply held belief that God can't exist. And a deeply held belief that something is impossible without evidence of it being impossible is irrational.

And I haven't even discussed the First Law of Thermodynamics or the axiomatic impossibilitiy of the spontaneous generation of life.

486 posted on 11/21/2003 11:07:52 AM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Actually, it's not. See post 486.
487 posted on 11/21/2003 11:09:12 AM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so very much for your thoughtful post!

1. Strong: I'm certain that there are no gods.

2. Middle: I see no evidence, therefore I don't believe in gods.

3. Weak: I have no clue one way or the other. (Is this agnostic?)

Indeed, the third category I would call agnosticism. And I agree with you that most of the atheists on this forum are of the second type.

There are a few of the first category - but it translates more as a statement of defiance - "I will not serve" - a rebellion perhaps against something they once believed.

488 posted on 11/21/2003 11:09:12 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
IMHO, the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) claim to being rational rests on the worldview that: "all that there is" is all that exists in nature.

Ditto that.

489 posted on 11/21/2003 11:11:11 AM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Physicist; tortoise; Doctor Stochastic

IMHO, the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) claim to being rational rests on the worldview that: "all that there is" is all that exists in nature.

Well, "nature" really means that set of observed phenomena that have causes that are regular & predictable (at least in principle).

The atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there are no extra dimensions or different universes with different laws of nature or whatever operating. We believe there's no evidence of any "person" behind the existence of this universe. There has to be some evidence or good inferences that such things exist. IMNSHO :-) the belief that there's a person of some kind behind it all has no good evidence, and seems pretty obviously a case of anthropomorphism.

That worldview is not shared by many (if not most) physicists and mathematicians - the most epistemologically zealous of all the disciplines. It is also not shared by most philosophers and the general public.

OK, I'll have to bring in a physicist & some mathematicians on this. Guys, how would you characterize physicists & mathematicians in general WRT the existence of a supernatural world with a supernatural person governing our universe & lives?

490 posted on 11/21/2003 11:11:33 AM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that willfully self-imposed narrow-mindedness will translate as an increase in survival fitness in the long run....

<sigh> Unfortunately, whenever I hear a supernaturalist call an a-supernaturalist "narrow-minded", I think of the dictum: "Always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

If we're separate lines of human development, then maybe "Atheists are from Earth; Theists are from Atlantis"! ;-)

491 posted on 11/21/2003 11:18:30 AM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
(with all due respect.)
492 posted on 11/21/2003 11:18:57 AM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Physicist; tortoise; Doctor Stochastic; betty boop; Phaedrus; Tribune7
Thank you so much for your very engaging reply!

OK, I'll have to bring in a physicist & some mathematicians on this. Guys, how would you characterize physicists & mathematicians in general WRT the existence of a supernatural world with a supernatural person governing our universe & lives?

You’ve anthromorphized my statement, jennyp. I said:

That worldview ["all that there is" is all that exists in nature] is not shared by many (if not most) physicists and mathematicians - the most epistemologically zealous of all the disciplines.

Therefore the conversation needs to address the Plato v Aristotle debate, not a “supernatural person” to address the pros and cons of the worldview: "all that there is" is all that exists in nature.

betty boop and I are on the Plato side with Godel, Penrose, Tegmark and others.

493 posted on 11/21/2003 11:22:59 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
I'm defining atheist as someone who rejects the possibility of forces that can't be measured while recognizing reality.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle stipulates that there are forces that can't be measured (like the exact velocity and position of a particle at the same time). If you're speaking of forces that can't be measured under any circumstances, then I don't reject them -- I simply have no use for them. If they can't be detected, then there's nothing useful that can be determined from them.

This requires the atheist to believe the world around us came about solely through radom reactions between matter and energy. The probabilities of this occuring are low.

Please show the calculations of these probabilities. Show work.

So low, in fact, you need a faith much blinder than mine to accept them.

Thus far your argument seems to be "I can't imagine how this world came to exist through natural processes, therefore supernatural processes must be involved." That's called the argument from ignorance.

Now, you can make an argument that there is an undiscovered (measurable) force that will make this explanation sensisble. But that's faith, and it's faith based on nothing more than a deeply held belief that God can't exist.

I make no arguments as to the origin of the planet or the universe apart from the argument that it must have happened in some way or another, because here we are. Further, I've never stated that "God can't exist". I've only stated that, thus far, I've seen no reason to believe that the god you worship or that any gods worshipped by other people exist.

And I haven't even discussed the First Law of Thermodynamics or the axiomatic impossibilitiy of the spontaneous generation of life.

I await any arguments that you make regarding these topics.
494 posted on 11/21/2003 11:35:12 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Physicist; tortoise; Doctor Stochastic; betty boop; Phaedrus; Tribune7
To frame the Plato v. Aristotle debate for Lurkers – here’s an excerpt from an article I wrote:

The debate about whether constructs are real has raged from the time of Plato and Aristotle. It was argued by Einstein and Gödel and is being argued today by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. They are two different worldviews which cannot be reconciled.

By extension, the debate goes to the issue of when to stop looking. For instance, Hawking is content when an experiment confirms the theory, but Penrose wants the theory to also make sense.

I am a Platonist - more like Penrose than Hawking. For instance, I perceive that geometry exists in reality and the mathematician comes along and discovers it, e.g. pi, Schwarzschild Geometry, Riemannian Geometry and so on. As a Platonist, I would ask “Why pi? Why not something else?”

It is important to know and/or pick a side because it has a lot to do with how this information (and other science information) will be understood. Here are the two sides:

Parallel Universes - Max Tegmark

According to the Aristotelian paradigm, physical reality is fundamental and mathematical language is merely a useful approximation. According to the Platonic paradigm, the mathematical structure is the true reality and observers perceive it imperfectly. In other words, the two paradigms disagree on which is more basic, the frog perspective of the observer or the bird perspective of the physical laws. The Aristotelian paradigm prefers the frog perspective, whereas the Platonic paradigm prefers the bird perspective....

A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime--the bird perspective--these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta--a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: the universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.

As a way out of this conundrum, I have suggested that complete mathematical symmetry holds: that all mathematical structures exist physically as well. Every mathematical structure corresponds to a parallel universe. The elements of this multiverse do not reside in the same space but exist outside of space and time. Most of them are probably devoid of observers. This hypothesis can be viewed as a form of radical Platonism, asserting that the mathematical structures in Plato's realm of ideas or the "mindscape" of mathematician Rudy Rucker of San Jose State University exist in a physical sense. It is akin to what cosmologist John D. Barrow of the University of Cambridge refers to as "pi in the sky," what the late Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick called the principle of fecundity and what the late Princeton philosopher David K. Lewis called modal realism. Level IV brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, because any self-consistent fundamental physical theory can be phrased as some kind of mathematical structure.

What is Mathematics?

The view [Platonism] as pointed out earlier is this: Mathematics exists. It transcends the human creative process, and is out there to be discovered. Pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is just as true and real here on Earth as it is on the other side of the galaxy. Hence the book's title Pi in the Sky. This is why it is thought that mathematics is the universal language of intelligent creatures everywhere....

Barrow goes on to discuss Platonic views in detail. The most interesting idea is what Platonist mathematics has to say about Artificial Intelligence (it does not think it is really possible). The final conclusion of Platonism is one of near mysticism. Barrow writes:

We began with a scientific image of the world that was held by many in opposition to a religious view built upon unverifiable beliefs and intuitions about the ultimate nature of things. But we have found that at the roots of the scientific image of the world lies a mathematical foundation that is itself ultimately religious. All our surest statements about the nature of the world are mathematical statements, yet we do not know what mathematics "is" ... and so we find that we have adapted a religion strikingly similar to many traditional faiths. Change "mathematics" to "God" and little else might seem to change. The problem of human contact with some spiritual realm, of timelessness, of our inability to capture all with language and symbol -- all have their counterparts in the quest for the nature of Platonic mathematics. (pg. 296-297)

Ultimately, Platonism also is just as problematic as Formalism, Inventionism and Intuitionism, because of its reliance on the existence of an immaterial world. That math should have a mystical nature is a curiosity we are naturally attracted to, but ultimately does not really matter. Platonism can think of a mathematical world as an actual reality or as a product of our collective imaginations. If it is a reality then our ability to negotiate Platonic realms is limited to what we can know, if it is a product of our collective imaginations then mathematics is back to an invention of sorts. True or not our knowledge of mathematics is still limited by our brains.

Do there exist mathematical theorems that our brains could never comprehend? If so, then Platonic mathematical realms may exist, if not then math is a human invention. We may as well ask, "Is there a God?" The answer for or against does not change our relationship to mathematics. Mathematics is something that we as humans can understand as far as we need...

Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow - Roger Penrose

9.2 Moreover, in the particular Gödelian arguments that are needed for Part 1 of Shadows, there is no need to consider as "unassailable", any mathematical proposition other than a P-sentence (or perhaps the negation of such a sentence). Even in the very weakest form of Platonism, the truth or falsity of P-sentences is an absolute matter. I should be surprised if even Moravec's robot could make much of a case for alternative attitudes with regard to P-sentences (though it is true that some strong intuitionists have troubles with unproved P-sentences). There is no problem of the type that Feferman is referring to, when he brings up the matter of whether, for example, Paul Cohen is or is not a Platonist. The issues that might raise doubts in the minds of people like Cohen - or Gödel, or Feferman, or myself, for that matter - have to do with questions as to the absolute nature of the truth of mathematical assertions which refer to large infinite sets. Such sets may be nebulously defined or have some other questionable aspect in relation to them. It is not very important to any of the arguments that are given in Shadows whether very large infinite sets of this nature actually exist or whether they do not or whether or not it is a conventional matter whether they exist or not. Feferman seems to be suggesting that the type of Platonism that I claimed for Cohen (or Gödel) would require that for no such set could its existence be a conventional matter. I am certainly not claiming that - at least my own form of Platonism does not demand that I need necessarily go to such extremes. (Incidentally, I was speaking to someone recently, who knows Cohen, and he told me that he would certainly describe him as a Platonist. I am not sure where that, in itself, would leave us; but it is my direct personal impression that the considerable majority of working mathematicians are at least "weak" Platonists - which is quite enough. I should also refer Feferman to the informal survey of mathematicians reported on by Davis and Hersch in their book The Mathematical Experience, 1982, which confirms this impression.)


495 posted on 11/21/2003 11:36:52 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I grew up in Brooklyn in a Catholic parish. All my neighborhood friends were Catholic. So my born again parents sent me to public school 241. This school was in a Jewish neighborhood. Hence, I was practically a lone born again Christian, living with Catholics and going to school with mostly Jews. Now I was taught that if one wasn't born again they would go to Hell.

Can you imagine how that made me feel as a young child... that this loving God was sending all my friends to hell. And why was I so fortunate to be born in the right family, at the right place and the right time? I'm still pondering this one.
496 posted on 11/21/2003 11:53:39 AM PST by Gracey (FResno FReepers are the BEST!!!!! Thanks for the Honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
I'm sure it's difficult to get out of that loop, but that's exactly what we are expecting radical Muslims to do. I wasn't raised quite as strictly as you, but I heard all the same things growing up. Somewhere in my teens I decided I wouldn't want to spend eternity with a vicious, vengeful God. When you get past the fear of going to hell for incorrect beliefs, it becomes much easier to see who the scam artists and charlatans are, and what their motives are. Love is not among them.
497 posted on 11/21/2003 12:03:24 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
or the axiomatic impossibilitiy

Heh. "the axiomatic impossibility". Now there's a constructive argument.

498 posted on 11/21/2003 12:13:11 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
"I'm defining atheist as someone who rejects the possibility of forces that can't be measured while recognizing reality."

Your can try to make up a language of your own to further your evangelical objectives, but in English an atheist is defined as. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

"This requires the atheist to believe the world around us came about solely through radom reactions between matter and energy."

No. Atheist do not believe that. That’s a misrepresentation promoted by those that seem so insecure in their faith that they need to misrepresent competing ideologies. From Is Evolution Random:

"As one Creationist put it, Random forces could not have produced a world of living things. Scientists agree. That is why the Theory of Evolution contains something which is not random. Darwin said that there was natural selection. And today, Evolution contains other kinds of selection. This is entirely different from saying that evolution is directed.

Some parts of the history of life seem to be pretty random. Take, for example, the meteorite that killed all the dinosaurs. However, selection is different. It means that somehow, some individuals succeeded in leaving more descendants than other individuals did. And, it means that they succeeded for some reason. Reasons are not random. "


499 posted on 11/21/2003 12:18:25 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
As a Platonist, I would ask “Why pi? Why not something else?”

Pi isn't axiomatic, it is derivative. And the axioms it is derived from are arbitrary; they are only selected because they seem to have utility as such.

500 posted on 11/21/2003 12:19:49 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 921-923 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson