Atheism , religion , ID etc
-
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak? if the atheist main argument against other beleifs is that you cant prove or test them , and in the end atheism turns out the same way if we look at this aspect. "i beleive the rules just somehow exists" dont seem more valid to me than "i beleive that god created everything" everything was so much simple as an atheist when I just ignored/didnt think of that part :P now I just feel like a confused darwinist :P
Roger J wrote:
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak?
Well, I would certainly say so, yes. And given that atheism *is* a faith, it does seem to be a faith singularly lacking in helpful hints on what one's purpose is or how one should live one's life. You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
-
espeir wrote:
I'm curious why would you reference that?
because his "donald duck" line reminded me of my Flying Spaghetti Monster line.
espeir wrote:
It was just a pretty weak argument that you made attempting to deny that atheism was a religious belief system that displayed your lack of understanding about religion.
please, i beg you: quit trying to break the English language. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, i beg you: quit trying to break the English language.
Sorry. I will use small sentences. I forgot my audience.
-
Ok, Im gonna give this religious stuff a shot here :P Im a true beleiver of evolution, evolution is proved every day when you use genetic algorithms to fine tune systems , or when bacterias become resistent versus some medicines.. so in my mind I "know" evolution works. but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules. eg a simulated evolution can only work if you provide some sort of rules in which something can evolve. and the same goes for our universe , we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution.. so far so good. now Id like to know what other atheists or determinists think sustain those rules? (in our universe) can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? where did such rules come from? why doesnt the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so? if those rules didnt exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work. (just a thought in the spirit of atheism vs ID vs whatever :-) ) //Roger
Roger J wrote:
but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules.
I don't agree here. As soon as you 'try' to monitor evolution you have changed the condition. Evolution is something that needs to be 'obsevered' and not 'watched'. At the root of it all there is a difference between watching and observing.
Roger J wrote:
can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it?
Yes, because the rules that we discuss (gravity, thermodynamics, time, etc..) are all fundamental rules. They are THE rules that are the basis for all others. They are the 'Bass Classes' of the universe. They do not need to be sustained because they themselves are the sustainers of the rest of the universe.
Roger J wrote:
where did such rules come from?
Again I don't see them as coming from anywhere because that implies that there was some cognitive 'thing' that said 'hey, we need a rule here' and built it. These rules come from the basic properties of universal matter and under the right conditions they do just happen.
Roger J wrote:
why doesn't the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so?
Who says at some point it will not? Given the grand nature of gravity I do not think that we have been around nearly enough to say with any degree of certainty that even gravity is steady state in it's behavior. Perhaps given enough time it would change (evolve) into something else. OR, perhaps it happens so slow that it already has and we simply evolved along with it.
Roger J wrote:
if those rules didn't exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work.
As long as the rate of change (or randomness) is slower than the rate of evolution I don't see a problem. Evolution only requires that the conditions be consistent and steady for long enough for the evolving organisms to 1 - notice the need to change, 2 - make the change in relation to the surrounding stimulus, 3 - then pass those changes on to offspring to propagate it forward within the species. The bottom line here with the entire religion vs. science thing (at least in my opinion) is that I believe in what can be proven and refuse to believe in
-
Roger J wrote:
but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules.
I don't agree here. As soon as you 'try' to monitor evolution you have changed the condition. Evolution is something that needs to be 'obsevered' and not 'watched'. At the root of it all there is a difference between watching and observing.
Roger J wrote:
can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it?
Yes, because the rules that we discuss (gravity, thermodynamics, time, etc..) are all fundamental rules. They are THE rules that are the basis for all others. They are the 'Bass Classes' of the universe. They do not need to be sustained because they themselves are the sustainers of the rest of the universe.
Roger J wrote:
where did such rules come from?
Again I don't see them as coming from anywhere because that implies that there was some cognitive 'thing' that said 'hey, we need a rule here' and built it. These rules come from the basic properties of universal matter and under the right conditions they do just happen.
Roger J wrote:
why doesn't the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so?
Who says at some point it will not? Given the grand nature of gravity I do not think that we have been around nearly enough to say with any degree of certainty that even gravity is steady state in it's behavior. Perhaps given enough time it would change (evolve) into something else. OR, perhaps it happens so slow that it already has and we simply evolved along with it.
Roger J wrote:
if those rules didn't exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work.
As long as the rate of change (or randomness) is slower than the rate of evolution I don't see a problem. Evolution only requires that the conditions be consistent and steady for long enough for the evolving organisms to 1 - notice the need to change, 2 - make the change in relation to the surrounding stimulus, 3 - then pass those changes on to offspring to propagate it forward within the species. The bottom line here with the entire religion vs. science thing (at least in my opinion) is that I believe in what can be proven and refuse to believe in
Ray Cassick wrote:
Roger J wrote: can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? Yes, because the rules that we discuss (gravity, thermodynamics, time, etc..) are all fundamental rules. They are THE rules that are the basis for all others. They are the 'Bass Classes' of the universe. They do not need to be sustained because they themselves are the sustainers of the rest of the universe.
How do you know this? Can you prove these assertions scientifically? Or are they just articles of your faith?
Ray Cassick wrote:
The bottom line here with the entire religion vs. science thing (at least in my opinion) is that I believe in what can be proven and refuse to believe in what cannot be.
But your statements above show that you believe in some things that aren't proven. You have already made statements of faith without realising it.
-
As much as scientists hate it because it smacks of everything that ID does, this is the best reason that cosmology has come up with for us having the laws of physics that we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[^] Essentially we can only exist in a universe with the laws of physics that we have. Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
andy brummer wrote:
Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
i don't see how your first sentence is in disagreement with your second. of course a different set of laws would allow for life "as we don't know it". we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Roger J wrote:
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak?
Well, I would certainly say so, yes. And given that atheism *is* a faith, it does seem to be a faith singularly lacking in helpful hints on what one's purpose is or how one should live one's life. You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
Richard Northedge wrote:
You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
err... that's a gigantic leap. have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Richard Northedge wrote:
You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
err... that's a gigantic leap. have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ?
Religion discourages you from engaging in fundamental human behaviors (specifically animal-like traits found in our primate brothers). Those moral frameworks come from religion.
-
andy brummer wrote:
Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
i don't see how your first sentence is in disagreement with your second. of course a different set of laws would allow for life "as we don't know it". we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have.
It is the whole nature of the principle. There is nothing logically inconsistent with it at all. If the universe did not support life then we couldn't be there to observe it, so of all possible universes we can only exist in the ones that we can exist in. What is troubling is how sensitive things like atoms, stars, galaxies and planets are to the physical constants of the universe, and there are at least 30 of them if not hundreds. The probability of getting the values that produce our universe is so slim, the only ways to rationalize it are to assume multiple universes, either through time or extended landscape or things like the anthropic principle. I imediately start thinking about other options for life and our limited rules for understanding how life could exist in one of these alternate universes, but that is really just avoiding the big question. Why are we in a universe like this one.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
As much as scientists hate it because it smacks of everything that ID does, this is the best reason that cosmology has come up with for us having the laws of physics that we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[^] Essentially we can only exist in a universe with the laws of physics that we have. Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
I have never understood how that principle changes the nature of the debate. Obviously, the universal laws that any observer will observe are those that resulted in the existence of the observer. Laws that don't allow for the existence of an observer will never be observed. But since we know an observer exists, we know the laws allow for it. So what? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I have never understood how that principle changes the nature of the debate. Obviously, the universal laws that any observer will observe are those that resulted in the existence of the observer. Laws that don't allow for the existence of an observer will never be observed. But since we know an observer exists, we know the laws allow for it. So what? "You get that which you tolerate"
I haven't considered it very interesting either, but I think it is essentially the only sort of answer philosophers have come up with, short of invoking ID, to questions like Roger's. All I can hope for is that further exploration of physics comes up with something less contrived then what we have now.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ?
Religion discourages you from engaging in fundamental human behaviors (specifically animal-like traits found in our primate brothers). Those moral frameworks come from religion.
espeir wrote:
Those moral frameworks come from religion.
if, as you've said numerous times, atheism is a religion, explain then how atheism is insufficient to generate a "moral framework". if it isn't please tell us all what is required. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Richard Northedge wrote:
You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
err... that's a gigantic leap. have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
What do you mean by "fundamental human behaviors" - are you thinking of instincts that are programmed into us as part of our genetic makeup?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ?
Religion discourages you from engaging in fundamental human behaviors (specifically animal-like traits found in our primate brothers). Those moral frameworks come from religion.
espeir wrote:
Religion discourages you from engaging in fundamental human behaviors (specifically animal-like traits found in our primate brothers). Those moral frameworks come from religion.
Let me rephrase that: Religion uses a supreme being to discourage you from engaging in behaviors deemed innapropriate by those who claim to know the supreme being. Those moral frameworks come from common sense; religion is used to enforce them.
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have.
It is the whole nature of the principle. There is nothing logically inconsistent with it at all. If the universe did not support life then we couldn't be there to observe it, so of all possible universes we can only exist in the ones that we can exist in. What is troubling is how sensitive things like atoms, stars, galaxies and planets are to the physical constants of the universe, and there are at least 30 of them if not hundreds. The probability of getting the values that produce our universe is so slim, the only ways to rationalize it are to assume multiple universes, either through time or extended landscape or things like the anthropic principle. I imediately start thinking about other options for life and our limited rules for understanding how life could exist in one of these alternate universes, but that is really just avoiding the big question. Why are we in a universe like this one.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
andy brummer wrote:
The probability of getting the values that produce our universe is so slim, the only ways to rationalize it are to assume multiple universes, either through time or extended landscape or things like the anthropic principle.
all of this assumes those values are variable. but what if they aren't ? they aren't here and now, so why assume they are anywhere else?
andy brummer wrote:
Why are we in a universe like this one.
because it's our only option. if the conditions were different, we might not be here. but they aren't different, and here we are. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
What do you mean by "fundamental human behaviors" - are you thinking of instincts that are programmed into us as part of our genetic makeup?
Richard Northedge wrote:
re you thinking of instincts that are programmed into us as part of our genetic makeup?
yes. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Those moral frameworks come from religion.
if, as you've said numerous times, atheism is a religion, explain then how atheism is insufficient to generate a "moral framework". if it isn't please tell us all what is required. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
I never made that claim. Obviously it can because atheism has adopted aspects of morality which have never been considered moral by most religions. For example, Orgies and abortion are not considered immoral by atheists, but are by pretty much all religions. However, I do contend that atheist morality is doomed to perpetually degrade (as it has in the 20th century) from its already marginal state (which was derived from religion) because it lacks a specific source for that morality. That lack of a moral source destroys the concept of any sort of absolute morality, resulting in absolute moral relativism (which, of course, arose in the 20th century). As we have observed, moral relativism decays over time until you have, by today's standards, absolute immorality. That's what happened to Rome.
-
espeir wrote:
Religion discourages you from engaging in fundamental human behaviors (specifically animal-like traits found in our primate brothers). Those moral frameworks come from religion.
Let me rephrase that: Religion uses a supreme being to discourage you from engaging in behaviors deemed innapropriate by those who claim to know the supreme being. Those moral frameworks come from common sense; religion is used to enforce them.
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
by those who claim to know the supreme being.
Who claims to know the supreme being? Even the Pope is considered merely the "Vicar of Christ", not his personal buddy.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Those moral frameworks come from common sense
They seem like common sense now, because religion has been around since the dawn of man.
-
What do you mean by "fundamental human behaviors" - are you thinking of instincts that are programmed into us as part of our genetic makeup?
And one of those instincts would be an instinct for morality. However, I think the argument that religion is just somehow taking advantage of such an instinct is lame. An instinct for morality would be like an instinct for language. It is significant only within the context of a given social order. Religion has served to direct our instinct for morality in ways that have been generally beneficial to society. I always find it curious that those who argue in favor of evolution, don't seem to understand that every society on the planet evolved societies organized around religion rather than athiesm. Athiesm does not, in fact, provide a society with the ability to forge moral frameworks, which is why societies have all rejected it as a foundation for thier cultures. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 11:51 Friday 7th April, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
Those moral frameworks come from religion.
if, as you've said numerous times, atheism is a religion, explain then how atheism is insufficient to generate a "moral framework". if it isn't please tell us all what is required. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Let me try and disentangle what I said from what espeir said... When I used the phrase "moral framework", I was essentially meaning "Something that enables you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong". I didn't say that atheism is a religion ("religion", for me, implies some kind of organised belief system) but I did say that it requires faith; I wrote that to be an atheist, "you have to believe, without any evidence either way, that life and matter and the laws of the universe *just somehow* exist." And this statement of faith (the one about life and matter etc.) doesn't provide you with any means to enable you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong. To explain what I mean by giving a contrast, here is a different statement of faith: "Whatever is pleasurable, is good". This statement does give you some basis for deciding whether a given action is right or wrong. Hedonism isn't a religion either, in the "organised belief system" definition.
-
I haven't considered it very interesting either, but I think it is essentially the only sort of answer philosophers have come up with, short of invoking ID, to questions like Roger's. All I can hope for is that further exploration of physics comes up with something less contrived then what we have now.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
My question remains - do the laws 'want' to be observed? Do they purposefully provide for the existence of the observer? Is the observer built into the laws from their very most basic beginnings? "You get that which you tolerate"