Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by michael h

I never had faith ... I know there is a God who comforts and loves us. I don't know of heaven and hell or any true faith nonsense. I "guess" because I was humble ... for I was far from worthy, I was given "knowing" simply because comfort and the experience requires knowing. One doesn't need faith when one knows.

I always type "humility" when I discuss God ... since it was my path to comfort. Many a time I chuckled about believers nonsense when I was an atheist and later agnostic. I see the path to "knowing" blocked for atheists because of their firm knowledge that God doesn't exist (lacking humility ... all knowing). Not that it matters to them ... nor did it matter to me at one time. I've had many say given the state of the world and God's non interference ... say a child murdered or sibling dying young ... God is irrelevant anyway. I think people can "know" but their mind has to be way beyond desiring to know ... and simply humbly opening their heart in prayer.

I recently attended a skeptic's conference (The Amazing Meeting) where there were all sorts of interesting speakers (and numerous uninteresting ones as well), including a number of physicists, one of whom directly and succinctly answered the question, "Is there an after-life?" ("No," he said, and explained the science behind that conclusion) and another of whom explained how a universe could emerge from nothing, without divine intervention. We, as a species, are nothing special in an unfathomably vast universe. Not only will humans be here for a finite amount of time, so too will the universe itself eventually cease to exist. We have the here and now, and that's all we have. None of this was presented as an attack on religion, it's just what the evidence tells us.

These things are very hard for me to accept. But just as I find it annoying when people reject evolution simply because it's something they don't want to believe it (generally because it conflicts with their religious ideas) do I reject physics because I don't like what it says about my place in the universe?

On the other hand...

I remember the birth of my children. From literally nothing emerged conscious beings I loved with all my heart (and still do, of course). In that moment (and even the atheists I've talked to have had similar feelings) how could I not believe in something... for lack of a better word... more.

But I also know that a feeling, no matter how strong, is not knowledge and, on the evidence, the atheists have a better case than the religious.

And yet... I feel what I feel.

In the end, I suppose, it doesn't matter. I will live my life as morally as possible and hope for the best when it's over, which is really all we can do anyway.

Originally Posted by AdamKadMon

I recently attended a skeptic's conference (The Amazing Meeting) where there were all sorts of interesting speakers (and numerous uninteresting ones as well), including a number of physicists, one of whom directly and succinctly answered the question, "Is there an after-life?" ("No," he said, and explained the science behind that conclusion) and another of whom explained how a universe could emerge from nothing, without divine intervention. We, as a species, are nothing special in an unfathomably vast universe. Not only will humans be here for a finite amount of time, so too will the universe itself eventually cease to exist. We have the here and now, and that's all we have. None of this was presented as an attack on religion, it's just what the evidence tells us.

I don’t know how a physicist or anyone else can make any claims about the after life without indulging in the same sort of thing they often accuse theists of---which is making claims that go beyond the evidence.

The problem with the afterlife [at least the one described in the Bible] is that its not something that can be either supported by science or refuted by it.

It’s a matter of faith both ways: you either believe it’s there at the end or you believe it’s not.

Originally Posted by AdamKadMon

These things are very hard for me to accept. But just as I find it annoying when people reject evolution simply because it's something they don't want to believe it (generally because it conflicts with their religious ideas) do I reject physics because I don't like what it says about my place in the universe?

While there are certainly people who reject evolution on religious grounds, there are a growing number of people who reject evolution [aspects of it, actually] on scientific grounds.

Myself, I’m a Christian theist who ascribes to the philosophy that if the earth is billions of years old it doesn’t matter; nor does it matter if we evolved from an ape like ancestor. And scientifically, I’m way more sold on the old earth than I am the proposition that we evolved from apes.

Too many pieces are missing to the puzzle and if it were true then [given as hard and long as they’ve been looking] the evidence for it should be a slam dunk.

And it’s not.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I don’t know how a physicist or anyone else can make any claims about the after life without indulging in the same sort of thing they often accuse theists of---which is making claims that go beyond the evidence.

The problem with the afterlife [at least the one described in the Bible] is that its not something that can be either supported by science or refuted by it.

It’s a matter of faith both ways: you either believe it’s there at the end or you believe it’s not.



While there are certainly people who reject evolution on religious grounds, there are a growing number of people who reject evolution [aspects of it, actually] on scientific grounds.

Myself, I’m a Christian theist who ascribes to the philosophy that if the earth is billions of years old it doesn’t matter; nor does it matter if we evolved from an ape like ancestor. And scientifically, I’m way more sold on the old earth than I am the proposition that we evolved from apes.

Too many pieces are missing to the puzzle and if it were true then [given as hard and long as they’ve been looking] the evidence for it should be a slam dunk.

And it’s not.

I agree that there is scant evidence that there is a God. But I have to agree that there is equally scant evidence there is no God.

What I have is an opinion. I simply can't see the myriad things taking place, which created all that we see, hear and think about, by an accident of fate.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I agree that there is scant evidence that there is a God. But I have to agree that there is equally scant evidence there is no God.

What I have is an opinion. I simply can't see the myriad things taking place, which created all that we see, hear and think about, by an accident of fate.

With due respect, you contradicted yourself.

Thought I suspect what you mean to say is that the scientific evidence for God is scant---none the less---you find the philosophical argument compelling.

Originally Posted by darth omar

With due respect, you contradicted yourself.

Thought I suspect what you mean to say is that the scientific evidence for God is scant---none the less---you find the philosophical argument compelling.

I was thinking in terms of observable and provable evidence. Adding scientific would have been more apropos.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I don’t know how a physicist or anyone else can make any claims about the after life without indulging in the same sort of thing they often accuse theists of---which is making claims that go beyond the evidence.

The problem with the afterlife [at least the one described in the Bible] is that its not something that can be either supported by science or refuted by it.

It’s a matter of faith both ways: you either believe it’s there at the end or you believe it’s not.

First, let me say something which I hope is apparent, but in case it is not: I am not trying to attack your (or anybody's) faith (my problem is not religion; it is how religion is sometimes misused; and, yes I could say the same thing about atheism). This is stuff that I am wrestling with myself, in search of a satisfactory answer, and all thoughts are welcome.

Now then...

In terms of your claim that that "It's a matter of faith both ways," that's not precisely true.

The physicist who I heard talk about the afterlife is Sean Carroll and if you are interested in his entire argument (it's not very long), it is here: Physics and the Immortality of the Soul | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine.

If not, this is the relevant passage:

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood (Seriously, The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Really Are Completely Understood | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine), and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese.

So it seems to me, despite my fervent desire to believe otherwise (I was really thrown when I heard this argument), that the evidence we have is incompatible with, as Sean Carroll puts it, "persistence of the individual soul after life ends." So it is not true that both believing, and disbelieving, the after-life are both matters of pure faith: Only belief in an after-life requires us to accept something incompatible with how the physical laws of the universe as we understand them actually work.

While there are certainly people who reject evolution on religious grounds, there are a growing number of people who reject evolution [aspects of it, actually] on scientific grounds.

Evolution is one of the most successful and robust theories in the history of science and the challenge to it is more religio-political than scientific. As a matter of history, the challenge was of a religious nature, originally labeled "Creationism" then repackaged as "Intelligent Design" when the teaching of Creationism in schools was deemed a Constitutionally impermissible state endorsement of religion (Edwards v. Aguillard). And when you think about it, of course this is the nature of the objection. After all, people don't get all riled up about science in general (I never once heard anybody get angry about a law of thermodynamics)... unless it conflicts with their world view.

And thanks to physicist Sean Carroll, I actually have more sympathy with that feeling than I used to. When science runs headlong into your religious/spiritual beliefs, it is upsetting.

Myself, I’m a Christian theist who ascribes to the philosophy that if the earth is billions of years old it doesn’t matter; nor does it matter if we evolved from an ape like ancestor. And scientifically, I’m way more sold on the old earth than I am the proposition that we evolved from apes.

The Theory of Evolution does not rest on the assumption that humans evolved from apes (and, incidentally, the evidence does not show that humans evolved from apes; rather, they share a common ancestor, now extinct); rather, it is a theory as to the process and mechanisms of speciation. And incidentally, the critics of evolution have offered no plausible alternative mechanism to explain speciation.

Too many pieces are missing to the puzzle and if it were true then [given as hard and long as they’ve been looking] the evidence for it should be a slam dunk.

And it’s not.

From the fossil record (with its abundant transitional fossils) to the DNA record, the evidence for evolution is a slam dunk. And evolutionary biologists have gotten (understandably, in my view) frustrated with the moving of the goal posts. Every time they show something that the the critics demand (i.e. transitional fossils) there is simply a demand for more evidence. That's not to say there aren't some legitimate scientific questions about specifics, but there does not appear to be anything, at present, with the capacity to upend the theory itself.

And at the risk of getting bogged down in an endless debate about evolution, here's a question for you: What would it take for you to believe in the validity of the Theory of Evolution?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

I recently attended a skeptic's conference (The Amazing Meeting) where there were all sorts of interesting speakers (and numerous uninteresting ones as well), including a number of physicists, one of whom directly and succinctly answered the question, "Is there an after-life?" ("No," he said, and explained the science behind that conclusion) and another of whom explained how a universe could emerge from nothing, without divine intervention. We, as a species, are nothing special in an unfathomably vast universe. Not only will humans be here for a finite amount of time, so too will the universe itself eventually cease to exist. We have the here and now, and that's all we have. None of this was presented as an attack on religion, it's just what the evidence tells us.

These things are very hard for me to accept. But just as I find it annoying when people reject evolution simply because it's something they don't want to believe it (generally because it conflicts with their religious ideas) do I reject physics because I don't like what it says about my place in the universe?

On the other hand...

I remember the birth of my children. From literally nothing emerged conscious beings I loved with all my heart (and still do, of course). In that moment (and even the atheists I've talked to have had similar feelings) how could I not believe in something... for lack of a better word... more.

But I also know that a feeling, no matter how strong, is not knowledge and, on the evidence, the atheists have a better case than the religious.

And yet... I feel what I feel.

In the end, I suppose, it doesn't matter. I will live my life as morally as possible and hope for the best when it's over, which is really all we can do anyway.

In my late teens I went the whole Von Daniken route and similar writers trying to piece together why Gods and religion had so much to do with this world. I could always see ignorant humans bowing and worshiping higher intelligence. I've considered interference in our DNA. Lots of thoughts ... and after my experience attempted to understand how it all fit together. Thoughts if some part of God were within us ... and did we project senses from within to observe, since prayer initiates contact. Never solved nothing, but science and God fit together somehow ... however that is wouldn't hurt my feelings or intellect in anyway.

Of spirits and all these ghost shows ... I despise them and find them ridiculous ... yet somehow wonder if this supposed manifestation (if it exists) of spirits is part of Gods work.

I've had "a" relative tell me of spiritual experiences and my skin crawled and hair stood up on the back of my neck while listening (while theist and atheist) ... yet I held my old doubting attitude thinking he was full o shit.

I've believed there have had to have been many prophets and contacts with God ... though I've doubted that Gods message to them wasn't twisted by their own imperfections and their desire to share the feeling of that contact.

As for morality I don't believe there's any change through contact ... just a sense of humbleness and appreciation of God. Ones morality is before contact ... and that morality will evolve like any other persons.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

If not, this is the relevant passage:

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood (Seriously, The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Really Are Completely Understood | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine), and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

This is not proof that there is or is not spiritual essence to human life as described by most religious institutions. But the explanation of the Physicist in no way eliminates spirituality of the human soul. All it does is what most of already believed, that there is a spiritual awareness in everyone which does not have any characteristics of what we call matter.

And at the risk of getting bogged down in an endless debate about evolution, here's a question for you: What would it take for you to believe in the validity of the Theory of Evolution?

I believe that evolution did take place; but I cannot discount that it is anything more than the way God may have chosen to create his living beings.

Either one believes, or one doesn't. IMO searching for the answer in physical sciences is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

This is not proof that there is or is not spiritual essence to human life as described by most religious institutions. But the explanation of the Physicist in no way eliminates spirituality of the human soul. All it does is what most of already believed, that there is a spiritual awareness in everyone which does not have any characteristics of what we call matter.

To me, the point is that if this physicist is correct, he has provided evidence of the nonexistence of the soul because it is incompatible with the physical laws of our universe. By contrast, those who believe in the soul do so not only despite any evidence at all, but also with the knowledge that what they believe to exist is impossible in our universe.

I believe that evolution did take place; but I cannot discount that it is anything more than the way God may have chosen to create his living beings.

Evolution does not disprove the notion of God, but what it does is provide a mechanism for speciation which does not require God. Likewise, physics may provide the same mechanism for Creation (indeed, some people claim already does, i.e. A Universe from Nothing: Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins: Amazon.com: Kindle Store which I have not yet read, but I heard the author speak recently).

Either one believes, or one doesn't. IMO searching for the answer in physical sciences is a waste of time.

You are correct that, at some point, you have to decide what you believe (or don't). But science has always had a hand in shaping religious beliefs, by providing rational explanations for what was supposed to be supernatural phenomena (lightning, for instance), or simply contradicting religious dogma (which is why the Catholic Church got so annoyed with Galileo).

I see no reason why a soul, a spiritual being, would have to be compatible with the physical nature of things. IOW he neither proved nor disproved the existence of the soul. He is expressing only what cannot be proved by physics.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

In terms of your claim that that "It's a matter of faith both ways," that's not precisely true.

If not, this is the relevant passage:

[physicist Sean Carrol]"Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese."

Your physicist friend is making a logical error that seems pretty straight-forward to me; basically, he is making an assumption about the after life [i.e. the soul] in the following sense: that it MUST somehow or at some point comport with natural law.

“What particles are souls made out of?” Who is to say, since the limitations of science prevent us from examining them. In fact, to ask the question implies a prior commitment materialist philosophy.

“What forces hold it together?” Again, the same sort of error is made by this fellow.

To assume the soul can be explained by science is to assume that everything---up to and including God Himself---is explainable by science. The problem here is obvious: there is no purely logical reason why that must be the case. Indeed, once God is allowed into the equation all bets are off in terms of whether the soul is held together by a physical force; or whether the soul is reducible to particles or is some quirky manifestation of quantum physics---or what have you.

Reason being is that a Creator that exists distinct from the creation---by definition---is not bound, much less limited by, the laws of the creation. In other words, God could have created souls in particle form so scientists could examine them under a microscope or He could have done it another way so they couldn’t.

But in no case is God required to act in a certain way. Which is what your physicist friend is effectively saying.

God is the ultimate free agent, in that sense.

Originally Posted by AdamKadMon

Evolution is one of the most successful and robust theories in the history of science and the challenge to it is more religio-political than scientific. As a matter of history, the challenge was of a religious nature, originally labeled "Creationism" then repackaged as "Intelligent Design" when the teaching of Creationism in schools was deemed a Constitutionally impermissible state endorsement of religion (Edwards v. Aguillard). And when you think about it, of course this is the nature of the objection. After all, people don't get all riled up about science in general (I never once heard anybody get angry about a law of thermodynamics)... unless it conflicts with their world view.

As a matter of history, Darwin’s theory was put forth as a challenge to creationism.

Last winter I purchased of copy of Darwin’s On The Origin of Species [and "The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" to include the politically incorrect subtitle] and in reading half of it I’ve concluded that the primary thrust of Darwin’s work was to refute traditional creationism. [I might get around to the second half next winter---it’s a tedious work]

In Darwin's own words, to wit:

“He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary…” [Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species, Sweetwater Press, pg. 158]

So, while it is true that ‘the challenge [to evolution] was of a religious nature’ Darwin, in fact, threw the first punch.

Religion and evolution will forever be at odds because they both require faith and they are both fighting over the same philosophical turf.

Or theological/anti-theological turf, as it were.

Originally Posted by AdamKadMon

And at the risk of getting bogged down in an endless debate about evolution, here's a question for you: What would it take for you to believe in the validity of the Theory of Evolution?

If by TOE, you mean the origin of species via natural selection, I already believe in it.

The problem I have with it is thus: the creative mechanism that enables one species of finch to evolve into another species of finch over time is too modest to explain how Darwin’s putative single celled organism evolved into us.

Which is the really interesting question and the only question that is relevant to religion, imo.

Darwin’s mechanism+gobs of time is not a convincing proposition to me---nor is it very scientific. And whether one chooses to accept it has very much to do with how they are predisposed to the God question and very little to do with evidence, in fact.

It should also be pointed out that TOE is too often conflated with common descent---even by people who teach it and should know better. Common descent is not a mechanism. In other words, common descent could be true [at least some degree of it almost certainly is] and TOE’s mechanism could be impotent in the face of it.

And that is precisely where it currently stands.

Bottom line, it’s hard for me to say exactly what it would take for me to accept the whole ball of wax but we aren’t there yet.