Atheism - Yet another faith ?

Rev Hellfire

I’m curious as to whether the atheist’s here would subscribe to the idea that their disbelief in a god/gods as a creator is yet another example of a belief system give the lack of scientific proof to the non-existence of a creator.

At least I’ve come across none that could be said to disprove it.

Give the above can their be such a thing as an informed atheist who isn’t an agnostic who is in denial ?

Sapien

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I’m curious as to whether the atheist’s here would subscribe to the idea that their disbelief in a god/gods as a creator is yet another example of a belief system give the lack of scientific proof to the non-existence of a creator.

As moronic statements go...

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

JimmySmith

Can you prove that the next 3 posters here dont have piles?

Rev Hellfire

So you would always take the simpler idea/solution, fair enough valid point for the way I put the question.

I suppose I should refine the issue I have with Atheism is the idea of how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it. It seems to me that atheism seems to avoid the question.

As for the piles I would say the chances are they don’t, but I can’t rule out the possibility that they could no matter how statically unlikely.

I just curious as to how you can with total certainly discount something which cannt not be totally disproven.

Crucifix

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suppose I should refine the issue I have with Atheism is the idea of how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it. It seems to me that atheism seems to avoid the question.

I think many people believe it was always there, and others that it was started by some scientific (albiet complex) system.

Anto and Moe

Exactly! Atheism is just another faith, a belief of something definite! Agnosticism is the only way to go, you can't totally prove or totally disprove anything, who says that next time I trip I might not fall upwards, and be shot into the atmosphere? To be absolutely certan about anything is to claim more knowledge than any human poseses.:D

monkeyfudge

Am I supposed to entertain all the ideas that can't be disproven?

The universe is just as likely to be the tear drop of a interdimensional space dog as it is to have been created by some unknown absentee super being.

Those ideas are jumping to extreme conclusions and there is absolutey no point in considering them at all.

capistrano

Rev Hellfire wrote:

how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it.

It's not valid to ask what event created or started the universe. The question implies looking for something before time began. Time (like space) is a dimension of our universe so talking about something that happenned before the universe was created is nonsense; just like asking what's outside the universe is nonsense.

We have a very good scientific theory (the big bang theory, which is backed up by physical evidence like the background microwave radiation) to explain the development of the universe from the tiniest fraction of a second after creation to now.

There is no need for a god and, frankly, there is absolutely no evidence of a god. So, atheism is not like another religion, nothing is accepted on faith.

pH

I suppose I should refine the issue I have with Atheism is the idea of how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it. It seems to me that atheism seems to avoid the question.

Well there's your problem - there are many ways to approach the 'how did the universe start' question but religious doctrine is not a good one.

Anyway, say God did create the universe 13 billion odd years ago? What difference does that make? All the stuff in the Bible/Koran was invented by man. Its not so much does God exist, but the claim to 'Know the mind of God' that most religions make. He wants us to gather in churches and praise him - he gave us souls, he made heaven and earth, he intervenes in our daily lives, he listens to and answers our prayers etc etc - says who?

Its a big jump from saying that science can't explain the first few millionths of a second of the universe to all the stuff in modern religion, and like I said, if you want a creator for the universe that's fine too, it still implies nothing more than a supernatural entity blew stuff up billions of years ago and hasn't been seen since!!

Oh wait, he MUST have done that for a reason ... He wouldn't have created the universe without SOME purpose ....

Tar.Aldarion

monkeyfudge wrote:

Am I supposed to entertain all the ideas that can't be disproven?

I could sit here telling you I'm a pink space monkey and you may not believe it. That is fair enough, you have to proof, but to discount it is close minded no matter how inprobable. You don't know until you see me and can see that I am not.
Yes you are supposed to entertain these ideas no matter how inprobable. You do not have to believe them but if there is a chance they could be correct then there is still a chance and entertaining must be upheld.

It's not valid to ask what event created or started the universe. The question implies looking for something before time began. Time (like space) is a dimension of our universe so talking about something that happenned before the universe was created is nonsense; just like asking what's outside the universe is nonsense.

er what? it is not valid?explain that my good man because it makes no sense.
You can quite easily ask those questions, we won't get answers but the questions are vald.
What pray tell was there before the big bang how did 'nothing' just explode etc.
Is there other universes outside ours, are there dimensions?
perfectly reasonable questions to ponder about.

There is no need for a god and, frankly, there is absolutely no evidence of a god. So, atheism is not like another religion, nothing is accepted on faith.

Some people need a god or the idea to help them be moral and to make them think live is worthwhile and to comfort them that there is something after.
To put things simply, humans can not comprehend if there is or there is not a God. With either scenario there are countess questions we cannot answer or could not comprehend if told. There is absolutely no proof of a god yet there is no proof otherwise. To dismiss it like a hardcore christian dismisses there being anything possible other that what their doctrine tells them is close minded.
The out right belief that a god doesn't exist is as much a faith as the out right belief that there is one. Both are baseless. Both are beliefs of an individual. If you admit that we cannot know, yet you still believe that there is no god then you are expressing a faith, just like somebody who is expressing there belief in a god.
To not entertain the idea of a God even if you don't believe in one is close minded becasue you have no way of knowing anything.
Having a faith does not soley mean believing in something. You can have faith that something doesn't exist. If you are not close minded and believe that we cannot know yet believe one way or the other then you are having a faith in something. It is your faith.

monkeyfudge

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I could sit here telling you I'm a pink space monkey and you may not believe it. That is fair enough, you have to proof, but to discount it is close minded no matter how inprobable. You don't know until you see me and can see that I am not.
Yes you are supposed to entertain these ideas no matter how inprobable. You do not have to believe them but if there is a chance they could be correct then there is still a chance and entertaining must be upheld.

But it is all about belief... I don't believe that you are a pink space monkey as that would go against all good sense and logic.

In the same way to assume that a mysical being created the universe goes against good sense and logic seeing as all we know about the universe so far is based on scientific and provable information... to suddenly make a jump into mysticism makes no sense.

Tar.Aldarion

monkeyfudge wrote:

But it is all about belief... I don't believe that you are a pink space monkey as that would go against all good sense and logic.

In the same way to assume that a mysical being created the universe goes against good sense and logic seeing as all we know about the universe so far is based on scientific and provable information... to suddenly make a jump into mysticism makes no sense.

Indeed to make such a jump makes no sense but it is all about belief.
Something may go against all sense and logic but yet, it may be true!
To discount something completely goes against all logic and sense but to entertain it makes sense, even if it is unlikely to be true.
You don't have to believe it but entertaining things makes sense as it is open minded and well that's a better alternative than dismissal because that is illogical.

Asiaprod

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You don't have to believe it but entertaining things makes sense as it is open minded and well that's a better alternative than dismissal because that is illogical.

This is a good point and worthy of greater disscusion. Any more views out there on this approach.

pH

You don't have to believe it but entertaining things makes sense as it is open minded and well that's a better alternative than dismissal because that is illogical.

But now you have to come up with a filter as to what to entertain and what to dismiss, and you cannot possibly entertain every possibility.

Do you entertain and are you open-minded about Zeus living on Mount Olympus? If I tell you that God speaks to me and that he says the true children of God must cover their hair and keep Tuesdays sacred, do you entertain that or do you call me a liar or mad or both? Do you entertain the possibility than Ron L Hubbard got it right with Scientology? Are we covered in thetans? What about Joseph Smith and the Mormons - do you entertain and are you open minded that an angel gave him tablets of gold with the book of Mormon written on them?

This can go on all day, and you'd be paralyzed with possibilities, and in fact if you give it some thought, it will become clear that you're not being open-minded, or logical, merely viewing your own prejudices through rose tinted glasses. You are 'open-minded' and entertaining about a particular view of God that you already accept.

monkeyfudge

Or if you are crossing the road do you entertain the possibility that the oncoming traffic are actually holograms and that you can safely cross?

The way of thinking you are proposing simply isn't feasible...

Tar.Aldarion

pH wrote:

But now you have to come up with a filter as to what to entertain and what to dismiss, and you cannot possibly entertain every possibility.

Do you entertain and are you open-minded about Zeus living on Mount Olympus? If I tell you that God speaks to me and that he says the true children of God must cover their hair and keep Tuesdays sacred, do you entertain that or do you call me a liar or mad or both? Do you entertain the possibility than Ron L Hubbard got it right with Scientology? Are we covered in thetans? What about Joseph Smith and the Mormons - do you entertain and are you open minded that an angel gave him tablets of gold with the book of Mormon written on them?

This can go on all day, and you'd be paralyzed with possibilities, and in fact if you give it some thought,

Entertaining and believing are completely different. In any of your scenarios I may not believe something that I think is ridiculous but to outright say that something is incorrect without proof is simply illogical.
The creator of scientology even says it is not a religion so in that respect it can be disproven. Taking the next point I see, mormons. Just as likely as chritianity so yes, why not be openminded. Nobody knows the facts of what happened and even if you are 99% disbelieving you should still entertain it.
It's as ridiculous to not entertain something like that as it is ridiculous to believe it 100% without possibility of being swayed.
You seem to be finding some correlation between belief and entertaining that doesn't exist. If something cannot be disproved than it cannot be disproved and therefore it is incorrect to dismiss it or arrongant that you think you
are right in your belief of a god or whatever over another person who believes in none.

it will become clear that you're not being open-minded, or logical, merely viewing your own prejudices through rose tinted glasses.
You are 'open-minded' and entertaining about a particular view of God that you already accept.

Explain that. I have no prejudices in this regard nor do I look at anything through rose-tinted glasses.
I have no particular view of a god so there is nothing accepted there either.

monkeyfudge wrote:

Or if you are crossing the road do you entertain the possibility that the oncoming traffic are actually holograms and that you can safely cross?

The way of thinking you are proposing simply isn't feasible..

If you entertain something that is in no way leading on to believing it. A possibility is a possibility. one in a trillion is still one in a trillion,
You are suggesting would i attempt to justify entertaining it, no. That's silly but also it is sill to say that it is not. We could be in a big truman show.
It is feasible to entertain everything that can not be disproved. No need to act on this entertaining because it is 99.999% likely that that car is a car or whatever but to completely dismiss it's holographic properties is as wrong as testing out to see if it is a hologram 'just in case'.
The only thing we know is that we know nothing at all- some famous guy.

Rev Hellfire

Firstly I’d like to thank Tar.Aldarion for putting the original question in a far more elegant manner than I was capable of. So please forgive me I fail to put my points forward in such a succinct manner as the posters which followed my original post.

Personally when highlighting my confidence in the knowledge I have of a piece of information I would say I have either an understanding or not in it.
But I would further emphasize the level by saying I know it (where I have the complete set of facts and more importantly have a complete understanding of it) ,otherwise I would state I have a belief in the validity of it (where I either don’t possess in total or have a complete understanding) ie I believe I know or I believe science has proven etc.
Why am I telling you this? Well I think this is also part of the problem with how some of the Atheists on this board put forward their views, its with total certainty. It’s all been solved the conversion is over.

Now to go back to sapien’s reply to my post he berated the post as moronic ( a point I disagree with, although I will admit it was poorly constructed). And to highlight the point states that when confronted with two theories which offer the same outcome you should take the simpler one in the belief that it is better.

Further on in the replies we get numerous posts saying science has explained the origins of the universe without the need for intervention.

And both of these are indeed very valid points, but both work on the premises of belief ( or faith), sapien’s in the belief that the simplest is most likely (and I would be inclined to agree with him). But in my mind the other posters use faith (as in a strong belief) in the infallibility of the scientists who propose these ideas. I believe (don’t know for a fact) that they have most likely lack total understanding of the theories proposed, and so work on the belief that they are valid.

Its as if these absolute atheists have subscribed to the religion of popular science where the word of the brightest minds are accepted as absolute. In many ways this is similar to accusations levelled at people who follow a religion, that you blindly follow something you cannot personally prove, you accept it at face value.

Or am I been unfair?

capistrano

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

er what? it is not valid?explain that my good man because it makes no sense.
You can quite easily ask those questions, we won't get answers but the questions are vald.
What pray tell was there before the big bang how did 'nothing' just explode etc.
Is there other universes outside ours, are there dimensions?
perfectly reasonable questions to ponder about.

My point is that the universe has 3 spatial dmensions, so winthin the universe you can ask what's outside the house, but you can't ask what's outside the universe because outside only has meaning within the universe. There is no "space" outside the universe.

Likewise, time is a dimension of the universe, so you can ask what happenned before you were born, but you cannot ask what happenned before the universe was created becasue there was no time before the universe was created.

I can't make it any simpler that that.

Hagar

capistrano wrote:

We have a very good scientific theory (the big bang theory, which is backed up by physical evidence like the background microwave radiation) to explain the development of the universe from the tiniest fraction of a second after creation to now.

Would you like to tell us a bit more about the creation bit?

dr zoidberg

capistrano wrote:

My point is that the universe has 3 spatial dmensions, so winthin the universe you can ask what's outside the house, but you can't ask what's outside the universe because outside only has meaning within the universe. There is no "space" outside the universe.

Likewise, time is a dimension of the universe, so you can ask what happenned before you were born, but you cannot ask what happenned before the universe was created becasue there was no time before the universe was created.

I can't make it any simpler that that.

Exactly, this is essentially the basis for my main argument against the existence of God.
If we define the universe as everything that exists, nothing can exist outside of it. (The argument here will be that you can't simply define the universe as everything, that there could, for example, be other universes parallel to us. But for the purposes of this argument the universe refers to everything that exists, including any subdivisions it undergoes such as parallel universes, dimensions which we do not perceive, etc. Perhaps it would be better to use the term "metauniverse".)
Therefore, how could it possibly have been created by a spiritual being? For a being to create something, it has to exist somewhere. How can something exist external to existence?

This logical argument covers the possibility that the God which created the universe was not a being at all, but a physical force. Any form of force has to exist within some defined dimensions, and cannot exist in nothingness.

A further argument is based on the laws of science, however this logical argument holds that the creation of the universe is scientifically impossible according to our current laws of physics. Before I commence, it is important to note that the laws of science, while held to be infallible, could in future be proven wrong. Science is a map after all, if the map is wrong you don't change the landscape to make it fit.
The law of conservation of energy states: Energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted from one form to another.
Matter must be considered a form of energy (i.e. potential energy). The idea sounds a bit strange, but consider a piece of paper. When it is lit, it burns giving off light and heat energy. This energy according to the conservation law cannot have appeared from nowhere. It is the converted potential energy of the piece of paper. Likewise, this can be shown to be true with food, metal, etc. Anything can be converted to energy in some way.
So, as matter is a form of energy, it cannot be created or destroyed, but converted into different forms of energy. Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that the universe had a definitive moment at which it was created. The universe must be infinite (perhaps cyclical which would explain the Big Bang). Therefore, a god cannot have created the universe as it could not possibly have been created.

The creationist god of our religions, according to these arguments, cannot exist.
HOWEVER, these arguments only cover the creation of the universe. It is possible that a supernatural being could have created our world, our solar system, etc. Although I think this is unlikely, it is possible that a being exists in the universe which created our world, perhaps in another dimension, but a being could not have created the universe itself. And even if a being did create our world, I doubt that it pays any attention to us, in the way our various religions suggest. There's enough evil in the world to prove that if a god exists they just don't care.

Dades

Firstly I have to say this is all great! Secondly I'm having my busiest two work days all year so it's killing me I can't post like mad.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Why am I telling you this? Well I think this is also part of the problem with how some of the Atheists on this board put forward their views, its with total certainty. It’s all been solved the conversion is over.

I think for the most part the only certainties that have been put forward have been of the "I'm definitely an atheist" variety. This is different to "there is definitely no god", or "I know I'm right", which we can agree are flawed.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its as if these absolute atheists have subscribed to the religion of popular science where the word of the brightest minds are accepted as absolute. In many ways this is similar to accusations levelled at people who follow a religion, that you blindly follow something you cannot personally prove, you accept it at face value.

Or am I been unfair?

Slightly unfair I would say. There is a far greater leap of faith in believing the tenets of an old religion, than there is with much of science. Then you have to remember that science has no agenda other than the truth. If you have a scientific theory - it will be rigourously tested for flaws. Given the choice of one or the other - I'll take the one with testing standards.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Firstly I have to say this is all great! Secondly I'm having my busiest two work days all year so it's killing me I can't post like mad.

I know how you feel, been writing a report all morning, 3 assignments to do for the next few days and then weeks of exams....I really want to post 'like mad' here too, oh well.
all I have time to say is I disagree with some points raised.

Rev Hellfire

I accept your points. But in many respects the theories which are put forward are to many people ( and I would include myself in this ) beyond our ability to fully grasp, so we must make a leap of faith (maybe not as large as in a religion, but we do admit we cannt prove it ourselves and place our trust in the specialist) and accept their findings. This is in many ways not that far removed from when the religious would have been the educated and the greater population would have left the 'difficult' matters to them since they had the facility to understand it.

I think for the most part the only certainties that have been put forward have been of the "I'm definitely an atheist" variety. This is different to "there is definitely no god", or "I know I'm right", which we can agree are flawed.

But to declare yourself an atheist is to take the absolute stance that there is no god/s, once you introduce the idea that you may be wrong well then you're an agnostic. I least thats my understanding of the terms.

pH

But to declare yourself an atheist is to take the absolute stance that there is no god/s, once you introduce the idea that you may be wrong well then you're an agnostic. I least thats my understanding of the terms.

Say I claim I have an Invisible dragon in my garage. Are you equally agnostic about that claim as you are about the existance of God, or would you be prepared to take an absolute stance that I don't have one?

How about looking at it from the point of view of the Duck argument.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck"

Let me summarise again - It there are no differences between 2 things then they're identical, giving them different names is a pointless exercise.

So apart from a persons state of mind, what differences exist in how an Agnostic person lives his or her life as opposed to an Athiest. By what actions or decisions that they make in their life can you tell them apart?

Rev Hellfire

I'm not sure I get your point when applied to the quote you gave.

If you where to claim to me that you totally without hesitation believe there is an invisible dragon in your garage, but that you do entertain the possibility that you could be wrong.
Well then I would say that then you don’t believe without hesitation in the dragon, but rather strongly believe in the existence of said dragon, but admit that you may be mistaken.

That surely is the difference between an atheist and an agonistic.

What would be your definition of the two ?

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

But to declare yourself an atheist is to take the absolute stance that there is no god/s, once you introduce the idea that you may be wrong well then you're an agnostic. I least thats my understanding of the terms.

This is kind of going around in circles.

I don't accept that to be an atheist or a theist you must convinced beyond all dispute.

Instead can we accept for the purposes of debate, that nobody knows anything for certain. Not theist, agnostic nor atheists. What you are left with is a belief. Not an absolute stance, a reasoned belief. It can be a strong belief, or one liable to change with the wind - but it not considered knowledge.

If you where to claim to me that you totally without hesitation believe there is an invisible dragon in your garage, but that you do entertain the possibility that you could be wrong.
Well then I would say that then you don’t believe without hesitation in the dragon, but rather strongly believe in the existence of said dragon, but admit that you may be mistaken.

That surely is the difference between an atheist and an agonistic.

To me an agnostic would say that we could never be sure whether the invisible dragon exists, whereas the atheist will say he just doesn't believe there to be, given the absence of any evidence. But either stance should be open to change on the appearance of said dragon.

lostexpectation

you don't need a scientist to tell you there is no god???

atheism has nothing to do with science or trying to explain where we came from.

I just is.

there is no (belief) system to athiesm.

capistrano

Hagar wrote:

Would you like to tell us a bit more about the creation bit?

Probably a poor choice or word. Let's call it T-Zero, where time begins. There is nothing before T-Zero, no time or space. I don't even like using the word before here, I just use it for the sake of clarity.

Rev Hellfire

Maybe for the sake of clarity you will explain the basic principles of zero-t, you'll understand if we dont take your prinicple on faith (harr harr)

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

To me an agnostic would say that we could never be sure whether the invisible dragon exists, whereas the atheist will say he just doesn't believe there to be, given the absence of any evidence. But either stance should be open to change on the appearance of said dragon.

Nah, an agnostic would say that s/he couldn't be sure but they might still lean on one side of belief. In this case disbelief.what you call an open minded atheist I would call agnostic and I am sure to you, an agnostic that is leaning on a god not existing side is an atheist.

Mystic Fibrosis

Perhaps it's worth considering the fact that time as we know is not a measurable quantity. Seconds, Hours and Minutes are just human artifices after all. Like previous posts have stated, time is a dimension and not a universal constant. So to claim that the universe "began" at some specific point in time is essentially untrue.

I was thinking about the creation and destruction of the universe yesterday and considering the existence of the theory of the Big Crunch as well as the Big Bang, it may be the case that black holes (if they truly exist) cause this phenomena. Remember that time stops at the centre of a black hole, and that when two expanding black holes encounter each other, they combine into one bigger one. It is very feasible that eventually, one black hole would envelop the entire universe at some point. Perhaps then due to the sheer density and energy contained within it, a reverse process occurs. I have no idea how this would actually happen :v: but it is after all only a postulation.

samb

The Atheist wrote:

To me an agnostic would say that we could never be sure whether the invisible dragon exists, whereas the atheist will say he just doesn't believe there to be, given the absence of any evidence. But either stance should be open to change on the appearance of said dragon.

I think you have summed it up perfectly here, I for one am an atheist therefore

nesf

capistrano wrote:

My point is that the universe has 3 spatial dmensions, so winthin the universe you can ask what's outside the house, but you can't ask what's outside the universe because outside only has meaning within the universe. There is no "space" outside the universe.

Likewise, time is a dimension of the universe, so you can ask what happenned before you were born, but you cannot ask what happenned before the universe was created becasue there was no time before the universe was created.

I can't make it any simpler that that.

There's been conclusive proof that there only ever has been 3 spatial dimensions? Some theories would run against that my friend. Just because we observe 3 dimensions doesn't mean that this is what the universe has always been like and always will be. At very small and large scales you'd be suprised how non-sensical that the universe is.

Do we know anything about what could be "outside" the universe? Do we even understand what that question means? To us, yes, meaning seems to be restricted within the observable universe. Does that catagorically deny that "something" may exist "outside the universe"? No it doesn't. "outside" can mean a whole lot of things in a physical sense. We have zero proof that nothing exists outside the universe, in fact atm it's unproveable tbh.

We can assume that nothing exists outside it, and while this is a judicious assumption, it is still an assumption. Note: It's equally as invalid to state as fact that something has to exist outside of the universe in some sense. We just plain don't know.


I hate it when people confuse a leading theory with fact. The "big bang" theory is nowhere near proven. There are alternatives and some of the evidence for it are "questionable" (ie either not conclusive or good objections have been raised). It was given a lot of weight because it was "popularily" accepted and seized on, though this means very little.

Short answer: Science has not found anything definitive regarding this. The question of what "set off" the big bang is valid enough for what it is. We have very little idea of what was happening very (and I mean very) early in the big bang's expansion. And even then, it's just a rough "popular" question about a highly "technical" theory. That doesn't mean much now does it?

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

To me an agnostic would say that we could never be sure whether the invisible dragon exists, whereas the atheist will say he just doesn't believe there to be, given the absence of any evidence. But either stance should be open to change on the appearance of said dragon.

I agree, it's a good way of putting it. Most likely the agnostic will be annoyed by the fact that he/she can't prove or disprove the invisible dragon's existence.

Zaph

I have made a choice not to believe in the existence of God. It's not that I have a fervent belief that God does not exist, but rather that all that I have seen, heard, etc., has led me to a point where believing that God does not exist is as pointless to me as believing that God does exist. Similarly, I don't have absolute belief in scientific theories regarding the coming into existence/continuing existence of the universe, but rather choose to accept them as the most logical explanations currently available.

I realise that there is a certain element of semantics in all that, but I can't really articulate it any other way. To me it's like saying I'm right handed. I don't have an explanation for why I am, I just am.

muesli_offire

originally posted by Zaph:
Similarly, I don't have absolute belief in scientific theories regarding the coming into existence/continuing existence
of the universe, but rather choose to accept them as the most logical explanations currently available.

But

originally posted by Nesf
At very small and large scales you'd be suprised how non-sensical that the universe is.

Hence, I would gather, the lack of a unified field theory in regard to all things cosmological/cosmogonical etc,
... the separation/compartmentalisation of scientific disciplines (which I believe is the case, correct me if I'm wrong) ...
a more micrological (locally coherent) than logical (universally valid) state of affairs?

So how can one simply choose to believe 'them' (scientific explanations), a fissiparous and sometimes incompatible (again, so I believe) set of
universe explanations when (my limited acquaintance with popular science would indicate) there are problems which are allegedly
unsolvable by means of our limited analytical faculties.

I find it hard. But I don't believe in God. I think my atheism is a kind of faith. But I think I need to overcome this kind of atheism and get a better one,
one that is not rationalistic but not blind faith either. but I don't know how? Any suggestions? Someone help me out here my interpretation of things may be a bit all over the place!

Rancidmaniac13

If a belief system had conclusive proof it would no longer be a belief.

nesf

muesli_offire wrote:

Hence, I would gather, the lack of a unified field theory in regard to all things cosmological/cosmogonical etc,
... the separation/compartmentalisation of scientific disciplines (which I believe is the case, correct me if I'm wrong) ...
a more micrological (locally coherent) than logical (universally valid) state of affairs?

True, very true. Atm physics (where it's especially noticeable) has two conflicting theories that are very good at explaining what they are meant to but for some reason don't combine well at all. We have a "gap" in our understanding or something.

Science is about models. A good model is an accurate one. But most models are not 100% accurate (to start with they can only be as accurate as we can measure). The problems arrise when you start talking in generalities, like "the universe". Models that work well for "localised" issues, sometimes don't "scale up" well.

It's little known, but it's only recently that we started getting back into a hierarchal structure. Before quantum mechanics we did not have an physical explanation for many chemical processes. Before molecular biology we had a similar issue. Science is becoming more unified and coherent, but it's not there yet. It is highly interesting though to note that the "Scientific Method" is not the golden foundation for science that it used to be. Coherentism is beginning to underly it and give science "more meaning". Science itself is nice and self contained but one must remember that it isn't, in itself, reality, and that we need to tie it back to reality in some logical way.

muesli_offire wrote:

So how can one simply choose to believe 'them' (scientific explanations), a fissiparous and sometimes incompatible (again, so I believe) set of
universe explanations when (my limited acquaintance with popular science would indicate) there are problems which are allegedly
unsolvable by means of our limited analytical faculties.

As I ranted, sorry about that, in another post. Science has elements of "faith" in it. A lot of people believe in science simply because it is science and that science is right. That is faith in my opinion. Science, does not yet (and possibly might never), have all the answers. It is a big unknown really. Yet people believe that it does. 50 years ago a lot was "unprovable" that we can show and examine now. Remember that science is not absolute.

That said, there is nothing to undermine science's present theories so long as you keep them in context. They are theories, not fact. They mimic and model reality but they are not reality. People tend to forget this.

pH

nesf wrote:

As I ranted, sorry about that, in another post. Science has elements of "faith" in it. A lot of people believe in science simply because it is science and that science is right. That is faith in my opinion. Science, does not yet (and possibly might never), have all the answers. It is a big unknown really.

Let's separate the question of faith from the question science having the answers. Nothing in science is taken as faith. Nothing.

In principal, given time and commitment anyone could learn and test any scientific claim - Don't think Boyle's Law is correct? You can learn the theory and test the model.

Now everyone cannot learn and test everything, no one human would have enough time or ability to verify for themselves every law/model/test. This doesn't mean we need to take these on faith because in principle we could if we wanted. Where we don't have the time or expertise we rely on the credentials and trust of others who have put in the learning and performed the tests.

I have no direct evidence that Canada exists, but I could if I wished go there and verify that it does myself. There is no more 'faith' in being sure that Ohmn's Law is correct that being sure that Canada exists.

This is exactly the same amount of 'faith' you need to 'believe' in any scientific theory.

If you wish to call this 'faith' then you're just playing with words, and you need another word to mean 'Unprovable unchanging dogmatic belief' that I hold to be true. No amount of time or study get's you closer to verifying a religous belief as true. You just have to believe - that is faith.

Tar.Aldarion

pH wrote:

Let's separate the question of faith from the question science having the answers. Nothing in science is taken as faith. Nothing.

In principal, given time and commitment anyone could learn and test any scientific claim - Don't think Boyle's Law is correct? You can learn the theory and test the model.

Now everyone cannot learn and test everything, no one human would have enough time or ability to verify for themselves every law/model/test. This doesn't mean we need to take these on faith because in principle we could if we wanted. Where we don't have the time or expertise we rely on the credentials and trust of others who have put in the learning and performed the tests.

I have no direct evidence that Canada exists, but I could if I wished go there and verify that it does myself. There is no more 'faith' in being sure that Ohmn's Law is correct that being sure that Canada exists.

This is exactly the same amount of 'faith' you need to 'believe' in any scientific theory.

If you wish to call this 'faith' then you're just playing with words, and you need another word to mean 'Unprovable unchanging dogmatic belief' that I hold to be true. No amount of time or study get's you closer to verifying a religous belief as true. You just have to believe - that is faith.

Under certain conditions the laws you mention may not be true, how would we know? Almost everything in science keeps being improved or disproved.
We take a lot on faith in physics. Eg, we say that the lowest possible temperature is 273.16 degrees, we have never even reached that. It is all theory and most likey that will be proved wrong even though it makes sense to us now that that is the lowest possiible temp.
Eg, elementary particles.. when will we ever get that right, new ones keep being proposed and or discovered etc. Some theories such as string theory make a lot of sense about it being the next possible one that we will believe is the smallest but for it to be correct there must be 10 dimensions.
So can we prove there is or isn't?
Not only this but there are not one but five! healthy string theories that are different and recently they are even to start believing all five may be intertwined as part of one big theory(M theory)...Basically everything suffers the same conjecture as this in physics.
Everything in physics is taken on faith because of or limited knowledge. Who's to say boyles' and charles' laws etc are correct or incorrect. We dont know if they hold tryue for every substance, pressure, volume etc.
You can go and test boyles model and see that it works for what we use if for but who's to say it works under different circumstances.
World round?, unpossible!
To accept these models as fact is bit iffy so we have faith that they are at least partially right.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

That surely is the difference between an atheist and an agonistic.

An atheist says "I don't believe in a god, even if loads of other people do, because there is no logical reason to believe in a god(s), the universe works quite well without the idea of a god(s), and it is much more plausable that human imagination would make up the idea of a god"

An Agnoistic says "I can't be sure there is a god(s), but a lot of people believe in one so there might be a god(s) I just don't know for sure, but I certainly accept it is a plausable possibility"

Tar.Aldarion

well nearly right apart from an agnostic, well me anyway, wouldn't say it is plausable because a lot of people believe in it. It may be possible in my own mind but the big obstacle I have is how could something exist forever, especially a god. Where would it begin..... Basically how can something come into existance from nothing.

nesf

pH wrote:

Let's separate the question of faith from the question science having the answers. Nothing in science is taken as faith. Nothing.

Really? Untrained people who don't understand it take it as being true. Is this not the case? My point was that people have faith in science, I did not say that science relied on faith itself. It is simply a model of reality. It isn't correct or incorrect in an absolute sense, it just has to work to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

pH wrote:

In principal, given time and commitment anyone could learn and test any scientific claim - Don't think Boyle's Law is correct? You can learn the theory and test the model.

First that's a cyclical argument. For something to be a scientific claim you need to be able to test it and it needs to be falsible. I am using scientific here to refer to the hard sciences. It gets fuzzier with the social ones.

Boyle's Law is not correct. It is accurate and this accuracy depends on the gases in question. There is a huge difference there.

pH wrote:

I have no direct evidence that Canada exists, but I could if I wished go there and verify that it does myself. There is no more 'faith' in being sure that Ohmn's Law is correct that being sure that Canada exists.

No, you have good reasons to believe both. It's not a polar question where if you can't prove something or physically see it that it's untrue. You can choose to believe something is true and this belief can be justified to some extent by what you know or the past performance of this thing we call science.

I can justify quite reasonably that my belief in the eixtence of quarks. I can point to a bunch of scientific theory that I've learned and such and say I believe this to be true. That is a justified belief. I believe the science behind such a claim to be correct. I have good reasons to do this. That doesn't change the fact that it's a belief though. But I don't just take science at it's word on this. I still retain some skepticism on the subject. I can believe that quarks don't exist and that the theory could be wrong. It's just that it's highly highly probable that they do exist. But I would never say that I know 100% that quarks exist since it's only a theory (if a very very solid one). But I do believe that they exist.

You point me at a law, and say this is correct. But a theory is just a theory and it's not correct in any "true" sense. Such laws don't exist, they are just artifical models that can predict reality to some degree of accuracy. Many many times have we been wrong with our theories, in the sense that this or that didn't exist. But it doesn't matter so long as they are accurate. Look at Newtonian Physics. We know that the universe doesn't behave like that. But locally it does to a reasonable degree. Is this theory right or wrong? Does this question actually mean anything? It really doesn't matter to science. From science's perspective, this theory is accurate enough to be useable in certain situations. It doesn't have to be correct, it just has to be reasonably accurate. For a very long time though it was believed to be correct and true because we couldn't measure anything that showed it to be wrong. The theory hasn't changed but it's "truth value" has. The science of it is still the same and it still works within that local context.

pH wrote:

If you wish to call this 'faith' then you're just playing with words, and you need another word to mean 'Unprovable unchanging dogmatic belief' that I hold to be true. No amount of time or study get's you closer to verifying a religous belief as true. You just have to believe - that is faith.

No, quite simply I use faith in it's correct context. Faith is not necessarily unjustified. Plus, tbh, from years of studying science I can tell you that I no longer look at it as being true. That word has little meaning within science. Reasonable accuracy is all you need. Truth doesn't need to come into it.

I won't paste the entire definition of faith down here since it's quite long and the word has many meanings that we need not worry about but this is the part that's relevant:

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:

b. Belief based on testimony or authority.

Science is an authority and we believe in it. This is faith. Faith can also mean belief without proof. But that isn't necessary. If you ask a Christian what their faith in they could list of miracles at Lourdes, Christ, etc etc as reasons why they believe. They accept these claims to be true (from an authority or whatever) and don't ask to be shown proof. It is no different with "lay people" and science. Do you need to see a quark to believe in it, or do you trust science's views on these things? Many many people have never seen "proof" of a theorem in their lives and they don't need to. Science has been right so many times that they are willing to accept it's views as truth.

That is faith my friend and there is no other way of looking at it.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Science is an authority and we believe in it. This is faith.

Not really. A better word to describe the relationship between science and "lay people" would but trust.

The scientific community is an authority we trust in because of the princples they use. This is different that faith. Faith implies belief in something that does not need to earn your trust. You accept it because you our faith in it, not because it has proved itself worthy. Scientific ideas need to earn trust by presenting models of the universe to a high, externally tested, standard. You don't need to necessaryily do this testing yourself but you trust the system in place. It is only after that do people trust them. Religion doesn't. There is no standard religion needs to hold itself to except the standards set by itself (which aren't really standards at all because of this fact)

The reason religion is still accepted, despite having no standards to be met, is because of faith.

People don't have faith in scientific theories. Quite the opposite, they demand that the theories and the princples behind them earn their trust first before they believe them.

robindch

> The reason religion is still accepted, despite having no
> standards to be met, is because of faith.

Very minor point -- I prefer the word "belief" to "faith". The latter has far too many positive connotations to make it easy to think about its nature in an unbiassed way. It's easy to disagree with a belief, but to disagree with a faith seems a touch too close to declaring onself unfaithful!

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> The reason religion is still accepted, despite having no
> standards to be met, is because of faith.

Very minor point -- I prefer the word "belief" to "faith".

Do you mean to you prefer it as it is a better description (cause belief and faith don't really mean the same thing) or you would prefer if people believed things rather than had faith in things

nesf

Eh, Wicknight, I used faith in a correct context. It is a matter of faith, faith in an authority. You can rephrase that as belief that the authority is telling the truth, but not only is that unwieldy, it's also the exact same as saying that people have faith in it.

Should we find a new word to use in:

was he faithful to you?
bad faith
breach of faith
break faith
have faith in
good faith
implicit faith
keep faith
on faith
pin one's faith on
put one's faith in

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Eh, Wicknight, I used faith in a correct context. It is a matter of faith, faith in an authority.

I disagree, you don't have faith in an authority like the scientific community. You trust them but that trust has to be earned and can be lost (easily).

To have faith in something implies a much stronger loyality to them than to simply trust them, that you believe they are correct though they do not have to prove this, or meet any external standards (can an external entity tell the Catholic church is right or wrong?) Also faith implies a belief in a promise that something does/will fufill. Faith in God to protect you. Faith that God lovesyou etc. It is why people still have faith in the ideas of the world religions despite overwhelming evidence against these ideas.

Science does not enjoy this faith. Science is constantly changing and updating, disagreeing arguing etc. People trust in this system, but it provides no promise of fufillment and enjoys very little loyalty. For example people are not loyal to the maths behind gravity. They trust the people who came up with the idea, but if tomorrow it was proved completely wrong it would not be actually that big a deal.

nesf wrote:

You can rephrase that as belief that the authority is telling the truth, but not only is that unwieldy, it's also the exact same as saying that people have faith in it.

I don't think I mentioned "truth" at all, I mentioned "trust"

nesf wrote:

Should we find a new word to use in:

The word "faith" is fine, it just is incorrect to use it when describing societies realtionship with science. We do not have faith in the scientific community in the way people have faith in religion. We trust in it instead. There is a difference.

nesf

Wicknight honestly I completely disagree with you on this but I think this stems from confusion over the word faith. Personally I do feel that I've used it correctly and the dictionary and semantics seem to agree with me.

We can agree to disagree on this if you wish, I don't think the essence of either of our arguments is altered by this confusion. But I would be interested in discussing the validity of the word faith in this context. Perhaps in a different thread? I don't think that here is the place to be discussing semantics. Philosophy maybe?

Dave!

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suppose I should refine the issue I have with Atheism is the idea of how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it. It seems to me that atheism seems to avoid the question.

Well it seems to me that atheists acknowledge that they don't have the answer to where the universe came from, and don't try and force an explaination on it. 'Believers' can't explain something, so they make it a god... The sun was a god, the moon was a god, thunder was a god, yesterday's left-over lunch was a god... Until it was explained/understood.

So if you don't mind, I'm happy to live with the knowledge that I don't understand everything, much as I'd like to. I think it's ignorant and naive to say "I don't understand this, so let's just say god did it, k?"

Just my thoughts.

samb

Originally Posted by Rev Hellfire
I suppose I should refine the issue I have with Atheism is the idea of how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it. It seems to me that atheism seems to avoid the question

That is not the real question, this is.
Something always existed, or something came from nothing.

Most religions believe something always existed i.e GOD, they never ask where god came from so they are implying that he always existed.

Athiest generally acknowledge that both possibilities are equally unfathomable and therefore leave it unanswered, it is beyond the realm of science so we will never know, get over it. we don't know, we don't know, we don't know. Athiest don't avoid the question, they just don't claim to have answer.