Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Anyways I think the strongest evidence against God is what was outlined in points II and III in tandem. The evidence suggests that God probably doesn't exist only because we can explain everything without him. Do you need to invoke Sonic the Hedgehog to explain why the ice in your drink melts? Probably not -- so what good does it do to say "Well, it's *possible*, right? Anything's *possible*"?

When you approach the more fundamental, though, things get crazy. Quantum physics and M-Theory are fascinating frameworks to address the bigger questions (Why are the laws the way that they are? What really happened during the Big Bang? What IS space and time? Was the Big Bang really the "start" of existence? Can we really say anything is "causal"?). Even so, it doesn't help us to invoke God. It doesn't help us to just clap out hands and say, "Well, God must have been at the helm." We need to find some sort of model that can make accurate predictions/explanations with respect to our observations. Otherwise it's a sort of useless tautology to say "Things are the way they are because God did something." What "just did God," then? It doesn't get us any closer to the "true" answer. If you want to say "God has always existed," then why not save a step and say that the universe has always existed until we are proven otherwise?

But at the core of the question, why call it God at all? We seem to have this desire to liken God to something human or alive -- some sort of intelligent entity that has desires and wishes and utility functions and goals like we do -- something that intentionally set forth the universe into motion. But we can just as easily say that the "creating force of the universe" may not be a "who" but a "what" -- in which case we stop thinking of the origin of everything as a God but rather a scientific explanation just like any other. It also becomes even more unlikely when we consider HOW our intelligence came about to begin with (evolution).

[mhss1992]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Rubix:

When I made the "Why are the laws the way they are?" question I was trying to imply something very simple:
There's nothing we can say about it. Our observations and postulations are based on the current laws of our universe, naturally. There are endless theories that try to explain this (not to mention endless different ones inside the groups "God", "randomness" or even stuff like "existence trying to fill every possibility").

One of them MUST be true, and ALL of them have the same probability to us (completely unknown). It could also be "God and randomness", "randomness and Ç", whatever.

But why are so many people specifically against the group "God", after all?


Also... I am not really adding God to the explanation of the laws that are already known and well explained. I guess everyone agrees that's unnecessary. I'm a deist, after all. I was really trying to emphasize stuff that's completely unexplained by our science like the cause of the laws of the universe.

In this case, God is not just an "extra" variable, it's a theory like any other.

But at the core of the question, why call it God at all? We seem to have this desire to liken God to something human or alive -- some sort of intelligent entity that has desires and wishes and utility functions and goals like we do -- something that intentionally set forth the universe into motion. But we can just as easily say that the "creating force of the universe" may not be a "who" but a "what" -- in which case we stop thinking of the origin of everything as a God but rather a scientific explanation just like any other. It also becomes even more unlikely when we consider HOW our intelligence came about to begin with (evolution).

Some people believe in a purpose. I'd rather stay away from the part I cannot express. The last tries weren't very pretty. For both sides (I know that's probably not what you think, and I really don't care).

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Even if there's something we can say nothing about with any degree of proof or certainty, that's all we can do: "I don't know."

Do we really "know" what happened at t=0? Do we really "know" what happened before the Big Bang, if anything? There are countless theories that attempt to explain things within a consistent framework -- but again, even if we don't know for sure, what's so bad about saying "We're still investigating"?

You can assume a God if you want, but the fact is that it doesn't get us anywhere in the same way M-Theory might. God isn't really the same as any other theory because, again, it doesn't really explain anything other than saying "Things are what they are because God did it." Until we have proof of a "God," there's no real reason to make such a theory.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Some people believe in a purpose. I'd rather stay away from the part I cannot express. The last tries weren't very pretty. For both sides (I know that's probably not what you think, and I really don't care).

Oh, I don't question that people believe in purpose, but I think it's important to look at what makes us think that there's purpose in the first place. When you look at the evolutionary pressures, "purpose" is just a function of our intelligence and our need to search for patterns in nature. Religion appeals to this and displaces through the ego.

In other words, "purpose" is a humanized construct. If life had never evolved, would you think the universe had a "purpose"? Odds are, no -- because nobody would be around to even realize the universe exists. The universe would just be. Is there a "purpose" behind something that exists for its own sake?

[mhss1992]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Even if there's something we can say nothing about with any degree of proof or certainty, that's all we can do: "I don't know."

Do we really "know" what happened at t=0? Do we really "know" what happened before the Big Bang, if anything? There are countless theories that attempt to explain things within a consistent framework -- but again, even if we don't know for sure, what's so bad about saying "We're still investigating"?

You can assume a God if you want, but the fact is that it doesn't get us anywhere in the same way M-Theory might. God isn't really the same as any other theory because, again, it doesn't really explain anything other than saying "Things are what they are because God did it." Until we have proof of a "God," there's no real reason to make such a theory.

I get your point.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You, as a scientifically minded person, have a concern: trying to find explanations and theories that allow us to better comprehend the universe. Theories that allow people to describe the behavior of the universe in a way that can be useful at improving our lives.
These theories are organized in such a way that they create a "thread" that only gets more complex, allowing us to reach even more fundamental theories which will allow us to understand even more.

The moment we assume "God" as an explanation, we will "stop" this thread. There will be nothing else to understand or investigate. We will be ultimately stagnated. That's why you're not particularly fond of the idea of a "God".


But...

There's a mistake in this line of thoughts: You are treating God as something necessarily magical.

You are actually putting the "God made it" hypothesis in the exact same level as "magic", which means you are treating it as something inherently incomprehensible and unexplainable.

You know this very well: intelligence isn't magical. Intelligence has causes and implications. I think you didn't take the "infinite possibilities" as seriously as you should have.

Maybe that's why so many atheists treat the whole idea as something shildish, they are too attached to the "magical" concept of God.

For example: assuming that an intelligence like this might exist, what could have caused it?

Well, the cause itself could be considered "unintelligent", like chaotic interations that generate something in a similar way evolution does. Naturally, the same chaotic interations could create the universe itself, without the need of an intermediate intelligence. However, the chaos itself could have been created by another intelligent/dumb force.
Maybe the nature of this intelligence would allow us to discover even further.
Maybe this intelligence itself IS the result of a very well defined physical theory. One could argue that the chaos itself is SO complex that it occasionally shows sign of intelligence. How about evolution on a much larger scale?

Then you ask: "but why pick intelligence? Why is it so special?".
Actually, the question of this thread is "Why NOT intelligence? What makes intelligence LESS of a theory than any other?"


Also, you said things like evidences putting God in a very implausible position, but you didn't show any actual scientific or statistic evidences suggesting that. It was really just your personal interpretation of the matter.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

I fear our language differences make these discussions difficult and strained. At the same time I feel like if you don't agree, you just don't agree. I require physical evidence and reasoned logic for my claims of truth, and I say "I don't know" otherwise. That's the way I operate, and you may operate differently.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Also, you said things like evidences putting God in a very implausible position, but you didn't show any actual scientific or statistic evidences suggesting that. It was really just your personal interpretation of the matter.

Let me make an analogy.

It's a lot like a scene of a crime. You gather evidence to make a conclusion about what happened. Let's say you live in a house with a friend. You come home one day to find the friend has been killed via bullet wound to the chest. You notice that the assailant left the gun behind with tons of fingerprints. He also left behind blood, hair, etc -- lots of DNA evidence. Then you also remember that you installed cameras in your house, except for the room the murder occurred in. You watch the tapes and notice that nobody was in the house except for you and the friend. Then you see yourself leaving and the friend entering the murder room. Then you see the assailant on tape entering the house, entering the murder room with the gun, and then leaving in a bloodied mess without the gun.

But you never ACTUALLY see the murder. We catch the assailant, the DNA matches, the ballistics check out and we can determine where the shooting occurred and from what angles, perform an autopsy, etc -- to back up the claim that the assailant indeed shot and killed the friend in cold blood. But then people question this case and wonder, "Well, we never SAW the murder actually happen, right? Isn't it possible that the assailant entered the room and the friend died of natural causes just as the assailant fired the gun? We can't prove that this DIDN'T happen!"

Much like the case with God, we have to start bending over backwards to justify "possibilities" when we have mountains of evidence that already point to some pretty clear conclusions -- in a much stronger fashion than even the analogy I gave. It may very well be true that the friend died of natural causes an instant before the gun was fired, meaning that the assailant just shot an already-dead person... but it's a very improbable thing and it doesn't help to assume that this is the case when everything else is considered.

It may very well be true that we have an intelligent God at the helm. But we have no evidence to show for that, and we can already reach conclusions without such a God.

[mhss1992]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

I fear our language differences make these discussions difficult and strained. At the same time I feel like if you don't agree, you just don't agree. I require physical evidence and reasoned logic for my claims of truth, and I say "I don't know" otherwise. That's the way I operate, and you may operate differently.

I don't remember claiming something when there was no evidence in this thread. I'm honestly trying to make sense here. I try hard to be honest to myself and to other people. Was the rest of that post really that hard to address directly? Did I say some sort of nonsense?

I admit that I often feel that same about you disagreeing. In fact, I get the feeling that everyone with different convictions than mine try very hard to convince themselves that they're right even when I'm almost sure that they will change their minds. Maybe I do that, too.
However, I tend to think better and change in the long term. I've changed a lot in the past 4 years. I still don't think I have a good reason to consider myself wrong right now, though.

Much like the case with God, we have to start bending over backwards to justify "possibilities" when we have mountains of evidence that already point to some pretty clear conclusions -- in a much stronger fashion than even the analogy I gave. It may very well be true that the friend died of natural causes an instant before the gun was fired, meaning that the assailant just shot an already-dead person... but it's a very improbable thing and it doesn't help to assume that this is the case when everything else is considered.

You also seem to think that the existence of God would automatically disprove several known theories used to describe our universe, as if they're mutually exclusive. Which ones, exactly? What would be the equivalent to the evidences from the analogy you mentioned and why is it so strong?

I have to mention the possibilities again. There are several ones that are perfectly friendly to everything that we know about our universe. So, yeah, there are probably tons of evidences against many of these possibilities, but not all of them.

Please remember that I am not trying to *prove* the existence of God. That's not what this thread is about.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

You also seem to think that the existence of God would automatically disprove several known theories used to describe our universe, as if they're mutually exclusive. Which ones, exactly?

I have to mention the possibilities again. There are several ones that are perfectly friendly to everything that we know about our universe. So, yeah, there are probably tons of evidences against many of these possibilities, but not all of them.

God is not incompatible with current theory -- just to make this clear. The problem is that God is constantly redefined in order to fit the conclusions rather than fitting the conclusions around the evidence. It's a constant case of moving the goalposts. He's defined as something that we can't falsify, because if we falsify something, we just redefine God so he's outside of it. No matter *how much evidence we acquire*, we can *always* say "Well, there COULD be a higher God outside of this..."

God's a non-falsifiable concept. This doesn't make it a valid scientific hypothesis. Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Please remember that I am not trying to *prove* the existence of God. That's not what this thread is about.

I understand that -- but just because we can't ever *disprove* something doesn't mean it's *worth* believing in, especially if it can be used to justify atrocity and abuse.

How would you like it if I said that killing was OK because of quantum suicide effects? You might die in this universe, but you'd still be alive in countless others, so what's the big deal?

[SpookG]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

It sounds like you have been reading Carl Sagan.

Here, let me help you:

The Dragon in my Garage

[Reincarnate]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Showing an example comparing the difference between nonexistence and unobservable entities is a logical concept that you can find just about anywhere.

[fishbone528]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

Imagine an individual buying a single lottery ticket and proclaiming, "This ticket could either hit the jackpot, or it won't, I don't know which it will be, so both are equally likely".

The "pure agnosticism" which you prescribe, is pretty much the same thing. You are stepping back and boiling it down to God or no God (or Supreme First Mover or no Supreme First Mover, from a more Deistic perspective), I don't know which it was, so both are equally likely. This is almost certainly not true. Like the unfortunate lottery player above, just because we don't know what the probability is, does not make it 50-50.

Any (useful) definition of God will have consequences on the universe as we know it. So far, we have found no evidence that suggests a supernatural force at work in the universe. With each new generation of scientific research, more and more phenomena seem to be finding reasonable and coherent natural explanations.

Deism is a really a non-stance. Yes, perhaps it may actually be true. But how would you know it's true? How would you know it's not true? If you don't know the answer to either question, does that mean both possibilities are equally likely? Almost certainly not.

Furthermore, what would the universe look like if Deism were true? What would it look like if it wasn't? Any difference? No. Deism simply equates "God" with "That which is unknown or unknowable".

I think at the basic level we are all having an argument based on the definition of words and labels.

Your definition of atheism probably runs something like, "One who believes that Gods or supernatural entities absolutely do not exist". This narrow and aggressive definition is sometimes associated with the capitalized label, "Atheism". You also seem to assume this is what the majority of atheists believe.

The other definition runs something like, "One who does not actively prescribe to any theistic viewpoint", or simply, "not a theist". This could be referred to by the lowercase label, "atheism". It is worth noting that "atheism" is a superset of "Atheism".

I see that Reincarnate has described this fairly well, but I'm going to take a stab at it as well.

There are 2 separate scales at work here, atheism vs theism and agnosticism vs gnosticism. I believe my "little a" atheism definition above describes the first scale. You either believe a god exists or you don't. This first scale boils down to "feeling", and may or may not be based on evidence (or lack thereof).

Gnosticism, as you may know, derives from the greek word for "knowledge" and one of it's definitions is, "possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" for which the antonym is agnostic or, "uncertain of all claims to knowledge".

So basically to be agnostic is to maintain some level of uncertainty about truth claims, such as "There is (or isn't) a God".

Therefore, to ask whether an individual is agnostic OR atheist doesn't make any sense. Each label is answering a different question.

An individual could fall into one of 4 categories: gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist.

I suppose you could insert a philosophical fence in the middle and perhaps even label it "pure agnosticism". This would be the stance that "I am unsure of the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods and I believe that any claims to existence or nonexistence are both equally likely". This is a very narrow fence indeed. In practice, people generally have a feeling toward one end or the other.

Most, or perhaps all, people would fall into the middle 2 (or 3). Only the diehard "big A" Atheists would be the first category and likewise with diehard Theists on the other end of the spectrum. The reason I say perhaps all people fall into the middle 2 is that I can't really imagine anybody truly believing they absolutely know the truth about the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods. I could certainly be wrong about that however.

In case you're wondering, my personal stance is that of the agnostic atheist. In practice, since I think that everyone is probably agnostic to a certain degree, I don't see the purpose in using the label agnostic and simplify my stance to "atheist".

[Patashu]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

The problem with the Christian God being magical is that, well, he is. Believers will commonly refer to God's ways as being mysterious and unknowable by mortal minds, and so you just have to trust whatever his plan is. No characteristics are provided that can be used to run a 'god-test' in the present - as in, if we notice God do this, then it's the christian god else it's not, and so on.

[mhss1992]

Re: Agnosticism vs Atheism and Religions

God is not incompatible with current theory -- just to make this clear. The problem is that God is constantly redefined in order to fit the conclusions rather than fitting the conclusions around the evidence. It's a constant case of moving the goalposts. He's defined as something that we can't falsify, because if we falsify something, we just redefine God so he's outside of it. No matter *how much evidence we acquire*, we can *always* say "Well, there COULD be a higher God outside of this..."

God's a non-falsifiable concept. This doesn't make it a valid scientific hypothesis. Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I have read that before, thanks.

Anyway, I actually even thought of this myself: as science proves certain things, the concept of "God" evolves and becomes harder to kill.
Something on the lines of:
A: God made this nest.
B: Actually, this nest was made by this bird.
A: God made this bird.
B: This bird became what it is due to evolution.
A: God made evolution!
And so on...

You're assuming that you can induce that this thing would happen ad infinitum, because it has happened many times in the past, even if they're just differenct theories with the same name. Though I actually believe that there's a much bigger barrier when it comes to the determination of the laws of physics themselves, it can also be said that this is like putting the goalposts as far as possible. So this is a fair point.

I just don't think this is as conclusive as that analogy, though. Technically speaking, there are still no actual numbers we can get from this. It's not like the same "God" has been disproven a thousand times, like I said, different theories with the same name and some traits in common have been disproven.

I understand that -- but just because we can't ever *disprove* something doesn't mean it's *worth* believing in, especially if it can be used to justify atrocity and abuse.

How would you like it if I said that killing was OK because of quantum suicide effects? You might die in this universe, but you'd still be alive in countless others, so what's the big deal?

This is exactly why I hate dogmas. But if that's not a personal concern, I don't know what else is.

Showing an example comparing the difference between nonexistence and unobservable entities is a logical concept that you can find just about anywhere.

Let's make a thought experiment:
There is matter A and matter B, subject to laws A and B respectively.
Matter A can only interact with matter A, which means that beings made from matter A can only perceive things made from matter A, no matter how advanced their instruments are. The same is valid for matter B.

We are made from matter A. The assumption that matter B exists does not help our knowledge of laws A in any way, so it's useless. Matter B is also non-falsifiable, naturally.

Should matter A beings disbelief the existence of matter B because of that? I mean, if we're going to bet, should we say that it's more likely that matter B doesn't exist?

fishbone528:

Deism is a really a non-stance. Yes, perhaps it may actually be true. But how would you know it's true? How would you know it's not true? If you don't know the answer to either question, does that mean both possibilities are equally likely? Almost certainly not.

I never said that. When the probabilities are unknown, they are unknown, not 50-50. That's pretty obvious. I most certainly don't believe in God just because the probability is unknown, though. Like I said, I have other good reasons but they mostly are notions acquired through introspection, so I can't really express them.

Your definition of atheism probably runs something like, "One who believes that Gods or supernatural entities absolutely do not exist". This narrow and aggressive definition is sometimes associated with the capitalized label, "Atheism". You also seem to assume this is what the majority of atheists believe.

I never said that, either. And I didn't assume that, either. But there is a concept called "strong atheism" which refers to people who affirm that the statement "there is at least one God" is false wih 100% certainty.

Patashu:

Why are atheists so attached to the specific Christian God?