"No reasonable dialog between theists and atheists is possible until the myth of positive atheism [which "positively affirms the nonexistence of God"] is put to rest once and for all. When the theist portrays atheism as necessarily irrational because no one can prove the nonexistence of God, he is attacking a position that has rarely been affirmed by real atheists."Honestly, I wonder how Smith went about collecting his sample of "real atheists," because there are plenty of atheists that actually affirm the nonexistence of God. I would like to go on record as one of them.
The reason is very simple. The usual definition of God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. This, as I have explained, predicts a perfect world. This prediction overwhelmingly fails, making the God of high theology one of the most overwhelmingly disconfirmed hypotheses in the history of hypotheses.
I should qualify, though, that I do not claim to be able to offer evidence against any sort of God that you could think of. For example, it is utterly impossible to offer evidence against the idea of an omnipotent being with totally mysterious motives. No matter what happens in the world, this being might have done it (since he can do anything), and he might have wanted to do it, since his motives are mysterious. It cannot be disproven, because it does not tell us anything about the world of our experience, but I think that very fact is reason not to take the idea seriously. Such a God would be, at best, metaphysical fluff. Whether we should actually deny the claim is a trickier problem. The idea is a very similar idea to a number of patently absurd ideas, such as the idea that there is an invisible, incorporeal dragon that spits heatless fire in the room I'm renting for the summer. I have trouble entertaining an idea, but I am not sure it would be right to deny it. However, I might ask Carl Sagan's question: what's the difference between such a dragon and no dragon at all? Similarly, there is arguably no difference between an utterly mysterious God and no God at all.
16 comments:
I'm assuming that author Smith was saying the big problem between atheists and theists - making it impossible for them to debate - is that theists seem to believe it is necessary for us Positive athiests to PROVE that no god exists. But that is incorrect. It's NOT my duty to PROVE to any group of G. D. cretins - e.g. - that a 10.0000 kilometer diameter core of the planetoid Pluto is NOT made entirely of an alloy of 25.0% platinum and 75.0% pure gold - although I DO KNOW it ISN'T. But the theists are quite fond of asserting we NEED to do that - for us atheists to be able to ASSERT firmly There is no god. Of course, were they not a lot of dumb clucks - they would know that already, and would admit it's quite true. There is NO evidence to suggest any god exists - the theists are all crazy people, or are extremely stupid. Look at the foolishness in Iraq - and now also in Lebannon for example.
But there is ample evidence to suggest that there is something well beyond the world of experience, hopelessly beyond our ability to ever study, that leaves open all kinds of possibilities.
Individual scientific experiments are not, in general, predictable. Moreover, current scientists believe that they cannot ever be predictable in general. So where does that leave us: decisions are made every day in a way that we cannot experience, decisions that can affect the macroscopic.
To say that there is no evidence to suggest any god exists simply dismisses that which slaps us in the face: science assumed everything was predictable, that nothing was beyond science, and ended up proving itself wrong! Now where are we. What does it all mean? What are the philosophical consequences?
I think it's exciting to know that we're not the machines that Newton thought, don't you? Why would you want to dismiss a spiritual world, one that we cannot directly probe through this one, but which is influencing this one all the time? To dismiss this kind of spiritual world is to give up on explaination altogether. That's not the voice of a true scientist, one who demands explaination, now is it?
But there is ample evidence to suggest that there is something well beyond the world of experience, hopelessly beyond our ability to ever study, that leaves open all kinds of possibilities.
Internal contradiction, here. Evidence is based on experiences and the verification of those experiences.
Individual scientific experiments are not, in general, predictable. Moreover, current scientists believe that they cannot ever be predictable in general. So where does that leave us: decisions are made every day in a way that we cannot experience, decisions that can affect the macroscopic.
Science is based on forming hypotheses that predict the outcome of experiments. The fact that we're so successful in predicting outcomes is proof that we're getting more accurate in our science. We'll never gain certainty, but confidence is pretty good.
Additionally, I sense a lot of implicit quantum drivel. The small stuff is weird, but it's still deterministic. Additionally, the "law" of really big numbers tends to cancel out the probabilistic weirdness of the small scale when you move to the macroscopic world.
To say that there is no evidence to suggest any god exists simply dismisses that which slaps us in the face: science assumed everything was predictable, that nothing was beyond science, and ended up proving itself wrong! Now where are we. What does it all mean? What are the philosophical consequences?
What the [frell] are you talking about? We assume everything is predictable, because to assume otherwise would prevent all possibility of knowledge. When our predictions fail, it's more likely a problem with the hypotheses than an inconsistent universe.
"Beyond science" is usually a meaningless phrase: Anything that has an effect can be studied by science.
I think it's exciting to know that we're not the machines that Newton thought, don't you?
What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise? If you're talking about free will, you've got a lot of internal definitional problems to deal with, first.
Why would you want to dismiss a spiritual world, one that we cannot directly probe through this one, but which is influencing this one all the time?
Because there's no evidence for it. If it can't be studied by science, that means it has no effect on anything. If that's the case, it might as well not exist.
To dismiss this kind of spiritual world is to give up on explaination altogether. That's not the voice of a true scientist, one who demands explaination, now is it?
You're not making sense. Saying "it's magic!" isn't an explanation.
No, it is *not* an internal contradiction to say that there is evidence of something beyond science. Our theories and observation have both brought us to the place where we see that there are numerous simple experiments that we can perform which are not repeatable, even under the most ideal conditions. Whatever determines the *specific* outcome is not known, and we believe it to be unknowable. Experiments bear out the fact that such simple, individual experiments are not repeatable. Our current evidence more than supports such a hypothesis.
Next, we do not expect any of those unrepeatable experiments to be made more repeatable by anything we are doing. So, science is not *improving* as you might suggest.
Finally, you admit that you believe everything is predictable. Individual experiments abound which contradict that way of thinking. You simply have to drop that way of thinking if you're going to deal with current observational science.
"Beyond science" is that which is not repeatable. Individual experiments are not generally repeatable.
As for free will, here are the words of a very famous scientist, the inventor of the hydrogen bomb, spoken just a few years ago:
According to quantum mechanics ... we can think about the creation of the world as incomplete and human beings, indeed all living beings, as making choices left open to probability.
What is new, what is incredible, is that atoms don't behave like machines. Science cannot predict whether you have a free will or not.
No, it is *not* an internal contradiction to say that there is evidence of something beyond science.
You'll have to explain that to me. Science covers everything that has evidence.
Our theories and observation have both brought us to the place where we see that there are numerous simple experiments that we can perform which are not repeatable, even under the most ideal conditions.
Such as...?
Whatever determines the *specific* outcome is not known, and we believe it to be unknowable.
YOU believe it to be unknowable, whatever it is. Science draws no lines in the sand like that.
Experiments bear out the fact that such simple, individual experiments are not repeatable. Our current evidence more than supports such a hypothesis.
Evidence, such as?
Next, we do not expect any of those unrepeatable experiments to be made more repeatable by anything we are doing. So, science is not *improving* as you might suggest.
What are these phantom unrepeatable experiments?
Finally, you admit that you believe everything is predictable. Individual experiments abound which contradict that way of thinking. You simply have to drop that way of thinking if you're going to deal with current observational science.
What experiments?
"Beyond science" is that which is not repeatable. Individual experiments are not generally repeatable.
I smell wordgames.
As for free will, here are the words of a very famous scientist, the inventor of the hydrogen bomb, spoken just a few years ago:
Why bring in the scientist? Cut out the middle man. Bring in his arguments.
According to quantum mechanics ... we can think about the creation of the world as incomplete and human beings, indeed all living beings, as making choices left open to probability.
What is new, what is incredible, is that atoms don't behave like machines. Science cannot predict whether you have a free will or not.
That's a lot of words, but they don't say much. QM is probabilistic, at least at our current level of understanding. There's no good definition of free will, much less evidence thereof. It's like asking geometry to describe a round square.
Read about one of the most basic and old experiments (circa 1805), and recent variations on it.
Here, whether you shoot individual electrons, photons, or even atoms in a particular direction, one at a time, you do not get the same thing happening for each particle. This can be done with single particles, one at a time, and you would expect the same result each time, but you don't get it.
Read until you read about how they did this with atoms big enough to be photographed, even past where it says "This odd behaviour of particles is a very *real* phenomenon."
The only thing that *is* reproducible is the final distribution after performing the experiment "enough" times.
Your words don't mean a thing. If you want to learn more about real science, then pay for it by taking classes. You're not qualified to create your own theories when you don't know about simple experiments.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm
The experiments you're talking about don't lead to the conclusions you're stating.
I also think you link misrepresents quite a lot, since "observation" doesn't involve consciousness, and there are no worries about a need for an outside entity. It's also quite wrong about wave function collapse: Things are quite real before "observation." They're just weird.
I don't think I should bother continuing to read, since the link already misconstrues quite a lot in the typical deceptive fashion.
While scientific validity certainly requires a rigorous degree of repeatability, it is not the case that it need to provide repeatability at the level we want it to.
In the double-slit experiment, particles tend to act more like waves than like little billiard balls. This does not make them less predictable, or the experiment less repeatable. On the contrary. Using the same source of particles and the same dimensions of the slits, the experiment will yield the same results every single time. This is counterintuitive, yet it is also very objective and repeatable -- in other words, scientific.
Science is the method by which we observe and gain knowledge of events around us. If we can observe it, then science can be used to learn from it. Observations which the scientific method cannot be used on is, as Bronze Dog said, an internal contradiction.
Hi Beleth,
Thanks for you nice message, and an opportunity to clear up what is being said.
Shoot the particle through the double slit aparatus and record the position where it hits the screen on the other side. Suppose
position = f(m1,m2,m3,...)
where m1,m2,m3,... are some measured quantities. The final position would not change if we performed the same experiment without changing anything we can measure. But that's not what happens!!!! Amazingly, the outcome changes even though all measured quantities remain the same. The conclusion is that position does not just depend on what we can measure.
Definition of "beyond sciene": any experiment whose outcome does not just depend on what can be measured.
So, what determines the final position of an individual particle in the double slit experiment? My answer is: this is beyond science because it depends on more than just what we can measure.
Summary: Things that happen in this world do not just depend on what we can measure.
Philosophy: You can choose to assume that our science is necessarily incomplete. Or you can decide that there is something that influences this world, that depends on more than measurement. One way assumes there is no cause. The other way assumes a cause.
You can define free will in this way. Try it.
Definition of "beyond sciene": any experiment whose outcome does not just depend on what can be measured.
So, what determines the final position of an individual particle in the double slit experiment? My answer is: this is beyond science because it depends on more than just what we can measure.
In other words, anything we can't measure and anything we don't know about yet is beyond science.
Summary: Things that happen in this world do not just depend on what we can measure.
You say that as if it undermines science. Finding ways to measure what we previously didn't know how to measure is one of the things science excells at.
Philosophy: You can choose to assume that our science is necessarily incomplete.
Science is incomplete. Ask Godel. Ask anyone who knows anything about science. Find me someone who believes science is complete, and I'll give them a verbal smackdown.
Or you can decide that there is something that influences this world, that depends on more than measurement. One way assumes there is no cause. The other way assumes a cause.
You can define free will in this way. Try it.
Why assume a particular cause if there's no evidence for it? Ignorance is not a substitute for evidence. Science assumes a cause only because assuming something is acausal would be a matter of faith.
Your definition of free will doesn't sound anything like free will, and it doesn't explain anything: It sounds like the typical god in the gaps argument.
Science is incomplete. Ask Godel. Ask anyone who knows anything about science.
Be careful how you apply Godel's theorem. Remember that science could be inconsistent. Parts of science include formalism that are not part of mathematics. Further, if you add experimental observation of the universe to your proof method, then you've changed everything--it's no longer just a simple mathematical theory and Godel's theorem may not apply. Also, the kind of completeness I'm talking about is not implied by Godel's theorem.
Why assume a particular cause if there is no evidence for it?
That's the nature of science. There's no harm in creating new quantites that we cannot measure in order to obtain a full description. We still won't be able to predict the unpredictable, but the new model may learn to new results that we never thought about without the new model. That's precisely what the string theorists are doing. They have a dozen or so new quantities that cannot be measured, but upon which other things depend. So far there are no new predictions, but they're still looking.
That's the nature of science. There's no harm in creating new quantites that we cannot measure in order to obtain a full description.
Like they did with Phlogistan?
We still won't be able to predict the unpredictable, but the new model may learn to new results that we never thought about without the new model.
The only way something could be unpredictable is if it doesn't follow rules. I would think that would add up to a random, chaotic universe, rather than the orderly one we see right now (with some weirdness).
What "new model?"
That's precisely what the string theorists are doing. They have a dozen or so new quantities that cannot be measured, but upon which other things depend. So far there are no new predictions, but they're still looking.
As I understand it, they're using quantities that would be necessary for the theory to work. Of course, they still have to find a way to measure those values when they figure out how.
They're still working on coming up with a way to make predictions with string theory, last time I checked.
String "theory" may be scientifically inspired, and apparently promising, but it isn't scientific (yet) if they can't make predictions with it.
You're using a lot of faith to assume that some things are "unpredictable" and "unmeasureable". Reminds me of the fatalistic "unexplainable" crowd.
The only thing QM, M-theory, and all that tell me is that we still have more to learn. They don't change the fundamental nature of science, and they don't invalidate the science we have now. Einstein may have explained things better than Newton, but Newton's equations are still good enough in a lot of contexts.
If you liked it ever the least bit, check out his book titled Atheism: The Case Against God. Personally, I prefer Natural Atheism by David Eller. Much easier read and great for those debates you might fall into.
Hi anonymous -
I appreciate the chance to clear up things like this.
The final position would not change if we performed the same experiment without changing anything we can measure. But that's not what happens!!!! Amazingly, the outcome changes even though all measured quantities remain the same.
It depends on what gets measured. One of the things we can measure, but which isn't measured in the case we are discussing, is which slit the particle travels through. This turns out to be a critical measurement, for as soon as we do so, the diffraction pattern disappears and the particle starts acting like a particle again instead of like a wave.
The conclusion is that position does not just depend on what we can measure.
Actually, the conclusion is that position depends on what we choose to measure. In other words, observing something changes it.
So, what determines the final position of an individual particle in the double slit experiment? My answer is: this is beyond science because it depends on more than just what we can measure.
That's certainly one answer, and a one that persuades a lot of people. Certainly it's no huge stretch of the imagination to posit things that exist but which are unobservable through the finite senses humans possess.
To jump to the conclusion that such things qualify as any sort of god is unwarranted, however.
Here's a good example of PanDeism, the rationaly God-view, extrapolated from Warren B. Sharpe's "Philosophy for the Serious Heretic: The Limitations of Belief and the Derivation of Natural Moral Principles" (2002):
God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.
A comment for Hallq-
I would suggest that a more careful reading of chapter 1 of Smith's book would show you the problem of actually affirming the nonexistence of God. This is called "Positive Atheism" and is the trap the Theists love to set for the atheist. And you said it:
"I do not claim to be able to offer evidence against any sort of God that you could think of."
That is just what the Theist loves to hear. As he is unable to offer any credible proof God exists, so the atheist is unable to prove it doesn't. And then the debate is endless.
However, when the atheist says he simply lacks belief the Theist is
once again forced to try to prove his God exists. The onus is on the Theist.
If you go to www.atheismsucks.com
you will find there a paper discussing "real atheism" and "false atheism." Take note that the writer tries very hard to deny the atheist his lack of belief in the gods. Unfortunately, the writer also has many quotes from atheists supporting "Positive Atheism." He studiously avoids Smith's book which has several good quotes concerning negative atheism.
It is all about defining atheism.
Post a Comment