The New Agnostics

I apologise for resorting to cliched old responses, but when presented with tired, long ago discredited arguments, it seems like the natural thing to do.

Agnosticism is not some sort of woolly middle ground between theism and atheism. (A)thesim refers to belief, agnosticism refers to knowledge. Everyone in the world (if they were being intellectually honest) is an agnostic as no-one knows anything about any deities with any certainty. Theists however believe in one (or more) while atheists dont have this belief.

If you believe in a god or gods you are a theist. If you don't you are an atheist. Its really rather simple.

Claiming that you are neither, but rather an agnostic is ridiculous in the extreme. If someone asks about your belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden, you can similarly say that you believe in them or you reject that belief, but strictly speaking you would be agnostic about them too because you cannot know for certain.

A-gnostic means "without knowledge".

If that is an honest position, of an honest doubter then ok.

But if it is the position of someone who uses "doubt" as a smokescreen for something else, well, that is something else.

I dont think it a commendable position, to proudly take an agnostic position and then joyously scorn others with sincere faith.

If such a scorner believes in some form of God, but is not sure which, then he is in fact acknowledging that he may be scorning the very God he may believe in.

This is more common that initially apparent.

I suppose there are any number of directions we could go with this one, but I’ll try...

Form the Slate article, “ Agnosticism doesn't fear uncertainty. It doesn't cling like a child in the dark to the dogmas of orthodox religion or atheism.”

Well, Christianity doesn’t fear uncertainty either.

Am I *certain* that God exists or that Jesus is the Messiah, no, to be certain in this sense would require that I was greater than God. And, to be honest, I don’t think that Christianity has been helped by those adherents who speak of ‘assurance’ or ‘knowing God’ as if their knowledge/feelings/sense of God equalled certainty. I worry when people say they that have never doubted because it’s as if they are saying that we must put our trust in faith, that we must put our trust in believing. So I’m not so sure that to speak of theism or theist as those who are certain is correct. Such might display certainty in their attitude but that is not the same thing.

Another line in the article reads, “Humility in the face of mystery has been a recurrent theme of mine,” this seems reasonable, perhaps all the more reasonable and necessary if one claims to be a follower of “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (a quote recorded by another Jew ;-)

I believe, help thou mine unbelief, is as reasonable statement of Christian faith as any.

OT

"If that is an honest position, of an honest doubter then ok."

I would say I agree and am wondering if we can, while being clear about what Christian faith is, make room for doubts in our churches. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we should pursue doubt but neither do I think we should settle for a situation in which those who do doubt feel they must hide it. What do you think?

Will,

Atheism is often described as a sweeping categorisation of positions that are not theistic. I have a problem with this understanding. What is Theism? If Theism is, as often accepted in Northern Ireland, Abrahamic Religious Literalism, then Atheism would be the only rational position to adopt. But this is clearly a mischaracterisation; if what "God" means is just "whatever the bible says", then how does one account for the sense of the idea of non-biblical Gods? If I were to suggest that some universally powerful and benevolent entity guided our actions, but that this were not the thing Christians talked about in their texts, am I forbidden from calling it God?

Perhaps "ignorant" rather than "agnostic" might better describe my position, but if I don't know what God is supposed to be, how can I clearly state whether or not I have a belief in it? I do, for instance, believe a historical Jesus probably existed (at least, in as much as I believe history in general); does that suffice to render my position a theistic one? I believe that the reality beyond the confines of observation is probably chaotic and without rules - does this transfinite Chaos make me a theist? Am I ruled out of being Atheistic because I happen to believe that Free Will, being a property of reflexive, language speaking animals, imposes a moral duty on us to accept responsibility for our choices?

Atheism cannot answer these questions itself, because it's defined in opposition to Theism. Theistic positions must be those that decide what, if anything, "God" is supposed to mean as we talk about it. So I choose a position of Agnosticism to say the following: I don't know what "God" means, I don't think you do either, and until we sort it out, being opposed or in favour of it is rather pointless.

I get a little bit peeved when I see people refer to atheism as a 'faith based perspective', as mentioned above.

I'm an atheist, and it's not because I constantly fight against a natural inclination to believe in a god or because I ardently hope and wish that there is no god inspite of all the evidence that tells me otherwise (which there isn't) - that implies some form of active denial, that it takes effort for me not to believe. Far from it!

I'm an atheist as I don't see the existance of god as relevant to my world-view, it simply doesn't figure in. The evidence projects a universe that just doesn't need a divinity. It requires no faith on my part in the same way the vast majority of other people live their lives without pondering over the existance of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy when faced with a decision to make.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to be an atheist and an agnostic. Sure, I don't think a god exists and yes, it has no bearing on my life, nor do I think it has any relevancy to the universe as a whole. However, I cannot prove gods don't exist (Proving a negative? Nice trick!) so I'm always willing to accept that one -might-.

I also think you should label yourself as what you're agnostic towards. I'd never class myself as a Christian agnostic, as I'm willing to accept that -any- god might exist. Not only the one proscribed by the Abrahamic faiths.

Just about covers it.

#7

Well, boys, that's it, shut down the thread! :-)

sure 2mp

doubt is real and failure of one sort or another seems part of the normal life of every biblical character.

I think much more honesty along these lines could be very productive in churches.

But I like your turn of phrase to differentiate this from those who "pursue doubt".

Huxley said he had "a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble".

That seems to me pretty much as close as you can get to an absolutist faith position of any theist or athiest.


------------------

Natman

I have every respect for you choosing your own path, beliefs and identity.

This is actually inherent in the biblical story of man, from start to finish, Genesis to Revelation.

But I am not sure I am comfortable with your complaint that you are pressed to prove a negative ie that God does not exist.

Kepler said that science is "thinking God's thoughts after him".

The scientific revolution was enabled and inspired by a biblical worldview and motivation.

God was a given. No scientist ever thought to try and prove the source of their framework and inspiration at that time.

Only when the enlightenment muddied the waters much, much later was the situation reversed for philsophical reasons.

Only after the Enlightenment were the bemused scientists asked to prove the God who had given them modern science.

The point is, the shifting sands of history and philosophy swing back and forth regarding who the burden of proof lies on.

But it cannot be assumed that it is the absolutely fixed position to put the burden on one side or the other.

Free will baby, free will.

We will all choose our own beliefs, paths and destinies.

sincerely
OT

OT,

I've got to pull you up on a common misconception that somehow the scientific revolution was 'enabled and inspired by a biblical worldview and motivation'.

A lot of the 'scientific' groundwork for the scientific revolution was set by ancient Greek philosophers, Islamic scientists and Chinese innnovations. But ultimately it was the establishment of stable nation states and more productive and (dare I use the term) idle populations that let people begin to properly explore the world around them. Once the need to devote so many man-hours simply to staying alive was eliminated then the number of people studying for the sake of it rose. The ultimate cause for this environment is wildly regarded to be the series of plagues known collectively as the Black Death - the loss of so many peasants destroyed the feudal system and ultimately led to the wealthy middle-classes.

I will concede that a lot of scientific thinking was done by religious scholars but this simply highlights the point. Only those whose lives were so adequetely provided for by the Church could afford to spend time on study and not on farming or hunting. I'll also concede that the core beliefs of Christianity are conductive to research, but then so are the core beliefs of Islam, Buddhism and Confusism. All of these religions had their moments of scientific brilliance.

Natman

Your point is absolutely correct. the scientific revolution did indeed draw alot on greek scholarship.

However we all know that the reason it was called a revolution was because it broke so much new ground.

As to whether it relied on a biblical worldview or not to do this, I will allow readers to compare your comments to Keplers.

Whose carry the most authority?

---------------------

IN any event you do not challenge the main point I made.

The burden of proof shifts here and there, now and then.

It cannot be disputed that the men behind the revolution did indeed hold God as a given, studying natural processes in an open system, not a closed one.

You can't simply assert that it is invalid to expect an athiest to prove there is no God.

That argument may sound ok in this time and place. But this is a very particular time and place, and the sweep of history and geography do not side with you on this point.

OT

OT, nearly everyone in the timescale of the scientific revolution believed in a god as given. A good majority were also probably racist, misogynistic and looked down on poor people, as that was the given norm. Your point has no value whatsoever as we cannot rewind history, remove their belief in god and re-run the revolution, just to see if their belief was as central as you claim.

I assert it again then, as you say I can't:-

It is not the requirement for someone who doesn't believe in something to provide evidence that that that something does not exist. You are the one trying to insert a variable. You are the one who should provide the evidence. This statement rings true for all principles in science, and the existance of god is no exception.

Your comment regarding Kepler is an arugment to authority and as such I shall ignore it.

Ha, OT, that is only because we have made *progress*! it was fine to assume a god while it behaved nicely and kept out of the way... Until someone pointed out that that is indistinguishable from no god at all. And they were right! If Christianity was so funky for science, it's funny it took them one and a half millennia to get the finger out.

put another way Natman

As for the greeks, islamists and chinese... did they generally assume that God or gods existed, or did they assume they didn't.

Perhaps someone more informed than me can answer me this question.

If someone holds an unproveable assumption that God does not exist, why isnt that a faith position?

It certainly seems like one to me?

OT

The founder of agnosticism was plagued with mental illness and depression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Is this a recommendation for agnosticism or irrelevant?

Discuss.

OT....

I'll put it the same way:

The vast majority of people before a couple of hundred years ago believed in a god or gods, that doesn't necessarily mean that their belief in divinities was the source of scientific reason. I'd place a hefty bet that for those classical scientistics their belief in gods was entirely seperate to their research. To them, the belief in gods was irrelevant to their studies aside from how it showed the 'marvels of creation' or some other theistic nonsense.

You're getting confused it seems with assumptions and a lack of assumptions:

I make no assumptions gods don't exist. I really don't care, one way or the other. If you want to convince me otherwise, provide me with evidence. If you can't then I'll carry on with my lack of assumptions about the existance of god. Sorry, but I cannot provide evidence for my lack of an assumption that gods exist.

The invisible magical dragon that cannot be proven is not in my garage.

You explain to me how I'm supposed to prove that to you? A lack of dragon? But it's invisible. A lack of evidence of dragon? But it's magical and cannot be proven. It's impossible.

Natman

Kepler never attributed his science to racism misogny or snobbery.

He attributed it to thinking God's thoughts after him.

But I think I am now coming around to your point of view now thanks to your powers of persuasion.

Kepler was of course a complete idiot who knew nothing about the scientific revolution. If only he had been around today you could have put him right on a few things.

Natman - in what way is an unproveable assumption that there is no God NOT a faith position?

---------------------------

Helio.

I dont think the purpose of Christianity was to create science, just one of its many happy byproducts I guess.

;-)

The connection between Christianity and the scientific revolution was that it created a worldview which provided the motivation to study "creation", now seen as act of worship to the "Creator" and as such was for many years led by clergymen. This was a major breakthrough.

It was also brought a new concept, to believe in a creation which could be unravelled in this way.

Hence Kepler's articulation of the zeitgeist of the revolution; "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".

Before this there was no equivalent motivation or vision of how and why to do science as it is now known. THAT shows that there was indeed a central need for God to germinate the revolution.

There is much more to it than that, but that was a key point. I agree that the other variables that Natman mentions were important to various degrees also.

As ever, it is always an unhappy cooincidence for athiests that Christian influenced society leads throughout history in terms of health, education, wealth, freedom, justice and science.

It is also always a major unhappy cooincidence for athiests that pagan and athiestic nations tend strongly to the opposite.

OT

OT,

You're repeating the same points again and again, ignoring the basics of my posts and continuing to cling to your argument of authority. Kepler was one man, with one opinion based on an age many centuries ago; he also believed in astrology, but I notice you're keeping quiet about that. A lot of well respected scientists viewed Keplers views on religion and metaphysics with a great deal of skeptism, I'm happy to throw my hat in with tham.

Until you read what I'm posting and actually respond to it, I can't progress this any more. Read my last post and actually respond to it. Until you can prove that the invisible magical dragon in my garage doesn't exist, I'm going to demand that it does. I might even branch out and try to get it taught in schools too.

PS OT,

I've just picked up on your comment about the founder of Agnostism having mental health issues and your insinuation that they're somehow related.

I'll leave others to rip that idea apart as I find it too absurd to even bother.

I prefer to think of myself as ignostic. I would refuse the label 'agnostic' but acknowledge that I can go along with a lot of the thought process which led Huxley to coin the term.

OT - # 15 - not only irrelevant - offensive! Luther, to take one salient example, was a well-known sufferer from what we would now call depression - would you accept that as a reason for dissing Christianity?

OT:

"As ever, it is always an unhappy cooincidence for athiests that Christian influenced society leads throughout history in terms of health, education, wealth, freedom, justice and science.

It is also always a major unhappy cooincidence for athiests that pagan and athiestic nations tend strongly to the opposite."

This seems a bit jingoistic, because I for one cannot see how that is based on fact. Going by the Human Development Index and other measures, the Nordic countries have the most developed societies in the world. It is also widely acknowledged that they are among the most secular, and are indeed quite atheistic in many respects.

So long as we are talking about the vagaries of liberal, secular societies and moderate contemporary religious societies, I cannot imagine that religion or lack of it plays a particularly key role in development one way or the other. If there is any kind of discernible contemporary trend then it seems to be going in a direction opposite to what you have described.

Natman

sorry but this seems to be getting heated / personal and that was not my intention.

thanks for the time and chat.

you say you would place a hefty bet that classical scientists would hold their faith and science very seperately but Kepler's views was representantive and foundational, not an erratic;-

"science is thinking God's thoughts after him".

this was not an abberrant thought from a lone wolf. there is a world of scholarship fleshing out this view as typical/germinal of the scientific revolution. neither was kepler a random figure in the revolution but a critical founding member. his work was a cornerstone of the revolution which shaped everyone after him.

Newton saw his system as created and upheld by God. etc etc etc. the leading lights were clergymen. how many were passionate athiests?

the opposite has been true of all science producing cultures in history.

funny how i accept the validty of every factor you point out in the revolution as important and you deride every point of mine as 100% irrelvant. are you really so right? am i really so wrong?

are you seriously asking us to believe your stance as an athiest/agnostic has no bearing on this? its simply not tenable to write off the christian faith as having no significant role at all in the revolution. oppenheimer had no doubt the opposite was true.

any objective observer would have to give it some significance.

the worldview required for the revolution was simply not there until faith was brought to bear. nobody had a reason to try for such a revolution, nobody could concieve that the path existed. faith provided both.

was oppenheimer so completely wrong on this very point too?

there is a world of scholarship underlining the importance of the christian faith to the scientific revolution. i dont expect everyone to buy into it. but for you to simply wave it away as 100% irrelevant with a swipe of your hand ....that suggests an attitude which is facile and puerile.

fyi kepler never attributed his science to astrology either.

Sure views are divided i accept. I accept we will agree to differ.

Oppenheimer is just one example of those with my perspective.

You say you are looking for progress.

Please can you explain to me the unproveable assumption that there is no God is not a faith position? how can it be anything else?

I asked for a discussion about Huxley's mental health, unashamedly. no apology.

If the founders of new worldviews suffer serious mental health issues I for one think it is perfectly reasonable for people to understand and explore this before they buy into them. is there a connection? if so how? if not why? no conclusions drawn. discuss.

who is going to tell me that if someone meditates throughout life on the fact that their life has no ultimate meaning, that they are just a random blob of jelly, that there are no ultimate right or wrong, that suffering and injustice will never be righted, that they will never see parents and children and lovers after death ever again.... who is going to tell me such thinking will not affect mental health?

I am not saying I am right. I am asking for a discussion.


-----------------------------------------------------

Progressive compulsive

please can you tell me which nordic countries did not have a significant input into the creation of their modern culture from christian literature, jurisprudence, ethics, arts, education, health, and the biblical work ethic?

are you seriously suggesting that the nordic countries developed in some sort of parallel universe to the rest of europe???


the main point i note is that while i said the main thrust of my point was correct and clearly allowed for qualification, you have ignored my main argument.

instead you have tried to claim victory with a minor qualification.

first try and prove your qualification stands up. no significant christian input as per the rest of europe? really???

then explain why you claim victory through ignoring the broad burden of truth, history and geography behind my argument.

i agree that the west is in a post-christian period. that does not mean we have yet airbrushed away the history that created such cultures.

christianity made europe what it is today. no reformation, no scientific revolution, no hospitals, no church schools and universities, no biblically inspired law (Alfred the great etc), no biblical work ethic/industry, no red cross, no magna carta, no biblically inspired/church funded art or music.

how can there be any jingoism in dissecting the strengths of a culture which prospers on every continent and for all races???

sincerely

OT

Will re They are psychologically distinct too: part of the difference between atheists and agnostics may simply be that they are different kinds of personality types.
So just wondering how would this explain the fact that people can be atheist and agnostic and a 'believer' in God in the one lifetime - are you suggesting they change personality type over the course of their life as well? As you will see I have a personal interest in asking!

There are probably people here who have always believed in God and some who have never believed in God and then the mix of previous 'believer'/now non-believer and non-believer/now 'believer'.
I have been both atheist and agnostic and for me now God is a reality and in my view there is a bit more to it than personality types! I can relate to some of the points in the linked article and certainly when I was atheist/agnostic I didn't know what I didn't know (and of course I still don't know what I don't know but I know more than I did back then!) Indeed then I thought I knew more than those who said they believed in God and I thought they were all deluded and just needed a crutch to help them through life and to face life and/or death. I could say I had a certain arrogance about that and was quite smug that I didn't need any such nonsense as a 'God'. No need to worry about heaven or hell because for me they didn't exist (hell still doesn't - except here on earth!) so I could just be free to live my life and have nothing to do with religion/God/spirituality etc. I had no time for any of it - and saw those that did as being somehow weak - why couldn't they just get on with life? So as an atheist I was completely closed to God - as that God had been defined/explained/taught to me.
The God that I rejected then was a God that for me now doesn't exist - a God that punishes, judges and condemns - where we are all sinners and unworthy - all at the same time as supposedly loving you. THose who favour logic - may see these things are not compatible. It was the God that was preached about and still is in Churches across N. Ireland - the God of commandments, of the Old and New testament, who loved all human beings equally yet had one special Son - that he loved so much he had him killed for us supposedly. Again, those who favour logic and even simple common sense may see and know these are not compatible and not consistent with a God that loves all equally all of the time and certainly for me do not and did not resonate as any form of truth.
During my agnostic years - I realised that I just didn't know whether God existed or not, was real or not. I still wasn't looking or searching for God - I just realised that I really didn't know enough about all there is to know about God or the universe to come to any conclusion. I became less dogmatic and less sure of my atheistic assertions - I can see now that the latter arose in reaction to and as a consequence of being told lies about God and I rejected God (the false ones and the true one) instead of the lies.
LIfe led me to question further, probe deeper, read and do my own research, search and seek and eventually find some answers/understandings that continue to deepen and unfold. Along the way I would think I had some answers then find they weren't really the answers and that there is indeed much more to this world than meets the eye. So for me now there is ongoing unfolding/uncovering/discovering. Combined with that my life has been transformed and continues to be so by the application of the understandings. The God of my experience/knowing now is a God that loves and loves and loves some more. There is nothing 'bad' about God - nothing to fear, no-one is condemned by God - we are very good at doing that to ourselves and by our own actions. I know now that God was always there even in my darkest and most hellish times - although I did not know that then.
So in that journey from atheism through agnosticism to God what for me stands out as being some of the key factors? (not mentioning all here )
1) The God that I rejected was not really God but based on bastardised descriptions/teachings and mis-interpretations of God. There is no reason to reject the God that I have come to know to day(in my view) and it is my personal thought that many atheists are probably rejecting a God that is not God - but one that is based on the instructions at church/school/religion and perhaps older concepts of God as something separate to or outside oneself.
2) My atheistic assertions carried an arrogance of certainity - yet I was truly ignorant of how much I didn't know and how much I didn't know I didn't know! Some may say my assertions today are no different - and I understand that. I have not rid myself of that one (arrogance) completely yet! A work in progress! However, there is a huge difference in the life lived and how I am today and how I was....and this is a result of applying the understandings and living what for me resonates as being true of God as much as I am able to.
3) My journey from atheism -agnosticism-God for me is characterised by
closed mind, closed heart - to open mind, closed heart - to open mind, open heart.
I emphasize this is how I see my own journey. Other people will of course have their own stories and own take on their own stories. Also I am not saying that all atheists are closed minded, closed heart and all people who believe in God are open minded and open hearted. This is of course not true - there are plenty of God-believers who are closed minded and closed hearted - as assessed by their judgmentalism/condemnation of others etc. But for me someone who knows God (as opposed to believe) would be open minded and open hearted - as they are some of the fruits of boundless love.
I have perhaps put that too simply - and I appreciate it's not just that simple! :-)

thanks Eunice

an interesting honest and warm post.

i think you make an important point.

many if not most regulars on this blog have veered radically from one side of the faith spectrum to the other in their lives.

does it really make sense to suggest that their personalities are the cause of this??

it sort of reminds me of humpty dumpty hermenutics as per the online yale course.

traditionally churches tried to understand the message the author was trying to communicate. now in post christian post modernism, the objective is to see how many radically different interpretations you can squeeze out of the text. the text means whatever you want it to mean.

we are not responsible. the author does not matter. our personalities re-write the text for each of us according to our needs.

our destinies are decided by our personalities. we are just passengers.

"what is truth?" pilate sneered.

[We now think] Jesus said: "like, truth is whatever feels good for you pilate, man. if it feels good for you, do it man. and if it works for you man that is A-ok by me, man".

;-)

OT

OT - I must be becoming a grumpy old man - first Eunice irks me and now part of your post # 22 really gets under my skin!

Ideas, like works of literature, must be judged on their own merits. If we were to reject the output of those who have clearly at some stage in their lives suffered from mental illness in one form or another then both the arts and sciences would be immeasurably impoverished and great chunks of the Bible would have to be excised.

I ask again, should Luther's profound depression cause us to question Protestantism, a movement of which he was a major founder?

You say "who is going to tell me that if someone meditates throughout life on the fact that their life has no ultimate meaning, that they are just a random blob of jelly, that there are no ultimate right or wrong, that suffering and injustice will never be righted, that they will never see parents and children and lovers after death ever again.... who is going to tell me such thinking will not affect mental health?"

I am going to tell you that such thoughts do not in any necessary way lead to mental health problems - intellectually I share most of those opinions myself and am happy to say that I enjoy excellent emotional and mental health. It is not what we think, it is how we think about it which is liable to lead to problems.

I am glad to be able to tell you that, in my experience, many Christians are able to contemplate with equanimity the idea that God has determined their eternal destiny before the foundation of the world swamping any freedom of choice with His irresistible grace, that His mercy will redeem outrageous sinners on their deathbeds while condemning to everlasting torment children outside His election; they can live perfectly well with the fact that their departed unsaved parents, siblings, partners, children are suffering the unending pain of Hell without possibility of release. You will be glad to know that such people are not clinically bonkers so, of-course, we can take their opinions seriously.

I was reading this comment about skeptics and atheists and I thought it was quite good.

'A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

I would put it differently Brian,

'all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence'

No - you do not need observational evidence to believe something that is self evident from the numbers of people who believe things without observational evidence. You do however need observational evidence to convince me that your beliefs are in fact true. Belief and truth are different things.

'beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated'

They can and are tolerated, anyone is entitled to their beliefs and that is a Human Right. What is not tolerated is those beliefs being used to control the lives of those who do not believe or being presented as immutable fact.

'However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence'

This is simply bunkum to try and justify the creation of a god to explain what we cannot explain by our own knowledge. As an atheist I accept I cannot explain the fundamental starting point of the universe, I know it has a cause but I will not make up a supernatural being or a fairy story to explain it.

So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

Which is why few people identify themselves as strong atheists. Most of us are atheists in the same sense that you are a-fairy at the bottom of the garden - ist.

Hi,

I read the piece Will's entry is based on a few days ago. I've only ever held that I'm an agnostic, and am uncomfortable with the purported certitude of people who have lately decided to claim atheism.

It seems this is an effort to take the wind from the sails of the less thoughtful people who've jumped on the atheist bandwagon and rather lowered the tone. I think Dawkins et al, while I wouldn't put them in this bracket, are responsible for this. The "new atheist" bandwagoners very often don't have the slightest clue what they're on about, or the history of the conflict between science and religion. In arguments between them and, say, evangelicals, they'll proffer quite a lot of nonsense that they don't bother to corroborate, just to have a quick answer. In this they do their own "side" a grave disservice and basically hand ammunition to the people they claim to oppose.

Agnosticism is much more in line with the scientific world-view, which is characterised by doubt. The neuroscientist David Eagleman has come up with the rather ugly term "possibilian" to describe the same sentiment but with the negative connotation of being "a-anything", and has written a book about it.

From a recent review (see: https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/the-struggle-for-the-possible-soul-of-david-eagleman/ ):

"Though Eagleman’s scientific and literary lives seem radically different on the surface, they are part of the same creative endeavor: to deepen our understanding of a complex world we can never fully grasp. Since scientists mostly talk about what they know, Eagleman’s emphasis on our ignorance may seem out of character. Eagleman offers an analogy: The work of science is like building a pier out into the ocean. We excitedly add on to the pier little by little, but then we look around and say, “Wait a minute, I’m at the end of the pier, but there’s a lot more out there.” The ocean of what we don’t know always dwarfs what we do know, he says. “During our lifetimes, we will get further on that pier. We’ll understand more at the end of our lives than we do now, but it ain’t going to cover the ocean.”"

This, I personally am much more comfortable with. Doubt needn't equal fear. Doubt needn't mean admitting a god. Doubt and not knowing can also, as can be seen in the face of any child seeing something wonderful for the first time, also engender awe.

The trouble with the new atheist bandwagoners is perhaps - since they are just bandwagoners - that they haven't really been thoughtful enough.

Just to follow on...here are some quotes from some leading scientists...sorry, they don't mention fairies

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for
the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

I could give you an extended list of leading scientists. They all conclude in the fact of intelligent design....but sorry...no fairies.

Hi Parahasios - long time no chat? hope you are keeping well!

In one sense i agree with you, that ideas must be judged on their own merits ie in the rarified blogosphere where all ideas are equal and it would be almost a hate crime to suggest otherwise.

but on another it is "cabbage". (i like it helio).

in ordinary life if someone who is clearly mentally ill enjoins you to follow his advice you will most certainly take his state of mind into account when weighing his advice.

i just dont believe that in normal day to day life people do not weigh the quality of advice or guidance from each other on the basis of their mental/emotional integrity.

Please understand me. I am not saying that I have a magic model for diagnosing the causes of every type of mental illness in every case. cabbage.

neither am i saying that athiests who violate their consciences persistently will all fall prey to the same obvious mental illness in the same time and way.

however, obviously Dawkins and his acolytes think all people of faith are clearly mentally ill and this is now a widely acceptable public attitude thanks to him.

and his followers definitely display his same attitudes, which i make no apology for saying mitigate against emotional their health.

ok?

what I am saying without apology is that if i firmly pursue beliefs and a lifestyle which entail any selection of the following i will definitely tend to undermine my mental health to some degree as opposed to bolstering it;-

that is, if i embrace there being no meaning, purpose or abosolute right or wrong in life; reject as absolutes the two greatest commandments to love God and my neighbour as myself, instead putting my selfish desires above all else; reject any hope of life after death for me and my loved ones; embrace the fact that I am a random meaningless monkey in the vast universe....

those vales held dearly to a lesser or greater extent will undermine mental health, I hold.

that is definitely not saying that everyone in that sphere will develop the same symptoms, to the same severity in the same timescale. ok?

personalities vary so greatly as do the extent of violations of conscience in the above fields from person to person.

but you cant tell me such beliefs do not mitigate against mental and emotional stability as opposed to bolstering it. i only point to the objectionable attitudes of dawkins and his followers as evidence not of mental illness but certainly very unhealthy attitudes.

and nor does that mean that Godly people do not suffer depression or great heaviness. of course they do. didnt Job? didnt Peter? didnt Christ?

in them this was due to their gethsemanae experiences.

no doubt unbalanced religious beliefs can also lead to mental problems.

In my journey I have had real contact with an array of mental illness.

some i have seen was due to excessive introspection and passivity. some was to due massive violation of conscience.

a common feature in mental illness seems to be putting self firmly at the centre of the universe and God and others pushed away, thereby tending to reject a healthy identity as a loved and accepted child of God with a mission to serve others in life.

as for your apparent equation of extreme calvinism with christianity, it does appear to be a straw man argument.

I personally dont know anyone who believes what you portray. my associates would equally hold the other wing of scripture in balance, which emphasises free will and the call of God to repent and be baptised for redemption. two sides of the same coin, both equally portrayed in scripture. balance is all.

of the people of regular orthodox christian faith on this blog, for example, what percentage of them do you think hold such calvinism as you mention?

as for Luther, I am not familiar with the mental issue you allege.

if it was real, was it a symptom of Godly struggles against the world the flesh and the devil ....or caused by athiestic defiance of the warp and weave of the created universe and man's purpose in it?

or perhaps you have another explanation?

;-)

Later

OT

Dave (@ 27) -

You do however need observational evidence to convince me that your beliefs are in fact true. Belief and truth are different things.

You, of course, like all of us, are free to accept whatever arguments and evidence you like. But the idea that truth must be established on observational evidence is nonsense. Is the idea "that truth must be established on observational evidence" itself established or verified by observational evidence? The answer to that is 'no'. This is an idea - a concept, not something floating around in the universe that we can observe with a telescope or microscope or some other empirical means. It is an assumption we bring to empirical data, not a result we derive from that data.

You can have all the 'observational evidence' you like (a stream of empirical sensations), but it can only mean something if it is ordered and interpreted by ideas which are held before any act of observation.

I find it a supreme irony that the people who champion empiricism (i.e. truth can only be based on observational evidence) can provide no observational evidence of the process by which life can self-assemble without the need for the input of intelligent ordering. They say that they have no observational evidence of God. Fair enough. But I have no observational evidence of their 'god', namely, the magical process by which complexity can derive from non-directed and non-intelligent means.

According to atheists (or 'strong agnostics') God is likened to my "fairy at the bottom of the garden", but I can't help but notice that they too have a "fairy at the bottom of the garden" - a magical process of creation, which is assumed, but not observed.

So one of the reasons why I am not a 'believer' in the philosophy undergirding atheism - metaphysical naturalism - is that I see no observational evidence to support it. All the observational evidence that has ever been presented to me tells me that complexity derives from intelligence (and even those supposed random processes which are claimed to create order are the outworking of complex and ordered laws - e.g. the formation of snowflakes, although there is a vast difference between non-living structures and living systems).

So I am very willing to play the empiricist. Hence my rejection of atheism.

LSV,

They say that they have no observational evidence of God. Fair enough. But I have no observational evidence of their 'god', namely, the magical process by which complexity can derive from non-directed and non-intelligent means.

There is no observational evidence for a magical process by which complexity can derive from non-directed and non intelligent means, I simply refuse to call it magic or create a god to explain it.

If I simplify your statement, what I say is

There is no evidence for god
There is no evidence to explain how the universe started

You are the one characterising it as my god and a magical process, I make no such characterisation, I only claim not to understand it and not to invent something to fill in the gaps.

@Brian T 30

I didn't make myself very clear, evidently. What I meant was that the strength of most atheists' belief in the absence of gods was of the same type as your - and anybody elses's - strength of the belief in the absence of fairies at the bottom of the garden. Essentially we are talking Russell's Teapot.

As for your quotes, well, irrespective of who makes it, an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity is worthless. Furthermore, Fred Hoyle's arguments betrayed an unfortunate misunderstanding of both evolutionary theory and probability for such a clever bloke.

I could give you an extended list of leading scientists. They all conclude in the fact of intelligent design...

I raise you Project Steve.

Dave (@ 33) -

You are the one characterising it as my god and a magical process, I make no such characterisation, I only claim not to understand it and not to invent something to fill in the gaps.

OK, fair enough, Dave. I apologise for sticking my neck out a bit too far in my comments as far as you are concerned (I was clearly still in "challenging Natman and Helio" mode when I wrote what I did!).

But what I have said is certainly true of certain other contributors to this blog. If by the word 'god' we understand any reality - any authoritative process - which defines our whole explanation of reality, then the idea of 'evolution by natural selection' is most certainly in that category for a great many people. It could also be justly characterised as 'magical' in that its inner dynamic of randomness (defined as 'nature left to its own devices without the directing hand of intelligence') is not supported by scientific evidence, but is an idea assumed for philosophical reasons (the alternative 'intelligence theory' being obviously too horrific for such people to contemplate).

Again, I regret directing my comments to you personally. But my point stands. If theists are inventing something to 'fill in the gaps', then so are atheists. We have, of course, no direct empirical evidence to tell us how life arose, and therefore any theory can only ever attain the status of speculation (or perhaps: 'faith').

Brian Thomas

I could give you an extended list of leading scientists. They all conclude in the fact of intelligent design....but sorry...no fairies

but no christian god either,

which is exactly my point, I accept there is a cause, but we have nothing to even begin to have an explanation of that cause. An all powerful deity might be the answer, it could also be that we are the abandoned lab experiment of some superbrat who has lost interest or some other explanation. I will not invent something to fill that gap nor will I accept someone else's beliefs at face value, there is no evidence for the christian, or any other, god which we as humans have invented.

grokesx

ref project steve...

you do realise the project explicitly promotes the idea of an almighty God having created the universe and life and having guided the develolpment of life through evolution?

Project Steve argues;-

"...a large proportion (40%) of prominent scientists believe in a God that is sufficiently personal or interactive with humankind that human evolution is guided or planned."

https://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god


are you really comfortable with that grokesx?

It is easy to see who the "new atheists" are- Dave, Natman
fairies and all that
Intellectual titans

Quoting from gotquestions.org

"In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence"

Parrhasios: many Christians are able to contemplate with equanimity the idea that God has determined their eternal destiny before the foundation of the world swamping any freedom of choice with His irresistible grace, that His mercy will redeem outrageous sinners on their deathbeds while condemning to everlasting torment children outside His election; they can live perfectly well with the fact that their departed unsaved parents, siblings, partners, children are suffering the unending pain of Hell without possibility of release. You will be glad to know that such people are not clinically bonkers so, of-course, we can take their opinions seriously.

I am intrigued Parrhasios by some of the suggestions you make here. From previous exchanges I understand that you feel you know God and that God is love. When you love someone - do you also condemn them? Can you please explain to me how love condemns? How can any children or anyone be outside God's 'election' if all people come from God and are Gods children - all loved equally by him? Do you really believe that people are 'suffering the unending pain of Hell without possibility of release' and if so is this what love leads you to believe? Do you really believe you have no freedom of choice - is it you (or something else) that chooses what you eat , where you go during the day, what clothes you wear, what work you do, what time you go to bed etc etc and what if you change your mind - who is changing the decision?

I find these quite shocking (to put it mildly)- and for me they are far far removed from a God that is pure love and to my experience/understanding does not condemn anyone, no-one is going to Hell forever more or even for a short visit, and no-one is outside God's election and yes we do have free will and freedom of choice. I really do not understand how you can hold these views and also hold that God is love - there is a disconnection between the two positions (these views and God is love) that for me just does not marry up.
So whilst we both say we know God and that God is love and sounds like an agreement :-) - for me there is a vast difference in the detail and for me these views are not coming from nor consistent with an all loving God.
Equally I know you disagree with my views and I am not writing this by way of retort nor to inflame your ire - I am genuinely shocked and dismayed that you feel a God of love could do these things. For me these ideas/opinions (not the people) are 'bonkers' (putting it very mildly).

Brian (#39),

The teleological argument is utter bunkum.

"The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros)"

Yes, however, that statistic only applies if you're looking at it externally. The chances of winning the lottery stand at around 70 million to one, however, to the one that wins it, the chances are 100%. We sit at the same position. As unlikely life is to occur, the fact we exist renders the chances invalid. We are that impossible chance.

The rest of your arguments are either appeals to authority (I believe that it must have come from someone greater than I) or arguments from ignorance (I can't conceive it happening naturally, therefore goditit).

None of which are really that valid.

@OT 37

are you really comfortable with that grokesx?

Am I comfortable with a poll? Why ever wouldn't I be?

In case you missed it in your desperate scramble to find something to reinforce your beliefs, Project Steve is merely a demonstration of the fatuous nature of the sort of lists Brian was wittering on about. As they say, scientific matters are not settled by votes - or polls for that matter, and so it is just as irrelevant that the 1998 poll you mention has 40% of scientists plumping for theistic evolution as the one last year that had 87% of scientists agreeing with Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.

Interesting exercise in quote mining, though. Well done.

Natman proves the validity of the last line of my post number 39.

A survey reflects that 2% of the world population are atheists...11% are agnostics.

It appears they're in the minority!!

@Natman (41)

I'm not overly interested in the creation debate, but I am interested in the reasoning and methods used, of which yours seems to make little sense. Maybe you can help me understand the logic of your argument.

An event happens and possible causes are put forward with varying degrees of probability that each cause happened. Your argument seems to be that because the event happened, then the probability of any particular cause leading to that event is irrelevant. In that case, how do you determine the most likely cause?

There a case for saying that just because an event is unlikely doesn't mean that it is unlikely to have been the cause of another event. The probability of A happening is rather different to the probability of A causing B, given that B happened. The question is therefore not 'how likely are these causal events to have happened' but rather 'how likely are these causal events to have happened, given that the consequence has definitely happened.'

Is that what you meant to communicate? If it is, then I think you may have confused matters (and possibly yourself) with the lottery illustration. A better illustration for that case, also involving the lottery, would be as follows:

Alice has a winning lottery ticket.
Bob says that it is highly unlikely that Alice would have bought a winning lottery ticket, therefore Alice must have stolen it.
Alice counters that although she is unlikely to have bought a winning lottery ticket, that doesn't make her more likely to be a thief. Given that she has a winning ticket, the probability of her having purchased it is higher than the probability of her having stolen it.

NB This isn't a comment on the probability of any particular process of creation being historical or fictional, but rather a critique of the reasoning employed.

Natman (@ 41) -

"The teleological argument is utter bunkum."

Well, if it is 'bunkum' at least it doesn't rely on a circular argument, such as this classic:

"As unlikely life is to occur, the fact we exist renders the chances invalid. We are that impossible chance."

In other words, we assume life arose by chance, and then since life exists, that proves that life arose by chance!!! Really, Natman, if you are going to use outrageous circular arguments like that, please alert us well in advance with an explicit health warning. We don't want people falling off their chairs with dizziness now, do we?!!

Also, Natman, since you are so good at the theory of probability, perhaps you wouldn't mind taking into account the fact that it is not only the formation of proteins that should be considered, but also the preservation of these molecules. It is not just the formation of life, but its preservation against all hostile forces that evolution needs to ensure. So it is not just a matter of calculating odds for isolated events, but the odds should be calculated for the occurance of a long series of highly improbable events occurring in an unbroken sequence (note the word 'unbroken') every nanosecond for millions of years. The more time you give this process the less likely it is to occur. The probability of life being snuffed out at any point in this sequence increases exponentially as time goes on. Perhaps you would like to calculate those odds, and then let us see how your lottery comparison holds up?

Furthermore, I assume that since you regard the teleological argument as 'utter bunkum', and since you fancy yourself as a scientist, perhaps you would be so good as to provide some evidence as to why this is so? Or does your subjective opinion count as the only 'scientific' evidence we could possibly need?

@ Jonathan

Alice and Bob - so you're a physicist, then?

grokesx

Thanks, but that was hardly a quote mine.

Project Steve is 100% explicitly teleological.

Works for me.

But obviously not you.

OT

Eunice - # 40. I am biting my tongue so hard I must be drawing blood and that not because I fear either eternal damnation or coming back as a snail in my own garden. May I respectfully suggest you try connecting the processes of reading and comprehension?

@grokesx (46)

Once upon a time.

Brian (#39), I agree with Natman, none of your arguments are based in fact, they are simply trying to find ways to slot your god theory into things we do not have actual answers to.

1)ontological argument: I can conceive of things that do not exist, does not make them exist. The concept begins with a definition of god, then uses that definition to prove god. There is no support for the original definition so there is no basis for the argument. The logic is sound but the data is wrong.

2) teleological argument : Natman has expanded on that already

3) cosmological argument : I agree the universe must have a start, we do not know what it is, you fill that knowledge gap with a god, but there is nothing to back up your theory, it is simply conjecture.

4) moral argument : this is not an argument, it is a denial that we can think for ourselves, I can make moral decisions about right and wrong which do not require an external superbeing, I find it odd that you as another human being cannot. I would contend that people who have never encountered your god can be very moral.

I do not reject gods existence, that assumes that the default position is that god exists. The default position is unprogrammed, I do not accept your god is a truer status.

LSV,

You are right, I do not hold evolutionary theory and all it entails as the explanation to everything. I accept that it answers a great many questions as to why life is what it is today as opposed to what it was millions of years ago. I also think it is incomplete in that there are random (or pseudo random) variables which we cannot compute which is why we cannot predict accurately our evolutionary path.

Evolutionary theory is just one component which explains one small part of our reality (and does not even attempt to explain how life arose in the first place) and we should not create a god from it, just like we should not create gods for other things which we can or cannot explain.

We have, of course, no direct empirical evidence to tell us how life arose, and therefore any theory can only ever attain the status of speculation (or perhaps: 'faith')

In this statement I think you have encapsulated the entire debate, we have no empirical evidence - agreed, any theory is speculation - agreed, or perhaps: 'faith'? - so faith is an acceptance of speculation without empirical evidence. It is the ability, need or indeed wish to accept that difference which separates us.

As to the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything - 42 is still as plausible as many other theories.

Parrhasios: I apologise if I have misunderstood/mis-interpreted you and please do release your tongue!
re contemplate with equanimity the idea that God has determined their eternal destiny before the foundation of the world swamping any freedom of choice with His irresistible grace
I understand this part differently now but I am still struggling with the subsequent parts that His mercy will redeem outrageous sinners on their deathbeds while condemning to everlasting torment children outside His election; they can live perfectly well with the fact that their departed unsaved parents, siblings, partners, children are suffering the unending pain of Hell without possibility of release.
Sorry for being thick - but could you please point out where I am mis-interpreting you or clarify in some way that may enlighten me as to what you are really saying if it's not what I thought it was! Thank you.

Dave ref post 50

Isnt the real God-of-the-gaps the one who rescues athiests from all the gaps in their theories in order to make them oh so watertight that no other rival theories can be mooted?

Colossians 1:15-16 stated many centuries ago that all creation came from Christ and is continually upheld by him.

OT

1 Colossians subsumes every theory about creation - there are no gaps-

15[Now] He (Christ) is the [o]exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.

16For it was in Him that all things were created, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, whether thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [by His service, intervention] and in and for Him.

17And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).(A)

OT - I hope you have had a good Summer to date.

I am afraid your post # 31 makes me seethe somewhat. It is an absolutely classical example of what I consider a wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable stigmatisation of mental illness. Many people can and do function reasonably well while grappling with some level of depression; to suggest that this makes their opinions, insights or advice of less value or more requiring of scrutiny than those who are not faced with similar difficulties is frankly insulting, symptomatic of prejudice, and unwarranted by the facts.

Religion is not protective against mental illness: Christians, atheists, and those for whom religion barely shows on their radar are all susceptible to the whole range of diseases which can afflict the mind. Faith may reduce the level of suicidal action but that is about it.

I trust Professor Dawkins would not use a reference to mental illness as any form of insult, if he has ever done so I would condemn it whole-heartedly. There is a vast difference between accepting (whether critically or uncritically) commonly held views of reality and entirely idiosyncratic perceptions; adherence to either Christianity or atheism should not prompt the same concerns which might arise when fairies are really seen at the bottom of the garden. It would be simply inaccurate therefore, as well as crass, to characterise the group of believers, or non-believers, as mentally ill.

The causes of mental illness are many and varied, we can probably protect ourselves against some by lifestyle choices but there is no guarantee. It is also possible to lead a selfish, dissolute and nihilistic life without succumbing to, say, depression - I would suggest the secret is not to think too much about what you are doing! I contend your arguments on this issue are simplistic when the problem is hideously complex.

As a Christian I am hardly likely to equate hyper-Calvinism with what is after all my own faith! I cited it purely to show that there is a perspective within Christianity which holds views which are equally challenging to equanimity as those of the atheists you cited in your previous post. Would you think it fair comment to suggest hyper-Calvinists are making themselves particularly susceptible to depressive illnesses because of their belief system? Even if they are, how would that invalidate their beliefs in any way? Who is to say that reality, if we understood it, would not be profoundly depressing?

I have listened to both Christians and atheists speak of their despair - to be honest I don't see any difference. The distinction between the desolation of Godly struggle and that of atheistic defiance is not obvious to the observer, I venture to suggest it is an artificial nicety with no objective substance.

You should read Luther - his accounts of his black moods are among the most graphic ever written.

I think this somes up pretty well the position of the atheist.

"How justifiable is the atheist’s position? Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist and that such a place is an awfully long time to be wrong. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13 NAS)".

@ OT 47

Thanks, but that was hardly a quote mine.

OK, then. A website has the results of several polls and you quoted one from 1998 while ignoring another from 11 years later that had a markedly different result. What would you call it, then?

As for the rest, sorry, don't know what you're on about.

So many posts, so many responses!

Brian (#56)
"The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion"

Show me the red eagle! Show me god! If you can't then your assertion that one exists is as unfounded as your claim of my atheism is faith based. Until the evidence exists that god exists, I'll subject him to the same skeptism I give any unproven concept. Nice strawman though.

Jonathan (#44)
That's a better analogy, Jonathan, yes. Thank you.

LSV (#45)
To claim the chances of something occuring after the event plainly occured are astronomical and therefore it could never have happened is silly in my opinion. It happened, therefore despite the improbability before the event being tiny, it still had that small chance and it still happened. Why can't theists see this? It's an argument of incredulity and only betrays narrow minded thinking and a lack of imagination.

OT (#53 + 54)
I quote you the book of Natman chapter 2 verse 34 'Do not quote me the bible, as yea, it is pointless as unless thou believest it, it means nothing'. I also quote the book of Father Jack chapter 2 verse 3 -quote removed to meet house rules-.

Dave (#50)
At least someone is reading and understands my posts, thank you!

OT,

God of the Gaps does not rescue Atheists, how could he because
a)there is no god and
b)they do not need rescued.

All theories are welcomed (rival or otherwise) but evidence is required to have them accepted or to have them supplant the currently accepted ones.

I am quite happy with unexplained gaps, a challenge of humanity is to fill those gaps with provable theories, facts and evidence. This is one of the drivers which fuels human advancement, our need to know.

Your proof that god created everything because he says so is a circular argument and acceptance of it would cause stagnation. How many branches of science would you close down if we accept the bible, how many more if we accept the interpretation offered by literalists. No more geology, physics, biology, physical geography, palaeontology, cosmology, etc etc.... We could save money however by closing a lot of museums.

@ Brian Thomas (56)

I cannot prove that there is not a small pink tea cup floating on the other side of the andromeda galaxy, that does not make it exist just because someone else states it does but cannot prove it.

The rest of the post fails on the supposition that there is a decision between faith and atheism, there is not. Atheism is the default position, you do not decide to be an atheist it is simply an absence of faith or what is left when you stop believing.

Faith is not a choice, you either have faith or you do not, like a binary switch.

You then go on to use god to prove god like OT does.

Dave - is it not true that you believe God does not exist, so atheism still is a belief system? So perhaps its not that you stop believing - just that you stop 'believing in God' - but that is still a belief!
Also do you know you are going to wake up tomorrow or do you have faith/trust that you will wake up tomorrow and not die in your sleep or be run over tonight? Is it not still possible for atheists to have faith - be it in life or in themselves rather than a complete absence of faith?

No Eunice,
You are suggesting that I must believe in something but that would require an active connection or buy-in to that status. I have no faith in a deity, that absence of faith or passive stance is not a belief it is the opposite as it requires no concious or subconscious buy-in on my behalf. 'I believe' is a verb and therefore an action, I have taken no action therefore no verb is implied.

Another way to look at it is that I have not encountered any evidence which would lead me to make an active connection to a belief of any kind regarding
a) god,
b) how we initially came about (universe or life)

I can have faith or trust or belief in other things but they will be based on many factors such as evidence, probability, past performance and actions I and others take for instance.

For instance I went to see Vincent River at the Crescent Arts Centre Last night (very, very good btw) and as a result I trust I will enjoy the second half just as much, if not more when I see it tonight. Don't ask why I am only seeing the end of it tonight, it's complicated.

The consistant stance of atheists is their refusal to believe in anything apart from what is tangible and explainable.

Even if it can't be explained, they certainly won't attribute it to God...it has to be reasoned out in some way.

There is such a determined stance that allows no room to believe that
God exists.

There is just a constant cry for proof...proof...proof.

At the end of it all, I believe if you were to provide proof then all they would do is try and reason it all away.

As one of the regulars said on one of the blogs said lately..."I am trying to unconvert the converted"

That shows you how bitter atheists are towards Christians and the God they believe in.

hi Dave - thanks for the response. I was meaning (I think!) that your lack or absence of belief in God is still a belief - a belief that God does not exist. You buy in as you put it to the belief that God does not exist, to the absence of belief in something, (which is still a belief) and that belief will influence your thoughts/actions/behaviours I propose! Over to you.

Eunice - # 52.

I am a liberal Christian, proudly so. I have always so self-identified. The views I noted (using the third person) in post # 25 are those of Hyper-Calvinism - no liberal is a Hyper-Calvinist! I consider all of the positions to which I made reference anathema - I am genuinely astonished that anyone who had read my postings could think for even a second that I might hold such opinions. The purpose of that paragraph was solely to point out that world-views potentially inimical to mental peace are not the sole preserve of atheism.

@LSV
Also, Natman, since you are so good at the theory of probability, perhaps you wouldn't mind taking into account the fact that it is not only the formation of proteins that should be considered, but also the preservation of these molecules. It is not just the formation of life, but its preservation against all hostile forces that evolution needs to ensure. So it is not just a matter of calculating odds for isolated events, but the odds should be calculated for the occurance of a long series of highly improbable events occurring in an unbroken sequence (note the word 'unbroken') every nanosecond for millions of years. The more time you give this process the less likely it is to occur. The probability of life being snuffed out at any point in this sequence increases exponentially as time goes on. Perhaps you would like to calculate those odds, and then let us see how your lottery comparison holds up?

Hokay, let's give it a shot. Firstly, since those hostile forces that threaten life are chiefly other life, the first common ancestor wouldn't have had too much to worry about on that score. If the conditions on early earth were rife with high energy chemical shenaningans going on all over the place, then the probability of complex molecules forming goes up but the problem would then be, as you say, staying stable long enough to get a foothold. Mind you, the existence of extremophile bacteria that can survive in hostile environments have led some to hypothesize that life started in hydrothermal vents deep below the oceans. The early ocean itself was too lazy to get much going, relying on radiation, lightning etc for the energy for chemical reactions. Anyway, the point is, the two factors would work against each other, so you can't have it both ways.

Without getting into detail and without getting into ridiculous you weren't there, therefore anything you say is just faith, so there territory, some mistakes with the argument that says simple chemicals to complex modern proteins is just too improbable are:

1) It's not a mathematical calculation. We are talking chemistry and biochemistry which follow their own laws (where those laws come from is, of course, a topic for legitimate enquiry, but not germane to this particular argument).

2)No theory posits a leap from simple chemicals (like amino acids, found in space - on comets for eg) to complex modern proteins. Rather, the theory goes: simple chemicals form polymers - molecules with very long chains. (That's just simple organic chemistry). Then self replicating polymers of maybe 30 units length form from the polymers. Then... You get the picture, stages, not dear Fred Hoyles tornado in a junkyard.

3) Improbable events happen all the time. To use the lottery example again - if I buy a lottery ticket this week the chances of me winning are 1 in 14 million. If 14 million people buy a ticket, the chances of someone winning is 1. Not much of a consolation to me when I rip my ticket up, but the point is that someone wins if the number of opportunities for the event to occur are high enough. For the various stages in the chain of monomer->polymer->self replicating polymer and so on we only need lots of molecules to work with and plenty of time. Guess what, molecules are very small and there are shedloads of the little buggers. And there was a whole planet - a whole universe, actually because it didn't have to be here where life began, we just happened to win the lottery - to work with and millions of years to do it in.

I don't expect you to listen to any of this, or follow this link to a better explanation of it (there are some actual examples and numbers and everything) - I post merely to give any loiterers and passers by a different view.

grokesx

That was interesting post and I'm not getting into this wider debate, but, "If 14 million people buy a ticket, the chances of someone winning is 1", is that true? Surely the chances of someone winning the lottery is only 1 if someone in that 14 million is in possession of a ticket marked with the set of numbers matching those drawn? Isn't it possible that 14 million people could mark the wrong numbers?

Presumably it is true to say that as the number of people playing the lottery increases, the chances of someone winning increases.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Peter

You're right. The probability is 1 only if all 14 million combinations are sold, which isn't likely happen in practice. But yes, the more tickets sold, the greater the chance of someone winning. In practice, I think, someone (or more than one) winning happens considerably more often than no one winning.

There have been a couple of occasions, I believe, where rich people have bought all or nearly all the combinations in a lottery and made a profit because the prize was greater than the cost of all the tickets. One was the Irish Lottery, IIRC.

Parrhasios: thank you for the illumination and joining the dots and apologies for the mis-interpretation. I have read your posts and I was astonished at what I thought you were saying (which you weren't) hence my response - as the 2 (your previous posts and that one) just did not make sense to me! All clear now! :-)

@Brian Thomas (62)


Herein lies a problem, 'atheists refusal to believe in anything apart from what is tangible and explainable' - why should we have to believe in god? , we have as much right to beliefs or lack of them as christians do, you seem to be taking it as an affront that we will not believe what you say. You seem to be suggesting that you have a right to convert us and that we are naughty or obstructive for refusing.

There is such a determined stance that allows no room to believe that
God exists.

There is just a constant cry for proof...proof...proof

Again you seem to be of the view that we should believe and are wilfully obstructive by asking for proof. This is religious arrogance.

If you think we would try and reason proof away then provide some and test that theory, proof not verbal legerdemain.

That shows you how bitter atheists are towards Christians and the God they believe in

I do not sense atheist are bitter towards christians for their beliefs, incredulous perhaps. As for being bitter towards something which does not exist, that is not possible. Where I think there is a conflict is that many atheists find it distasteful the way most christians treat non believers as fodder for conversion without any respect for their rights and then claim victimhood when they are told to put up or shut up.

I have to say that the whole flavour of your last post is like listening to child's huffing because it did not get it's own way, not very edifying from an adult.

Eunice

A lack of belief cannot be belief,
An absence of faith is not faith.

Atheism is the inactive state without belief or faith (in god). It requires no engagement with any belief or faith to exist in that state. As soon as I actively engage with a belief I move from the inactive state into one of belief, an active state. If that movement is belief without evidence then I engage with faith as well.

Dave: I know you don't 'believe in God' - but I am suggesting that that in itself is a belief. To put it another way
- is it true to say that you/atheists believe God does not exist, is not real, as opposed to knowing with absolute certainity that God does not exist, is not real? So it seems to me that you do engage with a belief - a belief that God does not exist. There is no inactive state as such in my view as we all make choices based on how we view ourselves, life, the world, other people etc and that is informed largely by conscious and unconscious beliefs/ideals etc The vast majority of people (if not everyone) cannot be totally disassociated from the influences of their past/upbringing/conditioning etc - their historicity. So I am suggesting that your inactive state of belief is not really that inactive - but is instead based on the active belief that God does not exist, is not real - that in itself will be a result of other life experiences/beliefs/facts/evidence etc that have led you to conclude that God does not exist, is not real.

Dave,
There are many prominent atheists,Dawkins etc who are violently opposed to belief in God and I know that they are leading numerous campaigns to make sure people get 'their message'.
Please do not turn it around on the Christians as if they are the ones peddling some type of evil. You obviously don't understand the gospel and have no respect for it.
All I have done is present what I believe is valid reasons for believe in God...it is the responsive aggressiveness from the points of view of atheists that are really noticeable.

Eunice Atheism is not a form of belief.

I’ll use a light bulb for example, when you turn the light switch on a light bulb produces light. You can change the light bulbs colour to red, green; blue etc. all different forms of light. When you turn the light off you get darkness which is an absence of light not a different form of light.

Atheism is an absence of belief which in itself is not a belief.

Brian Thomas,
Dawkins has as much right to campaign for his position as christians have for theirs. Christians have been at it for years with preaching in the streets, putting leaflets through doors etc, they call it evangelising. There are plenty of religious people violently opposed to secular issues, it is not something enjoyed only by atheists.

I do not think that all that you peddle is evil, though some of it is, and again the religious arrogance that I should have respect for something I do not believe in.

I have respect for your right to believe what you like and have no interest in changing your beliefs. That does not mean I have to respect what you believe or I have to live by your values or that I accept that you have the right to convert people.

You have presented your views, and your view that it is valid. Atheists have said your view lacks validity to them as there is no proof. That is a perfectly acceptable stance. How do you mean aggressive , if you mean calling it a delusion or other words then maybe rude or offensive but not agressive.

Remember it is christians who are running round calling people abominations, perverts, disordered, danger to society, worse than child abusers, bringing down civilisation, destroying marriage etc etc.....

Maybe you need to look at how christianity treats others before complaining about how others treat christianity. Christianity has had 2000 years of bashing others maybe atheists are just getting back a bit but have observed and been taught well.

Eunice,

is it true to say that you/atheists believe God does not exist, is not real, as opposed to knowing with absolute certainity that God does not exist, is not real

No it is not true to say that. Inbuilt in you supposition is an admission of the existence of god.

I think you are confusing two things.

1) I do not accept that the god or gods described and followed by successions of religious people and their adherents throughout history exists. I believe that they were made up to fill a need to understand and later exploited for social engineering and control purposes.

2) Do I know with certainty that there are no other beings in existence more advanced than us which may have a hand in our existence but of which we have no evidence or knowledge then I would say of course I cannot know that with certainty but I am not required to have an opinion so I proceed on the basis that there is not until evidence shows otherwise. I just do not fill that gap in my knowledge with religion.

Grokking (@ 74) -

"Atheism is an absence of belief which in itself is not a belief."

Is that statement a belief or not a belief? By writing this are you not saying the following: "I believe that atheism is an absence of belief which in itself is not a belief"?

If it is not a belief, then why should anyone accept what you say? And if it is a belief, then you have contradicted yourself.

Any statement that you expect other people to accept is a 'belief'. It has nothing to do with evidence, or lack of evidence. I believe that the earth orbits the sun. There is evidence to support that belief, and I accept that evidence. But the conclusion from that evidence, namely, that the earth orbits the sun, is a 'belief', in that I am still required to make the decision to believe it. I could refuse to believe it, and decide to believe that the sun orbits the earth. That would be a belief not based on evidence.

So we have:

1. Beliefs based on evidence.

2. Beliefs based on something other than evidence.

Both positions are 'beliefs', and are therefore intellectual positions open to scrutiny, and which need to be defended.

Of course, we then have to define what we mean by 'evidence'.

Many people limit the definition of 'evidence' to 'empirical evidence' - i.e. the evidence of our five senses, refined through the processes of the scientific method. The problem with that is that there is no empirical evidence to support the 'belief' that *only* empirical evidence counts as 'evidence'! I would argue that there is a much wider body of evidence available to us than merely empirical evidence (for example, the evidence of reason itself, as well as morality).

Furthermore, I could argue that your analogy is false. You liken belief in God / gods to different coloured light bulbs. I would say that the philosophy of naturalism (the belief that matter is all that exists, and therefore there is no room for anything supernatural) is simply another colour of light bulb. It is simply another attempt to make sense of reality, which, in essence, is no different from the attempts of so-called 'religious people'.

Who are you to say that my reasoning is invalid? Prove to me that I cannot say that. Where is your empirical or rational evidence to demolish my interpretation of your analogy?

See the Pharangyla blog for a pretty hard-hitting demolition of the source of this new agnostic business.

Like, I said Dave, you don't understand the gospel because if you did then you would understand why Christians evangelise.
We are not merely trying to ram God down peoples throats so as we can earn brownie points.
If you are offended by it and I see you are then why should you find it offensive.
You appear to think that man has got to grips with deciding ultimately what is best way for him to live his life.

Broken Marriages, teenage pregancies, war, poverty etc.

Are you going to say that this is acceptable?

Your're saying that Christians point the finger and you never have?

If we oppose something then you say we are bigotted?

I happen to care for the society that has turned it's back on God.

I don't go round taking the moral high ground because I think I'm any better than anyone else...I'm a sinner too.

I just want others to know that the new life Jesus Christ has given me is great and i would like others to have it too.



If you are genuinely and wholeheartly convinced that there is no God then that is fine Dave...you don't need to reply any further.

Nobledeebee

I read the article you referred to, I’m guessing it’s this one (and I’m hoping I haven’t messed up the HTML):


"New Agnostics" or "Same Old Ineffectual Wafflers"


Well, it certainly demolishes something!


The parts which stand out for me are:

"...confident inanity..."

"...as dumb as they come..."

"...has declared himself a world-class idiot."

"...among all the twits he also dug up a friend..."


To be honest, I’m loosing interest in debating on these terms.

Brian (#79)

Since the rise of a more secular society in Europe (around the 1960's) we have not seen a major war between nation states. Since the rise of a more secular society in Europe we have seen living standards increase substantially all across the western world. Since the rise of a more secular society in Europe we have seen a prolonged and insistant reduction in crime rates and an increase in levels of education.

I'm not going to be so arrogant as to claim that secularism is the source of this (although I might have claim to) and I'm also not going to claim that the reduction in religion adherance is responsible.

To claim that somehow secularism is responsible for the negative events seen recently means that you must also accept the positive. Do you want to go down that road?

LSV (#77)

I struggle to get the gist of your posts as they tend to ramble and throw a lot of vaguely connected statements out without much chance to refute them all in a way that retains the sanity of the reader, however....

A non belief is not a belief, it's an absense. Refer to previous posts in previous threads refering to magic dragons and fairies. I don't need evidence not to believe in something. If you have evidence of a god, I'd be happy to review it provided it's non-partial, repeatable and all the criteria I'd expect from other evidences.

Natman,I grew up in N.Ireland and witnessed the terrible attrocities committed under the banner of religion and I didn't want to have anything to do with that.
I did, however, find out that 'religion' and true faith in Christ are miles apart.

It appears you feel the need to look at the positives from your secular point of view but if we really have come a long way then injustice would stop...there would be no more power hungry dictators...and poverty would be a thing of the past. These are just two or three amongst many.

I'm beginning to wonder if you and Dave are the same person.

My response is the same...if your happy in your atheistic point of view then fine but I really hope your absolutely sure.

My hope is in Christ Jesus...Amen

Natman (@ 81) -

Maybe your inability to understand my posts has more to do with you, than anything to do with what I have written. If you can't understand my last post, then really you are admitting that you are not up to having a mature discussion about matters relating to the subject of 'belief'. Judging by the immaturity of your references to "magic dragons and fairies" I am beginning to realise that I have given you far too much respect in bothering to respond to your comments. If you want a proper adult discussion, then I'm up for that, but that's your choice.

You talk about sanity, but if you honestly think that the incredible complexity of life is simply the result of chance, then I don't think you have any right to start using words that question other people's sanity. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that proves or demonstrates that life has arisen by chance. The idea is just utterly preposterous.

You say you want evidence that is repeatable. Right, do you understand this simple task:

Provide repeatable evidence that life has arisen by chance. Go on. Do it. Create the conditions and produce life by chance (and I am not talking about crystals, I am talking about functioning and reproductive living systems). And furthermore, even if you manage to pull this off, then provide irrefutable proof that this is indeed the method by which life arose in the past.

I will then look at that evidence and assess it, to see whether it is "non-partial, repeatable and all the criteria I'd expect from other evidences" - to quote your words.

If you can't, then don't expect me to believe a theory which is pure fantasy.

Is this post clear enough for you?

Agnosticism sounds pretty tenable until you start to think about all the things you'd have to agnostic about: dragons, unicorns, invisible teapots, telepathy etc. In fact, an infinite list of things that can be imagined, discussed, argued, but are as-yet not directly or indirectly observable.

The non-existence of God or Gods is necessarily unprovable and I doubt that most atheists would assert that it is provable and has been proven. However, in the absence of not only direct or indirect evidence, but also a framework within our science that allows for such a being or set of beings, we must-- as we do with invisible cryptozoology-- default to functional non-existence.

Beliefs that comprise some unproven but reasonable hypothesis, such as abiogenesis (beginning of life) or the beginning of the Universe itself, pale in comparison to the leaps of faith required to believe in a being whom, to all accounts, defies much of what we understand about the universe. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"You talk about sanity, but if you honestly think that the incredible complexity of life is simply the result of chance, then I don't think you have any right to start using words that question other people's sanity. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that proves or demonstrates that life has arisen by chance. The idea is just utterly preposterous."

Poster #83 conflates abiogenesis (theories about the beginning of life) with evolution (theory about how biodiversity emerged). They should not be confused.

Lastly, please do not assert that atheists are bitter, angry people. There are bitter, angry people among us-- but no more than another cross section of society.

Teshi (@ 84) -

"Beliefs that comprise some unproven but reasonable hypothesis, such as abiogenesis (beginning of life) or the beginning of the Universe itself, pale in comparison to the leaps of faith required to believe in a being whom, to all accounts, defies much of what we understand about the universe."

Please provide evidence to support your statement that the hypothesis of living systems arising naturally from non-living matter (without the guiding hand of intelligence) is 'reasonable'. The idea that complexity depends on the input of intelligence (something we experience every day of our lives) can hardly be called 'unreasonable' or 'a leap of faith'. The belief that complex functioning systems can arise without the input of intelligence is the ultimate 'leap of faith', since there is no empirical evidence to support such an idea - and, in fact, it is that which defies the very notion of logic itself (something I have written about at great length elsewhere).

If you want to drag the discusson down to the level of referring to "dragons, unicorns, invisible teapots", then you are free to do that, but I am talking about one thing: the requirement for intelligence as a necessary condition for the emergence and development of complex systems. Hardly a leap of faith, but a logical deducation from empirical evidence!

Now that is what I call 'reasonable'.

logica:

"Please provide evidence to support your statement that the hypothesis of living systems arising naturally from non-living matter (without the guiding hand of intelligence) is 'reasonable'."

Although, as you know, we have no standard model for abiogenesis, we have a number of suggestive pieces to the puzzle (see the Wikipedia page on abiogensis and any number of people who have broken down this topic for public consumption-- I am not a scientist and cannot provide this service for you). This suggests that abiogenesis, although yet poorly understood, is perfectly plausible-- certainly without the introduction of beings who do not fit into our conception of the universe, such as the standard understanding of God.

"...the requirement for intelligence as a necessary condition for the emergence and development of complex systems."

It's interesting that while you ask me for evidence that abiogensis can occur, you are quite happy to assert that complex systems require an intelligence not only to begin but also to develop. Your evidence seems to be an attempt to prove a negative: can you prove, without question, that abiogenesis cannot, under any circumstances, occur?

If not, you must provide some positive evidence that an intelligence has been involved in the development of life on Earth to counter the work that has been done in the direction of abiogenesis. The myriad of creation stories out there do not count, I'm afraid-- they do not take into account our understanding of the evolution of organisms. You will have to provide some evidence showing that an intelligent being or set of beings (I assume alien intervention is included here) created prokaryotes or something prior to them.

This thread is partially meant to show that assertive atheism, "I know God cannot exist", is not a reasonable stance. The stance must be, "In the absence of positive evidence, I must believe that God or Gods do not exist."

I think this can be applied to belief in abiogenesis. Given no positive evidence exists that a God, Gods or a similar being created basic life on Earth, we cannot assert that an intelligence was involved. If we cannot assert this we must be agnostic about abiogenesis-- without knowledge.

However, there is another worldview that provides some positive evidence in another direction. We have our understanding of physics, chemistry and biology and the work so far that has been done that shows that abiogenesis is plausible.

More significantly, our understanding of the way the universe is-- that is, lacking any evidence of an interventionist deity-- suggests that abiogenesis, which means only 'the genesis of organic molecules out of inorganic molecules' and says nothing or very little about how this occurred, *is the default position*.

Much like atheism, not agnosticism, must be the default position in the absence of evidence for God: the positive evidence is an understanding of the universe that does not require a deity.

Unless you can show me the evidence for the blue plasma pixies who dragged organic matter out of the mud, I have no choice but to assume that-- whatever the details-- organic life came to be through the general framework of chemistry and physics as we understand them and not through some plasma pixie mucking about with amino acids.

LSV (#83)

You're correct, the evidence for the initial conditions (whatever they may be) in which life (whatever you mean by that) occured are yet to be created in the laboratory.

-HOWEVER- (and this is big point)

There are many scientists around the world working on this, producing valid and plausible hypothesis, data is available and experimental results are there for you to read, if you were so inclined. I am not qualified nor well read enough to describe it.

The thing that makes me smile, nay, laugh, is that in your words 'don't expect me to believe a theory which is pure fantasy.'

This is EXACTLY what you are suggesting when the good ol' Godditit fallback argument is going to be what you cling to.

At least abiogensis has some promising data to consider.

Referring to invisible dragons, unicorns, teapots is only 'immature' (in your words) because you perhaps recognise that everything you say with regards 'god' can be replaced with the words 'Odin', 'Zeus', 'Hoobah joobah tiddly-pot' or 'invisible dragon'. You specify that this 'intelligence' that is so logically proven (?) is the specific god that you believe in, but cannot provide anything to back this up aside from dubious arguments of authority and incredulity, strawmen and logical fallacies that fail at the first hurdle.

At least the concepts I consider as plausible have well-regarded and peer reviewed data to back them up and I don't rely on iron-age mythology headed by an invisible being that cannot be proven, seen, felt or experienced in any sense whatsoever.

Brian (#82)

Briefly, to say I'm content implies I think the alternatives are valid and I've just made a choice. You are the one believing on faith, not me. Perhaps you protest too much?

Natman -

I see from your reaction that you are not willing to engage with logic. I have argued on another thread about, for instance, the nature of reason, and why the naturalistic world-view relies on a self-refuting epistemology. That perfectly logical point has never been answered or refuted. So I have provided logical proof to substantiate my falsification of naturalism.

You, of course, are free to ignore, scorn and mock my arguments, as is your tiresome tendency (which, by the way, is not very scientific!)

You present a grotesque caricature of my views and decide to equate the 'intelligence hypothesis' with 'dragons, fairies, blah blah blah'. If you want to understand the idea of an intelligent universe - relying on an intelligent first cause - in those terms, then it is clear that you are not serious about this debate. I fail to see how the purposeful application of information to order matter into useful systems should be considered an idea so worthy of mockery, when it is a method we use all day long, and which is the heart of the business of science. And yet you treat this with nothing but derision. On the other hand, we have no empirical evidence that complex systems arise without the purposeful and directing influence of information (in other words, intelligence). So therefore it is a perfectly sound scientific theory to deduce a first cause of intelligence. If you are incapable of understanding that argument then I feel sorry for you.

You acknowledge that scientists have not solved the problem of abiogenesis. But let me say this... even if a theory is formulated to explain how living systems could arise by purely natural means from non-living matter, that still does not prove that that is how it actually happened. We are dealing with events of the past which are outside the realm of the scientific method, and therefore subject to mere speculation. So all we can do is interpret nature according to our respective philosophies. This is the reason why I have been challenging your philosophy of metaphysical naturalism, but people like you always seem to come back with the idea that the naturalistic theory of evolution is not dependent on philosophical presuppositions, and therefore does not need to be defended, since it is apparently 'self-evident'. This is utter nonsense. The whole effort to try to formulate a theory of abiogenesis is driven by a belief that there can be no other possible cause. (By the way, you wouldn't mind explaining to me about all the conditions that existed before the Big Bang? Since your explanation of reality is so 'obvious' I am sure you could enlighten me on that point.)

Finally you make the following statement:

"...an invisible being that cannot be proven, seen, felt or experienced in any sense whatsoever".

Can you please explain to me how you know that God cannot be experienced in any sense whatsoever? You have no idea what you are talking about. I have made a decision not to share on this blog about my own personal spiritual experiences, for the simple reason that I know what the reaction of you materialistic sceptics will be. You will say: "Well you cannot argue on the basis of subjective experience." And you would be right. Of course I can't! But since you have decided to tell me dogmatically that God cannot be experienced (as if you would know!), then all I can say to you is: Yes He Can. I cannot prove it to you, because you will not accept my word for it, since you are committed to a philosophy which excludes God. You - or people like you - would perhaps simply say to me that I am deluded, and would perhaps try to explain away my experiences in psychological terms. And, of course, you would do that because of your a priori commitment to your *belief* (which it most certainly is!), i.e. your philosophy of materialism / naturalism.

I have noticed at times that some atheists seem to make incredible assertions about the experiences of theists, as if they somehow 'know' that we are living with some kind of oppressive burden of guilt and fear (perhaps this is some kind of misguided attempt at 'empathy' or something!). Perhaps that explains why some of you even try to be 'evangelistic' as you imagine that we need to be 'set free' from something. If you claim to be logical then you and your fellow 'non-believers' have absolutely no right to make these kinds of ridiculous assumptions. Frankly, people like you have no idea what you are talking about concerning certain aspects of human life and experience.

Natman:invisible being that cannot be proven, seen, felt or experienced in any sense whatsoever.

Whilst I understand your view as I use to hold the same one myself - I know now your comment is simply not true. God can be experienced and felt - and is often described as a presence and many many people would have had these experiences. God is love/joy/stillness (and a bit more!) - of course this can be felt and experienced. Part of the problem is that people often consider God to be something outside of themselves - when God is love and is inside every human being in my view. That said - there are plenty of people who say they experience God and it is not God - eg if someone says God told me to kill somebody etc then that is clearly not from God. ALso there are more things unseen out there than we realise that can play havoc with people. So you may ask how do you know if someone is really experiencing God or just deluded or taken in by something else that is not God - as you cannot validate their subjective experience. However, it is possible for everyone to come to know God for themselves and experience God's presence. ALso I would look to the the life lived for 'evidence' - not for perfection but for a consistent way of being that is informed by their experiences eg how they treat other people, how they are in themselves on a day to day basis eg joyful or angry etc (there is much more to this but that is a starter!). Also if they are in any way homophobic, racist, human hating of any sort - then I would personally doubt that they have really experienced God.

Having been an atheist I appreciate it is easy to dismiss these experiences of others and poo poo them as I did because I had no sense of this myself - ergo cannot be true and they are all deluded and its just figments of their imagination. When I started searching and seeking I developed knowledge about God but did not have the felt experience of God - but that has since unfolded to be otherwise. There were no clashing symbols or bolts of lightening or flashing lights. It could be said that nothing has changed and yet everything has changed - I look with the same eyes but what I see and how I see people and the world are now are very different.
It could also be described as a coming home to oneself - no need to go anywhere else or seek anything else for all that we need is contained within - it's just that we don't know that and don't connect to that. We are all held in the deepest and utmost love that it is shocking what we do to ourselves and others in separation to that love - our level of disregard and abuse is very high compared to the love that we are held in. It is possible for all people to know and feel this for themselves. There is absolutely nothing to fear from God - the real crime has been how the name of God has been bastardised and mis-represented, mis-interpreted over the years such that people (including myself) get turned off and turn away from God - and all we are doing is walking away from boundless love and joy.

Experience of the divine (whatever that may be) is highly objective, intensely personal and not something anyone can, or should, use to convince others of the existance of gods, mainly because of one thing - despite the sincerity and the devout belief that something was felt, the honesty or the sanity of the witness cannot be proven.

LSV, you're right, I do pour scorn on the concept of an intelligent designer, mainly because of the semantics involved. If I was to tell you I believe the Grand Poobah, or a magical invisible sky fairy created life and guided evolution over the millenia, you'd quite rightly consider me suitable for the madhouse. Why is it that because you're refusing to name that entity (but leave it very clear you're refering to the God of the bible) it suddenly becomes acceptable?

In terms of logic, your arguments fail.

In any system, the simplest is the one most likely to be true, after all factors are considered. Throwing in an unprovable and untestable 'Intelligence' into the factor is adding in complications that cannot be quantitatively determined. Using the evidence available and using hypothesis formulated using that evidence, spontanteous abiogensis is the most plausible and simplest of causes. Despite how unbelievably you perceive it to be.

Asking what was there before the Big Bang is like asking what was before god. It's a question no one can answer with any degree of certainty right now. Unlike questions of a religious nature, I've got an open mind and am not falling back onto goddit.

This argument is getting cyclical. For my sanities sake, and despite the fact I enjoy the debate, I'm going to just say I disagree with you LSV and I'm not going to convince you. Any more can wait until it arises on another thread (which it undoubtably will).

@Natman

You're very wise to bail out. LSV has been riding this merry go round for ages now with lots of different people.

So, for anyone with an interest in modern theories of the origin of life that goes beyond the idea is just utterly preposterous, therefore god, this programme is well worth a listen.

grokesx (@ 91)

LSV has been riding this merry go round for ages now with lots of different people.

Oh, how positively naughty of that LSV so-and-so to cause such a nuisance by thinking for himself and refusing to toe the party line.

Perhaps he deserves to be hauled off to the 'Ministry of Love' (in Orwell's 1984 dystopia) and subjected to 're-education', as the hapless Winston Smith experienced:

"Whatever the Party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane."

And so if the Party says that 2+2=5, then that is what we must accept is true. And if the Party (a.k.a. the secular humanist inquisition) says that the overwhelming complexity and intricacy of life has magically self-assembled without the need for the input of intelligence, then that is what surely must have happened! Big Brother says so. And woe betide any silly little Winston Smith figure turning up and daring to question the Party line!

So perhaps I ought to 'humble myself' and, for the sake of my 'sanity', make a courageous decision of the will to abandon all logic, all common sense, and believe the impossible.

(On second thoughts, maybe I won't. As Proverbs 17:12 so eloquently puts it, I'd rather meet a bear robbed of her cubs than believe that nonsense!)

Natman: I'm sure you meant to say subjective not objective - and just to clarify I was not sharing my experience to persuade/convince you or anyone re God and I know it would not do that. I have no investment in you or anyone accepting what I say to be true - you can take it or leave it and I figure you'll leave it. I was sharing it to counter your dogmatic statement that God cannot be felt/experienced etc in any sense whatsoever - which in itself reflects your own personal subjective experience.
One's relationship with God in my view is not something that is packaged away and brought out for xmas or special occasions or Sundays/church if one attends or just when I am on my own and is not always 'intensely personal' - indeed it can be very communal and open to all and involved in all our interactions without ever mentioning the word God in any conversation. God is ever present in my view and that relationship is with me 24/7 unless I choose to separate which of course being human happens all too often - so that relationship or those experiences are part and parcel of my everyday life and can thus be very ordinary. Julian of Norwich said something along the lines of God being the very ground or foundation of our being in whom we live and breathe and move (that's not exact quote) - we take our 'being' into all that we do -so it can be of God or not of God in my view and perhaps in more practical terms it can have the presence of love and joy or not.

grokesx wrote:
@Natman

You're very wise to bail out. LSV has been riding this merry go round for ages now with lots of different people.



Grokesx - that is not a civil conversation. that is simply ad hominem attack.

As ever on this blog, it is usually the sceptics who engage in such tactics. I wonder why they feel it so necessary?

Do they lack confidence in their acutal arguments, perhals feel that they somehow lack the credibility to stand on their own merits?

;-)

OT

Hi again Parrhasios

That is the second time you have opened by referring to your anger. Is that intended to intimidate me or somehow further validate your arguments?

Please note I was explicit in saying I was referring to my personal opinions to date based on limited experience and understanding.

When someone enters a conversation on those terms and is greeted with anger, I would suggest the angry person is at serious risk of trying to close down an open conversation on entirely spurious grounds.

BTW in what way are you qualified in this area?

I agree entirely that many people do function well with depression.

I agree religion is not protective against mental illness, strictly speaking.

Interesting you concede that faith may prevent suicide. makes sense.

In fact it undermines your position because it makes.

You trust Dawkins would not use mental illness as an insult??? Am i missing something here.

Remember this title; "The God Delusion" ???

Please re-read this comment again and again until you get it because I have made this point repeatedly and you are entirely missing it.

I fully accept that some people may break all the rules and show no apparent ill effect from it. OK? No need to argue that point again - we have repeatedly agreed on this.

I fully embrace that my arguments are simplistic. They are intended to be. Unless they enter as little children....

Look at it this way. If Christ is really who he said he was, a good and just creator and Lord of the universe... it would be ludicrous to suggest that living a life filled with his spirit and teaching would tend to undermine our mental health.

On the other hand it would also be ludicrous to suggest that living a life which spits in his face in every area would tend to good mental health.

I accept that within this framework there are likely to be grey areas and areas with no clear answers to us within our current knowledge. This takes your objections comfortably on board.

I dont know of any hyper calvinists to comment on them. do you?

You may well have a point about them, but I contend it still fits within my overally framework.

I unapologetically reiterate; if an evil person creates a belief system which is misleading, deceptive and destructive and they know it to be so, I think it is quite likely it may affect their mental health. no apology for this opinion which I hold at this time.

You have not given a good reason to abandon this.

BTW I am no expert on Huxlety but I note he was quite open that he was not open to persuasion on his agnostic faith; this was not open minded doubt he held so tightly.

Interestingly on Luther, I had ordered several biogs before you brought him up. They have not arrived but I took a skim over his life.

Best I can make out his childhood was sombre due to the religion held by his parents. His adult life was racked with guilt and despair because he could not get release from his guilty conscience according to the teaching of Rome.

His pursuit of truth via the NT brought him light and release. For much of his adult life he was technically a wanted man who life was at risk; he stood against what appeared to be the entire visible Christian church and much of the world, living in hiding under an assumed name and in disguise for at least some of this time.

I am not surprised he would have shown mental strain and depression. Whether his faith strengthened him in the face of these stresses, was a non factor or was a contributory cause of them I will leave you to decide.

Please leave your anger out of the discussion P. I am more than open to listen to good arguments. I have limited understanding and experience in this field. But your arguments do not convince so far.

They sound as thought they are inspired by politically correct intimidation techniques ie all faiths and none are equally valid and if you query this you will be subjected to severe public hatred and ridicule.

BTW one other point. Much as civilisations have much in common which points to a common conscience and spiritial law, I hold that people of many and no faiths could walk in the direction of good mental health by following Godly principles from their consciences etc.

sincerely

OT

Parahasios

btw if violating conscience has no impact on mental health and it is offensive for me to suggest otherwise, how offensive is it to suggest that honest opinions sincerely expressed are invalid because of the anger of their rejectors?

OT

Grokesx - that is not a civil conversation. that is simply ad hominem attack.

No, it's a direct observation. LSV has, over the several months I have been contributing here, repeated the same points many times over to several posters. He rarely, if ever, addresses specific arguments put to him in response. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call that a merry go round.

And talking of not addressing specific points, I'm still interested in why you think your post 37 wasn't a quote mine.

OT - spot on with your observation. Many thanks.

grokesx (@ 97)

"No, it's a direct observation. LSV has, over the several months I have been contributing here, repeated the same points many times over to several posters. He rarely, if ever, addresses specific arguments put to him in response."

Well, it would be quite a nice thing if some of my points could be answered. Here are two of the most important ones:

1. My point about the self-refuting nature of empiricism (a point repeatedly avoided - hardly surprising, since it is actually irrefutable).

2. How morality is justified within a naturalistic world-view.

Both of these points have been "answered" with nothing other than insults, ad hominem attacks, grotesque caricatures of theistic belief, cunning diversionary tactics and other such childish obfuscations.

And that, pal, is my "direct observation" (empirical, no less).

So therefore, if I am on a merry go round, you and your fraternity are the ones who are pushing it.

LSV, ...grotesque caricatures of theistic belief..?

Explain to me why your belief is more plausible than anyone elses.

Morality within a naturalistic world view is better than one mandated by a religous dogma. At least I can claim mine is my own, established with my own thoughts and my own opinions.

Try looking up 'Informed Consent' one day. It's alongside 'free thought' and 'research'. Concepts you might want to look into as well.

@LSV

This is an example from the other thread of what I am talking about.

The theory of macroevolution - along with the idea of abiogenesis - is an attempt to interpret nature - and, by extension, all aspects of reality - in accordance with a naturalistic / materialistic philosophy. Therefore this philosophy - and the epistemology of empiricism that undergirds it - is open to intellectual scrutiny and investigation.

For as long as I've been here I have pleaded for you to get to grips with the methodological/metaphysical naturalism distinction and how it plays out in the actual working of science. Some time back I invited you to critique a basic formulation of the way science works its way to provisional knowledge without having recourse to metaphysical naturalism at all. You ignored the post. We have discussed the nature of evidence, scientific theories and facts and falsification, and I have recommended a few books for you to read, so that at least you could argue from a position of knowledge. Also, there are treatments of the issues out on the web (and I don't mean talking shops like this one, diverting as they are).

In addition, for one educated in philosophy, you will be aware that, although the philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds, this sort of stuff is covered in the literature.

Yet still you ride the merry go round as if we've never been here before.