Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

seventhsojourn wrote:   BTW, does Bigfoot offer salvation?

Blessed are the bigfooted...

Slartibartfast wrote: Blacksword wrote: I sympathise with the athiest standpoint, and quietly concede that in all liklihood there is probably not a god in the way suggested by any mainstream religion. But, I draw the line at calling myself an athiest. For me there is something more tedious about athiests pedantically driving their point home, than there is about a bible basher spouting their poisoness biblical riddles. Because theism relies on an individuals blind faith in a higher being, they are in a very safe position, not having to demonstrate any kind of proof of the existence of their chosen god. Athiests, however consider themselves scientific, so they go on about evolution, dinosaur bones, big bangs etc to prove their point. But to me, religion is an irrelevance, regardless of the existence or non existence of god. Religions are merely man made systems of control, and are in essence primitive political frameworks designed to control and organise communities of people. If we look at Christianity as an example, we have a religion splintered into historically warring denominations, all aspiring to be accepted into the Heavenly kingdom of ONE god. This all loving, all forgiving god, for some strange reason demands to be worshipped, and will condemn to hell all those who dont worship him. These character traits dont seem consistent with the the benevolant god we're led to believe is wathcing over us, and guiding us with his love. Is it possible that this charcter was merely a creation of MEN, aimed at frightening people into a manageable pattern of group behaviour? Probably. The reason I remain aloof to atheism, though, is that I consider there to be so much we dont understand about the universe and its origins. To state that we know there is no creator because we can prove scietific phenomena is too simplistic for me. To cite understanding of plate tectonics, photosynthesis, the human genome or whatever, as proof of the non existence of a creator could be very widely missing a point. Why should scientific understanding and the existence of a creator be mutually exclusive? At present most in the scientific community are happy with the idea that everything we see around us, came about by chance and from absolutely nothing. One could argue that this perspective is in itself 'un-scientific' and that the 'big bang' theory is flawed in it's failure to explain why the laws of physics determined by man himself, fail to account for a huge explosion, where matter and a catalyst for the reaction didn't exist. Scientists will counter this, saying the big bang was actually not really a bang at all, more an expansion from a singlularity that preceeded the BB. What caused the singularity? Why did the singularity come into existence at a time when time, space and energy didn't even exist, according to BB theory? Scientists will happily admit they dont understand this, but in light of their lack of knowledge, they should perhaps keep an open mind as to the origins of the universe. At least until the LHC yields some secrets, if indeed it is able to create and isolate the 'Higs Bosun' or 'God Particle' I just hope scientists find what they want, and not something that turns science and our entire understanding of our place in the universe on its head. You're thinking like me and frankly that scares me.  Why does anything exist at all?  And if God is real, who made God?  As soon as any organized religion can answer these fundamental questions to my satisfaction, I'll gladly join it.  For me, science is progressing, religion can't much anymore.

Thankyou very much for reading and responding to my post. I appreciate it. It seems we have a similar perspective, although for me, coming up with answers is not the most important thing here. It's merely about keeping an open mind.

This is a discussion that is difficult to have with people. Scientists think they know it all. Theists believe they know it all, but in truth I cant help feeling that the question as to the existence of god is a) bigger than the sum of all the answers we currently have, on either side of the debate, and b) expressed incorrectly. I believe the question should be 'did the universe come into existence in accordance with our current scientific understanding?'

That should be the starting point, and we should probably accept that we may never have the answers, but also if we do find the answers - whatever they may be - the belief systems of theists and athiests alike are likely to be so engrained in many people, they will live in denial of the truth anyway.

Why are we? Because we're here.

You forgot to add:"While on the other hand science is infallible.". You don't seem to be aware that science, especially when it comes to cosmogony, is nothing more but speculation itself. I already mentioned that before.

You mistake me again, Mike. I am not talking about my position, I am taking about yours. This is not "God from the gaops".. This is attacking the claim that your position is more reasonable. if it is more reasonable then you must have possession of facts that point in the other direction. But that's not true; your position is just as full of gaps as mine when it comes to cosmogony.


Edited by BaldFriede - July 07 2010 at 07:33

Indeed I do, Mike, and so should you, Have you any idea how many models and ideas scientists come up with, 99% of which land in the waste bucket and are never heard of again? But they all initially have more credibility just because they were made by scientists? Do I have to remind you of false ideas that were believed in by scientists for decades, like "phlogiston" or the "ether?

Dean wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Indeed I do, Mike, and so should you, Have you any idea how many models and ideas scientists come up with, 99% of which land in the waste bucket and are never heard of again? But they all initially have more credibility just because they were made by scientists? Do I have to remind you of false ideas that were believed in by scientists for decades, like "phlogiston" or the "ether? They were'nt false ideas at the time, just ideas that fitted the available data. When more data became available it was found that these ideas no longer fitted so new ones were sort. That's how the process works.

That's right, but nevertheless they turned out to be false in time. Can you predict which of the scientific hypothesis that are around today will stand the test of time? As long as a scientific hypothesis is not sufficiently proven it has as much credibility as tales of Big Foot.

Blacksword wrote: I sympathise with the athiest standpoint, and quietly concede that in all liklihood there is probably not a god in the way suggested by any mainstream religion. But, I draw the line at calling myself an athiest. For me there is something more tedious about athiests pedantically driving their point home, than there is about a bible basher spouting their poisoness biblical riddles. Because theism relies on an individuals blind faith in a higher being, they are in a very safe position, not having to demonstrate any kind of proof of the existence of their chosen god. Athiests, however consider themselves scientific, so they go on about evolution, dinosaur bones, big bangs etc to prove their point. But to me, religion is an irrelevance, regardless of the existence or non existence of god. Religions are merely man made systems of control, and are in essence primitive political frameworks designed to control and organise communities of people. If we look at Christianity as an example, we have a religion splintered into historically warring denominations, all aspiring to be accepted into the Heavenly kingdom of ONE god. This all loving, all forgiving god, for some strange reason demands to be worshipped, and will condemn to hell all those who dont worship him. These character traits dont seem consistent with the the benevolant god we're led to believe is wathcing over us, and guiding us with his love. Is it possible that this charcter was merely a creation of MEN, aimed at frightening people into a manageable pattern of group behaviour? Probably. The reason I remain aloof to atheism, though, is that I consider there to be so much we dont understand about the universe and its origins. To state that we know there is no creator because we can prove scietific phenomena is too simplistic for me. To cite understanding of plate tectonics, photosynthesis, the human genome or whatever, as proof of the non existence of a creator could be very widely missing a point. Why should scientific understanding and the existence of a creator be mutually exclusive? At present most in the scientific community are happy with the idea that everything we see around us, came about by chance and from absolutely nothing. One could argue that this perspective is in itself 'un-scientific' and that the 'big bang' theory is flawed in it's failure to explain why the laws of physics determined by man himself, fail to account for a huge explosion, where matter and a catalyst for the reaction didn't exist. Scientists will counter this, saying the big bang was actually not really a bang at all, more an expansion from a singlularity that preceeded the BB. What caused the singularity? Why did the singularity come into existence at a time when time, space and energy didn't even exist, according to BB theory? Scientists will happily admit they dont understand this, but in light of their lack of knowledge, they should perhaps keep an open mind as to the origins of the universe. At least until the LHC yields some secrets, if indeed it is able to create and isolate the 'Higs Bosun' or 'God Particle' I just hope scientists find what they want, and not something that turns science and our entire understanding of our place in the universe on its head.

This is well said and is essentially my position. Anyone who claims to know one way or another about the vast mysteries of the universe is fooling themselves, be they theist or atheist. I know Mike keeps claiming that atheists don't claim to know anything, but with respect that's nonsense. When you go around making claims like "my position is the only reasonable one" then it's clear that you're pretty confident in your thesis and pretty dismissive of other possibilities.

That's why I've always called myself an agnostic (=without knowledge.) How could I have knowledge of such a vast and mysterious question? Ultimately, it comes down to intuition and guesswork, and I don't begrudge anyone their personal answer to that question as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Dean wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Dean wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Indeed I do, Mike, and so should you, Have you any idea how many models and ideas scientists come up with, 99% of which land in the waste bucket and are never heard of again? But they all initially have more credibility just because they were made by scientists? Do I have to remind you of false ideas that were believed in by scientists for decades, like "phlogiston" or the "ether? They were'nt false ideas at the time, just ideas that fitted the available data. When more data became available it was found that these ideas no longer fitted so new ones were sort. That's how the process works. That's right, but nevertheless they turned out to be false in time. Can you predict which of the scientific hypothesis that are around today will stand the test of time? As long as a scientific hypothesis is not sufficiently proven it has as much credibility as tales of Big Foot. If anyone could predict that then there would be no such thing as science. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for observable data - it is not fact; it is not truth; a scientific hypothesis must be testable - if it is not it is simply an idea or a notion or a flight of fancy. A scientific hypothesis that is not sufficiently proven is not a scientific hypothesis, but a working hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis a long way from being a scientific theory, which in turn is a long way from being a scientific law.

That's my point exactly, Dean. It is a "proposed explanation", nothing more. You could call the belief in a deity a "proposed explanation" too. The difference is Mike calls his "proposed explanation" more believable than the other, for which there is no reason at all. Believing in the "God of science" is just another misapprehension.
There is more to the world than scientists can explain, and this is not the age-old argument "there will always be something science can't explain" (by the way, the opposite would be "one day science can explain everything; does anybody really believe that? I don't).  I am talking about non-locality here, things like second sight or telepathy, for example.  I am pretty sure the balance will swing back from the scientific to the spiritual in the future; my ideal is that the two should fuse, like the wave / corpuscle aspects of light. I know from experience that there is something to these non-local incidents. Of course for scientists this is all just chance because it is not repeatable, but how can we expect to repeat something of which we don't know the parameters yet?
Mark that apart from some hard-core Christians from the bible belt no-one of the Christian faith believes in the creation as it is depicted in the bible; most Christians just believe that  at the very beginning there was God.

thellama73 wrote: This is well said and is essentially my position. Anyone who claims to know one way or another about the vast mysteries of the universe is fooling themselves, be they theist or atheist. I know Mike keeps claiming that atheists don't claim to know anything, but with respect that's nonsense. When you go around making claims like "my position is the only reasonable one" then it's clear that you're pretty confident in your thesis and pretty dismissive of other possibilities. That's why I've always called myself an agnostic (=without knowledge.) How could I have knowledge of such a vast and mysterious question? Ultimately, it comes down to intuition and guesswork, and I don't begrudge anyone their personal answer to that question as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

An agnostic is someone who believes that there is a God, but none of the religions are correct. It's often confused with atheism, and many who call themselves agnostics are in fact atheists.

"My position is the only reasonable one" ... well, first of all it's not a position that I invented. It's simply a position that doesn't make any claim about whether or not any gods exist. Most atheists draw the conclusion that there are none, but - referring to Dean's post - you could call this simply a working hypothesis until sufficient evidence becomes available which either confirms or refutes the hypothesis. The important thing is that Atheists, in the absence of evidence, refrain from making positive claims. Refraining from making a claim is not the same as making a claim - see also the popular phrase "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color".

A better way of putting it IMO is "In the absence of evidence, the only reasonable default position is 'I do not know'". Any Theist position is the default position (Atheism) in regard to all religions except one. This extra step cannot be reasoned for objectively, you can only justify it with arguments from revelation or scripture, which are not objective in any sense.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 07 2010 at 09:08

Mr ProgFreak wrote: An agnostic is someone who believes that there is a God, but none of the religions are correct. It's often confused with atheism, and many who call themselves agnostics are in fact atheists. "My position is the only reasonable one" ... well, first of all it's not a position that I invented. It's simply a position that doesn't make any claim about whether or not any gods exist. Most atheists draw the conclusion that there are none, but - referring to Dean's post - you could call this simply a working hypothesis until sufficient evidence becomes available which either confirms or refutes the hypothesis. The important thing is that Atheists, in the absence of evidence, refrain from making positive claims. Refraining from making a claim is not the same as making a claim - see also the popular phrase "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color". A better way of putting it IMO is "In the absence of evidence, the only reasonable default position is 'I do not know'". Any Theist position is the default position (Atheism) in regard to all religions except one. This extra step cannot be reasoned for objectively, you can only justify it with arguments from revelation or scripture, which are not objective in any sense.

I hate to get drawn into a semantics game, but you've forced me to.

From Dictionary.com:
Agnosticism: A denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not a God. An agnostic insists that it is impossible to prove that there is no God and impossible to prove that there is one.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

From wikipedia:
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable

The definitions you are using are not the commonly accepted ones. I'm sure you can find a source to upport your definition, but it is not what most people mean when they use those words, and frankly it is hindering the discussion here.