Atheism Deconstructed

[bluebell]

But I think Thama hits the 'problem' (if you want to call it that) best:

As long as God remains inherently unpredicatable, science cannot second-guess 'God'. Therefore, God will be beyond scientific inspection. (Or God will look so much like nature - presumarably purposefully - that we just can't reasonably tell the difference...)

Yes, thama said it much better than i did.

It's interesting that you sound so confident about that.

Do you know that atoms exist?! And if so, how?

I know it in the same way that most scientists do-they've seen the research, read the reports (though much more indepth than i ever would think of getting) and trust the work of others.

I know for a fact that my 12th grade science teacher had never seen an electron but he still KNEW they existed-that's the kind of knowledge i'm speaking of.

He had faith in the words of others.

In that way, scientists relys much more on 'faith' than spiritual knowledge does.

Most people who believe different aspects of science do not do so because of any personal experience they have had with the subject matter but only because they trust the experiences and work of others. Not with everything of course but with many things.

Whereas religious knowledge is more often due to personal experience.

We had no idea that atoms 'could' exist? Or we knew perfectly well that atoms 'could' exist, but we didn't know how we could prove it? (Within a scientific framework...?)

Both-

There was a time when science had no idea that atoms existed and then a time when they thought they existed but could prove it and then had more and more evidence to support their beliefs until finally they even had a picture of the little guys.

Well, assuming that the examples you give are valid ones...

Take most people away from a situation that is going to affect their reputation, or is part of a job that they are paid for, and I'm sure they would be willing to be a bit more 'philosophical' about these kinds of things.

But when a doctor is paid to give a professional opinion, it's not scientific principles that would be pressuring the doctor to blame it on 'something' without due reason.

Scientific principles - in fact - make it quite clear that a 'reasonable', 'logical' response to a given question can be 'I simply don't know'. That's not a scientific 'no-no'.

It's the difference between theory and application perhaps.

Doctors know in theory that they don't understand all the things that can go wrong in a body (no doctor would ever proclaim otherwise)-but application wise, they don't always (not even usually) seem to operate under that theory.

To often they operate under the assumption that if something's wrong-they will be able to detect it or it doesn't exist.

Science isn't answerable to the imperfection of it's adherents. No more than religion is.

I agree-

but there is a point where the two (the tenets of a belief system and the adherents to it) must agree in application or it doesn't make sense.

An atheist would never function with the idea that faith in God can produce miracles-that's against the tenets of the belief system they espouse.

But if atheists routinely began acting in such a way then it would make sense for people to start to reason that atheists didn't really believe the tenets of atheism at all. They may say they do, but their actions would prove differently.

I think this is why it's hard for religious people to believe that scientists really believe that there are vast important discoveries left to be made-we know every scientiest would say such was the truth-but not too many of them seem to act like it is.

Maybe that's a difference in perspective though.

Well - if your right - we are going to need someone to start constructing the kinds of theories I've been mentioning. The theory of 'spirituality' etc. (Which is more than saying 'I 'feel' that spirituality is...)

Not really.

It wouldn't have done any good for a scientist in 400 A.D. to start constructing an electron microscope-to many unknowns still for such an attempt to ever succeed.

It's kind of like pottytraining (bear with me, i'm a mother of a toddler and i currently have a puppy so pee is on my mind a lot).

A mother can start (and some actually try) potty training at birth-and eventually the child will become potty trained. The interesting thing is though that they will become potty trained at average age that all children who's mother's did not begin potty training until the toddler years become so.

Why? Because children have to be mentally able to become pottytrained and no amount of early starts or practice can speed up that process.

So-while one mother works at potty training her child for 3 years. The other mother (who begins when her child is three lets say) will have the same results after 3 weeks.

So, just because i may believe that eventually science and religion will be in complete agreement on all things-doesn't mean that i think we have to start right now to make that happen or even that we should start right now to make that happen.

Eventually-but not right this second. The first step WILL come but the 'when' of it really isn't important at all.

Let's put it this way - how much has science converged with 'matters of God' in the last 300 years? And why?

I would say 100% of it.

But i think that you are meaning to ask about religion-not God.

Religion has routinely had things wrong (science and religion have that much in common already) where scientific truth is concerned but each time science gets something right (which is always up for debate i suppose) then science get's closer to converging with God's ultimate truth.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hi bluebell,

I think we agree on most things. So I'll only tackle a few points...

I think this is why it's hard for religious people to believe that scientists really believe that there are vast important discoveries left to be made-we know every scientiest would say such was the truth-but not too many of them seem to act like it is.

Hopefully, I get what you mean. But just two counter-points:

* DO you really think the examples you used in your previous post represent the general attitude of 'most' doctors? The last time I was in the hospital (for my appendix), the doctor assigned to me seemed quite careful to say things like 'probably' and 'most likely'.

I didn't get the impression he was a 'certainty' nut.

* Doctors are not - strictly speaking - scientists. They apply scientific knowledge. They are closely related - and of course a doctor SHOULD think as scientifically as possible. (At least I'd expect mine to. Otherwise, I may as well go to a witch doctor). But often-times, a doctor has to make the kind of judgement call that a pure 'scientist' often isn't required to.

A scientist can leave a study result at 'probabilities'. But if a doctor said 'Well, I only had a 95% chance of success, and I didn't think that was a good enough chance to act' - is that gonna satisfy the relatives?

I'm not saying that explains the doctor's attitude in your example. I'm just pointing out that a doctor is sometimes not strictly acting 'as a scientist'. In fact, I think it's kind of a misnomer to think of 'scientists' acting to 'change the world' in anyway. Of course, scientific knowledge DOES change the world, but it always takes a doctor, or an engineer, or a politican, or a businessman - or someone other than a 'scientist' (even if one person has to take off their scientist hat, and put on another one) to actually 'implement' the change.

If 'pure' scientists were the only thing that existed, we may know how to make a plane. But we'd never make one. (A 'scientist' can't make a plane - at least not AS a scientist...)

Not really.

Well, this is interesting. It obviously demonstrates the gulf between us. (Or my lack of vision. Whichever).

It wouldn't have done any good for a scientist in 400 A.D. to start constructing an electron microscope-to many unknowns still for such an attempt to ever succeed.

I still think were not agreeing on what 'detecting' really is in scientific terms.

You do not need an electron microscope to scientifically 'demonstrate' that electrons exist. At least with the same kind of confidence that we need to accept the existence of quarks, or black holes...

So, just because i may believe that eventually science and religion will be in complete agreement on all things-doesn't mean that i think we have to start right now to make that happen or even that we should start right now to make that happen.

Well, considering how far apart our perspective are, I doubt it very much that I really understand what you mean by this.

The first step WILL come but the 'when' of it really isn't important at all.

You seem confident. So I'll keep my eyes open...

Let's put it this way - how much has science converged with 'matters of God' in the last 300 years? And why?

I would say 100% of it.

Hmm - so when you said 'the first step WILL come', did you really mean to use the future tense? Because otherwise, surely if 100% of scientific knowledge has been 'converging' with 'matters of God', then the first step has already been taken...?

But i think that you are meaning to ask about religion-not God.

Well, no. Not really. I meant 'matters of God'. I don't personally hard-link that with 'religion'.

but each time science gets something right (which is always up for debate i suppose) then science get's closer to converging with God's ultimate truth.

Well, if God is defined as 'truth', then that's a complimant for science. I guess...

...I would find it a little - hmmm - convinient though. In fact, it almost stinks of science 'defining' God in some way.

But we all see things differently of course...

[bluebell]

Hi bluebell,

I think we agree on most things. So I'll only tackle a few points...

Hopefully, I get what you mean. But just two counter-points:

* DO you really think the examples you used in your previous post represent the general attitude of 'most' doctors? The last time I was in the hospital (for my appendix), the doctor assigned to me seemed quite careful to say things like 'probably' and 'most likely'.

I didn't get the impression he was a 'certainty' nut.

I don't think that most doctors are certain in everything they do, no.

but i do think that many (i retract my use of the word 'most') doctors have issues with believing patients when they can find no 'data' to confirm what the patient says.

* Doctors are not - strictly speaking - scientists. They apply scientific knowledge. They are closely related - and of course a doctor SHOULD think as scientifically as possible. (At least I'd expect mine to. Otherwise, I may as well go to a witch doctor). But often-times, a doctor has to make the kind of judgement call that a pure 'scientist' often isn't required to.

A scientist can leave a study result at 'probabilities'. But if a doctor said 'Well, I only had a 95% chance of success, and I didn't think that was a good enough chance to act' - is that gonna satisfy the relatives?

I'm not saying that explains the doctor's attitude in your example. I'm just pointing out that a doctor is sometimes not strictly acting 'as a scientist'. In fact, I think it's kind of a misnomer to think of 'scientists' acting to 'change the world' in anyway. Of course, scientific knowledge DOES change the world, but it always takes a doctor, or an engineer, or a politican, or a businessman - or someone other than a 'scientist' (even if one person has to take off their scientist hat, and put on another one) to actually 'implement' the change.

I realize that-it's just that medicine is an area where science meets application so it's an easy one to discuss in terms of day to day experiences.

Well, this is interesting. It obviously demonstrates the gulf between us. (Or my lack of vision. Whichever).

Perhaps it does.

I still think were not agreeing on what 'detecting' really is in scientific terms.

You do not need an electron microscope to scientifically 'demonstrate' that electrons exist. At least with the same kind of confidence that we need to accept the existence of quarks, or black holes...

We probably are.

I guess i'm talking about different levels of knowledge and how levels are built upon each other in such a way that it's important to build a foundation of knowledge before attempting even greater things.

That was my point-if the knowledge isn't in place yet, then no amount of 'trying' is going to accomplish the task.

And i'm not talking about practicing a task until it's figured out. I mean, if a baby doesn't know how to walk yet-it's worthless for them to practice running (not even possible actually). If someone doesn't understand addition-they will never learn calculus etc.

Right now-scientifically speaking (pertaining to spiritual things) science hasn't master addition yet-so trying to work out theories that deal with proving the existence of a spiritually deprived life (to use your example) would be like trying to derive calculus theories without knowing addition first.

We've got to work up to that-not start there.

but i think we are misunderstanding what each other is saying in regards to this.

Hmm - so when you said 'the first step WILL come', did you really mean to use the future tense? Because otherwise, surely if 100% of scientific knowledge has been 'converging' with 'matters of God', then the first step has already been taken...?

No, because i was talking about the first step of figuring out scientific theories dealing with the existence of God (in response to when you spoke of someone trying to construct a theory of spirituality)-not the first step of science and God's truth converging.

Well, no. Not really. I meant 'matters of God'. I don't personally hard-link that with 'religion'.

Niether do i, which is why i made the point that religion is often wrong when it comes to scientific things but that does not mean that the 'matters of God' and true science have not always agreed.

I thought that you were asking me to think of the times when religions has definitely been wrong about science, in your question to me of how often in the last 300 years have science and the matters of God converged.

I was explaining that when i said 100% of the time i was not speaking about religious belief but actual Truth (which I believe comes from God-no matter what it's about).

Well, if God is defined as 'truth', then that's a complimant for science. I guess...

Maybe.

Science is often wrong and has to rethink and rework it's conclusions-God's truth is never wrong.

...I would find it a little - hmmm - convinient though. In fact, it almost stinks of science 'defining' God in some way.

But we all see things differently of course...

Perhaps it's God defining science?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Bluebell,

Again, can't find that much that we really disagree on. (Oh -apart from the whole 'God' thing, but - you know - what's a diety between friends?)

Right now-scientifically speaking (pertaining to spiritual things) science hasn't master addition yet-so trying to work out theories that deal with proving the existence of a spiritually deprived life (to use your example) would be like trying to derive calculus theories without knowing addition first.

We've got to work up to that-not start there.

When you talk like the above, something like String Theory comes to mind. Or abiogenesis.

Both not fully blown scientific theories - yet. But there's a heck of a lot more chance that their gonna become scientific theories before any 'Theory of Spirituality' - which isn't even on the table yet.

...but this is your point I guess. We've still got a lot to learn before we'll even get to the point of being able to even attempt to construct a theory like that, let alone attempt to test it.

...again, you seem rather confident. I'm sure I won't relate to why your so confident. In fact, I may be rude and flat out disbelieve your reasons for being so!

...but it's all good.

Niether do i, which is why i made the point that religion is often wrong when it comes to scientific things but that does not mean that the 'matters of God' and true science have not always agreed.

Sure. The only reason I replied the way I did was because you appeared to second-guess what 'I' meant.

A person can reject religion, and yet remain a totally confident theist. It seems reasonable to beleive that we were both equally aware of that possibility right from the start of the conversation...

I was explaining that when i said 100% of the time i was not speaking about religious belief but actual Truth (which I believe comes from God-no matter what it's about).

Then you are defining 'Matters of God' as 'Truth', and therefore anything science discovers that is 'true' is nessesarily 'Of God'.

The definitions you have constructed force the conclusion.

God's truth is never wrong

Probably wouldn't deserve the title 'God' if it could be.

Perhaps it's God defining science?

Deists would probably think so

[Nofear]

If it can affect the brain causing it control the mouth to declare something "I felt the spirit"!" then it can interact with ordinary matter. As such it should be perfectly detectable and within the ken of science.

That assumes that it is spirit matter that is directly interacting with your body. Joseph once commented that when we receive revelation we receive it precisely as if we had no body at all. I interpret that to mean that the Spirit speaks not directly to our physical body but to our spirit body. How then do we feel it? My personal theory is "intelligence". It can interact with both physical and spirit matter. Thus it is the intelligence which conveys a response to the physical body when the spirit body is acted upon.

But I very much agree with you that if spirit matter can interact at all with physical matter it should be detectable either now or eventually.

[bluebell]

In fact, I may be rude and flat out disbelieve your reasons for being so!

I don't think it's rude at all-it's just what you believe.

It seems reasonable to beleive that we were both equally aware of that possibility right from the start of the conversation...

I've had mind-numbing conversations with an atheist who refuses to separate God from religion so i don't ever assume that anyone is aware that such can be.

sorry to second guess you.

Then you are defining 'Matters of God' as 'Truth', and therefore anything science discovers that is 'true' is nessesarily 'Of God'.

The definitions you have constructed force the conclusion.

Yes, i agree with that completely.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I've had mind-numbing conversations with an atheist who refuses to separate God from religion so i don't ever assume that anyone is aware that such can be.

sorry to second guess you.

No problem at all

I can easiely imagine the kind of conversation you are describing, so I understand.

[Tarski]

You are sadly mistaken.

You might, for example, give us examples of scientific research on the existence of diety, or where the existence of diety was part of the hypothesis.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I am not mistaken and your reasoning is specious.

There was also a time when research into the existence of quarks did not exist.

Science cannot have research programs going on for everything imaginable. Someone has to be interested, have a plan of attack, propose experiments, and reason to think that said entities or forces exist.

The effectiveness of prayer has been studied a bit but has fail to develop a robust set of results or a theoretical framework. You are free to try.

If anything can be shown to be real or if it looks like an experiment might provid evidence then, in principle, science is interested.

[Tarski]

That assumes that it is spirit matter that is directly interacting with your body. Joseph once commented that when we receive revelation we receive it precisely as if we had no body at all. I interpret that to mean that the Spirit speaks not directly to our physical body but to our spirit body. How then do we feel it?

LOL. The question is how do we speak about it. The brain controls the mouth. At some point in the chain, spirit has to affect ordinary matter (such as our brain or mouth or hands).

This has long been understood and is a central point of worry in the so called mind body problem.

[Nofear]

The brain controls the mouth. At some point in the chain, spirit has to affect ordinary matter (such as our brain or mouth or hands).

Sorry, got a bit too "physicsy" for you. Suffice it to say, yes spirit matter can influence physical matter. On that we both agree. But it does so only with an far-from-insignificant intermediary. But I don't intend to purse the latter concept in this thread as it would be off topic and also not germane to those to whom a basic set of postulates are in disagreement.

[Thama]

We certainly can test God. Here's a test: if God heals people through miraculous means, then we should find such miraculous healings even in completely non-ambiguous cases--ie, the old "Why doesn't God heal amputees" dilemma. If prayer has a greater beneficial effect than a placebo, we should be able to measure it. The apparent randomness and unpredictability of God's whimsy wouldn't be a factor given a large enough population; a trend would still be detectable if it existed. The scientific reality is God doesn't heal amputees, and he doesn't answer prayers. This is not a problem with science; it's not a deficiency in science's ability to deal with semi-random events. The "problem" is that God fails the tests. You can either accept the parsimonious reason that God fails the tests (there is no God), or you can invent all sorts of fantastic ad hoc rationalizations (He doesn't want his presence to be known for sure; he wants us to have faith, and healing amputees would impede our spiritual growth; he consciously avoids healing people who pray for his help when those people are involved in a study; etc). But either way, it's not true to say that God is outside the realm of science. As has already been noted, if a phenomenon affects the physical world, it can be measured.

Correction: If a phenomenon regularly and predictably affects the physical world, it can be measured. God does not. Your attempt to reduce divine intervention to a semi-random event which can be made regular simply by increased sample size is quite juvenile, as if lab mice could actually formulate tests which would test the nature and purposes of the scientists investigating them.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

as if lab mice could actually formulate tests which would test the nature and purposes of the scientists investigating them.

Douglas Adams already dispelled this myth. It's the mice that are experimenting on us...

[cdowis]

Several individual give the impression that scientists roam the universe, far and wide, to find new discoveries. The reality is that they focus on research which brings in grant money.

No mon, no 'search.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Several individual give the impression that scientists roam the universe, far and wide, to find new discoveries. The reality is that they focus on research which brings in grant money.

No mon, no 'search

So what we need is a really rich country where a large proportion of that population would LOVE to see the concept of 'God' scientifically proven.

Hmmmm.....

[selek]

So what we need is a really rich country where a large proportion of that population would LOVE to see the concept of 'God' scientifically proven.

Hmmmm.....

It won't be here. Too many of those in power in politics, business, and academia spent a large chunk of the sixties trying to kill God because he cramped their style.

I see no evidence that succeeding generations are inclined to undo those labors.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I see no evidence that succeeding generations are inclined to undo those labors.

None?!

...seems a bit harsh on ID-ers...

[selek]

None?!

...seems a bit harsh on ID-ers...

None. Even amongst our most outwardly "devout", it seems a hands-off distant God who has no more to say to us is far preferable to an involved God who expects the rules to be followed.

Of course, there are individual, and even group exceptions- but they hardly possess the numbers to qualify as whole generations.

Mankind as a whole, in my opinion, prefers a God to whom they can dictate, rather than the other way round.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Of course, there are individual, and even group exceptions- but they hardly possess the numbers to qualify as whole generations.

Were obviously talking about some pretty hefty funding here. I see the problem.

But then, I suppose when you think of all the fund-raising Einstein had to do before he got off the ground...

[Thama]

Douglas Adams already dispelled this myth. It's the mice that are experimenting on us...

LOL! I wrote that with visions of Infinite Improbability Drives dancing through my head...

[Bach]

Correction: If a phenomenon regularly and predictably affects the physical world, it can be measured. God does not.

So, God might heal one righteous person, but not another, and for no reason? This God seems much more capricious and arbitrary than the conceptions of deity that the people in this thread hold, I'd bet.

[bluebell]

So, God might heal one righteous person, but not another, and for no reason?

what did the poster say that lead you to believe that God does not have reasons for His actions?

Honestly asking-as your statment above doesn't seem like a logical conclusion from what was said before, the way i understand it, so i must be missing something.

[Doctor Steuss]

It won't be here. Too many of those in power in politics, business, and academia spent a large chunk of the sixties trying to kill God because he cramped their style.

I see no evidence that succeeding generations are inclined to undo those labors.

There were many (outside of the groups you mention) that spent a large chunk of the sixties trying to find Him though. Hopefully there will be another such awakening one of these days (albeit, hopefully not quite as pharmaceutical).

[selek]

There were many (outside of the groups you mention) that spent a large chunk of the sixties trying to find Him though. Hopefully there will be another such awakening one of these days (albeit, hopefully not quite as pharmaceutical).

I agree- but very few of those find themselves in power in academia, business, or politics.

Here's to a new awakening- the light before the darkness!

[Thama]

So, God might heal one righteous person, but not another, and for no reason? This God seems much more capricious and arbitrary than the conceptions of deity that the people in this thread hold, I'd bet.

Oh come on. An inability to quantify a "reason" scientifically doesn't mean that there was no reason in mind when the decision was made. Do you know of any conceivable way to quantify faith? How about righteousness (remember that we are judged based on not only our works, but also the light we have been given)? How about spiritual need for trial? For alleviation?

[Bach]

what did the poster say that lead you to believe that God does not have reasons for His actions?

Honestly asking-as your statment above doesn't seem like a logical conclusion from what was said before, the way i understand it, so i must be missing something.

I suppose that God, if He exists, may have His own reasons for doing whatever... but if he doesn't heal people who are prayed for more often than those who are not, then it's bizarre to ascribe traits like "prayer-answering" or "righteousness-loving" to Him. When that happens, God is less and less like the God we all were taught about in Sunday School and more like the Einsteinian deity, which really is more like none at all.