Why not atheism?

[Mudcat]

Russell's attitude reflects a point of view in Philosophy that views the whole world (universe) as a giant machine with moving parts; a system which came of age from the time of Descartes. You can take apart a machine (like an analog clock) and view each part separately and reassemble the machine with no problem.

In the Philosophy of organism vs. Russell's view, everything in interconnected and you cannot take things apart like a clock because, for example, if I opened up an animal and removed all of its organs to study them apart from the whole I would kill the organism. That is sort of a crude example because the philosophy of organism really is interconnected on such a deeper level than organs; it is breaks down to the level of all matter.

The reason why Russell is so negative about the human scene in the absence of God, is because he assumes consciousness to be the base level for experiencing the world and if consciousness is the base level, then human beings are very estranged from the majority of the universe (most of the universe is not conscious).

My assumption was that Russell considered however humans experienced things was was the only level that was relatively consequential. He did seem to be addressing the human condition, in such a universe. We aren't rocks, or trees, or something like that.

If you really consider the implications of evolution then you would understand that consciousness is the pinnacle of experience (the highest level) and that we can experience things on much lower levels than consciousness which put us in touch with everything from apes, to birds, to worms, to trees, and to rocks. The universe if an exciting and living place because we are not observers detached from it, but rather, a part of it, a part of nature; we are, as human beings, the universe enjoying itself in the highest form of subjective fulfillment. We are lords over the whole earth.

Bold mine. I don't follow you here F3. Could you give me an example of how I could experience things on some level lower than consciousness?

[Skywalker]

There has been a lot of talk about randomness, complexity, life, self awareness, fine tuning and so on.

It should probably give pause that when we look at those who are in the best position to understand the very meaning and significance of these notions and who are best versed in the scientific details (biologists, physicists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists etc.) we find a larger percent of atheists and this is more true when one restricts to those who are top in their field.

If anything, apparently knowing more about these things and considering them at a deeper level tends to push one in the direction of atheism/agnosticism.

Of these intellectuals and scientist, those that do buck the trend and profess belief in God are more often talking about "God" in an impersonal or abstract sense that is alien to average religious people and antithetical to Mormon theology.

I refer you to Mormon Scholars Testify.

[Facsimile 3]

My assumption was that Russell considered however humans experienced things was was the only level that was relatively consequential. He did seem to be addressing the human condition, in such a universe. We aren't rocks, or trees, or something like that.

Bold mine. I don't follow you here F3. Could you give me an example of how I could experience things on some level lower than consciousness?

According to evolutionary theory we all came from the earth (rocks if you will), and every organism has this common ancestor. A rock is experiencing erosion as water cascades over it. A tree is experiencing sun in a field. In psychology one often hears the term subconscious.

If you are in a comma or a deep sleep your unconscious body could be experiencing all kinds of things (I would shave a line in your hair).

There are so many things happening in your body that are happening without you always being conscious of them. Are you always conscious of your heartbeat?

Some people addicted to cigarettes can whip out a cig and a lighter and be smoking before they even take notice.

Have you ever felt funny for a while and wondered if someone was staring at you from behind, and you were right?! This is a very animal like instinct that most people can relate too.

[Tarski]

I refer you to Mormon Scholars Testify.

For what? A tiny list of exceptions that I already know about? I never said all scientists are atheists.

I am only pointing out how strange it is that people bring up these subjects like complexity as if such considerations nearly prove the existence of God, when many (maybe most) of those who know about the complexity of the universe in greatest detail are apparently not so moved to believe.

In my own small way I am one of them. I am a PhD mathematician well versed in physics and have read more nonfiction science books than any other kind of book by a factor of ten (well, philosophy books are also high on my list). This pursuit of science and its theological implications has been going on like an obsession for around 35 years. In my case, the more I get into it, the less reason I see for believing in a personal God. I am far from alone.

On my street, no one is an atheist but in the hallway where my office is, close to half are atheist/agnostic or at least irreligious. In biology departments at top universities such as Berkeley, Cal Tech, MIT etc. I venture an educated guess that the overwhelming majority do not believe in a personal God.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Finally, I would like to point out that the testimonies found on Mormon Scholars Testify are generally more restrained in tone, generally less assertive of supernatural realities and less expressive of revelatory certainty than most testimonies I have heard given by housewives in testimony meetings that I have attended.

As my mother once pointed out, intellectuals in the church seem to have relatively weaker testimonies and watered down, slightly secularized understandings of the gospel. I think she is on to something.

I chuckle to imagine what my dear old mother would think of Mfbukowski's assertion that truth isn't eternal. lol

Ultimately, scientific literacy is not really faith promoting and philosophical dilettantism just produces stillborn nonsense when bred in captivity with Mormon theology. many seem to feel that the trick is to rework the gospel a bit and lower expectations about prophet-hood, scriptural accuracy and personal revelation. (no global flood, ancient earth, no tower of Babel, LGT, catalyst theories of the BoA and the ad hoc two headed monster theories that combine evolution with Adam.)

[Mudcat]

According to evolutionary theory we all came from the earth (rocks if you will), and every organism has this common ancestor. A rock is experiencing erosion as water cascades over it. A tree is experiencing sun in a field. In psychology one often hears the term subconscious.

I am afraid, I am not seeing the dots being connected here. Are you suggesting that humans in a subconscious state are able to experience things in a way that rocks and trees do?

The term "subconscious" lends itself to the notion that there is a layer of existence between consciousness and unconsciousness. Or maybe for discussion sake stated as "awareness" vs. "unawareness". Sort of a "semi-awareness", I suppose.

So do you think rocks are semi-aware, or conscious in some respect?

If you are in a comma or a deep sleep your unconscious body could be experiencing all kinds of things (I would shave a line in your hair).

There are so many things happening in your body that are happening without you always being conscious of them. Are you always conscious of your heartbeat?

Well I don't think a conscious human has to be aware of their heart beat for the heart to work.

Some people addicted to cigarettes can whip out a cig and a lighter and be smoking before they even take notice.

I think you are making a bit much of this. Surely a person must be conscious to light their own smoke. It is speculation on my part, but I would think you could like put a pack of cigarettes and a lighter in the hands of a comatose smoker, without similar results.

[Facsimile 3]

I am afraid, I am not seeing the dots being connected here. Are you suggesting that humans in a subconscious state are able to experience things in a way that rocks and trees do?

Yes, to some extent.

The term "subconscious" lends itself to the notion that there is a layer of existence between consciousness and unconsciousness. Or maybe for discussion sake stated as "awareness" vs. "unawareness". Sort of a "semi-awareness", I suppose.

There are many layers of experience below the level of consciousness, like an onion.

So do you think rocks are semi-aware, or conscious in some respect?

In Process Philosophy everything from trees to rocks have a subjective form. This goes right in line with post Newtonian Physics like that of Einstein's. "A moment of experience has a developing center which acts as an agent receiving from the past and handing itself to the future." Hosinski

Well I don't think a conscious human has to be aware of their heart beat for the heart to work.

That wasn't the point, the point was that you don't need to be conscious for your heart to work.

I think you are making a bit much of this. Surely a person must be conscious to light their own smoke. It is speculation on my part, but I would think you could like put a pack of cigarettes and a lighter in the hands of a comatose smoker, without similar results.

Dualism makes the world a lonely place with out God. I reject dualism and accept that I am part of a material world. That what is real is what I experience and I experience. Experience as a word meaning anything from a conscious reflection on from a visual impression to someone tickling my feet as I sleep, to my heart beating always on its own, to oxygen being incorporated into my body.

Here's yet another set of Whitehead quotes courtesy of Thomas E. Hosinski :

We think of ourselves as so intimately entwined in bodily life that a man is a complex unity - body and mind. But the body is part of the external world, continuous with it. In fact, it is just as much part of nature as anything else there - a river, or a mountain, or a cloud. Also, if we are fussily exact, we cannot define where a body begins and where external nature ends.

And yet your feeling of bodily unity is primarily experience. It is an experience so habitual and so completely a matter of course that we rarely mention it. No one ever says, Here I am, and I have brought my body with me.

It is the accepted doctrine in physical science that a living body is to be interpreted according to what is known of other sections of the physical universe. This is a sound axiom; but it is doubled-edged. For it carries with it the converse deduction that other sections of the universe are to be interpreted in accordance with what we know of the human body.

The body is that portion of nature with which each moment of human experience intimately cooperates. There is an outflow of factors between the bodily actuality and the human experience, so that each shares in the existence of the other. The human body provides our closest experience of the interplay of actualities in nature.

Analogous notions of activity, and forms of transition, apply to human experience and to the human body. Thus bodily activities and forms of experience can be construed in terms of each other. Also the body is part of nature. Thus we finally construe the world in terms of the type of activities disclosed in our intimate experience.

[Skywalker]

(no global flood, ancient earth, no tower of Babel, LGT, catalyst theories of the BoA and the ad hoc two headed monster theories that combine evolution with Adam.)

I'd like to point out that the LDS doctrine allows for ancient earth, local flood, and catalyst theories for the BOA; as well as LGT. I've never heard of the two headed monster.

[mfbukowski]

People tend to grieve when they don't expect to ever see that person again. If you fully expected to be reunited with someone in the hereafter in heaven, for all eternity, death here on earth should seem like just a near insignificant event. In fact, going by the questions you have asked, since that person is spending the rest of eternity in a grand, heavenly existence, doesn't that render their death almost meaningless?

Great.

How many children have you lost? How many spouses? I already know the answer. None. You would never say that if you had. It is never an "insignificant event" and that really could be taken has highly offensive and arrogant. There really is no excuse for you saying something like that.

I really feel like "going off" but I will leave it at that.

[Tarski]

I'd like to point out that the LDS doctrine allows for ancient earth, local flood, and catalyst theories for the BOA; as well as LGT. I've never heard of the two headed monster.

The Apostle Bruce R MCConkie would have said that such was heresy.

[Tsuzuki]

The Apostle Bruce R MCConkie would have said that such was heresy.

Bruce R. McConkie's dead. And you know what he said about listening to dead prophets.

[Tarski]

Bruce R. McConkie's dead. And you know what he said about listening to dead prophets.

i guess he got that much right.....

wait! what did he say?

[Tsuzuki]

i guess he got that much right.....

wait! what did he say?

My bad. That was Benson. McConkie's still dead, though. (As is Benson, so I guess you can disregard it either way.)

[zeezrom]

Another point is this: If you wish to hold up design-like complexity as evidence for God then it cannot be the God we learn about in the King Follet discourses who would simply be following a preexisting pattern handed down through eternity. In particular, the design of the human form predates any one god, including Elohim as often understood in Mormonism (as man is God once was etc.). In this popular understanding of Heavenly Father, we must concede that He did not come up with the design of man or presumably the basic ideas of DNA/RNA, cells, plants, animals, reproduction, hands, eyes, etc. At best he effected minor variations on the basic structures of human life.

The ultimate origin of complexity is left undiscovered in this brand of Mormon theology. If we accept the theological arguments that appeal to design-like complexity then we must conclude the existence of a super-God (GOD), an original God who did not have a man-like form or a biological structure (since this is part of what this GOD would have to have designed).

Thank you, ray of sun. I have slowly started to see problems with Joseph Smith's God and this is why.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thought I would take a different tack on this. Atheism is a difficult term to grasp, IMO. I mean, you have agnostics, strong atheists, weak atheists and so on. Apparently, there are a wide variety of people who don't believe in God for various reasons.

For the moment, let's assume that embracing "atheism" means that a person thinks that the evidence for God existing isn't as persuasive as the evidence that there isn't a God.

Though this post is primarily directed at LDS, I would ask any theist, as well as atheist...

What evidence, aside from subjective experience, do you find compelling and persuasive that God exists?

Macy...Addie...Remy...Zoe; my Grandbabies! This and the complexities of the universe, and the enduring human spirit.

[wenglund]

There has been a lot of talk about randomness, complexity, life, self awareness, fine tuning and so on. It should probably give pause that when we look at those who are in the best position to understand the very meaning and significance of these notions and who are best versed in the scientific details (biologists, physicists, mathematicians, cognitive scientists etc.) we find a larger percent of atheists and this is more true when one restricts to those who are top in their field.

This may have been increasingly the case over the last half century or so, but I have my doubts about the several hundred years prior to then. This gives me pause in making much of your implication.

What also gives me pause is that, at least from my experience, most of those who are publically promoting this implication tend not to be leaders in the field of science.

It puts me in mind of the white supremacists, who themselves tend not to be at the top of everyone's list of examples of human supremacy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

well, I doubt Dr. X could become very famous in science for having the coolest car and having the hottest wife around these days.

Are you sure?

This is just simply not the case. An atheist would contend that we are as justified in saying God does not exist as many other things we can safely say do not exist.

And he would be wrong.

Atheism is driven by a desire to be free of traditional restrictions and pride in one's own ability to think above that of the masses, not logic and an examination of the evidence.

[wenglund]

The ultimate origin of complexity is left undiscovered in this brand of Mormon theology. If we accept the theological arguments that appeal to design-like complexity then we must conclude the existence of a super-God (GOD), an original God who did not have a man-like form or a biological structure (since this is part of what this GOD would have to have designed).

One must conclude this only if one accepts the presupposition of a "super-God" or an "original God".

One must conclude this also only if one accepts the presupposition that absense of man-like form or biological structure was while as a "super-God" or "original God" rather than as a god in embryo (metaphorically speaking).

I don't know that so-called "Mormon theology" accepts either of these presuppositions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure.

And he would be wrong.

why? (you give answer below)

Atheism is driven by a desire to be free of traditional restrictions and pride in one's own ability to think above that of the masses, not logic and an examination of the evidence.

oh, obviously! because of their desires... I get it. (sarcasm)

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure.

What makes you sure that the top scientists are not the ones best able to convince their peers that they should be at the top, rather than the best scientists? Do you think there are no politics in science? Do you think scientists who are often interviewed by the media get no credit among their peers for doing so?

oh, obviously! because of their desires... I get it. (sarcasm)

Yes. Atheism is not a rational choice - it is an emotional one. Agnosticism is more rational.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you, ray of sun. I have slowly started to see problems with Joseph Smith's God and this is why.

Tarski's argument for an original "GOD" who did not have a body is an interesting one, but at its heart I think it is self-contradictory if one also believes in evolution.

It almost seems as if Tarski is postulating that for God to be like a man, there would have had to have been somewhere a self-existent transcendent being without a body who originally designed the body of the man who became the original great grandfather of Eloheim.

But all this does is transplant the argument for ex-nihilo creation by a transcendent being back a few eternities. Nothing has changed in the argument, except moving it back in "time". Of course this is all paradoxical anyway.

But if you are going to believe that, why not just believe that God's great great grandfather evolved over eternities himself?

Such a view is consistent with the LDS pov of "eternal progression"- that God(s) themselves evolved perhaps through millions of successive "Big Bangs"

I mean if we are getting into crazy speculation, and it is actually starting to sound reasonable to you- as you indicate in the above quote- why not at least speculate in ways which are compatible with the gospel instead of something compatible with creedal Christianity?

Unless Protestantism looks good to you- but all Tarski's argument does is put the Creedal God back a few "generations".

It is pretty odd to see Tarski appearing to argue for a transcendent God, but that's the way it works sometimes I guess.

Edit- deleted a sentence which made no sense in the context

[mfbukowski]

It puts me in mind of the white supremacists, who themselves tend not to be at the top of everyone's list of examples of human supremacy.

Or even white supremacy for that matter! Really funny stuff!

[Tarski]

Tarski's argument for an original "GOD" who did not have a body is an interesting one, but at its heart I think it is self-contradictory if one also believes in evolution.

Boy you really missed the point. The argument that leads to the original GOD is not my argument per se but rather what is more or less forced on any Mormon that wishes to use complexity/design as evidence for God. This kind of evidence leads to a God in tension with Mormon theology.

So my point is that it is odd for a Mormon to use these design arguments like the protestants do.

You said there was a contradiction but there is not. Evolution is not part of the theory that seems forced on Mormons adopting design as evidence.

My personal answer is simply evolution without any God (so no contradiction).

It almost seems as if Tarski is postulating that for God to be like a man, there would have had to have been somewhere a self-existent transcendent being without a body who originally designed the body of the man who became the original great grandfather of Eloheim.

I am not postuating anything. I am saying that some such conclusion is forced on anyone who wants to maintain King-Follet theology and also employ design/complexity as evidence of the divine. Not MY problem.

But all this does is transplant the argument for ex-nihilo creation by a transcendent being back a few eternities. Nothing has changed in the argument, except moving it back in "time".

Nothing has changed but the theology. LOL

Again, this unwanted conclusion is not my conclusion. I do not take complexity and the appearence of design as a convincing evidence for God. I would never put such forward myself. I am just puzzled as to why Mormons do.

But if you are going to believe that, why not just believe that God's great great grandfather evolved over eternities himself?

Such a view is consistent with the LDS pov of "eternal progression"- that God(s) themselves evolved perhaps through millions of successive "Big Bangs"

Because invididuals do not evolve! Individuals die! (sheesh)

For evolution we need populations and

1) replication with variation

2) death! (or something to give meaning to "survival")

I mean if we are getting into crazy speculation, and it is actually starting to sound reasonable to you- as you indicate in the above quote- why not at least speculate in ways which are compatible with the gospel instead of something compatible with creedal Christianity?

Why engage in theological speculation at all (this is what JS did but presented it as revelation).

Again, I promote an evidence based approach.

Unless Protestantism looks good to you- but all Tarski's argument does is put the Creedal God back a few "generations".

LOL! Again, it is not my argument per se but what I think is forced on a Mormon employing argument from design.

For me, it is evolution by natural selection.

It is pretty odd to see Tarski appearing to argue for a transcendent God, but that's the way it works sometimes I guess.

*sigh* I hope by now you see how pointless this sentence is.

Design and complexity are invoked as evidence of God but only of a God who actually designed the human body etc. This is not the traditional Mormon God.

My post simple point this out.

My advice is for Mormons to either abandon King Follet style theology or stop using design and the like as amunition against atheism.

Get it?

I see a pattern and it leads me to advise you to read more carefully and be more sure of what the point is and what the real logic is.

[mfbukowski]

I am not postuating anything. I am saying that some such conclusion is forced on anyone who wants to maintain King-Follet theology and also employ design/complexity as evidence of the divine. Not MY problem.

Well maybe I didn't state it as well as I might have, but it is you who missed my point. Design and complexity has nothing to do with the fact that there are "multiple generations" in evolution. The fact that there are multiple generations is in fact part and parcel of evolution- you can't have evolution without that fact.

My point is that if gods "evolved" in some sense, your argument goes out the window. If the universes somehow grew in complexity over multiple big bangs- (totally unknowable of course) God's "great grandfather" could have existed as per King -F. without postulating the need for some transcendent Designer in the beginning.

Whitehead for example postulates that matter itself has, what we would call in an LDS context, "intelligence", a kind of built in sentience to seek growth in nearly an organic way. It does not need a "transcendent" Designer to have evolved in a predictable direction any more than the DNA in a single seed could grow into a forest which filled a continent. In a sense he might argue, the chemicals themselves in the DNA "want" to put themselves together in a way which will cause an evolutionary progression.

About Whitehead:

The laws of Nature are the relatively stable expressions or modes of its behaviour in relation to actual occasions that appear at a given time. As the universe evolves in time, its laws must change with its modified relation to its evolved parts.

God, says Whitehead, is finally responsible for the selection of specific types of eternal objects for ingression into the actual occasions and for giving the universe a specific actual character different from the many other possible ones. God is the 'principle of limitation', for He limits the actual occasions to only a few of the infinite possibilities or patterns of process that may characterise numberless universes. God transcends the universe of process, for what determines the process cannot itself be involved in the process. We cannot conceive of any reason why God should have imposed on the actual occasions a particular kind of limitation and actualised this universe rather than any other. Whitehead says that there is a directing influence immanent in an actual occasion, called by him the 'subjective aim' of the actual occasion, which makes it what it is. Whitehead is not clear about the ultimate nature of this subjective aim, though we may regard it as an expression of the impulse to advance in evolution. The Vedanta would identify this subjective aim with the aspiration of the universe to realise its perfection in the Absolute which is immanent in the actual occasions and the eternal objects. Whitehead, perhaps, would hold the same opinion, for God and the universe, according to him, are mutually immament and interpenetrative, though God stands above the universe as the principle of its limitation. God is the universal aim of the activity of the actual occasions, in whom they envisage their highest possibilities. All the values of life are recognisable in God who is the non-temporal ideal determining the actualities of the temporal realm. God does not create the universe, but makes it possible by the process of limitation, and hence He is not responsible for the evils of relative life. Evil is the result of short-sighted activity centred in selfish purposes wrenched from the universal aim.

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_whit.html

Whitehead uses a lot of jargon which you must understand to truly comprehend all of this, but you can catch the gist.

Tarski:

Because invididuals do not evolve! Individuals die! (sheesh)

For evolution we need populations and

1) replication with variation

2) death! (or something to give meaning to "survival")

One can extend this view, as I was in the other post to imagine God himself (ie: the purpose(s) of multiple gods and multiple universes) "evolving" and progressing through generations of gods and universes who preceded him. And the purpose? Bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

That's how it fits with the KFD and is what I was talking about.

So your original postulated need for some transcendent creator without a body to design a body for Man is not contradictory at all with the notion of God being a man any more than the idea that evolution itself could form a human body.

There are many other ways of looking at it that do not involve any contradiction at all. You really need to be a bit more creative in your criticism and a bit less absolutist. I really do like our discussions, but you really kind of get locked into one way of seeing things.

Edit: added parenthetical phrase above starting with "ie:"

[Analytics]

Well maybe I didn't state it as well as I might have, but it is you who missed my point. Design and complexity has nothing to do with the fact that there are "multiple generations" in evolution. The fact that there are multiple generations is in fact part and parcel of evolution- you can't have evolution without that fact.

My point is that if gods "evolved" in some sense, your argument goes out the window. If the universes somehow grew in complexity over multiple big bangs- (totally unknowable of course) God's "great grandfather" could have existed as per King -F. without postulating the need for some transcendent Designer in the beginning....

I think you and Tarski are talking past each other. If I may restate it, I think this is Tarski

[mfbukowski]

I think you and Tarski are talking past each other. If I may restate it, I think this is Tarski