| Subject: Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/25/02 7:15pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Fundamental beliefs." on 02/24/02 12:32pm
>>And herein lies the problem. You treat atheism as a
>>belief system, and it need not be. A person can
>>easily fall into the category of "atheist" by simply
>>saying, "I see no reason to believe in God."
>
>I could just as easily turn the tables. I can claim
>that a person can fall into the category of “theist”
>by simply saying, “I see no reason not to believe in
>God.” But I am treating this as an intellectual
>search for the truth. According to Merriam
>Webster’s Dictionary (10th edition) definition 2b
>of atheism is “the doctrine that there is no deity.”
>That is precisely what I mean when I use the term
>“atheism.” Either God exists or He does not exist.
>Both atheism and theism are propositions of reality.
>They make claims about reality that are either true or
>false and are thus, in this manner, “belief systems.”
Yes, but my point is that the only claim the word "atheist" _necessarily_ means a person is making is that there isn't a God. An atheist, at least by my definition, makes no claims about how the universe should or shouldn't be. In other words, one atheist may think the universe ought to be orderly, and another may think it shouldn't. I do not think that atheism functions in the same way that most religious beliefs do, in that it does not carry with it several other beliefs about the nature of the universe.
>>> What sort of universe would
>>>atheism better explain?
>>
>>Again, you say "atheism", when what you mean is a
>>specific kind of atheism called "classical atheism".
>
>I was simply using “classical atheism” as an example
>of atheism that could conceivably explain the data
>better than theism. Many other things (physical
>constants not being fine-tuned for life etc.) atheism
>can explain better than theism, even if one holds to
>the doctrine of atheism in its more general form.
Okay, I understand you now. Before, you said that "atheism" does not explain the orderliness of the universe as well as theism. When I asked you what kind of universe atheism would explain, you went right to "classical atheism." I did not realize you were using this as an example of a _certain kind_ of atheism, and instead assumed you were using "classical atheism" as your definition of the word "atheism." Now I think I'm clear on what you're saying.
I hope you can also see what I'm saying, that atheism need not assume that the universe would be non-orderly. Again, I think that "order" is simply a human concept that we use to help us make sense of things. A non-orderly universe would be hard for me to imagine. Again, in our modern times we know more about the nature of the universe, so when someone says, "I am an atheist," you can no longer assume he has some strange predictions about the orderliness or non-orderliness of the universe. I'm sure that most people who are atheists are well aware of the nature of the universe, and they choose to be an atheist anyway. They must be weighing the data as best they can.
All that said, I think it is of little relevance for you to say that "theism explains an orderly universe better than atheism," because modern atheists do not hold to any belief in non-orderliness. Atheism need not predict a non-orderly universe. I find that argument weak, which is why we have gotten into this thread so deeply.
>>I do not think it is fair for you to assume that
>>people know what you mean by the word "atheist".
>
>I thought the standard dictionary definition would
>suffice in the context of these circumstances. If not
>I apologize. I hope I have made myself clear in this
>post.
Yes, but your "standard dictionary definition" is not the one you offered to me before. The standard definition is "Someone who does not believe in God," and the context of my quote was that you were discussing "classical atheism." When I said you shouldn't assume people would know what you meant by "atheist," I meant you shouldn't assume that people will understand that you are talking about "classical atheism."
I do hope you aren't intentionally obfuscating my points. I hope it's happening by accident on your part.
>>Surely you must now admit that if I stand here and
>>say, "I see no real reason to believe in God," this
>>statement in itself does not cause me to think that
>>the universe should be non-orderly.
>
>Maybe not, but the fact remains that theism provides
>explanatory power for the fact of nature consistently
>operating in mathematical patterns, as opposed to
>saying, “that’s just the way it is.”
No, the fact doesn't remain. What is it about not believing in an invisible being in the sky that leads to a prediction of a non-orderly universe? You seem to think there is something wrong with saying, "That's just the way it is." But let's say you are right... let's say there is an invisible being in the sky. What if I asked you, "WHY is God up there? How did he get there?" If I asked questions like that, I'm sure at some point your answer would look a lot like, "That's just the way it is." By that same token, I can think that nature just _does_ operate in mathematical patterns. Maybe there is no "why" about it. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ponder it anyway.
>>We make sense of it by applying human terms like
>"orderly",
>>but the universe just goes on, being itself. In many
>>ways, I do not find the universe to be all that
>>orderly. The clock-like universe of Newton's day has
>>long since been rejected.
>
>Many of Newton’s concepts have been rejected, but
>there is still an order to the universe. The universe
>does not have to be the way that it is. It is
>logically possible for nature to behave in completely
>random and non-mathematical ways, for example.
And what would such a universe be like? Since it's "logically possible," please explain what would be different in this kind of universe. I have trouble imagining it, but maybe I'm just unimaginative.
> But
>the universe does exist with certain properties,
>including the sort of order that I earlier described.
>These sorts of things cry out for an explanation.
They don't cry out for an explanation any more than, "Why does God exist?" if you are right. Do you demand an explanation of that?
> I
>think theism does that better than atheism. The law
>of propagation (the maximum speed of light)
>consistently holds in all frames of reference in a way
>that I think is rather remarkable.
I find it very _interesting_, but not _remarkable_, because I don't know any other universe to compare ours to. It's just the way it is. The more we learn about it, the more impressed I am with science, but nothing we learn makes me think, "There must be an invisible being up there pulling the strings."
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 