Faith and atheism

Why is that weird and creepy? Oh, yes, of course - science tells us that trees can’t possibly talk. That silly old uncivilised aborigine guy! If only he were clever and scientific like the rest of us, he’d know that for a fact. And in what way would that improve his world? Humanity is doing its best to remove every last bloody tree from the planet - because we know they can’t talk, and can’t protest - even though science also tells us that our lives depend on their continued existence. Believing trees can talk, in an environment like the Australian outback, is a pretty effective way to guarantee your survival.[/quote]

doesn’t mean it’s true, though.

how the fuck does a tree know your specific language?

Or what if all they talked about was hockey!

You might want to take a moment to listen to an actual Biblical scholar discuss how the Bible was actually written.

Lee Strobel wrote a book defending the inerrancy of the Bible. He’s a loon.

[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“finley”]
Why is that weird and creepy? Oh, yes, of course - science tells us that trees can’t possibly talk. That silly old uncivilised aborigine guy! If only he were clever and scientific like the rest of us, he’d know that for a fact. And in what way would that improve his world? Humanity is doing its best to remove every last bloody tree from the planet - because we know they can’t talk, and can’t protest - even though science also tells us that our lives depend on their continued existence. Believing trees can talk, in an environment like the Australian outback, is a pretty effective way to guarantee your survival.[/quote]
doesn’t mean it’s true, though.[/quote]
Well no … that was my point. It doesn’t matter whether the belief is true or not. The outcome (or difference in outcomes) is very real. White settlers usually died in the outback after a couple of days, whereas the aborigines were happy as larry. All the evidence suggests they knew what they were doing; and if they say it’s because trees can talk, then perhaps it’s up to those clever white men, who ended up defeated by nature in short order, to prove otherwise.

Besides, you can’t definitively prove it isn’t true. It’s only in the last few years we’ve discovered that plants do actually communicate with each other and with other species (their symbiotic fungi and bacteria) via various chemicals. OK, sure, trees don’t have mouths and can’t communicate with sound pressure variations, but most people who have spent time growing things know how to read a plant; they can at least tell whether it’s distressed or happy. Who’s to say some societies haven’t developed that skill to an extreme degree? It’s either naivete or hubris to assume that science, in its present state, already has the answers to life, the universe and everything. A few millennia from now it might, but I’m not holding my breath.

I think antarcticbeech makes a good point: the ‘weak agnostic’ holds a perfectly rational position, consistent with both science and logic. It’s only the ‘strong agnostic’, who asserts that his belief is right and everyone else’s is wrong, who has elevated agnosticism to the status of a religion. There is no proof that God doesn’t exist, and it’s impossible (within the scientific framework) that there could be - for the exact same reason there’s no proof that he does exist. Strong agnosticism is therefore Faith.

You forgot the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Wouldn’t that be a bit like a human discussing amputations?

What, trees can’t grow?

[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”][quote=“antarcticbeech”]
You need to take into account if an atheist is a strong ( or positive ) atheist or a weak ( or negative ) atheist. There is an important difference. A strong atheist would assert no god exists. Which is an impossible claim to prove because it would require complete knowledge of the universe ( and I think most people would agree that humans, in all probability, only understand a very small fraction of what exists). On the other hand a weak atheist wouldn’t make any such claim and would merely say something like I haven’t seen evidence that god exists. That is not a belief and is certainly not a set of beliefs.[/quote]

Very good discussion.

However, I would point out that your ‘weak atheist’ is actually an agnostic.[/quote]

Yeah, an agnostic atheist (or atheist agnostic)
Wiki:

[quote] Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[19][/quote]

In the sense that most people are agnostic toward the Tooth Fairy, or leprechauns.
If you ask them if leprechauns exist, they will say “no”. If you press them on the remote possibility that there may actually be tiny magical Irish beings who can curse you or find gold at the end of the rainbow- "Is it not possible even if totally unlikely, that, maybe in some far-removed section of the multiverse, they may exist? " they may say “Oh, I suppose, if you put it like that, maybe.” Does that mean that they are agnostic on the existence of leprechauns?

Is there a giant- purple-furred monster sitting behind you right now? Are you absolutely sure?

I don’t believe in God the same way most people don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy- might she exist? Yes, by some remote stretch of the imagination- but I’m quite happy with saying “no” to both questions.

At which point the obligation is on the person who is saying that something does indeed exist to provide some evidence.

Sorry Mike, but that’s not quite the same. Tooth fairies, leprechauns, and other mythological creatures exist within the confines of what we think of as the ‘observable Universe’. We do not observe them in the observable realm, so therefore it’s pretty clear that they do not exist.

The concept of God is clearly different. God is, by definition, a non-visible entity. And, there is quite a bit of evidence that points to an ‘intelligent design’ to the Universe. So, there is a possibility of evidence of a non-visible entity at work.

Yes, I know that you say that this is the result of a chance roll of the dice, but you still have to admit that there is an orderliness to the Universe that COULD lead one to the assumption that a ‘Great Engineer’ is at work.

This is where the true Agnostic would step in. Such a dispassionate fellow would look at everything, understand where everyone gets their ideas from and conclude that one, all, or none, could be right.

For God’s sake, we don’t even understand a tenth of what is out there.

No, to claim to be an Atheist, is to establish yourself as a man of faith. You have no evidence to the contrary, and much evidence that could lead one to a different conclusion.

To put it another way, you clearly cannot know that there is no God, so a confident claim that there is no God is a claim of purest faith.

Would it matter of the leprechauns or fairies were thought to be invisible (or rarely visible)?

Or to look at it another way, the suggestion that there is one God is no more or less likely than the suggestion that there are many gods, or that Satan is God.

[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]
The concept of God is clearly different. God is, by definition, a non-visible entity. And, there is quite a bit of evidence that points to an ‘intelligent design’ to the Universe. So, there is a possibility of evidence of a non-visible entity at work.[/quote]

Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but No, there isn’t any such evidence. Intelligent design is a furphy perpetrated by people who don’t want to admit to the ability of science to explain the world or understand the breadth and depth of the knowledge that does exist, and the sheer impossibility of ID as a driving force in the universe.

And there are plenty of religions in which God or Gods ARE visible entities, just not so in Christianity. What makes you think that Christianity is the only correct religion, and others aren’t? this is the central issue with religion, as seen from a non-faith person. You all claim to be the only correct way, therefore none of you are.

[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]No, to claim to be an Atheist, is to establish yourself as a man of faith. You have no evidence to the contrary, and much evidence that could lead one to a different conclusion.

To put it another way, you clearly cannot know that there is no God, so a confident claim that there is no God is a claim of purest faith.[/quote]

Prove to me a the existence of a god and I’ll believe in it for you. Better make sure that the god or gods you prove are the Christian ones, though, or you’re going to look a bit funny.

[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]
This is where the true Agnostic would step in. Such a dispassionate fellow would look at everything, understand where everyone gets their ideas from and conclude that one, all, or none, could be right.

For God’s sake, we don’t even understand a tenth of what is out there.

No, to claim to be an Atheist, is to establish yourself as a man of faith. You have no evidence to the contrary, and much evidence that could lead one to a different conclusion.

To put it another way, you clearly cannot know that there is no God, so a confident claim that there is no God is a claim of purest faith.[/quote]

The True agnostic however, doesn’t need to assign equal weight to your pet theory, any other theory, the set or any subset of all human theories, and/or the conclusion that he doesn’t know the answer. Not at all.

Nor does a claim that any god one one has heard postulated, does not exist, have to be “a claim of purest faith.” It can be based on observable evidence and logical conjecture.

Unless one has perfect knowledge of the universe, a claim that “there is no god” might be “a claim of purest faith,” but it depends entirely on the definition of “god.” If by “god” you mean “a God which my religion advances based on certain principles” then we can certainly make a judgment about it on that basis. If “god” is consistent with “something which we have no idea about in the same way which we have no idea about the ultimate origins of the universe or life” then I will agree with you, while pointing out that such a concept means little.

You mean because of the naked lady on the album cover? :astonished:

[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]No, to claim to be an Atheist, is to establish yourself as a man of faith. You have no evidence to the contrary, and much evidence that could lead one to a different conclusion.

To put it another way, you clearly cannot know that there is no God, so a confident claim that there is no God is a claim of purest faith.[/quote]

I already explained the difference between strong and weak atheism. I am an atheist and I would not make ‘a confident claim that there is no God’. Read the wikipedia page for a basic understanding of the difference if you don’t want to take it from me ( and yes, some agnostics could also be considered weak atheists) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

One reason I wouldn’t make such a claim is that I have no idea what ‘God’ or ‘a God’ or ‘god’ or ‘a god’ is. None of my teachers in school ever talked about God. My parents never talked about God and my grandparents certainly didn’t. What, exactly, are YOU talking about when you say God? Forumosa’s own biblical scholar extraordinaire Fortigurn never makes an evidence based argument for the existence of a Christian God, but I’m guessing you got the idea from a Christian upbringing.

One reason some atheists appear ‘strong’ is that all of the arguments put forward for the existence of ‘God’ are, well, rubbish. Universities like Harvard and Cambridge do not teach students that God exists, for a very good reason. Genius physicists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein do not make arguments for the existence of God. Conversely, atheism correlates positively with education and intelligence.

Good point. If God (singular) doesn’t exist, then it’s a bit hard to define what he (hypothetically) might be. I’d say any honest-to-goodness atheist should hold this view.

The whole point about faith is that you either accept his existence, or not. I doubt there are many religious people (Christians or otherwise) who would try to convert you on the basis of “evidence”.

Are you sure about that? A big slice of philosophy, ancient and modern, is concerned with the existence (or otherwise) of a creator God, the possibility of metaphysical influence on the functioning of the universe, and the ways in which we might explore such questions. I doubt they teach that God definitively exists, but I’m pretty sure they teach the philosophical tools for debating his existence, and the arguments that have been put forward to date.

But I get the impression both of them considered his existence an open question; an unresolved possibility that has little to do with Physics. They were “weak atheists”. No self-respecting scientist would actually assert that he has applied the tools of science to the God Question and come up with a sensible answer. Feynman was a “strong atheist”, but he didn’t waste much energy on discussing the issue. He liked Physics. He just wasn’t particularly interested in anything else. Also, I suspect he rejected the Jewish religion partly because of its political baggage.

Education and intelligence are two very different things. Being educated simply means you’ve had an approved collection of received wisdom shovelled into your brain during your formative years. Being intelligent means you still have enough smarts left to analyse it. There have been plenty of astoundingly clever people in history who were Christians or who believed in a deity, sometimes because their logical minds told them it had to be so.

Sure, and after centuries and centuries none of the arguments put forward are very convincing, are they? :laughing: Those debates are a little ethnocentric for my liking, assuming monotheism as they do. Religiosity is far more diverse than that. A few months ago I read some articles on the evolutionary advantages of religious belief, which would seem to be where the real debate is at. This faith versus atheism stuff is old hat.

Interesting essay on modern physics and God from ‘The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity’:

Does the Universe Need God? by Sean Carroll (physics, CalTech)
preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

More faith-based prejudice from members of the US government, 44 Representatives and 22 Senators in this case. Disgusting. I think the Navy has had enough though this time.