What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[spetey]

Hi folks!

My goodness the activity since my last post. Spring must be getting people productive! (Or procrastinatory on their real work?)

Harvey: a few things from last time to which I still need a straightforward answer before we can proceed:

• Can something be totally unintelligent and still be a god, according to you?
• For something to be a god, does it have to make sense to worship it?
• On what grounds do you say that the laws of physics are "intelligent" (or "intelligent-like" or whatever) but principles of natural selection are not?
• Are you open to the possibility that the universe began without any god's help? Or do you stand by your claim that a non-god-assisted beginning to a universe is self-contradiction, like saying "he's a married bachelor"?

That's old business. Now, some new business for us, Harvey.

• What post of mine upset you so? I didn't even know I had upset you with one particular post.
• You say atheism is "not irrational"--you say it just "doesn't make sense". What exactly is the distinction you're drawing here? On what grounds are you saying atheism "doesn't make sense"? What's wrong with how I've apparently made sense of atheism?
• Why do you assume atheism is "purposeless"? Zen and Unitarian Universalism seem like the kind of organizations dedicated to pursuing meaning in life, even though they do not require belief in gods.
• I'd still like to know how the mere existence of a God would give my life meaning and purpose it didn't already have. Perhaps that's best discussed on this thread. You seem strangely reluctant to engage the arguments there, Harvey, given how strongly you rely on the opposite position.
• On what grounds do you think atheism is "losing" in the sciences? You're aware of the demographics of scientists and theism, right? The strong majority of scientists are atheists, and this number is growing over the years. How is this a loss for atheism (unless you assume antecedently that every scientific discovery is just further "proof" of God's wonder, despite what the discoverers themselves think of the matter)?
• Like QED, I don't get how the mere concepts of truth, causation, and logic imply the existence of God.
• Of course if God=truth (strict identity), then truth (not the concept of truth, but truth itself) implies the existence of God straightforwardly. But is this a strict identity you'll stand by? As you say, truth seems to be a relational property that holds between a representation and the world. Is that what God is, according to you? A relational property between representations and the world? Is this relational property intelligent? Did it die for our sins?
• Why would truth require knowledge or understanding? Typically a necessary condition for knowledge is a belief in a truth. But it seems there can be truth without believers in that truth. Even if all rational life is wiped out, it still seems true that 2+2=4, for example. Similarly, it seems like Fermat's theorem was true well before anyone understood it.

That's plenty!

For Magus Yanam:

• First, thanks for your kind comments in defense of my open-mindedness. That's particularly generous of you since in the past you have been the victim of some of my most impatient remarks.
• If you say that God is just "being", which I take to be all that exists, then of course that's the kind of thing even an atheist will believe in. I think all that exists exists, so if God=AllThatExists, then I believe in "God". But the question is, on what grounds do you call that a god? Is AllThatExists intelligent, for example? Do you agree this is a necessary condition for godhood?

Happy Humanist: HAL in 2001 is clearly intelligent (though not so sane!). I have yet to see what might be between not at all intelligent and at least somewhat intelligent. So I think it's fair for Harvey to pick one for his gods, or else for Harvey to explain what the third option is. Just assuming there is a third option where Harvey's mysterious God can fit, of course, would be suspiciously ad hoc.


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello Spetey,

So much to say, so little time to say it...

[*] Can something be totally unintelligent and still be a god, according to you?

If I were a pantheist, then I would say that God could be unintelligent in comparison to a human, but God would still need to have some smarts to make it meaningful to refer to a God instead of nature behaving naturally.

[*] For something to be a god, does it have to make sense to worship it?

No. I think pantheisms, process theologies, and open theisms all propose a God that is un-worship-able.

[*] On what grounds do you say that the laws of physics are "intelligent" (or "intelligent-like" or whatever) but principles of natural selection are not?

The principles of natural selection do not show any foresight, ability to track conditions somewhere else, ability to recall memories, etc.. The principle of natural selection is like a rock rolling down the hill where all the interactions are computationally non-dispositional. That is, there is nothing happening that requires memory, computation, tracking, etc.. The events happen because the behavior of the system follows simple materialistic implications (or descriptive laws).

In the case of the laws of physics, we are talking much more generally about all that the laws of physics appear to do in the universe. Here we have computational dispositions. The laws have equations that are valid for two entangled quantum particles that are billions of light years away (therefore no simple materialistic implication describes their entanglement), they decohere into states that depend on their original entangled configuration by action at a distance (or at least it appears they do, and this indicates that there is a computation involved in terms of a set of algorimithic processes must occur simultaneously to the other if the original twin is decohered by measurement--there's no simple materialistic implication that shows how this could happen at action at a distance), and the equations appear to be able to track partner twins as they enter obstacles such as multiple lenses and be able to respond to those obstacles by maintaining the validity of quantum laws by such marvelous happenings such as creating ghost images, interference patterns that the other twin is creating at a distance away, etc.. The criterion for non-intelligence is simple materialist implication. That is, if it can be shown that two events are connected by a simple materialist implication, and that interaction can be explained without appealing to a prescriptive law, then this event is non-intelligence at work. Natural selection 'a non-god-assisted beginning to a universe is self-contradiction, like saying "he's a married bachelor"?[/quote]

I'm open to the possiblity that the scientific anti-realist, nominalist, deflationist, etc., are right and that logic, math, truth, etc., are human invented concepts. In that case, the universe may be beyond our ability to ever figure out, in which case we would need to be agnostic about the cause of the world (unless we choose to make a pragmatic decision to believe God exists even in the face of pure ignorance simply because we see it as the pragmatic thing to do). If I lost faith in realism, platonism, realist theories of truth, etc., then I would be inclined to complete skepticism about our knowledge and still maintain a pragmatic view that belief in God is good to believe even if we cannot have knowledge of the world.

In terms of atheism, I don't see how one could be an atheist since it relies on realism, in which case then, realism favors theism. If it doesn't, then our reasoning is wrong and we should give up to skepticism (or agnosticism). However, if my reasons for theism were invalidated even though my reasons for realism were still supported, then I guess one could be an atheist. At this moment, I don't see how that's possible (of course, I'm fallibilistic about that possibility, but that's no reason to consider that a real possibility to take serious enough to say atheism is possible at this moment).

[*] What post of mine upset you so? I didn't even know I had upset you with one particular post.

Well, I took offense to some of these comments:

"Most of all, I've become more and more convinced that reasoning is not the best way to get the vast majority of the faith-based religious to rethink their views."

"Nope, but I can see how it would look that way. When I said "discussing", I didn't mean "reasoning" in this case. I just meant that oftentimes, religious people who first get to know me and then discover later that a nice guy like me is a (gasp!) atheist often ask things like "but how do you find meaning in life?" "why should you be moral?" and stuff like that. And I would answer; that's all. "

Not to mention a little dig in at my ideas, I found those remarks offensive and the typical intellectual superiority complexes that I have my own experience with atheists.

[*] You say atheism is "not irrational"--you say it just "doesn't make sense". What exactly is the distinction you're drawing here? On what grounds are you saying atheism "doesn't make sense"? What's wrong with how I've apparently made sense of atheism?

Well, you really have done nothing to defend atheism other than offer a vague argument of simplicity (with your MM theory that no one uses or could even in principle use in science), and also I think you offered the IPU argument which I see as offensive (especially the Brrr). Of course, it's always easy to see the mud slung in one direction as just having light hearted fun, while the mud slung at us as offensive and insulting. In any case, neither of these are arguments. I ignored the IPU as an argument since I really wanted to get into reasons for not thinking atheism is reasonable versus a frustrating argument as to whether the IPU argument picks out any discussion of any significance.

In any case, I think the IPU argument has been dispelled already (even though you won't agree) simply because you've already admitted to a pantheist conception of God. You're only recourse at this point has been to add more to the pantheist conception of God than what they would accept as valid (e.g., a God must merit worship, or a God must be intelligent, etc.). You've also started to deny that Buddhists are pantheists, and that's yet another dispelled argument that I don't even know is worth my time to discuss. (I really am busy and it's getting harder and harder to keep up with these discussions, as I'm sure is the case for you. I have to have some expections otherwise I should be here a very long, long time getting you to accept what I think are mere cavils on your part.)

[*] Why do you assume atheism is "purposeless"? Zen and Unitarian Universalism seem like the kind of organizations dedicated to pursuing meaning in life, even though they do not require belief in gods.

The whole notion of using pantheisms to support atheism is just not acceptable to me. For one thing, by this argument you are not just bringing in pantheists under the wing of atheism, but you're also bringing in process theologies. That just doesn't make any sense to do that since historically atheism has always meant that the universe has no God, that is, there is no eternal, invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient theological force in the world. Buddhism believes in an eternal, invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient theological force. So do all pantheists. It's just considered an unseen theological property of the Universe. Deists too, but they believe such a theological force exists as something that starts the universe and then subsides into the background as only an observer.

If you really believe in theological forces, then you're not an atheist. If you want to call yourself an atheist, then go ahead, but that's just going to mislead real atheists such as Steven Weinberg, Quentin Smith, etc., who don't think there are any personal theological forces that determine or influence the fate of humans other than material implications of some physical principles that exist. These folks are not pantheists. They reject the view that the universe has some kind of karma, or what have you. They see that as religious superstition of believing in gods of karma, or what have you.

[*] I'd still like to know how the mere existence of a God would give my life meaning and purpose it didn't already have. Perhaps that's best discussed on this thread. You seem strangely reluctant to engage the arguments there, Harvey, given how strongly you rely on the opposite position.

There's just too much going on. I'd love to talk about 50 other topics, but its just too much. If you didn't require so much detail, then we could get to those other topics. Too much philosophizing if you ask me.

[*] On what grounds do you think atheism is "losing" in the sciences? You're aware of the demographics of scientists and theism, right? The strong majority of scientists are atheists, and this number is growing over the years. How is this a loss for atheism (unless you assume antecedently that every scientific discovery is just further "proof" of God's wonder, despite what the discoverers themselves think of the matter)?

If atheism is growing among physicists (I'm not sure that's true), then you'd have to make sure that pantheists are not getting thrown into the atheist category. Surveys are notorious for asking "do you think a personal God exists?" If someone says, "no," then they are labelled an atheist. A much better question would be, "do you believe the laws of physics exist outside the human mind and that these laws might be God?", then I think you'd get an interesting mix of responses.

Of course, the future is hard to extrapolate, but major defeats for atheism include:

• Big bang theory introduced a beginning into spacetime discussions
• Hawking-Penrose theorem showed that a singularity in the past is unavoidable for some very realistic assumptions of spacetime; further putting pressure on physics
• Cosmic fine-tuning issue became worse and worse (e.g., the flatness problem, the horizon problem, etc.), and these problems did not go away with inflation which now is also requires fine-tuning of the parameters to get it right
• Quantum mechanics ripped into mechanical-materialist views of the universe leaving the world with EPR action-at-a-distance, and which-way paradoxes which seem to indicate that obtainable knowledge of an experiment affects an experiment in principle (this problem has only gotten worse with recent experiments)
• Chaos and Complexity theory have come along to suggest that the universe has laws that apply for systems from micro to macro scales (even including the distribution of galaxies, etc.) Such universal principles having similar results on all scales has a disturbing implication for non-physical systems (e.g., stock market fluctuation, human society evolution, even biological evolution)--it is not how atheism formally pictured the world as being much more random at different levels of behavior
• Symmetry and Symmetry breaking successes in particle theories have made it necessary to re-think how mathematics is used in physical theories. It can no longer look at mathematics as descriptive, but such new uses of mathematics require the universe to be seen as being composed of simple relations that imply everything else (bad for atheism because it points in the direction of simple axioms that show the universe to be beautiful not messy as you would expect if randomness was the main factor explaining the universe).
  

  [*] Like QED, I don't get how the mere concepts of truth, causation, and logic imply the existence of God.
  [*] Of course if God=truth (strict identity), then truth (not the concept of truth, but truth itself) implies the existence of God straightforwardly. But is this a strict identity you'll stand by? As you say, truth seems to be a relational property that holds between a representation and the world. Is that what God is, according to you? A relational property between representations and the world? Is this relational property intelligent? Did it die for our sins?

  Let me clarify this. The laws of physics can be stated in three fundamental and distinct ways. They can be stated according to dynamic equations (e.g., Newton's 2nd law, F=ma). They can be stated as a minimum principle (e.g., Feynman's path integral). And, they can be stated as field equations (e.g., Einstein's general theory of relativity). These three means to describe phenomena are true for all of physics, and each are fundamental.
  
  What I'm saying is that the reason this trinity of representation holds in physics is because it points to something very fundamental about truth. Truth has mutliple representations. As a relational property, truth stands as a relation between objects in the world (a field). As a dynamic equation property, truth stands as an equation of forces. That is, truth is that which explains causes in the world. As a minimum principle, truth is that which tells us what is the minimum action for the given event to occur.
  
  Now, as I said, the laws of physcis are intelligent-like. That is, they not allow us to describe field equations of directly contacting bodies, they also allow us to describe events of non-contacting "bodies" as well. Truth, because it has this three-fold way of being expressed in the universe, has a somewhat more complicated role than just expressing relations between objects (i.e., as a field equation). It can also express causal relations of things that occur (i.e., as a dynamic equation), and it can also express a minimum path of things that happen because they are minimal to the situation.
  
  

  [*] Why would truth require knowledge or understanding? Typically a necessary condition for knowledge is a belief in a truth. But it seems there can be truth without believers in that truth. Even if all rational life is wiped out, it still seems true that 2+2=4, for example. Similarly, it seems like Fermat's theorem was true well before anyone understood it.

  If all I'm saying that truth is is like Yahtzee!, then truth doesn't require knowledge or understanding. If that's the case, then 2+2=4 is true like a full house is Yahtzee! It doesn't have to be Yahtzee! that's just what we call it when a full house happens. Similarly, 2+2=4 doesn't have to be any more significant, it's just what we describe a particular mathematical outcome. This is a nominalist view of mathematical objects.
  
  However, if we take the platonist view of mathematical objects, then we're saying more than Yahtzee! when we encounter 2+2=4. We're saying that "out there" there's a relation that exists which 2+2=4, and that's why we say Yahtzee!. We're talking about the structural relation that exists in some kind of platonic reality.
  
  Well, a relation is meaningless unless it is understood. Afterall, we're not really saying that numbers "1," "2," "3," "4," exist "out there." That would be absurd since every number system conceivable would have to exist, and all of that would be in harsh violation of Occam's razor.
  
  Rather, a much more sensible way of thinking about it is that "2+2=4" represents possibilities (I'd say modalities but you're too picky when I use such terms...), and those possibilities aren't objects that exist "out there," rather they express what we cannot see in the universe. That is, if "2+2=4" is possible, that only means to say that there's nothing that forbids seeing "2+2=4." However, if the modality proposed is "2+3=4," then there exists a problem since that's not possible given our current understanding of arithmetic. Therefore, it's not that there's these objects "out there," rather there are these rules "out there" that "know" when something is trying to violate them, and it makes sure that this doesn't happen, indeed can't happen.
  
  Well, we get back to our good ole' friend the laws of physics. It is the modalities that exist "out there" that makes sure things in the Universe never are violated. It can do so because the laws understand what modalities that must be enforced, and it darn right enforces them. That's why the laws are so particular about which-way information which tries to determine which slit a particle goes. If in principle someone can know, then that's bad for business, and the laws put a stop to that by stopping wave interference and showing up as particle behavior.
  
  This all relates to truth, since truth and the modalities that exist have to be conscious of every thing in the world and to stand guard for violations in our world. For example, if tomorrow Dr.Brown invents a time machine using the flux capacitor, you can better be sure that the Truth of the world won't like it much. It doesn't like it when people try to screw with the way things are supposed to be done. Don't be surprised if Dr.Brown ends up in some of the jams as he was in the movie.
  
  If, on the other hand, truth holds no interpretational abilities, then it cannot determine threats that Dr.Brown's time machine holds for the world, and that makes paradoxes possible. That would destroy the whole spacetime continuum, or at least a corner of our galaxy.

[QED]

The principles of natural selection do not show any foresight, ability to track conditions somewhere else, ability to recall memories, etc..

Although I am no expert on the subject I think your statement overlooks several key elements of natural selection: A useful degree of foresight is effected by the retention of codings for previously developed structures. These are available 'on standby' for rapid deployment in future adaptations. Tracking and memory are implicit in the very process of natural selection itself. Although not strictly the same as their anthropomorphic counterparts, I'm certain that these characteristics deserve equal credit...

The principle of natural selection is like a rock rolling down the hill where all the interactions are computationally non-dispositional. That is, there is nothing happening that requires memory, computation, tracking, etc.. The events happen because the behavior of the system follows simple materialistic implications (or descriptive laws).

...And so I disagree. Your view of intelligence might just be too parochial.

In the case of the laws of physics, we are talking much more generally about all that the laws of physics appear to do in the universe. Here we have computational dispositions. The laws have equations that are valid for two entangled quantum particles that are billions of light years away (therefore no simple materialistic implication describes their entanglement)...

Are you reading too much into the action at a distance paradox, I already mentioned the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory (which you reminded me had been successfully reformulated into the 'transactional interpretation' by John Cramer). This removed the spookiness that so bothered Einstein.

Without getting into an argument about computational dispositions (which I find not to be a subject without controversy wherever I read about it) it seems to me that your conclusions are premature, being based upon the cutting-edge of todays cosmology.

I'm open to the possiblity that the scientific anti-realist, nominalist, deflationist, etc., are right and that logic, math, truth, etc., are human invented concepts. In that case, the universe may be beyond our ability to ever figure out, in which case we would need to be agnostic about the cause of the world (unless we choose to make a pragmatic decision to believe God exists even in the face of pure ignorance simply because we see it as the pragmatic thing to do). If I lost faith in realism, platonism, realist theories of truth, etc., then I would be inclined to complete skepticism about our knowledge and still maintain a pragmatic view that belief in God is good to believe even if we cannot have knowledge of the world.

Which seems to me to be a more reasonable position anyway, pending a continued exploration of the cosmos at ever wider scopes just to make sure we havn't missed something (because we sure as heck have already).

In terms of atheism, I don't see how one could be an atheist since it relies on realism, in which case then, realism favors theism. If it doesn't, then our reasoning is wrong and we should give up to skepticism (or agnosticism). However, if my reasons for theism were invalidated even though my reasons for realism were still supported, then I guess one could be an atheist. At this moment, I don't see how that's possible (of course, I'm fallibilistic about that possibility, but that's no reason to consider that a real possibility to take serious enough to say atheism is possible at this moment).

But in a mirror of your previous statement, it represents a pragmatic approach for those who want to take full responsibility for their own existence as it were. I feel a need to do this myself in order to be at one with the universe. It rids my mind of the 'mysterious' ways in which 'god' is otherwise apparently moving.

[spetey]

Hullo again!

Let's focus on this stuff about the criteria for being a god. It's interesting and I think we're making progress.

Can something be totally unintelligent and still be a god, according to you?

If I were a pantheist, then I would say that God could be unintelligent in comparison to a human, but God would still need to have some smarts to make it meaningful to refer to a God instead of nature behaving naturally.

Okay, good, a straightforward answer. To be a god, according to you, something has to have at least some intelligence, even if it's not up to the par of a typical human. To be a god you have to be at least as "smart", say, as a plant--right?

For something to be a god, does it have to make sense to worship it?

No. I think pantheisms, process theologies, and open theisms all propose a God that is un-worship-able.

Okay, this one surprises me some. You say that something could be a god even though it would be pure nonsense to worship such a thing, right?

Now this is the thing--a plant (say, my spider plant in my study) is minimally intelligent, and it doesn't seem to make sense to worship it. But my plant could nonetheless be, according to you, a proper god--right? Do I have any way to tell that my plant is not such a god? Do I count as a theist, according to you, because I believe this plant exists?

If not, what other criteria, according to you, can I use to tell gods from non-gods?

What post of mine upset you so? I didn't even know I had upset you with one particular post.

Well, I took offense to some of these comments:

"Most of all, I've become more and more convinced that reasoning is not the best way to get the vast majority of the faith-based religious to rethink their views."

"Nope, but I can see how it would look that way. When I said "discussing", I didn't mean "reasoning" in this case. I just meant that oftentimes, religious people who first get to know me and then discover later that a nice guy like me is a (gasp!) atheist often ask things like "but how do you find meaning in life?" "why should you be moral?" and stuff like that. And I would answer; that's all. "

Not to mention a little dig in at my ideas, I found those remarks offensive and the typical intellectual superiority complexes that I have my own experience with atheists.

I'm sorry to hear that these offended you. Are these quotations from my posts at The Brights forums?

Look: yes, in the context of a bunch of atheists, I feel comfortable expressing my view that atheists have very good reasons for their view, and that I wish others would see these reasons (for the kinds of reasons I suggested supernaturalistic religion is destructive and replaceable here). And the comment about the religious generally not being amenable to reasons was based on my initial experiences with this site, where my points were met with much more bible-thumping rhetoric and little argumentation. You, Harvey--and many other theists on this site--feel the force of reasoning. This is best demonstrated by our agreement about how faith is impermissible. I would not have gotten agreement on that matter at the other forum.

Well, you really have done nothing to defend atheism other than offer a vague argument of simplicity

I'm happy to go into more details about these reasons not to believe there is a God. I thought you shared them when it came to the Invisible Pink Unicorn and so it seemed we agreed on the standards for evaluating claims--we just didn't agree on how those standards apply to God.

and also I think you offered the IPU argument which I see as offensive (especially the Brrr).

I don't know the "IPU argument" to which you refer--you mean my comments (like immediately above!) to the effect that you don't believe in the IPU, but reject my parallel reasoning when it comes to God? Anyway I'm sorry this offends you, honestly the IPU is just meant to be playful, but I could make the same point with Zeus or Osiris or Odin if that would make you more comfortable. And what's the "Brrr" thing that offends you? I don't get what that is at all, so I don't know how to correct it or comment on it.

In any case, I think the IPU argument has been dispelled already (even though you won't agree) simply because you've already admitted to a pantheist conception of God.

Oh no! You keep trying to sneak this stuff past. I have never "admitted to a pantheist conception of God." I have admitted that I believe in the laws of physics, but that is very different. I still don't think TheLawsOfPhysics is a god.

You keep wanting to legislate me (and others) into theism, as by definition. "I hereby define theists as those who believe in the laws of physics, or that the universe had a beginning. Hey presto, spetey is a theist!" I could similarly say "I hereby define atheists as those who think there is no magical old white man with a beard in the sky above us. Hey presto, Harvey is an atheist!"

You've also started to deny that Buddhists are pantheists, and that's yet another dispelled argument that I don't even know is worth my time to discuss.

It's not an argument--it's a simple assertion backed up by information on what Buddhism is. Many Buddhists are not pantheists. Check out this link on Zen. You'll find it never mentions words like 'god', 'deity', 'theism' ... belief in a god simply is not a requirement of Zen Buddhism.

Similarly if you look on this site for United Unitarians, you'll find they too commit to no god of any kind. There really are ways to try to find meaning in life that posit no gods, Harvey! I swear! I know you want to say "if you have meaning, you're therefore theist"--just like you want to say "if you think the universe had a beginning, you're therefore theist." But it's just not that simple! Theism means you think a god exists. This is (at least apparently) separate from the question of whether the universe had a beginning, or whether there might be meaning to life.

If you really believe in theological forces, then you're not an atheist.

I agree--you can't believe in theological forces and be an atheist. But you can believe in love and kindness and beauty and the laws of physics and the big bang and still be an atheist. The "real" atheists you cite like Weinberg, Smith, et al. do.

In the interests of both our busy lives, I'm skipping a great deal of your last post that looks to me like speculative credo. Let me know if you think I am missing arguments in your speculations that demand a response!


spetey

[harvey1]

The principles of natural selection do not show any foresight, ability to track conditions somewhere else, ability to recall memories, etc..

Although I am no expert on the subject I think your statement overlooks several key elements of natural selection: A useful degree of foresight is effected by the retention of codings for previously developed structures. These are available 'on standby' for rapid deployment in future adaptations. Tracking and memory are implicit in the very process of natural selection itself. Although not strictly the same as their anthropomorphic counterparts, I'm certain that these characteristics deserve equal credit...

We have to talk apples and oranges here. Natural selection as a mechanism does not have memory, the genetic code that natural selection favors at times is what contains a "memory."

The principle of natural selection is like a rock rolling down the hill where all the interactions are computationally non-dispositional. That is, there is nothing happening that requires memory, computation, tracking, etc.. The events happen because the behavior of the system follows simple materialistic implications (or descriptive laws).

...And so I disagree. Your view of intelligence might just be too parochial.

Can you elaborate? What is it about natural selection that is not a materialistic implication? Notice that this is not the case for intelligence. No one suggests that a basketball just bounces into a hoop because a plant picked up the basketball and threw it into the net. That's not natural because there are no materialist implications that make that a plausible event. However, if instead of a plant we have a professional basketball player, then there's nothing strange about that since the basketball player has intelligence and skills for that particular purpose.

In the case of the laws of physics, we are talking much more generally about all that the laws of physics appear to do in the universe. Here we have computational dispositions. The laws have equations that are valid for two entangled quantum particles that are billions of light years away (therefore no simple materialistic implication describes their entanglement)...

Are you reading too much into the action at a distance paradox, I already mentioned the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory (which you reminded me had been successfully reformulated into the 'transactional interpretation' by John Cramer). This removed the spookiness that so bothered Einstein.

This theory is not taken too seriously by most quantum physicists. There's many conceptual problems with it, one of them I mentioned. Here's another example. If two atoms are entangled, and both atoms are separated by a billion light years. Let's say both are taken on space ship near the speed of light that goes on a zig-zag journey around black holes, colliding galaxies, exploding supernova, etc.. Now, after they are a billion light years apart, one of the partners is measured. If the measured partner then sends out an advanced wave, then how is it that the measured atom can produce a signal strong enough to reach its partner in the past? It is no easy feat to send a strong enough "retarded" signal a billion light years across the cosmos through galaxies, black holes, etc., how does an advanced wave do so without any problem? If the advanced wave must go through black holes to reach its partner, how is it possible for the advanced wave to make it back to the partner?

Without getting into an argument about computational dispositions (which I find not to be a subject without controversy wherever I read about it) it seems to me that your conclusions are premature, being based upon the cutting-edge of todays cosmology.

I think I'm staying within the realm of offering something reasonable here (that's especially true if you are a strong proponent of retarded-advanced waves).

I'm open to the possiblity that the scientific anti-realist, nominalist, deflationist, etc., are right and that logic, math, truth, etc., are human invented concepts. In that case, the universe may be beyond our ability to ever figure out, in which case we would need to be agnostic about the cause of the world (unless we choose to make a pragmatic decision to believe God exists even in the face of pure ignorance simply because we see it as the pragmatic thing to do). If I lost faith in realism, platonism, realist theories of truth, etc., then I would be inclined to complete skepticism about our knowledge and still maintain a pragmatic view that belief in God is good to believe even if we cannot have knowledge of the world.

Which seems to me to be a more reasonable position anyway, pending a continued exploration of the cosmos at ever wider scopes just to make sure we havn't missed something (because we sure as heck have already).

The problem with skepticism, though, is that you need to have knowledge before you can decide to be skeptical of knowledge. If our knowledge is producing tangible understanding of the world (e.g., modern scientific theories), then why not accept them as getting closer and closer to the inner workings of the universe? What evidence besides over philosophizing of scientific details suggests that our theories are way off in understanding the world? I know of none. Biological evolutionary theory, looks pretty accurate. Are you suggesting that we not accept these theories as true?

But in a mirror of your previous statement, it represents a pragmatic approach for those who want to take full responsibility for their own existence as it were. I feel a need to do this myself in order to be at one with the universe. It rids my mind of the 'mysterious' ways in which 'god' is otherwise apparently moving.

Well, if you feel atheism is a pragmatic strategy for you, then I certainly don't want to rob you of that meaning. However, please understand that for most people there are no warm fuzzies that come from such a view.

[QED]

We have to talk apples and oranges here. Natural selection as a mechanism does not have memory, the genetic code that natural selection favors at times is what contains a "memory."

I said how I felt that your view of intelligence might just be too parochial, I and many others see all sufficiently complex systems as being potentially 'intelligent'. That is, intelligence can be a property of any example of material complexity, not just the human brain.

I already mentioned the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory (which you reminded me had been successfully reformulated into the 'transactional interpretation' by John Cramer). This removed the spookiness that so bothered Einstein.

This theory is not taken too seriously by most quantum physicists. There's many conceptual problems with it, one of them I mentioned. Here's another example. If two atoms are entangled, and both atoms are separated by a billion light years. Let's say both are taken on space ship near the speed of light that goes on a zig-zag journey around black holes, colliding galaxies, exploding supernova, etc.. Now, after they are a billion light years apart, one of the partners is measured. If the measured partner then sends out an advanced wave, then how is it that the measured atom can produce a signal strong enough to reach its partner in the past? It is no easy feat to send a strong enough "retarded" signal a billion light years across the cosmos through galaxies, black holes, etc., how does an advanced wave do so without any problem? If the advanced wave must go through black holes to reach its partner, how is it possible for the advanced wave to make it back to the partner?

I would be interested to see any references in which these problems are mentioned. Cramer and Gribben would seem to be unaware of them as of 2004. The transactional interpretation has been offered as a suitable alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation which you would appear to be wedded to. The properties of photons include effects at unlimited range, and from the perspective of individual photons, crossing the entire universe at light-speed takes zero time. Your description of a torturous route is one that only seems daunting to the human perspective.

I sense that you are reluctant to accept that alternative interpretations (of which there can be any number) of quantum physics might be successful in banishing the apparent spookiness that was revealed nearly a century ago. Einstein was not alone in being uncomfortable with the paradox, most workers in that field have been uneasy with the strangeness within the standard model especially after the work of John Bell. There has always been a danger that Metaphysicalists seize upon such incompleteness of underastanding, and this should be a caution to us all.

The problem with skepticism, though, is that you need to have knowledge before you can decide to be skeptical of knowledge. If our knowledge is producing tangible understanding of the world (e.g., modern scientific theories), then why not accept them as getting closer and closer to the inner workings of the universe? What evidence besides over philosophizing of scientific details suggests that our theories are way off in understanding the world? I know of none. Biological evolutionary theory, looks pretty accurate. Are you suggesting that we not accept these theories as true?

We will never know what is true. We can search the space of all possible truths and we can stick to those that defy contradiction. But the only measure of truth can be how long we stay with a particular idea, and time for us is finite.

Well, if you feel atheism is a pragmatic strategy for you, then I certainly don't want to rob you of that meaning. However, please understand that for most people there are no warm fuzzies that come from such a view.

This is an amazing remark to me, it clearly underlines how much "wishful thinking" might be a part of your position. I would challenge you to justify using it as a basis for any argument.

[harvey1]

I said how I felt that your view of intelligence might just be too parochial, I and many others see all sufficiently complex systems as being potentially 'intelligent'. That is, intelligence can be a property of any example of material complexity, not just the human brain.

Okay, but I don't see how your response is in disagreement with my argument that natural selection is a simple materialistic implication, versus a view of the laws where nature appears to have knowledge (btw, this is true regardless whether you we find an explanation for it, e.g., transactional intepretation, or many worlds interpretation, etc.--the appearance is still an appearance).

I would be interested to see any references in which these problems are mentioned. Cramer and Gribben would seem to be unaware of them as of 2004. The transactional interpretation has been offered as a suitable alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation which you would appear to be wedded to. The properties of photons include effects at unlimited range, and from the perspective of individual photons, crossing the entire universe at light-speed takes zero time. Your description of a torturous route is one that only seems daunting to the human perspective.

The perspective of photons having "zero time" is irrelevant if there are obstacles that prevent them from getting to the emitter in the past. As for philosophical arguments against it, so far the theory has not gained a great deal of attention from philosophers. However, Tim Maudlin in Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity in 2002 provided a thought experiment that demonstrates a paradox for the hypothesis. An emitter emits an offer wave to the right and to the left of the emitter. Two detectors (A & B) are set-up in sequence on the right of the emitter. If detector A detects the offer wave, then B cannot detect the offer wave since A blocks B. However, if A does not detect an offer wave, then the detector at B is quickly moved to the left of the emitter. If B is moved as a result, then B is 100% likely to detect the offer wave (since A didn't detect it), however this is in contradiction to the probablilities shown by Cramer's hypothesis. In addition, the "handshake" process is messed up in this thought experiment since the handshake is not complete until after the confirmation wave and offer wave are echoed back and forth. However, the confirmation wave is determined by the result of detector B being moved or not moved, hence a confirmation wave is not sent until the result of the experiment is known, which contradicts the transactional interpretation of qm.

As I also mentioned, Cramer nor Gribbin have provided details as to how the transactional iiterpretation works with entangled atoms who are not measured until there is a black hole between them. My guess is that they would say that the paths of the particles can go around the black hole in terms of all possible path approach, but that seems counterintuitive since we are talking about real communication between the emitter and absorber, and in that case, is it realistic to think such communication is taking place? I would think it is not realistic since I never did get good reception on my TV back before cable.

In any case, I do like the transactional interpretation from another standpoint which will probably come up with Spetey. So, stay tune...

We will never know what is true. We can search the space of all possible truths and we can stick to those that defy contradiction. But the only measure of truth can be how long we stay with a particular idea, and time for us is finite.

We might be in the Matrix, and yade yade ya, but I want to deal with what we have reasons for the best position to take. That's what this discussion is about. By the way, your responses are starting to sound more agnostic by each passing week. Would you ever consider of becoming one?

Well, if you feel atheism is a pragmatic strategy for you, then I certainly don't want to rob you of that meaning. However, please understand that for most people there are no warm fuzzies that come from such a view.

This is an amazing remark to me, it clearly underlines how much "wishful thinking" might be a part of your position. I would challenge you to justify using it as a basis for any argument.

I have no problem with a pragmatic account of knowledge. In fact, I think all knowledge is ultimately pragmatically based.

[QED]

Okay, but I don't see how your response is in disagreement with my argument that natural selection is a simple materialistic implication, versus a view of the laws where nature appears to have knowledge (btw, this is true regardless whether you we find an explanation for it, e.g., transactional intepretation, or many worlds interpretation, etc.--the appearance is still an appearance).

My point was to demonstrate that there is nothing special about intelligence. I referred to sufficient complexity within a system -- what constitutes 'sufficient' depends on how much intelligence you're expecting.

The perspective of photons having "zero time" is irrelevant if there are obstacles that prevent them from getting to the emitter in the past. As for philosophical arguments against it, so far the theory has not gained a great deal of attention from philosophers. However, Tim Maudlin in Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity in 2002 provided a thought experiment that demonstrates a paradox for the hypothesis. An emitter emits an offer wave to the right and to the left of the emitter. Two detectors (A & B) are set-up in sequence on the right of the emitter. If detector A detects the offer wave, then B cannot detect the offer wave since A blocks B. However, if A does not detect an offer wave, then the detector at B is quickly moved to the left of the emitter. If B is moved as a result, then B is 100% likely to detect the offer wave (since A didn't detect it), however this is in contradiction to the probablilities shown by Cramer's hypothesis. In addition, the "handshake" process is messed up in this thought experiment since the handshake is not complete until after the confirmation wave and offer wave are echoed back and forth. However, the confirmation wave is determined by the result of detector B being moved or not moved, hence a confirmation wave is not sent until the result of the experiment is known, which contradicts the transactional interpretation of qm.

As I also mentioned, Cramer nor Gribbin have provided details as to how the transactional iiterpretation works with entangled atoms who are not measured until there is a black hole between them. My guess is that they would say that the paths of the particles can go around the black hole in terms of all possible path approach, but that seems counterintuitive since we are talking about real communication between the emitter and absorber, and in that case, is it realistic to think such communication is taking place? I would think it is not realistic since I never did get good reception on my TV back before cable.

It's hard to take your answer seriously when you conclude with something as naive as your example about TV reception. You know that the optional paths left open to the signal have disparate lengths and thus integrate to an unusable level - unusable that is to a macroscopic RF Tuner system.

You must know that the problem with all this is that we have yet to realise a fully unequivocal interpretation -- this makes the likelihood of a 'common sense' explanation vastly more likely than a metaphysical one -- just as a natural phenomenon is vastly more likely to explain a UFO sighting. Look at the nonsense surrounding the "role of the observer" in collapsing wavefunctions. This is typical of the way people like to latch-on to the weirder aspects when in fact, the paradox is there to tell us that we are wrong about our model.

We might be in the Matrix, and yade yade ya, but I want to deal with what we have reasons for the best position to take. That's what this discussion is about. By the way, your responses are starting to sound more agnostic by each passing week. Would you ever consider of becoming one?

I think you misinterpret my strict statements like "we will never know truth" in order to pin your agnostic label on me. it has already been argued that strictly we should all be agnostic. Would you not agree that the best data from which to form opinions is observation and experience? My impression is that we find it difficult shaking off our human perspectives: We plan and design for a purpose -- so we see design and purpose elsewhere, just as the current fad in technology is often used as an analogy in an explanation of some natural phenomenon.

These habits are as hard to shake-off as our evolutionary inspired instincts, but they hold no more validity than the concept of a "clockwork universe".

[harvey1]

My point was to demonstrate that there is nothing special about intelligence. I referred to sufficient complexity within a system -- what constitutes 'sufficient' depends on how much intelligence you're expecting.

I have no argument with that, in fact, that's exactly one of the points that I'd like to argue. Intelligence is a type of complexity that we see in the universe, and we have to be open-minded on where we observe intelligent-like action. Sometimes that means attributing intelligence to the reference at hand and sometimes not.

It's hard to take your answer seriously when you conclude with something as naive as your example about TV reception. You know that the optional paths left open to the signal have disparate lengths and thus integrate to an unusable level - unusable that is to a macroscopic RF Tuner system.

Is it possible to receive absolutely no photons from a distant part of the universe? That's the issue. I say it is certainly possible to receive no photons from an atom. Look, atoms do emit photons capable of reaching across the universe (obviously since Hubble and other space telescopes are capturing those photons), however if the atom doesn't emit detectable traces of energetic photons (which our thought experiment would dictate), then how in the heck can these photons (or other particles) stream their way across the universe backward in time through black holes, etc.? Of course, it may not be photons, maybe particles travelling backward in time stream through black holes or what have you, but this concept has deep pitfalls. I was hoping to show you that there's good reason to be skeptical here, but it seems your mind is pretty much made up on the issue.

You must know that the problem with all this is that we have yet to realise a fully unequivocal interpretation -- this makes the likelihood of a 'common sense' explanation vastly more likely than a metaphysical one

Both are metaphysical options. The view, however, that the universe just conforms to the equations because that's the way the universe is is perhaps the most popular interpretation of EPR. It certainly has no reason to be opposed as your arguments suggest.

-- just as a natural phenomenon is vastly more likely to explain a UFO sighting. Look at the nonsense surrounding the "role of the observer" in collapsing wavefunctions. This is typical of the way people like to latch-on to the weirder aspects when in fact, the paradox is there to tell us that we are wrong about our model.

Well, this work is still on-going. It may not be the observer that's important, it might be the information itself which is being withheld (i.e., which-way information). That is still very much a metaphysical issue.

I think you misinterpret my strict statements like "we will never know truth" in order to pin your agnostic label on me. it has already been argued that strictly we should all be agnostic. Would you not agree that the best data from which to form opinions is observation and experience?

No. I wouldn't argue that since that argument itself must be based on observation and experience ad infinitum. Rather, I argue that all opinions are ultimately formed from observation and experience. From our perspective, the best data from which to form opinions is by seeking meaning within the Cosmos by reasoning within the context of our observation and collective experiences of the past (including religious experiences).

My impression is that we find it difficult shaking off our human perspectives: We plan and design for a purpose -- so we see design and purpose elsewhere, just as the current fad in technology is often used as an analogy in an explanation of some natural phenomenon.
These habits are as hard to shake-off as our evolutionary inspired instincts, but they hold no more validity than the concept of a "clockwork universe".

The best approach is to seek meaning in our theories, and that entails reasoning within the context to what is meaningful.

[spetey]

Hey folks!

I'm still waiting on a response to my last post--mostly, I'm curious to hear what Harvey considers to be necessary conditions for a god. So far, according to him, we have that a god would have to be at least a little intelligent, even if not as intelligent as a human being. It can't be totally unintelligent, anyway. This is some progress: it seems to rule out toasters and such as gods. And if we were to agree that the laws of physics are not literally intelligent, it would rule out the laws of physics as a god too.

Also, according to Harvey, it does not have to make sense to worship the thing that is proposed as a god. This is still mysterious to me. I still wonder: how can I tell whether my spider plant is a god? It's minimally intelligent, and though it doesn't make sense to worship it, that's irrelevant according to Harvey. So how can I tell, among all the things out there with some intelligence, which are gods and which aren't? Or is everything with minimal intelligence a god, according to this view?


spetey