Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[Starboard Tack]

There's a difference between "outside the natural world that we know", and "not natural". My example of an alien scientist would be perfectly natural.

It might be natural in a universe above, beyond or separate from this universe, which would simply mean that it is not part of our natural universe which is governed by different physical constants than those that would allow your alien scientist to bring matter and energy into existence, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

First of all, nobody said the universe was created from nothing. I certainly didn't assert that my alien scientist did so - say he used something in his universe to create our universe?

Can you provide an example of where something comes into being in this universe without a cause, or more interestingly, where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself?

where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself? that's easy: splitting the atom, the butterfly effect, rumors, etc.

All incorrect. E-mc2, so the energy released is not greater than the cause. The butterfly effect is a string of causation that builds on itself, not violating the principle. Interesting point on rumors. Damage is done by rumors, but rumors are what they are - a cause capable of causing great damage.

if you look at the energy expenditure to split the atom, and the energy that results from doing so, there is a decided difference.

and I fail to see how a causal chain that builds on itself does not apply. the initial cause is something small, the ultimate effect is something very large - something small building on itself to create something large seems to be exactly what you were asking for.

For a simple example, is it possible that a 200# man jumps into a pool and causes the displacement of 500,000# of water?

I assume you mean lbs?

Yes, that would be what the # sign generally means.

a 200 pound man could EASILY displace more than 200 pounds of water if he hit the water with any kind of velocity, especially if he was a terrible diver! If he slid slowly into the water, he wouldn't displace much, but if he hit it at 200 MPH he would displace far more than 200 lbs of water. 500,000 lbs would be tough, unless maybe he hit the water at meteoric speeds.

If he was dropped from 25,000 feet, then yes, the cause of gravity acting on his mass would be what it was. No more, and no less than the cause would predict. Another bad example.

I agree it's a bad example. First of all, 200 lbs of man will not necessarily displace an equivalent weight of water - that would be volume. Second, a volume displacement isn't exactly a cause and effect.
However, I'll remind you that it was your example.

If not, you can begin to understand how the creation of everything from nothing is a stretch of logic.

I don't think anyone has proposed that the universe came from nothing - admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.

All space, time, energy and matter came into existence in a nearly infinitely small particle of nearly infinitely energy.

Says who? last I heard, science made no claims on where the singularity from which the big bang banged came from.

I might also point out that, above and beyond the entire rest of these last few posts of ours, things do, in fact, come from nothing. there are particles called virtual particles that come into existence from nothing for brief periods of time before annihilating themselves back into nothingness.

Confining ourselves to the laws of physics of this universe, it is universally true that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. This is the result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. True, locally you can add energy and provide the appearance of the effect being greater than the cause, but from the perspective of the entire universe, no, never.

The singularity's cause is unknown. All we know is that based on space time theorems, whatever the cause is, it must be transcendent to the singularity. Did the singularity exist in infinite time before expansion? Well, probably not, since time was also brought into existence along with the singularity, at least the time we experience. However ever hard it is for people to get their heads around the concept, the universe has a beginning. That beginning requires a causal agent. Whether that causal agent is a natural force or a personal being is the essence of theology, and the issue that atheists wish not to discuss, at least in my experience.

[Goat]

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

Please provide evidence that the 1ts law of thermodynamics does not apply to the causal agent from outside the universe. Give peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject, or retract this statement.

Please provide peer reviewed articles substantiating that it is not correct, or retract your demand for retraction.

It may be that universes beyond our own have the same laws of physics. However, since they are not measurable (consult Einstein on this) we cannot know. If we don't know, and can't know what laws of physics might pertain to realities beyond this space time envelop, we cannot assert that our laws of thermodynamics would apply, much less call them laws in such universes, hence my statement.

It is not ME that is making the claim, but it is you. I am not making a claim one way or another, but I want you to back up your claim.

According to the RULE number 5, you have to back up your claim.

[FinalEnigma]

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

What you may be overlooking is that when the universe came into being, the laws of physics governing the universe also came into being. In that sense, the 1st law of thermodynamics may only have local application in this space time, which began. Having begun, it must have a causal agent bringing it into existence. You may wish to argue that this causal agent is impersonal, but that would be a statement of religious, not empirical substance.

The problem with this argument is that it most certainly does not help you forward your position. If we assume that you are correct (and again, I'm handing you a lot of ground here), and we thus assume that the laws of physics didn't apply before the big bang - then you cannot POSSIBLY argue the need for a creator, because without the laws of physics, absolutely ANYTHING could have happened - including an utterly spontaneous big bang coming from nothing.

and this is again ignoring the fact that we do see, in our universe, particles that come from nothing. (a point made by now TWO debaters, which you have ignored.

[Starboard Tack]

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

Please provide evidence that the 1ts law of thermodynamics does not apply to the causal agent from outside the universe. Give peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject, or retract this statement.

Please provide peer reviewed articles substantiating that it is not correct, or retract your demand for retraction.

It may be that universes beyond our own have the same laws of physics. However, since they are not measurable (consult Einstein on this) we cannot know. If we don't know, and can't know what laws of physics might pertain to realities beyond this space time envelop, we cannot assert that our laws of thermodynamics would apply, much less call them laws in such universes, hence my statement.

It is not ME that is making the claim, but it is you. I am not making a claim one way or another, but I want you to back up your claim.

According to the RULE number 5, you have to back up your claim.

Of course you're making a claim. You're claiming that the laws of thermodynamics exist in parallel universes. Back the claim up or retract it.

You see Goat, what you are confusing is belligerent argumentation with debate. Since we don't know, and can't know whether parallel universes exist, we certainly can't claim as you have that our laws of physics must exist in them. My claiming they don't is no different than your claiming they do.

I'm not toying with you, but why some on this forum think that simply demanding "peer reviewed" papers or retraction for any statement they disagree with represents intelligent debate is beyond me.

I think you're a debating bot. Please provide me with peer reviewed papers showing you exist. And while you're at it, show me some that prove that I exist.

[Confused]

Starboard: methodological naturalism is an important part of the scientific method. No methodological naturalism, no science. If you think that m.n. is a bad thing, or doesn't work, or limits the ability of science to work, you are rejecting and arguing against the scientific method itself.

If you referring, in your OP, to philosophical naturalism, then you simply mistaken (or dishonest). While individual scientists may argue for or against theism, the issue is not part of the subject or method of science. Science does not maintain pure materialism. It is simply only concerned with the material world.

And I think it's doing pretty well and learning about that world. What do you think?

As usual, you combine snarky ad hominem attacks with a lack of knowledge about the topics you pose you understand. Methodological naturalism as a term originated in 1983. Scientists for centuries have looked for natural explanations first and rightly looked askance at the tendency of some to attribute supernatural intervention to whatever they didn't understand. However, for centuries the possibilities of supernatural involvement in the affairs of the universe was presumed. So your statement that without M.N. you have no science is typically false since scientific discovery advanced quite nicely by people who, unlike you, didn't break out in hives at the mention of God. Further, the statement Science does not maintain pure materialism. It is simply only concerned with the material world. is incoherent and self contradictory. But then again, what else is new?

Moderator Comment

It's very easy for tempers to boil in the passion of a debate but can we all please try to avoid the criticism and retain some civility. If a forum member is violating the rules, please report it and if you don't feel as if any resolution was obtained, please do PM a moderator of your choice or an administrator. Thank you for your assistance.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Starboard Tack]

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

What you may be overlooking is that when the universe came into being, the laws of physics governing the universe also came into being. In that sense, the 1st law of thermodynamics may only have local application in this space time, which began. Having begun, it must have a causal agent bringing it into existence. You may wish to argue that this causal agent is impersonal, but that would be a statement of religious, not empirical substance.

The problem with this argument is that it most certainly does not help you forward your position. If we assume that you are correct (and again, I'm handing you a lot of ground here), and we thus assume that the laws of physics didn't apply before the big bang - then you cannot POSSIBLY argue the need for a creator, because without the laws of physics, absolutely ANYTHING could have happened - including an utterly spontaneous big bang coming from nothing.

and this is again ignoring the fact that we do see, in our universe, particles that come from nothing. (a point made by now TWO debaters, which you have ignored.

I'm not sure that the idea that without the laws of physics that we can detect and measure, anything is possible, including creation from nothing. As a Christian, I happen to believe in creation ex nihilo, so I agree it happened, but I see no connection between no physical constants or different physical constants and creation of an ordered universe fine tuned to more that 1 part in 10^1000+ in order for life to exist. I don't see how it follows that no physical constants results in the creation of the mind and consciousness, nor do I see how no physical constants creates a reality where mathematical relationships developed purely in the conscious mind accruately describe reality outside the conscious mind. Nor do I see why the gravitational attraction between two bodies should be inverse to the square of their distance. Why not inverse to the 2.132334450980892457 exponent of their distance? Why the nice round numbers we see throughout the physical constants? Beats me, unless of course there is a mind behind it all who seems to like ordered systems that have a point. Elsewhere someone demanded that I provide proof that there is meaning to the univserse. I suppose the ordered nature of the physical constants as measured would be as good a piece of evidence as I can offer.

I also think we might have a different understanding of what God is, and what God is capable of. Most religious views have god existing within a space time manifold that has always been there, and that god or gods act within that manifold. The Chrisitan God isn't like that. Nothing exists that he did not bring into existence by his express will, including the laws of physics. He is not bound by those laws any more than the potter is bound by the clay. Nothing bars God from bringing other universes into existence, but if you look at what physicists say who propose the multiverse as an explanation for the fine tuned nature of this universe, you will find that they assume different laws of physics for them, with us having the luck of being in this one with life supporting laws. See Level II multiverse:

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

I didn't intentionally ignore the issue of virtual particles, but I don't confuse an inability to find cause for the absence of cause. If you look into what we think we know about such particles, you will see that they are explained as an outworking of quantum fluctuations. While quantum mechanics is certainly confusing and in many ways mysterious, no quantum physicist I have every read would conclude that it demonstrates something from nothing or disproves causality. Arguments over whether causality in fact is essential for existence is reasonable, but virtual particles aren't a good example to use for proof.

[FinalEnigma]

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

What you may be overlooking is that when the universe came into being, the laws of physics governing the universe also came into being. In that sense, the 1st law of thermodynamics may only have local application in this space time, which began. Having begun, it must have a causal agent bringing it into existence. You may wish to argue that this causal agent is impersonal, but that would be a statement of religious, not empirical substance.

The problem with this argument is that it most certainly does not help you forward your position. If we assume that you are correct (and again, I'm handing you a lot of ground here), and we thus assume that the laws of physics didn't apply before the big bang - then you cannot POSSIBLY argue the need for a creator, because without the laws of physics, absolutely ANYTHING could have happened - including an utterly spontaneous big bang coming from nothing.

and this is again ignoring the fact that we do see, in our universe, particles that come from nothing. (a point made by now TWO debaters, which you have ignored.

I'm not sure that the idea that without the laws of physics that we can detect and measure, anything is possible, including creation from nothing.

That's the point: you can't be sure of ANYTHING.

As a Christian, I happen to believe in creation ex nihilo, so I agree it happened, but I see no connection between no physical constants or different physical constants and creation of an ordered universe fine tuned to more that 1 part in 10^1000+ in order for life to exist. I don't see how it follows that no physical constants results in the creation of the mind and consciousness, nor do I see how no physical constants creates a reality where mathematical relationships developed purely in the conscious mind accruately describe reality outside the conscious mind. Nor do I see why the gravitational attraction between two bodies should be inverse to the square of their distance. Why not inverse to the 2.132334450980892457 exponent of their distance? Why the nice round numbers we see throughout the physical constants? Beats me, unless of course there is a mind behind it all who seems to like ordered systems that have a point. Elsewhere someone demanded that I provide proof that there is meaning to the univserse. I suppose the ordered nature of the physical constants as measured would be as good a piece of evidence as I can offer.

I also think we might have a different understanding of what God is, and what God is capable of. Most religious views have god existing within a space time manifold that has always been there, and that god or gods act within that manifold. The Chrisitan God isn't like that. Nothing exists that he did not bring into existence by his express will, including the laws of physics. He is not bound by those laws any more than the potter is bound by the clay. Nothing bars God from bringing other universes into existence, but if you look at what physicists say who propose the multiverse as an explanation for the fine tuned nature of this universe, you will find that they assume different laws of physics for them, with us having the luck of being in this one with life supporting laws. See Level II multiverse:

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

I didn't intentionally ignore the issue of virtual particles, but I don't confuse an inability to find cause for the absence of cause. If you look into what we think we know about such particles, you will see that they are explained as an outworking of quantum fluctuations. While quantum mechanics is certainly confusing and in many ways mysterious, no quantum physicist I have every read would conclude that it demonstrates something from nothing or disproves causality. Arguments over whether causality in fact is essential for existence is reasonable, but virtual particles aren't a good example to use for proof.

the issue is that the instant you start talking about a situation in which physics do not exist, you cannot speculate on ANYTHING with any sensibleness. your argument, at this point, is the argument from incredulity: "I don't believe the universe could have been created this way from an 'existence' without physics: therefore God"

That isn't very convincing.

[Starboard Tack]

the issue is that the instant you start talking about a situation in which physics do not exist, you cannot speculate on ANYTHING with any sensibleness. your argument, at this point, is the argument from incredulity: "I don't believe the universe could have been created this way from an 'existence' without physics: therefore God"

That isn't very convincing.

You're missing the point of the argument. Without physical constants, reality as we understand is not possible. God however, stands outside of the physics he creates. The reason why the concept of God is viewed by many as a philosophical necessity is because eventually you have to arrive at a causal agent that is itself uncaused. This addresses the "turtles all the way down" problem noted by Paul Davies. If you wish to argue that there must be physics behind these physics, then my question is what is behind those. That argument continues ad infinitum, which is why it is ultimately incoherent.

I don't think I am arguing from incredulity, but if you wish to debate that, which is the more incredulous statement:

1. Consciousness is the result of unconscious unguided processes, or
2. Conscriousness is the result of a first cause that is itself conscious.

You seem to believe the former, and I believe that is an incredible supposition since it presumes that an effect can be greater than its cause, although I wouldn't demean you by accusing you of arguments from incredulity.

I would also challenge those who believe that reality as we observe it is the consequence of unguided processes to consider mathematics. The truth of e=Mc2 is independent of whether there is a consciousness to conclude it. However, we do detect this relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light, and find that it is another one of those remarkably ordered constants that in its simplicity argues for a designer bringing it into being. Right triangles in Euclidean space have the characteristics they do. They had these characteristics before the earth was created. Why should a2+b2 always equal c2? Why square? Where does such order come from in an unordered universe, and if it is ordered, how do unconscious processes create such vast swathes of order in this universe?

[FinalEnigma]

the issue is that the instant you start talking about a situation in which physics do not exist, you cannot speculate on ANYTHING with any sensibleness. your argument, at this point, is the argument from incredulity: "I don't believe the universe could have been created this way from an 'existence' without physics: therefore God"

That isn't very convincing.

You're missing the point of the argument. Without physical constants, reality as we understand is not possible. God however, stands outside of the physics he creates. The reason why the concept of God is viewed by many as a philosophical necessity is because eventually you have to arrive at a causal agent that is itself uncaused. This addresses the "turtles all the way down" problem noted by Paul Davies.

you are simply replacing one of the turtles with God and declaring an end to the problem. you haven't actually solved it. it would be lovely if you could find a causal agent that is itself uncaused, but you don't have one. You are simply declaring that since you would like something to be there to end the endless regression loop (that may or may not be there), God must be there.

further, you are proposing the problem that the universe is too fine tuned and complex to have came about on it's own, and solving that problem by positing an even more complex and fine tuned creator for that universe, that somehow avoid the very same problem. There is no factual basis for this assumption. You are making the leap from "we don't know how this worked" to "it's impossible for it to have worked, so God did it." without any rational basis.

I don't think I am arguing from incredulity, but if you wish to debate that, which is the more incredulous statement:

1. Consciousness is the result of unconscious unguided processes, or
2. Conscriousness is the result of a first cause that is itself conscious.

You seem to believe the former, and I believe that is an incredible supposition since it presumes that an effect can be greater than its cause, although I wouldn't demean you by accusing you of arguments from incredulity.

Yes, you are. It seems you do not understand what the argument from incredulity is. The argument from incredulity is the idea that because something seems so utterly incredible, it couldn't have been true. that simply because it seems impossible to you, it cannot have happened.

That is exactly the argument you are making - and trying to push on me to make as well. This is not a logically valid argument.

[Starboard Tack]

you are simply replacing one of the turtles with God and declaring an end to the problem. you haven't actually solved it. it would be lovely if you could find a causal agent that is itself uncaused, but you don't have one. You are simply declaring that since you would like something to be there to end the endless regression loop (that may or may not be there), God must be there.

Call it what you will, but unless you wish your argument to be based on a logical absurdity resolving itself in a vicious infinite regression, you are left with the need to arrive at a prime mover, itself uncaused. Whether I want there to be God or not, the problem remains. Whatever has a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore requires a cause. Since time and space came into being when the universe did, our time and space came into being from beyond our time and space. The cause of that beginning either has itself a cause or is God, which is the only place the stack of turtles ends.

further, you are proposing the problem that the universe is too fine tuned and complex to have came about on it's own, and solving that problem by positing an even more complex and fine tuned creator for that universe, that somehow avoid the very same problem. There is no factual basis for this assumption. You are making the leap from "we don't know how this worked" to "it's impossible for it to have worked, so God did it." without any rational basis.

First, God as creator is hardly more complex than level 2 - 4 multiverse theory so I think they will fall to Occam's razor before God does. Second, you are mistating my argument. I am simply saying that based on our experience in this space time, things that are created by minds have characterics that are different from things created by random processes. The universe displays vast amounts of fine tuned design characteristic of being the product of intelligence, therefore it seems logical to conclude that a designer exists. As far as lacking a factual basis, your apparent belief that things showing intricate design can still come about through purely random unguided processes is a statement of faith, not reason. Explain the beginning of life by such processes, or the fine tuned nature of the universe for life and you'll be on your way to having a rational argument. Until then, you have no factual basis for your confidence that what we observe can be explained without an intelligent mind behind it, other than you wish that to be so.

I don't think I am arguing from incredulity, but if you wish to debate that, which is the more incredulous statement:

1. Consciousness is the result of unconscious unguided processes, or
2. Conscriousness is the result of a first cause that is itself conscious.

You seem to believe the former, and I believe that is an incredible supposition since it presumes that an effect can be greater than its cause, although I wouldn't demean you by accusing you of arguments from incredulity.

Yes, you are. It seems you do not understand what the argument from incredulity is. The argument from incredulity is the idea that because something seems so utterly incredible, it couldn't have been true.

Kind of, but not quite. The argument from incredulity depends on a lack of imagination from the audience to make the argument fly. You cannot imagine God, and your argument depends on other people not being able to imagine God. I am not so burdened. If the weight of evidence exists that God does not exist, then so be it. If the weight of evidence points to his existence, then I am fine with that as well. You, on the other hand, cannot imagine such a thing to be, and that is the basis of your agument. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

That is exactly the argument you are making - and trying to push on me to make as well. This is not a logically valid argument.

I beg to differ. My belief in a Creator is based on the existence of mathematical truth, physical constants that must be fine tuned for life and the appearance of the thing created. It is a logical case, backed by the empirical evidence of what is. Your belief is exactly the opposite. If I am mistaken, please provide the evidence that the universe is not fine tuned for life, or that mathematical truth does not exist outside the mind of man, or that those truths are not elegantly simple in many cases, or that life can in fact pop into existence with the minimum gene set we have found can support life - around 350 genes. If not, consider you might be wrong, even if it stretches your incredulity to the breaking point.