Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[bernee51]

Interpretations will always be subjective. You choose to interpret the 'evidence' in a way that supports your beliefs. Others do exactly the same.

Stop. Are you saying that truth is entirely subjective?

I said, I believe, that interpretations are subjective.

[QED]

Of course, you're assuming that toy (atheist) stories are logically consistent. My point is that they are not.

Our story is certainly incomplete, but it's a story bound to reality by science. Many other stories are possible, but whether internally consistent or not, unless they are also bound to reality by science then they have no substantial existence and we cannot tell fact from fiction. Like the movie, we can't buy a house and go live there.

The physical evidence you cite is all ambiguous as far as I can tell. I think Science backs me up on this one.

It's not a scientific issue. It's a philosophy of science issue. For example, as I pointed out recently, experiments in quantum physics have produced good evidence that entangled photons must be treated as bi-photons and not as separate objects. The entire path information of bi-photon A is transferred to the bi-photon B after the twin particles are space-like separated. That demonstrates action at a distance.

This is one of those fires that keeps on springing up out of your argument and I never seem to find the time to damp it down properly. You seem to be pointing to Quantum Mechanics as scientific evidence of some kind of paranormal mental behaviour. Instead, what it suggests to me is that we are under the illusion that there are more degrees of freedom than there actually are. For example, the "holographic principle" suggests that our apparently large spatial dimensions are some form of projection from a lower dimensional plane. It seems to me that all the non-Newtonian behaviour in the Quantum world could emerge when touching up against the constraints a projection like this would impose. Our interpretation of this, existing in the realm of a "hologram", could lead to just the sort of phenomena we are seeing.

But, more importantly, delayed choice experiments show that experimentalists can purposely or randomly choose the path of bi-photon A after it has already been destroyed by reading or erasing the path information of bi-photon B. This is like experimentalists changing the past of bi-photon A, or bi-photon A having knowledge of what random event will occur (or what experimentalists will do) and then choosing the path that preserves the laws of quantum mechanics.

But the involvement of mind that you are inferring from this sort of experiment seems totally unsuitable as an explanation for the phenomena which is far more reminiscent of constraint. Sure minds are things that make and (try to) enforce laws but there are many other mechanical analogs that do the same unswervingly and tirelessly. The subject is, after all, called Quantum Mechanics.

How is this example ambiguous? It shows that "something knows" how the effect of an experiment will determine its path and force a contradiction to quantum-mechanical equations. Rather than allow that to happen, nature takes preemptive action (or takes the action of changing the past). I don't see any explanation of this phenomena that doesn't at least entail some form of Platonism.

I think you are forcing a default explanation of "the mind of God" onto this phenomena. Platonism's relation to the substantive world is also ambiguous when we take into account things such as the holographic principle.

Science is built on layers of philosophical assumptions, and that demonstrates that much of our accepted knowledge of the metaphysical nature of the world does not come from science.

Steady on, each of those layers are given a "reality check" before we go out proving things with them...

Philosophical argument strongly suggests that God exists, and therefore even if there were no scientific evidence, it would not be a big deal. As it is, there's very convincing scientific evidence when examined in a philosophical perspective, and therefore there really is no excuse in being an atheist.

Your use of the word "therefore" would imply the use of logic. Given that I have taken time to explain how philosophy is impotent if it fails to make concrete ties to reality (usually through science) I humbly suggest that the logic you use to derive your conclusion is faulty.

[Wyvern]

Science is bound at a base level by either that which can be observed or predicted through theory. God if you accept its existance in the first part can neither be observed or theorized in a scientific manner, which is why science doesn't spend much time mulling over the issue.
If something is theorized using the scientific method it is automatically put in the column of natural behavior regardless of how odd it might be, god is by definition supernatural. Who knows though maybe in time when our knowledge has expanded enough we might be able to scientifically explain or observe god, we are a young species after all, give it time.

[harvey1]

Science is bound at a base level by either that which can be observed or predicted through theory. God if you accept its existance in the first part can neither be observed or theorized in a scientific manner, which is why science doesn't spend much time mulling over the issue. If something is theorized using the scientific method it is automatically put in the column of natural behavior regardless of how odd it might be, god is by definition supernatural. Who knows though maybe in time when our knowledge has expanded enough we might be able to scientifically explain or observe god, we are a young species after all, give it time.

I think a very good comparison is the issue of whether nature actually has laws that determine its behavior (call it a prescriptive interpretation), or whether nature has behavior which we describe using laws (call it a descriptive interpretation). Science cannot tell us whether the laws are prescriptive or descriptive, but it is conceivable that science will eventually come to the point that any version of scientific realism is obviously untenable without a prescriptive interpretation. I think science is actually at the point where scientific realism entails platonism, it just isn't obvious to many yet.

Similarly, science may come to a point to where any version of scientific realism obviously entails a form of theism. Right now current science is not at that point. However, as I've argued in this sub-forum, the allowable interpretations of scientific evidence is already at this point if the philosophical arguments are carefully followed.

[harvey1]

Our story is certainly incomplete, but it's a story bound to reality by science.

Funny how that works. When you give evidence from science that you think suggests that your version of the story is correct, I'm told by you that this story is bound to reality by science. When I give evidence from science that I think suggests that my version of the story is correct, I'm told by you that my evidence is ambiguous. Perhaps I should try that:

Harvey: QED, your evidence from science that supports your story of atheism is all ambiguous. The scientific evidence for my theism is bound to reality by science.

This is one of those fires that keeps on springing up out of your argument and I never seem to find the time to damp it down properly. You seem to be pointing to Quantum Mechanics as scientific evidence of some kind of paranormal mental behaviour.

I haven't said anything close to that, and you shouldn't exaggerate other people's position. It indicates that you are just grandstanding.

Instead, what it suggests to me is that we are under the illusion that there are more degrees of freedom than there actually are.

Great, tell me how these delayed choice experiments show this in a manner that is consistent with materialism. My contention is that there is no such explanations because the conclusions of these experiments contradict materialism at its core.

For example, the "holographic principle" suggests that our apparently large spatial dimensions are some form of projection from a lower dimensional plane. It seems to me that all the non-Newtonian behaviour in the Quantum world could emerge when touching up against the constraints a projection like this would impose. Our interpretation of this, existing in the realm of a "hologram", could lead to just the sort of phenomena we are seeing.

I thought we already discussed this. If the holographic principle is correct, then materialism is false. You have discrete pieces of space (or spacetime), and therefore you need some kind of non-material relations to connect these pieces together.

But the involvement of mind that you are inferring from this sort of experiment seems totally unsuitable as an explanation for the phenomena which is far more reminiscent of constraint. Sure minds are things that make and (try to) enforce laws but there are many other mechanical analogs that do the same unswervingly and tirelessly. The subject is, after all, called Quantum Mechanics.

A couple of things. First, the experiment isn't problematic for materialism just because of the mind issue. It is mainly problematic because either the past can be re-written or because the future is already determined and this determined future affects the way the past happens to occur. That requires a platonist interpretation of nature since the materialist conception is based on the premise that all there is are material things. However, in either case (past is re-written, or the future is determined) the future would have to be already determined before it occurs from our perspective, therefore there must exist prescriptive laws which determine that future. Material interactions in the past cannot determine the material interactions of the future since they haven't happened yet. Materialism has no answer as to what can determine the future if the material interactions are not the explanation. So, materialism is false. That gives you platonism, and as I've argued, you need a satisfaction relation (a semantic concept that necessarily entails cognition) in order to account for platonism.

Secondly, mind is necessary because in at least one experiment by Scarcelli, Zhou, and Shih there are no "observations" that should cause the interference pattern to disappear. In the experiment, an entangled photon A enters a double slit and then is destroyed upon hitting a detector. The which-path of photon A going through the double slit is transferred to photon B because they are entangled. However, photon B is randomly sent either through a small pinhole or an open pinhole (1 cm). The size of the pinhole determines how much information the experimenter can learn about which-path of photon A. The interference pattern appears and disappears depending on which pinhole that photon B travelled through before being detected. There is no observation to determine which slit photon A had entered. The mind behind the physics is smart enough to know that just by photon B going through a 1 cm pinhole that the experimenters can determine which slit that photon A had already gone through when it existed (i.e., photon A is already destroyed before photon B is sent through pinholes). If photon B goes through the 1 cm pinhole, then the mind knows that the experimentalist can find out what slit photon A went through, so the identical interference pattern observed for photons A and B are destroyed, whereas if B goes through the small pinhole, the identical interference pattern returns for A and B. This is a cognitive property demonstrated by nature. God exists. End of story.

[theleftone]

I'm sure there has never been a contact between a Prophet and a God.

on what scientific basis do you make the claim "there has never been a contact between a Prophet and a God"?

I actually phrased it as a personal opinion, not a claim. However, as far as science is concerned there has never been contact between a Prophet and a God. ... I said I'm sure of it, and I mean just that.

If you're "sure" of this being the case, then one can reasonably expect you to have verifiable evidence to support your surety. That is, unless your appeal to opinion is an admittance that your surety is based solely on non-verifiable evidence. In which case, how is this any more or less valid than the statement, "I'm sure there has been a contact between a Prophet and a God?" Would not one demand verifiable evidence from the one who stated such an opinion?

[QED]

Interesting, Harvey seems to be getting a little short on patience and tselem is coming in straight for the jugular! Calm down guys, after all we're only being asked how one can lack belief -- as though this is an absurd sort of thing to do. Last time I looked nobody was getting papers published in nature regarding the proven existence of God or meetings between him and prophets. This is the sort of reality I am referring to. I appreciate that there is another sort of reality within the world of organized religion but it's not the world where knowledge is being accumulated at an accelerating rate. When this knowledge starts assembling a picture of "God", even by Harvey's "proofs" it doesn't seem to be the personal God of popular recognition.

BTW tselem, I'm always curious when I see it written; what aspects of His image are we meant to be made in? I hope you appreciate that it would be absurd to be in appearance.

[harvey1]

Interesting, Harvey seems to be getting a little short on patience and tselem is coming in straight for the jugular! Calm down guys, after all we're only being asked how one can lack belief -- as though this is an absurd sort of thing to do.

If I'm giving that impression, then I apologize.

Last time I looked nobody was getting papers published in nature regarding the proven existence of God

That would be a philosophical matter, and papers are published all the time about implications of scientific experiments.

When this knowledge starts assembling a picture of "God", even by Harvey's "proofs" it doesn't seem to be the personal God of popular recognition.

We're a young species.

[QED]

This is one of those fires that keeps on springing up out of your argument and I never seem to find the time to damp it down properly. You seem to be pointing to Quantum Mechanics as scientific evidence of some kind of paranormal mental behaviour.

I haven't said anything close to that, and you shouldn't exaggerate other people's position. It indicates that you are just grandstanding.

The mind behind the physics is smart enough to know that just by photon B going through a 1 cm pinhole that the experimenters can determine which slit that photon A had already gone through when it existed (i.e., photon A is already destroyed before photon B is sent through pinholes). If photon B goes through the 1 cm pinhole, then the mind knows that the experimentalist can find out what slit photon A went through, so the identical interference pattern observed for photons A and B are destroyed, whereas if B goes through the small pinhole, the identical interference pattern returns for A and B. This is a cognitive property demonstrated by nature. God exists. End of story.

If I was exaggerating your position then what the heck is this "mind behind physics"?

[harvey1]

If I was exaggerating your position then what the heck is this "mind behind physics"?

As I've said, the mind that I am talking about is akin to Hawking's Chronological Protection Conjecture (CPC). There's nothing paranormal about it.