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?

[Bugmaster]

I'll attack atheism here as implying that supernaturalism is true (i.e., we ought to infintely expect the next events in the universe to diverge into irrational events), and I'll argue for necessity of God as a "first cause" there.

Do you mean, the omni-God of Christianity, or a Deist God who set things in motion and left (metaphysically speaking) ?

Also, I'm still waiting for yor defense of the proposition that infinite regress (i.e., "turtles all the way down") is impossible. I'm not sure if that's whay you're trying to do here...

[harvey1]

It sounds like your saying things like principles of conservation cannot be the product of physical constraints within a closed system but that they must rely upon some metaphysical maintenance program to keep things in check.

I can say that it is a product of physical constraints because I think physical constraints are logically necessitated. I'm not sure what you mean by a maintenance program.

I think we all know that whatever we've been riding on for 14 billion years or so isn't the continued output of some random sequence. Science characterizes it all as an evolving process.

Then you agree that physical constraints are not contingent; they are in place because there is no other logical alternative but them to be in place?

[harvey1]

Do you mean, the omni-God of Christianity, or a Deist God who set things in motion and left (metaphysically speaking)?

I mean the omni-God of Christianity.

Also, I'm still waiting for yor defense of the proposition that infinite regress (i.e., "turtles all the way down") is impossible. I'm not sure if that's whay you're trying to do here...

I responded to your objection here. Why not stick with that thread?

[QED]

It sounds like your saying things like principles of conservation cannot be the product of physical constraints within a closed system but that they must rely upon some metaphysical maintenance program to keep things in check.

I can say that it is a product of physical constraints because I think physical constraints are logically necessitated. I'm not sure what you mean by a maintenance program.

I'm not sure what you're setting up here. Obviously by maintenance I mean that if God were to leave his post then things would start falling apart for us. But maybe your argument is that if God were to leave then nothing would be left behind. Of course this puts God inside everything, a belief system for which we have another handy label.

I think we all know that whatever we've been riding on for 14 billion years or so isn't the continued output of some random sequence. Science characterizes it all as an evolving process.

Then you agree that physical constraints are not contingent; they are in place because there is no other logical alternative but them to be in place?

No. I'm arguing that our physical constraints could gain independence from the contingencies that led to them. This says nothing about what logical alternatives there could be outside such a system. We know there are "insides" and "outsides", even in our own universe, in the region of black holes.

[harvey1]

if God were to leave his post then things would start falling apart for us. But maybe your argument is that if God were to leave then nothing would be left behind. Of course this puts God inside everything, a belief system for which we have another handy label.

Yes, exactly. However, I would call this belief system panentheism since it precedes a material universe.

I'm arguing that our physical constraints could gain independence from the contingencies that led to them. This says nothing about what logical alternatives there could be outside such a system. We know there are "insides" and "outsides", even in our own universe, in the region of black holes.

Then I get back to my original question. Assuming that there is a new level of order that is self-sustaining (i.e., physical constraints gain independence from the contingencies that led to them), what prevents that new level of order from suddenly disappearing?

[QED]

Then I get back to my original question. Assuming that there is a new level of order that is self-sustaining (i.e., physical constraints gain independence from the contingencies that led to them), what prevents that new level of order from suddenly disappearing?

Well, its independence means it's reasonably free from external interference and if the constraints are physical then its structure has an integrity which serves to prevent sudden changes of the sort you're asking about. I can see that we are once more you're hinting at something I'm missing, but to me the analogy of LEGO provides a perfect example of what I'm getting at. If the bricks aren't broken then they only go together in certain ways. But remember this is only an analogy, the bricks don't have to stop short at representing fundamental particles -- we haven't yet got to the bottom of the box to know what they do represent. You can try persuading me that this is where God resides, but then to me the whole God story just becomes a sort of "baby talk" for explaining everything. It's certainly isn't one of those satisfying "penny drop" moments that tells us that one person has just communicated a real explanation to another.

[harvey1]

the analogy of LEGO provides a perfect example of what I'm getting at. If the bricks aren't broken then they only go together in certain ways. But remember this is only an analogy, the bricks don't have to stop short at representing fundamental particles -- we haven't yet got to the bottom of the box to know what they do represent.

Nonetheless, if we ask why the bricks don't just disappear, we are either faced with either a contingent fact or a necessary law. If it is a contingent fact, then there is nothing that prevents the bricks from disappearing (or whatever the bricks represent). If it is a necessary law, then again we are faced with how those necessary laws are satisfied--a cognitive term entailing that the Universe has cognition.

You can try persuading me that this is where God resides, but then to me the whole God story just becomes a sort of "baby talk" for explaining everything. It's certainly isn't one of those satisfying "penny drop" moments that tells us that one person has just communicated a real explanation to another.

Why not? It is very informative for evidence to show that the Universe has cognition. Instead of God being baby talk, it is panentheism.

[QED]

Nonetheless, if we ask why the bricks don't just disappear...

...If it is a necessary law, then again we are faced with how those necessary laws are satisfied--a cognitive term entailing that the Universe has cognition.

So you say. This just seems like a category error to me and others that have been unconvinced by your argument here. Laws don't necessarily imply sentient law makers. Neither does satisfaction necessitate cognition. These are terms that mathematics has borrowed from the dictionary of human attributes. That's the only valid connection and it has no deeper significance than that. People have this habit of using familiar terms to label new concepts as a sort of bridge, just to make them more readily understandable. The world just doesn't take these connections any further because It simply doesn't make sense to.

You can try persuading me that this is where God resides, but then to me the whole God story just becomes a sort of "baby talk" for explaining everything. It's certainly isn't one of those satisfying "penny drop" moments that tells us that one person has just communicated a real explanation to another.

Why not? It is very informative for evidence to show that the Universe has cognition. Instead of God being baby talk, it is panentheism.

The evidence you refer to here is a single interpretation of something that can be viewed in more than one way, so it's informative qualities are somewhat restricted. My point about baby talk is that you end up with God as a metaphor for the process we're all a part of. It doesn't get us anywhere. We still wonder if stuff that happens is just happening or is being made to happen. So when a repeat offender scoops a fortune in the Lotto we find ourselves puzzling over things such as

Don't tell me God doesn't have a sense of humour," observed one police officer as the teenager appeared at a press conference to discuss his £9.7 million win.

Tragically we also get to contemplate more somber coincidences and are faced with not knowing where we stand with God. This seems like a further torture we could do without. I seem to recall Feynman sharing this view when reflecting on the death of his wife.

[harvey1]

So you say. This just seems like a category error to me and others that have been unconvinced by your argument here. Laws don't necessarily imply sentient law makers. Neither does satisfaction necessitate cognition. These are terms that mathematics has borrowed from the dictionary of human attributes. That's the only valid connection and it has no deeper significance than that. People have this habit of using familiar terms to label new concepts as a sort of bridge, just to make them more readily understandable. The world just doesn't take these connections any further because It simply doesn't make sense to.

Fine, then explain it to me without relying on mystery. If the explanation relies on mystery, then why require any explanation for anything at all?

The evidence you refer to here is a single interpretation of something that can be viewed in more than one way, so it's informative qualities are somewhat restricted. My point about baby talk is that you end up with God as a metaphor for the process we're all a part of. It doesn't get us anywhere.

Give me another interpretation that doesn't leave us with mystery or contradiction.

We still wonder if stuff that happens is just happening or is being made to happen... This seems like a further torture we could do without. I seem to recall Feynman sharing this view when reflecting on the death of his wife.

QED, I think that your "way out" of these explanations is not a rational one. One could always make the case that there's a mystery we just don't understand, or we must be making a mistake somehow in our reasoning. Of course, this situation wouldn't ever exist if it told you something that you wanted to believe.

[QED]

Of course there's a mystery to those things we don't understand, but there's nothing mysterious about that! I've presented my objection to your interpretation, which to me looks like a badly fitting peg in the wrong shaped hole. I'll happily concede that when we take this argument right down to the wire there are ways of looking at things that overlap into pantheism and panentheism, but several components of your argument look terribly overstretched to accommodate the Christian faith.

At the root of our differences seems to be this question of the anthropic principle. It seems to me that most discussions of the technical aspects leads us to the ambiguities thrown up by the AP. I've finally gotten round to buying copy of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler which is held to be a decently unbiased account. It looks like it's going to take a while to digest.