Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[JohnA]

I agree with many things DI says, the one big disagreement is on the consciousness claim where he says it is just magic.

So what is the secular picture?

That stuff just happened to come into existence (and that's not magic?)

That stuff just happens to be finely tuned to be able to evolve into very complex and well-organized systems? (and that's not magic?)

And these well-organized systems just happen to be able to evolve to the point where they can have an experience? (and that's not magic?)

I don't care what you say. A purely secular existence is just as "magical" as any other existence.

Why would you think that a purely secular reality is not magical?

It depends on what you define as magical.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics. Ironically, it is the same math that was uses in the 1960'ties to prove the Higss boson. It took until recently and it seems like the Higgs is now confirmed (pending more tests when they start up again).

If you call the above magical, then we are on the same page.

If you call some external incoherent unknowable thing/event that is responsible for this as magic, then your also relieve your right to comment on it.

The fine-tuning argument does not cater for the possibility that no deity was involved, so it fails at logic (begging the question). That is besides the fact that it tries to argue that if the number 7 was not 7, but some other number or some range of other numbers then the number 7 would not exist, we would not exist. That is faulty wishful thinking. It is the worse argument ever for a deity.

"well-organized systems just happen to be able to evolve" : how can you say anything about it when we have no other examples of it? That reminds of the WLC arguments where he says that the probability of evolution of life is so improbably it must be a miracle. That is just faulty probability application.

[Divine Insight]

It depends on what you define as magical.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics. Ironically, it is the same math that was uses in the 1960'ties to prove the Higss boson. It took until recently and it seems like the Higgs is now confirmed (pending more tests when they start up again).

To begin with you can't back up physics using pure mathematics, because pure mathematics can be used to describe things that cannot exist by the physical laws of nature. So that's not impressive to begin with.

Secondly you'd have to show the specific mathematics you are attempting to refer to. Using pure mathematics you would need to show that zero can equal 1. Can you do that?

If you're going to use the "mathematics" of quantum physics to back up this claim then the cheating is already in the works. Because the mathematics of quantum physics is based upon the postulates of quantum physics. And there is not 'pure mathematical' reason that would lead to the specific mathematics of quantum physics. That mathematical description actually exists, and was constructed, to fit the observed data. Moreover, it's mathematics of probabilities that simple states that there exists a certain probability that things can pop into existence from supposedly 'nothing'. Why? Because that's what we need to describe in order to describe reality. However, that doesn't mean that these particles are actually coming from nothing. That is just a postulated assumption.

If you call the above magical, then we are on the same page.

As far as I'm concerned we have no reason to believe that the quantum world is anything other than magical at this point in time. We certainly can't explain it logically. And the math doesn't explain it logically either. The math simply describes probabilities of potential. But like Richard Feynman has pointed out, "Nobody knows how it can be like that".

That's basically the very meaning of magic.

If you call some external incoherent unknowable thing/event that is responsible for this as magic, then your also relieve your right to comment on it.

I have the right to call it "magical".

I think you might be paranoid of the Abrahamic religious zealots who will then start to proclaim that it must be a jealous egotistical God who will condemn everyone who refuses to become a devout religious bigot.

I can certainly sympathize with not wanting to support that kind of nonsense.

The fine-tuning argument does not cater for the possibility that no deity was involved, so it fails at logic (begging the question). That is besides the fact that it tries to argue that if the number 7 was not 7, but some other number or some range of other numbers then the number 7 would not exist, we would not exist. That is faulty wishful thinking. It is the worse argument ever for a deity.

I'm not arguing for a "deity" necessarily. Especially not an external one. Moreover, we aren't talking about nice round numbers like 7. Evidently the biggest problem of all for physicist currently is the accuracy required for the cosmological constant associate with the strength of Dark Energy. That value has to be precise to an ungodly amount of decimal places. And this is according to the scientists.

In truth, this single value alone is not troublesome for me personally because I can imagine reasons why it must be this way and cannot be any other value. I'm willing to bet that it doesn't take on it's value by random chance (as scientists are actually currently proposing), but I personally have reasons to believe that it probably has the value it has because it can be no other way.

But that's beside that point. For me it's not the value of the constants that I find impossibly strange. What I find impossibly strange is that all the stuff that exists just happens to have the ability to evolve into sentient beings that can have an experience. That to me is the most magical feat of all. So yes, for me the fact that consciousness (or to be more accurate, the actual ability of something to have an experience of consciousness) is indeed quite mysterious, and thus mystical. After all, mystical simply means mysterious.

"well-organized systems just happen to be able to evolve" : how can you say anything about it when we have no other examples of it? That reminds of the WLC arguments where he says that the probability of evolution of life is so improbably it must be a miracle. That is just faulty probability application.

Probability has nothing at all to do with it.

I would consider the existence of a totally chaotic universe that never evolved into anything to be quite magical. What's the probably of such a universe occurring? I would say the probability is ZERO.

Of course, there wouldn't be anyone in a totally chaotic universe to experience its existence. That even brings up the philosophical question of whether it's even meaningful to speak of universes existing if there is no entity experiencing it.

If no entity experiences a universe, then in what sense could it even be said to exist? When I go down that road, I start to think that the true essence of reality is indeed experience. No experience = no existence.

In fact, isn't this what scientists continually harp on? If you can't show evidence for something (i.e. if you can't experience it), then what sense does it even make to claim that it exists? This is the foundational basis of scientific criteria.

But now let's move forward to a universe that actually has well-organized structure but NO conscious awareness (no one is having an experience).

We can easily imagine this. Just think of a computer simulation. Are the simulations having an experience? No, we don't believe they are.

Therefore we can imagine a universe that evolved to a highly level of complexity, even to form biological computers that can make decisions based on programming etc.

Such a universe would be way stranger than a merely chaotic existence of matter. Yet it would still not be experienced by anything. That would be an even more profound universe. A universe that was able to simply evolve into non-sentient computer robots that have no experience just like you laptop computer has no experience.

I would consider such a universe to be quite a work of magic right there too.

But our universe goes even further than this. Not only does it evolve into biological robots, but these biological robot actually "wake up" and have an actual experience! Whoa!

And you act like this should all be taken in stride saying, "Where is there any magic in that?" Like as if I'm supposed to reply by saying, "Oh you're right that's pretty mundane and to be expected how silly of me to think that this is extremely profound".

You act like as if it's silly to even think that their might be something behind this.

You act like this should somehow just be obvious. Like we should just say, "Of course it makes sense that a bunch of stuff would just pop into existence and evolve into sentient beings that can have an experience."

How silly of me to even suggest that this seems rather magical.

But YES, I can understand the paranoia and fear that if this were to be conceded to the Abrahamic religious zealots they would claim that they could use this to somehow justify their absurd jealous-God myths.

This is why I totally refuse to even argue against the Abrahamic myths using science. These Science vs. Abrahamic Religions war is totally unnecessary.

The Abrahamic myths can be easily dismissed based on their own self-contradictory absurdities. And that should be the total focal point of any arguments against them.

To even play into the Science vs. Religion wars is actually detrimental to science. Just look at the Internet and YouTube. There are religious zealots posting videos that are directed at proclaiming how utterly stupid science is. They feel that if they can find a problem with science or get science to leave a door open for a possible magical essence to reality that will someone vindicate their jealous-God religions.

But that is totally false.

So paranoia on the part of atheists to even argue against the Abrahamic religions based on science is a total waste of time and misses the REAL PROBLEMS with those religions.

If you're going to argue against the Abrahamic religions you don't need science to do that.

So why go off the deep end trying to demand that science cannot allow for anything even remotely mystical? That's a truly silly argument to begin with, and is most likely just a knee-jerk reaction to avoid allowing the Jealous-God zealots to even get their foot in the door.

[JohnA]

It depends on what you define as magical.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics. Ironically, it is the same math that was uses in the 1960'ties to prove the Higss boson. It took until recently and it seems like the Higgs is now confirmed (pending more tests when they start up again).

To begin with you can't back up physics using pure mathematics, because pure mathematics can be used to describe things that cannot exist by the physical laws of nature. So that's not impressive to begin with.

Secondly you'd have to show the specific mathematics you are attempting to refer to. Using pure mathematics you would need to show that zero can equal 1. Can you do that?

If you're going to use the "mathematics" of quantum physics to back up this claim then the cheating is already in the works. Because the mathematics of quantum physics is based upon the postulates of quantum physics. And there is not 'pure mathematical' reason that would lead to the specific mathematics of quantum physics. That mathematical description actually exists, and was constructed, to fit the observed data. Moreover, it's mathematics of probabilities that simple states that there exists a certain probability that things can pop into existence from supposedly 'nothing'. Why? Because that's what we need to describe in order to describe reality. However, that doesn't mean that these particles are actually coming from nothing. That is just a postulated assumption.

If you call the above magical, then we are on the same page.

As far as I'm concerned we have no reason to believe that the quantum world is anything other than magical at this point in time. We certainly can't explain it logically. And the math doesn't explain it logically either. The math simply describes probabilities of potential. But like Richard Feynman has pointed out, "Nobody knows how it can be like that".

That's basically the very meaning of magic.

If you call some external incoherent unknowable thing/event that is responsible for this as magic, then your also relieve your right to comment on it.

I have the right to call it "magical".

I think you might be paranoid of the Abrahamic religious zealots who will then start to proclaim that it must be a jealous egotistical God who will condemn everyone who refuses to become a devout religious bigot.

I can certainly sympathize with not wanting to support that kind of nonsense.

The fine-tuning argument does not cater for the possibility that no deity was involved, so it fails at logic (begging the question). That is besides the fact that it tries to argue that if the number 7 was not 7, but some other number or some range of other numbers then the number 7 would not exist, we would not exist. That is faulty wishful thinking. It is the worse argument ever for a deity.

I'm not arguing for a "deity" necessarily. Especially not an external one. Moreover, we aren't talking about nice round numbers like 7. Evidently the biggest problem of all for physicist currently is the accuracy required for the cosmological constant associate with the strength of Dark Energy. That value has to be precise to an ungodly amount of decimal places. And this is according to the scientists.

In truth, this single value alone is not troublesome for me personally because I can imagine reasons why it must be this way and cannot be any other value. I'm willing to bet that it doesn't take on it's value by random chance (as scientists are actually currently proposing), but I personally have reasons to believe that it probably has the value it has because it can be no other way.

But that's beside that point. For me it's not the value of the constants that I find impossibly strange. What I find impossibly strange is that all the stuff that exists just happens to have the ability to evolve into sentient beings that can have an experience. That to me is the most magical feat of all. So yes, for me the fact that consciousness (or to be more accurate, the actual ability of something to have an experience of consciousness) is indeed quite mysterious, and thus mystical. After all, mystical simply means mysterious.

"well-organized systems just happen to be able to evolve" : how can you say anything about it when we have no other examples of it? That reminds of the WLC arguments where he says that the probability of evolution of life is so improbably it must be a miracle. That is just faulty probability application.

Probability has nothing at all to do with it.

I would consider the existence of a totally chaotic universe that never evolved into anything to be quite magical. What's the probably of such a universe occurring? I would say the probability is ZERO.

Of course, there wouldn't be anyone in a totally chaotic universe to experience its existence. That even brings up the philosophical question of whether it's even meaningful to speak of universes existing if there is no entity experiencing it.

If no entity experiences a universe, then in what sense could it even be said to exist? When I go down that road, I start to think that the true essence of reality is indeed experience. No experience = no existence.

In fact, isn't this what scientists continually harp on? If you can't show evidence for something (i.e. if you can't experience it), then what sense does it even make to claim that it exists? This is the foundational basis of scientific criteria.

But now let's move forward to a universe that actually has well-organized structure but NO conscious awareness (no one is having an experience).

We can easily imagine this. Just think of a computer simulation. Are the simulations having an experience? No, we don't believe they are.

Therefore we can imagine a universe that evolved to a highly level of complexity, even to form biological computers that can make decisions based on programming etc.

Such a universe would be way stranger than a merely chaotic existence of matter. Yet it would still not be experienced by anything. That would be an even more profound universe. A universe that was able to simply evolve into non-sentient computer robots that have no experience just like you laptop computer has no experience.

I would consider such a universe to be quite a work of magic right there too.

But our universe goes even further than this. Not only does it evolve into biological robots, but these biological robot actually "wake up" and have an actual experience! Whoa!

And you act like this should all be taken in stride saying, "Where is there any magic in that?" Like as if I'm supposed to reply by saying, "Oh you're right that's pretty mundane and to be expected how silly of me to think that this is extremely profound".

You act like as if it's silly to even think that their might be something behind this.

You act like this should somehow just be obvious. Like we should just say, "Of course it makes sense that a bunch of stuff would just pop into existence and evolve into sentient beings that can have an experience."

How silly of me to even suggest that this seems rather magical.

But YES, I can understand the paranoia and fear that if this were to be conceded to the Abrahamic religious zealots they would claim that they could use this to somehow justify their absurd jealous-God myths.

This is why I totally refuse to even argue against the Abrahamic myths using science. These Science vs. Abrahamic Religions war is totally unnecessary.

The Abrahamic myths can be easily dismissed based on their own self-contradictory absurdities. And that should be the total focal point of any arguments against them.

To even play into the Science vs. Religion wars is actually detrimental to science. Just look at the Internet and YouTube. There are religious zealots posting videos that are directed at proclaiming how utterly stupid science is. They feel that if they can find a problem with science or get science to leave a door open for a possible magical essence to reality that will someone vindicate their jealous-God religions.

But that is totally false.

So paranoia on the part of atheists to even argue against the Abrahamic religions based on science is a total waste of time and misses the REAL PROBLEMS with those religions.

If you're going to argue against the Abrahamic religions you don't need science to do that.

So why go off the deep end trying to demand that science cannot allow for anything even remotely mystical? That's a truly silly argument to begin with, and is most likely just a knee-jerk reaction to avoid allowing the Jealous-God zealots to even get their foot in the door.

I just explained that math was used to predict the Higgs. (You could argue that math is logic). And it seems it was right.
Similar, the Relativity followed the same path.
Actually, may scientific facts, laws, theories do. Remember a hypothesis is the "evidence based guess" to the answer. You have to "guess" the answer first before you can teats it.


So, yes, historical evidence does show that math/logic can (not always) have preceded and resulted in laws of physics. Why do you omit the logic?

Zero = one? Maybe one was a zero all along, if so, I can show Zero = one.

As for QM, you brought that up. So, I am refusing to take the straw man bait.

Suggest you read more on Hawking and Krauss. There are other theoretical physicists that have valid logic for everything from nothing too.

If your definition of magic is mysterious, then so be it. I can live with that, we have not solved all the sceintific problems. Many 'mysterious' ones remain.

You can not use probability if you have no examples to apply it against, or only one example. Also, you can not use probability when an event already happened as the probability of it is exactly 1.


Agree, the Abrahamic religions are silly. They can be dismissed easily.

I think you may be using consciousness as your definition of experience. So, I agree, we have not solved it all, but no need to insert "any form of deity" as that is just shifting the problem.

Have a good day. I enjoy most of your posts, by do not get how you get stuck on the "deity-of-the-gaps" fallacy.

[instantc]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels.

Analogies are useless unless you explain what each item is analogous to. That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail. They can't explain the analogy. Its just superficial but falls apart under scrutiny.

I think the analogy is valid here. Goat suggested that since altering or damaging A correspondingly and equally alters or damages B, it should then follow that A and B are the same thing. Simple analogy with a radio and a song that it plays, for example, shows that that does not follow from those premises alone at all. I agree with KP, Goat's argument alone is clearly a non-sequitur and also highly insufficient for drawing any conclusions regarding reductionism.

If you think thr the analogy is valid then please explain what everything in the analogy is analogous to. Otherwise you are just giving a superficial argument that fails under scrutiny, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THAT YOU EVEN QUOTED BUT SOMEHOW YOU MISSED IT. MAYBE IF ITS IN ALL CAPS THEN YOU WON'T MISS IT THIS TIME.

The point of the analogy is to show that argument N (if altering A equally alters B, then A and B are the same thing) doesn't hold by replacing A and B with something familiar like a radio and a song. One could point it out without replacing A and B with anything, the analogy is there just for illustration. It is a non-sequitur, that's the point of analogy, I don't have to show that the brain and the mind are fully analogous to anything. The logic in Goat's argument does not follow. Do you not understand? The fact that altering A alter B DOES NOT MEAN that A is B, is that too difficult for you? So I am not saying that the brain and mind are in fact analogous to, say, radio and a song or something else. Quite the contrary, we know for near certainty that that is not the case. The analogy is used only to illustrate the faulty logic of argument N, which could be done also by just pointing out that it is a non-sequitur. Goat's argument about alteration of the brain is consistent with even the wildest religious soul theories, is it not?

[JohnA]

The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

I reckon I need a metaphor here. Ok, so if you break the engine on a car it won't go.

You need an engine for a car to go. But you also need a gearbox, transmission shaft and wheels.

Analogies are useless unless you explain what each item is analogous to. That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail. They can't explain the analogy. Its just superficial but falls apart under scrutiny.

I think the analogy is valid here. Goat suggested that since altering or damaging A correspondingly and equally alters or damages B, it should then follow that A and B are the same thing. Simple analogy with a radio and a song that it plays, for example, shows that that does not follow from those premises alone at all. I agree with KP, Goat's argument alone is clearly a non-sequitur and also highly insufficient for drawing any conclusions regarding reductionism.

If you think thr the analogy is valid then please explain what everything in the analogy is analogous to. Otherwise you are just giving a superficial argument that fails under scrutiny, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THAT YOU EVEN QUOTED BUT SOMEHOW YOU MISSED IT. MAYBE IF ITS IN ALL CAPS THEN YOU WON'T MISS IT THIS TIME.

The point of the analogy is to show that argument N (if altering A equally alters B, then A and B are the same thing) doesn't hold by replacing A and B with something familiar like a radio and a song. One could point it out without replacing A and B with anything, the analogy is there just for illustration. It is a non-sequitur, that's the point of analogy, I don't have to show that the brain and the mind are fully analogous to anything. The logic in Goat's argument does not follow. Do you not understand? The fact that altering A alter B DOES NOT MEAN that A is B, is that too difficult for you?

User scourge99 just showed you wrong twice.
Please consider accepting that.

Thank you.

[olavisjo]

.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics.

Would you please show us some of this 'mathematics'.

[keithprosser3]

That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail

No one is disputing the the brain is a product of the brain. The issue is whether is a product of ONLY the brain. My car analogy I thought was obvious, but I will explain it.

Breaking the engine on a car will stop it from going. Therefore you need a working engine for a car go. We say a working engine is necessary for a car to go.

But even if the engine is working, a car won't go if its gearbox is screwed, so a working engine is not sufficient for a car to go - you need a working gearbox as well.

So is a working engine necessary for a car to go? Yes.
So is a working engine sufficient for a car to go? No.

So is a working brain necessary for consciousness? Yes.
So is a working brain sufficient for consciousness? Not known.

To say drugs prove a brain is all that is needed for consciousness is like spoiling the engine in a car. It will stop the car going, but it doesn't prove that all a car needs to go is an engine.

Actually I hope a working brain isn't necessary for consciousness - I hope consciousness can be achieved artificially in a computer, so I would say that a brain or 'brain-like-structure' probably what is necessary rather than an actual brain per se. But that is also not proven. For all we know a biological brain is necessary for consciousness as consciousness has never been detected anywhere else.

[olavisjo]

.

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics.

Would you please show us some of this 'mathematics'.

[keithprosser3]

JohnA wrote:

There is a logical argument for everything from nothing. It is even backed up by mathematics.

Would you please show us some of this 'mathematics'.

JA might be referring to something you can find in Hawkins Brief history of time:

"In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

In other words the universe 'cancels itself out'. There was zero before the big bang, and there is a total of zero now despite the fact there is now 'something' (a whacking great universe to be exact) from the nothing 'before' the BB.

Is it necessary to paste or post a link to the actual calculation? I'm sure I could find it given time.

[Goat]

That's exactly where people who don't accept that the mind is a product of the brain fail

No one is disputing the the brain is a product of the brain. The issue is whether is a product of ONLY the brain. My car analogy I thought was obvious, but I will explain it.

Breaking the engine on a car will stop it from going. Therefore you need a working engine for a car go. We say a working engine is necessary for a car to go.

But even if the engine is working, a car won't go if its gearbox is screwed, so a working engine is not sufficient for a car to go - you need a working gearbox as well.

So is a working engine necessary for a car to go? Yes.
So is a working engine sufficient for a car to go? No.

So is a working brain necessary for consciousness? Yes.
So is a working brain sufficient for consciousness? Not known.

To say drugs prove a brain is all that is needed for consciousness is like spoiling the engine in a car. It will stop the car going, but it doesn't prove that all a car needs to go is an engine.

Actually I hope a working brain isn't necessary for consciousness - I hope consciousness can be achieved artificially in a computer, so I would say that a brain or 'brain-like-structure' probably what is necessary rather than an actual brain per se. But that is also not proven. For all we know a biological brain is necessary for consciousness as consciousness has never been detected anywhere else.

Would that 'consciousness' be you though? Or would it be something like a photograph?